HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2013-06-18 #3CITY OF
1 a-4leot-
Community Development Department — Planning Division
Meeting Date: June 18, 2013
Case Numbers: ED 12-039
Project Planner: Kraig Tambornini (415) 485-3092
Agenda Item:
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 10 Lindenwood Court (Nuijen Residence) —Environmental and Design Review Permit for a
new 1080 gross square foot two-story single-family residence (including 480 sq. ft. detached
carport and 120 sq. ft. covered porch) 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. (Continued from November 6, 2012)
PROPERTY FACTS
Site
General Plan Designation
Zoning Designation
Existing Land -Use
Project Site: Hillside Residential
R20 -H
Vacant
North:
Hillside Residential
R20 -H
Single-family residence
South:
Hillside Residential
R20 -H
Single-family residence
East:
Hillside Residential
R20 -H
Single-family residence
West:
Park
P/OS
Open space
Lot Size
Natural State
Required:
20,000 sf
Allow/Req: 85% (maximum)
Proposed:
29,510 sf (existing)
Proposed: 83%
Height
Density or Floor Area
Allowed:
30' main 15' accessory
Allowed: 5,451 sf
Proposed:
16' (main) 12' (detached)
Proposed: 1,080 sf
Parking
Upper Floor Area
Required:
2 covered (26' wide public street)
N/A
Proposed:
2 covered
Lot Width,
Yard or Landscape Area
Setbacks
N/A
Required
ExistingProposed'
Front: 20
N/A 40+
Side(s): 12'6"
N/A 40+/100+
Rear: 10'
N/A 40'
Grading
Tree Removal
Total:
65 cu. yd.
Total(No./species): None
Cut:
60 cu. yd.
Requirement: N/A
Fill:
5 cu. yd.
Proposed: N/A
Off -Haul: 55 cu. yd.
Note: For hillside parcels, development standards are based upon the parcel size and percent slope, and height is
measured from the natural grade.
SUMMARY
The project involves construction of a new home on a vacant hillside site in the Glenwood
neighborhood area. The subject and neighborhood were previously developed in the 1960's and 70's.
The prior home on this site was destroyed by flooding in 1982. 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. The applicable design criteria are found
in the following documents:
A) General Plan 2020
B) San Rafael Design Guidelines
C) Hillside Design Guidelines Manual
D) San Rafael Municipal Code-SRMC Chapter 14.12 (—H Overlay District) and Chapter 14.25
(Design Review)
On November 6, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed a design for a 2,160 square foot new home
on this site. After receiving comments from the Board, Planning Division staff, and the Department of
Public Works (which included a follow-up site visit at the property to evaluate storm flooding risks), the
applicant concluded that it was not feasible to pursue the larger project at this time and has submitted
plans for a much smaller dwelling and detached garage. Given that the revised plan does not tier from
the previous proposed plan, staff has not provided a set of previous plans for comparison. The current
site plan provides the outline of the prior plan footprint. Staff has attached an email summarizing the
November 2012 Board comments (Exhibit 3). Also attached are an updated Hillside Design Guidelines
Checklist (Exhibit 2) and the comments provided from neighbors expressing their concerns with
property redevelopment (Exhibit 4). A revised notice has been posted on-site and mailed to
surrounding residents advising residents of this Board meeting. Updated comments will be forwarded
to the Board. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on conformance with all of the
pertinent design criteria, and specifically the following site and building design questions:
o Whether the design of the house and carport structure would be in keeping with the predominant
character of the adjacent residential neighborhood, or whether site or building design changes
would be deemed necessary to maintain a consistent design or streetscape.
• Whether the carport needs to be designed as an enclosed to appear as a more traditional garage
and eliminate any unnecessary exposed retaining wall structures on sides of the building.
Whether the project should include the following changes:
o Cut the building footprint into the hillside to eliminate need for fill on the downhill side in order to
accommodate a future expansion of the main floor plan that could comply with the stepping and
articulation of building elements.
o Enclose the carport as a garage on all sides to result in uniform design that matches the house
and neighborhood.
o Reduce the height of exposed retaining walls on the downhill side of the garage structure.
o Color or finish retaining walls to blend into the natural setting with use of earthtone colors or
natural materials.
o Provide additional plants and groundcover for all disturbed, cut and fill areas and exposed front,
side and interior yard areas.
• Whether the landscape plan is appropriate and in keeping with the setting.
• Whether location of any proposed tall fencing should be indicated on the plans.
• Whether the site should include a defined pathway from the garage (and street) to the residence.
BACKGROUND
The subject site and several other similar lots in the area back up against the adjacent hillside open
space and are designated hillside residential. The property exhibits an overall upslope from the street
of 42%, with 63% calculated as the average slope for the entire site. There are no homes that would
look down onto the property. However, the site is prominent from the cul-de-sac and adjoining lots. The
proposed building site is near the street in a 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. 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 removed following the flood
damage.
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 installed in order to reduce the potential for future flooding and erosion from
runoff down the ravine, and compensate for damage that occurred to City stormdrain systems following
the 1982 flood. 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
area, and help to assure City systems do not become overwhelmed. The site likely has remained
undeveloped due to this previous history and concern with the potential storm hazard. This remains a
significant public safety and neighborhood concern. Public Works reviewed the project and had
recommended relocation of the building to avoid future potential debris slides or, additional analysis of
the flood risk. In response, the applicant has decided to relocate the building out of the historic path of
debris flows.
On November 6, 2012 the Board reviewed a much larger single-family residence on this site. However,
the applicant has decided that the prior concept was not feasible, and has instead proposed a small
cottage on the property that would respond to City concerns with health and safety risk associated with
storm flooding. Given that the project is substantially different than that reviewed by the Board this past
November 2012 the prior plan sets have not been included with this packet. The current plan has been
evaluated on its own merit for compliance with the hillside design guidelines and recommendations of
the other City departments. Comments that were provided by the Board at its November meeting are
noted in this report as they relate to the revised project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Overview
The project proposes construction of a 1,080 gross square foot new single-family residence and
detached carport in previously disturbed building area located at the base of this down sloping 29,510
square foot hillside property. The project includes a one bedroom, single -story 480 square foot cottage
(20' by 24') with a 120 square foot entry porch placed upslope from the street, and 480 square foot
detached two -car carport that would be directly accessed off Lindenwood Court. A gravel driveway is
proposed from the driveway to a drainage culvert on the property (required to provide access by City
staff to the storm drainage catchbasin). The location of the parking structure and house satisfy
recommendations of Public Works that the house should be placed out of the path of potential future
debris flow, or the owner would need to conduct further study of the drainage impacts.
Design, Colors and Materials
The design is a rectangular home and carport with 4:12 shingled shed roof forms. Colors, materials
and details of the building include a medium -dark ("Mocha sand") stucco walls with stone base accent
on the house. A dark roof is proposed consistent with the Boards recommendation made at its
November 2012 meeting. The carport would include a 4:12 shingle roof and garage doors, intended to
address in part the November 2012 Board comments. Retaining walls would be concrete. Wall sections
3
and a driveway profile have been included in the plans, as requested by staff. The colors and materials
board will be distributed for review at the hearing.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The site is designated hillside residential, which allows single family development subject to hillside
design criteria. The —H overlay district standards implements the applicable Land Use, Conservation
and Safety General Plan 2020 policies that would apply to this site. The site is also identified within the
Glenwood neighborhood, as designated in the General Plan 2020. General Plan 2020 Neighborhood
Element Goal 5 states it is the goal for San Rafael to have neighborhoods of integrity and distinctive
hometown character. This goal is supported by Policy NH -2 — New Development in Residential
Neighborhoods, which contains the following policy direction:
"Preserve, enhance and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods to make them desirable
places to live. New development should:
❖ Enhance neighborhood image and quality of life,
❖ Incorporate sensitive transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect
adjacent development character and privacy,
❖ Preserve historic and architecturally significant structures,
❖ Respect existing landforms and natural features,
❖ Maintain or enhance infrastructure service levels, and
❖ Provide adequate parking.
Glenwood is characterized as a neighborhood comprised of homes built as part of the same
development so they share similar characteristics and architectural style. Policy CD -13 — Residential
Design Guidelines reinforces that design review must consider the distinct characteristics of individual
neighborhoods. This policy is implemented by the San Rafael Design Guidelines. The description of
this neighborhood may be relied on in evaluating this design for compliance with the applicable design
criteria, which is identified and discussed in this report.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 14.04 through 14.25
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. The project is subject to minor environmental design
review that requires Zoning Administrator level review with the recommendation of the Design Review
Board, pursuant to Chapter 14.25 (Design Review) and Chapter 14.12 (-H Overlay District). The
pertinent design review criteria have been addressed by previous Board comments and review of the
project for consistency with the applicable design guidelines, as discussed in detail below.
A. Design Review Board Comments (November 6, 2012):
The following comments provided by the Board on the previous design may also be pertinent to the
revised proposal:
➢ The Board shall rely on the Department of Public Works review and recommendations on grading,
drainage and hydrology concerns.
➢ The design needs to step back the upper story and break down the mass of the building to be more
in keeping with the hillside design guidelines. For instance, the upper story needs to be stepped
back from the lower floor level with a roof section distinguishing the two levels as viewed from the
street frontage. Reference was made to the examples on pages 44 and 49 of the Hillside Design
Guidelines manual.
➢ More fenestration of the front elevation needs to be provided to tie the design in with the existing
neighborhood.
4
➢ The colors and materials need to be darker earthtone colors to comply with the hillside design
guidelines criteria. White roof color is not supportable.
➢ Enclose the carport as a garage to be in keeping with the neighborhood character.
➢ Consider providing windows on the north elevation for cross ventilation and to take advantage of
potential views of the natural hillside.
➢ Vinyl windows shall not be white and should be a color that is compatible with the building colors.
➢ The plan proposes too many trees and needs to be revised to accommodate anticipated growth of
the native species selected.
➢ Change the buckeye to western variety.
➢ Eliminate the California ash for a native or compatible species found in Marin.
➢ Arrange plantings of the native plants in groups versus linear rows as proposed.
➢ Add planting by the guest parking area.
➢ Place geotextile under gravel areas.
➢ Be aware that removal of French broom will require ongoing diligence due to the seed bank of this
plant and likewise the removal should extend beyond the 100 foot minimum requirement for fire
hazard.
Aside from the significant reduction in house size, the project most significantly deviates from the prior
design by separating the carport from the house with a large yard space provided between the two
structures. The site is zoned and intended for single-family residential development, and the City does
not have alternative standards for summer homes. Thus, the site must be reviewed as a single-family
residence which requires provision of two covered parking spaces. The prior design included a new
residence placed in close proximity of the current cottage, with detached carport adjacent to the house
on the down-sloping side. The prior house and parking structure placement have been indicated on the
current site plan. The revised site layout does not conflict with any zoning or engineering standards.
However, the revised concept warrants review as to whether this plan adequately considers the
previous Board comments on site and building design. In particular, staff requests comment on the
following:
® Whether the design of the house and carport structure would be in keeping with the
predominant character of the adjacent residential neighborhood, or whether site or building
design changes would be deemed necessary to maintain a consistent design or
streetscape.
B. San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines
The residential guidelines contain criteria addressing building design, scale, height, roof shapes,
entrances, windows, driveways, landscaping and fences, lighting and additions. Staff has listed some
of the criteria considered to be applicable that may warrant further consideration:
➢ Building Design. Where there is an existing pattern, particular attention should be given to
maintaining a consistent streetscape.
➢ Roof Shapes. Where possible, relate new roor corm to those found in the area.
➢ Building Entrances. There should be a clear, well defined sense of entry from the street to the
building.
➢ Driveways and parking areas. Where possible, parking areas should be recessed or placed to the
rear of the buildings.
➢ Front landscaping and fences. Landscaped front yards should contribute to the overall visual quality
of the neighborhood and to create a strong landscaped character for the site.
This site has a unique setting, in that the building pad is not directly adjacent to the street. Therefore,
some variation in building placement may be anticipated on this site. Further, the site has a strong
hillside character that may support a more natural planting pattern on the lot. The garage would
provide the predominant street front elevation and provides an opportunity to integrate with the
neighborhood. Further, its placement in relation to the house appears to support need for a defined
walkway from the carport to residence. Staff requests Board comments, as follows:
5
• Whether the carport needs to be designed as an enclosed to appear as a more traditional
garage and eliminate any unnecessary exposed retaining wall structures on sides of the
building.
• Whether the landscape plan is appropriate and in keeping with the setting.
• Whether location of any proposed tall fencing should be indicated on the plans.
• Whether the site should include a defined pathway from the garage (and street) to the
residence.
C. Hillside Design Guidelines
Staff has completed the preliminary hillside design guidelines compliance checklist (Exhibit 2). Based
on this preliminary review, staff has concluded that the following Hillside Design Guidelines Manual
criteria would be pertinent to the revised plan for a small, one-story cottage:
Sections IV.A6/IV.A7— Reduction of Buildinq Bulk on Hillsides/Hillside Architectural Character
➢ The effective visual bulk of hillside residential development should be reduced so that structures do
not "stand out' prominently when seen from a distance or from downhill properties.
➢ Building form should be designed to conform to the site topography. The form, mass, profile and
architectural features of the individual buildings should be designed to blend with the natural terrain
and preserve the character and profile of the slope.
➢ Propose simple one and two story buildings in recessive colors with pitched roofs, accented with
appropriate architectural features.
The following techniques are recommended in the guidelines for reducing potential building bulk and
mass:
❖ Integrate homes into topography and vegetation.
❖ Provide split pads and stepped footings.
❖ Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk.
❖ Break roof forms into smaller components to reflect irregular forms of surrounding features.
❖ Long linear lines are discouraged.
❖ Avoid large gable ends on downhill elevations.
❖ Roof slope should orient in the same direction as the natural slope.
❖ Avoid excessive cantilevers or overhangs on downhill elevations.
❖ Detach parts of the building.
❖ Avoid large expanses of walls or retaining walls in a uniform plane.
❖ Materials and colors should blend with the natural landscape and hillside setting.
❖ Strong shade and shadow patterns should be created by careful variation of planes in building
elevations.
While the house plan is very small, thereby naturally resulting in a minimal visual impact on the site, the
house location, design and materials and future expansion remain important considerations for staff
and the Board to evaluate in determining conformance with the above stated criteria. Staff suggests
that the design could be improved by incorporating some additional techniques, referred to above:
• Cut the building footprint into the hillside to eliminate need for fill on the downhill side in
order to accommodate a future expansion of the main floor plan that could comply with the
stepping and articulation of building elements.
• Enclose the carport as a garage on all sides to result in uniform design that matches the
house and neighborhood.
• Reduce the height of exposed retaining walls on the downhill side of the garage structure.
• Calor or finish retaining walls to blend into the natural setting with use of earthtone colors
or natural materials.
• Provide additional plants and groundcover for all disturbed, cut and fill areas and exposed
front, side and interior yard areas.
C
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 few
neighbors concerned with the potential for storm drainage issues to recur. Three neighbors previously
submitted comments for this project, reiterating similar drainage concerns (attached as Exhibit 4). Any
additional letters received will be provided to the DRB at the meeting.
CONCLUSION
In general, staff recommends that the design may be supported, with conditions giving further direction
on final landscaping and design details as discussed in this report, and listed in the `Summary' section.
Staff requests that the Board provide its comments on the issues raised by staff and recommend
whether any further changes or information is required to support the project. As noted previously, the
colors and materials board will be distributed for review at the hearing.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Hillside Compliance Checklist
3. Email with Summary of November 2102 Board Comments
4. Comment Letters (prior comments, and current, if any)
Full-sized plans have been provided to the DRB members only.
cc: Gerald Nuijen, Owner, 15 Hamilton Lane, Mill Valley, Ca 94941
7
Exhibit 1
Vicinity Map
10 Lindenwood Court
N rob
R1a-H 1p� ti
UC %
e � LYN D Z�.
L'T•-. `per ��
R1.5 ` ,y
rf� R1a-H { p ^R7.5�
R20-H
Site
Exhibit I
June 18, 2013 DRB Meeting
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 HI, Hillside Residential Development Standards)
.Y
N
�NA
Y
X
=:
X
Natural State Requirement (25% + % of average slope)
Maintains mature trees and preserves significant vegetation.
X_
85% max. x 29,510lotsf = 2,508.3sf Required 27,327sf* Proposed (*architects j
Minimizes grading and alterations of natural land forms with balanced cuts and fills.
calc. Note: the development is in a previously graded and disturbed area
X
* Gross Building Square Footage (2500 sq. ft. + 10% of lot size, maximum of 6,500 sq. ft.)
5,451 max. gross sq. ft. 1080 proposed gross sq. ft.
— — --
X
*Building Hecht (30 feet measured from natural grade). (16' max heightropose)
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
X
• Setback Waiver proposed (permitted for a distance of not more than %2 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. _ I
X
• Parking requirement of two additional spaces on substandard streets. Lindenwood Court is
a fully improved 26' wide residential street with sidewalk and parking.
X
* Lot standards of minimum sizes and widths established in Subdivision Ordinance.
IV.A. DesiLFn Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside Residential Development Projects
IVAL Preservation of ExistinL Natural Features:
2-1 Exhibit 2
June 18, 2013 DRB Meeting
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.
2-1 Exhibit 2
June 18, 2013 DRB Meeting
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 sace provided per direction from DPW__
IV.A2. Preservation of Significant trees
Y
TN 1
NA --- _�
................. - ...... -- ... __
_
Grading is minimized and all grading maintains a natural appearance with slopes of 2:1 to 5:1.
j ! X
XRetains significant trees or criteria for removal is met and *replacement criteria of 3:1 with 15 ,
X
Grading within 20 feet of prop rty lines is minimized or similar to existing adjacent slopes. —
gallon trees is met.
X
I I 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
X
N_
NA
................. - ...... -- ... __
_
Grading is minimized and all grading maintains a natural appearance with slopes of 2:1 to 5:1.
j ! X
( Flag lots with a common drive are encouraged.
X
Grading within 20 feet of prop rty lines is minimized or similar to existing adjacent slopes. —
X
! Building locations are not located near visually prominent ridgelines and existing view of
'•, residences are respected.
Front yard setbacks are minimized on downhill lots. —
Terracing uses incremental steps and visible retaining walls are of a minimum height and use
X
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 discoura ed).
X
Offsite 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
j
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
i avoided and access to critical draina a structures is ro osed to be rovided
g-
X
—
-
I
--per----------p—---
* 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 reve etation plan provided. (rem -vegetation and BWs 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 logic hazards have been corrected.
IVA4. Lot Configuration, Building Setbacks and Location (Complete for Subdivisions)
IVAS. Street Layout, Driveway and Parking Design
Y_
N
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.
j ! 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.
Front yard setbacks are minimized on downhill lots. —
IVAS. 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 an retainin walls and split roadways are encouraged.
X
* Street layout follows the natural grade and long stretches of straight road are avoided.
Pro er si ht distances are maintained.
2-2 Exhibit 2
June 18, 2013 DRB Meeting
Y
N
NA
X
The buildin stg eps up the slope and/or has been cut into the hillside.
X
—..-.- ...................... ......_.. - - --
• Street grades do not exceed 18 % of have received an exception.
X
15%
• Driveway grades do not exceed 18% or an exception has been granted. Parking has been
grade
designed so that vehicles will not back out into substandard streets. Driveways over 18%
Buildin materials blend with the setting._
have grooves and asphalt driveways are not proposed on slopes over 15%.
long continuous building masses. Articulated facades and variations in roof forms are
X
Parking bays are established or if parallel parking is permitted it is located on one side only
planting.
and limited to 8 feet in width.
IVA6. Reduction of Building Bulk on Hillsides
Y
N
NA
X
The buildin stg eps 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%....
X Overhanging or elevated decks and excessive cantilevers are avoided.
X Large expanses of a wall in a single plane are avoided on downhill elevations.
X
Buildin 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 _ visa e.
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 I 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. (Site Sections &
Details Required)
X * Decks do not create excessively high distances between the structure an rade.
X * Mechanical equipment is screened from view.
IV.A8. Planting Design for Hillside Residential Development
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.
2-3 Exhibit 2
June 18, 2013 DRB Meeting
X_
_
_
* Irrigation systems and mulching are provided.
X
'
X
Existing scarred or graded areas with high visibility are rev_ a etated.
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
tway are landscaped._
X
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
IN
NA'
j
X
'
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
_
X
public ri hts-of-wy .
--- -
-- -
X
Overhead lighting in parking areas is mounted at a maximum height of 15 feet and does not
X
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 li hting to highlight a structure is prohibited and not shown.
IV.BI. Subdivisions and Planned Development Proiects
Y
N
NA
j
X
'
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
_
X
building envelopes established on all lots.
--- -
-- -
X
Cluster developments meet the following criteria: Flexible front and side setbacks are
X
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 fagade 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 sace.
IV.B2 Single Family Residences on Individual Lots
Y
! N
NA
X
'
—._ ..... ... ....... .1.11.1....-------- ........ — - --- ----- --- - -- -- ----
Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and drainage,
_
reduction of buildin ilk, 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 im act of hillside development. _
�.. _.p . — ................_......._............- - - - - -- — -
X
Common driveways are encoura ged.
2-4 Exhibit 2
June 18, 2013 DRB Meeting
X
N
NA
* The driveway grade does not exceed 18% or an exception is required. Drainage from the
X
* Development is located within 100 feet of a significant rid eline.
X
driveway is directed in a controlled manner. The finished grade of the driveway conforms to
Designs minimize grading and building pads. Structures and fences do not project above the
the finished grade of the lot.
IV.B3 Multi -family Residential Development
Y
N
NA
-- ..... — .......... ..... -- ------
X
* Development is located within 100 feet of a significant rid eline.
X
Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and drainage,
Designs minimize grading and building pads. Structures and fences do not project above the
reduction of building bulk, architectural character, site lighting and planting design are met.
X
I C 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.
XThe
site design utilizes opportunities such as outdoor decks, roof gardens, terraces, bay
€
X
windows, framing_of views, pergolas, view lookouts, and sculptured stairs and walkwa s.
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
X
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 fagade 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 zoningordinance.
IV.C1 Highly Visible Ridgeline Areas
Y
N NA
NA
—
- -
X
* Development is located within 100 feet of a significant rid eline.
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 desi egn d 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 downslope properties
(Subdivisions)
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. — _-
2-5 Exhibit 2
June 18, 2013 DRB Meeting
IV.C3 Hillslone Habitat Areas
Y N
NA
X
bank stabilization is done through stream rehabilitation and not through concrete
X
Cluster housing is encouraged and provisions regarding reduction of building bulk on
X _
IStream
channels or other mechanical means. Stream planting utilizes indigenous riparian ve etation.
IV.C3 Hillslone Habitat Areas
Y N
NA
----------
X_
X
Cluster housing is encouraged and provisions regarding reduction of building bulk on
X _
hillsides, architectural character, and site lighting are followed.
X
Existing vegetation is incorporated into the project design and used to screen development
X
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
This project proposes a very small home on a formerly developed site. The project could be improved with
modest changes made to the design of the garage to match the character with surrounding residences in
the established residential subdivision, suggested reduction in residential finish floor height to plan for
design of future expansions of the home (without creating tall skirt walls), and with details on wall
elevations and driveway profile.
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
None
Exceptions which require the approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Design Review
Board and Planning Commission
None
2-6 Exhibit 2
June 18, 2013 DRB Meeting
Exhibit 3
Email Summary of Nov. 6, 2012 Board Meeting
From: Kraig Tambornini
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 8:29 AM
To: Andrew Davis; 'Gerald Nuijen'
Subject: 10 Lindenwood
Gentlemen, I have summarized the following direction provided by the Board for redesign of the project to
address its consensus comments:
• The Board shall rely on the Department of Public Works review and recommendations on grading, drainage
and hydrology concerns.
• The design needs to step back the upper story and break down the mass of the building to be more in keeping
with the hillside design guidelines. For instance, the upper story needs to be stepped back from the lower floor
level with a roof section distinguishing the two levels as viewed from the street frontage. Reference was made
to the examples on pages 44 and 49 of the Hillside Design Guidelines manual.
• More fenestration of the front elevation needs to be provided to tie the design in with the existing
neighborhood.
• The colors and materials need to be darker earthtone colors to comply with the hillside design guidelines
criteria. White roof color is not supportable.
• Enclose the carport as a garage to be in keeping with the neighborhood character.
• Consider providing windows on the north elevation for cross ventilation and to take advantage of potential
views of the natural hillside.
• Vinyl windows shall not be white and should be a color that is compatible with the building colors.
• The plan proposes too many trees and needs to be revised to accommodate anticipated growth of the native
species selected.
• Change the buckeye to western variety.
• Eliminate the California ash for a native or compatible species found in Marin.
• Arrange plantings of the native plants in groups versus linear rows as proposed.
• Add planting by the guest parking area.
• Place geotextile under gravel areas.
• Be aware that removal of French broom will require ongoing diligence due to the seed bank of this plant and
likewise the removal should extend beyond the 100 foot minimum requirement for fire hazard.
I will followup with public works to determine if they will require peer review.
Sincerely,
Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner
City of San Rafael, Community Development
1400 Fifth Ave./PO Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94901/94915-1560
Phone: (415) 485-3092
Fax: (415) 485-3184
kraig.tambornini(o-)citvofsanrafael.oro
3-1 Exhibit 3
June 18, 2013 DRB Meeting
Exhibit 4
Public Comment Letters
August 20, 2012
Mr. Kraig Tamborini
Project Planner
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
P.O. Box IS1560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Dear Mr. Tamborini:
My name is Marvin Angus. I reside at 136 Rollingwood
Drive, San Rafael at the foot of Lindenwood Court. I
have received your Notice Of Pubic Meeting (Nuijen
Residence) on September 5, 2012. I will be out of town
on that Mate.
Therefore I am requesting a short meeting (10 to 15
minutes) with you at the Planning Division or at 10
Lindenwood Court to present my documents pertaining
to construction at 10 Lindenwood Court.
I request that you review my prior letters and those
from the Planning Department regarding the history of
events at Lindenwood Court before I meet with you.
Specifically review my letters of April 20, 2005 and
April 29, 2005, Mr., Meeker' (Principal Planner City of
San Rafael) April 29, 2005 and my letter of January 09,
2006.
4-1 Exhibit 4
June 18, 2013 DRB Meeting
I have no objection to a house being built on the lot, and
welcome anyone who may reside in that location.
My concerns include the location and access to the
storm catch basin for city employees and the neighbors
who are most subject to high rates of water run off
during big storms.
I will bring a letter with my four specific concerns if you
agree to a short meeting.
Sincerely,
Marvin Angus
136 Rollinwood Drive
San Rafael, CA. 94901
415-454-7626
angusnsf@aol.com
4.2 Exhibit 4
June 18, 2013 DRB Meeting
August 2012
Mr. Kraig Tamborini
Project Planner
City of San Rafael
10 Lindenwood Court
Items of concern from Marvin Angus
House and fence placement to insure clear, wide access
to the existing storm drain basin and overflow
Appropriate retaining wall behind the house with water
run off system
Weed and tree control above and around storm drain
basin and overflow drain down to lower street drain.
4-3 Exhibit 4
June 18, 2013 DRB Meeting
August 23, 2012
d
Community Development Department C/I. ii
Planning Division C'�op'
City of San Rafael -
Re: proposed construction at 10 Lindewood Ct.., parcel APN: 185-161-13
Greetings;
It is ourfeeling thatthe.placement of a structure on the referenced parcel is a bad idea. The
natural drainage of the hillside along with the steep slope at this particular location. isnot a safe
setting for a house. Based on the past history of this parcel with the total destruct lon of the
former home, nature has made its statement that a structure is not welcome at this location,
Despite the drainage remedlation efforts on the parcel, natural runoff is unpredictable, it can
and will change course. Should a standard wood framed structure be approved for
construction, will it survive the results of a similar weather anomaly that destroyed the
previous home? Perhaps a structure with steel framing set on a high solid concrete foundation
would have best chances of survival.
Sincerle y r1� t
( 7
I�.
Russ and Helen Young
135 Rollingwood Dr.
4-4 Exhibit 4
June 18, 2013 DRB Meeting
From: Kate Bailey [kate.bailey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:42 PM
To: Kraig Tambornini
Cc: Nick Bailey
Subject: 10 Lindenwood Ct Project
Hello Kraig,
My husband and I are homeowners on Lindenwood Ct. I had visited the City Planning Office prior to
the 1st Design Review Board meeting that since was postponed. I recall that you were out that day and I
spoke with another city planner about my concerns regarding the construction of this new residence. He
suggested I email you with the comments in the event I am unable to attend this Tuesday's meeting.
Here are some our concerns for the residence at 10 Lindenwood Ct:
a.. Drainage from the hills behind the lot - considering the previous residence washed down the street
during a storm, what is being done to ensure this doesn't recur? How is the drainage from the property
being designed and engineered to prevent this from happening again? We fear damage to our property,
both physical damage to the structure and landscaping as well as a decreases in the long term value of
the investment we made to our home. A handful of homeowners have already invested in repairing
damage that occurred at that time and surely do not wish to suffer additional burden.
b.. Aesthetic look of residence - considering Glenwood is a community of fairly similar homes, we
would expect the design of this new structure to fully blend in and not compromise the overall value of
the block.
c.. Parking and traffic on the block - there are only four homes on this block and two of the homes each
have multiple vehicles parked in front. This has already been a concern for us as we have 3 small
children that like to play in front of the house. The two homes up and across from us each have in
excess of at least 6 cars each that are currently parked in front of the empty lot at #10. Where will all
these cars park when the construction vehicles and new cars begin parking here? Are we going to lose
the space in front of our home as everyone shifts down the street? In addition, cars also already drive too
fast around the corner and up the hill. As mentioned, we have small children that play and ride bikes in
front. How can we be sure the construction vehicles will adhere to safe driving conditions?
d.. Construction hours - we would expect any construction to take place Monday through Friday during
normal business hours of $am to 5pm. Will they be planning to work on the weekends? If so, we would
request consideration that the Planning Office stipulates that no construction may occur on Saturday and
Sunday in the permit.
e.. Overcrowding - as mentioned, this small cul de sac is already overcrowded with cars, both operable
and non-operable. We have had to call Parking Enforcement in the past on a motorhome that was
parked in front of our house for well over 72 hours. We are concerned what the additional traffic will
mean. At present, we are often unable to turn around in our cul de sac because of the way the vehicles
are parked at the top. With the additional cars and construction vehicles, how can we be sure the
residents and visitors can safely turn their cars around?
L Tree trimming and landscaping- at present there are several large trees and other shrubs that provide
a natural look for the block and neighborhood. With a lot as large as this one, 29k sq. ft. I believe, are
there restrictions in place that prevent the new homeowner from cutting trees down that may act as
barriers to flooding, landslides and other erosion controls?
Due to our schedule, we will try to make the meeting on Tuesday night. However, if not, we wanted to
be share these concerns were heard and reviewed. Quite frankly, we are very concerned about a new
structure being built that blends into the neighborhood on an already crowded block. We specifically
chose this neighborhood and street and have made a significant investment into our property during our
time here. Our goal was to choose a property where we could safely raise our family for many, many
years. Considering this proposed project will alter the block entirely, we would ask that the Planning
committee review all aspects when evaluating the plan and permit.
We appreciate your review and consideration of these concerns. Should you have any questions, we can
be reached at 785-8198.
Thank you,
Kate & Nick Bailey
3 Lindenwood Dr. Homeowners