The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About110 Clarendon Road - Staff Report�� CITY O� BURLINGAME � �'� • q� 90 �Anr[n � �ue 6. MEMO DATE : TO: FRONI RE: August 9, 2006 Planning Commission City Planner Planner's Report Meeting Date: 8/14/06 FYI — REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 110 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1. Summary: On June 26, 2006, the Planning Commission approved an application for 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 shaIl 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 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 Plallning Commission must review the new proposed landscape plan and new proposed garage door (see attached landscape plan and garage door photo). The property owner submitted a letter, dated August 9, 2006, discussing her reasoning in her selection of the new proposed garage door (see attached). The design of the house, other than the new landscape plan and garage door, remains unchanged. A new landscape plan (date stamped July 26, 2006) and photo of the proposed garage door (date stamped August 9, 2006) are included for your review. 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: June 26, 2006 Planning Commission Regular Action Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 August 9, 2006 Letter from Architect, date stamped July 26, 2006 Letter from Landscape Designer, date stamped July 26, 2006 Revised Landscape Plan, date stamped July 26, 2006 Letter from property owner, date stamped August 9, 2006 Originally Approved Garage Plan, date stamped July 26, 2006 Photo of new proposed garage door, date stamped August 9, 2006 Czty ofBz�rlinga»ze Planni�ig Contmissfo�i U�iapproved Mi�zutes i:� Ju�se 26, 2006 Recycling Ordinance which requires affected deinolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or 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; and (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 enforce the site maintenance as a planning condition. Need to clanfy 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 prior 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 pm. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat. DESIGN REVIE4V STUDY ITEMS 8. 20 ARC WAY, Z F L ATION OF A NE FRO T SETBACK FOR GAR.A E (MARI� ROB D R-1 — APPLICATIOT ETACHED GAR.AGE A NEW, TWO-STORY , SON, APPLICANT 15 OTICEDI PROJEC : DESIGN RF ARKING VA �L,E FAMII,Y �r.,�� Plr Hurin br fly presented the pr �ect description. Commissi e requirement b ween the house and d ached garage. Plr noted that between structu s, measured eave to ea e. In this case, the distance the house wall sin there is no eave at the irst floor portion of the h of staff. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR �OR PARI��G IN THE G AND DETACHED ?R; TOM LIZ O'CONNOR, RISTINA WOE R asked staff to clari the separation )" is the minimum req 'red separation �s measured from the rage eave to . There were no furth questions Chair Brownrigg opene e public comment. k Robertson, designer, rep sented tne 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 � City of Bzn-li�aganze Plaruzing Co�nmissio72 Unapproved Minutes Jwze 26, 2006 Commissioner comme ts: not able to support the number variances requested bec ise the design is not resolved, the work to ad ss the comments at study was not ell integrated into the des ; agree a jumble of components, perhaps res 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 not related to the house at all, fe a denial is appropriate. C. Visti , noting that it would be c eaper to begin again on this d ign, moved for a denial ithout prejudice. he motion was seconded b . Osterling. Comment on th motion: Applicant has hea comments, should listen to t es, denial without prejudi 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 ' nai fees are charged b he 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 n kes the project unapprov ble; ■ cannot pport motion becaus do not believe have given ropriate guidance; ■ difficult t develop dynamic des because confined by exi 'ng nonconforming condi ' new buildin could loosen up and ake a better design possib � and ■ plans lack det �1, no definition of the indow type, want sizing o corbels, outriggers, di: missing in man laces, cannot tell roo sizes etc. Chair rownrigg called for voice vote on the mot� directioi to redesign as noted. he motion passed on procedure were advised. This it conciuded at 8:50 with to deny this application ithout prejudice with the 6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissen 'ng) voice vote. Appeal 7. 110 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMII,Y DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (T1NA CHENG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal recused himselfbecause he l�as 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 Moru-oe 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 surface 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. 7 City of Bm�li�zgame Planning Coni»zissio�z Unapproved Mi�zti�tes Jatne 26, Z006 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 thein 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 project 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 proj ect shall be built as shown on the plans submitted 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 amendinent 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 permit; (3) that the garage door shail 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 Cornmission 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 Coinmission FYI before 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, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject 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 contractar 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 Plaru7ing 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 coinbined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions ofthe roofnot visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; (ll) that priar to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a Iicensed 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 surveyor 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 1 � l ASSOCIATES BUILDING DESIGN & F 1228 paloma avenue fax (650) 375-8448 email 7-24-2006 To: Planning Commission City of Burlingame � s burlingame, ca. 94010 tele. (650) 343-6014 j da@j errydeal. biz Re: Response to Planning Commission comments 110 Clarendon Road Burlingame, CA 94010 LANDSCAP]NG A landscape plan along with a letter of explanation has been prepared by Stephanie O'Rourke of Landscape Reflections. :_�,��. --� , -.e .. . _, ,-- -_- • ---• •,-. .. • . • �� .,- .�. �s . � . s - - �- •i _�� . _. .: . . , _ ;-_. -_ - ,� �, � _ �.,;_ , .-. .. . . _,., We look forward to your positive response. Thank you, [/Fi/"/`!f� (/FiQG 0 Jerry Deal Principal JD & Associates ��l�li� JUL 2 6 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAfviE PLANNING DEPT. ,andscape �eflections 7/13/06 To Whom it May Concern, My name is Stephanie 0'Rourke with Landscape Reflections. I am the Landscape Designer working with Mr. and Mrs. Cheng at 110 C�arendon. I have addressed several to.pics on their landscape plan. 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 removed 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 notes to the plan. f. I have added planting details . �. I have added a note fo keep the site neat during construction. $. I added a note that the driveway will be Stamped Concrete. Tfiank you Stephanie 0'Rourke Landscape Reflections (650}347-2499 CZ7 #7.77808 Stephanie O'Rourke Certified Landscape Des(gner � � :_:�� JU� 2 6 2006 �1T1' OF BURLINGAM� PLANNING DEPT. PO. Box 117522 • Burlingame, CA 94011-7522 • Phone 650 343-1323 • FAX: 650 343-3037 • E-mail: Lreflect@aol.com �