The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1126 Bernal Avenue - Staff Reportti�� B-UiiLINGAME � DATE TO FROM CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM November 3, 2010 Planning Commission Director's Report Meeting Date: November 8, 2010 Erica Strohmeier, Associate Planner SUBJECT: FYI — REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1124 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: On October 12, 2010, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review and Special Permits for an attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, tow-story single family dwelling with an attached garage at 1124 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 (October 12, 2010, Planning Commission Minutes). There was one condition that was added to the project approval that requires Planning Commission review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. That condition is: Condition No. 2"that the bathroom window located above the entry on the front elevation shall be recessed with a heavy shadow line; the design of the window shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI;" The designer submitted revised floor plans and building elevations and an explanation letter on October 18, 2010 to address the Commission's concerns. The designer notes that the second floor front bathroom wall will be made into a 2 x 6 studwall which adds 1 SF of floor area. He also notes that the window detail at this area will be similar to the first floor living room window detail. A section drawing of this detail was provided. Other than the revisions and clarifications listed above, there are no changes proposed to the design of the house. 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 ATTACHMENTS: Letter from project designer, date stamped October 18, 2010 October 12, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes Originally Approved and Proposed floor plans and building elevations, date stamped October 18, 2010 J Deal Associates 880 Mitten Road, Suite 102 Burlingame, CA 94010 10-18-10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Re: FYI 1124 Bernal Avenue Plans have been revised in response to Planning Commission Comments. Sheets A-2 & A-3 Second floor front bathroom studwall into 2x6 studwall withlsquare foot area added. Window detail similar to first floor living room and detail section provided. Thank you for your input � 1 Hector Estipona i�� a �...._ `� . � � - � � ^ � � ''�jr� u C;1 �iT'; CF i� . - ' n; ;-?.�r:,�;. , CITY OF BURLINGAME PLAh'NING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minufes Ocfober 12, 2090 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 1124 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (J DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER� ANDREW PENG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 12, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Vistica opened the public hearing. Phillip Boyle, P. O. Box 181, Oakland; Hector Estipona, 880 Mitten Road; and Grace Wang, 1124 Bernal Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Thanked the applicant for reducing the garage to a one-stall garage. ■ With respect to the rear door; it doesn't appear large enough. (Estipona — is a small access door.) ■ Disappointed with the choice not to provide divided lights, or simulated true divided light windows; would like to see them provided. ■ The changes that have been made, with the exception of the lack of window grids, are an improvement. ■ On the left side elevation, on the blank wall consider providing a window or some other treatment to eliminate the blank appearance of the wall. (Estipona — will try to address this issue.) ■ The windows would be enhanced by providing grids. (Boyle — appreciates the input, however, from a cultural perspective, the applicant opposes the grids.) ■ The lack of window grids is not a deal breaker; appreciates the more prominent window sill. ■ With respect to the arched window above the porch; is it recessed like the living room window, or is there something else that can be done to dress it up; provide a similar shadow line? (Estipona —will set it in similar to the living room window, or provide a similar shadow line.) ■ More work needs to be done at the arched window behind the toilet on the second floor; may need to be obscured in some manner; provide some decorative feature to obscure the window. Could perhaps provide an iron grill over the window to help obscure the window, rather than a recessed window. ■ NJould the homeowner be open to providing grids on the living room window? (Boyle — is not the preference of the property owner. There are cultural preferences that make this problematic.) ■ Coulc! an octagonal window be provided in place of the window over the porch? (Boyle — have agreed io the recessed window.) ■ What is the cultural significance of not having window grids? (Wang —just wants a clean window without the grids. Boyle — feng shui encourages the free flow of energy through the building; the grids impede the flow of energy.) ■ Could consider the iron grill treatment over leaded glass in the window above the porch, or some other form of obscured glass. (Boyle — the recessed window and some form of obscured glass, not necessarily opaque, would be acceptable.) Public comments: _m�..�.�..�,mv....,,�.��......_.��T,..�.�.m.�....�..�.�..�..�..�..� 4 CITY OF BURLINGA�fIIE PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes Ocfober 12, 2010 None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: The window above the porch should be recessed with some form of obscured glass. Can accept not providing grids on the windows; it is unfortunate that the applicant doesn't want to go a step further and provide the iron grill over the arched window at the front. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: window to be recessed with a heavy shadow line as an FYI. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 29, 2010, sheets A-1 through A-5, SF-1, Landscape Plan and Topographic Map and Boundary Survey; 2. that the bathroom window located above the entry on the front elevation shall be recessed with a heavy shadow line; the design of the window shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI; 3. that any changes to building materials, exteriorfinishes, 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 staff); 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; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 31, 2010 and July 31, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's August 6, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's August 2, 2010 memo, the Park's Supervisor's September 1, 2010 and August 2, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 29, 2010 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 for 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, pfumbing 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; 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes Ocfob�r 12, 2010 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 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 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 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property 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 residentiai 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 architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc. according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: will inspect and note compliance of the ) to verify that the project has been built ■ Often encourage grids in the windows with fhis type of architectural style; is not a deal breaker, but need to discuss this on a case-by-case basis with applicants, based upon cultural preferences. ■ Leave it to the applicant's discretion if they will provide an iron grill over the window. ■ Bad design, cannot support the motion; is not a cultural preference. The Commission has demanded divided light windows in past instances. ■ The house doesn't fit into the neighborhood. ■ If the homeowner truly wanted windows without grids, could have chosen a different style of house. ■ The Commission's intent is to guide towards a cohesive design for a neighborhood. ■ Wou(d ha�e liked to have seen more compromise on behalf of t.he applicant. Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1 (Commissioner Auran opposed, CommissionerLindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes October 12, 2010 at 8:02 p.m. Commissioner Cauchi left the meeting at 8:03 p.m. � .� 7