CITY OF SAN MARINO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, :00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2200 HUNTINGTON DRIVE, SAN MARINO, CA

Transcription

1 CITY OF SAN MARINO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA Howard Brody, Chair Kevin Cheng, Vice-Chair Judy Johnson-Brody Chris Huang Joyce Gatsoulis-Batnij Ben Lundgren, Alternate (626) Phone (626) Fax City Hall Council Chamber 2200 Huntington Drive San Marino, CA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, :00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2200 HUNTINGTON DRIVE, SAN MARINO, CA The City of San Marino appreciates your attendance. Citizens interest provides the Design Review Committee with valuable information regarding issues of the community. Regular Meetings are held on the 1 st and 3rd Wednesday of every month. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk s Office at (626) at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Chair Howard Brody, Vice-Chair Kevin Cheng, Committee Member Judy Johnson- Brody, Committee Member Chris Huang, Committee Member Joyce Gatsoulis Batnij, and Alternate Committee Member Ben Lundgren POSTING OF AGENDA The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting at the following locations: City Hall, 2200 Huntington Drive, the Crowell Public Library, 1890 Huntington Drive and the Recreation Department, 1560 Pasqualito Drive. The agenda is also posted on the City s Website: PUBLIC COMMENTS Section of the Brown Act provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on any item of interest to the public, before or during the Design Review Committee s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Design Review Committee.

2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA APRIL 17, 2019 PAGE 2 OF 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DESIGN REVIEW NO. DRC MONTEREY RD., (YANG/DIG INC.) This item was continued from the meeting of March 20, The applicant requests to construct a first and second-story addition with exterior modifications to the existing two-story structure and a new detached three-car garage. (Required Action Date: ) 2. DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO. DRC ALPINE DR., (YUAN) This item was continued from the meeting of April 3, The applicant proposes to construct a covered front entry porch, a one-story addition, and exterior modifications to an existing two-story structure. (Required Action Date: ) OTHER MATTERS 3. REQUEST FOR PROJECT APPROVAL EXTENSION 1180 OAKWOOD DR., (CHIA) OPEN FORUM This is an opportunity for future applicants to informally present preliminary design concepts for feedback from members of the DRC. Comments received are based on members not having visited the site and neighborhood. Therefore, positive comments should not be perceived as preliminary approval of a project but rather as a tool in facilitating a project through the Design Review process. No more than two DRC members may participate in Open Forum discussions. Applications that have been heard by the DRC may not be discussed during Open Forum. PUBLIC WRITINGS DISTRIBUTED All public writings distributed by the City of San Marino to at least a majority of the Design Review Committee regarding any item on this agenda will be made available at the Public Counter at City Hall located at 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California. ADJOURNMENT The San Marino Design Review Committee will adjourn to the next regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California. APPEALS There is a fifteen day appeal period for all applications. All appeals should be filed with the Planning and Building Department. Please contact the Planning and Building Department for further information.

3 Howard Brody, Chair Kevin Cheng, Vice-Chair Judy Johnson-Brody Chris Huang Joyce Gatsoulis Batnij Ben Lundgren, Alternate TO: FROM: Chair Brody and Members of the Design Review Committee Eva Choi, Associate Planner DATE: April 17, 2019 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO. DRC MONTEREY RD., (YANG/DIG INC.) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct a first and second-story addition and remodel with exterior modifications, and a new detached three-car garage. The project includes removal of the detached carport, detached guest suite, and trash enclosure located along the driveway. Since the March 20 th hearing, the architect has submitted a title report demonstrating that development on the project property is restricted by a five-foot wide utility easement along the west and north property lines. The revised plans (Sheets A-1.0 and T-1) included notations to identify the easement areas and relocated the swimming pool outside of the easement areas. Legal description of the project property includes the easterly ten feet that was questioned by Dr. Mohaghegh, the west neighbor. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(1) because the project involves an existing structure. PROJECT HISTORY March 20, 2019 First hearing before DRC. The Committee continued the hearing due to concerns with a potential 10-foot easement along the westerly property line that may limit development of the project. Additionally, the Committee were concerns with preserving existing ceramic blocks and other unique decorative features, plate height, noise impact from mechanical equipment, the use of wood siding material, exterior lighting placement and removal of trees.

4 April 17, 2019 Second hearing before DRC May 3, 2019 Required action date PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION Pursuant to Code, upon receipt of a complete application the director or his/her designee shall meet with the applicant or the applicant's representative to explain to the applicant the applicable design guidelines, findings, and procedures that will apply to the project, and to informally discuss compliance of the project with the design guidelines and applicable regulations. None of the director's comments or suggestions shall constitute an actual or implied approval of the application. In the past two years, Staff was consulted by design professionals on constructing a new residence at the subject property. Following discussions on preserving the existing main structure, the property owner decided to work with Alex Chang on an addition and remodel project to restore the structure and the property to a habitable condition. NEIGHBOR APPROVAL/OBJECTION LETTERS (as of March 20, 2019 meeting) Approve 4 Object 0 No response 4 DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS Section of the San Marino City Code states that the DRC shall approve the application if it finds all of the following to be true: 1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE Comments: The addition project maintains the structure s compatibility with the legal neighborhood. The addition preserves majority of the current 2-story façade as viewed from Monterey Road; the increased building height occurs along the west side and rear portions of the structure. 2. That the proposed structure is designed and will be developed in a manner which balances the reasonable expectation of privacy of persons residing on contiguous properties with the reasonable expectations of the applicants to develop their property within the restrictions of this Code. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE 2

5 Comments: The project would not have privacy impacts on adjacent properties. While the project includes two balconies on the second floor, there is adequate separation and setback to prevent a direct sightline into adjacent structures. The Committee was concerned with noise impact to visitors of Lacy Park as mechanical equipment were proposed abutting the rear property line. The design program has since relocated the mechanical equipment to provide a 6-foot setback from the rear property line. 3. In the case of a building addition, the proposal is compatible with the existing building which includes the rooflines. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE Comments: The addition maintains the asymmetrical façade and varying rooflines. The addition incorporates outdoor living area which is an existing design feature with the structure. 4. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE Comments: The addition project maintains the integrity of building materials on the existing structure by including extensive restoration work to preserve the ceramic blocks and other decorative features. The architect has located the original manufacturer of the ceramic blocks and this will ensure an accurate reproduction of the ceramic blocks if the original material cannot be repaired. Details on existing decorative features are documented on the Sheets A through A A of the revised plans. The revised design eliminated wood siding and is using smooth stucco to achieve a more cohesive exterior finish. Exterior lighting locations correspond with the height of nearby doors or position at eye level. Tree removal and pruning are subject to the tree preservation ordinance and approval of the City Arborist. An additional measure to ensure that demolition, excavation and construction activities under or nearby the oak trees will be done in a manner that would not impact the health of the tree, the Committee may consider the following condition of approval: 1. The property owner shall appoint a certified arborist to determine mitigation measures to protect all established and remaining trees on the subject property where all construction impacts including demolition, excavation or construction activities may take place within the dripline of matured trees. The project arborist shall submit a Tree Protection Plan to the City Arborist outlining the mitigation measures to be implemented. All work under the dripline or tree canopy of the oak trees adjacent to the proposed project site must be overseen and documented by the same project arborist and be available for City review if requested. 3

6

7

8

9

10 Howard Brody, Chair Kevin Cheng, Vice-Chair Judy Johnson-Brody Chris Huang Joyce Gatsoulis Batnij Ben Lundgren, Alternate TO: FROM: Chair Brody and Members of the Design Review Committee Christine Song, Assistant Planner DATE: April 17, 2019 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO. DRC ALPINE DR., (YUAN) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct a covered front entry porch, a one-story addition and exterior modifications to an existing two-story structure, including removal of an existing balcony on the second floor. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(1) Existing Facilities. PROJECT HISTORY April 3, 2019 First hearing before the DRC. The Committee continued the project, requesting additional information about proposed colors and materials as well as a more detailed drawing of the proposed front porch roof feature. April 17, 2019 Second hearing before the DRC May 17, 2019 Required action date NEIGHBOR APPROVAL/OBJECTION LETTERS Approve 9 Object 0 No response 3

11 DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS Section of the San Marino City Code states that the DRC shall approve the application if it finds all of the following to be true: 1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE Comments: The legal neighborhood predominantly consists of two-story structures. The proposed removal of the balcony on the second floor and the small addition at the rear of the first floor will not compromise the existing structure s compatibility with other properties in the neighborhood. However, the proposed covered front entry porch introduces a shed roof element that is not present elsewhere within the legal neighborhood nor is it compatible with the existing structure s roofline along the front elevation. 2. That the proposed structure is designed and will be developed in a manner which balances the reasonable expectation of privacy of persons residing on contiguous properties with the reasonable expectations of the applicants to develop their property within the restrictions of this Code. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE Comment: Privacy impacts are not anticipated to result from this project as there are no new windows being installed along the north or south elevations that would affect adjacent neighbors sightlines. 3. In the case of a building addition, the proposal is compatible with the existing building which includes the rooflines. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE Comments: The addition on the first floor will be constructed to match the existing structure in terms of materials and roofline. The proposed shed roof which will create a deeper covered front entry porch is not compatible with the existing structure as it would disrupt the roofline along the front elevation and result in a disjointed appearance. Although the existing structure does not exhibit a specific architectural style, the proposed striped awnings along the east elevation are also incompatible with the more traditional elements of the structure. 2

12 4. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE Comments: The proposed roofing material (Boral Cedarlite in Heartwood) is selected from the City s Pre-Approved Roof Materials Colors and Application list and is an appropriate application on this structure. The proposed window material (aluminum clad wood windows from Marvin Ultimate product line) is selected from the City s Pre-Approved Window Material list and is a suitable selection. With respect to the proposed colors on the structure, staff feels that the application of one color on both the first and second floor would provide a more uniform appearance along the front and side elevations as the existing wood siding wraps around the structure. The use of a variety of different colors for the structure, the windows, and the awnings do not complement the existing structure and lacks design cohesion. Additionally, the proposed white front entry door would result in a stark contrast with the rest of the structure and is undesirable. If the Committee chooses to grant approval of this project, staff recommends a condition of approval directing the applicant to work with staff in selecting appropriate shades of colors for the structure, awnings, and front door. 3

13

14

15

16

17 Howard Brody, Chair Kevin Cheng, Vice-Chair Judy Johnson-Brody Chris Huang Joyce Gatsoulis Batnij Ben Lundgren, Alternate TO: FROM: Chair Brody and Members of the Design Review Committee Christine Song, Assistant Planner DATE: April 17, 2019 SUBJECT: PROJECT EXTENSION REQUEST DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO. DRC OAKWOOD DR., (CHIA) PROJECT DESCRIPTION On November 2, 2017, the DRC approved a one-story addition and exterior modifications at the property known as 1180 Oakwood Drive. Pursuant to City Code Section (C), the DRC approval is valid for one year and a building permit must be obtained within one year of the approval date. The DRC may grant an approval extension for up to one year from the original approval date. The project was initially submitted for Building division structural plan check on April 10, Structural plan check was complete and the building permit was ready for issuance on October 31, The property owner was unable to hire a contractor in time as she was tending to her son s severe health issues. Staff is of the opinion that a 9-month extension would be sufficient time for the property owner to find a contractor and pull the building permit to begin construction. Should the DRC decide to grant the project extension approval, the new approval expiration date would be August 2, 2019.

18