HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2015-03-17 #4CITY OF
Community Development Department — Planning Division
Meeting Date: March 17, 2015
Case Numbers: ED14-014; UP14-004; V14-007;
IS14-001
Project Planner: Steve Stafford — (415) 458-5048
/�
Agenda Item: ,
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 2159 Francisco Blvd. East — Request for an Environmental and Design Review Permit, a
Use Permit, a Variance and environmental review to allow the construction of three-story,
24,837 square foot, new 'mini' or self -storage commercial building and associated site,
parking and landscaping improvements on the uplands (developable) portion of a vacant 2.3
acre `panhandle/flag' lot, 1.4 acres of which are submerged. The project proposes to encroach
into the required front yard setback, resulting in a one -foot (1') front yard setback where a
minimum of 20' is required; APNS: 009-161-50; 009-291-02 & -03; Light Industrial/Office
(LI/0) and Water (W) District Zones; Len Nibbi of JHS Properties, Applicant; Joe and Wendy
Shekou, Owners; Canal Neighborhood.
PROPERTY FACTS
Location
General Plan Designation
Project Site:
LI/0
North:
OS
South:
P/QP
East:
LI/O; P
West:
LI/O; OS
Floor Area Ratio
Allowed: 1.0 (26,902 sf)
Proposed: 0.92 (24,837 sf)
Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use
LI/O; W Vacant
W San Rafael Bay
Unincorporated Interstate Highway 1-580
LI/O; P/OS Mini -storage; Offices
LI/O; P/OS-WO Volleyball Facility; Mini -storage
Landscaping
Required: 20% (5,380 sf)
Proposed: 26% (9,930 sf)
Height
Lot Coverage
Allowed:
36'
Allowed: NA
Proposed:
29.5'
Proposed: 21.5%
Parking
Grading
Required:
4 spaces'
Cut: 0 CYS
Proposed:
28 spaces
Fill: 500 CYS (approx..)
Trees
Setbacks
Removed:
0
Required
Proposed
New:
15
Front: 20'
1' (w/Variance)
Side(s): 10'or 20'/0
1'/41'
Rear: 10'
12' 7"
* 20,639 sf of 'flag' portion of uplands at 1.0 FAR and 61,270 sf of submerged tidelands at 0.1 FAR.
' Based on Parking Study (Fehr & Peers, dated May 6, 2014) submitted by applicant.
SUMMARY
The project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for review and recommendation(s) of
a project proposing to construct a three-story, 24,837 sq. ft., mini -storage building, providing 47
individual self -storage units of varied sizes on each of the three floors or 141 total storage units, and
modest parking, landscaping and drainage improvements. The project also proposes a 75' Shoreline
Park/Bay Trail setback/dedication (a 65' Shoreline Park/Bay Trail dedication, from the mean tide line,
plus a 10' rear building setback), which will link a completed portion of the Shoreline Park/Bay Trail both
east and north of the site, and improvements including a 11'-wde (8' -wide asphalt plus 3' -wide crushed
stone), multi -use path, landscaping and a seating area.
The proposed project requires Environmental and Design Review Permit (building and site design) and
Use Permit (up to 1.0 FAR of mini -storage use) approvals, a Variance (required front yard
encroachment) and environmental review. The Planning Commission will act on the proposed project
with the recommendations of the Board.
Planning staff has concluded that the level of details provided in the formal application design submittal
generally meet the applicable design -related General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance regulations
and standards. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendations on the project's compliance
with all pertinent design criteria, including the discussion contained in this report, and specifically
consider the following:
Street fronbBayfront Screening
• Whether the lack of screening proposed by the project, behind an active street front or Bayfront
use, is appropriate given the extraordinary site constraints
FAR
• Whether the 0.92 FAR of new nonresidential development proposed by the project is appropriate
for the site.
Site Lighting
• Whether the proposed site and building lighting should be revised to more closely meet the
recommended minimum lighting levels at the property boundaries consistent with the City's
recommended lighting levels.
Parking Lot Landscaping
• Whether the proposed parking lot landscaping is adequately designed or should the project provide
additional landscape planter islands to more evenly distribute landscaping throughout the parking
area.
Front Setback
• Whether the one -foot (1') front setback proposed by the project is appropriate.
Building Design
• Whether the proposed building design, particularly the parapet roof form, is appropriate for the site.
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The subject site is comprised of three (3) adjacent parcels totaling 99,915 sq. ft. Nearly two-thirds
(61,270) of the site is submerged tidelands and undevelopable. The developable uplands portion
(38,645 sq. ft.) of the site is a vacant parcel, partially developed with a shared driveway, surface
parking spaces and landscaping. It is a 'flag' or'panhandle' lot in which a narrow strip of land is used
primarily to gain access to the larger portion of the site.
The Jean and John Starkweather Shoreline Park and its public improvements are located along the
north portion of the uplands, adjacent to the San Rafael Bay. Dedicated, improved sections of the
Shoreline Park are located on adjacent properties located east and north of the site.
The site is surrounded by a ministorage facility to the west, a mixture of min -storage, office and
warehouse uses to the west and a City -owned drainage pond ("South Pond") to the north.
History:
The site is one of the last remaining undeveloped parcels in East San Rafael. Development proposals
for the site and legal disputes date back for nearly 40 years. A summary of the most recent project
review includes:
• October 2, 2001. The Design Review Board (Board) reviewed a project (ED01-091; UP01-064)
proposing a three-story, 33,000 sq. ft., mini -storage building with a 50' Shoreline Park/Bay Trail
setback/dedication.
• April 23, 2002. The Planning Commission reviewed the project and determined a larger 60-80'
Shoreline Park/Bay Trail setback/dedication was more appropriate.
• February 4, 2003. The Board reviewed project revisions proposing a three-story, 36,432 sq. ft.,
mini -storage building with a 900 sq. ft. caretaker's residential unit and a 60' Shoreline Park/Bay Trail
setback/dedication.
• November 18, 2003. The Board reviewed project revisions proposing a three-story, 35,706 sq. ft.,
mini -storage building with a 900 sq. ft. caretaker's residential unit and a 60 - 78' Shoreline Park/Bay
Trail setback/dedication.
• December 14, 2004. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised project and determined a 75'
Shoreline Park/Bay Trail setback/dedication was required.
• February 8, 2005. The Board reviewed project revision proposing two (2) three-story mini -storage
buildings, totaling 33,246 sq. ft., with a 900 sq. ft. caretaker's residential unit and a 75' Shoreline
Park/Bay Trail setback/dedication.
• July 19, 2005. The Board reviewed project revision proposing two (2) three-story mini -storage
buildings, totaling 33,022 sq. ft., with a 1,100 sq. ft. caretaker's residential unit, a 2,700 sq. ft. office
along the Bayfront and a 75' Shoreline Park/Bay Trail setback/dedication. At that time, the Board
recommended approval of the project by the Planning Commission, subject to: 1) the addition of
more vertical elements to the building design; and 2) final review of building color mock-up by
Board.
• May 2006. The project was withdrawn without the required Planning Commission review and action.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use:
The project proposes to construct a three-story, 24,837 sq. ft., mini -storage building, providing 47
individual self -storage units of varied sizes on each of the three floors or 141 total storage units. The
project does not propose to create an on-site management office or to provide an on-site manager. The
project will be in common ownership with the adjacent mini -storage use ("H & H Storage") at 2167
Francisco Blvd. E., who will provide off-site management services for the project.
Site Plan:
The project proposes to construct the mini -storage building on the `flag' portion of the site, along the
Bayfront. The project proposes a 1' front setback, which is measured at `flag' portion of the site and will
require the granting of a Variance and the abandonment/relocation of a 15' -wide drainage easement.
The project also proposes a V side (west elevation) setback, which also would be located within the
existing drainage easement.
The 'pole' portion of the site has been previously developed with a 24' -wide access driveway, parking
spaces and parking lot landscaping during the approval and development of the adjacent properties
(2155 Francisco Blvd. E. and 2165-2175 Francisco Blvd. E.). A 75' -wide driveway and utility easement
over all three properties from Francisco Blvd E. provides common or shared ingress and egress
connection between the parcels. The project additionally proposes to provide six (6) additional on-site
parking spaces, a loading area, and drainage and landscaping improvements. The project proposes to
extend the existing two-way driveway and create a one-way driveway with a clockwise circulation
pattern onto the adjacent property located at 2165-2175 Francisco Blvd. E., which is commonly owned
by the project sponsor. The proposed driveway extension will require the reconfigure a portion of the
existing parking spaces located on the adjacent property; from a `parallel' to an `angled' parking stall
design. This proposed encroachment of the vehicle circulation by the project over the adjacent
property will necessitate appropriate modification of the existing 75' -wide access and utility easement.
The project further proposes a 75' Shoreline Park/Bay Trail setback/dedication (a 65' Shoreline
Park/Bay Trail dedication, from the mean tide line, plus a 10' rear building setback) and improvements,
which will link a completed portion of the Shoreline Park/Bay Trail east of the site to that north of the
site. The proposed new Shoreline Park/Bay Trail improvements include a 11'-wde (8' -wide asphalt plus
3' -wide crushed stone), multi -use path, landscaping and a seating area.
Architecture:
The project proposes to construct a new three-story, triangular-shaped, building with a mixture of
exterior fagade treatments and finishes in a range of tan -brown earthtones. Medium brown plaster
wainscot is proposed at the foundation level on all three building elevations. A combination of narrow
and wide channeled metal siding, in a combination medium tan and brown color, is proposed along the
two building elevations screened from public view by existing buildings located on the adjacent property
at 2155 Francisco Blvd. E. Those portions of the building elevations not screened by existing buildings
and the Bayfront building elevation are proposed to have upgraded, higher -quality exterior materials in
a combination of wide -channeled, fiber cement horizontal lap siding, cement board panels. divided by
metal screeds and tinted glass windows in a combination of light, medium and dark brown colors.
Those portions of the building elevations not screened by existing buildings and the Bayfront building
elevation include a combination of a decorative parapet and sloped metal roof in a combination medium
tan and brown color. (A Color Elevation Rendering is provided in the reduced project plans. A Materials
and Color Board will be provided during the Board's meeting.)
The project proposes new building with a maximum height of 27' as measured from finished grade to
the flat roof (29.5' as measured from finished grade to the top of the parapet/mansard roof element).
Rooftop mounted mechanical equipment is proposed to be completely screened from public view by the
parapet/mansard roof element.
Landscaping:
The project proposes to improve the existing landscape character on the site, which is currently limited
to a small area along the Francisco Blvd. E. frontage improved with shrubs and a vine -covered fence
line with the adjacent property, 2145 Francisco Blvd. E. The project proposes to install new parking lot
landscape `islands' though the bulk of the new site landscaping is proposed within the proposed 75'
Shoreline Park/Bay Trail setback/dedication area. The project proposes to remove no existing
landscaping while installing 15 new tree planting. Within the parking lot area, the project proposes to
plant nine (9) Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus nicholh) trees, 15 -gallon container size. Within the proposed 75'
Shoreline Park/Bay Trail setback/dedication area, the project proposes to plant three (3) California Live
Oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees, 24" -box container size, and three (3) Western Redbud (Cercis
occidentalis) trees, 15 -gallon container size. The proposed new site landscaping includes the following
shrub plantings, all in 5 -gallon container size: Manzanitas (Arctostaphylos `Emerald Carpet' and
Archtostaphylos `Howard McMinn), Ceanothus (Ceanothus Greiseus `Yankee Point), Bush Poppy
(Dendromecon Rigida), Fuchsia Flowering Gooseberry (Ribis Speciosum), Dwarf Coyote Brush
(Bacharis Piluarus) and New Zealand Flax (Phormium Tenax). The proposed new landscaping alos
includes the following groundcovers: Evening Primrose (Oenthera Berlandier) and Gazania (Gazania
`Copper King).
4
Grading/Drainage:
The project proposes to raise the grade slightly on the 'flag' portion of the site, primarily to meet FEMA
finish floor elevation requirements. The project proposes zero excavation or `cut' and approximately 500
CYDS of fill. The project proposes to install a new 5' -wide bio swale storm water treatment feature
within the proposed 75' Shoreline Park/Bay Trail setback/dedication area, between the improved
Shoreline Park/Bay Trail path and the new mini -storage building. Site drainage infrastructure was
installed previously during development of the adjacent properties which share the common 75' -wide
driveway and utility easement. This existing site drainage infrastructure incorporates a system of drain
inlets and underground piping with outfall at the South Pond located immediately north of the site. As
discussed above, the project proposes to abandoned/relocate a 15' -wide drainage easement on the
site to incorporate the existing site drainage infrastructure.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The General Plan land use designation for the uplands portion of the site is Light Industrial/Office (1-1/0)(The submerged tidelands area has no General Plan land use designation). The LI/O designation
allows a variety of motor vehicle service, contractor uses and yards, light manufacturing, distribution,
warehousing and storage, incidental employee -serving retail/service, office and regional -serving
specialty retail uses, including mini -storage facilities up to 1.0 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) and subject to
development standards for building height, setbacks and landscaping.
In addition to the proposed mini -storage facility use on the site and its consistency with Land Use
Policies LU -21 (Ministorage and Storage) and LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories), the proposed
project will be in accordance with Land Use Policy LU -12 (Building Height) and the maximum 36'
building height, based on the City's current measurement for building height (Building height is
measured from finished grade pursuant to the Uniform Building Code 1997 method). The maximum
height of the new building is proposed to be 27' above finished grade to the flat roof and 29.5' above
finished grade to the top of the parapet/mansard roof element.
Staff requests the Board's guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the following pertinent
design -related General Plan Policies:
➢ Neighborhoods Policy NH -52 (New Business Development) seeks to encourage and give priority to
new business development that benefits the neighborhood through provision of needed services,
low traffic impacts, or employment of a high percentage of neighborhood residents, while
encouraging opportunities for local residents to own and operate businesses.
➢ NH -62 (Parks and Recreation) seeks to increase recreation opportunities and facilities to serve
neighborhood residents and employees by completing Pickleweed Park and Starkweather
Shoreline Park improvements, enhance Beach Park, and plan and implement park improvements at
the Bellam/Windward Way site.
➢ NH -70 (Access to Open Space) provide public access to open space areas when projects are
approved, including access to and along the shoreline, portions of the Canalfront and San Quentin
Ridge, while minimizing public access conflicts with sensitive habitat areas and with nearby
development, including parking conflicts.
➢ Community Design Policy CD -5 (Views) seeks to 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.
➢ CD -6 (Hillsides and Bay) seeks to protect 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.
➢ CD -10 (Nonresidential Design Guidelines) recognizes preserves and enhances the design
elements that contribute to the economic vitality of commercial areas. New nonresidential and
mixed-use development should fit with and improve the immediate neighborhood and the
community as a whole.
➢ CD -18 (Landscaping) recognizes landscaping as a significant component of all site design.
➢ CD -19 (Lighting) requires project lighting at adequate levels for safety purposes while controlling
light spillover and off-site glare.
➢ CD -21 (Parking Lot Landscaping) requires parking lot landscaping to control heat build-up from
pavement, reduce air pollution, provide shade cover for vehicles and soften the appearance of the
parking lot.
➢ Sustainability Policy SU -6 (New and Existing Trees) strives to plant new trees and retain existing
trees to maximize energy conservation and carbon sequestration benefits.
Planning staff concludes that the proposed project generally meets the applicable design -related
General Plan Policies. In particular, staff finds the project will be in accordance with Community Design
Policies CD -5 (Views) and CD -6 (Hillsides and Bay), which seeks to respect views of the surrounding
natural features, including hills and ridgelines from public streets, parks, and trails or pathways, by
providing an appropriate Bay setback and locating the building appropriately on the site to preserve
public views.
Photo simulations (see Exhibit 4) were submitted by the applicant from public vantage points specified
by Planning staff, including from Francisco Blvd. E. looking north towards the Bay and along the
Shoreline Park pathway looking both east and west. These photo simulations indicate no significant
loss of view of surrounding hills, ridgelines and Bay from public vantage points.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 7 — Industrial (1) Districts
The uplands portion of the three -lot site is located within the Light Industrial/Office (LI/O) zoning district.
The proposed project is consistent with the applicable property development standards for the LI/O
District, including a maximum 36' building height, 2070' side yard and 10' rear yard setbacks and 20%
minimum landscape requirement. The proposed project is not consistent with the required 20' front yard
setback; the project proposes a one -foot (1') front yard setback and requests the granting of a
Variance. Those property development standards applicable to the project are identified in the Property
Facts summary matrix located on the front of this staff report.
Staff's Comments. A footnote to Section 14.07.020 of the Zoning Ordinance requires mini -storage
uses, on lots facing Highway 101 or 580 or the Bay, to be located behind an active street front or
Bayfront use. Staff believes the existing configuration of the 'flag' or 'panhandle' lot and the easements
encumbering it severely limits the developable area and makes screening the project from the
Francisco Blvd. E. frontage or the Bayfront unnecessary (along street frontage) or practically impossible
(along the Bayfront). Staff believes the 'flag' or 'panhandle' configuration of the lot results in 350'
setback from Francisco Blvd E. and mitigates the screening requirement. Staff further believes the 'flag'
or `panhandle' configuration of the lot and 24 -62' -wide 'driveway and utility easement', which
encumbers the entire uplands portion of the site, further limits the developable area to the west side of
the 'flag' portion of the lot. Essentially, these are the same justifications to support the proposed one -
foot (1') front yard setback (see discussion below) proposed by the project.
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the lack of screening proposed by the project, behind an active street front or
Bayfront use, is appropriate given the extraordinary site constraints.
Chapter 11 — Water (W) District
The submerged tidelands portion of the three -lot site is located within Water (W) zoning district. The
project proposes no development within the two (2) submerged tideland lots and the staff provides no
further analysis.
Chapter 16 — Site and Use Reaulations
Conservation Areas — Development Potential
Section 14.16.050 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all conservation/open space areas identified in
the General Plan to be preserved through development review. The boundaries of these
conservation/open space areas are schematic and adjustable during development review. In
compliance with prior Planning Commission determination, the project proposes a 65' Shoreline
Park/Bay Trail dedication, from the mean tide line and improvements, which will link completed portions
of the Shoreline Park/Bay Trail east and north of the site. The proposed new Shoreline Park/Bay Trail
improvements include a 11'-wde (8' -wide asphalt plus 3' -wide crushed stone), multi -use path,
landscaping and a seating area.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Under both the City's General Plan (Land Use Policy LU -9; Intensity of Nonresidential Development)
and Section 14.16.150 (13)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance (Floor Area Ratios and Densities Applicable to
Nonresidential and Mixed -Use Development, Public and Quasi -Public Use FAR), the maximum
allowable intensity of nonresidential development on the project site is 0.38 FAR, though mini -storage
facility uses may be allowed up to 1.0 FAR, subject to Use Permit approval by the Planning
Commission and the following Findings:
A. The facility is needed in the community;
B. The design of the project is compatible with surrounding uses;
C. The project is designed so that it cannot be converted to other, more intensive uses; and
D. The location is appropriate for this type of use.
Staff's Comments. Planning staff believes the required Findings to allow the Planning Commission to
approve the proposed Use Permit can be met. The site is commonly -owned with the adjacent property,
2165-2175 Francisco Blvd. E., which includes an approved mini -storage facility. Staff believes the
project is needed based on documentation submitted by the applicant reflecting the low vacancy of their
existing mini -storage facility. Staff believes the proposed three-story design of the project is in scale
with surrounding two-story light industrial/office buildings located on immediately adjacent parcel. Staff
believes the, essentially, windowless and single entry design of the proposed building helps to
discourage conversion to other types of occupancy, which may be more intensive, without significant
modifications. Staff further believes the proposed mini -storage facility use is appropriate, given that;
existing similar mini -storage facility uses are currently located both to the immediate east and west of
the site.
The maximum 1.0 FAR on the site is 26,902 sq. ft., which reflects 20,639 sf of 'flag' portion of uplands
area at 1.0 FAR and 61,270 sf of submerged tidelands at 0.1 FAR. The project proposes 0.92 FAR on
the site or 24,837 sq. ft.., consistent with the maximum allowed on the site with Use Permit approval
7
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the 0.92 FAR of new nonresidential development proposed by the project is
appropriate for the site.
Light and Glare
Section 14.16.227 of the Zoning Ordinance requires all building colors and materials and building and
site lighting to be designed to avoid creating undue off-site light and glare impacts. Glossy finishes and
reflective glass are discouraged; site and building lighting shall be shielded to conceal light sources
from view off-site and avoid spillover onto adjacent properties. Lighting levels, generally, should be the
minimum amount necessary to provide a sense of security:
• One (1) foot candle at ground level overlap should be provided in all exterior doorways and in all
vehicle parking areas; and
• Minimum one-half (1/2) foot candle at ground level overlap should be provided along all outdoor
pedestrian walkways.
• Less than one (1) foot candle at ground level overlap should be provided at all property lines.
Staff s Comments. The project proposes a building design with minimal windows, a combination of
cement board panels and horizontal lap siding and vertical channeled metal siding, in complementary
earthtone/woodtone shades of colors. The project proposes both parking lot and building 'down'
lighting. The submitted Lighting Plan indicates lighting levels in the parking areas of 1.0 — 2.9 foot
candles with an average of 1.9 foot candles. Lighting levels around the building indicate 1.5 — 5.5 foot
candles along the property line adjacent to 2155 Francisco Blvd. E. with an average of 2.0 foot candles.
Additionally, lighting levels at the 65' Shoreline Park/Bay Trail dedication, from the mean tide line,
indicate 0.5 — 0.7 foot candles. While the lighting levels in the Zoning Ordinance are recommendations
only, staff recommends that the project reduce the lighting levels at the property line by providing more
lighting fixtures within the parking lot and along the building exterior, at lower intensities.
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the proposed site and building lighting should be revised to more closely meet
the recommended minimum lighting levels at the property boundaries consistent with
the City's recommended lighting levels.
Water -Efficient Landscape
Section 14.16.370 (Water -efficient Landscape) of the City's Zoning Ordinance require all nonresidential
development projects proposing new or rehabilitated landscape areas equal to or greater than 1,000
sq. ft. to comply with most recent Marin Municipal Water District's (MMWD) water conservation
ordinance (currently, MMWD Ordinance 421). The project proposes to remove 11,830 sq. ft. of existing
landscape areas and install 12,015 sq. ft. of new landscape areas. Final landscape and irrigation plans
approved with the project shall be conditioned to require compliance with the provisions of MMWD
Ordinance 421 and construction plans submitted for issuance of building/grading permit shall require
pre -approval by MMWD.
Chapter 18 — Parking Standards
Pursuant to Section 14.18.040 (Parking Requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance, the project submitted
a Parking Study determining that a 24,837 sq. ft. mini -storage facility requires four (4) off-street parking
spaces. The site is commonly -owned with the adjacent property at 2165-2175 Francisco Blvd. E. When
the adjacent property was developed, the site was also partially improved to provide shared vehicle
access and 26 additional overflow parking spaces. These existing additional parking spaces already
exceed the required parking for the project. The project proposes to eliminate four (4) of these existing
on-site parking spaces in order to install landscape planter `islands'. The project also proposes to install
six (6) new on-site parking spaces plus a loading zone adjacent to the new building. The project
proposes to extend the existing two-way driveway and create a one-way driveway with a clockwise
circulation pattern onto the adjacent property located at 2165-2175 Francisco Blvd. E., which is
commonly owned by the project sponsor. The proposed driveway extension will require the reconfigure
a portion of the existing parking spaces located on the adjacent property; from a 'parallel' to an 'angled'
parking stall design. This proposed encroachment of the vehicle circulation by the project over the
adjacent property will necessitate appropriate modification of the existing 75' -wide access and utility
easement.
The existing on-site parking spaces are non -conforming in parking stall depth (18' existing where a
minimum of 19' is required) and drive aisle width (24' width where a minimum of 26' is required). The
proposed new parking spaces on the site and the reconfigured parking spaces on the adjacent property
would comply with the following parking standards:
• Minimum parking stall dimensions;
• Minimum drive aisle/backup width;
• End of drive aisle parking stall access extension;
• Minimum parking lot landscaping planting (1 canopy tree for every 4 parking spaces);and
• Minimum parking lot landscaping area (36 sq. ft.) and width (6), exclusive of curbs.
Staff s Comments. Section 14.18.160 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that new parking lot trees to
be even distributed throughout the parking area to shade motor vehicles, to reduce 'heat island' effect
within the parking area itself and to help screen/enhance the appearance of parking areas from public
view. Clustering of parking lot trees is permissible with the recommendation of the Board, subject to the
determination that the project meets the intent of parking lot landscaping to provide adequate shading
and screening of parking areas and enhance the visual appearance of parking areas. The project
proposes to convert a small portion of existing additional on-site parking spaces along the driveway into
raised curb landscape islands and evenly distribute new parking lot landscaping. The new and
reconfigured `angled' parking spaces, both on the site and on the adjacent property, propose to provide
new large raised landscape planters at each end of the row of parking spaces.
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the proposed parking lot landscaping is adequately designed or should the
project provide additional landscape planter islands to more evenly distribute
landscaping throughout the parking area.
Chapter 23 -- Variances
The project proposes to provide a one -foot (1') front yard setback where a minimum of 20' is required.
The proposed 1' front setback, which is measured at 'flag' portion of the site, will require the granting of
a Variance and, pursuant to Section 14.23.070 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the following
Findings:
A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives
such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification;
B. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such property is situated;
C. That granting the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zoning regulations for the zoning district in which the subject property is located;
and
D. That granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare.
9
Staff s Comments. Planning staff believes the required Findings to grant the Variance request can be
met. Staff believes the 'flag/panhandle'-shape of the site, the existing 24 -62' -wide driveway and utility
easement, and the proposed/required 65' Shoreline Park/Bay Trail dedication all contribute to the
`special circumstances' applicable to site. Staff also believes these unique attributes also help to
ensure that the Variance request will not constitute a granting of `special privileges' to the project. The
granting of the Variance request would 'not authorize a use' which is not allowed on the site, given that
mini -storage facilities are allowed in the' LI/O District, subject to Use Permit approval by the Planning
Commission. Staff further believes the granting of the Variance request would not be detrimental or
negatively impact surrounding improvements or the general health, safety and welfare, given that;
existing similar mini -storage facility uses are currently located both to the immediate east and west of
the site and the project would be conditioned to meet all California Building Code requirements.
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the one -foot (1') front setback -proposed by the project is appropriate.
Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit
The proposed project requires Environmental and Design Review Permit approval, given that; it
proposes to construct a new "offices, retail and industrial structures" on a vacant parcel (Major Physical
Improvement per Section 14.25.040(A)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance). The Environmental and Design
Review Permit, like the other project entitlements (Use Permit and Variance), will be reviewed
concurrently by the Planning Commission after review and recommendation (s) by the Board. 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), as follows:
➢ Site Design. Proposed structures and site development should relate to the existing development in
the vicinity. The development should have good vehicular and pedestrian circulation and access.
Safe and convenient parking areas should be designed to provide easy access to building
entrances. The traffic capacity of adjoining streets must be considered.
➢ 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. The design
should be sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings inthe
vicinity. Design elements and approaches which are encouraged include: a) creation of interest in
the building elevation; b) pedestrian -oriented design in appropriate locations, c) energy-efficient
design; d) provision of a sense of entry, e) variation in building placement and height; and f) equal
attention to design given to all facades in sensitive location.
➢ 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.
➢ Walls, Fences and Screening. Walls, fences and screening shall be used to screen parking and
loading areas, refuse collection areas and mechanical equipment from view. Screening of
mechanical equipment shall be designed as an integrated architectural component of the building
and the landscape. Utility meters and transformers shall be incorporated into the overall project
design.
➢ Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting should provide safety for building occupants, but not create glare
or hazard on adjoining streets or be annoying to adjacent properties or residential areas.
10
➢ 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. A landscaped berm around the perimeter of parking areas is encouraged. Smaller scale,
seasonal color street trees should be proposed along pedestrian -oriented streets while high -
canopy, traffic -tolerant trees should be proposed for primary vehicular circulation streets.
The review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits require that the proposed design
(architecture, form, scale, materials and color, etc.) of all new development `relate'to the predominant
design or'character-defining' design elements existing in the vicinity.
Staff s Comments.
Scale
The project design has historically included a three-story building scale; when the Board last
recommended approval of the project in 2005, the project design included a three-story building scale.
The existing office and mini -storage development surrounding the site is predominantly also multi -story
or two-story building scale. The project proposes to construct a new three-story, triangular-shaped,
building with a maximum height of 27' as measured from finished grade to the flat roof (29.5' as
measured from finished grade to the top of the parapet/mansard roof element), where a maximum of
36' is allowed.(Color Photo Simulations are provided as Exhibit 2.)
Building Design
The project design proposes, predominantly, a parapet roof form with shed roof element along the
Bayfront building elevation. The design of the existing office and mini -storage developments
surrounding the site include, predominantly, hip roof forms. Staff believes the proposed parapet roof
form helps to reduce the perceived building height of the project, particularly as viewed from the
Shoreline Park pathway.
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
C Whether the proposed building design, particularly the parapet roof form, is appropriate
for the site.
Materials and Colors
The project proposes a mixture of exterior building fagade treatments/finishes and colors, all in a tan -
brown range of earthtones. Medium brown plaster wainscot is proposed at the foundation level on all
three building elevations. A combination of narrow and wide channeled metal siding, in a combination
medium tan and brown color, is proposed along the two building elevations screened from public view
by existing buildings located on the adjacent property at 2155 Francisco Blvd. E. Those portions of the
building elevations not screened by existing buildings and the Bayfront building elevation are proposed
to have upgraded, higher -quality exterior materials in a combination of wide -channeled, fiber cement
horizontal lap siding, cement board panels divided by metal screeds and tinted glass windows in a
combination .of light, medium and dark brown colors. Those portions of the building elevations not
screened by existing buildings and the Bayfront building elevation include a combination of a decorative
parapet and sloped metal roof in a combination medium tan and brown color. (A Color Elevation
Rendering is provided in the reduced project plans. A Materials and Color Board will be provided during
the Board's meeting.)
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 principles that builds on the strength of the existing character
11
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 Nonresidential Design
Guidelines:
➢ Parking Lots
• A logical sequence of entry and arrival as part of the site's design should be provided.
• Where possible, design entrances from the street to direct views towards the building entry.
• Parking should be distributed to provide easy access to building entrances.
• Where possible, parking should be located to the rear or side of a building in order to reduce
the visual impact of parking areas.
• Design for adequate vehicle maneuverability in parking areas. Vehicles should not back out
from a parking space onto the street.
• Parking areas should be screened from the street with hedges, walls, fences or berms, subject
to security considerations.
• Auto and pedestrian entrances into the development should be easy to find. For example,
special entry treatments, such as colored concrete, special planting and signage should be
located at the entries to the site.
• Shade trees should be provided in parking lots per the zoning ordinance.
➢ Landscaping
• Landscaped areas should be planned as integral parts of the development and to create a
strongly landscaped character for the site.
• Unsightly uses should be screened.
• Trees should be planted in a variety of locations, such as along the side property lines,
clustered in planting areas, or distributed throughout the parking lot, consistent with the zoning
ordinance.
• Pedestrian areas should be made visually attractive with special planting and flowering trees.
• Where feasible, landscape the area between the building and the property line even when a
building is located at the minimum required side or rear yard setback.
➢ Lighting
• Limit the intensity of lighting to provide for adequate site security and for pedestrian and
vehicular safety.
• Shield light sources to prevent glare and illumination beyond the boundaries of the property.
• Lighting fixtures should complement the architecture of the project
➢ Pedestrian Circulation
• Consider pedestrian orientation when designing building entries, windows, signage and doors.
• Include a well-defined pedestrian walkway between the street and building entries.
• Clearly define pedestrian movement through the parking lot. For example, provide changes in
pavement or separate landscaped walkways.
• Where appropriate, pedestrian walkways should be provided between adjacent lots.
• Special design elements should be included, such as bollards, pots, benches, trash cans,
unique paving, tree grates, tree guards and pedestrian lighting to add visual richness to areas
designed for pedestrian access.
• Adequate facilities should be provided for bicycle parking, consistent with zoning requirements.
➢ Building Form
• Consider the pedestrian experience when designing the ground floor of buildings.
• A continuity of design, materials, color, form and architectural details is encouraged for all
portions of a building and between all the buildings on the site.
12
• Consider the development's visual and spatial relationship to adjacent buildings and other
structures in the area
➢ Entryways
• A defined sense of entry with pedestrian orientation should be provided.
• Building entrances should be defined with architectural elements such as roof form changes,
awnings or other architectural elements
➢ Materials and Colors
• Use articulation, texturing and detailing on all concrete exposed to exterior view.
• Exterior materials should minimize reflectivity.
• Use color to provide appropriate accents on a building
Planning staff has no additional issues or concerns with the proposed site and building design of the
project beyond those listed in this report.
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 project site, the appropriate neighborhood group (the Marin
Villa — Canal Housing Alliance), and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of
this hearing. Additionally, notice was posted on the project site, along both the Francisco Blvd. E. and
the Shoreline Park/Bay Trail frontages.
At the time of printing staff's report, no comments have been received as a result of this noticing. Staff
did met informally at the Planning Counter with several members of the public who: 1) supported
development of the site to help eradicate past illegal dumping on the site; and 2) supported the
proposed expansion of and improvements to the Shoreline Park/Bay Trail through the site.
CONCLUSION
Planning staff believes the level of details provided in the formal application design submittal meets the
applicable design -related General Plan Policies and Zoning Ordinance regulations and standards. Staff
requests the Board's recommendations to the Planning Commission on issues identified previously in
staff's report. Staff further welcomes additional comments or guidance on the any site or building
design details that would further improve the project.
W14: 111:1 11K
1. Vicinity Map
2. Photo Simulations
Full-sized and reduced color plans and color photometric study provided to the DRB members only.
13
2159 Francisco Nvd. FU
1,510
i0l
i
F
I N
FRANCISCOO -_-.
SCALE 1 :2,227
100 0 100 200 300
FEET
N
EXHIBIT 1.
Thursday, March 12, 2015 8:17 AM
I
on
4
r
:r - i .
;
r1 '.+
', •
, . it : .J
;
y;
�i �. r
1
{j..`. •��
_l-:
l+
err
1
''
;sFi. yS V'.'iA
.�.;
• •'!'fir: �: • . '
. , �„•
r
1 �� �f� �p_f•
v
�
•�^, �yi ti'.�,-�• .s. � d SSI:
..
r
- "•�?fie„ y? .''+� -
' '-
"4I ic
..
-fes "y_.: y '3:`s�` 1�3.
`•;f�..
_ �� - �• . tri te.: I' �
,
-t Wim•, _ - } � �Sy�ii' .��C1 }
.. f, � -
-
i -
1. r - ;•r;'_� ;ill•;
4± r
`-{'t"' � ��� / �+4� � ' �" �'- ' ._ •.nr i- ,'fes
- - - A :�`� _'�'- -`"" -fir}.• l:' . S. --. .i
-�� _ :.t•q.- 7. '�::.- s' -rte...:.• .��::.;r�:; :l
":Y` � i G�•r�. �' +fi`:u, � :ys°' � - ter, yk <� . 2 i .�f,.:
�;.. •a,, _ '':ire � �•_ ti,
iii :�'•°•..�:y '�- }t k..' #�F'� `sf �:
1
1 y..
Y �l
1
'1 S
f
r`
7
A
=I•
W97
did
G�
e g
a
SNS f _
W s - a
S«n
� "
EO-Lfi2-fi00'OS-WZ-60''ZO-M-600Ndtl
1O616 VOID---
OHVA3l(1O9 GOS1ONtlHd 1SLZ
4�
b
P
j 4
n
III
<o��
lug-
S o
ANtldtNOO J.N3NdOl3A3O H V H
o
go
(0
Ntlld 311S
Q a
a
3EMAO1S)PAVdAVEI
O3SOd-d
a
�LL
o
�
yGo
L -
_I
F Ow'.
z
g
a
w
U)
a
� "
<o��
lug-
o
r-
�LL
o
m
Q
O
JWJ
w
�
2�tiOO
L -
_I
F Ow'.
z
g
a
w
U)
ffi 3
3 H
ill�_j
ffri
_
W` G3"Eyy <
d OO
a I HPH., "i
m N IN
6
b
EO-l6Z-600 X09-M-600'ZO-M-600 NdV
10666'VO'l3V=IVH NVS
@MA3lfl09 OOSIONtlild L9tZ
SNVId )JOOId
ON003S F 1SNIA
03SOdONd
.Md„
a
��
�z
m
'g
gg
4� a
a °-
'g >3
s I
r
N e
b 6oo
ANVdWOO 1NMUOl3A3O H 8 H
30"OIS )f?Jt/ AVEI
=r
m N IN
6
b
K
'OQJOd
Op0LLF
a
��
�z
O
F
Q O
W
it u
w r
Q
o; 3
.�,
o
,'III
`Owl wamma <
7Q; �3nH2 1
d_ & d
00 aej d
d S�zz
M WZ-600'05-16Z-600'ZO-WV60O NdV
10678'VJ'l3tldVd NVS
C14VA310080081JNVild LSlZ
SNVId j0021 V
210014 OMNI
03SOd021d
.H
?
s
§
3
`t
a6
(V
N
1
Q
lo
kNVdWOO IMMOUA30 H 4 H
9Oo�aOlS Nddd�,da
N 4iNN
m ap 1� W
IyQ�¢
�uuizb
0� rb
OQ az
❑r
rc
Y m
r
z
g
a
LL
O
O
w
I
t 3
v}
pry1'�
ge
¢o-1cSB0o'OSteLBoo'zo-lel�aO NNQQSy
IWV6 vO'l3VdYl1 Ny9 X
OWA3lnOQ sIOm�W IsKK
a
Y9r
aa:'
a((
Lff
sNoilVM913 A
x 3
M
pp
ANYdVMLN3WdOl3A3ONVA asodou
aas
�`JdNO1S>121dd1�}p
' tlINYOJNV] A1Nl10J NINVW l3VitlM NVS
OLOL'L. ISL,)) j PM." -L6 Nlll3NOHd NVld 3'JVNIVZIQ '8 'JNIdVb'J AiIVNIWll3ild
S6666 VJ OIVAON OAl9 OOOM0. OO LL evd /q pa6cs0 i
ONI SAAWDN3 IIAIJ 3JVNOlS MdAV9 .,�.„,,,, �-,-
b
7 I
\ \I IOC
\ 1 i
;I
In / t
FRANCISCO BLVD.
Ips
R
I
O m
e
;I
In / t
FRANCISCO BLVD.
ggHII
O m
e
gii A a
etlo
_ �ILIT.iI_-�IL7 ..II
1...-
o
F%
-
o:
OLObL69 (St%lMi OOBL-L68 (SLb) ]NOHd
54666 YJ 'OIVAON OA19 000M03M DOLL
nNI ST133NI�N3 IIAIJ
S3IVIJOSSV '8 213dWH)121390
VINN0111YJ /3NnOJ NINVW
NVId 3�VNIVb4 '8 �NI4V8D ASVNIW11311d
30VbOlS )IbVdAV9
OYVA3lnOB ODS1:)NVa! LRE
im" NVS
a, zuO
eva%q pas!,w
W V
¢
t
„Ld w�•n
�*x
an NgANY nw nN
ro
M
N
n
) I
I
�
u
� Q
\ I O
\ I Y
I
�
I }
Y� Q
Qdw
I
� UQd I
z \ Q°Lar I
rc \ Zo
• (J
\ Y I
I
I
r
.
4
I
i
I as
I" I
FRANCISCO BLVD.
60646 V3 ON" -A2! 9VZ M9Vv®IS MM !/ d AVO e
'OAl9 O3SI�NV21d VL96Z QI
lNaWaDVNVW H V H 9 o g '-
s � �
- �X
3
s
-
iQQ%Z
6R'0
K�J
dN¢1
w
tomz Noo
a
of
z.
w
rc
0
0
S
z
J
n.
HOZ. W
n t;og vi
x� a¢
� o�
33
p3mac p
m
29IN
m-owg
paq�x s
a
911"
1619! w
o�
12
omd
_
��
Gc�
o u
mF m x m m n
op
�m=gym
W
g �1 a w o
�I < a m
p ��' ' 9
�5€a
$3a�w
w
rc
0
0
S
z
J
n.
HOZ. W
n t;og vi
-
?���
e=.
_/ \�
~ ^^ ^
w -
,z■
3 ol}A' d V10
CL
-