HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2012-07-17 #4 (31 Gold Hill Grade) CITY OF
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date: July 17, 2012
Case Numbers: ED10-072
Project Planner: Raffi Boloyan (415) 485-3095
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 31 Gold Hill Grade – Environmental and Design Review Permit for a new 6,468 gross sq. ft.
single family residence in a two level structure, over a basement, on a vacant 1.07-acre hillside
parcel with a 28% slope; APN: 015-091-04; R1a-H Zone; Stephen Charlip, Applicant; George
Mann and Stephanie Morgan, owners; Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood.
Note: A separate memo has been provided with instructions for accessing the site.
BACKGROUND
This is an application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit for the construction of a new
single family hillside residence on a 1.07-acre upsloping flag lot in the Dominican/Black Canyon
neighborhood. This application was previously reviewed on two occasions by the Design Review Board
(DRB). First, on March 22, 2011 the DRB reviewed and continued the application to a future date to
allow the applicant to address their recommendations and comments. The applicant revised their project
and returned to the DRB on November 8th, 2011. At the conclusion of the November 8th meeting, the
Board found that the project was moving in the right direction, but again continued the project with
additional recommended modifications. There are no written meeting minutes, however, the video
recording can be viewed at www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings and clicking on the video link for the
11/8/11 DRB meeting date. Staff has summarized the Board’s consensus recommendations and those
are included in the Analysis section below.
The applicant has resubmitted plans with some modifications. The Board is asked to review and provide
their recommendation to the Zoning Administrator. An 11” x 17” copy of the plans reviewed by the DRB
on November 8th, 2011 have been included in its packet.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Revisions:
The following revisions have been made to the project since the November 8, 2011 DRB meeting:
• Revisions to the design of the structure, including
o Eliminating the two chimneys on the front side of the roof.
o Incorporating a small shed roof (See Sheet A-5 – Front elevation) between the first and
second floors on a portion of the front elevation (this was previously shown as an
alternative design option on the Nov 8th design.
o Reintroducing a dormer and incorporating it into the second floor window on the western
portion of the front elevation.
o Adding a hog wide lattice screen below the deck off the master bedroom on the west side
of the building.
o Changing the species of the proposed tree along the eastern property line at the driveway
from Ligustrum Jonandrum (Privet) to Arbutus Marina.
o Changing the location of the front fence so that it runs along the easement line (instead of
the property line) with 27 Gold Hill Grade.
o Changing the exterior material from Cedar Siding to hardiplank.
2
Revised Project Description:
With the proposed revisions, the project proposes a new three-level, single-family residence with three
bedrooms, den, kitchen, study, living room, dining room, loft and storage. In addition, the attached
structure would provide a 3 car garage, as follows:
Lower Level: 831 sq. ft.
Main Level: 2,862 sq. ft.
Upper level: 1,763 sq. ft
TOTAL 5,456 sq. ft.
The basement area of the main structure is included in the gross building square footage calculations
given that it is habitable and has a ceiling height in excess of 7 feet. Other covered areas around the
structure such as the covered rear patio and area under decks and porches would total an additional
870 sq. ft. and are also included as gross building square footage (as defined by the hillside guidelines).
The proposed structure would therefore, have a total of 6,326 sq. ft of gross building floor area.
The main structure would be setback approximately 39 ft. from the front property line, 47 ft. from the
west (side) property line, 23 ft. from the east (side) property line, and 188 ft. from the rear. An elevated
porch is proposed along the eastern two third of the front elevation and wraps around the side (east)
elevation. A majority of the proposed understory area of the porch would be enclosed by hog wire
fencing, planted with vines for screening.
A new 12-ft to 20 ft wide concrete driveway would be constructed from the street to the main parking
area and garage. The driveway would have a slope of 15.9% at its steepest point. A driveway profile is
provided on Sheet SP-5. Two off-street parking spaces are provided to the side of the driveway,
composed of decomposed granite. Another space is proposed off the street adjacent to the driveway to
replace an existing space.
The finish floor elevation of the lower floor is 112.5 ft. with overall building height of 25.16 ft above
natural grade at the highest point. Retaining walls are proposed around the upper portions of the
driveway and parking area ranging from 2 ft to 6 ft in height. A geotechnical investigation has been
prepared for this property. The project would qualify for an environmental exemption under California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303a (New Construction of a Single-Family Residence),
provided that it does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern designated
on an official map pursuant to the Section 15300.2 (Exceptions). Proposed architecture, landscaping,
grading and tree removal are further described below.
Architecture
The building is a contemporary craftsman design with three-levels facing the downhill elevation. The
building steps up to two levels at the rear with a three-car garage attached to the main structure at an
angle. The garage includes vaulted ceiling. An uncovered porch wraps around the eastern two thirds of
the front elevation and a portion of the side (right) elevation. A roofed entry is the only covering on the
porch. An elevated deck is also proposed at the west side of the building, off the master bedroom on the
upper level. This deck would connect to the backyard area via a staircase. The understory of the deck
would be enclosed with hog wire lattice. The hog wire lattice is also proposed too enclose the understory
around the front deck. The roof form consists of off-setting gable roofs, with the gable ends on the side
(east and west) elevations. A former is proposed on the western part of the front elevation, would
incorporate with the second story windows from the master bedroom on the upper level. Story poles
have been installed on-site and the story pole plan is provided on Sheet SP-6.
The colors and materials consist of painted hardiplank siding and trim, painted wood trim around
windows, doors and railings, brown composite decking, wood pilasters and railings, cultured stone
veneer and asphalt shingle roofing. Most of the building’s exterior colors mimic the natural wood and
earth tones, with cream/khaki used for trim and detailing. Flat hardscape includes a brushed finish
concrete driveway and parking area, concrete retaining walls and decomposed granite for guest parking
and entry paths at the front of the site. The colors and materials board will be presented at the hearing.
3
The building lighting would be wall mounted sconces. Site lighting is also proposed, composed of
landscape walkway lights and stair lights. Landscape up-lights are proposed to illuminate a few of the
larger native trees. Cut sheets of the fixtures are attached (Exhibit 3) and locations of the proposed
lights are shown on the plans (Sheet SP-2).
Landscaping
The landscape plan proposes to generally maintain natural conditions around the rear of the site in the
hillside portions of the site to the north, with ornamental landscaping in pockets around the house and
the parking area. There are numerous large Eucalyptus trees and Oaks and Bay trees on-site, primarily
around the upper rear portion of the site. Nearly all of these existing trees would be would be retained,
however, there are 6 trees that have already been removed, including 3 Eucalyptus at the upper portion
of the site and 3 dead trees (one 18” Eucalyptus, one 12” Pine and one 16” Oak.) around the
development area (See Sheet SP-1.1)
A new cluster of 12, 15-gallon Redwood trees would be planted at the rear of the site in the hillside area.
In addition, the area around the structure and the lower portion of the site would be heavily planted with
fruit trees and ornamental landscaping. The palette proposes palms in these areas, including Canary
Island Date Palms. Two new Arbutus Marina trees are proposed to be planted along the
driveway/turnaround area along the eastern side of the property. Low level wall and path lighting is
indicated. The landscape plan is illustrated on Sheets SP1.1 and SP-2). Images of the proposed
species are provided as Exhibit 4.
Grading and Drainage
Site grading consists primarily of cut (655 cubic yards) to prepare the site for placement of house. Some
minor fill (30 cubic yards) would be added in the lower portion of the driveway. Net off-haul of 655 cubic
yards is anticipated (equivalent to 65 truckloads). Proposed drainage would generally follow the existing
drainage patterns on the site. A new concrete v-ditch and debris collector would be installed part way
up the hill to the rear of the house to collect water from the upper portions of the site. The drainage
would then enter a closed underground system (8” PVC pipe) that would go downhill along the eastern
side of the property until it meets the exiting drainage swale. A 6ft by 6ft dissipation bed at the top and
bottom of the closed system with rip rap would be installed. A closed drainage consisting of a 6” PVC
pipe would collect water around the rear and side of the building and would transverse along the front of
the building. A new 24” detention basin consisting of an underground pipe is proposed to be installed
near the driveway to collect water and provide controlled discharge. This water would be conveyed to
the east side of the site and would enter a 36 sq. ft. dissipation bed and then enter into an 8” PVC storm
drain. This run-off would then be conveyed to the natural drainage swale at the east side of the lower
driveway. In addition, an earthen swale would collect run off at the rear of the structure and convey it to
a 6-inch storm drain pipe that would wrap around the west and front sides of the structure and would
connect to the new 8-inch pipe along the eastern end. Two 36 sq ft dissipation beds would be created
on both sides of the natural culvert that bisects the driveway before the run-off is conveyed to the
existing culvert system. The applicant has also proposed an alternative drainage plan (Sheet SP-3) that
would extend a 24” pipe and create a headwall where the existing drainage leaves the subject site and
enters 27 Gold Hill Grade, between the driveway and side property line with 27 Gold Hill Grade.
Geotechnical peer review has been required and conducted for this site, and a drainage plan has been
reviewed by Public Works. No unique soils constraints or drainage issues have been identified as a
result of this review.
Zoning Entitlements
As proposed, the project would require an Environmental and Design Review permit for a new hillside
home on a flag lot.
Other Approvals
The project must meet Wildland-urban interface planting requirements, green building regulations, and
landscape efficiency requirements. Fire and Building have reviewed the project for conformance with
these provisions, and the applicant has revised plans in response to their comments, including provision
of Fire Information on Sheet F-1. In addition, an encroachment permit would be required to allow the
installation of concrete and other minor site improvements in the public right of way at the base of the
4
driveway. The Fire Department has determined that there is no requirement to remove any live
Eucalyptus trees from the site. Removal of live Eucalyptus trees is allowed and desired, but not
required. However, any trees within 100 feet of a structure must be limbed up (or skinned up in the case
of a Eucalyptus tree) a minimum of 10 feet above the ground.
ANALYSIS
On November 8th, the Board reviewed the project and the changes that were made in response to the
initial review on March 25, 2011. At its November 8th meeting, the majority of the Board found that the
project had improved since the initial review and was moving in the right direction, but provided some
further recommendations. The Board voted 4-0-1 (Alternate Member Federov abstaining) to continue the
matter with recommendations to date uncertain.
The applicant has provided the attached letter (Exhibit 2) responding to the Board’s comments from the
November 8th meeting. The applicant has also revised the plans to address some of the comments and
has returned for a follow-up review. A full size and 11” x 17” reduced set of the revised plans are
included in the Board’s packet. In addition, an 11” x 17” set of reduction of the November 8th set of plans
(marked as superseded) are also provided to the Board to allow for comparison. The Board’s consensus
items from the November 8th meeting are identified below bold and followed by staff response and
analysis.
1. The front elevation needs to be stepped back the east side of the upper level to line up
with the bedroom # 4 and to change the roof accordingly to provide additional step back
on the front elevation
No further changes are proposed to the eastern side of the front elevation to step back the upper
level on the east side of the building to line up with bedroom 4. One change was made to the
west side of the front elevation, which is the incorporation of a shed roof overhang between
floors 1 and 2 as a way to further break up the western side of the front elevation. This shed roof
was previously shown on the November 8th plans as an alternative design for that side of the
building and has now been incorporated into the proposed project. The applicant has submitted a
letter (Exhibit 2), explaining their rational for how they believe that the building as designed is
adequately stepped.
Analysis
The applicant has not made any changes to the eastern side of the front elevation to step back
the upper floor. The applicant has explained their rational for this design in their resubmittal
letter. Staff notes that prior to the November 8th meeting, the project had been revised to reduce
overall building height and in the understory space. And provide additional stepping of the front
of elevation through the creation of the deck. At that time, staff indicated that we did not have a
concern with the design of the front elevation of the structure. This recommendation continues to
hold on this resubmittal. This is primarily based on the location of the property and its distance
from the street (over 150 feet), the setback of the structure from the front of the flat lot (nearly 40
feet, where 20 feet is required) and the dense vegetation that exists between the properties. The
front downhill elevation does comply with the stepback requirements that limit wall heights (in a
single plane) on downhill elevation to 20 feet
2. Dormers should be added back to the front elevation.
One dormer has been re-added to the current project plans. This dormer is proposed to be
added to the west side of the front elevation and would expand the second story window into
Master Suite. See Sheet A-5 (Front Elevation)
Analysis
The initial submittal included a former in the same location, but was removed for the second
review due to Board comments about concern with mass and privacy from the front elevation.
This dormer has now been reintroduced based on DRB comments form the last meeting.
3. Push deck at side deck back to reduce height and screen the understory.
5
The revised plans do not propose pushing the deck on the side (west) elevation back any further.
However, the hog wire lattice screening material has been added to the understory of the deck.
This material would match that which is already proposed on the understory of the front entry
deck. In addition, the railing on the deck has been increased in height from 3 to 4 feet.
Analysis
This recommendation has been partially addressed. The applicant has provided their rational for
not pushing the deck back any further. The understory is now screened with the hog wire lattice
screening that would be landscaped. As previously noted, staff does not find that the deck would
pose any direct line of site or privacy impacts on the downhill property. This is based on the
elevation change and distance between the deck and property to the front as well as the extent
of existing landscaping.
4. Have Public Works relook at drainage plan to seriously consider requiring the run off from
this site be taken under the Gold Hill Grade rather than through it's current pattern of
along the neighbors property
Since the last meeting, both the applicant and staff have discussed the drainage comments with
Department of Public Works. Staff continues to find the plan acceptable based on the fact that
the amount and intensity of post development run off from this project would be equal to the pre-
development levels. This is based on the fact that the drainage improvements, including the
water detention basin, dissipation beds and rip rap are systems that slow the intensity of
drainage water leaving the site to post construction levels.
The applicant has also indicated that they have discussed the drainage plan with the adjacent
neighbor, but there does not appear to be mutual agreement between the two parties.
There is one change since the last meeting to the drainage plan and that is a proposal from the
applicant for an alternative drainage solution (Sheet SP-3). This alternative would pipe the
drainage as it leaves the driveway near the base of the property into a 24” diameter culvert
system to the property line shared with 27 Gold Hill Grade. The drainage would then be directed
into a dissipation bed right before the property line. The previous plans indicate that the drainage
in this section would be an open ditch with a dissipation bed positioned below the driveway
The current drainage plan continues in the same drainage patterns as exists today and the plan
also proposes to collect water from the hillside into a concrete ditch that runs west to east along
the rear of the property. The concrete v-ditch would convey water through a 6 ft x 6ft dissipation
bed with rip rap and then enter an underground (8” PVC) closed system. This closed system
would convey run off downhill along the eastern side of the property to the existing natural
drainage swale. A new 6 ft x 6 ft dissipation bed with rip rap is proposed where the closed
system empties into the natural swale near the base of the driveway. Water would then continue
through the existing culvert under the driveway, through another dissipation bed with rip rap, and
continue through a natural open channel through the adjacent property to the street. A separate
perimeter closed system is also proposed to surround the structure and collect run off from the
lower portion of the hillside as well as from the structure itself. Roof drainage and area drains
would connect to this closed underground system. At the front of the structure, the 24” pipe is
proposed to serve as the detention basin and collect excess run off and discharge it after a storm
event. The discharge from this detention pipe would enter the 8” closed system described above.
In addition, two 50 gallon storage drums are proposed near the garage to collect run off and use
it for landscape irrigation purposes.
Analysis
As noted in the last report, staff has discussed the drainage plan and the DRB’s comments on
multiple occasions with the Department of Public Works. The plan as designed is acceptable and
consistent with City standards. Public Works has indicated that a different drainage plan,
recommended by the DRB (to reroute the run off straight down the driveway then under Gold Hill
Grade and into the creek), could also be acceptable. However, the current configuration of the
drainage crosses onto a neighbor’s property prior to approaching the road right of way. In this
case redirecting the water is considered a change to the neighbor’s property and would require a
6
approval from the neighbor. Although this is a possibility, staff does not recommend that there is
any nexus to require the change to the existing drainage patterns in the area since adequate
drainage is currently shown to be possible with the proposed plan.
As designed, the proposed drainage plan is designed by a licensed engineer and is designed to
accommodate a 100 year storm event. The improvements proposed on the property (24”
diameter underground detention pipe to control the run-off during a storm event) would reduce
any increase volume from post development to pre-development levels. The proposed detention
pipe/basin serves this purpose and is a standard design feature used in drainage plans to detain
increases in run off. The detained water would then be discharged into the 8” storm drain pipe
that then be discharged into the existing natural drainage swale after the peak of the storm event
has passed. In addition, dissipation beds have been added around the site to reduce the velocity
of the run off and reduce it’s energy.
As part of this resubmittal, the applicant has proposed an alternative to the drainage plan (Sheet
SP-3) that pipe the run off to a point that is almost to the corner of the building foundation at 27
Gold Hill Grade. This alternative would push any run off that exits the closed system past the
corner of the building at 27 Gold Hill Grade. Again, staff does believe there is a nexus to require
this change and since this is a change to the downstream, property it should be addressed by
the two private parties.
At this point, the drainage plan is consistent with City standards to be designed to accommodate
a 100 year event, with both intensity and volume of post development run-off equal pre-
development levels. The Public Works Department has reviewed the drainage plan. In general,
they have found that the preliminary drainage plan is feasible and have found the preliminary
plan adequate for the planning phase of the project. During the building permit phase of this
project, Public Works will be examining the detail calculations and requiring the applicant to
address how water will be released into the creek during peak periods as well as clarifying all
aspects of the final drainage plan.
5. Work with the neighbor to install a 6 foot fence at the easement and plantings and show
those on the plans
Plans have been revised to relocate the proposed new fence between this site and the property
to the front (27 Gold Hill Grade) along the edge of the easement line and not the property line.
(Shown on Sheets SP-1.1, SP-2 and SP-3).
Analysis
By the moving of the proposed new fence to the edge of the easement line, rather than along the
property line, the area identified as the landscaping, drainage and scenic easement would now
be on the other side of the new fence (from 31 Gold Hill Grade) , thereby appearing to be on the
land of 27 Gold Hill Grade. The owners of 27 Gold Hill Grade have indicated to the applicant that
they wish to maintain the bamboo material in the scenic easement area and the easement
language allows them to control the plan the scenic easement with plant of their choice. Staff
believes that this recommendation has been addressed.
6. Revisit the materials proposed to ensure that they are buildable and consistent with WUI
requirements. Eliminate all the chimney's if not required by the building code.
Proposed building materials have been changes form cedar siding to Hardi-plank. The proposed
Hardi-plans would be painted and the color is a tan color (Richmond Gold). Trim color was also
modified a more muted color (Alpaca). Lastly, the roof color was changed from blank to brown
(Cedar Shake). A revised color and material board will be presented at the meeting. In addition,
the two chimney’s previously proposed have been eliminated. These were previously on the roof
over the front elevation.
Analysis
It appears that the revisions have addressed the Board’s comments and recommendations.
7
7. Landscaping recommendation - Change species from all fruit trees to screening type
trees. Proposed tree at the east side should be changed
The only change to the landscape plan was the changing of the two trees along the eastern
property line (at the driveway) from Privet to Arbutus Marina. The applicant has addressed their
proposal to maintain a fruit tree heavy landscape palette as a means to harvest the fruit for their
use. The image of the proposed Arbutus Marina is attached at the end of Exhibit 4.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of this meeting as well as all previous meetings was posted on site and mailed to the surrounding
residents and property owners within 300 feet, as well as the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood
and Gold Hill Grade Neighborhood Associations, 15 days prior to this and all prior Design Review Board
meeting. Story poles are erected to reflect the proposed design. As of the reproduction of this staff
report, staff has not received any new written comments. Any comments received after the staff report is
reproduced will be forward to the Board prior to the meeting.
Prior to the first DRB meeting, staff had received written and oral comments from the resident/owners of
the property to the front of this site (27 Gold Hill Grade) as well as written comments from the resident of
the property to the east (51 Gold Hill Grade). These letters cited concern with drainage from the site,
location of the structure being too close, privacy, mass of the structure, and windows facing their
properties. Prior to the second DRB meeting, staff received both written and oral comments from the
resident/owners of the 27 Gold Hill grade. These letters cited concern with drainage, privacy impacts on
their studio unit from the deck and west facing windows; type of planting proposed in the landscape
easement area and the location of the proposed new 6’ fence between the two properties.
At the time of the preparation of this staff report, no new correspondence has been received. Any
correspondence received will be forwarded to the Board.
CONCLUSION
The revised plans appear to address most of the Board’ November 8th recommendations, with the
exception of the stepping back of the eastern part of the upper floor and pushing back of the deck (off
the master bedroom on the upper level) on the west side. However, Staff finds that the project as
designed for this location would substantially comply with the hillside design criteria, zoning regulations
and General Plan policies, with conditions. Staff also continues to find that the architecture and massing
are adequate for this site and it’s surroundings.
The Board is asked to provide their recommendation on the project revisions and whether the
modifications have addressed their previous comments. Following a positive recommendation by the
Board, this matter will be scheduled for a Zoning Administrator hearing for final action.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Letter from George Mann, applicant, June 30, 2011
3. Proposed Lighting Fixture Cut Sheets
4. Proposed Landscape Plant Images
¾ Revised Project Plans (Full-sized and 11”x17” plans have been provided to the DRB members only).
¾ Superseded Project Plans Reviewed by DRB on November 8th (11 x 17” plans distributed to DRB
members only)
cc: Stephen Charlip
Stephen Charlip Architect
104 5th St
Petaluma, CA 94952
George Mann
78 Rafael Dr
San Rafael, CA 94901
8
Christa Quinn
51 Gold Hill grade
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dominican/Black Canyon NA
PO Box 151702
San Rafael, CA 94915-1702
Gold Hill Grade HOA
Jack Nixon, President
301 Locust Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Mary and Gary Coman
27 Gold Hill Grade,
San Rafael, CA 94901