HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2015-04-07 #2Meeting Date : April 7, 2015
Case Numbers ED15-012
Community Development Department -Planning Division
Proj ect Planner: Raft i Bo loyan-(415) 485-3095
Agenda Item:
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: Vacant Lot next to 190 EI Cerrito Ave (Untermann Single Family Home) -Request for an
Environmental and Desig n Review Permit for a new two story , single-family home, with 3,461
sq ft living space and 777 sq ft garage/storage, and associated site improvements on a vacant
3-acre site . The project was previously reviewed in late 2014 as a Conceptual Design Review.
The eXisting 6+ acre site was subdivided into two lots i n 2012 and conditioned to require
Design Review for the development of the vacant lot. APN : 011-121-10 ; Planned
Development (PD1905-H) Zoning District ; Tom and Merrie Untermann, owners/applicants.
--_.. .. --. -------
PROPERTY FACTS
Location
Project Site:
North:
South :
East:
West:
Lot Size
General Plan Designation
Hillside Residential Resource
(HRR)
HRR
HRR/Low Density Res idential
(LOR )
Public/Quasi Public (PlOP )
LOR
Required : 3.0 acres (130 ,680 sq tt )
Proposed : 3.0 acres (130,680 sq tt)
Height
Allowed : 30'
Proposed : <30 '
Parking
Requ ired : 2 covered + 2 uncovered
Proposed: 2 covered + 5 uncovered
Min. Lot Width (New lots)
Required: NA
Proposed : NA
Natural State
Required : Estab lished by Building Envelope
Proposed : All disturbance within enve lope
Grading
Total: Not ca lculated
Cut: 365 cl y
Fill : 365 cl y
Off-Haul : 0 c/y
Zoning Designation
Planned Development-
Hillside Overlay (PD1905-H)
PO 1729
Single Fami ly Res idential (R2a
and R7 .5)
PlOP
R7 .5 and R20
Lot Coverage (Max.)
Standard : No restriction
Proposed : TBD
Residential Density
Allowed : 1 un it + 2 n d unit
Proposed : 1 unit
Gross Building/Floo'r Area
Ma x Allowed: 6 ,500 sq ft
Existing Land-Use
Vacant lot
Single family residences
Single family residences
Open space
Single Family Residences
Proposed : 3,461 sq ft (house)
777...§9 ft (garage)
4 ,238 sq ft (total)
Setbacks
Front:
S ide(s):
Rear :
Required·
Not Req 'd (N/R)
N/R
N/R
Tree RemovalfRepianting
T otal( No.lSpec ies ): None
Proposed 41 trees
Existing
N/A
N/A
N/A
Proposed
NIA
N/A
N/A
*PD esta/)/is hed a IJuilding envelope and no additional setback s are required for struc tures wi thin
building envelope
SUMMARY
This vacant 3-ac re site was app rove d by th e subdivision of a larger 6 acre parcel in 201 2, T hat
subdivision approval required Design Review for any new home on this new lot. A new home design
was reviewed as a Conceptual Review application by the ORB in September 2014 and wa s determined
to be on the right track by the ORB during their review ,
Forma l Design Review application has now bee n submitt ed and is subject to review and
recommendation by the ORB and final approval by the Zoning Administrator. The project has bee n
slightly modified since the Conceptual Review to eliminate a basement level , wid en ing portions of the
driveway ac cess and providing additional design details . Staff has conclud ed t ha t the proje ct
adequately addresses the applicable criteria and staff does not have any concerns with the site plan or
project des ign . Overall , the project complies with all development standards for the Planned
Development Zoning and all Hillside De si gn Guideline s. Staff requests that the Board review the formal
application and provide their recommendati on to the Zoning Administrator .
BACKGROUND
Site Description/Setting:
The project site is a part of a partially developed 6.24-acre two-lot su bdi vision containing on e
single family home . The total gross acreage for the subdivision is 7 .15-acres that includes 0.91-
ac res of private ea s ement area used as roadway and is thus includ ed in the overallloLsize for the
property. The site borders City open space to the west, a portion of the Academy Height s
resident ia l subdiv is ion to the north and sing le -family homes that front on C ulloden Park Ave t o the
eas t.
The project site is zo ned Pl anned Development -Hillside Overlay (PD1905-H) and maintains a
Hillside Residential Resourc e Gen e ral Plan Land Use deSignation (0.2 -.05 units/a cre). Th e
m ajority of the properties surrounding this site are zoned single-family re s idences (R7.5, R20 and
R2a). The site is located at the eastern edge of the Fairhills Neighborhood, just south east of the
former q uarry that is currently developed as the Academy Heights subdivision .
The site exhibits steep hillside topography, with an elevat io n of 180 feet at the south e ast corner of
the s it e (near end of Stewart Rd) and 360 f ee t at the northwestern edge of the site, uphill from the
single family h om e . The existing home is located at approximately the 275 foot elevation ,
The average slope for t his property is 40.57%. The ridge of the hillside to the rear of th is property is
a visually significant ridgeline and the ridg eline is at approximately elevation 625 feet The uppe r
c orn er (no rthea st ) of the site is the highe s t elevation o n the property an d this point is nearly 200
feet be lo w the ridgeline above .
The majority of the site, especially the upper hillside portion of the site, is characterized by native
oa k wo odland with specie s of Oak , Bay and Madron e tre es. The lower portion of the site , the
portion where the proposed development would occur, exhibits a flat bench area and is absen t a ny
trees or shrubs. Marin Municipal Water District owns a small portio n in the ce nter of the subject site
and has various easements to serve their water distributio n system . In addition, a sm a ll drainag e
channel runs north to south through the center o f the site , near the MMWD facilitie s and collects
and conveys run off from the hillside above.
EI Ce rrit o Ave is a private roadway that extends north off Bryn Mawr Ave . EI Cerri to Ave. abuts th e
subject site and then turns southward and snakes around the two adjacent properties, a single
family residence at 180 EI Cenito Ave and another single fam ily res idence home (referred to as the
"castle") at 185 EI Cerrito Ave . EI Cerrito Ave then dea d ends on the su bje ct property . EI Cerri to
2
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, aka, the "castle", is listed on the City's
Architectural/Historic Survey and is ranked as "exceptional."
The existing single-family home on the adjacent lot in the subdivision was built in the early 1990's
and consists of approximately 4,800 sq ft of gross floor area . The 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 Jots; 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 (ORB) 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.
• Bya vote of 4-0-1 (Member Huntsberry absent), the ORB unanimously recommended
approval of the project with one modification to the draft PO 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 ORB recommendations into the Draft
PO text that was presented to the Planning Commission, consisting of additional language
and definition to section 2 . F of the Draft PO 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 vigeo of the actual
proceedings from the meeting can be viewed at www .cityofsanrafael .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 PO revisions recommended by the ORB 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
3
of the area and might caLise the natural state requirement to be exceeded. Therefore, the
Commission proposed further revisions to PO Section 2.F.5, as follows:
2. F. 5 The area /Jetvveen the front property line (street) and the front of the bulleling
envelope may contain minor improvements essential for: 1) vehicular access and
parking: 2) pedestrian access, 3) residontial so/vicos (i.e. postal mail, garhage
colfection); and 4) neecfed utility and drainage facilities, The type. design and
appropriateness of any improvements on [he frontage area sIJalf 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 PermitfTentative 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,cityofsanrafael.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 horne
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.
The Recorded Map to officially subdivide the property was recorded in late 2014. therefore the lot is a
separate lot at this point.
Conceptual Review:
On September 16, 2014, the Design Review Board (ORB) reviewed a Conceptual Design Review
Permit application for this project. There are no written minutes of ORB meetings, however the video of
the actual proceedings from the meeting can be viewed at wvvw.cityofsanrafael,org/meetings by clicking
on the "video" link for the September 16, 2014 DRB Board meeting An 11 x 17 inch set of the plans
that were reviewed by the DRB during Conceptual Review have been included in the Board's packet
In summary, the DRB found that the project was well designed and he Board expressed support for the
low pitch, roof profile as designed. The Board recommended that the site plan was well designed.
applauded the tucking of the structure into the hill and use existing flat areas for outdoor space. The
Board stated that the formal submittal should provide additional details, including a reference north.
identification of section cuts on floor plans. and more details Oil materials and colors. IndiVidual Board
members also made some suggestions regarding the use of wood siding (if proposed, an alternate
material may want to be considered to be more fire safe), and to widen portions of the driveway.
especially at the last turn at the top for easier access .
Revisions to Project Since Conceptual Design Review:
Since the Conceptual Review, the applicant has revised the plans slightly to adjust to their desires,
budget as well as respond to the DRB comments, The revisions include:
4
s Elimination of the basement level, which has reduced tile gross square footage of the bu ilding
as well as the bulk and mass , especially from downhill (front ) elevatioll. This change has
resulted in two stories being visible from downhill, rather than tile three stories that were
previously visible.
• Raised the front entry tower element to match the roofline of the main structure and changed
the material to stucco .
G Widened the driveway approach from the street as well as the left turn at the top of the d riveway
leading to the garage, to make for easier access.
• Eliminated a future guest cottage from the rear of the site and added a pool and pool house in
the same general area.
s El iminated the upper parking pad that was previously proposed and enlarged and revised the
design of the lower parking pad it Into a circular area for easier access and fire department
req ui rements
• Eliminated the hammerhead and spur of the dr iveway that led to the previously proposed guest
cottage .
• Provided more design details on the plan, including exterior trim details for stucco and wood
siding, and retain ing wall details.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the development of a new , two-story single family home and site improvements
on the recently approved lot . The plans show the new two -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
new access driveway from EI Cenito Ave would curve up the hill the then turn into the garage . which
would be accessed from the east side of the new building . One parking pad is pl"Dposed that would
accommodate 3-4 off-street vehicles .
The new structure is approximately 4,238 sq. ft. of gross building f loor area, composed of the following :
• Upper Level (living area and master bedroom )
e Lower Level (2 bedrooms , entry, garage, & storage)
2,306 sq ft
1,932 sq ft
The roof is generally a standing seem metal room, in a shed form , with a 12 : 1 pitch from the front of the
st r ucture down to the rear. The concept of the slight reverse roof pitch is to maximize the window s ize
on the southern elevat ion, wh ich is the prirnary viewshed from this site , towards Mt Tamalpias .
The structure is designed to generally step portions of the upper floor back from the lower floor. 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 sta ircase and elevator. The project includes a main upper level deck in front of the upper level ,
which slightly cantilevers over the lower floors of the structure. Design details for the various features
a re provided on Sheets A-3 .1, A-3 .2 . and A-6.1 .
Materials and colors
The plans identify that building materials would be composed of stucco base, with combination of cedar
tongue and groove vertical and horizontal siding , Dryvit stucco , cedar decking, standing seam meta l
roof, metal trim and steel railing with cedar cap . Colors would be a combination natural cedar stain , light
and dark gray and browns . A color and material board will be provided at the meeting .
5
Grading
Grading would be minimized g iven that the project proposed to place the structure into the existing
sloped portion of the site and the proposed grading would consist of balanced cut and fill (365 cy) The
project proposed to use all cut on the site , therefore no off-haul is proposed.
Landscaping
A landscape plan is provided as Sheet L-1 of the project plans . In general, the plan Identifies a variety
of trees to be planted at the front of the property and around the structure. A variety of tree species are
proposed, includ i ng California Redwood , Cherry Plum , Coast Live Oak , Date Palm , Red Maple.
ANALYSIS
The following policies are pertinent to the Boards review and comment on the project design concept:
r Land Use Element Policies LU·23 (Land Use Categories) and LU-8 (Densit y of Rosiciential
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 .
r Ne ighborhood Element Po licy NH-100 (New Developmen/) for the Fairhil ls 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, s ize 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, sca rring of the natural landscape . obstruction of
scenic vistas from public vantage points or loss of natural vegetation and wild li fe habitat
Y 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. Raphae l's church bell tower,
Canalfront, mar inas, Mt. Tamalpais , Marin Civic Center and h ills and ridge lines from public streets ,
parks and publicly accessible pathways.
r Community Design Element Policies CD-6 (Hillsides and Bay) whicll 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.
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 . Tile 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 PO zon ing is attached as Exhibit 2 . The following represents
analysis of the project's compl iance with tile PO standards
2a -Building Stepback. The proposed structure is not within 15 feet of the maximum bu ilding
envelope on t he front 01' sides , therefore , the 20 ft height limit for single wall plane is not
applicable .
6
2.B -Setbacks. All s t ructures are within t he bu ild ing e nvelope, so no additional setbacks are
required .
2.C -Nat u ral State . All areas within the buil d ing envelope may be distu rb ed, while no
distu rb ance is allowed outside the envelope and is t o remain natural. Plans show that the
project is consistent with this standard.
2 .0 -Minimum Lot area. L ot area complies with the 3 .0 acre minimum required,
2 .E . -B u ildin g E nvelope . T he buil di ng 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 stru ctures shown are wit hi n the building envelope .
2 .F -Areas outside Buil ding Envelope . No development is proposed outside the building
envelope . The PO allows certain exceptions for areas between the f ront property li n e and the
front of t h e building envelope, includi ng vehicular access , pedestri an access, residential
services and utilities. At this time, only the access drive is proposed w it hin this area , therefore
t he project is consistent with this limitation.
2.G -Gross floor area. T his site is a ll owed u p t o 6,500 sq ft of gross floor area, and as
proposed , is at approximately 4,238 sq . ft .
2 . H -Max Building Height. 30 ft is the maximum heig ht limit, m easured from existing grade to
upper m os t point of roof at all poi nts on site . P lans are not exactl y clear whethe r all points of the
structure meet the height limit, but it appears that is the in t en t ion and d et ails vyill be needed to
verify.
2 .1 -Parking. 2 Ad di t ional off-s treet park ing is required in addition to the 2 covered spaces. T he
project proposes 2 covere d and 3 uncovered , satisfying the standard .
2.J - L andscaping . Required for the new lot and the plant palette is to be consistent with t he
hill side guidelines. At this point, a landscape plan is proposed , t hat would include a variety o f
trees at t h e f ront of the property an d around the new bu ilding .
2.K -Tree Removal. The PO requires t ree removal within the envelope to be kept to a
mi ni m u m. Plans do not show tree removal , but a site visit demonstrates that there would be 3-5
trees removed t o accom m odate the propose structure. Tree replacement of any si gn ificant t rees
removed would be required at a ratio of 3: 1, of at least 15 g a ll on size .
2.L. -Architecture. States that design of the future building shall be consistent wi t h the h ill side
guidelines an d create interest in all buildin g facade, incorporate energy efficient design and
u t ilize color an d materials compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The project appears to be consistent wi th the above development sta n dards.
Chapter 12-Hillside Overlay Standards
The Hillside Ove rl ay Standards establish certain development sta ndards f or hillside properties , and the
standards have been incorporated into the Planned Development District, as noted above
As designed , t h is project appears to be c onsistent with these standards and these standards have been
incorporated into th e PO Standards . The conceptual pla n demonstrates the requ ired parking can be
p rovided on t h is substandard street. The natural state requiremen t for this sit e is 66 % (25% + 41 % avg
slope) and as designed, the building envelope encompasses on e of the three acres o f this site, thus
preserving 66% of the site as natural state , Lastly, the highest point of this property is more than 100
7
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 . The formal
submittal cons istent w ith the conceptual plan that was well received by the ORB in terms of placement
of the structure , general design and mass of the structure .
The following are some of the more pertinent areas of the design and placement of the structure that
are applicable Hillside Design Guidelines . A checklist with the project 's consistency with the Hillside
Design Guidelines is attached, as Exhibit 3. The pertinent areas tliat warrant focus and comment from
the Board include :
Section IVA.G -Reduction of Rebuilding Bulk on Hillsides
The project proposes a shed rood, sloping down from the front of the structu re to the back . The
roof planes are predominantly made up of two equal elevations on the two sides, with the
staircase/elevator project hosting a roof that is in li ne with the other roof plane of the ma in
structure ,
Staff Analysis -This creates a slightly taller roof at the front of the structure , however , this roof
form was well received by the ORB during Conceptual Review and IS in keeping with the
character of the site. In addition , the roof form is low scale and would minimize appearance of
bulk and mass .
The front elevation includes some varying wall planes on the upper level , that are pulled back
from the lower level . The upper level also includes a deck in front of the westside of the
bUilding, over the lower floor. In addition , the stai rcase/elevator area projects out to the front of
the structure to provide some articulation.
Section IVAG -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 , h ip 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 f ront elevation , Dominican and Domin ican
Building Materials , texture and color are encouraged to coordinate with the predominant colors
and va lues of the surrounding landscape, BUilding walls and roofs are of recommended
materials . At this time , there are no specific materials or colDl's proposed : but the preliminary
plans indicate the use of a combination of stucco base and horizontal and vertical s iding
Staff Analysis The design fits in with the hillside side) and the siting and orientation of roofs are
appropriate . Roof pitch is low to flat. I n terms of building materials , the proposed materials
include a combination of horizontal and vertical siding with a stucco base . Stucco finish would
include control joints and would be wrapped around windows and openings . No trim would be
added around stucco windows. Cedar wood siding would be on the upper portions of the
building and would include 2x8 header above windows and doors , extending 2 inches past
windows and doors. 2x12 belly bands would be added to pop out conditions Colors are dark
and earthtone in nature and include varieties of natural cedar, grays and browns, blending in
with the natural backdrop as well as the surrounding structures ,
8
N EIG H BORHOOD CORRESPON DE NC E
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 forwarded to the Board under separate cover.
CONCLUSION
Overall, staff recommends that the project is consistent with the Conceptual Design , that was reviewed
and determined by the ORB to be appropriate for the site and it's surroundings . Staff requests that the
Board review this formal application and provide it's comments and recommendation to the Zoning
Administrator.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Planned Development District Zoning Standards (PD 1905)
3. Hillside Guidelines Checklist
Full-sized and 11" x 17'" plalls have been provided to the ORB members only
11 x 17 plans of the concep/ual plans reviewed by the Board have been provided to ORB members only
cc: Applicant
9
Vicinity Map -Vacant Lot Next ot 190 EI Cerrito Ave
.. ,;
'I
,';... I
/ ~~'/
;' ~ /, /0/ ',' ,'-
... '-.> "
f ;' ~ ...... )
;'"/,, / C i ".
/ -."
, I .I
I
~
) ).,> ",'
,~ ,(~ I
.' 'i ,,. 'J
'Jr., I
/~/' " ,-·t.
i~:
/ "':l
J
.... ; :-
>J
-.-----
" f
10'.1
'~()' ,H'
_:. , l~ .• : '
",
""-"~\l..~,.'
" ~J ",--
.,.,~. ~'
. .. / ~~:
,i,
.....
I,'
'II
./(,~q "
,. , 0 '
'~/
'. III' /~
/G.,·
/ ' .I" { -.1
, I.:' ~
,r \
"
.,t
SCALE 1 : 2,180
f-I '-i I .. _ i
o 100 200
FEET
300
i-~" I~/ / .-, ;' / , . '
I "
"
I'J
/~
Monday, March 30 ,20158:28 AM
'. Exhibit A ,
PD Rezoning Map for 190 EI Cerrito (APN 011-121 -10)
Exhibit A-I
Rezone APN 011-121-10
from PD-H to Revised PD -H
l!:xhihit B
Untermann Land Division
Planned Development District -Hillside Overlay
1. Purpose of Planned Development District -Hillside Overlay
The current Planned Development District -Hillside Overlay (PO-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 pal'cel 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 CeI'rito Avenue . The PD-H District zoning
classification will ensure the future development of the site is in accordance wiHi
the provisions of the property development regulations. The intent of the PD-H
District is to accornplisll the following :
A. To protect public health and safety by minimizing ha z ards;
--... - --
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 Des i gn Guidelines Manual.
E. To allow in the future the addition of second units to the remaining and
proposed lots .
2. Development Standard$,.
The PD-H shall be developed in conformance w ith the Hillside Design
Gu i delines, and the development plans, assoc i ated drawings and reports
submitted with tile PD as listeel in the Exhibits and Reports sections and the
developrnent 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 flex ibil ity , an encroachment into Ule str 'eet front ,
street side and interior side stepback is permitted along 25 % of the
building length.
[3. Building Setbacks
'I. Setbacks shall meet City of San Rafael Hillside Development Overlay
District requirements .
2. Future buildings sllall be built within the proposed builciing envelopo,
and no additional setbacks shall be required .
[J nleril7C/1J11 l.a!ld Divisi()n-Ex hibit 13-1
PI iJi1 ned Deve/ ()j!1II f il I Dis /i'ic i-Hi lls ide Over"/}'
3. The existing hOllse and site improvements are built within the
proposed building envelope . The setback in the rear is shown as
zero since existing improvements e xtend to the pmpeiiy line. Future
im provements in this area will be subject to a 10' setba ck from the
property line .
C, Natural State
1. Everytl1ing outside of the proposed building onvelope is to rema in in
its natural state, ex cept for fronlage 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 sLibdivision of parcels as shown on the Tentative Map, to
allow for the creation of additional building sites shall be permitted;
however, this does liot 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 calculatiolls).
BUilding envelope proposed is apprOX imately 43,560 square feet.
2. All structures shaH be within the building envelopes, per 2.8. i 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 with in 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) rGsidential
services (i.e, postal mail, garbage collection); and 4) needed utility
and dra i nage 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 horne ,
G , Gross Building Square Footage
1. The maximum permiited gross building squal'e footage of all
structmes will meet the requirement of Section 14 .12.030(D).
Ul1femWll1l L(flld IJ il'i.l'iol/·-Exhibit [J 2
Planned LJevd()!)/TJeJ If I Jislric/-Hills id/! Urcr/uy
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 ex isting 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, I-Ieight of existing building is 18':!:
l. Parking
'1. Parking on remaining parcel allows for 2 additiollal spaces outside of
the drive apron .
2 . Two (2) additional guest parking spaces 511S11 be provided (outside
the driveway apron) as shown on Sheet TM1 and Sheet TM2 at time
of future development (preliminary proposal shows fOllr (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 consisteflt 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 buiiding envelope shaii 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
mom 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 tllis requ irement may be allowed by the Design
Review Board (I.e. more plantings of smaller size) wilen sile
conditions warrant.
L. Architecture
1. Design of current building is s ingle story ranch style Witl1 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 arch itecture shall create inte r est 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
Unt '!rlll llti fl Lal1d LJi vis i o l1 Exhibit 13 -3
Plailn ed Devc>/o pm elll Llislrict-Hi/hide a"N/O),
3. Uses
'1. 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 appmved by the
Planning Commission.
2 , The amount of import/export of fill material shall be kept to a
minimuill as much as possible with the development of each single
family Ilouse and shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board .
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 L1ses cListomarily incidental to a
permitted lise and contained on tile same site in accordance with
Planned Development standards.
8. Condit ional Uses
1 . Second Residential Units over 800 sq ft in size
2, Other uses allowed with a Lise permit in single family residential
districts as specified in the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance.
4. Exhibits
Exhibits on file witl1 the Planning Department include the tollowing:
A. Average Slope and Area of Natural State Calculations (Exhibit 'A' Attached)
B. Tentative Map, Sheet TM1 '
C. Tentative Map, Sheet TM2
5. Reports
Reports on file with the Community Development Department -Planning Division
include the following :
A. Soils Report by GcoEngineering, dated April 29, 2009
B. Preliminary Title Report dated
6. Futur.e 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 Elilowed by
code.
Ur./ama })1J Lall d iJiyi.\ fOi/-Exhibit 8 ·,1
Plann ed U evd(lf!lIieill ni.l'll'icl-i iii/sid"' O verlay
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 ai' rear of
existing or proposed buildings
[jllleJ'/lJ1I1J11 I ,''',id Division-]!xllihir H-'l
IJl(lNJled /)e\,e/o/Jllwnl lJisl!'icl l-/lll.\id~ (h-ala),
COI\IPI,IANCE CHECKLIST
HILLSIDE RESII)E~TIAL DESIGN GVIDELINES MA1\lIAL
'I he folll .)willg chcckli:->L sumnwl·;7.es development guicklinc<; :1Ild sl:H1lbrds. See the appropriak
seclion fur a clH11plelC C'xplal1:1Liol1 o[lhe ilem,
i\ "yes" indiclles Lh~ project complies wi1 h lhe rccotn I1h:lldat iOll. :\ "no" indical c<; it docs not. ':\/i\ i:-;
the abhrcviation for "1101 applicable."
This c hee k list i') i I1tended l(l measurc ovenlll design l1lHtl ity'. Tll(: 111<1 nual i llC(HpC1ratc.:: ~t<1I1dHl'd s :tl1d
sliggesLed guidelines 10 insurc high qUidil J,' projecls. SlalJcbrcls arc indicated \vilh :ll1 :\sleri~L.. :mcl
are llHmdaLury. They arc il1dic,lled in lhe tex1 by the tCI'I11 ".~hall". EA.ceptiuns 10 swnclnrds call onl),
be grZlllTcc\ by the Cily C o uncil (indicated hy u ':') or the specific hcarill)!, b(ldy cksiglwtcd ill Ihe
tvlal111al (indicated by a e). CJ lIiddi IlCS arc recom Illcnlia[ ions :md ,Ire illciicalC'd ill thc test by the
(erm "should." St~\lr i:lnd Design I~cvie\v Board ~\,ill be gLliLied by cOl11pli:mce \\·iLh tbese guidelines
in making their reC(llnmcllLinli()ll:' un the proiect design. The project archilt:ct or engineer Inust
justify any variatioll ". Only projects with high qualiLY designs \vill be approved .
Zoning Standards (Chap1lT Ill. Hillside Residential Dcvciopmcn( .~talldards)
v
X
X
X
X
x
X
'" NA
X
x
Na[ural State Requirement (25°0 + % or average :-;Iope)
37.l~O sqJi Required ~~87, 12Qsq fll)]'(1j)osed
* (iross BlIilding Sqmrc f· pOlage (2500 sq. n. -;-1 (n··;, lJf Il)t sizt', l11ilxill111l1l or G.500 sq.
1'1.) 6.500 max. gross sq. 1'1. 4,23g sq IT proposed gwss sq. fL.
'.': Huilding 1-leight (30 J'cd me,lsurecl frolll natmal gr~lde).
* ])uilding sLepback (20 ('\JoL height limitation on walh \\'ili1in 15 feet <.d·the bLlildillg
clw(:l ope limit, CIlcroadllm:nt <1l1o\\'cd along :25% oL'building length). Propc)scd height_
e Selb,lck \\iaiver Pl'Ot)o:->cd (permitted 1Cn' a distance oj' llotl11ore Li1un ~/2 n[' the r('quireL!
set back with DIZ8 uppro val ancl SpCl,; i al 1111(\ i ng:->, rel[ uires cOlnpcnsating incrcao:;c ill
sctbac k on opposing ~ctback ).
": Ridgdinc pl'nhibition ol'clevelopnlcnt wilhill 100 verliL:al reet ora vi,:-wLlly SiglliilC~111t
ridgciil1c.
II) Parking l'cc]uiremtntoftlVo additional ~r)'1.(X') (1n :->ul?sUmdard sLreets ,
~, Lot st(lJ)clarcl" of' minimum sizes and \vidth s estahlished ill Suhdiyi,ioll Ordil1~lI1cc.
IV.A. Dcsign Guidl'iines Applicable to All lIillside Residential Dcvclopllll'l11 Projcct'S
IVAI. Pn-'servation of Existing l\atural.Fcahl],cs:
\' ~
X
X
X
X
X
J\'A
[vluinlai n" IlHl Lure trees :md prese r vc::, sign i tlcanl vcgCliHi()tl.
:'viiniHli:;.cs grading ,ll1d allcratiuns ofnatuml tutld tC)I 'ms \vilh balanced clils i lllt! fills.
Dr:linage Illi n i 111 i:;c's ulT-si Ie impdct sand preservcs natmH I drai IlU~C (nlll':-ics .
RO:lds ,mel street" locaLed imd bmbcaped ll) rninimi7.c vi:mal il11p~lel~.
:\l'CC!:i~ provickclln llpcll ~p,ll:c (\rciLS.
IV.A2. Preservation of Significant trees
x
IVlajority
, prl'~crvcd
N NA.
ReUlins ~igniiic(\l1L Lrees ur crilcria for rellloval is mel ~md '~repl~lcerneIlL criteria
of 3: 1 with 1 S galion trees is met.
Existing trees arc preserved by avoidillg gracling in the drip line. or ch,ll1ge in
grade or com pacti Oil. A rburi~L' s rccomme nda tiolls arc mct.
I VA1. lIillside (;rading and Drainage
Y N
X
,x
x
x
x
x
X
NA
Grmling is minimized ~md (Ill grading maintains ,I n,ILur:1I appe~lr,lJlCe \vilb siol'cs or 2: I
to ~:1, Urading \vithin 2U 1eet ofpl'Openy lillI-'S is minillli.l,l'd or similur to existing
adjacent slope:),
Terracing uses increment"l steps ,mel visibk retaining \v,lils ,Ire 01':1 minim lim heighL
anclusc stolle (It" earth colored [natcri'lls.
Pad s are (If a mininlum size 1(')1' struelure') and (ipel) space (puLis l'ur tennis cOllrts ,\11(.1
sVv'imllling pools ,HC discouraged),
o Cr·sitc drainage impacts ~He III i n i Ill; 7cd ilild d mi 11 age pi <lllS (\ voi cJ erosili)j ,mel d:nnap,c
to oll-sitc ,1I1c1 adj ~\Ccnt propel'lic~, 1m perv iOllS smJ;,lcc') [lrc III i II i III i7ed and stnl'm I,vaicr
from ['00 fs is COl1\' eyed lo a comprehensi \'e si le drainage sy'sLem S Lmlll drainage
in'.lpr(lvements ;mcl drainage devices create a natural i\ppe'\r~l1lct'.
'I: Debris Coi!ectiun ilnd n\-cdlll\v roLiIeS are provided \vhere needed and lucliled to
minimiLe visual impad:,.
FI'()si on conlro i plans and l'cvcgeUdiLln phll1 p1'O\' ided.
Geoteclm!call'cvicw has bCC'll done and mitig~lLion lllei\')urc') \viiinot :illbslill1tiillly'
modify the ch~\I'al'ter oj' the cxisting land1(lrm, e-"-jJose slopes Lhal cmnol be re-\ egctaled
or remove brge aredS ur existing matlHe vcgetation. EAislinf~ geologic b:I:,:::,mls have
been currcc1ed.
IV,\4. Lot Configuration, Building Sethacks and Loca/ion (Complett.' for Suhdivi'iions)
y N N/\
X
X
X
X
X
Lot coniigllH1LiollS pW\'ide ~I v:lriely ohh~lj)e:, b~ISed on Lopography' ,llld natmal fC(lturcs
,ll1el lot lines (lre plaCeS (111 tbe top, nut the Lue, elf the slope.
Flag ll)ls \vith [I C()lllIllOIl drive are encouraged.
Building setbacks arc varied or staggcred.
Building luc;Jtions are nut located Ilcal' visuall;' prominent ridgelines ,md exi~[ing vie\\'
ofrcc;idcllces arc rcspccLed.
~, Front yard sdbaeks are minimi.t,eJ on clowl1hi1l1ob.
1\/A5. Street Layout. Drivcwav and Pm'king Design
'\' N NA
X
A
X
SIreds usc narr(IWCr street \viclths if it reduces grading, visLlill imjxlch ,Ire minimized
by tel'l'~lcing [lilY relaining \valls. ,\lld splil roadways arc cllcouragccL
i' Strect layuut follows thc natural grade ~llld ICll1g stretches (\ l slr(ligilt road ~lre
avoided. Proper sight disliUlcl's ,He maint'lined.
Ib S lred grades ell) nut exceed 1 8 (;<1 oj' have recl'ivecl all c.\ ccpti on.
')
.. . ._.
: < 10 • Driveway grades do not excee d 18% or an exceptio n has been granted. Parking h as
i % . bee n designed so that vehicles wi ll not back out in to subst andard streets . Driveways
: grade :. over 18% h ave grooves and asph a lt dr iv eways arc not proposed on slopes over 15%.
, X Parking bays are established or if parallel parking i s permi tted it is loc at ed on one side
i only "md li m ited to 8 feet in width.
IV A6. Reduction of Buildi ng Bulk on IIiUs idcs
y
X
X
. ...
'X
'X
X
:'I : NA
!-,-
~ The building .s~cp's IIp. t~~slope and /or has bee n cut)nto the ~illside . . ...
~ Roof forms and rooflines are broken up and parallel the s lope . The slope of the
.. .. ... .. :. roof d ()e sJlot .t:xce~d the natura l contour b ~ 20% .
i -... .. .. Q\I~~~h(.\rJ:I~~!1g or elevated ~e(*sal1~ ~x(;e~sive cantilevers are avo!ded.
Large expanses of a wall in a sing le plane are avoide d on down hi II el evations .
: Buildin g materi a ls blend with the settin g.
IV A 7. Hillside Architectural Character
y
. X
X
~ .
X
x
x
:X
N ' NA .-
,x
• TBD ;
.... .
Rooflines al~{! ol:iented in consideration .01' ~iews from adjacen t areas~nd properlit!s .
Gabled, h ip and shed roo f forms with a moderaled pitch are encouraged , Changes
in roof fonn accompa n ied with offsets in elevations arc encouraged. Fla t roofs with
. membl:al1~~y!~uilt up roofing ~~.'!t(:.rials arc d iscour~ge,d Whel! visible: ..
Multi-Building Projects have different 11001' elevations to achieve height variation
and avoid long continuous building masses. Articulated facadt!s and vC:U'iations in
roof fo rms are required. Buildings ncar hillside rims havt! a staggere d ar rangeme nt
and are screened with plcmting .
Building MatetiaJs,Jext ur c and color meet criteria and col or co ordinate w ith the
predominant colors a nd values of the surroundi ng landscapt!. I3u il ding walls and
roofs arc of recommended materials . .... .......... _. . -.
Walls .Js~n(;c.~ and accessory s lm~.tur9.~ arc compatib le w ith adjacent buildings and
arc designed. to respect views . Front yard fences are of an open design and prov ide
a lands~ap'ed b.ulTer .. Walls and. material s are of appropriate materials .
• B..9Jai1Jil}g_~.yall s meet height restrictions of 4 feet on upsl op t!s and 3 feet on
downslopes. Terrace d retai n ing walls ,He separated by a minimu m of thre e feet and
landscaped. Retaining walls holding back grade to accommodate a patio or terraee
confo rm to the nalural contours as much as possible and excessively high retain ing
, W~ll!S m~~ prohibited.
* Decks do no t create excessively high distances betwe en the st ruc ture and grade .
* Mech anica l equipment is screened fro m view .
IV.AS. IJlanting Desi gn for I Iillsidc Residential llevelopment
y N : NA ~
X Major rock outeroppings and planting patterns of native plants a nd trees art!' respected
and retained. Replacemen t trees are planted with irregularly grouped trees which
retain a similar appearance fro m a distance .
3
Y 1\ NA
x
IBD
X
X
X
X
'X
New pl:m(ings have been s('\cctcd I'or their effectiveness \)1' erosion conlroL lire
resistance and droLlght tolerance and consider nci(2hbors' vic\\s . Native plants arc
lls('d.
:,: Irrigation syslcm~ (lnd mulching arc provicbl.
1;:xi..,tiI1g scancd or gJ"ilded ilrc:lswith hig,h \'isihiliry arc 1'L'vcgclntcd.
Special plantill!?, guidelines Cor 2: 1 slopes at'L' folluwed.
Graded sll)pes have !rL'CS pLmkd ,dung cLlIlh.)Ur lines in undLllating groups and trces
arc locaLed in s\vale meas.
Public rights-oJ'-\vay (lre hmclscapecl.
Transition 70ncs arc pbntcd in higb lire 11'1/.ard an~',l.s (lnd building cnvelopes arc
loc~1 ted III mini miLe risk Ll) st Hlctures. PI anl i ng rnatcl'ial s arc fi re rcl:\rclanl.
Subdivisions ]),')vc provided an mborist's report to :ll1(1ly7.C' site tire kI78.rcls.
IV.A9. Site Lighting
Y 'I NA
X Site lighting which is visible i.., indir~d 1.'1" incurporales full 'ihield clI\-L)lls. Adjacent
pmpCI"lics arc nul illuminilleJ <lml light sources nrc nol 3('('11 li'om adjacent properties
. or public righls-llf-\vay.
X Overhead lighting in parL.ing are:ls is mounted m a Ina.'(itnutn height of I ~ feet and
does noL interfere \Vilh bedroom wi ndO\vs.
X O"\"erhead lighLing in pedeslrian nrell<:; docs Illlt exceed 0 feel in heig.h! and low-level
lighting is Llsed along walk\v~IYs .
X ~, Exlerior nom lighting is located und shielded so Lhal il does no( shine on adjacent
properties, Dccorati'vc lighling Lll highlight a strllcture is prohibited and not ShOWI\,
IV.BI. SuhdivisiollS and Planned Dneloplll(\llt I'rojrcts
\' I\ NA
X Requiremen(s ror preservation of exisling Ilatmal [c(l[mCS, ~treL'IIa:'>"()lll and design,
hillside grading and drainage, and IIlL c\)l1liguralioll, huikling selhtlck and locatio])s
: hah' been rnct [lnd building cnvelopes e~lablished Oil aliiols.
X . Clll~ler developments meet the f(dlowillt; crilcria: Flexihle fl"ol\r and side sctb[h:li:s arc
pl\I\·ickcL large C\.pmlses ofllat arcus. such ,IS parking luts: are a\'oicied; huilding.., arc
sitcd with units 1l<\"vil1g difkrenl [loor de\(]Liul1s Lo achieve heighl \ aria!ion: buildings
ncar hilbid~ rims are ~ikd in a staggered mrangetllent and sCTccncd \\i1ll plilntillg:
existing vegdation is rdained: [md tlag I (llS \Vh ieh C IlcoUl"agc terr:\ci 11 g tlf bui lei i nbs and
Illioimi/'e C'UlS wild fills arc allO\vcd.
X Long cunlinuous building l1lus')es ar~ avoided and ~r(\ups or building :Irc ck<;igllcd \vith
visible differences through lll'llcriabi, colors.li..Wl1lS and byilde vari;diun. LlC:lde:::. ,He
. :lrLicliid led ,mel roo [lines m· oicl cxtc 11Lled hnrizon tal Ii I\C..,.· 11tl i lei i Ill:', fac,lcic<:; have a
mixture of'vertical and horizonlal dell1cnb, but emph,lsiLe \·er(ic'llily. /\lignmenls or
units ~Ire slaggelecl horizon1ally anel ...,'erUedl)'" 10 l'I'Cilte ullit idcmity, privacy <It
cntry'\vays and ill priv(I[c oUldoor Sp:K~::' and 10 sh;lpe open space. Buildings J11ilY be
(cnaccd and building clllskrs arc sepmatcd with cXj)3n~cs of opcn space.
IV.B2 Single Family Residences on Individual Lots
: y N NA ' ,-.
X H.cquir eme nts ft)f preservatioll of existing natural features, hill si de grading and
i
drnimge , rcduCliol1 of bllil di ng bulk, an.'.hilc.'Unrnl charnckL imel plnnting design arc
met.
X ,'" An exception is nec essary to allo\v tandl:l1l parking on lot s served by an access drive
: if it 111 inim i7.es the irnpact of hillsid e dc:velopment
. X ,Cnmmon dri vcways are cncolU'ugecl.
X :,: The driveway grade do es not excee d 18(~,'O or an exc~pl ioll is reqllired . Dr~linage
. hom the driveway is directed in a conlrolled manner. The finished grade O[:tl lc
driveway c.onforIns to the ilni shed grade of the lot.
lV.ll3 Multi-familv Residential D(~vdo!lll1enj
N i NA . -.. --' .. . . .
X ,R equiremenls 'l~'H preservation of existillg nat mal i'ec1tures, billside grad ing and
~ ~ ----+------,
I : drainage, red uction of building bulk , archikctural cllaracter, s ite lighting and plan ting
~. desjg ~a.~ n~c.!:.. __ . _. . ....... _ ... _ ..... _.. ._ .. , ..
Yard setbacks anel group commo]) and private open space meet zOl ling ordinance
. req uirern c nts. A children's play ,lrea is provid ed on devdopmcllts with over 25 unit s . _ -I _ -~~. __ • _ _ ,_ _ ._ _. -. _. . ....• ~ . _ .-.~ . -.-~ .. r -_ ._ -__
-X The site design LLlili zes opp o rtunities such as outdoor clecks, roof gardens, terraces ,
bay winclO\'-\'s, fratnillg of views , pergolas, view lo oko ut s, il nd sc.ulptured stair: and
walkways.
X '[arg~ ~~p a nses of Oat areas , such as parking lot s, arc avoided; buildings arc sited with
units having different nool' elevati ons to achieve h~i gh[ variiltion; buildings ncar
bilbidc rim s are sited in a staggered arrangement and sere "ned with planting: existing
ve gelalion is retained ; and tlag lot s v,rhich encollrage terracing of buildings amI
~ Illinimi/,e cuts alld fills are allowed.
'-X-":-Lcn;g -c(lnlin110lIS building masses are '"woickcl and groups of bui lcling [tn; designed
: \v .ith visible difTcrenees thL'()ugh ma teria ls, colors, fOl'lllS, and fa9actc variatiol\.
,
I
!X
, B ui Ie! ing fClcacics do 11 0 t c r~a(c n ground level \:vcd I 0 f repel iti ve garage doors, F acades
; me ar[iclllil[~d and roo f1ine s-avoid extenclc.d buri 7.o ntal lines. lluilding fileacJcs have a
rnixt.LLre of ve rtical imel hori L'.olltal clements, but emphasize vcrlicalilY. /\1 ignmenls of
ullits arc staggcrccllw.ri zont::llly oml vertically to create unil iden t ity, pri vi lcy at
ennyways cl11d in privale ulltcloor spaces <\ml 10 s hape ()pen-Sp~lc,e . 811ilc1ings may be
i terraced and bllilding clusters [\I'e se parated \vith exp:mses of open sp<:lce.
Tuck llllc'l er parkillgis e ncomaged . 10%, of the pm-killg lo t area is landscaped or trees
__ pl~l!lt~,~ ,(ls ,L'eCJl~ireQ by t0e Lon~lg_orclin(~nc~: __ __ _ _ " .. __
IV.(:l Highlv Visible Ridgeline Al'l'as
Y N ! NA
~.
x * Dc:~<:lopl"~cnt is loc ~l.tc.cl \.yi th ln .1 09 fe~! of a ,0g ni ~ic;~~t riclgeline ._
I X Designs minimi ze gracling and building pads . Structure s and fences do not project
above the ridgeline Rile! view s oflhe natural ridge silhouettes is retained. R()ud~ ne:l\'
ridge s and on ~Lope::; arc clesigned to Clccommodak grade ancl cut s lopes arc rounded
, off.
5
IV.C2 Hillside Drainage Sn'alcs and Drainage Ravines
!v
X
x
1\ ! NA : '-, . * A hydrologic analysis has been prepared und inadequate on and of-site existing
:.hillsidc storm drainag~ Llcilitics will be replaced. Appmpriale setbacks li'Llm
: drainages have been cst(lblishcc\ to preserve natuwl drainage patterns ariel public
safety. Slop8 stability hazards in watersheds have been sll1diccl and mea s ures
pl:9 P()~e d 10 protect dovvl1slpp e properties (~ubc1i \!ision~)
Genera I plan sethacks hom drainageways, creeds, cll1d 'wetlands are met, (Ceneral
. Plan s(~\lldarcL exceptions canllot be granted) Subdivisions and othcl' m:ljur projects
: have provided a biotic report to establish (he appropriate setback.
* Debris basins, rip-rap, Gnd energy dissipation devices are provided when
! necessary to reduce emsioll \v hen grading is llndctlakcl1. Signific(lllL natural
: drainage courses arc prok,cted from grading activity and are integrcltcd into project
'design. When crossing is required , 11 natural cro:::sing aile! bank protedion is
provided, Any bro y.' ditelies<ll'c naturali7.ed wil!1 plant materials (mel native rocks,
x Steam bank stabilization is dl )lle tlU'ough stream rcila.biliLHtion and not through
concrete channels or other mcchunical means. Strc.~am planting utilizes indig:c11011S
riparian YcgeLatioll,
IV.C3 HiIlslopc Hahitat Areas
y N ; NA .-. -x Cluster hOllsing is encouraged and provisi(1l1S regarding rcdUeliol1 of building bLLlk lH1
hillsid_~:s, arcll~~e..ctural ~har~lc;tcr, and sjlc lighti~g arc follmvccl.
x
_ -L __
Existing vegetation is inc o rporated into the project design and used to screen
e!cvclOpl11Cnl Jiym nffsile y ie,:v s.
Iud kate allY spccia 1 rCti uil'cmcnts
\' N NA ' -.--
X Geotechnical Rev iew
X Drainage Report
X Di(,~I()gic:.11 Syrvcy
X Arborisl's R e port
X Ph oto IvlDntagc (\Bd/or model
.l X . ?ite Staking
CUI1]I!}ent s on overall prniect<;~)mplial}ccJll1d de ~lg l) qualj1y
Ov e rall, the project app~ars to be consistent with most Hillside Design Ouidclillcs.
EXCCpliNl :,) or W~1 iyc[? requj I'(:cl fo r IhG pruj.ecL v~b i eh can I?c approvc;:.gJ)), Lhc/.oUing f'}£lll1inistr.a.tol:
or Planr~illg (:..<J..D1missiOJ~ .. with t.hcl~~c:onllllYll\Ja(ion of the DesiQll.Revicyv Tiocll'(.1
Kone
EXCC}?lions which require th~.JIl?proval of1.h~ Citv C9_undluJ)on the rccQlllm~'llckltionoflbe Dqigl1
B:evie w Board.and Pl.illlp inL! C01111\1jS5iol1
KOllC
6