HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2013-10-15 #2CITY OF
Meeting Date: October 15, 2013
Agenda Item: '4-_-`
Community Development Department— Planning Division Case Numbers: AP13-002
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Project Planner: Caron Parker (415) 485-3094
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 118 Linden Lane: Appeal of Zoning Administrator approval (June 26, 2013) of
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED13-024) and 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. The Exception approved 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.
EXECUTIVE 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. Design Review Board
review is not required for upper story additions, unless staff determines such review is necessary or a
neighbor requests such in writing. 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. The applicant and 3 neighbors attended the
hearing. Staff had received one letter of support for the proposed project from the adjacent property
owner at 110 Linden Lane, and three e-mails in opposition. 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 4: Zoning Administrator
approval minutes).
Following the ZA approval, the project architect informed staff that there was an error in the site plan.
The original project plans showed the proposed upper story addition encroaching 2 feet into the required
10 foot side yard setback. However, the plans have been revised and there is no longer a setback
encroachment on the upper story. 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 which is existing and not proposed to change. 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 than what was originally proposed.
On June 29, 2013 the City received a letter of appeal from the adjacent property owners to the east and
west and also signed by 21 other residents in the neighborhood. The main points of the appeal were
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP13-002 Page 2
that: 1) the design of the project is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood; 2) that the scale and
mass of the proposed home was inconsistent with other homes; and 3) that the Exception approval for
the 2 foot encroachment into the required 10 foot side yard setback should be re-examined.
Staff scheduled the appeal for a hearing before the Design Review Board (DRB) to review the merits of
the appeal points as they related to the project design. On September 4, 2013 the DRB reviewed the
appeal point listed above and voted unanimously to recommend that the project be approved as
designed, with the condition that a professional landscape plan be prepared and submitted. Details of
the Board's review are presented on Page 9 of this staff report. Staff has presented an analysis and
response to all three appeal points on Pages 6 to 9 of this staff report. In summary, the ZA determined
that the proposed project met the findings required for the Design Review Permit and Exception
approval. The appeal points were also reviewed and considered by the DRB and found to have no merit.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Draft Resolution (Exhibit 2) denying
the appeal (AP13-002) and upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of Environmental and Design
Review Permit (ED13-024) and Exception (EX13-002) allowing the proposed 1,462 square foot upper
floor addition and the proposed 1,241 square foot ground floor addition to the existing one-story single
family home at 118 Linden Lane.
PROPERTY FACTS
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
Site Characteristics
Site Development Summary
General Plan Designation
Zoning Designation
Existing Land -Use
Required:
Proposed:
10,000 sf
12,057 sf(existing)
Allow/Req: 40%
Proposed: 31%
(4,822 sf)
3,729 s
Project Site:
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Single Family
Residential (R10)
Single Family Residence
North:
Large Lot Residential
R10/R1a
Single
Family Residence
South:
LDR
R10
Single
Family Residence
East:
LDR
R10
Single
Family Residence
West:
LDR
R10
Single
Family Residence
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
Site Development Summary
Lot Size
Lot Coverage
Required:
Proposed:
10,000 sf
12,057 sf(existing)
Allow/Req: 40%
Proposed: 31%
(4,822 sf)
3,729 s
Height
Upper Floor Area
Allowed:
Proposed:
30'
20' 6 3/4" to 22' 1"
Allowed: 75% of maximum lot coverage (3,617 so
Proposed: 1,462 sf
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
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
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP13-002 Page 3
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.
BACKGROUND
April 13, 2013: Alfred Partridge, property owner, submitted a Design Review Permit application for a
1,462 square foot upper story addition, an Exception request for a 2 foot encroachment of the upper
story addition into the required 10 foot side yard setback, and a 1,241 square foot ground floor addition
to the one-story single family home.
June 26, 2013: The Zoning Administrator (ZA) held a public hearing on the proposed project. Present at
the meeting were Michelle and Alfred Partridge, property owners/project applicant. Neighborhood
residents at the meeting included, Don Sugrue (123 Mountain View, in support), Dennis and Pam Joyce
(120 Linden Lane, in opposition), and Joan Emerson (125 Linden Lane, in opposition). 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 ZA was generally in support of the project, subject to
exploring concerns that may be expressed as part of the public hearing process. The ZA then opened
the public hearing. The ZA stated for the record that there were 2 letters of concern 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. There was also one letter of support from the adjacent neighbor to the east, at 110
Linden Lane (Nunzio Alioto). The majority of concerns expressed were about the size of the proposed
house, compatibility with the existing neighborhood character, 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:
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 (8 out of 11 homes on Linden
Lane are 2 -story homes). The proposed project is in keeping with this variety.
3. Parking: 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
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP13-002 Page 4
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.
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.
June 29, 2013: The City received a letter of appeal, within the 5 -day appeal period deadline, paid for by
the adjacent property owners to the east (Nunzio Alioto, 110 Linden Lane, who had previously submitted
a letter of support for the project) and west (Pam and Dennis Joyce, 120 Linden Lane), and also signed
by 21 other residents in the neighborhood (see Exhibit 3: Appeal letter with attachments, including the list
of all signatories) citing three appeal points:
➢ 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; and
➢ 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.
September 4, 2013: The Design Review Board held a public hearing to consider the merits of the appeal
points listed above. The Board recommended approval of the project as designed, with a condition that
the applicant prepare and submit a landscape plan showing the proposed landscaping in the front yard
area. A detailed summary of the Board's discussion and consensus is presented on Page 9 of this staff
report.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP13-002 Page 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed Addition
The Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the construction of a 1,241 square foot ground floor
addition, and a 1,462 square foot upper story addition to the existing 2,517 square foot one story home,
which included replacing the existing carport with a 2 -car garage and demolishing a 251 square foot
glass porch at the rear of the house (see Exhibit 5: Project Site Plan). The total square footage for the
new house (upper and lower floor, including garage) would be 5,191 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 (which is an existing 1-2 foot encroachment
into the required 10 foot east side yard) 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.
Please note that after the ZA approval, the architect informed staff that there was an error in the site plan
and that the upper story addition would not encroach into the side yard setback, but would be setback
between 11 feet and 15 feet from the required 10 foot side yard setback. Total square footage for the
upper story addition was reduced from 1,462 square feet to 1,411 square feet.
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
The General Plan Land Use designation for the project site is Low Density Residential (LDR) and the
Zoning designation for the project site is R10 (Single Family Residential). The Zoning Administrator (ZA)
approved the Environmental and Design Review Permit, 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 4, pages 5-9). In
summary, the ZA found the proposed project to be consistent with following applicable General Plan
policies: 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).
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:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP13-002 Page 6
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% (3,737 sq. ft.)
75% of maximum
Maximum Upper Story Floor
lot coverage (3,617
Size
sq. ft. for this
1,462 sq. ft.
specific site)
In terms of the Exception request, the ZA determined that the findings to grant the Exception could be
made 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 at that time. See detailed
Findings for the approved Exception in Exhibit 4, pages 9-10). In addition, language in Exception
Section 14.24.0206 stipulates that setback exceptions "shall only be allowed where the proposed
setback area or yard is in character with the surrounding neighborhood and is not required as essential
open space or recreational amenity to the use of the site, and where such decrease will not
unreasonable affect abutting properties." The ZA determined that the proposed project is in character
with other properties in the area in that many properties are also built with existing encroachments into
required side yard setback areas. In addition, the proposed encroachment is limited to extending the
existing building wall about 4 feet in height, ranging between 1-2 feet along approximately 19 feet of the
east side property. The shadow study showed that there would be no additional shadowing resulting
from the project on the adjacent property to the east. As such, the ZA determined that the impact from
the proposed side yard encroachment would be minimal.
Appeal of Zoning Administrator Design Review 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 (see Exhibit 3). The appeal letter cited 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.
"'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
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP13-002 Page 7
Staff Response: The intent of design review for upper story additions is delineated in Zoning
Ordinance Section 14.25.040F.6 and states "Design review of new two-story homes, upper story
additions and lift -and -fill construction is not intended to preclude such development, but rather
required to assure better design of such additions and limit impacts to adjacent properties." The
proposed development and it's compatibility with the neighborhood is addressed in the Zoning
Administrator Findings (see Exhibit 4 Pages 5-9). 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 6); 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.
This appeal point was also review by the DRB at the September 4, 2013 DRB hearing and found to
have no merit.
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, notrg oss
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" the ZA minutes, Exhibit 4 footnote, Page
5). 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 1,462
square foot upper story addition (revised after the ZA hearing to 1,411 square feet), but only includes
the lower story building footprint.
Further, the 2nd 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 (75% of the
maximum allowable lot coverage). Lastly, the proposed building height, as measured to the roof
midpoint would be a maximum of 21 feet, well below the 30 foot maximum allowed.
As part of the appeal letter, a list of gross building square footages for homes along Linden Lane was
presented. 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.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP13-002 Page 8
The Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed project was in keeping with all applicable
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 fapade 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 14.25.050.6.0, in that there is a mix of architectural styles and materials on the street,
including shingle, siding, stucco and brick; and 3) the proposed new upper story windows on the
north 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; b) west side property line is heavily screened with vegetation, creating
a visual barrier to minimize privacy impacts and c) the clerestory windows on the rear (north) side
would not impact privacy on adjacent lots. There are no new upper story 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 nor were any comments submitted about historic
resources prior to or at the ZA hearing. 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, the ZA determined that there 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 these potential historic resources.
This appeal point was also review by the DRB at the September 4, 2013 DRB hearing and found to
have no merit.
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 plans reviewed and approved by the
ZA illustrated 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 4, Pages 9-10). In summary, the ZA determined that the Exception
could be supported because: 1) the existing house already encroaches 1-2 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 1-2 feet, which is
less than the allowable 5 foot encroachment allowed by an Exception per Zoning Ordinance Section
14.24.020B; 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
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP13-002 Page 9
lot at 110 Linden Lane, as there is additional yard area away from the proposed addition; and 5) the
adjacent property at 110 Linden Lane submitted a letter of support for the project.
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 proposed 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 along the east side of the property (see Exhibit 5). 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.
This appeal point was also review by the DRB at the September 4, 2013 DRB hearing and found to
have no merit.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION
On September 4, 2013, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the three appeal points as delineated
by the appellant and analyzed earlier in this report. Detailed written minutes of DRB meetings are no
longer available. Actual video recordings of the meeting are available through a video link on the City of
San Rafael website, www.citvofsanrafael.orq/meetings. Click on the Design Review Board video link for
the September 4, 2013 hearing date. Staff requested the Board to provide its recommendation to the
Planning Commission on the merits of the appeal points, and also directed the Board that they could
comment on any possible design changes that may address the neighbors concerns, if warranted. The
Board offered the following comments on the proposed project design:
➢ The proposed project is beautifully designed and well articulated.
➢ Based on DRB site visits, the contextual plans and the 3-D Model provided, the proposed two-
story home is compatible in scale to other homes in the vicinity.
➢ Proposed colors and materials are good choices.
➢ No story poles are necessary as the existing plans and model show the contextual relationship to
adjacent properties.
➢ The applicant should consult with an arborist regarding the health and preservation of the existing
Redwood tree, and submit a professional landscape plan.
➢ Landscaping should be planted along the outside of the retaining wall.
In conclusion, the Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of the project as designed, with the
condition that the applicant prepare and submit a professional landscape plan.
Following the hearing, staff met with the applicant to discuss the Board's condition to submit a
professional landscape plan. The applicant indicated that they met with several landscape architects and
due to high costs, wanted to submit a landscape plan that they prepared themselves. The applicant
indicated that they planned to transplant existing plants and shrubs on the site and would consult with an
arborist to determine how to protect the root system of the existing redwood tree during construction.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP13-002 Page 10
Staff determined that this would be acceptable and advised the applicant to prepare the preliminary
landscape plan for Planning Commission review. The applicant has consulted with a landscape architect
and prepared a landscape plan showing the existing plants and where they will be relocated to on the
site. The preliminary landscape plan and photos of the existing plants are included in the Planning
Commission packet. The Draft Resolution also includes Condition of Approval #6 and #7, addressing the
landscaping and the protection of the Redwood tree.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
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).
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of this appeal hearing before the Planning Commission (along with the prior DRB and ZA
hearings) have 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.
During the Zoning Administrator (ZA) review process, Planning staff communicated directly with the
property owner of the adjacent 2 -story home at 120 Linden Lane (Dennis Joyce) and also conducted a
site visit to the property. At that time, Mr. Joyce expressed concerns about 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 at 120 Linden Lane. Comments from other residents were received
either the day before the ZA hearing or the afternoon/day after the hearing. All expressed concern about
the proposed size of the house and the design incompatibility with the neighborhood. There was one
letter of support for the proposed project (110 Mountain View, adjacent property to the east), and one
person who attended the ZA hearing in support of the project (123 Linden Lane) and a total of 4
neighbors in opposition to the project - 120 Linden Lane (2 -story home and adjacent property owners to
the west), 121 Linden Lane (2 -story home), 125 Linden Lane (2 -story home), and 5 Lindview (2 -story
home). The property owners at 120 Linden Lane and 125 Linden Lane attended the ZA hearing.
The ZA responded to concerns expressed during public testimony at the hearing (see ZA minutes,
Exhibit 4, 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 that gross building square footage was not a review criteria required by
Code for non -hillside properties. 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
partially on the fact that the encroachment was considered to be minor, as it ranged from 1-2 feet along
approximately 19 -feet of the east side yard, and was following the existing ground floor encroachment.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP13-002 Page 11
Copies all written correspondence received prior to and at the ZA hearing are attached as Exhibit 7. Also
included in Exhibit 7 is correspondence (2 letters) received on the day of the DRB hearing which were
distributed at the dais. No comments were received in response to the Planning Commission hearing
notice. Out of the 12 comment letters previously received, 11 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 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. One of the residents in support of the project during the ZA review (110 Linden
Lane) is now one of the appellants. 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 7-
13). Also included is a letter from the property owner, Michelle Partridge (Exhibit 7-8), responding to a
comment letter from Kat Crawford (Exhibit 7-7). 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 received after the ZA hearing 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) maybe required if needed to evaluate project impacts." The Zoning Administrator's decision
was based on 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. The
Board also determined that story poles were not required because the applicant had submitted a
contextual elevation and a 3-D model which provided sufficient information to determine the bulk and
mass of the proposed project as it relates to adjacent properties.
Any written communication received after the distribution of this staff report, will be forwarded to the
Commission under separate cover.
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. There was very little opposition expressed about the proposed project prior to the ZA hearing,
and the ZA decision was based on staff analysis, site visits and a letter of support at the time from the
adjacent property owner. Further, the Design Review Board reviewed the ZA decision on design
matters and considered the appeal points relating to design and confirmed the ZA's action and decision.
The DRB found the project well designed and expressed its support of the proposed project as designed
and has put forth a unanimous recommendation to approve the project with the condition that a
landscape plan be prepared.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project (staff
recommendation);
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: AP13-002 Page 12
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project with modifications,
changes or additional conditions of approval;
3. Uphold the appeal and deny the project, reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator and
direct staff to return with a revised Resolution; or
4. Continue the matter to allow the applicant, appellant and/or staff to address any comments or
concerns of the Planning Commission.
EXHIBITS
1. Project Vicinity Map
2. Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Zoning Administrator approval
3. Letter of appeal from Dennis and Pam Joyce, Nunzio Alioto, and 21 signatories, June 29, 2013
4. Zoning Administrator hearing approval minutes, June 26, 2013
5. Project site plan
6. Map showing location of 2 -story homes on Linden Lane
7. Public Correspondence received (includes comments prior to Zoning Administrator action and during
DRB hearing.
Full-sized plans, 11 " x 17" plans provided to the Planning Commissioners only.
Jonden Lane P rojo a< \ I'l 11invi y NA a
100 0 100 200 300
FEET
EXH NT
Ply�
} �b
t.
M1
jj
100 0 100 200 300
FEET
EXH NT
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN
APPEAL (AP13-002) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW
PERMIT (ED13-024) AND EXCEPTION (EX13-002) TO ALLOW A 1,462 SQUARE
FOOT UPPER FLOOR ADDITION AND A 1,241 SQUARE FOOT LOWER FLOOR
ADDITION TO THE EXISTING ONE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT
118 LINDEN LANE (APN: 015-061-15)
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2013, Alfred and Michelle Partridge, property owners submitted an
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED13-024) and Exception request (EX13-002) to encroach 2
feet into the required 10 foot side yard setback in order 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; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental and Design Review Permit application and the Exception
request was reviewed by the Department of Public Works, Fire Prevention and Building Divisions of the
City of San Rafael and was recommended for approval subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project was determined to be exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15301a (Existing Facilities), which exempts minor interior and exterior alterations to existing structures;
and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2013, the Zoning .Administrator (ZA) held a duly noticed public
hearing on the proposed Design Review Permit and Exception, accepting all oral and written public
testimony. At the end of the hearing, the ZA conditionally approved the Environmental and Design
Review Permit (ED13-024) and the Exception (ED13-002) allowing the proposed upper story addition
and 2 foot side yard encroachment Exception, finding that the proposed project was consistent with the
property development standards and Exception provisions, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section
14.25.050 and Section 14.24.020; and
WHEREAS, notice of this decision, including transmittal of the meeting minutes and findings
and conditions of approval were mailed and/or e-mailed to the applicant, the property owner, and all
residents in attendance at the Zoning Administrator hearing; and
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2013, Dennis Joyce (adjacent resident at 120 Linden Lane) and Nunzio
Alioto (adjacent resident at 110 Linden Lane) and 21 additional signatories filed a timely appeal (AP13-
002) of the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit
(ED13-024) and Exception (EX13-002), pursuant to Chapter 28 (Appeals) of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, citing: 1) that the proposed design was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood; 2)
the scale and mass of the proposed home is inconsistent with every other home in the historic
neighborhood; and 3) whether the existing 2 foot encroachment should be carried through to the upper
story; and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2013, the Design Review Board held a duly -noticed public
hearing to consider the Appeal (AP13-002), accepted and considered all oral and written public
testimony and the written report of Community Development Department, and recommending that the
EMA D T 2
project be approved as design with a condition that the applicant submit a professional landscape plan;
and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2013, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly- noticed
public hearing on the proposed appeal, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written
report of the Community Development Department staff and closed said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the appeal and the scope of the project, the Planning Commission
has confirmed that the project is Categorically Exempt, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which
this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby denies the
Appeal (AP13-002) and reaffirms the June 26, 2013 Zoning Administrator decision, conditionally
approving a Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED13-024) and Exception (EX13-002) to allow
the proposed upper story addition to the existing home. The Planning Commission affirms and
incorporates herein the findings and Zoning Administrator action approving the project (cited below) and
makes the following findings related to the appeal points. The Planning Commission finds and
determines that the points of the appeal cannot be supported for the following reasons:
Appeal Point #1: The design of the project is incompatible and out of character with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Response: The intent of design review for upper story additions is delineated in Zoning
Ordinance Section 14.25.040F.6 and states "Design review of new two-story homes, upper story
additions and lift -and -fill construction is not intended to preclude such development, but rather
required to assure better design of such additions and limit impacts to adjacent properties. " The
Zoning Ordinance further delineates that review for upper story additions should be evaluated with
respect to proposed windows facing the rear yard, proposed windows facing the side yard, outside
stairways, design consistency, neighborhood compatibility and shadowing The proposed
development and it's compatibility with the neighborhood is addressed in the Zoning Administrator
Findings (see Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibit 4 Pages 5 -9). 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 Planning Commission Staff Report
Exhibit 6); and 4) the proposed house would be set back approximately 31 feet from the paved right-
of-way
ightof-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
RIO District Development Standards. In addition, the upper story windows proposed would have a
minimal impact, as there is only one upper story window proposed on the west elevation (bathroom
window) and the other upper story windows along the rear (north) elevation are clerestory windows.
In terms of shadowing impacts, the shadow study reported that there would be 372 square feet of
additional shading to the adjacent property at 120 Linden Lane. The applicant indicated that the 372
square feet represents the total amount of shading of which 68 square feet represents additional
2 Exhibit 2
File No, AP,13-002
shading to active recreational areas of approximately 2,200 SF, a 3% increase at noon on Dec 21
showed. Based on site visits, staff determined that the additional shadowing would not represent a
significant impact on the recreational space for the property at 120 Linden Lane, given the location
of the recreational space and ample size of the rear yard (which includes an outdoor kitchen/BBQ
area, a stone patio and terraced rear yard), and existing trees along the west property line already
shadowing the property.
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 in Exhibit 4 of the Planning
Commission staff 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 1,462 square foot upper story addition (revised after the ZA hearing to
1,411 sf), 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 2nd 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 (75% of
the maximum allowable lot coverage).
As part of the appeal letter, a list of the gross building square footages for homes along Linden Lane
was presented. However, gross building square footage is only evaluated when reviewing hillside
development projects. 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.
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 new upper story windows on the
north 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; b) west side property line is heavily screened with vegetation,
creating a visual barrier to minimize privacy impacts; and c) the clerestory windows on the rear
(north) side would not impact privacy on adjacent lots. 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 (I 10 Linden Lane) at the time of the ZA hearing.
1 xhi'bt2
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
Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibit 4, Pages 9-10). In summary, the ZA determined that the
Exception request could be supported because: 1) the existing house already encroaches 1-2 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 1-2
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, as there is additional yard area away from the proposed addition; and 5) the
adjacent property at 110 Linden Lane submitted a letter of support for the project.
After the Zoning Administrator 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 ground floor of the existing
home already encroaches 1-2 feet into the setback along the east side property line. This existing
_1 ;
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 exception is
greatly diminished and the impact of the upper story addition is greatly minimized as it is farther
away from the adjacent property line and adjacent residence at 110 Linden Lane.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the time within which to seek judicial review of this
decision is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission reaffirms the approval of
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED13-024) and Exception (EX13-002), based on the
following findings as originally presented and approved by the Zoning Administrator:
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 — Sinele Familv Residential District Development Standards
ITEM
R10
REQUIREMENTS
EXISTING/PROPOSED
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
8-10 feet (east side)
Rear Setback
10 feet
10 feet/no change
Maximum Height of Structure
30 feet
20' 6 3/4" to 22' 1"
Maximum Lot Coverage
40% (4,822 sq, ft.)
31% (3,737 sq. ft.)
"'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
Exhib;t 2
File No, ARI 3-002
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 would be to create a design that is 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
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 on adjacent properties.
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 above;
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; and
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.
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); and
b) The project, as proposed, has been reviewed by appropriate City Departments and non City
agencies and no adverse conditions were identified; and
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; and
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. 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; and
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; and
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
side yard (3%) 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 proposed addition would not
substantially affect recreational areas on the adjacent property ay 120 Linden Lane; and
e) The proposed addition includes the creation of new upper story windows on the 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; 2) west side property line is heavily screened with vegetation creating a visual
barrier to minimize privacy impacts, and 3) the proposed clerestory windows at the rear
(north) would not impact adjacent properties; and
f) 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). After the ZA hearing, the
neighbor at 110 Linden lane withdrew their support for the project. The concerns pertained
to the size of the addition, compatibility with the neighborhood and the setback
encroachment. The ZA responded to these concerns during the zoning administrator hearing
(see Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibit 4, Pages 3-4) and also directly via e-mail and
determined that the proposed project would not adversely impact adjacent properties or the
surrounding neighborhood.
t:xhibit 2
File No, Af,*113-002
Exception Findings
(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) a potion of the existing home is built partially within the east side
yard setback along the east property line; 2) based on the revised site plan, the upper story would
not encroach into the required east side yard setback. However, the existing house already
encroaches 2 feet into the side yard and the proposed addition would increase this encroachment
by extending the height of the existing encroachment by 4 feet, but not extending any farther into
the side yard setback; and 3) the side yard setback encroachment is only 1-2 feet, which is less
than the allowable 5 foot encroachment allowed by Zoning Ordinance Section 14.24.02013.
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 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 4) 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, except
for the existing legal non -conforming ground floor encroachment into the required 10 foot side
yard setback. The requested 1-2 foot side yard encroachment will not create any inconsistencies
with these other standards.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael
reaffirms the approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 13-024) and Exception
(EX 13-002) subject to the following conditions of approval:
Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception
Conditions of Approval
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. Construction plans submitted for building permit approval shall include a plan sheet, which
incorporates Conditions of Approval for ED13-024/EX13-002.
5. 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,
6. Prior to issuance of a final building permit, a final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval. The plan shall include protection measures for the Redwood
tree during project construction.
7. Landscaping shall be planted along the outside of the retaining wall.
8. All existing and proposed 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.
9. 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 permit. Additional specifications
about equipment noise levels may also be required.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Any exterior lighting shall be shielded down to prevent glare.
13. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City, County, State, and other
responsible agencies.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 October 15, 2015, and shall become
null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension granted by that date.
0 is <:I'=_.., 1
i3
BUILDING 138IVISION
16. Project must apply for building permits and meet Green Building Guidelines
FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
17. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2010 California Fire Code
and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments.
18. 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
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items shall be addressed:
19. Grading: From the plan submitted it is not clear if additional foundations and grading is necessary.
If grading is necessary, show the limits of grading on the plan. The grading may not cross the property
line without prior written consent of any adjacent property owner. Show all cut and fill quantities on the
plan.
20. Driveways:
a. Plans must show the driveway profile, cross-section, slope, and drainage.
b. Modify the plans to install a standard driveway per UCD DWG 130. The applicant shall
consider installing a standard curb and gutter along the frontage to replace the non-standard curb
currently installed.
c. All driveways within the property shall be paved regardless of grade. Show the pavement section
on the plan in compliance with the Uniform Construction Standards and the City's Municipal
Code.
d. Show all vehicle parking schematically on the plan. Vehicle parking spaces shall be in
compliance with Section 14.18 of the Municipal Code.
e. An Encroachment Permit from the Department of Public Works at 11 Morphew Street must be
obtained prior to construction.
21. Surface Runoff: Include and make part of the project plans, the sheet "Pollution Prevention — It's
Part of the Plan."
22. Drainage: Provide details associated with a spreader pipe system or dissipation bed at the end of the
roof and yard drain systems to distribute drainage over pervious surfaces prior to crossing the property
line in order to not change any drainage characteristic.
Show existing storm drain system and pipe sizes that downspouts are connecting into
23. Floodplain Management: The applicant shall be aware that the property owner is noted in an
unknown flood zone on the current FEMA flood maps designated as "Zone X". FEMA maps will be
modified in the next few years such that this property may be located within a flood zone.
File No, `IP*13-002
SAN RAFAEL SANITATION DISTRICT (SRSD)
24. 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.
25. 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 to the sewer lateral, the project sponsor shall be
responsible for completing this work in coordination with the SRSD staff.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting
held on the 15'h day of October, 2013.
Moved by Commissioner
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
ATTEST:
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary
and seconded by
12
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
MM
Larry Paul, Chair
1
,iii f,Jo Pt 1i,
.i1` }