The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1523 Willow Ave - Staff Reportu �<;. Item No. 8c Action Item -.� ��, .W � ` g i � �. ' � ' . ` � Jy� � ft 4�! i•� - �..__— " a_Y��^��. � .. ��4* _ - — Yp��.. �R' . - � !�� ....- i+`��n , - _ = = - �� .: `: � � ' - �._ - - c� �� 4 .7, -_ _ _ � � � ��-�� w ;��. � ,�" � - �,-� �� :; ,� � � � 3... u �� ., „ •�'.,, .�� ,,„,g.F�� PROJECT LOCATION 1523 Willow Avenue City of Burlingame Design Review, Special Permit and Variances Address: 1523 Willow Avenue Item No. 8c Action Item Meeting Date: June 22, 2015 Request: Application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope and Variances for side setback and parking for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Peter Suen Property Owners: Kevin Lange and Betty Chen General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 028-141-230 Lot Area: 5586 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The existing one-story house and attached two-car garage contains 1,611 SF (0.29 FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a first and second story addition over the right side and center of the house which would increase the floor area to 2,877 SF (0.52 FAR) where 2,887 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 10 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR. The existing first floor wall along the right side property line is not parallel with the side property line; it was originally built at a slight angle. The project includes extending the first floor wall along the right side in line with the wall of the existing house and adding a second floor over the right and center portions of the house. The applicant is requesting a Side Setback Variance for the first and second floor addition along the right side property line (3'-7" proposed where 4'-0" is the minimum required). The applicant is also requesting a Special Permit for declining height envelope for the proposed second story along the right side of the house (32 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope). Staff would note that because the house wall of the existing house and proposed addition is not parallel to the property line, the second floor extends 2'-3" beyond the declining height envelope at the front of the house and 0'-7" at the rear of the house. With this project the number of bedrooms is increasing from three to five, which requires two covered and one uncovered parking spaces to current code dimensions (the recreation room qualifies as a bedroom since it more than 70 SF in area, contains a window and contains an opening small enough for a door). The existing two-car garage is nonconforming in width (17'-6" existing clear interior dimensions where 18'-0" is the minimum required for an existing garage). The applicant is requesting approval of a Parking Variance for existing substandard parking space width. One uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The proposed project requires the following applications: ■ Design Review for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)); ■ Special Permit for declining height envelope for the proposed second story addition along the right side of the house (32 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.075 (a)); ■ Side Setback Variances to extend the first floor wall along the right side property line and for the second floor addition (3'-7" proposed where 4'-0" is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (c) (1)); and Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 1523 Willow Avenue Parking Variance for existing substandard parking space width for a two-car garage (17'-6" clear interior dimensions existing and proposed where 18'-0" is the minimum required for an existing garage (C.S. 25.70.030 (a) (3)). 1523 Willow Avenue �ot Area: 5,586 5F Plans date stamped: June 15, 2015 EXISTING PREVIOUS CURRENT ALLOWED/REQ'D (4.30.15 plans) (6.15.15 plans) ; SETBACKS ' _.... __ __ __ _ _ _ Front (1st flr): 16'-5" 23'-8" 27'-3" 23'-8" (block average) (2nd flr): n/a 23'-8" to balcony 27'-3" to balcony ; 23'-8" 2T-0" to house 32-0" to house _ _ __ _ Side (left): 4'-0" no change no change 4'-0" (right): 4'-0" 3'-7° ' 3'-7" ' 4'_0" _ _ __ :_ . _ _ _ Rear (1st flr): 28'-0" ; 28'-0° ' no change 15'-0" (2nd flr): n/a , 51'-0° 51'-2" 20'-0" __ .._ __ Lot Coverage: 1711 SF 2204 SF ' 2235 SF 2234 SF 30.6% 39.4% ' 40% 40% _ __ . _ _ < _ _ _ FAR: 1611 SF 2877 SF ' 2877 SF 2887 SF z 0.29 FAR 0.52 FAR ' 0.52 FAR 0.52 FAR _ _ # of bedrooms: 3 5 5 --- _ __ __ _ . ... _ Off-Street Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered (17'-6' x 20'-6")' ;(17'-6' x 20'-6") 4; (17'-6' x 20'-6") 4;(18' x 18' clear interior) 1 uncovered 1 uncovered ' 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') : (9' x 20') ' (9' x 20') (9' x 18') _ __ _ _ _.. _ Heighf: 16'-8" 23'-5° ' 23'-5° 30'-0" _ __ _ :... __ __ __ DH Envelope: 49 SF extends 32 SF extends Special Permit n/a ; beyond DHE 5 beyond DHE 5 ; required ' Side Setback Variances to extend the first floor wall along the right side property line and for the second floor addition (3'-7" proposed where 4'-0" is the minimum required) Z (0.32 x 5586 SF) + 1100 SF = 2887 SF (0.52 FAR). 3 Existing nonconforming covered parking space width. 4 Parking Variance for existing substandard parking space width for a two-car garage (17'-6" clear interior dimensions existing and proposed where 18'-0" is the minimum required for an existing garage. 5 Special Permit for declining height envelope for the proposed second story addition along the right side of the house (32 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope). Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. 2 Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 1523 Willow Avenue Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on May 11, 2015, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and referred the application to a design review consultant (May 11, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes attached). A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next section. The applicant submitted a response letter, dated June 14, 2015 and revised plans date stamped June 15, 2015 to address the Planning Commission's comments and concerns. Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the designer and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed revised plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer's analysis and recommendation, dated June 4, 2015, for a detailed review of the project. In her analysis, the design review consultant notes that the designer "has utilized the style of the existing windows, eliminating the previously proposed clerestory windows" and "is incorporating the original style of the house by proposing to match existing roof slope and materials, as well as the existing cement plaster of the house". Lastly, the reviewer comments that "the first and second floors are articulated, breaking up any large elevations". In conclusion, the reviewer notes that the comments and concerns expressed by the Planning Commission were incorporated well into the revised design and is recommending approval of the project with no suggestions for additional changes. 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 2 3 4 5 Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) (b) (c) 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 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; 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. 3 Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 1523 Willow Avenue Suggested Special Permit Findings (Declining Height Envelope): That because the wall of the existing house and proposed addition is not parallel to the right side property line, the new second floor extends 2'-3" beyond the declining height envelope at the front of the house and 0'-7" at the rear of the house, that the encroachment is consistent with the design, and that the second floor wall which extends into the declining height envelope is broken up by windows distributed along the wall and a second floor deck, the project may be found to be cornpatible with the special permit criteria. Required Findings for 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; and (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. Suggested Variance Findings (Side Setback on First Floor): That the originally built existing first floor wall along the right side property line is not parallel with the side property line and is a condition applicable to the property which does not apply generally to property in the same district; that the construction will meet the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame, and therefore will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare; and that the proposed addition complies with lot coverage, floor area ratio and height requirements and therefore is compatible with the aesthetics, mass and character of the property and of adjacent properties, will not alter the character of the neighborhood and will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the adjacent properties; therefore the proposed project can be found to be compatible with the Variance criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. 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 Division date stamped June 15, 2015, sheets A0.1 through A5.1, D2.1, D2.2 and L1.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Building Division's April 15, 2015 and March 13, 2015 memos, the Parks Division's April 22, 2015 and March 17, 2015 memos, the Engineering Division's March 17, 2015 memo, the Fire Division's March 9, 2015 memo and the Stormwater Division's March 10, 2015 memo shall be met; 0 Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 1523 Willow Avenue 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; ?2. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Peter Suen, applicant and designer N Design Review, Special Permit and Variances Attachments: Applicant's Response letter, dated June 14, 2015 May 11, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Analysis, dated June 4, 2015 Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Support Signed by Neighbors, dated March 31, 2015 Special Permit Application Variance Applications Photographs of Neighborhood Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 12, 2015 Aerial Photo 1523 Willow Avenue � BUwl�nGnMlE 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: �Design Review `� Variance ❑ Parcel #: 025� ��I - 2�a Conditional Use Permit �d Special Permit ❑ Other: ,� PROJECT ADDRESS: /SZ 3 WIC.LoW AV�. APPLICANT project contact person � OK to send electronic copies of documents�( Name: � iE�E� Address: /l�'}- A/_f�dflMA S7 City/State/Zip: S f�( F2A/VG�S c �1 CA 9Y1'(o 6(/D Phone: �`f �s% S� 3 -� Fax E-mail ARCHITECT/DESIGNER projectcontactperson7�. OK to send electronic copies of documents L� PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: �fVIN /_A�vI�F /RrT�{ �H� Address: l S2 � I,i/LL�[�/ �}vE , City/State/Zip: i3dQLlNG,/i-ME� G/a G�f O/� Phone: �572) Sd �-6/�fS Fax: E-mail:,� l�l iAh�ieC�u/hA�/. CDh► � 4G%P�7��%tA►, �� Name: %'t-7�F�1 Address: [/ �� AGAr3A/�')L� S� City/State/Zip: S,f}K FiefJNLl..iG�� 9�Y!!� Phone: _��(�� SI3-6/h Fax: � �� 5 20(5 E-mail: bp�-Pr"S��'J�i'�E G�'rfr�- Ca/►'1 ,.,.P,,� � Burlingame Business License #: ��Z 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2- 51�2 � ADJiT/� T� G-xi.rr�rv�, riN4c.� — sy�o,� y hb�.l.JE', AFFADAVIT/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. ApplicanYssignature: Date: ��S/�S I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: ��1��5 Date submitted: '3 -5- �5 * Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. S: �HANDOUTS�PC Appli[ation. dac This Space for CDD Staff Use Only � Project Description: Sv�� J� Z� �( �� (5-) c�� S� Cc�� ?P � ': ;� 1 (.� *�� ;� r'1 d �� i�.-I � �-� l->� c k=- V��I a r1Cr'____ rce : Abb�eviation Term CUP Conditional Use Permit DHE Declinin Hei ht Envelo DSR Desi n Review E Existin N New SFD Sin le Famil Dwellin SP Special Permit PETER SUEN DESIGN PROJECT: 1523 WILLOW AVE. June 14, 2015 City of Burlingame Planning Division (650)558-7250 Re: 1523 Willow Ave Planning Commissioners Comments Response Dear Planning Commission, ,,.._y .G � � ` !� �� 4.d ��i 15 201� - BURLINGA"AE � � ri.inlih! ; DI`:� Thank you for your comments and feedback. Working with Ruben and Cathy, the design review consultant, we have revised the design to take your concerns into account. Our responses and revisions are detailed below in red & bold: • Confused on the type of windows proposed. Building elevalions indicate aluminum clad wood windows, but the tletail on sheet A5.1 shows a section of an extruded aluminum frame. Homeowners prefer aluminum clad wood windows but have not selected the specific window and door manufacturer. The keyed notes in the elevations and details have been revised to call out a typical aluminum or aluminum clad wood window. Is your intention to replace all of the windows? No existing windows will be replaced. All new windows have been revised to match a similar style to the existing windows, including casing, mitered corners, muntins and stool. Will the garage door match the front door? The garage door has been revised to match the front door and the general window design with glazing at the top row to match the windows. The rest of the garage door will be the same as existing but painted. • Concern is that it feels like it's a mix between a modern design and an expanded rancher. Sensing a modern design, but it hasn't gone far enough. It's lost its architectural character. The design has been revised to match the existing ranch style, including similar roof material and pitch, same exterior stucco finish (but with new color) and matching window and door patterns, Concerned with south elevation, it is a tall two story wall with a mixed window pattern. Is there an intention with the window pattern? The windows at the south faCade have all been revised. All of the new windows on this faCade are now lined up at the same height and follow the same general window type to create a cohesive and intentional design. • Concerned with minimum, high and clerestory windows on a tall, two-story flat wall. PETER SUEN DESIGN PROJECT: 1523 WILLOW AVE. All of the low and high clerestory windows have been removed and/or replaced. • Plans seem to indicate that the first floor entry wall is inline with the second floor wall above, correct? Revisit second floor wall above entry, might be better for this wall to be inline with first floor wall. Commissioner indicated that the issue may be that the plans do not show enough of a soffit/overhang if the floors here do not align. After revisiting this design, we believe that this overhang provides some articulation to the front fa�ade and also gives homeowners a slightly larger bedroom 201 above. • Concerned with the south elevation, would see a tall looming wall above a single story house as viewed from Walnut Avenue. Would like to see a differential between the addition and existing building, may maintain variance and stay within the declining height envelope. The south elevation has been revised. First, the drawings have been revised to show the existing large tree at this elevation which shields it from direct sight from Walnut Ave. Second, the landscape plan has been revised to show new plantings along that facade which, along with the existing fence, provide additional buffers for that elevation. Noiwithstanding these changes, the architectural design has also been revised to further articulate the south elevation. A recess at the second floor to the right of the stairs at gridlines 5-B has been added to alleviate the sense of a tall, looming blank wall. We also considered a larger recess to the left of the stairs but that made the interior space too narrow to be a feasible option. • Can't figure out the house, the design is not clear. It needs to go further towards modern or scale back to match the existing architecture. As stated above, the design of the house has been revised to match the existing architecture as Commissioners suggest. The window pattern has been revised, along with the front door and garage door. The remaining elements, including roof and exterior finish, also match the existing house. • Strange to have a deck with a front entry behind it. Although somewhat atypical, we believe that this deck is appropriate for the context of this particular house. In one respect, the front entry of the house is now the new gate proposed in conjunction with the landscape design. A focus of this project is the new front yard, which includes a new front fence that wraps around and creates a gate. From this perspective, the deck would be behind this front gate entry. One goal of the deck is to have an elevated area where homeowners can have framed views of the new landscape in front. • Center courryard gives feeling of an Eichler house. PETER SUEN DESIGN PROJECT: 1523 WILLOW AVE. Like the second-level deck, the courtyard is designed to work in conjunction with the new landscape design to give homeowners direct access to the outside from many points within their house. With this courtyard, the yard is a step away from both bedroom 101 and the interior of the main living space. • Lacks strong architectural style. We understand the Commissioners' concerns and the revisions above have been made to address this issue. • Concerned with the south elevation, one option may be to fill in courtyard and moving the front door forward. We looked into this option and feel this suggestion works well with the design. Working with the Design Review consultant, we revised the design to fill in the courtyard by adding Foyer 103. This still retains the benefits of the interior courtyard but makes it less deep. It also gives homeowners a nice entry, without entering directly into the heart of the interior. We hope that all of the revisions made sufficiently address the Commissioners' concerns. Kind regards, Peter Suen � ciry �r;�i � r ,� �`� o� � �� '�c City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, May 11, 2015 7:00 PM Council Chambers a. 1523 Willow Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope and Variances for side setback and parking for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Peter Suen, applicant and designer; Kevin Lange and Betty Chen, property owners) (105 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin A/l Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. Questions of staff > What is side setback requirement for the second floor? (Hurin: Based on the lot width, the minimum side setback is 4'-0"; it must also comply with the declining height envelope.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Peter Suen and Aaron Lavine represented the applicant. > Want to bring house more in line with scale and mass of neighboring houses. > Property owners like the existing house, so tried to limit the demolition by limiting the addition to the front of the house. > Articulated the front facade by including a center courtyard and landscaping. > Tried to respect the neighbors privacy along the right side of the house by varying the windows. Betty Chen spoke as property owner. > Love the existing house, but need more space to accommodate family. > Front yard is underutilized and explains reason for addition at front of house. > Have reached out to neighbors; they provided letters of support for the proposed design. Commission questions/comments: > Confused on the type of windows proposed. Building elevations indicate aluminum clad wood windows, but ihe detail on sheet A5.1 shows a section of an extruded aluminum frame. (Suen: We haven't selected the type of windows yet, but understand that an aluminum clad wood windows is preferred.) > Is your intention to rep/ace all of the windows? (Suen: All front facade windows will be existing front entry door and garage door will be resurtaced.) > Will the garage door match the front door? (Suen: Yes.) > Concern is that it feels like iYs a mix between a modern design and an expanded rancher. a modern design, but it hasn't gone far enough. IYs lost its architectural character. > See justification for variance due to house being built with an odd configuration on the lot. > Concerned with south elevation, it is a tall (wo story wall with a mixed window pattern. 1 intention with the window pattern7 (Suen: Trying to respect the neighbors privacy and al varied window scheme. The idea is to provide clerestory windows to maintain privacy new; the Sensing s there an so have a and lower City ofBurlingame Page 1 Printed on 6/N/2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2015 windows to ailow for ventilation.) > Concerned with minimal, high and clerestory windows on a tall, two-story flat wall. > Di�cult to add second floors to ranch houses, but it can be done gracefu/ly and handsomely. > Plans seem to indicate that the first floor entry wall is in /ine with the second floor wall above, conect? (Suen: Envision a slight soffrt above the entry, second floor wal/ would be furred to create this feature.) > Revisit second floor wall above entry, might 6e better for this wall to be in line with first floor wall. > No page numbers in plan set; please correct. Public comments: > None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: > Concerned with the south elevation, would see a tall looming wall above a single story house as viewed from Walnut Avenue. Would like to see a differentia/ between the addition and existing building, may maintain variance and stay within the declining height envelope. > Can't figure out the house, the design is not clear. It needs to go further towards modern or sca/e back to match the existing architecture. > This is a good candidate for a design reviewer. > The design is confused, don't think it can get to a modern design with thrs starting point. > Strange to have a deck with a front entry behind it. > Center courtyard gives feeling of an Eichler house. > Lacks strong architectural style. > Concerned with the south elevation, one option may be to fill in courtyard and move the front door forward. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to refer the project to a design reviewer. Chair DeMaRini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 6/11/2015 Design Review Comments City of Burlingame Property Owner: Betty Chen 8� Kevin Lange Applicant Name: Designer. Peter Suen Peter Suen _ _F�li�°�i'��,J ProjectAddress: 1523 Willow Avenue Planner. Date of Review Iv -4 20i� Ruben Hurin June 4, 2015 Design Guidelines: � `� BURLINGA.P�1� - �,ivi�IP;'.� ��. 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood has a variety of structures ranging from a two story Tudor, ranch style homes, a few Spanish style homes with stucco exteriors and tile roofs, to a three story and four story apartment buildings. The existing residence at 1523 is a ranch style tucked behind a protruding attached garage. Most of the building materials of the residences in the area are stucco with several roof styles and materials. 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood. There is no set pattern for garages in the area. Next door is a double car- port at the front of the yard; there are a few detached garages a few houses away; and around the corner are attached garages. The owners will retain their attached garage. 3. Architectural style and consistency of mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures. The designer has proposed to be extend the first forward at the right of the structure to creating a small Entry courtyard. The second floor is set back from the front elevation of the house and wrapping around the center of the house. There is also a small deck proposed at the second floor over the new first floor extension. This aids in reducing the scale of the addition. The addition is "set" into the roof, reducing the bulk as well. Design Review Betty Chen & Kevin Lange 1523 Willow Avenue 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties. The neighbor to the right located on the corner at 776 Walnut and is a single story home. There should be little impact from the second story addition on this residence, as the proposed second story addition will be behind the neighbor's structure. There is also a very large tree in the neighbor's yard which divides the two properties The neighbor to the left, 1521 Willow is a two story residence with the second story to the left of their property. This neighbor's adjacency to the proposed addition at 1523 Willow will be their carport; therefore, there should be no impact on the neighbor's residence. 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of the structural components. As previously mentioned, there is a large tree between the said residence and their neighbor at 776 Walnut. There are some large trees at the rear behind said property, reducing the scale of any homes in the area. 6. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. The designer has utilized the style of the existing windows, eliminating the previously proposed clerestory windows. As indicated on the drawings, the designer has detailed the window trim which meshes new and existing windows. The designer is incorporating the original style of the house by proposing to match existing roof slope and materials, as well as the existing cement plaster of the house. The first and second floors are articulated, breaking up any large elevations. Comments: The South Elevation's "playfully placed windows" have been placed with purpose and Incorporate the original style of windows. As noted on the drawings, most all the windows will match the existing style windows and have the same trim detail to unify them. The Entry has been brought forward, establishing a Foyer with a covered Entry from the second floor above. During the revision process, the designer addressed the issue of the Declining Height Envelope by reducing the second floor at the right side_ However, it narrowed the Recreation Room to an almost unusable size. The owners Design Review Betty Chen & Kevin Lange 1523 Willow Avenue preferred retaining the width of the room. It also looked a bit awkward from the front elevation. The owners and designer paid attention to comments suggested by the Planning Commission were well incorporated in this revised design. Catherin J.M_ Ni eyer March 31, 2015 Re: 1523 Willow Avenue Dear Burlingame Planning Department, We are a group of neighbors who live immediately adjacent to the property at 1523 Willow Avenue in Burlingame. The purpose of this letter is to let the planning department know of our support for the proposed project. We have been shown the proposed design and feel that the proposed change is appropriate for our neighborhood in terms of style and size. Additionally, we feel the new structure will be suitably positioned relative to the other houses that surround it. For all the reasons stated above, we would encourage you to approve the project. Regards, Name Address 152 � 1�ltt�'-' � , (��(L�� z-�.A�t_ Name �'^» V' �1�� Address Name Address �W� �'�- � L�.:c� �n�k Rv-2 ►� \r� � �.�_ ��.r ZGJ/� !/� �� /h�f ��/,�� .� � ��V�D '= 4 �ui� = BURLINGqME '---v-rLANNING DIV City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin a,� me.org r� CITY 0 � � BURLINGAME �, . � CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION Decl;h;�1 �}e��.-� ��I��, 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 far 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 ble�zd of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent witlz tlze existing structure's design and witla� the existing street and neighborhood. SEE ATTACHED. 2. Explain Jzow the variery of roof line, facade, exterior finish �naterials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. SEE ATTACHED. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent witlz tlie residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? ,�,J�� SEE ATTACHED. �-52G�� BURLINGAME r,��ilyr D1v 4. Explain how the removal of crny trees located within the footprint of any �zew structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirenie�its. What mitigation �s proposed for the rernoval of a�ry trees? Explain why this niitigatio�i is appropriate. SEE ATTACHED. SPE�PERM.FRM � � 1. The proposed addition has positive impacts on neighbors. For instance, the proposed deck is surrounded by planting, including a new deciduous tree, strategically placed to enhance a sense of separation. A portion of the deck is also tucked behind the extension of the house, helping to separate it from the neighboring yard. Similarly, the new front gate is built from wood slats and permits light and view to pass through. The impact on sunlight is also minimal. Because the adjacent neighbor fa�ade is north facing, the proposed addition would only block sunlight in the morning hours in summer. The windows on the neighbor-facing farade have also been designed with privacy in mind. Specifically, they are all narrow in shape (either vertically or horizontally oriented), and are placed such that they do not look directly into the neighboring windows. In terms of mass, the proposed addition creates a complex new footprint. The new addition extends beyond the garage slightly, but is also recessed towards the middle. These articulations form a mass that appears less massive. The design also includes several human scale elements. For example, a soffit above the front door breaks the two-story elevation and helps maintain a human scale of entry. The windows also have been articulated to include smaller components that are easier to operate. The landscape also varies from smaller/lower to taller/larger plantings. This gradual change enhances the human scale at the landscape level. The proposed addition appears to be similar in bulk and mass when compared to the neighboring properties. The neighbor on the left has a similar second-level addition currently under construction. The neighbor behind is also a new two-story property. Across the street, our house looks out on a mid-rise apartment complex. 2. The proposed addition seeks to match the existing house. The new roof, like the existing, is hipped with the same slopes and eaves. The addition is also scaled such that the new roof planes are of similar size with both the existing and neighboring houses. The addition will also use an exterior stucco finish, which is the same as the existing house. We feel our addition would complement the character of our block. For example, several of the houses on our block have front porches. Our project also includes a new front entry porch, which adds a human element and is consistent with the neighborhood feel. At the same time, our design also includes some contemporary elements, which complement the new constructions in the area and the contemporary, mid-rise buildings across the street. 3. Our addition seeks to follow the residential design review criteria in many ways. In terms of architectural style, the addition maintains the same roof and ranch-style elements of the original house. Stucco and other exterior materials will match the existing. The garage and parking patterns have not been modified, and the addition has positive impacts on its direct neighbors. Thoughtful landscaping has been incorporated, along with an entry porch and other human elements. Despite being a second-level addition, the design has sought to stay consistent with the neighborhood in terms of mass and bulk. Articulation in the front fa�ade results in a complex footprint. All of these elements, combined with varied landscaping, help the new addition to blend in with the existing neighborhood fabric. 4. No trees will be removed. . � BURLINGAME � CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION 5 � de S�4-bac k The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). 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. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. SEE ATTACHED. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property Ioss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. SEE ATTACHED. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. ."�` , �_., � . .� �. � �� SEE ATTACHED. � ;�R - 5 2(�'� ,r71 i� !�=�.^�ME d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? SEE ATTACHED. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org Handouts\Variance Application.2008 � a. There are two unique conditions to our property which result in the minor side-yard setback encroachment in question. First, my property is adjacent to an extremely large tree in the rear. In order to avoid being completely in this tree's shade, the existing house was built as far from this tree as possible; thus, the existing house hugs the right side- yard setback. Second, presumably to center the existing house within the side property lines, the existing house was built with an approximately 1 deg. angle between the right side of the house and the right property line. This slight skew, combined with the fact that the existing house is directly on the right side-yard setback, creates the special conditions in question. Specifically, when the skew is extended to the front of the property where the proposed addition is, it creates a maximally 5-1 /16" encroachment to the side setback requirement. b. Without the variance, we would be forced to make an abnormal and irregular jog at the corner where the existing house meets the proposed new addition. This would, in turn, affect the roofline, foundation and side yard grading/landscaping. Furthermore, the distance of the jog would likely have to be increased to accommodate actual construction. These limitations, which result from existing conditions out of our control, would result in unreasonable hardships in the development of our property. c. Allowing the variance would not be detrimental to the general welfare or convenience of the adjacent neighbor. First, the encroachment is extremely minor. At the widest point, it extends less than 6" beyond the required side setback. The entire encroachment is less than 8 sq. ft. The affected neighbor's view would not be affected, as it would still be a view of our property. There would be no difference in sunlight/shading because the proposed roof eave would not be implicated. Furthermore, there would be no effect on privacy, as the side yard fence at that location would remain unmodified. d. Allowing the variance would benefit both the aesthetics and the character of the proposed development. Most importantly, the variance would allow the addition to be in- plane with the existing house, allowing the new to blend in with the old. Otherwise, the jog required to accommodate these unique conditions would immediately indicate the seam between the existing house and new addition. Looking at the other surrounding properties, we have not seen any other projects which have such seam at the side setback. Thus, allowing the variance would be consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity. F, c � r � J( .� CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION PGt r k,�n q� The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). 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. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. SEE ATTACHED. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoymenf of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. SEE ATTACHED. c, Explain why the proposed use at the proposed locafion will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. SEE ATTACHED. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? SEE ATTACHED. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • S01 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org Handouts\Variance Application.2008 1 a. Our current existing garage is 17'-6" wide and is only 6" short of the 18' requirement for 2-car garages. Despite being slightly under the 18' requirement, it is easily capable of parking two cars (please see attached photograph of two parked cars). As such, we feel that it would be appropriate to consider this a 2-car garage. b. We believe this garage was built and intended to be a 2-car garage. When we purchased the house, we did so with the understanding that this would be a 2-car garage. Without the variance, we would be denied the real and actual benefit of owning a 2-car garage. c. Allowing the variance would not be detrimental to the general welfare or convenience of our neighbors. We have used the garage as a 2-car garage and it has not inconvenienced any families in our neighborhood. d. Allowing the variance would benefit both the aesthetics and the character of the proposed development. The current addition has a massing and scale that is appropriate for a 2-car garage. The driveway is wide and sized for a 2-car garage. Thus, all proportions of this house indicate that the garage is intended for two cars. . r � iF��: � � � - �- ` �z�� : -- - _ -- - -- ;� -��_ _ � �-�� _��, �� _ �; _ _ 15Z3 WILLOW AVE - OFF-STREET PARKING VARIANCE 2-CAR ATTACHED GARAGE