HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2017-03-07 #3Min. Lot Width (Lot areallot depth) ~etbacks
Required: 50 feet (60 fee~ corner lot) Required Existinq ProQosed
Existing: N/A
Lot 16 -37.5 feet Front: 15 feet
Lot 17 40 .5 feet Side(s): 10 % of lot width Varies
Lot18 65 feet (Min 3 and Max 5)
Lot 19 56 feet
Tree Removal Ext. side : n/a
Total(No ISpecies): 8 : 7 Eucalyptus, 1 Bay Ped. side: n/a
(Estimated) Bldg. sep: n/a
Rear: 10 feet
* 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
SUMMARY
The subject project is being referred to the Board for Conceptual Review of site and design
improvements of a residential development consisting of 4 single family homes located within the Chula
Vista Terrace subdivision, which was created in 1912. The project includes roadway widening to
provide a required width of 26 feet plus additional widening at several locations for parking bays .
The roadway widening has been vetted by the Department of Public Works as part of development of
Lots 20 and 21. The applicant has received grading and building permits for installation of the first
phase of the roadway widening project.
The applicant proposes to comply with all setback, natural state requirements and height limits with the
exception of Lot 19 which request a deviation from the front yard setback and Lot 16 which proposes to
exceed the maximum 30-foot height limit. Because heights are established by both the General Plan
and the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant will need to seek a General Plan Amendment and possibly a
Zoning Text amendment for such a deviation.
The applicant proposes a substantial amount of grading and a change in the drainage to shift the
drainage swale to the south roughly along the boundary lines between lots 18 and 19. Drainage will be
a restored swale and use a series of drainage inlets leading to a below grade drainage pipe and
emptying into energy dissipaters. Site drainage will be directed to bioretention areas located within
each of the lots. The applicant has received supportive preliminary feedback to the proposed drainage
from the Army Corp of Engineers as well as the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the
Public Works Department has review the conceptual plans and has indicated that although more
detailed information will be needed to provide constructive feedback, the concept plan appears to deal
with on-site drainage in an effective manner.
The applicant proposes removal of 8 eucalyptus trees. All 8 trees are considered to be significant trees
due to size . Therefore, tree replacement will be required at a ratio of 3 trees for every 1 removed.
With the Board's recommendation, the applicant will be able to submit formal applications for
Environmental and Design Review to be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and the ORB. The
applicant will need to verify heights, setbacks, and coverage and natural state requirements. Pursuant
to San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.12.40, "Exceptions to the properly development standards of
this chapter may be approved by the city council, upon the recommendation of the design review board
and the planning commission, when the applicant has demonstrated that alternative design concepts
carry out the objectives of this chapter and are consistent with the general plan ... II However, as
mentioned above, this does not apply to deviations to the maximum height limit which would require a
General Plan Amendment and possibly Zoning Text amendment.
2
Staff has identified some issues with the project as discussed below. Staff requests that the Board
review this report and provide a recommendation on compliance with all pertinent design criteria.
Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: .
Site Plan
• Whether a front yard setback waiver is appropriate for the site design of Lot 19.
Architecture
• Whether the proposed combination of architectural design styles is appropriate
Materials and Colors
• Whether proposed colors and materials are appropriate.
Landscaping
• Whether the proposed landscape plan provides an appropriate tree replacement and landscape
solution .
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The project site includes 4 vacant legal lots that are part of a 6-lot hillside development site. The Lot
slope on all 4 parcels exceeds 25 percent. There are several mature eucalyptus trees on the lots 17,
18, and 19 that will be removed. A landslide, located primarily on Lot 18, extends into Lot 19 and Lot
17, and will need to be repaired. A drainage swell runs through lot 18 from west to east toward lots 16
and 17 and then continues beyond the site. Access to the site is from Lincoln Avenue to Fair drive.
The site is surrounded by vacant and developed hillside lots and mature trees.
History:
The applicant has received Environmental and Design Review approvals and building permits for
construction of single family home on Lots 20 and 21. The applicant is now seeking to develop the 4
remaining lots (lots 16-19) with a more in-depth and cohesive development approach. This approach
allows the applicant to consider appropriate grading, drainage and access improvements that affect
more than one lot. In addition, lots 16 and 17 are narrow and steep, require a substantial amount of re-
grading to address erosion and drainage and to accommodate two structures . While staff has
recommended the applicant consolidate lots 16 and 17, the lots are legal lots of record and the City
does not have the ability to require a lot consolidation. The applicant is choosing to propose
development of two smaller homes on these two lots rather than consolidation of the lots that could
yield one larger single-family residence .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use: The project consists of development of 4 vacant lots with individual single family homes. The size
of the homes are as follows :
Lot 16 -2,671 sq . ft .
Lot 17 -2,926 sq. ft.
Lot 18 -3,500 sq. ft.
Lot 19 -2, 128 sq. ft
Site Plan: The project site plan and grading and drainage plans demonstrate the effort that will be
involved in addressing the existing site constraints (i.e. landslide, drainage). Fair Drive will be widened
along the entire frontage of the four lots. The remainder of Fair Drive from Lot 16 to Lincoln Avenue
(approximately 200 feet to the east) will re'main as is unless the City Engineer determines that
3
improvements are needed to make an appropriate transition with respect to roadway slopes. Parking
will be provided onsite within enclosed garages . Additional parking will be provided within driveways on
lots 16 j 17 and 18, as well as within parking pockets proposed along the widened portions of Fair Drive.
Architecture: The applicant proposes a combination of design styles . Lot 19 proposes traditional
design elements, such as the gable roof j shingle and horizontal siding and the use of trellises, while lots
16-18 incorporate both traditional and modern elements, including the use of gale roofs, standing seam
metal roof, and horizontal roof lines. Colors and materials include a blending of horizontal, shingle, and
stucco siding. Roof materials include composition roof, as well as standing seam metal roof. Colors
would be chosen to blend with the natural setting surrounding the properties .
Landscaping: Onsite landscaping will need to include tree replacement. The applicant has provided a
concept plan for Lot 19 through 21 to demonstrate how this might be accomplished. In addition the
plans include a concept Vegetation Management Plan that is necessary for compliance with WUI.
Overall the applicant proposes the use of oak trees, redwood trees, and strawberry trees.
Grading/Drainage: The applicant's proposed grading and drainage plans demonstrate a substantial
amount of grading, which is needed to address an existing landslide and to reroute overall site drainage
to reflect a historic drainage pattern . The applicant has been working with the resource agencies and
the City's Department of Public Works has reviewed the proposed concept and concluded that the
proposed concept appears to work. However, more detail will be needed as part of a more formal
application for development of the lots, including but not limited to a drainage plan, geotechnical report,
erosion control plan, etc. More feedback will be provided by the City Engineer during the review of a
formal Design Review application.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The following General Plan Policies apply to the project:
Land Use -LUB (Density of Residential Development) The applicant proposes development of 4
single-family residences on legal building sites that are designated single family and zoned for single-
family residential development.
Land Use -LU12 (Building Heights) General Plan Land Use Policy LU 12 has establishes a maximum
building height of 30 feet for these lots. The applicant proposes to maintain a maximum 30-foot height
limit except with respect to Lot 16, where the applicant proposes to exceed the maximum height.
Because the General Plan establishes the maximum height, the applicant will need to request a
General Plan Amendment. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the plans so that all structures
comply with the maximum height limits established by both the General Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance .
Housing -H2 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context) The project site is located in a
neighborhood with a mix of architectural styles. The applicant proposes to a mix of design elements.
The applicant has stated that setbacks will be complied with. Any setback deviations will require either
a setback exception or variance. The applicant will need to demonstrate unique circumstances that
prohibit development of the property within the standards established for the district.
Neighborhood -N2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) The applicant proposes designs
that step up with the direction of the slope. The home on Lot 19 will appear as single story structure
when view~d from Fair Drive. Lot 18 will also have a single story appearance form the west side of the
property . Howeverj because Lot 18 is a corner lot, the different levels will be visible from the north side
of the property. The use of steps that follow the site topography will minimize bulk along that side of the
4
street. The home on Lot 17 will also only have a single story visible above the street grade. While the
home on Lot 16 has a 2-story fagade, it is setback back more than 30 feet from the edge of Fair Drive
with a finished grade that will be approximately 10 feet below the proposed grade at Fair Drive. Parking
is proposed within enclosed garages for each of the homes , as well as within proposed driveways. In
addition, the applicant proposes to expand the width of the roadway to provide parking pockets . The
project will require a substantial amount of grading due to an existing landslide and the need to modify
site drainage .
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 4 -Single Family Residential District
Section 14.04.040 (Residential District) of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the development standards
of the Single Family Residential (RS) Zoning District. The plans appear to show that the proposed
development would meet all the development standards , with the exception of lot 16 which would
exceed the maximum building height limit of 30 feet. Because the maximum height limits are
established by the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance the applicant will need to either comply
redesign the structure to comply with the 30-foot height limit or request a General Plan Amendment and
possibly a Zoning Text Amendment.
Chapter 12-Hillside Development District
The applicant proposes a 10-foot deviation from the required 20-foot front yard setback for lot 19. Staff
requests the Board's recommendation as to whether the proposed decrease minimizes the impact of
hillside development and grading.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice was sent to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site and the Fairhi lls
neighborhood association within 15 days of the board meeting. Notice was also posted on the site a
minimum of 15 days prior to the meeting. No inquiries have been received as of the preparation of this
staff report .
CONCLUSION
. Staff recommends that the Design Review Board provide the applicant with feed back regarding the
conceptual design of the homes and conceptual landscape plans . While grading will be necessary to
address site hazards, the Design Review Board should provide the applicant with feedback regarding
the grading that will be necessary to accommodate the propose home sizes and design approach given
the amount of grading that will be required to accommodate the different levels of each of the homes.
In addition, Staff requests the Board's comments on the proposed setback waiver.
EXHIBITS
1 . Vicinity Map
2. Project Conceptual Plans
3. Applicants Project Description Letter
cc : Jared West
5
If you have driven up Fair Drive, you may know that parking is an ongoing issue in the
neighborhood. In fact, most, if not all of the comments we have received thus far regarding our
project have been focused on the street characteristics. During the course of designing homes
for the lots, we worked with Public Works in order to come up with appropriate improvement
plans. Hillside standards require 25 foot wide streetsj Fair Drive is only ~6-20 feet wide along
the frontage of our lots. We decided to increase the width up to 26 feet, with several parking
bays where it would be 28.5 feet. This would allow for both potential backing up onto the
roadway, and parking along one side of the street. We submitted this plan for the first phase of
the road, and have received encroachment, grading, and building permits for those
improvements. Road widening is currently underway, and we plan to complete this first phase
prior to completing the first home.
The second and final phase of the road improvements will be completed prior to or in
conjunction with construction of the next group of homes.
By widening the road, we have eliminated the hillside guest parking requirement. This has
enabled us to move the first two homes as close to the roadway as possible to minimize
grading, reduce the driveway slope, and reduce building heights.
Artificial Drainage Swale:
When Fair Drive was originally constructed, or at some point soon thereafter, a catch basin was
installed on the uphill side of the road, just at the bend. A pipe was connected running from
this catch basin, under Fair Drive, and ending at the edge of the right of way. This hardware
collects the runoff from the uphi II side of Fair Drive, fun nels it under the road, and dumps in
onto the corner lot (lot ~8). This has created a large artificial swale on the property, restricting
home design for the site. There is a second channel present just south of the first, which runs
parallel to it. It appears this swale carried the runoff in the past, but now flow is limited entirely
to the one swale.
Additionally, a large, ancient slide is present near the swale. The project soils engineer has
made recommendations regarding how best to approach repair of this slide, and we have
integrated them into our grading plan.
Restoration Plan:
We have been working with the Army Corp of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, California Fish and Wildlife, and a geomorphological engineer to develop a plan
regarding the drainage features present on the property. In its current location, the swale
makes development of lots ~7 and ~8 difficult. If water flow were to be returned to its previous
course, roughly along the boundary line between lots ~8 and ~9, then building pads of
appropriate size could be conceptualized on both lots. In fact, the agencies would prefer that
water run in the original channel, which is a more natural course, maximizes development
potential of the property, and preserves the natural features of the area.
Our plan would be to extend the pipe from where it emerges by lot 1.8, such that it would
instead direct water onto lot 1.9. From that point, we would continue the pipe underground
until it was just past the building foundations. Once past the homes, the pipe would end and
convey water into a prepared drainage bed. Water could then flow down lot 19, out onto lots
1.6 and 17 without risk of erosion. During a Marin Coordination Board meeting, agency
representatives expressed the opinion that this course was more in keeping with a naturally
occurring flow channel.
Native plantings would be installed to stabilize the banks, and biodegradable material would
be placed in the bed as reinforcement. All waterway improvements were developed in
consultation with a geomorphologist, and are designed to enhance aesthetics and durability.
Drip irrigation will be installed along the course of the waterway, and plantings monitored for a
minimum of two years.
Our goal would be to maintain the same length of drainageway, via one main new channel and
several tributaries. All water channels and surrounding areas would be included in a "California
Native Riparian Vegetation Restoration Area", which would be planted, protected and
maintained for a minimum of five years.
Hillside Lots:
Some of the lots have an average cross slope greater than 25%. This means that, although not
specifically within the city's hillside overlay district, these lots must follow the hillside design
guidelines. One of the more difficult of these is the natural state requirement, which can
severely limit architectural flexibility. We have made an effort to follow the suggestions
contained in the Hillside Design Guidelines with regard to all of our lots.
Individual Lot Plans:
Lot 1.9: This is the last of the lots that will be accessed from the western border of the property.
We plan on utilizing a similar strategy for this lot as was used on the first two approved homes.
Namely, by moving the home up toward the road, we can minimize the impact development
may have on the property. We have designed a 2,200 square-foot home for this lot, which
works well on the property even with the partial swale at the base of the lot. A preliminary
landscape plan has been developed for this lot, as well.
Lot 1.6: The easternmost of the lots is narrow and long. The home will need to be designed in
such a way that it respects the setbacks, given the lot constraints. This removes the natural
state requirement, and makes lot coverage less of a design challenge then on other lots. For
this reason, we are using some of the lot area to develop a shared driveway for lots 1.6 and 17.
Lot 1.7: This lot is similar to Lot 16; it is narrow and long. Taking advantage of the shared
driveway, there will be no driveway cut for lot 1.7. The current drainage ~uns through part of
this lot, so, restoration via grading and establishment of an engineered drainage course will be
important.
Lot ~8: Once restoration of the drainageway is complete, a home of appropriate size and
design can be placed on the lot. In order to avoid a driveway cut too near the bend in Fair Drive,
we decided that access was best achieved from below, just in front of lot ~7. Because this lot is
larger, if we build a relatively small home, we will have lot area to spare which we can use on a
longer driveway, avoiding curb cuts near the bend in Fair Drive.
Summary:
We have attempted to design four homes that are in keeping with the general architectural
character of the neighborhood; all step down with the natural grade, incorporate natural
features and vegetation into their design, utilize retaining walls to "nestle" into the hillside, and
minimize grading and lot coverage. All homes will have bio-retention areas for runoff
infiltration and retention, will be pre-wired for solar panels, and will have Electric Vehicle
charging stations in every garage. We believe the design, size and placement of the homes
achieves a good, natural transition from the higher density on Lincoln Avenue to the small
homes characteristic of Fair Drive, Chula Vista Drive, and Coleman Drive.
Point B·lue
Conservation
Science
February 7, 2017
Fair Drive Partners
145 John Glenn Drive
Concord) CA 94520
Dear Fair Drive Partners,
Con:sei"\j'~ron 5d~·nc~ for CI Ihearthy ~tanet
~~ ·ttiPr~$$ '~Ji!~ .it~ ~' ~~Iatm~. tA 94954
,', 707~7$1,-'2i~~ ~' 7h1;~U~Bc 16S5
PC!tfn~b'tu;;t,~t'-B
Thank you for your interest in Point Bluels Students and Teachers Restoring A Watershed (STRAW) Program,
specifically for our work on Miller Creek in ,San Rafael. STRAW coordinates and sustains a network of teachers)
students, restoration specialists and other community members as they plan and implement watershed studies
and restoration projects in the San Francisco Bay Area. We provide teachers and students with the scientific,
educationai and technical resources to prepare them for hands-on l outdoor watershed studies) inc! uding
professional ecological restoration of riparian corridors and wetlands. Since 1993, nearly 46,000 students have
participated in over 600 restorations on'rural and urban creeks and wetlands, planting over 45,000 native plants
and restoring approximately 36 miles of habitat. We have been consistently working at Miller cre'ek in San
Rafael for the last 20 years.
We respectfully request approxImately $16,000 to fund staff, labor and materials for STRAW restorations at
Miller Creek in San Rafael for the 2017-2018 restoration season. Over three planting days with K-12 students)
STRAW will:
1. Install approximately3S trees/shrubs/forbs from container stock, cuttings and/or direct seed) using
STRAW)s, tested standard implementation practices
2, Remove approximately 25yd 3 of Invasive species (primarily English Ivy, Hedera helix)
3. MaIntain and monitor the site for the 2018 summer season
Please note that after the project concept is approved, a final project description and budget will be provided for
review to confirm all regulatory requirements are met. The, project will encompass multiple sections along
approximately sao linear feet of creek bank) and wil include both new sections slated for invasive plant removal l
as well as further enhancement of areas previously managed for Invasive species . The approximate area
enhanced by invasive plant removal & native understory revegetation for this funding will be 1sG linear feet and
0.2 acres.
Thank you forthls opportunity. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can provide further information.
Sincerely,
John Parodi
, STRAW Restoration Manager