1 - City of Glendale

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The current proposal features a more contemporary Ranch style with a gabled roof to match the residences in the neighborhood. The proposed overall two-story building height is 28' is well below Code limits (maximum building height in the R1R zone is 32 feet, with an additional three feet for pitched roofs). During the ORB meeting, certain Boardmembers pointed out the potential to modify the ceiling and roof design and required that the overall roof height be lowered by two feet (Exhibit #4). Therefore, as conditioned, the overall height for the pitched roof will be 26 feet. This condition height would result in a house that is compatible with the two-story homes along the north side of Buckingham Place and also help to slightly reduce the visual impact of the addition with regards to the appellant's views from their bedroom windows. The appellant repeatedly states that the proposed project does not address the recommendations made by the City Council during the last appeal in 2009. Staff's Response: The City Council cited that the previous project was not compatible with the neighborhood in terms of mass and scale, and design, and that the project resulted in conflicting relationships with adjacent buildings (Exhibit #7). The owner hired a new architect who submitted a new design submittal in response to the City Council's comments: • The current project is approximately 700 square feet less in size than the previous proposal; • The footprint/size of the 2nd story addition has been reduced and shifted away from the adjacent neighbor to the east; and • The project has been redesigned in a more contemporary, Ranch-influenced style to be more compatible with the neighborhood. SUMMARY Based on the analysis of the appeal and the reasoning above, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the ORB decision. The Boardmembers took into account not only the size of the home, but also the project's massing, scale, height, setback, landscaping, window placement, garage location, use of material and colors and other architectural design elements in determining compatibility. The two-story project, as conditioned, appears to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, despite its size, and is a commendable design with high quality materials and details. To reiterate the basis of the ORB's decision, the Record of Decision includes the following: Site Planning: Minor changes are proposed for the footprint of the existing house on the angled flag lot, yet the overall site planning of the site will remain similar to the existing. Small additions are proposed at the ground level along the south and west elevations, while a new semi-cantilevered deck is proposed at the rear to provide more flat surface area. The proposed project is only partially visible from Buckingham Place, and will not be readily visible from Chevy Chase Drive, given the curvature of the street and the building location atop the steep slope. Except for the slight decrease in existing hardscape and the proposed rear deck, the landscaping will not be affected and will remain as is, with the exception of additional landscaping required to screen the base of the new deck. Staff is recommending that additional landscaping be installed at the base of the deck to soften its appearance. Overall, the proposed site plan is compatible with the adjacent developments. 8
Mass and Scale: Although the house will be the largest in the survey area, the project's massing is generally compatible with the surrounding single family houses, given its configuration of building forms, location on the hillside flag lot, and treatment of the fagades. The majority of the second story addition is located away from the existing east first floor elevation and interior property line, and above the west half of the building's footprint, thereby reducing the perceived mass and scale, in addition to privacy concerns and visual impact, in regards to the east neighbor. With its location on a recessed building pad atop a steep slope above Chevy Chase, the 2-story project's mass and scale facing Chevy Chase will also be not be apparent from the street. As conditioned, the proposed massing and scale of the project will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Building Design and Details: The project has been designed in a contemporary architectural style, featuring appropriate, modern finishes and muted, earth-toned colors. While the design slightly veers away from the traditional Ranch style in the neighborhood, the more contemporary project is nevertheless compatible with the surrounding structures in terms of forms and massing. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council sustain the Design Review Board's determination to approve Case No. 2- PDR-1301725-A, based on the rationale used by the Design Review Board. If the Council is inclined to reverse the Design Review Board's decision and deny the application, an alternate draft motion is attached. PUBLIC NOTICE The· Code requires publication of public notices of when the Council considers approval of entitlements such as design review. Staff has mailed copies of the notices to all property owners and occupants within the 500' of the project. A public notice has also been posted on-site. FISCAL IMPACT There will be no fiscal impact. CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE In accordance with Council direction pursuant to the recently adopted City Campaign Finance Ordinance, the names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, subcontractors and any person or entity with 10% interest or more in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report is attached as Exhibit 3. EXHIBITS 1 . Location Map 2. Photos of Existing Home & Site 3. Project Site Plans, Floor Plans, Elevations 4. Staff Report and Record of Decision for Case No. 2-PDR-1301725-A for ORB Meeting on March 7, 2013 5. Notice of Appeal of DRS's Decision to City Council 6. Neighborhood Survey 7. Plans for previous Case No. 1-PDR-2008-089-A and City Council's Motion to Deny the Appeal 9
Page 1 and 2: glendale"~ california~ CITY OF GLEN
Page 3 and 4: Circulation Element: Buckingham Pla
Page 5 and 6: • Two Boardmembers noted the proj
Page 7: Lastly, the appellant recommended b
Page 11 and 12: MOTION TO CONTINUE Moved by Council
Page 13: Go gle 2064 Buckingham Place, Glend
Page 16 and 17: GENERAL NOTES I. TA KE CAREFl!l NOT
Page 18 and 19: ~· 6' 13'-2' 6' 61-31/2' IE)DJNIN6
Page 20 and 21: II ~-----EJ
Page 22 and 23: 3 Alajajlan Marcoosi Architects Inc
Page 24 and 25: dajcjian · ,..or;co:i c:rc hle~c·
Page 26 and 27: EXTERIOR FINISI-I MATERIALS: TOP OF
Page 28 and 29: DOOR SCHEDULE ,..,...._ FIReRA~ 6lA
Page 30 and 31: ~m&· ------------~ 5mJPPIH6 I 3/4'
Page 32 and 33: . EXHIBIT 4. CITY OF GLENDALE, CALI
Page 34 and 35: " CITY OF GLENDALE PLANNING DEPARTM
Page 36 and 37: 2064 Buckingham Place Page 3 of7 SI
Page 38 and 39: 2064 Buckingham Place Page 5 of 7 p
Page 40 and 41: 2064 Buckingham Place Page 7 of?
Page 42 and 43: PART 4- STATEMENT OF ERROR A. Do yo
Page 44 and 45: We attended the Glendale Design Rev
Page 46 and 47: My. response is that the only reaso
Page 52 and 53: EXHIBIT 6. NEIGHBORHOOD KEY Key Add
Page 54 and 55: - .9 8 2 EXHIBI~' 7 .. M 0 I! 0 N M
Page 56 and 57: , 2t-J.D sro~'( ~o~:no~ €U t-1\ l
Page 58 and 59:
TOP OF ROOF -~ TOP OF ROOF -~ TOP O
Page 60 and 61:
PROPOSED ADDITION OWNER: GEVORK NER
Page 62 and 63:
o·-o· 13'-2' 6'-0' 70'-4' 26'-4'
Page 64 and 65:
__________________ ~------------...
Page 66 and 67:
-----=--------=-_:___:_ _ ___ _____
Page 68 and 69:
-- . ---·-----. EXTERIOR FINISH MA
Page 70:
I TOP Of ROOf SECTION "A" SCALE: 1/
show all

1 - City of Glendale

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?