The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1440 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff ReportF, CITY �r.: ; �I �� , � DATE TO: FROM CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM November 19, 2013 Planning Commission Erica Strohmeier, Associate Planner Director's Report Meeting Date: November 25, 2013 SUBJECT: FYI — REVIEW OF AS-BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1440 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1440 Cabrillo Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on September 10, 2012 (September 10, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A building permit for the project was issued on April 10, 2013, and construction on the house has been completed. Upon inspection of the final construction on November 7, 2013, Planning Staff noted the approved material of the fireplace chimney along the left side property line was changed from brick veneer to stone veneer. In a letter dated November 13, 2013, the project architect is requesting an FYI for the change to the chimney material. The project architect also submitted originally approved and proposed front and left side building elevations, date stamped November 13, 2013, to explain the as-built change to the previously approved design review project. Other than the change to the chimney material listed above and detailed in the project architects letter, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. Planning staff would note that because of the minor as-built change to the house, 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. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road, suite 203, Burlingame, CA 94010, architect. ATTACHMENTS: Explanation letter from architect, date stamped November 13, 2013 September 10, 2012, Planning Commission Regular Action Minutes Originally approved and proposed Front and Left side Building Elevations, date stamped November 13, 2013 0 TRG � November 12, 2013 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: FYI - 1440 Cabrillo Ave. Dear Commissioner, The property at 1440 Cabrillo Ave. was previously approved for a new house. The owner has substituted stone veneer for the previously approved brick veneer on the chimney. This makes sense, as it goes better with the other earth tones, pavers etc... elsewhere on the house. Additionally, we don't see this change as a downgrade; it's a lateral one if not an upgrade. We hope you will find the revisian acceptable. Sincerely, Randy Grange AIA LEED AP �� NOV 1 � Z�';3 �CITY OF BUR�IPJGAME CDD-�?._;��lf�ING f�IV, n _'U� I'�.irl< Kuad, Suitc 103, Burlinkamc. CA 9�010 ,� ,rr.:'�.'a.tl..... CJ a�< <�e rsc ;�T':��.�,:.:..:�;�."„ 6�0.579.5762 F;�r G50.579.01 IS www.crgurc6.cnm CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 ommission�r Sargent noted f�he would need t recuse himsel om the discussio regarding enda I 2(144d1�abrillo Avenue) s he resides with 500-feet of th roperty. He le the City C ncil Ch bers. 2. 1440 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 27, 2012 PLANN/NG COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated September 10, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, Burlingame; represented the applicant. All requests made by the Commission have been added to the plans. If the garage roof pitch were to be redesigned to match the home, a conditional use permit would be required. His client was adamantly opposed to building a false chimney at the rear of the house where the fireplace is located. Commission comments: ■ Continue to receive the same design solution for gas-fired fireplaces; would like to see other design solutions. ■ Would like to see alternate design solutions for garage roof pitches to better match the residence architecture even if a conditional use permit is required. ■ Noted that the second story appears to be in one plane; the roof over the main window reads as a bump-out; what is the purpose of the roof element? (Grange — is a trick to better define the window and make it appear symmetrical. The depth of the overhang is extended.) ■ Glad the chimney material was changed to brick. ■ With respect to the proposed columns on the front; were alternatives to the shingle finish explored? (Grange — this is a traditional feature of New England style homes.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Disappointed that the City Attorney is not present. ■ Feels the property owner acted prematurely to remove the tree from the property. ■ The right to appeal is not nullified by the lack of notice. ■ When was the tree removal permit issued; when was notice sent? ■ Feels that the neighbors' objection letter to the tree removal permit is a de-facto appeal letter to the tree removal. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 ■ Is important to know the date when the permit was issued. ■ Reminded the Commission of the prior project for which a deposit was required to ensure the viability of a Redwood grove on the property following development. ■ Why isn't the Commission looking into how and why the tree was removed? ■ Even though the tree was within the footprint of the building, the design approaches the maximum FAR and could accommodate a reduction to allow the tree to remain. ■ Can a stipulation be placed on the property to provide some punitive remedy for the premature tree removal? (Commissioners — the tree removal was warranted by the endangerment to the existing structure. Noted that the Commission did express outrage over the premature removal of the tree; but that the Parks and Recreation Department was relying upon the public notice process for design review. The permit was not conditioned upon approval of the design review process. Have encouraged refinements to the tree removal process to ensure that appeal procedures are preserved. The City Arborist has recommended additional, more substantial landscaping to compensate for the premature removal of the tree.) ■ Requested that when the staff packets are assembled, include a paragraph up front that speaks to the landscaping to be incorporated into the project. Make reference to permits for tree removal that are only effective upon approval of the project. (Commissioners — the tree removal permit was issued in July. The homeowner would have the right to remove the tree absent the project if it was impacting the existing residence. There should be some notice and right of appeal provided. The neighbor complaining about the tree removal lives two doors down from the project.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve fhe application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 29, 2012, sheets A1.1 through A4.1, L1.0, L2.0 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 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 (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 10, 2012 memo, the Chief Building Official's June 28, 2012 memo, the Parks Supervisor's June 28, 2012 memo and July 27, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 25, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's June 26, 2012 memo shall be met; 5. 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; 6. 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 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 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; 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 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; 10. 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; 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 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 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 Building plans. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 10, 2012 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion fo approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:43 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 3. 4 COWAN ROAD, ZONED —APPLICATION FOR AMEND NT TO CONDITIONAL U PERMIT T INCREASE THE HOURS O OPERATION AND ADD SALES F ALCOHOLIC BEVERAG S TO AN EX TING INCIDENTAL FOOD STABLISHMENT (MARC WOR LL, APPLICANT AND PR PERTY ��n�w rr�� I�TArr /1!�\ITA/1T_ f11 � r�� n�r.�� . Refere ce staff report dated Meeker esented the report, for consi ration. Questions o staff: ■ None. ;r 10, 2012, with attachments. ommunity Development criteria and staff comments. Se en (7) conditions were su Chair Gaul open the public hearing. '� "� Marc Worrall, Burli ame; represented the app�ant. mmission commer ■ �, Looks like the Public omments: There were o further comment and the public hearmg wa� closed. *v Additional Co ission comments: � � None. � to 1 the project sh�ll be built as 12, 2011, sheet A1; on is moving along n"F�ely — the business will be a�iice addition. approval of the applicat�� to the City Council with�e following the plans submitted to th�Planning Division datc�stamped E� BURL.� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING FEES RECEIPT Subject Address: j �� (I � � / �" ` ` Date:�� 1 � Received for application to the Planning Division for: ACCT. 101-36630 (#63) � Application to the Planning Commission -- t"�`� Residential 8� Commercial Design Review Handling Fee Title 25 Zoning Code (postage add $3.00) Title 22- Sign Code General Plan (not including postage) Specific Plan (not including postage) Neighborhood Design Guidebook Commercial Design Guidebook Bayfront Specific Plan Zoning Map Photocopies ($0.25 x ) Environmental Handling Fee (35% 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 ACCT. 101-36342 (#58) Parks City Arborist Review ACCT. 101-36620 (#64) Second Unit Amnesty Building Inspection Deposit ACCT. 101-22590 (#83) Environmental Consultant Fee ACCT.739-39591 (#93) Bayfront Development Fee 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: Effective 07.01.2013 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ � 20°G 470.00 32.00 10.00 79.00 32.00 12.00 10.00 12.00 5.00 $ 836.00 $ $ 172.00 $ 418.00 $ $ A � � V , . ,� ;', ", t; i"�",� ` � �, " i CITY OF BURLINGAME � � �- _ pt a orms\FE CE .. 2013 Public Facilities Impact Fees ACCT. 739-36650-000-6080 General Facilities & Equipment ACCT. 739-36650-000-6081 Libraries ACCT. 739-36650-000-6082 Police ACCT. 739-36650-000-6083 Parks & Recreation ACCT. 739-36650-000-6084 Streets & Traffic ACCT. 739-36650-000-6085 Fire ACCT. 739-36650-000-6086 Storm Drainage $ E� $ $ $ $ E� Design Review Expense Tracking Da#e Description of Transaction C Debit (-) Credit (+) Balance _ _ _ , � � _ _ ■_ _ _ _ _ _ Effective 07.01.2013 S:\HANDOUTS\Fee Schedule Receipt and Forms\FEES RECEIPT.07.012013