HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2012-06-19 #2CITYOF
"r rG Meeting Date: June 19, 2012
Case Numbers: ED11-091
SJ '
Community Development Department — Project Planner: Kraig Tamborn i15) 485-3092
Planning Division
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 220 Shaver Street (AT&T Telecommunications Facility Building Addition) — Request for
Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow construction of a 1,496 square foot, 27 -foot
tall building addition for a new mechanical room on the south side of an existing multi -story
telecommunications building; along with parking lot, landscaping and fencing modifications
and improvements; APN: 011-245-38; High Density Residential (HR1) District; AT&T,
owner/applicant. Downtown/West End environs.
BACKGROUND
This project was previously reviewed by the Design Review Board on March 6 and April 17. The March 6
staff report has documented that the addition would comply with all applicable San Rafael Municipal Code
(SRMC) zoning regulations; including the HR1 zoning district development standards, Chapter 14.18
parking standards, and Chapter 14.16 gross floor area & legal nonconforming use standards. The report
also verified substantial conformance with all pertinent General Plan 2020 Neighborhood Element,
Community Design Element and Infrastructure Element policies, which support preservation of
neighborhood identities and upgrading of telecommunications infrastructure within the City.
The project requires a major Environmental and Design Review Permit due to the fact that the 1,496
square foot building addition exceeds the maximum threshold of 1,250 square feet set for Zoning
Administrator level review. The project also involves an addition to a building that supports a non-
conforming quasi -public use within a residential area (i.e., a telephone switching station and related
telecommunications infrastructure). However, no intensification of the telecommunications utility use
would result; thus, the addition can be considered and does not trigger the need for any additional land
use entitlements. A major design review permit requires the recommendation of the Design Review Board
and action by the Planning. Commission.
The pertinent March 6 Board comments were as follows:
Provide a noise analysis on existing and potential noise and identify details required to attenuate
equipment noise.
Consider design enhancement to soften the building scale, be more compatible with the residential
scale and character of the neighborhood, and consider its visibility from 2'd Street.
Provide all building, equipment, materials and site plan details, to scale, dimensioned and labeled,
including cross sections, floor and roof plans.
Justify the proposed height.
Propose higher quality fencing that is more compatible with the residential area.
Provide more landscape plan details and further enhancement of the size of planting area, particularly
to the north, increase amount of plant material, list of existing and proposed plant materials, irrigation
details, additional/bigger shrubs, ground cover planting and trees. Rock mulch needs to be eliminated.
Provide information on the existing water that runs off the site and propose solutions to address this
condition.
At its April 17 meeting, the Board provided the following additional direction to the applicant, based on its
review of revised conceptual elevation renderings:
Landscape and Fence Details
o Recessing fencing to create larger planter area, continuing shrubs in front of the building, and
replicating planting on north side is supported.
o Taller trees such as 24" box instead of 15 gallon should be planted for durability in this location and to
screen the building.
o Parking spaces at the east and west corners of the building addition should be turned into finger
planters, with trees and ground cover.
o Landscaping is needed where pavers are going to screen the parking lot. Consider adding shrubs
against fence as a transition and for screening.
o Fluted block, wrought iron and pavers are disjointed and sidewalks are unnecessarily wide and could
be reduced for more landscaping. Landscaping improvements would make the north and south
cohesive.
o Plants do not need to be high maintenance, if appropriately selected. A landscape maintenance plan
would need to be implemented. Maintenance issues can be addressed by routine landscape
maintenance. Vines are not recommended.
o Replication of the fluted block on the new fence columns and the wrought iron fence is good.
o The columns should be widened, consistent with the rendering, to 16 or 24 inches.
o The gates including the north entry gate should be wrought iron to match and create a more
consistent street front.
Building Details
o The stucco fascia successfully brings down scale of building.
o Incorporate the existing wireless antenna behind the new fascia as a stealth screen.
o The colors and materials board is needed to show how the colors would relate, particularly how the
blue colored awnings would integrate with the building design.
o The steel channel added as end element for the fascia on the north side of the building should
continue same distance past that channel as it does on front corner.
o Extending the stucco fascia 15 feet on the east side of the building would be a better place to stop that
fascia element.
o On the south side of new addition, adding metal channels at either end of blue canopy would be nice
with two more divisions, in keeping with the detailing of the existing building.
o The blue metal standing seam roofing solution is supported. Carry the awning treatment over the entry
instead of the horizontal entry canopy.
o The existing dark window grill color is supported. If the grill is re -finished, it should be matte finish.
Black or dark bronze color is recommended.
o Provide more flushed out drawings with sections and building details to bring the plan to fruition.
o Address the water runoff problem, ADA sidewalks, and ensure driveway widths are sufficient:
o Provide the noise study.
6
Staff notes that the revised roof plan details have erroneously omitted calling out the removal of the
existing cooling tower, which would be replaced by the new equipment proposed in the rooftop well of the
addition. However, the existing screening that was installed for the cooling tower would remain, as shown
on the plans, as it conceals an existing wireless antenna in this area. Further, the applicant has stated
that the new fascia should be sufficient to screen most of the existing rooftop equipment, as illustrated by
the plan cross sections. The ductwork on the existing roof is to be replaced more or less 'in kind'. Staff did
not require that a revised corrected plan sheet be submitted to show this missing information.
DISCUSSION
Revised plans, details and materials have been provided in response to the direction given by the Board.
The prior plan sets have not been forward to the Board, given that the current plans primarily reflect
improvements made upon to the concepts shown on the previous plan sets. Responses to the pertinent
outstanding site and building design concerns are discussed, as follows:
Building and Landscape Details
The recommendations of the Design Review Board, as listed above, appear to have been substantially
addressed as indicated on the revised plan details. Minor detail issues remain. The first issue is that the
existing landscape planter in front of the fuel canopy enclosure has not been shown extended out to the
property line/back of public sidewalk. This can be addressed as a condition of project approval. Second,
staff did not see any detail for assuring the existing wireless panel antennas on the building fascia would
be integrated into the new facade. Staff can assure that the stucco fascia incorporates a fiber -reinforced
plastic screen detail that would assure the existing cell antenna panels on the building parapet walls could
be incorporated behind the new fascia, as a condition of approval.
The colors and materials are included at the back of the 11x17 architectural rendering plan set. The
applicant has been advised to bring materials samples to the meeting, to support the information
identified on the plans and color rendered drawings. Any concerns with final colors or materials could be
further addressed through conditions of approval.
Noise Analysis
The noise study evaluates the noise anticipated from the two new condenser units proposed in the roof
well of the addition. As noted in the project description, the existing cooling tower unit on the roof of the
building would be removed. The two new units are noted in the noise study to be redundant systems with
only one unit running when outdoor temperatures are significantly above 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Thus,
one cooling unit is anticipated to run during summer days, when traffic noise would also be greatest.
Table 2, on page 4 of the noise study identifies that nighttime operations of the condenser unit is
anticipated to occur between April and November, with the greatest level of activity in the warmest
summer months of July, August and September.
The study notes that the equipment's predicted noise levels would be 38 to 40 dBA at most of the homes
nearby. This would be near or below the lowest level of noise that was recorded during the quietest times
of day. Hence, the equipment noise, including background mechanical noise from its motors and fans, is
not expected to be audible under most circumstances. The only exception to this applies to the house
directly south of the facility, which is expected to receive a noise level of up to 43 dBA when the
condenser is running. Thus, this is the only location that would experience noise levels exceeding the City
noise ordinance threshold of 40 dBA (for residential exterior noise). However, the new condenser units
would generate less noise than the existing cooling units (on the roof of the building which are to be
removed) and would not exceed the existing prevailing noise levels that are experienced at this location
due to the existing traffic.
The study notes that an increase in noise of up to 3 decibels is not considered to be perceptible and did
not conclude that the change in the existing noise environment would result in this level of increase. In
3
order to minimize the noise produced by the equipment, and to maintain compliance with the City noise
ordinance, the study recommends the following:
Incorporate sound absorptive panels on 100% of the area of the four interior surfaces of the
mechanical well where the two condensers will be located; with a Noise Reduction Coefficient (NCR)
of not less than 0.9.
Noise attenuation in the enclosure should also assure that background mechanical noise from fans and
motors should not be perceptible outside of the enclosure.
Drainage Details
The applicant and staff have been working with the Department of Public Works to identify the nearest
underground stormdrain. If it is feasible, the City would require that the applicant extend an underground
drainage pipe from the site to the nearest underground stormdrain, which should be found at 2nd Street.
The applicant has indicated willingness to pursue this. Staff is working to resolve this question prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
A revised public hearing notice was mailed to residents within 300 feet and posted on-site at least 15 days
prior to this meeting. Prior comments received from residents expressed concerns with potential shading
from the addition, increased noise and addressing the existing drainage issues. A shadow study was
previously reviewed which demonstrated there would be no change in existing shading of nearby
residences. The noise and drainage concerns have been discussed, and addressed as discussed in this
report. There have not been any new public comments received since the last meeting.
CONCLUSION
The project appears to have responded to the Board's comments. Staff requests that the Board provide
its recommendation on the project to the Planning Commission, which should include the following
conditions:
® The landscape planter in front of the fuel enclosure shall be enlarged by extending it out to the front
property line in keeping with the rest of the frontage landscaping.
The stucco fascia shall include a fiber -reinforced plastic stealth screen detail that would allow the
existing cell antenna panels on the building parapet walls to be screened behind the new stucco
fagade.
® Sound absorptive panels shall be incorporated on 100% of the area of the four interior surfaces of the
mechanical well, where the two condensers will be located. The panels shall have a Noise Reduction
Coefficient (NCR) of not less than 0.9.
The applicant shall extend an underground drainage pipe from the site to the nearest stormdrain
(anticipated to lie in 2nd Street), as deemed feasible and required by the Department of Public Works.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Noise Study
Full Sizes and 11x17 Reduced architectural plans, and Reduced 11x17 structural and mechanical building
nlan.chnvP heen provided to the Desirrn Review Board
cc: Cliff Johnson, BJG Architecture, 6995 Sierra Center Pkwy - Ste. 200, Reno NV 89511
Vicki Howard, AT&T, 645 E Plumb Lane, Al 14, Reno NV 89509
EI),KHUT I - V--An�ty hvIap (220,...haver Street)
loo j,
'oil
i66-741
loog
.9
GO
143
c, TIf s
T11 ST
GO
T
d
C14
N Uf i
f
209
112�5
33
ST J
T,,RAMST a 1 go,
L'c., 220
��-; � �p .- u� �� % � �C�
VN
U)
9
RD
--F 107
all
A h los 4
U4 f, I�t I �o�J, 8 ---
l 23
—3P,D 103
829-9
RD S
C/) __719 1�;Ij
809 814-j
811 813
410
805
809
806
817
� c\r p 805
ED,
SCALE 1 :1,671
rMEEI t—=A
100 0 100 200 300
FEET
N
A
RAmrrh Al )niq in-nQ ARA