Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1243 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff ReportC17 ��s,��. � � � , � -- .�J r, r �; � lC�: FROM CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM June 18, 2008 Planning Commission Lisa Whitman, Zoning Technician . •<, O y C ,�`. t - ,�, 190i • 2u(Iy ��/�XMI rl,�/,;�,. Director's Report Meeting Date: June 23, 2008 SUBJECT: FYI — CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: On August 14, 2006, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review, Front and Side Setback Variances, and Parking Variance for a first and second story addition (August 14, 2006, P.C. Minutes). An FYI for minor revisions, including changes to the windows in the kitchen, was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2007. A building permit was issued on June 5, 2007. On August 13, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a design review amendment that allowed the applicant to change the window grids and exterior siding, and to enclose the rear porch (August 13, 2007 P.C. Minutes). The project is nearing completion. The applicant is now requesting approval for as-built changes to the structure (see previously approved and proposed Building Elevations, date stamped June 11, 2008). The proposed changes are clouded. Changes include the removal of stone pillars at the base of the front steps, enclosing rafter tails, removing two brackets from above the front porch steps, removing a bellyband from the right elevation, and removing the stone veneer finish from the base of the left elevation. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to change the material of the front walkway from brick to bluestone to match the front porch. The changes and reasons for making the changes are provided in the applicant's letter, dated June 11, 2008. Other than the proposed changes described above, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. Planning staff would note that because of these minor revisions, it was determined that the project could be reviewed by the Planning 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. Lisa Whitman Zoning Technician ATTACHMENTS: Letterfrom Mark Robertson, designer, dated June 11, 2008 August 14, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes Previously Approved and Proposed Building Elevations, date-stamped June 11, 2008 MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o 6/11/2008 ATTN: CITY OF BURLINGAME - PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: KNIFSEND RESIDENCE 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE BURLINGAME Permit # B07 — 0093 _( i.> � `a ?� _ _ .. ':i ,"! �. �_ : . . _''' . . ����'— RE: REQUEST FOR FYI ON M1NOR EXTERIOR REVISIONS AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING STAFF FOR PROJECT FINAL. Dear Commission Members, Our Project Contractor (Tom McGovern) requested a planning review inspection as his prelude to seeking fmal. During the inspection, it was concluded that a few odds and ends should be cleared up with an FYI for Commission review. Response to Planning Comments from 6/16/2008 memo: Note: Revisions made to plans shown a�REVISION, "As Suilts", 6/11/2008, by MR . 1) Stone pillars at Entry Stone Pillars felt to bulky and crowded and clients opted for a lighter handrail appearance. Front and Side Elevations show new stair / rail configuration. 2) Rafter Tails Enclosed The Knifsends visited my Ark Way house when it went up for sale and they particularly liked the look of the eves on that house. They requested that their eves be revised to match. (I was hoping they would — until I got this memo that is.) All eaves removed from drawings. Took all day. 3�Over Entry Gable and Brackets The Enhy Porch was getting much to busy for the clients taste after we changed the exterior to shingles. Because of the busyness of the slungles, the plients much prefer the simpler format as drawn. � MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o 4) Ri�ht Elevation Bellvband ,.� � �,r,r.,, . � ''1. !� _. L'';'JU Again when the project was changed to shingles things got too busy and it was decided to eliminate some of the banding to town things down. 5) Left Elevation Stone Veneer 'The house is only 4ft. off P.L. at this elevation. The Sidyards are covered by mature 10 ft. shrubs and no one can see the bottom of this wall. There is a Redwood solid fence at the front of the property to enclose the Sideyard. It was silly and wasteful to put resources into this wall. 6) Front Path from Brick to Bluestone. Clients felt it more appealing to have the path match the new front porch. The only reason brick was originally shown was because there was existing brick at the time of design. It made no sense after the house was built. In addition to the above comments, I found a few other items of change during my walk- through: � A Sheet Metal ornamental hood was added to the chimney flue. � The Rear Elevation Patio (right side of house) was lowered to grade as drawn. Shows on Left Elevation as well. This concludes our revisions. And I must say it's a great looking house. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, � . .� � Mark Robertson. IF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: 65 571-1125 • FAX: 650 571-1399 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 correct the detail on the plans and on the building, provide an accurate representation on the plans of what was actually built and address Commission comments. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: might be advantageous for the applicant to install a mock-up of the dentil or other architectural feature on the site before next review, could consider a dental soffit under the eaves, dental molding applies to the eaves on the first and second floors. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny this application without prejudice with the direction to redesign as noted. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Auran abstain) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. C. Auran returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias. 7. 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FARHAD ASHR.AFI AND DEBBIE KAUFMAN, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS AND DESIGNERS; FRANK KNIFSEND PROPERTY OWNER�(64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER• MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report August 14, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if a parking variance for covered parking space dimension is required since the length was increased to 20'-0"; staff noted that the applicant can verify that the proposed dimension is 20'-0", if so a parking variance would not be required. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Fran Knifsend, property owner, and John Stewart, designer, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, represented the project; confirmed that the size of the garage has been increased to 20'-0" clear interior dimension; the owners settled on a Craftsman design; submitted signed petitions of neighbors in support of the project; at the study meeting the Commission noted that the Dogwood tree in the rear yard near the Acacia will not do well together and asked if the Acacia tree can be removed and the Dogwood tree replaced with another tree from the Street Tree list, the neighbor would like to keep the Acacia tree, one option is to not plant a Dogwood tree next to the Acacia; submitted a letter from contractor noting that keeping the existing foundation, floor structure and walls will save the owners $20,000 in costs; the existing garage roof will be rebuilt so that the ridge is centered, the garage will contain stucco siding; the stone veneer will be continued at the same height around the entire house; rafters will be 32 inches on center throughout the house; downspouts will be round with a half-round gutter. Commission asked why water table was changed to stone veneer; architect noted that the stone is more irregular than brick, is more consistent with the proposed style, chimney will also contain stone veneer and will be gas vented. Commission noted that the revised design is handsome and consistent throughout. Commission asked what is the size of the columns proposed at the front; architect noted that the double columns will be 12" x 12". Commission asked the architect to clarify the size of the driveway pavers and if it will be a contrasting color; architect noted that the driveway pavers will be 8" x 12" with contrasting colors. Commission noted that the proposed citrus trees along the left side property line adjacent to the concrete patio at the rear of the house will be messy at maturity, not a good landscape screen, evergreen large scale shrubs would work better, such as Bay Laurel; architect agreed. Commission noted a concern with the 4x knee brace and noted that a 6x knee brace would look better. Commission commented that the 2x corner trim is too small and suggested that a 4x corner trim be used; architect noted that a 2" x 4" trim will be used. 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 Sigrid Geiger, 1237 Cabrillo Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. Noted that she would like to keep the Acacia tree because it blocks the view of a telephone pole, cannot move the telephone pole, there are large trees behind the lots which provide nice screening for rear yards, the property owners are good neighbors, asked that the Commission approve the project and let them build the house they have wanted for a long time; current design is more charming than the previously proposed, worked hard to address the Commissions' concerns, the final design does not resemble the existing house but it does give a sense of home, this is a good addition to the neighborhood; in a letter dated Apri15, 2006, the architect notes that in other cities variances are not required for existing nonconforming conditions, however they serve a good purpose in Burlingame, do not cause problems that other cities have. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that the architect worked with existing house to create a good design and 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 Department date stamped July 24, 2006, sheets A1 through A7, L1.0 and Sheet 1, Boundary Survey; and that any changes to building materials including casement windows throughout, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that 6"x wood knee braces and 2"x4" corner trim shall be used; that the citrus trees along the left side property line adjacent to the concrete patio at the rear of the house shall be replaced with large scale evergreen shrubs, such as Bay Laurel; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 10, 2006, memo, the City Engineer's April 10, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's April 7, 2006, memo, Recycling Specialist's Apri124,2006, memo, and NPDES Coordinator's April 10, 2006, memos, shall be met; 3) 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; 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subj ect to Planning Commission review; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Deparhnent; 6) 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 Department; 7) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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; 8) 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; 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 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; and 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 13, 2007 The use of the parking space works now, but invalidate the Variance if the footprint of the property changes. The hardship supporting approval of the Variance is the oddly shaped lot. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Vistica moved to approve fhe applicafion, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that onsite parking at 1545 Carol Avenue shall remain as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 21, 2007, Sheet 1; with a 9' x 20' paved parking area in the front setback accessed by a curb cut on Carol Avenue and a 14' x 20' covered parking space in the rear of the property accessed by a curb cut on Barriolhet Avenue; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 12, 2002 memo shall be met; 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 4. that the Variance will be come invalid if building envelqpe changes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. . Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This ifem concluded at 7:23 p.m. 4. 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANTAND DESIGNER; FRANKAND ROBIN KNIFSEND, PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated August 13, 2007, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo, represented the applicant. Commission comments: Appreciated that the applicant submitted an application for approval of the proposed change, prior to making the change during construction. Public comments: There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m. Commissioner Terrones moved fo approve fhe application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department, Sheets A1, A2, A6, A7, L1.0 and Sheet 1, Boundary Survey (date stamped July 24, 2006) and Sheets A3 through A5 (date stamped July 16, 2007); and that any changes to building materials including window type, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that 6x wood knee braces and 2" x 4" corner trim shall be used; that the citrus trees 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 13, 2007 along the left side property line adjacent to the concrete patio at the rear of the house shall be replaced with large scale evergreen shrubs, such as Bay Laurel; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 10, 2006, memo, the City Engineer's April 10, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's April 7, 2006 and July 30, 2007 memos, Recycling Specialist's April 24, 2006, memo, and NPDES Coordinator's April 10, 2006, memos, shall be met; 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; 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window Iocations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6. 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 Department; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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; 8. 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 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 orfull demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Deal called for a voice vofe on the motion to approve. The mofion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:28 p.m. 5. 1648 BARROILHETAVENUE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND CABANA (MATTEO AND ALISA FERRARI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JERRY DEAL, JD ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER• RUBEN HURIN 4