The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1509 Cortez Avenue - Staff ReportItem # 1 � Design Review and Special Permit for Height for New Two-Story Resiclence at I509 Cortez Avenue ITEM # 14 City of Burlingame Special Permii for Height and Design Review for New Two-Story Residence Address: 1509 Cortez Avenue Meeting Date: March 13, 2000 Request: Special Permit for Height and Design Review for a new two-story residence proposed at 1509 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 Applicant: William Allan APN: 026-031-010 Property Owner: William Allan Lot Area: 9000 SF (75' x 120') General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential, Mills Creek and Lincoln School west of property; 10' PUE behind parcel. CEQA Status: Article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited number of small structures. Date Submitted: September 29, 1999 Summary: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-story residence with a detached carport and build a new two-story residence with a 529 SF detached two-car garage. The proposed house has four bedrooms and 3621 SF. The project requires the following: A Special Permit for height to permit a height of 33'-2" where a maximum height of 30'- 0" is permitted (C.S. 25.51.010); and 2. Design Review for a new two-story single family residence with a detached garage (C.S. 25.08.477). Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official noterl (October 4, 1999 memo) that one-hour fire- resistive walls are required where the garage is less than 3'-0" from the property line. No overhangs are permitted on the garage less than 2'-0" from a property line. Roof assemblies must be Class B or better iire resistive. Siding shingles must be iire-retardant. The City Engineer noted (memo dated October 4, 1999) that: 1) a property survey from a licensed land surveyor is required and all property corners shall be set. A sewer lateral test is required for the new house. The Fire Marshal noted (October 4, 1999 memo) that garage walls within 3'-0" of a property line shall be constructed of one-hour fire resistant material; and the roof assembly is required to be Class B or better. The following table compares the proposed setbacks and size of the new house with the R-1 zoning standards: SETBACKS Front: 1 st fb• 2nd flr Side (left): PROPOSED 15'-0" 21'-0" 14'-8" EXISTING 74' -0" 74' -0" 0'-0" A LLO W ED/REQ' D 15'-0" or average 20' -0" 7' -0" Special Pernril for Herglrl, and Desig�t Review , for New Two-Story Residence 1509 Cor[ez Ave. ALLOWED/REQ'D 7' -0" 15'-0" 20' -0" 40% (3600 SF) 4380 SF/ 48.7% FAR 1 covered in garage (10'-0" x 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway 30'/2 �/z stories see code � �.-�-�� Side (right): Rear: 1 st flr 2nd flr LOT COVERAGE: FAR: 7'-0" 60'-0" 66'-0" 33.5 % (3018 SF) 4150 SF/ 46% FAR 38'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 13.4 % 1206 SF 2106 SF 23.4% FAR PARKING: 2 covered in garage (20' x 20') + 1 unc. in driveway HEIGHT: DH ENV.� 33'-4"* meets requirements 2 covered in garage (20' x 30')+ 1 unc. in driveway unknown unknown *Special permit for 33'-4" height required.This project meets all other R-1 code requirements. Design Reviewer Comments: The Design Review Consultant's written comments, date stamped February 4, 2000, note that the applicant modified the plans to address the changes she recommended in the meeting held on November 8, 1999. The changes improved the massing and simplified the shape of the house. The roofline was revised to extend evenly over the first and second stories, and creates a symmetrical wrap-around porch. The design reviewer considers the architectural style of the existing neighborhood to be eclectic with no predominant style of house, and she concludes that the proposed two-story shingle sided house with a traditional wrap-around porch and a high, steep roof pitch will be an attractive addition to this street. The location, size and shape of the windows provides nice detail on each elevation. The owner proposes a detached two-car garage, which the design reviewer notes will be acceptable in this neighborhood which is comprised of houses with both attached and detached garages. The redesigned house is well balanced on this large lot and will not be obtrusive to adjacent neighbors. The existing mature trees along Cortez Avenue and on this site establish a background proportionally scaled for this house. Design Review Recommendation: The design reviewer recommends that this project be approved because it is consistent with the design review guidelines. No additional conditions of approval were recommended. She also supports the special permit for increased height which will provide a better pitch on the roof. Study Meeting: At the Plaruling Commission study meeting on February 14, 2000, the commission reviewed the proposed design for the new residence and asked staff to confirm the average front setback on this block because the staffreport differed from the material submitted by the applicant. This discrepancy is due to staff subtracting the 11'-0" distance between the top of curb in the right- of-way from the location of the front property lines in this area. The proposed new house will meet 2 Special Permit for Neig{�t, nnd Desrgn Review fw- Neti�, Two-Stwy Residerice 1509 Cortez Ave. both the minimum 15'-0" front setback and will be consistent with the average 15'-0" front setback of the other houses along this street. The corrunission requested that the applicant provide additional details of how the railing surrounding the wrap-around deck will be designed, how the landscaping will appear around the porch, how the shingle pattern will be designed, and whether the second story plate height was correct. In response to this request, the applicant provided additional details on the revised plans date stamped March 6, 2000. Sheet A-4 provides details of the change in shingle pattern to a fish-scale pattern on the center gable of the front and rear elevation; circular vents were also added at the top of each gable. The rail detail and lattice work below the wrap-around porch is also demonstrated on Sheet A-4. Sheet A-6 provides a section correcting the second story plate height of 9'- 1'/z". The applicant has also provided a general landscape plan which includes camellias flanking the front entryway, the existing ivy along the front of the property, and adding lawn in the rear yard. All trees, except one palm tree, would remain on site after construction of the new residence. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to approve a special permit, the Planning Commission must make the following findings as adopted by Ordinance 1603 on September 23, 1998: (a) that 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) that 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; (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. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1602 adopted by the Council on September 23, are outlined as follows: 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. 3 Specin! Pennit for Neighl, and Desrgrz Revielv for New 7'�vo-Sto�y Reside�7ce 1509 Corlez Ave. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: Conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 7, 2000, Sheets 1, and 3 through 9; 2. that the applicant shall include the fishscale detail of shingle pattern as shown on the plans date stamped March 6, 2000; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first and second floor, 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; 4, that if the applicant commences with demolition of the existing structures, preparation of the site for construction, or construction of the new residence during the rainy season between October 15 through April 15, the applicant shall install appropriate erosion and sediment control devices to prevent the runoff of sediment in storm water from this site, pursuant to the City's Storm water Control Ordinance; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Ofi7cial's October 4, 1999 memo and the City Engineer's October 4, 1999, and the Fire Marshal's October 4, 1999 memo shall be met; 6. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Janice Jagelski Planner � City ofB:trlingarne Planning Con:mission Minules February 14, 2000 1434 PALOMA VENUE, ZONED R-1 - LICATION FOR VARIANC FROM MUNI AL CODE SECTION 18.22 FO ROPERTY IN SPECIAL FLO D HAZARD AREA FOR A F T AND SECO FLOOR ADDITION. LOU LALTRA MATTEUCCI AP ICANTS AND PROPERTY RS CP Monroe briefly presented e staff report. C. Deal indica d that he has had a past busine relationship with the pplicant and would abstain fro this item. The commissione asked: has there been any his ry of trouble with ding on this block; are there a other houses on this block no below the flood elevation; is t' project subject to d� review. The item was set for e February 28, 2000 meeting oviding all the information is s mitted to the Plannin Department in time. 1509 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A FRONT SE`I'BACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL �ERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY S1NGLE-FAMu„Y RESIDENCE. �WILLIAM ALLAN APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. The commissioners asked: have looked at this design and the details are going to make or break this design, could the applicant give us more information on the details of the eave, posts, railings, windows and apron around the porch; no landscaping plan was submitted, need one in order to see the relationship between the porch and the ground; would like to see what the porch railing wilI look like; would staff confirm the front set back numbers existing on the block and for this property since the staff report has one number and the applicant's data is a different number; for this project the applicant needs to pay attention to the shingling pattern, it should be changed on different parts of the house, could they submit a shingling plan; plans show the distance between the finished floor and joists to be 9.5 inches, that seems too little, if it is made larger will affect height, please confirm this dimension and explain; the applicant needs to address the front setback variance, would not like to see this house too much closer to the street than the one next door to the south, if that neighbor is at 15 feet, then this proposal may not be too difficult; provide information on the gable end detail, it will be important to the character of the structure also the vent detail; like the project, would like to make it great; if the front setback is increased, will it affect the height of the structure. The item was set for public hearing at the February 28, 2000, meeting providing all the information requested is submitted to the Planning Department in time. 1�8q4 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESI(�T REVIEW FOR A NEW HOUSE. CP Mori e briefly presented the staff ort The commissioners ask : would like to see the land ape pIan strengthene o that it is more in keeping with he mass and bulk of the struct e; this is a better project than seen before, woul ike to see dimensional detail o the precut foam molding being sed around the windows; the pt�rch columns do not 1 k like anything else, can they b changed to match the style; th AR is so cIose to the maximum, would staff recheck eir calculations; this project ha been improved to the point th we are down to the detaiIs, on the no'rth elevation ther is a split roof and a one foot ch ge in plate line, you could use hip roof to tie the roofs and plates together better; wil�'�the prayer room be used just by e family or will it also be used outside people who wilI come for meetings, the num�er of cars is the issue; if the chi ey shown is to be used it will ed to be taller in order to get a proper separatioq have �he building department check an revised drawings The item was et for public hearing at the February 28, 2000, meeting providing all the information is ubmitted to the Planning Dep ment in tune. `� 4r` ` o\ �R��,E CITY OF BURLINGAME �� i APPLI�ATION TO TIi� PL�►NNING COMNIISSION Type of Application:_Special Permit_Variance_Other_ � e w S� � v� �. c P Project Address: � S � Q Cc� c� e z I�c �o v��.P Assessor's Parcel Number(s): �' C — � � � � �� lc, - C1 � \ ^ � \ � APPLICANT � Name: �►.�'� \\ � o.rti Q� \�o.r� Address:,5 O� Co c� ez 'Avehue, City/State/Zip: v.c��r�e�C'E��Yo�O Phone (w):�h50>��'1'1-��\�o ��ac' . ch�:_ ��5 ��y� - �s s � fax: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: ��,.v � �. �� 2'�rS �n�� Address:_550 Co�nec �c�� , City/State/Zip:�er��,, C � `�`i51� Phone (w):�;10�� "IVh- \�� (h): PROPERTY OWNER Name: �,.1 •� \\ ti o, rn 'A � 1 o.r Address: \ 5 O`'1 Cd c-� -, �Ve City/S tate/Zip: �.,�� \� v� c,, c`c� e ti C��1�1 O\ O Phone (w):_ SGw�e ch>: �A�,�,� Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. PROJECT DESCRII'TION: � e v� �(1 o v, � \,1 �� c� e�a,c� e�. O.c�Co.a.e. � AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the best of my lrnowledge and belief. G��'��-- �-� �- 9 � Applicant's Signature Date I know about the proposed application and hereby auttiorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Co mission. -(�- Z. — �� y Property Owner's Signature � Date --------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -----------------------------------� Date Filed: 9 2 9 `j % F�; � 3 �o -r- � Soo Q.¢�D 5 i�- 1 Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: � William Allan January 26, 2000 1509 Cortez Ave. CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION 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 proposed new structure is situated on the last lot on Cortez Ave. The lot is oversized (75" X 120"). The new house will be constructed at the front of the lot, as are all other houses on the street. The structure is small, in relative comparison with all neighboring property, at 2200 sq. ft. The location of the building on the property will be 14 feet from my immediate neighbors property line (on the south side). On the west side (rear) of my property there is a 10 ft. utility easement, the proposed new structure will be approximately 60 ft from that easement. On the north side of the lot is a creek that separates us from Ray Park. The property is lined by trees and hedges. On the north side two 100 ft tall redwoods and 60 to 70 foot Pine, Eucalyptus and Poplar trees. On the south by a 15 to 20° hedge. The trees in front of the house are the City trees and are approximately 40ft tall . At the rear of the property there are no trees. The general appearance of the new structure will be a 2-story modified farmhouse with a wrap-around covered porch. There will be Paladin style windows front and rear. Three of the seven houses on my street are 2 story English Tudor style houses - one is a modified Bungalow with a huge Box type addition and a two story 1950's style(?) house. I think that the proposed new structure will be in keeping with the neighborhood. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and e�evations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. The proposed new roof-line is of a style and pitch that benefits the architecture and style of the house. The top of the chimney will be 33 ft above the curb of the street in front of the house. The roof peak will be at 32 ft. The lot that this structure is to be built on is situated 6ft above the curb except for the driveway grade. The lot has a run off in elevation of 2ft from rear to front. Two other houses on the block are at, or over the 30 ft height limit. The shingle exterior of the house is appropriate for its style and the neighborhood, there are many such exteriors in a 2 block radius. RECE.t�� ,1AN 2 6 ?000 William Allan C I T Y 0 F� U h L'� �':'=� �, rn f 1509 Cortez Ave. P � A N r� � h`' '� `'� Page 1 Of 2 William Allan January 26, 2000 1509 Cortez Ave. 3 How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (CS 25.57)? The proposed project meets all city guide lines except the 30ft height limit. The detached garage is preferred by the city and again the style of the house requires it. Basically all landscaping is established and will be maintained and repaired as damaged by construction. The square footage of the proposed structure and its footprint on the lot are well below any limits set by the city guidelines. The structure affords and easy curb appeal while maintaining a large, open feeling of being in the country. 4. Explain the 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. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. There is one tree to be removed and a existing front hedge. The tree in question is a 23 ft tall palm tree located with in 10 ft of the center of my lot and conflicts with the back edge of my proposed porch. I've tried to find it a home with the City of Millbrae but they haven't responded to my request. Regrettably the tree in question will have to be removed. The hedge at the front of the property will need to be removed to allow my front porch to be constructed. All in all, the impact of this proposed new structure on the neighborhood will be positive and will greatly improve the general appearance of the neighborhood. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call. Thank you. Sincerely, 1 William Allan 1509 Cortez Ave. Page 2 Of 2 ROUTING FORM DATE: October 4, 1999 TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUII,DING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story house with detached garage at 1509 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-031-010. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMIVIISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, OCtobeT 4, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/ Rub en Q-�,� �0�✓ �Ir�—Y�S/S-�✓L �,c � � � �{'D�"-� ��vzl�.� rs ��ss ah �V a � ve� �ys � � �"�y � �,s� zSS�^^Glc�S rt't�S� �� _ �5 �s-� ✓e � S�Pc sh<y�/Ps ,��s� 6� �� l D � Date of Comments ��5 /' v/v� �j r � c� .��--r �/ 7� - {� /i � N 2 ! /� ss `t�`� ,�� C la S s � �1 rC°_ �''C'��'6�2c�.f-� G�� e /`��,,,L y� yp/JB'�' �`2�. �T- � - �Y ��`� v ROUTING FORM 11 l z1 DATE: October 4, 1999 TO: /�CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUII,DING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story house with detached garage at 1509 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-031-010. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, October 4, 1999 THANKS, Maureen /Janice/ Ruben � �' y `t Date of Comments j`� ��' ��Z s :��V v �� s�� z�� c,�:�,� ��r� c� L� C, e rtiC�� +�i�l,� e' U vl! � �✓ � � �'� .'1, Cri J ��-�, t--e v�J �� 3� �- l I P v o i�� c c7 v �'�2�1 s `� ��-` "'�`�' `�`.—`� � � U .� � S'��N �ti cn-� ✓-G� i' ;� 1� c�� , � s' � �j.l ✓ �. G I � � ��- ��, � a 0 ROUTING FORM DATE: October 4, 1999 TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUII,DING OFFICIAL �IRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story house with detached garage at 1509 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-031-010. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, October 4, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben 1 �� Yt�.< L -_��, `�`�i � . � Date of Comments l,, C�. � �`� l,� �_� �, � �, 4 \ � c � �L-- C_- C��LS�� c "�� z. � �� -� � �� c �: ��. � ; �` \ \� C� �.� ��5� � � � \�` �. � � _ � � �� \ , �' -> N � � � �� J � . � �_�1 �. � c ��- 1,� I ��- �c� .�- � Q . � RECEIVED Design Review Comments City of Burlingame Property Owner: Applicant Name: Project Address: Planner: Date of Review: Design Guidelines Bill & Debbie Allan same 1509 Cortez Avenue Janice Jagelski 2/3/00 FEB 0 4 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1. COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. This secluded, dead end street offAdeline Avenue, has several architectural styles. There are some small and large Tudors, a split-level, and a later 1970's remodeled home. There is also a large home recently built behind this house. The predominate finish on most of these houses is stucco, with the exception of the wood finish at 1501 Cortez. The proposed design of the house is not typical of the area, but I feel it will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. The shingled house with the wrap around porch is set in a very private site immediately adjacent to Ray Park. Most of the windows are of aluminum with an acrylic finish, which allows some cost savings due to the numerous wmdows proposed. Although I would prefer to see wood windows, I think these windows will go well with the design of the house. The shingled elevations with the wrap around porch will give the house a chazming appearance. 2. RESPECT THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The owner is proposing a detached garage to match the proposed style of the house. The existing neighborhood has a combination of detached and front attached garages. 3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURE, AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN. We met with the owner regarding the massing of the originally proposed residence. There had been some protrusions at the elevations. The owner has incorporated the ducts and closets, and improved the massing of the house. The wrap around porch breaks up the two-story elevation quite well. The shapes of the windows at the elevations add interest with their shapes and sizes; they are consistent, yet not a11 the same. As for the houses on the street, this proposed house will be located much closer to the front of the lot than the existing house which was at the rear of the lot. Allan Residence 1509 Cortez Avenue Page 2 of 2 4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO EACH SIDE. The two-story house to the left, 1505 Cortez Avenue, is set across the driveway and on the other side of some tall landscaping, it should not be impacted. The house to the rear on Cabrillo is very large. This proposed residence is set forward in the yard, and will have no impact on this residence. As previously mentioned, to the right is Ray Park. There are tall trees between the two properties, permitting little impact from the park. The small neighborhood will lose some of the landscaping from this existing piece of property which hid the house in the rear, but it will gain a charming shingled home. 5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. The proposed house will be set in a beautiful background with the tall trees at Ray Park to its right side. There is a large redwood tree, which will remain in the rear yard. To the left side are some large pitasporin to screen from the adjacent neighbor. RECOMMENDATIONS: The property slopes up from the street approximately six feet from curb to fmished floor level. I would hate to see the roof slope reduced in order to meet the 30'-0" height limitation. The request to raise the height of the residence to 32'-0" seems reasonable. Although this is not a typical house style for the street, it will be a charming addition to the neighborhood. This family has lived in the tiny house at the rear of the lot far several years, and this will be a wonderful place for them to raise their family. �-/(.I �.1/ Catherine J. . Nil ey� 3 '/4 hours BOU/1/DARY SURVEY RECEIVEQ LOT3, BLOCK53 MAP OF EASTON ADD/ T/ON TO BURL/NGAME NO 5 F E B 1 5 2000 fEBRUARY,2GYJO. CITY OF BURLINGAME SCALE�/INCH=40FEET PLANNING DEPT. 75 25' 25" LOT40 LOT36 SPL l T CURB/CURB i5c� i5°°' BLOCK 49 (4MAPS57l � 248.05 � A (24B l _ , i �- LO T 35 r.�s � CORTEZ N � �N AVENUE N 55 °04 00 "W N55 °04 �00 �W CENTEf7- yL/NE CORTEZ AVE. �--� 100. A� � I 25. 00 � 24.96� FD. NA/L 9 SH/NER 252. 09 � IO O 'h h l N N55°04 � W 75.00 � �', N � PER/5L.LS.I � � � IN OI /507� /5.07 � SP/T CURB/CURB _ J o' Q 25� _ � J � Wi �� J � W Q ' i ♦♦ •i ii LOT 3 �' BLOCK 53 g AREA=9,OGbS..F 2 N55°0400�W 75.00� o �� 8 � LOT2 LOT/ W( 7 MAPS 46 I 8 0 �or I �or s 4 : •�2.00 �OFFSET i LANE g �or6 �or� 25� FD� TAGR.CE 20858 PER /5L.LS /, N o DENOTES SET 3/4 ��IRONPIPE W/L.S.1',4G39/8 (l DENOTES RECORD DATA. FD.CROSSCUT .�, ti ��,�� ,. ��R.•�.A �� J_ tl%•' �, / �M1J� ,. �� " O �• � i�Q , �2 �. ° �. �. ; P,1•;�. 3'�� ; O �^ "r;;;.Q(�j�-�' • XD D `;ii � � � � e '�� HUGH R. A�l%�ON, PROFESS/ONAL LAND SURVEYOR PRO✓ECT NO. 00427 SNEET/OF/ -�'--r �� L. . ., � - � ` 'tl � � X � , �� `',"�. . L � �_, � � . � i' � �.�. d� p� � �G rn s � s � s �� % i N i �� \ / ., ,Z� � �� , 6� S 6 0 p¢�� n� � �� d �G � '� � ('7� � � �G �2 G�` � f 1"�' (1 'r t� iI �t�:L�l�%G�.Iv1'E A copy of ttie applicauon and plans for this proj�ct may be reviewed pnor to the meeting at the Pianning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the r.otice or in written correspoadence delivereti to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners �vho receive this notice are responsiUle for informing their tenants about tivs notice. For additional information, please call (650) 696-7250. T}iank you. Margaret Monroe City Planner PUBLIC HE�aQlVG iVOTiCE (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLI�E PLANNING DEPARTMENT �501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 696-7250 f5�9 COkTEZ AVEhdUE At-�N:ki�b-0�1-010 Application for� spec•ial pErmit for height andpUBLIC HEARING design r,eviEw for a new two—story single— NOTICE family r,esidence at 1509 Cortez, zoned R—i. The City vf 8�.�: ': -.��e Pianning Commission �nnounces the following public he�ring on Manday� March 13, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. in the 1 y a ounci ambers located �t 5�1 F'rimr,ose Road, P�arlingame, California. Mailed Piarch 3, �00@ �i.�l,R.(1) F.d.fl:A't2Z. �'x�.(3).' (Please refer to otJaer side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WI�REAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for s ecial permit for height and design review for a new two-story recidence at 1509 Cortez Avenue William Allen property owner APN� 026-031-010; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on _ March 13. 2000 , 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 Section 15301, new construction of small structures, 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 special permit and design review applications 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. DAVE LUZURIAGA, CHAIRMAN I, Ann Keighran , 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 13 th day of March 2000 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: CONII�IISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: STANLEY VISTICA, SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit 1509 Cortez Avenue effective March 20, 2000 Conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 6, 2000, Sheets T-1, A-4, A-5, A-6 and the landscape detail; 2. that the project shall include the fishscale shingle design as represented on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 6, 2000; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floor, 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; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 20, 1999 memo and the City Engineer's September 20, 1999 memo shall be met; 5. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. � ITEM # 3 City of Burlingame Front Setback Variance, Special Permit for Height, and Design Review for New Two-Story Residence Address: 1509 Cortez Avenue Meeting Date: February 14, 2000 Request: Front Setback Variance, Special Permit for Height and Design Review for a new two- story residence proposed at 1509 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 Applicant: William Allan APN: 026-031-010 Property Owner: William Allan Lot Area: 9000 SF (75' x 120' ) General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential, Mills Creek and Lincoln School west of property; 10' PUE behind parcel. CEQA Status: Article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited number of small structures. Date Submitted: September 29, 1999 Summary: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-story residence with a detached carport and build a new two-story residence with a 529 SF detached two-car garage. The proposed house has four bedrooms and 3621 SF. The project requires the following: 1. Variance from front setback requirement for a 15'-0" front setback where the average setback along the street is 24'-6" (C.S.25.28.072.b); 2. A Special Permit for height to permit a height of 33'-2" where a maximum height of 30'- 0" is permitted (C.S. 25.51.010); and 2. Design Review for a new two-story single family residence with a detached garage (C.S. 25.08.477). Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official noted (October 4, 1999 memo) that one-hour fire- resistive walls are required where the garage is less than 3'-0" from the property line. No overhangs are permitted on the garage less than 2'-0" from a property line. Roof assemblies must be Class B or better fire resistive. Siding shingles must be iire-retardant. The City Engineer noted (memo dated October 4, 1999) that: 1) a property survey from a licensed land surveyor is required and all property corners shall be set. A sewer lateral test is required for the new house. The Fire Marshal noted (October 4, 1999 memo) that garage walls within 3'-0" of a property line shall be constructed of one-hour fire resistant material; and the roof assembly is required to be Class B or better. The following table compares the proposed setbacks and size of the new house with the R-1 zoning standards: Fron1 Setback Variance, Specia( Perniit for Height, nnd Design Revrew for New Two-Slory Resrdence 1509 Corlez Ane. SETBACKS Front: Ist flr 2nd flr Side (left): Side (right): Rear: Ist flr 2nd flr LOT COVERAGE: FAR: PROPOSED 15' -0" * 21'-0" * 14'-8" 7' -0" 60' -0" 66'-0" 33.5 % (3018 SF) 4150 SF/ 46% FAR I_��I.`4 � I,C � � 1 ' ��]1 PARKING: 2 covered in garage (20' x 20' )+ 1 unc. in driveway HEIGHT.• DH ENV 33'-4"* meets requirements 74'-0" 15'- or average = 24' -6" 74' -0" 24' -6" 0'-0" 38'-0" 0'-0" 0' -0" 13.4 % 1206 SF 2106 SF 23.4% FAR 2 covered in garage (20' x 30')+ 1 unc. in driveway unknown unknown 7'-0" 7'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 40 % (3600 SF) 4380 SF/ 48.7% FAR 1 covered in garage (10'-0" x 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway 30' /2 'h stories see code *Variance required for first and second story front setback (15'-0" and 21'-0" proposed where 24'-6"is the average setback along this block).* Special permit for 33'-4" height required. This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Design Reviewer Comments: The Design Review Consultant reviewed the first submittal (date stamped September 29, 1999) and requested a meeting with the applicant to discuss awkward elements of the proposed new two-story house. The Design Review Consultant and staff inet with the applicant on November 8, 1999, and the design reviewer recommended that the eaves on the second story roofline be redesigned to create a more uniform roof line over the traditionally styled, symmetrical house, and that the locations of the exterior tlue ducts and closets be relocated because they appear to be causing this asymmetric problem. Staff also reviewed the additional materials required to complete the application, including calculations of the average front setbacks and special permit application for a height over 30'-0". The redesigned plans and completed application materials were resubmitted on January 26, 2000, and were forwarded to the Design Review Consultant far her review. Her written comments, date stamped February 4, 2000, note that the applicant made the changes she had recommended by rearranging the floor plan to move the exterior utility rooms into the footprint of the main house. This change improved the massing and simplified the shape of the house. The roofline was revised to extend evenly over the first and second stories, and creates a symmetrical wrap- 2 Front Setbuck I'arrnirce, Syecrn! Perntit foi� Height, nr�d Desigie Re»iew fa� New Two-Story Resider7ce I.i09 Cortez Ave. around porch. The design reviewer considers the architectural style of the existing neighborhood to be eclectic with no predominant style of house, and she concludes that the proposed two-story shingle sided house with a traditional wrap-around porch and a high, steep roof pitch will be an attractive addition to this street. The location, size and shape of the windows provides nice detail on each elevation. The owner proposes a detached two-car garage, which the design reviewer notes will be acceptable in this neighborhood which is comprised of houses with both attached and detached garages. The redesigned house is well balanced on this large lot and will not be obtrusive to adjacent neighbors. The existing mature trees along Cortez Avenue and on this site establish a background proportionally scaled for this house. Design Review Recommendation: The design reviewer recommends that this project be approved because it is consistent with the design review guidelines. No additional conditions of approval were recommended. She also supports the request for the front setback variance and the special permit for height. The front setback variance is necessary because the existing house on this lot sits back 74'-0" from the front property line; after this house is demolished, the new house will have a setback that is consistent with the existing houses on this street. The special permit for height will provide a better pitch on the roof, which would not look as good with a lower slope. The height of the house measured against the adjacent grade is 28'-6", but from the average top of curb, it measures at 33'-2" height because the slope of the lot drops approximately five feet between the building pad and top of curb. K3 �No �� S � c� -t- )� �� L jc �- c /�O r -i" "l� —�i vt �� c�- I� Yr� c�s�.s � r�.��. r-S /S`/� � 5�� l SJ� � � s �� % l S�G S � %�� ? Co � -�-e � �- �. �- � �` l �S�'� � C �o ,�-�z '(—c' S"fi Y.,�.--2_'�' r�`�-e U� �J rb �` rc� n �i- � ��- �.-�o �.S � � y ! � / r _ � '.� . � r � � � 5 � �-�s �z-� ` �.' �. +-:.., h ; � w� � 1 '7 l � % �'� v1 %- c -� �-{-a �: � � `Z � � r, c� �ti 4- S� e,�' s �V/� C��l( ��;• l e �-�.� �, .� ,�� °� �- � � (-� � � �� 2 S ' f r �% � -}- � -�-�� s 2 2 � � � � 2�� ; �. �. c�,� �)1 7 ( `%�-c� n t o� l� Q�� S� � L.f l �" �' �'' �i-' � -t--�_j �j ! (� �,1 ' t �� d-c=� � �yt r [2 � W �2. � ( � ��, �-- a -� {�� e �� - � �-o�� }-- S �,,� /�/.� �. �+-�� ,�,.� ��. � I 7� �� t � � �,� � s� �Ss"' �� --� ��-��, � � w�, � � %�� -/� `� S ��-2e � -� �-k � '` � s `Z S' �� S f �� v�� , - ,1 RE�EI� � �� ``h � � ��-�� ,�� JAN 2 6 �000 CITY OF BURLINGAPn� PLANNIN� �EP � � . ; �� A�� c ; ° BVRiJNQAMi� CITY OF BURLINGAME " i APPLICATION TO TI� PLANNING COMIVIISSION � . �. Type of Application:_Special Permit_Variance_Other _� e w S� � v.c� �• c e Project Address: � S � Q Co c� e z � ��P Assessor's Parcel Number(s): �' �` = � � � � �� , • L1 � \ ^ � \ � APPLICANT � Name: W'�\\ � o.r�. P�\\�h Address: \5 O� Co c� ez 'i��ehv.p City/State/Zip: v.c�i�or� yC'E��IYO�O Phone (w):�b S O>��1'1- �1\ b��a c' . (h): ��S o��`��1- \S S �3 fax: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: � c,.v c �. �� e'�rSc�Cc��c�� Address:�50 C o�oec �c �� City/State/Zip:,�jer��o., C � `�`�S\� Phone (w):�i ��I� 1 V �o - \�Z 1 (h): PROPERTY OWNER Name: �1 'ti \\ ti a� � � 1 o.�n Address: \ S O� Cd c-�e� �ve City/State/Zip:,�.,�c�ti �na c.�c�ne, ��1�1010 Phone (w): Sc�w�e (h): Sc�.m p fa�c: Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. PROJECT DESCRIFTION: N e.►.� �(1 o v. � Q 1�� e�-ac Y� e O. c�C o. O� . 2. O 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. ��1� � - z � - 9 � Applicant's Signature Date � I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Co mission. �� - L — �� y Property Owner's Signature Date ----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------------------------------- Date Filed: ��2 9� 9�' g�; � 3 io f� Soo �o s �-}- Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: