Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1320 Skyview Drive - Staff ReportCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA :.J 11,2001 f oun Chambers NMs=, I. CALL TO ORDER 1 g Chair ighr a 11, 2 1, retular me*g of the •'P1 ing Cc ission t at 5 p.m. H. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojues, Kei an W Qslerling Absent: Commissioners Dreiliyg, Luzuriaga and Vistica 3 ""` Staff Prav� City�anner, azgaze Planner, Erma t; City omey, Larry Araerson;, Engineer, Sy u III.MINUTES a. intes of the June 11, 2001 e6ng regular a Planning rssion were v. aRftded to read: " Ite #9, 1320 S IEW DRIVE; agraph 2; E' Chairman Vistica opened thetyblic c .. t. Jack Matthe s, architect, present the project and explained that he took over the previous project and tried to preserve the privacy of the neighbor to the north, reduced the second floor from four to two duet bedrooms and increased reed the size and location of the garage." The minutes were then approved IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Items 4, 2000 Carmelita Avenue, and 11, 1373 Vancouver Avenue, were continued to the meeting of June 25, 2001, because the properties were located within 500 feet of property owned by one of the four commissioners seated for this meeting. If a member of the commission is required to abstain from a vote and must step down from the dais, he cannot be counted as a part of the commission quorum for that vote. Items 4 and 11 were continued because there was not a quorum for these actions. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1860 EL CAMINO REAL #100 — ZONED C-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (LINDA WHITE, UNITED HEALTH CREDIT UNION, APPLICANT; ROBERT G. SARNOFF, ARCHITECT: MARCO CHAVEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: would the ATM machine be open to people who were not members of the Credit Union; the report notes that the present five employees would increase to 8 in five years, but they show 11 offices on the plans presently with the potential of adding one more in the future, why do 5-8 employees need I 1 — 12 offices; how did the applicant arrive at the 30 customers a day number; will the lobby of the office building where the ATM is be open during hours the credit union is closed; who was the tenant in this space before, and what did they do, how many employees did they have, is this an intensifying of the use of Suite 100; near my office in San Mateo there are two -1- City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Consent Calendar Address: 1320 Skyview Drive Meeting Date: 6/11/O1 Request: Design review and special permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition. Applicant and Architect: John Matthews Architects APN: 027-201-260 Property Owners: Samuel and Elaine Wong Lot Area: 7,150 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential 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. History: In August, 2000, the Planning Commission denied without prejudice an application for design review for a first and second story addition (August 14, 2000 P.C. Minutes). The project was also reviewed by a design review consultant, who recommended that the project be approved (June 26, 2000 memo). In their denial without prejudice, the Planning Commission noted that the August 2000 project was different and had no character, the entrance was large on Kip Lane, and that it would change the look of the neighborhood. The Commission also commented that the garage should comply with current code requirements (20' x 20' clear area), that the house should take advantage of the slope on the lot, that a split level design should be considered with the garage below the living room, and that in the design the mass of the building was not dealt with in a proper way. The Commission suggested that the applicant should respect the existing style of the house and should carefully consider the window and eave detail. The property owners and a new architect re-evaluated the project and now have submitted revised plans in response to the Planning Commission's concerns (plans date stamped May 9, 2001). The applicant also submitted a preliminary landscape plan (sheet L-1) for your review. Summary: The existing single -story house is on a corner lot (Skyview Drive and Kip Lane) which slopes upward from Skyline Drive and contains 2,535 SF of floor area (0.35 FAR), including an attached double -car garage, a 419 SF trellis (to be removed), with three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a 199 SF first floor addition, a new 968 SF second story, and a 1,140 SF basement (not included in floor area ratio), increasing the floor area of the remodeled house to 3,104 SF (0.43 FAR), and four bedrooms. As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to convert the existing garage, which now faces Skyview Drive, into a family room. A new attached two -car garage is proposed on Kip Lane, below the main floor of the house. The proposed attached garage meets the definition of a basement under the previous code, and therefore is not included in the floor area of the house. This application was submitted before the effective date (March 24, 2001) of the new requirements for including basement areas in FAR calculations. The basement level also contains a wine cellar, storage room, and exercise room, all of which do not qualify as bedrooms. The proposed garage measures 20'-0"W x 26'-6" D (clear interior dimensions) and provides two covered parking spaces for the four bedroom house, where two parking spaces are required (one of which must be covered). Design Review and Special Permit The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for a first and second story addition (CS 25.57.010, d & e); and • Special Permit for an attached two -car garage (CS 25.28.035, 1). 1320 Skyview Drive CURRENT PREVIOUS EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D PROPOSAL PROPOSAL 6/11/01 8/14/00 SETBACKS Front (l" FL) 15'-0" 15'-0" 15'-0" 15'-0" or average (2"d FL) 24'-0" 21'-3" none 20'-0" Side (interior): 6'-0" to deck 17'-6" 3'-6"' 6'-0" (exterior 1" F1.): 7'-6" to stairs 8'-0" 6'-0"' 7'-6" (exterior 2"d FL) 16'-7" average 19'-5" average none 12'-0" average Rear (1st Fr): 30'-0" to deck 32'-0" to deck 31'-4" to deck 15'-0" (2nd Fr): 44'-0" to balcony 45'-6" to balcony none 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2533 SF 2461 SF 2804 SF 2860 SF 35.4 % 34.4 % 39.2 % 40% FAR: 3104 SF 3170 SF 2535 SF 3188 SF 0.43 FAR 0.44 FAR 0.35 FAR 0.44 FAR Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered 1 covered (20'-0" x 26'-6") (18'-6" x 20'-6") (18'-6" x 2l'-6") (10' x 20') 0 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20'-6") (9' x 19'-6")' (9' x 20') # of bedrooms: 5 5 3 --- Height: 21'-2" 22'-2" 14'-0" 30'-0" DHEnvelope: complies complied complies see code ' Existing nonconforming interior side setback and exterior side setback to entry stairs, and nonconforming uncovered parking space length. 2 Special Permit for an attached two -car garage. 2 Design Review and Special Permit Staff Comments: See attached. 1320 Skyview Drive May 29, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on May 29, 2001, the Commission noted that the project has come a long way from the previous design and that the design works well with the neighborhood (May 29, 2001, Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission asked if the pine tree along the left side property line will be retained, and if so, will it be significantly trimmed. In a telephone conversation with the applicant, he noted that the pine tree will be retained. The pine tree may have to be trimmed in order to accommodate the second floor addition. In case it requires significant trimming, the applicant noted that the property owners will have the trimming reviewed by an arbors. The Commission suggested that the landscape architect consider adding larger scale evergreens on Skyview Drive. The applicant noted that he would pass this information along to the landscape architect and felt that it would not be a problem to add large scale evergreens along Skyview Drive (the landscape plan was not revised). The Commission moved to place this item on the consent calendar for action. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's May 29, 2001, design review study meeting, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for an attached garage, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a- d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; Design Review and Special Permit 1320 Skyview Drive (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Special Permit Findings for an Attached Garage: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's May 29, 2001 public meeting, that the proposed attached garage is consistent with the architectural style of the building, that the proposed attached garage on Kip Lane will replace an existing attached garage on Skyview Drive, and that the existing parking pattern in the neighborhood consists of attached garages, the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and special permit, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 9, 2001, sheets A-1 through A-6, and L-1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's March 26, 2001, memo shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Planner c: John Matthews Architects, applicant and architect 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2001 9. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SAMUEL AND ELAINE WONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) 10. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Jack Matthews, architect, present the project and explained that he took over the previous project and tried to preserve the privacy of the neighbor to the north, reduced the second floor to three bedrooms and reduced the size of the garage. Commissioner comments: • Noted a pine tree on the left, will that be retained and if so will it be significantly trimmed? • Landscape plan shows mostly deciduous trees, landscape architect should look into larger scale evergreens on Skyyiew, no redwoods; • Project has come a long way from previous design; and • Good job, works well with the neighborhood. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Vistica closed the public hearing. C. Bojues made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: compared with the initial submittal this is a big improvement. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:16 p.m. 1524 LOS MONTIK DRIVE — ZONED R-1 — AFqILICATION FOR DESIGN U'VIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTROCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL IT FOR DECLINING HEJOTIT ENVELOPE, AND SIDE SET CK VARIANCE FOR A FIRS AND SECOND STORY ADD ION (SIDNEY HOOVER ARCH CTS, APPLICANT AND A HITECT; MICHAEL BE AN AND BETSY HAUGH, PRQPtRTY OWNERS) Planner Keylon briefly present the project description. It wa oted that this project requires Area Construction Permit, l wever that was left out of the stA report and will be added to thew staff report upon its retu to the Planning Commission. ere were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica ened the public comment. Si ey Hoover, 500 Montgomery S eet, San Francisco, architect for th roject was available for questio .The applicant stated that the exi mg structure was built prior to curr t regulations, they want to keep a existing footprint and roof pa m. They want to extend the mast bedroom in the simplest manner d preserve the simple form of s 1950's house. 12 •ii MINN TA1911 i Reference stafyeport, 8.14.00, with attachme s. City Planner discussed a report, reviewed criteri,Planning Department mments and conditions Bugg ted for consideration. Corn ssioners asked: are desig eviewers to comment variances? Staff noted it was her nderstanding that the review s would comment only if v fiance affected design iteria. How is average front se ack measured? Staff noted 1 properties fronting on the same side of the stree .e., short side of property on st et. There were no other qu tions of staff. hair Keighran opened the publiyfiearing. Rob Cunningham operty owner, and Ray Vio i, architect, represented the project. They noted that th met with the design reviewer d worked to break up the assing; if took out the 27, foot setback of this site, the erage on the side of the street 's the proposed 1T-6" which 's the same setback as on the other side of the street an reflects the neighborhood. is design has no identifiable aracter or style, why? There is no style in the nei orhood to follow, client w red a more modern style. here may be no pattern in the neighborhood but t ere is a pattern in Burling there are elements in this use that make it standout, stucc surround, columns oval windows, width of the use from property line to pro erty line, why? Applicant noted at in his opinion ' 48' x 102' lot is substandard, ouse is only 2600 SF, three be ooms and 2 baths; wanted to ow how to progr s. There are two story hou s in the area which look nice o Bayswater and Victoria, this de 'gn will not fit in at is the exceptional hards ' on the property for the front se ack variance? The exceptional dship is the exis ' g 27 foot setback on this to hich is greater than the neighb s. Others on the block do not h e IT, next door a setback is 22 feet, anoth 15', the variety of setbacks on s street is the pattern. There ere no further co ents on the project from t floor and the public hearing wa losed. 'C. Deal noted points have b n made; this is not a substandard t, a great many 5000 SF lots i he city; the variance is driven by the design of a house, which is not an excepti al circumstance; gave directio there are good houses in neighborhood, desi new house to be compatible wi them; the design review was aused by the style of the architecture not the quare footage; move to deny the eXplication. Chair Keighran seco ded the motion. Comment on t motion: agree that there are no a eptional circumstances for the ont setback variance, the square footage of thouse is OK, for design need to loc around to see what is in the nei orhood; can live with the setba variance ifthe house were well designed to fit in neighborhood; would like larg plant material to be added in the ear yard tqAoften the appearance of the size om the rear. For a variance st find exceptional hardship b ed on char eristics of the property, if do for any ther reason will set a precedent. he existing 27 foot setback is existing co dition which contributes to the char cter of the neighborhood, and eds to be accepted. 4. Chair Keighran called for a voice v to on the motion to deny the v ance and design review. The otion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojues, Luzuriag , Vistica absent) voice vote. A eal procedures were advised. is item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE - ZONED R 1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (LAWRENCE CHEN, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; SAMUEL H. AND ELAINE WONG, PR 0PF.R TV 0VJT, MR g) Reference staff report, 8.14.00, with attachments. Staff Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments; six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairperson Keighran opened the public hearing —Lawrence .Chen, designer,. noted that after meeting with the design reviewer, the plans were revised to address the suggestions made by the Commission at the previous study meeting; eliminated the side setback variance for entrance stairs, relocated the entrance, scaled down the porch yet maintained Minutes-6- identity, pushed back porch columns, all bedrooms are located on the second floor, stepped back the second floor addition along Kip Lane and Skyview Drive to reduce the impact of the addition, eliminated the cantilever and the deck off one of the bedrooms, glass railing was replaced with a molded millwork balustrade system, scaled down the chimney to match others in the neighborhood and reduced its height by approximately 18", lowered the building height by changing the roof pitch to 4/12, and revised gutter and eave details to match other houses in the neighborhood. The number of bedrooms was reduced from six to five, but there were no changes made to the garage size. Commission noted that the design guidelines encourage compatibility with the neighborhood, the proposed house is different and has no character. The applicant noted that the house has three exposed sides, the downward slope along Kip Lane makes the house look big, whatever is added on the second floor will make the house look big, noted that only 5' of the second floor wall is exposed, the rest is within the first floor roof, and feels that the proposed house draws elements from the neighborhood. The Commission noted that this design is better than previously proposed, this is the first second story addition in the neighborhood, visited the site, noticed two two-story houses at the end of the block, one of which is split level, will be an enormous impact on the neighborhood, will be massive after seeing the story poles, entrance is large on Kip Lane, do not want to establish a precedent, will change the look of the neighborhood. Timothy Sullivan, 951 Mariner's Island Boulevard, Suite 340, San Mateo, attorney for the property owners, noted that design reviewer comments state that the proposed house does not match the neighborhood, comments focus on the massing of the house, feels that the house should be slightly different, modified design to eliminate the side setback variance, meets all zoning code requirements. There is large, mature landscaping at the rear of the lot which will screen the addition. The property owner met with neighbors and has letters of support and installed story poles. A photo board was submitted, pictures show the story poles and mature landscaping. If the Commission feels that the proposed design is not compatible, the property owner would like to work with the City, would like specific direction in regards to the design. The garage was not enlarged to meet the required dimensions, checked with staff and they noted that the existing garage meets the requirement for a five -bedroom house. Most other houses in the neighborhood are not two story, proposed project contains windows and stucco similar to other houses in the neighborhood. The attorney noted that the neighbors who signed the petition opposing the project are not located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Commission asked that the letters of support be submitted so that they can be entered into the record, noted that for design review the applicant must go beyond meeting code requirements and look at the spirit of the code. The attorney asked that the Commission be clearer in defining changes to design and to clarify for the applicant what the direction is. Samuel Wong, property owner, noted that he instructed his designer to follow the Commission's suggestions, feels that he has complied with the suggestions, is concerned with the design reviewer's comments, read through design guidelines; would like to bring a decent house to the neighborhood, the existing house has been declining without .maintenance, need to make major repairs, would like to have an elegant design, may not -be compatible with houses in the neighborhood built in the 1950's. There are 22 houses on Skyview Drive, tried hard to meet with all of the neighbors, met with all except for three neighbors which were not home, including those neighbors opposed to the project, the approach has been to work with the neighbors and the city, at 5 p.m. today learned that Planning staff received a letter of opposition signed by nine homeowners. The property owner pointed out the he needs more room in the house for his family, considered adding closer to the next door neighbor at 1324 Skyview Drive, but this would impact that neighbor and did not want to remove large mature pine trees to accommodate the addition, only option is to add a second floor, plan to add more trees along Kip Lane to soften the mass and bulk of the addition and to create privacy. Paul Grech, 1315 Skyview Drive, Norm Torello, 1328 Skyview Drive, Patrick Wong, resident of 1320 Skyview Drive, spoke noting that it is difficult to speak in opposition to the neighbor's proposed project, need to correct inaccuracy in applicant's letter dated July 1, 2000, not true that all neighbors support the project, delivered a letter to the Commission today which is signed by 13 neighbors in opposition to the project, house is too massive, does not reflect the character of the neighborhood, fortunate not to have to contend with houses at La Strada development on Skyline, Minutes -7- believes design review was established to stop this type of house in Burlingame and to retain character, design reviewer states in her memo that this house is not in the right location; house will appear to be three stories from Kip Lane, applicant points out that more room is needed for his family, why didn't he think about this before purchasing the house, there are many choices for the design which will not impact the neighborhood. Mr. Wong, property owner, noted that he spoke verbally to the neighbors, does not know all 22 neighbors, pointed out that the 13 signatures on the letter of opposition only represent nine houses. House is run down, he and his brother share a room, is infuriated with the direction to be compatible with houses in the neighborhood, all were built in the 1950's and 70's, the inside of the house has not been changed since the 70's, house is in bad repair, the roof leaks, can't open the windows, no place to expand but on the second floor, if the Commission doesn't like stucco, can replace with wood siding, can't see how the improvement will be detrimental to the neighborhood, his happiness is being jeopardized, large family of five should be able to have a bigger house; feels there is no invasion of privacy with neighbor across the street, three-quarters of the windows in her bedroom are blocked by a tree, room faces Skyline, if drapes are open everyone will see into her room. The attorney noted that the proposed design complies with code requirements; asked if the second story or the materials is the problem, property owner purchased the house knowing that a second story was allowed. Commission noted that a second story is allowed. The applicant had no further comments. Chairperson Keighran closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: noted that they appreciated Mr. Wong's comments, second stories are allowed and he is allowed to build to the maximum SF, not only have to comply with the zoning code but also the design guidelines, would like to see house improved, could still use stucco and still belong in the neighborhood; the existing garage is 18' wide, the ordinance to allow 18' existing garage width was adopted because many of the houses in the Ray Park neighborhood had existing 18' wide garages, but because there are a lot of walls being removed in this house, this is essentially a new house, garage size should comply with current code requirements, it would not make sense to allow the nonconforming garage to remain, house does not take advantage of the slope on the lot, the existing house does not but it will be demolished, should consider, a split level design, put garage below the living room; the Commission's decision is not based on the number of letters received from the neighbors, the number of bedrooms is fine, mass of the building was not dealt with in a proper way, cannot support the project. Further Discussion: cannot describe in 25 words or less how to fix the design, it is difficult to add a second story to the existing house, but not impossible, must respect the existing -style of the house, need to look at window style, eave details, bulk of stucco, suggest keeping it simple, smaller scale; the water table, porch columns, and stucco add to the massing and incompatibility; it is possible to make the necessary changes, several projects on the consent calendar this evening did this; feels that the Commission has given a clear direction, important that the garage conforms to the current code requirements, seems as if the applicant is open to direction. C. Deal moved to deny the project without prejudice, for reasons stated in the Commission's discussion of the project. The problem is not the size of the -house, but how it is handled. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairperson Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 voice vote (Cers. Luzuriaga, Vistica and Bcjues absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The item concluded at 9:37 p.m. Chair Keighran called for a brief break, the commission reconvened at 9:47 p.m. 2009 RAY D - ZONED R 1- APPLICATIO OR DESIGN REVIEW FOR W TWO-STORY SING FAMILY ENCE WITH A DETAC D TWO -CAR GARAGE WART AND ASSOC S, :DparZensttcomments; e aff report, 8.14:OQ wit ttachments... City Planner dis sed the report, reviewed crit a and Planning five cord' 'ors were suggested for consi ration. Commission had no q stions of staff. Minutes -8- Design Review Comments City of Burlingame operty Owner. Samuel & Elaine Wong Applicant Name. Designer: Project Address: Planner. Date of Review: Design Guidelines Lawrence Chen Lawrence Chen 1320 Skyview Drive Ruben Hurin 26 June 2000 RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The existing house is very similar to the existing neighborhood in as much as it has the wood siding at the front elevation, double garage door at the front, low pitched roof and aluminum sliding windows. All the houses in the neighborhood were built at the same time, and few of them have been remodeled. All the houses in the neighborhood have remained single story. The proposed remodeling of this residence will have very few characteristics of the original house. The size of the proposed will be much larger in scale than the existing houses on the street. The windows will be changed to vinyl vs. the original aluminum. There will be no wood siding in the proposed remodel, the exterior material will be stucco. The chimney material will remain as brick, but the style of the proposed chimney is not in keeping with the existing chimney, typical of the neighborhood. The roof slope will be similar to the existing residence. The proposed remodeling is compatible to the area behind its neighborhood. Many of the details proposed for this house are quite similar to the houses at the "La Strada" development. The massive scale, the stucco exterior material, the grand entry, and the style of chimney. RESPECT FOR THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. All the houses in the neighborhood have the garage attached in the front of the house. The Planning Commission (P.C.) requested the garage be enlarged to conform to the required dimensions due to the large amount of remodeling. This was not accomplished. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CONSISTENCY AND MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. The proposed house will be quite massive compared to the adjacent neighborhood. The designer has worked with the massing by stepping it back from the neighbors and the Wong Residence 1320 Skyview Drive Page 2 of 3 street. The majority of the second floor addition is placed away from the street elevations, so as to reduce the impact. The P.C. was concerned about the proposed large front porch, which encroached into the setback. The designer has reduced the scale of the front porch, yet allowing for a distinctive entrance. The P.C. requested the glass railings be eliminated from the decks, they felt it looked too commercial. The designer has proposed moulded balustrade system Although there is nothing like this in the neighborhood, it is an attractive wood rail that utilizes the material of the neighborhood, just in a scale that matches the large scale of the house. The designer has also eliminated the cantilevered balcony on the second floor. One of the decks is tucked into the rear roofline for minimal impact. The large stucco chimney was a concern to the P.C., the designer reduced the height of the chimney and proposes its construction to be brick, as the original chimney. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 1324 Skyview, the neighbor to the left, is the closest to the proposed addition. The designer has proposed the second floor addition as far away as possible to that neighbor. There is a lot of landscaping between the two houses, therefore, there should not be a dramatic impact directly on this house. There is a vacant lot across the street from the proposed addition, therefore, the addition will not be blocking anyone's view. As one drives south on Skyline Blvd., there should be little impact by this addition. However, as one approaches north on Skyline Blvd., and turns left into this neighborhood, there will be an enormous impact on the way this neighborhood is introduced. This will be a very visible residence which does not reflect the character of this neighborhood. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. There is a lot of landscaping around this residence. The front has a large tree in the yard, the left side has trees and bushes screening the residences. The rear yard has tall trees and bushed screening the residence from Skyline Blvd. The Kip Lane elevation also has some tall trees along that elevation. IN THE CASE OF AN ADDITION, COMPATABILTY WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS REMODELED. There is little relationship between the existing and the proposed residence. As mentioned previously, the scale is completely different, as are the exterior materials and windows. Wong Residence 1320 Skyview Drive Page 3 of 3 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Here is a situation where there is a strong theme in a neighborhood. My guess is that the development was built 1950-60's. The neighborhood is not a typical "Burlingame Bungalow" neighborhood, which is what the community is trying to preserve. There are in fact, some details of this house the P.C. has wanted to see replaced in several other proposed remodeling. For one, the aluminum windows are to be replaced by vinyl, divided light windows. The proposed addition is set back from the street and critical areas, as is usually recommended. However, this house does not match its neighbors. It is luckily located at the end (or beginning) of the neighborhood with a vacant lot across the street. Therefore, individually, it is not effecting individual homes. It is setting a president for the neighborhood. Is this the direction this neighborhood wants to be heading? Below is the checklist of what was requested by the P.C.: 1. The porch is no longer in the setback, and the scale has been reduced. 2. The second floor decks are no longer cantilevered. 3. The deck rail has been revised to utilize a more compatible material such as wood. 4. The stucco chimney has been reduced in size, and is proposed of brick, like to the neighborhood. 5. The scale is very massive, but is broken up and set back from the street. Basically, there are the first on the block to add a second story. It is more noticeable from Kip Lane due to the slope of the property. 6. The garage has not been enlarged to meet the required dimensions. 7. Window and eave details have not been changed to reflect the neighborhood. I feel the neighborhood has been ignored with this proposed design. The owners seem as if they would prefer to be part of the "La Strada" Development, rather than their own. There are some nice elements of the house, but I do not feel as if the overall house belongs at this location. D c,�� Catherine J.M. Nihne er AIA ROUTING FORM DATE: March 26, 2001 TO: _✓ty Engineer _Chief Building Official _Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition at 1320 Skyview Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-201-260. STAFF REVIEW: Monday. March 26.2001 NO 2. — dV-t i v e w Lo� {n�� 11.t Piu t•r curtb (1-) �- \ wo- u� . Curb 10 C li r✓ �l9 7 i v 2.v tI s to � vt.e� Imo, •.-�-z I� � �B �"mot 3 � �o�lir2 v✓t a(gti v e w s 2 acuIplab� slv�cc st` u� C lo-r e to Imo. Reviewed By: x" Date of Comments: FVO V %G_.L p we � t lR 3 ci%1 `v2 V e2Y1 Curtlo�°tcx �O rVV q ct v C o f V-0r 2. ROUTING FORM DATE: March 26, 2001 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition at 1320 Skyview Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-201-260. :+` " 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME J� APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMSION Type of Application:_Special Permit Variance Other Qfej b-J EM JEW Project S Kyv 1(5W -W • Assessor's Parcel Number(s): APPLICANT Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): fax: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: � )0�9 M)q Tf-I5t w%-MC*-Wn PROPERTY OWNER Name: '5MQt 1— W09I Address: �Y V TEW TK City/State/Zip: 13v-P—UN404 CA-q 010 Phone (w): A*- (h): CQ50 • (O V�7 • D 88'9 fax: 1� • �j��. GJ�ZL�J Address: j27 'N.. !E* MADMAD DIZ . City/State/Zip:_ ,A&�E0 I 1 Phone (w): & ✓�• S&:Q-1 LOZ (h):_N/A fax: CotFo • S 4-o —1 W7 Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact' person for this application. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and -belief. pl ant'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' Signature to --------FOR OFFICE US ONLY Date Filed: 3.123(01 Fee: # gys• oo MAR 2 3 Z001 Planning Commission: Study Date: S,ZA+O1 Actionate D' b• 11,01 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. C.xTjy SPECIAL] !REC.`IVED IN. AY 9 2001 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. The planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. The new garage space will be located in what would otherwise be the crawlspace for this home. Since the lot slopes eleven feet from Skyview Drive to the new garage location at Kip lane -it is possible to add the new garage without adding any additional bulk the the house. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the eT4649 structure, street and neighborhood: . The house has a stucco base in line with the floor line of the first floor separated from the siding above with a horizontal wood watertable. This :stucco base provides a firm grounding of.the building and allows for the slope of the lot. The garage forms part of this base.The character of the neighborhood will not change except that the garage and driveway on SkyvieW Drive Will be eliminated which should improve the overall appearance of the house. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (CS. 25.57)? The -roof forms and wall materials are consistent with the neighborhood. There -is -no neighbor on the same side of the street adjacent to the proposed garage.New landscaping is being provided on both street frontages as shown .on the Landscape Arcitect's drawings: 4. Explain how life removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the cityrs reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. The trees t6'be removed are shown, on our site plan. None of them are very significant. The landscape plan shows six new flowering plum trees (24" box).and one.new.tulip maynoiia. sraorErdfLrRu May 9, 2001 Mr. Ruben Hurin, Planner City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1320 Skyview Drive Ruben: RECEIVED MAY - 9 2001 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. We are submitting a completely new design for Mr. and Mrs. Wong for the remodeling and addition to their residence. As you know we were hired late last year to try and resolve the design issues brought up by the Planning Commission in the previous submittal and create a new design which meets the Wong's needs. Our design addresses these issues as follows: 1. The previous design proposed a second floor addition which included four bedrooms and two baths. We have reduced this to two bedrooms on the second floor and two bedrooms on the first floor. This solution significantly reduces the overall bulk and mass of the building. 2. The existing garage facing Skyview Drive is a substandard size. We are proposing a new garage fronting on Kip Lane which takes advantage of the slope of the site without creating more apparent bulk. 3. The second floor addition steps back from the first floor walls which will mitigate the impact of the second floor. 4. We are also using horizontal siding on the walls above the first floor line which tends to break up the otherwise monolithic appearance of the stucco walls previously proposed. 5. Concerns about whether the family room could be considered another bedroom have been eliminated by opening it up and unifying it with the kitchen and breakfast area. 6. Exterior details and materials are richer and more consistent with neighborhood homes. The large wood columns have been eliminated. The deck railing is simplified. All of the windows are single lite type. The brick chimney has been eliminated for the fireplace since it a gas only appliance. The roofing is a cementitious fiber slate. The driveway will be concrete interlocking pavers. JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS 127NORTH SAN MATEO DRIVE SAN MATEO, CA 94401 VOICE: 650-340-1107 FAX: 650-340-1677 e-mail. jack@matthewsarchitects.com SIGNED: RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and special permit for an attached garage for a basement and first and second story addition at 1320 Skyview Drive. zoned R-1. Samuel and Elaine Wong, property owners APN• 027-201-260; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 11, 2001, 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 Initial Study and 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, per CEQA 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, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review and special permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A' attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permit 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. ACTING CHAIRMAN I, Joseph Boiu€s , 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 1l' day of June, 2001 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, and special permit. 1320 Skyview Drive effective June 18, 2001 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 9, 2001, sheets A-1 through A-6, and L-1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's March 26, 2001, memo shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. , CITY ,�1' ae CITY OF BURLINGAME BVRLJN4pME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE Application for design review and special permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition at 1320 Skyview Drive, PUBLIC HEARING zoned R-1. (APN: 027-201-260) NOTICE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, June 11, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed June 1, 2001 (Please refer to other side) A copy of the a to the meeting Burlingame, Cal If you cha raising on described at or prior Property c tenants at 558-7250. Margaret MZ City Planner CITY OF BURLINGAME jnay be reviewed prior �501 Primrose Road, you maj%be limited to 1 atAhe,abblic hearing, %deliver�d to the city C A L. t. F O R .Y' r A rs w ore L . o toe a onst efor i orming their thtsnotice 9}n`al�information' please call (650) S,Qu PUBLLC FMR.ING N, ICE (Please refer to other side) jx. -TiNN 17v 14 4�r lot 4i r%N., Jwr A Ldbfirl. Am Item # 3 1320 Skyview Dr. PC Meeging 6.j1.O1 Cheryl A. Feist 1333 Skyv ew Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 ITEM RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF PACKET Dear Members of the Planning Commission: June 8, 2001 I am the owner of 1333 Skyview Drive, Burlingame, and I attended the Planning Commission meeting on May 29, 2001, when the members reviewed the new plans for the remodel and second story addition with special permit for the home at 1320 Skyview Drive. I was very concerned about a couple of issues which were not addressed at that meeting. First, I am concerned about the position of the proposed new driveway in respect to the potential liability it poses to the ingresslegress of fast moving traffic off of Skyline Boulevard, and the blind corner going southbound on Skyline onto Kip Lane. Secondly, I feel that if this project is given special dispensation in respect to the repositioning of the driveway, that it is going to set a precedence throughout Burlingame for homes on corner lots to arbitrarily shift driveways from one street to another. It seems to me that keeping the driveway and garage in its present position, maintains the character of the neighborhood, as no other garages or driveways are located on Kip Lane where a traffic hazard could exist. I have no objection to the overall new design of the remodel, but feel that the existing garage and driveway should remain on Skyview Drive, and the necessary rooms needed in the home could be achieved by utilizing the space where the new proposed garage is positioned. Also, I am concerned with the preservation of the existing, mature trees located in the area of the proposed new addition and garage/driveway. It has been my understanding that the design review board of Burlingame continues to try and preserve the natural beauty that mature trees of this type provide. I appreciate the commissions decision and the consistency of the decisions which are helping to keep the City of Burlingame beautiful for all of us. Respectfully, 0" �06' Cheryl eist tem #3 - 1320 Carmelita Ave. PC Meeting - 6.11.01 ITEM RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF PACKET Hand Delivered City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Paul J. Grech 1315 Skyview Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 June 9, 2001 Res 1320 Skyview Drive Dear Members of the Planning Commissions I am the homeowner of 1315 Skyview Drive and am writing to you regarding the three very large (6o'--75' high) Monterey Pine trees at the corner of Kip Lane and Skyline Blvd. on Applicant's property. I hope it is not too late to request that the Commission stipulate, as part of the approval process of the above - referenced project, that the trees be protected during construction. - The trees have probably been on the site since 1956 when the house was originally built. The trees are beautiful and add considerably to the entrance to Skyview Drive. They will also soften the effect of the size of this project in relation to the surrounding houses. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully, ` �� Pau J. Grech RECEIVED JUN 1 12001 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT.