Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2013-06-18 #2CITY OF Community Development Department- Planning Division Meeting Date: June 18, 2013 Case Number: ED09-056 (originally ED05-056) Project Planner: Caron Parker (415) 485-3094 Agenda Item: REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 1867 Lincoln Avenue (Cotton Apartments) — Review of parking garage height, site landscaping and exterior colors details as required by Environmental and Design Review Permit ED09-056 Condition 7 approving construction of a 16 -unit apartment building; APN: 011-023-02; High Density Residential (HR1.8) Zoning District; Yvonne and Irwin Cotton, owners; Matt Guthrie, applicant; Lincoln San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association; File No: ED09-056. BACKGROUND The purpose of this hearing is to review this project for compliance with conditions of approval as recommended by the Design Review Board at its January 4, 2006 for construction of a 16 -unit apartment building on a 22,250 square foot lot at 1867 Lincoln Avenue (Exhibit 1 — Project Vicinity Map). Minutes of the Design Review Board hearing are attached as Exhibit 2. The approved project conditions of approval required the following: "Prior to issuance of a building permit, the exterior colors, landscape plan, and final design details (stepping down of the building to reduce the height of the parking garage) shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board." The recommendations of the Board were adopted by the Planning Commission on February 14, 2006 (per Resolution 06-04; ED05-056), and continued forward through subsequent Zoning Administrator approved time extensions (i.e., time extension ED07-085 granted November 28, 2007 and time extension ED09-056 granted March 10, 2010). The project also received Planning Commission approval of a Tentative Map on August 12, 2008 to allow the project to proceed as condominiums. Though the project has received revisions and time extensions, it was never brought back to the Board for required review of details for garage height, exterior colors and landscaping. DISCUSSION Use Permit Condition of Approval #7 (per ED09-056) The Board supported the overall design of the project but expressed concern about the height of the proposed parking garage along the east elevation. The general consensus was that the garage height should be lowered. The architectural and planning firm for the original project, Matt Guthrie of Forsher and Guthrie, reviewed the DRB minutes and has submitted revised plans to address the Board's concerns. They have also submitted a letter (Exhibit 3) discussing in detail the changes made in response to the Board comments on garage height. Mr. Guthrie has indicated that the original garage height was in part determined due to grading requirements needed to meet the handicap path of travel regulations. The revised plans have proposed to lower the elevation of Units 213 and 214 in order to reduce the height of the garage as seen from the East Elevation. The project plan set includes both the 2006 approved Plan Sheet A4 and the revised Plan Sheet A4, and Mr. Guthrie will provide a detailed explanation of the site constraints and proposed solutions at the meeting. In addition, ED09-056 Condition #7 stipulates that prior to issuance of the building permit, the Board shall review the exterior colors and landscape plan. The exterior color and materials are identified on Elevation Plan Sheet A4 and also shown on the Color and Materials Board included in the Board's packet. The landscape plan is identified as part of the Site Plan Sheet Al. The Board indicated that they wanted the plan revised to: 1) intensify landscaping on the north side of Lincoln Avenue; 2) planting native oaks and native shrubs along the steep area east of the site; and 3) replace the Columbia tree with a different species. The plans have been revised to reflect these recommendations. Additional Exterior Revisions Upon reviewing the approved and revised Sheet A4 elevations staff discovered that the applicant has also revised exterior details that were not a part of the condition compliance review requirement; modifying windows and eliminating metal sunshade awning details in several locations. The north elevation has also been simplified in design. These additional changes were not noted on the revised A4 plan sheet. Staff recommends that these details, which are not a part of the condition compliance review, need to be retained as originally approved. Otherwise, the applicant should resubmit the project for subsequent review of these changes as a minor modification. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice and hearing are not required for Board review of approved projects for condition compliance. CONCLUSION Staff has determined that the revise plans have responded to the Board comment reducing the garage height. Staff also requests Board direction on the color palette plan details, pursuant to the project condition of approval. Staff notes that MMWD a and approve the landscape plan for conformance with water conservation requirement building permit review process. In regard to the additional exterior elevation recommends that the window and awning details need to be restored to match tI approval. EXHIBITS 1. Project Vicinity Map 2. DRB minutes, January 4, 2006 3. Forsher and Guthrie, Explanation of plan revisions, dated May 31, 2013 with respect to and landscape so must review s as part of the changes, staff e original plan cc: Forsher and Guthrie, 10 H Street, San Rafael, CA 94901 Yvonne and Irwin Cotton, 91 Partridge Drive, Novato, CA 94945 Lincoln San Rafael Hill NA, PO Box 150983, San Rafael, CA 94915 Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, PO Box 151485, San Rafael, CA 94915 2 '` r. iA \ ..6a f---'� r# ';�, a, Ir: _� � , ,� .� `-. � � a, � � � � �� \ �, � . � �. � � � ��`. -rw � � / ��� , 1 � , *� m �, 'gyp ' � `�1 '1 ��-'�G� // / O ' ,�� - # � ;� ��� _ 1 �' C \� i �� ' ` i 1 '. � `� � � �' �, � � , ,>- � � !� ` Y ti `i ; ,, .� ti ' � ��1�`_ - -- � � �' — — — — — � ` 4, t ��1. � _, r � � � MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DESIGN REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 4, 2006 ROLL Board Members Present: Board Members Absent APPROVED Crew, Kent, Laird -Blanton, Machnowslci Dickens, Huntsberry Community Development: Damon DiDonato, Associate Planner; Micah Hinkle, Associate Planner; Sean Gallegos, Assistant Planner AGENDA A. ,Staff Communications 1. Past City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review Board Action on Design Review Matters Damon DiDonato, Associate Planner, reminded the Council that the next Design Review Board meeting would be on Wednesday, January 181x', 2006. Also, since Members Dickens and Huntsberry are absent, Member Machnowslci will be a commenting and voting member tonight. He further noted that changes were done to the Gateway Gas Station without permits, so staff initiated code enforcement action. B. Board Communications Chair Crew requested that her drawings be right side up in the Board's future packets. C. Approval of Minutes 2. December 6, 2005 Chair Crew noted a correction to the minutes on page 5. Chair Crew asked for a motion. Member Kent moved and Member Laird -Blanton seconded, to approve the December 6, 2005 Minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously by the Board. AYES: Member: Kent, Laird -Blanton, Crew, Machnowski NOES: Member: None ABSENT: Member: Dickens, Huntsberry DRB MINUTES (Regular) 1/4/06 EXHUNT 2 sharing program" in ord/to help with the traffic congestion. Vice Chair Kent note that he could support a building that would exceed the City's standard if they coujd get a mixed-use project in that location. Mr. Monahan viewed this location as "workf rce housing, " so this is the condominium segment of the market that tends to be a you , ger first time buyer. He noted that the median price in Marin County is approaching on million dollars, so this targets toward that type of audience and views and public spa on/ is very important to integrate into the project. Commissio r Laird -Blanton believed a gym would be more valuable than views in regard to i ernal amenities with this type of market. Vice C it Kent looked forward to viewing the next stage of the project. Chai Crew reconvened her position as Chair of the Design Review Board. ...—� 5. ED05-056 – Proposed Zone Change from High Density Residential (HR1.8) to High Density Residential (HR1) and an Environmental and Design Review Permit for the construction of a 16 -unit apartment complex with associated parking and landscaping; APN: 011-023-02; High Density Residential (HR1.8) District; Yvonne and Irwin Cotton, owners; Forsher and Guthrie, applicant; File Nos.: ZC05-002 and ED05-056. Project Planner: Micah Hinkle Micah Hinkle, Assistant Planner, summarized the staff report and recommended- that the Board evaluate the proposed design, landscaping, and lighting to determine if it would be appropriate for the neighborhood setting along this highly visible section of San Rafael. Matt Guthrie, representing applicants, noted that the Cotton's attended the neighborhood meeting as well as met with the President of the Association who was quite enthusiastic about the project and felt it was a great addition for a site that is currently vacant. Primary site design is the easement, which is a 30 -foot wide easement that crosses the project. It was discussed with the City and there is no restriction on using it at surface grade for parking. Also, the easement travels right underneath the existing building to the north and continues down to the City streets. The easement also comes with a 20 -foot structural easement from the edge of the easement. He then provided and discussed the site plans, floor plans, and elevations for the Board's review. This site has been reviewed in the General Plan to be a site that is destined for high-density housing. Back in 1991 this site was approved for 22 units, but at that time the Cotton's did not proceed with the project and that approval expired. The General Plan calls for this to be a high-density location, which is a flat site that is unusual for San Rafael. They proposed a 16 -unit apartment building with vehicular access from Lincoln. He further added that the site is 90 feet wide with pedestrian access. Jay Andreis, project designer, explained that they tried to work within the parking requirements as well as the views and light from the southern side. He added that there is DRB MINUTES (Regular) 1/4/06 10 vertical circulation on both ends of the building. They tried to preserve the neighbors view. Behind the site is a vacant lot with Eucalyptus trees. The acoustical wall is a requirement from the City for the public outdoor open space, so there is an 8 -foot wall that is bermed to reduce the visual impact. In regard to the floor plan, they tried to maximize the views as much as possible. He added that the bottom two units are flats with all other units above being two-story town home style with two bedrooms and two baths. The bottom units are two bedrooms, two baths with a laundry and mechanical room as well as some storage for the tenants on grade. In regard to elevations, they used the contemporary modern design using materials that were cost efficient such as metal siding, metal awnings and smooth paneling. He then provided some photographs depicting the Fair Drive for the Board's consideration. Chair Crew asked Mr. Andreis if there would be any elevators installed in these units. Mr. Andreis responded that there would be no elevators. Chair Crew asked Mr. Andreis if there is a proper trash enclosure in the setback. Mr. Andreis responded that structural there is not. Chair Crew asked Mr. Andreis if there is any community space other than the laundry room. Mr. Andreis responded that there is a common outdoor space. All the entries are private, so there is no lobby. Commissioner Kent asked Mr. Andreis if the common area could accommodate picnic tables or a potentially shade structure. Mr. Andreis responded that they could construct a gazebo or some sort of shade structure with a picnic area. Chair Crew opened the public comment on this item, and seeing no one wishing to speak, she closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion and action. Member Kent felt the architecture is modern and interesting and had no objection. He noted that some of the colors should be revised. He pointed out that there are some drainage issues at this site because there are slopes from the existing apartment building, so some consideration must be given to the drainage system. He understood that two trees would be removed according to the staff report, but expressed concern for the large Eucalyptus tree in the middle of the site and other trees in the middle of the parking lot, so the tree removal count is not accurate, but he could support the tree removal. He believed the applicant would benefit from having a paving accent in the entry to help mark the entryway as well as intensify the landscaping on the Lincoln side. He desired an under story for the trees and he felt there is an opportunity for some native oak trees in the triangular area above the building. Also, in the steep area east of the building there is an opportunity for some native shrubs as well. He farther recommended a yarwood cultivar tree to replace the Columbia because it a horrible tree for diseases. Member Laird -Blanton believed the building is quite handsome and it would be a nice asset on Lincoln. She found the colors acceptable, but possibly the siding color could be DRB MINUTES (Regular) 1/4/06 too light and suggested a more richest to that color. She further noted her support for the project. Member Machnowski agreed the architecture is very attractive. He expressed concern for the amount of white color. He expressed concern for the property in the back being developed because the condominiums would be viewing that site. He believed there would be some hydrology issues with that property, but if it could possibly be developed in the future some consideration should be given to the condominiums. In regard to the exterior design, he expressed concern for the town houses being very enclosed. He added that there is no relationship to the roof plan with the site plan and wished the roof plan was included in order to understand the shadows. He stated that some elevations could have clearstory windows to allow natural light into these units. He discussed the parking area and expressed concern for the sheet flow running down the street. He felt the garages are very high and recommended that the applicant consider.some upper storage in the garages. He also expressed concern for security because there are no enclosures in the parking lot in order to provide a safe environment. He further discussed the balconies that he felt are interesting, but they might cast more shadow and recommended a triangular shape on the floor plan to have a softer appearance. Chair Crew stated that the overall impression of the project is very nice. She added that drainage is a concern, in particular, the elevation from Lincoln Avenue. Also, in general, the garages are quite high. She expressed concern for all the steps to get into the units and recommended that the applicant consider at least one lift. She agreed that the colors are very light and requested that the exterior colors come back for further review. She also agreed to add some type of light in the small area between the second floor of the townhouses otherwise it would be very dark. She appreciated the modern approach and commended the developer in that regard and believed it will be a very nice project. Member Kent suggested that the applicant discuss the issue of the Eucalyptus tree with the neighbor to the west. Associate Planner DiDonato summarized the Board's comments: • Impressed with modern architecture of the building, which seemed appropriate for the location. • Concerned about the light colors and Chair Crew recommended that the colors return to the Board for review. • Member Kent recommended several suggestions related to the landscaping: intensifying the landscape on the north side of Lincoln Avenue; add an under story of shrubs in that location; consider native oaks for the steep area and native shrubs in the steep area east of the building; replace Columbia tree with different species. • Several issues related to drainage. Applicant must review the drainage, in particular, the parking lot into the garage area and where water is draining behind building walls. • Bring more light in to the water. Potentially include clearstory windows or skylights. DRB MINUTES (Regular) 1/d/06 12 Height of parking garage must be reviewed as. well as possibly include some storage in the units. If the project returned, Member Machnowski requested that the roof plan be included in the site plan. Also, review parking lot safety and possibly add some enclosures in the parking lot area. Member Kent felt the colors, landscaping, height of parking garage and drainage should' come back to the Board for further review. Mr. Guthrie noted that they retained a civil engineer and a complete drainage plan was submitted, which was provided to Public Works for their comments and they made comments, but had not requested any major changes. He stated that there are three or four lots behind this site, which are extremely steep and they assume there would not be any development on those back lots. He then thanked the Board .for their comments on the windows and lighting. In terms of parking safety, they are discussing the ability to provide gates. He had no problem with the colors coming back to the Board for their further consideration. He further would appreciate the ability to move forward to the Planning Commission. Mr. Guthrie then discussed the height of the garage and pointed out that there is a movement regarding handicap accessibility along with grade, which is driving the height of the garage. He further added that if there is any opportunity to lower the garage that would certainly be explored. Mr. Andreis believed two of the units could be lowered by two feet to lower the elevation. The Board believed that would be a great idea to lower the units; add steps to the walkway; and lower the garages. Chair Crew noted that lighting has not been discussed and asked Mr. Guthrie to address the lighting. Mr. Guthrie responded that there are recess lights shown in the coverage garages and some pedestal lighting in the pathway next to the common area and some parking lot lighting between parking spaces 14 and 15. Also, there is pedestal and recessed lighting throughout the site. Chair Crew desired to know the level of lighting used. Mr. Guthrie did not have that information at the present time. Chair Crew suggested that a condition of approval be added to lower those units a couple of feet and add more steps in the walkways. Chair Crew asked for a motion. Member Laird -Blanton moved and Member Kent seconded, to approve the project with the conditions outlined by staff that after approval from the Planning Commission that the colors, landscaping, stepping garages down, and stepping on the walkway come back to the Board for further review and approval. Motion carried unanimously by Board. DRB MINUTES (Regular) 1/4/06 13 AYES: Member: NOES: Member: ABSENT: Member: ABSTAIN: Member: ADJOURNMENT Laird -Blanton, Kent, Crew, Machnowski None Dickens, Huntsberry None BY ORDER OF THE CHAIR, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED, Respectfully submitted, Jessica Woods, Recording Secretary DRB MINUTES (Regular) 1/4/06 FOR.SHER+GUTHRIE Planning . Architecture . Development Robert Forsher Architect Matthew C. Guthrie Planner Greg Eicher Associate to H Street San Rafael, California Tel 415 459.1445 May 31, 2013 Ms. Caron Parker Associate Planner Community Development Department San Rafael City Hall 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, California 94901 Re: 1867 Lincoln Avenue - ED05-056 Condition #16 Design Review Board Approval Ms. Parker; RECEIVED JUN 0 4 ?013 PLANNING On behalf of James Schafer of Samuelson Schafer, Yvonne and Iry Cotton, property owners of 1867 Lincoln, I am submitting this letter and attached exhibits in response to City of San Rafael approved Environmental and Design Review permit ED05-056 condition #16. The 16 unit multi -family residential project approved by the City Planning Commission on February 14, 2006 included the following condition 16: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the exterior colors, final design'details (stepping down of the building to reduce the height of the parking garage as requested by the Design Review Board at its hearing on January 4th, 2006), and landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board". Exterior Colors Please see the attached color chips, perspective renderings and Key Notes on Sheet A4 for a presentation of exterior colors. Parking Garage Heights The minutes of the January 4, 2006 Design Review Board meeting establish the basis for review of garage heights: "Member Machnowski... felt the garages are very high..." "Associate Planner DiDonato summarized the Board's comments... Height of the parking garage must be reviewed...". I indicated at the 2006 Board meeting that the height of the garage openings was, in part, driven by the maximum grade permitted to allow an accessible path of travel from the right of way to the first level residential units (Units 101 & 102) and on to the area providing laundry, storage and mailboxes. That point of entry established an elevation from which the lower second level (Units 201 - 208) on the south and east sides of the property was elevated 8' to provide for covered parking. The higher second level on the north side (Units 209 - 214) was established to provide for covered parking and to minimize grading on the slope adjacent to Fair Drive. FORSHER+GUTHRIE Ms. Caron Parker May 31, 2013 Page: 2 In reviewing the exhibits presented to the previous Board, the concern regarding the garage height was manifested based on the review of sheet A4 East Elevation (exhibit attached). That elevation indicated a 17' high open parking area under the building to the north of the driveway. The previous Board did not have the South Elevation Units 2131214 sheet A4 (submitted with this letter) that showed that 17' height as the highest point of the garage opening. The submitted sheet A4 shows the garage volume heights to range from 7.5' to approximately 17'. At the meeting, I suggested that resolution of the higher garage heights might be resolved by lowering the elevation of Units 213 and 214. Upon further assessment, we believe there is a better solution to provide easier access between units, minimize grading and decrease the height of the garage opening. The proposal is to instead, eliminate all steps between unit entries where all units share the same access by providing a level second floor. The realignment of the access space for units 208 to 214 also allows the outdoor area for unit 211 to be relocated to a more private space. The level floor elevation built over a descending ground plane does result in an increasing height of the garage openings. However, to lower that height, we are proposing to extend the unit wall plane downward providing an architectural screen and decreasing the opening to approximately 10' to 12'. Landscaping The minutes of the January 4, 2006 Design Review Board meeting establish the basis for review of landscaping: "Member Kent recommended several suggestions related to the landscaping: intensifying the landscape on the north side of Lincoln Avenue; add an under story of shrubs in that location; consider native oaks for the steep area .and native shrubs in the steep area east of the building; replace Columbia tree with different species." An understory of shrubs has been provided on the north side of the driveway entry to intensify the landscaping in that area. Native oaks and shrubs have been added to the Fair Drive frontage. The `Columbia' has been replaced. Please contact me with any questions.