Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2019-12-17 #3• SAID RAI`E L THE CITY WITH A MISSION Community Develonment Denartment- Plannina Division Meeting Date: December 17, 2019 Case Numbers: UP19-013; ED19-030; V19-003 Project Planner: Steve Stafford — (415) 458-5048 Agenda Item: , 03 REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 104 Shaver St. — Request for a Use Permit, an Environmental and Design Review Permit and a Variance to allow the construction of a new, 7 -unit, multifamily residential apartment building with associated site improvements (drainage and landscaping) on a 6,264 sq. ft. site. The proposed Variance would reduce the front (Shaver St.) setback, from 20' to 15', and the interior side setback, from 5' to zero. The project also requests a Parking Modification to reduce the required on-site parking, from 8 parking spaces to 7 parking spaces. The project further requests 2 concessions, under the State Density Bonus law, to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage, from 60% to 65%, and to decrease the required street side setback, from 10' to 8'; APN: 011-245-40; Multifamily Residential (HR1) District Zone; Mike Larkin for Larkin Architecture, Applicant; Stevan Fontana for Vantana LLC, Owner; Downtown Neighborhood. PROPERTY FACTS Location General Plan Designation Project Site: High Density Residential (HDR) North: HDR South: 2/3 MU East: 2/3 MU West: HDR Lot Size Required: 6,000 sf Proposed: 6,264 sf Height Allowed: 36' Proposed: 35' Parking Required: 8 Spaces (Including 1 Guest Space) Proposed: 7 Spaces (w/o Guest Space) Landscaping Required: 1,093 sf (50% of Req. Front and Street Side Yards) Proposed: 1,520 sf (69.5%) Zoning Designation Multifamily Residential — High Density (HRI) HR1 2/3 MUW 2/3 MUW HR1 Existing Land -Use Single Family Residence (SFR) AT&T Offices Commercial (Oil Change) Non -Profit Art Gallery Duplex Residences Lot Coverage Allowed: 3,758 sf (60%) Proposed: 4,072 sf (65%) w/State Bonus Concession Density Allowed: 6 units Proposed: 7 units w/State Density Bonus Useable Outdoor Area Required: 700 sf Proposed: 1,552 sf Setbacks Required Existing Proposed Front: 15' 26' 15' Side: 5' 2' 0' St. Side: 10' 14' 8' Rear: 5' n/a n/a i' llii�liITI The project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for formal review of proposed site and building design for the development of a new seven (7) -unit, multifamily residential building on an underutilized Downtown parcel. The Board previously reviewed the proposed project as a 6 -unit townhome conceptual submittal on February 5, 2019 and provided the following general comments: 1) Re-evaluate the parking design and increase parking, if possible; 2) Comply with the required 10' street side setback; 3) Accentuate the staircase along Shaver St. while de-emphasizing the staircase along the Third St. frontage; 4) Increase overall storage; and 5) Increase planters within the common area along the Third St. frontage. The proposed project is required to comply with the City's inclusionary housing requirement (10% or 1 affordable housing unit) and by doing so is proposing a density bonus (1 Below -Market -Rate or BMR unit) and requesting concessions (2) under the State Density Bonus Law. The Planning Commission will act on the proposed project, subject to the recommendation(s) of the Board. Planning staff finds the project generally complies with all applicable General Plan policies, development standards in the HR1 District, review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, San Rafael Design Guidelines and Good Design Principles, though staff requests the Board review this report and provide recommendations on the following: Parking Whether the amount of proposed excess bicycle parking qualifies for a reduction in required on-site parking for the project. 61 Whether the proposed encroachment of a portion of the garage parking and maneuvering within the required interior side yard setback is appropriate and the granting of a Variance can be supported Conceptual Design Comments © Whether the proposed revisions to the site and building design responds adequately to the Board's previous Conceptual Review comments. BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting: The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Shaver St. and Third St. Third St. is a major east - west arterial, which runs through the Downtown and between U.S. Highway 101 and west Marin County. The site is a triangular-shaped, 6,264 sq. ft. parcel with a negligible (<1%) northwest -to - southeast trending average cross slope from Shaver St. The property is currently developed with a one- story + (elevated basement) single-family residence with an uncovered driveway parking area. The site is surrounded by commercial development to the north, south and east, and a combination of single- family and multifamily residential development to the west. History. On February 5, 2019, the Board completed Conceptual Design Review of the project and provided the following recommendations: Parking needs to be re-evaluated to eliminate conflict with access. Show turning movements for vehicles exiting -parking spaces. Increase on-site parking, if feasible. Consider encroaching into or eliminating the interior side yard setback in order to comply with the required minimum 10' street side setback. Reduce paving within the street side setback to provide a more pedestrian scale. 2 Explore increasing the width of the staircase along the Shaver St. frontage and making it the primary entrance to the upper units while reducing the width of the staircase along the Third St. frontage and making it the secondary entrance. Explore providing more storage for the units. Increase the use of landscape planters around the common outdoor area along the Third St. frontage. Use: The project proposes to construct a new 7 -unit, 35 -tall, multifamily residential apartment building with understory garage parking and associated site landscape improvements. Site Plan: The new multifamily residential apartment building proposes a zero interior side yard setback, which sits adjacent to the surface parking lot of the neighboring AT&T office building. A 20' -wide driveway along the Shaver St. frontage is proposed to provide vehicular access to the understory garage. Uncovered short-term bicycle parking is provided adjacent to the driveway, within the required front yard (Secured long-term bicycle parking is also provided within the garage). The project proposes to locate one (1) of the rental units on the ground -floor, behind the garage, and the remaining six (6) rental units evenly on the second floor (3 units) and third floor (3 units). The ground -floor unit is proposed to ADA -accessible. The six (6) upper -story units are proposed to be 2 - bedroom configurations, 807-892 sq. ft. in size. The ADA -accessible unit is proposed to be a 1 - bedroom configuration, 806 sq. ft. in size. Architecture: The project proposes a contemporary architectural design featuring lots of glazing (including glass railings), multiple exterior textures (two colors of textured stucco, anodized windows without trim) and `winged' roof forms with lots of skylights. The new building is proposed to follow the curvilinear shape of the Third St. frontage through a series of successive 2 - 5' stepbacks. In addition, the two upper -stories are proposed to stepback from the ground -floor podium level to create common uncovered deck area along the Third St. frontage. Landscaping: The project proposes to remove a total of four (4) existing trees on the site. The Landscape Plan for the project proposes a combination of trees, shrubs, grasses, vines and groundcovers, including 5, 24" -box container size replacement trees planted predominantly along the Third St. frontage. The project also proposes to install `green screens', vine -covered metal screens, at the podium level along both the Shaver St. and Third St. frontages. Grading/Drainage: , The project will include 443 sq. ft. of landscaped bioretention area along the Shaver St. frontage as a stormwater treatment measure. General Plan 2020 Consistency: The General Plan land use designation for the project site is High Density Residential (HDR). The HDR designation is characterized by apartment densities, like the proposed project, which would be consistent with Land Use Policy LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories). Also, the project would be in accordance with Land Use Policy LU -12 (Building height) and the maximum 36' building height, based on the City's current measurement for (building height (i.e., as measured from finished grade to 3 the midpoint of a sloped or pitched roof structure). In addition, the project would be in accordance with Housing Policy H-18 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements) by providing 14% affordable housing units or 1 BMR unit. Staff requests the Board's guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the following specific design -related General Plan Policies: Housing Element Policy H-3 (Design That Firs ir,iu the Neighborhood Context) seeks to design new housing, remodels and additions to be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. New housing development should incorporate transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect adjacent development character and privacy. New housing development should respect existing landforms and minimize effects on adjacent properties. 9 Neighborhoods Element Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) seeks to 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 9 NH -41 (Second/Third Mixed Use District Design Considerations) a) An inviting appearance. Create an inviting appearance to people traveling Second and Third Streets. Encourage attractive, creative and varied architecture on Second and Third Streets, with design detail on all sides of buildings visible to the street or pedestrians. b) Unique character of cross streets. A, B, C and D Streets are important links from Fourth Street to neighborhoods south of Downtown. Strengthen the unique character of these cross streets by giving special treatment to: ® A Street as an important visual and pedestrian connection between Mission San Rafael Arcangel and Albert Park and Andersen Drive, ® B Street as an area of strong historic character, and ® B, C and D Streets as major pedestrian connections between the Gerstle Park Neighborhood and the Fourth Street Retail Core. c) Heigh. Individual building heights will vary and typically range from two to four stories east of B Street, and from one to three stories generally west of B Street. Community Design Element Policy CD -3 (Neighborhoods) seeks to recognize, preserve and enhance the positive qualities that give neighborhoods their unique identities, while also allowing flexibility for innovative design. New development should respect the context and scale of existing neighborhoods. CD -5 (Views) seeks to respect and enhance to the greatest extent possible, views of the Bay and its islands, Bay wetlands, St. Raphael's church bell tower, Canalfront, marinas, Mt. Tamalpais, Marin Civic Center and hills and ridgelines from public streets, parks and publicly accessible pathways. CD -11 (Multifamily Residential Design Guidelines) recognizes preserves and enhances the design elements that ensure multifamily housing is visually and functionally compatible with other buildings 4 in the neighborhood. Develop design guidelines to ensure that new development fits within and improves the character defining elements of neighborhoods. Staff Comments. Staff believes the site is challenging for development purposes, based on its triangular or curvilinear configuration, and for use, based on the surrounding mostly commercial development in the near vicinity (north, souih and easi, residential uses io the west and southwest only).The project would create view impacts of Puerto Suello Hill from public viewsheds along eastbound Second St. and, northbound Shave St., though staff believes these impacts would be limited. Staff believes the project also would be consistent with a majority of applicable multifamily and Downtown design guidelines. Zoning Ordinance Consistency. Chapter 4 — Residential (R) District The site is located within the Multifamily Residential — High Density (HR1) District. The proposed project will require consistency with the property development standards for the HR1 District, including a maximum 36' building height, minimum usable outdoor area (common and/or private) and landscaping. The proposed project would be consistent with maximum density, maximum lot coverage and minimum required street side yard setback, subject to a density bonus and requested concessions under the State Density Bonus Law. The proposed project also would be consistent with minimum required front and interior side yard setbacks, subject to the granting of requested Variances. Those property development standards applicable to the project are identified in the Property Facts summary above. Chapter 16 — Site and Use Regulations Affordable Housing Requirement The project proposes to development a multifamily residential apartment building with seven (7) units; six (6) units based on the maximum allowable density under the HR1 District zoning plus one (1) density bonus unit under the State Density Bonus Law. Pursuant to Section 14.16.030 (Affordable Housing Requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance, projects proposing up to 10 housing units are required to provide 10% of the proposed units as `affordable' housing units. The maximum density for this site is six (6) units (6,264 sq. ft. lot/1,000 sq. ft. density standard). The project proposes to provide 17% affordability, or one (1) of those six (6) units as affordable. The City's inclusionary housing ordinance requires that for rental projects, 50% of the inclusionary units (one-half or 0.5 unit for the project) be eligible to very low-income households (<50% county median income) and the remaining 50% of the affordable units (one-half or 0.5 unit for the project) be eligible for low-income households (50%-80% of county median income). Fractional units of 0.5 or higher shall be rounded up to the next higher whole number, while fractional units below 0.5 units may pay in -lieu affordable housing fees. The project proposes to construct one (1) affordable housing unit eligible for very low-income households, as required. By providing 17% affordable housing (1 unit), the project is eligible for an automatic density bonus of up to 35% or three (3) additional residential units and up to three (3) concessions. The project is requesting one (1) density bonus unit and two (2) automatic concessions: 1) Up to 20% deviation from required yard setbacks; and 2) Up to 20% deviation from lot coverage requirements: Street Side Yard Setback Reduction Concession (Automatic) By providing one (1) affordable or BMR unit at the very low-income household level, project is eligible for an automatic reduction in required yard setbacks of up to 20%, with each required yard reduction counting as one (1) concession. The project proposes to reduce the required street side yard setback, from 10' to 8., or a 20% reduction, to allow for greater flexibility to access parking spaces and turning ability within the understory garage. 5 Increase Lot Coverage Concession (Automatic) By providing one (1) affordable or BMR unit at the very low-income household level, project is also eligible for an automatic increase in lot coverage of up to 20%. The project proposes to increase lot coverage, from a maximum of 60% (3,758 sq. ft.) to 65% (4,072 sq. ft.), or 9% increase, to allow for again greater flexibility to access parking spaces and turning ability within the understory garage. Sight Distance Pursuant to Section 14.16.295 (Sight Distance) of the Zoning Ordinance, the project shall provide a sight distance triangle of 15' from the curb return, free of visual obstructions greater than three feet (3') in height. The site is required to provide two sight distance triangles: at the proposed new driveway and at the corner of Shaver St and Third St. The project proposes a 20' -wide two-way driveway along the Shaver St. frontage which would comply with the required sight distance triangle. The project also proposes a 48 x 48" x 30" landscaped concrete column within the sight distance triangle at the corner of Shaver St and Third St, which also complies with the required sight distance triangle. Chapter 18 Parking Standards Pursuant to Section 14.18.040 (Parking Requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance, the project is required to provide one (1) parking space (covered or uncovered) per 1- or 2 -bedroom unit plus one (1) guest parking space for a total; of eight (8) on-site parking spaces. The project is requesting a Parking Modification, through a Use Permit, to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces, from eight (8) to seven (7) total parking spaces, in exchange for providing a surplus of bicycle parking: The project proposes two areas of bicycle parking; secured long-term parking for two (2) bicycle inside the garage and short-term bike racks for four (4) bicycle located outside the garage, adjacent to the driveway and in the front yard setback. Pursuant to Section 14.18.090 (Bicycle Parking) of the Zoning Ordinance, the project is required to provide two (2) short-term bike racks only. By providing excess bicycle parking, however, the project may qualify for reduction in vehicle parking requirements. The project is proposing to provide on-site parking for a total of six (6) bicycles and is requesting a Parking Modification to reduce the parking requirement from eight (8) to seven (7) total parking spaces. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following: ® Whether the amount of proposed excess bicycle parking qualifies for a reduction in required on-site parking for the project. The proposed parking spaces meet the minimum 8.5' x 18' dimensions required for "standard" 900 parking spaces in the Downtown and the minimum 8'x 16' dimensions required for "compact" 900 parking spaces. The project proposes to provide the maximum amount (30% or 2 parking spaces) of "compact" parking spaces. The project proposes to provide a 20' -wide, two-way driveway, as required. The proposed design of the parking garage also includes two -foot (2') clear access at the ends of each aisle of parking spaces to provide adequate maneuverability. Pursuant to Section 14.18.200 (Location of Parking and Maneuvering Areas), parking spaces and maneuvering areas are prohibited in the medium- (MR2, MR2.5, MR3 and NIRS) and high-density (HR1, HR1.5 and HR1.8) residential zoning districts, excluding access driveways. The project proposes a portion of the proposed garage parking (Parking Space #7) and maneuvering area to be located within into the interior 5' side yard setback. During conceptual review of the project, the Board indicated their support for the granting of a Variance to allow encroachment into the required interior side yard setback in order for the project to comply with the required 10' street side yard setback and to provide greater vehicle maneuverability within the garage. The project continues to propose a reduced street side setback (8' where a minimum of 10' is required) as a requested concession under the State Density Bonus Law, though vehicle maneuverability has been improved. By supporting the interior side N yard setback encroachment, the Board's recommendation also implied that they were supportive of allowing a portion of the garage parking and maneuvering area also to encroach into the interior side yard setback. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following: ® Whether the proposed encroachment of a portion of the garage parking and maneuvering within the required interior side yard setback is appropriate and the granting of a Variance can be supported. Staffs Comments. As designed, the proposed project complies with all the applicable parking standards, with the exception of the reduced number of parking spaces and a portion of the garage parking and vehicle maneuvering area located within the required interior side yard setback. Chapter 22 — Use Permits As discussed previously, the project will require Use Permit approval to allow a Parking Modification to allow a reduction in the required parking, from 8 to 7 on-site parking spaces. The project justifies their reduction request by providing excess bicycle parking. A Parking Modification is subject to the review by, and the recommendation of, the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director and the approval of a Use Permit by the hearing body or, for the project, the Planning Commission. Both the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director support the request for reduced vehicle parking, based on the project providing excess bicycle facilities. Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit The project requires Environmental and Design Review Permit approval by the Planning Commission, given that; it proposes to construct a new multifamily residential building on the site. The proposed project should comply with the applicable review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, pursuant to Section 14.25.050 (Review Criteria; Environmental and Design Review Permits), as follows: Site Design. There should be a harmonious relationship between structures within the development and between the structures and the site. Proposed structures and site development should relate to the existing development in the vicinity. Major views of ridgelines should be preserved and enhanced from public streets and public vantage points. Development should respect site features and recognize site constraints by minimizing grading, erosion and removal of natural vegetation. Sensitive areas such as highly visible hillsides, steep, unstable or hazardous slopes, creeks and drainageways, and wildlife habitat should be preserved and respected. 9 Architecture. The project architecture should be harmoniously integrated in relation to the architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design. The design should be sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings in the vicinity. Design elements and approaches which are encouraged include: a) creation of interest in the building elevation; b) pedestrian -oriented design in appropriate locations; c) energy-efficient design; d) provision of a sense of entry; e) variation in building placement and height; and f) equal attention to design given to all facades in sensitive location. Materials and colors. Exterior finishes should be consistent with the context of the surrounding area. Color selection shall coordinate with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding landscape and architecture. High-quality building materials are required. In hillside areas, natural materials and colors in the earth tone and wood tone range are generally preferred. Concrete surfaces should be colored, textured, sculptured, and/or patterned to serve design as well as a structural function. Walls, Fences and Screening. Walls, fences and screening shall be used to screen parking and loading areas, refuse collection areas and mechanical equipment from view. Screening of 7 mechanical equipment shall be designed as an integrated architectural component of the building and the landscape. Utility meters and transformers shall be incorporated into the overall project design. Landscape Design. The natural landscape should be preserved in its natural state, as much, as practical, by ininimizing grading and tree and rock removal. The landscaping shall be designed as an integral enhancement of the site, sensitive to natural site features. Water -conserving landscape design shall be required. Smaller scale, seasonal color street trees should be proposed along pedestrian -oriented streets while high -canopy, traffic -tolerant trees and landscape setbacks should be proposed for primary vehicular circulation streets. Staff s Comments. The review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits seek to have the proposed design (architecture, form, scale, materials and color, etc.) of all new development `relate' to the predominant design or `character -defining' design elements existing in the vicinity. The project site is surrounded by single and multi-level commercial development to the north, south and east, while a concentration of single and multi -story residential development is located west of the site. Planning staff finds the multi -story scale proposed by the project design is well established in the surrounding neighborhood. Determining the predominant design character is a little more difficult. The only common design feature among the surrounding commercial buildings is stucco treatment on the exterior. The common design elements on the adjacent Craftsmen -style residential buildings are horizontal wood siding, gable roof forms and covered porches. The project proposes a unique, stand-alone contemporary design highlighted by dramatic `wing' roof forms and glass railings though also incorporating both textured stucco and horizontal wood siding. The site is challenging due to its triangular configuration. The new building is proposed to follow the curvilinear shape of the Third St. frontage through a series of successive 2 -5' stepbacks. In addition, the two upper -stories are proposed to stepback from the ground -floor podium level to create common uncovered deck area along the Third St. frontage. Landscaped setbacks, included vine -covered green screens and mature (24" -box) trees along both the Shaver St and Third St frontages, provide a more pedestrian -oriented streetscape. Staff finds the proposed site and building design is generally consist with the applicable review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits. San Rafael Design Guidelines: The San Rafael Design Guidelines have been developed as interim criteria that implement design - related General Plan Policies. The site is located within the Second/Third Corridor and Environs of the Downtown Second/Third Corridor and Environs Second and Third Streets are to be attractive, landscaped major transportation corridors. While increased pedestrian safety and comfort is desired on Second and Third, greater pedestrian use of the cross streets is encouraged. The project site is located within the boundaries of the SecondiThird and Environs area of the Downtown, where the following specific design guidelines apply: ® To provide visual interest, long and monotonous walls should be avoided. ® Building walls should be articulated, ® To create a boulevard effect along Second and Third Streets, varied landscape setbacks are appropriate; ® Additional high -canopy, traffic -tolerant street trees are strongly encouraged, ® Where possible, residential buildings in this area should orient to the more pedestrian -friendly side street; and ® Driveway cuts and widths should be minimized to prevent vehicular conflicts. The project proposes a podium design with two (2) upper -stories of rental residences above a ground - floor parking garage. Textured color walls and landscaped setbacks, including vine -covered green screens, create visual interest along both the Shaver and Third St frontages. Both vehicular and pedestrian access to the site are proposed along the more pedestrian -friendly side street, Shaver St., rather than the more heavily trafficked Third St. The project would also eliminate an existing unused driveway along the Third St. elevation. Staff finds the proposed site and building design is generally consist with the applicable Downtown Design Guidelines. Good Design Principles On August 14, 2017, an Ad Hoc City Council Sub -Committee convened to discuss "Community Design," with a primary focus on Downtown development. The Ad Hoc Sub -Committee included Mayor Phillips, Council Member Andrew McCullough, two members of the Design Review Board (former Board Member Eric Spielman and Stewart Summers) and two members of the Planning Commission (then Planning Commissioners Larry Paul and Jack Robertson). The initial purpose of the meeting was to determine if there are adequate tools and resources to facilitate and achieve good design in development in San Rafael. The Sub -Committee was provided with an inventory of our current resources (all referenced in this report), which are abundant and comprehensive. The inventory of documents and regulations include the following: V Downtown San Rafael Vision — 1993 V General Plan 2020 Policies & Programs for Downtown — 2004 V San Rafael Design Guidelines (Interim) — 2004 V Zoning Regulations for Downtown — 2004 V Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan — 2012 Mayor Phillips assigned now Board Member Paul the task of forming a working group to review these resources and to develop a more concise and consolidated list of key criteria. The goal was to develop an informational handout ("City of San Rafael Expectations for Good Design") that can be provided to developers/applicants. Board Member Paul formed a small Working Group of local design professionals and residents to review the above planning documents and regulations and consolidate them into more concise criteria. This working group presented their findings and a "Good Desmon Guidelines for Downtown" slideshow to the Council on February 5, 2018. There are next steps, which will include making a checklist with these and adopting them, however, staff has provided the applicable criteria from this presentation (Exhibit 3). The project complies with many of these `good design' criteria. Larger and taller buildings, like the project, are anticipated along the Second and Third St. corridors to create a `boulevard' setting. Landscaped setbacks help `frame' the built environment in a more pedestrian scale. A `base, middle and top' design strategy, similar to the project design, is proposed, which is encouraged though not required along the Second and Third St corridors. The height and bulk of the project is mitigated by stepbacks, articulation and use of varied exterior materials. Staff finds the proposed site and building design is generally consist with the applicable Good Design Principles. Reponses to Conceptual Review Comments On February 5, 2019, the Board provided the following Conceptual Review comments on the project: • The project generally proposes good design for the challenging site. The green screens and glass guardrails are nice details. ® Parking needs to be more compliant wiih the adopted parking step wards, including providing end -of -stall access for Space #1 and eliminate conflict between Space #4 and ADA -Accessible Space #7. Show turning movements for vehicles exiting the parking. On-site parking should be increased, if possible., even if a reduction in the number of units The building should be shifted more to the interior side property line to allow for a compliant 10' street side setback along the Third St. elevation with additional landscaping. The Board would support a setback Variance along the interior side property line. • Reduce the paving within the side setback along the Third St. elevation to a more pedestrian scale. ® The applicant is encouraged to explore expanding the staircase along the Shaver St. elevation and making it the primary entrance to the upstairs units and reducing the staircase along the Third St. elevation and making it the secondary access. ® The applicant is encouraged to provide more storage for the residential units. • The use of landscape planters shall be increased within the common area along the Third St. elevation. Staff s Comments. The project design has been revised to address the Board's comments made during Conceptual Review and the applicant has submitted a response letter, dated November 16, 2019 (Exhibit 2): The project continues to propose a contemporary architectural design featuring lots of glazing (including glass railings), multiple exterior textures (two colors of textured stucco, anodized windows without trim) and `winged' roof forms with lots of skylights. ® The width of the new apartment building has increased to provide greater flexibility for vehicular maneuverability in the garage and access to parking spaces. • While the Board requested the project `shift' more towards this interior side property line to allow for a required 10' street side setback, the project instead opted to expand the structure by proposing a new zero interior side yard setback while continuing to propose an 8' street side setback and request a concession under,the State Density Bonus Law for the two -foot (2') setback reduction. • The pedestrian scale along the Third St frontage has improved with slightly less paving and more landscaping. ® The width of the staircase to upper -story units has increased from 3' to 5'. o The layout design of each unit has been revised to now provide additional storage areas. ® The landscape design has been revised to now include planters with shrubs, grasses and Olive trees within the common area on podium level (2nd floor) along the Third St elevation. Staff finds that revisions to the proposed site and building design generally respond to the Board previous Conceptual Review comments. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following: e Whether the proposed revisions to the site and building design responds adequately to the board's previous Conceptual Review comments. A video of the February 5, 2019 Board meeting may be viewed at .cityofsanrafael.org/meetings and then navigating to the archived section for Design Review Board and selecting the February 5, 2019 meeting date. 10 Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the subject site, the appropriate neighborhooU groups (Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods and the Downtown BID), and all other interested parties, a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the date'of this hearing. Additionally, notice was posted on the site along both the Shaver St. and Third St. frontages. At the time staff's report was printed, Planning received one (1) public comment as a result of noticing. Cindy Clawson, the owner of 105 Shaver St., a duplex located across the street from the project, expressed general concern with the parking proposed by the project and, specifically, the requested Parking Modification. Ms. Clawson prefers the request for a Parking Modification not be approved and the project provide eight on-site parking spaces, as required.. CONCLUSION The project has been revised and refined since the Conceptual Design Review in February 2019 and appears to staff to have addressed the Board's previous comments. Through these revisions, the project has improved garage maneuverability and parking, increased site landscaping, unit storage and bicycle parking, and provided a greater a sense of entry to the new building. Staff finds these revisions to the project design respond well to the Board's previous Conceptual Review comments. The project is required to provide one (1) affordable housing or BMR unit in compliance with the City's inclusionary housing requirement (10%) and by doing so is eligible for a density bonus of up to 35% or three (3) additional residential units and up to three (3) concessions. The project is requesting one (1) density bonus unit and two (2) automatic concessions: 1) A 20% reduction in the required street side yard setback, from 10' to 8'; and 2) A 9% increase in maximum lot coverage, from 60% to 65%. The project also requests two (2) Variances: 1) To reduce the required garage setback, from 20' to 15'; and 2) To encroach into or reduce the required interior side yard setback, from five feet (6) to zero. The project additionally requests a Parking Modification to eliminate the required one (1) guest parking space and reduce the required overall parking for the project, from eight (8) to seven (7) parking spaces (The project proposes to increase or provide excess. bicycle parking to allow the reduction in required vehicle parking). Staff finds these requested concessions under the State Density Bonus Law, Variances and Parking Modification each improve the configuration of the garage design and access to the parking spaces. Staff requests the Board provide direction on the points specified in the Analysis section of this report and any other modifications the Board would like to see in the project design. The Planning Commission will act on the proposed project, subject to the recommendation(s) of the Board. Staff finds the project generally complies with all applicable General Plan policies, development standards in the HR1 District, the review criteria for Environmental and. Design Review Permits, San Rafael Design Guidelines and Good Design Principles. EXHIBIT$ 1. Vicinity Map 2. Applicant's Response Letter, Dated November 16, 2019 3. Summary of "Good Design Principals" for Downtown Full-sized and reduced (11"x 97') color plan sets and reduced prior conceptual design review plan sets have been provided to the Design Review Board Members only. 11 cc: Mike Larkin — C/o Larkin Architecture; 610 2211 St., Suite 303; San Francisco, CA 94107 Stevan Fontana — C/o Vantana, LLC; 1945 Francisco Blvd. E., Suite 35; San Rafael, CA 94901 12 on CO o •T C a v E E a J� i ai I aj Er -0 v Ci cJ Y U1) �o _� _u� u�� ai o a o, �L Wit!Jf j )r u Y 0- (0;6 " 0CL an 0 If an T7 V1 u u Y to 3 _+ u�i v —j c > N fd N _ �'w°�Cot r - cu .� Q. L _ F9a,j CL '0 e C f e c u qr .. ......r n"`' o I � PY , En O� F S j r� -_ga � i r SII00,9 CD 192 cc t� , 1; EXHIBIT 1 f h4ICf 4 C s f I i 11/16/2019 City of San Rafael Planning Division 146Q Fifth Avenue, Top Floor San Rafael, CA 94901 Project Description Dear San Rafael Planning Staff, We have submitted the DRB package for a new seven unit apartment building located at 104 Shaver Street. presently there is a single family residence on the site, We believe that this corner site within the downtown area of San Rafael is a prime candidate for new housing due to its location and HR1 zoning as well as the character of the surroundings. The neighborhood has a mixture of housing densities and uses and is an integral part of downtown. Our proposal is for both one and two bedroom apartments. Pedestrian access to the building will be directly off of Shaver Street and also Third Street. The building footprint is placed against the north property line as there is a large parking lot there, and the south side features a continuously landscaped space along the total street frontage. The design concept is to compose the apartments in a small individual scale set on top of a shared terrace, which is the roof deck above the protected garage. The apartments are set back from Third Street and staggered to give a dynamic form to the fag-ade and provide dramatic views for the residents. Overall the building is three stories in height and kept within the 36' height limit. Gently sloping roofs articulate the small scale of the apartments and allow for solar panels. Protected parking is provided at the ground level with little excavation required, there is no basement level proposed. The site shape is very unique due to Third Street. We have chosen to express the dramatic form with the configuration of the new building. We believe it will be a positive contribution to the streetscape and will provide quality apartments to the city with one unit being a Below Market Rate unit. Below i will outline how the proposal responds to comments from the February 6th DRB hearing: 1. The parking garage has been reconfigured to allow 7 cars rather than 6. The parking spaces have been adjusted to provide more clearance. Placing the north wall on the property line gives the garage more maneuvering space. See sheets A6 and AU for parking diagrams. A2.1 Flog flan shows the overall YO !a in detail. 2. The building has shred to the north as was suggested at the earlier hearing. The south side setback (Third Street) has been kept at 0' because of the space needed to dark the 7 cars and to maintain the area needed for recyclelrefuse. Viewing Third Street in general, there is not a consistent setback to adhere to, and we believe the variance needed here is reasonable. I '.f 2 41 c_2 0 qU9 d `:, i -D JR�!��'�l is EXHIBIT 2 � 3. The Third Street entrance has been diminished in size by reducing the area of paving and introducing more landscaping. The new landscape design emphasizes the Shaver street access. (See Landscape sheet Li) The Shaver Street entry stair is wider (6) and features a glass. guardrail for openness. Tho residents are ted tip to the terrace and apartments are accessed directly, there is no lobby or long corridors. 4. The apartment unit layouts have been redesigned with much more storage area. See sheets A2.1-, A2.2 and A2.3 for the detailed layouts, There are lour unit types. 5. The new Landscape design has integrated planters on both ground floor and second floors. L1 and L2 drawings. We have selected the building materials and colors after much consideration, The natural wood siding (ash) is intended as a pleasant contrast to the smooth natural white stucco exterior. Anodized bronze windows will combine well with these two primary materials. Glass guardrails keep the aesthetic clean and minimal. Planted green screen walls disguise the garage opening$ but allow natural ventilation. Thank you very much for your consideration of our new apartment proposal. Sincerely, Mike Larkin, Architect 610 22nd Street, suite 303 San Francisco, CA 94107 #415,621.4204 66Good Design" Criteria for Downtown San Rafael "Summary of Applicable Criteria"" General • Each project should have an internally consistent design vocabulary • Forms and materials should express he building's design intent and context • Design strategies such as "base middle and top" are encouraged but not the sole design alternative ® Height and bulk can be mitigated by step backs, articulation, use of different materials • Projections over public right of ways shall be limited to bay windows, balconies and marquees * ® Provide architectural interest such as strategic placement of forms and applied features and special treatment at corners especially at intersecting streets ® Concentrate premium materials at points of maximum enjoyment: o At street level o At building entrances o On highly visible architectural forms and elements ® Maintain pedestrian scale, especially at the o lower floors • Buildings should relate to established streetscape elements such as cornice lines, fenestration or other shared elements • New building design may include high quality contemporary architecture • Use landscape to humanize and frame the built environment • Use durable, reusable, flexible, permeable and repairable pavement materials • All mechanical equipment shall be screened and shall not project above its enclosure • Exceptional design is encouraged and may be allowed to deviate from the design guidelines. However: o Projects must be exemplary o . They must make a significant contribution to their surroundings o They must contribute public benefit beyond great design • Projects should conform with General Downtown Design Guidelines and District Design Guidelines • Different districts of Downtown have different design priorities Gateway District: ® Provide active street fronts along Tamalpais ® Articulate elevations to avoid a "building as wall" parallel to the freeway • Create a sense of arrival with welcoming .gateway elements such as: o Distinctive building form massing and detailing o Public plazas Gateway— Transit District: • Enhance the Tamalpais greenway from 2nd to Mission as a complete street • Anchor the district with a high-quality transit center EfBIT 3 2nd /3rd Corridor & Lindaro: • Reduce building mass along the boulevards with 3rd or 4th floor setbacks and at ground level corner entrances • Use distinctive forms and detailing at corners particularly those acing oncoming traffic • Locate retail at intersections and along pedestrian N - S streets • Enhance the boulevard, by providing continuous curbside planting strips and/or ample tree pockets with grates • Consider increasing the 5' setback requirement along 2nd and 3rd Street • Varied setback depths are encouraged particularly on NS streets for pedestrian amenities and landscaping Place back flow preventers, transformers, and other utilities out of site or in undersidewalk vaults