HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2017-06-06 #2Meeting Date: June 6, 2017
SAN RAFAEL Case Numbers: ED16-059N16-003
Project Planner: Caron Parker (415) 485-3094
THE CITY WITH A MISSION Agenda Item: 2.:.' <Y7c""""
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 248 Laurel Place -Environmental and Design Review Permit and Variance to demolish an
existing one-car garage, stone retaining wall and entry gate located along the front property
line, and replace it with a three car-garage, retaining wall and entry gate; APN: 011-173-34;
Single Family Residential (R5) Zoning District; Laura Ackley and Sander Temme,
Owner/Applicants; Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood.
PROPERTY FACTS
Location General Plan Designation
. Project Site: LOR (Low Density ReSidential)
P (Park) North:
South:
East:
West:
Lot Size
Required:
Proposed:
Height
Allowed:
Proposed:
Parking
Required:
Proposed:
HR (Hillside Residential)
LDRlHR
MDR Medium Density Res)
5,000 sf
11,771 (existing, no change)
15' (accessory structures)
14' 7" (plus 4' to top of posts)
4 spaces, 2 covered, 2 uncovered
3 covered
Landscaping Min. Lot Width (New lots)
Required: N/A .
Proposed: Green roof(600 sf total), 1,000 sf total
front landscaping
Zoning Designation'
R5
R5
DR/HR1
HR1.8
DR (Duplex Residential)
Existing Land-Use
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Lot Coverage: Natural State (Avg. cross slope 33.84%)
Required: 58.84%
-Proposed: no change in natural state
Gross Building Square Footage
Allowed: 3,677 sf (2,500 sf + 10% of lot size)
Existing: 4,300 sf (4,000 sf house + 300 sf garage)
Proposed: 4,600 sf (house + 600 sf garage)
Grading
Total: 350 cu.yds.
Setbacks
Front:
Side(s):
Ext. side:
Ped. side:
B/dg. sep:
Rear:
Required
15'
5'
n/a
n/a
n/a
10
Tree Removal: N/A
Existing
a
Garage (0)
No change
Proposed
o
1.5'
No change
• 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 project site cons,i§ts of a 4,OQP square foot re§Jdentialbuilding (two units) emq a 300 sfgarage
located on thg"fi'orttlside of Laurel Placi((see Exnfbit 1-Vicihfty Map, 'and EXhib'fl'''2: 'Street eTevation'i""
photo). The subject project is being referred to the Board for review of site and design improvements
associated with the demolition of the existing 8' tall stone retaining wall. The project proposes to
replace the wall with a three car garage (600 square feet), a new retaining wall (ranging between 8'
and 11' in height) and a 9'6" tall entry gate, all within the required 15 foot front yard setback. The
proposed project triggers the following entitlements:
1, Retaining walls over 4 feet in height on a hillside property requires Design Review Board (DRB)
review, pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14,16.140.A.b.
2, The project is a hillside property, with a maximum gross building square footage of 3,667 sf, per
Zoning Ordinance Section 14, 12.030.D Hillside Development Overlay District. The existing
gross building square footage on the project site is 4,300 sf (house plus garage), and already
exceeds the maximum gross building square footage allowed, The proposed replacement of
the existing 300 sf garage with a 600 sf garage would further exceed the maximum gross
building square footage on site by a total of 933 sf. As such, the proposed project would
require approval of an Exception to the Hillside Development standards. Pursuant to Sl;!ction
14.12.040,Exceptions to the hillside development standards must be reviewed by the City
Council with recommendations from the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, As
such, the Board's recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission, and on to the
City Council for final review and decision.
3, The proposed project requires grading of approximately 350 cu.yds. of cut/fill. Grading in
excess of 50 cu,yds, of cuUfili requires an Environmental and Design Review Permit
4, The project as proposed would also require Variances to the property development standards
due to the following: 1) accessory structure (garage) located within the 15 foot front setback; 2)
accessory structure located within the required 3' foot side yard setback; 3) non-conformance
with the required 20 foot driveway setback; and 3) proposed 9'6" tall entry gate in excess of the
8.5 foot maximum height allowed. . .
The house at 248 Laurel Place is listed in the 1986 San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey as a
"good" example of a local historic resource in San Rafael. However, the home is not listed on the State
or National Historic Register of Historic Places, The applicant, Laura Ackley , a qualified architectural
historian by profession, authored and submitted a Historic Resource Report with an analysiS of the
potential impact from the proposed project on the historic resource. Page 13 of the report concluded
that the proposed project "will not detract from the historic character of the property." The report is
included with the project plans as part of the DRB packet
Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff is generally
supportive of the project, including the Exception to the gross building square footage, as the new
garage will provide additional parking on site. However, the proposed three car garage would increase
height and bulk along the streetscape, This massing could be reduced if the garage were designed as
a two car garage, possibly with one uncovered parking space, Staff requests that the Boarc:j review
this report anc;l provide a recommendation on compliance with all pertinent design criteria, Specifically,
staff asks the Board to consider the following:
Architecture
• Design and height of the proposed 4' tall stone posts along the garage fac;:ade
• Appropriateness of the height of proposed garage
• Appropriateness of the proposed 9'6" tall new entry gate
2
. Landscaping .!,,~'
• Choice of planting plan for garage roof garden
• Choice of material for retaining wall surface
Parking
• Appropriateness of the proposed three car garage.
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The project site is a hillside property (33.84% average cross slope) and is developed with two units.
The site is located in an R5 (Single Family Residential) zone but prior to 1992, the property was
located in an R3 (Multi-Family Zoning District). As such, the City determined in 2013 that the existing
site was a two unit "duplex" and is "legal and conforming". The neighborhood character along the
south side of Laurel Place in the vicinity of the project site is a combination of traditional single family
style homes with driveways and garages at grade (no retaining walls). However, on the uphill side
(north side) there are two properties with garages similar to the project site (300 Laurel Place and 320
Laurel Place), as well as several other properties with retaining walls and garages built to the property
line without a roof. deck. .
Due to the danger of the retaining wall failing, the Public Works Department closed the sjdewalk jn
front of the property in April 2017 and the property owner was cited by the Building Department to
repair the wall as quickly as possible.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use: No change to the existing house is proposed. The proposed project would demolish the existing
garage, retaining wall and entry gate at the front of the property and construct a new three car garage
cut into the front hillside, a new retaining wall and a new entry gate to access the existing at grade
stairs along the side yard.
Site Plan: The project proposes to build a 600 sf (20' x 30') three-car garage to replace the existing
300 sf (20' x 15') garage. The current garage has a zero setback on the front and side property line.
The new garage would extend approximately 30 feet along the front property line (See Plan Sheet Ai)
and be setback 2 feet from the front property line and 1.5 feet from the east side property line. The
garage would be topped with a 3' high wrought iron guard rail and 4' tall stone posts. A new retaining
wall would extend an additional 18 feet along the property to the west of the new garage, between the
garage and the new 9'6" tall entry gate (see Sheet A3). The retaining wall would range in height from
8' to ii' and is designed to be setback 6.5' from the front property line. The proposed new entry gate
would also have a wrought iron design and stone posts.
Architecture: The proposed new garage and retaining wall will be re-faced with the existing bluestone
salvaged from the retaining wall demolition. According to Page 11 of the Historic Resource Report
submitted, the proposed 3 bay garage door design is "in keeping with historic 1907-1924 modes, when
the original was built, and will replace the missing original doors. See Exhibit 3 (Color and Materials
Board).
Landscaping: The project proposes a landscaped 'green roof' above the new garage, and also new
landscaping in the front yard (see Plan Sheet L 1.0). One large shrub is proposed to be removed from
the project site. No trees are proposed to be removed from the site.
3
GradinglDrainage: .The project estimates approximately 350 cu.yds. of cut/fill would be required to
excavate the retaining wall area. The applicant submitted a letter from the project's geotechnical
,'.. engineer indicating the project can b~i'constructed as proposed. However, the City's,Department of
Public Works has reviewed the projeCt design and has indicated that additional follow-up review will be
required for the garage grading and drainage on site. The project has been cleared to move forward to
the Board due to the inherent danger of the failing retaining wall. However, staff has informed the
applicant that if future engineering recommendations changes the height of the retaining wall , or the
garage design this may trigger additional design review.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site is Low Density Residential (LDR). No
changes to the eXisting home on site are proposed . The proposed project is consistent with the.
General Plan policies with regard to LU-23 (Land Use) in the LDR Land Use category. Other General
Plan Policies applicable are listed below:
• NH-4 (Improve Property Maintenance): Require owners to maintain their properties on good
condition and appearance and to eliminate unsafe and unhealthy conditions. The proposed
project would repair a hazardous and failing retaining wall.
• CD-4 (Historic Resources): Recognize, preserve and enhance the City's historic resources.
Whiie the home at 248 Laurel is not listed on a State or National Historic Register, it does
appear on the 1986 San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey as a "good" example of a
historic resource in San Rafael. The repair of the failing retaining wall will help preserve the
historic integrity of the residential home on the site.
The proposed . project entails a complete change to the front elevation of the property. Staff has worked
with the applicant and is generally supportive of the proposed project, and determined that the changes
are general!y consistent with the General Plan 2020 policies. However, staff does recognize that the
proposed exterior change to the fac;:ade will add height and bulk to the street frontage. Staff analysis of
the proposed changes will be discussed below as part of the Chapter 25 Design Review Criteria.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
The proposed project would demolish the existing garage and failing retaining wall. The existing entry
gate was built without permits and therefore is not considered to be legal. The proposed project is
subject to Chapter 14.04.020 Base Dtstrict Regulations for the R5 (Single Family Residential) Zoning
District, Chapter 14.16 (Site and Use Regulations), and Chapter 18 (Parking). The project is over 250/0
slope and is therefore also subject to Hillside Design Guidelines (Chapter 14.12). Staff has determined
that the project will comply with the hillside property development standards pursuant to Section
14.12.030, except as it pertains to the maximum gross building square footage. The site exceeds the
maximum and will require City Council approval, with the recommendation of the Design Review Board
and Planning Commission.
Chapter 14.04.020 (Single Family Residential. R5 Zoning)
The existing garage and retaining wall have a zero setback to the property line. The project proposes
to construct a new three car garage within the 15' front setback of the property.
Staff comment: While the proposed garage would be setback 2' from the front property line, the
project does not comply with the following regUlations : 1) 20 ' driveway setback from the property line;
and 2) accessory structure (garage) located within the 15' required front setback. As such, the
4
proposed project will require approval of a Variance. Staff typically supports similar front setback
Variances for garages on hillside properties in order to reduce grading.
Chapter 14.12 (Hillside Development Overlay)
The proposed project is subject to a maximum allowable gross building square footage of 3,667 sf,
pursuant to Section 14.12.040.0.
Staff comment: The existing site has a gross building square footage of 4,300 sf and already exceeds
the maximum allowed. The proposed new 600 sf foot garage would further exceed this limit by
increasing the gross building square footage on site from 4,300 sf to 4,600 sf. This would require City
Council approval of an Exception to the Hillside Property Development standards with
recommendations from the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. Section 14.12.040
stipulates that Exceptions to the standard can be approved ·when the applicant has demonstrated that
alternative design concepts carry out the objectives of this chapter and are consistent wiih the general
plan based on the following criteria"; .
A. The project design alternative meets the stated objectives of the hillside design guidelines to
preseNe the inherent characteristics of hillside sites, display sensitivity to the natural hillside
setting and compatibility with nearby hillside neighborhoods, and maintain a strong
relationship to the natural setting; and
B. Alternative design solutions which minimize grading, retain more of the project site in its
natural state, minimize visual impacts, protect significant trees, or protect natural resources
result in a demonstrably superior project with greater sensitivity to the natural setting and
compatibility with and sensitivity to nearby structures.
The applicant has stated that they desire to bring the property up to current code for parking. Adding a
three car garage would add two covered additional parking spaces on site, getting closer to the
required parking of 4 spaces on site (2 covered, 2 uncovered) for the existing 6 bedroom unit and 1
bedroom unit. However, the three car garage does increase mass and bulk along Laurel Place. Staff
requests the Board input on whether they can support an Exception to the hillside standard for gross
building square footage .
. Chapter 14.16.020 (Accessory Structures)
The proposed new three car garage is defined as an 'accessory structure", and is located within the
required 15' front yard setback as well as within the required 3' side yard setback (for accessory
structures over 120 sf). In addition, the height of the garage exceeds the 15' height limit, as measured
from "grade to roof peak".
Staff comment: The design of the garage with the multiple stone posts along the front facade would
be included in the height measurement, and they add an additional 4' to the 14' 7" garage height as
shown on Pian Sheet A3. In addition, despite being setback, the structure does encroaches into the
front and side setbacks. As such, Variance approvals are required. The proposed guard railing is
required per Building Code for safety and staff supports the wrought iron material. However, the
design does create more mass than the existing wall. Staff requests the Board input on:
• Design of the proposed stone posts along the garage facade
• Appropriateness of the height of the new garage
5
Chapter 14.16.140 (Fences and Walls)
The proposed retaining wall measure's between 8' and 11' in height along the Laurel Place frontage.
Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.140.A.1.b, retaining walls over 4' in height on ' hillside
properties are not permitted except when recommended by the Design Review Board to minimize
grading andlor tree removal. The proposed retaining wall ranges from 8' to 11' in height.· The .
proposed new 9' 6" entry gate (as measured to the top of the stone pillars) also exceeds the 8.5'. height
limit for "minor decorative entryways such as a trellis arch or laUice arch" (Section 14.16.140.A.1.d}.
Staff comment: The existing retaining wall measures 8' in height. The applicant's project engineer has
indicated that the project can be constructed as designed. However, The City's Public Works
department has only been able to conduct a preliminary review of the project materials, and has asked
for additional information on drainage and driveway slopes. The applicant has requested multiple time
extensions for the re-submittal, and was unable to provide the additional information. At this point, the
wall is in danger of imminent failure and the City determined that DRB review should proceed. DPW
determined the additional engineering and drainage information can be submitted and reviewed with
the building permit. It is not clear at this time whether the wall could be reduced in height without
compromising the engineering principles. Staff supports the portion of the retaining wall setback 6.5'
setback from the front property line. The height of the proposed entry gate could possibly be lower if
the posts werEllower in height. Staff requests the Board's comment on:
• Retaining wall height and setback
• Appropriateness of the height for the new entry gate
Chapter 18: Parking
The project site has a one car garage. The current code requirement for the property would be 2
covered spaces and 2 uncovered spaces.
Staff comment: The project site is considered legal and conforming and is therefore not required to
upgrade the parking on site to meet the parking requirement. Staff supports the additional parking, but
must also balance the need for off-street parking with the introduction of additional bulk and mass
along Laurel Place. There is no parking on the north side of Laurel Place so there will be no loss'in on-
street parking. Staff requests the Board's comment on the size of the proposed new garage.
Chapter 25 -Environmental and Design Review Permit
The project proposes to construct a new three car garage with a 2' front setback from the property line,
a new retaining wall with a 6.5' setback from the front property line, and a new front entry gate with a
zero setback from the front property line.
Staff comments: Chapter 25 states that development should be harmoniously integrated in relation to
both the specific site design and the architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale
and building design.
Specific architectural design considerations include, but are not limited to the following:
» Creation of interest in the building elevation » Provision of a sense of entry » Materials and colors should be consistent with the surrounding area
~ Landscaping
The project is generally consistent with the design criteria of Section 14.25.050 of the Zoning
Ordinance in that: 1) the proposed garage doors are typical of garage doors in the vicinity; 2) the
proposed materials and colors are compatible with the existing surroundings, and re-uses the historic
6
stone materials for the new retaining wall ; 3) landscaping would be added to the site in the form of a
"green roof' on the garage roof and front yard landscaping; and 4) the proposed entry gate would re-
." create the original stone pillar entry design.
The applicant has taken time to consider the above listed design criteria in the proposed exterior
design. The originally submitted design with a recessed entry court w ith trash enclosure and a taller
entry gate was revised based on staff recommendations . Staff generally supports the proposed project
and determined that the design is largely in keeping with the Chapter 25 Design Guideliries , but staff
does request the Board's comment on the mass and bulk of the new garage structure.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Staff received no comments in response to the Notice of Public hearing mailed to owners and
occupants on May 19, 2017.
CONCLUSION
To summarize , the proposed project would require Variance approval for the following:
1) 20 ' driveway setback for garages .
. 2) Accessory structure located in the required 15' front yard setback.
3) Accessory structure located within the 3' side yard setback.
4) Accessory structure exceeding the 15' height limit.
5) Entry gate exceeding the 8.5' height limit.
Staff supports the concept of addit ional off-street parking for the site and repair of the retaining walls.
Staff has determined that Findings to support the proposed Variance for a new garage can be made as
the proposed project represents an upgrade that wou ld add parking to a site that is under-parked for
the resident ial units on site. The location of the new garage is setback 2 ' feet from the front property
line , which is an improvement to the existing zero front setback.· The side yard setback of 1.5 ' is also
an improvement on the existing zero setback to the east side property line . The applicant has
indicated that the proposed three car garage could not be moved further to the west due to lack of
sufficient clearance for the existing stairs leading to the residence. HO\i\(ever , staff recommends
possibly designing uncovered parking for at least one space as a possible solution to reduce mass and
bulk. The applicant has stated that the height of the new retaining wall and height of the garage was
determined based on engineering requirements. Staff is concerned that the design of the 4 ' stone post
on the garage fayade add more bulk and mass along the street frontage. This also applies to the
height of the stone pillars on the proposed entry gate.
Staff requests that the Board comment on the following:
Architecture
• Design of the proposed stone posts along the garage fayade
• Appropriateness of the height of the {jarage
• Appropriateness of the 9'6" height for the new entry gate
Landscaping
• Choice of planting plan for garage roof garden
• Choice of material for retaining wall surface
Parking
• Appropriateness of the proposed three car garage.
7
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
i -Project s~e street elevation photo
3. Color and Materials Board
Full-sized plans, 11" x 1 r plans and Historic Resource Report provided to the ORB members only.
cc: Laura Ackley, 248 Laurel Place, San Rafael , CA 94901
8
SanRafael http://gis.cityofsanrafael.orgisanrafael!fusion.php
'----=1;----IAjON:0 11 .131..031
G
---•• 1
~ STH-AVE
LA'!: ~.W1387 " I.O/t -1ZU12l'l U '
EXHIBIT 1
lofl 5/30/]7,8:05 AM
F
i· •.
~
L. .. --:-.
Supplemental Elevation:
Home elevation to remain unchanged
.~ .
.. --1~r.t -. -'~~.
---~-.. ~ ._,,., ....... _------------............ .
REC t:::n IE'" " t. ~~'~'-:.J
NAY 3 1 Z016
PLANNING
--~.:.. .
,----
N
~ -III -J: >< W
./
/
· .
Color and Materials Board
248 Laurel Place
San Rafael, 94901 Marin County, California
1
HAY 3 7 ZQ/6
EXHIBIT 3