HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2014-09-16 #2CITY OF
iy Meeting Date: September 16, 2014
Case Numbers: CDR14-007
Project Planner: Raffi Boloyan— (415) 485-3095
Community Development Department — Planning Division
Agenda Item:
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 190 EI Cerrito Ave (Untermann Single Family Home) - Conceptual Design Review Permit
for the design of a new multi -story single-family residence on a vacant 3 -acre hillside lot. The
existing 6+ acre site was previously approved for subdivision into two lots on June 4, 2012
and conditioned to require Design Review for the development of the vacant lot. As a
Conceptual Design Review, the applicant is seeking preliminary feedback from the DRB on
their preliminary site and building design;; APN: 011-121-10; Planned Development (PD1905-
H)Zoning District; Tom and Merrie Untermann, owners/applicants; File No(s).: CDR14-007.
PROPERTY FACTS
Location General Plan Designation
Project Site: Hillside Residential Resource
Lot Size
Required: 3.0 acres (130,680 sq ft)
Proposed: 3.0 acres (130,680 sq ft)
Height
Allowed: 30'
Proposed: <30'
Parking
Required: 2 covered + 2 uncovered
Proposed: 2 covered + 5 uncovered
Min. Lot Width (New lots)
Required: NA
Proposed: NA
Natural State
Required: Established by Building Envelope
Proposed: All disturbance within envelope
Grading
Total: Not calculated
Zoning Designation
Planned Development —
Hillside Overlay (PD1905-H)
PD 1729
Single Family Residential (R2a
and R7.5)
P/Q P
R7.5 and R20
Lot Coverage (Max.)
Standard: No restriction
Proposed: TBD
Residential Density
Allowed: 1 unit + 2 n unit
Proposed: 1 unit
Existing Land -Use
Vacant lot
Single family residences
Single family residences
Open space
Single Family Residences
Gross Building/Floor Area
Max Allowed: 6,500 sq ft
Proposed: 3,995 sq ft (house)
780 sq ft (garage + storage)
4,775 sq ft (total)
Setbacks
Required * Existing
Front: Not Req'd (N/R) N/A
Side(s): N/R N/A
Rear: N/R N/A
Tree Removal/Replanting
Total(No./Species): None
Proposed
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cut: TBD Proposed: 2 New Redwood trees + TBD
Fill: NA
Off -Haul: TBD
*PD established a building envelope and no additional setbacks are required for structures within
building envelope
(HRR)
North:
HRR
South:
HRR/Low Density Residential
(LDR)
East:
Public/Quasi Public (P/QP)
West:
LDR
Lot Size
Required: 3.0 acres (130,680 sq ft)
Proposed: 3.0 acres (130,680 sq ft)
Height
Allowed: 30'
Proposed: <30'
Parking
Required: 2 covered + 2 uncovered
Proposed: 2 covered + 5 uncovered
Min. Lot Width (New lots)
Required: NA
Proposed: NA
Natural State
Required: Established by Building Envelope
Proposed: All disturbance within envelope
Grading
Total: Not calculated
Zoning Designation
Planned Development —
Hillside Overlay (PD1905-H)
PD 1729
Single Family Residential (R2a
and R7.5)
P/Q P
R7.5 and R20
Lot Coverage (Max.)
Standard: No restriction
Proposed: TBD
Residential Density
Allowed: 1 unit + 2 n unit
Proposed: 1 unit
Existing Land -Use
Vacant lot
Single family residences
Single family residences
Open space
Single Family Residences
Gross Building/Floor Area
Max Allowed: 6,500 sq ft
Proposed: 3,995 sq ft (house)
780 sq ft (garage + storage)
4,775 sq ft (total)
Setbacks
Required * Existing
Front: Not Req'd (N/R) N/A
Side(s): N/R N/A
Rear: N/R N/A
Tree Removal/Replanting
Total(No./Species): None
Proposed
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cut: TBD Proposed: 2 New Redwood trees + TBD
Fill: NA
Off -Haul: TBD
*PD established a building envelope and no additional setbacks are required for structures within
building envelope
SUMMARY
The project is being referred to the Board for Conceptual Design Review of site and building design
improvements for a new single-family home on a vacant lot. The 3.0 -acre vacant lot was previously
created through the approval of a subdivision from a larger 6 -acre lot currently developed with a single
family home at 190 EI Cerrito Ave. The design of the proposed new single family home will be subject
to a formal Design Review Permit with review and recommendation by the Design Review Board and
approval by the Zoning Administrator. The applicant has elected to first submit for Conceptual Design
Review to receive feedback on the preliminary design approach, prior to formal submittal of zoning
entitlements. As proposed, the project appears to comply with all development standards for this
hillside site and PD zoning. Staff has determined that the design concept is generally consistent with
the Hillside Design Guidelines criteria and standards, identified in this report, with some areas that
warrant feedback from the DRB. The review criteria should be considered within the context of the site,
for which this site is located on a private driveway and in a bowl that has limited visibility from other
public property or adjacent private property.
Staff has requested comments on the following topics, in addition to any other design comments noted
at the Board meeting:
Roof design and building articulation and whether it is effective in minimizing massing
impacts on this site.
• Rooflines, roof form, slope and whether it is effective in achieving hillside character.
• Preliminary feedback on appropriate colors and materials for this hillside site. .
BACKGROUND
Site Description/Setting:
The project site is a part of a partially developed 6.24 -acre parcel containing one single family
home. The total gross acreage for the site is 7.15 -acres and includes 0.91 -acres of private
easement area used as roadway and is thus included in the overall lot size for the property. The
subject site borders City Open space to the west, a portion of the Academy Heights residential
subdivision to the north and single-family homes that front on Culloden Park Ave to the east.
The project site is currently zoned Planned Development —Hillside Overlay (PD1905-H) and
maintains a Hillside Residential Resource General Plan Land Use designation (0.2-.05 units/acre).
The majority of the properties surrounding this site are zoned single-family residences (R7.5, R20
and R2a). The site is located at the eastern edge of the Fairhills Neighborhood, just south east of
the former quarry that is currently developed as the Academy Heights subdivision.
The site exhibits steep hillside topography, with an elevation of 180 feet at the southeast corner of
the site (near end of Stewart Rd) and 360 feet at the northwestern edge of the site, uphill from the
single family home. The existing home is located at approximately the 275 foot elevation.
The average slope for this property is 40.57%. The ridge of the hillside to the rear of this property is
a visually significant ridgeline and the ridgeline is at approximately elevation 625 feet. The upper
corner (northeast) of the site is the highest elevation on the property and this point is nearly 200
feet below the ridgeline above.
The majority of the site, especially the upper hillside portion of the site, is characterized by native
oak woodland with species of Oak, Bay and Madrone trees. The lower portion of the site, the
portion where the proposed development would occur, exhibits a flat bench area and is absent any
trees or shrubs. Marin Municipal Water District owns a small portion in the center of the subject site
and has various easements to serve their water distribution system. In addition, a small drainage
channel runs north to south through the center of the site, near the MMWD facilities and collects
and conveys run off from the hillside above.
EI Cerrito Ave is a private roadway that extends north off Bryn Mawr Ave. EI Cerrito Ave. abuts the
subject site and then turns southward and snakes around the two adjacent properties, a single
family residence at 180 EI Cerrito Ave and another single family residence home (referred to as the
"castle") at 185 EI Cerrito Ave. EI Cerrito Ave then dead ends on the subject property. EI Cerrito
Ave is a private roadway that has common use amongst the three properties near the end of the
road. The structure at 185 EI Cerrito Ave, the "castle", is listed on the City's Architectural/Historic
Survey and is ranked as "exceptional"
The whole site is currently developed with a single-family home that was built in the early 1990's
and consists of approximately 4,800 sq ft of gross floor area. The existing structure exhibits a low
scale Mediterranean design. The southern and western portions of the site are encumbered by a
scenic restriction that prohibits the installation of any structures. The scenic restriction was placed
on those areas at the time of the original subdivision of this property in the late 1980's. The existing
home is located within a building envelope area designated for development of all structures. No
structures or development is currently allowed outside the building envelope. The location of the
proposed new parcel is on the western edge of the site, below and to the west of the existing single-
family home.
History:
In June 2011, the applicant submitted applications for Planned Development Rezoning, Tentative
Parcel Map and Major Design Review for the subdivision of a single, 6.24 -acre parcel into two lots; a
3.24 acre lot (Parcel Two) and 3.00 -acre lot (Parcel One). Parcel Two was to maintain the existing
single-family residence and associated ancillary structures. Parcel One was slated to be developed with
a new single-family residence, a detached second unit, driveway and parking areas and associated site
improvements. The newly created parcel (Parcel One) would gain access from a driveway off the
existing private road, EI Cerrito Ave, which is an approximately 16 -foot wide roadway. Access to the
existing parcel and single family home (Parcel Two) would continue to be provided by EI Cerrito Ave
further up the private street. The applications at that time included very conceptual site and massing
plans of a potential new structure on the proposed lot to demonstrate that a house could be built on the
lot given the proposed size and configuration of the lot.
The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project at their September 20, 2011 meeting. The video
of the actual proceedings from the meeting can be viewed at www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings by
clicking on the "video" link for the September 20, 2011 Design Review Board meeting.
By a vote of 4-0-1 (Member Huntsberry absent), the DRB unanimously recommended
approval of the project with one modification to the draft PD text. The Board supported the
project as presented, finding the lot layout, building envelope logical and appropriate for the
hillside site. The Board found that the applicant adequately demonstrated the new lot could
be developed in accordance with the hillside design guidelines and Hillside development
standards.
As part of its recommendation, the Board suggested that specific limited and defined
improvements should be allowed in the front of the property, between the front building
envelope and front property line. Staff incorporated the DRB recommendations into the Draft
PD text that was presented to the Planning Commission, consisting of additional language
and definition to section 2.F of the Draft PD to clarify the type and scope of improvements
that may be installed to the front of the building envelope.
The Planning Commission reviewed the project at its April 10, 2012 meeting. The video of the actual
proceedings from the meeting can be viewed at www.citVofsanrafael.org/meetings by clicking on the
"video" link for the April 10, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.
During their hearing, the Commission identified a single issue that warranted further
discussion, with regard to the PD revisions recommended by the DRB to allow certain
improvements outside the building envelope. The Commission's concern was that allowing
any sort of improvements outside the building envelope would lead to complete disturbance
of the area and might cause the natural state requirement to be exceeded. Therefore, the
Commission proposed further revisions to PD Section 2.F.5 , as follows:
25.5 The area between the front property line (street) and the front of the building
envelope may contain minor improvements essential for: 1) vehicular access and
parking; 2) pedestrian access; 3) residential services (i.e. postal mail, garbage
collection); and 4) needed utility and drainage facilities. The type, design and
appropriateness of any improvements on the frontage area shall be evaluated
and approved through the Design Review Permit process required for the
development of the single family home.
With this change Commission was satisfied with the adequacy of the project and adopted
three Resolutions recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, PD
Rezoning and Design Review Permit/Tentative Map applications to the City Council. One
Commissioner (Commissioner Paul) voted against the Resolutions related to the PD
Rezoning and Design Review Permit/Tentative Map applications since he thought the
flexibility that was contained in the language as previously recommended by the Board was
appropriate.
The City Council then reviewed the project at its June 2, 2012 meeting. The video of the actual
proceedings from the meeting can be viewed at www.citvofsanrafael.org/meetings by clicking on the
"video" link for the June 2, 2012 City Council meeting.
• The Council unanimously approved the project and adopted the Resolutions approving the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the planning applications and adopting the PD Rezoning
Ordinance as recommended by the Commission.
• One of the conditions of approval is that prior to development of a new single family home
on the new lot, the applicant must apply for and receive a Design Review Permit for the
design of the new home and site improvements .
Although the Tentative Map has been approved to allow the subdivision, the Recorded Map has not yet
been recorded. The applicant has submitted the required information to the Department of Public
Works for the recordation of the Map and it is in process to be recoreded. So, the subject property is
still not technically a separate lot, but should be in the next few months.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the development of a new, multi -story single family home and site improvements
on the recently approved lot. The conceptual plans show the new three-level structure would be placed
within the building envelope that was established by the Tentative Subdivision Map. The new structure
is proposed to be built on the steeper portion of building envelope, towards the rear of the envelope. A
future guest cottage is also illustrated on the plans, within the building envelope, but no specifics are
provided for this structure. A new access driveway from EI Cerrito Ave would curve up the hill the then
4
turn into the garage, which would be accessed from the east side of the new building. Two parking
pads, an upper and lower pad, are proposed that would accommodate 5 off-street vehicles. A
hammerhead is also proposed near the top of the driveway to allow for vehicles backing out of the
garage to turn and head back down the driveway in a forward manner.
The new structure is approximately 4,775 sq. ft. of gross building floor area, composed of the following:
Upper Level (living area and master bedroom) 2,198 sq ft
Lower Level (living area + garage + storage) 1,863 sq ft
Basement 714 sq ft
The conceptual plans do not specify any building materials, but in general, the concept illustrates a
stucco base, with combination of vertical and horizontal siding. The roof is generally a shed roof
concept, with a 12:1 pitch from the front of the structure down to the rear. The concept of the slight
reverse roof pitch is to maximize the window size on the southern elevation, which is the primary
viewshed from this site, towards Mt Tamalpias.
The structure is designed to generally step the upper floor back from the lower floor and basement
levels. The design proposed a shed roof form, that is higher at the front of the structure and slopes
down and toward the rear of the site. A "pop out" feature is proposed on the front elevation to host the
main interior staircase and elevator. The project includes a main upper level deck in front of the upper
level, which slightly cantilevers over the lower and basement floors of the structure.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The following policies are pertinent to the Boards review and comment on the project design concept:
➢ Land Use Element Policies LU -23 (Land Use Categories) and LU -8 (Density of Residential
Development) which allows development of a single family home in the HRR land use designation
and allows up to one single family home and a second unit on a lot of this size.
➢ Neighborhood Element Policy NH -100 (New Development) for the Fairhills Neighborhood states
that projects should retain the existing character of the neighborhood, including both historical
homes and the natural setting by Maintaining the authentic historic value and ambiance of the
neighborhood's older housing, assure that new development respect and enhance the character of
the shrouding housing; and protect hillside areas by clustering new development where appropriate
to maximize open space preservation and by carefully evaluating the location, size and height of
new structures, road design and adequacy for safety of vehicles, grading, structural foundations,
surface and sub soil drainage, excavation, earthfills and operations in order to avoid buildings which
are excessively visible or out of scale, soil erosion, scarring of the natural landscape , obstruction of
scenic vistas from public vantage points or loss of natural vegetation and wildlife habitat
➢ Community Design Element Policy CD -5 (Views). Respect and enhance to the greatest extent
possible, views of the Bay and its islands, Bay wetlands, St. Raphael's church bell tower,
Canalfront, marinas, Mt. Tamalpais, Marin Civic Center and hills and ridgelines from public streets,
parks and publicly accessible pathways.
➢ Community Design Element Policies CD -6 (Hillsides and Bay) which encourage the protection of
the visual identity of the hillsides and Bay by controlling development within hillside areas, providing
setbacks from the Bay, and providing public access along the Bay edge and implementation of the.
Hillside Design Guidelines.
5
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 7 - Planned Development District
Planned Development (PD) Zoning is required for hillside subdivisions. The PD District promotes
cluster development on large sites to avoid sensitive areas, and allows flexibility in property
development standards. The site, along with the adjacent 3.24 -acre single family property, are
designated as Planned Development — Hillside Overlay (PD1905-H)and the PD includes development
standards for this site. A copy of the PD zoning is attached as Exhibit 2. The following represents
analysis of the project's compliance with the PD standards
2a — Building Stepback. The proposed structure is not within 15 feet of the maximum building
envelope on the front or sides, therefore, the 20 ft height limit for single wall plane is not
applicable.
2.13 — Setbacks. All structures are within the building envelope, so no additional setbacks are
required
2.0 — Natural State. All areas within the building envelope may be disturbed, while no
disturbance is allowed outside the envelope and is to remain natural. Plans show that the
project is consistent with this standard
2.D — Minimum Lot area. Lot area complies with the 3.0 acre minimum required
2.E. — Building Envelope. The building envelope as designed is 43,560 sq ft, which equals the
amount of land area that would be allowed to be disturbed, based on the natural state
requirements. All structures shown are within the building envelope
2.F —Areas outside Building Envelope. No development is proposed outside the building
envelope. The PD allows certain exceptions for areas between the front property line and the
front of the building envelope, including vehicular access, pedestrian access, residential
services and utilities. At this time, only the access drive is proposed within this area, therefore
the project is consistent with this limitation
2.G — Gross floor area. This site is allowed up to 6,500 sq ft of gross floor area, and as
proposed, is at approximately 4,775 sq. ft.
2.H — Max Building Height. 30 ft is the maximum height limit, measured from existing grade to
upper most point of roof at all points on site. Plans are not exactly clear whether all points of the
structure meet the height limit, but it appears that is the intention and details will be needed to
verify.
2.1 — Parking. 2 Additional off-street parking is required in addition to the 2 covered spaces. The
project proposes 2 covered and 5 uncovered, satisfying the standard.
2.J — Landscaping. Required for the new lot and the plant palette is to be consistent with the
hillside guidelines. At this point, only new landscaping shown are 2 new Redwood trees along
the street front. Additional landscaping on the site to surround the structure will be required.
2.K — Tree Removal. The PD requires tree removal within the envelope to be kept to a
minimum. Plans do not show tree removal, but a site visit demonstrates that there would be 3-5
trees removed to accommodate the propose structure. Tree replacement of any significant trees
removed would be required at a ratio of 3:1, of at least 15 gallon size.
21. — Architecture. States that design of the future building shall be consistent with the hillside
guidelines and create interest in all building facade, incorporate energy efficient design and
utilize color and materials compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
In general, the project appears to be consistent with those development standards, including
Chapter 12 — Hillside Overlay Standards
The Hillside Overlay Standards establish certain development standards for hillside properties, and the
standards have been incorporated into the Planned Development District, as noted above
As designed, this project appears to be consistent with these standards and these standards have been
incorporated into the PD Standards. The conceptual plan demonstrates the required parking can be
provided on this substandard street. The natural state requirement for this site is 66 % (25% + 41 % avg
slope) and as designed, the building envelope encompasses one of the three acres of this site, thus
preserving 66% of the site as natural state. Lastly, the highest point of this property is more than 100
feet below the ridgeline, thus not subject to the ridgeline prohibition property (the highest point of site is
at elevation 360 ft and the ridgeline is elevation 620 ft).
Hillside Guidelines
In general, the project appears to be on track to be consistent with the Hillside Guidelines. As a
conceptual plan, the applicant is seeking preliminary feedback on the placement of the structure,
general design and mass of the structure, as they work on developing a more formal design submittal
for formal Design Review. There are many details that are unknown at this time of concept review
related to matters such as landscaping, specific building materials and colors, etc.
The following are some of the more pertinent areas of the design and placement of the structure that
warrant preliminary feedback from the Board, as it relates to the Hillside Design Guidelines. A checklist
with the project's consistency with the Hillside Design Guidelines is attached, as Exhibit 3. The
pertinent areas that warrant focus and comment from the Board include:
Section IVA.6 - Reduction of Rebuilding Bulk on Hillsides
The project proposes a shed rood, sloping down from the front of the structure to the back. This creates
a taller roof at the front of the structure, which could add to the mass and bulk of the structure. The
Board should evaluate the roof design and provide feedback.
The roof planes are predominantly made up of two equal elevations on the two sides, with the
staircase/elevator project hosting a lower roof.
The front elevation includes some varying wall planes on the upper level, that are pulled back from the
lower level and basement level. The upper level also includes a deck in front of the west side of the
building, over the lower floors. In addition, the staircase/elevator area projects out to the front of the
structure to provide some articulation.
• The Board is asked to review the roof design and building articulation and provide
feedback if it is effective in minimizing massing impacts on this site
Section IVA.6 — Hillside Architectural Character
Rooflines should be oriented in consideration of views from adjacent areas and properties. Given the
location of this site, in a bowl, and the size and location of the lot, the structure would have minimal
impact on adjacent properties.
Gabled, hip and shed roof forms with a moderated pitch are encouraged. Changes in roof form
accompanied with offsets in elevations are encouraged. Flat roofs with membranes or built up roofing
materials are discouraged when visible. The project proposes shed roofs that slope away from the
front, with the taller portion at the front elevation.
Building Materials, texture and color are encouraged to coordinate with the predominant colors and
values of the surrounding landscape. Building walls and roofs are of recommended materials. AT this
time, there are no specific materials or colors proposed, but the preliminary plans indicate the use of a
combination of stucco base and horizontal and vertical siding
The Board is asked to review the rooflines, roof form, slope and provide feedback if it
is effective in achieving hillside character.
The Board is asked to provide preliminary feedback on appropriate colors and
materials for this hillside site.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of the meeting was posted on-site and mailed to residents within a 300 feet radius of the site, the
adjacent Culloden/Quarry/Twin Oaks HOA and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods at least 15
days prior to the meeting date. To date, no comments have been received. Any comments received
after distribution of the staff report, will be forward to the Board under separate cover
CONCLUSION
Staff requests that the Board provide comments on the conceptual plan, and specifically address the
points listed in the Summary section. As part of the formal design review, additional details will be
required on the plans to address building materials/colors, drainage, site improvements, landscaping
and lighting
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Planned Development District Zoning Standards (PD 1905)
3. Hillside Guidelines Checklist
Full-sized plans have been provided to the DRB members only.
cc: Applicant
H.
Exhibit B
Untermann Land Division
Planned Development District _ Hillside Overlay
Purpose of Planned Development District - Hillside Overlay
The current Planned Development District — Hillside Overlay (PD -H) covers the
existing single family home and associated structures and site improvements on
a 6.24 acre lot, as well as allows the Subdivision of the parcel into one new
additional lot and creation of a single family home. The purpose of the proposed
PD -H for a future 1 single family residential unit is to regulate the development of
a 3.0+/- acre parcel at the end of EI Cerrito Avenue, The PD -H District zoning
classification will ensure the future development of the site is in accordance with
the provisions of the property development regulations. The intent of the PD -H
District is to accomplish the following:
A. To protect public health and safety by minimizing hazards;
B. To encourage preservation of natural hillside features;
C. To ensure adequate emergency access by providing on-site parking;
D. To implement the residential site design policies of the General Plan and
the Hillside Residential Design Guidelines Manual.
E. To allow in the future the addition of second units to the remaining and
proposed lots.
2. Development Standards
The PD --H shall be developed in conformance with the Hillside Design
Guidelines, and the development plans, associated drawings and reports
submitted with the PD as listed in the Exhibits and Reports sections and the
development standards set forth below.
A. Building Stepback
1. A 20' height limit measured from existing grade shall be observed
within all areas within 15' of the maximum building envelope limit.
2. To allow for design flexibility, an encroachment into the street front,
street side and interior side stepback is permitted along 25% of the
building length.
B. Building Setbacks
1. Setbacks shall meet City of San Rafael Hillside Development Overlay
District requirements.
2. Future buildings shall be built within the proposed building envelope,
and no additional setbacks shall be required.
Unlermann Land Division - Exhibit B -I
Planned Developmen( District- Hillside Overlap
3. The existing house and site improvements are built within the
proposed building envelope. The setback in the rear is shown as
zero since existing improvements extend to the property line. Future
improvements in this area will be subject to a 10' setback from the
property line.
C. Natural State
1. Everything outside of the proposed building envelope is to remain in
its natural state, except for frontage areas where street access is to
be located.
2. All areas within the proposed envelope can be disturbed pending City
approval.
3. Remaining lot is to remain as is.
D. Minimum Lot Area
1. Existing Lot is 6.24 acres,
2. Proposed Lots are 3.00 acres and 3.24 acres.
3. No further subdivision of parcels 'as shown on the Tentative Map, to
allow for the creation of additional building sites shall be permitted;
however, this does not preclude the minor adjustment of lot lines
between adjacent parcels.
E. Building Envelopes
1. Per City of San Rafael code, maximum building envelope size is
44,431 square feet (see attached Exhibit 'A' for calculations).
Building envelope proposed is approximately 43,560 square feet.
2, All structures shall be within the building envelopes, per 2. B.1 above.
3, Building Envelope of remaining parcel is 47,986 S.F.
F. Area Outside Building Envelopes
1, Except as noted in F.5, no development outside of building envelope
as shown on Sheet TM'l is being proposed.
2. No additional development within the remaining lot is being proposed
at this time.
3. All trees within this area shall be retained unless removed for health
or safety.
4. No structures, as defined in the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance, shall
be permitted in this area.
5. The area between the front property line (street) and the front of the
building envelope may contain minor improvements essential for; 1)
vehicular access and parking; 2) pedestrian access; 3) residential
services (i.e, postal mail, garbage collection); and 4) needed utility
and drainage facilities. The type, design and appropriateness of any
improvements on the frontage area shall be evaluated and approved
through the Design Review Permit process required for the
development of the single family home.
G. Gross Building Square Footage
1. The maximum permitted gross building square footage of all
structures will meet the requirement of Section '14.12.030(D).
U termann Lund Division — Exhibit B-2
Planned Development District- Hillside Overlay
2. Square footage of existing building footprint is 4,985 +/- square feet.
H. Maximum Building Height
1. Future building heights shall not exceed 30 feet as measured
vertically from the existing grade to the uppermost point of the roof
edge or peak, wall, parapet, mansard or other feature.
2. Chimneys are not included in height calculations.
3. Height of existing building is 18'±
Parking
1. Parking on remaining parcel allows for 2 additional spaces outside of
the drive apron.
2. Two (2) additional guest parking spaces shall be provided (outside
the driveway apron) as shown on Sheet TM1 and Sheet TM2 at time
of future development (preliminary proposal shows four (4) spaces
outside of the drive apron).
J. Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall remain as is for remaining lot.
2. Landscaping shall be required for future development.
3. Planting material shall be consistent with the Hillside Design
Guidelines and planting material contained in the Fire Hazard
Assessment.
K. Tree Removal
1. No trees are to be removed from the remaining lot per this submittal,
unless removed for health or safety.
2. Tree removal within the proposed building envelope shall be kept to a
minimum. Based on the proposed footprint approximately 3 trees
(being a 7" Oak, an 8" Oak, and a 14" Oak) would be removed.
3. Significant trees (any tree which is in good health and form and is
more than 12 inches in diameter as measured 4.5 feet above the root
crown) that are removed shall be replaced at a ratio of 3 new trees for
every tree removed. Minimum tree replacement size shall be 15
gallon. Exception to this requirement may be allowed by the Design
Review Board (i.e. more plantings of smaller size) when site
conditions warrant.
L. Architecture
1. Design of current building is single story ranch style with a Mission
influence.
2. Design of the future residential building shall be consistent with the
requirements of the Hillside Overlay District and Hillside Design
Guidelines,
3. Residential architecture shall create interest in all building facades,
incorporate energy efficient design and utilize colors and materials
judged compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
4. All fencing shall be consistent with an approved fence plan.
M. Soil Import/Export
Unlernrann land DiVisiorr— Exhibit B-3
Planned Development District- Hillside Overlgy
Import or export of soil is not permitted for the subdivision
improvements. Cut and fill required for the subdivision shall be
balanced. Should soil import or export be necessary, the amount of
imported/exported material shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission.
The amount of import/export of fill material shall be kept to a
minimum as much as possible with the development of each single
family house and shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board.
Uses
A. Permitted
1. Single Family Residential
2. Home Occupations in accordance with the City's Home Occupation
regulations
3. Second Residential Units under 800 sq ft in size
4. Other accessory structures and uses customarily incidental to a
permitted use and contained on the same site in accordance with
Planned Development standards.
B. Conditional Uses
1. Second Residential Units over 800 sq ft in size
2. Other uses allowed with a use permit in single family residential
districts as specified in the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance.
4. Exhibits
Exhibits on file with the Planning Department include the following:
A. Average Slope and Area of Natural State Calculations (Exhibit 'A' Attached)
B. Tentative Map, Sheet TM1
C. Tentative Map, Sheet TM2
Reports
Reports on file with the Community Development Department —Planning Division
include the following:
A. Soils Report by GeoEngineering, dated April 29, 2009
B. Preliminary Title Report dated
Future Additions. Modifications and Second Units
Future additions and modifications are to be submitted to the City of San Rafael
Planning Department for review. This includes future "in-law" units,as allowed by
code.
7. Future Accessory Structures
Unternxmn Land Division — Exhibit BA
Planned Developmew District- Hillside Overlay
A. Future accessory structures shall be contained within the building
envelopes provided they are within the maximum gross building square
footage.
B. Future accessory structures shall be placed to the side or rear of
existing or proposed buildings
Uitermmm Land Division — Exhibit B-5
Planned Development Districl- Hillside Overlay
COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL
The following checklist summarizes development guidelines and standards. See the appropriate
section for a complete explanation of the item.
A "yes" indicates the project complies with the recommendation, a "no" indicates it does not. N/A is
the abbreviation for "not applicable."
This checklist is intended to measure overall design quality. The manual incorporates standards and
suggested guidelines to insure high quality projects. Standards are indicated with an asterisk and
are mandatory. They are indicated in the text by the term "shall". Exceptions to standards can only
be granted by the City Council (indicated by a *) or the specific hearing body designated in the
Manual (indicated by a •). Guidelines are recommendations and are indicated in the text by the
term "should." Staff and Design Review Board will be guided by compliance with these guidelines
in making their recommendations on the project design. The project architect or engineer must
justify any variations. Only projects with high quality designs will be approved.
Zoninll Standards (Chapter III, Hillside Residential Development Standards)
VdEk1i►V
X Natural State Requirement (25% + % of average slope)
87,120 sq ft Required >87,120 sq ft Proposed
X * Gross Building Square Footage (2500 sq. ft. + 10% of lot size, maximum of 6,500 sq.
ft.) 6,500 max. gross sq. ft. 4,775 sq ft proposed gross sq. ft.
X * Building Height (30 feet measured from natural grade).
X * Building stepback (20 foot height limitation on walls within 15 feet of the building
envelope limit, encroachment allowed along 25% of building length). Proposed height _
X • Setback Waiver proposed (permitted for a distance of not more than '/z of the required
setback with DRB approval and special findings, requires compensating increase in
setback on opposing setback).
X * Ridgeline prohibition of development within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant
ridgeline.
X Parking requirement of two additional spaces on substandard streets.
X * Lot standards of minimum sizes and widths established in Subdivision Ordinance.
IV.A. Design Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside Residential Development Projects
IVAL Preservation of Existine Natural Features:
rMem►/:1
X Maintains mature trees and preserves significant vegetation.
TBD Minimizes grading and alterations of natural land forms with balanced cuts and fills.
TBD Drainage minimizes off-site impacts and preserves natural drainage courses.
TBD Roads and streets located and landscaped to minimize visual impacts.
X Access provided to open space areas.
IV.A2. Preservation of Significant trees
Y N NA
TBD Retains significant trees or criteria for removal is met and *replacement criteria
of 3:1 with 15 gallon trees is met.
Majority Existing trees are preserved by avoiding grading in the dripline, or change in
preserved grade or compaction. Arborist's recommendations are met.
IVA3. Hillside Grading and Drainage
Y N NA
X
Grading is minimized and all grading maintains a natural appearance with slopes of
2:1 to 5:1. Grading within 20 feet of property lines is minimized or similar to existing
adjacent slopes. -
TBD
Terracing uses incremental steps and visible retaining walls are of a minimum height
and use stone or earth colored materials.
X
Pads are of a minimum size for structures and open space (pads for tennis courts and
swimming pools are discouraged).
TBD
Off-site drainage impacts are minimized and drainage plans avoid erosion and damage
to on-site and adjacent properties. Impervious surfaces are minimized and storm water
from roofs is conveyed to a comprehensive site drainage system Storm drainage
improvements and drainage_ devices create a natural appearance.
TBD
_
; * Debris Collection and overflow routes are provided where needed and located to,
minimize visual impacts. _
TBD
Erosion control plans and revegetation plan provided.
TBD
Geotechnical review has been done and mitigation measures will not substantially
modify the character of the existing landform, expose slopes that cannot be re -
vegetated or remove large areas or existing mature vegetation. Existing geologic
hazards have been corrected.
IVA4. Lot Configuration, Building Setbacks and Location (Complete for Subdivisions)
Y N NA
X Lot configurations provide a variety of shapes based on topography and natural features
and lot lines are places on the top, not the toe, of the slope.
X Flag lots with a common drive are encouraged.
X Building setbacks are varied or staggered.
X Building locations are not located near visually prominent ridgelines and existing view
of residences are respected.
X * Front yard setbacks are minimized on downhill lots. - -
IVAS. Street Layout, Driveway and Parking Design
V N NA
— — X
X
Streets use narrower street widths if it reduces grading, visual impacts are
minimized by terracing any retaining walls, and split roadways are encouraged.
* Street layout follows the natural grade and long stretches of straight road are
avoided. Proper sight distances are maintained.
• Street grades do not exceed 18 % of have received an exception.
74
Y N NA
X _% • Driveway grades do not exceed 18% or an exception has been granted. Parking
grade has been designed so that vehicles will not back out into substandard streets.
Driveways over 18% have grooves and asphalt driveways are not proposed on
slopes over 15%.
X Parking bays are established or if parallel parking is permitted it is located on one
side only and limited to 8 feet in width.
IVA6. Reduction of Building Bulk on Hillsides
Y N NA
X The building steps up the slope and/or has been cut into the hillside.
X Roof forms and rooflines are broken up and parallel the slope. The slope of the
roof does not exceed the natural contour by 20%.
X _overhanging or elevated decks and excessive cantilevers are avoided.
TBD Large expanses of a wall in a single plane are avoided on downhill elevations.
TBD Building materials blend with the setting.
IVA7. Hillside Architectural Character
Y N NA
X Rooflines are oriented in consideration of views from adjacent areas and properties.
TBD Gabled, hip and shed roof forms with a moderated pitch are encouraged. Changes
in roof form accompanied with offsets in elevations are encouraged. Flat roofs with
membranes or built up roofing materials are discouraged when visible.
X Multi -Building Projects have different floor elevations to achieve height variation
and avoid long continuous building masses. Articulated facades and variations in
roof forms are required. Buildings near hillside rims have a staggered arrangement
and are screened with planting. -
TBD Building Materials, texture and color meet criteria and color coordinate with the
predominant colors and values of the surrounding landscape. Building walls and
roofs are of recommended_ materials.
TBD Walls, fences and accessory structures are compatible with adjacent buildings and
are designed to respect views. Front yard fences are of an open design and provide
a landscaped buffer. Walls and materials are of appropriate materials.
TBD • Retaining walls meet height restrictions of 4 feet on upslopes and 3 feet on
downslopes. Terraced retaining walls are y
separated b a minimum of three feet and
P
landscaped. Retaining walls holding back grade to accommodate a patio or terrace
conform to the natural contours as much as possible and excessively high retaining
walls are prohibited.
X * Decks do not create excessively high distances between the structure and grade
TBD * Mechanical equipment is screened from view.
IV.A8. Planting Design for Hillside Residential Development
Y N ;NAS - -
TBD Major rock outcroppings and planting patterns of native plants and trees are
respected and retained. Replacement trees are planted with irregularly grouped
- trees which retain a similar appearance from a distance.
Y N
—
NA
TBD y
{
New plantings have been selected for their effectiveness of erosion control, fire
resistance and drought tolerance and consider neighbors' views. Native plants are
used.
TBD
* Irrigation systems and mulching are provided.
TBD
Existing scarred or graded areas with high visibility are revegetated.
TBD
Special _planting guidelines for 2:1 slopes are followed.
TBD
_
Graded slopes have trees planted along contour lines in undulating groups and trees
are located in swale areas.
TBD
Public rights-of-way are landscaped.
TBD
Transition zones are planted in high fire hazard areas and building envelopes are
located to minimize risk to structures. Planting materials are fire retardant.
_Subdivisions have provided an arborist's report to analyze site fire hazards.
IV:A9. Site Lighting
Y N NA
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Site lighting which is visible is indirect or incorporates full shield cut-offs.
Adjacent properties are not illuminated and light sources are not seen from adjacent
properties or public rights-of-way.
Overhead lighting in parking areas is mounted at a maximum height of 15 feet and
does not interfere with bedroom windows.
Overhead lighting in pedestrian areas does not exceed 8 feet in height and low-level
lighting is used along walkways.
* Exterior floor lighting is located and shielded so that it does not shine on adjacent
properties. Decorative lightingtohighlight a structure is prohibited and not shown.
IV.BI. Subdivisions and Planned Development Proiects
Y N_ NA
X Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, street layout and design,
hillside grading and drainage, and lot configuration, building setback and locations
have been met and building envelopes established on all lots.
X Cluster developments meet the following criteria: Flexible front and side setbacks are
provided; large expanses of flat areas, such as parking lots, are avoided; buildings are
sited with units having different floor elevations to achieve height variation; buildings
near hillside rims are sited in a staggered arrangement and screened with planting;
existing vegetation is retained; and flag lots which encourage terracing of buildings and
minimize cuts and fills are allowed.
X Long continuous building masses are avoided and groups of building are designed with
visible differences through materials, colors, forms and fagade variation. Facades are j
articulated and rooflines avoid extended horizontal lines. Building facades have a
mixture of vertical and horizontal elements, but emphasize verticality. Alignments of
units are staggered horizontally and vertically to create unit identity, privacy at
entryways and in private outdoor spaces and to shape open space. Buildings may be
- terraced and building clusters are separated with expanses of open space.
2
IV.132 Single Family Residences on Individual Lots
Y N NA
TBD Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and
drainage, reduction of building bulk, architectural character, and planting design are
met.
X * An exception is necessary to allow tandem parking on lots served by an access
drive if it minimizes the impact of hillside_ development.
X Common driveways are encouraged.
TBD * The driveway grade does not exceed 18% or an exception is required. Drainage
from the driveway is directed in a controlled manner. The finished grade of the
driveway conforms to the finished grade of the lot.
IV.133 Multi -family Residential Development
Y N NA
X Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and
drainage, reduction of building bulk, architectural character, site lighting and planting
design are met.
X Yard setbacks and group common and private open space meet zoning ordinance
requirements. -A children's play area is provided on developments with over 25 units.
X The site design utilizes opportunities such as outdoor decks, roof gardens, terraces,
bay windows, framing of views, pergolas, view lookouts, and sculptured stairs and
- walkways.
X Large expanses of flat areas, such as parking lots, are avoided; buildings are sited with
units having different floor elevations to achieve height variation; buildings near
hillside rims are sited in a staggered arrangement and screened with planting; existing
vegetation is retained; and flag lots which encourage terracing of buildings and
minimize cuts and fills are allowed.
X Long continuous building masses are avoided and groups of building are designed
with visible differences through materials, colors, forms, and fagade variation.
Building facades do not create a ground level wall of repetitive garage doors. Facades
are articulated and rooflines avoid extended horizontal lines. Building facades have a
mixture of vertical and horizontal elements, but emphasize verticality. Alignments of
units are staggered horizontally and vertically to create unit identity, privacy at
entryways and in private outdoor spaces and to shape open -space. Buildings may be
terraced and building clusters are separated with expanses of open space.
X Tuck under parking is encouraged. 10% of the parking lot area is landscaped or trees
- planted as required by the zoning ordinance.
IV.C1 Highly Visible Ridgeline Areas
Y N NA
— — -- - -- - - --
X * Development is located within 100 feet of a_ significant ridgeline.
X Designs minimize grading and building pads. Structures and fences do not project
above the ridgeline and views of the natural ridge silhouettes is retained. Roads near
ridges and on slopes are designed to accommodate grade and cut slopes are rounded
off.
IV.C2 Hillside Drainage Swales and Drainage Ravines
Y N NA
TBD * A hydrologic analysis has been prepared and inadequate on and of -site existing
hillside storm drainage facilities will be replaced. Appropriate setbacks from
drainages have been established to preserve natural drainage patterns and public
safety. Slope stability hazards in watersheds have been studied and measures
proposed to protect downslope properties (Subdivisions)
General plan setbacks from drainageways, creeds, and wetlands are met. (General
Plan standard, exceptions cannot be granted) Subdivisions and other major projects
have provided a biotic report to establish the appropriate setback.
* Debris basins, rip -rap, and energy dissipation devices are provided when
necessary to reduce erosion when grading is undertaken. Significant natural
drainage courses are protected from grading activity and are integrated into project
design. When crossing is required, a natural crossing and bank protection is
provided. Any brow ditches are naturalized with plant materials and native rocks.
Steam bank stabilization is done through stream rehabilitation and not through
concrete channels or other mechanical means. Stream planting utilizes indigenous
riparian vegetation.
TBD
C�
IV.C3 Hillslope Habitat Areas
Y N NA
X Cluster housing is encouraged and provisions regarding reduction of building bulk on
hillsides; architectural character, and site lighting are followed.
X Existing vegetation is incorporated into the project design and used to screen
development from offsite views.
Indicate any special requirements
Y N NA
X Geotechnical Review
X Drainage Report
X Biological Survey
X Arborist's Report - - --
X Photo Montage and/or model
X Site Staking
Comments on overall project compliance and design quality
Overall, the conceptual project appears to be consistent with most Hillside Design Guidelines. The
main components of the project that need to be evaluated are:
1. Roof form, whether appropriate for this hillside site. The project proposes a slightly pitched
flat roof with the high point at the front, sloping down toward the back of the site, against
the slope of the hillside at the rear of the site.
2. Massing of the front (downhill) elevation and whether it is adequate to reduce the perceived
mass
Exceptions or waivers required for the project which can be approved by the Zoning Administrator
or Planning Commission with the recommendation of the Design Review Board
None
Exceptions which require the approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Design
Review Board and Planning Commission
ILIS m