HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2015-10-06 #2Meeting Date:
Case Numbers:
Project Planner:
Community Development Department -Planning Division Agenda Item:
October 6, 2015
AP15-001/E015-030
Steve Stafford -(415) 458-5048
2-
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 45 Manderly Rd. -Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Conditional Approval of an
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-030) and Side Yard Setback Exception
(EX15-007) allowing the demolition of an existing, 573 sq. ft., attached garage and the
construction of a 1,150 sq. ft. two-story addition to an existing 2,507 sq. ft. single-story, single-
family residence and the construction of a 884 sq. ft. two-story garage structure connected to
the residence with a covered breezeway. The project proposes to encroach 5' into the
required 12.5' side yard setback with the new garage; APN: 016-121-06; Single-Family
Residential (R20) Zone; Board of Directors for the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association,
Appellant, Stewart Summers, Applicant; John and Rebecca White, Owner; Loch Lomond
Neighborhood.
PROPERTY FACTS
Location
Project Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Height
Allowed: 30'
General Plan Designation
LDR
HR
LDR
LOR, HR
HR
Proposed: 20' or less
Upper Floor Area (Max.)
Allowed: 4,651 sf (75% of Max. Lot Coverage)
Proposed: 781 sf
Grading
Total: 67.6 CYOS
Cut: 67.6 CYDS
Fill: 0
Off-Haul: 67.6 CYOS
Zoning Designation
R20
R20-H
R20
R20-H
R10 , R20
Lot Coverage (Max.)
Existing Land-Use
Single-Family Residence
Single-Family Residence
Single-Family Residence
Single-Family Residence
Single-Family Residence
Allowed: 6,201 sf (30% of lot area)
Proposed: 4,283 sf (21 %)
Setbacks
Front:
Side(s):
Rear :
Required
20'
12.5'
10'
Tree Removal
Existing
38'
10'/23'
68 '
Proposed"
38'
10'/7 .5'
34'
Total(No.lspecies): 6 Non-Significant Fruit and Ornamental
Requirement: 0
Proposed: 0
• Hillside building height is measured from natural grade to top of roof/structure at all points of the structure. Standard
building height is measured from an established exterior finished grade elevation to mid-point of a sloped roof .
•. Project includes Exception to encroach 5' into the required 12.5' side yard setback.
SUMMARY
The subject project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for review of site and building
design involving ground-floor and upper-story additions to an existing single-family residence, as
required pursuant to Section 14.25.050 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (Review Criteria;
Environmental and Design Review Permits). These additions also require an Exception for a side yard
setback reduction.
On July 22, 2015, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the project, which has been
appealed to the Planning Commission. The project is being referred to the Board for review of the
applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below. Staff has concluded that the project
adequately addresses the applicable design-related review criteria. The Board's recommendation will
be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The site is located one approximately hundred feet (100') north of the intersection of Manderly and
Lochinvar Roads, in the Loch Lomond neighborhood. It is a gently-sloped (approx.11 % average cross
slope, east-to-west trending, from the Manderly Road frontage to the back of the site) 20,671 square-foot
parcel. The site is developed on a graded building pad which the finished elevation is approximately 10'
lower than the adjacent site located to the north (51 Manderly Rd.) and approximately 10' higher than the
adjacent site located to the south (104 Lochinvar Rd.). The site is encumbered with two easements: 1) a
five-foot (5') wide sanitary sewe'r easement located parallel with the entire north side property line; and 2) a
2' x 10' anchor easement for the existing power pole located along the south side property line and
Manderly Rd. The existing development on tne site was originally built in 1954 and is comprised of a 2,507
sq. ft., single-story, single-family residence with a 573 sq. ft. attached garage. The existing driveway is
located parallel with th.e north side property line. The residential structure currently encroaches (legal non-
conforming) two feet (2') into the west side setback.
The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by a mixture of single-story and multi-story, single-
family residences. The existing scale is predominantly single-story structures for that portion of the
neighborhood located south of the site, between Lochinvar Road and San Pedro Road or commonly
known as 'Lower Loch Lomond, and a mixture of single-story and mUlti-story structures for that portion
of the neighborhood located north of Lochinvar Rd, including the site, commonly known as' 'Upper Loch
Lomond' .
. History:
• . On July 22, 2015, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved an Environmental and
Design Review Permit (ED15-030)'and Side Yard Setback Exception (EX15-007) allowing the
demolition of the existing, 573 sq. ft., attached garage and the construction of a 1,150 sq. ft.
two-story addition to the existing 2,507 sq. ft. single-story, single-family residence and the
construction of a 884 sq. ft. two-story garage structure connected to the residence with a
covered breezeway. The project approvals included the garage encroaching 5' into the required
12.5' side yard setback along the eastern property boundary line (Exhibit 2).
• On July 29,2015, Sarah Gant, President.of the Board of Directors for the Loch Lomond
Homeowners Association submitted a Letter of Appeal to the Community Development
Department, appealing the project approvals and identifying five (5) points for appeal (Exhibit 3):
> The project is too big for the site and the surrounding neighborhood;
> The project architect's position on the CitY's Design Review Board presents a conflict of
interest;
2
» The two-story scale of the project is not appropriate for the site and the surrollnding
neighborhood; » The project is not converting the existing garage but, rather, is demolishing and rebuilding;
and
» The project is increasing square footage on the site by more than 50% and, therefore,
review by the Design Review Board is required.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use:
The project proposes to demolish 573 sq. ft. of existing garage space on a 2,507 sq. ft. single-story
single-family residence and to construct a new 1,150 sq. ft., two-story addition and a new 884 sq. ft.
two-story garage structure connected to the residence with a covered breezeway. The new upper-story
area would create bedroom/office and bathroom additions.
Site Plan:
A majority of the project would occur within the existing footprint of the single-family residence on the
site. The new garage is proposed to encroach 5' into the required 12.5' side yard setback along the
eastern property boundary line. The residential structure currently encroaches (legal non-conforming)
two feet (2') into the west side setback
Archite.cture:
The existing design of the residence includes a combination of 'low profile' (4"-in-12" pitch) hipped and
gable roof forms which the project proposes to match. The project proposes exterior colors and
materials to match the existing high-quality colors and materials, including composition asphalt roof
shingles, horizontal lap siding, sash windows andbrick veneer accent in shades of
earthtones/woodtones. The project proposes to construct, essentially, two separate upper-story areas
to an existing single-story structure; one upper-story area would be located above the relocated garage
along the eastern property boundary line and the other above the entry foyer and kitchen of the existing
residence. The proposed new upper-story, located above the new garage, would be setback
approximately 113' from the front property line and approximately 124' from Manderly Rd. The
proposed new upper-story, located above the entry foyer and kitchen of the existing residence, would
be 'stepped back' or inset several feet frorry the existing first floor wall plane and setback approximately
55' from the front property line and approximately. 65' from Manderly Rd .. The proposed relocated
garage would have an overall height of approximately 17' above finished grade and the new upper-.
story area above the entry foyer and kitchen of the existing residence would have an overall height of
approximately 20' above grade, where a maximum of 30' is allowed.
Parking:
The existing on-site parking is proposed to be replaced to comply with the parking required for single-
family residences. The project proposes to provide two (2) covered on-site parking spaces meeting
minimum interior dimension requirements (A portion of the proposed staircase would encroach into the
minimum required 20' x 20' interior garage dimensions; however, these stairs would provide a minimum
5' 5 %" clearance, allowing full access to the garage interior for vehicle parking):
.Landscaping:
The project proposes to remove six (6) existing trees, four (4) of which are fruit trees, all located around
the existing rear patio, between the residence, the proposed location of the new garage and the
existing swimming pool.
Grading/Drainage: The project proposes an estimated 67.6 CYDS of site grading. This earthwork is
exclusively excavation, with all of the proposed 'cut' exported off-site as 'off-haul'. The project proposes
a 'disbursement trench' drainage system that would route all new storm water surface runoff from new
downspouts and new foundation, below grade, to a between the residence and the driveway, to a 10'-
J .
3
long perforated pipe 'disbursement trench', wrapped in filter fabric and set in 6-B"rip-rap base, located
on the front yard of the site.
ANALYSIS
General Pia", 2020 Consistency:
The General Plan iand use designation for the site is Low Density Residential (LDR). In accordance
with Land Use Policy LU-23 (Land Use Map and Categories), the LDR designation allows for residential
uses typical of single-family densities (Le., gross densities of 2 -6.5 residential units/acre). The existing
use on the subject site is single-family residential and project does not propose to increase density on
the site. Also, the project's proposed 20' building height (approx.) is in accordance with Land Use Policy
LU-12 (Building Height), which allows for a maximum building height of 30'. Staff has provided for
effective community involvement in the review of this project by referring the project to the appropriate
neighborhood groups (Loch Lomond Homeowner's Association or LLHOA and Loch Lomond Highlands
Homeowner's Association or LLHHOA) early on in the review of the project, through the referral
process and by providing notice of the Zoning Administrator's hearing on the project, is in accordance
with Community Design Policy CD-15 (Participation in Project Review). Staff requests the Board's
guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the following design-related General Plan
Policies:
• Housing Policy H-3 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context) strives to design new
housing, remodels and additions to be compatible in form to the surrounding neighborhood by
incorporating transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect the existing
development character and privacy and to minimize the negative effects on adjacent properties.
• Neighborhoods Policy NH-2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) strives to
maintain and enhance the residential character of neighborhoods to make them desirable
places to live by seeking to have new development: 1) Enhance the neighborhood image and
quality of life; 2) Incorporate sensitive transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent
properties to respect adjacent development character and privacy; 3) Respect existing
landforms and natural features; 4) Maintain or enhance infrastructure service levels; and 5)
Provide adequate parking.
• Community Design CD-2 (Neighborhood Identity) seeks to recognize, and'promote the unique
character and integrity of the City's residential neighborhoods and Downtown. Strengthen the
"hometown" image of San Rafael by: 1) Maintaining the urban, historic, and pedestrian .
character of the Downtown; 2) Preserving and enhancing the scale and landscaped character of
the City's residential neighborhoods; 3) Improving the appearance and function of commercial
areas; and 4) Allowing limited commercial uses in residential neighborhoods that serve local
residents and create neighborhood-gathering places.
.. Community Design CD-3 (Neighborhoods) seeks to recognize, preserve and enhance the
positive qualities that give neighborhoods their unique identities, while also allowing flexibility for
innovative design. New development should respect the context and scale of existing
neighborhoods.
• CD-5 (Views) strives 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 ridges from public streets, parks and publicly
accessible pathways. .
• CD-13 (Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines) seeks to recognize, preserve and
enhance the design elements that contribute to the livability of neighborhoods and their visual
4
appearance. Recognize that each neighborhood is unique, and that design review must
consider the distinct characteristics of individual neighborhoods. New development should fit
within and improves the character-defining elements of the neighborhoods.
Staffs Comments. Staff has determined that the project is in accordance with all applicable design-
related General Plan policies. The project proposes new multi-story scale is compatible in a
neighborhood with a mixture of both single-and mUlti-story residences. The proposed project design
incorporates sensitive transitions in building height, 'stepbacks' from lower-story wall planes, setbacks
from adjacent properties to respect existing privacy. The proposed project design will respect views of
the hiliside backdrop, as viewed along the Manderly Rd. frontage, given that; 1) The project is setback
approximately 55' from the front property line and approximately 65' from Manderly Rd. and the
existing mature tree canopy height on-site and on the adjacent property at 51 Manderly Rd. already
impairs the limited public view of the hills along the Manderly Rd. frontage; and 2) The project is
designed to minimize the loss of public views of the hills by proposing low-profile (4"-in-12" pitch) gable
and hipped roof forms.
Zoning OrdinCilnce Consistency:
Chapter 4 -Residential Districts
The project is subject to the development standards for the Single-Family Residential (R20) District,
pursuant to Chapter 4 (Section 14.04.040) of the San Rafael Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance).
Those property development standards applicable to the project are identified in the Site Development
Summary matrix located on the front of this report. The project will be consistent with all applicable
property development standards for the R20 District, subject to a side yard setback encroachment
Exception along the eastern property boundary line.
Chapter 18 -Parking Standards
The site is a non-hillside parcel. Pursuant to Section 14.18.040 (Parking Requirements) of the Zoning
Ordinance, the project is required to provide two (2) covered on-site parking spaces. The project
proposes to demolish the existing two-vehicle garage to create ground-floor habitable space and to
construct a new two-vehicle garage on the site. Pursuant to Section 14.18.180 (Residential Garage and
Carport Standards), the project needs to provide replacement parking that meets minimum interior
dimension requirements. As designed, a portion of the proposed staircase would encroach into the
minimum required 20' x 20' interior garage dimensions; however, these stairs would provide a minimum
5' 5 %" clearance, allowing full access to the garage interior for vehicle parking.
Chapter 24 -Exceptions
Pursuant to Section 14.24.020 (8) (Authority; Setbacks), encroachments up to five feet (5') are aUowed
in the required 12.5' side yard (interior) setback, if it can be demonstrated: 1) The encroachment is in
character with the surrounding neighborhood; 2) The decreased side yard is not required as an
essential open space or recreational amenity for use of the site; and 3) Where such decrease will not
unreasonably affect abutting sites.
Staffs Comments. Staff has determined the findings to grant a side yard setback Exception are met,
given that; 1) The proposed side setback encroachment is in character with the neighborhood in the
immediate vicinity (Le., on both sides of the street for the length of the block where the site is located,
with the same zoning), where existing single family residences, located in the same R20 District zone,
currently encroach), where existing single family residences, located in the same R20 District zone,
currently encroach into the minimum required 12.5' side setback, including, but not limited to, 104
Lochinvar Rd. and 45,50 and 73 Manderly Rd., in addition to the site where the existing residence
already encroaches (legal non-conforming) two feet (2') into the west side setback (Side yard setback
encroachments were also observed by staff in the same R20 District zone though slightly beyond the
'immediate vicinity' of the site, include 4,30 and 33 Inverness Dr, and 7, 11 and 15 Dunfries Terrace.);
2) The development standards for the R20 District does not required a minimum usable outdoor area
for the residence on the site; the side yard setback is currently developed with a concrete driveway and
·5
an uncovered parking area over a 5'-wide sanitary sewer easement, which will continue with converting
the uncovered parking to covered parking; and 3) The five foot (5') side yard setback encroachment not
result in the removal of existing mature vegetation, including trees, located along the common side
property line shared with 51 Manderly Rd., which helps to screen the new garage, which will be setback
approximately 60' from the nearest residence, located at 51 Manderly Rd.
Chapter 25 -Environmental and Design Review Permit
The proposed project requires Environmental and Design Review Permit approval by the Zoning
Administrator given that it proposes new upper-story additions over 500 sq. ft. in size, pursuant to
Section 14.25.040(B)(1)(f) (Improvements Subject to Review). The project is subject to the review
criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, pursuant to Section 14.25.050 (Review Criteria),
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, ~cale and building design. The design
should be sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings in the
vicinity. Design elements and approaches which are encouraged include: a) creation of interest in
the building elevation; b) pedestrian-oriented 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.
• Landscape Design. Landscaping shall be designed as an integral enhancement of the site and
existing tree shali 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.
• Upper-Story Additions. Review of new upper-story additions are specifically not intended to
preclude such development, but rather, to assure better design and to limit impacts on adjacent
properties through review of window placement, outside stairways, shadowing and prevailing
design character and scale in the 'immediate vicinity' of the site.
Staffs Comments. Staff concludes the above criteria are met, as follows:
6
Scale -The project proposes new upper-story additions in the 'immediate vicinity' of residential·
development with a varied mixture of single-story and multi-story scale. Staff found multi-story
scale in the 'immediate vicinity' of the site, at 59, 65, 76, and 81 Manderly Rd. on lots 23,254 -
33,600 sq. ft. in size, which are similar in size to the site (The site is 21,671 sq. ft. in size). Multi-
story scale was also observed by staff in the same R20 District zone though slightly beyond the
'immediate vicinity' of the site, include 33 Inverness Dr. and 10, 15, 19, 33, 37 and 41 Dunfries
Terrace on lots 21,320 -29,000 sq. ft. in size).
Architecture -The proposed project design proposes to match the character-defining elements
of the residence, including 'low-profile' (4"-in-12" pitch) gable roof forms, composition asphalt
roof shingles, horizontal lap siding, sash windows and brick veneer accent base in shades of
earthtones/woodtones. A Materials and Color Board will be provided during the Board's
meeting.
Window Placement -The project proposes side-facing upper-story windows so as not to have a
direct line-of-sight into windows of the closest adjacent neighbor at 51 Manderly Rd. These side-
facing windows are either high-sill window design (above the garage) or windows that look
directly out onto driveways on both the site and the adjacent property at 51 Manderly Rd. which
are setback approximately 80' from the existing residence at 51 Manderly Rd.
Shadow Impacts -The difference in graded building pad between the site and the closest
adjacent property, 51 Manderly Rd., is approximately 10' (The building pad on the site is
approximately 10' lower than that at 51 Manderly Rd.) which helps to mitigate any negative
impact to solar access for 51 Manderly Rd. Any shadowing resulting from the project would
impact existing driveways and uncovered parking area and not 'primary, active recreational
areas' in the sic!e or rear yard at 51 Manderly Rd.
Views -The proposed project design will respect views of the hillside backdrop, as viewed along
the Manderly Rd. frontage, given that; 1) The new upper-story, located above the new garage,
will be setback approximately 113' from the front property line and approximately 124' from
Manderly Rd while the new upper-story, located above the entry foyer and kitchen of the
existing residence, will be setback approximately 55' from the front property line and
approximately 65' from Manderly Rd.; 2) The site has a 11 %, east-to-west trending, average
cross slope (approx .. ) from the Manderly Road frontage which creates a 5-10' grade difference
between the building pad and the finished grade of Tylanderly Rd. in front of the site to the back
of the site The finish grade of the building pad on the site is located 5-10' above the street grade
in front of the residence along Manderly Rd. ; and 3) The existing mature tree canopy height
on-site and on the adjacent prpperty at 51 Manderly Rd. already impairs the limited public view
of the hillside.
Chapter 28 -Appeals
On July 22, 2015, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved an Environmental and Design
Review Permit (ED15-030) and Side Yard Setback Exception (EX15-007) for the project. On July 29,
2015, Sarah Gant, President of the Board of Directors for the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association
submitted a Letter of Appeal to the Community Development Department, appealing the project
approvals (Exhibit 3). The applicant has also submitted a letter in response to the appeal letter, refuting
the points of appeal (Exhibit 4). In her appeal letter, Ms. Gant believes, generally, the project is: 1) Out
of scale; and 2) Out of character. Ms. Gant lists five (5) appeal points which are listed below in
bold/italics and each appeal point is followed by a staff response:
Appeal Point #1 .. Too Big .. The project is too big for the site and the surrounding
neighborhood. The existing single-family residence on the site is currently 3,080 sq. ft. in size,
7
including garage, which has been approved to increase to 4,540 sq. ft. including garage.
Surrounding single-family residences in the 'immediate vicinity' (i.e., on both sides of the street
for the length of the block where the site is located , with the same zoning) currently range 2,778
- 5 ,018 sq. ft . in size , including garage . The project is in character with the current size of
single-family development in the immediate vicinity of the site.
Appeal Point #2 -Conflict of Interest -The project architect's position on the City's
Design Review Board presents a conflict of Interest. The project architect, Stewart
Summers, has been a member of the City's Design Review Board since 2007. In 2004, the City
established a permanent rotation of officers which is based on a rotational schedule of
members. Mr. Summers was voted, and continues to serve as, chairman of the Design Review
Board for 2015. Members on the Board serve as community volunteers. Mr. Summers, like most
of the members on the Board, is a practicing licensed architect in the State of California,
providing architectural design services to clients like the project owners. Mr. Summers is a
member in good standing and serves in compliance with the rules and standards of the fair
Political Practice Commission. Mr. Summers did not request from Planning staff, and staff did
not provide, project review in conflict with applicable General Plan policies and Zoning
Ordinance standards , requirements and review criteria. The project has been reviewed by staff
consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance standards,
requirements and review criteria.
Appeal Point #3 -Two-Story Scale -The two-story scale of the project is not appropriate
for the site and the surrounding neighborhood. The project proposes new upper-story
additions in compliance with the applicable review criteria. Further, in the 'immediate vicinity' of
residential development, there exists a varied mixture of single-story and multi-story scale. Staff
found multi-story scale in the 'immediate vicinity' of the site, at 59, 65, 76, and 81 Manderly Rd.
on lots 23,254 -33,600 sq. ft. in size, which are similar in size to the site (The site is 21,671 sq.
ft. in size). Multi-story scale was also observed by staff in the same R20 District zone though
slightly beyond the 'immediate vicinity ' of the site, include 33 Inverness Dr. and 10,15,19,33,
37 and 41 Dunfries Terrace on lots 21 ,320 -29,000 sq. ft. in size. More importantly, pursuant to
Section 14.25.050(F)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance (Review Criteria; Environmental and Design
Review Permits), design review permits for new upper-story additions are specifically not
intended to preclude such development, but rather, to assure better design and to limit impacts
on adjacent properties. As discussed throughout this report , staff has determined the project is
well-designed with minimal impacts.
Appeal Point #4 -Not "Conversion" of Garage Space -The project Is not converting the
existing garage but, rather, is demolishing and rebuilding. The project proposes to 'convert'
the existing non-habitable, 573 sq. ft. garage to habitable space, which will include a two-story
staircase, bedroom, bathroom, half-bath, kitchen pantry, laundry room and 'mud; room. The
project will maintain, generally, the same footprint as the existing garage, though new
construc:;tion is proposed. The appeal letter interprets the term 'conversion' literally, while the
project uses the term figuratively.
Appeal Point #5 -Prior Design Review Board Evaluation Required -The project is
Increasing square footage on the site by more than 50% and, therefore, review by the
DeSign Review Board is required. The purpose of the Design Review Board is to serve as an
advisory body to the City, reviewing and providing comments on site and building design of
projects. The Board's authority requires review of all projects requiring Planning Commission
approval; the Board is also available for review, at the request of staff, for all projects requiring
staff-or Zoning Administrator-level approval. The project proposes 781 sq. ft. of new upper-
story addition. Section 14.25.040 (B)(1)(f) of the Zoning Ordinance (Improvements Subject to
Review) requires Environmental and Design Review Permit approval by the Zoning
Administrator, which was provided for the project on July 22, 2015. Design Review Board review
8
of the project was not required though Planning staff reviewed the project and determined it to
be in accordance with all applicable General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance standards,
requirements and review criteria.
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
of an area and that strives to improve the v.isual unity of the area. Planning staff requests the Board's
guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the following applicable Residential Design
Guidelines:
Building Design
• Where there is an existing pattern, particular attention should be given to maintaining a
consistent streetscape.
• All building facades should be varied and articulated. Long monotonous walls should. be
avoided.
• Attention should be paid to the street-and Canal-front facades of buildings by incorporating
similar materials and details.
Scale
• Where necessary to replicate existing patterns or character of development, design techniques
should be used to break up the volume of larger buildings into smaller units. For example, a
building can be articulated through architectural features, setbacks and varying rooflines to
appear more as an aggregation of smaller building components.
• Transitional elements, such as stepped facades, roof decks and architectural details that help
merge larger buildings into an existing neighborhood should be used.
Building Height
• Adjacent buildings should be considered and transitional elements included to minimize
apparent height differences.
Roof Shapes
• Where possible, relate new roof form to those found in th.e area.
Building Entrances
• There should be a clear, well-defined sense of entry from the street to the building.
• Examples of elements that can be used to define the primary entrance and to further define the
street facade are a usable front porch or verandas, an overhead trellis canopy, or other similar
feature.
Windows
• The placement and size of windows in the building should be consistent with the overall building
design and the neighborhood streetscape. Where windows do not reflect an existing pattern,
greater attention should be paid to other means such as balcony overhangs, porches, materials,
colors, etc. of articulating the fayade:
• Window proportions should be consistent with the proportions of the building and with other
windows on the building.
• Windows should overlook the street, parking and public areas to permit surveillance and
increased safety.
• Window placement along rear and side elevations should consider privacy needs of adjacent
neighbors.
9
Driveways and Parking Areas
• Driveway cuts and widths should be minimized, in compliance with zoning.
• Minimize large paved areas, for example by using alternative materials (i.e., turf block, stamped
concrete or pavers).
Staff's Comments. Staff has no issues or concerns with the site and building design of the project as
discussed in staff's report.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRES"ONDENCE
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 site, the appropriate neighborhood groups (the Loch Lomond
Homeowner-'s Association and the Loch Lomond Highlands Homeowner's Association), and all other
interested parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of this hearing. Additionally, notice was posted on
the site, along the Manderly Rd. frontage.
At the time of printing staff's report, no comments have been received as a result of this noticing.
CONCLUSION
The Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of the project has been appealed to the Planning
Commission by the neighborhood homeowners association. The appeal asserts the project is out of
scale and out of character with the surrounding development. The project is being referred to the Board
for review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail above. Staff has conch,lded that
the project adequately addresses the applicable design-related review criteria. The Board's
recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced Project Plans
3. Letter of Appeal from Sarah Gant, Loch Lomond HOA, dated July 29,2015
4. Response letter to appeal from Stewart Summers, applicant, dated September 30, 2015
Full-sized and reduced (11" x 17" color plans have been provided to Design Review Board members
only.
cc: Sarah Gant -President, Loch Lomond Homeowners Association; P.O. Box 2368; San Rafael,
CA 94912-2368
Scott and Rebecca White -45 Manderly Rd; San Rafael, CA 94901
Stewart Summers -Stewart K. Summers, Architect; 250 Bel Marin Keys Blvd., Suite D1;
Novato, CA 94949
10
45 Manderly Rd .
.e,
'-..
11
,
/
"" ",
's
'b
j
~ "'". '"
I '<l-'ll-... ...
'b
'11>
~
.I ,..
."... o
(j)
'<t
(j)
«
()
It l Is I
'I < i· . . I
<I' i 11 ~ 1111 !
I I~ i ~ ~; ~i,
~ II~ ~ mi ~ I!.! I lin
I pUI
ill II . ! I ! !
i i i
i I I I i , !
~ I II ~ < l ! II • < ! liI,,1 • < c
~
9O"1.U.-91.O * 'eiV
L06Wi y.) 'I-U,!!}! lIeS
prox AjJ3PUew !It
UOII!PPY .ouaP!<.~ .~!4M
I
I IU~ • UI ,
~ : ~ ; .3
II i i II
III
~H !Ill
I
, !
1 ! !
I If ~ I I
• • ,
I II j~ ~,
d-I !l~ I" ! I! 9 ! , II I I II / ! I'! I.! II i I 'I· I ~i~ a • .
U
.~ II • ,
~ .,
11
I i .
,
" k ,
.. ~ i t
" ;"
J
j
i
0 Ln <..9 w -z =. > c-J . Z -c::> W (1") Z () :s ~ 0-
W
(/) Q..
Exhibit 2
T
T"'"1 i ~ I
, ,
I ~ t
, , i ::::;' i ~ , , ~s; , ,
,
, iii I I ' , jh d , , jiG *. L II : . -, I i • dhUh
I . ' i ~
!
' ,
I
I"
. ,
+ •
. , , . ~~ ~~ ~~!~~ j]UjiH
I
, ~i~1 ~ni~ ! ~!dhiu ~
'8~~~~ ~ ~ I
~ ... ~iY) !
I
~ ~ i ,
I
,
~ ~ I
I ~ ~ ,
8
I
!
• 4-1li'EE
14" TREE /------\\------lQo;_
!"~ A= ~ 00 0_1\
f r~\
\-j • 14'1"R:U'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LAWN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXISTING SITE PlAN
';~
~-v~
-\
e
Q
<t:; a
0:;
::...
>4
0:;
ttl
Q
2:;
<t:;
::?1
.§ ,g
~
1l c 5 OJ ~ ~8~cg
Q,JC" i5 ~ '" t -~
Q.l "B]5
:!:::! ,..~* ..c :E 1ii . ~~"'~
ESP
9O"lZ~"91.O "* "dV I
1.06t1i \f.) 'lalIJ.YlI ueS
peo'll AiJapuew st
UO!l!PPY "JU"P!S"~ "l!4M
! ~l ,
z ::s "-
"" 0
0
...J u..
\..J
Z
i=
VI
X w
• ~~
~I n ~~ n ~ i~ I. L_ n ~
~
9INlL·9I.Q # 'dV
W6tr6 If.) '1at!P!~ UI!'S
pro~ A(I~uew st
UO!l!PPY "JU"P!S"~ "l!4M
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ",,>-
Ii 'i'~"'==-=="'===
" \
,
========11
!
I ,
1
I
! s' ': ===~
N
U w
z
0
~ .....
L.U
::c ...
"" 0
Z
90iZL -91.0 • 'IV
L06t6 Y.) 'JaeJ'Il U'i!S
p'lO~ ApaptA!W s.
UOmppv a~Uap!Sa'll "1!4M
z
0
~ ..... .....
L.U ...
V> -< L.U
z
0
~ > ... ..... .....
::c ... ::>
0
V>
(" .. ftT lot:. Vl:)K..ft '~~!;II;; H:.I.U I V:J A;llN= '''''' .. '><=. '-A't1:I-go .
:r=--l~----,.-.::.:~. LE'.'£l CRl'·&' AI)O'.f: ~1f2EE ' L~ A$Ofi!M'-:lAY P .... ...aen ~ U-7Rr.I;: IQI;_
, • -""'n I .,C;'" -___ > ~ ~t:l.JCALYf>tVIl, IV~ ~ '~ r--''';'~-; -#-111618 '; -• /' H.~": .'" ----_ _' ... ,----.-L _ N IS ' 42 ' 21' W ~ i -..... _-L.._ : ,-'I. - _ _ :a.ur
N ., -~-' I -
... ,."", PRPPOSED i -+ -----i-
"' ••••• _ _ •••• f --EXISTING -\ Z nlU4 ! QA:.R.A.GE : D,DnmTrny __ 3"~~'~""TRU 1 • ' ,,! :tUv,"",wn ----_
:3 -l ----_: .... ___ .. __ ........ lO!eti,~'1 --------__ e
) .. _ ... , .' i! r' ·co·co···· ." ) Cl
/ J ...,.', i ' ~~' «
100=.,-,;;4 , , .,;.,; 0
jf i' .. o:""'r-:":::;:~,*, ,: ,i I rl~ ''':' ~
.I' ~ ! _J :" '-i li t
1" ~ , '~I ii'~! 5'F ,s-·rn;=
,n -+_-'I:I ~. 1.
f 'rTfflIlI. --.. ,....... = '\ .lJt.WlV '--.... 5"f2U 0 \ I ___ ~ .~ fa).. I Jt>-..
S'fRU l ' '" ~
If''IJlEli I 0 1 L;r I(,W WAmIi' ~ 0::::
I t .~~ ~ : i ... ~
~~~. ~NG ! Q r'd~rQtK i POOL· l_-J 2; ~ I ~
$" FRVr!' Ii 'it>' '-(
'-------' ~ ~ --~
1'1.-,. -&
---A-----. "'~"-(~~
--;:,... 1 / ~ " ~ ~ \\ ,~ "-'-IlI-C-
'" N 3~' 13 • 'O~~\'3' .,.'1'1;
""W...:i-"7"/Ji'fli l'
T'
' .... 1'H:U= ~"'''''.$
• l'\
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
.,..
II
I~~L i .,
t ~ ; a
~~\i~fST -~,.!:;;';'! "'MI ~ ... " '. '. "-'1»1"
.§ . .,
~
<II
~ ~ ~ "i;:;~
<II .:! i5 " '" f .~ Q) ]5
£ :ot:
~ *~~
H
.....,.,~~
1i'So~.,:!$"!" .. =:"'::"-::S.:."Tl~ ..,. OJJ>'''''
wo.,t, .fIr. r -o" -, .
~.
AO
I ·~.= !
....
t!
I ,
i
Vl z :s
Q..
..: o
9 u..
w " .1
'1
'"
III
/ll 4/
90"l.l~"91.0 #-".rv
1.06t'6 Y:) '1311jl!}I lnlS
p'eO}I AJ.IapullW St"
UO!l!PPV aJuap!sali al!4M
u.. o o
~
Q
LU o
C-
O
~
VI
'" 9
8
Cl
IoU
2 o c<
Q..
9D'\Zl.oCJt.O * 0rfl(
1.061r6 y.> 'Ja!j'tll U'tS
PVOll~U
uoillPPV aJUiIp!Sall al!llM
z
0
~ ~ ....
LU
:I:
"" :;:)
0
VI
Cl
LU
VI
2
0 c<
Q..
i
!
J
[B
z
0
~ ~ ....
IoU
"" ~
Cl
IoU
VI
0
Q..
0 c<
Q..
~--~ ~ 1" I ,
z o
~
u:j
:c
~ o z
o
IoU
2 o
r¥
0.
,-
12.
JL -r-
·t,1 ---
l-~-~ i!~ 0
II : ~! \~" I ,
~-\l
I I !
l l
II II ~ ......
901Z&."9lO f . .rv
lO6t6 Y.) ~~ ues
pro~ .(p&puvw SJr
UO!l!PPV aJUap!Salj al!4M
rt
if
i
c
.E
......
IJ.j
~ ......
r¥
IJ.j
I ':ij :r:
e... e... ::>
0
IJ.j
Vl
0 e...
0
.... A 'I
r¥ e...
@
N
'* Z
Q
U
IoU
VI
u z
15 ......
5 cc
.r ." Cl
!
i z u 0 .'" :.< ~
IoU
l-
Vl
IJ.j
:i=
all
~ •
Z
0
is
IJ.j
V'>
is ...... cc
I
t
WEST ELEVATION @ GARAGE
NORTH ELEVATION @ GARAGE
t= f ,r J 1-------"-,, 1 T I~
I " c::.~--,
r Brt) I Guest Bath W
: I ,' II~
: , I[ i ,: :~~ I / 10 :
:H "',: / ~~:_ r~~ --------~~:,1 ~~--~~;. mnrn ll'
11 ••• 1 11 " I lI i iilllll ~ ~~~II
L'~' ~---Garage ___ "
! ~!~;,--:::-.}., .~.
:! 1= \.-"~~..!.I "
""'~ .. ,y~ . ...;;;: --:!'···f '..,
: / : "'-~
I / I" I
: I .... /~: : CL" :
I I: ~ / BR6 /GUEST I I : :' /~I OJ I '~:
I II , I ~ I ~-~--,~ I
: ~: ___ I : : :1Jli' 'i' , , " , I I I I II I ... ------r--I I ,I I
I I _-I_.Jj I I
: , <1 '-C'd"~~"! r-:--I : , ,~~~i ---~~~~~~~~~---! -: .. -r-J
lOll ,
; 10.-".
SOUTH ELEVATION @ GARAGE
l ~
~.'."'.".'.'.'.'.".' f:-:::::::~~:~.1~ ~~~~~:,,:
EAST ELEVATION @ GARAGE
,....... f , ro' "~ 11 I I I I I
I I I I ,
'=!=~
•• ~:
2 CAR GARAGE
i'
"",,.,.,..eo ~c.:"~
~; l'
i ". I , , , , , ,
I iii IiI I L _______ "
" 1iI!;
..... ~ i i ,-
J
-t-
, -,-
(;)
PROPOSED GARAGE SECTION PROPOSED GARAGE PLANS
§ ;p
c
~
~
13 c _
~ "0 i:
'0; 8~~ ~ ~;:;!i
tU -t 1 .b "'-' ~_s :c ~.:l ..
~ ~j~
AS
z
0
0
Z
0
:t:l ,....
~
~
9O·1.l~·9LO ., 'elY
LQ6y6 Y.) ']311JIl )J UI!S
PI!Olt AJl3PU &W Sy
uOlllPPV 9JU9P1S911 9l14M
~ ~
Z ~ -<
>-0
;:)
l-
V>
S
0
0 -< J:
V>
Prior -to demoliHon, contact Bay Area Oualily Management Distriel to determine if permits are required for demo or hazardous materials.
Pollution
Make
Runoff from
aelivities can
Materials slorage & spill cleanup
Non-hazardous materials management
y Son<:!, art, ond "milor mot~ricll m""t he >tor.d at ",",I 10 I«t I""" cotch
bo.ins. OM cov<red ",i t l> c lo,!, dl.ri"i ~el ~.ol~e r or WMn ro;'" il lorocClt
"" Us< (i><JI "",,'t <WO<tJ'") rtClC,."e<l .ote< 1.,..-Ilu,t C""~ e. _""d.
.... Sw«p otr""t. ood otf,lIf 1lC'<td 1)<_ ~<:Wj_ 00 not ,.,,,.n do,"" .1If.1. 0( .or!<
... _"""''0010<.
.... Rcqde oil onphaIt. <:O<ICtI'l'. ona ~:.. Ixae "",borid If..,., d ....... :tKlA
octMtin.
.... C/>cd< oo...pstrts ~'OI' _ 010d '" m""" ... .., If..,-don't O~.
!lepoir""repIo""'''''''''II~Prope:l)'·
Hazardous materials management
"" Lobel 011 hG.ordou. moter\olll and r.alordous ..-oot .. ($UC~ as ",,01,,':1 ... point ••
I~....,.'". soNO<\lo, fuel. 01. and anl~r.o .. ) ., ~rdor.ce witl> Cil, •• 101 •• aod
l.d.",1 ro9<JlaliM •.
,/ store r.a,o<do,-" molerloi. aod ",,01 •• ..., _""","y conl..,,,,,,,,1 ond c_r
them aut.,.. wilt w$O\lwr,
.... foil<> .. m'''."f''''It" .... •• oppkot .... ;"'I\fuctiono for ho.oraD<J. m.teriol, oM /It
ooroIuI noI to ute "'OI'e <!Ion 1'IeOeU<Irf. Do not awtr <to.."ieoIs •• Moan ,,"""
/<in IS r«eooast -'til .. 2~ h<Nrs.
,/ So , .... ;0 ""_ I"" opptoplot .. ~I of !II h<ln><oJOI.of ...me..
Spill prevention and control
"" Keep 0 !\oclcpilo 01 spit ~ mel"'""" ('<>gs. _IS, etc.) """,'Ioblo!
01 tho o",.I,,,,,U,," I ii. ot o~ I ......
"" When $pill or leo .. ""eur. contGin thorn "",,~olely oM .. !l<'rl;,;oI<lrii)' COr.-
lit 10 ~rt''''1 ,. ..... "<1 .p'" lrom rtIOCIli"'J I .. QUit .... ." .. 1, or Ilerm drain
~.or wash spi llorl motorial Inlo " 9Utt.r, otrocI •• t""" drain. or o",ok'
"" Report "'Y ho1<'''~ moterial "pills imm .... t"yl Col firt C.~rtmfnt
Prevention It J
S of the Plan Part
sure your crews and subs do the job right!
streets and a/her paved areas is a major source of pollution in San Francisco Boy. Construelion
directly affect the health of the Bay unless contradors and crews plan ahead to keep dirt, debris,
and other construction waste away (rom storm drains and local creeks. ~ Vehicle and equipment
maintenance & cleaning
,/ l<lSl><Ci _ides am equo'pm .. t '1)< 1001<1
l.eq ..... lIJ. lIH drip po .... 10 coIcIo reoru.
unIi .opoirs .'" ..... do; toP<><' -. promptly.
.-f""'."" ..... il>lO'n~""IiIe ""1,.
".bem\oe<I."'''''_to~ripllCnlh<rl
.. '"9 e",ugh to 1"'_1 ",fIQH.
.-~ )'00 ",,,,,I ~ """iI:"~ or ~om"'l
00 .ile . c ~n .itt> woi.' ""I)-." "
i>e rrned ..-eo that wOl ",,\ Gila" Mlt .. oIer
to run ".Ie gutt..-•. Ilr_ •• si.om'l dfQ"~.
or C( .. ~.
.... 00 ""t eIeon ...n;ctes or OQ.,;pm ... 1 .,,-oite
'JU19 _ •• ~. deQr .. wa.
"wm deanin9 equip_l «C,
@
Earthwork &-contaminated soils
.... Keep <!XCC>'01e<l •• ,-. on !he ,,~e _~e ;1 ;s 1",,01 Iioeljr 10 corio<:! in tho .W:.~
,,,,,,.fer 10 ,.""", IO'UC'" "'O<JO tckt "'"" on the .. Ie. 00\ i~ \hI st, .. i.
.... U .. My -., oill I",c ... "" ol~ conlr<ll moo,LII''''' 10 minim.~ tho fto-. of
d l off Ille .;to.
~
,/ ..... oid s <hc4uling earth fT)O'J;"'g oelcl~in
d""" lhe ,a;"'y _."" ~ pcs';bIe. 1
9ra<l;"9 octi'tit; .. durin; ... 1 "oot,..,.
0111 oIlond in )'<l<'f permjt, be =e to
ifnpkm .... 1 .. con\tol meas..rn Ot'HIOI')'
10 _i otusioa,
.... ~t..r. ....,.,.,tion ;s the _ I""" 01
._ """tro\. 1oinimi2e .... I~ to
e,;o,t ...... ~0100n __ poo,,1N.
,/ fl you dsI"'~ 0 otope dLlrln9 <""01f~
~ ... nt ."""'" bjt S«UtiNj thO soil .. ~h
........... oonl,<Ii I"btl<, or sud wilh '~Il
qrowing gro.,e. o. ><>on "" ~'lWe. F'lcUO
~1 1>Q~' OO","-.rope IJ(lt~ .o~ i. oocu",.
la pu,,,ont ero";,,,
.-• )'0" ",-,-,p.ect CO<lI""''''lion (Irom oit. hi.txy, d;scolornliO<1. odor, tt.!u rt,
~d un<l"'V""""I"""'or~o..-b<JriOOdebris),caIIl>oFir.[lo.pI"
fa.-,...,., ;,., Getormi~ ..not tHting _ be """"
.... 1(00"1:" .... pcsol 01 <""too""""I'" ... , acconf.,~ '" Fa o.potlmMt
iM:ruction. ..
Dewatering
operations
'" Ik_ .....mo-"" dust """1roI,, irr~""",
or o....tlN!r ",,-.ite ......,.,.,.. to \f>c 9.eo1"""
nteflt possible.
v' Be Oln to 0Cl1 III. C;!J', StOtM-<:t".
~ t>efort GscI>or9r.g -ow Ie a
",reel QUit",. or st ... m d'oin. r;~rali«1 0<
di ...... ;oothrougll0 bollin.to" ....
,,"'menl 1'0t> ""'Y •• '.~oi .. d.
@
.... In <nos 01 ~ .... "n eoniomioatio •• telli~ i. req..ired ~;.,. 10 rtUOt or
asch<lrg. 01 9'~ltr. CO!loult ",:II tne CAt, r .... Oept to ~i"""""" """t to-sti"'l 10 do end I~ ;,.,!,..~: ffcs.ottl, c",,\Qm;no!<d .,.""oo..,W
m""t be ~Iod 0..-houlfd ..,,-. for P<~ ~""'.
Saw cuffing
v' """"" """'t'ltttiy COW< 0< \lON'.;_ ........ drai~ ;n",,-" _. SQ" CU11io'1g.
lIof liler labrie, "'" bolo l, I'lt>d ~' .... r ... ...-""'" dOl'l'l!l '" ~"P .... "Y
DIll cI Ill< .lotm drc;'" systtm.
.-Shooel, ""'.ocb, or ",",,"um ""W-C"t IILII'ry OM ,,"ck up 01 ~a.!. a. """"
a. yov a.-8 f'<lis~" ;" ..". Io<:ot>on or at lho """ cJ each w...,., My
( .. h;c~o.", i •• 00000M)
.... If >0 .. cut oturry ..,t .... 0 (o\(h bo,;", .;1<"" ~ "p i....,..,diet.ly.
Paving/asphalf work
~ -........ -;,.-~.-
rQinls'""",,~
.-....... 0)'1 e_r Ilorm Or ..... ;_ or><! motI-
r,oIe, wllon p<M"'l or apply;"'; ...at coot,
• to;. coot. olurr, 0001, or fO<,i "",I . !" ,., .;, '''' . 00_" _,,~, .-
I der po."" IqoiPlTWln! wh"" net ;,., _ .
.... 00 ""I '''oql 0< ...,., dow" e,"'" ...,d 'rom ..,.,d .eo""'! .,to gJtia-t.
"""" Orei ... "r e<ed<o. Colea send _ r.1 ...... iI ~" \I><> o\o<'ocpok. ""
dispooe 01 ~ os 1<os!I.
.... 00 <101 ..,., '"""'" to .",.. do .... "..,h ospIIo" conc<~te ~
Concrete, graul, and mortar
storage &' waste disposal
,/ Be "'''' 10 01 ..... <oocr.-te. Vout. "M mortGr uollo. <~ and
aw.y from OrQm<}e """"'" That mOleri ais must MI'I' ... ch
a lto<m dro.,
v' w".h w\ <""",.Ie equopme<tt!t",o\<s off_.~. or dt.iqrIot. on
0.-,;10 C' •• lor ~",n;"'l .. !>ere ..... ttl' "III ,"'" O<'Ito d"t oc ;"'10
o IIrnp<>r<>ry pi! ., 0 art oreo_ L.t \1'00 wetor oe..p .,to I~e .oil
0"<1 d;opooo 01 hc"':ened CO<IC,e\e "itl> Ir."' .
@
Painting
'-N....,.rinKpoinIlJrushesor
_"",. in 0 g_ 0< .lfeel.
"" f'01I\ 001 ."" ... "..ru,,--I>osed
llC""tlda, •• ino.i"9~"
~~ •. oc CO<1lo""" in " _ .
II yov <:0<1'( ... e 0 s ..... d;recl
~Cth ~Qt .. 10 0 <firt oreo and
'!XIdt il in
.... ~~ .... IO-IlIf<Wtor""io_
_lobIf.«IIt(:j;\h01O'<nt>
""t.-_ 'om_ ~ lor
~1 • .r"iXIS<Il"nllte.
'-~.I ... le, f."rn_hi""
.>:pO$td 09'If~ conuele
,,,,,cSrt"'$O_~.m
",,1 'U~ /MO 0 9..tt..-•• reet
or ltor'fn Oro;". t 0 "';101>/0
d~t.re<:li!nal_bl.,~II ..
llIe "ash .olor llIrou9f1 hoy
00"1 ~f.,,-e dil<:l\or'linq to "
'I"""~.
~
,/ Paint 0...1 .. ces, <>i -... ed point 1>tI ..... ~~ 1>nJ"t-..,. ...,
""" ,/ fi~.( point 1Ioi.....,... md _Is ((II ' ...... __ possble.
~ ol~~ ___ pain! *,~.o"" ....-tIl"""'"
"" ... -~-
Storm draln polluters may be liable for daily flnes!
nil
!
c o
~
~
::l c _
" :ii ~ 3~:8
" "iS~ 0< ~ _~
" ~] 5 .-:: ~c::l .. ..c ~ . 3: ,.~~
BMP
,.....,.""~ loch lomond Homeowners Associatio n
Post Office Box 2368
July 29,2015
Mr. Paul Jensen
Community Development Director
City of San Rafael
1400 5th A.venue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dear Mr. Jensen,
• San Rafael. CA 94912-2368
RECE\\IEO
j\)\ ?. 92()\5
p\J\NN\NG
I am writing on behalf of The Board of Directors of Loch Lomond Homeowners Association. This
correspondence is to be considered an official appeal to Zoning Administrator Stafford'~ recent
approval of the proposed project at 45 Manderly Road. This appeal is bflsed upon th" following
objections.
1. The archib;cture of Loch Lomond is characterized by single-story California Ranch homes
llveraging 2,600 square feet on lots ranging from about 9,000 square feet to about 32,670 square
feet. Currelltly,.45 Manderly Road is a 2,532 square foot home on a 21,875 square foot level lot in
the lower portion orLoch Lomond. If allowed to move forward, the planned remodel will expand
the home from its current 4 bedroom, 2 bath configuration into a 7 bedroom, 4 and half bath
estate of 4,027 square feet, which, on a half acre level lot, is considerably out of character with the
. neighbo,inghomes.
2. The oWners of 45 Manderly have engaged architect Stewart Summers to design and draw the
plans for this project. Our Board believes it was no coincidence that Summers was chosen qS he is
president of ~he San Rafael Design Review Board. Out' concern is that Mr. Summers' position on
th(l Design ,Review Board creates a clear conflict of interest as it relates to the approval of this
project. '. .
3. Mr. Summers, a very vocal participant at the public hearing with Zoning Administrator Stafford,
misrepresented the chara.ct-er and make-up of homes in the neighborhood. Summers asserted that
Loch Lomond already has a preponderance of two-story homes, which is an outright
misrepresentat~on . Homes on level lots in lower Loch Lomond are single-story ranches whereas
Summers was using homes on slope lots as supporting evidence for his design. We object to the
addition of a second story AND a two story garage/in-law unit to 45 Manderly because it is a
rancil-style home on a level lot that is just under half;ill acre, and therefore not eligible for the
same building consideration slope lots were given as the neighbofnood was conceived and built.
EXHIBIT 3
, ,
(
4. The project was submitted with square-footage summaries/totals that obfuscate the true size
and scope of this massive project. Mr. Summers' use of the term "conversion" to describe the part
of the project involving the demolition, removal, and excavation of the existing garage structure is
disingenuous and is an attempt to minimize significantly the extent of the overall added
residential living space to a modest 4 bedroom home. "Conversion" of the existing garage suggests
that the existing walls, roof, slab floor and footprint will remain unchanged, and thatthe "use" of
space alone will change from car storage to living quarters. This is not a conversion:' Demolition
of the entire 572 square feet of existing garage (walls, roof, slab floor), excavation of dirt from the
existing footprint of the garage to build a new structure with a conventional sub-area and wood
floor structure. This is a substantial addition. The structure that will replace the existing garage is
actually an addition with a new foundation creating an 18 inch clear crawl-space with a
conventional wood-floor system, 8 foot walls, and 4 and 12 pitch roof. Mr. Summers' figure of 434
sf and his suggestion that it is a decrease in space from the existing structure is misleading; our
analysis of his plans for that bedroom, closet, bathroom, powder room and utility room is 495 sf.
It appears that his figure omits interior closet space as well.
5. If the existing home is 2532 square feet, and the total new added residential space is 1495 sf
(office above house, bedroom/full bath/powder room/utility room, in-law unit above garage)
with a new total residential square footage of 4027 sf, then the project is way out of scale for the
nearby homes in the neighborhood 'and well above the 50% increase that would trigger review by
the San Rafael Design Review Board. -
In summary, The Board of Directors of Loch Lomond Homeowners Association appeals the
approval of 45 Manderly plans on the grounds that the architect and the homeowners have
designed an expansion that is out of scale and character to the neighborhood; that there is a
conflict of interest in having the President of San Rafael's Design Review Board ushering this
project through city approval; that the use of terms like "conversion" to describe complete
demolition and entirely new construction is willfully deceitful; and finally that adding a total of
1495 square feet new residential space to the existing 2532 square foot home should trigger
greater scrutiny and an automatic review of the plans by the City of San Rafael Design lteview
Board, with Mr. Summers recusing himself.
Sincerely ~~4iz.z~~--
lsa{1hGant, P(~dent
Loch Lomond Homeowners Association
Cc: J teve Stafford, Zoning Administrator
Tom Ahrens, Chief Building Official
LLHOA Board of Directors
Ann Eller, LLHOA Property Manager
LLHOA Architectural Review Committee
September 30,2015
City of San Rafael
ARCHITECTS
Community Development Department
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Attention: Steve Stafford
Paul Jensen
Design Review Board
Plannning Commission
Re: White Residence
45 Manderly Road
Dear All,
RECEIVED
SEP 302015
PLANNING
The letter serves as a response to the appeal of July 29, 2015 by the Loch
Lomond Homeowners Association. I will address the appeal points in the letter
and further some thoughts regarding the merits of the project.
Response to Appeal Point #1
Loch Lomond is not characterized solely by single story California Ranch Style
Homes. Loch Lomond is comprised of some homes on flat lots which are
predominantly located on the streets that parallel San Pedro road such as
Locksly Lane and Kinross Drive. From Kinross on up the grade begins to climb
uphill. Past Lochinvar, the climb uphill is even more pronounced. Researching
areas of neighboring homes in Loch Lomond has yielded that there are many
other homes in Loch Lomond that enjoy greater floor area than this project
proposes. This project proposes 4,106 sq. ft. of living space. Homes such as
51 Manderly, 59 Manderly and 69 Manderly all exceed the floor area being
sought, thus I feel the square footage is appropriate and in character with the
neighborhood. Some of the homes which are in excess of the square footage
being sought are on smaller lots than our project. Our project not only meets the
required zoning entitlements, but exceeds them by an extremely wide margin.
Exhibit 4
4153821656 • 1534 Fifth Avenue. SUite 4. San RafaeICA94901 • sksarch.com
ARCHITECTS
Response to Appeal Point #2
I am responding to this item since it was brought forth by the Loch Lomond
Homeowners Association. I was hired by the White's through the introduction of
a general contractor they have worked with. To insinuate that my volunteer
position for the City of San Rafael was a cause to hire my firm is erroneous.
Further, it is not only an insult to my clients, but an insult to the Design Review
Board and the City of San Rafael Staff to assume that my involvement with the
project would affect their professionalism and ethics.
Response to Appeal Point #3
The Neighborhood has many two story homes. Attached are photos and
addresses of two story homes which all reside within a two block radius of 45
Manderly. The appeal point does correctly identify that there are a
preponderance of single story homes on level lots in Loch Lomond.
45 Manderly is not level. It is on a hill. The average slope of 45 Manderly is
11.97%. The low property corner is at an elevation of 91.0 per a land survey.
The high point is 109.9. That constitutes a 19 foot difference on this lot. The
neighboring property to the left (104 Lochinvar) has a pad height approximately
10 feet below our project. The neighboring property to the right (51 Manderly)
has a pad height approximately 12 feet above our project. The neighboring
property to the rear (20 Inverness) has a pad height approximately 22 feet above
our project. These facts demonstrate that this is not a level lot as characterized
by the appellant. These facts demonstrate that this portion of Manderly is a
hillside. In point #3, the appellant describes a request for an "in-law" unit. No
such request has been made.
Response to Appeal Point #4
The project description and square footages reported as the scope of the project
are accurate. We used industry and code standard methods to describe the
scope of the project.
Response to Appeal Point #5
No "In Law" unit is being requested as part of this project. As stated in
Response #1, this project is in scale with many other properties in the Loch
Lomond Area. A check of assessor records easily demonstrates the presence
of many larger homes in the area. Some are on smaller lots than our project.
415382 1656 • 1534 Fihh Avenue. Suite 4, San Rafael CA 94901 • sksarch.com
ARCHITECTS
Turning to the merits of the proposed project. The proposed 331.8 square foot
upper level bedroom/office is located approximately 68' from Manderly Road
while the required front setback is 20'. The proposed garage with 449.5 square
foot upper level guest room above is located approximately 127' from Manderly
Road. The addition at the house is over 11 feet below the 30' height limit. The
garage structure is over 13 feet below the 30' height limit. The lot coverage limit
is 30%. This project proposes 20.7% coverage. Mass reducing techniques
such as stepping the upper levels in on multiple sides, keeping upper plates low
to create a "dormer" effect on all upper levels has been employed. A low roof
4:12 pitch is proposed. The existing mature trees which line the entire east side
adjacent to the project shall remain which will obscure the project to the
neighboring property. From a zoning code standpoint, we feel this project has
been carefully designed to not only meet, but greatly exceed the standards set
forth by the City of San Rafael. Every effort was made to design the project in a
manner that has been recommended by the City of San Rafael's design
guidelines. I feel we have done an excellent job in meeting the goals of the City
of San Rafael for this project.
It was suggested by each Loch Lomond Homeowners Association board member
present at the ZA hearing that they did not take issue with the design. They each
suggested that the proposed design did not directly impact any adjacent neighbor.
However, they did state that they do not want this project to set a "precedent" in
the neighborhood. They do not want homeowners adding second story additions
specifically in the level neighborhoods. This project is on a hill where two or
three story structures are prevalent. They are not judging this project on its
merits but rather attempting to use this project as an example and warning to
other homeowners.
I look forward to the process moving forward and trust the Staff, Design Review
Board and Planning Commission can review this project based on its merits vs a
political agenda brought forth by the Appellants.
Warm Regards,
~L:;;L---...._
S'wart K. Summers
Architect
4153821656 • 1534 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4, San Rafael CA 94901 • sksarch.com
...
to > C C .-.s:: to u .-0 ... .... 0
M C
N \D ..... a.n
...
to > V)
C V) .-0 .s:: ... u C 0 .-.... ~
0 en ..... M ..... .....
.-... o c
o an
s: ra .-... o
C
N an II>.-\ _--'
-
Vt
Vt
CIJ s: ...
CIJ > s: -
M
M
-m
Lon
'" '" OJ s:
~
OJ > s: -
'" '" OJ s:
~
OJ > s: -
lid'
Ln
'" '" OJ s:
~
OJ > s: -
'" '" OJ s:
~
OJ > s: -00
Ln
V)
V) cv
C
I-cv > c -
V)
V) cv
C
I-cv > r::::: -
\D
\D
-
V)
V) cv
C
I-cv > c -o .....
> -... cu
"'C
C
fa
:?i
o en
'" '" cu
C ... cu > c -Lon r...
> -... cu
"'C
C
fa
:?i
\D
00
> -... cu
"'C
C
fa
:?i
'P"t
'P"t
'P"t
> -... cu
"'C c ra
~
o
CO
> -... cu
"'C c ra
~
Lon CO ~_
> -... cu
"'C c ra
~
.-t
CO
> -...
IV
."
C ra
~
In
U)
> -'-IV
."
C ra
~
I'
I'
'-~ c .-..c u o .....
00
In
> -'-IV
."
C ra
~
0'\
In
i-
to > c: .-..c u o .....
o
M
i-
to > c: .-..c u o .....
N
~