The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1312 Castillo Avenue - Staff Reporti. ^' . ;'R�, i:'.r� �S-r i d'�', w :ti; • . S' ' �'?►� �; �; , E i` i� . . .. �A !, �� , 7�i' `� f '�� . ; ; � d .-�.,, ,.� t �w :-� > 1 �.�,�� ,� 1,,� " �� `,�.� �L a � .��. .. � � ,.� '� �, k'ti . �'n �'.� i �' f y {� �,.r+''i '°�'.7� .,. ' i . . � '� ¢ n � i,.��.`" '� !'1�'� �`''"� 'y # t��I �"�y,I i .r,,- .}� ,.1„ , ,Y v t �.ti�'. r'�,Y � -iv 1,�1�� y ' "� � . �. ;q,,�� .�� ,, �. . � ,1 , ; ��,\h, '� �� i Y'.� � ?�Yt`` � � `' �-.-,' � ,.,�✓Y'�.uw�„�_`"'TY�jA�i f`M'11�t'�• � �rl . . . ^�� , — _ '�'��. � �+ + Y r .� ��i`S� �r. � 1-'�•i �Q�. � � � f i�. fv. �.�.�, �,,,;,. � � --" '� j,��.�;%v. , , J►� d '• � - _ � ��,_�-' i� il��P �� y � � _ � �'��rt ' .'�` � - - � � � .!ti v}I� F . � v �, - , `,� ( ,, � �+� . y .��' r ,� �� •�. / �� '�s.�a p•s- >� � � �4' ",+,� ^�• jt � '' ,r.,'.. ` _ i,�,��, , j I � '; r . i � � � : r _ I. �i{{jN � � y � � � � . "'c=�v" i / �� ' � . � s�'�M� I � C �►. �� t. . . � a ��.c -...� . .. �K Y��i a�� F ., l� y�Y� .�,vkt,�,iq,,,,�� j� ...-..,�.. :. ro» .i. � 1 ��n �� -.r: � {! ti�'+,yy9+'�� -� T, t � � � : ,e �% � i t� �' /�. y h , �? 4y .. x Y ' �ti l . 1" ' �;� + . �''h �'� ��4 , t' � �' � t �� 9M�. �/a;p✓ p .c„ Ir'S.M (�Ct;'f�t-.-, ,'; s.- , . i +i. q - .; �- � �f . rd . . � A�N • . . /M - tn�Yl . �•+lV',�N 1 ' - . , , � . Y��N � �A�l�F�� ♦'TAt �' '�� ^I'� 1 ��,I`ti V��n��?�`�7, � � yc • ' � t... ,�:!{�� .7✓� ��1,�+•r T}�t� „�} � . . .. . . �y Is. ,., � � � , .lf. 'a�31 , 0 4, kDYi� J{l�n,:. ?r, r� �- � . � i '�.- . . . . r . � .� . . � . . . �' . �- . . � . � �� - � , ' � ' - � .. � . � � ' � •na�n,.----r�.: . . .. .. . . . . . �.� .. , . .. .. . � . . . . . . .�.al-:-' J City of Burlingame ITEM #g Design Review Resubmittal of Project Denied Without Prejudice Address: 1312 Castillo Avenue Request: Design Review for a first and second-story addition. Meeting Date: 5/24/99 Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Greg Flowers APN: 027-191-150 Property Owner: same as applicant Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential 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. Date Submitted: This project was submitted to the Planning Department after October 23, 1998 and was reviewed under the R-1 District Regulations now in effect. History: At their May 10, 1999 action meeting, the Planning Commission denied this project without prejudice and provided specific direction to the applicant (May 10, 1999 P.C. Minutes). The Commission noted that since the parapet roof is 2' high it could be reduced some to blend with the existing plate, and that the windows in the addition should be changed on the plans to show that they match the existing. They also noted that the stucco trim should be taken off the cantilever and that corbels should be used to blend in the second story overhang at the rear. Revised Plans (May 17, 1999): The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped May 17, 1999 (sheets A.3-A.5) and a letter dated May 14, 1999 addressing Commission's concerns. Staff would note that the revised plans were not reviewed by a design reviewer. The applicant notes that he fully understands Commission's concerns regarding the parapet offset. However, the applicant is unwilling to lower either of the ceiling heights in order to achieve a matching elevation. Instead, the applicant is proposing to add a tile roof mansard around the perimeter of the addition (see revised sheet A.4 and A.S, date stamped May 17, 1999). This mansard design will match the front of the house and should adequately blend the plate height difference. In regards to the windows, the applicant indicates that the new windows will match as closely as possible the existing windows. Style, molding and sill treatment will be replicated as closely as is feasible. It was also brought to the applicant's attention that the original proposed "groupings" and placement of the windows did not match the existing window installations. The applicant revised the groupings and placement of the windows at the upper floor addition to address this concern (see revised floor plans and building elevations, date stamped May 17, 1999). Design Review 1312 Casti!!o Avenue The applicant followed Commission's direction regarding the overhang by removing the stucco trim at the cantilever and adding decorative corbel plaster to blend the overhang into the structure below. Project Request: The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Greg Flowers, are proposing a first and second-story addition to a single-family dwelling which is subject to design review at 1312 Castillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The project meets all zoning code requirements. The existing two-story house now contains 2,634 SF (.44 FAR) of floor area (including an attached single car garage), and has four bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing family room (463 SF) at the rear of the house and replace it with a new family room (386 SF). The 456 SF second-story addition above the new family room on the first floor would enlarge/relocate an existing bedroom, and add a sitting room which is open to the stairway (sitting room does not qualify as a potential bedroom since it is open in design). There is no change in the number of bedrooms (four existing). The iirst and second-floor addition will increase the floor area of the structure by 379 SF (net increase, new additions minus exisring family room). The total floor area of the remodeled house will be 3,013 SF (.50 FAR), where 3,020 SF (.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed remodel/addition does not increase the number of bedrooms in the house and there is no increase in off-street parldng required. The existing single car attached garage has 12'-0"W x 22'-8"D clear interior dimensions. A 9' x 20' uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official notes (January 19, 1999 memo) that if the pool is less than 5' from the foundation, engineering will be required to verify that surcharge from the house will not affect the pool wall. The City Engineer notes (January 25, 1999 memo) that all roof and lot drainage shall be directed to the public street. The Fire Marshal had no comments on the project. SETBACKS Side (left): Side (right): Rear: 1 st flr: 2nd flr: PROPOSED 8'-2" 13'-8" 31'-8" 30' -10" 2 EXISTING 8'-2" 6' -4" 29' -10" 48'-10" ALLOWED/REQ'D 4' -0" 4' -0" 15' -0" 20' -0" Design Review LOT CO VERAGE: FAR: PARKING: HEIGHT.• DH ENVELOPE: 'C�� 1 33.3% (2,000 SF) 3,013 SF .50 FAR 1 covered (12'-0" x 22'-8") 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) 19' -6"/2 stories complies , 1\ 33.3 % (1,996 SF) 2,634 SF .44 FAR 1 covered (12'-0" x 22'-8") 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) 16'-8"/2 stories complies This project meets all other zoning code requirements. 1312 Castillo Avenue �_ � � 1 � � 1 40 % (2,400 SF) 3,020 SF .50 FAR 1 covered (10' x 20' ) 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) 30' /2 '/z stories see code Design Reviewer Comments (on Plans Submitted for May 10, 1999 Commission Action): The design reviewer notes that the existing house fits the character of Burlingame with its stucco exterior, wood windows and tile roof. The scale is very conducive to the typical neighborhood home originally established in this town. There is no set pattern for styles of homes in this neighborhood. In respect to parking and garage patterns, the reviewer notes that the existing home has a garage tucked into the side of the house, which is set lower than the street, and that it blends in well with the cunent residence. The existing garage will remain unchanged. The reviewer notes that the rear of the house has a structure added on which does not match the existing style of the house. This structure will be removed as part of the project. The proposed rear elevation, although larger than the existing rear addition, will be an attractive addition. Many of the elements utilized in the proposed addition will add value to the design by using an attractive rear window with double hung windows on either side and insetting the first floor. The azchitect reduced the floor to ceiling height in the proposed family room by 2'-0" (from 11'- 6" to 9'-6") to reduce mass and bulk of the addition. The architect also reduced the proposed new floor area by 340 SF since the project was originally submitted for design review. The reviewer indicates that the neighbors to the northeast (1316 Castillo) should not feel much impact, since the addition will be farther in the rear of the yard and that there are several tall 3 Design Review 1312 Castillo Avenue bushes dividing the yards. The reviewer suggests windows be added at that elevation to break up the solid, rear elevation. The applicant has added two windows on the second floor along this elevation. The two-story house to the southwest (1308 Castillo) sits a bit higher than the project site and should be impacted minimally. The residence at the rear (1323 Carlos) is situated much lower than the proposetl remodeling. The reviewer notes that the architect reduced the proposed ceiling heights by 2'-0" to reduce the impact on this neighbor. In regards to landscaping, the reviewer notes that there is heavy landscaping at the left of the residence and that it acts as a barrier between these two residences. There is no landscaping on the right side, only walkways. The addition should not impact this house enough to require additional landscaping. There is landscaping at the rear of the property protecting the rear neighbor from the proposed addition. Design Reviewer Recommendations (on Plans Submitted for May 10, 1999 Commission Action): The design reviewer notes that the proposed addition will have little impact on the street elevation. The proposed rear elevation is more attractive than the existing rear elevation. The reviewer recommends the architect add some fenestration to the north elevation. The architect worked with the reviewer to make necessary changes to reduce the scale of the project. It is the design reviewer's opinion that the proposed addition is in substantial conformance with the intent of the design guidelines and recommends approval. 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. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings, and 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 3, 1999, sheets A.1 and A.2 and date sta.mped May 17, 1999, sheets A.3-A.S, and that any changes to the footprint, floor area or rear plate height of the building shall require and amendment to this permit and that the finished house shall have no more than four bedrooms; � Design Review 1312 Castillo Avenue 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features, changing the roof height or pitch, or enclosing space to create additional bedrooms, shall be subject to design review and variances if required by City codes in effect at the time; 3. that the Chief Building Official's January 19, 1999 and City Engineer's January 25, 1999 memos shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code, 1998 edition, and the California Fire Code, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Zoning Technician c: Ken Ibana, architect �� City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, /999 APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND %� SECOND-STORY ADDITION AT 1312 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MR. & MRS. GREG FLOWERS. APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNER ) This item was referred to the regular calendar. REGULAR CALENDAR \�APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND-STORY ADDITION AT 1312 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MR. & MRS. GREG FLOWERS. APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERSI Reference staff report, 5.10.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. This item was called off the consent calendar for public hearing by C. Deal, noting that he had asked that the plate height be lowered on this project and it has not been. There were no questions of staff on the staff report. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Greg Flowers, property owner had no comments but responded to questions. Commissioners asked: understand that the addition is at the rear and not visible from the street but you have an opportunity now to make the rear have the same look as the rest of the house, am happy with the way it looks; want the addition to blend into the house-reduce the plate line difference at the rear would accomplish this, wanted higher plate- 9 foot- in family room have already lowered it two times in the review process; you could grade out for the family room and lower the floor, have a patio at existing grade that I want to install, I want a nice ceiling height in the new family room- the proposed is only 16 inches above the eacisting; why did you not blend the overhang with corbels instead of stucco mold-there is no stucco mold on the house now; you need to find 16 inches so that you can lower the plate at the rear and harmonize the parapets- you can get it down to 8'-8" without difficulty, can't see this from the street, nice to have a higher ceiling-the rest of the rooms have 8'-6" ceiling; a house has 4 sides-the neighbors will see this, it's OK with the neighbors; can you make the parapet detail on the addition identical to the existing parapet detail and will the windows with stucco mold and wooden sill match existing, yes; the match is not shown on the plans. There were no more questions from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that the applicant is missing a valuable opportunity to tie the addition together with the house so that it looks like it belongs, since the parapet roof is 9 feet high it could be reduced some to blend with existing plate, windows in the addition should be changed on the plans to show that they match the existing, on the basis of these findings and direction move to deny this application without prejudice because the floor area ratio is all right and the cosmetic changes will not take much effort to make. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. 5 ` , . City ofBurlingame Plannrng CommrssionMinutes May 10, 1999 Comment on the motion: the project is almost there, commission is trying to blend the addition into the house; should take the stucco trim off the cantilever and use a corbel to blend in the overhang. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. CATION FOR A LOT COVERAGE AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST- �ADDITION AT 1256 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (DONNA SLOTE, APPLICANT Reference staff ort, 5.10.99, with attachments. � ity Planner and Commissi discussed the report, reviewed criteria nd Planning Department co ents. Three conditions ere suggested for consideration. Th e were no questions from the ommission. Commission corit �nented; needs an encroachment permit a rear property line surve . There were no further question��of staff. questions. Sma11 bungalow, ould like to make small 'tion and stay in the neighborhood.� overed patio, 250 SF, contributes to 1 t coverage; proposal creates a front facade; new chimney, wflere is it inside; on center - east wall; la er front bay reduced from 7'to ', single horizontal mullion, alig� to others, same height; gable end sho be extended; there appears o be a break in plane which doesr' really occur; no, it is only a trellis. Th re were no further question or comments from the public and t�hearing was closed. Chairman Coffey open the public hearing. Donn and Emma Slote, 1256 were present�to answer Commissb�comments: do not find a r uest of a 219 SF variance etrimen encroach in r� nt setback 18" - this is 6" bey d, okay; nice eave overhan , addi like to see appl�cation come back with redesign�f window and large bay an proposal diminis es facade's existing character; exis�'ng steps back and turns the is straight along 'ncoln, adds bulk to street; small lo difficult to maintain integ: C. Deal comment ; limited by lot coverage, small 1, need to do something character, he then �oved denial of the project, without rejudice. Direction g redevelop the facade s�it relates better to the street; overha s should match. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Cha,irman Coffey called for a voi�e vote on the motion to deny without`prejudic Appeal procedures were advised. \ APPLICATION FOR A HII.,LSIDE ARE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO SINGLE-CAR CARPORT AND A DETAC D STORAGE SHED AT 1827 : tal; bay window can tion has none; would reduced plate height; �corner well, addition maintain existing �he applicant to The vote passed 7-0. AN ATTACHED DRNE, ZONED Reference s�aff report, 5.10.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed crit� and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Dea1 noted that he has had a business relationship with the applicant in excess of $250 in the past year and he would abstain from the action and step down from the dias. Commission asked � �Ibarra Associates ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING May 14, 1999 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94U10 RECEIVED MAY 17 1999 Re: Revisions to 1312 Castillo Avenue Commissioners: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I have reviewed your comments of the May 10 Planning Commission meeting will� m�� clicnts, and have been referred to some viaUle alternatives from your members. In response, we oI'fer lhe Collowin� revisions to the application: 1) We fully understand the position of the Commission rega��dino the proposed pa,�apet offset. However, we are unwilling to lower either of the ceiling heiohts in order to achieve a matching elevation. Ow� proposal, in concurrence with Commissioner's s��gestions> is to add a tile roof mansa��d around the perimeter of the addition. This design will match the front of the dwellina, and should adequately compliment the plate hei��ht difference. 2) There were many concerns and comments regarding the windows. You can be assured that the new windows will match as closely as possiUle to the existin� installations. Style, mouldin� and sill treatment will be replicated as is feasible. In addition, it was brought to our attention that the original proposed "'roupings" and/or placements of the windows did not match the existing installations. We have revised the groupin;s a��d placements of the windows at the upper floor to best achieve this concern. 3) Finally, the issue of the floor overhang has been revised to meet your �tpproval. The horizontal band has been removed, a��d decorative plaster corUels have been proposed. We hope this revised submi�tal will adequately wai-rant suppori f'or Desi;n Review approval. Tha�il: you for your continued cooperation and assistance. If there are any questions or comments please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ken Iban-a, ' ct (for Mr. & Mrs. Greg Flowers) 600 EL CAMINO R�AL, SAN I3RUN0, CA 940(6 (6501 58�-4613 (650) 873-3253 FAX City of Burlingame P/nnning Commission Minutes April26, 1999 CATION FOR A LOT COVERAGE A�1D FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FLOOR ADDITION AT 1256 LAGUNA�AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (DONNA SLOTE, CP Monroe briefly esented the project and the commission asked: discrepancy between staff report and plan n amount of lot coverage, clarify; what e of window will be used in the addition; what will the bay window shown in the drawing loo like; feel proposed window will be very large, over bearing, extends over plate line, should be educed; asking for a survey for the easement line, a ears garage next door is also in the ease ent, assessor's maps show dashed line which implies at there was some lot line change in e past, provide history of creation of easement; the prop d window is out of character wit anything on the house, address; show FAR calculation for p'ect compared to FAR formulas fo attached and detached garages on corner lots. There were no er questions and the item was set for hearing on May 10, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time for preparation of the staff report. APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND � SECOND-STORY ADDITION AT 1312 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MR. & MRS. GREG FLOWERS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: how could the garage be widened and lengthened, site is built to the maximum without conforming garage, how much square footage would have to be taken out of the house to allow for code garage in future; has the applicant looked at other alternatives for the garage; the proposed vinyl windows do not match the style of the house, have a tall plate for the new addition which will "bump" out, can it be reduced to blend into the existing house, match existing plate; can the second floor overhang be blended into the structure with a design feature like corbels; floor plan should be revisited and a bedroom eliminated, could do that with the hall on the second floor; the window on the north elevation is a good idea. There were no other questions and the item was set for hearing on May 10, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time for preparation of the staff report. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO ADD AN ATTACHED SINGL AR CARPORT AND A, DETACHED STORAGE SHED AT 1827 HUNT DRIVE, ZONE -1. (ROBERT AL�RO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY CP Monroe briefly presented the oject and the commissi ers asked: clarify neighbors comment about storage, what does app 'cant intend to store in a ssory structure; provide a copy of municipal code section addressing ' tions on parking trucks residential sites; were the construction vehicles observed on the site there because of construction or being stored; was there a building permit issued for the storage shed. There were no other questions and the item 2 � �barra Associates ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING April 30, 1�99 City of I3urlingame Planning Commission SU1 Primrose Road Burlinbame, CA 9�t010 ;! MAY � 3 1999 Re: Sludy He��ina far 1312 Castillo Avenue Commissioners: �fTY OF� �URLlIVGAMIE PLANNINf� L7FP"f. I have reviewed your comments of the April 26 study meeting with my clients, and offer the following responses: 1) The majority of the comments concerned the pa�•king va��iance. Your requests included asking for alternatives which would provide the requu•ed covered pa��kina a��d reduction of the proposed floor area to provide the necessary pa��king. The aoal of the homeowner was to rebuild the lower tloor family room in addition to adding a master Uedroom with a second Uathroom. Three bedrooms is sufficient for their needs. Due to the excess, unusable garage area, complia��ce with the newer floor area ►�equu•ements has Uee�i difficult. It is their desire to eliminate any definition of a potential fifth bedroom, in effect, omitting Ule variance. Reductio�i of the proposed addition to acco►nodate the parking requirement is not desiraUle. 2) A comment was made rega��ding the proposed vinyl windows not matching the existing windows. To the contiary, the existing windows have all been replaced with white aluminum fi-amed, paned windows. The homeowner desu�es to use vinyl or vinyl-clad wood windows which will best match the existing. 3) Regardina the comment to match the existing plate heights in order to Ulend the addition Uetter. Matching the existing ceilina heights would constitute a 7'-0" to 7'-6" high ceiling in the Family Room, the exact proUlem which we wanted to avoid. The large Family Room, smaller than its' replacement, warrants a higher ceiling. The parapet oflset of 16 inches is no[ a deu'imenl [o the desian and is further understated Ueina at the rear of lhe building. 4) A commeiit was made rega��ding the 10 inch overhano of the second floor. Ca�e was taken to address the overhang without addinD too much fenest��ation which is not evidenced on the existing structure. It is our feeling that the stucco Uand treatment proposed, will adequately Ulend the second floor with the lower floor. 5) In response to the desion reviewer's recommendation, a�� additional window has been added to the north wall. We hope the revised submittal, without a varia�lce, will adequately wan-ant support for Design Review approval. Tha��k you for your assista►�ce. If there are any quesdons or comments please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ken Ibaii•a, ArchiC (for NL�. & Nlrs. Greg Flowers) 600 �L CAMINO R�AL, SAN I3RUN0, CA 940G6 (650) 589-4613 (650) 873-3253 rAX /4�� CIT O� � BURLINQI,Mi CITY OF BURLINGAME � e�° APPLICATION TO TI� PLANNING COMIVIISSION �b. - Type of Application: Special Permit�Variance,�Other ��S �� f.t/� rc.c„ i Project Address: �.3 �Z- ��L�-U f%yF�s�/J�{L, t�� Assessor's Parcel Number(s): F� � 7�- �� t�' (:i� APPLICANT Name: �°i�/� �4� ��W�F�.S Address: _ C 3l Z- �-� i z �-c� ��..� . City/State/Zip: �n/y1-� �C`�— `1� �E'a t o Phone (w) : �6 � ) .:5��3 — � Z-6 0 (h): �� 0� 3 4� �— q�� c� fax: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name:_ �=1� /' � Address: � � � C�.•A-ti� ��"r� R� City/State/Zip:_ _�� %✓ � �� 9�ld G G Phone (w): �� T�9 °-�E �3 PROPERTY OWNER Name: �- � � �'�'1 �',�u �.9-�✓�' Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. �h�. .� fax:�6.1'� ) � %3 -32.f 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �� "f � iz ipt� ,�/1 %J �- "i2 a�,% G✓, �p-su < <-�-I �-�r+/1 � c-fit/� � e�-c�vr�_ � r tii.�-SG�.•z--��+�+�I ��P'"�' r�/�c�'� . AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my lrnowledge and belief. � r� c L � �' Applicant's Sig ure Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. '� -�� . .�?'� ( 2 �C�� Property Owner's Signature Date ----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE�USE ONLY ------------- � � ' + vz? . Date Filed: �� 3 � Fee: �/ �� Planning Commission: Study Date: � Action Date: `� o�19 BURLINGAME . � 4 , , h :, 4 . ��_ CITY (i)F ' UF�LINC:�HME VA�I/�,NCE ,�,F''F'LIC,�TIC��NS The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extrao�dinary circumstances o� conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. 5�. � �1-r-r-�C�+�� b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might �esu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or impro vements in the vicinity o� to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. �! Ho w wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT t 2/az ��.� a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to �oe�r property which do not app/y to othei properties in this area. � Do any conditions exist Qn the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cuttinp through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures7 How is this property different from others in the neighborhood7 b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedroomsl) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception7 Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property7 c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or irr�provements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structu�es on those propertiesl If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure o� use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or peneral welfare7 Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbagel, air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground sto�age tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection7 Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed7 Could the structure or use within the st�uctu�e create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consiste�t with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development7 Is there a social benefit7 Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)7 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped7 d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood7 If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existinp architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If use will affect the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to othe� uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structu�e compare to neighboring structu�es in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no chanpe to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compa�e its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the st�ucture change the character of the neighborhood7 Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neiphborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the peneral vicinity7 Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. �sns�...�.,,, � �� Ibarra Associates ARCHITECTURE & PLANNI.NG Mareh 15, 1)99 City of Burtingame Planninb Commission SU1. Pritnrose TZoad Burlingame, CA 94010. Re: V•eu-i.ance for 1312 Castillo Avenue pl�nning Coan�nission: RECEIVE� MAR 1 6 �gg9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. The following statements apply to the above mentioned application for a covered parking variance for a proposed two-scory addition. Specifically, the variance is as follows: Covered Parkin�* Variance: The proposed pro_ject, a two-stoiy, r�ar addicion of a master bedrooxn and bath above a rebuilt family room, resulcs in the dwellin� producinb a ifth potential bedroom. This constitutes one add.irional pote«tial becl�•oom thara cur�•encly exists. Burlingame Zoning Ordinanee requires cwo cove�-ed spaces for five bedrooms. The existing dwellina houses a oaae-car garage. The following staternents wi�l hopefully assisr you in deteiminin� adequate findings in order to approve chese variances. 1) Desrrive the exceprivrrul�or• e.xma-or•dina�y circurnstances c�r cnnditions applic'able to your prop�rry which c�o ��vr u{�ply to other prope��ties in. the area. The dwellxng located on a down sloping lot, has an attached garage �c the rear lower floor of d1e building. There is an �ight-foot wide barage door wl�ich enters a�arage area which totals nearly 500 square feet and can o��ly house one vehicle. Al�hou�l� th� nei�hborhood is made up of many propea-ties wit�a detached ba��a;es and lon; driveways, 1312 CastiJlo has mox-e th�n �deqtiate open parl:ing on the driveway and directly adjacent to the �ara��e. Widening of the garage will not provide enough ro�m for two �ehicles, side by s�de. 2) Explain why the applic�arior� request rs �7ecessar y fnr rhe p�•eservatiaz and enjoyment of a substantial p►•operry ri��ht arrd tivhat rua�eas��nable ��rvpe��ty lvs�s or- acnnec�ssary hUrdship mi�ht result fi•om the denial of the a��plicativn. The existing dwelling has three "actual" bed�•ooms and the lower floor bonus room. The proposed addition creates a new mastex' bedroom. However, an existin� bec�•oom is considerably reduced i.n s�.ze to �r►ake room .for a hallway. Alchough che r�duced bedroom, labeled as "Office", is counted as a bedroom, it's reciuced dimenslon limi�s the po�emi.al for actual bed�•oozn use. Due co che exisung development of the s«bject property, and tl�e exi.stin� two-story desi�n, expansion for addiaonal livin� space is limited. The existiia; confi�«racion of the dWellings' rooms only allows for expans�o�� to the rea�-, in a two-story fashion. The location of cl�e Farraaly 1�.00m on the lower floor allows for dir�ct access to the backyard from the rnaial floor, wi[hout having to acc�ss throuah the gara;e. Classifying the Family Room as a pote��tial bedroom is an undue hardship, albeit understandable, due to its locaaon: 3) Ex.��larn why tl�e ,��a►�tiri�� vf rhe crpplicutiorc wi:l! ,aot he detrimenta! a� in,�urlous tv prvpej-ty or ilnprvvc�n2erzts i�t tlze v�cinlry nnd will nvt be detrimeia.tal to th�� p�blic hea.lth, safi�ry, gere�ral welfare or cortvertier:ce. 'I'he availability of adeqt�ate off-street parkin� will �iot be detrirnental to adjacent properties. Tl�e fxve bedroo�n count, where one room is a Family Room and aa�other is less than 90 square feet, should not pose any change in parking demands. The absence of two covered parkin� spaces is adequately compensat�d with r1�e abilicy �o park four vehicles o►1 the d.riveway. 60U EL CAM1N012EAL, S�J1TE IUU, SAN BRUNO. CA 94061, (650) 58y-4613 (650) 873-3253 FAX Z'd WOb� Wb'V0 � 0 966 1-6Z-L � 1i12 Castillo Avc»uc; 4) Discr�ss how the pr•r�l�used use vf'rhe prvpNrry wi!! bc compatible witl: the aesrhetics, mass, bulk and charact��r vf'c.r.ist�rig arul poterrtia! c�.ses of pi'operties zn the generpl vicin�ry. The proposed proJ�cc, located entia�ely in �he rear of the pi•operty, is designed to maintain the existing character of both the existing building and che adjacent properties. The addition will be virtually unnotieeabl� from the street, prese�vxng cl�e exiscin� character of the neig[iborhood. The addition of a inaster bedroorn and bath, in addition to [he x�ebuildin� of the lower floor farnily room, is in kee�ing with the ��eneral characcer and aeschetics of adjacent properues. The proposed pibject will contribute positively towards the property values of the neitrhborhood. We hupe thc;s� statements are adequate for you to subsrandally sup�ort the covered parking variane� for 1312 Castillo Avenue. Tf d1e�•e are any quEstions or co�runents please eontact me at (650)589-4613. Sincerely, Ken Tb�u•ra, Arclricect (for Mr. & Mrs. Grey Flowers) �'d WOb� WdSO'0 S661-6Z-L ROUTING FORM DATE: January 13, 1999 TO: CITY ENGINEER �CHIEF BUII.DING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for Floor Area Ratio Variance and Design Review for a first and second floor addition at 1312 Castillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 027-191-150. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMIVIISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: T�esday, January 19, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/7anice/Ruben �� o o � �a�.cP�a-��N, �' � �'� v�o t ��--�� %�j �•'� 5 ��1 �� v r �c-�, v� f 1� ,� ��i �f•t a� S u v'G �j � v� ��'`' o�`�` � o a l U-��, %ss �-� � � Date of Comments �' ' � °--�- V (�� r��vi� G�a�se wi�l ROUTING FORM DATE: January 13, 1999 TO: X CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUII,DING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for Floor Area Ratio Variance and Design Review for a first and second floor addition at 1312 Castillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 027-191-150. SCHEDULED PLANNING CONINIISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: �esday, January 19, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben J��r �� Date of Comments � �' c� d c�2.-cx i' � G�Yt-� �: �� 't s'��'� � �� /�t� �.-c, a-� � �s � v -e-e_ � � �/�/� . Design Review Comments City of Burlingame Property Owner: Mr. & Mrs. Greg Flowers I�ECEIVEf� Applicant Name: Project Address: Date of Review: Design Guidelines Greg Flowers 1312 Castillo Avenue 12 April 1999 A P R 1 31999 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1. COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The existing house fits the character of Burlingame with its stucco exterior, wood windows and tile roof. The scale is very conducive to the typical neighborhood home originally established in this town. There is no set pattern for styles of homes in this neighborhood. Many homes have been remodeled in the area and have lost the integrity of the original architectural styles of Burlingame. 2. RESPECT THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The residence has a garage tucked into the side of the house, which is set lower than the street. It is blended in well with the current residence. This will remain unchanged in the proposed remodeling. 3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURE, AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN. The house sits nicely at the top of a small hill. It is located well in the similar scale with its adjacent neighbors. The rear of the house has a structure that was added later, it does not match the existing style of the house. This will be removed at the time of the proposed remodeling. The proposed elevation, although larger than the existing rear addition, will be an attractive addition. Many of the elements utilized in the proposed addition will add value to the design by utilizing an attractive rear window with double hung windows on either side and insetting the first floor. 4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO EACH SIDE. The neighbors to the northeast at 1316 should not feel much impact, since the addition will be farther in the rear of the yard and there are several tall bushes dividing the yards. I would suggest a few windows be added at that elevation to break up the solid, rear elevation. The home to the southwest at 1308 sits a bit higher than the said residence. It is a two story home, and should be impacted minimally. The residence at the rear, 1323 Carlos is situated much lower than the proposed remodeling. The designer reduced his original ceiling heights by 2'-0" to reduce the impact on this neighbor. 5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. There is heavy landscaping at the left of the residence acts as a barrier between these two residences. There is no landscaping on the right side, only walkways, between the existing neighbor and said residence. The remodeling should not impact this home enough to require additional landscaping. There is little space due to minimal space in this area. There is landscaping in the rear of the property protecting the rear neighbor form the proposed remodeling. The front yard is landscaped with 2 poplar trees at the street, and low bushes at the front of the house. RECOMMENDATIONS: The proposed remodeling will have little impact on the front street elevation. The proposed rear elevation is more attractive than the existing rear elevation. As previously mentioned, I would recommend the designer add some fenestrations to the north elevation at the driveway side. The designer worked with us to make necessary changes to reduce the scale of the project. A yuestion for the owners or designer: Will the pool equipment be covered or shielded? There has been a lot of thought in the design, it would be nice to not have an eye sore like the pool equipment spoil the effect of the rear and side elevations. Possibly some landscape could shield the view and assist in shielding the adjacent residence. (�(�t�l / Catherine . . Nilmeyer A 2 '/z hours r � 7 r no , � �� '`, �i� pd°' ` . d y ^ f A�� .. . � �� 4 i . �y , ^ �r. I 'M �� :. . :W� C � ' a: t � " �� .x �: ' �V �� . � '.�,. . ' ' .. �? .. ` � . � ^� "�� 1. .S . 2 ii �i s� t f .A � �. � � fi a' � � � � . � � ,��TMx ` ...sf'^ �` �. � � � t � L �: ��+ �,�. `� • ,. 1 .'i �'�` . A►�� . 4 � � � . 5 , z'�" � re.e . . � ' . �.. � . �s . �. , . . �:. . � . � �. : � �. r. � .. ^ � . ; t ` �' ' i ,... ', i � �e: `��'u � � `� �, , � � ,. : . �� .. . � ': � ti. - � ; `� � " ��` �� , � � � ��_ ... , �: _ � ; � , �,�� : �. � „�_ ,� ,.� _ �_ . , � r� ,� � ' i e �k , ��; ydq-'+ ;��, � � ,� � I �t � �� ° � � Fv `* . -, , . , '.; . o .. , . �, . �. . . _ . S' � �S 'N F ,.�Y �� ' �' : ...��, �' � �� :3 � 1+ i . > .. . -., � �.. " { ;, � .:.� '�' � �� . ,` ., ` � ' . y `� _ _p ' � t 4 *. ��`' f .. � , � '�S F �p`v . �� , �x. �� , , � J � ' � �,,,� � ` �� ` '° �, �3+�fi3' �� . `,� ' ' li1.= � . .� 1 �-� � �� ''��, . � ,. - , �,_ � � , � ,.: , o � � � �� .�� °�� ,�� ,�� lilM �� ,' . . � .. � , � '� ` ' �' �. r ,- ,� . a � � ,, k � � �`L� q. " _ � y v A 4 • �i, � F '�-, 1' ,� 4 Y � � � . � . � Y^.. r � �. �_ �-�"`�'�, �� " , �'` �� k .� �s �,.�.` ��'� �� . ; � �� ,___�� < , '� � '� •�`� �,r � y ' � , � . ,��' � ��r � � '� ;.- .� � g�, ,,�n. ��;. r �,' ." � ,�_.�` _ -�� ° 9� � y ` � ` �.. c � �; f : �� '` �, _ �e'�` � " i� 9 .. '� . _.r I .. �. � �' � � � y� �; � R , . d, ; �_ � . � � , ' , �� } ia+ {"� � ,� �� p i � � ,rSv �`' � .�:, r � 4 �� . �: . . , r � r ��. � � E � ��.� k �°�� f'..� v� � k� �k . -� � �r,,�i� �� ,� �� r � �� ' � �� _ _ � � , � , _ ;, , � , ao , ;, � � �.�* � ,�� , � �. . ry+ � � • ��'�2 " � . �d� � � � E � � � a �. � i .If A..� . ,;. � � � F�� . # � .�� fi �`..\}. i� �_ � � A'w� � .. 't ' S� , ..g'u . �8 - ��y1� � — t� � ' _`�-`5, ' - � ' itK— � "� `�.:3 � i.' '�r` ',°i` � � � �� }.�� , '. ,.�N�,� . _' .. w � 3 � �`, -�.. H �� aa �..r �,. �"` - r ' � '�' �� `'R�"'�� $"`�"` .�E _ � . .. _: � -, .. . "� d � i�, ,.. "."- . _ � _ ��q,� ; �. . '�...'�'" ! ' . , . — . - � . t ..i�� : ew. 4a .�-.. .a -. � �w'�- r,*� ,:�' � ' y '«':��r ° � W�i� � '� i ::.. �.+:. . ' � � Y � �. v .� � '�`` � Ir . .i #�'.i . ' � �-°� "� „�s _ , .��c , w � s� .. �� ` f..� ' � � � » r�..� � y,� r �,�' s4 . ,� . ' � � � . , � *� w . � —�2.. � �� "$� ' � �' � �t . �� : � , - .4�, � _ , , a . r � A a � . ,. . � r. ;` .� - . , '� y�. "--.' +� �4e ,i �.�, � ?��, � � £ � •' � � � _:a�. � � ;. �,,... �. � �a . �;; � 3�� ;� �",�" r��'.�' �J ,�` . ,:. �� , � . .- , � , � �, , � „ �r z, ¢�..� � �, �` � � � � xr� � � � � � � � ;� � ,.,.� � � ' �: �,� �� '� �^ ;� � A � �� . � �., � � ��. _ . �,�� , � �r . � � � aa�; 4 , � � ,� �� ` -.�.. ; � � � � � :' � s' � i� � ��r , �., � ��•; � `" � � �� ,.- �� 4 � �. K� �� .x ��; y � s:,s.. - . - 'i.. � � . � . �' Y:'; � � h �, :y-. �F � , " `� - . `� , � CITY OF BURLINGAME ' r�' PLANNING DEPARTMENT , BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ' �BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL• 650 696-7250 � {' I' •� ) i �, i,si�: CASTILLO AVENUE AF'N:0�7-191-15Q+ � 1 Application for parking variance and design pUgLIC HEARING r'eview for a fir�st and second—stary �ddition NOTICE at 131c Castillo Aven�►e, zaned R-1. The City of P�_�rling�me F�lanning Commissian anno�.mces the following pt�blic hearing on Monday, May 10, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the City a 'ounci am ers locat�d at ��i F'rimrose I Road, Purlingame, California. ' Mailed April 30, 1999 �' (Please refer to other side) CITY OF B URLINGAME �� f th h �� "'" �''��1fi f`�r �hi" � ro'ect ma be reviewed rior � ;, �� c; ,�. S: 1'' t:: �� .. � �� If you chall��e��e�subj.�f.; raising only,�b� �ssues,��iu s described ir� th o�icc � ��n at or prior t� t�e� �b�atc; � A copy o e app cat�o , ��p � s o s�, � y p to the meeting at �fi.��e �rt�g Dep�rtment :;at_ � 501 Primrose Road, � � Burlingame, Cal��ua. {�� . � . Y�� .,��: �� . : ,.. r.:., :�_ Property o��i��h� re��tve tenants abo�it� ��5� 7r�Q�c�� 696-7250. Ttiazakyou ��4,��' f i i j� �� Margaret Monroe r, �,�' " City Planner �o"� �� PUB�,�� (Please refer to other side) '. �' �� , ' �„" x ` �+�+�" ��' ,�ca� <, E,s, € i � �1 � � € i� r:� c� ' � ,.� ��F �� i ��. � , CE be limited to �blic hearing, ;d to the city fornung their se call (650) ; F '� ,��,�� CITY OF BURLINGAME �� PLANNING DEPARTMENT � BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD I BURLINGAME, CA 94010 I � TEL: (650) 696-7250 I . 131� CASTILLO AVENUE AF'N:Q��7-191-150 , �.: Applic�tion for parking variance and design pUgLIC HEARING ' review for � first �nd second-story �dditian NOTICE at 131� C�stillo Aven��e, aoned R-1. The City of P�irlingame F�lanning Commission anno�mces the following public hearing on � Monday, May 10, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the City a o��nci am ers lacated at �Q�1 F�rimrose ftoad, Hurlingame, California. � Mailed April 30, 1999 (Please refer ta other side) �,J a tiiS' � �� . '� ,'��;: "�,'�!" � A copy of the a� to the meeting Burlingame, Ca F� If you chall�n� raising on1y��S; described i�y the �� at or prior to t� 3.r Property ovu�� tenants abo � #� �� .,, 696-7250. w �: Margaret Mo� City Planner CITY OF B URLINGAME arid,;�Ians fo%.this project may be reviewed prior Planriing �epartment at,' S01 Primrose Road, d.. � �, r . 3 ._, . . . .. ... ro receive �ti� `t�tiGe ar� responsib natrc�s For addi�'pn�1 informati� nu "� :; �� : � :� � � �� 5Y � € �� y � �r °�, � , s� _ �s, � � ;�:. E...; � � � S � £ A . � �'� � �� w � ��'r..�°� . �?�•'' � � ... � � ��-� P U B L�;� �,.,,��Ei (Please refer to other side) ICE be limited to ,blic hearing, ;d to the city ming their call (650) i g''�, , x� ��_"•�': ,. s. _ . RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REV�W RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for e i n review for a first and second story addition at 1312 Castillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN• 027-191-150; Gregory and Cezabbe Flowers, �ropei-�y owners; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Mav 24� 1999, 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 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 is hereby approved. 2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in E�chibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review is as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is �urther directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. � I' � ► I, Stanley Vistica, 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 24th day of Mav, 1999 , by the following vote: AYES: CONIlVIISSIONERS: NOES: CONIlVIISSIONERS: ABSENT: CONIlVIISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review 1312 CASTILLO AVENUE effective June 7, 1999 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 3, 1999, sheets A.1 and A.2 and date stamped May 17, 1999, sheets A.3-A.S, and that any changes to the footprint, floor area or rear plate height of the building shall require and amendment to this permit and that the finished house shall have no more than four bedrooms; , 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features, changing the roof height or pitch, or enclosing space to create additional bedrooms, shall be subject to design review and variances if required by City codes in effect at the time; 3. that the Chief Building Official's January 19, 1999 and City Engineer's January 25, 1999 memos shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code, 1998 edition, and the California Fire Code, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. � ,� , .', � City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1312 Castillo Avenue Request: Design Review for a first and second-story addition. Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Greg Flowers Property Owner: same as applicant Lot Area: 6,000 SF _ � ;�� Meeting Date: 5/10/99 APN: 027-191-150 General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential 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. Date Submitted: This project was submitted to the Planning Department after October 23, 1998 and was reviewed under the R-1 District Regulations now in effect. History: At their Apri126, 1999, Planning Commission study meeting, the Commission expressed concern about insufficient parking for this project and requested that the applicant consider eliminating a bedroom so that a parking variance would not be required (April 26, 1999 P.C. Minutes). The applicant revised the plans (date stamped May 3, 1999, sheets A.1-A.5) to comply with Commission's direction by eliminating the ofiice room (considered a potential bedroom) on the second floor. The wall adjacent to the hallway leading to the master bedroom was removed to create an open sitting area. Because it is open in design, it is not considered a potential bedroom and there is no change in the number of bedrooms (four existing). Therefore, a parking variance for one covered space is not required. Summary: The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Greg Flowers, are proposing a first and second-story addition to a single-family dwelling which is subject to design review at 1312 Castillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The project meets all zoning code requirements. The existing two-story house now contains 2,634 SF (.44 FAR) of floor area (including an attached single car garage), and has four bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing family room (463 SF) at the rear of the house and replace it with a new family room (386 SF). The 456 SF second-story addition above the new family room on the first floor would enlarge/relocate an e�sting bedroom, and add a sitting room which is open to the stairway (sitting room does not qualify as a potential bedroom since it is open in design). There is no change in the number of bedrooms (four existing). The first and second-floor addition will increase the floor area of the structure by 379 SF (net increase, new additions minus existing family room). The total floor area of the remodeled house will be 3,013 SF (.50 FAR), where 3,020 SF (.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. e •- Design Review 1312 Castillo Avenue The proposed remodeUaddition does not increase the number of bedrooms in the house and there is no increase in off-street parldng required. The existing single car attached garage has 12'-0"W x 22'-8"D clear interior dimensions. A 9' x 20' uncovered pazking space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official notes (January 19, 1999 memo) that if the pool is less than 5' from the foundation, engineering will be required to verify that surcharge from the house will not affect the pool wall. The City Engineer notes (January 25, 1999 memo) that a11 roof and lot drainage shall be directed to the public street. The Fire Marshal had no comments on the project. � �.Z�� SETBACKS Side (left): Side (right): Rear: 1 st flr: 2nd flr: LOT COVERAGE: FAR: 8'-2" 13'-8" 31'-8" 30'-10" 33.3% (2,000 SF) 3,013 SF .50 FAR PARKING: HEIGHT.• DH ENVELOPE: 1 covered (12'-0" x 22'-8") 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) 19' /2 stories complies _I� 8'-2" 6'-4" 29' -10" 48'-10" 33.3 % (1,996 SF) 2, 634 SF .44 FAR 1 covered (12'-0" x 22'-8") 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) 16'-8"/2 stories complies This project meets all other zoning code requirements. ALLOWED/REQ'D 4' -0" 4' -0" 15'-0" 20' -0" 40 % (2,400 SF) 3,020 SF .50 FAR 1 covered (10' x 20' ) 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) 30' /2 1/z stories see code Design Reviewer Comments: The design reviewer notes that the existing house fits the character of Burlingame with its stucco exterior, wood windows and tile roof. The scale is very conducive to the typical neighborhood home originally established in this town. �here is no set pattern for styles of homes in this neighborhood. 2 � � _. Design Review 1312 Castillo Avenue In respect to parldng and garage patterns, the reviewer notes that the existing home has a garage tucked into the side of the house, which is set lower than the street, and that it blends in well with the cunent residence. The existing garage will remain unchanged. The reviewer notes that the rear of the house has a structure added on which does not match the existing style of the house. This structure will be removed as part of the project. The proposed rear elevation, although larger than the e�cisting rear addition, will be an attractive addition. Many of the elements utilized in the proposed addition will add value to the design by using an attractive rear window with double hung windows on either side and insetting the first floor. The architect reduced the floor to ceiling height in the proposed family room by 2'-0" (from 11'- 6" to 9'-6") to reduce mass and bulk of the addition. The architect also reduced the proposed new floor area by 340 SF since the project was originally submitted for design review. The reviewer indicates that the neighbors to the northeast (1316 Castillo) should not feel much impact, since the addition will be farther in the rear of the yard and that there are several tall bushes dividing the yards. The reviewer suggests windows be added at that elevation to break up the solid, rea.r elevation. The applicant has added two windows on the second floor along this elevation. The two-story house to the southwest (1308 Castillo) sits a bit higher than the project site and should be impacted minimally. The residence at the rear (1323 Carlos) is situated much lower than the proposed remodeling. The reviewer notes that the architect reduced the proposed ceiling heights by 2'-0" to reduce the impact on this neighbor. In regards to landscaping, the reviewer notes that there is heavy landscaping at the left of the residence and that it acts as a barrier between these two residences. There is no landscaping on the right side, only walkways. The addition should not impact this house enough to require additional landscaping. There is landscaping at the rear of the property protecting the rear neighbor from the proposed addition. Design Reviewer Recommendations: The design reviewer notes that the proposed addition will have little impact on the street elevation. The proposed rear elevation is more attractive than the e�cisting rear elevation. The reviewer recommends the architect add some fenestration to the north elevation. The azchitect worked with the reviewer to make necessary changes to reduce the scale of the project. It is the design reviewer's opinion that the proposed addition is in substantial conformance with the intent of the design guidelines and recommends approval. Study Meeting: At the April 26, 1999 Planning Commission study meeting the Commission asked several questions regarding this project (Apri126, 1999 P.C. Minutes). The Commission noted that the site is built to the maximum without a conforming garage. They asked how the garage could be widened and lengthened, and if the applicant looked at other alternatives for the garage. The Commission also suggested eliminating a bedroom. K3 Design Review 1312 Castillo Avenue In a written response, dated Apri130, 1999, the applicant notes that the goal of the property owner was to rebuild the lower floor family room in addition to adding a master bedroom, and that three bedrooms is sufficient for their nceds. Due to the excess, unusable garage azea, compliance with the new floor area requirements has been diffcult. The applicant also notes that the property owner's desire is to eliminate any definition of a potential fifth bedroom and thus, omitting the parking variance. The applicant revised the plans (date stamped May 3, 1999, sheets A.1-A.5) to comply with Commission's direction by eliminating the office room (considered a potential bedroom) on the second floor. The wall adjacent to the hallway leading to the master bedroom was removed to create an open sitting area. Because it is open in design, it is not considered a potential bedroom and there is no change in the number of bedrooms (four existing). Therefore, a parking variance for one covered space is not required. Planning staff would note that 200 SF would have to be taken out of the house to allow for a two-car garage. The Commission commented that the proposed vinyl windows do not match the style of the house. The applicant notes that the existing windows have been replaced with white aluminum framed, paned windows. The property owner desires to use vinyl or vinyl-clad wood windows which will best match the existing. There was also a concern with the high plate height at the new addition causing a bump out at the rear of the house. The Commission asked if the proposed plate height could be reduced to blend in with the existing house. The applicant points out that matching the existing ceiling heights would constitute a 7'-0" to 7'-6" floor to ceiling in the family room, which is the problem the applicant wanted to avoid. The large family room, which is smaller than the existing family room being replaced, warrants a higher ceiling. The pazapet offset of 16 inches is not a detriment to the design and is further understated being at the rear of the building. The Commission asked if the second floor overhang could be blended into the structure with a design feature such as corbels. The applicant notes that care was taken to address the overhang without adding too much fenestration, which is not evident on the existing structure. The applicant feels that the stucco band treatment proposed will adequately blend the first and second floors. In response to the design reviewer's recommendation, an additional window was added to the north wall. 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. 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; 4 � Design Review 1312 Castillo Avenue 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings: Based on the iindings stated in the summary of the design reviewer's analysis of the project and in the reviewer's April 13, 1999 memo, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Afiirmative action should be by resolution and include findings, and 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 3, 1999, sheets A.1-A.5 and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit and that the finished house shall have no more than four bedrooms; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features, changing the roof height or pitch, or enclosing space to create additional bedrooms, shall be subject to design review and variances if required by City codes in effect at the time; 3. that the Chief Building Official's 7anuary 19, 1999 and City Engineer's January 25, 1999 memos shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the. California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Zoning Technician c: Mr. and Mrs. Flowers, applicants and property owners Ken Ibarra, azchitect � RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WI�REAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desiQn review for a first and second story addition at 1312 Castillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 027-191-150• egory and Cezabbe Flowers�pro�erty owners; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Mav 10� 1999, 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 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. 2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in E�ibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review is 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. C�:/_ 1; u� � 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 l Oth day of Mav, 1999 , by the following vote: AYES: COMNIISSIONERS: NOES: CONin�IISSIONERS: ABSENT: COI�IlVIISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review 1312 CASTII.LO AVENUE effective May 17, 1999 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 3, 1999, sheets A.1-A.5 and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit and that the finished house shall have no more than four bedrooms; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features, changing the roof height or pitch, or enclosing space to create additional bedrooms, shall be subject to design review and variances if required by City codes in effect at the time; 3. that the Chief Building Official's January 19, 1999 and City Engineer's January 25, 1999 memos shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet a11 the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.