Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2019-01-08 #2�job SAN RAFAEL THE CITY WITH A MISSION Communitv Development Department— Planning Division Meeting Date: January 8, 2019 Case Numbers: ED18-058, LLA18-004, TS18-002 Project Planner: Alan Montes 415-485-3397 Ali Giudice 415-485-3092 Agenda Item: REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 1628 Fifth Avenue (9 -Unit Multi -Family Residential Project) — Request for an Environmental and Design Review, Lot Line Adjustment, and Tentative Map to add 745.5 square feet to an existing 9,800 square -foot vacant lot to construct a new 14,536 square -foot, 9 -unit multi -family residential project; APN: 011-193-06; High Density Residential (HR1.5) District; Vincent and Joseph O'Flynn, owners; Scott Myers for Crome Architecture, applicant; File Nos.: ED 18-058, LLA18-004, & TS 18-002. BACKGROUND On December 4, 2018, the Design Review Board reviewed the project at 1628 5th Avenue and the majority of the Board supported the project, but requested the project return on consent with the following modifications: • Extend or project out the top band to create a wide eave, or low roof, around the building. • Create a better sense of pedestrian entry to the structure. • Greater articulation is needed generally, including more refinement with the color scheme (darker base, lighter upper floors), adding architectural trellis features to the building recesses and landscaping, replace wood flooring on the roof deck with a non-combustible material like tile. The applicant has made the requested revisions to the plans. The following is a list of those revisions along with staff comments: The plans identify a two -foot four -inch (2'4") eave around portions of the building. The eave does not extend along all portions of building, specifically along portions of the frontage (south and southwest) and rear of the building (north and northeast). However, staff believes that the proposal provides an attractive variation and meets the intent of the Boards request. As presented, portions of the eave encroach into the setbacks more than the allowable encroachment of two feet (2'). As part of the formal review by the Planning Commission, staff will include a recommended condition of approval requiring the eaves to comply with the maximum allowable encroachment and for it to be shown correctly on the building permit plans. • The plans have been revised to include an eight -foot six-inch (8'6") steel trellis along the southeast corner along with setting the fence back eighteen inches (18") of the building to create a greater pedestrian entryway. This design is an improvement to what was previously presented to the Board. • The applicant has revised the plans to create greater articulation by changing the color of the structure by using a darker color, Sherwin Williams - Resort Tan, along the base of the structure and adding trellises and vines to the recesses, along the frontage. • The last revision includes replacing the IPE hardwood flooring on the roof decks with tile. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice was sent to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site within 15 days of the Board meeting. Notice was also posted on the site a minimum of 15 days prior to the meeting. As of the printing of this report staff has received two (2) public comments, Exhibit 3, regarding this project. The first comment is primarily concerned with the design of the building, stating that the proposal is out of place for the West End Village and Sun Valley neighborhoods. The other comment expressed concerns regarding the loss of natural light, loss of privacy and the intrusion of natural light. This comment expresses a desire to place the building further away on the property to resolve the concerns. CONCLUSION The applicant has submitted revised plans that demonstrate the Boards recommended changes. Although the eaves as currently proposed do not wrap around the entire building, planning staff believes that the revisions meet the intent of what the Board requested on December 4, 2108. In addition, conditions of approval will be added to the Planning Commission's recommended action requiring the applicant to comply with the maximum allowable encroachments into the required setbacks. With the recommended conditions of approval, staff believes the project can be approved on consent as was intended by the Board. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Applicant's Response Letter, December 12, 2018 3. Public Comments from December 10, 2018 and December 12, 2018 4. Reduced Project Plans Full-sized plans have been provided to the DRB members only. cc: Scott Myers, 905 Fourth St, San Rafael, CA 94901 Vincent and Joseph O'Flynn, 660 2311 Ave., San Francisco, CA 94121 2 Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map CC cc CC (rj Exhibit 2 CROMEArchitecture 12.12.18 City of San Rafael, Planning department 1 628 Fifth Avenue - New Apartment Building Design Reivew - Consent Response Attached you will find drawings and renderings for a new 9 unit apartment/condo building at 1628 Fifth Avenue, along with Responses to Design Review Comments as per Design Review Meeting on 12.04.1 8 letter from Alan Montes, Assistant Planner. P -* Design Review Comments 1. DR board membef would like to see more "articulation" at front facade, particularly at the recessed areas on either side of the garage door. DR Board member would like to see a different color on the stucco base to add more contrast to the materials above. DR board member would like to see the entry gate with a more pronounced "entry" such as a trellis or arbor. DR Board member would like to see entry gate and side gate on opposite side setback from the front facade, not aligned. Response: Landscape grid/vertical grow medium was added in the recesses as discussed. Stucco color was darkened as requested to provide more contrast. (See attached color swatch) A steel entry trellis was added over the entry gate as requested. The entry gate and side gate/fence opposite were setback 18" from front facade as requested. 2. DR Board Chairman requested a "hat" or extended roof overhangs be added. Response: The as proposed roof overhang/cornice increased from 14" to 2'-"0 (extension limited by allowable setback encorachment). Additional trim elements added under roof overhang between decorative brackets. 3. DR Board Chairman indicated a more fire resistant material, such as tile, be used instead of as proposed IPE hardwood (which also meets fire resistant criteria as set forth by Cal Fire) on the roof deck. Response: Roof deck material changed to the as requested. Scott Myers Director of Architecture and Design 905 FOURTH STREET SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 CROMEARCHITECTURECOM 4 1 5 4 5 3 0 7 0 0 Exhibit 3 December 12, 2018 To: San Rafael Design Review Board From: Gayle Wittenmeier Mills Re: 1628 Fifth Avenue Proposal As a former planning commissioner (2006-2008) and a 45 -year resident of the Sun Valley Neighborhood, a neighborhood that uses Fifth Avenue as its main street, I would like to add my comments to your consideration of the 3 -story, 9- unit complex being proposed at 1628 Fifth Avenue. Overall, in my opinion, the design is out of character for its location. Not only does it not reflect its historic neighbors, which of course is often the way of innovation, but it also doesn't seem to know it is not in Emeryville or San Francisco. It would be beautiful in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. Why? Because the current design is a fortress, with its hidden, two- step -locked entryway; its second story apartments, removed from street life by its first story parking; and its concrete coverage of 78% of the lot. That is an urban design, not suburban. It is a great urban design, given its rooftop gardens, albeit for only half the residents, and its low -maintenance and secured exterior, with warehouse -high windows. If I were in a densely populated area, I might appreciate those things. However, I would not characterize the West End Neighborhood of San Rafael as urban. It's more relaxed, more friendly, more naturally infused with trees, a softer context. The proposed design disrupts this quiet sense—clashing like a cymbal of a future that I would like to think is not on the books for West End. Dealing with specifics, I question the treatment of runoff on a structure that covers 78% of the lot with impermeable substance and then funnels much of the drainage into the city street. I question its design to withstand only a 10 -year flood level, when all indicators point to more intense rainfall as climate change progresses. I question why the entire roof is not set up to accept rainfall? I question allowing 5' setbacks on three sides instead of requiring a greater setback from its rear neighbor, a neighbor who, as I understand it, has registered a complaint. A greater rear setback would increase permeable space and allow greater landscaping. I question a design that, in earthquake country, puts parking underneath. I also question funneling traffic onto Fifth at a very dangerous spot. Especially during commute and school delivery times, this is the point at which drivers get blinded by the sun. Added to the sun, are the shadows of the trees which obscure foot and bicycle traffic. Knowing that the developers own both parcels at the corner of Fifth and G streets, I question why they did not circulate the 18+ cars from this 9 -unit building in from Fifth and out onto G? Referencing said house at G and Fifth, I appreciate that they kept its historic design and seem to have done a solid job on the renovation, but adding a fence with identical color lends, again, to a fortress -style impression. In conclusion, I thank the DRB for considering my comments and hope they will guide the design for 1628 Fifth to one that recognizes the existing water sink at 5th and H, the already difficult flow of Fifth Avenue traffic between E and H, and the quiet, friendly nature of homes all along 5th, thus preserving the allure of our West End Neighborhood. Exhibit 3 From: Anne McClain <mcclaindukkers@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 4:30 PM To: planning Subject: Proposed project at 1628 Fifth Ave. To the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board: We are the owners of the building at 210 G St. directly adjacent to the north of the proposed project. We have owned this property since the early 1990s. We attended the Design Review Board meeting regarding the proposed project at 1628 Fifth Avenue on December 4th. That meeting did nothing to allay our concerns about the project. It seemed to us that none of the board members, with the exception of Mr. Kent, was really that familiar with the particulars of the lot and direct neighbors. One commented that the setback was adequate because our building was well away from the property line. That is incorrect. The property jogs toward the house to the west of 1628 giving the front of our building a large side setback from 1630 but at 1628 the property line jogs toward our building with the back section of our building being only 3 feet from the fence so we are talking about only 8' between our building and the proposed project. On the first floor our building has a_sunroom with windows all around and the second floor has a bedroom in that part of the building closest to the project (within 8 feet!). They will be most affected by the invasion of privacy, blocking of natural light during the day and intrusion of artificial light from the adjacent windows of the project at night. Another thing we noticed but had no opportunity to comment on or correct was that the Chairman asked if we lived there and then seemed to be dismissive of what we had to say when we said that we don't live there. That is unfair. We care deeply about the building, have owned and cared for it for many years, our daughter currently lives there, and we have considered perhaps moving there in the future. We also care about the living experience of our tenants in the building. This project looms over our property and the large windows of the project look directly into the bedrooms and living rooms of our apartments. The developers also really minimized the views of the impacts on our property in the plans that they presented. They showed their two next door neighbors on the plot plan but not our buildings on their plans. We may be their backyard neighbors but they are next door to our building and probably the property most severely impacted by the project. I think that was an unfair representation of the situation. We understand that story poles were never erected or required to illustrate for the community the scope of the project. We think that is a mistake given the nature of this project and the fact that it is so much more intensive as far as lot coverage than anything else in the direct neighborhood. A mini -Win Cup project! Our building, and most of the buildings directly adjacent, are beautiful old vintage homes and former mansions. Formerly, there was a multi -unit building of a similar vintage to our building (early 1900s) at 1628 Fifth Ave. That building fit comfortably on the lot and in the neighborhood and did not impinge on the light or views from our property. It was set 60 feet away from the property line (as we verified with Planning.) This distance was one reason our building was spared from the fire that consumed 1628 Fifth Ave. a decade ago. We were shocked to discover that the new building is proposed to be only 5 feet from the property line rather than the previous 60 feet! This is toe big a change. Before, there had been space and trees between the buildings providing peace and privacy for both. This new proposal will scrape away all the existing trees and leave us with a huge structure filling the entire lot and blocking the sun. No new landscaping or trees are proposed except on the roof. Our building will be literally overshadowed as this new massive structure will block all the sunlight and privacy from our apartments, the backyard cottage and the garden. The living room windows and balconies of the new building will be looking directly and closely into our bedrooms and living rooms. It is just too close. We understand that something will be built here and that it complies with legal requirements but it is hugely disrespectful to the existing neighborhood. If there were space provided between our buildings for trees and plantings to screen one from the other it would be more palatable and nicer for the future tenants of the new project as well. Meanwhile, our tenants will suffer through the noise and upheaval of this construction project and will be left with no privacy and no light reaching their windows or the garden. Our property and garden provide a nice view for the new project and we get only negative results. This project is of no benefit only detriment to us. Of course, we accept that something will be built on this lot but we don't_ understand why it should be so very much larger and so incredibly close to our existing building -55 feet closer! Skag Dukkers & Anne McClain PO Box 684 Forest Knolls, CA 94933 415.488.0328 mcclaindukkers@comcast.net