HomeMy WebLinkAbout1532 Cypress Avenue - Staff Report�� - ,,t��
��-�'.:,; .
,,,�
I"'. �-+,
�.
-�'r'.+_�'' I .�..;4'ti'.:k���..
7 � � {Sz�' ��� „}i��i
ir�� .:ZL
y;i. ' `�r�
'"'y�' . �n�M �l� ,
+'�•- : � � 4 ��0..
` �,��c';h FI „r�� f M � y rt� `t �N' �
� Y C
9 II�`�� �
: : � �
;�4';�•' ,� ' � .,;;`� ` �� ��n
.: a �t ,�" r�
'r
, <''�,�,� ��.' � ,, .�.• r�. �.�' ' , ,a
�+ r �`°�'� '�.y. • F � � S � ,
'� , � � , � �� `�� , R �
,. 7 • � , � t. e � rs „ -
�'�. �` `�c r�• -�a'����.�E, • .�r �. .:��..
�� ��� .r ��, ����.. ��. �.i� v.. i�;. ���� �� .
• � P1 _ , . 1• . �� .ir �•:'
x,,,� i t: [N'�� � � , -, , � ,%i'� � � ,tl � � j
,;j _ � I � y F��fl
'-•�'��a_ � t � s . � • _ � ��
�, 1 J _ + i�
- ...4 �y �.,, _ (.V . -- —
. . - • � \J� ��
� ��
.._- ._ _ �-.'+ci= �__ __�� � _ _ - _ c -. �
�� .. �. - ��`�
_ _`►'_r� _ _ a � _ _. "v
Item # �j
Action Calendar
City of Burlingame
Desigyz Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope
for a Second Story Addition
Address: 1532 Cypress Avenue Meeting Date: 2/11/02
Request: Design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a second story addition at 1555
Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040 and C.S. 25.51.010)
Property Owner: Anne Harrington
Applicant/Designer: Swanberg Associates, Krisjon Swanberg, Principal APN: 028-294120
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 5,000 SF
Date Submitted: July 16, 2001 Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited
numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the
building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or
converted under this exemption.
Summary: The applicant is requesting design review and a special permit for declining height envelope for a second
story addition at 1532 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing two bedroom, one-story house contains 1,839 SF
of floor area (.36 FAR), including an detached single car garage and an arbor on the left side of the house. The
applicant is proposing to remodel the first floor and add a 871 SF second story addition. The addition would include
two bedrooms each having a full bathroom and a walk-in closet. There are two decks proposed off of the second
floor that would be covered by wood trellises, and are therefore counted toward the overall floor area; the overall
would increase to 2,690 SF (.53 FAR) where 2,989 SF (.59 FAR) is the maximum allowed. One covered off-street
parking space (14'-3" x 20') is provided in the detached garage and meets the Code requirement for a three-bedroom
house. The applicant is seeking a special perniit for declining height envelope along the right side where 77 SF
extends beyond the declining height envelope. All other zoning code requirements have been met.
REVISED PREVIOUS ORIGINAL EXISTING ALLOWED/
PROPOSAL pROPOSAL PROPOSAL �Q�D
1 /28/02 12/17/O 1 7/16/Ol
SETBACKS
Front: Ist flr 20' No change No change 20'-0" 15'-0" or block
2nd flr 40'-0" N/A 40'-0" average
20' -0"
Side (left): IS` flr 11'.33" No change No change 11'-3" 4'-0"
2„d flr 9.83' 9'-9" 9'-9" N/A
� g � S� fl, 2.57' * No change No change 2.5 7' * ,„
Side ri ht :1 r 4-0
2„d flr 4.57' 1.07' 2.57' N/A
Rear: Istflr 36' No change No change 36'-0" 15'-0"
2nd flr
36' 36'-0" N/A 20'-0"
Desigit Revtew and Special Pe��rnit 1532 Cypress Avenue
REVISED PREVIOUS ORIGINAL EXISTING ALLOWED/
PROPOSAL pROPOSAL PROPOSAL �Q�D
1 /28/02 12/17/O1 7/16/O1
LOT
COVERAGE: 38.8% 39.9% 39.5% 37.60�0 40%
(1,940 SF) (1,999 SF) (1,979 SF) (1,884 SF) (2,000 SF)
FAR: 2,�25 SF/ 2,771 SF/ 2,751 SF/ 1,839 SF/ 2,989 SF/
0.54 FAR 0.55 FAR 0.55 FAR 0.36 FAR 0.59 FAR
PARKING: 1 covered No change No change 1 covered 1 covered
(lU'-0" X (10'-0" X (20'-0" x
zo°-o°°� + 1 Zo°-o°°� + 1 Zo�-o°°�
uncovered uncovered + 1 uncovered
HEIGHT: 27'-3" 27'-3" 28'-6" 1 g,_�„ 2'/z stories 30'
whichever is less
DH Special Permit Special Permit Special Permit N/A See code
ENVELOPE: Required' Required' Required'
* Existing non-conforming
' Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope - 77 SF (22' x 3'6"= 88 SF) along the right side extends
beyond the declining height envelope.
Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note that the previously reported lot coverage and FAR
numbers were incorrectly calculated and the numbers shown above have been adjusted to indicate the correct
calculations.
January 14, 2002 Action Meeting: At the January 14, 2002, Planning Commission action meeting the
Planning Commission denied this project, without prejudice. They expressed concerns with the design and
suggested that the applicant make changes to the plans and go back the design reviewer. They took testimony
from neighbors. Commission identified the following concerns with the project:
• Are the gates in front of the driveway automatic, do they prohibit driveway use;
• Design is still a bit boxy;
• Problem with declining height envelope and side setback;
• Concerned with side setback on the second floor;
• Cantilever on right side is too close to the side property line; and
• What is the height clearance at the cantilever, will it obstruct use of the driveway.
The applicant met with the design reviewer and discussed these issue. Revised plans, date stamped January 28,
2002, were submitted with the following changes:
• The cantilever on the right side of the second story has been removed and the right side, second story wall is
now setback 4.57' off of the side property line, therefore eliminating the need for a side setback variance and
reducing the special permit request for declining height envelope on the right side by 46 SF from 123 SF to
77 SF;
• The two windows along the right side elevation have been retained, since the second story now meets the
required 3' setback off of property line, to meet the Building Code;
2
Design Review mid Special Permit 1532 Cypress Avenue
• A tile shed roof has been added to the exposed 2 foot roof on the non-conforming portion of the first floor that
extends into the side setback;
• As a result of this second story setback on the right side, the width of the deck off of the master bedroom at
the rear has been reduced from 16' to 14'-6"; and
• The window that was added in the laundry room, on the right side elevation has been eliminated, due to the
fact that existing wall is non-conforming at 2.57' off of the side property and the Building Code does not allow
any opening within 3' of a property line.
The existing gate that is located along the front of the driveway, is operable and will allow enough space for cars
to access the garage at the rear and to park in the driveway. Photos have been attached to this staff report showing
the parking configuration with the gate. The vertical clearance at the left side cantilever over the driveway is 11 feet,
and the existing arbor over the driveway has a 9 foot vertical clearance. Currently the owner can park her SiJV in
the driveway, under the arbor.
Design Reviewer's Comments and Conclusion (second recommendation on plans date stamped January 28,
2002): The design reviewer's February 6, 2002 memo is attached. This memo is a revised version of the ariginal
memo submitted on the previous design. The design reviewer has amended this report to reflect the changes made
to the drawings since the Commission's review at the January 14, 2002 meeting.
The design reviewer notes that the cantilever on the north elevation has been eliminated, with the second floor now
meeting the required side setback. The second floor was not setback enough to eliminate the special permit request
for declining height envelope. However, if the roof slope was changed to fall within the declining height envelope
it would not be compatible with the boxier look that this house currently has, and would change the entire flavor of
the residence. The laundry room window added on the first floor has been eliminated to meet Building Code
requirements. The second story cantilever over the first floor is still present, and is supported by wooden corbels
to visually finish it. The design reviewer notes that the cantilever will not be an obstacle to parking in the driveway
since the existing trellis over the driveway is lower and allows the parking of large vehicles.
The design reviewer feels that the issues raised at the Planning Commission meeting of January 14, 2002 have been
addressed. The design reviewer points out that original character of the subject house is quite boxy and that the
designer has worked with the original lines and elements of this residence to comply with the original intent.
August 13, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting: On August 13, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed this
project for design review (see attached 8/13/O1 Planning Commission minutes). The Planning Commission
requested the following changes and referred the project to a design review consultant. The concerns expressed
by the Planning Commission included the following:
• Windows at the front elevation are not well-coordinated; they are miniscule and not pedestrian friendly;
• The north elevation is lacking windows, which might be added to help reduce the massing;
� Would like to see consistency with the windows on the fist and second stories;
• Applicant should provide clarification for the proposed awnings; what are the materials, colors and
dimensions to be used. Proposed awnings might not be the best option to add detail to this style of house;
could consider wooden trellis; and
• There is a certain simplicity in the design that is valuable, it needs detail, but does not need to be "dolled-
up„
After working with the design review consultant the architect submitted revised plans (date stamped December
Desigit Review and Special Pe��mit
17, 2001). The following changes were made to the plans
Front Elevation
Canvas awning over front porch changed to wooden trellis
Wood railing added at front steps
Tile added to both first and second floor parapets
Window added on left side of second floor
Overall height lowered by 1'-3"
Rear Elevation
Canvas awning over second story deck changed to a wood trellis
Second story cantilevered deck revised with wood posts and detailing added underneath
Wood brackets added underneath Juliet balcony
Style of the window on the lower floor right side has been revised
South Elevation
1531 C}press Ave�tue
Style of two lower floor windows has been revised
Wood brackets and tile have been added to boxed bay on the second floor
North Elevation
Two story vertical wall has been articulated with a 1'-6" projection of the second floor over the first floor, with
wood brackets under the projection.
A window has been added to the second floor, and the originally proposed window has been enlarged.
A window has been added to the first floor.
Please refer to the design review consultant's memo, dated January 4, 2002, for comments regarding these
revisions.
Design Reviewer's Comments and Conclusion (first recommendation on plans denied by Planning
Commission 1/14/02, plans date stamped December 17, 2001): The design reviewer's January 4, 2002 memo is
attached. Thc dcsign revicwer notes that the proposed awnings have been revised to wooden trellises, which is an
existing element of the design. The trellis feature also provides an opportunity for climbing plants. Along with this,
other details of the existing design have been added to the addition including terra cotta vents, wood windows and
wooden corbels. Windows have been added on the first and second floor to balance the elevations, and the existing
windows on the first floor will be changed to wood with mullions (except the front elevation and 2 at the north
elevation). The design reviewer notes that while the second floor has added windows for balance it also maintains
a level of privacy for each of the neighbors. The design reviewer feels that the revised plans reflect an improved
design and have addressed all of the concerns noted by the Planning Commission at the August 13, 2001 study
meeting
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
4
Design Review nnrl S'pecinl Permit
/53l Cypress Avenue
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for garage length the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(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.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should
be by resolution and include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing
the following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
January 28, 2002, sheets A.1 through A.6, site plan, floor plans and building elevations;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the project, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s)
or changing the roof height or pitch, and changes to window/door placement or size, shall be subject to
design review.
3. that the conditions of City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Recycling Specialist's July 16, 2001
memos 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.
Catherine Keylon
Planner
c: Swanberg Associates, Krisjon Swanberg, applicant & designer
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2002
I
also b�used to increase the prominence of the front porch. There were no further comments from the floor
and the public hearing was closed.
Commission 21i cussion: agree that there is no hardship on this lot to justify a variance, and there is a
solution on the sit , 11 the houses on this street have a deep setback, the house is large, they are proposing
three large trees in the ont yard to screen the structure; easy to move this back on the lot and keep the nice
design, do not want to s t a precedent for others on the block, its only 18 inches.
C. Bojues moved that the design review for this site be approved along with the special permit for the
garage with the area excee ing that needed for parking to be used only for storage and that the variance for
the front setback not be ap roved because there is no hardship on the property for the reasons noted in the
discussion and the staff re ort by resolution conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Commission discussion: noted that the motion would mean that the Commission will not have seen the
corrected plans; following iscussion of procedure the maker of the motion agreed to amend the motion to
deny the project withnut pr 'udice. The second agreed. The motion to deny without prejudice was made
by resolution with the tollowi amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Depa ent date stamped December 21, 2001, sheets 1— 5, sheet G-1 and sheet L-
1 date stamped November 28, 2001 'th a 36'-6" front setback, and that any changes to the footprint or floor
area of the building shall require an amen ent to this permit; 2) that any changcs to the size or envelope of
the basement, first or second floors, which ould include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or
changing windows and architectural features or anging the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design
review; 3) that three large trees, species as approve by the City Arborist, shall be placed in the front yard so
they shall screen the frst and second story of the ho se as viewed from the street and neighbors; 4) that the
conditions of the City Engineer's and Recycling Spe ialist's October 29, 2001, memos shall be met; and 5)
that the project shall meet all the requirements of th California Building Code and California Fire Code,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame
Discussion on the motion: needs to reduce by 18 inc s, would prefer that the space come out of the house
rather than out of the rear yard by shifting the house ack; it is up to the applicant to decide; a condition
should be added that the applicant provide three large tr s in the front yard to screen the new house. The
maker and second ni,;he amended motion agreed.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to deny wi out prejudice. The motion passed
on a 7— 0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item ncluded at 7:45 p.m.
5. 1532 CYPRESS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (KRISJON
SWANBERG, SWANBERG ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ANNE HARRINGTON,
PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 1.14.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners had no questions of
staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Ann Herrington, property owner represented the project noting
that she had expected her architect to be here this evening but he had not arrived. Said she was familiar
with the project and would answer questions. Commissioners asked: are there climbing vines on the existing
0
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2002
trellis; yes, mature and intend to keep and enhance them. Revised plans show the second floor cantilevered
over both the right and left side, why; trying to meet the neighbors concerns and the design reviewer was
trying to reduce the "boxy" look of the house also added two windows and wooden trim. Extending the
second floor results in increased lot coverage without adding to the first floor. Applicant submitted a letter
in support from her neighbor at 1556 Cypress.
Speaking on the project were Dian Condon-Wergler, 1536 Cypress; Preston Young, 1528 Cypress. Only
problem have with the project is parking, plans show arbor over driveway as well as cantilever, leads one to
believe that the driveway will never be used, recently the owner installed gates across the driveway in front
of the trellis, can no longer park 2 cars in the driveway; in seven years I have lived in the neighborhood this
owner has not parked in garage, now gates block future use of the driveway for parking; opposed to project
because cantilever extends the envelope of the house and represents growth even though it is within the city
code. Live on the north side of the project, favored the original design except for the windows along the side
property line, now there is an 18 inch cantilever bringing windows closer and a 20 foot wall which will
affect light and the space for his house. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: applicant has made the changes that the Planning Commission requested, the
garage proposed meets the on site parking requirements for the three bedroom house; can not monitor who
parks on the street and who in the garage; like to see the driveway used for parking, but the city does not
have the power to see it done, suggest that the gates be removed because they limit the use of the driveway
for parking unless they can be opened by remote control. Is the gate needed to meet fencing requirements for
pool in the rear yard? No. If the gate were relocated to the back corner, could park in the driveway; the
project is still a bit boxy, have a problem with the declining height envelope, the wall is awfully close to the
side property line and there does not appear to be any hardship with the property; if cantilever pulled back
addition would not affect lot coverage. From front, even with 18 inch cantilever, house looks boxy, not sure
this is compatible with the neighborhood. With gate removed the pool can still be protected, the second
floor walls should be inset not cantilevered, cannot support the height proposed, recommend go back to
drawing board. Need to check the side setback on the second floor for variance on side with declining height
exception. CA noted that if the design is salvageable item should be continued; if significant change is
required can deny without prejudice and applicant can return with new design.
Further discussion: the boxy design is OK, it is the kind e f i �cabulary far this style, work with the design
reviewer improved it from original, concerned with the side setback impact on the design, not sure I can
approve for that reason; have difficulty with the side setback and the declining height exception, looks like a
variance and a special permit; what is the height of the cantilever over the driveway, will it obstruct use;
design has boxy look but part of the existing house, concerned with cantilever into setback.
C. Keighran moved to send the item back to the design reviewer with the direction given, noting that the
gate (not sown on the plans) should be taken out of the driveway. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues
Comment on the motion: gate does not need to be removed if it can be made automatic; would maker
consider modification to motion and deny the project without prejudice or give the applicant the opportunity
to return to the design reviewer, at their choice. Maker of the motion and second agreed to the amendment.
Furthcr comment on the motion: concerned about the design as it is, a box on a box, it is out of character
with the neighborhood, to bulky, feel if it came back without the cantilever still could not support.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2002
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion on the project to deny without prejudice or allow the
applicant to return to a design review to follow up on the direction given, and that the gate across the
driveway be removed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 8:12 p.m.
6. 1340 CORTEZ AVENUE ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITIO ND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND
AN ATTACHED GARAGE M POWELL, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; VIRGINIA
CULBERTSON AND JACQUES C I�R, YK(�Y�R'1'Y UWN�,RS) Y1ZUJ�CT PLANNEK: EIZ[KA
Reference staff report, 1.14.02, with att
staff comments. Five conditions were
staff.
Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and
for consideration. Commissioners had no questions of
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Powell, architect, 3108 Sheldon Drive, F�.='unond,
represented the project. She noted she would swer questions. There were no questions from the
commission or comments from the floor. The pu ic hearing was closed.
C. Bojues noted that the applicant had made nice anges as requested and moved to approve the project by
resolution with the following amended condition : 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department date stampe December 21, 2001, sheets Tl and A2 through A4, and
that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the uilding shall require and amendment to this permit; 2)
that any changes to the size or envelope of the basem nt, first or second floors, which would include adding
or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windo and architectural features or changing the roof height
or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that th conditions of the City Engineer's and Recycling
Specialist's September 17, 2001, memos and the Buildin fficial's September 12, 2001, memo shall be met;
4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demoliti and construction recycling ordinance recently
approved by the City Council; 5) that an arborist report shall repared demonstrating how to protect the
existing trees at the front of the site and in the rear during const ion and that the report shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Arborist before issuance of a building pe it; and that the two Japanese maples
noted on the plans on the left side of the rear yard shall be replace ith aristocrat pears or , rr �e other
species of similar scale when mature as approved by the City Arborist placed to provide screening for
the neighbor; 6) that the bedroom at the rear over the garage shall ne er be converted into a second
dwelling unit; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the alifornia Building Code and
California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. e motion was seconded by C.
Keighran
Comment on the motion: agree that a lot of improvements have been made t this project, however, the
room over the garage is still not integrated into the house and looks like a second nit, concerned about how
future owners will use this area, am not in favor of this becoming a rental unit; the is no landscape plan for
this project, Sheet A-3 shows a redwood tree under the eaves of the house, same o the east side, plans do
not represent what is there in the field, trees need to be protected during constructio Would like to add a
condition that an arborist report be prepared to protect the existing trees at the front the site and in the
rear during construction and that the two Japanese maples noted on the plans on the left si e of the rear yard
be replaced with aristocrat pears or some other species of similar scale when mature to provi screening for
the neighbor, am concerned because of the overall size of the addition; concerned about the mass of the
building especially the west elevation , could pull the addition back from the side property line, e problem
,:
Design Review Comments
City of Burlingame
Property Owner:
Applicant Name:
Designer:
Project Address:
Planner:
Date of Review:
Design Guidelines
Anne Harrington
Krisjon Swanberg
Krisjon Swanberg
1532 Cypress Avenue
Catherine Keylon
4 January 2002
1. COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF
THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
The existing residence is located in a quaint neighborhood with a lot of thought to
design in their residences. There are a variety of styles and materials used in the
neighborhood. Adjacent is a beautifully remodeled 2 story shingled home, across
the street there are wood siding homes and stucco structures throughout the street.
This existing home is a flat roofed stucco home with a pa.rapet. There is an
attractive trellis over the driveway, front picture windows and double hung
windows on the side elevations. The front porch was converted to an interior
space circa 1970 with yellow opaque glass. The street has a couple of badly
remodeled homes, but as a rule, the neighborhood has not lost its charm.
2. RESPECT FOR THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
In keeping with the character of the existing house and neighborhood, the garage
will remain detached at the rear of the yard.
3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CONSISTENCY AND MASS AND
BULK OF STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
The designer has taken a small bungalow with a parapet, and added a second floor
set back so as to reduce the impact from the street. He has incorporated the
existing detail of the parapet, the terra cotta vents, the wood windows, and the
wooden trellis into the proposed addition. The side elevations of the second floor
have areas cantilevering over the first floor, supported by wooden corbels.
4. INTERFACE OF THF PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE
STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
Hanington Residence
1532 Cypress Avenue
Page 2 of 3
The residences to either side of this proposed addition have a driveway between
the houses, leaving a separation at least 10 feet between residences. Each of the
neighbor's residences is two stories. The designer has added interest to the
elevations by placing each elevation in different planes. The proposed second
floor has a minimum of windows, retaining privacy for each of the neighbors.
5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS.
There aze existing hedges on each side of the residence acting as separation from
the neighboring houses. There is a single magnolia as a street tree. There is an
existing wooden trellis at the left side of the house which will probably be filled
with flowers in the spring and summer months. Also, there are proposed trellis' at
the second floor balconies which will have the capability to drape plants, thus
softening the addition.
6. IN THE CASE OF AN AllDITION, COMPATABILTY W1TH THE
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING
STRUCTURE AS REMODELED.
As previously noted, the proposed addition incorporates many elements from the
existing residence, as well as adding new details typical of this type home.
CONCERNS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION:
The windows at the front elevation are not well-coordinated; they are miniscule and
not pedestrian friendly. The number and size of windows has been increased to balance
the elevations, especially the front elevation.
The north elevation is lacking windows, which might be added to help reduce
massing. Not only have windows been added, but the second floor addition is
cantilevered over the first floor, placed on wooden corbels. This breaks the elevation into
planes, adding interest. Also, the second floor balcony is set back from the second floor
wall plane.
Would like to see consistency with the windows on the first and second stories. The
windows on the first floor will be changed to wood with mullions (except at the front
elevation, and 2 at the north elevation). The proposed second floor windows will be
wood with mullions. Also, both floors will have wooded french doors with mullions.
Applicant shall provide clarification for the proposed awnings; what materials,
colors and dimensions to be used. Proposed awnings might not be the best option to
add detail to this style house; could consider a wooden trellis. A concern with
awnings is that they are an "add-on" to a structure, and not a permanent fi�cture. The
homeowner and her designer chose to incorporate the existing trellis concept throughout
the proposed design. These tiave been added to the front porch, and the front and rear
balconies.
Harrington Residence
1532 Cypress Avenue
Page 3 of 3
There is a certain simplicity in the design that is valuable, it needs detail, but does
not need to be "dolled up". The designer has worked with the simplicity of the existing
design, incorporating the original elements, i.e. the wooden trellis, wood windows and
trim, flat roof; but has also added to these elements the wooden corbels at the second
floor which help break up the elevations' planes.
COMMENTS:
The homeowner and designer were very receptive to the concerns of the PC, and worked
very cooperatively through the design review process. I feel the designer has improved
the design while incorporating the concerns from the Planning Commission.
�—��0��►.1d
Catherine . . Nil yer A
4 3/4 hours
City of Burlingame Planning Con;mission Unapproved Minutes
13.
August 13, 2001
Neighbors comme on the following: in light of th�tory on the property (code enforcement an
illegal home o ation and previous illegal second d ling unit), intensifying the use of the essory
structure b owing plumbing to be installed is a mistake because the structure can easily be converted to
second or office; if the planters are over 3' hi"gh and are counted , the lot coverage vuould be closer to
/ an 40%;' the house is on a knoll in the neighborhood and the design appears ver�C:triassive; the design
e new house is Mediterranean with stucco and this will not match the existing wood-siding garage;
concerned about the proximity of t�ie house to the garage, distance looks as if it might not meet coie
requirements; if plumbing is allowed in the accessory structure, any parties or entertaining in the structure
will greatly impact his pro�. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was
closed. ,�� • ° -
C. Keighran m�e a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the direction given by the
Commissio, �nd the comments from the neighbors incl�ded on the recording of the meeting. The motion
was sec ed by C. Auran.
�'
� � �.
irman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to the design review consultant. e
otion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojues, Dreiling , Osterling absent). The Planning Co ' sion's
action is advisory and'not appealable. This item concluded at 10:27 p.m.
1323 CARLOS AVENUE - ZONED R-1-
STORY SINGLE FAMTLY DWELLING (
JOSF, A. _TTMRNF7 T e7�TTl r�r r��cr��r r
4;
FOR DESIGN REVIEW F A NEW TWO-
, APPLICANT AND P; PERTY OWNER;
C. Auran ented that he had a b ess relationship within 500' o e sub'ect ro e
.1 p p rty and would
abstai � m voting on the project. airman Vistica noted that ther as no longer a quonun present and
the �ect could not be voted tonight. The applicant was p nt and was informed that the project
uld be placed as the firs sign review study item on the gust 27, 2001, agenda.
14. 1532 CYPRESS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (KRISJON
SWANBERG, SWANBERG ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ANNE HARRINGTON,
PROPERTY OWNERI
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Krisjon Swanberg, architect, was present to answer
questions.
The Commission had the following concerns:
The windows at the front elevation are not well-coordinated; they aze miniscule and not pedestrian-
friendly.
The north elevation is lacking windows, which might be added to help reduce the massing.
• Would like to see consistency with the windows on the first and second stories.
14
City of Bvrlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
August 13, 2001
• Applicant should provide clarification for the proposed awnings; what are the materials, colors and
dimensions to be used. Proposed awnings might not be the best option to add detail to this style of
house; could consider wooden trellis.
• There is a certain simplicity in the design that is valuable, it needs detail, but does not need to be "dolled
up"
Neighbors commented on the following: will the envelope of the proposed project cast shadows on his
property; fewer number of windows on the north elevation is better because it will insure his privacy; the
design of the house is not consistent with the neighborhood, it is just a box over a box; what is the need
for the deck at the front elevation which looks onto the street; there is no symmetry to the design; detail
could be added by putting Spanish tile on the parapet; the design that is existirig on the first floor is okay
but does not necessarily work for the second floor addition; the design is overwhelming because there are
no details; the house is unique in that most others in the area have tile; the cantilever over the driveway
will make the driveway appear closed off and it is likely that no cars will ever park there; for clarification,
the windows on the existing house were changed out about a year ago and the existing windows are beautiful
Andersen windows that are in good condition, second story windows should match these; the proposed
house has no windows on the north elevation because the owner is trying to accommodate our concerns.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Luzuriaga made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made and also a
copy of the audio tape so that the concerns of the neighbors could be reviewed. The motion was seconded
by C. Vistica.
Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to the design review consultant. The
motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojues, Dreiling, and Osterling absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:47 p.m.
�
X. PLANNER REPOR �„��
�� �vlonroe noted that the City Council cancelled its August 6, 2001 �eting. Also she noted that the next
� Housing Workshop would be September 19, a Wednesday �vening, at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall. On the
Council agenda will be a discussion about w er the Council would like to appoint a Citiz ' visory
Committee to help in the preparatio raft of the 2001 Housing Element upd
r
XI. ADJOURNME�� =�r
an Vistica adjourned the meeting at 10: .
Respectfully submitted,
UNAPPROVEDMINUTES g.13
Ann Keighran, Acting Secretary
15
08/13/O1 13:59 FAX 650 506 7862 ORACLE
Christopher Andrews
1544 Cypress Avenue
gurlingan�e CA 94010
August 13, 2001
City of Burlingame Plannin8 Commission
Re: 1532 Cypress Avemie, Pmposed Second Story Additioq 8/l3/2001 design review
Dear Sirs and Madam:
I was pleased to see that the proposed addition to 1532 Cypress Avenue preserves the Pueblo
Revival/Adobe style of the ori�nal house, and believe that the ove�atl mass and bulk of the
addition is moderate and reasonable, considering the generous front setback, moderately sizad
addition with normal ce11m8 heiP,�►ts, and flat roo£ For all these concessions, I applaud ti�e
homeowner and design team. As a concemed neighbor, I support waiving the declining height
restnction on the north side, to preserve the overall design integrity.
However, as a neighbor who walks the street freQuentlY, and as a lover of period domest�c
architecture, I do have some concerns abon�t the facade on die str�t facad�� as follows:
1. The original first story has a very strong left-right symmetry> but the second story is not
syrtunetric at all, making it look less integrated with the original first story. Are there
improvements that can be made to the number and placement oF windows?
�ooi
2. In my opinion, repe�ating the pealceci motif in ttxe second story Par'apet subtracts from the
novelty of the first floor pazapet, adds a distracting second focal point, and degr'ades the
overall design. To illustrate my point, I would suggest retaining the two "homs" on the left and
right sides but eliminate the central peak. E11so, removing the upper peak could make the new
addition seem even less massive, to b�ter fit with bungalows across the street.
3. To my eye, the small canvas avming is superDuous both aesthetically and functionally,
especially for an eastern exposure in a town where the momings are usually cool. I might
suggest replacing this awning with a wider, centered pergola, and would support waiving front
setback requireme�ts for a shallow azbor.
I know thai this is nat my house to design, but I have attached an illnst�atian to help you visualize
my specific concems. Thank you for your consideration-
Sincerely,
Christopher Andrews
08/13/O1 13:59 FAX 650 506 7862 ORACLE
�
��1TAt N�N�T 7b �
d�3��a ► �E�rE�
�iQ-�M �
G f4Nb�� -! ,�
��
;
�
f� 002
as ��
�`i
I 1
;�
�
�
�
i.,._ _ .---
'/k
(E� occ k �
��
---�Y.�SG�ue�..i_�r-ioc�-f sa�rTl�-1- �.
— --=--- �-- - - -
� -- ------ -�I.I�CorJw.� p++v4Jh�C I I-�41J! Hi
Q'p g(e't E Z"' a� �u� �u►+-• o.�.�r� � �
a,PE� K•• , �
TcM�a�r�. I
O MR�.E
w wD�wr
Mo�R-E .
fi•�w�rneTRau4L
_ i
_ - O O v I -- -- - -. � �
� ' I
� \ � II
r , � \� ���
�.
— . ,.
; - -- --
. . _- _ - _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ . ' _ �� ...�
,_ ._ . ; . . -- --
_ . _. _ ___ -
-T�- . ._ _ - -..-- _...
- - - p " o0o I� �
- Cl: ._o o `_7 _ _- - -� -
� . _ — , �--- ------ -_ �
� . i; ,� , N,
► i, ' -
� �,
i ,A
1---------� - -- ---� . � , ��
� -
I - _� �
. _._
, u . -- - --- .-- - - -- - � � r_ - � �
� - _ - - - - --- -- - -�-- ---- - _
io�. E*sT ��t?�aN Sy'�t�� T f���E��:�.
�
�
� •
r
��� �
� --- --_ -"_
�
i, i I�I� �
�r� "T" ot.� CITY OF BURLINGAME
eu�uNGAME' PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
; oq�,- BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
1532 CYPRESS AVENiJE
Application for design review and special
permit for declining height envelope for a PUgLIC HEARING
second story addition at 1532 Cypress
Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 028-299-120) NOTICE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, February 11, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. in
the City Hall Council Chambers located at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed Febru ... ' 1, 2002
(Plcn.ce ref�r to otlz��r sidc�)
CI"lY OF BURLINGAME
A copy of thc application and plans for this project ivay be reviewed prior
to the mecti�ig at die Plaiiniiig Departii�ent aC 5p1 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
If you challe��g� the subject application(s) in court, you ►11ay be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
describe�l in the notice or in wcitten corres�emcicnce delivered to the city
at or prior to the ��ublic hearing.
Property owners who receive thi� notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650)
558-7250. Thank yc�u.
Margaret Mc�nr<�e +°' ' -��,.:t``,�`�'�'� ' '�..'c, 'y`"�� ��'�'
Citv Planner
PUBLIC FIEARING NOTICE
(Plecisc� �-efc�r- tn other.s�icl��l
. �
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW,
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design
review and special permit for declining height envelope for a second floor addition at 1532 Cypress Avenue,
zoned R-1, Anne F. Harrington, property owners, APN: 028-294-120;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 11, 2002, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials
and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the
project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per
CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures
provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before
the addition, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review and special permit for declining height envelope is approved, subject to
the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permit
are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records
of the County of San Mateo.
CHAIRMAN
I, Joseph Bojues , 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 l lth day of February, 2002 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and special permit.
1532 Cypress Avenue effective February 20, 2002
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped January 28, 2002, sheets A.1 through A.6, site plan, floor plans and building
elevations;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the project, which would include adding or
enlarging a dormer(s) or changing thc roof hcight or pitch, and changes to window/door
placement or size, shall be subject to design review.
that the conditions of City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Recycling Specialist's July
16, 2001 memos 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.
� �� - � .
___�.--- =.-__._ -
__.�_.___— --�:--
r
�,• -ra
, i��+�
i
�
.�
�`
.'
:i
:� `l.;
t'
� ww
"�c�'� ��
� �
/ �*r
� � 1
A'
�a'� �
, i
w �. i ;. � "" � � . � �
�, ... -
.
_� � . �
-� ,.-�.--__. �.__ _ _.—__ _--_ s,. _
� ---- �_ . .;, �. �_
a
� •. 1
I '� ' Yr"- ."'�►r -
,,�, j -� ,:�'
1 •,{y.�•• ..'ai ."Yt ril.�^ .... /
�� � � ' L����• � �"� -
>r ;� 4 i .
1�4 r, �.'. �;�r+;� .,.x_^ �
. ,.�+ s' � i�' ,s , li y_� .
� �
� .. �
`
; .
,�
�
. ��
f
� \
R °�
? . �
�i�.�� , i
� '�'` '�,;�.� �
�� ```'yyy r ` �
- ��. �� #��tl �,
- .�, ��� �� .
__. _ _ _ � ,. � :
, �'; r�.
�,� ,..
_ ��. ,,�;.
`' ,'� �
.�
�'t �.� .
��.
�( - `.--y�y-� -� , . . . _
1� . � . ' .l'._ 1 .,` ` �` .
' J
.}�'-.
� .� . •�. . .L