HomeMy WebLinkAbout1449 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff ReportItem # y--
Action Calendar
PROJECT LOCATION
1449 Cabrillo Avenue
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permit for Height
foY a New Single Family Dwelling
Item # T
Action Calendar
Address: 1449 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: 1/26/04
Request: Design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1449 Cabrillo
Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040 and C.S. 25.28.060)
Applicant and Designer: Mark Robertson
Property Owner: Con Brosnan APN: 026-042-210
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 6,000 SF
Date Submitted: September 8, 2003 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.
History: On October 14, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed this project for design review (see attached
10/14/03 Planning Commission minutes). The Planning Commission expressed concerns with the project and
referred it to a design review consultant. The design reviewer submitted a memo dated November 7, 2003 that, on
balance, recommended approval. The project went back to the Planning Commission as an action item on the
November 24, 2003 agenda (see attached 11/24/03 Planning Commission minutes), where the project was denied
without prejudice on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Keele, Brownrigg absent) vote. At this meeting the Planning Commission stated
that they could not support the project and felt that the project was just too massive and bulky and needed more
articulation on the sides and rear. The applicant returned to the design review consultant and has worked with him to
revise the plans in response to the comments made at the last meeting. See below for the new project summary and
details.
Summary: The proposal is to demolish the existing one-story single family dwelling with detached garage and
construct a new two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 1449 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The
proposed house would have a total floor area of 3,301 SF (0.55 FAR), where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum
floor area allowed. There would be two covered parking spaces provided for this five bedroom house in the
detached garage (21'3 x 21'6") located at the rear of the lot.
The property slopes upwards from the front to the rear with a slope ranging from 14.1 % to 14.9%. There will be
approximately 200 yards of soil removed from the rear of the site to allow for the construction of the detached two
car garage. Seven existing trees are proposed for removal, however none of them are protected. The City Arborist
has been out to the site and finds the proposed removal and proposed landscape plan acceptable.
The applicant is seeking the following:
• Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling; and
• Special permit for height (32'-10" height proposed where 30' is the maximum height allowed).
Design Review and Special Permit 1449 Cabrillo Avenue
REVISED DWOP ORIGINAL ALLOWED/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
(1/9/04-plans) (11/13/03-plans)
SETBACKS
Front: 1 st flr
22'6" 22'6" 22'6" 15'-0" or block average
2nd flr 24' 24' 24' (19'-6")
20'
, , , ,
Side (left): 1 S` flr 11 11 11 4
2,�d flr 11' 11' 11'
, , , ,
Side(right):1 S` flr 5 5 5 4
Z,�d�r 5' S' S'
Rear: 1 st f tr 42' 9" 42' 9" 42' 9" 15'
2nd flr 42'9 42'9" 42'9" 20'
LOT COVERAGE: 33.9% 33.5% 34.8 % 40%
(2,038 SF) (2,012 SF) (2,093 SF) (2,400 SF)
FAR: 3,301 SF/ 3,303 SF/ 3,346 SF/ 3,420 SF/
0.55 FAR 0.55 FAR 0.55 FAR 0.57 FAR
PARKING: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered (20' x 20')
(21'3" x 21'6") (21'3" x 21'6") (21'3" x 21'6") + 1 uncovered
+ 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered
HEIGHT:
132' 10" � 32' 10" ' 35' 10" 2�/2 stories 30'
whichever is less
Meets Meets Meet
DHENVELOPE: See code
Requirement Requirement Requirement
� Special Permit for height (32' 10" height proposed where 30')
Staff Comments: See attached. Please note that the applicant has applied for a building permit for the detached
garage shown on these plans. This application is currently in process and is being plan checked by all of the required
departments. Since this proj ect does involve excavation and soil hauling the applicant is hoping to proceed with this
aspect of the project prior to heavy rains. Code Section 25.57.010 requires design review for new single family
dwellings, but does not require design review for detached garage.
November 24, 2003 Action Meeting: On November 24, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed this project for
design (see attached 11/24/03 Planning Commission minutes) following the changes made after working with a
design review consultant. The Planning Commission did not feel that all of their concerns were addressed by the
revisions and denied the project without prejudice. The Commission suggested that the applicant make additional
revisions in response to the following comments:
• Can't support, gave clear direction to reduce floor area by 10%;
• Design emphasizes mass and bulk with two story walls, concerned with large stucco building with
composition roof, no quality materials, could be better project;
• Not concerned with floor area ratio, needs to alleviate materials, too much stucco, can do better, do not just
reduce 10%, need more change in materials;
Design Review and Special Permit
/449 Cabrillo Avenue
Front has charm, big, blank, boxy sides, might help to reduce first floor plate from 10' to 9', need to
articulate, fa�ade on all sides looks like a big box, follow through good design on front fa�ade to design on
rest of the building;
Concerned with design not size, have seen house close to maximum floor area ratio that do not look big;
Height from grade is 25'2" when you add grade difference to top of curb 7'8" you can justify special permit
for height.
The applicant went back and worked with the design reviewer to address the concerns stated at the November
24, 2003 meeting. Revised plans, date stamped January 9, 2004, were submitted with the following changes:
• Second floor master suite was modified to produce one story offsets on both sides of the house, also
results in changes to rear elevation, more glazing on second story where master bedroom overlooks
backyard;
• Stucco exterior has been changed to clapboard siding;
• Bay window on first floor, front elevation has been widened and now is carried down to the ground with
a stone base added for better proportion;
• Front elevation, second story windows above bay window have been combined into a centered pair,
where they were previously split apart;
• Stone veneer has been carried up on the living room chimney, right side elevation. Chimney in family
room has been changed to gas, so chimney towards back of right elevation has been eliminated.
• Towards rear of the right side elevation a one story element created by offsets to the master suite on the
second floor;
• Stone base has been carried around the length of the house;
• At back of the left side elevation kitchens windows have been increased in size for more balance, and
single story element has been created by the second story offset.
Design Reviewer's Comments and Conclusion (memo dated January 6, 2004): The design reviewer's January
6, 2004 memo is attached. The design reviewer states that the revisions made to this project since the Commission's
last review improve the architectural style and mass of the structure. The mass has been reduced with the one-story
element now at the rear of the house. The house is also now less vertical and has a softer more cohesive appearance
with the horizontal wood siding and window revisions. The design reviewer notes that because of the size of the
houses on either side and the driveway locations, that the proposed structure will interface reasonably well making
the new house more compatible with the neighborhood.
In summary the design reviewer feels that the applicant has made significant revisions to the appearance and the bulk
of the project with the introduction of the one story element, window proportion changes and the use of the wood
siding, and supports and recommends approval of the revised project.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
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;
Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
Design Review and Special Permit /449 Cabrillo Avenue
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.
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 made by resolution and should include findings for design review and special permit. 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
January 9,2004, Sheets 1 thru 6, site plan, floor plans, roof plan and building elevations; with a maximum
floor area ratio of 3,301 SF;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, 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;
that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and
meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a
demolition permit;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, Recycling Specialist's, Fire Marshal's, City Arborist's
and the City Engineer's September 15, 2003 memos shall be met;
that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge
and provide certification of that height;
6. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the proj ect architect, engineer or other licensed professional
shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are
built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property
owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury;
4
Design Review and Special Permit 1449 Cabrillo Avenue
7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staffwill inspect and note compliance ofthe architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the proj ect has been built according to the approved
Planning and Building plans;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance; and
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
Catherine Barber
Planner
Mark Robertson, applicant/designer
r,.� :� _ ., .� ,�:r,. _... ._
� �::.
� Project Comments
Date: 9/9/03
To: ❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building O�cial
a Fire Marshal
I�Recycling Specialist
O City Arborist
� City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new finro
story single family dwelling at 1449 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1,
APN:026-042-210
Staff Review: 9/15/03
Applicant shall submit a Waste Reduction Plan and
Recycling Deposit for this and all covered projects and
sections of projects prior to any demolition, construction
or permitting.
by:
Date:
� ,., ,,,,.�, ,..z.. rt.,,:,;,. ..v,.,.,. „�� .;:�. ••� c ^-xa=... ,�. e; :..:
3
; Project Comments
Date: 9/9/03
To: ❑ City Engineer
�Chief Building Official
O Fire Marshal
� Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
O City Atto�ney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new finro
story single family dwelling at 1449 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1,
APN:026-042-210
Staff Review: 9/15/03
2�
Reviewed by:
Date:
1s�
�
y_� �
} ._ „,tNr, ry
; Project Comments
Date:
�
From:
9/9/03
❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
Q]�Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
O City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two
story single family dwelling at 1449 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1,
APN:026-042-210
Staff Review: 9/15/03
��.� �.cXe. o� �e.S . d�L�-� �.� �`re 5 ��-�.�..��r �v�r^�
�/�.�-O c� G��..• a \ _
Reviewed by: �� Date: ,� ���
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official ,,, '�
❑ Fire Marshal �
❑ Re�ycling Specialist `_
1� City Arborist
�ity Attorney
Planning Sfaff _
Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two
story single family dwelling at 1449 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1,
APN:026-042-210
9/15/03
��� vs� �'�. �6c.`� 1�G1-�.� �LCC' �Go��L� c.�-�o
� �L� � SU� h- `�FTi� �� �•zC S
I r� _
�-� .
0
'�rD�-5 �
;�1�h � G/�:
'�—,
� �
� O_
� Reviewed by:
r
uate: c�/l�/� �
�
. e �,.,
�
-�-_ -. , r.,� .. . �,:.,- . >. :,. ._ ; -,-;�
. : ,:�. ,..,-,
� _° Project Comments
9/9/03
. , .�,.,:.. �,�. :< � F.,-:�_,:� .
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
9/9/03
�City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
O City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design
story single family
APN:026-042-210
Staff Review: 9/15/03
review and special permit for height for a new two
dwelling at 1449 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1,
� ��C� -
� ���. `�ur �a c�vt_ �-r,� .oti/ c�,��c� cs r���:�u��
� �]Li. � - a •
(�` i �iv�.� G��u iI �' Atita� L.�iL ,� i i � Gi :►
�`� i�� L1../�JiL t. .��/c� . �. e�l._ :� . ui!_ I/ � ��/�f.♦
.iI �i �1�. i 1� ���� ':y<�� L?�i.f.. i
?
"� ' �ii�l .r ��.a� '� . L.. '.)��...I..,� r,. � fu• ► °r,�..7�
�
� i' Li:i �1►:�. :�l s'�.i,� �ii�- *3f,�i ��/ G � lL/L ;�
iv '
. ,
Alia./ --_ :111�h..�� ' Slv[ L � '1!!..�/L�_ � .
v"�'J1$ N.�.vl? did�wti✓ ti���!��'.
Reviewed by: Date:
v .�. �<<��
_ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS
Project Name:�4' �� �v�Qc�€�,,u�
���
- Project Address:��.cn ayf,
The following requirements apply to the project
1 ,�_ A property boundary survey sha11 be preformed by a licensed land
surveyor. The survey shall show a11 property lines, property corners,
easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the
building pernut issuance.) �,fyL� -� p�i �, tg
2 '3! The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to
drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit
issuance.) D,¢.�„s,a� �� Cs 1����'�kK � .
3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for
approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
5 � A sanitary sewer lateral t�t is required for the project in accordance with
the City's standazds. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.)
6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis
shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any
sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. �
8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project.
9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should
identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City
Engineer.
10. The project sha11 file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The pazcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements,
monuments, and new properly and lot lines proposed by the map.
Page 1 of 3
U:�private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
. ,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map
for reviews.
12 Map closure/lot closure calculations sha11 be submitted with the parcel
map.
13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
14 _�_ T'he project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
; appurtenant work.
15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan.
16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause
adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic
and public on street parking. The project sha11 identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic
calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year
flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements.
18 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State
-, Depaztment of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 No construction debris sha11 be allowed into the creek.
20 ,�_ The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to
prevent storm water pollution.
21 � � -- - -L---- • - -- - �-
�.� �� ovlc�tnfl� �ryt7Pt1�7va
�*pp ncina t[i ���lPn +��P ���•Q•- �; Any widening of the driveway is subject
to City Engineer's approval.
22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans
showing the driveway profile with elevations
Page 2 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
t.
� r r
' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach sha11 be at least 12" above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm
water from the street into private property.
24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle sha11 be placed in front. The
� sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the
property.
25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 24, 2003
3. 1449 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK
ROBERSTON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CON BROSNAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report November 24, 2003, with attachments. Plnr Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Staff noted that the applicant
has applied for a building permit for the detached garage proposed with this project in hopes to complete
excavation prior to heavy rains. Code section 25.57 for design review does not require design review for
detached garages. Commissioner noted that the residential design review guidelines state that detached
garages should match the house. Staff explained that applicant is encouraged to match the garage materials
with the house, but under current regulations that the applicant can pull the permit for the garage without
Planning Commission approval since it complies with all zoning code requirements. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson , 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, project designer
was available to answer questions. Commission noted that plans show the irrigation is shooting out, should
not be routed that way, also need to look at irrigating the parking strip. Gave applicant clear direction, have
not addressed concern expressed about mass and bulk, gave applicant hard numbers to reduce project, still
have two story walls except at the front, what was done other than take off the top of the roof. Mr.
Robertson noted that during the study meeting the north elevation was of most concern, design reviewer
suggested pulling out wing wall to break up profile, changed trim from vertical to horizontal, added rock
band around base at the front to reduce vertically, roof changes, large house with small footprint to keep
garden and rear yard areas. If reduced 10% would mean loosing a bedroom, other houses on this street are
the same size or larger, size is relative to the rest of the neighborhood. Commissioner stated that the front
elevation has character, why didn't design carry stone base around to other sides, looses charm on sides, and
did you look at using other material on chimney. Mr. Robertson noted that there are shrubs to be planted on
the north side that would cover up any stone finishes and that the rest of the house tapers to finished floor
elevation, did take designer reviewer's suggestion to lower height of stone on wall. Initially drew up
chimney with stone finish, however everyone thought that it looked too massive and bulky. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Can't support, gave clear direction to reduce floor area by 10%, design emphasizes
mass and bulk with two story walls, concerned with large stucco building with composition roof, no quality
materials, could be better proj ect; not concerned with floor area ratio, needs to alleviate materials, too much
stucco, can do better, do not just reduce 10%, need more change in materials, follow through good design on
front fa�ade to design on rest of the building, concerned with design not size; this designer and building can
do good work, as said at study concerned with design not size; front has charm, big, blank, boxy sides, might
help to reduce first floor plate from 10' to 9', have seen house close to maximum floor area ratio that do not
look big, need to articulate, fa�ade on all sides looks like a big box; height from grade is 25'2" when you add
grade difference to top of curb 7'8" you can justify special permit for height.
C. Osterling moved to deny without prejudice, and directed the applicant to come back with a revision
incorporating the suggested changes. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 5-0-2
(Cers. Keele, Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m.
3
01/68/2664 12:51
- A rchisectt
656-579-6115
TRG ARCHITECTS
�esign Revi�ew Comiaaeats
City� af Bu�r�iuugame
Date: January 06, 2QQ4
�� ca�o�
ci� o����g�
Spl Prirnrose Roa�d, $urling,a�me, CA 94010
Re: 1449 Cabrillo A've.
�VII�': CO]U, ��OSIlA11
Desi�cz: Mark Ztobex'tson
�'lanner: Catb�ez1ne Barber
I�,revxousky revi,ewe.ci this px�oject and it was xesubz�ted to the Pla�r►g Commissian
where, it was dez�uied without preju�d�ce. The applicaxa,t then re�uested that t�ae design
revxew �roe�ss be eoz�tiaaued to furEher rev�se � project. .A.�ez� zx�eetiog and ciiscussiu�g
add'rtional modifxca�ions, the app�Zca�at �rived at the cime�ct solution.
PAGE 62
RECEIVED
JAN - � 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Revisions to desi�gn inch�de:
• Floox plan- The xu�ste�r suite area was modi�ted to �roduce ome story offsets fln
bath sides o£tl� house.
� Front e�evation- The sidxug was changed frox� stuccc� to cla�board (all e�evatiox�s).
7'h�e bay wiu�doqv was wi�de�txed to a�nicer propo�on�, a� e�tez�ded �to the ground
witk� a stone base. The windvws above the l�ay were cozabivaed iva'tv a cernered pair
rather t�ax� split �art.
• Rig1rt e�evation (Nort�)- Stvme was caz�risd u�a the front c�nn�y. The familY rooz�a
Bac� of house) fir�place �s gas, so the chimuey was �rez�noved. Also note th� one
story ele,m�ent that b�as been oreateci.
• Rear el�evatiom (West}- The master bedz'oom. and bath wexe zeozga�ai,�,cd to allaw
for the bedroo� wiuxdaws to overloak the backyard; greatly increasung the g,laze�
area abp� tla,e �imily roo�auu daoxs. Not� th� �ox�s#ory elex�ae�,ts.
• Left elevation (South)- The ston�e base has beem cax�ied th� length of the hot�se.
The s�al� r�dows in the kitchen have been r�vised �to l�rgex wioadaws. �iote
the one-s�ozy element at the �aitck�en.
�7ESIGN GUIT3ELIl�5:
J,. Compatibi�xty ot the Architecta�x-a� Style wi�th that of th� F.�sting
N�ighbo�oad.
• There is a wide v�ar;�eCy of houses an t�tis block, in terms a� style and size. �e
proposed ho,r�ae wou�d �uot be incom�ari'b18 witb� #}ae �.s�ghborhood.
2. �tespect for Parlting �nd Garage Pattern� iuu tb�e Neigl�bariiood
2D5 Yark Ruad, Suicr Z03, �urlt�ga�„e, CA 96o1U
65�•579.576Z �au 650.379.q113 �ss►m.ttgwcch.com
01/08/2004 12:51 650-579-0115 TRG ARCHITECTS PAGE 03
• T� (XCt�C� �0-C�r $�t�,E 18 CQ'ID�� Wlt� I� �'�', P��' IIl �
n�eigh'bdxhoad.
�. A�itectu�t'al Styie, Mass &�ulk a�'the St�tcture:
. The rev�isi�ons naade to the �vxous proposal have �ooapr,av�d the e�ciutectural
�y1� �d n�ass v£t�+e pnaject- The �o�ssi� h�,s been redt�ced. wi�ki the
i�tmduction 4f the a�st�sy el�m�nts �t thc bac�c of the I�ouae. Tb�e horizonial,
wood sidi�g a�d wiaadQw rvvisiu�na g�.v�e t�e h�ux a xmu�h so�er at�d more
col�esa�+e appsar�, �n,d the hou� appcar� kess vertical.
4. �nte�ce of the Proposed Strnct�re wi�t� the Adj�►ceat StXuctur�s +x► �Sc4
Sicie:
+ 7`�e houses tt� eiihex' side of tY�� pro�osed ho� aare f�tlrly t�rge and tall. T!�
�wey p�ttt� put as much space b�tw� �th�e houaes � ei�her side a�d t�
pt�pgo5ed hoe�se as can r�onably be �d. '�'bee prnpo�ci house wil1 interface
xe�asaaaably we1� wrth its �Iyors.
5. �suds��pi�g a�ad �� proportia�n to t�e Mas� aed S�i� of Strsctmrs!
Companents: us sai an� �eems
•'�e 1�sCaPiu� plan �rem�ins the s��oae as in tbie � pa'4�
to be adeqt�t�.
S��Y
I,n, x�y opi�►n, the applacant h�s made signific,anot revis�� to �: �� a�d buu7iiic a�
t�ue propasal. I l�ed the xevi.s�ad massing wit� thc imradtt+ct�►� of the a�-story elements;
vsr�at X b�}i�ve to be im�mved Pr°po'rt�a"z�s (ba3' wia�d��+a windows �tc. ., a; an�d tlte use of
waod si�di�ng ib lieu o�'slv�co. I support the �ew proFosal � recn� apprav�.
z�y �, ,�r�►
��
�"
� � � � 2004
CI Pi �NNBNG DEPTME
RECEIVED
�
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
October 14, 2003
9. 1449 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK
ROBERSTON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CON BROSNAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked for the heights of the houses at
1444 and 1453 Cabrillo Avenue. Plnr. Barber noted that we would check the files to see if that information
is available and will provide it in the next staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, project
designer, was available to answer questions. Noted that existing house is 14' tall, two bedrooms, one
bathroom, proposed house will be 5 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms. Mark Shih, 1445 Cabrillo Avenue, noted
that had spoken to owner, concerned with two clusters of trees in the rear yard behind current garage, roots
are damaging fence and coming up in his yard, can't grow grass, requests removal of trees. Staff noted that
these trees would be removed as a part of this project. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns with the proposal:
• Provide height of two adjacent houses, 1444 and 1453 Cabrillo Avenue, know this is a sloping lot
but concerned with the height;
• Design is too vertical, need to reduce size;
• Balcony at the front does not fit, would never be used;
• Front elevation is nice design, nicely articulated, but detailing is lost on other elevations;
• Side and rear are two story flat walls, need to break-up mass and bulk, detail the side walls;
• Height is a concern, design has a tall and vertical feel, reduce size of the structure;
• Need to reduce size significantly, suggested that FAR be reduced by 10% to approximately 3,100 SF;
and
• Landscape plan needs more evergreens, bring trees away from the house, to the front.
Chair Bojues made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made; and
return to action after the design review process is completed. This motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Chair Bojues called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to design review with the direction given.
The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m.
10. 1553 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A
GRANGE, TRG ARCHITE , APPLIC
OWNER 47 NOTICE OJECT PLAr
ICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY D ELLING (RANDY
ANT AND ARCHITECT; O MILLER, PROPERTY
C. Keighran sed herself because she lives within feet of the subject property. rooks briefly
presente e project description. Commission ed CA Anderson how this pro� an be analyzed when
ther e still changes proposed on the ad' nt site 1537 Drake Avenue, C derson stated that the 1537
D ake Avenue project is already a ved, this proposal is a separate ect, can request street rendering to
analyze how proj ect will fit ' ith approved proj ect. There we no questions of staff.
12
11/11/2663 16:62 650-579-0115 TRG ARCHITECTS PAGE 02
Desi�u Revie�r Co�nmeats
City o� Burliagame
Date: Novem�b�r 7, 2003
pla�a�aia� Cam�nission
City of Burlingame
SQl �'rirnrose Road, Burlingan�e, CA, 9�1010
Re: 1449 Cabxa�lo Ave.
Ownet: Can Bros,na�1
Desigr�er: M�rk R.obertson
Plax�: Catheritt�e Ba�tber
� b.ave visited the s�te and surrou�adivag area I review�ed the oriu� 1 subnmss�az� to the
P� Co�nmission, and tb�e Planning CoAa�000ssit�n's comments �s �resented "m the
meetiug mmutes. I z�et wxch the owner ar�d d�sign�r about t�e p�oject and we discuss�d
�kb.e Piar�ning Com�ission ram�ents a�zd ways the plau mi,gk�t be revised, I revxewed a
second set o£pla�s that incorporated a first rou�d of r��risians, and �aade additionai
co�zts. � did not review a fin�a1 iull set a��revi.Sed Ql,ans but asstune that th�e iaxed
sk�c�s are z'epxesented in the�.
Revisions to desigp in�clude:
+ k'loor plan- The floox ar�ea has been redutced by 113 squaze feet. This was
a�ccomplished by slicing a�oot v�a£�: right side of the hous� all the way dqwn
on botb� �evels.
• Front elevatxozz a horizontal band was added to �th� � side at the �.00r line; t11e
ba�cony was lengirb�e�o,ed to bet�ter relate to tbu� roo� geometrY upvn which it sits; a
ston� b�se has been brouglit up the wall, wluala adds a k�orizontal element an�d
grounds the hause somewhat; The roaf height has been �oweired a lrit moze iry
i�nGreasi�g th�e flat �ea 4n top-
• Righ�t elevation (�To�'tb.}- The stone b�se at�d �rim: band at the secoz�d �oor line
have been �d.ed to break u� the vv-a?� mass and visually reduce tt� verticairt3 , The
chnoa��ys b�av� been n�owed as the rise u�; which �t'�ed.uc�s � massiveness of
their pte�rious look; The �aiad-eaerratinn two story �ratn�sion has been ru� ta the
gronnd and wide�ed to a nicer p�raporti�on.
• Rear elevation (W�st)-'T'he n�aster bat�room and closet a�rea �ias b�n o�et fro�m
th� wall below (overhang) to break up the mass; the ov�ezbang t�es iu�n wxth ttze
horizantal tria�a ba�ad. '�'he glazed area ha.s been increased on t�ae ser,q�,d }�oor, and
a s��all roof covex �as been added, to tb,e xear �wall ov�r the Frez�h c�,00rs.
• Left Elevation (South)- Th�e horizo�ta� bao�dazig and stvne base k�ave been adde�,
wbule the vertical co� trina has beea� rem�ved; this gives a less v�x-tical �ook to
th�e b�ovse.
11/11/2003 16:02 650-579-0115 TRG ARCHITECTS PAGE 03
pESIGN GLTIDET.IN�S:
1, Cvrio�p�tibi�Uity of the Architectural5tyle with that of the E�istiug
Newg�bo�ovd.
• Th�re aze a w�ide �iety of hauses on this block, isa tarn�.s of style and size,
The proposed home woulti not be mcompat�ble witth the neighborhood.
2. Re��ect for Parl�ng and Ga�age Patterns in the Neighborhood
• The detached two-car garage is com�aat��b% with the parkiz�g �atterns in the
�tei�.borhood. '
3. Arc�i#ectu�a� Style, �as� � Bulk of the Structu�re:
• The revisions m�ade tr� tbie ia�tXaa p�oposal bave impmved the arclutectuxa�
stylc and m�ss of fihe pzoject. More of the articulation �kb�at was iz�ittialty found
omZy o�u the froirt elevation bas been pulled arotmd �tk�e house. As a resutt the
stxucture has a better cohesav�eness at�d a�ara less vertical and less massiv�e.
4. Interface of the Prnpo�ed Strwuture with the Adjaceiat Stra�tures to Eaeh
Si,de:
+'�'b,e hauses ta either side of the proposed house axe fair�y Large and tall. I
suggest that this house be c�oser in height to the shorter of tb� tvw neigb�l�o�'s.
The dri.veway pa�e;rps �aut as mwch spaoe as between � houses to e�ther side
aud the pxo�osed house as can reasan,ably be b�d. �ze proposed house will
i�terface reason�b�y w�e�.'�vi.th'rts neighbors.
5. Land�capang a�d it� prnportion to tb�e �ass a�ud �nik o�Stracturai
Co�m�onents:
. I no�ted that there was a Co�naaaxssio:�er �r�eq,uest �or revision to the lantlscape
plan. The trees vu�exe moved forward away from the house. It does �ot appe�r
tbiat �o�re evexgxe�ns hav�e been added. Qv'erall, the l�dscapir�g does a
reasonable job Qf "framioag " tb�e b�ouse atad. ogering screeaing for the
neighbors.
SUNIIvIARY
Tn additian to the Desit�a GwideXivaes zeview, I reviewed the list of Planning Commission
comm,�nts fior the desxgn z�eviewer in th�e Plan�er R,eport and note t,�e �o�ow;�n�g:
• We �wera provided with a survey of t�e adjacent hvuse b.ei�g�s as zec�uested.
Those heigltts ca�n be corr�ared to the �ro�osed hause's avezage top �f cw�b,
�d t,�e;refore its ridgeline, but cannot be compmred ta their owu average to�s
of cuzb, wbac�, with the street sloping, may be a better way to judge the
height. in terms of ridge �.ea�t, the �ro�osed I�use is s,ligi�itly sharter thau the
house on the left a�d se�exal fvek hxgher them the house on the right. As
�reviously stated, w�e w�ouad xecommend th�t fihe proposed house be clas�r in
2
11/11/2003 16:02 650-579-0115 TRG ARCHITECTS PAGE 04
heigi�t to the sha�te�r of its neighbors, but t� coxn�ari.gon shauld be madE
based on the ne;ighbor's b�e�gb�t above theit' o�m average top of cuurb.
•'�'b�e horizontal lsat�ding, affsets, and stone b�se redu�ce the visu,a� vez�ca�f,y of
the house.
• More azt�culation h�s bcen casried around the b�o,�se.
.'�►e size of tk�e house bas been reduced, but not by th�e Plannamg Co�ooa�Yission's
suggested lQ%. I uoted thai it i� diff�cu.� to see w�ere the �quare fiaotage was
taken ou# when compariwg � currexrt �laas and e�evati�ons to the previous
ones. '�'b�e a�glicant has indicated tbat £ut�Cher floar axea reductio� r�vould be
d�cult to sccomq�lish.
As state,d above, � couldn't compare the project xxdge height to th� neighbor's rvdge
heights as they relate #o tb�ei� own tops of curb elevat�a�s. This naay watxant additia�.aX
c�az�ication, but xbe ridge lias boen lowered by a cou�le of feet since the inutsal submittal.-
I also suggested that tb�e designer a�dd additional detail� to th� front porch colu�n�s, add
a beam etc... Wi�h those itebas iuci �vnd, I$nd that the r�evised plroposal has moved i� the
�gl�t dsrection, xes�wnds to most of the P1a�oui�g Commission's co�nc'.erns as out�ed in
the meeting minutes, and � support the des�gm revisians. I£iad the revised overall
appeara�n�ce of the strucivre to be moz�e cok�esive as well as less vertical.
Randy Gz'ange, ALA,
�
�
i
�
MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o
i i i7 � i�nn�
i ii i�i�.vv
�'.�'€�: ��� € �� � 4���,
BURLINGAME , CA. 9401 �
- : . -_ :_ .3� Q� ������ ���I��S -
REDUCED FLOOR AREA '
We were asked to reduce t}ie }iouse floor area to tie rriore cotripa�itile witti street — l"v°io
�vas s�g�es#�d. C3t�r-�e�v �rl�s i��x�e-a�ed�c#�er�-�f 1-� �-s:#: #o �he �i�c3tise. "1'his
��������:�. �o--2,44� �:� €�l�owa��c�-}v��Fe 3,020 s.�' �'.�A.R.
is allowed. We felt that reducing our project any further would compromise our design
�'F��-�� �o�e�e� s��l� a�g �� l�€. The Pl�nning
Staff provided us with these F.A.R. comps. for other houses on our str�et:
�4� � €��a- �,4?2 �€ �AR
1456 Cabrillo ------- 3,394 s.f. FAR
�'� .€a�a- �;-?89-s:€. FAR
1468 Cabrillo ------- 3,419 s.f. �'AR
���� ot� p�apesa�- i�-i� ssa� t-e-��s- s�rro�.i�d�ng houses, and that requiring us to
reduce our plan further would not be allowing us parody with our neighbors.
� S' C' S !' � G� CSY�' �G � C� L., � � � •
� 1� 1$weF�d-h"'� k�«�� h3�-3'— 4" �a3-?'_ ��'- o�€ ���ag€ t-e�a of curb. �l�Ve
match the height of the house to our south +/-, and are 1 ft shorter (+/-) than the housA +�
�-���o�'�O� �as�rr-��e��-�dd�d-t� plans-�r�st-�d �y A�. Grange.} Please
review our Street Profile Drawings on PG. # 5.1. It shows that we have set our building
�� tat�e tange� pe��- be�w€��- ��s�ja��� l�o��- V�� fe� ��a� ��-was a pleasing
profile for the stre�t.
'Fe-� t� ve�isa�-�d-��a�pea��e w� 1�� � s�v��a��l�ings: The rnid-
elevation two-story protrusion on the North side has been enlarged and now extends
2.5�: €�e�-t#� �: 'F�v�i�-b�� k�r-��x� t��e�-t� fas� o€th� 1�ouse. V1�g l�€
918 E. GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (Q50) 571-1�99
also reducsd the size of the chimney stack5 and addsd a hori�ontal band to the wall to
�avv�F t� a�ar-a�s� e� �� house.
Various other revisions were made to the plans, but these have been covered in Mr.
�ge��etteF of 11-17. .
LANDSCAPING REVISIONS
We have pulled the (2) trees forward in the front yard as suggastsd and have added (2)
������o ����i sid�-yard €e� additioxal scree�ing as wa-s �se sugg�st�d.
Mark Robertson
��.�.
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.or�
��, CITY ��
�.��E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
�'�,..o �'
�,.
Type of application: Design Review � Conditional Use Permit Variance,
Special Permit�� Other Parcel Number:
Project address:
APPLICANT
Name: ��}�11� �U1�J'��f�,�
Address: °IJ� E r �='1�/U� ��--� •
City/State/Zip: �7�4n� l�7KfT�(�_ vft, %��
Phone (w): ���0� �7j — 11 Z-��
(h): ��) ��71 � 1 I ��
(fl� ��v� 57l - I�cl�j
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: V4� (�— —
Address: �'%f� L � �Qi9/l"1j" �L �
City/State/Zip�/V iVi� : %i�'��
Phone (w): ���>�%/ —f iZ�
(h): ��z�� �%! — / /Z�
(fl� «�Z�� �7l - /�I�`
�
Gc�w� �c-€�-��y
�
G .
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: �/l1 ��/Uf%/�
Address: � 1�,Q�/L.-�-� �-4'i%
City/State/Zip: �� {'���-�.L'�. � . ����
Phone (w): �� a�1, , "— ��-�
(h): -r.�-'l4�w� c
(fl� N��
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
����`.. ��� 1 �SU�, �_,
�4�'� � �'-��'t�� �/ �iv
Jf�2�c � i
► 2 -s�/�
�� �
6�� �f4 �� "- ' �
A FADAVI /SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and correct to the best of m knowle ge and belief.
Applicant's signature: Date: � � U�
,,
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
Property owner's signature: �/)� I'2 Date:� is �Z� �
�� S i f r•'•r .� iv�
Date submitted: ° `' � "'° � ' �° �- � ~"
;�=P � �; ?_Q03
c i i�r � �:._ , ��G'''���FxNt
F'��;i�����v�a DENi.
Sep 08 03 07:30p
City of Burlingame Planning Department
���rr i
� cicrt+`��
�i ��
Mark Robertson 650 342-3305
501 Primrose Road P{650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www•burlinttame.oi�e
��r
The Planning Cammissian is required by law to make ftndings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in makin8
the decision as to whether the findings can 1�e made for your reques� Please type or write neatly in ink.
Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
I.
�
p.2
Explain why the blettd of mass, scale and dominant structurul characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the
exisNng street and neighborhood fN��
r rfE DON}1 iV lq �!T NG�S� �TYLE , jN r�U��. IYEI�H80'RND�
��rE.�.� PI TGf��D Fs. S�M��.��r_ y d6L2 D���IG,I�( �5
ASrunlc FoR AN $�'2 12..� 200� �tTcN, 1�NY7lflN�i L�5 Tff��nl
7µJS )S L�SS �/1 V l� LL J A�P�9UN ��?.
ALso �U rz r�i �s�..o�Es u p AND 7��E Low�sT vd� c�lN l���c
ovrt � F ► S 7- �3 0�� s�-:� �vR��. �1 � ASK. r-oR �4 �6
Nc�ry.H i uMrt -ro �W r-orz �rNrs ,���p� �tio�7�o�,
n[or� :-rN� �►�HT oF rf5�. Is �S -« �� �e�►sv�� r-�+oM FF,
Explain how the variety of roof line, jacade, exterior f aish materials and elevations of
the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street
and neighborhood �
�5) ��iDusEs oN swM�. ST�r' R� 3� ��vE SiR� �v�.
GAV 5�D c7 N�v{Z �PIN�� � S�TR �� .�'" rl°� �� 10� I�480V�
(-tOU�S
iOP �F GV� P�EI�lGHW1ARIL �
Dr7i�►! N�N i NO!/S� �Y(..E (N ►V�i �n N�1P...�-fOOD NA�3 ��
#� r TGNED KC� �S �, �7U 2 N�( G,1� � i� ELE V, ��C7V 1 I�S V5 "1'0
KC.� cl�sr ,�ST[-�� ( �� D I�G�.�'mt?' > �f�� w lr ��i7�` �(� � f�' ��H�%
I-1AV� �
3. How will the proposed project 6e consistent with the residential design gutdeltnes
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)?
O V� �-�s � N M►4i"GHES ;� s�nz�T�=.. =� ��w��,�nt wl�
N114ic.c-�(nl� �� ��GKS � DWSI�w:aY t..Ocrc�^ro(t(.
QV{� 6VlL�Df YYC I�J�M 15 Cc�N51 ��'1'I�N'� 1Nlb�-/ TJfG
�� Gt � N6owZNCX�D.
4. Exptairi how the re►noval oJany trees located within tlie footprint of any new strucdtre or
addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requ�rements What
mitigation is proposed for the removaC of any trees7 Explain why this micigation is
trppropriate. ND PROi�?IN1��TR�-S sHracL gE:= �dV�}� P�Yi.ii7
r� ��va�2 i7a� �-au_ 13� , 7N� Tv�s -�Nac� � PiE �PL►�}� SPECPERM.FRM
�j�`rN �1 NESN�:I Lr�n�.bSGw.AED LOT L.� G N� W T�ES �
�O NEW SMRVL3S TO Gon�PUK1vtiGNT THr� �vEw NoVs�.
MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o
���i�����, _� �'_r_�—'-_�__��.� � �
� � ������ ������
�` � � � _�� �s�:�;i��i�
�� �� �-�������Q-�
We are proposing to construct a new house at 1449 Cabrillo Avenue in Burlingame. The
�g� i�� �-��e� s�e�3; ��� �l��d�ched
single-car garage. This 1250 s.f. residence and garage are to be completely removed to
��f����iouse.
'�'�������st�; ������, s�� �-v����0 s.f.
detached, two-car garage. The new house will have five bedrooms and five bathrooms.
�e� a� ��� � �g b� � � l��q ��am �� cuPY
the second floor. The first floor consists of a bedroom with bath, a living room, d}ning
F�; f�€� �������:�1i.
The new house is designed in the Queen Anne style with 8 1/z-12 roof pitches and gutter
v�� � vt����s���� � -�#b�t�in
redwood 3'/4 inch stucco molding. The roof shall be "ELK" — Prestique/30 composition
F�.�t����s������ ���s��s�e=i�t is
the predominant house style of the neighborhood, and feel our proposal will look terrific
i� i�s�dings.
' 2fl��-v€���r���si��x-�forti�€-�o car
garage to be cut into the hillside at the rear of the lot, and seven existing trees are
p�a���b�-�oved.
'�-�vr��-6� =�3F�€�-� �w
landscaping will include the planting of six new trees, and approximately si�y new
� �� �����������.
This project will also include a new concrete driveway to replace the existing drivew �$ ,•� -�
a�#��€ k�� �-s�-��i�-i�� ', , - a.
� �.__ h..., _. �
-�� /' SEP — 8 2�iu3
� ��
, l���l� ��� ci�l-v o� �_�:�.����� �,��,:;ra,��E
� � PLF�''�'itdil':!�� DEPT.
—240 LORTON AVENUE, SUITE 1, BURLINGAME,CALIF. 94010 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 342-3373 • FAX: (650) 342-3305
�,t,b c'T" o�, CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Bl1RlJN�.AME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�b.. �o ��•''� TEL: (650) 558-7250
Site: 1449 CABRILLO AVENUE
Application for design review and special permit for
height for a new two-story single family dwelling at:
1449 CABRILLO AVENUE, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-
042-210).
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on Monday,
January 26, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Councili
Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, �
California.
Mailed: January 16, 2004
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTIGE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A copy of the applica '��t �t ay be reviewed prior
to the meeting a la ' D pa�ent 1 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, Cal' ����
; � �, � �
If you chal ge t � �e�t � lic�#�o ���'� ��, u ma be limited to
raising onl hos ssues `�iou or��+�rr��n"�� �� ed a he blic hearing,
,.,.. , � .�_,
described i t ' c���� �,� ri t.: � � e d to the city
at or prior t t
� � �. � � �� �� � � � �
Property o ers 'o_ r� �� i � t'
tenants ab t thi nofi
558-7250. ank u. � . � � .
���� �� �
� •
� '
Margaret o�� � ��
City Planner �
��`� ����� � ,
PU��L . p��,�i
(Please refer to other side)
��f � #:
�
ming their
call (650)
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW
AND SPECIAL PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
desi�n review and a special permit for a new single family dwellin�,at 1449 Cabrillo Avenue;
Con Brosnan General Contractor, propertv owner, APN: 026-042-210;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
January 26, 2004, 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:
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, 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.
2. Said design review and special permit are 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, , 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 26`h day of Janua .ry 2004, by the following vote
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permit.
1449 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective February 5, 2004
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped January 9,2004, Sheets 1 thru 6, site plan, floor plans, roof plan and
building elevations; with a maximum floor area ratio of 3,301 SF;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, 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;
3. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, Recycling Specialist's, Fire
Marshal's, City Arborist's and the City Engineer's September 15, 2003 memos shall be
met;
5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height;
6. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury;
7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance
of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project
has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before
a Building permit is issued;
9. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
��, . �,; � ��,�' �€s , y" a^. . .i� _ �"'��` � d � ��� � �:a �" ,�r �, ��
�� �,� � `. �, r [� � �� f� � a.�s, � :
.v �
` , �� . �
+ �� '
.p , � r
r `�: � `i
� .: , <� �, � : � " � .
.
.
' ,�e
f �. � � • �`4� "y ' :� °"y.��.., "* ' _� ���
�� � .. - - � ` af � y�, �
, .
° " ` � � � �� �5� ��X � �� R ��
" V ' � .k '4Y � %�
� �
` 1 X'. .{ 3 �� '"Y
OYt ` •
, r 2� • .
f� '. c. . r "s3 a,3
� ; '�`.y� 1. ' � ` 4 l' � ♦ §� � �F
, ` � � � 4 a�� *' `, � �yr �� v,l ��'�".`- *� �mz' �� �, � � � � 1`� ..
��fi�� ,�� �,„ r� _ t „�'� � ,� � �* � � � ".
���. c. „�Mt} � �� �4 .a� �' s ��. �..,� �.� �� �'�Ak�w�..
.., .
, q
, � �'a � «
, . .
a'p . � `�`r.� t � f, � % � � `� a �� � .� �^�,�;. .' `` � ♦
� �
. : . �,
, *, � � � � �
. .
� � ��
�� `� ,% _ .;� 3 � � '� � �� ��, '� � �" '� ti�, 'k�ro�'� -� �
�. �
..0 a , �r . ,
' ' ' .. ,�;�`�� 6 4 � "`e � i
� � . , ' . . '�,,,., ." - , '
.
„ .
� � , � : �,$4t� g, : . k'i �.. .� Is -
m
a . � ' . :�
_ '�x � � ., �<; • i
.' `
� � ,�j'��'�2YC��+, �} ,. N
,(��+�, � �. X
r � � ,
�. y �j . . � Ya» yP'r' `� i ' 'f - i'' ' � a/
�` "�.�,�'¢" � �: . � �
& .h•. X '4 .i a-'y� �s,� 5. . J .Y `�"fk ,` S ,�,t/ $� �� � � � "�. ;✓ �,. ,3,..
� "� �` �� �,`, � . � `�� �� �+� s .
W, ,.,�/'�` , _ �t� i � i,�. �_ �sr :a� �p �% , :. t
i ���.` '�a= '�Lk �..,a,� � ,-^ ��� � a* #. � �`" i , ��AI s �. . ^ �B
� � � "� '� � " r �` �iyr� a r � i �.ru
^'� ���� �,�' ` ",� � r�' � ! � .
•�� `� " f���t_ � i��. � ��_" ,,�� k �r�i� • � ,h �4 � a' \�_ � �t �e^,
7 ��I 4,���, K�@, ti ,i" .���.t - . ' �� p �� w k +
� , � li "" J `"`� ." � �„, � � �� � 'd1 �' `;=�p,� �
.
, . , ,
.
;
� �'" � �\„
, ° �� � � �! , � �� i� �' � �� f t � �''
� -� � .,
.
� ��.
'� `�
•,
� � , � ...+ �'` F* ��, �. ,`� '�6'� `�
' �,.`
,
• A�
�'� •} / - r ". •� � �
`m
� ��� �' �� �4. . r,, � ��.�.�,�
�.
�
� � - r �,
�� �� �� E ���s� �P` �,, °¢�-� y, , � �,
" � . t ,� �• �"� � � ' �� � ° 7� �� � � • . • • � .
- O �a � �.. 1 �r . � 3 .
l� Y d`t M y 1:.�.' � �� vro ��rr :`R
�;Y� f, �P� �a ♦ �ts ,� �' a �� � �, �r 4 `. e � � - s*, �y., 'y, �
h rd, �'Y. '� ��„ f�.,y � �� � �,, 1 ` � ' / � .
ad '� y � _ f �.' 8� ;" � 'i4.� ` `!. � � p �'� �`" ' y
< � �, , y � �� '�^, � �- '�'�'; ,+� � .,y�, F �. � * .yj; � r� � � � �� �
"�" � � � �•• 'y, L. .�'''" - r" ' � � � � i ,.
�1� "� '�.`g.,� �'"* "rn�'�' ' 'yr �r..,.� ... ".; r.��': . �., �Y 4e �
� � . �,,, '� � �.
��� ••l �� 1' -�'ti � � ��'' �► �+iC' e ��� � x ,' �+ ♦ ` �'�n � �e � ��' w'�.'' � k�^i ��
�'r � €�. ✓ � i '�;,� ��r �� � •+ . % � y��� �
�
�`� ` � " ° � ,'r• 1� +��':
r ti 3'„ ''�: �d � �.t,.- , � gr . �." t�. $� a � # � r "s'
f,' .r � : 'F .� t4 �
y ��`� ���*� ,� � .�� ��� ,�� ' �� � e,y + ' �� r � � �'��r. ,�� k.�� , � �
.-
, . , ,
,
� ��y, � � y � . c � � , ,� ". " �'� � � ` � � � �
_ � ��`�'� d �` �` 5 � � 4r`} � � t� r � � .
. , � � �� �z �, � ,�• ��� � � > �" �i=
G �,, s
��t - � 1� ... � ; � ..
� � . , .; y '''^. �� . ,��. �� � � � �, I ���.� �. �. � � �_
�
��� � � � �� �j� 'g�k} � �,f .d, 4'�r5' �..m..�'�' . ���a^ �^� �� F°"l • � k . �- ,
i i , •� o v� • �y� ♦ 3
: r .
y, •'� � � ' �i /� I yy
�
t �jr
� ' !., ` *'~C , l� ' �+'ai. .r. 4 � �4 � �� � °1y�p��� ti'l .y
��-
4 •-
.��" � h� �. ..." /�Y, � ��p �µ •I' ^� T � �Tin
r
r -� ' II k� / ��� - �
v .
,�
,
�(",�, .- '�,d . a`",�Y.,� ' �'x�? � L z.,,, i � _�` . �d ���tl
y �Y ' .
� �,� � �" �. � � �� � ��a, , � � � �r� � ._
_ ,
� . . , ,
: ..
,
r.. . , , � ,,:, � : 3, ��
..
,
, . .. ��
,`
.
���� � � � `°` '� �'s`'�-� � a � ��< � ` °.�`;rr.
., . . , . .f , �,,�
. � ���..
. ,. � . � "r,� e,. ... ,�'� �' � � �� •�" � 4 �* "'�`
..
,� � �� � r� ��
r . , �,., � w •� • _
�_ , � � �r�� • �� s;: � �
, r
.
tr `;�� , � � `s� ,~ r� '� w ,�' � � — , . � "
,
„,
' T
F- wp
���,,��v� �^ � z�, �a ,� . _ �nA � ' �,�`", ,� � ��
,
�
��� �•� ,,� ���i 1460 x ` '�' � 449 ', "' ;
�, `M �Y � >; �� � 1 =�`� ��i�,�,•� �
� �
.
.. , , 5 , , -
�_ ��.� �� • , r�,; ,�� . `
� , °c ��, 'e�,. � "� -�, ,
�,
� � ; �3 �. �� �. � ° , �� � ' n,, r`� � A `,,�`�,�, ,
d_ , , ,
�
,�
� : �i ' � � '+� , .� rr � ..
. l' s h ' � � . ���'vFr �' +°�i /• �"�,q r � ��• �
.
,� � � kr �
:
�,. � .
�� � :
.. . .
<
t� �.. ` �'� • * �� �' .�;�. � 'y. - t�
� , j a; « • f , *
�' ,�' � ..,� . r . . � s � . � . . �
_
' s F
/ " ,� � � � � �' �` * s �� � 'b
�
�
` _�" `�' � °�,'.�
_. , � r _. ti =;�` � �: �'�" �� � , s
,
.: ,� , . �s
u;
t'. Y
j �� � - ... �- �t �..
��,r �. � t �� » �� �s� - w 1� . i,,.',, �� �, �,-
-y, a*:' v
..� . ' "'', ' . ,� .
. '�M� 3 �„r.: � . �i �a . t . � '� '� h
. , ' K �`�, a nr � �c5 Y
. -:. � .. �;t �
�� _ ,,.`. �rp s�-. � ..6. . „� C +.�.
�: ., � � ei ,^ � 5 ��
. �
� , �
,�y �- � . �W � , , � �I� � , ".y � f _ �
.
,, � �y�, � ., - g{� � ., � �� ��
� ��P � . � , , ' �. . . � � �
a '§ � .; .... b' � i � WM � �`.. `�id) g 46"' + {�A /
� s,} , .t-,�':7r . . ' ,.� .� {.�,� + .�." � � @' '�"
•�� •
Y�� �
. . � , rt : , : � � . _ , : . , / •�>�� . ,y
�� ��a. �pr. �� �. ��t n.. _ ,� aa�' y�s . r � '' �
, .
� ✓'2, � � � ���.w� � i ` '�+
�� ��,
t°`�¢ '. ,P"> - t�j � r � � � Jr . ".�, � �ry� � `f .� . r; :.f�
!� t :' p � � � �ta. ��" a `�� ;,�;` r .% � � i � �r.�„� ^°x��.w �"�,. . -. �..'�
a , � A
. � �
.
. .- $
5 , ; •y, .�}- � ,t; �i ;� z�. _A°F �t: �'`- �t � � �, ' �. !�!!�
` � Y
` �
` •. ..� r fi f .'���A Y � �� � .
,.
� . \,. � � r
* g � a ..�a . .�#.. .5 �
J�i
� � � . � . .. �.�.
.� �' � *, � � �`� w , '� �'�.'� �
{� �''"'�`, "r ' � ?�. � �'x,�;' � � � � � � ; r
�. e , h �, �,';�, �e r,'.�� , � .� � .;,.
,
�
.a� � , � .rf.�� � � �` �:. ��� \r �� ` ;_� �.¢`� � :- �. �. i�a ��� � < .
.��' k�* �, � q� � � +A �• � �x�' � ��� ��� ;.� � r �r
�� �'� �'� �` '�
f�« � ..
' ..
a
t e� -.,� '. .,�,y t' �,. � �
.3,.r . .q .�. �, '� :�' ,�,,. �` , ' �"',`. � � � .
.t .
.
, � -1
�
, � � ��� �i
r �� �� ,i ` ��
� «, .. . . C � �%` � �' �+I � �: � `t<
. . T. � ��r+., 1, �. t l'
� � � ,%�« � � " � � � � � � '� �' r �>� §�
i;3 +�,'; � � � L 2 � �� . �.�� � k FG.
.'�';� . .'�b � � .:� :,"t . , . v� � '"t° :
�`
City of Burlingame PZanning Commission Minutes
January 26, 2004
Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance
1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 12) that the
project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended
by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Vistica
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:21 p.m.
4. 1449 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK
ROBERSTON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CON BROSNAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report January 26, 2004, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Cers. Brownrigg noted he
was absent at study meeting, wishes to abstain on this item.
Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, project designer, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo,
took ideas from action meeting, changed rear design, added single story element, changed finish from stucco
to lap siding. Commissioner noted that at the last meeting applicant was asked to reduce FAR by 10%, not
just change architectural elements, although concern was also expressed about the mass. Have been through
this design review process two times for this project, floor area was reduced on first round; when bought
calculated on using standard code allowable FAR, at the last meeting some Commissioners thought FAR
was o.k., so thought 10% reduction was a suggestion. This is a basic five bedroom five bathroom house,
hard to reduce, but changed stucco to siding to reduce the mass and not have so much stucco. Commission
asked applicant to explain what else was done to reduce the mass. Applicant noted that first floor element
was added on the north and south elevations where the original plan had two-story element on the north and
south elevations, stepped back the sides of the house. Commission commented that every bedroom has a
bathroom and that the square footage has only been reduced by 40 SF, but that the mass and bulk has been
broken up. The back of the house was re-designed and resulted in a 40 SF reduction. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Cers. Vistica arrived 7:32 p.m.
Commission discussion: Sheet 5.1 shows the proposed ridge height in relation to the two adjacent houses,
appears to fit in with the neighborhood, would like to see this type of drawing on all plans; project has been
redesigned to break up large flat surface, rear has a lot of interest; why are there 5 bedroom and 5 bathrooms,
not necessary, has been designed from inside out instead of working from the outside; applicant has come a
long way, design review process works, would still like to see 10% reduction, but they have articulated the
mass; landscape plan lacks large scale materials, front yard two trees are proposed, but Japanese Maple next
to driveway will be small for a while, need larger tree like Evergreen Pear, would fit better with larger tree,
would suggest a second in the front yard; in the back there is a Strawberry Tree proposed, but it is really a
shrub, backyard screening is light, house is large need to see larger plant material; stated at last meeting FAR
was not an issues, applicant has addressed design issues by using clap board siding and stone, better than
stucco, single story element adds articulation, there are plenty of applications with floor area that is not 10%
below the maximum that are approved that don't look massive and bulky, applicant has addressed concerns
4
� City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
with changes; nice front porch, there is a two car garage that is over 400 SF, so the usable floor area is 2,760
SF, size has been reduced, o.k. with project; tough one, bothered by size and floor area, almost at maximum
allowable size despite concerns raise at last meeting, close to infringing on design review criteria to be too
big for the neighborhood, need to bring FAR limit to City Council's attention for discussion; can see
justification for height exception, sloping lot and from rear height is 25', blends with houses on either side,
superficial response to comments; concerns with bulk and mass addressed, two-story walls around most of
house except at rear where single story element introduced.
C. Visticia moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 9,2004,
Sheets 1 thru 6, site plan, floor plans, roof plan and building elevations; with a maximum floor area ratio of
3,301 SF; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, 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; 3) that the project shall comply with the
Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new
construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any
partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 4) that the
conditions of the Chief Building Official's, Recycling Specialist's, Fire Marshal's, City Arborist's and the
City Engineer's September 15, 2003 memos shall be met; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck
inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that
height; 6) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations
and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the
proj ect, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 7) that prior
to final inspection, Plaruling Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details
(trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved
Planning and Building plans; 8) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where
possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that
these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of
the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion
was seconded by C. Keighran.
Discussion on the motion: like clap board siding, still large mass, but made good changes; design review
process works.
Chair Bojues called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers.
Brownrigg abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
5. 1129 CLOVELLY LANE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; JEFF AND DIANE FELTMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report January 26, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration.
5