The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About725 Crossway Road - Staff ReportE, t]IT"Y s n�. .{t;di � � �: ° �� • .� CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM June 5, 2012 Planning Commission Erica Strohmeier, Associate Planner Director's Report Meeting Date: June 11, 2012 SUBJECT: FYI — REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 725 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 725 Crossway Road was approved by the Planning Commission on March 26, 2012 (March 26, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A building permit was issued on May 30, 2012. In a letter dated June 5, 2012, the project designer is requesting an FYI for the following changes to the original project design: East Elevation ■ Two windows on the second story in the middle of the house were swapped locations. ■ The proposed trellis over the first floor sliding door at the rear of the house was removed. South Elevation ■ The proposed false iron balconies on the second story were removed. West Elevation ■ Three proposed skylights were removed. ■ The proposed trellis at the middle of the house was removed. ■ The proposed second story windows towards the rear of the house were reduced in size. ■ The windows towards the rear of the house along the first floor were changed from 4 small awning windows with grids, to � larger awning windows with no grids. The designer submitted a letter and originally approved and revised floor plans and building elevations, date stamped June 5, 2012, to explain the proposed changes to the previously approved design review project. Other than the proposed revisions listed above and detailed in the designers letter dated June 5, 2012, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. Planning staff would note that because of the minor revisions to the project, it was determined that the project could be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item. 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, Associate Planner c. Waldemar Stachniuk, 500 Airport Blvd. #100, Burlingame, CA 94010, designer. Community Development Department Memorandum June 5, 2012 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: Explanation letter from designer, date stamped June 5, 2012 March 26, 2012, Planning Commission Regular Action Minutes Originally approved and proposed Floor Plans and Building Elevations, date stamped June 5, 2012 FYI Letter to: ��:.��:� � �r' 5...� JUN - � �v�:;- CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON 725 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW WITH FYI ITEMS: ,�,� n ��t . � VE" '�"'...5' �.:4�_lit�.�'-�'�.r'�!',ii� C��i�-F"�?t�1r�+�E�;�M; �;:�J 1. Remove East and West elevation trellis from over the first floor location, 2. Remove skylights in Bedroom #3 and Bedroom # 2, (3) skylights in total, 3. Replace (4) windows in size 1616 on West elevation on first floor with (3) fixed 3418 Marvin WD/AL windows, 4. Remove (2) small 1008 windows over Bedroom#3 at the roof/attic location, 5. Remove balconies at Bedroom #3 and Bedroom #4 on South Elevation from the second floor location to comply w/egress requirements, 6. Replace (2) windows on West elevation at Bedroom #3 location w/sizes 16211-16211-16211 with Marvin WD/AL awning windows w/sizes 4020, 7. New Master bathroom layout change w/new inverted tub/shower window location, 8. Replace (3) 1834 Kitchen windows with one 5034 window, 9. Replace (E) 6068 Marvin Sliding Door with New 6068 Marvin Door, 10. Replace all (E) Marvin WD/AL clad windows with (N) same size/configuration Marvin WD/AL clad windows. CITY OF BURLING�IME PLANN/NG COMM/SSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 14. at prior to scheduling the ro deck inspection, a license surveyor shall shoot the h ht of the ro ridge and provide certifica�n of that height to the Builc�g Division; and � 15. that p r to final inspection, Plar% architect I details (trim materials, according the approved Planning The motion was of motion: by Commissioner ■ This is a very nice pr c ariance; these lots are c ating a hardship to bui ■ W hou/d consider chan type f freestanding e/er ■ Afraid t this might set a here. Division staff will insp� iow type, etc.) to verify Building plans. but am concerned th� �e and flat and there arE round; can't support pr i the code to accommo nt ou/d be treated like ece t foranotherless and note compliance o the at the project has been b'It e is no hardship on th rc large significant trees on ` as submitted. r e/ements such as "wing :e irab situation than what is t �rty for the lot that are ; these ■ Not neces rily sure there is a hards ', but note that arch is pay� homage to previous design;l�ot maintaining ubstantial property right, ut granting a variance bec se they are staying with same type of design, this is adding to the de n and can distinguish it m other projects; for these reasons can su ort application. ■ Typically are very utious with regard to vari ces and look very carefull t what the extraordinary circumstances migh e; view hardship as this s ci�c neighborhood being a uasi-historic area that as potential to be a hr oric neighborhood; becau of that architecture need make reference to historic architecture our city; the converse to wing variance is that exis ' g houses built in th 1920's and 1930's tha ave a simp/e wing wall t t is not habitab/e space Id be deemed illeg � don't think it's openin up a whole new rea/m o riances; can support the otion. ■ Raise `" teresting point of cla ifying this e/ement differe ■ Point ou �hat the Commission ' supporting a project th is paying respects to t existing neighborh d; would like to find ay to allow architectural ements such as wing wa with a special perm ather than a varianc � need to be sure that it is t detrimental to environ nt or quality of life. ■ Cou/d take up th� 'ssue at the Neighbor od Consistency Subcom ' tee. Chair Yie lled for a voice v on the motion to app ve. The motion passed - 0. Appeal procedures were advise . This item concl ed at 7:46 p.m. 2. 725 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TIM AND LINA REETH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND WALDEMAR STACHNIUK, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (TH/SAPPLICATION WAS PREV/OUSLY DEN/ED W/THOUT PREJUD/CE) Reference staff report dated March 26, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. � CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Waldemar Stachniuk, 500 Airport Boulevard and Tim Reeth, 725 Crossway Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Commissioners Cauchi, Gaul, Terrones and Yie disclosed that after the last meeting they met with property owner to preview changes made to the project, but did not discuss the merits of the project. ■ Were you planning on replacing the existing windows? Looks like muntin patterns were added to the windows on the front elevation? (Stachniuk - no, existing windows will remain, previous drawings showed them incorrectly). ■ Previously, was in favor of project based on continuing the existing design. However, revised project is now significantly improved, there is added articulation and window grids look better. ■ Like the revised design, this is a much improved project. ■ Existing first floor railings at the rear of the house are wood. Would you consider changing them to match the proposed iron railings on the second floor? (Stachniuk — since the railings are existing, it would be an added cost, property owner would have to consider and decide.) ■ Will the skylights will be flat glass? (Stachniuk — yes.) ■ Combination of windows and skylights in Bedroom 3 may create a bright and hot room. ■ Sheet 3 of 8 indicates that a dryvit system is proposed for the exterior finish; however building elevations indicate stucco to match existing. Please clarify. (Stachniuk — will use three coats of stucco for exterior finish.) ■ Like changes to windows. ■ Clarify size of corbels below the second floor pop-out along the east elevation. (Stachniuk — corbels will be 7x7x4). ■ Does the door on the west elevation into existing utility room have a stoop? (Stachniuk - there is no stoop.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 6, 2012, sheets 1 though 8 and Topographic Map; 2. that all new skylights shall be of a flat glass design; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; �7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 13, 2012 and November 17, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's December 9, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's January 17, 2012 and November 28, 2011 memos, the Fire Marshal's November 21, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 21, 2011 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. 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; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. 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; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a stru�ture, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. 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 Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 10 o • . , CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: none. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 3 8 ATWATER DRIVE, ZONE -1- APPLICATION FOR HI SIDE AREA CONSTRU TION PERMIT, SID SETBACK VARIANCE AND OT COVERAGE VARIANC FOR A SINGLE-STORY DDITION TO AN E TING SINGLE FAMILY D LLING (RENDY GRANGE, RG ARCHITECTS, APP CANT AND ARCHI CT; SAKKUBAI PRAT NTI, PROPERTY O ER) STAFF CONTA : ERICA CTRAI-1 IFR views. ■ Make the bathro space a special pla to take advantage o i ■ Like that the roof i eing raised at the a ition to match the exi Hardship is that the ly way to get more bstantial floor area o floor, which does not rk with the design o n Eichler house. Public mments: ■ Is ther foam roof on their n?(Grange — there is n'nsulation in ceiling now, th e is a small cavity in tween the ceiling an roofl. ■ How will t water heater venting e handled? (Grange -'ll do tankless water heater t serve all three bathro s). ■ Suggest lowe g the window in the throom down to the ed of the tub to take advantag of bay Commissi comments: Planner Strohmeier pr�ntec � suggested for conside tion. Ra y Grange, 205 Park R d, Suite 203, Burlingame, epresented the applicant. ■ ant to make a bathro that is more accessible r the property owners. Reference st report dated March 26, 20 , with attachments. Associ� the report, revi ed criteria and staff comm ts. Eight (8) conditions we Questions of sta . ■ None. hair Yie opened the pu ic hearing. There were no her comments and t public hearmg Further Commissio comments: The existing h se exceeds the ma um allowed cove e and with this a lication the lot coverage is bein educed. In the future e should consider r uiring a special per it rather than a variance for these ' uations. ■ roject captures the 'sting design and m es the house better. ■ dship is that the exi ing house was built 'th wide roof eaves. ews. � �ng house. this house is to add a second 11