HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2022-11-08 Agenda Packet
Design Review Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 8, 2022, 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Participate In-Person:
San Rafael City Council Chambers
1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901
Or
Participate Virtually:
Watch on Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/drb-2022-11-08
Telephone: 1 (669) 444-9171
Meeting ID: 831 0781 8748#
One Tap Mobile: US: +16694449171, 83107818748#
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ADVISORY NOTICE
In response to Assembly Bill 361, the City of San Rafael is offering teleconference without
complying with the procedural requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3).
This meeting will be held in-person and virtually using Zoom.
How to participate in the meeting in-person:
• Stay home if you are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms
• Face coverings are recommended for attendees
• Use the sign-in sheet (optional) which allows notification of potentially exposed
individuals if contact tracing reveals COVID-19 transmission may have occurred in
a given meeting.
• Attendance will be limited to 50 percent of room capacity (no more than 90
persons) and all in-person attendees should socially distance as recommended by
public health authorities. If the Chambers are 50% occupied, please participate
online instead, or utilize the audio feed in the lobby.
• All attendees are encouraged to be fully vaccinated.
How to participate in the meeting virtually:
• Submit public comment in writing before 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting to
PlanningPublicComment@cityofsanrafael.org.
• Join the Zoom webinar and use the 'raise hand' feature to provide verbal public
comment.
• Dial-in to Zoom's telephone number using the meeting ID and provide verbal public
comment.
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should contact the City Clerk
(email city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or phone at 415-485-3066) who will use their best
efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as
possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for
resolving reasonable accommodation requests.
Members of the public may speak on Agenda items.
CALL TO ORDER
RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Remarks are limited to three minutes per person and may be on anything within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the body. Remarks on non-agenda items will be heard first, remarks on
agenda items will be heard at the time the item is discussed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar allows the Board to take action, without discussion, on Agenda items
for which there are no persons present who wish to speak, and no Board members who wish
to discuss.
1. Approval of the Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2022
Recommended Action – Approve minutes as submitted
2. Approval of the Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of September 7, 2022
Recommended Action – Approve minutes as submitted
ACTION CALENDAR
3. 380 Margarita Drive – New Single-Family House
Request for an Environmental and Design Review Permit for a new single-family
residence, pool, and detached garage with a guest unit on a vacant hillside lot; APN:
015-320-03; Planned Development District (PD) 1808-H; ED21-011, PLAN21-019
Project Planner: Renee Nickenig (renee.nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org)
Recommended Action – Review and provide input on items discussed in staff report
4. 275 & 281 Coleman Drive – Two New Single-Family Houses
Requests for a Lot Line Adjustment, Environmental and Design Review, Exception, and
Variance to merge four vacant lots into two lots, construct a three-story 2,548 square-foot
modular home and other site improvements on each consolidated lot; APN: 011-031-44 -
47; R10 Hillside Overlay District; LLA20-004; ED20-047/EX21-002/V22-002; ED20-
046/EX21-001
Project Planner: Monica Ly (monica.ly@cityofsanrafael.org)
Recommended Action – Review and provide input on items discussed in staff report
STAFF COMMUNICATION
BOARD COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Commission
less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection online. Sign Language
interpreters may be requested by calling (415) 485-3066 (voice), emailing
city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or using the California Telecommunications Relay Service by
dialing “711”, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Copies of documents are available
in accessible formats upon request.
Minutes subject to approval at the meeting of November 8, 2022
Design Review Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, May 17, 2022, 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Virtual Meeting
Watch on Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/drb-2022-05-17
Telephone: 1 (669) 900 6833
Meeting ID: 880 1015 0251#
One Tap Mobile: US: + 16699006833,,88010150251#
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ADVISORY NOTICE
In response to Assembly Bill 361, the City of San Rafael is offering teleconference
without complying with the procedural requirements of Government Code section
54953(b)(3). This meeting will be held virtually using Zoom.
How to participate in the meeting:
• Submit public comments in writing. Correspondence received by 10:00
p.m. Tuesday the week before the meeting will be provided with the agenda
materials provided to the Board. Correspondence received after this deadline
will be conveyed to the Board as a supplement. Send correspondence to the
project planner or to PlanningPublicComment@cityofsanrafael.org; or send in
writing to Planning Division, CDD; 1400 5th Ave. 3rd Fl.; San Rafael, CA 94901.
• Join the Zoom webinar and use the 'raise hand' feature to provide verbal public
comment.
• Dial-in to Zoom's telephone number using the meeting ID and provide verbal
public comment.
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should contact the City Clerk
(email city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or phone at 415-485-3066) who will use their best
efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as
possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for
resolving reasonable accommodation requests.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rege called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chair Rege then invited Staff & Senior
Planner Jeff Ballantine to call roll.
RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
Present: Chair Sarah Rege
Vice Chair Sharon Kovalsky
Board Member Jeff Kent
Board Member Larry Paul
Absent: Board Member Stewart Summers
Also Present: Jeff Ballantine, Staff, Senior Planner & DRB Secretary
Tricia Stevens, Contract Planner
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
Chair Rege invited Staff & Senior Planner, Jeff Ballantine, who informed the public that
members of the public can provide public comment by telephone and via zoom and the
raise hand feature. Written comments submitted prior to the meeting time would be read
aloud into the record during the public comment portion of each item.
Chair Rege reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
URGENT ORAL/EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Chair Rege called for any comments from the public on items NOT on the agenda. There
were no public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Rege invited public comment on the Consent Calendar. There was no comment on
the Consent Calendar.
1. Approval of the Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022
Member Kent moved and Member Paul seconded to approve the Minutes as submitted.
AYES: Members: Chair Rege, Vice Chair Kovalsky, Kent, & Paul
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: Summers
ABSTAIN: Members: None
Motion carried 4-0 Yes.
ACTION CALENDAR
Chair Rege introduced the Action Calendar and invited staff to present the Staff Report.
2. Northgate Town Square Project. Requests for a Rezone to the Planned Development
(PD) zone, a Use Permit, an Environmental and Design Review Permit, and a Tentative
Map to allow the comprehensive redevelopment of the existing mall at 5800 Northgate
Drive into a new, phased mixed-use development with approximately 225,000 square
feet of retail and 1,441 residential units on a 44.76-acre site. APNs: 175-060-12, -40, -
59, -61, -66 & -67; General Commercial (GC) District; MeloneGeier Partners,
owner/applicant; PLAN21-039, ZC21-001, UP21-007, ED21-024, TS21-002, IS21-002
& DA21-001
Project Planner: Tricia Stevens, Contract Planner tricia.stevens@cityofsanrafael.org
Tricia Stevens, Contract Planner, presented the Staff Report on the project.
Applicant Team gave a presentation on the project.
Applicant Team and Staff responded to questions from the Board Members.
Chair Rege asked for public comments. Public Comment received about traffic, building
heights, residential density, amount of open space, affordable housing need, sustainable
design, water conservation measures, impacts to local school capacity, and pedestrian and
bicycle circulation.
Board Members provided comments.
Member Paul moved, Vice Chair Kovalsky seconded recommendation that the applicant
address the following comments and return to the Design Review Board for consideration.
1. Massing:
a. Seven-story apartment buildings appear out of scale for the site and the
project is too dense in the south/middle portion of the site. Concern about
pedestrian scale and a canyon effect. Consider spreading out density over
the entire site (particularly to the north) and providing building stepbacks for
upper floors.
b. Existing parking garage could be better utilized. Consider densifying this
area with residential development or a taller parking garage.
2. Town Square:
a. Consider replacing the parking area to the west of the Town Square with
open space or other active use.
b. Relocate the dog park to more of a periphery location to minimize noise
impacts of the dogs.
c. Town Square should be more of a functional active park with amenities for
all ages, including a tot lot, a playground for older children, and restroom
facilities.
3. Architecture:
a. Architecture is not cohesive throughout the project. DRB questions the use
of red brick.
b. Affordable housing design is not of similar quality as other residential uses
with regards to setbacks in façade, variations in roof height, and overall
quality of design and materials. Also, consider providing balconies since at
grade open space is not provided.
c. Need more information and detail on rooftop activities.
4. Circulation:
a. Consider providing multi-modal paths around the entire site and stronger
pedestrian pathways throughout the site.
b. Consider providing a transit hub within the site
5. Additional Submittal Materials
a. Applicant to prepare lighting plans for DRB consideration.
b. Applicant to prepare fencing plans for DRB consideration.
Board Members discussed motion.
AYES: Members: Chair Rege, Vice Chair Kovalsky, Kent, & Paul
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: Summers
ABSTAIN: Members: None
Motion carried 4-0 Yes.
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
3. Streamlined Review for Certain Residential Projects. Senior Planner, Jeff
Ballantine, provided a summary of the recently adopted Streamlined Review process
for residential development projects with three to ten units.
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Staff did not provide any updates.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
Member Paul requested a status update on the 24 hour fitness project
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Rege adjourned the meeting at 10:47 p.m.
_________________________________
JEFF BALLANTINE, Senior Planner
APPROVED THIS _____DAY OF____________, 2022
_____________________________________
SARAH REGE, DRB Chair
Minutes subject to approval at the meeting of November 8, 2022
Design Review Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 7, 2022, 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Virtual Meeting
Watch on Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/drb-2022-09-07
Telephone: 1 (669) 900 6833
Meeting ID: 880 1015 0251#
One Tap Mobile: US: + 16699006833, 88010150251#
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rege called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chair Rege then invited Senior Planner
Jeff Ballantine to call roll.
RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
Present: Chair Sarah Rege
Vice Chair Sharon Kovalsky
Board Member Michael Alexin
Board Member Jeff Kent
Board Member Stewart Summers
Also Present: Jeff Ballantine, Staff, Senior Planner & DRB Secretary
Donald Blayney, Alternate Board Member
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
Chair Rege invited Staff & Senior Planner, Jeff Ballantine, to inform the members of the
public that they can provide public comment either in person in the Council Chambers, by
telephone or via zoom with the raise hand feature. Written comments submitted prior to the
meeting time would be read aloud into the record during the public comment portion of each
item.
Chair Rege reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
URGENT ORAL/EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Chair Rege called for any comments from the public on items NOT on the agenda. There
were no public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Rege invited public comment on the Consent Calendar. There was no comment on
the Consent Calendar.
1. Approval of the Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2022
Board members indicated to Staff to bring consideration for approval of these meeting
minutes for the next Design Review Board meeting since physical copies of the minutes
were not provided to Board members.
ACTION CALENDAR
Chair Rege introduced the Action Calendar and invited staff to present the Staff Report.
1. Selection of a Public Art Review Board Representative. Request of the Design
Review Board select a Public Art Review Board representative for a two (2) year term.
Jeff Ballantine, Senior Planner, provided background information on the Public Art Review
Board.
Jeff Ballantine responded to questions from Board Members.
Vice Chair Kovalsky volunteered to be the Public Art Review Board representative.
Chair Rege asked for public comments. No public comment was received.
Member Kent moved, Member Summers seconded motion for Vice Chair Kovalsky to be
the Public Art Review Board representative.
AYES: Members: Alexin, Kovalsky, Kent, Rege, Summers
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
ABSTAIN: Members: None
Motion carried 5-0 Yes
2. Objective Planning Standards. Review draft “objective” planning design standards for
multifamily residential buildings located outside the Downtown Precise Plan area
Project Planner: Jeff Ballantine, Senior Planner (jeff.ballantine@cityofsanrafael.org)
and Monica Ly, Senior Planner (monica.ly@cityofsanrafael.org)
Recommended Action – Review and provide input on draft objective planning design
standards.
Jeff Ballantine, Senior Planner, presented the Staff Report on the project.
Jeff Ballantine responded to questions from the Board Members.
Chair Rege asked for public comments. Public Comment received from Grace Geraghty
indicating that she agrees with many of the DRB members that she does not want a one size
fits all approach.
Board Members provided the following general comments.
1. General Comments
a. These standards shall only apply to SB 35 applications and not to all
projects.
b. Include graphics to illustrate the proposed standards
2. Building Projections/Recesses
a. Propose a requirement for building projections/recesses that is scalable
depending on the size of the building
b. The required projection/recess needs to more than 2 feet in depth
3. Transparency
a. Require 50% transparency for ground floor commercial, 30% transparency
for ground floor residential and 30% transparency for upper floors.
b. This applies to all 4 sides of the building.
4. Additional Building Articulation Comments
a. Menu of Options. Consider offering a menu of options to achieve building
articulation and requiring compliance with a certain number of any of those
options
b. Vertical Articulation. Require vertical articulation in addition to horizontal
articulation.
c. Materials. Require at least two different building materials
d. Ground floor parking. Include provisions specifically for ground floor parking.
Consider utilizing example from Alameda that requires landscaping, green
screens, and/or artistic elements. Also consider requiring that parking be
setback from the front property line by a certain distance.
e. Height. Consider requiring buildings that exceed the height of their base
zoning district to be setback further from the required setbacks of the base
zoning district.
5. Future Focus Areas
a. Landscaping
b. Open Space
c. Lighting
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
City Council intends to make cleanup changes to the Design Review Board bylaws. Staff
will report back at the following meeting with additional information.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
No Board communication was provided.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Rege adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
_________________________________
JEFF BALLANTINE, Senior Planner
APPROVED THIS _____DAY OF____________, 2022
_____________________________________
SARAH REGE, DRB Chair
- 1 -
Community Development Department –
Planning Division
Meeting Date: November 8, 2022
Case Numbers: ED21-011 (PLAN21-019)
Project Planner: Renee Nickenig, Assistant
Planner, renee.nickenig@cityofsanrafael.org
Agenda Item: 3
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 380 Margarita Drive – ED21-011 (PLAN21-019) for construction of a new single-family
home with a detached garage; APN: 015-320-03; Planned Development District (PD)
1808-H; Will Kelty, Owner and Applicant.
SUMMARY
This project is being referred to the Design Review Board to advise on the design of the single-family
residence on a hillside property, which is defined as a minor physical improvement under San Rafael
Municipal Code (SRMC) § 14.25.040. The design of the residence is consistent with most applicable
development standards but deviates significantly from the Design Guidelines to All Hillside Residential
Development Projects. Staff is requesting the Board review the proposed design and recommend
approval, approval with conditions, redesign or denial to the Zoning Administrator.
REQUESTED ENTITLEMENT
The proposed project is subject to review, and approval of the entitlement described below. Staff request
the Design Review Board (DRB) to provide design-related comments and recommendations to the
Zoning Administrator on the requested Environmental and Design Review Permit.
• Environmental and Design Review (ED21-011). San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) §
14.25.040, specifies that new construction of a single-family residence is classified as a Minor
Physical Improvement, which is subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Per
SRMC § 14.25.070, the Design Review Board (DRB) is being asked to advise on the
appropriateness of the development proposal and to recommend approval, approval with
conditions, redesign or denial to the Zoning Administrator.
PROPERTY FACTS
The following table provides an overview of General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site
and immediately surrounding area as well as existing developed land uses. In addition, this section
provides an overview of the project’s compliance with applicable development standards set forth in
Planned Development District (PD) 1808 and SRMC § 14.12.030.
Table 1: Designations and Existing Uses
Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: HRR PD1808-H Single-Family Residential
North: PROS P/OS Open Space
South: HRR PD1808-H Single-Family Residential
East: HRR PD/R2a-H Single-Family Residential
West: HRR R2a-H Condominiums
- 2 -
HRR = Hillside Resource Residential; PROS = Parks, Recreation, and Open Space; PD = Planned
Development; P/OS = Public/Open Space; R2a = Single-Family Residential; -H = Hillside Development
Overlay District
Table 2: Development Standards Summary (PD1808)
Development Standard Required/Permitted Proposed Consistent
Minimum lot area 12.83 acres 12.83 acres (no
change)
Yes
Maximum Height 30 feet 16 feet Yes
Maximum Gross
Building Area
6,500 sq. ft. 5,507 sq. ft. Yes
Parking Two covered spaces
Two guest spaces
Two covered spaces
Two guest spaces
Yes
Architectural
Standards
PD 1808 approved a
residence specific to Lot
B
The proposed
residence does not
comply with the
approved residence.
No
SITE DESCRIPTION & SETTING
The project site is located north of Margarita Drive, from where
the property is accessible. The property is bordered by single-
family residential properties at the south, southwest, and
southeast, and public open space and Harry Barbier Memorial
Park at the north, northwest, and northeast. The majority of the
property is undisturbed hillside, with an existing graded portion
at the south designated for development.
Building Envelope
Ordinance No. 1808 for PD 1808 (Attachment A) designates a
“building envelope” in which all built features at the site must be
contained:
“Building Envelopes” and the open space reservation within Lot
B are established on the Site Plan prepared by Lawrence Doyle
and Associates. Structures requiring permits including buildings,
accessory structures, pools, decks and similar facilities shall be
constructed only within such “Building Envelopes.” No building
or accessory structures shall be permitted outside the “Building
Envelopes”. Landscaping, fencing, driveway and entryway
improvements as defined under Section 7 below and indicated on the approved development plan and
site utilities and fire protection facilities shall be permitted outside the “Building Envelopes.”
Figure 1. Subject Property
- 3 -
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Plan
The project proposes to construct an approximately 3,990 sq. ft. single-family home with an
accompanying approximately 1,296 sq. ft. pool, and an approximately 1,767 sq. ft. detached garage.
Both structures are one-story tall with flat roofs and overhanging eaves. The project includes a new paved
driveway and turnaround. Retaining walls that range in height from 4 feet to 9 feet tall are proposed in
order to clear space for the proposed driveway.
Figure 2. Recorded Map with “Building Envelope”
- 4 -
Floor Plan
The proposed single-family residence includes a central dining and living area flanked by guest and
master bedrooms and a separate closet. The detached accessory structure includes a two-car garage, a
storage space, and an additional guest bedroom.
Architecture, Colors, and Materials
The project is designed in a Miesian style, as a single rectangular primary structure with predominantly
glass walls and a flat roof. The glass walls are interrupted with dark mullions, and remaining wall surfaces
appear as solid concrete. The flat roof extends to overhanging eaves with wide vertical facias. A pool
extends from the southeast-face portion of the residence supported by unarticulated retaining walls
(maximum 17 feet tall). The non-glass surfaces are shown on the renderings in an off-white neutral color.
Access and Circulation
Vehicular access to the site would be provided via Grand Avenue and would use the existing,
approximately 30-foot wide driveway, which provides access to two uncovered parking spaces, the
passenger loading zone, and the covered parking area, which is located on the first floor of the proposed
building as shown in Figure 2 above. From the covered parking area, access to the main portion of the
first floor is provided via one set of interior swinging doors near the ADA parking stalls, and one interior
swinging door at the southwest portion of the parking area. Bicycle and pedestrian access to the site is
provided via existing and proposed facilities, including short-term bicycle parking on Lincoln Avenue, and
long-term bicycle parking on the interior portion of the first floor. Access throughout the site is provided
via interior and exterior stairs and an elevator.
Landscaping, Lighting, and Fencing
The proposed landscaping is currently proposed to be minimal at the site, with no current plan for fencing
or additional retaining walls apart from those that surround the pool. A lighting plan has not been provided.
ANALYSIS
San Rafael Municipal Code (Title 14 – Zoning)
The property is consistent with all the property development standards set forth in SRMC Section
14.12.030.
Table 3: Development Standards (SRMC § 14.12.030)
Development
Standard Required/Permitted Proposed Consistent
Building
Stepback
On any downhill slope a twenty-foot (20′)
height limit measured from existing grade
shall be observed.
On non-downhill slope, walls facing front and
side property lines shall have a twenty-foot
(20′) height limit measured from existing
grade shall be observed within all areas
within fifteen feet (15′) of the maximum
building envelope limit.
No wall on the project
exceeds 20’ Yes
Figure 3. Proposed Site Plan
- 5 -
Table 3: Development Standards (SRMC § 14.12.030)
Development
Standard Required/Permitted Proposed Consistent
Natural
State
A minimum area of twenty-five percent
(25%) of the lot area plus the percentage
figure of average slope, not to exceed a
maximum of eighty-five percent (85%),
90% Yes
Gross Building
Square Footage
The maximum permitted gross building
square footage of all structures (including
garages and accessory structures over one
hundred twenty (120) square feet) is limited
to two thousand five hundred (2,500) square
feet plus ten percent (10%) of the lot area
with the maximum gross square footage set
at six thousand five hundred (6,500) square
feet.
6,500 sq. ft. Yes
Ridgeline
Development
Development of new structures within one
hundred (100) vertical feet of a visually
significant ridgeline.
Addressed via the
“Building Envelope”
in PD1808
Yes
Parking
Requirements
Two covered spaces
Two guest spaces
Two covered spaces
Two guest spaces Yes
Street and
Driveways
New street and driveway grades shall not
exceed eighteen percent (18%)
New driveway at 18%
grade Yes
Design Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside Residential Development Projects
While the proposed project is generally consistent with the Design Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside
Residential Development Projects, the proposed colors and materials of the project do not reflect those
recommended in said guidelines.
General Site Design Criteria
The proposed project is consistent with the general site design criteria as it:
• Contributes to the hillside character of the residential neighborhood as a unique design with a low
profile
• Complies with the required hillside development standards, including containing the proposed
structures within the established “building envelope”
• Does not have a significant impact on the existing natural features at the site
• Does not block or negatively contribute to any existing significant views, or impact the privacy of
neighboring properties
- 6 -
Preservation of Existing Natural Features
The proposed new structures will be entirely contained with the established “building envelope”, and so
there will be no additional impact on the existing natural features at the site.
Hillside Architectural Character
The DRB is being asked to comment on the proposed design features that do not align the with applicable
design criteria outlined below.
GUIDELINE PROPOSED STAFF ANALYSIS
BUILDING FORM
New Hillside Residential Architecture is
San Rafael should continue the
dominant pattern of one- and two-story
buildings with tree canopied spaces
around them.
The project proposes two
one-story structures with
minimal landscaping.
While little landscaping is
proposed, there will not be a
significant difference from the
current state of the hillside.
All buildings should have shadow reliefs
created by modest overhangs, minor
projections (greater on uphill elevations),
recesses and plan offsets.
The building forms
proposed are not
articulated in shapes but
include generous
overhanging eaves.
Large unbroken expanses of wall should
be avoided
The glass elevations of
the proposed primary
residence and accessory
structure are articulated
with differing materials
and substantial mullions.
The concrete portions of
the primary residence
and accessory structure
and retaining wall of the
pool are not articulated,
creating large expanses
of unbroken walls.
Textured materials or
additional detailing could
create more articulation on
the solid portions of the
structures and pool retaining
wall.
Additional landscaping could
also provide screening of the
more prominent walls.
- 7 -
ROOF FORMS AND PLAN OFFSETS
Give careful consideration to views of
rooftops from other hillside areas,
adjacent roads and uphill properties.
Flat roofs that require membrane or built-
up roofing materials are discouraged
except in small and non-visible areas or
when approved by the Design Review
Board.
Allow small areas of flat roofs only in
small less visible areas.
The two structures at the
site are proposed with
flat roofs and extended
eaves. The presence of
the flat roof will be
minimally apparent from
neighboring properties
and public areas, and the
eaves will provide
articulation and partially
shaded areas.
Materials and colors with
complimentary earth tones
could further minimize with
roof plane.
BUILDING MATERIALS, TEXTURE
AND COLOR
Color selection should show evidence of
coordination with the predominant colors
and values of the surrounding
landscape. This is to minimize contrast
of the structure with its background when
viewed from the surrounding community.
Roof colors should tend toward darker
earth tones. Darker colors are less
conspicuous when viewed from a
distance.
The project is currently
shown with lighter colors,
predominately at the
exterior walls, retaining
walls, and roof facias.
Darker colors or more neutral
colors to complement the
existing hillside would
minimize the contrast of the
design against the natural
hillside
Encouraged Building Materials
Exterior Walls:
- Wood siding (fire resistance is an
important consideration here)
- Exposed wood structural members
- Natural colored brick or stone masonry
- Natural colored cement plaster
Glass and concrete
Roofs:
- Fire resistant wood shakes with thick
butts, with Fire Department approval
- Flat Concrete Shingles of earthtone
color
- Flat Clay Tile of earth tone color
- Composition shingles (with thick butts)
of earthtone color
No roof material has
been noted
Discouraged Building Materials
Exterior Walls:
- Large areas of glass.
- Reflective glass.
- Plastic materials made to resemble
masonry or stone.
- Wood shingles and shakes.
Large areas of glass The specific glass type
chosen should mitigate the
effects of large glass planes
as much as possible,
including minimizing glare
and nighttime light pollution
Roofs:
- 8 -
- High contrast or bright colors.
- Built up roofing, if seen from above,
except in small areas.
- Highly reflective or shiny materials.
- Non-fire-resistant materials.
No roof material has
been noted
A dark or neutral colored roof
would better compliment the
hillside
Walls, Fences and Accessory
Structures
Downslope (from the structure) walls not
to exceed three (3) feet in height unless
approved by the Design Review Board.
Where an additional retained portion is
necessary due to unusual or extreme
conditions (such as lot configuration,
steep slope or road design), then the use
of terraced retaining structures shall be
considered on an individual lot basis.
Terraced walls shall not exceed three (3)
feet in height.
The proposed pool is
designed with an
approximately 17 ft.
retaining wall at the
southeast.
The project also
proposes 4-ft. to 9-ft.
retaining walls along the
proposed new driveway.
See below
All buildings should have shadow reliefs
created by modest overhangs, minor
projections (greater on uphill elevations),
recesses and plan offsets.
Shallow eaves at the roof
are proposed
Retaining wall structures holding back
grade to accommodate a patio or terrace
shall conform to the natural hillside
profile as much as possible. Excessively
high retaining walls are prohibited.
In addition to the
proposed 4-ft. to 9-ft.
retaining walls along the
proposed new driveway,
the proposed pool is
designed with an
approximately 17 ft.
retaining wall at the
southeast
Creating multiple and smaller
terraced walls; or utilizing
alternative siding and/or
additional landscaping could
improve the appearance of
the wall(s).
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in
Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject site and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days
prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Public notice was also posted on the subject site
15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Staff have not received any
public comments, as of the posting of this staff report.
CONCLUSION
Staff request input from the DRB on the issues raised in this staff report with regards to the consistency
of the project with specific provisions in the Design Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside Residential
Development Projects. The DRB may recommend approval, approval with conditions, redesign or denial
to the Zoning Administrator for this Environmental and Design Review application.
EXHIBITS
1. Ordinance 1808
2. Design Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside Residential Development Projects
3. Project Civil Site Plan
4. Project Renderings
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date: November 8, 2022
Case Numbers: LLA20-004; ED20-046/EX21-
001; ED20-047/EX21-002/V22-
002
Project Planner: Monica Ly, Senior Planner,
monica.ly@cityofsanrafael.org
Agenda Item: 4
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: APNs 011-031-44 – 47 on Coleman Drive – Request for a Lot Line Adjustment,
Environmental and Design Review, Exception, and Variance for: a) lot line adjustment
between four lots to create two consolidated lots; b) a new three-story 2,548 square-foot
modular home, 465 square-foot carport, 1,339 square-foot roadway, rooftop decks, and
other site improvements on the newly consolidated lot of 011-031-44 & 45; c) a new three-
story 2,548 square-foot modular home, 368 square-foot carport, 1,641 square-foot roadway,
rooftop decks, and other site improvements on the newly consolidated lot of 011-031-46 &
47.; and d) retaining walls up to 14’-8” in height, building stepback encroachment of up to
23%, a 4’-3” reduction in covered parking, and an encroachment into the required side and
front yards; APNs: 011-031-46 - 47; Single-family Residential (R10) Hillside Overlay District;
Glass Homes Inc., applicant – Will Hoskins, Spencer Rise Trust, Terry Kownack and River
Landon LLC, owners; File No(s).: LLA20-004; ED20-047/EX21-002/V22-002; ED20-
046/EX21-001.
SUMMARY
The proposed project is being referred to the Design Review Board (DRB) as it proposes a lot line
adjustment between four lots to create two consolidated lots and on each lot, the applicant proposes to
construct the following:
• On Lots 011-031-44 & 45 (Lots 44 & 45): a three-story 2,548 square-foot modular home, 465
square-foot carport, 1,339 square-foot roadway, retaining walls up to 14’-8”, rooftop decks, and
other site improvements.
• On Lots 011-031-46 & 47 (Lots 46 & 47): a three-story 2,548 square-foot modular home, 368
square-foot carport, 1,641 square-foot roadway, retaining walls up to 14’-8”, rooftop decks, and
other site improvements.
Pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.25.040, major physical improvements require
Design Review Board recommendation to the Planning Commission for recommendation and final
decision by the City Council. Staff is seeking feedback from the Board regarding applicable design
guidelines and regulations and requests that the Board review this report, make a determination on the
project’s compliance with applicable design-related guidelines and regulations, and take one of the
following actions based on the project consistency determination:
• Provide recommendations to the applicant and direct that the project return to the Board for
additional review prior to scheduling the project for consideration by the Planning Commission; or
• Forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission, with conditions of approval
as applicable.
REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS
The proposed project is subject to review and approval of the entitlements described below.
• Lot Line Adjustment (LLA20-004). As specified in Chapter 15.05 of the SRMC, all requests to
adjust or consolidate lot line(s) between or among four (4) or fewer adjacent parcels or lots shall
require the filing of an application with the department of Community Development. Action on all
lot line adjustment and lot consolidation applications shall be by the Community Development
Director.
• Environmental and Design Review (ED20-046; ED20-047). Chapter 14.25 (Environmental and
Design Review Permits) of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) sets forth regulations for types
of development activities subject to environmental and design review within the City of San
Rafael. As specified in Section 14.25.040, new construction on vacant property is classified as a
Major Physical Improvement, which is subject to review and approval by the City’s Planning
Commission. As detailed in Section 14.25.070, the Board is responsible for reviewing and
providing recommendations to the Planning Commission on all major physical improvements. The
project proposes new construction on vacant property and as such is defined as a major physical
improvement subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval by the Planning
Commission.
• Exception (EX21-001; EX21-002).
o As specified in Section 14.16.140.2.a of the SRMC, Retaining walls over four feet (4′) in
height on hillside parcels (i.e., property that contains a slope of twenty-five percent (25%)
or greater or designated -H Overlay) may be permitted with environmental and design
review subject to Design Review Board recommendation, if the Community Development
Director finds it necessary to minimize grading and/or tree removal impacts. As proposed,
the approximately 14’-8” retaining walls proposed on both lots will exceed four feet and is
therefore subject to review and approval of an exception.
o As specified in Section 14.12.030.A.2 of the SRMC, on a non-downhill slope lot, walls
facing front and side property lines shall have a twenty-foot (20′) height limit measured
from existing grade that shall be observed within all areas within fifteen feet (15′) of the
maximum building envelope limit. To allow for design flexibility on non-downhill slopes, an
encroachment into the street front, street side and interior side stepback is permitted along
twenty-five percent (25%) of the building length.
o As specified in Section 14.12.030.B, structures may encroach into a required yard or
setback for a distance of not more than one-half (½) of the required yard or setback,
subject to approval by the hearing body of an environmental and design review permit,
with the recommendation of the Design Review Board that the decrease minimizes the
impact of hillside development and grading. If such a reduction is granted, a compensating
increase in setback is required in the opposing setback, i.e., a five-foot reduction in a front
yard setback would increase the rear yard setback by five feet (5'). Exceptions to the
property development standards of the Hillside Development Overlay District may be
approved by the City Council, upon the recommendation of the Design Review Board and
the Planning Commission.
• Variance (V22-002) Lot 46 & 47. As specified in Section 14.18.040 of the SRMC, single-family
residences require two covered parking spaces per unit. The applicant is requesting a variance
to allow one partially covered parking stall (15’-9” covered) + (4’-3” open) = 10’x20’. The zoning
administrator shall hear all variance applications except variances applications that are a part of
a project being heard at a higher level. Any matter that is judged not to be routine matter by the
Community Development Director shall be heard by the Planning Commission.
PROPERTY FACTS
The following tables provide an overview of General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site
and immediately surrounding area as well as existing developed land uses. In addition, this section
provides an overview of the project’s compliance with applicable development standards set forth in Table
14.04.050 of the San Rafael Municipal Code.
Table 1: Designations and Existing Uses
Location/APN General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
275 Coleman/
011-031-44
Low Density Residential R10 Vacant
011-031-45 Low Density Residential R10 Vacant
North: Low Density Residential R10 Single-family Residence
South: Low Density Residential R10 Vacant
East: Low Density Residential R7.5 Single-family Residence
West: Low Density Residential R10 Single-family Residence
281 Coleman/
011-031-46
Low Density Residential R10 Vacant
011-031-47 Low Density Residential R10 Vacant
North: Low Density Residential R10 Vacant
South: Low Density Residential R10 Vacant
East: Low Density Residential R7.5 Single-family Residence
West: Low Density Residential R10 Single-family Residence
Table 3: Development Standards Summary
275 Coleman/011-031-44 & 011-031-45
Development Standard Required/Permitted On Proposed Lot Consistency
Lot Requirements
Minimum lot area 10,000 sf 21,527 sf Yes
Minimum lot width 75 feet 100.24 feet Yes
Minimum Yards
Front 20 feet 16.9 feet Exception Requested
Left Side 10 feet 5.2 feet Exception Requested
Right Side 10 feet 31.7 feet Yes
Side (Street) 10 feet N/A N/A
Rear 10 feet 137.7 feet Yes
Maximum Height 30 feet 30 feet Yes
Maximum Lot Coverage 40% (8,611 sf) 8.5% (1,835 sf) Yes
Maximum upper story
floor size
50%/75% of lot coverage
calculation
Parking (Vehicular) Covered Parking: 2
Guest Parking: 2
Covered Parking: 2 (10’x20’)
Guest Parking: 2 (9’x19’)
Yes
H Development Standards
Building Stepback Walls facing downhill, front
and side property lines
within 15’ of the building
envelope are subject to 20’
height limit
±20’-7” 23% Encroachment
Requested
Natural State
Requirement
69.09% (14,873 sf) 81.57% (17,561 sf) Yes
FAR 10% of lot area plus 2,500 sf
2,153+2,500= 4,653 (0.216)
2,548/21,527 = 0.118 Yes
Table 2: Development Standards Summary
281 Coleman/ 011-031-46 & 011-031-47
Development Standard Required/Permitted On Proposed Lot Consistency
Lot Requirements
Minimum lot area 10,000 sf 20,414 sf Yes
Minimum lot width 75 feet 98.51 feet Yes
Minimum Yards
Front 20 feet 44.3 feet Yes
Left Side 10 feet 10.0 feet Yes
Right Side 10 feet 28.4 feet Yes
Side (Street) 10 feet N/A N/A
Rear 10 feet 112.9 feet Yes
Maximum Height 30 feet 30 feet Yes
Maximum Lot Coverage 40% (8,166 sf) 8.75% (1,787 sf) Yes
Maximum upper story
floor size
50%/75% of lot coverage
calculation
Parking (Vehicular) Covered Parking: 2
Guest Parking: 2
Covered Parking: 1 (10’x20’)
Partially Covered: 1 (15’-9”)
Guest Parking: 2 (9’x19’)
Variance Requested
H Development Standards
Building Stepback Walls facing downhill, front
and side property lines within
15’ of the building envelope
are subject to 20' height limit
±21’-9” 23% Encroachment
Requested
Natural State Requirement 68.21% (13,925 sf) 77.02% (15,723 sf) Yes
FAR 10% of lot area plus 2,500 sf
2,041+2,500=4,541 (0.222)
2,548/20,414 = 0.124 Yes
BACKGROUND
///Continued on Next Page///
Site Description & Setting
The project site consists of four
vacant lots located in the
Lincoln/San Rafael Hill
neighborhood within the R10
zoning district. The lots are
located side by side with each lot
having frontage on Coleman
Drive. The lots are more than 500
feet away from the ridgeline.
Since all four lots have average
slopes greater than 25% they are
also classified as hillside lots
subject to hillside development
standards as well as the R10
zoning district development
standards.
Lots 44 & 45 are vacant lots with
an average slope of 44.09%. On
lot 44, there are several large
trees located along the north. No
significant trees will be removed.
An easement over and across
the lots is shown on certain maps entitled, "Map of Chula Vista Terrance," recorded in Book 4 of Maps,
on page 27, Marin Counter Records.
Lots 46 & 47 are vacant lots with an average slope of 43.21%. There are a few trees located on the
easterly portion of the lots. Two significant trees will be removed in order to construct the proposed
improvements and 10 new 15-gallon trees will be planted on-site as a replacement (the required
replacement is 6).
The houses in the surrounding neighborhood consist of a mix of traditional and contemporary style homes
built in the late 40s, 50s, and 60s. The roof forms above these homes are mostly pitched roofs with a few
homes having flat roof forms and some having a combination of both. Some of the homes have attached
garages and others have no off-street parking.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Plan
The applicant is proposing a lot line adjustment between four lots APNs 011-031-44 - 47 (Figure 2) to
consolidate the lots, forming two lots: APNs 011-031-44 & 45; 011-031-46 & 47 (Figure 3). On each lot,
the applicant proposes to construct the following:
• On Lots 011-031-44 & 45 (Lots 44 & 45): a three-story 2,548 square-foot modular home, 465
square-foot carport, 1,339 square-foot roadway, retaining walls up to 14’-8”, rooftop decks, and
other site improvements.
• On Lots 011-031-46 & 47 (Lots 46 & 47): a three-story 2,548 square-foot modular home, 368
square-foot carport, 1,641 square-foot roadway, retaining walls up to 14’-8”, rooftop decks, and
other site improvements.
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
Figure 2: Existing Lot Lines
Figure 3: Consolidated Lot Lines
Floor Plans
The project proposes the same floor plan for each home proposed to be constructed. The floor plan
includes three levels with the living area, powder room, and kitchen on the first level; 3 bedrooms and 2
bathrooms on the second level; and a loft and rooftop decks on the third level.
Architecture
The applicant is proposing to construct: a 30-tall, three-story 2,548 square-foot factory-built modular
home on each consolidated lot. The buildings will feature:
• Flat roofs at varying heights.
• An attached carport on the front
elevation. This area also functions
as an upper-story deck.
• Entry stairs on the left elevation
provide exterior access to the
building, but also contribute to
breaking up the mass on the left
side of the buildings.
• The third floor will be stepped back
by approximately 7’-4” from the first
floor.
• Roof top decks with metal
guardrails.
///Continued on Next Page///
Figure 4: Site Plan for Lots 44 & 45
Material and Colors
The materials and colors for the
proposed homes are the same on both
consolidated lots. There will be
alternating uses of colors and
materials on each elevation including
James Hardie siding in Woodstock
Brown; concrete boards in Antique
White; James Hardie siding in Gray
Slate; and James Hardie Night Gray
accent. The guardrail along the roof
deck will be constructed of grey metal.
The roofing materials will be composed
of a white TPO membrane. The doors
and windows will be constructed of
white aluminum frames. Staff believes
that the proposed materials and colors
are generally consistent with the
Hillside Design Guidelines which state
that materials and colors should be
consistent with the context of the
surrounding area. Although flat roofs
that require membranes are
discouraged in the Hillside Design
Guidelines, they may be approved by
the Design Review Board. Additionally, there is a property nearby at 241 Colman Drive that appears to
have a mostly flat roof with TPO membrane roofing materials.
Table 3: Materials and Colors
Roof Siding Body
Color
Accent
Colors Railings
White TPO
Membrane
James Hardie
Woodstock
Brown
James Hardie
Artic White
James Hardie
Night Gray
James Hardie
Gray Slate
Metal Grey
Access, Circulation, and Parking
Vehicular access to the site will be provided through the installation of a new 150 feet long by 20 feet
wide roadway off Coleman Drive across all four lots along the front of the lots. Vehicular access to Lots
Figure 5: Building View
44 & 45 is provided by an east-west oriented driveway measuring approximately 9’-6” in width and 20’-
0” in depth. There will be a 20’ x 20’ double carport and two 19’ x 9’ uncovered guest parking stalls.
Vehicular access to Lots 46 & 47 is provided by two driveways. One will be located at the end of the new
road on the south side of the lot and the other driveway will be located on the north side. There will be a
10’ x 20’ covered parking stall, a 10’ x 20’ partially covered parking stall (15’-9” covered; 4’-3” open), and
two 19’ x 9’ uncovered guest parking stalls.
Walls, Fences, and Screening
The retaining wall behind the building will be approximately 14’-8” in height. The retaining wall on the
front elevation will be up to 14’-0” in height and will form the wall of the parking stalls. A trellis attached
to the retaining walls will support creeping plants. As mentioned previously, because the height of the
retaining wall exceeds 4’-0”, they will require DRB recommendation. There will be a 2’-0” tall off-red
color-treated pressure-treated pine fence located along the front and side property lines in the front yard.
Landscaping
On Lots 44 & 45, no significant trees will be removed but ten 15-gallon trees, 200 plants, and 13 vines
will be planted. On Lots 46 & 47, two significant trees will be removed in order to construct the proposed
improvements and 10 new 15-gallon trees will be planted. Additionally, 268 plants and 5 vines will be
planted on site. The focus of the landscape design is to make small enhancements to the natural
environment, water efficiency, and preserve the natural state. Staff believes that the proposed landscape
plan is generally consistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines as it states that natural landscape will be
preserved as practically feasible by minimizing grading, and tree and rock removal. Additionally, the
plants were selected to recognize the importance of water conservation, fire resistance, and erosion
control.
Grading/Drainage
As proposed, the project includes grading mostly on the east side of the lots and is estimated to result
in a net export of 998.22 cubic yards from Lots 44 & 45, 891.51 cubic yards from lots 46 & 47, and
77.65 cubic yards from the proposed roadway.
ANALYSIS
Staff is seeking feedback and recommendations from the DRB on the following design-related standards
of review. A complete analysis of both design and non-design-related standards of review will be included
in the staff's report to the Planning Commission:
• San Rafael Hillside Design Guidelines
• San Rafael Municipal Code
o Title 14 – Zoning
o Title 15 – Subdivisions
Hillside Residential Design Criteria
A new hillside residential development should:
• Contribute to the hillside character of San Rafael's residential neighborhoods.
• Reflect the City's design goals and policies as expressed in the General Plan.
• Preserve or protect unique or special natural features of the site, such as land forms, rock
outcroppings, mature trees and vegetation, drainage courses, hilltops and ridgelines.
• Avoid the highly visible open hillside areas.
• Be compatible with the natural features, building location and existing open spaces of neighboring
properties.
• Respect the existing views, privacy, access to light and safety of neighboring properties
• Avoid the unstable or hazardous portions of the site.
• Minimize the removal of natural vegetation.
According to the Hillside Design Guidelines:
San Rafael’s Hillside Residential Architecture should develop a semi-rural character with a strong
relationship to the natural setting. New buildings should be simple one- and two-story buildings in
recessive colors with pitched roofs and buildings and roof forms should be “broken” into
compositions of smaller components to reflect the irregular forms of the hillside setting.
The proposed three-story modular style buildings have flat roof forms and do not break up into smaller
components to reflect the irregular forms of the hillside setting. However, architectural elements that are
characteristic of rural buildings are preferred and are not necessarily mandatory. Staff has conducted a
site visit and found that the homes in the neighborhood are mostly traditional and contemporary style
homes with pitched roofs with some homes having flat roofs. Staff requests the Board’s feedback on
whether the building’s modular design contributes to the hillside character of San Rafael’s residential
neighborhoods.
San Rafael Municipal Code (Title 14 – Zoning)
Staff would like input regarding the following requested exceptions and variance:
Section 14.12.030 - Property development standards (-H)
As specified in Section 14.12.030 of the SRMC, walls facing downhill, and front and side property lines
within fifteen feet (15’) of the building envelope are subject to twenty-foot (20') height limit (unarticulated
wall plane) measured from existing grade. On consolidated Lots 44 & 45, a portion of the height of the
building (±20’-7”) will encroach approximately 23% into the front building stepback height limit of 20’-0”.
Additionally, on consolidated Lots 46 & 47, a portion of the height of the building (±21’-9”) will encroach
approximately 23% into the front and left building stepback height limit of 20’-0”. Under Section 14.12.030
of the SRMC, to allow for design flexibility on non-downhill slopes, an encroachment into the street front,
street side and interior side stepback is permitted along twenty-five percent (25%) of the building length.
Staff is seeking the Board’s recommendation for the exception.
Section 14.04.030 - Property development standards (R)
As specified in Table 14.04.030 of the SRMC, the front setback requirement is 20 feet, the rear setback
requirement is 10 feet, and the side setback requirement is 10 feet. On Lots 44 & 45, the proposal will
not comply with the front setback requirement of 20 feet because the proposed carport will be setback
approximately 16.9 feet to avoid excessive grading, additional cut removal from the site, a steep gradient
to the driveway and parking, and the creation of a large underground drainage system. Per Section
14.12.030.B, structures may encroach into a required yard or setback for a distance of not more than
one-half (½) of the required yard or setback, subject to approval by the hearing body of an environmental
and design review permit, with the recommendation of the design review board that the decrease
minimizes the impact of hillside development and grading. If such a reduction is granted, a compensating
increase in setback is required in the opposing setback, i.e., a five-foot reduction in a front yard setback
would increase the rear yard setback by five feet (5'). Staff believes that the reduction is necessary to
decrease the impact of hillside development and grading. A compensating increase in the rear setback
will be provided as the proposed rear setback will be 137’-8.4”. Staff is seeking the Board’s
recommendation for the exception.
Additionally, Lots 44 & 45 will not comply with the left-side setback requirement of 10 feet because the
building will be situated approximately 5.2 feet from the left property line. The applicant indicated that a
significant increase in excavation would be needed to meet the 10 feet required setback. Per Section
14.24.020.B of the SRMC, the minimum front and side setbacks may be decreased by not more than five
feet (5′) in the R10 district. 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 an essential open space
or recreational amenity to the use of the site, and where such decrease will not unreasonably affect
abutting sites. Staff believes that the proposed setback is in character with the surrounding homes in the
neighborhood as the homes within the vicinity have side setbacks ranging from 0 to 10+ feet. Additionally,
the setback is not required as an essential open space or recreational amenity to the use of the site; and
the decrease will not unreasonably affect the abutting site as the abutting building will be setback 28’-
4.8” from the property line. Staff is seeking the Board’s recommendation for the exception.
Section 14.16.140 - Fences and walls
As specified in Section 14.16.140.2.a of the SRMC, retaining walls over four feet (4′) in height on hillside
parcels (i.e., property that contains a slope of twenty-five percent (25%) or greater or designated -H
Overlay) may be permitted with environmental and design review subject to design review board
recommendation, if the community development director finds it necessary to minimize grading and/or
tree removal impacts. As proposed, the approximately 14’-8” retaining walls located on the rear of both
of the proposed lots and the 14’-0” retaining walls located on the front of both the proposed lots will
exceed 4’ and is therefore subject to review and approval of an exception. The applicant indicated that
the exception was necessary due to the natural slope gradient of the lot and to minimize grading. Staff is
seeking the Board’s recommendation for the exception.
The above requests for exceptions require Board recommendation to the Planning Commission for
recommendation and final decision by the City Council. Findings for approval of these exceptions include
the following:
A. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property or land use, including but not
limited to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that warrant granting of a minor
exception from the strict application of the standards in this title;
B. That granting the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare.
Section 14.18.040 - Parking requirements
Per Section 14.18.040 of the SRMC, single-family residences require two covered parking spaces per
unit. Additionally, on streets less than 26 feet wide, a minimum of two additional on-site parking spaces
shall be provided (not on the driveway apron) per unit. The two newly consolidated lots will have four
parking stalls on each lot. On Lots 46 & 47, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow one partially
covered parking stall (15’-9” covered) + (4’-3” open) = 10’ x 20’ in order to significantly reduce excavation
as the entire parking area would be required to be much lower to accommodate the entrance. Staff
believes that there will be a sufficient number of on-site parking. Staff is seeking the Board’s
recommendation on the requested variance to allow a partially covered parking stall in order to
significantly reduce excavation. The above request for a variance requires Planning Commission
recommendation with a final decision by the City Council.
Title 15 – Subdivisions
Upon the Board's recommendation, staff shall prepare a report indicating that the application is consistent
with the San Rafael general plan, is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance (Title 14), and is in
conformance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) then proceed to take action on the application.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice was sent to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site within 15 days of the board
meeting. Notice was also posted on the site a minimum of 15 days prior to the meeting. Correspondence
that has been received to date is attached to this report and summarized below.
The property owners at 234 Coleman Drive had four major concerns regarding the proposed project
including: unstable soil and mudslides; whether the foundation would be adequate to prevent mudslides;
whether there will be enough drainage pipes to support adequate drainage, and the removal of on-street
parking.
The property owners at 264 Coleman Drive had four major concerns regarding the proposed project
including: the removal of on-street parking and insufficient on-street parking; whether the drainage would
be adequately designed; whether the mudslides have been taken into account in the drainage design;
and fire risk to the neighborhood.
The property owner at 5 Fair Drive had five major concerns regarding the proposed project including the
project’s contribution to climate change; disruption of the ecosystem; construction safety hazards,
insufficient parking; and emergency vehicle access.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Board review the project and determine whether the project design is
appropriate given the proposed use and setting and should determine if any additional recommendations
should be incorporated into the project design. If the Board determines that recommendations and
revisions to the proposed project are minimal, the Board should provide a recommendation to the
Planning Commission on the project. If revisions to the project would require additional review prior to
Planning Commission review of the project, the Board should provide detailed and targeted
recommendations to the applicant, and direct staff to return to the Board for review of the project. Staff
requests that the Board provide recommendations, and conditions, if deemed appropriate related to the
following:
• Building design
• Exception for retaining walls over four feet
• Building stepback encroachment of 23%
• Front setback exception on Lots 44 & 45
• Left side setback exception on Lots 44 & 45
• Variance for covered parking
The Board’s recommendations will help with a formal recommendation to the Planning Commission and
a final decision by the City Council
EXHIBITS
1. Architectural Plans: Lots 011-031-44 & 45
2. Architectural Plans: Lots 011-031-46 & 47
3. Civil Plans: Lots 011-031-44 & 45
4. Civil Plans: Lots 011-031-46 & 47
5. Lot Line Layout
6. Public Comment
From:Brad
To:Monica Ly; Planning Public Comment
Cc:
Subject:275 & 281 Coleman Drive Comments
Date:Friday, October 28, 2022 1:21:54 PM
Hi Monica,
We are the homeowners at Coleman Drive, across the street from the proposed development at
275 and 281 Coleman Dr. Please see the following comments:
1. We wanted to alert you that the public notice poster has been erroneously placed further
south on Coleman Drive, over a quarter mile from the effected parcels. I request that this sign
be moved to give the neighborhood appropriate notice.
2. The plans do not show the projected impact to street parking on Coleman Drive. The project
narrative in the architectural plans state “Preserves the 300’ unique street parking at Coleman
Drive.” In actuality, only 120ft of street parking is currently provided within parking boxes on
Coleman Dr with 30ft on the east side and 90 feet on the west side. This is typically sufficient
for 6 vehicles to park legally and these spaces are filled nightly with a few extra illegally
parked. The new driveway appears to cut at least 34 feet out of the middle of the west side
parking box which will result in 3 parking spots remaining on Coleman (2 on the west, 1 on the
east). The reduction of parking will likely cause more illegal parking out of necessity which is a
hazard for emergency vehicle access. So we request the following:
a. The plan should clearly show where street parking boxes will be provided.
b. We would like to request additional road width for parking boxes along the 275
Coleman frontage to mitigate parking lost due to this development.
3. To expand on comment two, our home has never had off-street parking so we are very
sensitive to the impact on our family certainly during construction, but also in the final built
state. Before the parking boxes were added in 2021, there was parking for 9 vehicles at this
intersection. With a reduction to 3 total spaces, we foresee the future scenario in which
parking creates undue stress on our family with three little kids. Is there a way to ensure one
parking space is made available for our vehicle? Can the east side of Coleman Drive be
improved for parking under the scope of this project?
4. We wanted to ensure that drainage was adequately designed off the new driveway so that it
does not have enough velocity to bridge over the crest of Coleman Drive in the direction of
our property.
5. The proposed parcels have had significant mudslide events that have spilled into the roadway
during previous rainy seasons. We would like to ensure that this has been taken into account
in the drainage design to ensure mudslides do not compromise the site drainage or encroach
onto our property.
6. The property owners have neglected to comply with fire danger mitigation requirements for
this property, increasing the fire risk for our neighborhood. We request that the property be
immediately cleared of fire fuel per Municipal Code.
Thank you,
Homeowners – Coleman Drive
From:Elisa
To:Monica Ly
Subject:Nov. 8th design review meeting
Date:Wednesday, November 2, 2022 8:43:18 AM
Hi Monica,
Concerned neighbor
Elisa at Fair Drive
Issues to follow. I will attend via zoom.
Thanks!
I understand this meeting is about zoning and design. But if the project goes into the permit
phase, here are my concerns:
I'm writing in expectation that my concerns will be addressed in the Nov. 8th hearing about
proposed construction of 2 three story single family homes at 275 and 281 Coleman.
I am very concerned about the loss of raw open space. This is a climate change issue. We are
paving over planet earth one acre at a time and it is taking its toll. Less soil to absorb heat.
Less mature trees to create oxygen and neutralize carbon monoxide. Suffocating any microbial
species in the earth; fungi, bacteria, etc., that are necessary for the health of all living things,
now and in the future.
I walk by this piece of land multiple times a day. It is home to many deer, squirrel, coyote,
rabbit, fox, multiple species of bird, insects, etc. All will be displaced and the natural order
will be disrupted.
Will the findings of the environmental impact study be readily and easily accessible by the
public? When is this study set to begin?
I am very concerned about the impact on traffic and safety. This stretch of road is very narrow
and windy with no shoulder on either side. It is already very difficult to navigate as two cars
try to pass each other in opposite direction. One car will need to back to an area of road that
has a shoulder, or to a residential section and back into a driveway, so the other car can pass. I
cannot imagine that construction on this section of road wouldn't create a dire safety hazard if
there were a life threatening emergency, or a fire, on Lincoln Hill. The fire department has
been on Lincoln Hill marking "white boxes" where cars can legally park to keep our
neighborhood safe. This particular stretch of road has very few "white boxes" i.e. no safe legal
parking within a reasonable proximity to the proposed construction for even a single civilian
vehicle.
Added, we residents really on the very limited "white boxes" for us to park near our homes. If
those are taken by construction vehicles, or possibly removed due to where the property being
discussed is, this is a major inconvenience to those of us who already live here. This will turn
into an unpleasant experience for all involved.
What has been looked into and guaranteed as to where the construction vehicles and workers
will be parking to ensure that this construction is not a hazard? Let alone a simple traffic
nightmare for all those who use this road to go to and from work, and town.
Are we assured that all laws and ordinances have been or will be properly researched and
permitted for this construction regarding emergency vehicle accessibility during the build and
will be complied with?
Lastly. There is no lack of multi million dollar single family homes in San Rafael or Marin. I
find this to be a money grab with grotesque consequences that will be irreversible. Is there any
data that shows the benefit of the addition of two multi story detached single family homes to
our neighborhood?