Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2013-10-15 #2 (2)CITY OF Meeting Date: September 4, 2013 Case Numbers: AP13-002 Project Planner: Caron Parker (415) 485-3094 Community Development Department — Planning Division REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 118 Linden Lane — Appeal of the Zoning Administrator approval of an Environmental Design Review Permit (ED13-024) and an Exception (EX13-002) to allow a 1,241 square foot lower floor addition and a 1,462 square foot upper floor addition to the existing one-story single family home. The existing carport structure would be re -designed as a two -car garage. An Exception is requested to allow a portion of the new addition toward the rear of the house to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot side yard setback; APN: 015-061-15; Single Family Residential (R10) District; Alfred and Michelle Partridge, owner/applicant; File No.: AP13-002. PROPERTY FACTS SUMMARY On April 13, 2013, pursuant to Section 14.25.040.B.1.h of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC), Alfred Partridge, property owner, submitted a Design Review Permit application for a 1,462 square foot upper story addition to the single family residence, and an Exception request for a 2 foot encroachment of the upper story addition into the required 10 foot side yard setback. The project also entailed a Site Characteristics Site Development Summary General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use Lot Size Lot Coverage Required: Project Site: Low Density Residential (LDR) Single Family Residential (R10) Single Family Residence North: Large Lot Residential R10/R1 a Single Family Residence South: LDR R10 Single Family Residence East: LDR R10 Single Family Residence West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence SUMMARY On April 13, 2013, pursuant to Section 14.25.040.B.1.h of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC), Alfred Partridge, property owner, submitted a Design Review Permit application for a 1,462 square foot upper story addition to the single family residence, and an Exception request for a 2 foot encroachment of the upper story addition into the required 10 foot side yard setback. The project also entailed a Site Development Summary Lot Size Lot Coverage Required: 10,000 sf 12,057 sf(existing) Allow/Req: 40% Proposed: 31% (4,822 sf) 3,729 sf -Proposed: Height Upper Floor Area Allowed: 30' 20' 6 3/4" to 22' 1 " Allowed: 75% of maximum lot coverage (3,617 sf) Proposed: 1,411 sf -Proposed: Parking Setbacks Required: Proposed: 2 covered spaces 2 covered spaces Required Front: 20 feet Side: 10 feet Rear: 10 feet Proposed Front: 20 feet Side: 8 feet (east side) Rear: 10 feet SUMMARY On April 13, 2013, pursuant to Section 14.25.040.B.1.h of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC), Alfred Partridge, property owner, submitted a Design Review Permit application for a 1,462 square foot upper story addition to the single family residence, and an Exception request for a 2 foot encroachment of the upper story addition into the required 10 foot side yard setback. The project also entailed a 1,241 square foot ground floor addition, and converting the carport into a 2 -car garage. After a site visit, staff met with the applicant and recommended design changes to the front elevation. The applicant revised the plans and on June 26, 2013, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) held a hearing for the proposed project. Present at the meeting were Michelle and Alfred Partridge, property owners and project applicants. Neighborhood residents at the meeting included, Don Sugrue (123 Mountain View, support), Dennis and Pam Joyce (120 Linden Lane, opposed), and Joan Emerson (125 Linden Lane, opposed). Staff had received one letter of support for the proposed project from the adjacent property owner at 110 Linden Lane. Staff had also received three e-mail's in opposition to the proposed project from the property owner's at 120 Linden Lane, 121 Linden Lane, and 5 Lindview. In summary, the e- mails expressed concerns that: 1) the project was too large for the lot size; 2) the project was out of character with the neighborhood; 3) the project would impact on -street parking availability; and 4) lack of information about possible tree removal. The ZA responded to all comments, closed the public hearing and took action to conditionally approve the Design Review Permit and the Exception (see Exhibit 3: Zoning Administrator approval minutes). On June 29, 2013 (within the required 5 -day appeal period deadline), The City received a letter of appeal, paid for by the adjacent property owners to the east (Nunzio Alioto, 110 Linden Lane) and west (Pam and Dennis Joyce, 120 Linden Lane), and also signed by 21 other residents in the neighborhood (see Exhibit 2: Appeal letter with attachments, including the list of all signatories). The main points of the appeal were as follows: ➢ Appeal Point #1: The design of the project is incompatible and out of character with the surrounding neighborhood ➢ Appeal Point #2: The resulting home, if approved, will result in a 5,200 square foot home on a lot size of 12,057 square feet, creating a scale and mass that is inconsistent with every other home in this historic neighborhood. ➢ Appeal Point #3: Also of concern is the 2 foot encroachment on the east side setback. While we recognize that this encroachment already exists on the first floor, we question whether that should carry through to the upper story Staff has presented an analysis and response to all appeal points on Pages 5-7 of this staff report. In summary, the Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed project met the findings required for the Design Review Permit approval and the Exception request. Please note that after the project was approved, the project architect, Tim Casey, informed staff that there was an error in the site plan. The original project plans showed the proposed upper story addition encroaching into the required 10 side yard setback. However, the plans have been revised and there is no longer a setback encroachment. The upper story setback from the east side property line will vary from 11 feet at the front of the house to 15 feet toward the rear of the house. As a result, the proposed square footage for the upper story addition has been reduced from 1,462 square feet to 1,411 square feet (total = 51 square feet). The only part of the structure that encroaches into the side yard setback area is the existing ground floor along the east side building wall. The proposed project would increase the height of the wall by 4 feet. As such, an Exception request is still required for proposed changes to the existing ground level portion of the structure because it increases the extent of the non -conformity. Staff would still support the Exception request for the revised plan, as it is even less of an impact to the adjacent property to the east. The project description that follows on Page 3 of this report has been revised to reflect the changes in the plans. Staff requests that the Board provide a recommendation on the appeal points, as they relate to the project design with respect to: 1. Overall design of the upper story in terms of articulation and massing; 2 2. Compatibility of the proposed 2 -story home with other homes on Linden Lane; 3. Impact of the proposed 1-2 foot encroachment of the proposed ground floor. BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting: The subject property is a rectangular shaped parcel with a total lot area of 12,057 square feet located on the north side of Linden Lane (see Exhibit 1: Project Vicinity Map). The subject property is not considered a hillside parcel. The project site is currently improved with a 2,517 square foot single story, single family residence with an attached carport, and a 222 square foot shed. Surrounding land uses include residential development to the north, south, east, and west. A new 5,142 square foot (upper and lower floors, including garage) two-story single family home is under construction across the street (southeast corner) at 19 Mountain View. Also, the property at 120 Linden Lane (adjacent property to the west of 118 Linden Lane and one of the project appellants) just received design review approval on May 29, 2013 for a 123 square foot upper story addition to the front portion of their 2 -story home. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Addition The project proposes the construction of a 1,241 square foot ground floor addition to the existing 2,517 square foot one story home, a 1,411 square foot upper -story addition, and replacing the carport with a 2 -car garage (see Exhibit 4: Project Site Plan). The existing one-story home (2,517 square feet) would increase to a footprint of 3,507 with the addition of the lower floor area (includes demolition of 251 square feet). The total square footage for the new house (upper and lower floor, including garage) would be 4,918 square feet. The existing 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom house would be remodeled into a 5 bedroom, 51/2 bathroom house. The existing ground floor building wall on the east side of the property would be increased by 4 feet in height. The finished height of the house would be approximately 21 feet to the roof midpoint. The existing 222 square foot storage shed at the rear of the lot would remain. Architecture The proposed project would be designed similar to an English country style home, with a stucco finish, colored aluminum clad windows, copper gutters and downspouts and composite shingle roofing. The main color of the house will be repainted to a dark tan color, Benjamin Moore "Farm Fresh" (AF360), with Martha Stewart "Molasses" (MSL245) trim, and windows trimmed in "Linen White." The front door would be painted a deep red color (Martha Stewart "Ceiling Wax" MSL 022). A Color and Material Board sheet will be included for presentation at the hearing Landscaping No landscape plan has been submitted. The existing lawn, Redwood Tree and Maple tree are proposed to remain. Lighting: The proposed wall mounted fixtures are shown on the front elevation plan (Sheet A-3.1) ANALYSIS General Plan 2020 Consistency and Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The General Plan Land Use designation is Low Density Residential (LDR) and the Zoning designation for the project site is R10 (Single Family Residential). The Zoning Administrator (ZA) approved the Design Review Permit and the Exception, based on Findings of consistency with both the General Plan 2020 and the Zoning Ordinance. Detailed Findings per Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.090 are discussed in the Zoning Administrator minutes attached as Exhibit 3, Pages 5-10). In summary, the ZA found the proposed project to be consistent with following General Plan policies: Land Use Policy LU - 3 12 (Building Heights), Housing Policy H-3 (Designs That Fit Into The Neighborhood), Neighborhoods Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods), and Community Design Policy CD -13 (Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines). Further, the ZA determined that the proposed project was consistent with the property development standards for the Single Family Residential (R10) Zoning District regarding setbacks (except for the side yard setback encroachment requiring approval of an Exception), maximum allowable building heights, maximum allowable upper story additions, and lot coverage as detailed in Table 1.1 below: Table 1.1 - R10 — Single Family Residential District Development Standards ITEM R10 EXISTING/PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS CONDITION Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft. 12,057 sq. ft Lot Width 75 feet no change Front Setback 20 feet no change Side Setback 10 feet 10 feet (west side) 8-10 feet east side Rear Setback 10 feet 10 feet/no change Maximum Height of 30 feet Maximum 22 feet, 1 inch (to Structure roof midpoint) Maximum Lot Coverage' 40% 4,822 sq. ft. 31% 3,729 sq. ft. Maximum Upper Story Floor 75% of maximum Size lot coverage (3,617 1,411 sq. ft. sq. ft. In terms of the Exception request, the ZA determined that the findings to grant the Exception had been met (see Exhibit 3, pages 9-10), considering the Exception request was small (between 1-2 feet into the 10 foot setback) and the project had the support of the adjacent property owner at 110 Linden Lane. During the Zoning Administrator (ZA) review process, planning staff received several comments on the proposed project. There was one letter of support for the proposed project (110 Mountain View, adjacent property to the east), and one person in attendance at the ZA hearing in support of the project (123 Mountain View, adjacent neighbor to the rear). There were a total of 4 neighbors in opposition to the project - 120 Linden Lane (2 -story and adjacent property owners to the west), 121 Linden Lane (2 - story), 125 Linden Lane (2 -story), and 5 Lindview (2 -story). The ZA responded to concerns expressed during public testimony at the hearing (see Exhibit 3, Pages 3-4). Staff also responded directly via e- mail to several residents after the project was approved, reiterating that the project was consistent with the R10 development standards with respect to lot coverage, required parking, building height, required 20 foot front setback and 10 foot rear yard setback. Staff also explained via e-mail that the project met the findings to grant the 2 foot Exception into the required 10 foot side yard on the east side of the property. This was based on the fact that the encroachment was considered to be minor, as it ranged from 1-2 feet along approximately 19 -feet of the side yard, and was following the existing ground floor encroachment. "'Lot coverage" means that portion of the lot covered by buildings, including stairways; covered walkways; covered patios; covered parking structures; covered decks or uncovered decks over thirty inches (30") in height; recreational and storage structures; and excluding ground level landscaped areas, walkways, uncovered patios and decks thirty inches (30") or less in height, uncovered recreational areas, and uncovered parking and driveway areas 0 Appeal of Zoning Administrator Use Permit approval on June 26, 2013 An appeal of the Zoning Administrator action was filed by Pam and Dennis Joyce and Nunzio Alioto and also signed by 21 other residents in the neighborhood. The appeal letter (Exhibit 2) cites three (3) appeal points. The appeal points are quoted directly (or paraphrased as best as possible by staff) below. Each appeal point is followed by staff's response: Appeal Point #1: The design of the project is incompatible and out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Response: The proposed development and it's compatibility with the neighborhood is addressed in the Zoning Administrator Findings (see Exhibit 3, Pages 6 and 7). Specifically, the Zoning Administrator determined that the project would not be incompatible or out of character with the existing homes along Linden Lane in that: 1) a majority of the homes along Linden Lane (8 out of 11 homes) are 2 -story homes, and only 3 homes are 1 -story homes; 2) the proposed 2 -story home at 118 Linden Lane is located between two existing 2 -story homes, 3) the proposed project is located on a portion of the block that is predominantly 2 -story homes (see Exhibit 5); and 4) the proposed house would be set back approximately 31 feet from the paved right-of-way and therefore would not create new bulk and mass close to the street. It is clear that the predominant character of the block along Linden Lane is not one-story, but a mix of two-story homes with a variety of architectural styles and materials. In addition, while there are one-story homes on the block, the project site is located between two homes that are both two-story, and closest to the end of the block with larger homes. As such, the proposed project would not be out of character with the existing neighborhood character. Further, 2 -story development is allowed and anticipated in the R10 District Development Standards. Appeal Point #2: The resulting home, if approved, will result in a 5,200 square foot home on a lot size of 12,057 square feet, creating a scale and mass that is inconsistent with every other home in this historic neighborhood. Staff Response: The project as approved by the Zoning Administrator proposed a total of 5,191 square feet of gross building square footage on the project site. This included the residence (including garage) and an existing 222 square foot accessory structure. However, development standards for building size on non -hillside lots is based on lot coverage and building height, not gross building square footage (combined square footage of upper and lower stories). Pursuant to the R10 development standards in Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.030, the maximum lot coverage allowed would be 40% of the lot size (see definition of "lot coverage" in footnote on page 4 of this report). The lot size at 118 Linden Lane is 12,057 square feet, with a maximum allowable lot coverage of 4,822 square feet. The proposed lot coverage for the project site would be 3,729 square feet or 31%. This "lot coverage" area includes the building footprint of the new remodeled residence (including garage) and the existing 222 square foot accessory structure at the rear of the property, and is well below the maximum 40% allowed. By definition, lot coverage does not include the proposed 1,411 square foot upper story addition, but only includes the lower story building footprint. The proposed building height, as measured to the roof midpoint would be a maximum of 21 feet. Well below the 30 foot maximum allowed. Further, the 2�d story is proposed at 1,411 square feet, where up to 3,617 square feet would be allowed per the R10 development standard for maximum allowable upper story addition based on the lot size for the subject property. As part of the appeal letter, Exhibit 1 presented a list of the gross building square footages for homes along Linden Lane. However, gross building square footage is only evaluated when reviewing hillside development. The project site is a non -hillside lot and therefore the Zoning Administrator review and analysis is focused on lot coverage, building heights and building setbacks, and architectural design and compatibility. Gross building square footage is not part of the required analysis for the proposed project. A The Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed project was in keeping with all application design criteria for upper story additions, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.050.6, in that: 1) the proposed addition and remodel would create a completely new front fagade and that the proposed fagade does have design consistency in the elevations proposed; 2) the design is compatible with the "prevailing design" on both sides of the street for the length of the block (pursuant to Section 14.25.050.6.f), in that there is a mix of architectural styles and materials on the street, including shingle, siding, stucco and brick; and 3) the proposed three new upper story windows on the north, south, and west sides of the house would not create any privacy impacts in that: a) the location of the new second -story window (a bathroom window) on the west elevation would not look directly into any windows at 120 Linden Lane; and b) west side property line is heavily screened with vegetation, creating a visual barrier to minimize privacy impacts. There are no new windows proposed along the east side of the property. No privacy issues were raised by the adjacent property owner to the east (110 Linden Lane) at the time of the ZA hearing. With respect to historic resources, the subject property at 118 Linden Lane is not listed in the 1986 San Rafael Historic/Architectural Survey Final Inventory List of Structures and Areas. The project site is located in the "Dominican" boundary area described in the 1986 survey as an "historic/architectural survey area" but there has been no formal designation of the vicinity as a "historic neighborhood." The adjacent property at 110 Linden Lane is listed on the 1986 survey and evaluated as an "excellent" example of a shingle style house with the influence of Bernard Maybeck. During the ZA review and hearing, no concerns were expressed about historic resources. Further, the property owners at 110 Linden Lane submitted a letter of support for the project and expressed no concern at the time of the ZA hearing about the impact the proposed design of the project may have on the potential historic value of their home. Based on the proposed project design, staff determined that their would be no significant impact on historic resources because: 1) the existing homes on Linden Lane are a mix of building materials and architectural styles and the proposed design would be in keeping with the existing character of the street; and 2) the proposed multiple gable roof forms will integrate well with the existing multiple gable roof forms used in the home at 110 Linden Lane, improving on the existing ranch style home. Please note that 201 Linden Lane, 202 Linden Lane and 262 Linden Lane are also listed on the 1986 survey, but these homes are not visually proximate to 118 Linden Lane and therefore the proposed development would have no impact on the potential historic resource. Appeal Point #3: Also of concern is the 2 foot encroachment on the east side setback. While we recognize that this encroachment already exists on the first floor, we question whether that should carry through to the upper story, Staff Response: In terms of the side yard encroachment, the original plans showed a 1-2 foot encroachment of the upper and lower story along the east side of the property into the required 10 foot side yard setback. The Zoning Administrator Findings for the Exception approval are in Exhibit 3, Pages 9-10). In summary, the ZA determined that the Exception request could be supported because: 1) the existing house already encroaches 2 feet into the side yard and the proposed addition would not increase this encroachment, but merely create an upper story above the existing building footprint; 2) the side yard setback encroachment is only 2 feet, which is less than the allowable 5 foot encroachment allowed by Zoning Ordinance Section 14.24.02013; 3) the proposed project will allow a side yard setback encroachment that is in character with the immediate surrounding neighborhood, as many of the existing homes are also encroaching into a portion of the side yard setback area; 4) the area of side yard encroachments are not essential open space or recreational amenities to the existing single-family residential property on the adjacent lot at 110 Linden Lane; and 5) the adjacent property at 110 Linden Lane submitted a letter of support for the project. D After the hearing, the property owners at 110 Linden Lane indicated that they were concerned about the 2 foot encroachment and the size of the addition, and ultimately signed on as one of the multiple appellants to the project. No concerns about the setback issue were expressed in response to the public notice mailed out prior to the ZA hearing or at the ZA hearing on June 26, 2013. As a result, staff had no indication that there was a concern about the 1-2 foot encroachment until after the project was approved. After the project was appealed, the architect contacted staff and indicated that there was an error on the site plan and that the upper story addition would not encroach into the required 10 foot side yard setback. In fact, the upper story addition would be setback between 11 feet to 15 feet from the east side property line. Even though the upper story is not in the setback, the existing home already encroaches 1-2 feet into the setback along the east side property line. This existing setback encroachment would be increased because the building wall would increase in height by about 4 feet as part of the remodel. As such, the project would still require approval of an Exception. Staff can still support findings to grant the Exception request because the scope of the request is greatly diminished and the impact of the upper story addition is greatly minimized as it is farther away from the adjacent property line. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE In terms of comments received at the time of the Zoning Administrator's review and hearing, staff communicated directly with the property owners of the 2 -story home at 120 Linden Lane and also conducted a site visit to their property. At that time, their concerns were focused on loss of view and privacy, and whether the City could require that landscaping be planted along the east side yard. Staff indicated that views are not protected and the projected shadow impacts were not significant given the location of the addition, the existing trees along the property line providing screening and the overall size of the recreational space in the rear yard. Comments from other residents were received either the day before the ZA hearing or the afternoon/day after the hearing. All expressed the same concern about the proposed size of the house and compatibility with the neighborhood. Notice of this Zoning Administrator appeal to the Planning Commission (with Design Review Board review) has been conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. Notice of the public hearing for the project was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the site, the appropriate neighborhood group (Dominican/Black Canyon NA), and all interested parties (including those in attendance at the Zoning Administrator hearing) at least 15 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. Staff has received several comment letters in response to the upcoming appeal hearing (see Exhibit 6). Out of the 10 comment letters received, 8 were from residents who were also signatories to the appeal letter and were reiterating their concerns expressed in the appeal letter, and one was a new letter of opposition from a resident at 1 Lindview, who expressed the same concerns about the size of the house, incompatibility with the neighborhood and concerns about the impact of the 2 foot setback encroachment. Staff received one letter of support for Alfred Partridge (applicant and property owner), applauding the quality of his work and professionalism as a contractor (Exhibit 6-8). Also included is a letter from the property owner, Michelle Partridge (Exhibit 6-3), responding to a comment letter from Kat Crawford (Exhibit 6-2). Staff responded to all e-mails and reiterated the findings made by the Zoning Administrator and explained that the ZA approval was subject to a 5 -day appeal period. Staff also forwarded a copy of the Zoning Administrator approval minutes to all commenters. Many of the comments requested that story poles be installed on site prior to the DRB hearing. Staff responded by explaining that story poles are not required at this project site. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.030.C.11, "story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) may be required if needed to evaluate project impacts." The Zoning Administrator's decision was based on 7 site visits to the project site and project analysis. The project is well under the 30 foot height limit allowed and except for the minor encroachment into the east side yard (which is essentially an existing condition), the approved project met all R10 development standards. As such, staff determined that story poles would not be necessary in order to evaluate the impacts of the project. CONCLUSION In reviewing the proposed project at 118 Linden Lane, the ZA took into account the proposed building footprint, whether the proposed additions would encroach into any required setbacks, the proposed height of the structure, whether the upper story addition would be within the maximum size allowed, and general design standards. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the proposed project and found it to be consistent with the R10 development standards, the Chapter 25 design standards, and made the findings necessary to also approve the Exception request for the 2 foot encroachment into the required side yard. Staff requests that the Board provide comment on whether the points of the appeal as raised by the appellant are valid with respect to: 1. Overall design of the upper story in terms of articulation and massing; 2. Compatibility of the proposed 2 -story home with other homes on Linden Lane; 3. Impact of the proposed 1-2 foot encroachment of the proposed ground floor. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Appeal letter 3. Zoning Administrator approval minutes, June 26, 2013 4. Project site plan 5. Aerial map depicting location of 2 -story homes on Linden Lane 6. Comment letters Full-sized plans, 1I" x 17" plans provided to the DRB members only. cc: Tim Casey, architect, 21115 Scottsdale Drive, Bend Oregon, 97701 Appellants: Nunzio Alioto, 110 Linden Lane, San Rafael, CA 94901 Pam Joyce, 120 Linden Lane Gordon Walker, 121 Linden Lane Penn Mullin, 124 Linden Lane Joan Emerson, 125 Linden Lane Paul Davidson, 134 Linden Lane Nigel Quinn, 138 Linden Lane Carla Quint, 145 Linden Lane Katherine Crawford, 201 Linden Lane Ann Pardi, 202 Linden Lane Michael Hernandez, 209 Linden Lane Alrene Flynn, 238 Linden Lane Violet Hughes, 240 Linden Lane Mari Johnson, 243 Linden Lane Paula Doubleday, 246 Linen Lane Stanley Pasarell, 5 Lindview Diana Bokaie, 30 Mountain View J; Craig Wolfe, 28 Mountain View Katie Reuhen, 20 Mountain View Mardi Grimm, 16 Mountain View Lindy Emrich, 14 Mountain View Marie Marino, 7 Mountain View Bev Schneir, 11 Meridian Lane �7 h June 29, 2013 Ms. Caron Parker Associate Planner City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Appeal of approval of proposed addition to 118 Linden Lane Dear Caron: The undersigned are appealing the Zoning Administrator decision to approve the proposed addition to 118 Linden Lane on the grounds that the design of the project will be incompatible and out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. The resulting home, if approved, will result in a 5,200 square foot home on a lot size of 12,057 square feet, creating a scale and mass that is inconsistent with every other home in this historic neighborhood. This project as currently planned will create a new and undesirable precedent for the development of homes in the Linden Lane neighborhood that are out of proportion to their lot size. Please refer to the attached document (Exhibit 1) for perspective, which provides total home square footage relative to lot size. Currently, all homes of 4,000 square feet or greater are built on lots of 16,720 square feet or more on Linden Lane and lower Mountain View Avenue. As a neighborhood of concerned residents, the vast majority of whom have lived here for 15 years or more, we ask that the Planning Commission re-evaluate the project to scale it down to a sensible mass. In addition, regardless of outcome we would like to request the placement of story poles on site so that we can all gain a clearer sense of the impact of the project on the neighborhood. Also of concern is the impact of the 2 foot encroachment on the east side setback. While we recognize that this encroachment already exists on the first floor, we question whether that should carry through to the upper story. Caron, to reiterate, we are concerned that this project will set precedent for the arrival of over -scaled homes in our traditional and historical neighborhood and is not in keeping with the character and feel we long-term residents want to preserve. As frame of reference, this home will be 1,000 sq ft larger than the significant home currently being built on a double lot at the corner of Mtn. View and Linden. We believe this is an important matter for the Planning Commission to consider as we work together to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood we love. Kind Regards, Residents of Linden Lane & other nearby homeowners (see signatures on following pages) RECEIVED JUL 0 5 2010 PLANNING Exhibit 2 Address 30 Linden Lane Owner 110 Nunzio & Joanne Alioto 120 Dennis & Pam Joyce 121 Gordon & Marie Walker -124 Penn Mullin & George Fullerton 125 Joan Emerson 134 Paul & Ursula Davidson 138 Nigel Quinn 145 Carla & Matt Quint 201. Katherine Crawford 202 Ann & Henry Pardi 209 Michael &.1 -lolly Hernandez 238 Alrene Flynn 240 Violet & Michael Hughes 243 Mari Johnson 246 Paula Doubleday Undview 5 Stanley 8c Georgene Pasarell Mountain View 30 Diana Bol<aie 20 Craig Wolfe 20 Katie Reuhen 16 Mardi Grimm 14 Lindy i Peter Emrich. 7 Marie & Frank Marino Meridian Lane iJ. Gev $c Harold Schneir Exhibit 2 Address Linden Lane 11_0 128 120 121 124 125 130 134 138 145 202 209 213 238 239 240 243 246 250 260 262 275 276 280 Avevage •1`or [I iitclen tOrie: Mountain View 19 i borne (sq it) Lot Size (sai fi) % Moine to [i a Size 6360 16720 520➢ 1291© 3650 10950 1560 7800 2915 12000 1315 7280 1880 12000 2540 12160 1700 9280 2890 13503 4670 29830 3190 18814 3340 18660 2750 12000 .1.423 8160 2000 7700 1890 7035 1670 22860 1300 7770 2920 8640 4100 27310 3190 00800 1650 6000 1800 9300 A475 20000 38% 42% proposed at 118 Linden 33% 20 24% 18% 16% 21% 18% 21% 16% 17% 18% 23 17% 26% 27% 7% 17% 34% 15% 36% 28% 19% 23% 22% new construction.. at corner of Linden Lane & Mtn View I d de n d "M Addendum to June 29 Letter Opposing Planned Addition to 118 Linden Lane To: Ms. Caron Parker Associate Planner City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Additional Concerns: Duration of project— please note that the retaining wall in front of 118 linden Lane as pictured below had been cinder block and rebar for nearly 5 years. It was not until the last month that stone has started to be placed on the facing wall. We are concerned that if a smaller project like this can't be completed on a timely basis than that does not bode well for a larger project. *See Zoning Administrator report for full overview of neighborhood concerns 1 P _ Fn t ,f }. LF REGULAR MEETING CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR June 26, 2013 1. 118 Linden Lane- Request for an Environmental and Design Review Permit and side yard Exception to allow construction of a 1,462 square foot upper story addition and a 1,241 square foot ground level addition to the existing 2,517 square foot one-story home. The project also proposes to convert the existing carport on the west side of the house to a 2 -car garage. An Exception to the required 10 foot side yard setback is required to allow a portion of the rear of the upper story addition to encroach 2 feet into the side yard setback area; APN: 015-061-15; Single Family (R10) Zoning District; Alfred and Michelle Partridge, owners/applicant; File No.: ED13-024/EX13-002. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is a rectangular shaped parcel (wider at the rear) with a total lot area of 12,057 square feet located on the north side of Linden Lane. The subject property is not considered a hillside parcel. The project site is currently improved with a 2,517 square foot single story, single family with attached carport, and a 228 square foot shed. Surrounding land uses include residential development to the north, south, east, and west. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Required Entitlement Pursuant to Section 14.25.040.B.1.h of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC), submittal and approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit is required for construction of a second -story addition to an existing single-family residence. The applicant is requesting approval of ED13-024 to allow the construction of a total of 1,462 square feet of upper story space. In addition, the proposed project would require an Exception from the side yard development standard pursuant to Section 14.24.020B to allow a 2 foot encroachment into the required 10 foot side yard in the R10 Zoning District. Proposed Addition The project proposes the construction of a 1,241 square foot addition to the ground floor level of the existing home, a 1,462 square foot upper -story addition, and replacing the carport with a 2 -car garage. The existing one-story home is 2,517 square feet and would increase to a footprint of 3,758 with the addition of the lower floor area. The total square footage for the new house (upper and lower floor) would be 5,191 square feet. The upper floor addition would reduce the required 10 foot side yard setback to 8 feet along an existing portion (approximately 19 feet) of the rear of the house on the east side, already Exf Wti 118 Linden Lane Re: ED13-024/EX13-002 Date: June 26, 2013 encroaching 2 feet into the side yard setback. The proposed addition would create two new bedrooms on the upper floor and three bedrooms on the lower floor, with a total of 51/2 bathrooms. The finished height of the house would be 29 feet, 3 inches at the highest peak. Note that building height on no -hillside properties is measured to the roof midpoint not the roof peak (based on exterior finished grade). This would bring the height closer to approximately 24 feet. The existing 228 square foot storage shed at the rear of the lot would remain. Architecture The proposed project would be designed with a stucco finish, colored aluminum clad windows, copper gutters and downspouts and composite shingle roofing. The main color of the house will be repainted to a dark tan color, Benjamin Moore "Farm Fresh" (AF360), with Martha Stewart "Molasses" (MSL245) trim, and windows trimmed in "Linen White." The front door would be painted a deep red color (Martha Stewart "Ceiling Wax" MSL 022). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental review is required to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Staff has determined that this project is exempt per Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301 Existing Facilities Class 1 whereas the proposed project: 1) would not result in an increase of more than 10,000 sq. ft.; 2) has been reviewed by appropriate City departments and non -City agencies who have determined that adequate utility services exist to meet any increase in demand; and, 3) is located in a mature, fully -developed subdivision where no listed species (threatened or endangered) have been identified (See Exhibit 38 of the San Rafael General Plan 2020). PUBLIC HEARING The Zoning Administrator meeting began at 10:00 A.M. Present at the meeting were Michelle and Alfred Partridge, property owners and project applicant. Neighborhood residents at the meeting included, Don Sugrue (123 Mountain View), Dennis and Pam Joyce (120 Linden Lane), and Joan Emerson (125 Linden Lane). Staff present at the meeting was Caron Parker, Associate Planner, acting as the Zoning Administrator (ZA). Ms. Parker explained the zoning administrator review process, and the reason why the project required design review and an Exception. Ms. Parker also distributed the draft ZA minutes and conditions of project approval and discussed the reason why the Zoning Administrator was generally in support of the project, subject to exploring concerns that may be expressed as part of the public hearing process. The ZA stated for the record that there were several comments received in response to the public notice mailed on June 7, 2013 to property owners and occupants within a 300' radius of the subject property. The ZA then opened the public hearing. The majority of concerns expressed were about the size of the proposed house, compatibility with the existing neighborhood character, 2 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13 118 Linden Lane Re: ED 13-024/EX 13-002 Date: June 26, 2013 parking issues, landscaping, and length of construction time. One resident (Marie Coleman, 121 Linden Lane) did not attend the hearing but submitted a letter expressing concerns about building height, an existing retaining wall, landscaping, construction timing, and potential noise related to any mechanical outlets. Other comments in the letter not related to Planning and were discussed through e-mail. Many of Ms. Coleman's comments were also expressed by residents in attendance at the hearing. A summary of the ZA responses to comments during the public hearing are listed below: 1. Size of proposed house: Neighbors were concerned that the house was too big. The proposed two-story house meets the 40% lot coverage requirement and is within the required height limit. While the proposed project is larger than the existing ranch style home, it meets all property development standards (except for the minor side yard exception) and is in keeping with the adjacent two-story homes at 120 Linden Lane and 110 Linden Lane. 2. Existing neighborhood character: The existing neighborhood character along Linden lane is a mixture of two-story and one-story homes, predominantly two- story. The proposed project is in keeping with this variety. See Findings Item lb on page 5 of this report. 3. Parkin: The proposed project would replace the existing carport with a 2 -car garage and meets the zoning ordinance requirement for two covered parking spaces for a single family home. There is no requirement that the parking be increased based on the number of bedrooms proposed. The size of the proposed home or the number of bedrooms has no definitive correlation with on -street parking impacts and the zoning ordinance does not require parking beyond the 2 spaces required. Impact to on -street parking from Dominican University is not something that can be addressed as part of this design review process. Construction traffic is temporary and also not addressed, though typical parking violations would be handled by calling the San Rafael Police Department. The ZA suggested that neighbors present information to the City's Traffic Coordinating Committee (via Department of Public Works) to discuss on -street parking concerns. 4. Landscaping: No new landscaping is proposed for the site. The existing front lawn will remain, along with the existing Redwood tree and Maple tree. The existing Plum tree would be removed. The existing tall hedge along the driveway on the west side of the property will have to be reduced in height in order to ensure safe vehicular back-up distance. The Zoning Ordinance limits both fence height and vegetation height to no more than 3 feet within the front setback area, which is a 20 foot setback for the project site. 5. Construction timing: The design review permit process does not dictate construction timing. This would be handled through the Building Department as part of the building permit process. 3 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13 118 Linden Lane Re: ED 13-024/EX 13-002 Date: June 26, 2013 6. Mechanical equipment: The roof plans shows typical venting for a single family home. There is no noise associated with this type of venting. There is a condition of approval (Condition #8) added to cover review of any mechanical equipment that was not shown on the design review plans. The Zoning Ordinance (Section 14.16.320) has a stipulation that any pumps or filtration systems (this includes air conditioning equipment) must be set back 5 feet from the property line, and any equipment within 15 feet of a bedroom window on an adjacent lot must be designed with a 3 -sided enclosure with baffles to screen the equipment and reduce noise. 7. Retaining wall: The existing retaining wall was approved by the Building Department. Due to the grade of the property, the Building Department will most likely require some kind of safety railing. As a condition of project approval, the applicant will be required to submit plans (elevation) for the railing design and dimensions to the Planning Department for administrative review and approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing at 11:30 PM. The Zoning Administrator has reviewed the application and found it (as conditioned) to be in substantial conformance with the City of San Rafael's Municipal Code property development standards for the R10 Zoning District, all applicable policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020, and the design review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits based on Staff`s project review, site inspections, and on the review and recommendation for approval by appropriate City departments and non -City agencies. The Zoning Administrator stated that a copy of the meeting minutes, which incorporate the findings and the conditions of approval, would be mailed to the applicant/property owner, all parties in attendance at the ZA hearing, and all parties who submitted comments. In addition, the ZA minutes will be available to the public for review at the Planning Division counter upon request. In addition, the Zoning Administrator stated that a project of this nature has an appeal period of five (5) working days upon the approval or denial of the project. ACTION TAKEN The Zoning Administrator, at the meeting of June 26, 2013, granted approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit ED13-024 and Exception EX13-002 subject to conditions of approval. The decision shall be final at 5:00 P.M. on Friday, July 5, 2013 provided no appeals are filed with the City of San Rafael Planning Division by that date. 4 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13 118 Linden Lane Re: ED 13-0241EX 13-002 Date: June 26, 2013 FINDINGS Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 13-024): 1. The design of the proposed project, as conditioned below, is in accordance with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, and is consistent with specific policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020, including, but not limited to, Land Use Policy LU -12 (Building Heights), Housing Policy H-3 (Designs That Fit Into The Neighborhood), Neighborhoods Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods), and Community Design Policy CD -13 (Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines); in that: a) The project, as proposed, will be consistent with the property development standards of the Single Family Residential (R10) Zoning District regarding front and rear yard setbacks, maximum allowable building height as determined by the methods in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code adopted by the City, 40% maximum allowable lot coverage, 75% maximum allowable upper story floor size for parcels larger than 5,000 sq. ft., gross building square footage. See Table 1.1 below: Table 1.1 - R10 — Single Family Residential District Development Standards ' The 30 foot height limit is based on exterior finished grade and on non -hillside properties is allowed to be measured to the roof midpoint (not the roof peak). Z"Lot coverage" means that portion of the lot covered by buildings, including stairways; covered walkways; covered patios; covered parking structures; covered decks or uncovered decks over thirty inches (30") in height; recreational and storage structures; and excluding ground level landscaped areas, walkways, uncovered patios and decks thirty inches (30") or less in height, uncovered recreational areas, and uncovered parking and driveway areas SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13 R10 EXISTING/PROPOSED ITEM REQUIREMENTS CONDITION Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft. 12,057 sq. ft Lot Width 75 feet no change Front Setback 20 feet no change 10 feet (west side) Side Setback 10 feet 8-10 feet (east side) Rear Setback 10 feet 10 feet/no change Maximum Height of 30 feet 29' 3" feet to roof peak' Structure Maximum Lot Coverage 40% (4,822 sq. ft.) 31% (3,737 sq. ft.) Maximum Upper Story Floor 75% of maximum lot coverage (3,617 1,462 sq. ft. Size sq. ft.) ' The 30 foot height limit is based on exterior finished grade and on non -hillside properties is allowed to be measured to the roof midpoint (not the roof peak). Z"Lot coverage" means that portion of the lot covered by buildings, including stairways; covered walkways; covered patios; covered parking structures; covered decks or uncovered decks over thirty inches (30") in height; recreational and storage structures; and excluding ground level landscaped areas, walkways, uncovered patios and decks thirty inches (30") or less in height, uncovered recreational areas, and uncovered parking and driveway areas SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13 118 Linden Lane Re: ED 13-024/EX 13-002 Date: June 26, 2013 b) The design of the project will be compatible in form with the surrounding neighborhood by maintaining a scale that is consistent with the mixed architectural character of the area. In terms of "surrounding neighborhood", the primary focus is on the length of the block along Linden Lane. The goal is to create a blend of architectural styles reflecting the variety of existing homes on the block. The proposed project would add a two-story element to the Linden Lane street frontage. However, the proposed addition would be setback approximately 31 feet from the paved Linden Lane right-of-way (24 feet from the property line), and as such, would not create excessive bulk close to the Linden Lane frontage. Of the 11 homes along Linden Lane, 8 homes are two-story and 3 homes are one-story. The two-story homes are a mixture of smaller two-story homes and larger two-story homes. The adjacent property to the west of the project site (120 Linden Lane) is a two-story home and setback 36 feet from the Linden Lane right-of-way. The adjacent property to the east (I 10 Linden Lane, at the corner of Linden Lane and Mountain View Avenue) is a two-story home setback 26 feet from the Linden Lane right-of-way. Both homes are similarly scaled to the proposed project at 118 Linden Lane. The house under construction at the southeast corner of Linden Lane and Mountain View Avenue is also a two-story home. In addition, in terms of the surrounding neighborhood closest to Linden Lane, the homes at the east end Linden Lane (102 Mountain View and 110 Mountain View) and the west end of Linden lane (5 Lindview and 201 Linden Lane) are also two-story homes. The 3 one-story homes on Linden Lane (118 Linden Lane, 130 Linden Lane, and 138 Linden Lane) are similar ranch style homes. However, it is clear that the predominant character of the block along Linden Lane is not one-story, but a mix of two-story architectural styles and levels. In addition, while there are one-story homes on the block, the project site is located between two homes that are both two-story, and closest to the end of the block with larger homes. As such, the proposed project will reflect the predominant style of homes and preserve the existing neighborhood character; c) The existing lot coverage on the property is 23% (2,773 square feet). This includes the house plus carport structure, plus shed (based on building footprints only). The proposed addition would increase the existing overall lot coverage to 31% (3,737 square feet). This is within the 40% maximum allowable lot coverage of 4,822 square feet. The total addition proposed for the upper story (1,462 square feet) is below the 75% maximum upper story addition (3,617 square feet) allowed by Code. The proposed addition is for the exclusive use of single-family living space, a permitted use within the R10 single-family residential zone. The proposed addition would introduce a second story element to the structure; however, the addition is designed with a gable roof structure and setback approximately 24 feet from the front of the front property line (31 feet from the Linden Lane right-of-way), which would 6 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13 118 Linden Lane Re: ED 13-024/EX 13-002 Date: June 26, 2013 help minimize the appearance of bulk along Linden Lane. In addition, the existing Redwood Tree and Maple tree will remain and help screen the house. d) Staff site visits revealed that the neighborhood is a mix of architectural styles and colors, as well as landscaping. As such, the proposed addition would not have a substantial negative affect on the adjacent properties. e) The proposed design of the house is in conformance with the site design elements as set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.050.E (Site Design) and 14.25.050.F (Architecture) in that: ■ The project has been designed to build upon the existing structure and extend the house along the existing building footprint; ■ Removal of natural vegetation has been minimized. The existing front lawn, Redwood tree and Maple tree will be preserved; ■ The carport has been replaced with a 2 -car garage, thereby enhancing the visual component of the parking area on site; ■ Vehicular access to the site will be improved by reducing the height of the hedge growing along the west property line; ■ The proposed house is designed with a strong sense of entry, variation in roof height and articulation through the use of gable roof forms and dormer style windows; ■ Materials and colors are natural earth tones, and materials such as stucco and shingle roofs; ■ The upper story addition is designed such that impacts to adjacent properties has been minimized by limiting the size and number of upper story windows and choosing to extend the house to the front of the lot, helping to reduce the impact on the rear yard recreation area. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned below, is in accordance with the objectives of Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) with respect to the RIO Residential Zoning District, and the purposes of Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning Ordinance (Environmental and Design Review Permits), in that: a) The project, as proposed, will implement and promote specific goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020, as identified in Finding Item #1. b) The project, as proposed, will ensure the adequate provision of light, air, space, fire, safety, and privacy between buildings, in that it will be consistent with the California Building Code (CBC) requirements; c) The project, as proposed, will promote design quality in development, in that the proposed addition will be setback from the street and the new exterior building materials, windows and colors will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, which is developed with contemporary homes with a variety of colors and well vegetated. 7 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13 118 Linden Lane Re: ED 13-024/EX 13-002 Date: June 26, 2013 3. That the project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts in that: a) An environmental review is required to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA and this project is exempt per Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301 Existing Facilities Class 1 and proposed project would not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet; has been reviewed by appropriate City departments and non -City agencies who have determined adequate utility services exist to meet any increase in demand and is located in a mature, fully -developed subdivision where no listed species, threatened or endangered, have been identified (See Exhibit 38 of the San Rafael General Plan 2020). b) The project, as proposed, has been reviewed by appropriate City Departments, non City agencies, and the Dominican/Black Canyon HOA and no adverse conditions were identified. c) No substantial grading is proposed. 4. The design of the proposed project, as conditioned below, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the subject site, in that: a) The project, as proposed, would not propose a use or activity that is prohibited but would continue the existing single-family residential use in the R10 Single Family Residential Zoning District, which is permitted by right pursuant to Section 14.04.030 of the Zoning Ordinance; b) The architecture of the project reflects a similar style of houses in the surrounding area and the newly selected color choice of Benjamin Moore "Farm Fresh" dark tan -like color for the main body, with a "Molasses" color for the trim, and window exterior trim and door trim in Linen White (see color samples submitted). These colors are compatible with the earth tone colors of the surrounding houses in the neighborhood developed in part with these same high-quality materials and colors; c) The original footprint of the single -story residence has been preserved and extended to the new second story addition, creating a new structure that ties together with respect to architectural features and colors; d) The proposed addition will add shadowing to the adjacent property at 120 Linden Lane. Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.050.F.6.g limits new shadowing (or increase of existing shadows) due to upper story additions to no more than 10% on active recreational areas on adjacent parcels between the hours of noon and 3:00 pm on December 21". Based on the shadow study submitted, there will be additional 372 square feet of shadowing created to the 8 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13 118 Linden Lane Re: ED 13-024/EX 13-002 Date: June 26, 2013 side yard and along approximately 18 feet of rear yard area of the adjacent property to the west (120 Linden Lane). Based on site visits, staff has determined that while the shadow cast will shade a portion of the patio area at 12:00 pm, the shadow study indicates that the shading is gone by about 3:00 pm. The property at 120 Linden Lane has a large backyard and the predominant recreational space towards is towards the rear (north) of the lot. As such, the bulk of the patio area, with the outdoor BBQ kitchen and the terraced garden area would not be impacted by the new shadow, and therefore the new shadowing will not substantially affect recreational areas on the adjacent property ay 120 Linden Lane. e) The proposed addition includes the creation of three new upper story windows on the south, west and north side of the house. Staff has determined that the proposed upper story windows would not create any privacy impacts in that: 1) the location of the new second -story window (a bathroom window) on the west elevation would not look directly into any windows at 120 Linden Lane; and 2) west side property line is heavily screened with vegetation creating a visual barrier to minimize privacy impacts, and therefore the adjacent property would not be significantly impacted by the new upper story windows. f) Planning staff received several comments on the proposed project. There was one letter of support for the proposed project (I 10 Mountain View, adjacent property to the east), and one person in attendance at the ZA hearing in support of the project (123 Mountain View, adjacent neighbor to the rear). There were a total of 4 neighbors in opposition to the project - 120 Linden Lane (2 -story and adjacent property owners to the west), 121 Linden Lane (2 - story), 125 Linden Lane (2 -story), and 5 Lindview (2 -story). Some of the neighbors were present in at the hearing and their comments are discussed on Page 3 of this report. The neighbor at 121 Linden Lane submitted a letter with several concerns. The concerns specifically pertaining to planning included questions about the building height, the existing retaining wall, plans for the front landscaping, parking (both residence and construction parking), and location and noise from mechanical outlets. The ZA responded to these concerns during the hearing (see Page 3) and also directly via e-mail. FINDINGS Exception (EX13-002) A. There are special circumstances applicable to the site, including topography and location or surroundings that warrant granting a minor Exception from the strict application of the side yard setback standards, in that: 1) the existing house already encroaches 2 feet into the side yard and the proposed addition would not increase this encroachment, but merely create an upper story above the existing 9 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13 118 Linden Lane Re: ED 13-024/EX ] 3-002 Date: June 26, 2013 building footprint; and 2) the side yard setback encroachment is only 2 feet, which is less than the allowable 5 foot encroachment allowed by Zoning Ordinance Section 14.24.020B. B. Granting the Exception will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements within the vicinity of the site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare, in that: 1) the proposed project will allow a side yard setback encroachment that is in character with the immediate surrounding neighborhood, as many of the existing homes are also encroaching into a portion of the side yard setback area; 2) the area of side yard encroachments are not essential open space or recreational amenities to the existing single-family residential property on the adjacent lot at 110 Linden Lane; 3) the adjacent property at 110 Linden Lane supports the proposed Exception request; 4) the project would not propose a use or activity that is prohibited, but would continue the existing single-family residential use in the R10 District, which is permitted by right pursuant to SRMC Section 14.04.030; and 5) the existing single-family residence on the site is currently consistent with all the other property development standards for the R10 District, including maximum height, maximum lot coverage, and minimum required yard setbacks and the side yard encroachment will not create any inconsistencies with these other standards. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 1. All requirements of the San Rafael Municipal Code and of the implementing zone classification of the R10 Zoning District for the subject property must be complied with unless set forth in the permit and by the conditions of approval. 2. The subject property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the building techniques, materials, elevations, and appearance of the project as presented for approval on plans prepared by Thomas Casey, Architect, and stamped Approved June 26, 2013, and shall be the same as required for issuance of a building permit, subject to the listed conditions of approval. 3. The existing hedge on the west side of the property along the side yard shall be reduce to a height of no more than 3 foot solid within the 20 foot front setback area in order to comply with the fence height regulations and also facilitate safe vehicle driveway back-up. 4. Existing permitted retaining wall may require a safety rail per Building Code standards. An elevation plan sheet showing the existing retaining wall (including dimensions and materials used) and the proposed design of any new railing shall be 10 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13 118 Linden Lane Re: ED13-024/EX13-002 Date: June 26, 2013 submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of the Building permit. 5. Construction plans submitted for building permit approval shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates Conditions of Approval for ED13-024/EX13-002. 6. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body, the Zoning Administrator, and (if necessary) the City's Design Review Board. 7. All existing landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and any dead or dying plants, bushes, or trees shall be replaced with new healthy stock of a size compatible with the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement. The existing redwood tree and Maple tree shall remain on site. Any proposed removal of these trees shall first be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. In no case shall the front yard area be left with bare earth. 8. Any mechanical equipment shall be shown on the building permit plan set and subject to review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of the building ep rmit. Additional specifications about equipment noise levels may also be required. 9. Construction hours and activity (including any and all deliveries) are limited to the applicable requirements set forth in Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, which stipulates that construction may occur Monday -Friday, 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, and Saturday, 9:00 am — 6:00 pm. No construction is permitted on Sundays or Holidays. Violation of construction hours and noise limits (90 dBA), may subject the permitee to a suspension of work by the Chief Building Official for up to 2 days per violation. 10. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection, prior to the issuance of the final building permit. The request for final inspection by the Planning Division shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 11. Any exterior lighting shall be shielded down to prevent glare 12. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City, County, State, and other responsible agencies. 13. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair of all damages to public improvements in the public right-of-way resulting from construction -related activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery of equipment, materials, and soils to and/or from the site. 11 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13 118 Linden Lane Re: ED13-024/EX13-002 Date: June 26, 2013 14. The property owner shall pay the costs of any code enforcement activities, including attorney's fees, resulting from the violation of any conditions of approval or any provision of the San Rafael Municipal Code. 15. Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED13-024) and Exception (EX13-002) shall remain valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of approval, or until June 26, 2015, and shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension granted by that date. BUILDING D8IVISION 1. Project must apply for building permits and meet Green Building Guidelines. FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2010 California Fire Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. 2. It appears that the project meets the requirement for "substantial remodel" as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 4.08.120 Section 202. Therefore, a fire sprinklers may be required throughout the building. Determination for fire sprinklers will be conducted during the Building Permit review, so indicate which room are to be altered, and/or added, this will include areas within the home where sheet rock is removed to access for electrical or structural changes. A Separate deferred application by a C-16 contractor would be required. Refer to our web site for the definition of a substantial remodel. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS See attached comment letter dated May 9, 2013. Items listed are required to be submitted prior to issuance of the building permit. SAN RAFAEL SANITATION DISTRICT (SRSD) 1. If future modifications include an additional sewer lateral, submit Civil/Utility plans that comply with the San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) Standard Design Requirements for our review. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the existing sewer lateral shall be televised to determine its condition. The results of this televised survey shall be submitted to the City with the building permit application and forwarded to the San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) for review. In the event the televised survey recommends improvements or repairs 12 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13 118 Linden Lane Re: ED13-024IEX13-002 Date: June 26, 2013 to the sewer lateral, the project sponsor shall be responsible for completing this work in coordination with the SRSD staff. This approval for an Environmental and Design Review Permit [ED13-024] and Side Yard Exception [EX13-002] shall be valid for a period of 2 years from the date of approval, or until July 5, 2015, and shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued or an extension granted by that date. Any aggrieved party may appeal this decision by submitting a letter of appeal and the appropriate fees within five (5) working days of the date of approval, or by Friday, July 5, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Caron Parker, Acting Zoning Administrator Dat 13 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13 G), I *" 1. �! � -, -V1 , MO mv- M -- z Z !3 < m I T1, l'al TuR 7 I *" 1. �! � -, -V1 , MO mv- M -- z Z !3 < m I T1, l'al 118 Unden-Jane - LoGn Dorn of 2 -story homes I ,NEw'�n SCALE 1 : 1,272 100 0 100 200 FEET 0,111 q4��;6 N — 1 300 Exhibit 5 Page 1 of 1 Caron Parker From: Pauldavmd@aol.com Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 3:54 PM To: Caron Parker; Paul Jensen; Raffi Boloyan Subject: Comments on 118 Linden Lane proposed house To: Design Review Board, San Rafael Caron Parker Paul Jensen Raffi Boloyan Re: Design appeal for proposed project at 118 Linden Lane, San Rafael, CA To all, My wife and I wish to state our objections to the above project for many reasons. 1. The project is a 5200 sq. ft. house on a lot that is 12,000 square ft. This very large house is incompatible with any other house on Linden Lane, and larger than the house being built across the street at 19 Mt. View which is on a lot of 20,000 sq. ft. It would set a precedent that would change the character of Linden Lane in a very undesirable way. 2. We are not happy with the 2 ft. encroachment into the 10 ft, setback requirement 3. We also feel strongly that story -poles should be accurately put in place. 4. All in all, we do feel that this large house is far too massive for this area. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our comments. Respectfully, Paul Davidson, M.D Ursula C. Davidson 134 Linden Lane San Rafael, CA 94901 Exhibit 6-1 7/29/2013 Page 1 of 1 Caron Parker From: katherine crawford [katdbcrawford@gmail.coml Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:31 AM To: Caron Parker Cc: Paul Jensen; Raffi Boloyan; Dennis Joyce Subject: Home on Linden Ln Hello Ms. Parker, Mr. Jensen and Mr. Boloyan, We, as a neighborhood association and community, are very concerned about the recent plan to add on to the home at 118 Linden Ln. It is too small of a lot and too much of an addition! Please request that they place story poles so that all can see how the proposed addition will impact the neighborhood. Apparently the owner has no concern for what the addition looks like --they are selling and leaving the area. Case in point, the retaining wall made of cinder blocks at 118 has been there for years and as yet is unfinished. We live in an old historic neighborhood and the idea of putting something so unattractive and out of proportion on Linden is really unconcionable. We need to pay more attention in San Rafael to the way things look not just for our neighborhood but everywhere so that San Rafael has a more beautiful and well thought out look. If this issue came before the Planning Board in Tiburon, Ross, or Kentfield... well, it just wouldn't have made it this far! Thank you for your attention and consciousness in this important matter, Kat Crawford 7/29/2013 Page 1 of 2 Caron Parker From: AMP Construction Inc. [ampmail1@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:08 AM To: Caron Parker Subject: Fw: Hello from your Neighbor From: AMP Construction Inc. [mailto:ampmaill@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:06 PM To: Caron Parker Subject: Fw: Hello from your Neighbor ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: AMP Construction Inc. <ampmail1 @yahoo.com> To: "katdbcrawford@gmail.com" <katdbcrawford@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 4:40 PM Subject: Hello from your Neighbor Kat - I would like to introduce myself to you. My name is Michelle M. Partridge and I live at 118 Linden Lane. I was born in Ohio and moved to New Zealand when working for Microsoft. I met my husband in New Zealand and we moved back to San Francisco shortly after we were married. We have been married for almost 20 years. My husband, Alfred D. Partridge, became a naturalized citizen, after 10 years of processing paperwork and waiting, to become a United States citizen. He is originally from Australia and loves Marin. It reminds him of home. We moved into 118 Linden Lane six years ago. We waited for almost 10 years to find our home in the Dominican area, as that we love it here. We appreciate how special this area is. And have loved this home as many of you have loved your homes. We now would like to modernize our home, as that it was built in 1954 and is all original. Along with outdated bathrooms, kitchen and windows that are not energy efficient, part of our goal is to have a home that is warm, comfortable and works within the neighborhood. My husband has designed the home to not expose the neighbors to windows that look into their homes, will be energy efficient and will work with meeting green points. There has been a lot of discussion as to its' size and proportion. The front of the property appears to be impending in its' size and nature. However, if you truly look at the drawings it has a character of a New England style home and slopes in the back which is non -imposing. I would like to ask if we could show you the drawings and walls you through our property to give you a full view and special aspects of this home that my husband has worked so hard to incorporate. Again, I would also like to say that we do care what the addition looks like, as that my husband spent six months analyzing and drawing the home himself. We hired an architect to meet the requirements of presenting the drawings to the city. ExhRoDK 6=3 7/31/2013 Page 2 of 2 We recognize that the wall out front took a while. He was away on a project, for three years, soon after he started the wall. I almost lost Alf to a serious medical situation. He came home from work and collapsed on the floor in front of me. It took three days, of lying in a hospital bed, seven doctors and several procedures to find that he had cyst on his back, thus causing the loss of the use of his legs and feet. He is now on track but recovery took a year. All circumstances that would not be known, unless told. As to moving away, my husband does miss home from time to time. We are planning the next phase of our lives and consider both countries home. 1, of course grew up in the States and would miss my life here. The notation that we are moving away and do not care is the farthest thing in our minds. I would hope we could meet you at some time in the future. I am sure that my husband would be proud to show you his dream. Regards, Michelle M. Partridge 415 459 8843 7/31/2013 Caron Parker From: Michael Hughes [n982sp@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 4:27 PM To: Caron Parker Subject: 118 linden In We are objecting to the subject project because there will be too many square feet of house for the size of the lot. Story poles should also be erected. Michael & Violet Hughes, 240 linden In, san rafael, ca 94901 Sent from my iPad 1 Exhibit 6-4 Page I of 1 Caron Parker From: CelebriDucks [info@celebriducks.com] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 2:52 PM To: Caron Parker Cc: Paul Jensen Subject: concern with 118 Linden Lane San Rafael building expansion Dear Friends, I live at 28 Mountain View Ave. in San Rafael. I am deeply concerned about the proposed expansion of the property at 118 Linden Lane. A 5500 Sq. Foot house on that property seems absolutely ridiculous especially given the size of the lot. These folks are leaving the country and just want to expand it and sell it for a lot of money. This is not right. They have been working on a stone wall in front of their house for years and it's still unfinished ... a total eye sore! This new construction will take forever, create a lot of traffic, noise, and parking issues. I also feel it definitely warrants story poles to be erected on the site. I so hope that you will stop this project and that saner minds will prevail. Please help us preserve our beautiful neighborhood. Thank you so much. Sincerely, Craig Wolfe 415-456-3452 28 Mountain View Ave. San Rafael, Ca. 94901 Exhibit 6-5 8/2/2013 Page 1 of 1 Caron Parker From: Ann Pardi [h.pardi@att.net] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 5:14 PM To: Caron Parker; Paul Jensen; Raffi Boloyan Cc: pamjoyce@pacbell.com Subject: Remodel on 118 Linden Lane, San Rafael To the Planning Dept. of San Rafael, We are long time residents at 202 Linden Lane, San Rafael We are concerned about the size and height of the proposed remodel at 118 Linden Lane. A house of over 5,200 square feet does seem to be excessively large for the lot it is situated on. Also, a new 2 story element would appear to loom over Linden Lane. It would be helpful to all the residents on Linden Lane if story poles were erected prior to further approvals so we can visualize what the proposed structure really means to the neighborhood. We all enjoy living in this historic neighborhood because it is not just another development with outsize houses. It is important for the Planning Dept. to take into account the integrity, the character, and the ambiance of a neighborhood in its approval process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Henry and Ann Pardi 202 Linden Lane San Rafael, CA Exhibit 6-6 8/5/2013 Page 1 of 1 Caron Parker From: Paula Doubleday [paula.double@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 9:31 PM To: Caron Parker; Paul Jensen; Raffi Boloyan Subject: Proposed Construction 118 Linden Lane I moved to 246 Linden Lane 16 years ago in September 1997. 1 love this neighborhood and my neighbors, most of whom were here when I moved in. While I live around the corner from 188 Linden, I walk by there most every day with my dogs. I noticed 3 or 4 years ago that the owner had raised the front yard and built a cinder block wall in front of his yard and began to face it with stone. The project remained unfinished with bins of rocks sitting on the driveway all this time. A few months ago the project began again and is still not finished. I understand he does not even have a viable permit to do this work. I am concerned that with this attention to project completion, starting to build a home will meet the same delays. Our neighborhood has a wonderful character and building a home of this size on that small lot seems out of place, and out of character. have looked through the plans for this house and it doesn't fit with the feel of our neighborhood. I am additionally concerned that the owner has no intention of living there. He has no investment in the quality or character of the Dominican area. He wants to make a buck. The home that is there now was built in the 60's and a friend of mine in the neighborhood knew the original family and speaks of hanging out there with her friends. I don't like the idea of losing that history and charm on Linden Lane. We need houses of all sizes, but the smaller, older homes bring charm, balance and a small town feel that attracts others to want to live here. Additionally, smaller homes are less expensive and brings younger families into the Dominican which is a good thing for all of us. If it is so easy to get a McMansion approved, there will be no end to people replacing their homes, flipping them and leaving the area. This is not a good approach for community building. I always appreciate when neighbors keep up their yards, and improve their homes as this holds the quality of our neighborhood and reduces crime. We are a tight group as you probably have seen by the attention to this issue. We are a community, not just people who live on Linden Lane. I will also say that I viewed the plans for the home on the corner of Linden and Mt. View currently under construction. It is a beautiful design, less square footage than the 188 Linden proposal, but on a lot that is much larger. It feels proportional. Please understand I am not against new construction on principle, but feel as a neighborhood, we need to hold onto the beautiful place we live in, by managing our growth. In light of this, I ask you to repeal your planning approval for this construction. Thank you for considering my opinion. I will be present at the Sept 4 meeting. Paula Doubleday Paula Doubleday Design Inc. 246 Linden Lane San Rafael 94901 415 455 5301 www.pdoubleday.com Exhibit 6-7 8/5/2013 .00 August 16, 2013 Caron Parker Associate Planner City of San Rafael Dear Caron Parker, When asked for input about Alf Partridge from a professional perspective, and in light of a proposed project of his, I was most eager to do so. Having worked with Alf for several years on a major, and complex construction project, I became, and remain, most impressed with him both personally and professionally. The quality of his work, as a craftsman in his own right, is excellent. But it is a rarity to find such a gifted and accomplished artisan, who also performs well above the norm, when dealing with other people and entities around him, I have consistently and reliably found him to be fair and balanced in his dealings with other businesses and professionals, honest with regulatory entities, tough and demanding but considerate with subordinates and sub jobbers, and thoughtful when dealing with neighbors. Alf is the kind of professional who, when obstacles or problems arise, is refreshingly malleable and circumspect in resolving them. He is a team player. It would give me pleasure to expand on my support for Alf and his craftsmanship and leadership in any other way, including in person. Thank you. Sincerely, 4-i Don Sebastian! Sr. DON SEBASTIANI & SONS THE NEXT GENERATION IN Exhibit 6-8 Page 1 of 2 Caron Parker From: Penn Fullerton [pennhome@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 10:07 AM To: Caron Parker Subject: Re: proposed construction at 118 Linden Lane Penn Mullin Lullerton Fennhome@aol.com 12+ Linden Lane San Rafael, Ca. 9490 I Tutoring in the Language Arts Home: 415--+57-8 1 34 Cell: -+15-8 27-229+ On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:40 PM, Penn Fullerton wrote: Dear Caron, Paul and Raffi: I live at 124 Linden Lane and am a neighbor of the proposed building project at 118 Linden Lane. Since I have lived on this street since 1970, I am of course very concerned with the possible construction of a mammoth building on a lot that is too small, a building that would change the whole character of our historical neighborhood. If this house is allowed to be built, a new precedent would be set for our area, with huge homes being constructed on lots that are much too small. The whole old fashioned, country, feeling of our street would be impacted if this were to happen. I am also extremely concerned that the owners intend to just sell the house and move away, with no thought to what they are leaving behind to blight our neighborhood. I would like to request that storyboards be erected at 118 Linden Lane before the hearing in September, so that the true extent of the project can be perfectly clear to the neighbors and Planning Commission. I sincerely urge you to take this proposed project under serious consideration, for it could open the way to future construction in Dominican that would change the whole nature of the area that we treasure. Thank you very much. Most sincerely, Penn Mullin Penn Mullin rullerton 8,19,2013 Exhibit 6-9 Page 1 of 1 Caron Parker From: Nunzio Alioto [nunzioalioto@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 9:31 AM To: Caron Parker Cc: Alioto Nunzio; Joanne Alioto Subject: Remodel of 118 Linden Lane Dear Mr. Parker My wife Joanne and I reside on 110 Linden Lane, adjacent to the property requesting planning approval for a remodel. I have notice that in your planning document we are referenced as approving this project. I would like to make sure that we are all clear as to what had transpired on or about March 19, 2013. The Partridges asked to me with my wife and I regarding their remodel. My wife and I met with the Partridges at our residence and they presented to us some plans. They came with a document, that they wanted us to sign, that would have given them approval to go ahead with their project without interference from us. I asked them if this was a requirement and Mrs Partridge said yes and Mr Partridge said no. With that I said we would not sign their document but would send them something drafted by us. I want to make clear what was said in our letter. We said that AT THIS TIME March 21, 2013 we see no apparent problems with the Partridges moving forward with their remodel. Some months have passed and my wife and I recently have had the opportunity to see their project and we have very serious concerns regarding the encroachment of the two feet and the shear size of the improvement in relation to the lot size. I do not not know if you have seen our original letter but if you have not I would be move than willing to send you a copy via fax, upon your request. Please understand that we are not oppose to the Partridges remodeling their residence, but this two foot encroachment and the shear size of the remodel in relations to their lot size is something that we have very serious concerns. Based on this new found information we would oppose their project, as it currently stands. Thank you for your time on this matter Nunzio and Joanne Alioto EXG Uti 6-10 8/27/2013 Ms. Caron Parker, City of San Rafael Planner I am sending you this letter regarding the proposed development @ 118 Linden Lane. I am concerned about a project of this size. I am requesting placement of story poles on the site prior to the hearing scheduled on September 4, 2013 so we as neighbors can get a better sense of the magnitude of the project. My concerns are the mass of this project is inconsistent w/ the neighborhood — there is not a home on Linden Lane that approaches this size on so small a lot. A 2' encroachment into the 10' setback requirement should not be permitted on a project this size. The owner has not completed projects in the past in a timely manner. i.e., a simple retaining wall in the front of the home has stood incomplete and has been an eyesore for many years and is just now being completed after the permit has long expired. The owner has stated that he is going to build and sell, without concern for what he is leaving behind. By way of reminder, the proposed project will result in an approximately 5200 square foot house on a 12,000 square foot lot. In comparison, the new home being built at 19 Mountain View is approximately 4,400 square feet but on a lot size of 20,000 square feet. The proposed addition at 118 Linden would set a new and dangerous precedent for the building of huge homes on lots that were never designed to accommodate such massive structures thus, the proposed project is completely out of character with the neighborhood. Sincerely, Terry & Gloria Aquilino 1 Lindview San Rafael Exhibit 6-11