HomeMy WebLinkAbout133 Crescent Avenue - Staff Report/ -CI"FY �
. w"/,�.,: ,�"i,7F0
= �
�.�� : � i �
���;
`,ti,ti;+i` ,ilrt,A'
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
January 14, 2019 Director's Report
Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 14, 2019
Erika Lewit, Senior Planner
FYI — REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTED CHANGES TO A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 133 CRESCENT
AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached
garage at 133 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 was approved by the Planning Commission on September
10, 2018 (see attached August 13, 2018 Design Review Study and September 10, 2018 Design Review
Action, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). The project is currently under review for a building
permit.
At the Planning Commission meeting on September 10, 2018, the Planning Commission approved the
project with a condition of approval that the project return to the Planning Commission as an FYI item to
show several revisions. Please refer to the designer's response letter, date stamped January 7, 2019, for
an explanation of the changes made. The revisions requested by the Planning Commission, along with
the changes made by the designer for the FYI submittal, are listed below: '"
1. That the front setback for the house be increased 3-4 feet to reduce the appearance of mass from
the street and so that the proposed architectural style blends better with the existing fabric of the
neighborhood.
a. The front setback has been increased by 2'-0", from 27'-6" to 29'-6" (where 27'-5" is the
minimum required). See sheet A1.0 highlighted in yellow on the revised plans.
2. That the brick base shown on the main house be extended to the mudroom at the right, rear side
of the main dwelling.
a. The brick base has been extended to the mud room on the right side elevation, although
the proposed height of the base for the mudroom is approximately one-third of the height
of the brick base shown on the rest of the house. No change to the base has been made
at the rear of the mudroom, however the same brick is now shown as part of the rear
stoop/patio that extends from the rear of the mudroom and across the length of the
house. See sheet A3.1 highlighted in orange on the revised plans.
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.
Erika Lewit
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by the designer, date stamped January 7, 2019
September 10, 2018 (Action) and August 13, 2018 (Study) Planning Commission Minutes
Proposed plans, date stamped December 21, 2018
Form + One
12098 Highway 42
Ellison Bay, Wisco. 54210
P+ 415.819.0304
E + tim@formonedesign.com
TRANSMITTAL FORM
JA�J 7 2019
C9TY Ci= L�tJ�LiRr.AME
t�Q�-�� ,S,��i�aliJ a 1��V.
To: City of Burlingame Planning Department
Subject: 133 Crescent (B 18-0445)
������.���
4843 Silver Springs Drive
Park City, UT 84098
From: Tim Raduenz
Date Sent: 12/21/18
Number of Pages: 2
Response to Planning Commission FYI:
1. Comment about mud room:
Answer: We added the brick foundation veneer to make it more cohesive. We still did keep the wood band
board as we want that small building to d�er from what the main building is!
2. Site Plan and moving back the structure:
Answer: We moved back the house towards the rear yard to give it a lesser impact at the streetscape.
In talks with Erika, after submittal of drawing: I would like to stress that I had said we could do 24" we
are already way behind the planning minimum setback and we are hoping this will satisfy the planning
committee! We really put time and thought into this project and hope to get building soon! The reason for
not adding more is we would like to dedicate it to the rear yard and family urea!
3. Mud Room Covered entry:
� Answer: We added a small covered enhy at the mud room.
To that end we hope the changes have been impactful and reads as an approvable proj�ct!
Best,
Form + Qne • Design 8c Planning ■ 4843 Silver Springs Drive ■ Park City • UT � 84098 •(ats) 819.0304 • tim@formonedesign.com
Tim Raduenz — CGBP
Build It
MEMBER
Form + One • Design & Planning • 4843 Silver Springs Drive • Park City • UT • 84098 •(ais) 819.0304 • tim@formonedesign.com
� CITY O
�� . �
� �
�� �
��
tico� �� g �' . .
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRiMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, September 10, 2018 7:00 PM Council Chambers
b. 133 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two-story
single family dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303
(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form+ One, applicant and designer; Greg
Gambrioli, 133 Crescent LLC, property owner) (113 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior P/anner Lewit provided an ovenriew of fhe staff reporf.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Why not the change to p/ate heighfs as suggested in the study meeting? (Raduenz: The scale of the
two houses next to each other. Does not think the proposa/ is unreasonable. Seems like 8 feet on the
second f/oor hurts the sca/e.)
> The 3D rendering does not show the revised height? (Raduenz: Correct.)
> What is the design logic of the mud porch with the vertical siding and flat roof? (Raduenz:
Characteristic of older houses. Would typically have a different vernacular than the rest of the house. This
is meant to follow that tradition. F/at roof is meant to reduce the sca/e.)
> Cou/d use a different gesture to beiter integrate fhe added-on e/ement, such as the same brick/stone
from the rest of the house continued onto this piece. Would show intent and care. (Raduenz: Agreed.)
> Reference at 160 West Pop/ar is set further back, and on a wider /ot. Cou/d this one be set back
further? Should have a/arger front yard, a more forma/ approach. (Raduenz: Cou/d be set back 3 or 4
feet. Neighboring house is close.)
> If homeowner is parking in the driveway or garage, maybe a covered porch at the mud room door to
come in with groceries.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul c/osed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Likes the house and the changes, but has an issue with the plate heights. Typically requests the
second floor to be no more than 8 feet. Needs to be applied fair/y.
> There are not other taller houses in the neighborhood. If the ceilings upstairs are 8 feef volume could
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 1/8/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 10, 2018
still be gained with coffered ceilings.
> Nice application, approvable as stands. The commission does not have a han! and fast ru/e witir the
plate heights; 10 feet/9 feet seems like more of an issue.
> Special permit for height has been removed. Oniy request is design review. Wou/d benefit from being
pushed back on the lot further.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the Action
Item with the following condition:
- An FYI application shall be submitted to show that the front setback has been increased by 3
to 4 feet, that the stone base for the main house has been extended to the mud room at the rear,
right side of the house, and that a roof cover be considered at the back door.
� The motion carried by the following vote: ,:., -., „ ;,
� ��
Cfty of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 1/8/2019
� c�Tv O
.��: .� i 1
��,, 3 �
•ti�o�jj�,�4� �
qPOk4i
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, August 13, 2018 7:00 PM Council Chambers
b. 133 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and a Special Permit
for building height for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Tim
Raduenz, Form+ One, applicant and designer; Greg Gambrioli, 133 Crescent LLC,
property owner) (113 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item since she lives within 500 feet of the property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> It is a traditiona/ style but has been broadened. Has there been consideration of changing materials
between first and second floor? Or some kind of articu/ation such as a flair /ine, or trim with dentils and
corbels. (Raduenz: Would be open to it. Tried to do something at the bottom with the clinker brick and
the band. Would be open to doing a flare with the trim detail at the second f/oor line.)
> Have the concems in the neighbor's /eiter been addressed? (Raduenz: Yes. Will make the change to
the /andscaping and get a letter from the neighbor.) ,
> Sheet 3.1 the driveway e/evation /ooks like it is the same as the left side elevation. (Raduenz: �ll
correct it.)
> Was 9' first f/oor/8' second floor considered? (Raduenz: Looked at it, but the design has been
patterned off of a remodeled house on Poplar Avenue in San Mateo Park with the same proportions.)
> There are a/ot of lines on the drawing, it is confusing to read. Wou/d /ike to see a model, or photos of
the inspirational house. (Raduenz: Had submitted a mode/ to staff.)
> If there is precedent with a house in San Mateo Park it wou/d be he/pful to see photos.
> Why is there a curved wall in the back from the first floor to second floor. (Raduenz: It is a detail to
create some flow. Could make it more rigid and square off the cap, or put more detail on it.)
> Would suggest more parity to the windows in Bedrooms #3 and 4. Bedroom #2 has nice windows on
two sides of the bedroom. The e/evation on Sheet A3.0 shows a spot above the Living Room window to
put a bedroom window in that corner. On Bedroom #4 where the curve detail is, it accentuates a b/ank
spot,� perhaps a window facing the back yard. (Raduenz: Bedroom #4 can be done, Bedroom #3 might
have impacts on neighbors. Will take a/ook at it.)
> Tension in the center window above the front porch pediment. Could the sil/ be raised in line with the
other two windows? The boftom of the casing is touching the top of the ridge. (Raduenz: Yes.)
> Needs to see a roof p/an. (Raduenz: �ll include in the next round, as well as the 3-D rendering.)
Public Comments:
Clty of Buding8me Page 1 Printed on 1/8/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 73, 2018
Joe Holmes: Adjacent on the south side. Spent some time with the applicant on the positions of the
windows. Matched the p/acement so they are not staring at each other, parficularly on the second floor.
Large redwood in back is next to property line is up/ifting the patio and fence, wou/d like to have it
removed.
Chair Gau/ closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Confused by the design. Seems broad at the front, and wou/d be a big house for the neighborhood. A
lot of the houses in the area are broken up more. This seems like it would overpower the block compared
to the other homes. House seems to be more appropriate for a wider /ot with more room in front.
> Cou/d change materia/s between the first and second f/oor or adding a f/are wou/d be helpful.
> Not as supportive of specia/ permit. Lowering the plates to a more standard height would reduce the
height. With the /arge roof form there is room for the second f/oor to have vau/ted ceilings to make it more
spacious.
> Other houses in the neighborhood have second stories tucked more into the rooflines, including the
neighboring house to the right. The neighboring house could be overpowered by this house, so wou/d be
hard to grant the specia/ permit for height.
> Has approved a similar design previous/y, but it was broken down with two layers.
> Most of the front porches in the neighborhood have /arger sitting areas.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
City of Burlingame Page 2 Prinied on 1/8/2019