The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About734 Walnut Avenue - Staff Report (2)Item #1 � Design Review For Two-Story Addition �nd Special Permits for Height and Extension into Declining Height Envelope 734 Walnut Avenue City of Burlingame �TEM # �� Design Review and Special Permits for a Two-Story Addition to an Existing Two-Story Residence Address: 734 Walnut Avenue Meeting Date: February 14, 2000 Request: Design Review for a two-story addition ro an existing two-story residence and Special Permits for height and encroachment into the declining height envelope at 734 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1. Applicant: Gerry Murnane APN: 028-141-130 Property Owners: Gerry and Paula Murnane Lot Area: 10,621 SF (roughly 50' x 210') General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Exempt, Article 19, Section 15303, addition or construction of small structures. Date Submitted: September 3, 1999 Summary: The applicant proposes to construct a 1900 SF two-story addition to their existing 2200 SF two-story residence. The addition would enlarge the three-bedroom residence to a five- bedroom residence. 1300 SF would be added to the first floar and include a new covered porch to replace an existing glass atrium porch attached to the front of the house. Approximately 600 SF would be added as new living area on the second story. The applicant requests approval of Design Review and Special Permits to allow a maximum height of 31'-0" and encroachment of 72 SF into the declining height envelope to accommodate a change in the second story roofline of the existing residence. The project also includes the demolition of an existing detached 1-car garage and the construction of a new detached 2-car garage. The following permits are required: l. Design Review for the two-stary addition (C.S. 24.28.040); 2. Special Permit for a height of 31'- 0" where 30'-0" is the maximum height allowed (C.S. 25.28.060.2); 3. Special Permit for extension of 72 SF of floor area into the Declining Height Envelope along the left side (distance of 24'-0" and width of 3'-0") of the second story where an existing roof line is proposed to change by increasing in height and pitch and changing axis from a gable roof facing the side property line to a gable roof facing the front property line (C.S.25.28.075). Staff Comments: The Chief Building Ofticial notes (September 7, 1999 memo) that the extent of the proposed remodel and addition exceeds 50% of the replacement value of the existing residence and therefore qualiiies as new construction. No openings in walls are permitted less than three feet from a property line and walls within three feet of a property line must be one-hour construction. No eaves are permitted less than 24" from property lines. The Fire Marshal notes (September 7, 1999 memo) that no openings are permitted within 3'-0" of a property line (referring to first floor bathroom); and that the garage eaves are not permitted to extend to the Desigrt Review fnr 7'wo-Stoiy Additiora and Speci�l Permits for Height nnd Encronchnien( into DFIE 73�! Walnut Avenue property line. The City Engineer notes (September 7, 1999 memo) that the site drainage and roof drainage shall be to the front street (Walnut Avenue). Planning Staff would note that the applicant has clarified the distance between the side property line and existing bay window in the ground floor bathroom is 3'-0". The following table compares the setbacks and size of the proposed addition with the R-1 Zoning Standards: PROPOSED F _ : � �`�C7 Front: Ist flr 15'-0" 25' -0" EXISTING 15'-0" 25'-0" ALLOWED/REQ'D 15'-0" 20' -0" 2nd flr Side (left): Side (right): (street side) Rear.• 1 st flr 2nd flr LOT COVERAGE: 3'-0" 10'-6" 116'-0" 126' -0" 3561 SF (33.5%) 3'-0" (existing) 5'-0"(new addition) 10'-6" 146' -0" 156' -0" 2450 SF (23 %) . � . � 15'-0" 20' -0" 4248 SF (40%) FAR: 4622 SF (43.5% FAR) 2850 SF (26.8 % FAR) 4898 SF (46% FAR) PARKING: 2 covered in garage 1 covered in garage 2 covered in garage (20' x 20') + 1 unc. in (12' x 20')+ 1 unc. in (20'-0° x 20'-0") driveway driveway + 1 unc. in driveway HEIGHT.• DH ENV.• 31'-0"* encroaches 72 SF** : 1 nonconforrrzng 30' /2 '/z stories see code *Special Permit required for 31'-0" height where 30'-0" allowed; Special Permit required for encroachment of 72 SF (3' x 24') into Declining Height Envelope. This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Design Reviewer Comments: The design reviewer recommended that the plans submitted to the Planning Department, dated stamped January 11, 2000 be approved. He did not recommend any changes to the plans, nor did he have any specific conditions of approval. The Design Reviewer noted that the applicant did not propose a new landscape plan, and that a well-designed plan would enhance the remodel of the house. Design Reviewer Recommendation: The Design Reviewer recommends approval of the extensive addition and remodel proposed for this house. He notes that the resulting plan will appear massive compared to the neighboring houses, but will have little impact on the adjacent 2 structures. He compliments the creative design, acknowledges the incorporation of his original comments in the redesign of the project, and encourages the applicant to carefully select materials which reflect the quality of the design suggested by the plans. In his final summary, the Design Reviewer recommends approval of this project. Study Meeting: At the January 24, 2000 Planning Commission study meeting the commission asked for more information regarding the detail of the window trim and gable ends. The applicant has shown more detail of these components in attachment A-1 of the plans date stamped February 8, 2000. The Planning Commission asked for the dimensions on the barge rafters on the rear elevarion; the applicant replied in his letter date stamped February 4, 2000, that the barge rafter length is 2'-0", as shown on sheets A-8 and A-9. A more detailed landscape plan was requested by the Planning Commission; this was provided on sheet A-1. The applicant stated in their response that they had not yet decided on a color for the exterior, and that the rooiing will be an Elk Composition Shingle. The revised plans were resubmitted on February 8, 2000. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must iind that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): a) the blend of the mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior iinish 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, 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include iindings made for the Desigit Review ar:d Specral Permils for Fleigh! arrd DAE 734 Wn(nut Avenue requested variances. 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 February 8, 2000, sheets A-1 through A-9; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), changing size or location of windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 7, 1999 memo and the Fire Marshal's September 7, 1999 memo shall be met; and 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. Janice Jagelski Planner c: Gerry Muname, Owner/Applicant � MINUTES CITY OF iJRL1NGAME PLANNING COIVIMISSION 501 rimrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 24, 2000 \ 7:00 P.M. uncil Chambers � 0 TO ORDE1� ian Luzuriaga ian Luzuriaga ROLL i the January 4, 2000, regulai� introduced Ralp Osterling, the C� �g of the Pl� appointed Pl Deal, ng Commis iling�Keighran, (note C.�ojues arrived at'�0 p.m.) I�Il�l�y��f.'� Staff Vistica and e t: City nner, Margaret onroe; Planner, anice Jagelski; 'ry Attorney, arry Anderson; ity Engineer, F nk Erbacher; Fir Marshal, K 'th Marshall :es of the Ja uary 10, 2000 re lar meeting of t e Planning Com 'ssion ��ere as mailed. � � APPROVAL OF AG FROM THE FLOOR STUDY ITEMS A The order �f the agenda was C. Bojues arriv at this time. Th e were no public ommen 734 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOUSE. (GERRY AND PAULA MURNANE. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERI CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. Commission questions: would like more landscaping, the detail showing added plant material, plans identify existing planting; what a strategy will be employed for construction, provide sample sections and details to show construction method and materials, show detail around windows and gable ends; did applicar. intend to identify the siding as wood shake, or is this really wood shingle in conjunction with a composition rooi Commission has no control over color palette, but curious whether color scheme has been considered; further define th rear elevation and clarify whether the barge rafter is 2'-6" deep; the barge rafter on the garage can go to property line confirm the topographic elevations on site plan; figures given look too level. There were no further questions from th commission. The item was set for the regular action calendar for the February 14, 2000, meeting providing all th information is submitted in time. 1033 BAL A AVENUE, ONED R-1 - PLICATION (LOUIS ARAR�A, APPLIC � AND ANN P VAO KRf TENTATI ARCEL MAP�'OR LOT SPL R AND WII,L SCIIIVEIDEiZ, PROPERT� .\ CE rbacher presen d the staff repo . Commission ked: can Com � sion designate ees to be prese ed fror. devel ment impact;. A noted: Planni Commission c and have them ertified on the p. Commissio asked could de eloper note whet r any other trees 'll be removed b ide trees identi d in arborist rep rt; want develo en site plan identify lateral oot area of eac tree and what uld be remove or construction, note that Plann' , Commission ction would not a rove house sho on plans; any n house to be bu' t will require de gn review; whe� house plans sub 'tted, they should identify type of f undation propose (continuous fo dation vs. �rad�eam, etc.) an� to order at 7:07 p.m. � who was seated. P. ��2 Ms. ,ianice Jagelski C'ity �f Burlin;nme Pianaing Departmcnt Citv FTal1 SGI Primro5e Road BurTingame, C �R. 94010 Daar Ms. Ja�;elski: Mr. & A4rs. Gerty �(urnane 734 Walnut Avenue Burlingeine, CA. 94U1U (650) 343-3885 February 4, ?000 RECEIVED : 1 : 111 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Re: 734 Wa!nvt Avenue Application forNew Constn:ction; SeA:ond Stoiti� Additi�n A5 per the qt�esrions from the Planning Conuuissioners at the JAn�k-�ry 24ih meeting, we are en�losni�, answers to their questi��ns as follous: "Wht�t nre the Details for the Window and Gable Ettds7" Plear� sea the al:ached Sketche.r Nos. 1, 2 m�d 3, cvtcf the drtnvirt� ,cheet.s �1-8 and .1-S' Jnr irtare dln:crn.Slats. �. "Did the ap�+lioant intend to IdentiPy the siding as wc��d si�fll:e. i�r i; this rcall} wcod shingie in con;�.ancrion with a zomposition roor"" Yes. The sidirrg i,c a waod s)rnke to match fhe exi�tin�. Shakc is tl�c term usc>d cr.c per the attacfred illustration and tuble from pnge ?8= c. f tha ,�rchirecrura! Grc, :lt iic, .Stcmderrds. i.e., shvwln�q the namin�; u��mrd use c j wcxid sJtake.r or� the sides qf z4alls, as a t7re nf.�•icfing .4s n r.or�eru�tor, Ilxn�e y�et tn choosc tf�e specifi[� prn�luc; htd r�zll match Che existing. 3 4. j. 6. "What are the Barge Rafter d'unensi�ns on the rar Elevation7" Two,feef fung Plzase see the clrcnving sheets A-i3 aru� .4-9 jor ��larif?cutinns. "Cor�lirm t�ie to�io elevatio]1S, it ]ooks too ievel." Ple��sE� see tlie cla►•i�ed �'mving c>st.Sheel.�1-1, t1l;ached "Need more landscaping." Plcase s�e the added land,scuping on clrmrin� rheet A-1, �mar.l�� ri. "What are the colors of the materiais?" It is not vet known. i. "Wf�ar type of roofin� is being used?" �rt El�: Compo-sitior. Shingla, If yr,u k�ava any funher queytions or claritications, ple�e feel free to contact us. Sincerely, %� �� j �— .�_�._� � C�erry an�f�'auFa Murnane ;' � �nr��,t� 0 0 P. riw IVEC a Z000 2LINGAM � DEPT. • � .�r. � ..:"` �.y► C • a . � -----.�:.�;.. �- .=:;,.: ... _ _ _ _�. it��i� i ,*'�r'tirMi• �r��►'.".� • • - ---._[•'J...�.!r.��.i '�'`!�'�s: • ��%ri,��ll h�r�� ir '� �� P. Fi3 --- SKETCN NAME: �T°�� Pro�ect Name: Ml1Rt�l'�- �Z�� SKETCH NUMBER: ProJect Nui ber� — SK� ;G. Date: Scale: % - Revision NumbPr: ,� �xO �Y.�e--, f'+RcN . _ - �� s�-,�i �n��doa aN�a s��v��is !; � " O,�Y �� . E1ut��s� u,x�N -n11n1��iLi'�x'uiAuz 6unP�ro�..3.�•pio1Y4 �4V 1+�40;�'.+a 9+�.w.�uo:1'rulln�_� vLOF�tl1lfl['IJ�1s 1�.yMV'M;9 ��r pr,�:F:l� '.AC P+Oc�o.ap � 53�0'�iHs pOOM e � u ' insCS�e 91WIY9 Jl �1*�V W!�T �%CS 'i�_I'.Ii�+PN��•�nk1Afi �ux p:m�la��N �ev� lH(1 Fh D�raF �.,t * ..I '�f�r euu,uo puom wwoz�oH wn�da6 �o x�,ay�� ao..�+,•� 'aaA� v„aPcip ..., ,. 1 v�i �z 'adnre�:c N eew 6�w�xt�g S�J_cttS 4N1419'9N9 Vg ,o L,. _7,,1 �� ..'�➢ - uoa 4 �� C"� ,: 4Z �V3'^ S .'r - Hna l I„L2 oi ..92 `-,--t_. r,1�7 0 u41 ..4Z � —__' y`; vsnn�; t _.._i ='�iria S' ,�ua1 ..41 PB��YN fJNV S169NYI�iN1 . -�_r..n., �v_...� >..•.�v�_ a�•.a..r_>> 6Nnv�+ a�tl e�bHaoa aaienl� �aia.+.��c �m�Ho-�a .asr�aoo _BTONIiHs • 83a1tlHO y� N='iILY'�i"CaV �pCltl G"�♦ aiH A3 i�r. ��xDG� ui�l �l,m P!G1 3q :OU PI'�P:: 6Jt4xli �9Ct:rJ 3rsH�i�.^� �1[�N h31S�'_E =HJN tl:+ ] (�T��`,�.�C 3d0� t �J ] r&U O `� \t� x� �^�3✓ .11��i�Y__� \ �� 1 � �.i i � �I� �:,i� '�' . - t`�` � R'?� ,:i . ;� r� � ��,� \ ��"'��` �� j" ww; /lr,� � '\�,�. 7 .'��/ �� ,� �(�i �r T,T; �� ,��;`, .�� ''� �� ' �il� �i �. % �`�",6i' '�.,` 1- , � f ` ,• r �I� `�ri' .�c��:��\, �j� ��dt' b1�1 .Y Y�yy-- 31�1'N7 r� �71� � � 3"v� G VA . . . ..f 6,-r�,,,r'.�_"`/';+ r�:^.i. n1. INen,+Y InNIN�rI _� - ti�c oa ye � iiwi-.e 1 -_ �q c'l�.cr3 s)Mrl�-IBnI�' - .. , -msar. �� n� -�ai•a�,lec �•,rav r,ea , c-.�ra -�. .vi > � arn4iv�Hm ❑33VdB tl��n A�wbMB dO NOI..bllv;dN� i6 y=levyg ll'a�'�"�Gs }qim,r.s-,. 3y6anop , vir.�iv3r+�e J3Fyr_s In•v� 1 /� '73-'yd6 �y-R-..-'�',.��5`•'.-�-�"c_;+� \ j - -_ �'�': �.� ,, , , -�<��" =� �, ,t � . x_�yG�� cyc�'�� . � �•.,��.L'�✓"^� '-[sy3:�tu � i...�.nn_ n �w ,� `'. - 'a��-��1��"��N'Ndld ..��..P=,e�_.�,�3�Vt��JI�C'1'�1f�'� �0 /�11 111 : r.,-d 9lf3Ntl0� ]GIGNi sr_r+do? 3cixti� -nv ONIatS z-.� E,3`.iNFs4 NV h�GINi J` G.{1V �tl4 � `-Jlyl�i V pp{ EfY�4 RR6O CNIBtl1�OV 9�9NIB 3�yco=... u��L'irx�� a�lay.,.s . �� -�e, _ I : ��r�1�� ;1r � �� `� — ' f, r R c - 9�� I _� I . ` _ >� I __-_ _s v� ( ' I _ �, s I I� � cr..i-ic_ H I.-- I �� _�<,.,um-� I L.; � _.Gi::: �,£��, al�li c .�9� , �t� —' 6 a,,, q c .9 .. R I -_ _ f��: c . V� n 8'. � �`,�•. c�l ,�a E � " r ---- 30�.�� ^.d^J�_ -_ n7' L tc6 � �:-.c�..�::s �a��d�Fc�xa �, �t,ar!a, a�nvr�� -- cro�o�s ao.a oirn A3]IyHB "p 9:1RQ1NIM6 d0� �JMf1�PdY.J �.,� uKo��dne k i W:q ',°yn lai s� .e�.lpr, yinwile'nuatiw,e ic acb.i �ev�i� :ana p�r.�adv xi Fe�.-"�ai �c,�a�.e,;: se ��n_�aoco cwD��oC dtlA1 ��4:aa,F �r ' ;. ui p::l:j: !t81 Sac��,s u0 DB�:�c'...wa':,i lUu r0>f4!i . 53.10H 3WL�9.a)u. 1 I I � 'y�FOC B i P+�ntl I Z! : S }�� Ol�1lL P o I 1'a.uA��ix1U�) � i�a1i4l�w�i� I 01 lUBulAk�qi�� »�. Uf' n Q il%; F'1 �'llr: pJ?U9 ; selfi_iy° (_.: �e�ai a�F� .5 � 2, u£.':acac wa��1B��B�bll '. Zl u D J ae7x p�: aN ,o P WS , 5e„uv3 P- ^-h•. 3do�6No� I »71t'INwHt+N � 1H9kJ.Y itl3GFP �NiNivnHs � i�Al ON�i�oti -�� NIH.L'd3HS 4t+iV 1N3WhY�li34N�> uirn�aon,acci �;kaoi-wi� �,..i-,o�es;o..1i':�6=,�..fi.r�. 3� e��..g.ara.�"i;ri 'Fa: uun p[ - n �� E in�, �sa�GuSx,;7a,:ieai..3l �6��..Biic�eet .tt�a�6uia'.At � Ci`»�Ue��. � af,�'Jaie�W 6� �1 i,s-,o u� �e�a •� � e �o�� r°aou. r=�.u��av � x�� aa a �. ��.9 _.t 4�£ � �J _ n ��t I n5 � �i� P .l ��S ..S a'if ..e '19 � .� � f ,.iJ .�cE �.. a .t � ,.£I „91 'r� ..31 .. Zi��, ,. , . ..�1,_a.a�a seooa ve� e�saNaw�o;_a N']VlP£�Ora +'i]8�>l�=N 1�`JUOf� 1,1;sauHuyl BL4B@BV)i-+rnG�¢snYNyP9Y��Y {q 4�/6�u6 eu.vc aµ� .uo � 6u�tu{cr �G yry dnaxe so�iat{� 1� � ive9e. ee »�ew a��s ey t m p+�on (�d �.laF uocn ya�M 'pue�lo��6ua'4oc�q sql fnll -w�ni..ta {�ne�.pe a+eyw aM �.�fiu i W leirv�ou ay i, ']BIjSW b:Poom a puPl41� �P01E p7p��9 ___ tlra�iEcBuxn�p,xylq�.ip;a�pa,�F�id auryc �xlb �ua, s��vs w.iroel .rnv n^,�pwn GI MBB(,UBq P y2rOy] nllP'�InM�p �r.� ua41'iu! l�iirc ac :sw�..u� �e�ta� io sp�.nq �ti s:y�.e�e ':u1E�t :B/;BPp o1�� u n. x slbl +°�J 'TMJBVUnyiPuh9WNi:11Y0�GU �'1�-=�'ri'"41 4011dIM'l'eaV _ .laqNl 7mH t �ON s3-��vii�s ava�� o�a i�� 4. Ilem nCis . rt - 6�-�--_4E':e'iv . ?r. . r� ,��. •,v FrtR�: _�lc x y� , -�Faw x i" x v� !A95t1 .. Y i. I . 't P�J�PYG1%N.QI tiid54�,Eyy� n"y lIJIF:t OeH riiuq3� 3Gvao �g�MV�i511ldSC:NWM !3b'G�� 03`f se�e4S Pue sesBuiyS PooM ��F . ir`<T.r� BVRLINyAMf�i ,\,: .a J: � CITY OF BU�,INGAME APPLICATION TO T�� pI,�G COMIVII5SION Type of Application:�Special Permit_Variance�Other i��S �� Q-�-� ��--5 � Project Address:_ ��l�- U'J+ct%/U �a j � U� �,/�a� Assessor's Parcel Number(s): '�� ' "-' � � / - / � � APPLIC�T PROPERTY O WNER - Name: '--�E�2Q ��v/�n/r9✓�/C � �., - Name:__ �C=�x'�� -t-'t� U h�} %�U R nl � P� Address: i 3 �j� C� -Y'il�y�-C i �ll� . �� %�JLNC � � Address: �� (%�It/(((� City/State/Zip:1�C��/�/U/-✓1� ��j�foidCity/State/Zip:�,Qt��N�"s�j2lL � ��"��/�`�/� Phone (w):- :Z a 2-/�(j � Phone (w):_ (h): ��l3 - � a'�'t� 4��--.—�5 `� � �h�� fax: 3 � fa�c: � ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name:_ � � ,QR % N/Ur2ftl�i,�' Address:_ c7�"� /��G1� City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): ( �S"� ) �a.� - � J 9 ` '6soi ��3 - 3 -�SJ) ��-�v ;a/ Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this a plication. R ��; �:: a aN` °.. .. �s JAN - 6 2000 idX: i � � � ' .CI�TY OF BUR�;id�;��;;,�, �' PLANfJIA�G n� �- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: � j TG6Z Y ��M o,� ��i9oD � r� ��r (.c)1 T� � ��J �AR�� . ...; . --- - AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATfi.TRE: I hereby certify Lnder penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect t best of m knowledge and belief. �? 'cant's ignature Da e I lrnow about the proposed ap cation and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning C ission. /f� s �ignature Date � -FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Filed: F�: � Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: r� CITY Ot BURIJNGAME �y ; ` CITY 9F BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATiON The Plarning 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 Commissian 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. ��6� 1. Explain why tlze blerad of mass, scule and dominant structural claaracte�istics of the new construction or additioiz ure cofisistent tivith the existing stjuctuf•e's design arcd with tlze existing street and neiglabolltood. %/S�'E �7�2uC7-U.,2� �,� u��jtiN l6 ff �ET�JGyf��/ �'sAQF}�-� IN %Hc� �E��Ik 4-c.Y �' 7/�� P�2oPER�, �%{t C,�fj�flCs'� l�- /5 �'R+2�L-�/ � (/Y��3C.(: �z6r� i1�E S7��C . �-�� ,��si��t/ �5 in� �E�'/�inlCT, t,t, �n� �K� ��r�l✓ � if� �l6Ust �c�t�rsM��, ii�� s n.o ��s��r1'�AL J`��PEfZ�f� FrT �t ��fIK � TN� f�i?oP`�� 1_�n��s� '�i'EG�� o� %/�'� ,Z.oT � l�� 2/5`k SO %X� G.4'2R6 f� IS 5 i 1�.� �, � fT ��2G�1 �,`f� ,eER2 P�e� P�� N L� Nf 2. F�plai�a ho�v tlie vaiiety of roof line, facade, exte�iorfinisla mate�ials and elevations of the proposed ne�v structure or addition are co�asistertt ivit7a the existing structure, street and neighboilzood. %/�� G�iRACs� �� D� � f'GN�� ir� �� r � A�2 G�/��2i4G l�i2 � �� s� [ S�� NG f�'G rt> � �C,e�i�sn��}N 7`/r�- .E�x ��i ��' �lNGs � GJ/�L .�� C- (,J(X� Ss-lin�6LC � �X�S"TIN�y—. � 3. Hoiv will tlze proposed project be consistent with the resiclential desigr� guidelines adopted by the city (c.s. 2s.s7)? i/�� x��sriNG- d�ETgG�`! � " ,� Cj,g,��C�� js � 6N� G�� -�1le/�'Cs� �'T`�� J�L� �- C14'� G/7QfiCst= �/"rN GNLy k�'�P G.11�1-� �°�/��nlG- ��/ TN� N��H�c�rQf�/ , f3�_� �� iv�r.� �FrP.�-v � �� fv�27i��"R �%Rc� �N 7�E PRoP�R� -� L�"5.S (��s �,� c� ��6n-f iN� sr,e�i . f�CSF��N �.�J� �,e� /��P�nJCs �� x«TNVC� �iYC�1�� 'i� f-to�r� �lf iN � �c�vsE' O� 11Y� �ir �� ' �}iE `!%IK� 5%j� ��R� S72GcC7'l�k� G�i� 8� r..��-Gr_ w��l�v �,26F�kra 4. Explain ho►v the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with tlae cily's reforestaiion requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of aizy trees? Explain ivhy this mitigaZion is appropriate. , N�-r �P��GR� G� - REC��"��t� ,, , , . . �nY. .:. . �. :. .- . : 3.� . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . ... � ; .m. - ,.. . . 9 .... -_. . � � . +*i_�;9w; .../,'� . ,._ s.- ,�.;;;� - .._: ,,,�. ;,.. .; .. „ �,- - ;w � :,;��' a - . . - .,;r.:: � . '.F,in _ �r �iv�, ..+t . t;t �-. . .. ,-L,^� 9��.' � �fN��%�1' . �� . .. .. . 5�y M.. . -' � ��.,'.' '. . Tr ci�g!'"�-k��iJiY�'�o-.�.. .�' x 11. :-,Y l� i�.T.: 'i u;�Y�..�'L jk-,.. yit;L : `Sy:. . . . . . d�` ' . - . JAN - g 2000 CITY OF BUHLINGNis� /II/98 PLANNING CF�' �� . _ BURIJNGAME l\?;�...:�' ° �� ((� �� 1� MQ��Q�1C�� appL��C�Q��Oo f�� Th,e Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d1. Your answers to the following questions will 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 exceptiona/ or ext�aordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not appty to other properties in this area. 7h� ,�7�A9R��N�Ry �,e�Msrr��Yc� c_rsN�cr/ /-�P/'�Y io �ot.2 �,P�zP�R;�/ /-�kE- Tfr� /-�R�P, inr y�r>>�sTiUN,,TH� � "''�lA�R.S f..AN�//�ICT � fiN ✓-�%t-�F �� I�GZQ�X/STIN�r ��/�.QoO/'✓I i'-r2� �E%�iST/nl��r LJ r�o� �-/F. (/f3�i9�� (�. if/� ST� iRs � Gvou � Nft U� 7c� �� Rt�oA 7� . �r��y c,.�o�,•�.� R,�su�Ti�J �o�✓s�JER�gLx R�ri,r�atc,�niU UF TT�E�,W�v�iA��,� C��'y[.tJf� �/�A/O l/�� /.USS 6� %H!S /�2CHiTEQAL ��14'TU2� � C6NU�NIEN�, 11' L✓OCr� !�'-r,��p �E�u�r en� iH� G�6�S dt 7N� Ex�srin�� gt�Q�n� uPsTl�rR,S b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary fo� the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e propeity /oss or unnecessary ha�dship might iesu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. �/�; F�:E� iHE VF{Lrg�c� is nlEc.�55/�1Ly �� l'��n�rA�e� TH� C�irst/N� �Q�N�T��h�iv2�5 �q� l��NfiLl-Y � CX i Eo NfJiV�-r. L�I rTNou7 7�i� vRR iRn/c� T/-�E C6wSTR�u[�Tt G, rJ ��n�� cos7 �6c�.�_�ruc,e��1� c6Ns�� 7�E HR�A ��v 9v�sT��„� NAS REEiv �!� Eu�STfJ/UGe 5livGE %!�E �T,P_��GT[,c2t LJ�3 ��cti�e l 1✓J /9/�� ,: Gu.k. ln�n,oC��RZ� N�tC-sH�C)u�S L,�Ta�t/t-� NoT P�f" /rvco�vv�Ni�"E� .= _= ��: c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. �->� �S,qRr�ivc.� APPR�v�tL �i�c, �vor A�«�T � �recsPF�2il��' �S �tsr��N !t-f� FsRE�} LJ'�L ivoT , N6lUH3G�n2�n,(�- 5 gE A��R��xc�pr w� �-r� g�D�rtar✓ pF on,C Wirv��, �� IMM�D/RT� iv�i�H_g��,e5 �C�,� c�nisu�� r RND {�RVC n�o oBSEGr�vrvs o or,z� k�vorNr_F=,�6�_ l�u/�t�ic /-/� �l�-/x ��Fr6Ty., CjE/✓EP..RL t�✓ELFRRC p,e Gcsr✓(/�Nl�M',� fIR� N01 /SS[i�5 /✓J��A�r`�Xl�%�,J_ JAN - 6 �000 � 12/92 var.fr CITY OF BURLI��:��+f:.� How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu9k��haracter of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinit�7 �%E F}RE �Q�uESTiN�- 7/�iS (��{R!!¢NC� P�}QTIAL-,�y TD �(,tg/n1TAlN F%N� �KiST/NCf f�,e_c��r��i2u�. s�v�E o�vuR /�o�� . ikis �i��ss�aw ;''`��,u� �� ✓E:'R y P�ean�rir�� v� �ni ou�P N�lCrJ��ou�PN�O�. c..sF A2E ADq,�� gGcc7 �li1AiN�A�N�Nc lN� M1551�ry �>Yc� UF ou� N��l� ��TH /nrERNl9.U.y qni�/ �X�RNA.(tiy.%NE .CGTS%� pn�� s,2uc.Tu,2R� S�Z� bf %�i� i°Rr�R�S� �,�� u�u�2� js %1ov iCt�/�in�G (,�J �ZN � x �Sre niG- ,Ll6vt�t �s l n, T'Nis R-�� !�- , �..1E l,.�� s�«_` ,vg v� �1 �/�� fl,ekiN� � SGr,ek6ltiv.D/N�s ��,��N 1��"To �TS�� C.�E� �'��c� C�aR PRG�oSF� R�iuoD��. w/�� ENHA�vc,� G�2� f-ru�vtE �� 1�N�6t�NlX�� iv� m '�?.0� Horu� Tx� �ucf-/ �vE��/ FRC.E�ixi"' • ROUTING FORM DATE: September 3, 1999 TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL `�FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first and second-story addition at 734 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-141-130. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMIVIISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, September 7, 1999 THANKS, Maureen /Janice/Ruben �� N� !� ll� �lS VLL l n�`�-G� l.<-� l�1 l,1 �j � � �� le— � � '(S`► <J �d�v''� LX��rC�6l� S�.LS c�.� tiv��z� w�� s,�` ��, . �- ��-��- � o� � �� Date of Comments �o�- � w��-I-�.J ROUTING FORM DATE: September 3, 1999 TO: CITY ENGINEER X CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first and second-story addition at 734 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-141-130. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, September 7, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben ��%/j�� Date of Comments 7 'T �� 'A�� / c�4'L e�e �.S �D eZ� �re �� us cr w, � s�- r''� �'P�� U�v '� �r�� ./�_ �-r �� p �S e. / /�� p �e SS T`� r✓'e"t� G �� • � J�JPyvkl �i'�v` �al/� fG'% G '� ,� /o e�,� ��S � � /� tiet / v ��CT �� ( i � � N�LU 5 �" b e" �� j r,�� , �,�� P �d�✓e`'� �s �.�G,�i oy �S ye� z��e/ ��, 3 t�,r��,P,� �,�s, s�� v�-- c �,, �,��. 1�.� 9 ��e vv (T'oo�, � �e� �,2" � ooV h��i � �� o ��g � ROUTING FORM DATE: September 3, 1999 TO: X CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL SR. LA.NDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first and second-story addition at 734 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-141-130. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, September 7, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben / �� s ��r o�x.a- � �.e olft �l1.1. /h-rv» �- ,.r � v -e..e f . �, s� y . ct/n� 'i'o� o�-.et- � �'�`�J � r/ Date of Comments �'�G� !�-e. �o Wrfrges Archileclrn�e & Pla�lf�ing 1290 Hoiva��d Ane. Sirite 311 Br�rlijtgame, Cfi 9-1010 MEMO: Date: 1-10-2000 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 ref 734 WALNUT -- MLJRNANE RESIDENCE RESUBMITTAL RECEIVED JAN 1 1 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I have visited the site, the street and the sunounding neighborhood and have reviewed the plans for the new house, and have met with the applicant on site for an initial tour. I have received the attached resubmittal and have the following comments regarding the project and the design guidelines. 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existin�neig,hborhood� • Many styles exist on this charming street, from stucco modern, to ranch, to Tudor and Mediterranean. • The style of the house proposed does not seem incompatible with the neighborhood. This will be a large house but there are other large houses along this street due to the larger lots. • The height and scale of the proposed seems compatible. The neighborhood is a mix of one and two story-plus houses. 2. Respect the Parking and Garage Patterns in the Nei�hborhood: • New garage proposed in the rear yard replaces existing rear garage. This is compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern and serves well to hide the garage. • Lots are very deep on this block. 3. Architectural Style. Mass and Bulk of the Structure, and Internal Consistency of the Structural Desien. • Roof lines are changed from existing steeper pitched gable roof, but have been redesigned from the previous submittal to be now 7.5 in 12, an improvement. • The new proposal is a creative and elaborate redesign of the window trim, details, and style, and relates to the existing "craftsman" feel, but goes far beyond it. • New front porch with large columns replaces original enclosed porch. This is a nice feature and an improvement over the e�sting porch if details are carefully handled. • Corbels and brackets, a nice feature of the original house design, have been elaborated on and greatly enhanced. • The eyebrow roof curves are an interesting and fun addition. This house will be nice from all elevations. 4 Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side: • The house on the right side is two stories with a flat roof dormer facing this lot. The proposed addition has windows looking directly into this neighboring house. However, the second floor wall has been set back and there is the added width of the driveway on this side which mitigates the problem. • The house on the left side is also 2 stories and its second floor is set back from the property line. • The improvements have changed the direction of the main gable, and therefore, even with the increase in peak height there will be only a minor impact on additional shadows and scale relationships. This seems appropriate. • The rear yard is very deep, and far to the rear is a 3 story multi-family project. There will be almost no impact on tlus rear property. 5 Landscaping and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components: • Landscaping is not shown, except for the existing to remain. A nice landscape plan will do much to enhance this design. Summarv: 1. In general, this will be a massive and dramatic house, however, the large scale of the project seems to fit with the neighborhood and will have a relatively minor impact on neighbors. 2. This house will be fun and interesting. It is important that the details and materials be carried out in a quality way to retain the quality feeling portrayed in the drawings. 3. The elevations have been dramatically changed with no change in the plan. The applicant has responded in a very positive manner to the original review comments, and this appreciated. 4. Recommend approval. Jerry L. Winges, AIA 2 ClTY OF BURLINGAMF A copy of the application a�d plans for this project may be re��iewed prior to the nieetin� a[ ti�e Planuin�, Depairtmenr at JOl Prinu�ose Road, BurlinRame. California. IY ��ou challenRe tl�e subject applicatiou(s) in cot�rt. you maY be Iimited ro iaisi�iR only those is;ues i�ou or someone else raisecl at the public he�uinU. described in tl�e nolice or iil ��ntten conespondence�delivered ro the cit�� at or prior to the public hearin�. � Property owners who receive this no[ice �ue responsible for informin« their renants about this notice. For additional infonnation, plca�e �all (6�01 696-7?50. Thank you. � � ��_:� �� 3��, titar��aret Monroe _ � :_�� Cih Pianner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Ple�ase reter to othc�r sicl�) � CITY OF BURLINGAME � PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PFIMROSE ROAD � BURLINGAME. CA 5a0i0 TEL (650) 696-725U 7.;4 WHLNLIT HVENU'� HF'�!:k�8-141-1�� PUBLIC HEARING A�P11C�.tlo�i foT �. -PCoiid story addition t� ��' NOTICE existing ta�u-stor�Y ho�.�se ai 734 41a1n�_it Aveni_te, zoned k-1. The City of P�_ir,ling�me F'lanning Commission anno�.inces the followir�q p�_iblic hearing on Mnnday, February 14, �000 at 7:00 P.M. in the ��y �TI-- o�_mci a.m ers located at 5��1 G'r^imr,o=e Hoad, R�_irlingame, California. Maiied Februai�y 4, ��@t� (Please refer to other side) .;�,� . � � , . .,., - , , - - �� . ,. _ .- � � �. :'�:��'F' _. .''. � .. \: � ;� � �`�S ` `R-3 � �� , �?� � .�z 4 p��C� W,qy �� 'l� �3� ♦ �.� '�� 9 �a � �R 3 / G�T`! OF H�u.sp,oRou6N � � �� 4 � p9 Ac � - _ ' -+��* ��4 " � _ - .�. �%�' � �1 C'� �� RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: V1�IEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a desi�n review nermit and snecial tiermit for extension intn the declining height Pnvelope for_ a two-story addition at 734 Walnut Avenue zoned R-1 Ge and Paula Murnane ro ert wners APN: 028-141-130; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on _ February 14 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 15303 is hereby approved. 2. Said design review permit and special permit for extension into declining height envelope is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permit for extension into declining height envelope 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 Keiehran , 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 14 day of February , 2000 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMIVIISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: CONIl�IISSIONERS: f1NN KEIGHRAN, SECRETARY EXffiBIT "A" Conditions of approval Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permits for Height and DHE 734 Walnut Avenue effective February 23, 2000 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 8, 2000, sheets A-1 through A-9; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), changing size or location of windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 7, 1999 memo and the Fire Marshal's September 7, 1999 memo shall be met; and 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.