HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2012-11-06 #1 CITY OF
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date: November 6, 2012
Case Numbers: ED 12-039
Project Planner: Kraig Tambornini (415) 485-3092
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 10 Lindenwood Court (Nuijen Residence) – Environmental and Design Review Permit for a
new 2,160 gross square foot two-story single-family residence (including 400 sq. ft. carport
and 153 sq. ft. entry) on a 29,510 square foot, triangular-shaped and downsloping (63%)
hillside parcel; APN:185-161-13; R20-H Zone District; Gerald Nuijen, Applicant/Owner;
Glenwood neighborhood area.
PROPERTY FACTS
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: Hillside Residential R20-H Vacant
North: R20-H Single-family residence
South: R20-H Single-family residence
East: R20-H Single-family residence
West: P/OS Open space
Site Development Summary
Lot Size Natural State1
Required: 20,000 sf
Proposed: 29,510 sf (existing)
Allow/Req: 85% (maximum)
Proposed: 83%
Height1 Density or Floor Area1
Allowed: 30’ main 15’ accessory
Proposed: 28.9’ (main) 14’9” (detached)
Allowed: 5,451 sf
Proposed: 2,160 sf
Parking Upper Floor Area
Required: 2 covered (26’ wide public street)
Proposed: 4; 2 covered, 2 guest
NA
Lot Width, Yard or Landscape Area Setbacks
NA Required Existing Proposed2
Front:
Side(s):
Rear:
20
12’6”
10’
NA
NA
NA
40+
20+/100+
37’
Grading Tree Removal
Total: 139 cu. yd. Total(No./Species): None
Cut: 130 cu. yd.
Fill: 19 cu. yd.
Off-Haul: 111 cu. yd.
Requirement: NA
Proposed: NA
Notes: 1 For hillside parcels, development standards are based upon the parcel size and percent slope, and height is measured from the natural
grade. Non-hillside building height is measured from finished grade pursuant to the UBC method.
2Proposed setbacks are indicated from new exterior walls of buildings or additions.
See body of staff report for detailed discussion of project compliance and/or any issues with non-compliance.
2
SUMMARY
A new single-family home in the –H hillside district requires Zoning Administrator level review with
recommendation of the Design Review Board; pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.25.
Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on conformance with all of the pertinent
design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following:
Site Plan (Layout & Grading)
• Whether the building location and site improvements, which are proposed in the previously graded
portion of the site, are appropriate for this site and its setting.
• That the maximum 15% driveway slope and paving surfaces are appropriate for the setting
(concrete or AC proposed).
Architecture, Materials & Colors
• Whether the design solution for this home is in character with the homes in the neighborhood,
appropriate in its context, and preserves the steeply sloping hillside condition above the
development footprint.
• Whether proposed retaining walls, floor levels and roof planes sufficiently integrate into the existing
hillside slope by minimizing exposed cuts or unnecessary fill, and step the building form back into
the hillside setting.
• That the design and color and materials palette, while relatively simple, results in an acceptable
earth tone color scheme.
• Whether the polar white composition roof color should be revised to a color that would potentially be
less vibrant.
Landscaping
• That the native and ornamental landscaping proposed in the yard area down slope from the house
is appropriate for the site setting and neighborhood character.
Grading & Drainage
• Whether the home should be stepped back toward the hillside in order to better integrate into the
hillside setting and improve proposed emergency access to the storm drainage infrastructure
located at the rear of the site, in a manner that would be more suitable for the hillside setting and
responsive to concerns with potential for property damage from storm runoff.
• That review concerns with future debris flow avalanche have been adequately addressed throu
existing and proposed improvements, analysis, and stewardship of property owner.
BACKGROUND
Setting and History
The subject site and similar residential lots in the area, which back up against the adjacent hillside open
space, are designated hillside residential. There are no homes above this site, but the site would be
prominently visible from the street and adjacent lots.
The building site is located at the outfall below of a hillside ravine. During rainstorms in 1982, runoff and
debris from the adjacent upslope open space lands resulted in severe flooding and debris flow that
severely damaged the previous 2,542 square foot home on the site. Significant property damage also
occurred on parcels downgrade. The site has remained vacant since the prior house was demolished,
after being severely damaged by the debris flow avalanche.
A public drainage improvement (concrete catch basin) was installed at the base of the hillside ravine
that terminates at the northwest edge of the site and above the existing and proposed building pad.
This improvement was made in order to reduce the potential for future flooding and erosion from runoff
down the ravine. There is an ongoing need for continued maintenance and access to the storm drain
improvements located on the property, to guard against another debris flow avalanche affecting the
3
area. The site likely has remained undeveloped due to this previous history and concern with this
potential storm hazard. This remains a significant public safety and neighborhood concern.
The property maintains an overall down slope of 42%, with 63% calculated average slope. This parcel,
and the similarly designated adjacent hillside lots, are located at the edges of a traditional subdivision
tract of one and two story homes that are subject only to conventional residential zoning standards (not
subject to hillside design criteria). The applicants purchased the property with the intention of
constructing a simple and modest sized home on the property. The proposed building site places the
home in the wider, level, previously developed portion of the site at the base of the hillside slope and
ravine. The steeper, upslope and heavily vegetated portions of this rectangular shaped site would
remain undeveloped.
Application Review and Revisions
The subject application was submitted on June 22 and remains incomplete. Staff has reviewed three
different proposed development concepts for this site. The design has not fundamentally changed
following each revisions but its layout and site plan concepts have changed in response to comments
provided by City staff. This current submittal received October 22 remains incomplete, pending review
by Planning, Public Works and the Design Review Board to confirm the revised plans address hillside
application submittal and code requirements.
The first plan concept had proposed a rectangular home placed adjacent and parallel with the base of
the hillside slope to the north, with a carport on the upper/rear side of the house. This design was
changed in response to staff’s comments that the plan proposed tall skirt walls and did not provide
articulation or stepping called for in the hillside design guidelines. The second revision had addressed
many of staffs concerns with the original plan, by lowering the house grade (through slight excavation
into the grade and adjacent hillside slope) and by relocated the carport to the front/down slope side of
the house, which provided further articulation and stepping. This design concept proposed 2,280 gross
square feet, a 22.5-foot main building height and 245 cubic yards of cut and 219 cubic yards of fill for
the structure footprint and driveway access and guest parking improvements. This design was
scheduled and noticed for a September 5 hearing before the DRB. However, staff cancelled this
hearing after the applicant discovered discrepancies with the site topography; which was based on
assumed grades and not based on a survey of the grade elevations.
The current concept submitted on October 22 slightly shifts orientation of the home away from the
adjacent hillside and runs more centrally within the previously graded building pad. This design
includes provision of gravel driveway extending from the parking area to the concrete catch basin so
that emergency workers can access the storm drain improvements placed at the rear of the site. (Staff
will provide an update when public works has confirmed whether the revised plans fully satisfy its
requirements for access to the site and drainage improvements on the site). The main driveway curves
left to access the carport, the carport has been detached and reduced in area, and a stairway structure
from the parking area to the house is proposed. This site design involves less cut into the adjacent
hillside, but would require small amounts of fill and low retaining walls facing down slope that would
support the carport backup space. Minimal tall under-floor space is created below the house, with a
maximum of 6’6” clearance occurring at the southeast corner.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes construction of a 2,160 gross square foot new single-family residence in two-
stories located at the base of a down sloping rectangular shaped and previously developed 29,510
square foot hillside property, comprised of the following areas:
Carport: 400 square feet
Entry Porch: 153 square feet (covered entry)
First Floor: 875 square feet
Second Floor: 732 square feet
4
The design is predominately a rectangular two-story house with shed roof forms. Colors, materials and
details of the building include a medium-dark (“Mocha sand”) stucco and “Navajo cream” horizontal
fiber-cement siding with painted wood door and window trim and sills, vinyl windows, and class A fire
resistant “Polar White” composition shingle roofing. The carport and porch areas would include 2x6 trim
eaves and low screen wall enclosure detail treatments. The low retaining walls would be constructed of
wood.
The house would be accessed by a new driveway at the end of the cul-de-sac street (using the existing
driveway curb cut), with a maximum 15% grade. A gravel guest parking would be re-established along
the driveway leading up to the house. An existing stacked stone wall adjacent to the proposed guest
parking spaces would remain. Additional site treatments include a walkway from the driveway to entry
with an at grade planter between the walkway and carport and a gravel driveway extending from the
end of the driveway to the rear of the site (for vehicular access to public storm drain improvements). A
modest amount of landscape enhancement is proposed along the frontage and interior side yard, with
the site remaining predominantly natural. The site would not require removal of any trees, which would
be preserved on the upslope hillside behind the house. Lastly, the applicant in consultation with his
geotechnical engineer has concluded that they would prefer to make minimal cut and fill on the site,
which has influenced the site location.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The site is designated hillside residential which allows for a single-family hillside residence. The project
shall be required to comply with the hillside overlay district standards which implements the Land Use,
Conservation and Safety policies that would apply to this site.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
As noted in the development summary above and Project Description, the project meets the minimum
development standards including lot coverage, gross building area, natural state, height, grading and
drainage, driveway slope and guest parking. A copy of the Hillside Guideline Compliance table is
attached (Exhibit 3). The home is generally considered go be in character with the neighborhood. The
footprint is in an area that exhibits an overall slope of less than 20% slope grade toward the street, as
compared to the overall slope in excess of 40% and average slope in excess of 60%.
Hillside Design Guidelines
This design has been revised in response to initial issues identified by staff during completeness
review, resulting in the following:
o Finish floor levels have been placed closer to grade to eliminate tall skirt walls
o The carport has been located down slope in front of the house to reduce grading and break up
building mass
o Compliant driveway grades of less than 15% and guest parking are provided
o A defined entryway into the home is indicated
o Wood eave and railing details are included
o Adequate drainage improvements and landscape details are shown
Staff has concluded that the primary factors that should be considered in evaluating this project are: 1)
the unique drainage concerns affecting this site, 2) the setting adjacent to hillside open space lands,
and 3) its character in relation to the existing conventional residential development in the neighborhood.
The current concept appears to address public works requirements that access be provide to the storm
drain improvements below the hillside ravine. However, the modified building location places more
building area in the historic path of storm runoff that damaged the prior home. Planning staff has
concluded that the building could be better integrated into its setting and respond to the unique storm
5
runoff concerns if it were shifted north toward the hillside. This would allow the access to the drainage
structure to be provided without encompassing the entire side yard area with a gravel driveway, and
move the house out of the direct pathway of a potential storm or debris flow avalanche. That said, as
viewed in context with the neighborhood and unique site setting and constraints, the current design still
appears to satisfy the minimum intent of the hillside design guidelines. Staff has concluded the
following based on its review of the applicable hillside design criteria:
• The proposed residence is generally in character with the size and style of homes in the
neighborhood and preserves the existing undisturbed hillside.
• The design and color and materials palette are relatively simple, though they appear to meet the
overall intent of the guidelines; with possible exception of the polar white roof color, which may
contrast with the surrounding homes and setting as viewed from the public street. The color palette
could also be revised to propose more varied and interesting colors in lieu of browns and beige.
• The hillside design solution could be improved by providing more articulation in walls and roof plans
facing down slope, to step building forms and floor levels with the hillside slope.
• The building site plan could be improved by shifting placement of the house and carport closer to
the adjacent hillside upslope. This would involve more cut into the hillside reducing bulk, mass and
height of the home and eliminating need for the raised stairway structure, and increasing the side
yard setback and providing better landscaping and access possibilities to the hillside ravine and
drainage improvements at the rear of the site.
• The building site plan should be shifted adjacent to the hillside upslope so that the structure is less
likely to be in the path of a debris flow running down the hillside ravine above the site that might
occur during significant storm. The current plan is placed in almost the same location as the
previous residence.
• Public works needs to review and confirm that the design addresses concerns with placement of a
structure below the course of a drainage swale, based upon the existing and proposed
improvements.
Staff requests that the Board provide its comments on whether the project satisfies the intent of the
Hillside Design Guidelines, and recommend any further changes or additional information that may be
required to support the project. The colors and materials board will be distributed for review at the
hearing.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice was mailed to property owners and interested parties at least 15 days before the hearing.
Extensive comment on this site has been previously provided, due to past concerns and issues with
flooding and debris flow that affected downhill neighbors. Staff has discussed the project with a couple
neighbors concerned with the potential for storm drainage issues to recur. Two written letters were
submitted, reiterating similar drainage concerns. Any additional letters received will be provided to the
DRB at the meeting.
CONCLUSION
In general, staff recommends that the design may be supported. Staff requests that the Boards
comment on the design issues discussed in this report and provide direction on any revisions,
additional reviews or information required to support the project. If the building location and details are
deemed acceptable, staff notes that this design may be subject to further review by public works to
confirm that the structure and foundation designs would adequately withstand a potential debris flow
avalanche.
6
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Hillside Compliance Checklist
3. Comment Letters
4. Project Plans (Reduced)
Full-sized plans have been provided to the DRB members only.
cc: Gerald Nuijen, Owner, 15 Hamilton Lane, Mill Valley, Ca 94941
Andrew Davis, Architect, Space Architecture & Planning, 1414 4th St #2008, San Rafael CA 94901
Exhibit 1
September 5, 2012, DRB Meeting
Exhibit 1
Vicinity Map
10 Lindenwood Court
MILLMILLMILLMILLMILLCTCTCTCTCTC TCTCTCTCT FR IA R
FR IA R
FR IA R
FR IA R
FR IA R TUCKTUCKTUCKTUCKTUCKLNLNLNLNLNR
O
BIN
H
O
O
D
R
O
BIN
H
O
O
D
R
O
BIN
H
O
O
D
R
O
BIN
H
O
O
D
R
O
BIN
H
O
O
D
WOWOWOWOWOODODODODODLINLINLINLINLIN DDDDD EEEEE N WNWNWNWNW O O DOODOODOODOOD
1111111111333337777713113113113113113513513513513544444
202020202016161616161 212121212 151515151513213213213213212812812812812812412412412412412012012012012011411411411411410810810810810810910910910910911311311311311311711711711711710710710710710711111111111111111311311311311311911911911911915151
51515
1 4 4144144144144
1 4 0140140140140
444441 3 3133133133133
1 3 7137137137137
1 4 1141141141141
1 4 5145145145145
1 4 9149149149149153153153153153
1 5 5155155155155
1 5 1151151151151
1 6 6166166166166
1 6 0160160160160
1 5 6156156156156
1 5 2152152152152
1 4 8148148148148
1 4 4144144144144
666661 4 0140140140140
1 3 6136136136136 1211211211211211 2 5125125125125
1 2 9129129129129 55555124124124124124116116116116116112112112112112101010101077
77788888
1 5 9159159159159
R1a-HR1a-HR1a-HR1a-HR1a-H
R1a-HR1a-HR1a-HR1a-HR1a-H
R20-HR20-HR20-HR20-HR20-H
R20-HR20-HR20-HR20-HR20-H
R20-HR20-HR20-HR20-HR20-H
R2a-HR2a-HR2a-HR2a-HR2a-H
R7.5R7.5R7.5R7.5R7.5
R7.5R7.5R7.5R7.5R7.5
R7.5R7.5R7.5R7.5R7.5
R7.5R7.5R7.5R7.5R7.5
R7.5R7.5R7.5R7.5R7.5
P/OSP/OSP/OSP/OSP/OS
Site
Exhibit 2
September 5, 2012, DRB Meeting
2-1
Exhibit 2
COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL
The following checklist summarizes development guidelines and standards. See the appropriate section for a
complete explanation of the item.
A "yes" indicates the project complies with the recommendation, a "no" indicates it does not. N/A is the
abbreviation for "not applicable."
This checklist is intended to measure overall design quality. The manual incorporates standards and suggested
guidelines to insure high quality projects. Standards are indicated with an asterisk and are mandatory. They are
indicated in the text by the term "shall". Exceptions to standards can only be granted by the City Council
(indicated by a *) or the specific hearing body designated in the Manual (indicated by a •). Guidelines are
recommendations and are indicated in the text by the term "should." Staff and Design Review Board will be
guided by compliance with these guidelines in making their recommendations on the project design. The project
architect or engineer must justify any variations. Only projects with high quality designs will be approved.
Prepared for: 10 Lindenwood Court, APN 185-161-13, R20-H District.
Zoning Standards (Chapter III, Hillside Residential Development Standards)
Y N NA
X Natural State Requirement (25% + % of average slope)
85% max. x 29,510lotsf = 2,508.3sf Required 27,343sf* Proposed (*architects calc.
Note: the development is in a previously graded and disturbed area. Further detailed
review of calculations would need to be made for development into the natural hillside)
X * Gross Building Square Footage (2500 sq. ft. + 10% of lot size, maximum of 6,500 sq. ft.)
5,451 max. gross sq. ft. 2,160 proposed gross sq. ft.
X * Building Height (30 feet measured from natural grade). (28.9’ max height proposed)
X * Building stepback (20 foot height limitation on walls within 15 feet of the building envelope
limit, encroachment allowed along 25% of building length). Proposed height 20’/28.9’ (The west
elevation is technically the down slope elevation, thus subject to the stepback height limit.
The overall dimension of the structure is 42’ including the porch and carport below the
house. A 20’ section of the house maintains unbroken wall planes that exceed 20’ in height.
If the carport and overhang of the house are counted as contributing to stepback, a 5’
section of wallplane over 20’ would remain, which would comply with the 25%
“encroachment” allowance.)
X • Setback Waiver proposed (permitted for a distance of not more than ½ of the required setback
with DRB approval and special findings, requires compensating increase in setback on opposing
setback).
X * Ridgeline prohibition of development within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant
ridgeline.
X • Parking requirement of two additional spaces on substandard streets. (Lindenwood Court is
a fully improved residential street with sidewalk and parking with 26’ width street
pavement. Guest parking has been provided).
X * Lot standards of minimum sizes and widths established in Subdivision Ordinance.
IV.A. Design Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside Residential Development Projects
Exhibit 2
September 5, 2012, DRB Meeting
2-2
IVA1. Preservation of Existing Natural Features:
Y N NA
X Maintains mature trees and preserves significant vegetation.
X
Minimizes grading and alterations of natural land forms with balanced cuts and fills.
X
Drainage minimizes off-site impacts and preserves natural drainage courses.
X Roads and streets located and landscaped to minimize visual impacts.
X Access provided to open space areas. (access to drainage improvements that serve runoff
from open space provided per direction from DPW)
IV.A2. Preservation of Significant trees
Y N NA
X Retains significant trees or criteria for removal is met and *replacement criteria of 3:1 with 15
gallon trees is met.
X Existing trees are preserved by avoiding grading in the dripline, or change in grade or
compaction. Arborist’s recommendations are met.
IVA3. Hillside Grading and Drainage
Y N NA
X Grading is minimized and all grading maintains a natural appearance with slopes of 2:1 to 5:1.
Grading within 20 feet of property lines is minimized or similar to existing adjacent slopes.
X Terracing uses incremental steps and visible retaining walls are of a minimum height and use
stone or earth colored materials.
X Pads are of a minimum size for structures and open space (pads for tennis courts and swimming
pools are discouraged).
X Off-site drainage impacts are minimized and drainage plans avoid erosion and damage to on-site
and adjacent properties. Impervious surfaces are minimized and storm water from roofs is
conveyed to a comprehensive site drainage system Storm drainage improvements and drainage
devices create a natural appearance. (existing improvements in place will be retained and
avoided and access to critical drainage structures is proposed to be provided)
X * Debris Collection and overflow routes are provided where needed and located to minimize
visual impacts. (existing improvements in place will be retained and avoided)
X Erosion control plans and revegetation plan provided. (re-vegetation and BMPs required)
X Geotechnical review has been done and mitigation measures will not substantially modify the
character of the existing landform, expose slopes that cannot be re-vegetated or remove large
areas or existing mature vegetation. Existing geologic hazards have been corrected.
IVA4. Lot Configuration, Building Setbacks and Location (Complete for Subdivisions)
Y N NA
X Lot configurations provide a variety of shapes based on topography and natural features and lot
lines are places on the top, not the toe, of the slope.
X Flag lots with a common drive are encouraged.
X Building setbacks are varied or staggered.
X Building locations are not located near visually prominent ridgelines and existing view of
residences are respected.
X * Front yard setbacks are minimized on downhill lots.
Exhibit 2
September 5, 2012, DRB Meeting
2-3
IVA5. Street Layout, Driveway and Parking Design
Y N NA
X Streets use narrower street widths if it reduces grading, visual impacts are minimized by
terracing any retaining walls, and split roadways are encouraged.
X * Street layout follows the natural grade and long stretches of straight road are avoided.
Proper sight distances are maintained.
X • Street grades do not exceed 18 % of have received an exception.
X 14.9%
grade
• Driveway grades do not exceed 18% or an exception has been granted. Parking has been
designed so that vehicles will not back out into substandard streets. Driveways over 18%
have grooves and asphalt driveways are not proposed on slopes over 15%.
X Parking bays are established or if parallel parking is permitted it is located on one side only
and limited to 8 feet in width.
IVA6. Reduction of Building Bulk on Hillsides
Y N NA
X The building steps up the slope and/or has been cut into the hillside.
X Roof forms and rooflines are broken up and parallel the slope. The slope of the roof does not
exceed the natural contour by 20%.
Overhanging or elevated decks and excessive cantilevers are avoided.
Large expanses of a wall in a single plane are avoided on downhill elevations.
Building materials blend with the setting.
IVA7. Hillside Architectural Character
Y N NA
X Rooflines are oriented in consideration of views from adjacent areas and properties.
X Gabled, hip and shed roof forms with a moderated pitch are encouraged. Changes in roof
form accompanied with offsets in elevations are encouraged. Flat roofs with membranes or
built up roofing materials are discouraged when visible.
X Multi-Building Projects have different floor elevations to achieve height variation and avoid
long continuous building masses. Articulated facades and variations in roof forms are
required. Buildings near hillside rims have a staggered arrangement and are screened with
planting.
X Building Materials, texture and color meet criteria and color coordinate with the predominant
colors and values of the surrounding landscape. Building walls and roofs are of
recommended materials.
X Walls, fences and accessory structures are compatible with adjacent buildings and are
designed to respect views. Front yard fences are of an open design and provide a landscaped
buffer. Walls and materials are of appropriate materials.
X • Retaining walls meet height restrictions of 4 feet on upslopes and 3 feet on downslopes.
Terraced retaining walls are separated by a minimum of three feet and landscaped. Retaining
walls holding back grade to accommodate a patio or terrace conform to the natural contours as
much as possible and excessively high retaining walls are prohibited.
X * Decks do not create excessively high distances between the structure and grade.
X * Mechanical equipment is screened from view.
IV.A8. Planting Design for Hillside Residential Development
Exhibit 2
September 5, 2012, DRB Meeting
2-4
Y N NA
X Major rock outcroppings and planting patterns of native plants and trees are respected and
retained. Replacement trees are planted with irregularly grouped trees which retain a similar
appearance from a distance.
Y N NA
X New plantings have been selected for their effectiveness of erosion control, fire resistance and
drought tolerance and consider neighbors’ views. Native plants are used.
X * Irrigation systems and mulching are provided.
X Existing scarred or graded areas with high visibility are revegetated.
X Special planting guidelines for 2:1 slopes are followed.
X Graded slopes have trees planted along contour lines in undulating groups and trees are
located in swale areas.
X Public rights-of-way are landscaped.
X Transition zones are planted in high fire hazard areas and building envelopes are located to
minimize risk to structures. Planting materials are fire retardant. Subdivisions have provided
an arborist's report to analyze site fire hazards.
IV.A9. Site Lighting
Y N NA
X Site lighting which is visible is indirect or incorporates full shield cut-offs. Adjacent
properties are not illuminated and light sources are not seen from adjacent properties or public
rights-of-way.
X Overhead lighting in parking areas is mounted at a maximum height of 15 feet and does not
interfere with bedroom windows.
X Overhead lighting in pedestrian areas does not exceed 8 feet in height and low-level lighting
is used along walkways.
X * Exterior floor lighting is located and shielded so that it does not shine on adjacent
properties. Decorative lighting to highlight a structure is prohibited and not shown.
IV.BI. Subdivisions and Planned Development Projects
Y N NA
X Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, street layout and design, hillside
grading and drainage, and lot configuration, building setback and locations have been met and
building envelopes established on all lots.
X Cluster developments meet the following criteria: Flexible front and side setbacks are
provided; large expanses of flat areas, such as parking lots, are avoided; buildings are sited
with units having different floor elevations to achieve height variation; buildings near hillside
rims are sited in a staggered arrangement and screened with planting; existing vegetation is
retained; and flag lots which encourage terracing of buildings and minimize cuts and fills are
allowed.
X Long continuous building masses are avoided and groups of building are designed with visible
differences through materials, colors, forms and façade variation. Facades are articulated and
rooflines avoid extended horizontal lines. Building facades have a mixture of vertical and
horizontal elements, but emphasize verticality. Alignments of units are staggered horizontally
and vertically to create unit identity, privacy at entryways and in private outdoor spaces and to
shape open space. Buildings may be terraced and building clusters are separated with expanses
of open space.
IV.B2 Single Family Residences on Individual Lots
Exhibit 2
September 5, 2012, DRB Meeting
2-5
Y N NA
X Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and drainage,
reduction of building bulk, architectural character, and planting design are met.
X * An exception is necessary to allow tandem parking on lots served by an access drive if it
minimizes the impact of hillside development.
X Common driveways are encouraged.
X * The driveway grade does not exceed 18% or an exception is required. Drainage from the
driveway is directed in a controlled manner. The finished grade of the driveway conforms to
the finished grade of the lot.
IV.B3 Multi-family Residential Development
Y N NA
X Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and drainage,
reduction of building bulk, architectural character, site lighting and planting design are met.
X Yard setbacks and group common and private open space meet zoning ordinance
requirements. A children's play area is provided on developments with over 25 units.
X The site design utilizes opportunities such as outdoor decks, roof gardens, terraces, bay
windows, framing of views, pergolas, view lookouts, and sculptured stairs and walkways.
X Large expanses of flat areas, such as parking lots, are avoided; buildings are sited with units
having different floor elevations to achieve height variation; buildings near hillside rims are
sited in a staggered arrangement and screened with planting; existing vegetation is retained;
and flag lots which encourage terracing of buildings and minimize cuts and fills are allowed.
X Long continuous building masses are avoided and groups of building are designed with
visible differences through materials, colors, forms, and façade variation. 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 mixture of vertical and horizontal
elements, but emphasize verticality. Alignments of units are staggered horizontally and
vertically to create unit identity, privacy at entryways and in private outdoor spaces and to
shape open-space. Buildings may be terraced and building clusters are separated with
expanses of open space.
X Tuck under parking is encouraged. 10% of the parking lot area is landscaped or trees planted
as required by the zoning ordinance.
IV.C1 Highly Visible Ridgeline Areas
Y N NA
X * Development is located within 100 feet of a significant ridgeline.
X Designs minimize grading and building pads. Structures and fences do not project above the
ridgeline and views of the natural ridge silhouettes is retained. Roads near ridges and on
slopes are designed to accommodate grade and cut slopes are rounded off.
IV.C2 Hillside Drainage Swales and Drainage Ravines
Y N NA
X * A hydrologic analysis has been prepared and inadequate on and of-site existing hillside
storm drainage facilities will be replaced. Appropriate setbacks from drainages have been
established to preserve natural drainage patterns and public safety. Slope stability hazards in
watersheds have been studied and measures proposed to protect down slope properties
(Subdivisions)
Exhibit 2
September 5, 2012, DRB Meeting
2-6
X General plan setbacks from drainageways, creeks, and wetlands are met. (General Plan
standard, exceptions cannot be granted) Subdivisions and other major projects have provided
a biotic report to establish the appropriate setback.
X * Debris basins, rip-rap, and energy dissipation devices are provided when necessary to
reduce erosion when grading is undertaken. Significant natural drainage courses are protected
from grading activity and are integrated into project design. When crossing is required, a
natural crossing and bank protection is provided. Any brow ditches are naturalized with plant
materials and native rocks.
X Stream bank stabilization is done through stream rehabilitation and not through concrete
channels or other mechanical means. Stream planting utilizes indigenous riparian vegetation.
IV.C3 Hillslope Habitat Areas
Y N NA
X Cluster housing is encouraged and provisions regarding reduction of building bulk on
hillsides, architectural character, and site lighting are followed.
X Existing vegetation is incorporated into the project design and used to screen development
from offsite views.
Indicate any special requirements
Y N NA
X Geotechnical Review
X Drainage Report
X Biological Survey
X Arborist's Report
X Photo Montage and/or model
X Site Staking
Comments on overall project compliance and design quality
The project warrants further review and study to determine if the intent of the hillside design guidelines
are met in this case. Concerns include building location, stepbacks and roof forms with respect to its
hillside setting and hydrologic concerns related to this particular site.
Exceptions or waivers required for the project which can be approved by the Zoning Administrator or Planning
Commission with the recommendation of the Design Review Board
Guest parking design and down slope stepback encroachment.
Exceptions which require the approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Design Review Board
and Planning Commission
None
Exhibit 3
September 5, 2012, DRB Meeting
3-1
Exhibit 3
Public Comment Letters
Exhibit 3
September 5, 2012, DRB Meeting
3-2
Exhibit 3
September 5, 2012, DRB Meeting
3-3
Exhibit 3
September 5, 2012, DRB Meeting
3-4
Exhibit 4
Project Plans