Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110 Clarendon Road - Staff ReportM�I1. �o DATE: TO: FROM: RE: October 18, 2006 Planning Cominission City Plamier �� CITY p � � BURLINGAME �- E A 90 �RqtEo� He6. , l� �'�'�v`�-�' ,� -z� �� Planner's Report Meeting Date: 10/23/06 FYI — CHANGES TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR A NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 110 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1. History: On both August 14, 2006, and August 28, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised landscape plan and new garage doar, for the project at 110 Clarendon Road, as an FYI item. The Planning Commission accepted the revised landscape plan and a revised garage plan submitted as an FYI item for the August 28, 2006, Plaiming Commission meeting. Summary: On June 26, 2006, the Planning Commission approved an application far design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage at 110 Clarendon Road, zoned R-1. The applicant is now proposing minor changes to the approved design for changes in window sizes and removal of one window from the master bath shower on the second story at the rear of the house (see revised plans and applicant's letter date stamped October 11, 2006 for a complete list of the proposed changes). The design of the first and second story addition, other than the changes in window size and the removal of one window at the rear of the house, remains unchanged. Previously approved building floor plans and elevations (labeled 'Original') are included for your review. Plamung staff would note that because of the minar revisions to the window sizes and the removal of one window at the rear of the house, it was determined that the proj ect could be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this itein may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Erica Strohmeier Zoning Technician ATTACHMENTS : June 26, 2006 Planning Commission Regular Action Minutes Letter from Designer, date stamped October 11, 2006 Originally Approved and Revised floor plans and elevations (11" x 17"), date stamped October 11, 2006 City of Ba�rli�agame Pla�2ning Commission Unapproved Mina�tes Commissioner corru ents: resolved, the work to dre of components, perhap e OK because encroachm th rear, design of this buil C. V tica, noting that it v prejudi . The motion was Jtine 26, 2006 not able to support the num er of variances requested becat e the design is not ss the comments at study wa not well integrated into the de�i ; agree a jumble sponded too fast; variances re uested are understated, 2 inches n the side, front t is reduced substantially, con eined about the garage created m the shed in ' g is not related to the house a all, feel a denial is appropriate. cheaper to begin again o�this design, moved for a deni�ithout i by C. Osterling. Comment the motion: Applicant s heard comments, should • ten to tapes, deival without preju� gives him th ost options in terms o tiine and desib ; clarify n t as concerned abotrt the vananc generally mini 1, and would support if ad a design that would sta � up to the obj ectives of the design guidelines; can th item be referred to desi review? CP noted that it rulot be referred to desig�z review zow, but if denied � hout prejudice a resub �ttal would be treated as a n w project and can be referred to ign review, a denia ithout prejudice leave he amount of change for r ubmittal up to the applicant, no ad ' ional fees are charg by the city although th applicant would be requir to pay for the design review proc if it is required. ed to give the applican direction: ■ c bination of lack o esign and number of iances makes the proj ect approvable; ■ ca t support motion b ause do not believe ha e given appropriate guida ce; ■ diffic t to develop dyna design because confin d by existing nonconfo � g conditions, with new bui ing could loosen u and make a better desi possible; and ■ plans lac etail, no definition f the window type, wa sizing of corUels, outrig rs, dimensions missing in ny places, camzot t 1 room sizes etc. Chair Bro igg called r a voice vote on e motion to deny this a lication without prejud e with the direction to esign as no . The motion pa ed on a 6-1 (C. Brow � g dissenting) voice vote. Appeal procedures we advised. Tlu 'tem concluded a 8:50 p.in. 7. 110 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TINA CHENG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal recused himself Uecause he has a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down froin the dias and left the chainbers. Reference staff report June 26, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Tina Chen property owner represented the project. She summarized the change they had made to the plans since the study session. Commission asked what st�rface material was proposed for the driveway, stamped concrete would be OK since there is not much hard surface proposed for this site. It was noted that the proj ect would benefit from a more artistic garage door conveying a more elegailt appearance stylistically supporting the design of the house; also the second floor balcony at the rear is rather large, in this case it might work since it is at the center of the lot, but generally discourage such large balconies because of impacts on the neighbor's privacy. Applicant noted they were willing to reduce the size of the balcony. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Co»amission U�aapp�roved Minutes Juiae 26, 2006 Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Lilce to note a typo on the data chart, FAR .49, does the trellis cantilever from the wall? Yes. Counted the Spanish houses in this area, there are a lot but most of them are one story; this design is OK but the rear is mare pedestrian fnendly than the front, will invite entertainment in the rear yard; good house, but too big. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that little bungalows predominate in this area, this proj ect will stand out, but they ha�e kept the tree, reduced the garage from three to two cars, this is a much better project so move approval by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans subinitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 13, 2006, sheets 1 through 5, G-1, F-1 and Ll and dated April 25, 2006, Boundary and Topographic Survey; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 31, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's April 3, 2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist's April 5, 2006 memo shall be met; that the property owner should prepare a full landscape plan and submit it to the Planning Commission as an FYI prior to issuance of a building pennit; (3) that the garage door shall be replaced with a new garage door which incorporates windows and conveys a mare elegant design consistent with the design of the house to be reviewed as an FYI by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the building permit; (4) that the site shall be maintained in a neat and tidy state before and during construction and that all cuirent landscaping shall be maintained until it is replaced; (5) that the property owner shall prepare a full landscape plan and submit it to the Planning Commission FYI befare issuance of a building permit; (6) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; (7) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, wluch would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subj ect to design review; (8) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the proj ect, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; (9) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staffwill inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the proj ect has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; all windows shall be simulated true divided light windows with three dimensional wood mullions and shall contain a stucco-mould triin; (10) that all air ducts, phimbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; (11) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; (12) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyar shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (13) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; (15) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; (16) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris 0 City of Bu��linga�ne PZaiani�2g Conzmissio�2 Unapprroved Minutes E:� staff to clarify� ; minimum requ �sured from the Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration proj ects to subinit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exteriar, shall require a demolition permit; (17) that the applicant shall coinply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (18) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Califoinia Building Code and Califonlia Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: could leave the selection of a better garage door to the applicant; agree with the design reviewer that the landscape plan needs to be improved, currently does not define where the materials begin and end; should add a condition to keep the site neat and tidy during construction and to maintain the existing landscaping during the construction process; number of current conditions from public works and NPDES address maintenance of the site during construction, seems it will be difficult to enforce the site maintenance as a planning condition. Need to clarify amendments to the conditions of approval: that the property owner should prepare a fiill landscape plan and submit it to the Planiling Commission as an FYI priar to issuance of a building permit; that the garage door shall be replaced with a new garage door which incorporates windows and conveys a more elegant design consistent with the design of the house to be reviewed as an FYI by the Plamling Commission prior to the issuance of the building pei7nit; and that the site shall be maintained in a neat and tidy state before and during construction and that all current landscaping shall be maintained until it is replaced. The maker and second of the motion to approve accepted the additional conditions to the motion. Chair Brownrigg called far a voice vote on the motion to approve with three additional conditions addressing submittal of a full landscape plan, maintaining the site and site landscaping during constntction, and replacing the garage door with one that better inatches the proposed design and supports the quality of the new construction. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 ( C. Deal abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat. DESIG�T REVIEW STCJDY ITEMS 1520 ARC AY, ZONE R-1 — APPLr LOCATION F A NEW DE ACHED GA FRONT SETB CK FOR A W, TWO- ARAGE (M ROBERT N, APP] P OPERTY O RS 115 N TICED Plr rin briefly pres ted the pro� ct de; requir ent between th ouse and de che structures, meast the hous�wall since there staff. Ch � Brc there ' a � eave to e no eave at TION FOR DEa GE AND PAR.I� �Y SINGLE F T AND DEf REVIEW, SPE IAL PE T FOR VARIANCE FO ARKIlVG THE I,Y DWELLING ND DETA ED JER; TOM AND O'CO R, STINA WOE R cription. Commissioner a i garage. noted that 4'-0" i In this case, he distance was � irst floor port n of the house. opened the pu�lic comment. � ory apartment building across � ►�.�«r��t•� June 26, 2006 separation separation ��e eave to Robertso� designer, repres ted the project, note�i that street on Ar�Way, to minimi the impact decided to 1 � ♦ ASSOCIATES BUILDING DESIGN 8� 1228 paloma avenue fax (650) 375-8448 email 10-9-2006 To: Planning Department City Of Burlingame ENGINEERING burlingame, ca. 94010 tele. (650) 343-6014 jda@jerrydeal.com Re: Revisions to plan for Cheng Residence New residence 110 Clarendon Rd, Burlingame, Ca REVISIONS TO DRAWINGS � . �: �; : OCT 1 9. 2006 GI7Y OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT� First Floor - The two windows at the rear have changed from 2-3'-0" x 4'-0" to 3-2'-0" x 4'-6". See sheet #3 &#2. - The window at left side has changed from 2'-0"x4'-0" to 2'-0"x4'-6". See sheet #4 &#2. - The four windows at left side have changed from 4-2'-0"�'-0 to 4-2'-0"x2'-6". See sheet #4 &#2. - The four windows at right side have changed from 4-2'-6"�'-6 to 5-2'-0"x2'-6". See sheet #4 &#2. - The window at right side has changed from 3'-0" x 4'-6" to 3'-0" x 5'-0". See sheet #4 &#2. - The window at right side has changed from 3'-0" x 4'-6" to 3'-0" x 5'-0". See sheet #4 &#2. - The two windows at right side have changed from Z'-6" x 4'-6" to 2'-6" x 5'-0". See sheet #4 &z #2. Second floor - The window at the rear has been removed. See sheet #3 &#2. - The window at left side has changed from 2'-6"x4'-0" to 2'-6"x3'-0". See sheet #4 &#2. - The window at left side has changed from 2'-0"x4'-0" to 2'-0"x2'-6". See sheet #4. - The window at left side has changed from 2'-0"x4'-0" to 2'-0"�.'-6". See sheet #4. - The window at right side has changed from 2'-0" x 3'-0" to 2'-0" x 2'-6". See sheet #4. Thank you, �E��� �2// �E"'�G�/(/ v Jerry Deal Principal JD & Associates