Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2012-09-05 #3 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: September 5, 2012 Case Numbers: ED11-048 Project Planner: Steve Stafford – (415) 458-5048 REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 69 Graceland Drive – Request for an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the construction of a new, 3,536 square foot, single-family residence and associated site and landscaping improvements on a vacant, 10,919 square foot, hillside infill parcel. The project includes a request for a 5’ side yard setback reduction, where a minimum of 10’ is required; APN: 011-084-29; Single-Family Residential (R10) District; Frank Gutierrez, Applicant; Pedro Jaramillo, Owner; Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood. PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: Low Density Residential (LDR) R10 Vacant Infill Parcel North: LDR R5 Single-Family Residence South: Parks Parks/Open Space Boyd Park East: LDR R10 Single-Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single-Family Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Lot Coverage Required: 10,000 sf Proposed: 10,919 sf (existing) Allow: 4,367.6 sf; 40% of lot Proposed: 2,422.8 sf; 22.2% Height1 Natural State Allowed: 30’ Proposed: 27’ 7” Required: 6,333 sf (58% of lot) Proposed: 6,341.2 sf Parking Gross Building Square Footage Required: 2 covered Proposed: 2 covered Allowed: 3,592 sf (2,500 sf + 10% of lot size) Proposed: 3,536 sf Setbacks Required Proposed2 Front: 20’ 40’ 9” Sides: 10’ 15’ (west); 5’(east) Rear: 10’ 38’ Grading Tree Removal Total: 460 cu. yd. Total: None Cut: 415 cu. yd. Fill: 45 cu. yd. Off-Haul: 370 cu. yd. 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. The project proposes a 5’ side yard setback reduction as allowed by the hillside development standards. See body of staff report for detailed discussion of project compliance and/or any issues with non-compliance. 2 SUMMARY The project is being referred to the Board for review of proposed site and design improvements for the development of a new single-family hillside residence on a vacant infill parcel. The project also requires the Board’s recommendation on a proposed side yard setback reduction. The Board’s recommendations will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately addresses the applicable criteria; however, Staff requests that the Board review this report and provide a recommendation on compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • Whether the proposed 5’ side yard setback reduction is appropriate in minimizing the impact on hillside development and grading. • Whether the proposed 41.5’ front yard setback is appropriate given the unique, trapezoidal lot shape and the applicant’s dual intent to minimize grading and to voluntarily provide a ‘hillside’ parking area. • Whether the proposed 29.5’ driveway width is appropriate to voluntarily provide a ‘hillside’ parking area. Architecture • Whether the proposed Spanish-inspired architectural design, including the proposed turret feature, adequately relates to the existing development in the vicinity of the site. Materials and Colors • Whether the proposed exterior stucco materials and earthtone colors are high-quality, appropriate for the proposed Spanish-inspired architectural design, and complementary. Retaining Walls • Whether the proposed 5’-tall front retaining wall is appropriate given its 15’ length. Landscaping • Whether the proposed site landscaping, in terms of the plant type or species, number and location, is appropriate. BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting: The site is a vacant infill parcel, located within the built-out Graceland Park Unit One subdivision, along the eastern flanks of Puerto Suello Hill, in the Lincoln-San Rafael Hill neighborhood. It is the only undeveloped lot with the 21-lot subdivision, which was created in 1961 and subsequently developed with 2,500 – 3,000 square foot, single-family residences over the next two decades. The site is a 10,919 square foot, hillside parcel with an approximate 33% cross-slope, which is west-to-east trending from the adjacent parcel, 73 Graceland Drive. This difference in grade creates a relatively gradual graded building pad, which is approximately ten feet (10’) below that of the neighboring property. The site backs up to, and has direct access to, the uplands, open space portion of Boyd Park. It is predominantly open grassland area with five (5) mature trees located along the rear property line. A 20’ radial anchor easement, for an existing utility pole, is located along the frontage, at the apex of the front and eastern side property lines. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Plan: The project proposes to construct a new, 3,536 square foot, two-story, single-family residence. The project proposes a 41.5’ front yard setback, where a minimum 20’ is required. The project also proposes to encroach five feet (5’) into the 10’ required eastern side yard setback, while 3 providing a 15’ western side yard setback. This proposed setback reduction requires the Board’s recommendation, under the hillside property development standards. Floor Plan: The project proposes a bi-level first floor plan; a 1,045 sq. ft. “family room/kitchen/dining room” area is located or steps up 2’ 8” above the 425 sq. ft. “garage/foyer”. A cylinder staircase or turret provides connection between the “garage/foyer” areas on the first floor to the 2,066 sq. ft. second floor. Architecture: The project proposes a Spanish-inspired architectural design that includes a “beige” stucco textured exterior with “white” trim and low-slope (4”-in12” pitch) roof forms with “red” cupped roof tiles. It also features a two-story cylinder staircase or turret located immediately east of the “foyer’ entry. A Material and Color Board will be provided by the applicant during the Board’s hearing. Landscaping: The project proposes new site landscaping, between the single-family residence and the street front. This new landscaping includes two (2) Manzanita trees and a mixture of 15 shrubs; all listed on Appendix B (Plant Selection Guide) of San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines. The project proposes to preserve the five (5) existing trees (3 Live Oak trees, 5-17”-dia., and 2 Pine trees, 5”-dia.) located along the rear property line, adjacent to the City-owned open space. Grading: The project proposes an estimated 470 cu. yd. of site grading. This earthwork includes 415 cu. yd. of excavation or ‘cut’ and 45 cu. yd. of ‘fill’, with 370 cu. yd. exported off-site as ‘off-haul’. Retaining Walls: The project proposes three (3) exposed retaining walls: two (2) retaining walls located between the residence and the street front and one (1) retaining wall located between the residence and the rear property line. Of the two ‘front’ retaining walls, one is proposed to be located along the western elevation of the driveway to stabilize slope excavation. It is proposed to be 5’ in height from the garage for approximately 15’ towards the street front then tapering down over the next 11’, where it would terminate at-grade. It would end 15.5’ from the front property line. The other ‘front’ retaining wall is proposed within the eastern side yard setback, adjacent to the turret feature. It is proposed to be one-foot (1’) in height and extend approximately 10.5’ towards the front property line where it would terminate at-grade. The ‘rear’ retaining wall is proposed to be located along the western elevation of the patio to stabilize slope excavation. It is proposed to be 4’ 9” in height and extend 10’ towards the rear property line where ii would return towards the eastern side property line and terminate at finished grade. Drainage: The project proposes a catch basin drainage system that diverts the site’s storm water runoff around the building foundation with outlets either into a 180 cu. ft., retention/infiltration, located along the western elevation of the driveway within five feet (5’) of the front property line, or ‘daylighting’ through three (3), 3” curb drains, located along the eastern elevation of the driveway. Patio: The project proposes a 192 sq. ft. (20’ x 9.5’), uncovered concrete patio located to the rear of the second floor, with access limited to/from the “game room” area. ANALYSIS The project is subject to Environmental and Design Review Permit approval for the proposed new single-family hillside residential development on a vacant infill parcel and for the requested front setback reduction. The pertinent design-related General Plan policies, the property development standards of the Single-Family Residence (R10) District and the City’s Hillside Residential Design Standards and Guidelines are discussed below: General Plan 2020 Consistency: 4 The General Plan land use designation for the site is Low Density Residential (LDR). In accordance with Land Use Policy LU-23 (Land Use Map and Categories), the LDR designation allows for residential uses typical of single family densities (i.e., gross densities of 2 – 6.5 residential units/acre), similar to that which is proposed by the project. Also, the project’s proposed 27’ 7” building height is in accordance with Land Use Policy LU-12 (Building Height), which allows for a maximum of 30’. In accordance with Community Design Policy CD-15 (Participation in Project Review), staff has provided for effective community involvement in the review of this project by referring the project to the appropriate neighborhood group (Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association) early on and by providing notice of the Board’s hearing is in accordance with Community Design Policy CD-15 (Participation in Project Review). Staff requests the Board’s guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the following design-related General Plan Policies: • Housing Policy H-3 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context) strives to design new housing, remodels and additions to be compatible in form to the surrounding neighborhood by incorporating transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect the existing development character and privacy and to minimize the negative effects on adjacent properties. • Neighborhoods Policy NH-2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) strives to maintain and enhance the residential character of neighborhoods to make them desirable places to live by seeking to have new development: 1) Enhance the neighborhood image and quality of life; 2) Incorporate sensitive transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect adjacent development character and privacy; 3) Respect existing landforms and natural features; 4) Maintain or enhance infrastructure service levels; and 5) Provide adequate parking. • Community Design CD-3 (Neighborhoods) seeks to recognize, preserve and enhance the positive qualities that give neighborhoods their unique identities, while also allowing flexibility for innovative design. New development should respect the context and scale of existing neighborhoods. • CD-6a (Hillside Design Guidelines) seeks to implement hillside design guidelines through the design review process. • CD-13 (Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines) seeks to recognize, preserve and enhance the design elements that contribute to the livability of neighborhoods and their visual appearance. Recognize that each neighborhood is unique, and that design review must consider the distinct characteristics of individual neighborhoods. New development should fit within and improves the character-defining elements of the neighborhoods. • CD-18 (Landscaping) recognizes landscaping as a significant component of all site design. Staff’s Comments. Staff believes the site is a challenging in-fill site, based on its unique shape and topography. It is trapezoidal parcel lot dimensions, where the length of the front property line is half that of the rear property line. In addition, steep slopes characterize the entire western side property line. These site challenges are the basis for the applicant to propose a site design with a 41.5’ front yard setback, where a minimum of 20’ is required, and a 5’ eastern side yard setback, where a minimum of 10’ is required. Staff believes that the project is consistent with all applicable design-related General Plan policies. Staff requests direction from the Board on the whether the proposed project meets these applicable General Plan policies. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: Chapter 4 – Property Development Standards; Residential Districts (R10 District) 5 The project is subject to the development standards for the Single-Family Residential (R10) District, pursuant to Chapter 4 (Section 14.04.040) of the San Rafael Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance). Those property development standards applicable to the project are identified in the Site Development Summary matrix located on the front of this report. Staff’s Comments. As designed, staff believes the proposed project would comply with all applicable property development standards for the R10 District, including maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum yard setbacks, with the exception of the eastern side yard setback. The proposed 5’ eastern side yard setback requires the approval of a setback reduction through an Environmental and Design Review Permit, with the recommendation by the Board. The project proposes a 41.5’ front yard setback, where a minimum of 20’ is required, in order to best fit the building design to the shape of the parcel with the overall goal of reducing the grading required. The shape of the lot is trapezoidal, where the length of the front property line is half that of the rear property line. In addition, the site is characterized as ‘hillside,’ principally, for the steep slopes which dominate the entire western side property line. Chapter 12 – Property Development Standards; Hillside Development Overlay (-H) District The project is also subject to the hillside development standards, pursuant to Chapter 12 (Section 14.12.020) of the Zoning Ordinance, given that; the average cross-slope on the site is greater than 25%. As noted in the Site Development Summary matrix located on the front of this report and the attached Hillside Development Compliance Checklist (Exhibit 3), the proposed project meets the hillside property development standards, including maximum building height and gross building square footage, and minimum ‘Natural State’ requirements. The prohibition to ridgeline development is not applicable since the proposed project is not located within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant ridgeline. Graceland Drive, along the frontage of the site, is not a substandard street; the proposed project is not required to provide two (2) additional on-site parking spaces (see discussion below on Parking Standards. Setback Waiver The hillside development standards allow a setback reduction for encroachment of structures up to one-half of the required yard, subject to Environmental and Design Review Permit approval and recommendation by the Board that the decrease minimizes the negative impacts of hillside development and grading. Further, any reduction in setback is required to be compensated by increasing the opposing setback by the same encroachment. The granting of a side yard setback waiver for the project would result in a required eastern side yard setback of 5’, where a minimum of 10’ is required, and an opposite western side yard setback of 15’ (10’ minimum side yard setback plus an additional 5’ transferred from the opposite side yard setback). Staff’s Comments. Staff recommends that the eastern side yard setback reduction is appropriate, given that; it would avoid the need for additional grading on the site. Steep slopes (characterize the entire western side property boundary on the site. One of the purposes of the hillside development standards is to preserve natural hillside features. The proposed location of the project on the site reduces the height and visual bulk of exposed retaining walls, particularly the retaining wall located along the western (upslope) elevation of the driveway. This is the only proposed retaining wall visible from Graceland Drive. As designed, it is proposed to be 5’ in height from the garage for approximately 15’ towards the street front then tapering down over the next 11’, where it would terminate at-grade 15.5’ from the front property line. If the proposed project were to meet the required 10’ side yard setbacks, this retaining wall would increase in height 1-2’. Staff requests the Board’s comments on the following: 6 • Whether the proposed 5’ side yard setback minimizes the impact on hillside development and grading and, therefore, a setback waiver should be granted for the project. ‘Stepback’ Encroachment The hillside development standards also limits the building height of wall planes to a maximum of 20’, as measured from existing grade, within 15’ of the maximum building envelope or the required setback lines, along both street front and side elevations and downslope elevations. The intent of this building ‘stepback’ requirement is to avoid excessive building bulk on hillsides. To allow for design flexibility; however, an encroachment into the street front, street side and interior side building ‘stepback’ is permitted for up to 25% of the building length. No portion of the project is located within the ‘stepback’ zone along the street front. The entire western (upslope) elevation of the proposed single-family structure is located within the ‘stepback’ zone and meets the maximum 20’ building height. Similarly, the entire length of the proposed single-family residence, or 57’ 7” of structure, is proposed to be located within the ‘stepback’ zone along the eastern (downslope) elevation. All portions of the project, located within the ‘stepback’ zone along the eastern (downslope) elevation, are proposed to meet the maximum 20’ building height with the exception of the cylinder staircase or turret. This architectural feature is 27’ 3” in height for 11’ 7” within the ‘stepback’ zone along the eastern (downslope) elevation or 20% of the allowable ‘stepback’ encroachment. The maximum allowable encroachment into this ‘stepback’ zone is 14’ 4” or 25% of the length (57’ 7”) of the proposed single-family residence located within the ‘stepback’ zone along the eastern (downslope) elevation (See Sheet A3.0 of the project plans; Building Stepback/Stepback Plan). Staff’s Comments. Staff recommends that the proposed project would comply with the 25% building ‘stepback’ encroachment allowance. Only the cylinder staircase or turret, an architectural feature integral to the proposed Spanish-inspired design of the project, would exceed the maximum 20’ building height within any portion of the ‘stepback’ zone. Chapter 18 – Parking Standards The project is required to provide two (2) covered parking spaces for the proposed new single-family residence, pursuant to Section 14.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. These covered parking spaces are required to meet minimum dimensions. The hillside development standards requires two (2) additional on-site parking spaces, which does not apply to the proposed project, given that Graceland Drive is more than 26’-wide along the frontage of the site. The proposed design of the driveway shall have a maximum allowable grade slope of less than18%, though all driveway grades are subject to review by the City Engineer. Staff’s Comments. As designed, staff recommends that the proposed project would comply with all applicable parking standards. The proposed building design includes a two-vehicle garage which provides the minimum 20’ x 20’ dimensions. No additional on-site ‘hillside’ parking spaces are required, given that; Graceland Drive is 26’-wide along the site frontage. However, the project proposes a 29.5’- wide driveway which, while not required, will provide additional on-site parking opportunities. The proposed design of the driveway will have a predominant average slope of 13.2%; it will be slightly less (8.1% slope) along the western elevation of the driveway and it will be slightly more (12.7-16.2%) along the eastern elevation of the driveway. It will have an average cross-slope of 14.8%. The project proposes to shift the existing 20’-wide ‘faired’ curb cut approximately eight feet (8’) to the east to align with the location of the proposed driveway and the sidewalk/curbing would be reinstalled. Staff requests the Board’s comments on the following: 7 • Whether the proposed 29.5’ driveway width is appropriate given the project proposes to voluntarily provide a ‘hillside’ parking area. Chapter 25 – Environmental and Design Review Permit The project is subject to the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, pursuant to Section 14.25.050 (Review criteria; Environmental and Design Review Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows: • Site Design. There should be harmonious relationship between the proposed building and site development, and with existing development in the vicinity. Major views of the San Pablo Bay, wetlands, bay frontage, the San Rafael Canal, Mt. Tamalpais and surrounding hillsides should be preserved from public streets and public vantage points. Site design should respect site features and recognize site constraints by minimizing grading and removal of natural vegetation. • Architecture. The project architecture should be harmoniously integrated in relation to the architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design. Design elements and approaches which are encouraged include: a) creation of a sense of building entry; b) variation in building placement and height; c) bedrooms and decks oriented away from high noise sources; and d) equal attention to design given to all facades in sensitive location. • Materials and colors. There must be consistent organization and balanced relationship of materials and colors. Exterior finishes should be consistent with the context of the surrounding area. Color selection shall coordinate with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding landscape and architecture. High-quality building materials are required. Natural materials and colors in the earth tone and wood tone range are generally preferred. Concrete surfaces should be colored, textured, sculptured, and/or patterned to serve design as well as a structural function. • Upper-Story Windows. Upper-story windows facing the rear yard shall not significantly affect (e.g. unfiltered and direct views from a primary living area into a primary living room, bedroom or backyard recreation area) the privacy of adjacent residences. Upper-story windows facing the side yard shall be oriented so as not to have a direct line-of-sight into windows, balconies or similar openings of adjacent residences. Upper-story windows facing the front yard are encouraged. • Neighborhood Compatibility. Where a prevailing design exists on both sides of the street for the length of the block, the project shall be designed to be compatible with the design character and scale of the neighborhood buildings. • Landscape Design. Landscaping shall be designed as an integral enhancement of the site and existing tree shall be preserved as much as possible. Water-conserving landscape design shall be required. Staff’s Comments. This is an in-fill development project; it is the only undeveloped lot with the original 21-lot subdivision created in 1961 and subsequently developed with 2,500 – 3,000 sq. ft., single-family residences over the next two decades. Consequently, the surrounding residences in the neighboring vicinity of the site were designed pre-Hillside Design Guidelines. A wide variety of architectural styles are found in the neighborhood, including Spanish-inspired design similar to the project. Staff recommends that the predominant design features of the neighborhood are more generalized, such as multi-story buildings with low-slope (“4-in-12” pitch) form with large windows along the frontage. The proposed, 3,536 sq. ft. single-family residence generally appears to be in scale with the existing, multi- story, single-family residences in the surrounding Graceland Park neighborhood. The proposed setback reduction, located within the eastern side yard setback area, respects the natural site features, in which steep slopes characterize the entire western side property line, by 8 minimizing site grading. Staff recommends that the proposed cylinder staircase or turret is a prominent design feature of the project which helps create a sense of entry for the single-family residence. The proposed textured materials and earthtone colors of the project, including the building exterior and front retaining wall, the roof tiles and the concrete driveway, all coordinate within a Spanish-inspired architectural design, though the proposed ‘red’ color values may not complement the predominant earthtone/woodtone values of the natural hillside landscape on-site. In addition, staff recommends that, due to changes in graded building pad elevations between the site and the immediately adjacent properties, side-facing upper-story windows proposed by the project do not create a direct line-of-sight into windows or similar openings at either 65 or 73 Graceland Drive. Due to limits on natural state disturbance on the site, the project proposes site landscaping which is limited to areas on both sides of the driveway, between the single-family residence and Graceland Drive. Staff requests the Board’s comments on the following: • Whether the proposed Spanish-inspired architectural design, including the proposed turret feature, adequately relates to the existing development in the vicinity of the site. • Whether the proposed exterior stucco materials and earthtone colors are high-quality, appropriate for the proposed Spanish-inspired architectural design, and complementary. • Whether the proposed site landscaping, in terms of the plant type or species, number and location, is appropriate. San Rafael Design Guidelines: On November 15, 2004, the City Council adopted (by Resolution No. 11667) the interim San Rafael Design Guidelines to give the City staff direction in the design of new development in accordance with the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Community Design Element’s implementing programs. These guidelines provide a framework of design principals that builds on the strength of the existing character of an area and that strives to improve the visual unity of the area. Planning staff requests the Board’s guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the following applicable Residential Design Guidelines: Building Design • Where there is an existing pattern, particular attention should be given to maintaining a consistent streetscape. • All building facades should be varied and articulated. Long monotonous walls should be avoided. • Attention should be paid to the street- and Canal-front facades of buildings by incorporating similar materials and details. Scale • Where necessary to replicate existing patterns or character of development, design techniques should be used to break up the volume of larger buildings into smaller units. For example, a building can be articulated through architectural features, setbacks and varying rooflines to appear more as an aggregation of smaller building components. • Transitional elements, such as stepped facades, roof decks and architectural details that help merge larger buildings into an existing neighborhood should be used. Building Height • Adjacent buildings should be considered and transitional elements included to minimize apparent height differences. 9 Roof Shapes • Where possible, relate new roof form to those found in the area. Building Entrances • There should be a clear, well-defined sense of entry from the street to the building. • Examples of elements that can be used to define the primary entrance and to further define the street facade are a usable front porch or verandas, an overhead trellis canopy, or other similar feature. Windows • The placement and size of windows in the building should be consistent with the overall building design and the neighborhood streetscape. Where windows do not reflect an existing pattern, greater attention should be paid to other means such as balcony overhangs, porches, materials, colors, etc. of articulating the façade. • Window proportions should be consistent with the proportions of the building and with other windows on the building. • Windows should overlook the street, parking and public areas to permit surveillance and increased safety. • Window placement along rear and side elevations should consider privacy needs of adjacent neighbors. Driveways and Parking Areas • Driveway cuts and widths should be minimized, in compliance with zoning. • Minimize large paved areas, for example by using alternative materials (i.e., turf block, stamped concrete or pavers). Front Landscaping and Fences • Landscaped front yards should contribute to the overall visual quality of the neighborhood and to create a strong landscaped character for the site. • Landscaped areas adjacent to sidewalks are encouraged. Staff’s Comments. Staff has no additional issues or concerns with the site and building design of the project beyond those listed elsewhere in staff’s report. Hillside Design Guidelines The project is also subject to the Hillside Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to provide a guiding framework of design principals that builds on the unique challenges that often accompany hillside development. These guidelines are recommendations intended to measure overall design quality and to insure high-quality projects. The proposed project’s compliance with these pertinent hillside residential design guidelines is summarized in the attached Hillside Design Guidelines Compliance Checklist (Exhibit 3). Staff’s Comments: Staff recommends that the proposed design of the project generally displays sensitivity to the unique hillside setting. The proposed setback reduction respects the natural site features, steep slopes which characterize the entire western side property line, by minimizing site grading. The project proposes to retain the five (5) existing mature trees on the site, including three (3) Live Oak trees (5-17”-dia.). All grading is limited to within the footprint of the proposed single-family residence and between the structure and the street. The project proposes a subsurface drainage system to divert storm water runoff away from the building foundation to a retention/infiltration basin (upslope drainage) or to curb drains (downslope drainage). Retaining Wall Height 10 Retaining walls, visible from public right-of-ways and vantage points, are restricted in height to four feet (4’) on upslopes. The project proposes three (3) retaining walls. Two (2) of these proposed retaining walls would be partially located with setbacks areas; however those portions of the retaining walls, located within the setbacks, would be under three feet (3’) in height and, therefore, would not be subject to setback requirements. Only one proposed retaining wall would be visible from Graceland Drive. As designed, it is proposed to be 5’ in height from the garage for approximately 15’ towards the street front then tapering down over the next 11’, where it would terminate at-grade 15.5’ from the front property line. If the requested setback waiver was not approved and the proposed project were to meet the required 10’ side yard setbacks, this retaining wall would increase in height 1-2’; however, if the project was required to meet the minimum 20’ front yard setback only and not allowed to voluntarily provide additional hillside parking spaces, this retaining wall would decrease in height 2-3’. Staff requests the Board’s comments on the following: • Whether the proposed 5’-tall front retaining wall is appropriate given its 15’ length. Impervious Surfaces Impervious surfaces should be minimized. The project proposes a 41.5’ front yard setback, where a minimum of 20’ is required, with the intent to best fit the building design within the trapezoidal-shaped parcel with the overall goals of reducing grading and voluntarily provide for ‘hillside’ parking. Staff requests the Board’s comments on the following: • Whether the proposed 41.5’ front yard setback is appropriate given the unique, trapezoidal lot shape and the applicant’s dual intent to minimize grading and to voluntarily provide a ‘hillside’ parking area. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject site, the appropriate neighborhood groups (the Lincoln – San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association), and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Additionally, notice was posted on the site along the Graceland Drive frontage. At the time the staff report was printed, staff received four (4) comments of concern on the project: two (2) written comments and two (2) verbal comments. N. Arthur Astor, a neighborhood property owner (77 Graceland Drive), expressed written opposition to the 3,536 sq. ft. size of the proposed residence and the proposed setback reduction. Mr. Astor advocates the redesign of the project to reduce the scale of the project and eliminate the proposed setback reduction. Mr. Astor also believes the project will increase traffic and parking impacts in the neighborhood. Bob Ellis, Clint Wright, Mark Verwiel and Tim Cogswell, neighborhood property owners (57, 65, 68 and 73 Graceland Drive, respectively), together provided email comments requesting that any single-family residence constructed on the site utilize a pier and beam foundation system, without exception or alternative. Mr. Ellis provided staff with a faxed copy of a geotechnical investigation report on the site, commissioned by a previous owner, prepared by Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers, dated December 5, 2005. The geotechnical report recommended a drilled pier and beam foundation for the development of the site with a single-family residence. A Geotechnical Investigation Report by Friar Associates, Inc., dated January 2011, was submitted with this project and also recommends a pier and beam foundation system. The Friar report; however, also states that the project may be supported by a 11 shallow, footing-type foundation provided that excavation for the proposed building pad will be done to create a level building pad. Lana Hooker-Smiley, a neighborhood property owner (109 Graceland Drive), provided verbal comments concerned that the proposed setback reduction would allow for a larger single-family residence then allowed under development standards for the site. Ms. Hooker-Smiley is also concerned that the proposed setback reduction would increase the fire danger in the neighborhood by allowing the project to be located five feet (5’) closer to the adjacent single-family residence (65 Graceland Dr.) then allowed by the setback requirements. Nicole Cogswell, a neighborhood property owner (73 Graceland Drive) and her father in-law, Clark Cogswell, a structural engineer from Florida, met with staff and expressed concern with the lack of foundation details on the project plans, given that; the Friar report provides two different foundation system options. Mr. Cogswell is concerned that the civil drawings show proposed grading limited to the building footprint which appears to imply a pier and beam foundation system. Mr. Cogswell commented; however, that boring samples in the Friar report indicate the site is underlain with 3-4’ of sandy material, in which the “angle of repose” will require a considerably larger graded area than shown on the grading plan. Mr. Cogswell is concerned of subsurface creep or sliding occurring during earthquakes after excavation on the site. Staff’s Comments: The geotechnical investigation report submitted with the proposed project was prepared by Friar Associates, Inc., consulting engineers in soils, geotechnical, foundations and geology. The Friar report is prepared by John H. Friar, a registered professional civil engineer, with a current licensed to practice in the State of California. The Friar report is wet-stamped and signed by John Friar. Staff has no reason to question its conclusions and recommendations. The City Engineer has reviewed the project submittals, including the Friar report, and recommend approval of the project. In light of these comments concerning the appropriate foundation for the proposed project, staff requested the City Engineer to evaluate the Friar report for consistency with standard practices. At the time staff’s report was printed, the City Engineer was continuing his evaluation. However, staff recommends that the type of appropriate foundation for the propose project would not affect the design of the building or site; it would not affect the Board’s ability to review the proposed project for ‘good’ design and its consistency with all applicable hillside development standards and guidelines. The site is located within a Wildland-Urban Interface very high severity fire zone, similar to the remaining as is the entire 21-unit, Graceland Park neighborhood. As such, each homeowner is required to maintain a 100’ defensible space around all structures by meeting vegetation management standards. The proposed project has been reviewed by the Building Division and Fire Prevention Bureau who have recommended conditional approval. One of their recommend conditions is that the owner submits a Vegetation Management Plan to the San Rafael Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. The site is an in-fill parcel; it is the only undeveloped lot with the original 21-lot subdivision (“Graceland Park Unit One”) created in 1961. Prior to building permit issuance, the owner will be required to pay all impact fees associated with the development of the site, including traffic mitigation fees. The intent of traffic mitigation fees is to collected fees to compensate for impacts of new traffic generated by a development on the City’s street system. Funds are used for citywide traffic improvements. The proposed project has been reviewed by the Public Works Department who have recommended conditional approval. One of their recommend conditions is that the owner pay traffic mitigation fees for two (2) AM peak hour trips and two (2) PM peak hour trips (currently, $16,984). Staff recommends that the proposed project would comply with all applicable parking standards. The proposed building design includes a two-vehicle garage which provides the minimum 20’ x 20’ dimensions. No additional on-site ‘hillside’ parking spaces are required, given that; Graceland Drive is 26’-wide along the site frontage. However, the proposed site design includes a 29.5’-wide driveway which, while not required, will provide additional on-site parking opportunities. 12 Copies of all written comments on the project are attached to this report as Exhibit 3. CONCLUSION Staff requests the Board’s recommendations to the Zoning Administrator on whether the project should be granted a reduction in the minimum required side yard setback to 5’ where 10’ is required. Staff also requests the Board’s comments on the design-related issues identified earlier in staff’s report. In addition, staff welcomes the Board’s guidance on the any site or building design details that would further improve the project. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced Project Plans 3. Hillside Residential Design Guidelines Compliance Checklist 4. Public Comments Full-sized plans have been provided to the Board members only. cc: Frank Gutierrez – Gutierrez Design Consultants; 42723 Newport Dr.; Fremont, CA 94538 Pedro Jaramillo – 564 Wetland Edge Rd.; American Canyon, CA 94503 Lincoln – San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Assoc. – Kay Karchevski; 42 Hillcrest Dr.; San Rafael, CA 94901 N. Norman Astor – 77 Graceland Dr.; San Rafael, CA 94901 Bob Ellis – 57 Graceland Dr.; San Rafael, CA 94901 Clint Wright – 65 Graceland Dr.; San Rafael, CA 94901 Mark Verwiel – 68 Graceland Dr.; San Rafael, CA 94901 Tom Cogswell – 73 Graceland Dr.; San Rafael, CA 94901 Lana Hooker-Smiley – 109 Graceland Dr.; San Rafael, CA 94901