Loading...
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