HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2014-11-18 #3Meeting Date: November 18, 2014
Case Numbers: CDR14-00B
Project Planner: Steve -(415)
CommunIty Development Department -PlannIng Division
R TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: Meyer Rd. (Draper Res for Conceptual Design to allow the
construction a 2,600 square-foot, single-family hillside and ridgeline residence, up to 28.5'
in height, associated and improvements on a 2.1 site, APN:
01 -15; Single-Family Residential-Hillside Development Overlay (R1 a-H) District; Jerry
Draper, Applicant; Trust, Owner; Park Neighborhood.
PROPERTY FACTS
Location
Project Site:
General Plan Designation
HR
North:
South:
East:
West:
lot Size
Required:
Existing:
Height
Allowed:
Parking
PIOS, a
Unincorporated County
HR
HR
30'
28.5'
sf (1-acre)
sf (2.1
Required: 4; 2 covered, 2
Proposed, 2 covered; unknown guest
Natural State (Min,)
Required: 68,087 sf (71. 7%)
Proposed: sf (93.4%)
Grading
Total: 770 CYDS
Cut: CYDS
Fill: 50 CYDS
Off-Haul: 670 CYDS
Zoning Designation
R1a-H
Existing Land-Use
Vacant Lot
R1a-H SFR
Unincorporated County Vacant
SFR
SFR
lot Coverage (Max.)
Allowed: 23,740 sf
Proposed: 1,700 sf (approx. 2%)
Gross Building/Floor Area
Allowed: sf
Proposed: sf (approx.)
Upper Floor Area
Allowed: 17,B05 sf
Setbacks
Front
Side(s):
Rear:
1 sf (approx..)
20'
12$
25'
Tree Removal
Total 28 (approx .. )
n/a
n/a
n/a
104'/152'
106'
~ Hillside building height IS measured from natural grade to of roof at any point Non-hiilside building
height is measured from finished grade to the method
SUMMARY
The project is referred to the Design Review Board for review
improvements on an existing vacant and ridgeline lot located in the Picnic Valley neighborhood,
aka Heights'. project to construct a new 3,000 ft. (approx.), multi-story,
single-family residence associated site development, including retaining walls up to 14' in height.
concrete driveway from Meyer Road, an uncovered tandem or parallel parking area along the new
driveway and minor walkways and outdoor patio areas around the new residence. The project will
require a 'major' Environmental and Design Review Permit, for a new residential structure on vacant
property located within 100' vertical feet of a ridgeline and a Variance for driveway retaining walls up to
10' in height located within the required front yard setback.
The applicant has submitted conceptual design review to allow the Board to provide preliminary design
comments on the proposed project Planning staff requests that the Board provide recommendations
on the project's compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Staff recommends redesign of the access
driveway, turnaround and tandem/parallel parking space areas and retaining walls to minimize grading
and height or visual bulk and to improve site circulation. Staff additionally recommends the relocation of
the proposed building and access driveway further downslope, encroach I ng 10' I nto the requi red 20'
front yard setback, as allowed in hillsides with the approval of a Setback Waiver. Also, formal
application submittal will require more accurately drawn and detailed plans.
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The subject site is located in the hillside area of the Picnic Valley neighborhood, 'Southern Heights'. It is
located within 100' vertical feet of the ridgeline separating San RafaeJ from the unincorporated county
(Greenbrae). The site IS 94,961 sq. ft. (approx.) or 2.18-acres in size with a significant (40%+)
northwest-to-southeast trending upslope from Meyer Road. It is currently an undeveloped oak
woodland. The property is surrounded by single-family hillside and ridgeline residences on large
wooded parcels to the east, west and north.
History:
On April 3, 2013, a Conditional Certificate of Compliance (CC12-001) was issued by the Public Works
Director, determining the site to be a legal lot of record subject to satisfying the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any Planning or Building permits, improvements shall be required for
Meyer Road. Public Works Department shall make a determination regarding the type and size
of the required improvements prior to the issuance of any permits.
2. Prior to issuance of a future Building Perm its for the adjacent property located at 166 Wolfe
Grade (APN: 012-291-14), the owners shall provide sufficient evidence that all existing
structures shall comply with the current Building Code provisions with respect to their
distances from the newly established shared property line with the subject site.
3. Owner or any successor in interest shall be required to comply with requirements set forth in the
Subdivision Map Act and the provisions of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) enacted
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, in effect as of the acquisition date.
On August 28, 2013, Plann i ng staff com pleted Pre-Application (PA 13-007) review of the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use:
The project proposes to construct a new 3,000 sq. ft. (approx.), multi-story, single-family residence and
associated site development, including retaining walls up to 14' in height, concrete driveway from
Meyer Road, an uncovered tandem/parallel parking space area along the new driveway and minor
walkways and outdoor patio areas around the new residence.
Site Plan:
The new single-family residence is proposed to be located, generally, at the base of the hillside parcel,
in the northwest corner of the site, immediately behind the required 20' front yard setback The entire
site is located within a 100 vertical feet of a significant ridgeline.
2
Veh access to the building site IS proposed through a new at the northeast
corner of the site, immediately west of an existing natural storm water drainage swale, and continuing
west along the existing slope contours, The new driveway would generally, 12'-wide and widen at
a turnaround 'hammerhead' located to downslope of the proposed
and an uncovered tandem/parallel parking at the base of the driveway
front. A driveway grade of is
walls up to nine feet (9') in height are proposed
create the turnaround 'hammerhead' and uncovered
within required 20' front yard setback. Retaining
located both within and outside
create a triangular-shaped, 23,600 sq. ft. (approx.)
corner of the site, which includes a
voluntarily staked the footprint of both the driveway and
review submittal provides
survey, by a licensed land surveyor, and a
submittal.
Architecture:
driveway, primarily to
parking areas, all located
to 12' in height are proposed upslope of
......... ' .... vn The project also proposes to
easement area at the
ridgeline. The applicant has
SUbmittal of a topographic
plan at the time of formal project
review submittal provides limited proposes a mUlti-story design for the
new residence which would be 'cut' into the in to comply with the allowable
building height for the site. While portions of the new r",,,,',,",,,,n are proposed to be (3) stories in
the project design proposes an overall height of above existing grade to the top
of the roof ridge The new residence is proposed to located completely below the existing ridgeline,
with roof ridge proposed at the 156.7' elevation.
The project design proposes, primarily a 'hipped'
projection (north building elevation) and entryway
areas are proposed along the west building
form with gabled roofs on the dining room window
building elevation). Small, at-grade patio and
#2 and #3. The project
dimensional composite asphalt roof shing
Landscaping:
proposes to remove
The
6" in or any tree more
good health and form) and would
GradinglDrainage:
project will require approximately
'fill' 670 CYDS of 'off-haul'. Staff will
including grading plans showing and
site and drainage plan, at the time of
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The General Plan land use designation for
, accessed from the living room and
stucco finish with 'high definition' or
trees on the site prior to grading
removal is currently unknown as is
'significant' (ie., any more than
4.5' above the in
a 3:1 ratio.
grading: 720 of
submittal of comprehensive civil
grading ('cut', 'fill' and 'off-haul')
submittal.
designation is characterized by moderate to which may have
local visual significance, and are typical of developed hillside residential areas. The
single-family hillside and ridgeline use is consistent with Land Use Policy Use
Map and Categories) Also, the concept would be in accordance with Land Use Policy LU-12
3
(Building Height) and the maximum 3D' building height, based on
building height (Uniform 1997 method).
the project for following speclfic design-related
current measurement for
guidance in
Plan Policles:
That Fits into the Context) seeks to design new
housing, remodels
development
respect adjacent
existing landforms
to be compatible to the neighborhood, New housing
.rornrr>l,r,'"", transitions in height and '::>C;'UCHJ"':> from adjacent properties to
character and privacy. New development should respect
minimize effects on adjacent nrr'",,,,rTl£:>
);> Development in Residential Neighborhoods) seeks to
preserve, enhance the residential character of neighbor/lOods to make them desirable
places to live. New Development should:
II Enhance neighborhood and quality of life,
II Incorporate sensitive transitions in height and setbacks from properties to
II respect adjacent character and privacy,
II Preserve historic significant structures,
II Respect natural features]
II Maintain or levels,
»-(Neighborhood Identity) to recognize and promote
the unique integrity of the City's residential neighborhoods Downtown and
strengthen the tJhometown lJ of Rafael by preserving and the scale and
landscaped character residential neighborhoods.
»-CD-3 (Neighborhoods) to recognize, preserve and enhance the positive qualities that give
neighborhoods their unique 1f'''''''1J1.,,,,, while also allowing flexibility for design. New
development should context and scale 6f existing
);> CO-5 (Views) seeks to the greatest extent ,""U';).;)I!Jiv, views of the Bay and
its islands, Bay '''''''.''''-'11/''''
Marin Civic Center
church bell fower, Cana/froni, Mt. Tama/pais,
from public streets, accessible
pathways.
);> CO-6 (Hillsides
development within
along the Bay
protect the visual identity
areas, providing setbacks from the
by controlling
public access
»-CD-13 (Single-Family Residential Guidelines) recognizes preserves the
design elements that contribute to the livability of neighborhoods and their visual
Recognizes that each neighborhood is unique, and that design review must
characteristics of individual neighborhoods.
Planning staff believes the
determine whether the application
in the concept desrgn submittal limits
applicable design-related General Plan
project review would incl a ";;"!!IQ'AI
demonstrate compatibility with the surrounding
retaining wall could be in to
and materials, which would
values of the hillside. It
their height
4
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
site is located within the Single-Family Residential (R1 a) District. The proposed project will require
consistency with the property development standards the R 1 a District, including a maximum 30'
building height, maximum 25% lot coverage and minimum yard setbacks. Those property
development standards appliQable to the Properly Facts summary
conceptually to with property development
for a Distrrct, including maximum building height, maximum lot coverage and minimum
required setbacks.
is located within the Hillside Development Overlay District The project will require
consistency with hliiside development standards the (-H) District, including a um 6,
building minimum natural state 1 of lot , building
stepback, the granting of a ridgeline development exception. Many of the hillside development
standards applicable to are identified in the Properly Facts summary. As conceptually
destgned, the project appears comply with applicable development standards, including
gross building footage, minimum natural and building stepback (with allowable
encroachment).
Ridgelina Development Exception
Development of new structures within 100' vertical feet of a significant ridgellne is prohibited
an is granted on the following findings:
1. There are no development alternatives which avoid ridgeline development;
2. The density has been to the minimum allowed by the plan land Lise designation
density
3. No new subdivision lots are which will
4. proposed development not have significant due to modifications for
bulk, design, size, location, siting and landscaping which avoid or minimize the Visual
impacts of as viewed from all public Viewing areas.
The concept project proposes to meet the findings grant an Exception as follows:
1. The entire site is located within 100 vertical of a significant ridgeline. Any on the
consistent the applicable zoning and hillside development standards or not, would be
nf"'''',T''''''' within 1 00 vertical of the
2. project proposes single-family in compliance with
density by the R 1 District Plan [and use designation;
3. The proposed project not currently propose subdivision
area with an average cross-slope exceeding 40%. The HR
a minimum lot size of for all new parcels with an cross-slope exceeding
40%. SubdiviSion 15.07.020 of the SRMC) will not currently allow
further subdivision of the and
The project proposes to comply with all applicable zoning and hillside development standards. The
and building development will by City's Design Review
(Board) for impacts, including visual impacts as Viewed from adjacent public vantage , and it
is antiCipated will prOVide recommendations as necessary to or minimize these
impacts. on the location of the proposed residence on the and the contours,
new will be completely below the existing
Setback Waiver
The development standards allow a reduction encroachment of up to
one-half of the required yard, subject to Environmental and Review Permit approval and the
recommendation by the Board that the minim grading. Further, any In
5
concept nrn.":",,.
to the base of the
building site would lower
ridgeline. The granting of a front
....,,~'''''"''' of 35' (minimum
setback encroachment), ,A/nara
Staff
further downslope,
relocated
the
Requirements) of the Zoning the project is required
to provide two (2) 'covered' parking spaces and two (2) parking spaces, either
'covered' or 'uncovered, ' . conveniently placed relative to the dwelling unit which they serve." The
design two (2) on-site parking two (2)
parallel/tandem parking at the base of the driveway, partially on-site and within the
public right-to-way or ROW Tandem parking spaces are unless approved with
an Environmental and as the additional in hillsides.
'garage' parking ';;>1-""""'\;;''''
'uncovered' parallel/tandem
dimension requirements (9' x
proposed location of
Additionally, the City's
'uncovered' parking area and
minimum 20' x 20' interior
appear to be slightly
'uncovered' parking area).
parking spaces is not
Public Works would need to
downslope retaining walls located within
requirements However, the
the minimum 9' x 22'
concerns that the
that of the residence.
portions of both this
ROW
Parking and maneuvering excluding access driveways, are located within the
required front or side yard While the conceptual design of lacks details, it
appears to propose a 12'-wide access driveway, where a minimum of 10' is required. The project
proposes a 20% driveway 9 a maximum of 18% driveway is allowed unless approved
by the City Engineer. During review of the proposed project, the City Engineer provided
the following comments on same conceptual design:
e turning radius the intersects with the existing 18'-wide roadway (Meyer Rd.) is
the access lied back to allow more room
vehicle
• The proposed location
Rd. The City
residence and the turnaround.
II The size and geometry of the proposed turnaround is to be redesigned
to allow a 'standard' to turn around,
Chapter 23 -Variances
concept project driveway retaining walls up to 10' in 1"11"!:l.TOI"I within the required
front yard setback where a maximum 4'-tall is allowed (The Hillside Design Guidelines
recommends to 4' in height in the front yard
walls limited to 3'-tall). In allow the access driveway as
required. Pursuant to (Findings) of the ZonIng
with the recommendatIon the following findings will
and downslope retaining
designed, a Variance is
the Planning Commission,
made:
1 , That because
topography, location or
applicable to the property, shape,
such property
classification,
2. That the variance will
upon other properties in
the strict application requirements of this title deprives
by other property in vicinity and under identical zoning
constitute a grant of special
vicinity and zoning district in which
inconsistent with the limitations
property is situated;
6
3. granting the variance does nat authorize a use or actIvity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zoning regulations for the zoning in which the subject property is located;
4. That granting the application will nat be or injurious to property or Improvements in the
vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare
concept project has not proposed reasons to a at this time. Staff recommends
wall heights, particularly those located within the required front yard setback, should be limited
extent feasible.
approval by the Planning
structure on vacant property
per Section 14.25.040(A)(1) of
and Design Review Permits,
DeSign Review Permits), are as
);> Site Design. Proposed structures and
the vicinity. The development should
development should relate to the existing development in
Safe and convenient parking areas should
entrances. The traffic capacity of adjoining
pedestrian circulation and access.
1"I"""~/('Ir1""'1"I to provide easy access to building
considered.
.> Architecture. The project architecture should harmoniously integrated in relation to the
architecture in the vicinity in terms of and building deSign. The design
should be sensitive to and compatible with historic architecturally significant buildings in the
vicinity. Design elements and approaches which are encouraged include: a) creation of interest in
the building elevation; b) pedestrian-oriented in appropriate locations; c) energy-efficient
design; d) provision of a sense of entry; variation in building placement and height; and f) equal
attention to design given to aJl in location .
.> Materials and colors. Exterior finishes should
Color selection shall coordinate with the predominant
landscape and architecture. High-quality building
with the context of the surrounding area.
and values of the surrounding
are required. Natural maierials and
in the earth tone and wood are preferred. Concrete should
textured, sculptured,
);> Walls, Fences and Screening.
loading areas; refuse collection areas
mechanical equipment shall
and the landscape. Utility """.:,to,·",
design.
as weI} as a structural function.
view.
architectural
TrlrlTlC'C<:' shall be incorporated into the
);> Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting should provide for building occupants, but not
or hazard on adjoining streets or annoying adjacent properties or residential areas.
);> Landscape Design. Landscaping as an integral enhancement
existing tree shall be preserved as much as possible. Water-conserving landscape
required, A landscaped berm around perimeter of parking areas is encouraged.
seasonal color street trees should be proposed along pedestrian-oriented while high-
canopy, traffic-tolerant trees should proposed for primary vehicular circulation
review criteria for Environmental
(architecture, form, scale, materials
Review Permits require that the proposed
all new development 'relate' to predominant
7
design or 'character-defining' design elements existing in the vicinity. The residential development
along the north (downslope) elevation of Meyer Road consists of single-story garages Jocated on the
front property line with residences located behind and below the street level. The residential
development along the south (upslope) elevation of Meyer Road consists of large lots, dense oak
woodlands, with residences development high above the street level.
Planning staff finds the multi-story scale proposed by the concept design is well established in the
surrounding neighborhood. The concept design proposes to 'cut' the new residential structure into the
in order to comply with the maximum allowable bUilding height for the site. While portions of the
new residence are proposed to be three (3) stories in scale, the project design proposes an overall
maximum height of 28.5' above existing grade to the top of the roof ridge. The new residence is
proposed to be located completely below the existing rldgellne. Prior to noticing the project's formal
design review, story poles will be installed on the site to help demonstrate the scale and height of the
project, representing the exterior wall heights at the corners of the new residential structure and the roof
ridge. A colors and materials board has been requested for presentation at the Board meeting.
San Rafael Design Guidelines:
Planning staff requests the Board's guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the following
applicable Residential Design Guidelines:
;.. Building Design
" Where tJlere 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
e 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
e Adjacent buildings should be considered and transitional elements included to minimize
apparent height differences.
;.. Roof Shapes
41 Wllere possible, relate new roof form to those found in the area.
;.. Bui/ding Entrances
• There should be £l 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.
8
» Windows
• and of windows the building should wit/J overall
I"/JQC''''/n and the neighborhood streetscape. Where windows do ref/ect an existing
pattern, attention should paid to means as balcony overhangs, porches,
materials, colors, of articulating the far;ade.
• Window proportions should consistent with the proportions of the building and with other
windows on the building.
• Windows should overlook the
increased safety.
parking public areas to permit surveillance and
.. Window placement along rear
neighbors.
side elevations should consider privacy of adjacent
/II~IWH\/.'i and Parking
e Driveway cuts and should minimized, in compliance with zoning.
• Minimize large paved areas, for example by using alternative materials
stamped concrete or pavers).
» Landscaping and Fences
J turf block,
I) front should contribute to the overall visual quality of neighborhood and
to create a strong landscaped character for the site.
areas adjacent sidewalks are encouraged.
Planning has no comments conceptual and building beyond
those listed elsewhere in this report.
Hillside Design Guidelines
project is also subject to the Hillside .Residential Design Guidelines, which are to provide
a guiding framework of principles that on the that often
hillside development These guidelines are recommendations intended to measure overall design
quality and to high-quality projects proposed project's compliance with pertinent
hillside residential guidelines is summarized in attached Hillside Design Guidelines
Compliance Checklist 2).
The new retaining walls along access driveway are up to 14' in height which conflicts with the
Hillside Guidelines that downslope retaining walls not 3' in height
upslope retaining walls should limited to 4' in height. retaining walls should redesigned to
bulk or mass as from the Meyer In addition to
breaking up retaining walls into a series of smaller wall planes to reduce their bulk, the Hillside
Design Guidelines encourages cladding or texturing of the walls in veneer or an
earthtone/woodtone calor.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
A Notice of Hearing was to all property owners and within a 300-foot of
the project site, the appropriate neighborhood groups (the borhood Association
the Southern Heights Homeowner's Association), and all interested parties, 15-calendar
prior to the date of this hearing. Additionally, notice was posted on the project site, along Meyer
Staff received emailed comments 3) with the following comments:
.. Minimize. visual impacts of the project on of Mt. from surrounding residences by
locating as close to Meyer Road as possi at the of the
9
III as many existing trees on In screen the project from trees
proposed to be removed should shown on a plan and marked on the site.
e Earthtone/woodtone colors and materials should be used so that the project blends in with the
predominant natural colors of the hil and ridgeline.
III Install story poles to help demonstrate and height of the new residence.
.. Widen the access driveway at Meyer help east-bound vehicular traffic to turn
driveway and eliminate the need for turnaround in their driveway and turn into the new
driveway more easily as west-bound traffic. Meyer Road,
CONCLUSION
Though the concept design submittal,
and Zoning Ordinance
turnaround and tandem/parallel
additionally recommends the formal nrt'\l,p('r
would be located completely
nrC::>,TPn 10' further below ridgellne if
front yard setback. Further. for
improve readability, particularly the north
neE~ae;a for all three floor plans;
comprehensive colors and
incorporate earthtone/woodtone
of the surrounding hillside and
to meet the applicable
standards, the proposed access
retaining wall heights need redesign.
granting of a Setback Waiver. While
the roof ridge of
were relocated to encroach 10' into the required
the architectural drawings need in order to
building elevations, and a third
dining and living rooms and y\p,"lrn,t'\1'Y1",
be important demonstrating
and finishes in order to complement the natural values
as possible,
Staff requests the Board provide direction on the points specified in the Analysis
and any other additional plans, materials that the Board would like see
proposed project returns for formal (i.e.\ topographic survey, landscape plans with plant species
details, grading and drainage plans with calculations, photo simulations, drainage and
arborist reports and biological survey, comprehensive material and color board, story , etc.)
Following the Board's comments, the applicant will submit their formal n permit application.
EXHIBITS
1. Map
2. Hillside Design
3 Public Comments
Full-sized and reduced plans provided
cc: Draper Trust -166 Wolfe
P.O.
Jerry Draper -11 "...,;;""',,,,,rn
DRB memb.ers only.
Kentfield, CA 94904 and
Anselmo, CA 94979
Ave.; San Anselmo, CA 94960
10
23 Meyer Rd. (APN: 012-291-15)
200
SCALE 1 : 5,296
o 200 400
FEET
800
N
EXHIBIT 1 A
COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL
following checklist
for a complete
l"\r\tYlPt1t guidelines and standards. the appropriate
, A "yes" indicates
the abbreviation
project complies with
/loot applicable,"
recommendation, a indicates it not. N/A is
checklist is intended to measure overall design quality. The manual incorporates standards and
suggested guidelines to high projects. Standards are indicated with an and
are They are indicated in the text by term "shall". to can only
be the Council (indicated by a *) or the body designated in the
Manual (indicated by a .. ). and are indicated in text by
term ilshould." and guided by compiiance with these
in making recommendations on The project architect or engineer must
justifY any variations. will be approved.
Minimizes
Drainage l11i· ..
'-, .... __ a.;,n .. ,.d ... stree!ts~.Lc~~!I~~Q~I'.t:!J~~n.~l,~g~R~~QJ~!!l!:~I!l~~
Accessproyided to
EXHIBIT 2
significant
IV.A2.
of3:1
dripline, or ~ ... ~",.,_ or
IV A3. Hillside Grading and Drainage
t Grading is minimized and all grading maintains a natural appearance slopes of2: I
i to 5: 1. within 20 feet property is minimized or ilar to
minimum height
and Jocated to
been done mitigation measures will not ly
landform, expose slopes that cannot be re-vegetated
areaS or existing mature have .
impacts are
are
I l ___ ...... L. __ ' ... RL. ____ _
2
-_._--------------,-------,_ ..
IVA6.
The slope roof
IVA7. ~==~~====~======
and variations in 'roof
a staggered arrangement and are
and color cDordinate with the
Building walls
Major rock outcroppings planting patterns ofnalive and trees are
and retained, Replacement trees fire planted with irregularly grouped trees which
from a
3
plantings have been erosion control,
and drought tolerance and consider neighbors' views. Native plants are
IV.A9. ==-=~=
._--.---
Site lighting which is viSible is
properties are not illuminated and light sources are not seen
areas is mounted at a maximum height and
windows.
areas does -not 8 feet in height
4
masses are avoided and
with through colors, forms,
Building facades do not create a ground level wall of
are articulated-and roofllnes avoid horizontall
mixture of vertical and horizontal but
horizontally vertically to create unit
outdoor spaces and to shape open-space.
near
and cut slopes are rounded
5
IV.C3
views.
on of-site existing
yjLl-~pPOl4-.iwJ)lE.$ "
1£rorrrs ~~,e.tJ>
Ai ~'RJM1lt-?P-hl7fcT
tffi51V1 ~1lJt .
bulk on
6
Steve Stafford
From:
Sent:
To:
SUbject:
Stephanie Noble <stefnoblel08@gmail ,(om>
Sunday, November 09, 2014 3:37 PM
Steve Stafford
23 Meyer Road, File #CDR14-008
We live at 19 Meyer Road. Because this proposed construction will fall smack dab in the center of our glorious view of
Mt Tam that is central to our lives and the m ain feature of ollr home from ollr living room, master bedroom and bath, extra
bedroom and decks, we of cOllrse hope every consideration will be given to how it looks from here and from our
n:e ighbors with similar views, and that evelY effort wi ll be made to minimize the impact, to take dovvn as few trees as _
possible, and to integrate it into the env ironment in a way that is pleasing and let the value of any color choices be deep
enougb to not jump out at llS .
This is the view from # I fMeyer Road. You can see how much any structure built all that hillside will impact liS.
We wou·ld appreciate an architect's drawing of how the structure will look from this view as well as bright colored poles
at the buildiog site to indicate height, and if there is' any way you can indicate wh ich trees will be removed, that would be
appreciated too. We would be happy to have the owner and architect come over and view the proposed site from our
property, and to work with them t owards a happy result for all. Feel free to share our contact information with them.
1 EXHIBIT 3
Weare that the
you for your consideration in
Stephanie & NobJe
11 Meyer Road, San
fully from western approach so vehicles do not
the eastern side, as it looks from the drawings that vehicles may
matter.
2
to turn
to do.
Steve Stafford
From: indiyoung@gmail.com on behalf of indi young <ind!@acm.org>
Sent: November 2014 3:45 PM
To: Steve Stafford
Subject: 23 Meyer Road
Steve, I am writing to say that I will attend the meeting on Tue 18-Nov regarding the proposed new construction at 23
Meyer Road, #CDR14-00B. I hope city will require the owner to plan for construction will not with
the ridgeiine. It is one of only ridgelines around is not built-up--it's I. Putting a building there will be an
eyesore, Moving the building further down the as the plans for the property depicted, would be better.
think the
your ground.
Thanks!
-Mind! young
15 Meyer Road
would allow building on a ridgeline--especially a pristine one. So I will be there to help you stand
1
/
(
,/
/
/
/'
/
/
//
,
I
i
I
)
z: « -' "-
0:: o o
-' '-'-
o
Z
N
-.t-
C;
""' M
> a z
(9
Z
:z:
Z
<i
...J
!1..
w
(') «
CIC «
<.:J
0 ~
~ J ~
f ~ ~ ;. ~ I , I 1
I
I I
I I I I I , , I
• i I I . j
I
}