The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1517 Burlingame Avenue - Staff Report� �;� � _ _. "qw� � ��.<- .. r; ,y�, f tJ-' � � �r : < .'�� 'd.' h� t �.� �., / �a�a�. Z � ��4 �,.. { � .� _ � � � � !�� .�.y—. ��F'�,d1 �.l�� ( �� i- ` a -:y� `�� . .. � '. � . . _� � ,�- � r�� . �� '��` t'� _ ��' k�� .� s ,T.. i' �� 4, � �.:� "!;i. . RS�11. . �e� .�T_ •� � ti � . .�`y� 1 i .; ..'L � 1 N ., �� ` •• � �1 • - �a;1 j^,� A�v..�-✓' 'r �. �� ;� " _ . .. � � � �` ^', =-`+ : .G+�!..:. . '�r: w'�'i" `�r'+^arF�I'C�-M� ..�%` RN. "�=M^wa�,r„�,.y"""S4C� Item # ?i Action Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope Address: 1517 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: OS/29/O1 Request: Design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a second story addition at 1517 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040 and C.S 25.51.010) Property Owner: Roy and Jane Borodkin Applicant/Designer: BC & D APN: 028-285-300 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 8,772 SF Date Submitted: February 7, 2001 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 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. Apri19, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting: On Apri19, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed this project for design review (see attached 4/9/O1 Planning Commission minutes). Concerns expressed by the Planning Commission included the following: • Eaves shown on the right side elevation vary from 3' to 5' in depth; • Window placement needs work; • Fixed windows on the right side do not respond to the first floor; • Need to visually carry pieced of the ground floor up to the second floor to tie the floors together; • Rear section shows varying plate height from 7' to 8'; • • Area around skylight is awkward, try to make a lightwell down to the kitchen by carrying the wall straight across; • Stairway design doesn't seem to work, too tight; • Large walk-in closet contributes to blank walls on the exterior; and • bathroom window is too large, divide up window. Current Project Revisions (May 4, 2001 plans): After the Apri19, 2001, Planning Commission design review study meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans (date stamped May 18, 2001). The following revisions were made: • the addition was shifted to the right, with the rear portion of the second floor aligning with the existing right side wall; • the addition was moved forward 1'-4", • the square footage was reduced by 48 SF; Front Elevation • two front windows have been combined into one larger window; • small window added to master bathroom on setback portion of front fa�ade; • right side eave reduced to 2'-0" to provide a 1'-0" setback from the side property line in order to comply with Building Code requirements; Right Side Elevation � window style changed; • rear portion of addition (master bathroom) aligns with right side first floor wall; Rear Elevation • a third window (walk-in closet) has been added to the rear elevation; Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope • window style changed; 1517 Burlingame Avenue Left Side Elevation • left side wall is now almost completely straight except for a 2'-0" X 3'-7"offset toward the front in the master bedroom; • window style has changed. Summary: The proposal is for a second —story addition at 1517 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing one-story house now contains 2,727 SF of floor area (0.31 FAR), including an detached two-car gazage (732 SF), and has three bedrooms. The proposed 725 SF second floor addition would add a master bedroom, a walk- in closet and a full bathroom. The addition would increase the floor area of the remodeled house to 3,452 SF (0.39 FAR), where 4,307 SF (0.49 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing detached two-car garage would be retained. The garage measures 20'-11" X 35'-0", exterior dimensions, which meets the parking requirement. The garage is accessed via a shared driveway easement with the adjacent property to the west at 1519 Burlingame Avenue. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for a second story addition; and • Special Permit for declining height envelope along the right side of the house (27.41 SF, 2'-0" X 13'-8 %2", along the right side extends beyond the declining height envelope). CURRENT ORIGINAL EXISITING ALLOWED/REQ=D PROPOSAL PROPOSAL (5/4/Ol) (3/23/Ol) SETBACKS Front: Ist flr No change No change 25'-6" 15'-0" or block 2nd flr 40'-4" 41'-8" N/A average 20'-0„ , „ Side (left): No change No c ange 1-3 5'-0" Side (riglit): No change No change *1'-0" 5'-0" Rear: Ist flr No change No change 62'-7" 15'-0" 2nd f1'r 93'-7" 89'-3" N/A 20'-0" LOT COVERAGE: No change No change 33.8% 40% (2,727 SF) (2,448 SF) FAR: 3,452 SF/ 3,500 SF/ 2,727 SF/ 3,458 SF/ 0.56 FAR 0.39 FAR 0.39 FAR 0.31 FAR PARKING: No change No change 2 covered in 2 covered (20'-0" x garage (20'-11" x 20'-0") + 1 uncovered 35'-0") + 1 uncovered HEIGHT: 24'-10" 24'-10" 16'-0" 2 y2 stories 30' whichever is less 2 Review and DH ENVELOPE: Permit for Declining Height Em CURRENT PROPOSAL (5/4/O1) 'Special Permit Required ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (3/23/Ol) Meets requirement N/A 1517 Burlint�ame Avenue ALLOWED/REQ=D See code * Existing nonconforming condition ' Special Permit for declining height envelope on right side (27.41 SF, 2'-0" X 13'-8'/2", along the right side extends beyond the declining height envelope). Staff Comments: See attached. 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: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for gazage length the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) �) (c) (d) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing shucture, street and neighborhood; the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and 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. 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 May 4, 2001, Sheets AO through A9, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; EXISITING 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a Design IZeview and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 1517 Burlingame Avenue 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and City Engineer's February 12, 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: BC & D, designer & applicant 4 ROUTING F6RM DATE: February 7, 2001 TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL ✓FIRE MARSHAL CITY ARBORIST CITY ATTO�tNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB.TECT: Request for design review for a second floor addition at 1517 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-285-300. STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, February 12, 2001 THANKS, Catherine/Erika/Maureen/Ruben/Sean �i l� �O�NI�T�' 2 � Date of Comments �-�U ROUTING FORM DATE: February 7, 2001 TO: ✓CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL CITY ARBORIST CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB.TECT: Request for design review for a second floor addition at 1517 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-285-300. ST.�FF REVIE�,�V BY MEETING ON: Monday, February 12, 2001 THANKS, Catherine/Erika/Maureen/Ruben/Sean 2' /� � ° ( Date of Comments � �n.Qs i' s'�-�► w k � o� �.. p l arim,p . � . ,�e 'Cy (, � h.�es «.n.�t. r � � 1 P �"�' �I � t- tC� . .�..,,.� �u,r,,� ��. l I s�^-� w P� �' c.� wzs w� �'�`'` � '� �; � < <,,.�- � �� ,o�al-�� o �-�s � � � 2 � �'�' �� • � �.n►-o.�-'wf �� v a, i e. s G�.l I�.c� ol�r�� c tr � � sw� , ROUTING FORM DATE: February 7, 2001 TO: CITY ENGINEER ✓CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL CITY ARBORIST CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a second floor addition at 1517 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-285-300. STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, February 12, 2001 THANKS, Catherine/Erika/Maureen/Ruben/Sean / 01 Date of Comments C%Nc�y vtew G�rs14� �`i ��'�`c�o°'' p1z"' / lT S`�?'iir t,vcG� f S ! N a��U�I� ��r�ss r�scve k? l ��ou�s �a--�, ►�� -ocx, 2�O,o�O-`_ `{� �i�- 'Uh6��r'S 1 z�' �v (:ity of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes Apri19, 2001 provided plans are simply manufacturer cut sheets, Planning Commission can not act on these plans, Commission understands this is a small project, however the applicant still needs to provide more detail. Applicant stated that he is very concerned with the appearance of the enclosure and would not add something that would detract from the appearance of his high priced home. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: application is not complete, no idea what this patio enclosure would look like when installed, need site specific information elevations on all sides of the building where addition is visible, purpose of Design Review is to get something that fits with the building. C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. Comment on motion: what was provided at this point to the Commission are not schematic plan drawings; Design Review Consultant should demand site and building specific drawings, elevations shown from all the affected sides; have no idea what is going to be built based upon the provided plans, none of the materials are labeled, photos lead one to believe that the patio enclosure will not look great, project needs to go to a Design Review Consultant. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. , f� 1 t � f Y 3 � :� ; � � : � � � Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a Design Review Consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-2 (Cers. Bojues and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:23 p.m.. 11. 1517 BURLINGAME AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (RAY BRAYER, BRAyER CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER• ROY AND JANE BORODKIN PROPERTY OWNERS ; � a�y�� Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chauman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Ray Brayer of BC & D, applicant and designer, presented the project. He explained that he had learned a lot about process from his previous projects, tried to make this second floor addition compatible with the neighborhood. Commission comments: the drawings still need some work, the eaves shown on the right side elevation vary from 3' to 5' in depth need to be corrected, generally nice looking building, second floor needs some character, asked applicant if he is using asphalt shingles on a 3:12 pitch. Applicant stated that he spoke with a roofer that said he can make it work; second floor has two eyes at each end, match the architecture, window placement needs work, massing is o.k. though; fixed windows on the right side do not respond to the first floor; need to visually carry piece of ground floor up to the second floor to eliminate layer cake effect and try tie floors together, special permit for declining height envelope maybe appropriate to tie the top and bottom together, section at the rear shows varying plate height from 7' to 8', need clearance on stairwell seems tight, may help house and design to call attention to the stairwell on the exterior elevation, building framed axound skylight, might try making that a lightwell , carry wall straight across and make lightwell down to the kitchen; concern with windows, first floor windows (especially right and rear elevations) are nice, much more pleasant to see character added with windows; understand that this is a tough house to add a second floor on, articulation is good, suggest trying to put furnitua-e in the second floor to help you see there is a lot of square footage up there, will also help figure out where the windows want to go, problem in stairway design that will affect uses on second floor, walk-in closet is quite large, may 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes 12. April 9, 2001 become bedroom down the road and it contributes to blank walls on the exterior, if dressing room add windows. Suggest dividing bathroom window which is too large; master bathroom will also have to be reduced to accommodate stairs, diagonal riser is illegal, need 6" minimum tread. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the May 14, 2001 regular action calendar to allow the applicant time to make the above stated revisions. Comment on motion: applicant seems clear on the direction given by the Commission , no problem setting this for action, asked applicant to carefully check all the drawings for consistency with details like eaves before submitting them to the Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar on May 14, 2001, proving the plans had been revised and check for consistency as directed. The motion passed on ��voice vote 5-0-0-2 (Cers. Bojues and Osterling absent).. The Planning Commission's action is advisory an�i�ot appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m.. 1320 DR�K .:. PERNIIT FO: GARAGE (J. AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,E�ND SPECIAL �HT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLIN��G,[�ND DETACHED CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND D S�IGNER; CHI-HWA CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no que ons of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the�public comment. James Chu, appli t and designer from San Mateo, was present to answer any question and to hear any neighbors conce s. � Commission comments: applicant is getting a hang of th esign Review process, designs are progressing, a lot of vertical elements, can you use another materia eside stucco for the chimney, landscape plan is nice and well prepared; height encroachment is mini , would like to see different slopes on chimney- more creativity, add a window in the living room on' e north side, the other side of the fireplace, this would give a balance and add light; more windows ar eeded on the front of the house, only 2 windows on the front of the house, need to open up the hou to the street; concern with chimney, massing and articulation of structure is good, height encroac t is only a small�amount; nice design but left elevation still has a 16' high wall along the properiy li , concerned with impaCt on the neighbor; even though this is adjacent to the neighbors side driveway, e driveway is part of the open space and the wall has an impact on that open space, reduce walls on the ft side elevation; please label the French casement windows; work on softening left side wall. There re no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a�'otion to place this item on the consent calendar for action when the stated revisions have been m�e a.nd plan checked. This motion was seconded by C`:•,Vistica. There ��re no comments on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item calendar or whenever the completed information has been submitted and � Apri123, 2001, consent i by staff. The motion 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P{650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 �� CITY O� BURLlNGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISS��N ��. ua°,•o0 Type of application: Design Review x Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: �L /, �� APPLICANT �� ,�� Name:_�/i�% ��/� ��2 Address: 2 Zg ��T N/-� v.� PROPERTY OWNER Name: 7�� Y� -�i��/� /�,�d�✓�i�tJ — Address: lS � 7 �U� L � �vF City/State/Zip: ��/'� L �� "'� � � City/State/Zip: �l/ i2 �. �/� 9�I �%lG Phone (w): � �� h�: 3�� - o � z 3 (�� 3� 6 ' �0�-.S ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name:�� % Address: 2Z d 10 rC T� /�/ ��/,� City/State/Zip: ��2 �- �ff ��`� Phone (w): ��— /�� ,�,. ��. �� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ph ne�j: � �' l--�. _-. � � � O �: :� j�- ��: Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for RiEpC � I V E D FEB - 7 2001 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. / � / i / � � AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct o th be f my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: � � �� I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Co�nmission. � I ►'1 � I � �O Pro e owner's si nature:�-�� ?a� Date: � p �Y g � �J ✓9'(i(? PCAPP.FRM � �•�� ° ,►:�" �� _'�. ,a'.� `�-� :CLTY ;OF BU�tI��C�A►�!!�;:: : � SPE�� R1�IT: �P��ATION I � The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your reques� Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant strudura! charaderistics of the new construction or adduion are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhoad The mass and dominant strudural characteristics of the planned addition is consistent with both the original archite�tural design of the structure and the architectural design that is dominant in the neighborhood. We have attempted to maintain a"bungalo�' sense by matching the azticulation and detailing of the original structure with the scale of the addition being smaller than the maximum ailowable, but aze large enough to meet both the needs of the Borodkins and blending it into the existing structure. The home, after the addition will fit weil into the neighborhood relaiive to its neighbors, as it is smatier than many of the adjacent two (2) story homes and will look as if it were part of the original structure. 2. Explain how 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 rseighborhood The planned addition compliments the structure's original front elevation by using the same type of windows, wall articulation and facia/trim detai(ing. Its relative size was determined anly after looking at the neighboring properties and discossing with those neighbors it aff'eds on the �tire street. When car�►pl�ed, the addition will look as if it were constructed at the same fime as the original home. It wilI not create view channel or privacy problems nor wil! it cast shadows on the neighbor's homes or yards. 3. How will the proposed projed be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the ciry (C.S, 25.57}? The addition is a continuation of the original design architecture and will not change or mandate the current parking. The requested side enuelope variance is necessary to architecturatly tie the first and second stories together nicely, giving it a simple vertical element because this occ:cuurs on the side of the home that has a commoc► di'iveway, it lacks the typical envelope distance required. This addition will not impact the landscaping at all. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees2 Explain why this mitigation is appropriact� No trces wi11 be moved or removed. R E�j E I V E D MAY 1 8 2001 SPECPERM.Fi CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNIPlG DEPT. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLI1vING 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 a special permit for declining height enevelope for a second story addtion at 1517 Burligname Avenue, zoned R-1, Roy and Jane Borodkin, property owners, APN: 028-285-300; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on May 29, 2001, 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 - Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 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. 2. Said design review and special permit for declining height envelope are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in E}chibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permit for declining height envelope are 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. • • �• 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 29th day of May , 2001 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permit for declining height envelope. 1517 Burlingame Avenue effective June 4, 2001 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 4, 2001, Sheets AO through A9, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official0s and City Engineer's February 12, 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 liy the City of Burlingame. �r� c�rr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURIJN('sAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD h:. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �,,;_ � �,,,�.�' � TEL: (650) 558-7250 1517 BURLINGAME AVENUE Application for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a PUBLIC HEARING second story addition at 1517 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 028-285-300) N OTIC E The City of Burlingame Planning Commissionj announces the following public hearing onI Tuesdav, Mav 29. 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the� City Hall Council Chambers located at 501`�, Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed May 18, 2001 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the applicat�on~and plaris �or tliis�project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at� the , Plamm�g�� Depart, ment at ��D;�1 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Cali�ornia � � '� ` - � � � ' t ,�� - > e� If you challenge the`subject applicatiqp(s) in court, you raising on1� ihose issuesFVou or someone else raised at t described at or prior Property c tenants at 558-7250. Margaret Mc City Planner e�.notice or�in wn�ten, corr�p�nc�ex�c� u�,��c, e pvblic l�earing � �w: * � a � ��, � �: � � , t. :.t' � �;� '�i $ s who�recei�e.this, nottce are responsible fori: thisx"notice :,`For additional�information� ple zk you. , � ; . �,�� a � ,� �s � t � s�d � ,� .� , � , � t � t � � t +��, ��_ �,� � i � � ,. �," , y�� .O��a t� ]yl ��.v� �' � � k� �3�-�'"'�' �'+'�F #�U C � � �� n �� `�, f � �. � ,y � � � "�� ' `*� .� '��v.s`� �F.. �;,.� ��,� � : , -� PUBLIC�:HEA►RIN�G NOTICE be limited to iblic hearing, ;d to the city ming their call (650) (Please refer to otlzer side) ; � .., a Address: 1517 Burlingame Avenue City of Burlingame Design Review Request: Design review for a second story addition Property Owner: Roy and Jane Borodkin Applicant/Designer: BC & D General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Date Submitted: February 7, 2001 Item # / / Design Review Study Meeting Date: 04/09/O1 APN: 028-285-300 Lot Area: 8,772 SF Zoning: R-1 Summary: The applicant is requesting design review for a second-story addition at 1517 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing one-story house now contains 2,727 SF of floor area (0.31 FAR), including a detached two-car garage (732 SF), and has three bedrooms. The proposed 773 SF second floor addition would add a master bedroom, a walk-in closet and a full bathroom. The addition would increase the floor area of the remodeled house to 3,500 SF (0.39 FAR), where 4,307 SF (0.49 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing detached 2-car garage will be retained. The garage measures 20'-11" x 35'-0", exterior dimensions, which meets the parking requirement. The garage is accessed via a shared driveway easement with the adjacent property to the west at 1519 Burlingame Avenue. PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Fro�it: Ist flr No change 25'-6" 15'-0" or block average 2nd flr 41'-8" N/A 20'-0" Side (left): No change 10'-3" 6'-0" Side (right): No change * 1'-0" 6'-0" Rear: Ist flr No change 62'-7" 15'-0" 2nd flr 89'-3" N/A 20'-0" LOT COVERAGE: No change 33.8% 40% (2,727 SF) (3,509 SF) FAR: 3,500 SF/ 2,727 SF/ 4,307 SF/ 0.39 FAR 0.31 FAR 0.49 FAR PARKING: No change 2 covered in garage 1 covered (Zo°-i i°° X 3s°-o°°� (io°-o�� X 20�-0�� + 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered HEIGHT: 24'-10" 16'-0" 2�/z stories 30' whichever is less DHENVELOPE: Meets requirements N/A see code * Existing nonconforming condition This project meets all zoning code requirements. Staff Comments: See attached. Catherine Keylon Planner c: BC & D, applicant & designer t� �?�, c�rr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLJNSiAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ,� = BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ,,,..�,,,,,,,•''� TEL: (650) 558-7250 I 1517 BURLINGAME AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Mondav April 9, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Application for design review for a second story addition at 1517 Burlingame Avenue, P U B LIC H EARIN G zoned R-1. (APN: 028-285-150) NOTICE Mailed March 30, 2001 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the application�and�lans��or`ttiis-project may be reviewed priar to the meeting at;�the�', Planning � Department at `-5Q1 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Ca� o� nia"� °� � �� rt . � ,�,� v.;=. If you challenge the subject applicati�n(s) in couR, you raising only those zssues�you4or someone,else raised attt described in � � � � � �,� at or prior t � Property ow� tenants abou 558-7250. 'TI �' � Margaret M� City Planner pu`b1iG�ie�i�g:�°� �. ` � . . W �� , .� C x�. c � � � a - ; .� who recei�e"tlus noticef are responsible � a � � -�� • _ � ti ��; ��,�g� ��°:� � ��i -oe� � s �._� ,�'�� '��,...�:� �� `� �� , � �-= r � : � P U BLI��HEAR _� y � F s :'r ��` ��'�# `� `� � _� �. { �.;�� a NOTICE be limited to �blic hearing, ;d to the city ming their call (650) (Please refer to other side)