The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2723 Easton Drive - Staff ReportItem #6 CITY OF BURLINGAME DESIGN REVIEW FOR SECOND STORYADDITION Address: 2723 Easton Avenue Meeting Date: 10/26/98 Request: Design Review for a second story addition at 2723 Easton Avenue, zoned R-l. Applicant: Stewart Associates Property Owners: Laurie and Jeffrey Adams Lot Area: 12,325 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential APN: 027-195-200 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3, 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. Requests for this project: The applicant is requesting approval to add 134 SF on the second story of a three-bedroom, two-story residence to add a bathroom and enlarge a closet in the master bedroom. Two shed dormers are proposed on the front of the house to enclose the new bathroom and closet. The new dormers would extend from the roof on each side of the existing gabled dormer and deck on the second story. This project does not qualify as new construction, and the addition would be in conformance with the R-1 zoning regulations. Staff Comments: The City Engineer states (September 14, 1998 memo) that the roof drainage shall be directed to the street (Easton) by gravity. The Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshal had no comments on the project. Design Reviewer Comments: The project was originally submitted for review by the Design Review Consultant on September 16, 1998. His initial comments, provided on September 17, 1998, considered the proposed addition to be a minor alteration to the e�rterior form of the residence, which is already in substantial harmony with the existing neighborhood. The Design Review Consultant noted an error on the left elevation where the depiction of the dormer addition was not shown extending 1'-0" further beyond the wall of the e�sting second story, pursuant to the proposed floor plan. The Design Review Consultant concluded that, " the residence is a significant example of a shingle style bungalow and any work should take great care to preserve the existing character and scale of the building and its components." He recommended approval of the project with the conditions that the applicant: 1) match the scale, proportion and style of existing windows, trims and shingles; and 2) reduce the size of the master bathroom to conform to the existing second floor gable to avoid incongruous protrusions in the gable plane. After reviewing the Design Review Consultant's comments, the applicant corrected the left elevation to accurately depict the view of the master bathroom addition that would e�ctend 1'-0" beyond the wall of the existing second story. The applicant chose not to reduce the size of the new master bathroom and has submitted a letter (dated October 1, 1998) which states that they feel that the area in question is small, will not look obvious or unattractive, and will be hidden from view under an existing overhang. The Design Review Consultant does not agree with this perspective and maintains his original recommendation to reduce the size of the bathroom. Design Review Recommendations: 1. match the scale, proportion and style of e�usting windows, trims and shingles; 2. reduce the size of the master bathroom to conform to the existing second floor gable to avoid incongruous protrusions in the gable plane. Conformance With Zoning Regulations: EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front: 1 st f lr 2nd flr Side (left): lstflr Side (right): lst flr LOT COVERAGE: FAR: 44'-0" 54'-0" 15'-0" 10'-0" 2330 (19%) 3415 (27.7%) no change no change no change no change no change 3549 (28.8%) 15'-0" 20'-0" or average 7'-0" 7'-0" 4930 SF (40%) 5444 SF (44%) PARKING: 2 covered + 1 uncovered no change 2 covered + 1 uncovered HEIGHT.• � 24'-0" no change 30'-0" DH ENi�ELOPE: meets requirement no change see code requirements Number af Bedrooms: 3 3 N/A The residence and proposed addition comply with the R-1 Zoning Regulations. Study Session Comments: At the Planning Commission Hearing on October 14, 1998, the Planning Commission questioned whether the applicant could further reduce the size of the master bathroom addition to keep the new wall flush with the e�sting side wall. In the applicant's response dated October 20, 1998, he states that the owner does not wish to reduce the size of the addition and requests that the Commission come by the site on October 24, 1998, to view a full- scale mock-up of the triangular portion of the addition attached to the left elevation where it would protrude between the eaves. The applicant will bring photos of the mock-up to the October 26, 1998 Planning Commission Hearing. The Planning Commission also requested that the applicant provide dimensions of the width of the eaves on the left elevation. The applicant has provided this information in his October 20, 1998 letter, and has identified the width of the new addition that will protrude from the existing wall as 1'-4", and believes that this extension will be concealed beneath the exiting eaves that have a width of 2'-10". Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. 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 September 28, 1998, Sheets A-1 - A-4; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer (September 14, 1998 memo) shall be met; that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor addition, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window(s), or changing the roof height or pitch shall be subject to design review; 4. that the applicant shall match the scale, proportion and style of e�sting windows, trims and shingles; 5. the applicant shall reduce the size of the master bathroom to conform to the existing second floor gable to avoid incongruous protrusions in the gable plane; 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Janice Jagelski Planner c: Stewart Associates, applicant Martin Dreiling, CCS Architecture, Design Review Consultant � City ofBurlingame Planning CommissronMinu[es October !4, l998 Chairma eal announced the emorial dedication of a tr in Washington Park for ast Co � sioner Mike Ellis to e held Saturday, October , 1998. A bench in Mi s name will also be ded at the site. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATI FOR LEFT SIDE PARKIN ARIANCES FOR A ] DESIG REVIEW AT 118 OCCL �ACK, RIGHT SIDE AND SECOND STi AL AVENUE, ZO,� ,RAGE SETBACK AND � ADDITION SUBJEC,T R-1. (DANIEL BIE�VI� , CP Monroe briefly revie�%d the project and the co� missioners asked: what p ns do the owners have for use of the cab fia; there is a problem w�i the garage, this is a five edroom house which almost dictates a tw car garage, design revi er statement about "maj9 construction for mino gair, in parking" need o be explained because e parking requirements ect the entire neighbor ood and the appli nt must justify, by mean of a hardship on the prop y, providing less; not moving 6 aluminum ame windows, why not, ince this is new construct' n; provide a photo of t o cars in the garage ith measurements clarifi in plans and packet; wo d like an answer on the indow repl ement; how far is it fro he garage to the Magnol' tree; is there a solutio of building a new g age to code or closer to ode and retaining the M nolia; drawings should clarified by showing ow the second story li s up with the first, show operty lines on the sec d story floor plan and any ground floor are ot covered by a second or; problem with the r soning that a variance i justified because t ne� door setback is no onforming, address var' nce findings; double ch k elevations of fo r corners of the property nlikely that all four ar '-0"; it looks odd to ke the few aluminum w' dows on the first floor en all the rest are woo rame; there is no west evation on Sheet AS• roof steps down in thre laces, can the roof be ' plified; is there an elec onic garage opene m the garage now; when as on the site the drive ay gate was locked, ho are cars put be ' d the gate, it looked ve difficult to use; what f ilities are in the cabana '. . bath, kitchen etc.; w were the corner elev 'ons shown on the plan rrived at; why can't th garage be increased, 's is a very large lot com red to many in the city� hy is the northwest ele tion wall not articu ed; can the family room all be moved in 6 inch so that a variance for ' e setback is not nee ed; what would be the eff t on the breakfast noo f ineeting current side tbacks. There were o further questions and e item was set for pub �c hearing on October 2, 1998, if the inform on is submitted to staff in ' e. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2723 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND JEFFREY D. & LORI C ADAMS. PROPERTY OWNERI CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: applicant should go back to the design reviewer to reduce the bathroom or reconfigure it and comply with the design criteria; all right as submitted; feel that applicant should make another try to comply with guidelines so not have an awkward condition with the walls at the rear; agree need to address problem at rear, not care how -2- City ofBurlrngame Planning Canmission Minutes resolve inside floor usage the exterior is the issue; have looked at an alternative sketch but do not know depth of eave overhangs, but this might work. There were no further questions and the Item was set for public hearing on October 26, 1998 provided that the information is submitted to staff in time. APPLICATION FO A REAR SETBACK VARI CE FOR A FIRST FLOOR AD�ITION AT 1157 CAMBRID ROAD, ZONED R-1. (C ES D. & SHARON M. RID�R, CP Monr e briefly reviewed the project nd the commissioners asked: t re were two cars parked on the sit t time of site inspection bot verhung the sidewalk so far t they blocked pedestrian use of t sidewalk, they only need o uncovered parking space, cou the corner be squared or s mething else be done to prov' e one parking space on site i e driveway off of the sidew ; what is the step or vertical t in the roof shown on Sheet 3 n the left side of the house; rify how staff determined that Ca ridge was the rear of the lot, ow would making Cambridge e front change the variance r� uests; if the design were to r ect the setback requirements ow would it affect the design; tJa� way the roofs are laid out is orrisome, is there a simpler s ution; what is the dimension betw�en the house and Highway R d, add to the plans; what are ey going to do with the existing ndscaping with the remodel, w will the edge along Cambr' ge be treated; not need a landscap lan, but a written descriptio or some indication of how the plan to plant the area; w�ld like to ave a floor plan of the existi house so can see what chan s are being made. There �ere no rther questions and the ite as set for public hearing on ctober 26, 1998, providin 'he � ormation is submitted in ti . APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FORA��C��GIBER, AREA AND HEIC��T OF SIGNS AT 1080 CAROL AVENUE, ZONED R-4. ( OW SIGN COMPANY,,A'PPLICANT AND October 14, 1998 CP Monr reviewed the signage request riefly and the commissione �asked: would like to see repres tation of the sign in context o e site, perspective drawi � possible or a well repr ent sca elevation; what would happe � the sign was 6'-0", to co� �nstead of 6'-6"; can the 'gns be ternally lit, internal illuminati is a problem in this area; des the applicant really nee all that illumination. There were no rther questions from the mmissioners and the item as set for public hearing on Octobej/l6, 1998, providing that t information is submitted time. APPLICATION F A CONDITIONAL CANDY STO AT 270 LORTON AVE CANDY C ANY, APPLICANT, �7 �S PERMIT FOR T , ZONED G1, Si SANDRA YORK V] C SERVICES FOR A. (CALIFO � TE,PROPE C onroe briefly presented e take out permit request d the commissioners sked: same pplication as before, can ' e put on the consent cal dar; will the bench o e street be reloc ed to the new frontage, wi the applicant need an enc achment permit; will e new conditions approval encompas e requirements of the ol permit; this applicatio shows shorter ho s of operation than 1 time, does the applicant ' tend to do this; does t former permit go ith the -3- 10i20i98 10:48 $ 415 591 9578 STEWART ASSOCIA'I'I�:S ARC'1�1'1'[;(:'l'llxl; • IN'I'1;FllUItS • I'I.ANNIN(� 1351 LAURFI S1. � SAN CARI.US, CA �J407U TELEPIIONE: (650) �97•0283 FAX: (65U) 591-9578 City �f Bur.lingame 501 Primrose Ro�d Durl,j.��game, CA ��U7.0 Attn: Planning Cc�m�t�issio�ler�; Ke: De6ign Review I�or: Adani�s ke;mocte7.� nc� Z )23 }�ast.t�)1 Avenue D�ar. P1�nning Commi�si�r�ec•: STEWPRT RSSOC. P.01 � f : � � "i}'►1: � � e, � � o r Y'oe. �- � �a�,c,, jA��' � October. 20, 199� Job No. 9853 At y�ur study seasion you r.equ�5te�i Lli�t we measure the roof overhang at the side of the h�tis�. 7�he overhang is 2'10". This will adequately hidc the �.�9" pr�jec�.i�n propoacd. The Owner's, J��ff and Lori Adams, do not want to change the plans, We have looked at r��l po�sik�le way,, to gci: a se��rate tub/shower, toilet and two sinks i.n a vanity wi.th drQwers and cannot find a way to do it without popping out past thE exist�nc� bui.lding. The ownor's are constructing a c�rdboard cutout t� show the small triangular area as it will actu�:�l.y appear on the home_ This full scalo model wi11 be uN by Saturddy, Octok�er 24th. We would apprec�ate it if yau could drzvc by to assess the ar,tual situati�n. We wi7.1 also take photographs wt�ich we wi11 bring to the meeting. I hope you will s�e that i,hi5 acidition wil] have little impaCt t0 thc exterior of the home, but- will have a]ot of i.mpar,t on the liveability of the master Y.�d'LX1rOUIlt. Sincore]y, J a—� �-� d.�c John L. Stewaxt, A7A cc: Lori & Jef� Adams Janice Jagelski & Meg Monroe, isurlangame Planninq Dep't. R��.,e�� OCT 2 41998 �ITY OF BURL!NGP,ME PLANNING DtPT. From: Martin Dreiling To: Meg Monroe Date: 9l17l98 Time: 8:07:16 AM Page 1 of 1 (SS A R C H I T E C T U R E C S S A s s o c i a t e s A r c h i t e c i s 1 1 0 3 J u a n i t a A v e n u e B u r I i n g a m e C a I i f o r n i a 9 4 0 1 0 Architectural Review T o Planning Department oate: 16 September 1998 City of Burlingame Project: Adams Residence 501 Primrose Road 2723 Easton Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Application Number Distributed Via Noted Method Only Mail Fax ■ Net Dist. Code Review Time .75 hours App Applicant Own Property Owner ■ CB Agency City of Burlingame Compliance With Guidelines Item Subiect 1. � Compatibility with Neighborhood Style This addition represents a minor alteration to the exterior form of the residence. The existing residence is already in substantial harmony with the existing neighborhood. Parking and Garage Patterns Not applicable 3• Architectural Style, Internal Consistency The style of the addition is generally consistent with the style of the existing residence. It is imperative in this case that the new windows match the existing in style, muntin size and configuration. The extension of the master bath outside the existing envelope will create a problem at the adjacent lower eave in which the addition wi�l either appear to sit on top of the lower roof, or a bay will protrude inadvertently from below that roof. 4• Interface with Adjacent Structures �� No substantial impactwill occur. SEP 1*� 1998 5. Landscaping and Its Relation to Proposed Building �ITY OF BURLINGAME NotApplicable PLANNING 7EPT. Conclusion This application represents a harmonious addition. It should be noted that the existing residence a significant example of a shingle style bungalow and any work should take great care to preserve the existing character and scale of the building and its components. Recommended Action: Approval With Conditions: 1. Match scale, proportion and style of existing windows, trims, shingles. 2. Reduce master bath to conform to existing second floor gable to avoid incongruous protrusions in gable plane Martin Dreiling CSS Architecture 650 696 1200 Fax 650 343 9685 dreiling�pacbell.nei STEWART ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE • INTERIORS • PLANNING 1351 LAUREL ST. • SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 TELEPHONE: (650) 591-8283 FAX: (650) 591-9578 City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attn: Planning Commission Re: Adams Remodeling - 2723 Easton Avenue Dear Commissioners: October 1, 1998 Job No. 9853 We have submitted plans for a small addition at the second floor for a new master closet and bath. The Design Reviewer, Martin Dreiling, has requested that we pull the addition back to line up with the existing wall. We do not want to do this as it won't allow for a double sink in the master bathroom. As designed the addition only has a small triangular area (hiqhlighted in yellow on the enclosed side elevation) beyond the existing side of the second floor. We feel that this small area will be hidden from view as it is located under the existing large overhand and will not look obvious or unattractive. We discussed this with Martin and he did not agree with us as he is a purist and felt that "the program should not drive the design". Please address your feeli.ngs on this issue at your study session so that we can address any of your concerns prior to the Action Meeting. Please feel free to call me should you have any questions. Sincerely, , , V �'v� S �j �' �_�v�_. e., John L. Stewart, AIA cc: Meg Monroe, City Planner Janice Jagelski, Project Planner M m a U � O � � Q F Q' Q 3 W F-� � � � I I I m _�_ti � � m � m � � � ; v ' E4 � P�vc�'n o N i ��L_`:' � � � �; =_r�== , � •� - . -�- �,- _--=� __ - __ �� • - •'!' =i� ' �..'T'� ! —� �' , � � � : ` :' j :I 'i i' ' . . : - _•� � � i, i,-- : -- . -� �� rl i:� i;:l : fii : : : �.: � .1 j.' 1 �. i - � m. � i�� '1� -, � � , �� :{ � � :3 � . !,� i � �) � i � ; ` - . ._ W . . . ' SI � . . \ � � � '/ ! � N� . . � _ ' . ' _ i � -� .+i�.�=y;.:��'. "�.f��1�•t�S�i�sa��C. .�P(+7.�;".E:_... _"__ ..__-___ '_.--. .='r-�-.�..-'�- , _'-,__-'-_"=�M1.. ._r—_-_ '__ _^' �Y _.. . . � - s.... ...� _......•x.��_� � ..a.....� ...rt,r.i. .-'--w:y.::.'":.._� _ti.ia�'�'-•:�w�i�'�.__ -�.z�'-�'-_•• =;��"S�'4 �' - � , � _ � 1 �'' ' N� ��iV�� r� -- �° � � � : - - --- .:��._ .._ �_,_.. .. _ . _ .. __._ .. --. - :_ �..r ..- �_...•- - . -- - - - � • _ _ ' .' _ ' . - - .-: - . . � - . -.. . �- -:�: � -- - . .. .. . .. _ ; - . . . � °�pitloN uN�-- �� i�F a �� t'rtio� � U N Q � � 3 w � � Wr ti ��, � m /� � � � �� --i� - _ :-- , ,r..�r_� ; ,.�-r j�. ; ,;; , : i � � � �� . I • -; 1 : . :;� �,: � . �. - --- � - =�- _. � ;�------- - ,� i i i � I �_.'r , I �._— __ ' � _ - -� � �-.;� '- � � 'i ` . '=. a e -- —- - - — —�� j--; % v ��5�'i.�l� �� r�� i:� .��; � �;. , � �� -� �� `� �� `` � ■ �- I , . : , L �, _ � • t_ _ _ m � � .� . - � . � _. _ _. _ — ----- _ . ... - m • ` , 1 W ry `� \ _ . . �j m �� i I ��• �1� � � t , , -- .=T-�1� . � i � . - F- �1i �i� � �\� � Zo �.1� i T. _I 0 r I , ; . ( � i : __ � 1 v� ' u�� ` � �� ' ; � _-i. . ' + P -< „ �� .Y�: � � . # ' � T• ._ . -. a. q �- � , �,r, � '�► . �. . . .. , ' �, . -.. + vi . .. ..� ; � e. ! + � � F�� ' _ � � � ��:.i , r. _ . . . g VE. I � �". - � MotitT� Ro� � � � �� _ y� �: . . . , _. � .,:� :. , .�� - � - � :. . F � ° - � �3 , . .� , � _ r . , a _�:. � ,. � : ,Y:. _ t nl � , _ �c " Af '> �'a';� � - ' � � � � � � � � � �` � i�- � . � R•� A � � , I' S �» � � _�� 4 � �. � I � ,� a .�i �:" �' �� 'iEi _ �" �� .�' f �� _ !- �� , 5� , a � � S� � ., �,; � � � y � _ � � � �z; � , ,� :: Q � 4 4w. S �mm� `� � �,2�_ . .. : =- � . Y� v. � *., �� ..i ��.? � � �� i� O � BE�.I tTa ��; �. .. qJE. .�, ��_ �,:4�� o . , _ � , , . P . y�. a r �� , �. , : .. . . � � �� _.. Y��' ' -, � � � � � � i ; .��.� ' �� _ �. . �. � . . � � �� e � .'3..- •� : . � � � � � � � s��^� � �, ,.� . ) '�� r' >� V � E M ! � ;,� . �. � �' �� Q ' � �, - e � � ` �' >�� ' ` _. . .: J � �� . . � < , _ . , �, � �_� ��r� '� .. . � � � . � � �� N � N �' � � � v� ' � � �t' .. � � � � N �l N _' , . � , �., .. , •� � ; .� �, ; , �,�. � , � �, , � • � AUTAR�PO �JE' • N � . , , � s, � � ; `� " , ry i� �� „ , . � �� , � ::� p + , � -�. .z�,, � �� .„� N � �a �., r. � ;, � � �� . �� a �; � � � �£ :��.� � � �>.. �� ' _, l� �L�,S 1 �� / ., a= ,� � l I�LSBo Ro V �„ � � �a...d �u :,�,. -�� a� a � / � _ U � 0 � CITV � '`r : A I 1'� _�`1 I� � o��— CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 696-7250 �7`,5 EA5T�N DRIVE AF'N:�`7-195-�� Applic�tion for� design review for a secand pUgLIC HEARING story addition �t `7LJ Eastan Dr�ive, �oned NOTICE ff-1 • The City of Ptirlingame F�lanning Cammission anno�_inces the following p�.�hlic hearing an Monday, Detober 2b, i998 at 7:�@ P.M. in the �i y a o�_�nci �m ers located at 5�1 F�rimr�ase Road, P�.�r�lingame, Califnr�nia. Mailed Ortober 16, 1998 (Please refer to otlier side) �"' -,� ' f'�'ar ,�,.v'e� ��"�%� CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at r;the Planning, Departrnent at SO1 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Cali.�o�nia. If you challenge the subject application{s) ir� court, you n�ay be limited to raising only those issues ,you or �arneone else z�sed at the public hearing, described in the notic� or ui written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public fiearmg:' 'i Property owners who receive this notice are responsible;for infornung their ts bo t ttu t F dd't' 1 inf t' ' 1 11 650 � �3.�,� 'a� _ �� a�,� ��. tenan a u; s no ice .�:, or a i iona orma ion, p ease ca ( ) 696-7250. Thank you £ r f f� , �:,, ,� � Margaret Monroe v< �, �, �s �� , �� City Planner � , <� � . � `` :� ' � � � - � =.9 � 4, . .., , .a i � . '3 r . .: � �:. . -,.,� »^'^�l,sa s' . . ; �..� ti,.�� F� ti�:. , PUBL.�C �F�E�R�6VG ��TICE : � �� ; � .f , . . _ _u� v T, .m _ F� n � ,��: � ,�, , f;��-� , � %�.� ' �:� (Please refer to other side) - = ,r��;=,� � , . ; , , . � � � �_ _ _ _ _ . . -�----__. . - -. . -_ _.... .-- - -. __-_ .. , f RESO�,UTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION and DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desisn r ve iew for a__second-story addition at 2723 Easton Avenue, zoned R-1, APN� 027 195 200; Laurie and Jeffrey Adams, pro e�rty owners and Steward A��ciares, ap licant� WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 26, 1998 , 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 DETERMINED 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, Article 19, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(a+e), 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 is hereby approved. �2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review 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 I, , 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 26 th day of October, 1998 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMNIISSIONERS: SECRETARY � � EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and design review. 2723 EASTON DRIVE effective November 2, 1998 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 28, 1998, Sheets A-1 - A-4; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer (September 14, 1998) memo shall be met; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window(s), or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4. that the applicant shall match the scale, proportion and style of existing windows, trim and shingles; 5. that the applicant shall reduce the size of the master bathroom to conform to the existing second floor gable to avoid incongruous protrusions in the gable plane; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995, as amended by the City of Burlingame. i� Item #2 CITY OF BURLINGAME DESIGN REVIEW FOR SECOND STORYADDITION Address: 2723 Easton Avenue Meeting Date: 10/14/98 Request: Design Review for a second story addition at 2723 Easton Avenue, zoned R-1. Applicant: Christian Ruffat, Stewart Associates Property Owners: Laurie and Jeffrey Adams Lot Area: 12,325 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential APN: 027-195-200 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3, 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. Requests for this project: The applicant is requesting approval to add 134 SF on the second story of a two-story residence to add a bathroom and enlarge a closet in the master bedroom. Two shed dormers are proposed on the front of the house to enclose the new bathroom and closet. The new dormers would extend from the roof on each side of the existing gabled dormer and deck on the second story. This project does not qualify as new construction, and the addition would be in conformance with the R-1 zoning regulations. Staff Comments: The City Engineer states (September 14, 1998 memo) that the roof drainage shall be directed to the street (Easton) by gravity. The Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshal had no comments on the project. Design Reviewer Comments: The project was originally submitted for review by the Design Review Consultant on September 16, 1998. His initial comments, provided on September 17, 1998, considered the proposed addition to be a minor alteration to the exterior form of the residence, which is already in substantial harmony with the existing neighborhood. The Design Review Consultant noted an error on the left elevation where the depiction of the dormer addition was not shown extending 1'-0" further beyond the wall of the existing second story, pursuant to the proposed floor plan. The Design Review Consultant concluded that, " the residence is a significant example of a shingle style bungalow and any work should take great care to preserve the existing character and scale of the building and its components." He recommended approval of the project with the conditions that the applicant: 1) match the scale, proportion and style of existing windows, trims and shingles; and 2) reduce the size of the master bathroom to conform to the existing second floor gable to avoid incongruous protrusions in the gable plane. After reviewing the Design Review Consultant's comments, the applicant corrected the left elevation to accurately depict th� view of the master bathroom addition that would extend 1'-0" beyond the wall of the existing second story. The applicant chose not to reduce the size of the new master bathroom and has submitted a letter (dated October 1, 1998) which states that they feel that the area in question is small, will not look obvious or unattractive, and will be hidden from view under an existing overhang. The Design Review Consultant does not agree with this perspective and maintains his original recommendation to reduce the size of the bathroom. Conformance With Zoning Regulations EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front: Ist flr 2nd flr Side (left): Istflr 5ide (right): lst flr LOT COVERAGE: FAR: PARKING: HEIGHT.• DH ENI�ELOPE: Nunzber of Berlroonis: 44'-0" 54'-0" 15'-0" 10'-0" 2330 (19%) 3415 (27.7%) 2 covered + 1 uncovered 24'-0" meets requirement 3 no change 15'-0" no change 20'-0" or neighborhood average no change 7'-0" no change no change 3549 (28.8%) no change no change no change 3 7'-0" 4930 SF (40%) 5444 SF (44%) 2 covered + 1 uncovered 30'-0" see code requirements N/A Janice Jagelski Planner c: Christian Ruffet, Stewart Associates, applicant Martin Dreiling, CCS Architecture, Design Review Consultant / i4r� cir � � BURUNQAMf CITY OF BUItLING-AME ��,�;., ,� APPLICATION TO TI�E PLAIVNING COn�VIISSION Type of Applicaiion: Special Permit Variance Other_ ��% Project Address: `// � 2 � ❑/► � �� U �Z Assessor's Parcel I�Iumber(s): 6 2�� f �' 26 0 APPLICANT �' Name: � l � � �'�l /`�`�� Address:__ � �� %�� - City/State/Zip:_ �, (, ; C�— �C�D � U Phone (w):_ %C1� '�I� i � �Z� �j (h): f�: ��i� � �i� � - �I �i� � ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name;- G�� (,�-�� Address: City/State/Zip: PROPERTY OWNE� Name:� ��!P�`%��Z� � f�'D�F'� � Address:_ 7i77i3 �/� '�"j�}� �N(�� City/State/Zip:_ �%li{�Vl �� Phone (w): �'� �''Z� �— �i 3 � b ch�: -�.� - � 9� -�I�-I f�:_ �� - ��4-- � 3g I Please indicate with an asteris�C * the contact person for this application. Phone (w): (h): fax: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: IST( �i � n i � AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to b f my lrnowledge and belief. do Applic t's Signature , D�te I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. . ?l' O Property Owner's Signature . Date ---------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -----------------------------------= Date Filed: F�: Pla�ning Commission: Study Date: Action Date; ROUTING FORM DATE: QW�. �j I �( �( � TO: � CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR -S c�c�.-( Z�n-� AT _ o�I a. ��Cc��d Y� �� i U� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMIvIISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REV�W BY MEETING ONTU�� -p�P_,wt% �, �c1ci� THANKS, Maureen/Kristin/Ruben ��Q d�-a; -� � �� y . � c/ � ^� � l��/9�Date of Comments s �� o �,� � �- ��-�t From: Martin Dreiling To: Meg Monroe Date: 9/17/98 Time: 8:07:16 AM Page 1 of 1 CSS A R C H I T E C T U R E C S S A s s o c i a t e s A r c h i t e c t s 1 1 0 3 J u a n i t a A v e n u e B u r I i n g a m e C a I i f o r n i a 9 4 0 1 0 Architectural Review T o Planning Department Dace: 16 September 1998 City of Burlingame Project: Adams Residence 501 Primrose Road 2723 Easton Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Application Number Distributed Via Noted Method Only Dist. Code App Applicant Own Property Owner ■ CB Agency City oi Burlingame Compliance With Guidelines Item Subiect 1 2. 3. 4. Mail Fax ■ Review Time Net 75 hours Compatibility with Neighborhood Style This addition represents a minor alteration to the exterior form of the residence. The existing residence is already in substantial harmony with the existing neighborhood. Parking and Garage Patterns Not applicable Architectural Style, Internal Consistency The style of the addition is generally consistent with the style of the existing residence. It is imperative in this case that the new windows match the existing in style, muntin size and configuration, The extension of the master bath outside the existing envelope will create a problem at the adjacent lower eave in which the addition will either appear to sit on top of the lower roof, or a bay will protrude inadvertently from below that roof. ��,�,��°�f �� Intertace with Adjacent Structures No substantial impact will occur. SEP 1 °7 1998 5. Landscaping and Its Relation to Proposed Building rCITY OF BURLINGAME NotApplicable PLANNING D�.P�� Conclusion This application represents a harmonious addition. It should be noted that the existing residence a significant example of a shingle style bungalow and any work should take great care to preserve the existing character and scale of the building and its components. Recommended Action: Approval With Conditions: 1. Match scale, proportion and style of existing windows, trims, shingles. 2. Reduce master bath to conform to existing second floor gable to avoid incongruous protrusions in gable plane Martin Dreiling CSS Architecture 650 696 1200 Fax 650 343 9685 dreiling�pacbell.nei � �TE�ART ASSOCIATES �RCHITI�:CTURE • INTERIORS �• PLANNING ':351 LAUREL ST. • SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 TELEPHONE: (650) 591-8283 FAX: (650) 591-9578 city of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attn: Planning Commission Re: Adams Remodeling - 2723 Easton Avenue Dear Commissioners: � October 1, 1998 Job No. 9853 � We have submitted plans for a small addition at the second floor for a new.master closet and bath. The Design Reviewer, Martin Dreiling, has requested that we pull the addition back to line up with the existing wall. We do not want to do this as it won't allow for a double sink in the master bathroom. As designed the addition only has a small triangular area (highlighted in yellow on the enclosed side elevation) beyond the existing side of the second floor. We feel that this small area will be hidden from view as.it is located under the existing large overhand and,will �. not look obvious or unattractive. We discussed this with Martin and he did not agree with us as he is a purist and felt that "the program should not drive the design". Please address your feelings on this issue at your study session so that we can address any of your concerns prior to the Action Meeting. Please feel free to call me should you have any questions. Sincerely, �_ , S �, ��, �� John L. Stewart, AIA cc: Meq Monroe, City Planner Janice Jagelski, Project Planner z ,. ,,. =—� ---� � , . i . _ _ `= , ! I .. - \ � - _ , - . � — .. � \ r � .L_.- - -- � . --- � : _ =t - ! t ` 1, -� _. � -T-_ _ i -I - / , �-, . - � , . � i : . , ,, . ; �: , �; I . � j ' � _� �, _ � -f----- , _ ._ � � Y-------- - 4 � . _.. ' � _. _.._ . � • _._t_.. `.. _ � i - � i i ' l 1 -i , , _ , . � ._.,_�;, _; . -�i�x't�...�-.'4��"'�.� t�; . ,y�.-r...s.^.!.' '.' - . ... _ -. �•.:-.d:,r � .. �- `--'� _ ...I �'�„.�:: � .. r . a,.- � •• � - . .--�` -- � yS;:'�ti'eF..'. .-...-- •. . �,r,��}_...��,�:1;L;a'.'�»'`;:: s.;.,�� .a � _ � � � :PARTIAL LEFT SIDE ELEVATION PARTIAL � , ��, ., —T--t-. . �_ __ — � _-fi_�_ . ---�---- �- � ,