Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2012-05-08 #2 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: May 8, 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 and Variance to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement; with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway. The Variance is requested to allow the house to encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to allow a retaining wall over 4 feet high for access stairs to encroach 10 feet into the required 10-ft. side yard setback; located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope. APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; File Nos.: ED11-078; V11-003; Picnic Valley Neighborhood. __________________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: LDR (Low Density Residential) R10 (Single Family Residential) Single Family Residence North: LDR R10 Single Family Residence South: LDR R5 Single Family Residence East: LDR R5 Single Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Natural State1 Required: 10,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 15,161 sq. ft. (existing) Required: 12,128 sq. ft., 80% of lot area Proposed: 12,700 sq. ft., 83.77% of lot area Height1 Floor Area1 Allowed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 30’ Proposed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 28½’ Allowed: 4,016 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,206 sq. ft. Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered Proposed: 2 covered Allowed: 4,548 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,548 sq. ft. Landscape Area Setbacks Required Existing Proposed2 Required: No requirement Proposed: 2,132+ sq. ft. “restored” natural state landscape area Front: Side(s): Rear: 20’ 10’ 10’ 0’ 2½’ 100’ 0’ 0’-100+’ 70’ 2 Grading Tree Removal Total: 214 cy Total(No./Species): One 8” oak; unknown number already removed during previous grading Cut: 107 cy Fill: 107 cy Off-Haul: None; balance on site Requirement: Minimum 3 15-gallon oaks Proposed: 3, 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and 7, 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees Notes: 1For hillside 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 recommendation for a waiver to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for providing the required two guest parking spaces in the driveway as deemed appropriate to minimize need for excessive site grading, and a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks. The Board reviewed this project on two prior occasions, June 21, 2011 and February 7, 2012 and the project has been revised in response to the Board’s prior comments. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for action. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately address the applicable hillside residential design criteria. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on the revised project’s compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible; and • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor. Architecture • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Grading • That the proposed site re-grading is appropriate. 3 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 non-delineated 15-ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry Walk. Adjoining uses are single family residential with generally two story buildings. The property is an up-sloping lot with a 55.0% slope and is currently developed with a one-car garage on the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately 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 have been identified in the rear and side of the property. 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. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed an Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. The Board had the following comments: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 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.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. 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. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. 4 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 28½-ft. high structure with a 25-ft. long and 27-ft. wide driveway; a two-car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; and 4½ bathrooms. Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10-ft. and approximately 75-ft. side setbacks and approximately 63-ft. rear setback. A 9-ft. high retaining wall located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading the first floor of the residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry W alk. A 2-car garage would be located south of the driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway. An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this structure for access to their property. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding • Milgard windows with Navajo white trim • Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit • Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers • Navajo white metal guardrails • Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps • Forest green Class A composition shingles • Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers Landscaping: Three (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft. disturbed site areas to their natural state. One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed. Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time. 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; 5 • 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 front and side yard setbacks. A Variance would be required for the proposed setbacks. According to SRMC14.23.070. Findings, approval of a Variance from these development standards would require the following findings to be made: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 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 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway; • A proposed higher than 4-ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north property line does not comply with the required 10-ft. side setback. The proposed retaining wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required 10-ft. 6 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. Chapter 12 - Hillside Development Overlay District The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development as indicated in the Site Development Summary table and Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist (Exhibit 2). The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26’) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. According to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Staff believes these findings can be made for the project because providing the two (2) additional on-site parking spaces would require the project to be pushed further back on to the site which would require excessive grading. 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; and • Story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) if needed to evaluate project impacts. A shadow diagram submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird’s eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow cast by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. 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. The property would be improved with landscaping. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction on the applicable guidelines, as follows: • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor; • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the proposed design would not cast a shadow to impact the property of the adjoining neighbor to the north. On April 22, 2012, story poles were erected to reflect the geometrics of the project. San Rafael Design Guidelines: As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria that states ‘vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street’. However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. Visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. 7 Hillside Design Guidelines: The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,206 sq. ft. (2,736 sq. ft. living space and 470 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 28½ feet, 83.7% natural state, and 2 covered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 2). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following sections: 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 (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. 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, public street with a 15-ft. right of way which is more akin to an alley. A power pole located within the right-of-way and in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed three additional parking spaces. 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 3). Exhibit 3.1 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 3.2 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the garage on to the driveway from where it would enter Perry Walk. Exhibit 3.3 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the driveway into the small hammer head in the Perry Walk. However, with the driveway currently designed to be at least 25 feet long and 27 feet wide (a drive aisle needs to be 26 feet wide for vehicles to back out of parking spaces in a parking lot), the vehicles can turnaround in the driveway alone. Further, at the February 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a neighbor pointed out that the hammerhead would not work for backing out, since the hammerhead would likely be used as an additional parking space in Perry Walk. 8 Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through a 27-ft. wide driveway with an effective minimum depth of 25 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 three uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. The three 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 waiver from the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. The waiver can be approved by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Strict enforcement of the guideline to require two additional parking spaces would require additional excavation to push the project back on to the property. Staff believes the finding to support a waiver can be made for the project. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to “back out” into substandard roadway widths are recommended as prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking in the garage is designed to allow vehicles to back out into the 27-ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the street. 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 3 and did not express any concerns with the parking and driveway solutions proposed for this dead end street. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible. 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 project complies the maximum building height and stepback height. The building has 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. The proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4½ bathrooms. However, bedrooms are generally 10’x10’ in size and all other areas such as living and dining room and kitchen for the residence are also of modest size. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board. 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 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: • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9 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 restoring the disturbed area of approximately 2,132 sq. ft. to its natural state by planting three (3) native coast live oak, seven (7) strawberry trees and shrubs and ground covers. 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: • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Section A9 - Site Lighting 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 Design Review Board, the applicant applied for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) to demolish the existing residence in order to rebuild it. The building size was reduced from the 3,825 sq. ft. proposed for the conceptual stage to 3,415 sq. ft. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the ED Permit. The Board directed the applicant to return to the Board after incorporating the following comments in to the project: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. The current proposal is for a reduced building size of 3,206 sq. ft and incorporates the Board’s comments. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 10 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 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 two letters from the neighboring property owners. One of the letters clarifies that a letter supporting the project previously received from the Picnic Valley Homeowners’ Association was the personal opinion of the President of the Association. The other letter expresses concerns about the proposed project’s size, its incompatibility with the neighborhood character lack of on-street parking, etc. Both of the letters are attached (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION Staff believes the design appropriately addresses the hillside design guidelines and the Board’s recommendations and a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks appears to be justified. Similarly, a waiver from the requirement for two (2) additional onsite parking spaces appears to be justified. Staff requests Board’s direction on the points specified in the Summary section. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form 3. Vehicle Turnaround Templates 4. Letters received from Neighbors Prior project plans (11”x17”) reviewed by the DRB on February 7, 2012 and 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. 218 North Almenar Drive Greenbrae, CA 94904 Bradanini & Associates. 90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Picnic Valley HOA Don Soldavini 531 Bret Harte Rd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Makoto Takashina 12834 Flack St. Silver Spring, MD 20906-3877 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: May 8, 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 and Variance to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement; with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway. The Variance is requested to allow the house to encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to allow a retaining wall over 4 feet high for access stairs to encroach 10 feet into the required 10-ft. side yard setback; located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope. APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; File Nos.: ED11-078; V11-003; Picnic Valley Neighborhood. __________________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: LDR (Low Density Residential) R10 (Single Family Residential) Single Family Residence North: LDR R10 Single Family Residence South: LDR R5 Single Family Residence East: LDR R5 Single Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Natural State1 Required: 10,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 15,161 sq. ft. (existing) Required: 12,128 sq. ft., 80% of lot area Proposed: 12,700 sq. ft., 83.77% of lot area Height1 Floor Area1 Allowed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 30’ Proposed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 28½’ Allowed: 4,016 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,206 sq. ft. Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered Proposed: 2 covered Allowed: 4,548 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,548 sq. ft. Landscape Area Setbacks Required Existing Proposed2 Required: No requirement Proposed: 2,132+ sq. ft. “restored” natural state landscape area Front: Side(s): Rear: 20’ 10’ 10’ 0’ 2½’ 100’ 0’ 0’-100+’ 70’ 2 Grading Tree Removal Total: 214 cy Total(No./Species): One 8” oak; unknown number already removed during previous grading Cut: 107 cy Fill: 107 cy Off-Haul: None; balance on site Requirement: Minimum 3 15-gallon oaks Proposed: 3, 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and 7, 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees Notes: 1For hillside 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 recommendation for a waiver to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for providing the required two guest parking spaces in the driveway as deemed appropriate to minimize need for excessive site grading, and a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks. The Board reviewed this project on two prior occasions, June 21, 2011 and February 7, 2012 and the project has been revised in response to the Board’s prior comments. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for action. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately address the applicable hillside residential design criteria. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on the revised project’s compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible; and • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor. Architecture • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Grading • That the proposed site re-grading is appropriate. 3 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 non-delineated 15-ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry Walk. Adjoining uses are single family residential with generally two story buildings. The property is an up-sloping lot with a 55.0% slope and is currently developed with a one-car garage on the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately 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 have been identified in the rear and side of the property. 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. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed an Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. The Board had the following comments: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 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.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. 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. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. 4 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 28½-ft. high structure with a 25-ft. long and 27-ft. wide driveway; a two-car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; and 4½ bathrooms. Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10-ft. and approximately 75-ft. side setbacks and approximately 63-ft. rear setback. A 9-ft. high retaining wall located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading the first floor of the residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry W alk. A 2-car garage would be located south of the driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway. An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this structure for access to their property. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding • Milgard windows with Navajo white trim • Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit • Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers • Navajo white metal guardrails • Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps • Forest green Class A composition shingles • Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers Landscaping: Three (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft. disturbed site areas to their natural state. One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed. Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time. 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; 5 • 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 front and side yard setbacks. A Variance would be required for the proposed setbacks. According to SRMC14.23.070. Findings, approval of a Variance from these development standards would require the following findings to be made: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 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 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway; • A proposed higher than 4-ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north property line does not comply with the required 10-ft. side setback. The proposed retaining wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required 10-ft. 6 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. Chapter 12 - Hillside Development Overlay District The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development as indicated in the Site Development Summary table and Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist (Exhibit 2). The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26’) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. According to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Staff believes these findings can be made for the project because providing the two (2) additional on-site parking spaces would require the project to be pushed further back on to the site which would require excessive grading. 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; and • Story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) if needed to evaluate project impacts. A shadow diagram submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird’s eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow cast by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. 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. The property would be improved with landscaping. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction on the applicable guidelines, as follows: • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor; • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the proposed design would not cast a shadow to impact the property of the adjoining neighbor to the north. On April 22, 2012, story poles were erected to reflect the geometrics of the project. San Rafael Design Guidelines: As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria that states ‘vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street’. However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. Visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. 7 Hillside Design Guidelines: The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,206 sq. ft. (2,736 sq. ft. living space and 470 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 28½ feet, 83.7% natural state, and 2 covered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 2). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following sections: 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 (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. 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, public street with a 15-ft. right of way which is more akin to an alley. A power pole located within the right-of-way and in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed three additional parking spaces. 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 3). Exhibit 3.1 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 3.2 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the garage on to the driveway from where it would enter Perry Walk. Exhibit 3.3 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the driveway into the small hammer head in the Perry Walk. However, with the driveway currently designed to be at least 25 feet long and 27 feet wide (a drive aisle needs to be 26 feet wide for vehicles to back out of parking spaces in a parking lot), the vehicles can turnaround in the driveway alone. Further, at the February 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a neighbor pointed out that the hammerhead would not work for backing out, since the hammerhead would likely be used as an additional parking space in Perry Walk. 8 Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through a 27-ft. wide driveway with an effective minimum depth of 25 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 three uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. The three 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 waiver from the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. The waiver can be approved by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Strict enforcement of the guideline to require two additional parking spaces would require additional excavation to push the project back on to the property. Staff believes the finding to support a waiver can be made for the project. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to “back out” into substandard roadway widths are recommended as prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking in the garage is designed to allow vehicles to back out into the 27-ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the street. 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 3 and did not express any concerns with the parking and driveway solutions proposed for this dead end street. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible. 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 project complies the maximum building height and stepback height. The building has 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. The proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4½ bathrooms. However, bedrooms are generally 10’x10’ in size and all other areas such as living and dining room and kitchen for the residence are also of modest size. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board. 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 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: • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9 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 restoring the disturbed area of approximately 2,132 sq. ft. to its natural state by planting three (3) native coast live oak, seven (7) strawberry trees and shrubs and ground covers. 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: • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Section A9 - Site Lighting 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 Design Review Board, the applicant applied for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) to demolish the existing residence in order to rebuild it. The building size was reduced from the 3,825 sq. ft. proposed for the conceptual stage to 3,415 sq. ft. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the ED Permit. The Board directed the applicant to return to the Board after incorporating the following comments in to the project: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. The current proposal is for a reduced building size of 3,206 sq. ft and incorporates the Board’s comments. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 10 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 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 two letters from the neighboring property owners. One of the letters clarifies that a letter supporting the project previously received from the Picnic Valley Homeowners’ Association was the personal opinion of the President of the Association. The other letter expresses concerns about the proposed project’s size, its incompatibility with the neighborhood character lack of on-street parking, etc. Both of the letters are attached (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION Staff believes the design appropriately addresses the hillside design guidelines and the Board’s recommendations and a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks appears to be justified. Similarly, a waiver from the requirement for two (2) additional onsite parking spaces appears to be justified. Staff requests Board’s direction on the points specified in the Summary section. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form 3. Vehicle Turnaround Templates 4. Letters received from Neighbors Prior project plans (11”x17”) reviewed by the DRB on February 7, 2012 and 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. 218 North Almenar Drive Greenbrae, CA 94904 Bradanini & Associates. 90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Picnic Valley HOA Don Soldavini 531 Bret Harte Rd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Makoto Takashina 12834 Flack St. Silver Spring, MD 20906-3877 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: May 8, 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 and Variance to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement; with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway. The Variance is requested to allow the house to encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to allow a retaining wall over 4 feet high for access stairs to encroach 10 feet into the required 10-ft. side yard setback; located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope. APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; File Nos.: ED11-078; V11-003; Picnic Valley Neighborhood. __________________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: LDR (Low Density Residential) R10 (Single Family Residential) Single Family Residence North: LDR R10 Single Family Residence South: LDR R5 Single Family Residence East: LDR R5 Single Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Natural State1 Required: 10,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 15,161 sq. ft. (existing) Required: 12,128 sq. ft., 80% of lot area Proposed: 12,700 sq. ft., 83.77% of lot area Height1 Floor Area1 Allowed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 30’ Proposed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 28½’ Allowed: 4,016 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,206 sq. ft. Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered Proposed: 2 covered Allowed: 4,548 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,548 sq. ft. Landscape Area Setbacks Required Existing Proposed2 Required: No requirement Proposed: 2,132+ sq. ft. “restored” natural state landscape area Front: Side(s): Rear: 20’ 10’ 10’ 0’ 2½’ 100’ 0’ 0’-100+’ 70’ 2 Grading Tree Removal Total: 214 cy Total(No./Species): One 8” oak; unknown number already removed during previous grading Cut: 107 cy Fill: 107 cy Off-Haul: None; balance on site Requirement: Minimum 3 15-gallon oaks Proposed: 3, 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and 7, 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees Notes: 1For hillside 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 recommendation for a waiver to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for providing the required two guest parking spaces in the driveway as deemed appropriate to minimize need for excessive site grading, and a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks. The Board reviewed this project on two prior occasions, June 21, 2011 and February 7, 2012 and the project has been revised in response to the Board’s prior comments. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for action. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately address the applicable hillside residential design criteria. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on the revised project’s compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible; and • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor. Architecture • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Grading • That the proposed site re-grading is appropriate. 3 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 non-delineated 15-ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry Walk. Adjoining uses are single family residential with generally two story buildings. The property is an up-sloping lot with a 55.0% slope and is currently developed with a one-car garage on the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately 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 have been identified in the rear and side of the property. 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. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed an Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. The Board had the following comments: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 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.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. 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. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. 4 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 28½-ft. high structure with a 25-ft. long and 27-ft. wide driveway; a two-car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; and 4½ bathrooms. Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10-ft. and approximately 75-ft. side setbacks and approximately 63-ft. rear setback. A 9-ft. high retaining wall located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading the first floor of the residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry W alk. A 2-car garage would be located south of the driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway. An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this structure for access to their property. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding • Milgard windows with Navajo white trim • Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit • Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers • Navajo white metal guardrails • Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps • Forest green Class A composition shingles • Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers Landscaping: Three (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft. disturbed site areas to their natural state. One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed. Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time. 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; 5 • 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 front and side yard setbacks. A Variance would be required for the proposed setbacks. According to SRMC14.23.070. Findings, approval of a Variance from these development standards would require the following findings to be made: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 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 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway; • A proposed higher than 4-ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north property line does not comply with the required 10-ft. side setback. The proposed retaining wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required 10-ft. 6 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. Chapter 12 - Hillside Development Overlay District The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development as indicated in the Site Development Summary table and Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist (Exhibit 2). The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26’) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. According to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Staff believes these findings can be made for the project because providing the two (2) additional on-site parking spaces would require the project to be pushed further back on to the site which would require excessive grading. 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; and • Story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) if needed to evaluate project impacts. A shadow diagram submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird’s eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow cast by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. 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. The property would be improved with landscaping. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction on the applicable guidelines, as follows: • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor; • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the proposed design would not cast a shadow to impact the property of the adjoining neighbor to the north. On April 22, 2012, story poles were erected to reflect the geometrics of the project. San Rafael Design Guidelines: As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria that states ‘vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street’. However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. Visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. 7 Hillside Design Guidelines: The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,206 sq. ft. (2,736 sq. ft. living space and 470 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 28½ feet, 83.7% natural state, and 2 covered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 2). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following sections: 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 (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. 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, public street with a 15-ft. right of way which is more akin to an alley. A power pole located within the right-of-way and in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed three additional parking spaces. 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 3). Exhibit 3.1 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 3.2 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the garage on to the driveway from where it would enter Perry Walk. Exhibit 3.3 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the driveway into the small hammer head in the Perry Walk. However, with the driveway currently designed to be at least 25 feet long and 27 feet wide (a drive aisle needs to be 26 feet wide for vehicles to back out of parking spaces in a parking lot), the vehicles can turnaround in the driveway alone. Further, at the February 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a neighbor pointed out that the hammerhead would not work for backing out, since the hammerhead would likely be used as an additional parking space in Perry Walk. 8 Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through a 27-ft. wide driveway with an effective minimum depth of 25 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 three uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. The three 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 waiver from the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. The waiver can be approved by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Strict enforcement of the guideline to require two additional parking spaces would require additional excavation to push the project back on to the property. Staff believes the finding to support a waiver can be made for the project. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to “back out” into substandard roadway widths are recommended as prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking in the garage is designed to allow vehicles to back out into the 27-ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the street. 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 3 and did not express any concerns with the parking and driveway solutions proposed for this dead end street. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible. 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 project complies the maximum building height and stepback height. The building has 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. The proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4½ bathrooms. However, bedrooms are generally 10’x10’ in size and all other areas such as living and dining room and kitchen for the residence are also of modest size. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board. 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 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: • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9 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 restoring the disturbed area of approximately 2,132 sq. ft. to its natural state by planting three (3) native coast live oak, seven (7) strawberry trees and shrubs and ground covers. 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: • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Section A9 - Site Lighting 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 Design Review Board, the applicant applied for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) to demolish the existing residence in order to rebuild it. The building size was reduced from the 3,825 sq. ft. proposed for the conceptual stage to 3,415 sq. ft. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the ED Permit. The Board directed the applicant to return to the Board after incorporating the following comments in to the project: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. The current proposal is for a reduced building size of 3,206 sq. ft and incorporates the Board’s comments. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 10 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 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 two letters from the neighboring property owners. One of the letters clarifies that a letter supporting the project previously received from the Picnic Valley Homeowners’ Association was the personal opinion of the President of the Association. The other letter expresses concerns about the proposed project’s size, its incompatibility with the neighborhood character lack of on-street parking, etc. Both of the letters are attached (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION Staff believes the design appropriately addresses the hillside design guidelines and the Board’s recommendations and a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks appears to be justified. Similarly, a waiver from the requirement for two (2) additional onsite parking spaces appears to be justified. Staff requests Board’s direction on the points specified in the Summary section. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form 3. Vehicle Turnaround Templates 4. Letters received from Neighbors Prior project plans (11”x17”) reviewed by the DRB on February 7, 2012 and 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. 218 North Almenar Drive Greenbrae, CA 94904 Bradanini & Associates. 90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Picnic Valley HOA Don Soldavini 531 Bret Harte Rd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Makoto Takashina 12834 Flack St. Silver Spring, MD 20906-3877 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: May 8, 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 and Variance to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement; with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway. The Variance is requested to allow the house to encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to allow a retaining wall over 4 feet high for access stairs to encroach 10 feet into the required 10-ft. side yard setback; located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope. APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; File Nos.: ED11-078; V11-003; Picnic Valley Neighborhood. __________________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: LDR (Low Density Residential) R10 (Single Family Residential) Single Family Residence North: LDR R10 Single Family Residence South: LDR R5 Single Family Residence East: LDR R5 Single Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Natural State1 Required: 10,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 15,161 sq. ft. (existing) Required: 12,128 sq. ft., 80% of lot area Proposed: 12,700 sq. ft., 83.77% of lot area Height1 Floor Area1 Allowed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 30’ Proposed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 28½’ Allowed: 4,016 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,206 sq. ft. Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered Proposed: 2 covered Allowed: 4,548 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,548 sq. ft. Landscape Area Setbacks Required Existing Proposed2 Required: No requirement Proposed: 2,132+ sq. ft. “restored” natural state landscape area Front: Side(s): Rear: 20’ 10’ 10’ 0’ 2½’ 100’ 0’ 0’-100+’ 70’ 2 Grading Tree Removal Total: 214 cy Total(No./Species): One 8” oak; unknown number already removed during previous grading Cut: 107 cy Fill: 107 cy Off-Haul: None; balance on site Requirement: Minimum 3 15-gallon oaks Proposed: 3, 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and 7, 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees Notes: 1For hillside 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 recommendation for a waiver to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for providing the required two guest parking spaces in the driveway as deemed appropriate to minimize need for excessive site grading, and a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks. The Board reviewed this project on two prior occasions, June 21, 2011 and February 7, 2012 and the project has been revised in response to the Board’s prior comments. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for action. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately address the applicable hillside residential design criteria. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on the revised project’s compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible; and • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor. Architecture • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Grading • That the proposed site re-grading is appropriate. 3 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 non-delineated 15-ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry Walk. Adjoining uses are single family residential with generally two story buildings. The property is an up-sloping lot with a 55.0% slope and is currently developed with a one-car garage on the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately 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 have been identified in the rear and side of the property. 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. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed an Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. The Board had the following comments: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 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.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. 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. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. 4 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 28½-ft. high structure with a 25-ft. long and 27-ft. wide driveway; a two-car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; and 4½ bathrooms. Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10-ft. and approximately 75-ft. side setbacks and approximately 63-ft. rear setback. A 9-ft. high retaining wall located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading the first floor of the residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry W alk. A 2-car garage would be located south of the driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway. An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this structure for access to their property. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding • Milgard windows with Navajo white trim • Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit • Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers • Navajo white metal guardrails • Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps • Forest green Class A composition shingles • Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers Landscaping: Three (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft. disturbed site areas to their natural state. One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed. Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time. 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; 5 • 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 front and side yard setbacks. A Variance would be required for the proposed setbacks. According to SRMC14.23.070. Findings, approval of a Variance from these development standards would require the following findings to be made: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 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 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway; • A proposed higher than 4-ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north property line does not comply with the required 10-ft. side setback. The proposed retaining wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required 10-ft. 6 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. Chapter 12 - Hillside Development Overlay District The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development as indicated in the Site Development Summary table and Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist (Exhibit 2). The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26’) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. According to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Staff believes these findings can be made for the project because providing the two (2) additional on-site parking spaces would require the project to be pushed further back on to the site which would require excessive grading. 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; and • Story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) if needed to evaluate project impacts. A shadow diagram submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird’s eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow cast by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. 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. The property would be improved with landscaping. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction on the applicable guidelines, as follows: • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor; • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the proposed design would not cast a shadow to impact the property of the adjoining neighbor to the north. On April 22, 2012, story poles were erected to reflect the geometrics of the project. San Rafael Design Guidelines: As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria that states ‘vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street’. However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. Visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. 7 Hillside Design Guidelines: The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,206 sq. ft. (2,736 sq. ft. living space and 470 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 28½ feet, 83.7% natural state, and 2 covered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 2). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following sections: 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 (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. 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, public street with a 15-ft. right of way which is more akin to an alley. A power pole located within the right-of-way and in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed three additional parking spaces. 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 3). Exhibit 3.1 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 3.2 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the garage on to the driveway from where it would enter Perry Walk. Exhibit 3.3 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the driveway into the small hammer head in the Perry Walk. However, with the driveway currently designed to be at least 25 feet long and 27 feet wide (a drive aisle needs to be 26 feet wide for vehicles to back out of parking spaces in a parking lot), the vehicles can turnaround in the driveway alone. Further, at the February 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a neighbor pointed out that the hammerhead would not work for backing out, since the hammerhead would likely be used as an additional parking space in Perry Walk. 8 Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through a 27-ft. wide driveway with an effective minimum depth of 25 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 three uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. The three 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 waiver from the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. The waiver can be approved by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Strict enforcement of the guideline to require two additional parking spaces would require additional excavation to push the project back on to the property. Staff believes the finding to support a waiver can be made for the project. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to “back out” into substandard roadway widths are recommended as prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking in the garage is designed to allow vehicles to back out into the 27-ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the street. 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 3 and did not express any concerns with the parking and driveway solutions proposed for this dead end street. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible. 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 project complies the maximum building height and stepback height. The building has 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. The proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4½ bathrooms. However, bedrooms are generally 10’x10’ in size and all other areas such as living and dining room and kitchen for the residence are also of modest size. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board. 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 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: • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9 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 restoring the disturbed area of approximately 2,132 sq. ft. to its natural state by planting three (3) native coast live oak, seven (7) strawberry trees and shrubs and ground covers. 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: • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Section A9 - Site Lighting 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 Design Review Board, the applicant applied for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) to demolish the existing residence in order to rebuild it. The building size was reduced from the 3,825 sq. ft. proposed for the conceptual stage to 3,415 sq. ft. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the ED Permit. The Board directed the applicant to return to the Board after incorporating the following comments in to the project: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. The current proposal is for a reduced building size of 3,206 sq. ft and incorporates the Board’s comments. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 10 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 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 two letters from the neighboring property owners. One of the letters clarifies that a letter supporting the project previously received from the Picnic Valley Homeowners’ Association was the personal opinion of the President of the Association. The other letter expresses concerns about the proposed project’s size, its incompatibility with the neighborhood character lack of on-street parking, etc. Both of the letters are attached (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION Staff believes the design appropriately addresses the hillside design guidelines and the Board’s recommendations and a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks appears to be justified. Similarly, a waiver from the requirement for two (2) additional onsite parking spaces appears to be justified. Staff requests Board’s direction on the points specified in the Summary section. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form 3. Vehicle Turnaround Templates 4. Letters received from Neighbors Prior project plans (11”x17”) reviewed by the DRB on February 7, 2012 and 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. 218 North Almenar Drive Greenbrae, CA 94904 Bradanini & Associates. 90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Picnic Valley HOA Don Soldavini 531 Bret Harte Rd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Makoto Takashina 12834 Flack St. Silver Spring, MD 20906-3877 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: May 8, 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 and Variance to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement; with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway. The Variance is requested to allow the house to encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to allow a retaining wall over 4 feet high for access stairs to encroach 10 feet into the required 10-ft. side yard setback; located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope. APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; File Nos.: ED11-078; V11-003; Picnic Valley Neighborhood. __________________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: LDR (Low Density Residential) R10 (Single Family Residential) Single Family Residence North: LDR R10 Single Family Residence South: LDR R5 Single Family Residence East: LDR R5 Single Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Natural State1 Required: 10,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 15,161 sq. ft. (existing) Required: 12,128 sq. ft., 80% of lot area Proposed: 12,700 sq. ft., 83.77% of lot area Height1 Floor Area1 Allowed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 30’ Proposed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 28½’ Allowed: 4,016 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,206 sq. ft. Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered Proposed: 2 covered Allowed: 4,548 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,548 sq. ft. Landscape Area Setbacks Required Existing Proposed2 Required: No requirement Proposed: 2,132+ sq. ft. “restored” natural state landscape area Front: Side(s): Rear: 20’ 10’ 10’ 0’ 2½’ 100’ 0’ 0’-100+’ 70’ 2 Grading Tree Removal Total: 214 cy Total(No./Species): One 8” oak; unknown number already removed during previous grading Cut: 107 cy Fill: 107 cy Off-Haul: None; balance on site Requirement: Minimum 3 15-gallon oaks Proposed: 3, 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and 7, 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees Notes: 1For hillside 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 recommendation for a waiver to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for providing the required two guest parking spaces in the driveway as deemed appropriate to minimize need for excessive site grading, and a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks. The Board reviewed this project on two prior occasions, June 21, 2011 and February 7, 2012 and the project has been revised in response to the Board’s prior comments. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for action. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately address the applicable hillside residential design criteria. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on the revised project’s compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible; and • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor. Architecture • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Grading • That the proposed site re-grading is appropriate. 3 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 non-delineated 15-ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry Walk. Adjoining uses are single family residential with generally two story buildings. The property is an up-sloping lot with a 55.0% slope and is currently developed with a one-car garage on the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately 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 have been identified in the rear and side of the property. 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. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed an Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. The Board had the following comments: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 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.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. 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. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. 4 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 28½-ft. high structure with a 25-ft. long and 27-ft. wide driveway; a two-car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; and 4½ bathrooms. Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10-ft. and approximately 75-ft. side setbacks and approximately 63-ft. rear setback. A 9-ft. high retaining wall located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading the first floor of the residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry W alk. A 2-car garage would be located south of the driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway. An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this structure for access to their property. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding • Milgard windows with Navajo white trim • Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit • Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers • Navajo white metal guardrails • Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps • Forest green Class A composition shingles • Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers Landscaping: Three (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft. disturbed site areas to their natural state. One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed. Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time. 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; 5 • 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 front and side yard setbacks. A Variance would be required for the proposed setbacks. According to SRMC14.23.070. Findings, approval of a Variance from these development standards would require the following findings to be made: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 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 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway; • A proposed higher than 4-ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north property line does not comply with the required 10-ft. side setback. The proposed retaining wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required 10-ft. 6 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. Chapter 12 - Hillside Development Overlay District The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development as indicated in the Site Development Summary table and Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist (Exhibit 2). The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26’) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. According to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Staff believes these findings can be made for the project because providing the two (2) additional on-site parking spaces would require the project to be pushed further back on to the site which would require excessive grading. 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; and • Story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) if needed to evaluate project impacts. A shadow diagram submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird’s eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow cast by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. 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. The property would be improved with landscaping. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction on the applicable guidelines, as follows: • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor; • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the proposed design would not cast a shadow to impact the property of the adjoining neighbor to the north. On April 22, 2012, story poles were erected to reflect the geometrics of the project. San Rafael Design Guidelines: As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria that states ‘vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street’. However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. Visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. 7 Hillside Design Guidelines: The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,206 sq. ft. (2,736 sq. ft. living space and 470 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 28½ feet, 83.7% natural state, and 2 covered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 2). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following sections: 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 (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. 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, public street with a 15-ft. right of way which is more akin to an alley. A power pole located within the right-of-way and in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed three additional parking spaces. 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 3). Exhibit 3.1 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 3.2 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the garage on to the driveway from where it would enter Perry Walk. Exhibit 3.3 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the driveway into the small hammer head in the Perry Walk. However, with the driveway currently designed to be at least 25 feet long and 27 feet wide (a drive aisle needs to be 26 feet wide for vehicles to back out of parking spaces in a parking lot), the vehicles can turnaround in the driveway alone. Further, at the February 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a neighbor pointed out that the hammerhead would not work for backing out, since the hammerhead would likely be used as an additional parking space in Perry Walk. 8 Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through a 27-ft. wide driveway with an effective minimum depth of 25 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 three uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. The three 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 waiver from the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. The waiver can be approved by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Strict enforcement of the guideline to require two additional parking spaces would require additional excavation to push the project back on to the property. Staff believes the finding to support a waiver can be made for the project. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to “back out” into substandard roadway widths are recommended as prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking in the garage is designed to allow vehicles to back out into the 27-ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the street. 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 3 and did not express any concerns with the parking and driveway solutions proposed for this dead end street. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible. 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 project complies the maximum building height and stepback height. The building has 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. The proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4½ bathrooms. However, bedrooms are generally 10’x10’ in size and all other areas such as living and dining room and kitchen for the residence are also of modest size. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board. 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 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: • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9 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 restoring the disturbed area of approximately 2,132 sq. ft. to its natural state by planting three (3) native coast live oak, seven (7) strawberry trees and shrubs and ground covers. 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: • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Section A9 - Site Lighting 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 Design Review Board, the applicant applied for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) to demolish the existing residence in order to rebuild it. The building size was reduced from the 3,825 sq. ft. proposed for the conceptual stage to 3,415 sq. ft. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the ED Permit. The Board directed the applicant to return to the Board after incorporating the following comments in to the project: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. The current proposal is for a reduced building size of 3,206 sq. ft and incorporates the Board’s comments. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 10 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 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 two letters from the neighboring property owners. One of the letters clarifies that a letter supporting the project previously received from the Picnic Valley Homeowners’ Association was the personal opinion of the President of the Association. The other letter expresses concerns about the proposed project’s size, its incompatibility with the neighborhood character lack of on-street parking, etc. Both of the letters are attached (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION Staff believes the design appropriately addresses the hillside design guidelines and the Board’s recommendations and a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks appears to be justified. Similarly, a waiver from the requirement for two (2) additional onsite parking spaces appears to be justified. Staff requests Board’s direction on the points specified in the Summary section. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form 3. Vehicle Turnaround Templates 4. Letters received from Neighbors Prior project plans (11”x17”) reviewed by the DRB on February 7, 2012 and 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. 218 North Almenar Drive Greenbrae, CA 94904 Bradanini & Associates. 90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Picnic Valley HOA Don Soldavini 531 Bret Harte Rd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Makoto Takashina 12834 Flack St. Silver Spring, MD 20906-3877 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: May 8, 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 and Variance to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement; with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway. The Variance is requested to allow the house to encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to allow a retaining wall over 4 feet high for access stairs to encroach 10 feet into the required 10-ft. side yard setback; located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope. APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; File Nos.: ED11-078; V11-003; Picnic Valley Neighborhood. __________________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: LDR (Low Density Residential) R10 (Single Family Residential) Single Family Residence North: LDR R10 Single Family Residence South: LDR R5 Single Family Residence East: LDR R5 Single Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Natural State1 Required: 10,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 15,161 sq. ft. (existing) Required: 12,128 sq. ft., 80% of lot area Proposed: 12,700 sq. ft., 83.77% of lot area Height1 Floor Area1 Allowed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 30’ Proposed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 28½’ Allowed: 4,016 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,206 sq. ft. Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered Proposed: 2 covered Allowed: 4,548 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,548 sq. ft. Landscape Area Setbacks Required Existing Proposed2 Required: No requirement Proposed: 2,132+ sq. ft. “restored” natural state landscape area Front: Side(s): Rear: 20’ 10’ 10’ 0’ 2½’ 100’ 0’ 0’-100+’ 70’ 2 Grading Tree Removal Total: 214 cy Total(No./Species): One 8” oak; unknown number already removed during previous grading Cut: 107 cy Fill: 107 cy Off-Haul: None; balance on site Requirement: Minimum 3 15-gallon oaks Proposed: 3, 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and 7, 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees Notes: 1For hillside 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 recommendation for a waiver to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for providing the required two guest parking spaces in the driveway as deemed appropriate to minimize need for excessive site grading, and a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks. The Board reviewed this project on two prior occasions, June 21, 2011 and February 7, 2012 and the project has been revised in response to the Board’s prior comments. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for action. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately address the applicable hillside residential design criteria. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on the revised project’s compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible; and • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor. Architecture • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Grading • That the proposed site re-grading is appropriate. 3 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 non-delineated 15-ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry Walk. Adjoining uses are single family residential with generally two story buildings. The property is an up-sloping lot with a 55.0% slope and is currently developed with a one-car garage on the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately 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 have been identified in the rear and side of the property. 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. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed an Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. The Board had the following comments: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 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.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. 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. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. 4 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 28½-ft. high structure with a 25-ft. long and 27-ft. wide driveway; a two-car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; and 4½ bathrooms. Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10-ft. and approximately 75-ft. side setbacks and approximately 63-ft. rear setback. A 9-ft. high retaining wall located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading the first floor of the residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry W alk. A 2-car garage would be located south of the driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway. An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this structure for access to their property. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding • Milgard windows with Navajo white trim • Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit • Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers • Navajo white metal guardrails • Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps • Forest green Class A composition shingles • Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers Landscaping: Three (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft. disturbed site areas to their natural state. One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed. Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time. 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; 5 • 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 front and side yard setbacks. A Variance would be required for the proposed setbacks. According to SRMC14.23.070. Findings, approval of a Variance from these development standards would require the following findings to be made: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 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 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway; • A proposed higher than 4-ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north property line does not comply with the required 10-ft. side setback. The proposed retaining wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required 10-ft. 6 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. Chapter 12 - Hillside Development Overlay District The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development as indicated in the Site Development Summary table and Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist (Exhibit 2). The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26’) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. According to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Staff believes these findings can be made for the project because providing the two (2) additional on-site parking spaces would require the project to be pushed further back on to the site which would require excessive grading. 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; and • Story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) if needed to evaluate project impacts. A shadow diagram submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird’s eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow cast by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. 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. The property would be improved with landscaping. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction on the applicable guidelines, as follows: • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor; • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the proposed design would not cast a shadow to impact the property of the adjoining neighbor to the north. On April 22, 2012, story poles were erected to reflect the geometrics of the project. San Rafael Design Guidelines: As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria that states ‘vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street’. However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. Visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. 7 Hillside Design Guidelines: The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,206 sq. ft. (2,736 sq. ft. living space and 470 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 28½ feet, 83.7% natural state, and 2 covered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 2). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following sections: 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 (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. 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, public street with a 15-ft. right of way which is more akin to an alley. A power pole located within the right-of-way and in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed three additional parking spaces. 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 3). Exhibit 3.1 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 3.2 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the garage on to the driveway from where it would enter Perry Walk. Exhibit 3.3 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the driveway into the small hammer head in the Perry Walk. However, with the driveway currently designed to be at least 25 feet long and 27 feet wide (a drive aisle needs to be 26 feet wide for vehicles to back out of parking spaces in a parking lot), the vehicles can turnaround in the driveway alone. Further, at the February 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a neighbor pointed out that the hammerhead would not work for backing out, since the hammerhead would likely be used as an additional parking space in Perry Walk. 8 Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through a 27-ft. wide driveway with an effective minimum depth of 25 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 three uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. The three 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 waiver from the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. The waiver can be approved by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Strict enforcement of the guideline to require two additional parking spaces would require additional excavation to push the project back on to the property. Staff believes the finding to support a waiver can be made for the project. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to “back out” into substandard roadway widths are recommended as prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking in the garage is designed to allow vehicles to back out into the 27-ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the street. 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 3 and did not express any concerns with the parking and driveway solutions proposed for this dead end street. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible. 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 project complies the maximum building height and stepback height. The building has 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. The proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4½ bathrooms. However, bedrooms are generally 10’x10’ in size and all other areas such as living and dining room and kitchen for the residence are also of modest size. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board. 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 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: • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9 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 restoring the disturbed area of approximately 2,132 sq. ft. to its natural state by planting three (3) native coast live oak, seven (7) strawberry trees and shrubs and ground covers. 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: • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Section A9 - Site Lighting 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 Design Review Board, the applicant applied for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) to demolish the existing residence in order to rebuild it. The building size was reduced from the 3,825 sq. ft. proposed for the conceptual stage to 3,415 sq. ft. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the ED Permit. The Board directed the applicant to return to the Board after incorporating the following comments in to the project: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. The current proposal is for a reduced building size of 3,206 sq. ft and incorporates the Board’s comments. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 10 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 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 two letters from the neighboring property owners. One of the letters clarifies that a letter supporting the project previously received from the Picnic Valley Homeowners’ Association was the personal opinion of the President of the Association. The other letter expresses concerns about the proposed project’s size, its incompatibility with the neighborhood character lack of on-street parking, etc. Both of the letters are attached (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION Staff believes the design appropriately addresses the hillside design guidelines and the Board’s recommendations and a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks appears to be justified. Similarly, a waiver from the requirement for two (2) additional onsite parking spaces appears to be justified. Staff requests Board’s direction on the points specified in the Summary section. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form 3. Vehicle Turnaround Templates 4. Letters received from Neighbors Prior project plans (11”x17”) reviewed by the DRB on February 7, 2012 and 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. 218 North Almenar Drive Greenbrae, CA 94904 Bradanini & Associates. 90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Picnic Valley HOA Don Soldavini 531 Bret Harte Rd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Makoto Takashina 12834 Flack St. Silver Spring, MD 20906-3877 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: May 8, 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 and Variance to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement; with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway. The Variance is requested to allow the house to encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to allow a retaining wall over 4 feet high for access stairs to encroach 10 feet into the required 10-ft. side yard setback; located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope. APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; File Nos.: ED11-078; V11-003; Picnic Valley Neighborhood. __________________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: LDR (Low Density Residential) R10 (Single Family Residential) Single Family Residence North: LDR R10 Single Family Residence South: LDR R5 Single Family Residence East: LDR R5 Single Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Natural State1 Required: 10,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 15,161 sq. ft. (existing) Required: 12,128 sq. ft., 80% of lot area Proposed: 12,700 sq. ft., 83.77% of lot area Height1 Floor Area1 Allowed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 30’ Proposed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 28½’ Allowed: 4,016 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,206 sq. ft. Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered Proposed: 2 covered Allowed: 4,548 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,548 sq. ft. Landscape Area Setbacks Required Existing Proposed2 Required: No requirement Proposed: 2,132+ sq. ft. “restored” natural state landscape area Front: Side(s): Rear: 20’ 10’ 10’ 0’ 2½’ 100’ 0’ 0’-100+’ 70’ 2 Grading Tree Removal Total: 214 cy Total(No./Species): One 8” oak; unknown number already removed during previous grading Cut: 107 cy Fill: 107 cy Off-Haul: None; balance on site Requirement: Minimum 3 15-gallon oaks Proposed: 3, 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and 7, 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees Notes: 1For hillside 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 recommendation for a waiver to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for providing the required two guest parking spaces in the driveway as deemed appropriate to minimize need for excessive site grading, and a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks. The Board reviewed this project on two prior occasions, June 21, 2011 and February 7, 2012 and the project has been revised in response to the Board’s prior comments. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for action. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately address the applicable hillside residential design criteria. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on the revised project’s compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible; and • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor. Architecture • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Grading • That the proposed site re-grading is appropriate. 3 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 non-delineated 15-ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry Walk. Adjoining uses are single family residential with generally two story buildings. The property is an up-sloping lot with a 55.0% slope and is currently developed with a one-car garage on the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately 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 have been identified in the rear and side of the property. 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. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed an Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. The Board had the following comments: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 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.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. 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. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. 4 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 28½-ft. high structure with a 25-ft. long and 27-ft. wide driveway; a two-car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; and 4½ bathrooms. Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10-ft. and approximately 75-ft. side setbacks and approximately 63-ft. rear setback. A 9-ft. high retaining wall located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading the first floor of the residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry W alk. A 2-car garage would be located south of the driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway. An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this structure for access to their property. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding • Milgard windows with Navajo white trim • Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit • Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers • Navajo white metal guardrails • Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps • Forest green Class A composition shingles • Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers Landscaping: Three (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft. disturbed site areas to their natural state. One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed. Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time. 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; 5 • 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 front and side yard setbacks. A Variance would be required for the proposed setbacks. According to SRMC14.23.070. Findings, approval of a Variance from these development standards would require the following findings to be made: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 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 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway; • A proposed higher than 4-ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north property line does not comply with the required 10-ft. side setback. The proposed retaining wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required 10-ft. 6 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. Chapter 12 - Hillside Development Overlay District The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development as indicated in the Site Development Summary table and Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist (Exhibit 2). The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26’) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. According to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Staff believes these findings can be made for the project because providing the two (2) additional on-site parking spaces would require the project to be pushed further back on to the site which would require excessive grading. 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; and • Story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) if needed to evaluate project impacts. A shadow diagram submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird’s eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow cast by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. 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. The property would be improved with landscaping. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction on the applicable guidelines, as follows: • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor; • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the proposed design would not cast a shadow to impact the property of the adjoining neighbor to the north. On April 22, 2012, story poles were erected to reflect the geometrics of the project. San Rafael Design Guidelines: As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria that states ‘vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street’. However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. Visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. 7 Hillside Design Guidelines: The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,206 sq. ft. (2,736 sq. ft. living space and 470 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 28½ feet, 83.7% natural state, and 2 covered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 2). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following sections: 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 (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. 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, public street with a 15-ft. right of way which is more akin to an alley. A power pole located within the right-of-way and in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed three additional parking spaces. 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 3). Exhibit 3.1 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 3.2 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the garage on to the driveway from where it would enter Perry Walk. Exhibit 3.3 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the driveway into the small hammer head in the Perry Walk. However, with the driveway currently designed to be at least 25 feet long and 27 feet wide (a drive aisle needs to be 26 feet wide for vehicles to back out of parking spaces in a parking lot), the vehicles can turnaround in the driveway alone. Further, at the February 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a neighbor pointed out that the hammerhead would not work for backing out, since the hammerhead would likely be used as an additional parking space in Perry Walk. 8 Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through a 27-ft. wide driveway with an effective minimum depth of 25 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 three uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. The three 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 waiver from the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. The waiver can be approved by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Strict enforcement of the guideline to require two additional parking spaces would require additional excavation to push the project back on to the property. Staff believes the finding to support a waiver can be made for the project. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to “back out” into substandard roadway widths are recommended as prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking in the garage is designed to allow vehicles to back out into the 27-ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the street. 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 3 and did not express any concerns with the parking and driveway solutions proposed for this dead end street. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible. 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 project complies the maximum building height and stepback height. The building has 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. The proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4½ bathrooms. However, bedrooms are generally 10’x10’ in size and all other areas such as living and dining room and kitchen for the residence are also of modest size. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board. 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 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: • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9 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 restoring the disturbed area of approximately 2,132 sq. ft. to its natural state by planting three (3) native coast live oak, seven (7) strawberry trees and shrubs and ground covers. 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: • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Section A9 - Site Lighting 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 Design Review Board, the applicant applied for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) to demolish the existing residence in order to rebuild it. The building size was reduced from the 3,825 sq. ft. proposed for the conceptual stage to 3,415 sq. ft. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the ED Permit. The Board directed the applicant to return to the Board after incorporating the following comments in to the project: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. The current proposal is for a reduced building size of 3,206 sq. ft and incorporates the Board’s comments. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 10 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 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 two letters from the neighboring property owners. One of the letters clarifies that a letter supporting the project previously received from the Picnic Valley Homeowners’ Association was the personal opinion of the President of the Association. The other letter expresses concerns about the proposed project’s size, its incompatibility with the neighborhood character lack of on-street parking, etc. Both of the letters are attached (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION Staff believes the design appropriately addresses the hillside design guidelines and the Board’s recommendations and a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks appears to be justified. Similarly, a waiver from the requirement for two (2) additional onsite parking spaces appears to be justified. Staff requests Board’s direction on the points specified in the Summary section. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form 3. Vehicle Turnaround Templates 4. Letters received from Neighbors Prior project plans (11”x17”) reviewed by the DRB on February 7, 2012 and 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. 218 North Almenar Drive Greenbrae, CA 94904 Bradanini & Associates. 90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Picnic Valley HOA Don Soldavini 531 Bret Harte Rd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Makoto Takashina 12834 Flack St. Silver Spring, MD 20906-3877 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: May 8, 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 and Variance to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement; with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway. The Variance is requested to allow the house to encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to allow a retaining wall over 4 feet high for access stairs to encroach 10 feet into the required 10-ft. side yard setback; located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope. APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; File Nos.: ED11-078; V11-003; Picnic Valley Neighborhood. __________________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: LDR (Low Density Residential) R10 (Single Family Residential) Single Family Residence North: LDR R10 Single Family Residence South: LDR R5 Single Family Residence East: LDR R5 Single Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Natural State1 Required: 10,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 15,161 sq. ft. (existing) Required: 12,128 sq. ft., 80% of lot area Proposed: 12,700 sq. ft., 83.77% of lot area Height1 Floor Area1 Allowed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 30’ Proposed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 28½’ Allowed: 4,016 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,206 sq. ft. Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered Proposed: 2 covered Allowed: 4,548 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,548 sq. ft. Landscape Area Setbacks Required Existing Proposed2 Required: No requirement Proposed: 2,132+ sq. ft. “restored” natural state landscape area Front: Side(s): Rear: 20’ 10’ 10’ 0’ 2½’ 100’ 0’ 0’-100+’ 70’ 2 Grading Tree Removal Total: 214 cy Total(No./Species): One 8” oak; unknown number already removed during previous grading Cut: 107 cy Fill: 107 cy Off-Haul: None; balance on site Requirement: Minimum 3 15-gallon oaks Proposed: 3, 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and 7, 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees Notes: 1For hillside 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 recommendation for a waiver to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for providing the required two guest parking spaces in the driveway as deemed appropriate to minimize need for excessive site grading, and a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks. The Board reviewed this project on two prior occasions, June 21, 2011 and February 7, 2012 and the project has been revised in response to the Board’s prior comments. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for action. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately address the applicable hillside residential design criteria. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on the revised project’s compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible; and • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor. Architecture • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Grading • That the proposed site re-grading is appropriate. 3 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 non-delineated 15-ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry Walk. Adjoining uses are single family residential with generally two story buildings. The property is an up-sloping lot with a 55.0% slope and is currently developed with a one-car garage on the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately 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 have been identified in the rear and side of the property. 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. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed an Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. The Board had the following comments: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 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.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. 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. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. 4 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 28½-ft. high structure with a 25-ft. long and 27-ft. wide driveway; a two-car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; and 4½ bathrooms. Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10-ft. and approximately 75-ft. side setbacks and approximately 63-ft. rear setback. A 9-ft. high retaining wall located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading the first floor of the residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry W alk. A 2-car garage would be located south of the driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway. An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this structure for access to their property. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding • Milgard windows with Navajo white trim • Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit • Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers • Navajo white metal guardrails • Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps • Forest green Class A composition shingles • Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers Landscaping: Three (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft. disturbed site areas to their natural state. One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed. Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time. 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; 5 • 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 front and side yard setbacks. A Variance would be required for the proposed setbacks. According to SRMC14.23.070. Findings, approval of a Variance from these development standards would require the following findings to be made: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 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 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway; • A proposed higher than 4-ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north property line does not comply with the required 10-ft. side setback. The proposed retaining wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required 10-ft. 6 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. Chapter 12 - Hillside Development Overlay District The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development as indicated in the Site Development Summary table and Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist (Exhibit 2). The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26’) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. According to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Staff believes these findings can be made for the project because providing the two (2) additional on-site parking spaces would require the project to be pushed further back on to the site which would require excessive grading. 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; and • Story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) if needed to evaluate project impacts. A shadow diagram submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird’s eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow cast by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. 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. The property would be improved with landscaping. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction on the applicable guidelines, as follows: • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor; • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the proposed design would not cast a shadow to impact the property of the adjoining neighbor to the north. On April 22, 2012, story poles were erected to reflect the geometrics of the project. San Rafael Design Guidelines: As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria that states ‘vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street’. However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. Visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. 7 Hillside Design Guidelines: The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,206 sq. ft. (2,736 sq. ft. living space and 470 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 28½ feet, 83.7% natural state, and 2 covered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 2). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following sections: 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 (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. 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, public street with a 15-ft. right of way which is more akin to an alley. A power pole located within the right-of-way and in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed three additional parking spaces. 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 3). Exhibit 3.1 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 3.2 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the garage on to the driveway from where it would enter Perry Walk. Exhibit 3.3 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the driveway into the small hammer head in the Perry Walk. However, with the driveway currently designed to be at least 25 feet long and 27 feet wide (a drive aisle needs to be 26 feet wide for vehicles to back out of parking spaces in a parking lot), the vehicles can turnaround in the driveway alone. Further, at the February 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a neighbor pointed out that the hammerhead would not work for backing out, since the hammerhead would likely be used as an additional parking space in Perry Walk. 8 Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through a 27-ft. wide driveway with an effective minimum depth of 25 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 three uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. The three 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 waiver from the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. The waiver can be approved by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Strict enforcement of the guideline to require two additional parking spaces would require additional excavation to push the project back on to the property. Staff believes the finding to support a waiver can be made for the project. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to “back out” into substandard roadway widths are recommended as prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking in the garage is designed to allow vehicles to back out into the 27-ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the street. 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 3 and did not express any concerns with the parking and driveway solutions proposed for this dead end street. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible. 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 project complies the maximum building height and stepback height. The building has 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. The proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4½ bathrooms. However, bedrooms are generally 10’x10’ in size and all other areas such as living and dining room and kitchen for the residence are also of modest size. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board. 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 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: • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9 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 restoring the disturbed area of approximately 2,132 sq. ft. to its natural state by planting three (3) native coast live oak, seven (7) strawberry trees and shrubs and ground covers. 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: • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Section A9 - Site Lighting 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 Design Review Board, the applicant applied for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) to demolish the existing residence in order to rebuild it. The building size was reduced from the 3,825 sq. ft. proposed for the conceptual stage to 3,415 sq. ft. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the ED Permit. The Board directed the applicant to return to the Board after incorporating the following comments in to the project: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. The current proposal is for a reduced building size of 3,206 sq. ft and incorporates the Board’s comments. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 10 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 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 two letters from the neighboring property owners. One of the letters clarifies that a letter supporting the project previously received from the Picnic Valley Homeowners’ Association was the personal opinion of the President of the Association. The other letter expresses concerns about the proposed project’s size, its incompatibility with the neighborhood character lack of on-street parking, etc. Both of the letters are attached (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION Staff believes the design appropriately addresses the hillside design guidelines and the Board’s recommendations and a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks appears to be justified. Similarly, a waiver from the requirement for two (2) additional onsite parking spaces appears to be justified. Staff requests Board’s direction on the points specified in the Summary section. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form 3. Vehicle Turnaround Templates 4. Letters received from Neighbors Prior project plans (11”x17”) reviewed by the DRB on February 7, 2012 and 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. 218 North Almenar Drive Greenbrae, CA 94904 Bradanini & Associates. 90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Picnic Valley HOA Don Soldavini 531 Bret Harte Rd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Makoto Takashina 12834 Flack St. Silver Spring, MD 20906-3877 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: May 8, 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 and Variance to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement; with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway. The Variance is requested to allow the house to encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to allow a retaining wall over 4 feet high for access stairs to encroach 10 feet into the required 10-ft. side yard setback; located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope. APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; File Nos.: ED11-078; V11-003; Picnic Valley Neighborhood. __________________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: LDR (Low Density Residential) R10 (Single Family Residential) Single Family Residence North: LDR R10 Single Family Residence South: LDR R5 Single Family Residence East: LDR R5 Single Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Natural State1 Required: 10,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 15,161 sq. ft. (existing) Required: 12,128 sq. ft., 80% of lot area Proposed: 12,700 sq. ft., 83.77% of lot area Height1 Floor Area1 Allowed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 30’ Proposed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 28½’ Allowed: 4,016 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,206 sq. ft. Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered Proposed: 2 covered Allowed: 4,548 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,548 sq. ft. Landscape Area Setbacks Required Existing Proposed2 Required: No requirement Proposed: 2,132+ sq. ft. “restored” natural state landscape area Front: Side(s): Rear: 20’ 10’ 10’ 0’ 2½’ 100’ 0’ 0’-100+’ 70’ 2 Grading Tree Removal Total: 214 cy Total(No./Species): One 8” oak; unknown number already removed during previous grading Cut: 107 cy Fill: 107 cy Off-Haul: None; balance on site Requirement: Minimum 3 15-gallon oaks Proposed: 3, 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and 7, 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees Notes: 1For hillside 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 recommendation for a waiver to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for providing the required two guest parking spaces in the driveway as deemed appropriate to minimize need for excessive site grading, and a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks. The Board reviewed this project on two prior occasions, June 21, 2011 and February 7, 2012 and the project has been revised in response to the Board’s prior comments. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for action. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately address the applicable hillside residential design criteria. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on the revised project’s compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible; and • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor. Architecture • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Grading • That the proposed site re-grading is appropriate. 3 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 non-delineated 15-ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry Walk. Adjoining uses are single family residential with generally two story buildings. The property is an up-sloping lot with a 55.0% slope and is currently developed with a one-car garage on the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately 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 have been identified in the rear and side of the property. 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. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed an Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. The Board had the following comments: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 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.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. 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. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. 4 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 28½-ft. high structure with a 25-ft. long and 27-ft. wide driveway; a two-car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; and 4½ bathrooms. Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10-ft. and approximately 75-ft. side setbacks and approximately 63-ft. rear setback. A 9-ft. high retaining wall located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading the first floor of the residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry W alk. A 2-car garage would be located south of the driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway. An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this structure for access to their property. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding • Milgard windows with Navajo white trim • Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit • Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers • Navajo white metal guardrails • Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps • Forest green Class A composition shingles • Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers Landscaping: Three (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft. disturbed site areas to their natural state. One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed. Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time. 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; 5 • 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 front and side yard setbacks. A Variance would be required for the proposed setbacks. According to SRMC14.23.070. Findings, approval of a Variance from these development standards would require the following findings to be made: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 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 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway; • A proposed higher than 4-ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north property line does not comply with the required 10-ft. side setback. The proposed retaining wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required 10-ft. 6 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. Chapter 12 - Hillside Development Overlay District The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development as indicated in the Site Development Summary table and Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist (Exhibit 2). The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26’) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. According to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Staff believes these findings can be made for the project because providing the two (2) additional on-site parking spaces would require the project to be pushed further back on to the site which would require excessive grading. 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; and • Story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) if needed to evaluate project impacts. A shadow diagram submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird’s eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow cast by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. 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. The property would be improved with landscaping. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction on the applicable guidelines, as follows: • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor; • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the proposed design would not cast a shadow to impact the property of the adjoining neighbor to the north. On April 22, 2012, story poles were erected to reflect the geometrics of the project. San Rafael Design Guidelines: As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria that states ‘vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street’. However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. Visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. 7 Hillside Design Guidelines: The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,206 sq. ft. (2,736 sq. ft. living space and 470 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 28½ feet, 83.7% natural state, and 2 covered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 2). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following sections: 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 (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. 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, public street with a 15-ft. right of way which is more akin to an alley. A power pole located within the right-of-way and in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed three additional parking spaces. 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 3). Exhibit 3.1 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 3.2 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the garage on to the driveway from where it would enter Perry Walk. Exhibit 3.3 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the driveway into the small hammer head in the Perry Walk. However, with the driveway currently designed to be at least 25 feet long and 27 feet wide (a drive aisle needs to be 26 feet wide for vehicles to back out of parking spaces in a parking lot), the vehicles can turnaround in the driveway alone. Further, at the February 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a neighbor pointed out that the hammerhead would not work for backing out, since the hammerhead would likely be used as an additional parking space in Perry Walk. 8 Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through a 27-ft. wide driveway with an effective minimum depth of 25 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 three uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. The three 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 waiver from the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. The waiver can be approved by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Strict enforcement of the guideline to require two additional parking spaces would require additional excavation to push the project back on to the property. Staff believes the finding to support a waiver can be made for the project. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to “back out” into substandard roadway widths are recommended as prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking in the garage is designed to allow vehicles to back out into the 27-ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the street. 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 3 and did not express any concerns with the parking and driveway solutions proposed for this dead end street. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible. 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 project complies the maximum building height and stepback height. The building has 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. The proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4½ bathrooms. However, bedrooms are generally 10’x10’ in size and all other areas such as living and dining room and kitchen for the residence are also of modest size. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board. 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 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: • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9 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 restoring the disturbed area of approximately 2,132 sq. ft. to its natural state by planting three (3) native coast live oak, seven (7) strawberry trees and shrubs and ground covers. 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: • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Section A9 - Site Lighting 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 Design Review Board, the applicant applied for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) to demolish the existing residence in order to rebuild it. The building size was reduced from the 3,825 sq. ft. proposed for the conceptual stage to 3,415 sq. ft. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the ED Permit. The Board directed the applicant to return to the Board after incorporating the following comments in to the project: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. The current proposal is for a reduced building size of 3,206 sq. ft and incorporates the Board’s comments. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 10 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 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 two letters from the neighboring property owners. One of the letters clarifies that a letter supporting the project previously received from the Picnic Valley Homeowners’ Association was the personal opinion of the President of the Association. The other letter expresses concerns about the proposed project’s size, its incompatibility with the neighborhood character lack of on-street parking, etc. Both of the letters are attached (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION Staff believes the design appropriately addresses the hillside design guidelines and the Board’s recommendations and a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks appears to be justified. Similarly, a waiver from the requirement for two (2) additional onsite parking spaces appears to be justified. Staff requests Board’s direction on the points specified in the Summary section. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form 3. Vehicle Turnaround Templates 4. Letters received from Neighbors Prior project plans (11”x17”) reviewed by the DRB on February 7, 2012 and 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. 218 North Almenar Drive Greenbrae, CA 94904 Bradanini & Associates. 90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Picnic Valley HOA Don Soldavini 531 Bret Harte Rd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Makoto Takashina 12834 Flack St. Silver Spring, MD 20906-3877 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: May 8, 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 and Variance to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement; with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway. The Variance is requested to allow the house to encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to allow a retaining wall over 4 feet high for access stairs to encroach 10 feet into the required 10-ft. side yard setback; located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope. APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; File Nos.: ED11-078; V11-003; Picnic Valley Neighborhood. __________________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: LDR (Low Density Residential) R10 (Single Family Residential) Single Family Residence North: LDR R10 Single Family Residence South: LDR R5 Single Family Residence East: LDR R5 Single Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Natural State1 Required: 10,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 15,161 sq. ft. (existing) Required: 12,128 sq. ft., 80% of lot area Proposed: 12,700 sq. ft., 83.77% of lot area Height1 Floor Area1 Allowed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 30’ Proposed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 28½’ Allowed: 4,016 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,206 sq. ft. Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered Proposed: 2 covered Allowed: 4,548 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,548 sq. ft. Landscape Area Setbacks Required Existing Proposed2 Required: No requirement Proposed: 2,132+ sq. ft. “restored” natural state landscape area Front: Side(s): Rear: 20’ 10’ 10’ 0’ 2½’ 100’ 0’ 0’-100+’ 70’ 2 Grading Tree Removal Total: 214 cy Total(No./Species): One 8” oak; unknown number already removed during previous grading Cut: 107 cy Fill: 107 cy Off-Haul: None; balance on site Requirement: Minimum 3 15-gallon oaks Proposed: 3, 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and 7, 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees Notes: 1For hillside 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 recommendation for a waiver to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for providing the required two guest parking spaces in the driveway as deemed appropriate to minimize need for excessive site grading, and a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks. The Board reviewed this project on two prior occasions, June 21, 2011 and February 7, 2012 and the project has been revised in response to the Board’s prior comments. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for action. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately address the applicable hillside residential design criteria. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on the revised project’s compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible; and • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor. Architecture • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Grading • That the proposed site re-grading is appropriate. 3 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 non-delineated 15-ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry Walk. Adjoining uses are single family residential with generally two story buildings. The property is an up-sloping lot with a 55.0% slope and is currently developed with a one-car garage on the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately 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 have been identified in the rear and side of the property. 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. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed an Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. The Board had the following comments: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 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.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. 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. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. 4 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 28½-ft. high structure with a 25-ft. long and 27-ft. wide driveway; a two-car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; and 4½ bathrooms. Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10-ft. and approximately 75-ft. side setbacks and approximately 63-ft. rear setback. A 9-ft. high retaining wall located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading the first floor of the residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry W alk. A 2-car garage would be located south of the driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway. An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this structure for access to their property. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding • Milgard windows with Navajo white trim • Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit • Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers • Navajo white metal guardrails • Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps • Forest green Class A composition shingles • Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers Landscaping: Three (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft. disturbed site areas to their natural state. One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed. Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time. 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; 5 • 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 front and side yard setbacks. A Variance would be required for the proposed setbacks. According to SRMC14.23.070. Findings, approval of a Variance from these development standards would require the following findings to be made: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 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 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway; • A proposed higher than 4-ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north property line does not comply with the required 10-ft. side setback. The proposed retaining wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required 10-ft. 6 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. Chapter 12 - Hillside Development Overlay District The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development as indicated in the Site Development Summary table and Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist (Exhibit 2). The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26’) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. According to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Staff believes these findings can be made for the project because providing the two (2) additional on-site parking spaces would require the project to be pushed further back on to the site which would require excessive grading. 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; and • Story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) if needed to evaluate project impacts. A shadow diagram submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird’s eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow cast by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. 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. The property would be improved with landscaping. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction on the applicable guidelines, as follows: • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor; • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the proposed design would not cast a shadow to impact the property of the adjoining neighbor to the north. On April 22, 2012, story poles were erected to reflect the geometrics of the project. San Rafael Design Guidelines: As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria that states ‘vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street’. However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. Visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. 7 Hillside Design Guidelines: The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,206 sq. ft. (2,736 sq. ft. living space and 470 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 28½ feet, 83.7% natural state, and 2 covered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 2). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following sections: 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 (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. 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, public street with a 15-ft. right of way which is more akin to an alley. A power pole located within the right-of-way and in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed three additional parking spaces. 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 3). Exhibit 3.1 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 3.2 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the garage on to the driveway from where it would enter Perry Walk. Exhibit 3.3 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the driveway into the small hammer head in the Perry Walk. However, with the driveway currently designed to be at least 25 feet long and 27 feet wide (a drive aisle needs to be 26 feet wide for vehicles to back out of parking spaces in a parking lot), the vehicles can turnaround in the driveway alone. Further, at the February 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a neighbor pointed out that the hammerhead would not work for backing out, since the hammerhead would likely be used as an additional parking space in Perry Walk. 8 Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through a 27-ft. wide driveway with an effective minimum depth of 25 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 three uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. The three 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 waiver from the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. The waiver can be approved by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Strict enforcement of the guideline to require two additional parking spaces would require additional excavation to push the project back on to the property. Staff believes the finding to support a waiver can be made for the project. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to “back out” into substandard roadway widths are recommended as prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking in the garage is designed to allow vehicles to back out into the 27-ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the street. 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 3 and did not express any concerns with the parking and driveway solutions proposed for this dead end street. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible. 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 project complies the maximum building height and stepback height. The building has 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. The proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4½ bathrooms. However, bedrooms are generally 10’x10’ in size and all other areas such as living and dining room and kitchen for the residence are also of modest size. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board. 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 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: • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9 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 restoring the disturbed area of approximately 2,132 sq. ft. to its natural state by planting three (3) native coast live oak, seven (7) strawberry trees and shrubs and ground covers. 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: • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Section A9 - Site Lighting 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 Design Review Board, the applicant applied for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) to demolish the existing residence in order to rebuild it. The building size was reduced from the 3,825 sq. ft. proposed for the conceptual stage to 3,415 sq. ft. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the ED Permit. The Board directed the applicant to return to the Board after incorporating the following comments in to the project: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. The current proposal is for a reduced building size of 3,206 sq. ft and incorporates the Board’s comments. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 10 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 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 two letters from the neighboring property owners. One of the letters clarifies that a letter supporting the project previously received from the Picnic Valley Homeowners’ Association was the personal opinion of the President of the Association. The other letter expresses concerns about the proposed project’s size, its incompatibility with the neighborhood character lack of on-street parking, etc. Both of the letters are attached (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION Staff believes the design appropriately addresses the hillside design guidelines and the Board’s recommendations and a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks appears to be justified. Similarly, a waiver from the requirement for two (2) additional onsite parking spaces appears to be justified. Staff requests Board’s direction on the points specified in the Summary section. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form 3. Vehicle Turnaround Templates 4. Letters received from Neighbors Prior project plans (11”x17”) reviewed by the DRB on February 7, 2012 and 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. 218 North Almenar Drive Greenbrae, CA 94904 Bradanini & Associates. 90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Picnic Valley HOA Don Soldavini 531 Bret Harte Rd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Makoto Takashina 12834 Flack St. Silver Spring, MD 20906-3877 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: May 8, 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 and Variance to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement; with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway. The Variance is requested to allow the house to encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to allow a retaining wall over 4 feet high for access stairs to encroach 10 feet into the required 10-ft. side yard setback; located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope. APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; File Nos.: ED11-078; V11-003; Picnic Valley Neighborhood. __________________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: LDR (Low Density Residential) R10 (Single Family Residential) Single Family Residence North: LDR R10 Single Family Residence South: LDR R5 Single Family Residence East: LDR R5 Single Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Natural State1 Required: 10,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 15,161 sq. ft. (existing) Required: 12,128 sq. ft., 80% of lot area Proposed: 12,700 sq. ft., 83.77% of lot area Height1 Floor Area1 Allowed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 30’ Proposed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 28½’ Allowed: 4,016 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,206 sq. ft. Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered Proposed: 2 covered Allowed: 4,548 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,548 sq. ft. Landscape Area Setbacks Required Existing Proposed2 Required: No requirement Proposed: 2,132+ sq. ft. “restored” natural state landscape area Front: Side(s): Rear: 20’ 10’ 10’ 0’ 2½’ 100’ 0’ 0’-100+’ 70’ 2 Grading Tree Removal Total: 214 cy Total(No./Species): One 8” oak; unknown number already removed during previous grading Cut: 107 cy Fill: 107 cy Off-Haul: None; balance on site Requirement: Minimum 3 15-gallon oaks Proposed: 3, 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and 7, 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees Notes: 1For hillside 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 recommendation for a waiver to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for providing the required two guest parking spaces in the driveway as deemed appropriate to minimize need for excessive site grading, and a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks. The Board reviewed this project on two prior occasions, June 21, 2011 and February 7, 2012 and the project has been revised in response to the Board’s prior comments. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for action. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately address the applicable hillside residential design criteria. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on the revised project’s compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible; and • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor. Architecture • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Grading • That the proposed site re-grading is appropriate. 3 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 non-delineated 15-ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry Walk. Adjoining uses are single family residential with generally two story buildings. The property is an up-sloping lot with a 55.0% slope and is currently developed with a one-car garage on the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately 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 have been identified in the rear and side of the property. 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. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed an Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. The Board had the following comments: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 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.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. 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. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. 4 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 28½-ft. high structure with a 25-ft. long and 27-ft. wide driveway; a two-car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; and 4½ bathrooms. Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10-ft. and approximately 75-ft. side setbacks and approximately 63-ft. rear setback. A 9-ft. high retaining wall located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading the first floor of the residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry W alk. A 2-car garage would be located south of the driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway. An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this structure for access to their property. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding • Milgard windows with Navajo white trim • Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit • Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers • Navajo white metal guardrails • Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps • Forest green Class A composition shingles • Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers Landscaping: Three (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft. disturbed site areas to their natural state. One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed. Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time. 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; 5 • 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 front and side yard setbacks. A Variance would be required for the proposed setbacks. According to SRMC14.23.070. Findings, approval of a Variance from these development standards would require the following findings to be made: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 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 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway; • A proposed higher than 4-ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north property line does not comply with the required 10-ft. side setback. The proposed retaining wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required 10-ft. 6 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. Chapter 12 - Hillside Development Overlay District The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development as indicated in the Site Development Summary table and Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist (Exhibit 2). The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26’) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. According to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Staff believes these findings can be made for the project because providing the two (2) additional on-site parking spaces would require the project to be pushed further back on to the site which would require excessive grading. 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; and • Story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) if needed to evaluate project impacts. A shadow diagram submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird’s eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow cast by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. 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. The property would be improved with landscaping. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction on the applicable guidelines, as follows: • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor; • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the proposed design would not cast a shadow to impact the property of the adjoining neighbor to the north. On April 22, 2012, story poles were erected to reflect the geometrics of the project. San Rafael Design Guidelines: As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria that states ‘vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street’. However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. Visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. 7 Hillside Design Guidelines: The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,206 sq. ft. (2,736 sq. ft. living space and 470 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 28½ feet, 83.7% natural state, and 2 covered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 2). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following sections: 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 (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. 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, public street with a 15-ft. right of way which is more akin to an alley. A power pole located within the right-of-way and in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed three additional parking spaces. 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 3). Exhibit 3.1 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 3.2 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the garage on to the driveway from where it would enter Perry Walk. Exhibit 3.3 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the driveway into the small hammer head in the Perry Walk. However, with the driveway currently designed to be at least 25 feet long and 27 feet wide (a drive aisle needs to be 26 feet wide for vehicles to back out of parking spaces in a parking lot), the vehicles can turnaround in the driveway alone. Further, at the February 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a neighbor pointed out that the hammerhead would not work for backing out, since the hammerhead would likely be used as an additional parking space in Perry Walk. 8 Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through a 27-ft. wide driveway with an effective minimum depth of 25 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 three uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. The three 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 waiver from the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. The waiver can be approved by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Strict enforcement of the guideline to require two additional parking spaces would require additional excavation to push the project back on to the property. Staff believes the finding to support a waiver can be made for the project. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to “back out” into substandard roadway widths are recommended as prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking in the garage is designed to allow vehicles to back out into the 27-ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the street. 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 3 and did not express any concerns with the parking and driveway solutions proposed for this dead end street. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible. 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 project complies the maximum building height and stepback height. The building has 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. The proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4½ bathrooms. However, bedrooms are generally 10’x10’ in size and all other areas such as living and dining room and kitchen for the residence are also of modest size. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board. 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 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: • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9 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 restoring the disturbed area of approximately 2,132 sq. ft. to its natural state by planting three (3) native coast live oak, seven (7) strawberry trees and shrubs and ground covers. 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: • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Section A9 - Site Lighting 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 Design Review Board, the applicant applied for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) to demolish the existing residence in order to rebuild it. The building size was reduced from the 3,825 sq. ft. proposed for the conceptual stage to 3,415 sq. ft. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the ED Permit. The Board directed the applicant to return to the Board after incorporating the following comments in to the project: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. The current proposal is for a reduced building size of 3,206 sq. ft and incorporates the Board’s comments. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 10 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 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 two letters from the neighboring property owners. One of the letters clarifies that a letter supporting the project previously received from the Picnic Valley Homeowners’ Association was the personal opinion of the President of the Association. The other letter expresses concerns about the proposed project’s size, its incompatibility with the neighborhood character lack of on-street parking, etc. Both of the letters are attached (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION Staff believes the design appropriately addresses the hillside design guidelines and the Board’s recommendations and a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks appears to be justified. Similarly, a waiver from the requirement for two (2) additional onsite parking spaces appears to be justified. Staff requests Board’s direction on the points specified in the Summary section. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form 3. Vehicle Turnaround Templates 4. Letters received from Neighbors Prior project plans (11”x17”) reviewed by the DRB on February 7, 2012 and 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. 218 North Almenar Drive Greenbrae, CA 94904 Bradanini & Associates. 90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Picnic Valley HOA Don Soldavini 531 Bret Harte Rd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Makoto Takashina 12834 Flack St. Silver Spring, MD 20906-3877 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: May 8, 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 and Variance to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement; with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway. The Variance is requested to allow the house to encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to allow a retaining wall over 4 feet high for access stairs to encroach 10 feet into the required 10-ft. side yard setback; located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope. APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; File Nos.: ED11-078; V11-003; Picnic Valley Neighborhood. __________________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: LDR (Low Density Residential) R10 (Single Family Residential) Single Family Residence North: LDR R10 Single Family Residence South: LDR R5 Single Family Residence East: LDR R5 Single Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Natural State1 Required: 10,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 15,161 sq. ft. (existing) Required: 12,128 sq. ft., 80% of lot area Proposed: 12,700 sq. ft., 83.77% of lot area Height1 Floor Area1 Allowed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 30’ Proposed: Stepback height: 20’, Total height: 28½’ Allowed: 4,016 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,206 sq. ft. Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered Proposed: 2 covered Allowed: 4,548 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,548 sq. ft. Landscape Area Setbacks Required Existing Proposed2 Required: No requirement Proposed: 2,132+ sq. ft. “restored” natural state landscape area Front: Side(s): Rear: 20’ 10’ 10’ 0’ 2½’ 100’ 0’ 0’-100+’ 70’ 2 Grading Tree Removal Total: 214 cy Total(No./Species): One 8” oak; unknown number already removed during previous grading Cut: 107 cy Fill: 107 cy Off-Haul: None; balance on site Requirement: Minimum 3 15-gallon oaks Proposed: 3, 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and 7, 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees Notes: 1For hillside 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 recommendation for a waiver to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for providing the required two guest parking spaces in the driveway as deemed appropriate to minimize need for excessive site grading, and a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks. The Board reviewed this project on two prior occasions, June 21, 2011 and February 7, 2012 and the project has been revised in response to the Board’s prior comments. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for action. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately address the applicable hillside residential design criteria. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on the revised project’s compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible; and • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor. Architecture • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Grading • That the proposed site re-grading is appropriate. 3 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 non-delineated 15-ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry Walk. Adjoining uses are single family residential with generally two story buildings. The property is an up-sloping lot with a 55.0% slope and is currently developed with a one-car garage on the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately 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 have been identified in the rear and side of the property. 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. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed an Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. The Board had the following comments: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 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.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. 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. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. 4 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 28½-ft. high structure with a 25-ft. long and 27-ft. wide driveway; a two-car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; and 4½ bathrooms. Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10-ft. and approximately 75-ft. side setbacks and approximately 63-ft. rear setback. A 9-ft. high retaining wall located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading the first floor of the residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry W alk. A 2-car garage would be located south of the driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway. An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this structure for access to their property. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding • Milgard windows with Navajo white trim • Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit • Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers • Navajo white metal guardrails • Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps • Forest green Class A composition shingles • Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers Landscaping: Three (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft. disturbed site areas to their natural state. One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed. Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time. 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; 5 • 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 front and side yard setbacks. A Variance would be required for the proposed setbacks. According to SRMC14.23.070. Findings, approval of a Variance from these development standards would require the following findings to be made: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 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 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway; • A proposed higher than 4-ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north property line does not comply with the required 10-ft. side setback. The proposed retaining wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required 10-ft. 6 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. Chapter 12 - Hillside Development Overlay District The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development as indicated in the Site Development Summary table and Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist (Exhibit 2). The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26’) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. According to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Staff believes these findings can be made for the project because providing the two (2) additional on-site parking spaces would require the project to be pushed further back on to the site which would require excessive grading. 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; and • Story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) if needed to evaluate project impacts. A shadow diagram submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird’s eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow cast by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. 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. The property would be improved with landscaping. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction on the applicable guidelines, as follows: • That a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate to minimize excessive grading, restore and preserve the site’s hillside natural state and maintain ingress/egress stairs to the site and the adjoining neighbor; • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board; and • That the proposed design would not cast a shadow to impact the property of the adjoining neighbor to the north. On April 22, 2012, story poles were erected to reflect the geometrics of the project. San Rafael Design Guidelines: As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria that states ‘vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street’. However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. Visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. 7 Hillside Design Guidelines: The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,206 sq. ft. (2,736 sq. ft. living space and 470 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 28½ feet, 83.7% natural state, and 2 covered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 2). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following sections: 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 (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. 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, public street with a 15-ft. right of way which is more akin to an alley. A power pole located within the right-of-way and in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed three additional parking spaces. 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 3). Exhibit 3.1 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 3.2 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the garage on to the driveway from where it would enter Perry Walk. Exhibit 3.3 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the driveway into the small hammer head in the Perry Walk. However, with the driveway currently designed to be at least 25 feet long and 27 feet wide (a drive aisle needs to be 26 feet wide for vehicles to back out of parking spaces in a parking lot), the vehicles can turnaround in the driveway alone. Further, at the February 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a neighbor pointed out that the hammerhead would not work for backing out, since the hammerhead would likely be used as an additional parking space in Perry Walk. 8 Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through a 27-ft. wide driveway with an effective minimum depth of 25 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 three uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. The three 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 waiver from the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. The waiver can be approved by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. Strict enforcement of the guideline to require two additional parking spaces would require additional excavation to push the project back on to the property. Staff believes the finding to support a waiver can be made for the project. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to “back out” into substandard roadway widths are recommended as prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking in the garage is designed to allow vehicles to back out into the 27-ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the street. 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 3 and did not express any concerns with the parking and driveway solutions proposed for this dead end street. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That a waiver from the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is warranted and appropriate for the site. The need for excessive grading makes the requirement infeasible. 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 project complies the maximum building height and stepback height. The building has 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. The proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4½ bathrooms. However, bedrooms are generally 10’x10’ in size and all other areas such as living and dining room and kitchen for the residence are also of modest size. Staff is requesting the Board’s direction as follows: • That the revised project size and design is appropriate for the project site and adequately responds to the direction given by the Board. 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 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: • That the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9 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 restoring the disturbed area of approximately 2,132 sq. ft. to its natural state by planting three (3) native coast live oak, seven (7) strawberry trees and shrubs and ground covers. 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: • That the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project in particular, the areas proposed to be restored to natural state; and • That additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Section A9 - Site Lighting 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 Design Review Board, the applicant applied for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) to demolish the existing residence in order to rebuild it. The building size was reduced from the 3,825 sq. ft. proposed for the conceptual stage to 3,415 sq. ft. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the ED Permit. The Board directed the applicant to return to the Board after incorporating the following comments in to the project: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. The current proposal is for a reduced building size of 3,206 sq. ft and incorporates the Board’s comments. Project plans reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2012 are attached for reference and comparison. 10 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 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 two letters from the neighboring property owners. One of the letters clarifies that a letter supporting the project previously received from the Picnic Valley Homeowners’ Association was the personal opinion of the President of the Association. The other letter expresses concerns about the proposed project’s size, its incompatibility with the neighborhood character lack of on-street parking, etc. Both of the letters are attached (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION Staff believes the design appropriately addresses the hillside design guidelines and the Board’s recommendations and a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks appears to be justified. Similarly, a waiver from the requirement for two (2) additional onsite parking spaces appears to be justified. Staff requests Board’s direction on the points specified in the Summary section. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form 3. Vehicle Turnaround Templates 4. Letters received from Neighbors Prior project plans (11”x17”) reviewed by the DRB on February 7, 2012 and 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. 218 North Almenar Drive Greenbrae, CA 94904 Bradanini & Associates. 90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Picnic Valley HOA Don Soldavini 531 Bret Harte Rd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Makoto Takashina 12834 Flack St. Silver Spring, MD 20906-3877