Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110 Clarendon Road - Staff Report�� � ��� CITY O� BURLINGAME �- m p 9 �RATEo� we6. MEMO DATE: TO: FROM: RE: August 22, 2006 Planning Commission City Planner � ` � � �� Planner's Renort Meeting Date: 8/28/06 FYI — REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 110 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1. History: On August 14, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised landscape plan and new garage door, for the proj ect at 110 Clarendon Road, as an FYI item. The Commission did not approve the proposed changes and asked that the applicant either complywith the direction ofthe original approval ofthe project or, bring the item back on the action calendar for review. The applicant has chosen to comply with the direction of the original approval of the project and has submitted a revised, full-size landscape plan and a revised garage plan (sheet G-1) to be reviewed by the Commission. Summary: On June 26, 2006, the Planning Commission approved an application far design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 110 Clarendon Road, zoned R-1, based on the following conditions (June 26, 2006, Planning Commission Minutes): ■ 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 permit; and ■ 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 Planning Corrunission prior to the issuance of the building permit. The applicant has prepared a full landscape plan, chosen a new garage door and is now ready for their Building Permit to be issued. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, the Platuiing Coinmission must review the new proposed landscape plan and new proposed garage door (see attached full-size landscape plan and revised garage plan, sheet G-1). The design of the house, other than the revised landscape plan and new garage door, remains unchanged. A full-size landscape plan (date stamped August 26, 2006) and plans of the new proposed garage door (date stamped July 26, 2006) are included for your review. PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 August 22, 2006 Planning staff would note that because of the Planning Commissions request, this project has been brought back to the Commission as an FYI item and not a design review amendment. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item 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: August 14, 2006 Planning Commission FYI minutes June 26, 2006 Planning Commission Regular Action Minutes Letter from Landscape Designer, date stamped July 26, 2006 Letter from Architect, date stamped July 26, 2006 Originally Approved Garage Plan, date stamped July 26, 2006 Revised Garage Plan, sheet G-1 (with new garage door), date stamped July 26, 2006 Revised Landscape Plan (full-size), date stamped August 16, 2006 City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes IX. PLANNER REPORTS - City Council regular meeting of July 5, 2006 — cancelled. August 14, 2006 - FYI: 110 Clarendon Road - changes to a previously approved Design Review project. C. Deal recused himself from this item because he has a business relationship with the applicant and left the dais and chambers. Commissioners noted that the reduced landscape plan was hard to read and the descriptive information about the shrubs and trees needed to be clarified and even corrected and that the garage door change requires more review. The applicants should bring this item back on the Commission's action calendar for review, unless they wish to comply with the direction of the original approval. - FYI: 1609 Monte Corvino ay - changes to a previously approved Design Review roject. Commission had no commen on the proposed changes. - F: 1548 Newlands Avenue - ch es to a previously approved Desi Review project. Co issioners expressed concerns a out the proposed changes noting th t the window change n the front e vation were not consistent with e approved proportions and that th e were a sufficient n ber of chang roposed that cumulatively the hould be reviewed at a public he ' g. It was recommen d on a 6-0-1 C. Vistica abstaining) voice vo that this item be placed on th Commission's actio calendar for r iew. - FYI: Status Repo n Peninsula Hospital Constructi Hours. Commission ackno edged the complaint log submitt by the Hospital and the des item e-mail larifying two dust co laints made in the month of July. XI. ADJO Chair Browrr�gg adjourned the mee`�ig at 11:10 p.m. submitted, David Cauchi, S S:�IvIINUTES\unapproved 08.14.06.doc 19 i� ,,� City ofBurlinga�ne Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration proj ects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior ar exterior, shall require a demolition permit; (17) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; alid (18) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California 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 enfarce the site maintenance as a planning condition. Need to clarify amendments to the conditions of approval: ■ 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 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 Planning Commission priar to the issuance of the building permit; 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 for 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 construction, and replacing the garage door with one that better matches 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. X. DESIGN REVIE STUDY ITEMS ` 8. 20 ARC WAY, Z ED R-1 — APPLICATIOr L ATION OF A NE ETACHED GARAGE � FRO T SETBACK FOR NEW, TWO-STORY GARA E(MARK ROBE SON, APPLICANT OR DESIGN REVIE� 9�PARKING VARIAN [��I,E FAMII,Y DWE AND Y�ESIGNER; TOM SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OR PARK]NG IN THE � G AND DETACHED LIZ O'CONNOR, Plr Hurin b fly presented the pr �ect description. Commissi er asked staff to clari the separation requirement b ween the house and d ached garage. Plr noted that '-0" is the minimum req 'red separation between structu s, measured eave to ea e. In this case, the distance s measured from the rage eave to the house wall sin there is no eave at the irst floor portion of the hou . There were no furth questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opene e public comment. k Robertson, designer, rep sented the proj ect, no d that there is a three-story apart ent building across the reet on Arc Way, to mini ize the impact deci d to E �, � City of Burlinga�ne Planning Commission Unapp�•oved Minutes June 26, 2006 Commissioner comme ts: not able to support the number variances requested bec se the design is not resolved, the worlc to ad ss the comments at study was not ell integrated into the des ; agree a jumble of components, perhaps re onded too fast; variances requeste are understated, 2 inches the side, front is OK because encroachment i reduced substantially, concerned out the garage created fr the shed in the�ear, design of this building i ot related to the house at all, fe a denial is appropriate. C. Vist�, noting that it would be c eaper to begin again on this d�gn, moved for a denial prejudice.�he motion was seconded b . Osterling. Comment on th motion: Applicant has hea comments, should listen to t es, denial without prejud� gives him the m t options in terms of time d design; clarify not as con rned about the variances, generally minimal, d would support if had a d �gn that would stand up to th objectives of the design guidelines; can this it be referred to design revie � CP noted that it cannot be r erred to design review ow, but if denied witho t prejudice a resubmittal wo d be treated as a new projec nd can be referred to de ' review, a denial wit out prejudice leaves the amo t of change for resubmittal to the applicant, no addi ' nal fees are charged b the city although the applica would be required to pay f the design review process ' it is required. Need give the applicant directio ■ comb' ation of lack of desi and number of variances kes the proj ect unapprov� ■ cannot pport motion becaus do not believe have given ropriate guidance; ■ difficult t develop dynamic des because confined by exi 'ng nonconforming con� new buildin could loosen up and i ake a better design possib • and ■ plans lack det '1, no definition of the indow type, want sizing o corbels, outriggers, missing in inan laces, cannot tell roo sizes etc. Chair rownrigg called for � directio to redesign as noted. procedure were advised. This vote on the to deny this application ithout prejudice with the motion passed on�6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissen 'ng) voice vote. Appeal concluded at 8:50 p 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 because he has a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. 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 suxface material was proposed for the driveway, stamped concrete would be OK since there is not much hard surface proposed far this site. It was noted that the proj ect would benefit from a more artistic garage door conveying a more elegant 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. with 7 �� � City of Burlingame Pl¢n�aing Commission Unapproved Minutes Ju�ae 26, 2006 Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Like 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 more pedestrian friendly 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 have 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 submitted to fl7e 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 meino, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coardinator's April 3, 2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist's April 5, 2006 memo shall be inet; 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 permit; (3) that the garage door shall be replaced with a new garage door wtlich incorporates windows and conveys a more 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 current 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 before issuance of a building permit; (6) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading ar 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, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height ar 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 (triin 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 trim; (10) that all air ducts, plumbing 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 roofridge and provide certification ofthat height to the Building Department; (12) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (13) that priar 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, si�e 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 � ,andscape j�eflections 7/13/06 To 1Nhom it A1ay Concem, My name is Stephanie 0'Rourke with Landscape Reflections. I am the Landscape Designer working with Mr, antl Mrs. Cheng at 110 Clarendon. I have addressed several topics on their landscape pian, 1. I have added moce detail in the drawing. 2. I have separated the planting beds from the driveway using more symbols and lettering. 3, I have added the size of the trees on the landscape plan. �. I have remQved the existing house specs from the landscape plan so that it will be easier to read. �. I have added Grading and Drainage, Planting , Irrigation and General n.otes to the plan.. f. I have added planting detai{s . i. I have added a note to keep tfie site neat during construction. �. I added a note that the driveway will be Stamped Concrete. Tliank you Stephanie O'Rourke Landscape Reflections (650) 347-2499 C27 #7.7.7808 Stephanie O'Rourke Certified Landscape Desig�ier � �������� JUL 2 6 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME 9'1ANNING DEPT. P.O. Box 117522 • Burlingame, CA 94011-7522 • Phone 650 343-1323 • FAX: 650 343-3037 • E-mail: Lreflect@aol.com � JD & ASSOCIATES BUILDING DESIGN 1228 paloma avenue fax (650) 375-8448 email 7-24-2006 & ENGINEERING burlingame, ca. 94010 tele. (650) 343-6014 jda@jerrydeal.biz To: Planning Commission City of Burlingame Re: Response to Planning Commission comments 110 Clarendon Road Burlingame, CA 94010 LANDSCAPIlVG A landscape plan along with a letter of explanation has been prepared by Stephanie O'Rourke of Landscape Reflections. : -.'- : . . - -- - .... �• � • -•. �- • •� . - ' r We look forward to your positive response Thank you, ��r�� �ea� Jerry Deal Principal JD & Associates N o�e.. s� S - . . rXu Doar •� P� ��c�� cloer has been QG�C�C G�' v.M�� sY� [,or�oo��J Wl'�av� S aciL� q Vv��hQ, �Q r�� G��� G m�l s�'�'2nt W i�l� 1'�. � i� h 0�r �. �oJ S:e- �t S 51�.otnM 0.�- 5��� C -l. :' - j�; JUL 2 6 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT.