HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2012-09-11 #5 CITY OF
Community Development Department – Planning Division
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184
Meeting Date: September 11, 2012
Agenda Item:
Case Numbers:
AP12-003
Project Planner:
Sarjit Dhaliwal – (415) 485-3397
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 37 Perry Walk – Appeal of Zoning Administrator approval of an Environmental and
Design Review Permit to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence
and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement;
Exception to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway; and Variance to
encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to encroach 10 feet into
the required 10-ft. side yard setback and to construct a retaining wall over 4-ft. high for
access steps, located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope; APN:
013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James
Bradanini, applicant; appellants, Amy Koenig and Joanne Brauman; Case File Nos.:
ED11-078; V11-003 (Continued from July 24, 2012)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project proposes to replace an existing 884 sq ft single family home with a new 2,597 sq ft, 2-story
single family home. Additionally, the project requests an Exception to allow the required guest parking
spaces to be located in the driveway. The project is subject to an Environmental and Design Review
Permit at the Zoning Administrator level as it proposes a new multi story single family home in a hillside
area.
An appeal of the acting Zoning Administrator’s approval of the project was reviewed by the Planning
Commission on July 24, 2012. Although the Commission generally agreed that the project applicant had
complied with the directions provided by the Design Review Board, some Commissioners expressed
concerns with the project massing, stepbacks, setback variance (the variance request has since been
dropped) and inadequate parking design for the hillside property. Therefore, the Commission continued
this project to September 11, 2012 and directed the applicant to come back with a design that addressed
those concerns. The applicant has since revised the project and relocated the residence further back on
to the property and away from the appellant’s property thereby eliminating the need for setback
variances, reduced its size from 3,206 sq. ft. to 2,597 sq. ft. and from the six bedrooms to three
bedrooms, and reduced its bulk by removing the top floor.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find and determine that with the significantly
redesigned project, the points of the appeal cannot be supported. Most of the concerns expressed by the
Commission and issues raised by the appeal have been addressed adequately. The revised project now
complies with all the development standards required for the R10 Zoning District. All setback variance
requests have been eliminated through the redesign. The revised project also complies with the Hillside
Overlay District, with the exception of the guest parking requirement. Findings to grant an Exception
have been made, based on the topography and size of the property. In order to minimize grading, even a
2-bedroom house on the subject property would need the granted Exception. If this Exception is not
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 2
granted, the project would need to be pushed back further into the steep hillside, thereby requiring more
grading and an Exception from the Natural State requirement to be reviewed by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying the Appeal (AP12-003)
and upholding the Zoning Administrator’s conditional approval of the project with the project revisions.
BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2011, the Design Review Board reviewed a conceptual design for the expansion of the
existing residence to 3,825 sq. ft. The Board recommended that the applicant should consider rebuilding
the house, reduce its size and provide the required parking. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review
Board reviewed an Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and
the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. The Board recommended that the project
be moved away from the adjacent residence at 12 Perry Walk, reduce its bulk impact, widen the
driveway to 27 feet in order to park 3 cars in the driveway. On May 8, 2012, the Design Review Board
reviewed the revised project. The Board recommended approval of the project.
Based on a review of the project by staff and the Board’s recommendation, on June 7, 2012, the acting
Zoning Administrator approved the project with conditions. Minutes from this meeting outlining the
proceedings, findings for approval, and conditions of approval are attached as Exhibit 4 to the attached
July 24, 2012 Planning Commission report. On June 13th, an appeal of the acting ZA’s decision was filed
by an adjacent neighbor which was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2012. The
Commission generally agreed that the project applicant had complied with the directions provided by the
Design Review Board. However, two Commissioners expressed several concerns about the project,
whereas the other two Commissioners believed the appeal had no merit. With only four Commissioners
present, the Commission was unable to pass a motion either way to grant the appeal or deny the appeal.
Therefore, the Commission decided to continue the project and provided some comments. Although
there was no clear consensus among the Commission over the concerns, issues expressed by individual
Commissioners were that:
• Upper floors of the structure could be slid back, thereby reducing the building bulk;
• The structure was well articulated but stepping back not ideal; and
• Setback variance and Exception from hillside parking requirement were a concern.
Therefore, on a motion moved by Commissioner Pick and seconded by Commissioner Robertson, the
Commission continued this project to September 11, 2012 with a 4-0-2 vote (Commissioners Sonnet and
Wise absent) and directed the applicant to come back with a design that addressed those concerns.
With the current system for video recording the public hearings/meetings, no written minutes are
available for this Planning Commission meeting. However, the entire proceedings of the meeting can be
viewed at www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings.
ANALYSIS:
Updated Project Description
Pursuant to the Planning Commission direction, the applicant has submitted revised plans addressing
the Planning Commission concerns, except compliance with the hillside parking requirements. The
updated project description is summarized as follows:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 3
• The project size has been reduced from 3,206 sq. ft. to 2,597 sq. ft. and from six bedrooms to
three bedrooms thereby eliminating project size concerns.
• The building bulk has been reduced from three floors above the garage to two floors above the
garage.
• The project has been moved further onto the property and sideways thereby eliminating the need
for front and side setback variances.
• Building materials and colors have been changed to match other residences on Perry Walk.
• More landscaping has been proposed with the revised design.
Appeal Issues:
Appeal issues were addressed in the attached July 24, 2012, Planning Commission staff report. With the
project design revised in scope and size, the previous points addressing the appeal issues still apply. At
the July 24 hearing, the Commission generally agreed that the project applicant had complied with the
directions provided by the Design Review Board. However, the Commission expressed several concerns
about the project, although there was no clear consensus among the Commission over the concerns.
The applicant has revised the proposed project to address the issues expressed by individual
Commissioners. For an easy comparison between the original and revised plans, staff had requested the
applicant to compare the proposed changes alongside the plans reviewed by the Commission on July
24. The applicant could not provide the requested comparisons. However, a copy of the previous plans
from July 24 meeting have been included in the Commission packet. The Planning Commission
comments from the July 24 meeting are provided below in bold and are followed by a staff response as
follows:
Planning Commission comment #1: The proposed house is large. The structure is well
articulated, but the step back can be improved and the upper floors slid back.
Staff Response: The proposed house size has now been reduced from 3,206 sq. ft. (including 660
sq. ft. basement) to 2,597 sq. ft. (including 616 sq. ft. basement); and from a 3-story above the
basement to a 2-story above the basement. This change has resulted in reduction of the building bulk
and a 19-ft. stepback height, where 20-ft. height is allowed. The current proposal provides a natural
state of 12,981 sq. ft. where 12,128 sq. ft. is required. Sliding the upper floor further back for an
increased stepback would result in further reduction of natural state. Staff believes elimination of the
entire top floor and reduction in square footage respond to the Commission’s concern regarding the
building size and stepback.
Planning Commission comment #2: The proposed project needs to comply with the setback
requirements.
Staff Response: The proposed project has been revised to push the structure back and sideways on
to the property and therefore, does not require any setback variances.
Planning Commission comment #3: The new house should comply with the hillside parking
requirements where two onsite guest parking spaces are required.
Staff Response: The proposed project has been pushed back on to the property so it does not
require any setback variances. However, it still cannot comply with the hillside parking requirement
because:
• The current project provides a natural state of 12,981 sq. ft. where 12,128 sq. ft. is required. In
order to be able to comply with the hillside requirement for two additional parking spaces with
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 4
onsite circulation, the project would need to be significantly pushed back on to the property,
resulting in significant reduction in the natural state. The City policy discourages significant
hillside grading and therefore, an Exception to the natural state requirement needs to be reviewed
by the City Council.
Findings for the revised project have been updated by deleting the findings for the approval of front
and side setback variances. Similarly, the conditions of approval have been revised to reflect the
reduced project size and a condition requiring the relocation of access steps, located on the property
line shared with 12 Perry Walk, on to the subject property has been deleted.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA
Guidelines, which exempts construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. If the
Planning Commission determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies
may be required.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE
Notices of all meetings and hearings for the project were conducted in accordance with noticing
requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. For the July 24, 2012, a Notice of the
Planning Commission Public Hearing was mailed to appellants, all property owners and occupants within
a 300-foot radius of the subject site and the Picnic Valley Neighborhood Association, and all other
interested parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Since the
project was continued to date specific (September 11, 2012), new public notice was not mailed.
However, the posted notice on the subject site for the July 24 hearing was renewed to reflect the
September 11, 2012 hearing.
Since the July 24, 2012 Commission hearing, staff has not received any phone calls or written
correspondence regarding this project. The revised plans have been provided to the appellants. The
appellant’s concerns are discussed in the Appeal Issues and Analysis section of the attached July 24,
2012, staff report. All letters received for this project from the conceptual design review stage through the
July 24, 2012 Planning Commission meeting have been included in the July 24 staff report.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the project with
modifications (staff recommendation).
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the approval with further modifications, changes or additional
conditions of approval.
3. Continue the appeal hearing to allow the applicant/appellant to address any of the
Commission’s comments or concerns
4. Approve the appeal and deny the project and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution
with findings for denial.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 5
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity/Location Map
2. Draft Resolution
3. GIS Picture of the Area Showing Shadowing
Following items distributed to the Planning Commission only:
• Reduced (11”x17”) plans of the revised project
• July 24, 2012 Planning Commission staff report with exhibits (except the resolution)
• July 24, 2012 reduced (11”x17”) project plans