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.