The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About117 Costa Rica Avenue - Staff Report6URLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 2013 � FROM Planning Commission Erica Strohmeier, Associate Planner Director's Report Meeting Date: March 11, 2013 SUBJECT: FYI — REVIEW OF AS-BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 117 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit for a basement for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 117 Costa Rica Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on May 10, 2010 (May 10, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A building permit was issued on June 30, 2011. On August 27, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved an FYI for 117 Costa Rica Ave, to change out the approved Ipe siding along a portion of the south elevation to stucco siding to match the rest of the house (August 27, 2012, FYI memo attached). Upon inspection of the final construction, Planning staff noted that the following changes were made to the project: Front Elevation: • The wrought iron railings were changed from a straight design to a curved design. • The style of the shutters was changed from louvered to vertical. • The wrought iron detail over two of the doors was eliminated. • The raised stucco arch was removed from the front arched area. • One of the columns at the front arched area was removed. Riqht Side Elevation: • The raised stucco arch was removed from all three arches towards the front of the house. • The glass block window on the second story towards the rear of the house was reduced in size. Rear Elevation: • All of the approved stone veneer was eliminated from this elevation. Left Side Elevation: • The three glass block windows towards the rear of the house were reduced in size. The property owners submitted a letter accompanied with the originally approved and revised building elevations, date stamped March 1, 2013, to explain as-built changes to the previously approved design review project. Other than the proposed revisions listed above, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. Community Development Department Memorandum March 11, 2013 Page 2 Planning staff regards the as-built revisions described above as relatively minor, and has designated the project to 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. Jolanda and Gary Breazeale, property owners. ATTACHMENTS: Explanation letter from the property owner, date stamped March 1, 2013 Photos of as-built house at 117 Costa Rica Avenue Previous FYI memo from the August 27, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Previous explanation letter from property owners, date stamped August 7, 2012 May 10, 2010, Planning Commission Regular Action Minutes Originally approved and as-built building elevations, date stamped March 1, 2013 :_� =_l��/�� February 28, 2013 Planning Commission Buriingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 117 Costa Rica Avenue Dear Planning Commission, -1AR -1 2013 �' OF BURLWGAME CDD-PLANNING DiV. We would like to inform you of a few changes in design of some exterior materials at our house on 117 Costa Rica in Burlingame. The decisions for the design selections we opted for were grounded in an effort to maintain/enhance the predominant Spanish style of the house, or in some cases, deai with an unexpected spacing issue that became apparent as the structure was built. We feel that the changes noted below serve to maintain and enhance the intentispirit of the Spanish style of the exterior or address clearance issues. We have enclosed elevations of the changes we would like you to review on our behalf. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. On the front elevation you will note the following: O The original auto-cad drawings depicted louver style shutters. We opted for the more traditionally Spanish/Mediterranean Board and Batten style. The feeling was this was more in keeping with the overall look and feel of the fa�ade. O The original auto-cad drawings depicted stark vertical wrought iron railings, a design that we felt was too modern/contemporary in tone. We opted to use bowed wrought iron at the step-outs to increase the more traditional elements of the fa�ade. O At the front entry, one of the columns was removed in an effort to allow ease of access to the front door/entry. The current spacing without the column on the left corner from wall to column base on the right is 45". if we were to put the column on the left in place as shown on the original drawings, the walkway clearance would be reduced to just approximately 37". We felt in an effort to keep the pedestrian walk up to our front door welcoming with optimal clearance deleting the left column was an appropriate solution. � Because the column on the left is not in position, the raised stucco arch was not added, as the arch did not have a clear starting and ending point. It would just appear on the left side of the house and arch across to the right column. ��`��-:�� o In addition, the removal of the above noted elements gives the �� -1 20i3 entry a lighter feeling than the imposing weight of the column and -,._ �, ,�, �;,, . � hFF trim. = , O We had intended to place iron door toppers above the sets of French doors at the walkouts. We encountered a problem with the clearance above the lower door to the right side of the fa�ade. The spacing above the door to the lowest point of the rafter tails leaves only 8" making it difficult to fit an appropriately styled door topper in the space given. We felt if one were deleted then it seemed necessary to remove all in an effort to maintain uniformity. On the right side elevation you will note the following: O The raised stucco originally depicted above the arches at the entry was removed due to the issues previously noted with the front column. Once the front did not have the raised stucco element, it seemed out of place on the right side of the house. O At the rear portion of the house on the right, above the driveway, the glass block window was reduced in size from 3x8 blocks to 3x5 blocks. This shortening occurred because of the step-in bathtub against the corner wall in that location. On the left side elevation you will note the following: ��7 The giass block windows were reduced in size to match with the same style window on the other side of the house (noted above). On the rear elevation you will note the following: D We elected not to place stone veneer in the upstairs balcony area, as it did not seem continuous with the rest of the house. No other areas of the main house exterior are clad in stone. We did use the stone veneer on the side stucco wall (fence/barrier) as an accent feature. o The stone was the focus of the garage as an "out-building". The originai auto-cad depiction of stone on the lower portion of the house did not take into account the placement of the raised planter that is directiy in front. With the planter in place, the exterior of the house at that level is not visible. Thank you for your time, � � Gary and-�1 da Breazeale � \� ��ZPG� ��c, ��SSI��I C°� � � � ' �, � � � � U s-�ir �I CC� �vG� . ��' 1� i ^'+ R�a �� k� ��' � �¢ '"�" `� � i,� ��4� I 'r '-' `� t �3 � �,�� : . ,� . . S'. . .T}�,- �� ; � �: � �- �, - - � � ;:� � ��"': �* f r; � � .;: ��.�r �� ' � ��i �' ..,� � � � �.. . � � � , �� + � n d,4�`4,. �,� � , w 1 4 . .. �K'bY :1d�� '.s"1 :. Y" c '� � �' . ]%,+�," � q ;� „ + �: .. ;;� t. ��:y�,r„ ' n`� -4 -�), j.�.�� _ . ^ r. 'e'�ii�... � � � I ._.. �a;, � � ^� �_ .- -�� In a;'..f'�_ I �m _ �r�; � ��.. w�, � ,�, .� �� , ��-, �. ,� ,� _ 1 � � � .�_� -. __-�_�.-------� -� / r.�� e� F��"1 B�URLINGAME ,1 . . DATE: TO FROM CITY OF BURLINGAME Communify Deve/opment Department MEMORANDUM August 21, 2012 Planning Commission Director's Report Meeting Date: August 27, 2012 Erica Strohmeier, Associate Pianner SUBJECT: FYI — REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 117 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit for a basement for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 117 Costa Rica Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on May 10, 2010 2011 (May 10, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A building permit was issued on June 30, 2011 and the house is currently under construction. In a letter dated August 7, 2012, the property owners are requesting an FYI to change out the approved Ipe siding along a portion of the south elevation to stucco siding to match the rest of the house. The property owners submitted a letter and originally approved and proposed south elevation drawings, date stamped August 7, 2012, to explain the proposed change to the previously approved design review project. Other than the proposed revision listed above and detailed in the property owners' letter, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. Planning staff would note that because of the minor revision to siding material along the south elevation, 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. Gary and Jolanda Breazeale, 117 Costa Rica Ave, Burlingame, CA 94010, property owners. ATTACHMENTS: Explanation letter from property owners, date stamped August 7, 2012 May 10, 2010, Planning Commission Regular Action Minutes Originally approved and proposed South Elevations, date stamped August 7, 2012 August 7, 2012 Planning Commission Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 117 Costa Rica Avenue Dear Planning Commission, We would like to inform you of a change in exterior materiaL We have decided to change a small portion of exterior siding at our house on 117 Costa Rica in Burlingame. The change is to the small area of approved Ipe siding on the exterior dining room wall. We would like this area to be the same colored stucco that is on the rest of the house. We feel that the stucco is more in keeping with the predominant Spanish style of the house and the private courtyard gazden that this area creates. As you had noted previously, the Ipe siding is not traditional in a Spanish design and we see how not using it would actually improve the exterior presentation of our home. We have enclosed an elevation of the approved and proposed elevations. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, � ,�li'�,G"�-�Cl-�,L ''1 � J- �. ,_: Gary and Jolanda Breazeale C� � � �. � .�' �.: � ( � i f � {-`�'�; ��.1 - • ,'� ��' � / CI�?l' 0= EUR�IN :P:��iE CDD-F�NN!��G D11�, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 4. 117 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BASEMENT WITH A CEILING HEIGHT GREATER THAN 6'-0", FORA NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (FLORIAN SPEIER, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOLANDA AND GARY BREAZEALE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 10, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and stafif comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Florian Speier, 880 Harrison Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. ■ Detailed the changes to the project plans. ■ Agreed to placing the debris box on the property during the construction process. Commission comments: ■ Why the single, bubbled skylight? (Speier — this type of skylight is required due to the slope of the roof; but could build it up on one side to meet the requirements for installation.) ■ Why is a portion of the roof flat? (Speier — needs to fit that portion of the roof under the main roof; necessitates the design.) ■ Could a solar tube be used in place of the skylight? (Speier — doesn't provide as much light.) ■ Likes the garden wall along the driveway; shows commitment not to use the area for parking. ■ Likes the column design at the entry. ■ Be certain that the double cantilever on the garage can work from an engineering standpoint. ■ With respect to the dining room wall; the windows in the dining room wall look a lot like apartment windows; is there an alternate design that may work better, even a series of three casement windows? (Speier — looked at several alternatives; selected this approach, using a high-quality window with thicker trim than that shown on the plans.) ■ Asked for a description of "Spanish-textured" stucco. (Speier — not completely flat, or completely smoothed.) ■ Pleased to see that some of the window area has been removed from the master bedroom; will need to be certain proper materials are used to reduce the potential for sun damage. ■ Was the potential for shading adequately calculated relative to the overhangs? (Speier— has been designed so that the home will not require air conditioning.) ■ Noted that the drainage may require tying into the City storm drain. (Speier— has reviewed with the Geotech; feels this will not be necessary.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Requested that the debris box be placed upon the private property during the construction process. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped fi[�] CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 April 22, 2010, sheets A-001 through A-302; 2. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible; 3. that the "bubble" type skylight at the rear of the house shall be re�laced with a flat profile skylight design; 4. 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 Cemmission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl; 5. 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; 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 18, 2010 and November 30, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's November 30, 2009 and May 21, 2009 memos, the Fire Marshal's November 30, 2009 memo, the City ArborisYs December 19 and May 6, 2009 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 30, 2009 memo shall be met; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shail 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 shail 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 structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. 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; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 cdition, 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 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMM/SSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling 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; 15. 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 16. 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 Buiiding plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ Clarified that adoption of the Negative Declaration was included in the motion. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:16 p.m. `Fa �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME PLANNING FEES RECEIPT Subject Address: I �� ,�}'v. �` C fi� I�j�"� Date: �3 b 1 j� Received for application to the Planning Division for: '=�� a,}> ��a� : y-:�. _ ACCT. 101-36630 (#63) ��' '��':�- ; �� - � Application to the Planning Commission -� t-� -��- _D�1e�� Residential 8� Commercial Design Review Handling Fee Title 25 Zoning Code (postage add $3.00) Title 22- Sign Code General Plan (postage add $6.00) Specific Plan (for postage add $4.00) Zoning Map Photocopies ($0.25 x ) Environmental Handling Fee (35°/o of Contract) Tape copies ($16.55 per tape) Other ACCT. 101-22525 (#67) Residential & Commercial Design Review Consultant Deposit ACCT.101-36640 (#57) Engineering Fee - "� _ ..i, F F� i . �s�� _ -� � ., ;.,. -�; �+, ;_ 'Y = , . :f :� • � _ - :��: . F��1 � y�� 3� .wE� �� _„� y � ..� <+- +� . c!: .., in �` . I ACCT.739-39590 (#92) North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee ACCT. 739-39597 Parking In-lieu Fee - Burlingame Ave Commercial Area ACCTS. 739-36660-000-6080 to -6086 Public Facilities Impact Fees (see reverse side) TOTAL FEES PAID: � $ $ � $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Zo�(. — 459.00 31.00 10.00 77.00 31.00 5.00 $ 816.00 $ _ $ 168.00 $ 408.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ �� - Effective 07.2012 S:WANDOUTSIFee Schedule Receipt and Forms120721FEES RECElPT.07.20�2.doc