HomeMy WebLinkAbout1637 Westmoor Road - Staff ReportItem # � r�
Consent Calendar
PROJECT LOCATION
1637 Westmoor Road
Item # ci--
Consent Calendar
i
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Side Setback Variance
for a First and Second Story Addition
Address: 1637 Westmoor Road Meeting Date: 03/26/O1
Request: Design review and side setback for a first and second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1
(C.S. 25.28.040)
IProperty Owner: Dean and Ursula Williams APN: 027-152-280
Applicant/Designer: Daniel Biermann, Design Studio
Lot Area: 5,250 SF
�eneral Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
�EQA 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.
Date Submitted: December 20, 2000 Zoning: R-1
Summary (Plans date stamped 3/12lO1): The existing two-bedroom, single-story house contains 1,392 SF of
floor area (.27 FAR), including an attached single car garage. The applicant is proposing a 99 SF addition
(excluding the 100 SF exemption for covered porches) on the first floor, which includes removing and replacing
the entry, extending the garage towards the front, and adding a covered porch at the rear. The applicant is also
proposing to add a 2,000 SF second floor. The addition and remodel will increase the floor area to 2,591 SF
(.49 FAR) where 2,780 SF (.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The house would have three bedrooms with this
proposal, which requires one covered and one uncovered parking space. This requirement is met with the
attached single-car garage (10' X 20', 200 SF) which is proposed to be extended 9 feet forward from the face
of the existing garage toward the front property line. A side setback variance for 1 foot is required for the proposed
garage extension. The existing structure is non-conforming due to the current 3' left side setback where 4' is
required. The proposed garage addition will include extending this wall 9 feet towards the front, with only a 3' side
setback. If two covered parking spaces are required in the future a FAR variance would be required for 29 SF,
or a parking variance would be required. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is
requesting the following:
• Design Review for a first and second story addition;
• Special Permit for height (32'-0" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed);
• Side setback variance for 1'-0" ( 3'-0" left side setback proposed where 4'-0" is required).
CURRENT PREVIOUS EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
(3/12/O1) (2/1/O1)
SETBACKS
Front (lst flr): No change No change 20'-0" 15' or block average
(2"a flr): No change 28'-6" N/A 20'-0"
Des,ign Review, Front Setback �ariar2ce and Special Permit for Height 1637 Westmoor Road
CURRENT PREVIOUS EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
(3/12/O1) (2/1/O1)
Side (left): No change *3'-0"' *3'-0" 4'-0"
Side (right): No change No change 3'-1" 4'-0"
Rear (lst flr): No change 38'-0" 41'-2" 15'-0"
(2"a flr): 38'-0" N/A 20'-0"
LOT 30.3°/a 27'2% 40%
COVERAGE: No change (1,591 SF) (1,427 SF) (2,100 SF)
FAR: 2,591 SF/ 2,582 SF/ 1,392 SF/ 2,780 SF/
0.49 FAR 0.49 FAR 0.27 FAR 0.53 FAR
PARKING: No change No change One covered in garage one covered in garage
�io°-o�° X 20°-0°°� �io°-o°° X 20�-0�°�
+ 1 unc. in driveway + 1 unc. in driveway
HEIGHT: 32'-0"' 30'-0" 17'-6" 30'/2'h stories
DH ENVELOPE: No change require�men� Meets requirement See code
' Left side setback variance for 1'-0" (3'-0" left sides setback proposed where 4'-0" is required).
z Special permit for height (32'-0" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed).
*Existing non-conforming condition
This project meets all other zoning requirements.
Staff Comments: See attached.
February 26, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting: On February 26, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed
the proposed first and second story addition for 1637 Westmoar Road. The Planning Commission had the
following concerns:
• encouraged the applicant to increase in height of the roof peak so that flat roof could be eliminated;
• that the oval window on second floor was awkward, along with the two pieces over the garage door and
entry, which they felt were not different enough;
• that the garage rafters looked lopsided with the right side being lower;
• add dormers or windows along right side elevation to break up the 2' wall height exposed on side elevations;
• taller window could be used in the dining room; and
• the porch and dining room roof could be integrated into one element.
The architect submitted revised drawing, date stamped March 12, 2001, in response to the Planning
Commission's comments. The resubmittal includes an application for a special permit for height, along with
the following revisions:
• 32 feet is now proposed to complete the roofline so that the flat roof could be eliminated;
• the removal of the oval window on the second floor;
2
Design Review, Front Setback variance and Special Permit for Height
1637 Westmoor Road
•' combining the roof elements of the porch and dining room;
• using a taller window in the dining room; and
• eliminating the 2' wall height exposed on the second floor along the right side elevation by raising the plate
line from 8'-2" to 11'-4" (the ceiling height will remain at 8'-2") and adding a dormer (8.66 SF) along this
elevation.
There were no changes made to the garage rafters or the left side elevation.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on Apri120, 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 February 26, 2001,
design review study meeting, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design
review guideline's. Although the proposal completely changes the character of the existing house, it is a style that
could integrate into many Burlingame neighborhoods. As revised, the proposal is designed to appropriately arrange
the massing and bulk of the structure.
Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height, the Planning
Commission must find that the following conditions exists on the property (Code Seciion 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 exiting structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, fa�ade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with there is 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 Height: Based on findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning
Commission's February 26, 2001 meeting, that the additional height proposed is needed to complete the design
of the architectural style of the building.
3
Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit for Height 1637 Westmoor Roarl
Required Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do
not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity
and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience;
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and
potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Variance Findings: The left side wall is currently non-conforming with a 3'-0" side setback. The variance request
for a 9'-0" extension will bring the wall towards the front of the lot. This extension will be compatible with the
character of the structure in that the addition will not extend to the same plane in which the reconfigured entry will
extend, but will still be behind the furthest projecting wall, which will be the dining room. There will be no
openings in this extension so public safety is addressed. Based on these findings, and the findings stated in the
attached minutes of the Planning Commission's February 26, 2001 desi� review study meeting, the project is found
to be compatible with the variance 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, side setback variance and special permit for height. 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
March 12, 2001 Sheets A1, and A3 through A6;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo dated January 8, 2001 shall be met;
3. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and 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), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
Catherine Keylon
Planner
c: Daniel Biermann, Design Studio, applicant/designer
4
ROUTING FORM
DATE: December 26, 2000
TO: ✓CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUB,TECT: Request for design review and side setback variance for a first and
second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1, APN: 025-
233-090.
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, January 2, 2001
THANKS,
Catherine/Erika/Maureen/Ruben/S ean
�6 � , �. � � �
�� � .� � �� -� �
� �
� � �/ Date of Comments
v�-�-��--Q.�cr � �� � '^� �
J �'�1
/
c
�
ROUTING FORM
DATE: December 26, 2000
TO: CITY ENGINEER
�CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUB.TECT: Request for design review and side setback variance for a first and
second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1, APN: 025-
233-090.
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, January 2, 2001
THANKS,
Catberine/Erika/Maureen/Ruben/Sean D Date of Comments
Ol�� C�,�, .,.,...-.��
,
�
i
�D
L
ROUTING FORM
DATE:
December 26, 2000
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
./ FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUB.TECT: Request for design review and side setback variance for a first and
second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1, APN: 025-
233-090.
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, 7anuary 2, 2001
THANKS,
Catherine/Erika/Maureen/Ruben/Sean
�� �����
,�
� 2- 2 Date of Comments
City of Burlingame Plm:ning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February l6, 2001
The Commission took a break at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
'�� 1637 WESTMOOR ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APpLICATION F
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDI� ION DANIEL B ERM SANN,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER• DEAN AND i TR.CT rr a �xrrT r T � r,.�. „
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Daniel Biermann, designer, represented the project and
noted that he would be available to answer questions. Commission asked if the applicant had considered
increasing the height of the roof to a peak so that the flat roof could be eliminated. The applicant noted that
he would prefer a peak, would required a special permit to exceed the 30' height limit by 2' as outlined on
building elevations. Commission noted that this is a nice design, but does not fit in with the neighborhood,
project will stand out, concerned with compatibility, oval window on second floor looks awkward. The two
pieces over the garage door and entry are awkward, is not different enough, front dining area and garage
compete with each other, they are the same size, garage rafters are lower on the right side, looks lop-sided.
Commission asked if the idea is to build a tudor style house, there should be a difference between the first
and second floors, 2' wall height exposed on the side elevations, is not typical of a tudor style.
Further comment: if the roof is extended over the porch, taller windows might be added in the dining room,
need to keep human interest of entrances; don't see too many additions which completely change the
character of the existing house, nothing left of previous style, this is one of the few styles which could be
interjected into a different neighborhood; may want to add dormers along right side elevation to reduce the
sense of height, suggest integrating porch and dining room roof into one element, very difficult to add to
an existing house which does not architecturally support a second story, st�ould consider adding windows
to the 2' exposed wall, windows can be added in the closets, good job with placement of mass, suggest
increasing the height in the dining room, not asking for the maximum FAR, prefer to see special permit for
height rather than a flat roof. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed
the public heanng.
C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with the suggestion that the applicant
consider the comments made in order to fine tune the project. This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when
plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m.
10. 1701 CARMELIT AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APpLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW A1��ME�
FOR A FIlZST SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (DUC M. TRAN, qppLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
JEFFREY AND M CA OWE RTY nun.r�n c�
Planner Hurin briefly presented the project de 'ption. Commission asked if a building permit had been
issued for this project; no, project is currently in the '' ernut process. City Council approved project
in August, 2000, and an application for a building permit was s
` -'in January, 2001. Commission
7
:4r` C��Y !
�,R� � �: CITY OF BU1tLINGAME
��: °� .i APPLICATION TO TI� PLANNING COMIVIISSION
��. .e�
Type of Application:_Special Permit_Variance x Other .DESI ��� I��
Project Address: 1� 31 1�I E sT r-t o 0�2 rz. �,�p
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 0 25 - 2 3 3- o q o
APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER
Name:_ Dr-�n1 £ u2s��A �li�u�s Name: Dc-q,� � �25�c.<t [,J��✓AMs
Address: 1 6 3� !�I ESTN o0}2 /2c�q,� Address: I G 3? � esrH ao,� �2 oAD
City/State/Zip: gv2,��ur.�nE. � �1�Mio City/State/Zip:_ ��2��N�h�, �a �fo�o
Phone (w): Gs v- 3 73 - 3� I� � �� ��--4J Phone (w): �� - 3�3 - 3i I 9- C u,�s���
(h�; 6So _ �q2- 1s39
fax: 6yo- 5?9- (92?
(h): �oSc�-`42- y534
fax: �So - 579 - !9 2
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
-�F Name: DAN�e� 3� e/z.�,A�,J
Address: 1 � 4q ��� sr�E�-
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
City/State/Zip:_ �tN c.q�,¢.�.os ,Cs} R4-u�o
Phone (w):_ Gso -593-?�4-S
(h):
fax: � s� - s�i 3- 3 t s4
FROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1�� 2�-y o�-rcXw �.� -�-� �,
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief.
, ,
� // �%� �
. _ii.,G�..����. �'l./�(c�---- � �� L-c-:�L'�l
Applicant's Signature Date �
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
l�i ,�l.y. � � � ��✓�—C-,� .�.�. / ���.7 ��G _.
Property Owner's Signature Date�
----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -----------------------------------------�
Date Filed: �Z��-��cC F�: f`� ��'=-� � E C E I V E D
DEC 2 0 2000
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNIfJG DEPT.
�r
n Studio
20 December, 2000
Gity of Burlingame
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, Ga. 94010-3.g�7
Re: Variance Findings;
Williams Residence
1ro37 Weetmoor Road
Burlingame, Ga.
A. The extension of the existing non-conforming setback (3'-O") on the Southeast side where 4'-0" Is
required was a result aF a proposed enlargement/relocation af the kitchen, hence enlargement also to the
garage (approx. 8'-ro") to meet minlmum parking requirements. The existing side setback of 3'-0" is not
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood which makes this property unique. If we are required to meet
the current side setback of 4'-0" we would not meet the minimum requirements af a 10'-O"x 20'-0"
cavered parking area. it is Irrt�eresting to note as well that even with t�he extension of the garage the front
5etback will still be substantially set back from the property line by 25'-1" and from the edge of pavement by
35'-O". Most of the residencies in this neighborhood are closer to their property line and the street.
B. Without the approval aF this application we could not only meet current covered parking requirements
of a 10'-O"x20'-0" space, but the extension would portray an addition. Existing residencies in the
neighborhood currently enjoy the continuity of wall lines where their homes are either existing or have been
added on to; we would like the same right for preservation and enjoyment of thi5 property.
G. The proposed use is utilized as garage ot the lst story. The extension will not exceed the front
po5itioning aF the adjacent neighbors garage (Southeaet side). This is the only eide it would have any impact.
We feel because of the location of the proposed garage extension that it will not be detrimental or injurious
�o property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
D. The existing architechuraf style of the residence is Ranch. We are proposing to alter this type of
architectural style to Tudor, to not only be in keeping with the owners visions but to add to the eclectic
styles throughout Burlingame and in the general vicinity. We feel this 5tyle will add to the character aF the
neighborhood.
Daniel Biermann
(Project Designer)
Design 5tudio
RECEIVED
DEC 2 0 2000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
'' �� �� 1 649 Lmurel Street ■ San Carlos, CA 94070 � 650-593-7948 ■ FAX 650-593-31 54
��, CITV �
<
• BURLINGAME
. �� �
CITY OF BiJRLINGAME
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
�-�P^�e1 �
� �� .
� , �� ; ` � � _ = �r '��� %�
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.501. 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 tlte blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of tlae new
construction or addition are consiste�zt �vith the existing structure's design and with the existing
street and neighborizood.
� �� �
2
3
Fzplaiia lzow tlae vuiiety of ibof line, fucade, exteiiorfznisla mate�zals and elevations of the proposed
new structure or adrlition are co►isisteitt with tlze existing structure, str-eet and neighborhood.
���� I
Hoiv ivill tlze proposed project be coresistent ivitTz the resulential design guidelines adopted by tlae city
(C. S. 25. 57) ?
/����-t/ " � C"" �' (.SZ�,
4. Explain hoiv the removal of aiay trees located witlain the footprint of any rcew st�ucture or addition
is necessary a�td is consistent witlz the city's reforestation requirernents. What mitigation is proposed
for the removal of ajay trees? Expluin ►vhy this mitigatiat is approp�iate.
�
sp. frrn/II /98
I. Explain why the blend of t�aass, scale and dominant struciural c7iaracterisiies Qf t%ie
new constructiora or addition are cotzsistent witla the exisiing structure's design an�l
with ilae existing street a�zd neighborlaood.
How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those propertiesl If
neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and
characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from
neighboring properties. Neigboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street.
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change
to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other
structures in the neighborhood or area.
2. Explain how tlae variery of roof line, facade, exierior fi�zish rnaterials and elevatiofas
of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure,
street an�l neiglzborlaood.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood?
If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of
development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal "fits" in the neighborhood.
How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of "character" as the image or tone
established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the
neighborhood will change, state why.
3. How will the proposed project be consisteni wi�7a the residential desig�a guideliraes
acloptecl by tlae city?
Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet
these guidelines?
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.
4. Explain how the remov�rl of any irees locaied witlaira the footprin� of any new structure
or addition is necessary and is cofasistent with the city's reforestation requirements.
Wliat mitigation is proposed for tlae removal of arry trees? Explain why this initigatio�a
is appropriaie.
Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposall If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are
"protected" under city ordinance (C.S. 1 1.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to
replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so.
sp. frm/11 /98
�P�i: �n Studio
�
�.
�„�.
h
12 March, 2001
Giiy of Buriingame
Planning Division
5C� Primrose Road
Bur�ingame, Ga. g4010-3997
Re: Special Permit,Height;
Williams Residence
l ro37 Westmoor Road
Buriingame, Ga.
1. The proposed addition � Tudor style architecture will add to the character of the neighborhood in hopes
that future additions will follow a more common architectural style that is more prevalent through-out
Burlingame. As with most 2�d story additions, it can sometimes be a challenge to meet the daylight
plane and height requiremerrts. AS proposed we are asking for an excepiion to the height envelope by
abou�t 2'-0" thus completing the roofline so that it stays consistent with the arch'rtectural style.
Because the main ridge peaks at the center of the residence; additional shading or views will not be
affected. The mass and scale aF the proposed residence shail be consistent with other 2"`' story
re5idencies in the general vicinity.
2. The intent af the proposed addition was to match the pattern of development seen in most of
Burlingame. The character of the proposed addition will provide a delicate and softer appeal to the
neighborhood than that aF a bofder and more massive addition.
3. The proposect addition and facades are delineated by stepped back wa{Is, cantilevers, declining roof
lines, decoraiive corbels, and stone facades. The addition will ofFer a more prevalent European styie oF
architecture that i5 common within surrounding neighborhoods and Burlingame.
4. No trees are proposed to be remaved, 2(two) are proposed to be planted.
Daniel Biermann
(Project Designer)
Design 5tudio
'� �� � �� �� 1649 Laurel Street ■ San Carlos, CA 94070 ■ 650-593-7948 • FAX 650-593-31 54
��F, c�r o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
euRUNGnr.+E PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
' o �-- BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
, 1637 WESTMOOR ROAD
Application for design review, side setback
variance and special permit for height for a
first and second floor addition at 1637
Westmoor Road, zoned R-1. (APN: 025-233-090)
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, March 26, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed March 16, 2001
(Pleas'e rc�fer tn nthc:r sidel
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A cop� of the ��pplic�ition and plans for this project nui}� be re� iewed prior
to tlle meetin� at tlie Plaimin� llep�u•tment at 501 Primiase Road,
Burling�ime. California.
If you challenRc the subject application(s) in court, you nlay be limited to
raisinR onlv those issues you or someone else raised at the publie hearin�,
described in the notice or in �vritten con�espondence delivered to the city
at or pi-ior to the public hearir�.
Property o�vners �vho receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650)
558-7250. Thank vou. �� � �
Mar�ai•et i�7onroe �`�� �'� %� ������°' _� ��
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Plea.se refer to other si�le)
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT
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, side setback variance and special permit for height for a first floor and second floor addition at 1637
Westmoor Road, zoned R-1, Dean and Ursula Williams, property owners, APN� 025-233-090;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
March 26, 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 1-(e) additions to existing structures
provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before
the addition, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review and side setback variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and side setback 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.
CHAIRMAN
I, Ann Keighran , Secretary of the Plamiing 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 26th day of March , 2001 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and variance.
1637 Westmoor Road effective Apri12, 2001
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped March 12, 2001 Sheets A1, and A3 through A6;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo dated January 8, 2001 shall be met;
3. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and 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), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof
height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
} >
, �_v�
x;. . �
- :�_
!
r
�:
.,z - =�
`�'- 't "'�"` @
` � -,��
i ,�/ � � `
� �:r` s ��
�., �.�
r.
a,,;: Y-�-►' , ::
Y�� �. .!1
� �.a•� � � .�" i
� . • ,w� ; _ar--.
�, ��z^ $����" �`� '.'�.c
ati r `
�"'� � �� � �.T��-�- j�-
. � ����a ��
� -
��.. � ;;, _
-� _r.._.._ .��,,, _ . ni,i_ .
J
� � �
�
:.�.
,�� '�.'.� �:.5 -
�,�..y:.� �:r .
... -. _�-�- �� --
.._----�.....
Item #
DSR Study Calendar
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Side Setback Variance
for a First and Second Story Addition
Address: 1637 Westmoor Road Meeting Date: 02/26/O1
Request: Design review and side setback for a first and second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1
(C.S. 25.28.040)
Property Owner: Dean and Ursula Williams APN: 027-152-280
Applicant/Designer: Daniel Biermann, Design Studio
Lot Area: 5,250 SF
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Date Submitted: December 20, 2000 Zoning: R-1
Summary: The existing two-bedroom, single-story house contains 1,392 SF of floor area (.27 FAR), including
an attached single car garage. The applicant is proposing a 99 SF addition (excluding the 100 SF exemption for
covered porches) on the first floor, which includes removing and replacing the entry, extending the garage
towards the front, and adding a covered porch at the rear. The applicant is also proposing to add a 1,091 SF
second floor. The addition and remodel will increase the floor area to 2,582 SF (.49 FAR) where 2,780 SF (.53
FAR) is the maximum allowed. The house would have three bedrooms with this proposal, which requires one
covered and one uncovered parking space. This requirement is met with the attached single-car garage (10' X
20', 200 SF) which is proposed to be extended 9 feet forward from the face of the existing garage toward the
front property line. A side setback variance for 1 foot is required for the proposed garage extension. The existing
structure is non-conforming due to the current 3' left side setback where 4' is required. The proposed garage
addition will include extending this wall 9 feet towards the front, with only a 3' side setback. If two covered
parking spaces are required in the future a FAR variance would be required for 29 SF, or a parking variance would
be required. All other zoning code requirements have been met.
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (lst flr): No change 20'-0" 15' or block average
(2"a flr): 28'-6" N/A 20'-0"
Side (left): *3'-0"' *3'-0" 4'-0"
Side (right): No change 3'-1" 4'-0"
Rear (lst flr): 38'-0" 41'-2" 15'-0"
(2"a flr): 38'-0" N/A 20'-0"
LOT 30.3% 27.2% 40°/a
COVERAGE: (1,591 SF) (1,427 SF) (2,100 SF)
FAR: 2,582 SF/ 1,392 SF/ 2,780 SF/
0.49 FAR 0.27 FAR 0.53 FAR
Design Review and Side Setback Variance for a First nnd Second Story Adrlition 1637 Westmoor Road
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
PARKING: No change one covered in attached one covered in garage
garage (10'-0" x 20'-0") (10'-0" x 20'-0")
+ 1 unc. In driveway + 1 unc. in driveway
HEIGHT: 30'-0" 17'-6" 30'/2 �h stories
DH ENVELOPE: Meets requirement Meets requirement See code
' Left side setback variance for 1'-0" (3'-0" left sides setback proposed where 4'-0" is required).
*Existing non-conforming condition
This project meets all other zoning requirements.
Staff Comments: See attached.
Catherine Keylon
Planner
c: Daniel Biermann, Design Studio, applicant/designer