Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1510 Drake Avenue - Staff Report;�. .� g � DATE � FROM CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM October 20, 2010 Planning Commission Erica Strohmeier, Associate Planner Director's Report Meeting Date: October 25, 2010 SUBJECT: FYI — REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1510 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage and Variances for side setback and floor area ratio was approved by the Planning Commission on January 25, 2010, for a lower floor, first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1510 Drake Avenue (January 25, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A building permit was issued on April 27, 2010, and construction is now underway. On October 14, 2010, the applicant submitted an FYI to add a small jog area at the top right corner of the upper roof (does not effect the floor area ratio calculation) and to change the size and location of several windows located along each elevation. Because of the proposed changes to the roof and the windows, an FYI is required for Planning Commission review. There are no other changes proposed to the project. All of the proposed changes are outlined in the attached letter from the applicant, dated October 14, 2010. Also attached are the originally approved and proposed site plan, floor plans and building elevation drawings, date stamped October 14, 2010. Planning staff would note that because of the minor revisions to the roof and to window sizes and locations, it was determined that the project couid 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 pubiic hearing with direction to the applicant. Erica Strohmeier Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Letter from applicant, Mark Robertson, date stamped October 14, 2010 January 25, 2010, Planning Commission Minutes Previously approved and proposed site plan, floor plans and elevations, date stamped October 14, 2010 MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o 10/12/2010 ATTN: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: BEAR RESIDENCE 1510 DRAKE AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 PERMIT # B 10-0057 RE: FYI — MINOR ROOF AND WINDOW REVISIONS. llear Commission Members: During the course of construction a few changes have occurred that we wish to bring to your attention: Roof changes: I didn't notice two (E) Skylights in (E)Bath#1 and (E)Bath#2 — they are cc�vered with lenses and I thought they were fluor. light boxes when I measured. Neither were visible from outside and I missed them completely! The skylights have been added to the Site Plan and Elevations. The Flat roof area has been changed. A small jog was installed at the top right corner so the upper roof can bear on the ridge beam of the roof below. T'he owner wanted to vault his stairwell, so we had to adjust our framing a little. We also eliminated the inset into the hipped roof area at the bottom (South end) it will be pitched with a roof hatch instead. The solar panel provider says they don't require the additional sq. footage as originally planned for. Window changes: South (Street) Elevation: The connecting roof from the lower front roof to the (N) second floor Bedrooms doesn,t allow enough room for the front facing windows as desi,gned. Therefore the window on the left (Bedroom #3) has been eliminated and the window on the right (Bedroom #4) has been reduced to 30"X30" to fit. North Elevation: The owners fell in love with a tri-fold door assembly they saw while window shopping and have asked to change the 60x80 sliders onto their deck to 90x80 tri-folds as drawn. 918 E. GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399 Also, they wish to eliminate the Basement window at the front wall of the deck because the plan to plant large shrubs at that location. East Elevation: Because of the roof / window adjustments for the South Elevation we had to relocate the Egress window for (N) Bedroom #4 to the East Elevation. The adjacent window was therefore enlarged to match. The owner requested that we provide more light to the basement so two awning windows have been tucked in under the (E) Bay directly below (N) Bedroom #4 . We received a complaint from the new neighbors to our East who have just purchased the property. They asked that we eliminate the window at the �ffice Nook over the garage — privacy issues. We explained that the nook encroaches the light plane and 25% glazing / lOft. ma�c. is required. We offered to use obscured glass, but they still felt uncomfortable so we settled on changing the config. to 25% clearstory windows as shown. Neighbors are okay with this arrangement..... West Elevation: Because of the eliminated window discussed above on the South Elevation the window at (I� Bedroom #3 has been enlarged to match the Egress window next to it to maintain the required 10% light / ventilation and to compensate for the lost window. The windows in the basement have been reduced (and shifted) to match as-built conditions — apparently there were header / framing issues. This concludes our FYI revision request. Thank you for your kind consideration, Sincerely, , � �� - ;� Mark Robertson. CfTY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISS/ON — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 VG{. lTEMS CQRTIP!lJE� FRO!►/!! JAN!lARY 11, 2010 IVIEGTIN(a Reqular Action Items 2. 1510 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT BEAR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 25, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Noted that the FAR increase is only requested as it relates to the excavation within the lower level. Provided additional drawings that show the massing of the project. Commission comments: ■ The roofline concerns have been addressed; there is now a much better connection between the front and rear roof sections. ■ Believe that there is too much hardscape, particularlywithin the front; within the back there is a lot of fiagstone; proportionally, there is a lot of hardscape. Is there a way to increase planting areas in the front, or otherwise soften it? (Robertson — feels that the landscaping will fill-in; the retaining walls are low. The hardscape in the rear already exists. The courtyard is partially tiled currently.) ■ Ciarified that yard space is being added in the location of the former garage. ■ The long, narrow window at the rear of the house may look better as an arched window, similar to the front window. (Robertson — that window is in front of a fairly significant tree; introducing a singie- arched window in the rear will not add much architecturally.) ■ Noted that the laundry floor plan is difficult with respect to the cabinet locations and washer/dryer iccations. • On the west elevation; the floor plar shows a certain style of window, but the windows on the elevation do not match the floor plan. (Robertson — there is a drawing error, the window should be tailer, as shown on the plans presented to the Commission; windows wili not match, in order to preserve neighbor's privacy; taller window needed to comply with egress requirements.) • Is the existing setback for the existing garage being reduced? (Robertson — the existing condition is being improved upon.) ■ On the second-floor roof, the hipped roof has a notch; what is the purpose? (Robertson — intended for photo cells.) ■ Clarified that the area that is being excavated will not be used for anything other than storage. (Robertson — the owner wishes to have a storage area that does not require stooping to access storage.) Public comments: None 3 ClT;' OF SURL/NGAME PLANNING COMM/SSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 There were no further comments and the public hearing was ciosed. CommissionerAuran noted that the FloorArea Ratio Variance is created by the s/ope of the lot, if it did not have a downslope, it would not affect the floor area ratio and that the garage construction improves the existing setback condition, and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as snown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 28, 2009, sheets 1 through 10, MS-1 and MS-2; 2, 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 (FY� or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. 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; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special Permit and Variances, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 17 and October 14, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's November 12, 2009 memo, the City ArborisYs October 21, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 15, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 19, 2009 memo shall be met; 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 ail the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. 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 a�iproved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approvai is required; the conditions of approval shail not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commis�ion, or City Council on appeal; 8. that ali 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; 9. 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 recyciing requirements; any partial orfull demolition of a structure, interiororexterior, shall require a demolition permit; 1 G. that the pr�ject shal! meep ail the requirements af the �alifarnia ��ilding and Uniforr�-i Fire Co�es, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of B�rlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITlONS SHALL �E MET DURING �HE �UIL�ING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE BNSPECTIOIdS NOTED IR! �AGN GONDlTI�N C! �{TY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection fhe 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 compiiance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. 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 13. 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 buiit according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The mofion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: The garage that is proposed is the bare minimum that it can be. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion fo approve. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:56 p.m. �