DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA"

Lambert Park
5 years ago
Views:

1 CITY OF SAN MARINO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA Kevin Cheng, Chair Corinna Wong, Vice-Chair (626) Phone John Dustin City Hall Judy Johnson-Brody Council Chambers Chris Huang 2200 Huntington Drive Lon Wahlberg, Alternate San Marino, CA WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, :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 3 rd 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: Chairman Kevin Cheng, Vice-Chair Corinna Wong, John Dustin, Judy Johnson-Brody, Chris Huang, and Lon Wahlberg 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

2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA MAY 2, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE CASE NO. DRC17-63 This item was continued from the February 21, 2018 and April 4, 2018 meetings CARLISLE DR., (CHANG/LIN) The applicant proposes to construct a second-story addition with exterior modifications to the existing one-story residence. (Required Action Date: ) 2. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE CASE NO. DRC MESA RD., (JASPER/LUNDGREN) The applicant proposes to construct a motorized driveway gate, a pedestrian gate, brick pilasters with lighting fixtures and fencing in the front yard. (Required Action Date: ) 3. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE CASE NO. DRC ROSE AVE., (JEON) The applicant proposes to construct an addition and remodel to the existing first story, an addition of a new second story, exterior modifications, and a new detached two-car garage. (Required Action Date: ) 4. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE CASE NO. DRC WILBURY RD., (LI/HOHMANN) The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story residence, a detached two-car garage and street facing side yard fencing. (Required Action Date: ) OTHER MATTERS 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.

3 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA MAY 2, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 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 16, 2018 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.

City of San Marino AGENDA REPORT TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: DATE: MAY 2, 2018 SUBJECT: CHRISTINE SONG, ASSISTANT PLANNER DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO.

4 City of San Marino AGENDA REPORT TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: DATE: MAY 2, 2018 SUBJECT: CHRISTINE SONG, ASSISTANT PLANNER DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO. DRC CARLISLE DR., (CHANG/LIN) Kevin Cheng, Chair Corinna Wong, Vice Chair John Dustin Judy Johnson-Brody Chris Huang Lon Wahlberg, Alternate PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct a second-story addition with exterior modifications and a significant remodel of the existing one-story house. 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 February 21, 2018 First hearing before DRC. The project was continued due to several design issues regarding the front elevation, the proposed flat roof, window treatments, contemporary building materials, and second floor privacy issues. April 4, 2018 Second hearing before DRC. The project was continued without a hearing due to the applicant requesting additional time to revise the plans to address an oak tree dripline issue. May 2, 2018 Third hearing before DRC. June 16, 2018 Required action date NEIGHBOR APPROVAL/OBJECTION LETTERS (As of 2/21/18) Approve - 5 Object 0 Neither - 1 No response 5 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:

5 1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE Comments: The neighborhood consists of a mix of one-story and two-story structures in Cape Cod, French, Colonial, and Minimal Traditional architectural styles. Staff finds that the proposed addition of a second story is acceptable, however the French Revival style is not an appropriate style selection for the legal neighborhood. 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 Comments: The previously proposed Juliette balcony on the second floor has been removed from the plans. The proposed second-story addition does not propose any unreasonable privacy impacts to adjacent neighbors. 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: At the prior hearing, the Committee expressed concerns about the height of the front facing gable, the proposed flat roof, lack of window details, and overall inconsistencies in the design of the project. Staff finds that previous staff and Committee comments have not been sufficiently addressed. Although the stone veneer application has been significantly reduced down to a wainscot, the overall front elevation still appears awkward with a single dormer and lack of design details that clearly distinguish the structure as a French Revival home. Furthermore, the flat roof and hollowed well are poorly designed and should not have any bearing on future plans for solar panels and/or placement of air conditioning units. Lastly, staff has previously informed the applicant that the French Revival style may not be a suitable selection for the subject property, as it is often seen on larger estate properties and is not compatible with this area district. 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 window and roofing materials are selected from the City s Pre- Approved Lists and are acceptable. However, staff finds that the proposed stone veneer material is not compatible with the proposed structure and may appear too synthetic as well as too contemporary for the chosen architectural style.

7 City of San Marino AGENDA REPORT TO: BY: DATE: MAY 2, 2018 SUBJECT: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE EVA CHOI, ASSOCIATE PLANNER DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO. DRC MESA RD., (JASPER/LUNDGREN) Kevin Cheng, Chairman Corinna Wong, Vice Chair John Dustin Judy Johnson-Brody Chris Huang Lon Wahlberg, Alternate PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct a motorized driveway gate, a pedestrian gate, brick plasters with lightings and fencing in the front yard. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303e because the project involves an accessory structure. PROJECT HISTORY May 2, 2018 First hearing before the DRC June 15, 2018 Required action date NEIGHBOR APPROVAL/OBJECTION LETTERS Approve 10 Object 1 (owner of 1224 Rosalind Rd.) No response 4 DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS San Marino City Code Section G identifies separate design review findings relating to the approval of fence, gates, walls and pilasters. It also states that the Design Review Committee may reduce the maximum permitted height, increase the minimum required setback and decrease the maximum permitted opacity of any fence, gate, pilaster, yard wall or retaining wall located in the front yard. The Design Review Committee may not reduce the maximum permitted height, increase the minimum required setback or decrease the maximum permitted opacity of any fence, gate, yard wall or retaining wall located in a side yard adjacent to a street; except, that the Design Review Committee or Commis-

8 sion can increase the minimum setback for a gate providing access to a driveway in order to protect pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The DRC shall approve the application for the pilasters with lighting fixtures in the front yard if it finds all of the following to be true: 1. That the proposed fence, gate, pilaster, yard wall or retaining wall is architecturally compatible with the existing residence. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE Comments: The materials and colors of the gates and fencing are architecturally compatible with the home. The side yard fencing will be partially covered by an existing hedge. 2. That the proposed fence, gate, pilaster, yard wall or retaining wall is consistent with the size and location of fences, gates, pilasters, yard walls and retaining walls on the block on which the property is located. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE The Municipal Code defines Block as the property abutting on one side of a street and lying between the two (2) nearest intersecting or intercepting streets or between the termination of such street and the nearest intersecting or intercepting street. Comments: The subject property is an interior lot along the north side of Mesa Road. Properties near the east end (cross street Circle Drive) of the block are improved with gates and pilasters. 3. That the proposed fence, gate, pilaster, yard wall or retaining wall preserves site lines and is otherwise located in a manner not to create a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE Comments: The proposed improvements will not cause a hazardous condition to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The driveway gate is setback approximately 22 feet from the curb.

11 City of San Marino AGENDA REPORT TO: BY: DATE: MAY 2, 2018 SUBJECT: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE EVA CHOI, ASSOCIATE PLANNER DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO. DRC ROSE AVE., (JEON) Kevin Cheng, Chairman Corinna Wong, Vice Chair John Dustin Judy Johnson-Brody Chris Huang Lon Wahlberg, Alternate PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct an addition and remodel to the existing first story, an addition of a new second story, exterior modifications, and a new detached two-car garage. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(2) Existing Facilities. PROJECT HISTORY May 2, 2018 First hearing before the DRC June 15, 2018 Required action date NEIGHBOR APPROVAL/OBJECTION LETTERS Approve 11 Object 2 No response 0 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

12 Comments: The proposed second story addition is compatible with the massing and scale of development within the legal neighborhood. The new detached garage is consistent with other detached garages in the vicinity; the only attached garage in the neighborhood is located at 1660 Rose Avenue, a triangular shaped lot that proved challenging to provide a conforming detached garage. The project introduces new exterior colors, materials, and roofing materials that are similar to those found on neighboring structures; this helps the project blend in with the existing streetscape. 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: Second floor windows are setback sufficiently to avoid a direct sightline into adjacent structures. 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 provides articulation and minimally increases the massing and bulk of the existing structure. However, staff recommends a consistent roof slope for the addition portion and the detached garage to improve compatibility with the existing 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: New exterior colors and materials are introduced for the project and are consistently carried throughout the project. Staff recommends the use of a single door with sidelites and true brick for wainscoting application.

18 City of San Marino AGENDA REPORT TO: BY: DATE: MAY 2, 2018 SUBJECT: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE EVA CHOI, ASSOCIATE PLANNER DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO. DRC WILBURY RD., (LI/HOHMANN) Kevin Cheng, Chairman Corinna Wong, Vice Chair John Dustin Judy Johnson-Brody Chris Huang Lon Wahlberg, Alternate PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story residence, a detached two-car garage and street facing side yard fencing and walls. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section (replacement or reconstruction). PROJECT HISTORY May 2, 2018 First hearing before the DRC June 15, 2018 Required action date NEIGHBOR APPROVAL/OBJECTION LETTERS Approve 2 Object 6 Object (not in the legal neighborhood) - 2 No response 5 DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS NEW RESIDENCE 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

19 Comments: The legal neighborhood contains both one and two-story homes in various traditional styles. Staff can support the proposed style, the concept of a two-story residence and a detached garage at this corner location. However, staff finds the vertical massing, entry treatment and the south side yard covered patio incompatible with the legal neighborhood. Entry treatments on adjacent structures are reserved and minimally noticeable, the proposed entry alcove contributes to the overbearing appearance of the structure. While the side yard covered patio provides a transition from the sidewalk to the two-story massing, this covered patio feature is not found in the legal neighborhood. 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: Large second story windows on the north elevation may cause a privacy impact to the north neighbor, planting a tall hedge or providing additional side yard setback will reduce the privacy impact. 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 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 materials and colors, including the barrel red tiles roofing material and architectural details, are appropriate for the chosen style and consistently applied throughout the project. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS SIDE YARD FENCING San Marino City Code Section G identifies separate design review findings relating to the approval of fence, gates, walls and pilasters. It also states that the Design Review Committee may reduce the maximum permitted height, increase the minimum required setback and decrease the maximum permitted opacity of any fence, gate, pilaster, yard wall or retaining wall located in the front yard. The Design Review Committee may not reduce the maximum permitted height, increase the minimum required setback or decrease the maximum permitted opacity of any fence, gate, yard wall or retaining wall located in a side yard adjacent to a street; except, that the Design Review Committee or Commission can increase the minimum setback for a gate providing access to a driveway in order to protect pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The DRC shall approve the application for the street facing side yard fencing and walls if it finds all of the following to be true:

20 1. That the proposed fence, gate, pilaster, yard wall or retaining wall is architecturally compatible with the existing residence. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE Comment: The materials and colors of the walls and fencing are architecturally compatible with the home. 2. That the proposed fence, gate, pilaster, yard wall or retaining wall is consistent with the size and location of fences, gates, pilasters, yard walls and retaining walls on the block on which the property is located. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE The Municipal Code defines Block as the property abutting on one side of a street and lying between the two (2) nearest intersecting or intercepting streets or between the termination of such street and the nearest intersecting or intercepting street. Comments: The subject property is one of two corner lots between Winston Avenue and Wilbury Road along the north side of Cumberland Road. The proposed fencing and walls are not consistent with the limited side yard wall existing on the adjoining corner lot at 1375 Winston Avenue. It should be noted that similar street facing walls and fencing are found on corner properties across Wilbury Road from the subject site, but these locations are outside of the "Block". 3. That the proposed fence, gate, pilaster, yard wall or retaining wall preserves site lines and is otherwise located in a manner not to create a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Staff can make this finding: YES NO NOT APPLICABLE Comments: The side yard wall is setback sufficiently from the sidewalk, however staff finds that the visual clearance for pedestrians traveling east on Cumberland Road can be improved if the 45 degree corner of the wall at the termination of the driveway is replaced with a curved wall much like the west end of the wall.