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