The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2714 Easton Drive - Staff ReportItem #5 CITY OF BURLINGAME DESIGN REVIEW Address: 2714 Easton Drive Meeting Date: 2/8/99 Request: Design Review for revisions to a previously approved first and second story addition at 2714 Easton Drive, zoned R-1. Applicant: John Butte, Alden House II Property Owner: Peter and Sally Becker Date Submitted: 7anuary 15, 1999 Lot Area: 7434 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Adjacent Development: Single family residential APN: 027-194-090 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. History: The applicant is requesting approval of Design Review to pernut revisions to a previously approved first and second-story addition to enlarge a master bedroom and add a family room to an e�sting three bedroom, two-story house. The applicant proposes changes in the number, size and location of windows and doors and changes in architectural details on the addition that was approved by the Planning Commission on November 23, 1998. The previously approved variance for an exception from the declining height envelope and total height stay the same and are not affected by the revised project. Design review is required because of the proposed changes to the e�rterior of the building. Summary of the Proposed Project: In response to structural engineering requirements and the owner's design preference, the applicant proposes revisions to the size, location and number of windows and doors, and changes in the architectural details of a previously approved 371 SF first story and 201 SF second story addition as follows: APPROVED West Elevation �earl: lst floor one set of double french doors and a three paneled French window , . �II�I•�7 two adjacent sets of double french doors, omit the french windows 2nd floor three sets of multi-light one three-paneled multi-light window windows in master bedroom in master bedroom APPROVED One multi-light window in upstairs bedroom and one multi-light window in hall no skylights trellis under cantilevered master bedroom above garage symmetric hip-roof extending over east balcony off master bedroom North Elevation (sidel: 2nd floor PROPOSED two multi-light windows in bedroom and one in hall skylights added to first. story roof over family room corbels under cantilevered master master bedroom above garage cut hip-roof on second story master bedroom cantilever - roof ends at edge of side wall and does not extend over balcony double multi-light windows deleted double french windows in master bedroom/office balcony with double french doors with multi-light sidelights continuous hip roof over balcony South elevation (,sidel: 1 st floor 2nd floor two equal-size french windows in family room blank wall in master bedroom balcony with double french doors- omitted multi-light sidelights broken hip roof over balcony one large, one small window in family room added french window The size and location of the addition and previously approved variance for the exception to the declining height envelope and maximum height is not affected by this proposed revision. The following table compares the project with the existing structure and the R-1 zoning requirements: PROPOSED 1/15/99 EXISTING Site Coverage: 1809 SF = 24% 1438 SF = 19% FAR: 3160 SF = 42.5% 2588 SF= 35% ALLOWED/REQ'D 2974 SF = 40% 3478 SF = 46.8% Front Setback: (lst Floor): (2nd Fioor): Side Setback (R): Side Set6ack (L): Rear Setback: (lst Floor): (2nd Floor): Building Height: Declining Height: No. Bedrooms: Parking: 48'-0" 48'-0" 4'-6" 5'-0" 48'-0" 48'-0" 51'-0"* 48'-0" 48'-0" 4'-6" 5'-0" 48'-0" 59'-0" existing nonconforming 15'-0" 20'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 3 0'-0" variance approved * existing nonconforming see regulations 3 3 N/A 2 covered +1 2 covered + 1 2 covered + 1 * Variance from Declining Height Envelope and Maximum Height was previously approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting on November 23, 1998. Staff Comments: The City Engineer's comments (January 19, 1999 memo) require roof drainage from the additions to be directed to the front street (Easton Drive) by gravity. The Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshall had no comments on this application. Design Review Comments: In her comments dated January 19, 1999, the Design Review Consultant considers the proposed modifications consisting of window location and size to be consistent with the design that was previously approved on November 23, 1998. Design Review Recommendation: The Design Review Consultant recommended that this modified design be approved on the basis that the proposed revisions are minor in scope and these changes are in conformance with the design review guidelines. The same recommended conditions of approval from the November 23, 1998 Planning Commission hearing remain applicable to this application. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No.1603 adopted by the Council on September 23, 1998 are outlined as follows: 2. 3 4 that the proposed two-story addition to the rear of the existing residence maintains the spanish-style character of the e�sting residence; that the proposed addition respects the existing established parking patterns in this neighborhood; that the proposed addition is well proportioned and utilizes similar windows and architectural features that match the existing spanish style of the residence; that the addition with the second-story balcony is placed further west of neighboring residences and respects the privacy of adjacent neighbors; that the proposed to upgrades to the hard scape, terraces and plantings in the rear yard and driveway area are compatible with the use of this area and the design of the residence. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for design review. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 15, 1999; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 7anice Jagelski Planner c: John Butte, Alden House III Catherine LM Nilmeyer, Design Review Consultant ,� \ � � Ciry ojBurlinga Planning Commission Minutes \ . \ \\' �variance reques if included on e consent calen ar when it should be include � \ Chairman Deal called or a voice vote the motion to onti �, returnirig the project to e same design r viewer for subs L �� commissio� 's consent cale ar. The motio assed on a 7- � appealable� the City Counc' since the co '.ssion took no November 23, 1998 uri� findings for th�, variance � � . � �� ; the item��or redesign an for review be re it is placed the ice vote. Co inued items ar �no APPLICATION FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR A �l�� FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 2714 EASTON ` DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (JOHN BUTTE, ALDEN HOUSE II, APPLICANT AND PETER & SALLY BECKER, PROPERTY OWNERS) (50 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 11.23.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. John Butte, Alden House II, 2422 Hale Drive, applicant stated he is available for questions. Commissioners asked what roofing type is proposed for bay window, materials are not called out. The applicant responded that the roof material will match existing cap and pan tile roofing. Commissioner comments: On rear elevation, balcony is integrated well, but roof over has no support, support post on corner as part of railing; not on elevation, oversight; on floor plan, deck is in line with floor below, rear elevation shows cantilever flush with second floor addition, set back looks better, second floor plan shows correct setback, different on roof plan; wants to know if applicant plans to match gutter detail and windows. The applicant responded that the window and gutters will match existing, new deck will match the one at front. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: gravity of addition is small, justification for height variance is that the house is built up on hill above the street; for the declining height envelope variance, the way the house is placed on the lot relative to other houses in the area the intrusion is small, this is an existing house, the addition is small, meets the intent of the code, design will work; can handle omissions by amending conditions; deck proposed is shown correct on second floor plan, error on. roof plan should be corrected. C. Luzuriaga moved approval , by resolution, for the reasons stated, of the height and declining height envelope variances and with conditions in the staff report and three added conditions as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 29, 1998; 2) that the profile of gutter, tile roof and all trim shall match existing; 3) that the second floor balcony shall be the same as proposed on the second floor plan, staff shall verify that the post and roof are integrated; 4) that the roof pitch shall be between 2:12 to 4:12; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(sj, changing the roof height or pitch, or changing exterior -5- Ciry �rf Burlingame P.'anning Commissiors Minutes November 23, 1998 materials and windows shall be subject to design review; and 6) that the project shall meet the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Commissioners clarified the wording of the added conditions, discussed roof pitch, request look at change in roof pitch, 2:12 all right because of windov�r placement; 3:12 looks better than 2:12, and is more in keeping with the existing house, however, does not matter since 3:2 is within the range of the condition. C. Luzuriaga and C. Bojues agreed to the wording of the motion. There were no further comments from the commission. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A HOT TUB ADJACENT TO THE LE�I' SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 1129 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (CHARLES W. & S_1�_`�IC'7ENBROT_ APPLICANTS.AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (57 NOTICED) request, for con: Chairman Deal available for ai report, 11.23.98, with �tachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the ;d criteria and Planning De�artment comments. Three conditions were suggested n. \ �>� � op�ned the public hearing. Charles 'genbrot, 1129 Bernal Avenue;' �pplicant was estioi��. There were no questions and t$� public hearing was closed. �'�� Commission discussion: needs to be continued a it •�buts the garage. �, �� . favor of variance, yard small, aw�vard to put hot tub elsewhere, ,fence ;�side property line; hot tub would ha�re little impact on neighbor s�ce C. Bo es moved approval, by res ° ution, of the side setback variance ai�d with amended and added c ditions in the staff report as ,ollows: 1) that the project shall be'b,uilt as shown on the plans sub itted to the Planning Depart\ nt date stamped November 16, 199�2) that the conditions the Chief Building Official's'� ,ctober 13, 1998 memo and the City Engineer's October 13, 98 memo shall be met; 3) tha��he project shall meet all the requirements of the California Buil ' g and Fire Codes, 1995 editiog as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 4) that the side prop ty line fence shall be continue�o the rear property line for aesthetic �urposes or that the Senior L dscape Inspector shall review a�d approve any landscaping proposed to substitute for a privac fence extended to rear property ,kne, taking into consideration the need to gain access to the side o the neighboring garage for main�nance. Motion was seconded by C. Coffey. �` . On the motion: concern with pump house noise, but letter from next door neighbor is in support, so can agree based on that. ., � 01i19i99 10�50 $ 415 3470650 NILMEYER RSSOC 02 19 January 1999 Ms. Janice Jagelski City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94014 Re: Becker Residence 2714 Easton Drive Dear Janice: Thank you for taking the time this morning to review the above referenced project with me. In reviewing the revisions to the project, as required by structural upgrades, the designer worked well keeping the similar quality of design as first submitted and approved on 23 November 1999. The main changes were in the window placement and size. lf you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, `-�[./ Catherine ,M. NilmeyerAlA � . �� i� v � .o `- 9�L o,� / f922 a,G � `/ 2�' ��2 �c9 ��` O�A�,9� c9 F /�r� C�r �* . . I BURLIN4AMi CITY OF �3URLINGAME �,. � APPLICATION TO TI� PLANNING COIVIlVIISSION �- c Typ� of Application: Special Permit Variance Othe � � Project Address: �. % �L��-S 7�i%i �/� � Assessor's Parcel Number(s): �,�;.�jZ�� %� �Name: � l-..7% il/ /`f-�us� _ _ � v� " Address: 2 � 2 Z ��Z � �� City/State/Zip: �r'�r��hJi��an �° Phone (w): /D S�� -3 �2 ' l� y�� (n): �.s-� s -�_3 2. o fax: SZ' 3 �Z �� ARCHITEC DESIGNER Name: /� �/� �z� � �- � PROPERTY OWNER Name: �t°�2 �G /lL�/�C' Address: 2<7> �� r'��7Z�/(J .�.P ,� n City/State/Zip: /.� �� f✓�� Phone (w): �� r�" Z� 3 S �h�� T,Sv� � '? G'r — S�3 % fax: Please indicate with an asterisk * the Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w) : �h� �- contact person for this application. DESCRIPTION: �=X �ic�/'�(" ,L=x' iS'�ri-i., Z ^�" S�`O��/ �'j--�/C �"� �_ ° , � AFFIDAVIT/SIGNA7`URE• I her by certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct t e b t of my knowledge an belief. % -�-� licant's Signature Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property Owner's Signature Date ----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------------------------------- Date Filed:__.��.� Fee• Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: ROUTING FORM DATE: January 15, 1999 TO: �CITY ENGINEER _CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FII2E MARSHAL _SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR _CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB�CT: Request for amendment to design review for a second story addition at 2714 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-194-090. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REV�W BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, January 19, 1999 THANKS, � �2S` �c- Maureen/Janice/Ruben / � Date of Comments ' �,n..P,e Lo- f' ��n..�-�' .z �' L�s.�- i e- �`�' f�tiz � c� o c��-z�ne � � � ,� Q'�e,-e.� � , � `� �% . / CITY OF BURLINGAME � PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 696-7250 � 114 EAS7CI�I D�t I VE AF'PJ: �c'��i—i 9�—�c'��_�� H�plic�tion fc,r� design review for-� r,evisions to PUBLIC HEARING a pr�evia�_�sly appr,oved tirst and se��c+t�td Gtc+r-•4� NOTICE addition �.�.t c71�t E�stt�r� Uri�le, zo��Ed R-i. Th� City ofi B�_►r�ling�me �'lanning Commission anno�_tncEs the fall.awing p�.�bl.ic hear-�is�g on Hlonday, February 8, i�99 at 7:1�0 C�. �t. in the Ci�yiT�1Z "-Coi-inci�I�-��C�iain�,er�s locatEd at 5�1�1 F't'inr�ose Road, B�_�r�ling�m�, California. Mailed Janaary 29, 1999 (Please referto other side) CITY OF B URLINGAME ; ,s:;� � � ,�:� � _. '{r�s -`4:.' :�.�• ,'� A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at; the Planning Department at 'S01 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the;-subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only,xhos+� issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described iq;�the n,otice o,r,in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior fo the public:`heari.ng; Property owners who receive ti�is notice are-responsible for infornung their tenants about fhis nohce: <, For:additional information, please call (650) 696-7250. Thank yau `; � �� Margaret Monro� , City Planner � � ` �l `�'y`� g ` ' � � �� < PUBLiC H�r4RiNC� NOTICE - � �� (Please refer to other sideJ Ya�, � 6* V �; „ .; s �' � �;' �}I � y,s �' ie � � ' w ; � `� � ; �' � ,s � . � '�; � �� z� `� T' �`�-,�"��,, ,_ .. - ��.. l� J � � v �. " � Mor�!-t'� Ro �" � -.a^r-_ e�i;1�r: � _ a. . � . r '-�_ ��:� k +! k �� a �. : � : ^��, � -`�� F � ; � ,., � 4M , * ` # �„` � �'� � ` }� � . * A . . y - c. �. , . � . w �fr � � .. � � ��r� .�kdy � 'T'`' � R' a ' �I � �� e . � � .r.. . � , � �. �� +c�P��'+m !a �1 . �'�`4 � - : �' . ✓� � � � s �, _� � � ._ � � . f ' �. ti; ,� � -i � , e, � �'��R � • °s e�� , "� � ti : `. �� .. = y �."� �J E nl V E � i'�23 i3�`1 i3r5 � �_ d� �. �u� � � �" ., ry � � �` ~�, .:� X ' � n � �l ,�, N ln .� � . O �vC ,x , r� .. ry � h .�; y,� r, ,� �� r � " �� —=•� � � �L�.. � � � � � �: nh)` � N 3��' �3i2 13a8 ,, �� . /�JE. ,� �tLVA�,AOp N _ ,. � � .:. �. � �� iTY� Bo��1�.� � �� . 5�� ,� � ��v� � �a- � �-. �- . � � a� � , � ` �� rrft� . i �, �� L�� a� .�r f .:_ � 4 . , e��k-�' � A �� (� k `� �j�� .,��'y� C, . �t` p � �� N *\ � .T � i� 7 � �"� �� y« ,p � � .�Jt� � >1 • .�'.: x.P ��r 4'� �,..: J rS ( . i�+µ . . � �� -I. .�. � ) -'�:4� ": _'1 �,— `�:�_ 4 •� ..s.'.. _ . RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: VVHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desi�n r vi w for constru�tion of a first and second story addition at 2714 Easton Drive� zoned R-l� APN� 027- 194-094; Peter Becker� pro�ertv owner and John Butte, Alden Houc� II, applicant' WI�REAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 8, 1999 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERNIINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption Class 19, Section 15303- construction and location of new, small facilities or structures, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. ;�:/.I:u:► I, David Luzuria�a, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8 th day of Februar�� 1999 , by the following vote: AYES: COMI�RSSIONERS: NOES: COMIVIISSIONERS: ABSENT: CONIlVIISSIONERS: SECRETARY �• . , . EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and design review 2714 EASTON DRIVE effective FEBRUARY 15, 1999 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 15, 1999; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), changing the roof height or pitch, or changing exterior materials and windows shall be subject to design review; and that the project shall meet the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.