HomeMy WebLinkAbout1480 Benito Avenue - Staff Report��� C ITY O�
BURLINGAME
� ".�Ji[o.1VN[d,00e
Planner's Report
MEMO
DATE: August 12, 2002
TO: PLANrTING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
Meeting Date: 8/12/02
RE: FYI — REVISIONS TO PLANS FOR AN APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION AT 1480 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: On March 12, 2001, the Planning Commission approved a design review application for
a first and second story addition at 1480 Benito Avenue.
Construction is currently under way and the property owner is now proposing to eliminate a single
window on the second floor of the left side elevation. The window to be eliminated is 2'-4" x 2'-4",
with a copper downspout and stucco chimney to its left. Copies of the approved and proposed
elevations are included for your review (date stamped July 22, 2002).
Planning staff would note that because the only change proposed was the elimination of a single
window at the rear of a side elevation, it was determined that this change could be reviewed by the
Commission as an FYI item. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may
be placed on an action calendar for additional review andlor public hearing with direction to the
applicant.
Erika Lewit
Zoning Technician
ATTACHMENTS:
Reduced Elevations
CRAIG R. FAWCETT
1480 Benito Ave., Burlinqame, CA 94010
650.637.1093
July 22, 2002
City of Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Request to Amend Approved Design — 1480 Benito Ave.
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing to request an amendment to the approved design for the renovation of the
single-family residence at 1480 Benito Avenue. This single item request is for the exclusion
of one window located on the second floor of the project north wall of Bedroom #1.
Our desire to exclude the window is based on the fact that the four (4) additional windows,
two (2) each on the remaining two (2) exterior walls of the room, provide more than ample
natural light and ventilation for the space. In addition, but equally important, is that we
believe the exclusion of the window has minimal, if any, impact to the exterior design of the
project. We base this opinion on the fact that the window location is only visible from a
narrow and obstructed angle from the backyard of the adjacent property to the north.
However, even if the window location was in plain view, we believe its absence would not be
noticed given the existence of both the chimney and architectural leaderheads and
downspouts on the same wall.
We respectfully submit this request and seek your approval for an item that is both prudent
and practical while maintaining the integrity of the originally approved design.
Sir�cerely,
�faig ardd Denis� Fawcett
Owners
R � �W� �,� �� �
...<,�-
JUL � � �cJu�
CITY OF 6Uku,v�HfVIE
P(.ANNING DEPT.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
March 12, 2001
There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing.
Chair Luzuriaga made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar on March 26, 2001, provided
that the following revisions have been made and plan checked: that windows be added to all sides of the
stairwell; including the blank wall at back of stairwell as well.
This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar on March 26,
2001, if plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Keighran abstaining). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m.
11. 1480 BElVITO AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAVE HOWELL, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CRAIG AND
DEr]ISE FAWCETT, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Dave Howell, 2825 Hillside Drive, project designer, was
available for questions.
Commissioners noted that this is good design, would comment on the flat roof, it should be eliminated, the
area which would extend above height limit is only about 3'/2 feet wide, roof might only need to be about
a foot higher to eliminate flat area, qualifies for special permit for design; from rear looks like building has
flat top, nice articulation, walls step in and out, but the second story plate line and roof peaks need a little
work; extending the roof would be true to the style of the architecture; need some aggressive work done with
plate lines, could be less than 8'-6" on most of top floor, some at 7'-6", might mean some of the roof comes
down to the first floor; it is still a layer cake look that needs to be resolved, maybe lower plate on one side
of a room, not whole room; this may impact perimeter walls on plan to accommodate changes.
The applicant noted that he was trying to stay within all code requirements and noted that from the street
it would not be apparent that there is a flat roof. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commissioners noted that this project will require some work but feel designer understands what needs to
be done. C. Dreiling made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar on March 26, 2001,
provided that the following revisions have been made and plan checked: that the flat portion of the roof be
eliminated and a special permit for height be considered to keep design in true Tudor style; need some work
done on the second floor plate lines, some sections of roof could extend down to first floor; may need to
change perimeter walls on plan to accommodate roof changes. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar on
March 26, 2001, if plans have been revised as directed and staff has time to plan check them. The motion
passed 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45
p.m.
10