HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2017-02-07 #3SUMMARY
The project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for formal review of proposed site and
design improvements for the development of a new single-family residence on a vacant hillside and
ridgeline parcel. The Board previously provided conceptual review comments on the project, on
November 18, 2014, with the following recommendations: 1) Development of the site be as close as
possible to Meyer Rd.; and 2) Reduce retaining walls to a maximum 3' height downslope of new
residence and 4' height upslope of new residence. The proposed project is located within a 100 vertical
feet of a significant ridgeline, where development is prohibited unless an Exception is granted by the
City Council with the recommendations by the Planning Commission and the Board. While the
proposed project meets many applicable single-family and hillside development standards; it does not
comply with many of the residential and hillside design guidelines; Planning staff requests the Board
review this report and provide recommendations on the following:
Parking
• Whether the location and grade of the proposed uncovered parking spaces are well designed and
adequately useable.
Materials and Colors
• Whether the proposed exterior stucco finish adequately relates with the predominant exterior
finishes on other hillside structures in the vicinity of the site, which is natural shingle or fiber cement
board in earth tonelwood tone colors.
• Whether the design of the proposed retaining walls, with integral color, is appropriate or whether the
overall design of these retaining walls would be improved with the addition of a fa9ade treatment
such as texturing, sculpting or a stone veneer.
• Whether the proposed exterior color scheme is appropriate or too monochromatic.
• Whether the proposed use of red as a trim color on window sills is compatible with the proposed
exterior color scheme
Retaining Walls .
• Whether the design of the downslope driveway retaining wall should be tiered or whether the
landscape plan adequately reduces the perceived visual bulk or mass of this retaining wall.
• Whether the design of the upslope driveway tiered retaining wall should be reduced, without
exception, to a maximum height of four feet (4') or , alternatively, whether those portions of the
retaining walls located immediately upslope of the driveway to a maximum of 4' in height, while
allowing those portions of the retaining walls located behind the residence to be taller.
Site Plan
• Whether the project should relocate the proposed new residence 15' closer to Meyer Rd., to provide
the minimum 20' building setback.
Landscaping
• Whether the proposed Landscape Plan for the project, including native ornamental replacement
trees, shrubs and groundcovers, is appropriate.
• Whether the project should include landscape improvements within Right-of-Way between Meyer
Rd. and the site.
2
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The subject site is located in the hillside area of the Picnic Valley neighborhood, 'Southern Heights'.
The parcel is identified as a 'visually significant ridgeline' property In the General Plan It is located
within 100' vertical feet of the ridgeline separating San Rafael from the unincorporated county
(Greenbrae). The site is 94,961 sq. ft. (approx.) or 2.18-acres in size with a significant (46.7%)
northwest-to-southeast trending upslope from Meyer Road. It is currently undeveloped oak woodland.
The property is surrounded by single-family hillside and ridgeline residences on large wooded parcels
to the east, west and north.
The site has multiple easements which affect its development. The downslope front property boundary
begins approximately at the centerline of Meyer Rd. roadway pavement; the entire Meyer Rd. frontage
of the site is located within a 20'-wide roadway access easement for Meyer Rd (The roadway access!
easement is 40'-wide, half of which is located on the site).This 20'-wide roadway access easement is
concurrent to , or overlaps with, the required 20 ' front yard setback for the site. Similarly , the upslope
rear property boundary is located within another 20 '-wide roadway access easement for Brushwood Ln.
(Like the downslope front property boundary, the roadway access easement is 40'-wide, half of which is
located on the site). Unlike Meyer Rd., which the City maintains a public Right-of-Way (ROW), the City
does not maintain a ROW on Brushwood Ln. Brushwood Ln. is currently developed with a shared
private driveway. Additionally, a 10'-wide utility easement (Marin Municipal Water District) parallels the
entire eastern side property boundary. Also, another 10'-wide utility easement ("Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph") parallels the ridgeline, at the upslope southwestern corner of the site.
History:
On April 3, 2013 , a Conditional Certificate of Compliance (CC12-001) was issued by the Public Works
Director, determining the site to be a legal lot of record subject to satisfying the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any Planning or Building permits, improvements shall be required for
Meyer Road. Public Works Department shall make a determination regarding the type and size
of the required improvements prior to the issuance of any permits.
2. Prior to issuance of a future Building Permits for the adjacent property located at 166 Wolfe
Grade (APN: 012-291-14), the owners shall provide sufficient evidence that all existing
structures comply with the current Building and Fire Code provisions with respect to their
distances from the newly established shared property line with the subject site.
3. Owner or any successor in interest shall be required to comply with requirements set forth in the
Subdivision Map Act and the provisions of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) enacted
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, in effect as of the acquisition date.
On August 28, 2013, Planning staff completed Pre-Application (PA 13-007) review of the project
On November 18, 2014, the Board completed Conceptual Design Review of the project and provided
the following recommendations:
• Redesign the access driveway to relocate the 'guest' parking area closer to the residence to
discourage backing out onto Meyer Rd., widen the 'throat' of the driveway at the junction with
Meyer Rd. and reduce the grade;
• Reduce the height of the retaining wall to comply with the hillside guidelines (3' height
downslope of residence; 4' height upslope of residence) by stepping back or breaking up
retaining walls into series of wall structures;
3
• Take advantage of the allowable Setback Waiver to encroach into the front setback 10' with the
residence and access driveway; and
• Provide darker exterior colors
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use:
The project proposes to construct a new 3,156 sq. ft., multi-story, single-family residence and
associated site development or improvements, including replacement landscaping and a concrete
driveway access from Meyer Road.
Site Plan:
The new single-family residence and driveway are proposed to be located, generally, along the Meyer
Rd. frontage. Both the site and the proposed project are located within a 100 vertical feet of a
significant ridgeline. Vehicular access to the building site is proposed through a new driveway located
at the northeast corner of the site, immediately west of an existing natural storm water drainage swale,
and continuing west along the existing slope contours. The new driveway would be, generally, 18'-wide
and widen to 18-70' at turnaround and parking areas , located approximately midway up the driveway.
The proposed driveway grade is a maximum 18% grade.
The project proposes to locate the new garage at the top of the driveway, 15' setback or upslope from
the roadway easement/required front setback on the site. The project proposes to locate the first floor
of the residence six feet (6') setback or upslope from the new garage and the second floor of the new
residence eight feet (8') setback from the lower floor.
Retaining walls up to 12' in height are proposed downslope of the driveway, primarily to create the
turnaround 'and uncovered parallel parking space areas, all located outside the required 20' roadway
easemenUfront yard setback. Two, generally equal height retaining walls up to 6'-tall are proposed
upslope of the driveway, the upper retaining wall setback approximately 3' 3" from the lower retaining
wall. The retaining walls downslope of the driveway are proposed to be poured-concrete while those
located upslope of the driveway are proposed to be blown-Shotcrete. Both are proposed to be integral-
colored in dark gray. Two uncovered patio areas are proposed along the west elevation totaling 256 sq.
ft. in area. The project also proposes to create a triangular-shaped, 23,600 sq. ft. (approx.) private
conservation easement area at the southwest corner of the site, which would incorporate the portion of
the significant ridgeline within the site boundaries.
Architecture:
The project proposes a multi-story design for the new residence which would be 'cut' into the hillside in
order to comply with the maximum allowable building height for the site. The project design proposes,
primarily a 'hipped' roof form with a low-lo-moderate pitch (4"-in-12") to flowing the natural slope of the
site. Small gabled roofs sections and front window 'bump-out' provide building articulation. Proposed
exterior materials and colors include a two-tone stucco finish base color, trim color and composite
asphalt roof shingles, all in a medium taupe -dark brown earthtone/woodtone color palette. The project
proposes a secondary trim color, a medium red color on the window sills .
Landscaping:
The project proposes to remove a total of 29 eXisting trees on the site prior to grad ing and construction
activities . Most of these trees requiring removal are California bay trees though one (1) tree is a Coast
Live oak. Most trees proposed for removal have been deemed in an Arborist Report for the project to
be in poor health and/or form. The proposed Landscape Plan for the project includes 15, 15-gallon size
replacement trees all California native ornamental species.
4
GradinglDrainage:
The project will require approximately 553 CYDS of total site grading: 523 CYDS of 'cut' and 30 CYDS
of 'fill' with 493 CYDS of 'off-haul'. The site is currently served , and will continue to be served, by a
network of open drainage ditches and culverted stormwater drainage system. The project proposes to
install two (2) engineered linear stormwater dissipater structures, both located downslope of the
proposed new residence and driveway and Meyer Rd. One stormwater dissapator is proposed to be 30'
in length and located adjacent to the driveway and the other stormwater dissapator is proposed to be
65 ' in length and located adjacent to the new residence.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Hillside Residential (HR). The HR
designation is characterized by moderate to steep slopes which may have unstable geology and/or
local visual significance , and are typical of developed hillside residential areas. The project's proposed
single-family hillside and ridgeline residential use is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-23 (Land Use
Map and Categories). Also , the project would be in accordance with Land Use Policy LU-12 (Building
Height) and the maximum 30' building height, based on the City's current measurement for hillside
development (building height is measured from natural grade to top of roof/structure). Staff requests the
Board's guidance in evaluating the, project for consistency with the following specific design-related
General Plan Policies:.
~ Housing Element Policy H-3 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context) seeks to design new
housing, remodels and additions to be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. New housing
development should incorporate transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to
respect adjacent development character and privacy. New housing development should respect
existing landforms and minimize effects on adjacent properties.
~ Neighborhoods Element Policy NH-2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) seeks to
preserve, enhance and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods to make them desirable
places to live. New Development should:
• Enhance neighborhood image and quality of life,
• Incorporate sensitive transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to
• respect adjacent development character and privacy;
• Preserve historic and architecturally significant structures,
• Respect existing landforms and natural features,
• Maintain or enhance infrastructure service levels, and
• Provide adequate parking
~ Community Design Element Policy 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) seeks to respect and enhance to the greatest ex tent possible, views of the Bay and
its islands, Bay wetlands, Sf. Raphael's church bell tower, Canalfront, marinas, Mf. Tamalpais ,
Marin Civic Center and hills and ridgelines from public streets, parks and publicly accessible
pathways.
~ CO-6 (Hillsides and Bay) seeks to protect the visual identity of the hillsides and Bay by controlling
development within hillside areas, providing setbacks from the Bay, and providing public access
along the Bay edge.
5
~ CD-13 (Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines) recognizes preserves and enhances the
design elements that contribute to the livability of neighborhoods and their visual appearance.
Recognizes that each neighborhood is unique, and that design review must consider the distinct
characteristics of individual neighborhoods.
Staff Comments. Staff believes the site is challenging for development purposes, based on its
steepness (46.7% average cross-slope) and its ridgeline restrictions (no development within 100
vertical feet of a ridgeline without an Exception granted by the City Council with Planning Commission
and Board recommendation). The project would create significant visual bulk and mass, primarily, due
to the increased building setback along the Meyer Rd. frontage and the retaining wall heights along the
driveway that lack tiering. Staff's concerns are discussed in greater detail in staff's report below.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 4 -Residential (R) District
The site is located within the Single-Family Residential-Hillside Development Overly (R1a-H) District.
The proposed project will require consistency with the property development standards for the R1a
District , including a maximum 30 ' building height , maximum 25% lot coverage and minimum require
yard setbacks. Those property development standards applicable to the project are identified in the
Property Facts summary above. As designed, the project complies with all applicable property
development standards for the R 1 a District, including maximum building height, maximum lot coverage
and minimum required yard setbacks.
Chapter 12 -Hillside Development Overlay (-H) District
The project will require consistency with the applicable hillside development standards for the (-H)
District , including a maximum gross building square footage (6,500 sq. ft.), minimum natural state
requirement (71.7% of lot area) and building 'stepback' (20' maximum height on downslope exterior
walls).These applicable hillside development standards are generally identified in the Property Facts
summary . As designed , the project appears to comply with most of the applicable hills ide development
standards , including maximum gross building square footage and minimum natural state . However, the
project does not comply the required building 'stepback' and the prohibition with ridgeline development.
Building Stepback
The hills ide development standards require. a maximum 20' building height for all downslope and all
front-and side-facing exterior walls. Building stepback is required for all front-and side-facing exterior
walls located within 15' of the maximum building envelope or setback line. Building setback is also
required for all downslope exterior walls whether located within 15' of the maximum building envelope
or setback line or beyond.
Staffs Comments. While the project proposes a downslope exterior wall for the new garage of less
than 20' in height, the downslope exterior wall for the new residence would be up to 27.5' in height.
Staff has discussed design solutions with the applicant to bring the project into compliance with the
building step back requirement.
Ridgeline Development Exception
The hillside development standards prohibit development of new structures within 100' vertical feet of a
visually sign.ificant ridge line unless an Exception is granted by the City Council , with the
recommendation by the Planning Commission and the Board, the prohibition to ridgeline development
precludes all reasonable economic use of the site . The Exception is required to be based on the
following findings:
1. There are no site development alternatives which avoid ridgeline development;
2. The density has been reduce to the minimum allowed by the General Plan land use designation
density range;
6
3. No new subdivision lots are created which will result in ridgeline development; and
4. The proposed development will not have significant adverse visual impacts due to modifications for
height, bulk design, size, location, siting and landscaping, which avoid or minimize the visual
impacts of the development, as viewed from all public viewing areas ..
Staff's Comments. Staff finds the project meets these required findings, as follows:
1. The entire site is located within 100 vertical feet of the ridgeline; no alternative location on the site
exists which would not require the granting of the Exception to ridgeline development on the site.
2. The site has a General Plan land use designation of Hillside Residential (HR) allows 0.5-2 units of
gross density per acre. The project proposes one (1) residential unit on the site, the minimum
density allowed.
3. The project does not propose to subdivide the site. The site is 94,857 sq. ft. in area, slightly over 2
acres. Pursuant to Section 15.07.020(a) of the Subdivision Ordinance, any subdivision of the site
would need to create parcels with a minimum lot size of 2 acres, based on the HR General Plan
land use designation and the 46.7% average cross-slope. The site cannot be subdivided.
4. The applicant has installed story poles to help demonstrate the scale and height or visual impacts of
the project, representing the exterior wall heights at the corners of the new residential structure and
the roof ridge .. Photosimulations, showing how the proposed development would appear from
strategic-chosen public views, may be recommended by the Board if necessary. Staff believes that,
since the entire site is within 100 vertical feet of the ridgeline, an alternative location on the site may
not improve the project's impacts on preserving public views. Instead, staff finds that complying with
the applicable hillside development standards and design guidelines should reduce project impacts
as much as possible. To reduce perceived bulk and mass on hillsides, new development on the site
should both preserve the existing mature landscaping and propose additional landscaping, should
be located as close as possible to the Meyer Rd. frontage and should step up with the existing
natural slope as much as possible. As currently proposed, the new residence would project above a
portion of the ridgeline on the site and potential public views of the natural ridge silhouette would be
interrupted. Staff believes that, subject to the design modifications recommended by staff in this
report, more potential public views of the natural ridge silhouette would be retained.
Chapter 18 -Parking Standards
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 and two (2) additional on-site parking spaces, either
'covered' or 'uncovered, ' ... conveniently placed relative to the dwelling unit which they serve", due to its
hillside location. The project proposes two (2) 'garage' on-site parking spaces and two (2) 'uncovered'
parallel parking spaces, located approximately midway up the driveway.
The 'garage' parking spaces meet the minimum 20' x 20' interior dimension requirements; the proposed
garage is approximately 20' x 24'. The additional guest parking spaces, as required with new hillside
development, also meet the minimum 9' x 22' dimensions for uncovered parallel parking spaces.
The project proposes to provide a 16-23' -wide driveway, where a minimum 10' is required. The project
also proposes a driveway of up to 18%, where a maximum 18% is allowed.
Staff's Comments. As designed, it appears to staff that the proposed project complies with the number
of required parking spaces and their minimum dimensions. However, staff has concerns with the
configuration of the vehicle turnaround area and uncovered parking areas. The proposed design results
in locating one (1) of the uncovered parking spaces possibly too far down the driveway, conflicting with
requirement that the uncovered parking spaces shall be "conveniently placed relative to the dwelling
unit which they serve." Staff also has concerns as to the usability the uncovered parking space located
midway down the driveway. This uncovered parking space is located on a portion of the driveway with
15-18% grade. While 15-18% grade is reasonable for an access driveway, staff questions whether the
grade is too much for parking spaces. The other uncovered parking space, located closer to the
7
residence, is located on a portion of the driveway with 10% grade, which staff believes its usability is
also problematic due to the cross-grade. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the located and grade of the proposed uncovered parking spaces are well
designed and adequately useable.
Chapter 25 -Environmental and Design Review Permit
The project should comply with the applicable review criteria for Environmental and Design Review
Permits, pursuant to Section 14.25.050 (Review Criteria; Environmental and Design Review Permits),
are as follows:
~ Site Design. There should be a harmonious relationship between structures within the development
and between the structures and the site. Proposed structures and site development should relate to
the existing development in the vicinity. Major views of ridgelines should be preserved and
enhanced from public streets and public vantage pOints. Development should respect site features
and recognize site constraints by minimizing grading, erosion and removal of natural vegetation.
Sensitive areas such as highly visible hillsides, steep, unstable or hazardous slopes, creeks and
drainageways, and wildlife habitat should be preserved and respected.
~ Architecture. The project architecture should be harmoniously integrated in relation to the
architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design. The design
should be sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings 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 ofthe surrounding area.
Color selection shall coordinate with the predominant colors and values ofthe surrounding
landscape and architecture. High-quality building materials are required. In hillside areas, 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.
~ 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. The natural landscape should be preserved in its natural state, as much as
practical, by minimizing grading and tree and rock removal. The landscaping shall be designed as
an integral enhancement of the site, sensitive to natural site features. Water-conserving landscape
design shall be required. Smaller scale, seasonal color street trees should be proposed along
pedestrian-oriented streets while high-canopy, traffic-tolerant trees and landscape setbacks should
be proposed for primary vehicular circulation streets.
Staffs Comments. The review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits seek to have the
proposed design (architecture, form, scale, materials and color, etc.) of all new development 'relate' to
the predominant design or 'character-defining' design elements existing in the vicinity. The residential
development along the north (downslope) elevation of Meyer Road consists of single-story garages
located on the front property line with residences located behind and below the street level. The
residential development along the south (upslope) elevation of Meyer Road consists of large lots,
dense oak woodlands, with residences development high above the street level. Planning staff finds the
multi-story scale proposed by the project design is well established in the surrounding neighborhood.
8
The site is challenging hillside and ridgeline parcel. Though it is undeveloped, the site is steep (46.7%
avg. cross-slope). While the proposed project meets all applicable residential and hillside development
standards, Staff finds greater compliance with the applicable review criteria and design guidelines for
design review permits is required.
The existing design character in the immediately vicinity of the site is natural shingle or fiber cement
board on the exterior rather than stucco finish, as proposed. The site is located within the WUI
(Wildland Urban Interface) -High Severity fire zone, which requires both ignition-resistant exterior
materials on new structures and vegetation management by property owner. The project's proposed
use of stucco finish complies with the City's WUI requirements; however, staff believes the alternative
use of fiber cement shingle or board on the exterior of the new residential structure would also comply
with WUI while also relating better with the predominant exterior finishes on other hillside structures in
the vicinity of the site. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the proposed exterior stucco finish adequately relates with the predominant
exterior finishes on other hillside structures in the vicinity of the site, which is natural
shingle or fiber cement board in earth tone/wood tone colors.
Additionally, the project proposes approximately 240 linear feet of retaining walls, 95 linear feet below
the driveway and 145 linear feet above the driveway. The proposed material of the lower driveway
retaining wall is poured concrete and the upper driveway retaining wall is blown Shotcrete, both with
integral dark gray color. Landscaping is proposed to help mitigate the perceived visual scale of these
large expanses of retaining walls. Staff believes, however, the review criteria seek to create greater
interest in large expanses of retaining walls, such as those proposed by the project. Staff finds the
overall design of these retaining walls would be improved with the addition of a fa"ade treatment such
as texturing, sculpting or a stone veneer. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the design of the proposed retaining walls, with integral color, is appropriate or
whether the overall design of these retaining walls would be improved with the addition
of a fa!;ade treatment such as texturing, sculpting or a stone veneer.
The site is heavily wooded with primarily California bay trees. The project proposes to remove a total of
29 existing trees. Most of these trees requiring removal are California bay trees though one (1) tree is a
Coast Live oak. Most trees proposed for removal have been deemed in an Arborist Report for the
project to be in poor health and/or form. The proposed Landscape Plan for the project includes 15, 15-
gallon size replacement trees all California native ornamental species. Staff requests the Board's
comments on the following:
• Whether the proposed Landscape Plan for the project, including native ornamental
replacement trees, shrubs and ground covers, is appropriate.
Story poles have been installed on the site by the applicant to help demonstrate the scale and height of
the project, representing the exterior wall heights at the corners of the new residential structure, the roof
ridge and the driveway retaining walls. Several colors and materials boards have been submitted to
Planning, proposing a diverse color palette of generally medium-to-dark shades of taupe and browns,
which will be presented at the Board meeting, In addition, the applicant has submitted a watercolor
rendering, showing the proposed exterior color scheme on the new residence, which are attached to
staff's report.
San Rafael Design Guidelines:
Planning staff requests the Board's guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the following
applicable Residential Design Guidelines:
9
~ 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 the 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 streets cape. 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 faqade.
• 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.
~ 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).
~ Front Landscaping and Fences
10
o Landscaped front yards should contribute to the overall visual quality of the neighborhood and
to create a strong landscaped character for the site.
o Landscaped areas adjacent to sidewalks are encouraged.
Planning staff has no additional comments concerning the proposed site and building design beyond
those listed elsewhere in staff's report.
Hillside Design Guidelines
The project is also subject to the Hillside Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to provide
a guiding framework of design principles that builds on the unique challenges that often accompany
hillside development. These guidelines are recommendations intended to measure overall design
quality and to insure high-quality projects. The proposed project's compliance with these pertinent
hillside residential design guidelines is summarized in the attached Hillside Design Guidelines
Compliance Checklist (Exhibit 2).
While the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable hillside development standards, it is
not compliant with many hillside design guidelines, as identified throughout this report. These
inconsistencies include parking space grade, retaining wall height, visual bulk or mass and exterior
materials and colors. The hillside design guidelines encourage new projects to extend landscape
improvements beyond property boundaries and include public Right-of-Way (ROW) areas between
dedicated roadways and the site. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
o Whether the project should include landscape improvements within the Right-of-Way
between Meyer Rd. and the site.
Reponses to Design Review Board Comments on Conceptual Review
On November 18, 2014, the Board provided the following Conceptual Review comments on the project:
o Redesign the access driveway to relocate the 'guest' parking area closer to the residence to
discourage backing out onto Meyer Rd., widen the 'throat' of the driveway at the junction with
Meyer Rd. and reduce the grade;
o Reduce the height of the retaining wall to comply with the hillside guidelines (3' height
downslope of residence; 4' height upslope of residence) by stepping back or breaking up
retaining walls into series of wall structures;
o Take advantage of the allowable Setback Waiver to encroach into the front setback 10' with the
residence and access driveway; and
o Provide darker exterior colors
Staffs Comments. The project design has been revised to relocate the uncovered parallel parking
spaces required of hillside development further up the driveway and closer to the residence.
Additionally, the project design now includes a vehicle turnaround, located between the new residence
and uncovered parking spaces, above the retaining wall downslope of the driveway. As stated earlier in
this report, Planning staff believes the proposed relocation of the uncovered parking spaces, the
proposed grade of these parking spaces, negatively affects their usability. Staff finds further redesign of
these uncovered parking spaces is needed, which would likely required reevaluation of the driveway
design and, possibly, the vehicle turnaround.
The project redesign continues propose a single retaining wall plane, up to 12' in height, located
downslope of the driveway along the Meyer Rd. frontage. It appears to Planning staff that portions of
the downslope driveway retaining wall could be tiered, either up or down from its proposed location.
Instead, the project proposes to reduce the perceived height of the downslope driveway retaining wall
with new landscape plantings (a combination of trees, shrubs and groundcovers) along the base of the
retaining wall. Staff concurs with the project that the current 20'-wide roadway (Meyer Rd.) easement
11
creates a design challenge to reduce the height of the downslope driveway retaining, which would like[y
shift the driveway higher upslope and would like[y result in greater though unknown site excavation.
Staff, nonetheless, believes the project to further explore the impacts of designing a tiered downslope
driveway retaining wa[1. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the design of the downslope driveway retaining wall should be tiered to a
maximum height of three feet (3') or whether the landscape plan adequately reduces the
perceived visual bulk or mass of this retaining wall.
The project redesign proposes to tier the retaining wall, located ups [ope of the driveway, into two (2)
retaining walls of equal height. These upslope driveway retaining walls are proposed to be Shotcrete,
identically 4-9' in height, in a dark gray color. The upper tier Shotcrete wall is proposed to be setback 3'
3" from the [ower tier Shotcrete wall to allow for the installation of landscaping (combination of shrubs
and groundcovers). The applicant has studied the additional grading and tree removal resulting from
reducing the height of the upslope driveway retaining walls to a maximum of 4' and submitted a
separate alternative design schematic (Exhibit 5), showing these potential impacts. The reduced height
of the upslope driveway retaining walls would result in an additional 370 CYDs of 'cut' or 'offhau[' and
the removal of an additional 14 trees (species unknown, though none 'significant' which require
replacement). After evaluating this separate design schematic, staff believes a better design alternative
may be to reduce those portions of the retaining walls located immediately upslope of the driveway to a
maximum of 4' in height, while allowing those portions of the retaining walls located behind the
residence to be taller. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the design of the upslope driveway tiered retaining wall should be reduced,
without exception, to a maximum height of four feet (4') or, alternatively, whether those
portions of the retaining walls located immediately upslope of the driveway to a
maximum of 4' in height, while allowing those portions of the retaining walls located
behind the residence to be taller.
While the hillside development standards allow the location of the new residence on the site to
encroach up to 10' into the required 20' front yard setback, the project is not eligible for a Setback
Waiver since the front yard setback is overlapped by the current 20'-wide roadway (Meyer Rd.)
easement on the parcel which prohibits development. However, the redesign of the project proposes to
[ocate the new residential structure 35' setback from the front property boundary. This is an additional
15' setback than the minimum required by both the current roadway easement and front setback on the
site.
Staff believes the Board's intent is clear: Locate the new residential structure on the site as close to the
roadway as possible to preserve as much of the undeveloped hil[side site as possible. Staff believes
the proposed location of the new residence is based, partially or wholly, on the design of the driveway.
Staff believes the new residence may be moved 15' closer to Meyer Rd though the driveway may also
require redesign. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the project should relocate the proposed new residence 15' closer to Meyer Rd.,
to provide the minimum 20' building setback.
The project has revised the exterior color palette to propose darker earth tones/wood tones, including
two-tone stucco finish base color, trim color and composite asphalt roof shingles, all in a medium taupe
-dark brown color shaded. The project proposes a secondary trim color, a medium red color on the
window sills. Several colors and materials boards have been submitted to Planning, which will be
presented at the Board meeting. Staff believes the proposed exterior color palette of medium and dark
shades of taupe and brown is too monochromatic. With the exception of the medium shade of red trim
color proposed on the window sil[s, the proposed exterior base and trim colors are too similar and may
12
appear to be a single hue. Staff also believes the proposed use of a medium shade of red as a trim
color on the window sills is simply incompatible with the other proposed exterior colors of medium and
dark shades of taupe and brown. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the proposed exterior color scheme is appropriate or too monochromatic.
• Whether the proposed use of red as a trim color on the window sills is incompatible with
the proposed exterior color scheme.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in
Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject site, the appropriate neighborhood groups (the Gerstle
Park Neighborhood Association and the Southern Heights Neighborhood 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 Meyer Rd. frontage.
At the time staff's report was printed, Planning received one (1) email with public comments as a result
of noticing (Exhibit 6). lndi Young, a neighboring resident (15 Meyer Rd.) provided the following
comments:
• The story poles cannot be viewed well without removing those existing trees proposed for
removal by the project. Can more be done to improve their visibility?
• What are the long-term plans for the site? Can a new road be constructed along the ridgeline?
• Dark, 'tree-bark' (i.e., grays and browns) exterior colors are preferred. No white window trim
color please.
• Prefers relocating the new residence further east on the site with a straight driveway connection
and a wide turnaround/uncovered parking apron similar to the design of the existing residences
across the street and closest to the site at 20, 24, 28, 32 and 36 Meyer Rd.
• The project will negative affect property values of residences in the neighborhood that currently
have views of Mt. Tamalpais. How will they be compensated for their loss resulting from the
project, such as a reduction in current tax rate?
Staffs comments.
• The applicant is not allowed to remove the existing trees proposed for removal unless and until
the project is approved. However, staff agrees the more should be done to improve the
viewability of the story poles. Traditionally, the City requires story poles to be installed at the top
of each corner of the exterior walls and the roof ridge which are then connect to each other with
yellow 'caution tape'. The applicant has installed the story poles without connecting them with
yellow 'caution tape'. Staff will notified the applicant that yellow 'caution tape' will need to added
to the story poles as soon as possible. The applicant has indicated that the installation of story
poles has been challenging due to both the heavily wooded site and its steepness (46.7%
average cross-slope).
• Staff has reviewed the project, as proposed, and provided comments in this report on the
project's consistency with the City's adopted development standards, review criteria and design
guidelines. Additional comments by staff beyond the proposed project is speculative or
conjecture. The ridgeline is already improved with private shared driveway, Brushwood Ln.,
within a dedicated 40' -wide roadway access easement, half of which is located along the entire
rear property boundary of the site. Any proposal to improve this private shared driveway to meet
City roadway standards is possible though unlikely given, among other factors, the potential
costs. Any proposal to improve Brushwood Ln to a City ROW appropriate vetting though a
public hearing process with notice to all affected property owners and their neighbors.
13
• The project proposes an exterior color palette of dark earth tones/wood tones, including two-
tone stucco finish base color, trim color and composite asphalt roof shingles , all in a medium
taupe -dark brown color shaded. The project proposes a secondary trim color , a medium red
color on the window sills. The project does not propose a white trim color. Several colors and
materials boards have been submitted to Planning, which will be presented at the Board
meeting. Staff believes the proposed exterior color palette may be too monochromatic and the
red trim color too random, and has requested the Board to provide comments.
• Potentially relocating the project closer to the eastern side property boundary is certainly an
option; however, this alternative development design and location would likely create its own set
of impacts which have yet to be reviewed. The site is steep (46.7% average cross-slope) and an
existing 20'-wide roadway easement exists along the entire front property boundary of the site,
which has the effect of pushing any development upslope no matter where on the site. Staff
believes the perceived visual bulk of the development would not change though the height of
necessary retaining walls and the required grading may decrease . The existing 20 '-wide
roadway easement would likely prohibit encroachment by retaining walls or parking areas.
• The City does not regulate or preserved existing private views, views of Mt. Tamalpais from
other neighboring properties or residences. The review criteria for Environmental and Design
Review Permits encourage the preservation of 'major' views of Mt. Tamalpais (and the San
Rafael Canal, the San Pablo Bay, and all bay frontage and wetlands) from public streets and
public vantage points (i.e., dedicated trails on public lands, public fishing piers, etc.). The
applicant has installed story poles to help demonstrate the scale and height of the project,
representing the exterior wall heights at the corners of the new residential structure and the roof
ridge. Story poles are typically required for projects proposing new multi-story development on
vacant hillside parcels. Photosimulations, showing how the proposed development would
appear from strategic-chosen public views, may be recommended by the Board if necessary.
Staff believes that, since the entire site is within 100 vertical feet of the ridgeline, an alternative
location on the site may not improve the project's impacts on preserving public views. Instead,
staff finds that complying with the applicable hillside development standards and design
guidelines should reduce project impacts as much as possible. To reduce perceived bulk and.
mass on hillsides , new development on the site should both preserve the existing mature
landscaping and propose additional landscaping, shOUld be located as close as possible to the
Meyer Rd. frontage and should step up with the existing natural slope as much as possible. As
currently proposed, the new residence would project above a portion of the ridgeline on the site
and potential public views of the natural ridge silhouette would be interrupted . Staff believes
that, subject to the design modifications recommended by staff in this report, more potential
public views of the natural ridge silhouette would be retained.
CONCLUSION
Staff requests the Board's recommendations to the City Council on whether the project adequately
complies with all the applicable residential and hillside design guidelines, as identified earlier in staffs
report. Planning staff finds that the project does not comply with many of the hillside design guidelines.
Staff finds the project requires redesign to improve parking space grade , retaining wall height , building
'stepback', visual bulk or mass and exterior materials and colors. In addition, staff welcomes the
Board's guidance on the any site or building design details that would further improve the project
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced Project Plans
14
3. Applicant's Project Description Letter
4. Alternative Driveway Retailing Wall Plan
5. Hillside Residential Design Guidelines Compliance Checklist
6. Public Comments
Full-sized and reduced (11" x 17') plans and watercolor rendering have been provided to the Design
Review Board Members only.
cc: Draper Trust -166 Wolfe Grade; Kentfield, CA 94904 and P.O. Box 648; San Anselmo, CA
94979
Jerry Draper -11 Sacramento Ave.; San Anselmo, CA 94960
15
for the westerly ridge of the property. The house/garage has been moved as far down the hill
towards Meyer Road as possible resulting in a lowering of the profile of the house as it relates to
the ridge. This also allows the house to be built parallel to the contours of the property which
simplifies the construction of the home.
Architectural elements
Our architect Fred Divine and engineer Lee Oberkamper have worked together to create a design
that minimizes the impact of development considering the constraints of this site (minor ridge,
steep slopes, and many trees). The architectural elements of the home (roof design, trim on the
windows, light to the entry stairwell, and an appealing color scheme) make for an appealing
design. The darker colors as shown on the plans were selected to help the home blend in with the
existing vegetation on the site. These colors were reviewed and changed after meeting with our
neighbors and listening to their concerns with regard to the color.
Driveway, turnaround, parking
Our engineer reviewed the turning radius at the bottom of the driveway, the turnaround, and the
on-site parking stalls. The plan incorporates a shorter and less steep driveway that still
accommodates the required turnaround and parking stalls. The constraining factor limiting
movement ofthe house further east or shortening the driveway is the need for a turnaround for
cars backing out of the garage and for the two on-site parking stalls.
Retaining Walls
We conducted a study of the original single retaining wall upslope of the driveway and house
and determined that we could break that retaining wall into two equal height shotcrete walls with
a planting area between them resulting in a much better visual outcome. We studied changing
these retaining walls to conform to the 4 foot high standard. Meeting the 4' standard would
create an additional disturbance area of3,130 ft.', require removal of an additional 14 trees, and
require additional off-hall of 370 yds.3 • We abandoned this idea in favor of creating two equal
height shotcrete walls on the upslope side of the driveway (additional disturbance area of 660
ft.', which requires removal of an additional 2 trees, and requires additional off-hall of 23 yd.').
The study drawings are available for review.
The retaining wall on the lower side of the driveway ranges from 0 to 12 feet. This wall location
which is directly on the Meyer Road easement/setback line is required in order to provide off-
street parking and a turnaround for cars backing out of the garage while minimizing grading on
the upper side of the driveway. To minimize the visual effect of this retaining wall we have
proposed a dark gray color and landscaping in front of the wall.
We reviewed an option of moving the turnaround to be located on the opposite (westerly) side of
the driveway. This concept was abandoned due to the increased grading and towering (18 feet)
retaining walls that would have to be constructed.
Landscape and fire hazard plan
Our landscape architects visited the site, walked the property and, taking into account the
northern exposure, created a landscape plan that emphasizes drought tolerant, shade loving plants
such as rhododendron, dogwood, Camelia, Daphne, hydrangea, and ferns among others. We also
23 Meyer Road Page 2 of 5
used the fire hazard assessment matrix to determine a defensible space zone and developed a
landscape planting and irrigation plan that meets fire safety standards and insures that the
landscape, as designed, planted, and irrigated will flourish.
Fire safety
We met with the San Rafael Fire Marshall and incorporated a series of modifications to the
project plan including fire retardant roof materials, stucco siding, and access on the upper side of
the building. A series of steps on the western side of the project are designed to provide access
to the site for fire safety personnel so they have two ways to get to the structure.
Geotech site review
Our geotech, SalemHowes Associates, conducted a site review and made borings to determine
the location of bedrock that underlies the project site. No specific unusual hazardous geological
conditions were discovered and bedrock was discovered at relatively shallow levels.
Tree inventory
Our arborist Kent Julin conducted a thorough review of trees on the site that would need to be
removed to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed project would require removal of
29 trees. One of these "trees" is a privet and one is a 12" oak that has a utility cable embedded
within its trunk. The remaining trees to be removed are bay trees. Untouched are the many
redwoods, bay, oak, and other vegetation on the almost 2 acres of ridge land that will remain
undeveloped in perpetuity. Each tree has been marked with a numbered metal tag and surveyors
tape to make it easier for neighbors, staff, and board members to better visualize which trees are
staying and which are to be removed.
Five trees marked for removal could meet the definition of a "significant" tree in the San Rafael
Hillside Residential Design Guidelines as their diameter is greater than 12". The four Bay trees
(1, 5, 7, and 29) greater than 12" diameter are not healthy specimens because they are either
decayed (#1) or they lean more than 25 degrees downhill (#5, #7, and #29). The one oak tree to
be removed has a utility cable embedded in the trunk of the tree.
The Planting and Vegetation Management Plan.(Vl) details the planting of fifteen replacement
trees for the five trees proposed for removal. All fifteen replacement trees have been selected
from Appendix B ofthe Hillside Residential Design Guidelines per staff s recommendation.
Neighborhood
On March 19, 2015 we met with five neighbors, reviewed the plans, and walked the property.
The primary neighborhood concerns are house location, color palette, tree removal, and
landscaping/tree cover. Based on their feedback we have changed to a darker color scheme in
order to help the home blend in better with the existing vegetation. We conducted a review of the
house site location so see if it could be moved any further down the hill or eastward and
determined that driveway, parking, and turnaround requirements constrain any change in house
and driveway location.
23 Meyer Road Page 3 of 5
Front yard setback and step backs
The proposed plan respects a twenty foot front yard setback for the lower retaining wall that
supports the driveway, turnaround, and off street parking stalls. The constraining factor in
determining the depth of the front yard setback requirement is the location of the turnaround and
off-street parking on the driveway leading to the house. The plan also respects a twenty foot
front yard stepback for the home.
Drainage analysis
The storm drainage system for the project created by our engineer Lee Oberkamper provides for
collection of roof drainage from the structure, interception of drainage from the upslope hillside
areas and collection of driveway drainage. Detention facilities are provided so that the post
construction rate of discharge will not exceed the existing rate of discharge. Drainage from
impervious surfaces are treated in accordance with MCSTOPP requirements and the BASMAA
Post Construction Manual. An Erosion Control Plan and the Best Management Practices Plan
will be included in the construction drawings.
Lighting
All exterior lights at the garage and on the upslope side of the driveway in the retaining wall are
proposed to be down facing and/or use full shield cut-offs.
Story poles
Story poles have been erected at the site at location and heights determined by our engineer as
shown in the story pole plan (SPl). Vegetation and tree cover did not allow string lines on most
of the story poles to outline the extents of the home.
We believe that this project design and the relatively modest home size will result in the best
utilization of the property for a single family home with a minimum of environmental impacts.
Sincerely,
/s Jerome Draper
Jerome Draper
Land Use Planner
23 Meyer Road Page 4 015
The following reports have been submitted:
1. Civil engineering drawings (Oberkamper: CI-C6)
2. Site Plan (Divine: AU)
3. Site Plan -Enlarged (Divine: AI.2)
4. Floor plans (Divine: A2)
5 . Elevations (Divine: A3)
6. LandscapeNegetation Management Plan (SweetbriarNine Maple: VI)
7. Tree Removal Plan (Vine Maple: V2)
8. Drainage Analysis (Oberkamper)
9. City of San Rafael Department of Public Works Encroachment Permit
10. Arborist Report (ArborScience)
II . Geotecbnical Investigation Report (SalemHowes Assoc
12 . Storm Drainage letter (Oberkamper-March 19, 2015)
13. Color Palette (three pages: stucco, trim , retaining wall/roof)
14. Two Shotcrete wall study (Oberkamper)
15.4' High Tiered Wall Study (Oberkamper)
16. MMWD email approving proposed driveway over MMWD easement
17 . Inline notes from August 12, 2015 completeness review
18. Map of Meyer Road Subdivision (three pages)
19. Artist's rendering of proposed home in 16" x 20" format
20. Letter from engineer Lee Oberkamper regarding driveway connection to Meyer Road
21. Letter from Jobn Sharp to Lisa Goldfien regarding access to Meyer Road right-of-way
22. Story pole drawings (Oberkamper: SPI)
23. Letter from Lee Oberkamper certifying story pole location and fill height
23 Meyer Road Page 5 of 5
IV.A2. Preservation of Significant trees
[Y i N i NA ! . . . . 1
!, I ii I" Retains significant trees or criteria for removal is met and "replacement criteria of 3: I .. ii
.' . h 15 II . i. . L ... _ .. _ .. ! ~.I~ ___ ._~on,-,tr::.e:::e:o:sc.;l",s ~m,,,,e:.:t,,,. '7""----o7----,.,.-c--c--::-;-:-'c-'----,,---;----::---j i v'l' . ' .. : Existing trees are preserved by avoiding grading in the drip line, or change in grade or I·
l_ ... _. __ ~_. ! .. Slo.~~ction. Arborist'srecQmmendations are met. ____ I
IV A3. Hillside Grading and Drainage
f"~~--' ----,-. ..
f Y i N i NA i ._ J
! I i ' i Grading is minimized and all grading maintains a natural appearance with slopes of2:1 i
: ! ! . i to 5: I. Grading within 20 feet of property lines is minimized or similar to existing i
f '-j--}-'-i ~~~~~~:~~::incremental steps an~ visible retaining walls are of a minimum heign
I I : i and use stone or earth colored matenals. . . --.-J
i 11 : : Pads are of a minimum size for structures and open space (pads for tennis courts and I f-_1 .. + ... _:_sw.iIE~ing pools ~re discourage~): . . ..' I
i ! ; : Off-SIte dramage Impacts are mlmmlzed anddramage plans avoId erosIOn and damage i I J1: ! ; to on-site and adjacent properties. Impervious surfaces are minimized' and stonn water !
I ii I from roofs is conveyed to a comprehensive site drainage system Stonn drainage I
, .. J.__j___ U~rov.emellts ru:d drai!lage_ devices create a natll:al a~aran~~_. ____ ~ ____ I I ! '7 : • DebrIS CollectIon and overflow routes are prqvrded where needed and located to J
i I . i minimize visual impacts. '/L ___ .. ':::'~rosiO;;Control plans and revegetatiQn plan provided. !
;",,' ; Geotechnical review has been done and ' mitigation measures will not substantially i
>( i : modifY the character of the existing landform, expose slopes that cannot be re-vegetated i
i : or remove large areaS cir existing mature vegetation. Existing geologic hazards have I
1 I . __ .l; ... _.L~e.e.Il()()r.!e~t()cl, _ .._ .._.____ _ .. _ .. __ . _ .. _.... ... . ......... _ ...... _ ....... _ .. _. _________ ... _ ..... _J
IV A4. Lot Confignration, Bnilding Setbacks and Location (Complete for Subdivisions)
;
.;----~.----c---::-..,-~7"-. I
; . . Lot configurations provide a variety of shapes based on topography and natural features 'I
; ! and lot lines ar.e.Jl!aces on the top, not the toe, of the slope, _____________ -"
.Y !N r
+~~. ?"·~fl~glots with ~lc()m.1!lOn clri,-,~_an~ e.!!~_ouraged. ! i .. -.1 .. -.:. _'! ~~!lildin.g setbacks are varied or staggered. ·:---·----------·--·--.. --------1
. i i V . Building locations are not located near visually prominent ridgelines and existing view
; ____ +. i of residences are respected. .-----::-=--:---------------t i' i V i * Front yard setbacks are minimized on downhill lots.
IVAS. Street Layout, Driveway and Parking Design
! Y -p'! i -NA' s=use narrower street widths if it reduces grading, visual j'mpacts are'minimized I
! -I. ~ __ :!_ ... ..t!y terracLng any retaining walls, and split roadways are encouraged. : !! I * S~reet layout fol~ows t.he natural grad~ and long stretches of straight road are
l_~l_' i _" I ~v~~~::~;~~~~~~~~~_~~!~~~~ 8a~~;~;~~~~~~i~~d -~n -~xcejiti~.-· '. ---tJ
2
IV.B2 Single Family Residences on Individnal Lots
NA . :J 1 Requirements for preservation of existinghatural features, hillside grading and .. -! ! drainage, reduction of building bulk , architectural character, and planting design are .
. .t-.. _.j. .m_et:. ___ .. _ .. ___ .,._ ._. _____ ._._ ...... __ . ___ .. __ . _____ . ___ .. _ .. _ .... ____ ._ .. __ . ____________ . _____ I
Y IN
I
!
I /! ~ ~n ~x~e~tion is ~ecessary to. all.ow tandem parking on lots served by an access drive I
j .! If It mmImlzes the .Im'p_~ct of hillsId~.d.ey~I()l?rnent. .--. . ................ -..... -... -.' .... _ ..... _ .... __ .'-_1
I -I
I I ,
Li , I
: Common drivewa1!> are ..:e",n",c",ou",r",a",g",e",d:. . .,-,=,----~--c--
* The driveway grade does not exceed 18% or an exception is required. Drainage
from the driveway is directed in a controlled manner. The fmished grade ofthe . IIj drivewa conforms to the finished rade of the lot. -.J
IV.B3 Multi-family Resideutial Development
. ~y TN i 7~:;r::::~ for preservatio~--:~ existing natural features, hillside grading an~--'-' ---1
! .i i I ~~ainage, reduction of building bulk, architectural character, site lighting and planting !
1 i! des ion are met. ! --f t·· ........ ~ ... :----.... ----.... -..... _-----------_ .... --_ .. ---... ----. -_ .. -_>0.-...... -.. ---------~--__,.----···-t I I' Yard setbacks and group common and private open space meet zoning ordinance ' . I
1 __ ._._.1_._ i regui~ement~. A ~~ildren's play ~~ea ~rovided on_ developments ~ith over 25lil}~
lt
l
·--(-The sl:e deSign ubI~zes opp.ortumbes such a~ outdoor decks, roof gardens, te:-races, I
! bay wmdows, frammg of Views, pergolas, view lookouts, and sculptured staIrs and , I f-'---~--j.-vyalkway"s'-". __ -=-=-____ --:-___ --::-7_.,-___ --:-:-
, ! I 1 Large expanses of flat areas, such as parking lots , are avoided; buildings are sited with I i units having different floor elevations to achieve height variation; buildings near
I
I I hillside rims are sited in a staggered arrangement and screened with planting; existing
i I vegetation is retained; and flag lots which encourage terracing of buildings and
l : i __ , .rninjmize cuts <il}d fiH~ lire _allowed.. ._ .. _. _ ._. . _ _ _ _ . __________ .. _I
I 1 I Long continuous building masses are avoided and groups of building are designed
, I .( with visible differences through materials, colors, forms, and fa9ade variation,
II' . Building facades do not create a ground level wall of repetitive garage doors. Facades .
, are articulated and rooflines avoid extended horizontal lines. Building facades have a I
I,' I . mixture of vertical and horizontal elements, but emphasize verticality. Alignments of i
, . units are staggered horizontally and vertically to create unit identity, privacy at I I I II cntryways and in private outdoor spaces and 10 shajieopeiH;pace. 'Buildings may be '
I 1 terraced and building clusters ar_e separated with expanses of ope_n'7"'spca::::c:ce;._ --; ___ -1 r Tuck under parking is encouraged. 10% of the parKing lot area is landscaped or trees L ___ . __ L_-, JP:.:I=an::;t",e",d..:as=-:r:ceq3.u",i:.:.re::;d::.;:;b"-y..:th::.eo,..=zo=-n",i",n,,,g",o,-"r.=d.=in.::an=c:ce:.. ________________ --'
IV.Cl Highly Visible RidgeIine Areas
[X-,I1f [N;A:-.~.::::==--~-~_:_~:_:_-'-=------------===-=~~~==-=~=~~________--'-1
L 7 T-I • Development is locate(yvithin 100 feet of a significan~_~idgel ine,. J
I'),: Designs minimize grading and building pads, Structures and fences do not project I
I "I I a.bove the ridgeline and vie~s of the natural ridge silhouettes is retained. Roads nearJI
i I !' ~I~~es and on slopes are deSigned to accommodate grade and cut slopes are rounded
... ___ l .... ,._ __ ... ___ ._ ._. __ ... _. ________ .. _________ ... _... .. ___ _
5