HomeMy WebLinkAbout1327 Castillo Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1327 Castillo Avenue
Item No. 8b
Regular Action
Meeting Date: January 22, 2018
Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story single-
family dwelling with attached garage.
Applicant Designer: Eiki Tenaka, Studio 02
Property Owner: Celeste and Eric Leung
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 027-192-030
Lot Area: 6,000 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions
to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase
of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with an existing two-story house and an attached
garage. There is a 10-foot public utility right-of-way beyond the rear property line. The applicant proposes first
and second story additions to the existing house. The total proposed floor area is 2,994 SF (0.50 FAR), where
3,020 SF (0.503 FAR) is the maximum allowed.
The proposed project includes expanding the existing lower level and a first and second floor addition at the front
of the house. The addition will decrease the width of the garage door from 14 feet to 12 feet and will move the
face of the attached garage 12 feet closer the front property line. The existing garage provides only one covered
parking space (10' x 19'-10" clear interior dimensions). Once altered, the dimensions of the existing parking
space must meet all current code-required minimums and therefore, the reconfigured garage will provide a depth
of 20 feet. There are 4 existing bedrooms and the number of bedrooms will not be increased with the proposed
work. The proposed on-site parking (one covered 10' x 20' space and one uncovered space in the driveway
leading to the garage) meets the code requirement for a 4-bedroom house.
All existing windows are proposed to be replaced with new, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true
divided lites. The existing landscaping will remain, with the addition of a new landscape tree in the front yard and
new paving in the rear yard where the existing pool will be filled in. The protected size redwood trees at the rear
of the property do not require tree protection measure because of their distance from the proposed construction
to the main house. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)).
This space intentionally left blank.
Design Review 1327 Castillo Avenue
1327 Castillo Avenue
Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stam ed: Janua 11, 2018
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS :
Front (1st flr): 14'-10" No change 17'-3" is the block average
(2nd flr): : 14'-10" No change 20'-0"
To garage: ; 44'-4" 32'-4" 25'-0" to a single car garage
door
_ ............................................. .
Side (left): ; 5'-0" 5'-0" to new 4'-0"
(right): ; 4'-10" No change 4'-0"
�
Rear (1st flr): ; 31'-9" No change 15'-0"
(2nd flr): � 42'-1" No change 20'-0"
' 1,981 SF 2,241 SF 2,400 SF
Lot Coverage:
33% 37% 40%
: .................... ................. ...........
2,611 SF 2,994 SF 3,020 SF'
FAR:
0.44 FAR 0.50 FAR 0.503 FAR
_: ......................................................................................................................._:..................................................................................................................................................._:.......................................... ... . ...
, ,
# of bedrooms: ; 4 4
_ :.................................................................................................................................................. : ......
1 covered 1 covered 1 covered
(10' x 19'-10) 2 (10' x 20') (10' x 20')
Parking:
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20') ; (9' x 20')
_
, ,...... .......... ..........
Height: 28'-10" No change 30'-0"
_ :. ..................................... .... ...
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075
' (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1100 SF = 3,020 SF (0.503 FAR).
2 The existing covered parking space is non-conforming in depth (19'-10" existing where a new space requires 20').
Staff Comments: There are no outstanding comments from the City Divisions.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on November 27,
2017, the Commission had comments and suggestions regarding this project and voted to refer the project to a
design review consultant (November 27, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). A discussion of the analysis of
the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next section.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant visited the site and
-2-
Design Review 1327 Castillo Avenue
surrounding area, met with the project architect and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's
concerns with the project and reviewed revised plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer's analysis
and recommendation, dated January 10, 2018, for a detailed review of the project.
The revised plans are date stamped January 11, 2018, and the designer has submitted a response letter date
stamped January 4, 2018. Listed below are some of the Commission's comments, followed by the responses
and revisions made by the applicant (Please refer to the attached meeting minutes, the design consultant's
recommendation, and the architect's response letter for a detailed list of the Commission comments and the
architects plan revisions).
1. What are the entry stair details? The proposed f/af roof element above fhe entry isn't found
e/sewhere in the neighborhood.
• The plans have been revised to make the entry more prominent. This was done by increasing the width
of the stairs up to the covered porch and by reducing the size of the adjacent garage door. The size of
the front entry alcove/covered porch was also increased in the revised design.
The proposed handrail is noted as painted wood with square end posts
proposed over the entry and over the garage have been eliminated
overhang with a 4: 5'h pitch that matches the rest of the residence.
2. Will the proposed skylights be flat?
• Yes. This note has been added to the plans.
. The flat roof features previously
and the revised entry roof is an
3. What are the details of the new windows? The proposed windows do nof have any trim, which is not
consisfenf with fhe neighborhood.
• The proposed windows (all existing windows to be replaced or relocated) have been revised and called
out on the plans as aluminum-clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites with a spacer bar
befinreen the panes. The proposed trim is 1 x4 painted wood trim and the window details are clarified on
Sheet A2.0 of the revised plans.
4. The massing for the addition is handled nicely and is consisfent with the more traditional homes in
the surrounding neighborhood, but fhe project needs addifional architectural details to achieve a
cohesive design.
• The following additional changes have been made to clarify and revise architectural details so that the
proposed design is more consistent throughout each elevation of the proposed dwelling and more
consistent with the neighborhood:
�
3
4
Many of the existing architectural details have been added to the plans on the existing elevations.
Some of these elements, such as the brick base and metal roof at the front bay window will
remain with the proposed design.
A gable element was added to the second story addition over the attached garage to mirror the
existing gable over the bay window at the right side of the front elevation; matching wood vents
were added under each gable.
A more traditional carriage-style door design is proposed for the faux wood garage door.
The plans detail a painted wood 1 x 6 fascia.
-3-
Design Review
1327 Castillo Avenue
5. There is not guarantee to privacy, but can anything be done to address the neighbor's concern
regarding privacy?
History of Privacy Concern: A letter was submitted on November 11, 2017 by the neighbor at 1331
Castillo Avenue (see attachments) to express concerns about the proposed location of the kitchen
window and requesting that the proposed window size be reduced and the proposed window location be
moved back to its original location. The neighbor also spoke at the Design Review Study hearing to
specify that the privacy concern for the residence at 1331 Castillo was a first floor bedroom window
towards the rear of the property.
The applicant contacted the neighbor at 1331 Castillo Avenue on several occasions before and afterthe
Design Review Study hearing to work towards a mutually beneficial agreement.
• Description of the Site: Planning Staff would note the following conditions at the right side of the
subject property:
1. There is an upward slope from the front to the rear of the both properties.
2. The existing finished floor of the house at 1327 Castillo Avenue is approximately 3 feet higher than
the finished first floor level of the dwelling at 1331 Castillo Avenue.
3. The existing walls of the two dwellings are separated by approximately 14 feet (4'-10" side yard
setback for 1327 Castillo Avenue that abuts the approximately 9-foot driveway on the property at
1331 Castillo Avenue).
4. There are 3 existing windows on the right elevation of 1327 Castillo Avenue: a dining room window, a
kitchen window, and a living room window (listed in order from left to right as viewed when facing the
right elevation).
5. There is an existing fence on the side property line that varies in height as the fence proceeds
towards the rear property line (see attached photos). The two fence sections that are adjacent to the
3 existing windows on the right elevation of 1327 Castillo have a fence height of approximately 5'-9"
to 6'-0".
6. There are existing evergreen hedges that extend approximately 1'-0" above the height of the existing
fence. The hedges are located to the right side of the existing fence, on the property at 1331 Castillo
Avenue.
7. The existing window locations for both properties are as follows (see revised plans, attached aerial
diagram and attached site photos):
a. 1 existing dining room window at 1327 Castillo Avenue faces an existing window at 1331
Castillo Avenue.
• The original and revised plans both show this dining room window to be replaced with a
window of the same size and in the same location.
b. 1 existing kitchen window at 1327 Castillo Avenue faces two standard size frosted bathroom
windows on the first floor and a second story window at 1331 Castillo Avenue.
• The existing 54" x 38" kitchen window is separated by a horizontal distance of 11 feet
from the first floor bedroom window at 13331 Castillo Avenue.
The originally proposed plans showed a 48" x 42" kitchen window that would be
separated by a horizontal distance of 7'-6" from the first floor bedroom window at 1331
Castillo Avenue.
The revised plans moved the proposed kitchen window location to the left by
approximately 8 inches (from the originally proposed kitchen window location), so that the
-4-
Design Review
1327 Castillo Avenue
horizontal distance separating the kitchen window of 1327 Castillo Avenue from the first
floor bedroom window of 1331 Castillo Avenue was increased from 7'-6" to 8'-2".
Neighbor Negotiations: Although the neighbors have been in communication to resolve the issue of
privacy, no formal agreement was submitted to the Planning Division by the preparation of this Staff
Report, and is not required for the Planning Commission to take action on the application. The project
was taken forward for Action because the revisions and analysis are complete and the applicant would
like to move the project into the Building Permit phase. Private agreements between neighbors are not
within the purview of the Planning Commission review.
The neighbor at 1331 Castillo Avenue submitted a fence estimate, dated December 7, 2017, for work
that includes a 1-foot lattice atop the existing first 52 feet of the fence and a new 7 foot high fence (the
last foot of which will be lattice) for the remainder of the side property fence. No formal request or
clarification of this potential solution was submitted by the neighbor at 1331 Castillo to the Planning
Division by the preparation of this Staff Report.
The applicant has revised the plans and submitted photos of the site to illustrate the existing and
proposed window relationships so that the neighbor and the Commission can evaluate the situation.
The applicant has also used tape and chalk to provide a mock-up of the revised proposed kitchen
window location and has taped off the existing living room window that is proposed to be eliminated. The
applicant does not wish to move further revise the proposed window location for the following reasons:
The applicant worked with the design review consultant to look at interior kitchen layouts that might
move the kitchen window back to its original location. Both parties concluded that the revised
kitchen window is at the closest possible point to the original location without creating a negative
impact to the symmetry and layout of the new kitchen.
2. The existing living room window at the right side is being eliminated and this leaves a blank wall
along the rear portion of the right side elevation. Also eliminating a kitchen window is not a feasible
option since it will extend the blank wall and will also result in very little natural light for the kitchen.
Planning Staff would note that the maximum allowable fence height is 7 feet (the last foot must be open
material such as lattice) as measured from the highest adjacent grade. It appears that because of the
existing finished floor height for 1327 Castillo Avenue, the top of a 7 foot fence would extend across
approximately the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of the existing and proposed kitchen windows.
The applicant is willing to install a 1 foot lattice atop the existing solid board fence on those sections of
the fence that are adjacent to the proposed dining room and kitchen windows. This 1 foot of lattice
would be the approximate height of the existing hedges, but would be continuous where the hedges
currently have gaps.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
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.
��
Design Review 1327 Castillo Avenue
Suggested Findings for Design Review: At the November 27, 2017 Design Review Study meeting the
Planning Commission noted that the proposed house was well massed. The architectural details for the
proposed project, including the gables at the front elevation, the simulated true divided lite windows, and the
wood window trim and fascia all work together to provide compatibility with the traditional styles of existing
dwellings in the neighborhood. The proposed decrease in length and the paneled style of the proposed doorfor
the existing attached garage create a stronger street and neighborhood connection for the front entry to the
dwelling. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five
design review criteria.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and
the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning
Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any
action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 11, 2018, sheets A0.0 through A3.0, and Topographic Survey dated 2008;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
�
Design Review
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
1327 Castillo Avenue
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Erika Lewit
Senior Planner
c. Eiki Tenaka, applicant
Attachments:
• Design Reviewer's Recommendation, dated January 10, 2018
• Minutes from the November 27, 2018 Design Review Study Meeting
• Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, date stamped January 4, 2018
• Letter from the neighbor at 1331 Castillo Avenue, date stamped November 22, 2017
• Fence Estimate submitted by neighbor at 1331 Castillo Avenue, dated December 7, 2017
• Application to the Planning Commission
• Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
• Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed January 12, 2018
• Aerial Photo
-7-
DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS
CITY OF BURLINGAME
January 10, 2018
City of Burlingame
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Project Address: 1327 Castillo Avenue
Applicant and Architect: Eiki Tenaka, Studio 02
Property Owners: Celeste and Eric Leung
Planner: Erika Lewit
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I have received and reviewed the original plans submitted by Eiki Tenaka, Studio 02, to the
Planning Commission for 1327 Castillo Avenue. I listened to the Planning Commission's comments
in the meeting video from the November 27, 2017, Study Session. I met with the Planner and
Architect at the Main Library to discuss the Planning Commission's comments in addition to
providing feedback on subsequent iterations. The design submitted reflects the following
changes in response to Planning Commission feedback:
REVISIONS TO ORIGINAL DESIGN
• Existing 5'-9" width of entry stairs maintained in revised design. I feel that the width of the
staircase is more important than the depth of the landing at the top given the raised entry
elevation. The proposed configuration provides a generous stoop closer to street level to
hang out and chat with neighbors if desired without impacting circulation.
• Entrance stair railing to be wood with traditional detailing.
• Entry overhang integrated with adjacent roof overhang. Entry recessed into alcove to
further define element.
• Master bedroom "shelf" projection removed. Style of proposed addition now consistent
with existing house.
• Kitchen window shifted one foot closer to existing location from that previously
proposed. The applicant will mock-up the proposed kitchen sink window location to
confirm any potential views between neighbors are not direct.
• Window trim, sills and grids added for detail and scale.
• Stucco clarified to match existing.
• Skylights noted as flat glass.
Page 1
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the
neighborhood
This project is in the Easton Addition neighborhood, which is composed of primarily
traditional single-family homes. The majority of homes on this block are stucco with pitched
roofs as is this current and proposed residence.
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood
This neighborhood has a mix of attached and detached garages. The applicant is proposing
to reduce the existing attached garage door to 12 feet wide and add paneling with glazing to
minimize its impact. No change is proposed to the existing driveway and curb cut location.
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure
This is a split-level home with 8'-3 1/2" plate heights on the main and upper levels. The
addition is massed so the Master Bedroom projects over the garage door to deemphasize the
garage and unify the elements. The projection also relates to the existing bay window feature
closer to the street. Window grids add detail and scale to the stucco house. Other
architectural details include wood gable vents and brick.
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties
This residence is located on Castillo between Easton and Hillside. No significant impact on the
neighbors is anticipated.
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
The ornamental maple or similar proposed in the front yard will compliment the architecture.
Planting along the entry will help define the entry path from the driveway and add pedestrian
scale.
SUMMARY
It is my opinion that the revised design meets the requirements of the design guidelines.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or clarifications.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Davis
Page 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 27, 2017
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Amy Tian and Ben Tranel represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> C/arified that the rooftop terraces are not accessib/e to the public. (Tranel: this is correct.)
> Has potential mechanica/ equipment been sized to fall below the roof-screening height? (Tranel: yes,
certain that all equipment will fit. Is also reflective of the p/ans that have been submiited to the Building
Division for review.)
> The bui/dings were a/ways intended to be potential life-science spaces? (Tranel.� yes. The changes are
on/y necessitated by use for such purpose.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum c/osed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> The rooftop terraces were never intended to be public amenities, and all other public spaces will be
maintained.
> The project needs to achieve success, so the changes must be made to attract the desired tenant.
> This is the first project of this magnitude to be developed in Burlingame. The project as revised meets
the design criteria. Having the /ab-use in the area will help to ensure project success.
> Reinforced that the project must be built as approved, or may be subject to further review by the
P/anning Commission.
> This is a sophisticated deve/oper and architect, but reminded the Commission of the instance when
changes were made to the new hospital without prior approval.
> More pedestrian activity may be brought back to the ground.
> Concerned thaf the rooftop decks may have limited utility due to wind conditions.
Commissioner Sargent
application. Ct�air Gum
following vote:
made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve The
called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the
Aye: 6- Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto
Absent: 1 - Kelly
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a. 1327 Castillo Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for first and second
floor additions to an existing finro-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Eiki
Tanaka, Studio 02, Inc., designer and applicant; Celeste and Eric Leung, property
owners) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
attachments: 1327 Castillo Ave - Staff Renort
1327 Castillo Ave - Attachments
1327 Castillo Ave - Plans - 11.27.17
City of BuHingame page 8 Printed on 1�J/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 27, 2017
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff.�
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Eiki Tanaka represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> On the front e/evation there is a she/f or something over the garage door that mimics the roof over the
entry, whaf is this? (Tanaka: is intended to mimic that e/ement.)
> What are the materia/s for the new windows? (Tanaka: aluminum clad.)
> What will the entry stair well look like? (Tanaka: referred to the side e/evation p/an; will be a painted
meta/ railing; will be the same as what is to be provided on the /anding). Show these details on the p/ans.
> Will the skylights be flat? (Tanaka: yes.)
> Notes that no window trim is shown; why? (Tanaka: want to make the design appear a bit more
contemporary with no window trim and with smooth stucco.)
> Will the new stucco match the existing stucco? (Tanaka: the intent is to rep/ace the existing stucco.)
> Doesn't feel that the f/at roof e/ement above the entry and the garage door are not found elsewhere in
the neighborhood. (Tanaka: wanted to include both elements to make them consistent within the design .
Is a small e/ement that adds to the contemporary design.)
> Noted thaf the new porch is a bit shallower and narrower,� couldn't find a similar design approach in the
neighborhood. Is there anything that can be done to increase the prominence of the porch? (Tanaka:
working with the existing structure makes this a challenge. Want to expand the garage to make meet the
spatial requirements.)
> Is the intention to use the garage as a two car garage? (Tanaka: want to use the space for one car,
p/us storage.) Was any thought given to narrowing the garage? (Tanaka: it will be up to the owner to
decide how it may be used,� may attempt to fit two cars into the garage.)
Public Comments:
Beryl Lucey, 1331 Castillo Avenue: expressed concerns regarding privacy as expressed in his /etter to the
Commission.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
City Attorney Kane noted that where a hedge is present on a property line, it is treated as a fence and
cannot exceed the maximum fence height. Staff is reviewing the materials to determine fhe location of the
hedge.
Commission Discussion:
> Are only asking for design review,� no special considerations.
> The design is stripped of any detail and is nof really contemporary,� other homes on fhe b/ock have
detail and character.
> Massing is handled nice/y, but the windows and other details do not provide any detail or character.
> Needs another pass to make the design address the design guidelines and to fit within the
neighborhood context.
> The details are lacking.
City of Burlingame Page 7 Printed on 1i9/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 27, 2017
> There are a number of things that could make the design more consistent with a Modern design as
desired by the applicant.
> /s a good candidate for a design review consultant.
> Is very different from surrounding designs.
> Looking for traditiona/ massing with more contemporary detailing to fit into the neighborhood.
> The neighbor's privacy issue needs to be addressed, though there is no guaranfeed protection of
privacy, though there are things that can be done on both properties to address the concern. Encouraged
the applicant and the neighbor to work together.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the
application to a design review consultant.
Discussion of Motion:
> Is an interesting house. Has some conspicuous, modernist elements already present in the
design (e.g. the corner windows). These elements are being taken away and replaced with
typical windows that would be provided in a traditional ranch design. Are taking away design
elements that actually contribute to a modernist design approach. Removal of these elements
may be undermining the design approach.
> Briefly spoke to the applicant in the lobby; noted that referral to a design review consultant
can be a positive process that streamlines the process.
Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6- Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto
Absent: 1 - Kelly
b. 2115 Roosevelt Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Right Side
Setback Variance for a major renovation, first and second story addition and
modifications to existing detached garage (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, architect;
Christopher and Tracey Papazian, property owners) (50 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine
Keylon
attachments: 2115 Roosevelt Ave - Staff Reoort and Attachments
2115 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 1127.17
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones introduced himself to the property
owner, buf didn't discuss project details. Chair Gum spoke to the neighbor at 2109 Rooseve/t Avenue.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff.�
> Noted fhat Roosevelt Avenue is off of Vancouver Avenue, not Columbus Avenue.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange represented the applicanf.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Understands the argument for the variance on the right side. What is the jog shown on the roof eave
City of Burlingame Page 8 Printed on 1/�9/2018
1. For the front elevation, focus on strategies that reduce the size of the garage door and make
the entry more prominent;
Response: Garage door reduced to 12', entrance stairs and porch widened back to 5'-9". See
front elevation 2/A2.0
2. Due to budget considerations, it seems a good opfion to keep some of the existing exterior
features (brick below the bay and rounded right side bay) and to echo these more traditional
elements at the left side, above fhe garage; this feature should be more prominent in relation to the
garage door;
Response: Existing elements to remain. See front elevation 2/A2.0
3. For reference, a single-car garage door must be a minimum of 8 feet wide and a maximum of
15 feet wide; the required setback to a single car garage door is 25 feet
Response: Garage door reduced to single-car garage door. See front elevation 2/A2.0
4. Consider a garage door with more details such as panels and/or windows;
Response: Garage door style revised. See front elevation 2/A2.0
5. Add a note on the plans fhat provides defails for the skylights (flaf as opposed to bubble);
Response: Keynote #15 revised on elevation sheets A2.0-A2.3 to specify flat skylights
6. A wood railing at the entry is recommended;
Response: Keynote #11 revised on elevation sheets to specify wood railing. Rail to terminate
into post. Front and left side elevations 2/A2.0 and 2/A2.3
7. Look at the roof interchange for the porch and fhe fascia details for this covering;
Response: Porch covering revised per Jeanne's suggestion. Fascia detail noted under
Keynote #16 on elevations. Front elevation 2/A2.0
8. The proposed windows should be noted as "aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true
divided lites that have three-dimensional muntin bars permanently adher�d to both sides of the g/ass
and spacer bars in between the panes of glass;
Response: Keynote #7 revised on elevation sheets A2.0-A2.3
9. If you opt for vinyl clad wood windows, the Commission is familiar with and has approved the
Andersen 400 series and the Milgard Montecito series. If you proposed a different vinyl window,
please bring a sample of what you proposed to use to the next hearing;
Response: N/A
10. You may want to consider a window with a sill as part of the window system for a more
contemporary look;
Response: Window trim and sill added. Window jamb and head/sill details added. Details
3/A2.0 and 4/A2.0
11. Casement windows will be important at the front as they are a more traditional window; you
may also consider casemenfs at the sides insfead of sliders; mafch the grid pattern of the windows
at the front to those at the side and rear;
Response: Casement windows kept at front elevation. Window styles at side and rear
elevations unchanged. Sheets A2.0-A2.3
12. For the kitchen window, there is the following side setback exception for a garden
window: (5) Greenhouse window(s) proiectin�r no more than one f t �,i ��
���n������.� ��
�i;r�; �Y 201�
C{TY CJF �_'•t��;� 1� aN,.M�
CDD-F!�'�,f�.i��3'�.; a =„V.
three (3) feet above finished floor, not exceeding seventeen (17) square feet inside the window
casement area and at least three (3) feet from any lot line.; and
Response: No garden window. Kitchen window moved 1' to the north from original proposed
design. Proposed Upper Floor Plan 1/A1.3
13. However, you mentioned you did not think the new kitchen window faced the bedroom window
on your neighbor's property. If this can be shown on the plans and in fhe field, fhen there really is no
need to change the proposed window; and in fact a garden window would move the glazing closer to
the fence line and therefore is not a good solution. From what was shown as existing and proposed
on the plans (those that the neighbor viewed), the new window would be approximately 4 feef closer
to the REAR of the property ) from fhe edge of fhe existing window (or would be moving about 4 feet
to the right of its current location). It is recommended that the neighbor's window be shown on fhe
first floor proposed floor plan (to see how it lines up wifh the proposed kitchen window) and that the
new window location be taped up on the site prior to the next hearing.
Response: See response above. Neighbor's bedroom window shown on Proposed Upper
Floor Plan 1/A1.3
14. P/ease review existing and proposed overhang dimensions and fascia board sizes. The existing
roof plan notes a 12" overt►ang at the gable ends; however, there is no overhang currently. If you
want to add overhangs at all gable and shed roof ends, please coordinate this information and make
it consistent. Also, the Planning Commission typically wants to see fhe dimensions noted for all
exterior frim including fascia boards. If you are matching the exisfing condition, please note fhat size.
If you want to change the size or configuration, please indicate that information. In general, the PC
prefers overhang details and dimensions fo be cohesive throughout to unify the house with additions.
See attached PDF for notes on reference images and drawings.
Response: Existing and proposed overhang dimensions clarified and shown on Roof Plans
A1.2 and A1.4
- Finally, I consulted my previous plan check an also double-checked with the other Staff Planners,
and all that you have fo work with is the 20 SF of floor area until you arrive at your maximum. During
my previous plan check, I already applied the 100 SF exempfion for the lower floor (this took the
house from 3100 SF to 3000 SF, where the maximum floor area is 3020 SF.) 1 can apply an exfra 5
SF to the fireplace in fhe living room- which gives you a fota/ of 25 SF until you hit your maximum.
Response: Floor Area Calculations revised on A1.4
The option we discussed using a soffit nexf fo the stairs at the garage level was determined in a past
project to not be a permanent solution (an approved soffit was easily removed). The only other way
I could think to capture more floor area would be to make fhis area no more than 5'-11 " by raising
the floor level wifh a concrete landing. This has been done in some split level houses.
Response: Under stair area included in floor area calculations
• It would look better if there was more consistency of fhe grid width across the various window
types/sizes. The narrowest grid is /ess than 9" wide on the 3' wide sliders. Can you revisit spacing so
no grid is wider than 12"? That would mean an approx. 4-wide grid on the 48" wide window. It /ooks
like the grid is about 12" high so that would make most of the grid proportions square.
Response: Grids revised per Jeanne's suggestions. See elevations A2.0-A2.3
• P/ease add grids fo all windows on fhe left-side elevation to relate to the rest of the house. If you
want to have a mix of double-hung, casements and sliders fhey all need to look part of the same
family, i.e. matching grids.
Response: Grids added to left side elevation windows. 2/A2.3
• Include details for fypical window head�amb trim and sill.
Response: Details 3& 4/A2.0 added
• Include note indicating typical 2x? wood fascia size
Response: Keynote #16 added to elevation sheets A2.0-A2.3
" Show the handrail terminating in the railing post. There is some discrepancy between the sheets
for how the railing post is drawn so please coordinate on your final submittal.
Response: Front and left side elevations revised to be consistent to show railing terminating
into post. Front Elevation 2/A2.0 and 2/A2.3
To your comment about the porch overhang being deep:
• In general, 1 think the widfh of the stairs and landing are more important than the depth of the
landing. Currently, the side door allows for a bench or ofher porch fumiture to the left of the front
door. When you shift the door fo face the street, there is no place left for porch fumiture. I see the
fronf steps becoming the neighborhood "stoop" where one could sit which is why the width is more
important.
Response: Existing entrance porch/step width shown on Existing Upper Floor Plan 1/A1.1.
Proposed entrance steps widened from previous scheme to match existing width. See
Proposed Upper Floor Plan 1/A1.3 and Front Elevation 2/A2.0
• I could see reducing the overhang to 1' past a beam in line with the adjacent bedroom wall if you
prefer. In that case, fhe post would become a handrail post.
Response: Overhang reduce to 1' past beam line per Alt 1 suggestion. Post changed to
handrail post.
• 1 could see an argument to reduce the landing to 5' 6" to line up with the Alt. 1 roof overhang.
Response: Porch revised to line up with Alt 1 roof overhang. Proposed Upper Floor Plan
1/A1.3
P/ease review Erika's list of comments from her earlier email to make sure they have been
addressed:
#5 Note flat g/ass skylights (Velux or similar)
Response: See response to comment #5 above
#13 Mock-up proposed kitchen window locafion on house exterior. This can happen closer to the
public notification period.
Response: We will do this
Where possible, can you eliminate any of the lines or lettering that cross the facades of the ?
Response: Elevations A2.0-A2.3 revised
For example, on the front elevation the TOP and FF lines can just be shown to the side of the
elevation, instead of extending across the fa�ade. 1 think the window dimensions are helpful, but
can you pull them off the fa�ade and present them as a note to the side of the elevation?
Response: Window dimensions noted on window. Plans get too busy when I note it off to the
side with leaders for each window
COMMUNICATlON RECEIYF.D
�lFTER PRBPAR.lTION
CD/PLG-Erika Lewit C��ST�F�'RLPOR?'
From: J. <JLucey131@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 11:14 AM
To: CD/PLG-Erika Lewit
Subject: 1327 Castillo Ave., Burlingame,CA 94010: Project Number 17-5950
Good morning Planning Commission and Erika Lewit,
As long time Burlingame residents and property owners, we are requesting a plan set review of the current
property plan set at 1327 Castillo Ave., Burlingame,CA 94010: project number 17-5950, in particular to the
new kitchen window placement. Original plans for these homes did take window placement in to consideration
to avoid awkwardness with neighbors. As the current plan set (existing VS proposed) does not specifcally note
the movement of the kitchen window towards the rear of the property, we believe about three feet (3') from the
current location as noted from the current property owner, we are looking for some movement in the location of
the kitchen window back towards its original location closer to the front of the property, or a sizing reduction of
the window. We have spoken with the new property owner about the new placement of the kitchen window and
he too does not wish to be looking into a bedroom window.
There is currently a high hedge in between the two properties and does not obscure due to the 1327 property
being on a rise or berm, the 1327 home sits unusually high due to the lot. We are optimistic that the kitchen
window movement back towards the front of the home, or a reduction in size of the kitchen window
compromise can reached with consideration for both parties.
Regards,
Beryl Lucey
1331 Castillo Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
J. Lucey
11.27.17 pc meeting
Item 9a
1327 Castillo Ave.
� �, a _�, , �, �..�.
��" � ��.��. � ��' :�i "� �
i`�i;.J'b' �? �' �',��
C� I �l� Cii' i7f.i;'1�.�iLl:sr��!�IL
C��-`� h.°,y��;,,�:; !:`,�.
��t�., . � ,
�. '�euut�� �i. ;�ea�cuaad '�'es�,cea. 2?ee+�
.��. �3,�2�.� d'r ;�.'eta.i�uoc Zf/�
�st s�.� � �� � � . �
� � 1,�. �A��
(dso1 �s�-o644 ;� (6.saj 7s�-ot9� www.northfenceccs.corn
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO HOME PHONE DATE
Jay Lucey 520-3488 12-7-2017
STREET WORK PHONE FAX
1331 Castillo Ave. jlucey131@comcast.net
CITY, STATE and ZIP CODE CRO55 STREETS
Burlingame, Ca Hillcrest
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
A.) Repair left fence using 8 steel posts, set in concrete and bolted to existing wood posts. $200.00 ea. x 8= $1,600.00
B.) Add 12" lattice to top of existing left side fence for first 52' from front of neighbor's house. $1,050.00
C.) Replacement of 75' left side fence (From sidewalk to taller section @ rear) x 6' tal with 12" lattice top, stepping to 3'
tall at sidewalk. * To be built as a solid picture frame design using 1x8" select redwood boards and 2x4" framing stringers
with 4x6" pressure treated posts set in concrete every 8 ft. max @ 40" deep minimum. $5,625.00
* Posts include 10 yr. warranty against dry-rot (Steel posts for "A" include lifetime warranty)
Any permit required is homeowners responsibility. Not responsible for broken underground pipes or lines.
We propose hereby to furnish moterial and labor - cornplete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
Dollars $ Total from above ^
Payment to be made as follows: Remove Old Fence
In full on date of completion/ No deposit required Yes, Included @ no charge/ to be recycled "For option C"
All materiaf is guaranteed to be as specified and completed in a workmanlike Authorized
manner according to standard proctices. Any alteration or deviation from Signoture
above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written (Contractor} Owner
orders, and wilf become on extra charge over and above the estimate. All �
Note: This proposal moy 30 days
agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents, or deloys beyond ou� Cont1'OI, be withdrawn by us if not accepted within
Accepi'anCe of PrOposal — The above prices, specifications ond
conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature
to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Neighbor's
Date of Acceptance Signature
���
BURLIN�.qME'�
..:.:,� �.:i �.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
�) Design Review ❑ Variance
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1327 Castillo Avenue
APPLICANT
Name: Eiki Tanaka
Address: 1230 Oakmead Pkwy #303
City/State/zip: Sunnyvale, CA 94085
Phone: 408-730-8877 ext 205
E-mai�: eiki@studio02.net
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: Studio 02, Inc Sunny Tam
Address: 1230 Oakmead Pkwy #303
City�State/Zip: Sunnyvale, CA 94085
Phone: 408-730-8877 ext 204
E-mai�: sunny@studio02.net
❑ Parcel #:
❑ Zoning / Other:
PROPERTY OWNER
tvame: Celeste Leung and Eric Leung
Address: 1327 Castillo Avenue
city�stateizip: Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: 415-385-2767
E-mai�: leung.eric@yahoo.com
� ��`;. �' � � �,�T � �
l;Ua 3 i� �:;li
CITY 0� �lli�`!`��AME
cc��-��_�^.�an;�r,��; r_>>v.
Burlingame Business License #: �lZ� � �
Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this
application on the City's website as part o�,th lanning approval process and waive any claims against the City
arising out of or related to such action. �7 (Initials of Architect/Designer)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 397 sf addition on 1 st and 2nd story of an existing 2,623 sf two-story
residence. 1 st story addition to extend existing attached one-car garage at front and 2nd story
addition to extend master suite. Existinq pool to be infilled to create new patio. Interior remodel
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature: • Date: �! 30 �� I�
I am aware of the proposed applicatioh and hereby authorize�e abo e applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission. ;'
Property owner's signature: �� �'' M� J Date: g�30/2017
Date submitted:
S: � HANDOUTS� PC Application. doc
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desian
Review for first and second story additions to an existinq sinqle familv with an attached qaraqe at 1327
Castillo Avenue, Zoned R-1. Eric and Celeste Leunq, propertv owners, APN: 027-192-030;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January
22, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence
that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical
exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that
additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will
not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition
is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording
of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 22"d dav of Januarv, 2018 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review
1327 Castillo Avenue
Effective February 1, 2018
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped January 11, 2018, sheets A0.0 through A3.0, and Topographic Survey dated 2008;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof
height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning
Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning
staf�;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be
placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development
Director;
5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the
site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval
adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of
all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all
conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or
changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building
permit is issued;
8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review
1327 Castillo Avenue
Effective February 1, 2018
Page 2
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor
area ratio for the property;
11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification
that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at
framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans;
architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be
submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
. CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
, PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 1327 CASTILLO AVENUE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission onnounces the
following public hearing on MONDAY, JANUARY 22,
2018 at 7:00 P.M. in the [ity Hall Council Chambers, 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review for first and second floor
additions to an existing two-story single family dwelling
with an attached garage at 1327 CASTILLO AVENUE
zoned R-l. APN 027-192-030
Mailed: January 12, 2018
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
Citv of Burlin.qame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
1327 CASTILLO AVENUE (R-1)
`
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
PROJECT LOCATION
1327 Castillo Avenue
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1327 Castillo Avenue
�
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
Meeting Date: November 27, 2017
Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story single
family dwelling with attached garage.
Applicant Designer: Eiki Tenaka, S#udio 02
Property Owner: Celeste and Eric Leung
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 027-192-030
Lot Area: 6,000 SF
Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with an existing two-story house and an attached
ga�age. There is a 10-foot public utility right-of-way beyond the rear property line. The applicant proposes first
and second story additions to the existing house. The total proposed floor area is 3,000 SF (0.50 FAR), where
3,020 SF (0.503 FAR) is the maximum allowed.
The proposed project includes expanding the existing lower level and a first and second floor addition at the front
of the house. The addition will increase the width of the garage door from 14 feet #0 16 feet and will move the
face of the attached garage 7'-11" closer the front property line. The existing garage provides only one covered
parking space (10' x 19'-10" clear interior dimensions). Once altered, the dimensions of the existing pa�king
space must meet all current code-required minimums and therefore, the reconfigured garage will provide a depth
of 20 feet. There are 4 existing bedrooms and the number of bedrooms will not be increased with the proposed
work. The proposed on-site parking (one covered 10' x 20' space and one uncovered space in the driveway
leading to the garage) meets the code requirement for a 4-bedroom house.
All existing windows are proposed to be replaced with new, aluminum clad wood windows with no exterior trim.
The existing landscaping will remain, with the addition of a new landscape tree in the front yard and new paving
in the rear yard where the existing pool will be filled in. The protected size redwood trees at the rear of the
property do not require tree protection measure because of their distance from the proposed construction to the
main house. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)).
This space intentionally left blank.
• �
Design Review 1327 Castillo Avenue
1327 Castillo Avenue
Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stam ed: November 3, 2017
EXfSTING � PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS � '
__....___._._..�_..._-_---....________..._._._.._._.� ....................... _ ' ..........._.�._..__ _. _._._......._....._.._...._----_ ____.....................�.._�...._..._._.............__..._....._..............__._..........._.__.---..._.........._.........._.._._..._._._...._..
Front 1st flr : ! _ ............�.... ._��-_ ---__._._..._.f.. _ . � � �� •
( ); 14 -10 , No change , 17 -3 is the block average
(2nd flr): ' 14'-10" ; No change j
: 20'-0"
To garage: j 44'-4" I 36'-5" � 35'-0" to a two car garage door
,
,.
____._._..._.......__........__�._.----....,.__.......�..__ .................._......----......__.......�..........._.......___. -----._._._...._i....._......___.__..._............_.�_....-��......._..--....__...................__-------�....---.........................._..---.._.....__..._._......_._..._._................_...-----.....___.�.._._
Side (left): ' S'-0" 5-0 to new 4'-0"
�
f '
�
(right): ; 4'-10" � No change ! 4'-0"
__._,....� ..................._____._'__,.._._.._..._......... �....._..........._._._..___.___..................._................."'_....__._..............:.......__._.......__.__..__._._._.__..............__._.___._.._....._.__...._...........................E.___............_...............'__'___.._.__�.__...._....__.""......__._..........__.__....................__._
Rear (1 st flr): � 31'-9" i No change 15'-0"
(2nd flr): f 42'-1" ' �
� No change 20'-0"
._ .........................._._...._.."'_._'._._........._.............._�_......._._.."_. __'........._._...,._._.............._._..__"'_'..__'_'. �.._....____..__.._........_.........___. 1
� ....._.__.____........_,._..........._............_-...._._._i . ... .. .... ...........' ._._.__�...........__._`____...._._......______._.
: i_... ,......._,._......._._. _. ._._._.
, 1,981 SF 2,157 SF ! 2 400 SF
Lot Coverage: i
: 33% I 36% � 40%
_.__....�._...__.__....._.__._.__..........__._..__.._._..i. ......_.__......____...._.-----._ ............................------._._..�.....�..e._.._......._______.........._.........._......_.. __......__........._.._,......._................_.._..._.._ . __ ___.........._._.....__...._....._.._...._.__.___...�...,..._...._._
� 2,611 SF ? 3,000 SF j 3,020 SF'
FAR: ! ;
' 0.44 FAR 0.50 FAR ' 0.503 FAR
, _ ......._........_..__........__.._.__..............___. ............._F.........__....._._.__._..._................_......_....._._._._.._...._.......---...._........._.._
# of bedrooms: ; _ ; 4 4
iE
� 1 covered ' 1 covered i T. 1 covered -'_.._._._._........._..__...._.....
;
(20' x 19'-10) 2 (10' x 20') ; (10' x 20')
Parking: ; ; ,
� 1 uncovered j 1 uncovered ; 1 uncovered
�
(9' x 20') ; (9' x 20') (9' x 20')
i �
__.._..�._..._.._._._.....__.._._...___._._.�.._...._._..�...�......___.._....._....._......__._.._._.__.____...._. .................__ --�-----
_.... .............................____....__...._....._______................_. _._. _.._.__..__...._.. ___......_...__._._____......_...._.__..__.�..__.�.
, ;...._.._._..
Heighf: ' 28'-10" � 30'-0"
: � No change i
;
.......................____ � ;
_ ......................._._..........._....--�-___.............._._............---__._._.._....__.._..._._._._..__._....._......._._........_.__.._......__.........�_...............__....._.__._.............._...__.._____..,..........._........._---_._........_........__._._.....�__ __----_.............___ _____....._
DH Envelope: ; complies compiies CS 25.26.Oi5
; ' ;
.__....__._.._..._.__._._._._.....__._._....._.__._._.....__..._._i......__ ____ _____..__ ...............�.........__._._..._.._......._...1........._._.........__._....._.___........_.__._...__._......_........_.�-----___....._....�.._..._._._.._._.._._...........__._....__._.......,................_.
' (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1100 SF = 3,020 SF (0.503 FAR)
z The existing covered parking space is non-conforming in depth (19'-10" existing where a new space requires 20').
Staff Comments: There are no outstanding comments from the other City Divisions.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
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;
��
�
Design Review 9327 Castillo Avenue
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Erika Lewit
Senior Planner
c. Eiki Tenaka, applicant
Attachments:
• Application to the Planning Commission
• Applicant's Explanation letter, dated August 30, 2017
• Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 17, 2017
• Aerial Photo
-3-
^Liil�
� ., �� �,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT � 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD � BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
� Design Review ❑ Variance
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1327 Castillo Avenue
APPLICANT
Name: Eiki Tanaka
Address: 1230 Oakmead Pkwy #303
CitylStatelZip: Sunnyvale, CA 94085
Phone: 408-730-8877 ext 205
E-mai�: eiki@studio02.net
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: Studio 02, Inc Sunny Tam
Address: 1230 Oakmead Pkwy #303
❑ Parcel #:
❑ Zoning / Other:
City/Statelzip: Sunnyvale, CA 94085
Phone:
E-mail
408-730-8877 ext 204
sunny@studio02.net
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: Celeste Leung and Eric Leung
Address: 1327 Castillo Avenue
City�stateiZip: Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: 415-385-2767
E-mail: leung.eric@yahoo.com
a� p�
�� �/ � pi A �� ..
y �� �i� ni
�'�lJ{a � � �'��II
Cl�i�Y �}�� �3;�lf�l.[�i;�`,ME
Cl�IJ-F'1.�1f�,�;1�,a�:, ��iV.
Burlingame Business License #: ?7Zd � �
Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this
application on the City's website as part g�th lanning approval process and waive any claims against the City
arising out of or related to such action. `7 (Initials of ArchitectlDesigner)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 397 sf addition on 1 st and 2nd story of an existing 2,623 sf two-story
residence. 1 st story addition to extend existing attached one-car garage at front and 2nd story
addition to extend master suite. Existinq pool to be infilled to create new patio. Interior remodel
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief. _
Applicant`s signature: • Date: �! 30 �� f—]
I am aware of the proposed applicatioh and hereby authorize�e abo e applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission. /� .1-
Property owner's signature: !� v 1 �� Date: 8�30/2017
Date submitted:
5: �HANDOUTS1PCApplicotion.doc
� ^
f�
LJ
1 2 3 0 O A K M E A D P K W Y # 3 0 3 . S U N N Y V A L E . C A 9 4 0 8 5
TEL: 408.730.8877 FAX: 408.716.2996
1327 CastillQ Avenue two-story addition — Letter of Explanation
The project at 1327 Castillo proposes and 15` and 2"d story addition to an existing 2,623 sf two-
story residence. The addition is located at the front of the lot and extends the existing attached
one-car garage and the master bedroom which is located at the portion of the house that is set
back from the front property line. The proposed design updates the existing ranch style home to a
contemporary ranch with smooth stucco exterior walls and aluminum-clad windows. The goal is to
give this home a distinct style to fit within this neighborhood that is a collection of eclectic home
styles. This project maintains the existing building height and the proposed addition breaks up the
main mass of the existing home.
�`�;� �, a � „� � ���� �, n ��.
��UG o3 � i;l�!
�a"i Y' C?i� ��,�%:I.��fC-,���r1�:
LCart-r 1..�':�J�3�s�ai:;= (.�IV.
�
1 2 3 0 0 A K M E A D P K W Y k 3 0 3 . S U N N Y V A L E . C A 9 4 0 8 5
(T)468.730.8877 ( F) 408.716.2996 (E) EIK I(�ilS T UD 1002 iJ � T_
�
. CITY OF BURLINGAME
' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�'y�._ ��_ .� PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 1327 CASTILLO AVENUE
The (ity of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27,
2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall (ouncil Chnmhers, 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review far first and second floor
additians to an existing two-story single family dwelling
with an ottached garnge at 1327 CASTILLO AVENUE
zoned R-l. APN 021-192-030
Mailed: November 17, 2017
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
Citv of Burlinqame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650} 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
(Please refer to other sideJ
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
1327 CASTILLO AVENUE {R-1)
�
� ..
Zoning: R-1
Project Address: 1327 Castillo Avenue
Application: Design Review for first and second story additions
Date of Review: 10.27.17
Lot Area: 6,000 SF, interior lot, 10-foot PU right-of-way at the rear
1. Design Review (Code Section 25.57.010)
Proposed second story addition is subject to design review- application submitted.
2. Setbacks (Code Section 25.26.072)
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ...... ..
Existing Proposed Allowed/Required
:.................................................................................................................................:...............................................................................................................:..........................................................................................................:.................... ...
........................................
Front (1st flr): � 14'-10" No change 17'-3" is the block average
(2nd flr): 14'-10" No change 20'-0"
To garage: ; 44���� 32'-4" 25'-0" to a single- car garage
door
:.................................................................................................................................:..............................................................................................................: .......................................................................................................... ..........................................................................
r , ,
Side (left): � 5'-0" 5'-0" to new 4'-0"
(right): ; 4'-10" No change 4'-0"
Rear (1 st flr): ; 31'-9" No...change ............................ .......... 1.5._O; .............................................
(2nd flr): 42'-1" No change 20'-0"
:...............................................................................................................:.......................................................................................................:...................................
• The proposed project complies with setback requirements.
3. Lot Coverage (Code Section 25.26.065)
40% x 6,000 SF = 2,400 SF inaximum allowed
................................................................................................................:..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Existing Proposed
: ............................................................................................................... : ........................................ ........................................................................................ � ..........................................................................................
Lot Coverage: ; 1,981 SF 2,241 SF
33% 37%
Allowed/Required
2,400 SF
40%
• The proposed project complies with lot coverage regulations (calculations are attached).
City of Burlingame
Planning Division
(650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 (fax)
Plan Review Comments
4. Floor Area Ratio (Code Section 25.26.070)
2 x 6,000 SF) + 1100 =
Floor Area Ratio:
I SF inaximum allowed (0.503 FAR)
............................................................................ .............
Existing Proposed
2,610.5 SF 2,994 SF
0.44 FAR 0.50 FAR
Allowed/Required
3,020 SF
0.503 FAR
• The proposed project complies with floor area ratio regulations (calculations are attached).
1
h
�
City of Burlingame
Planning Division
(650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 (fax)
Plan Review Comments
5. Building Height (Code Section 25.26.060)
Average top of curb: (115.44' + 117.39')/2 = 116.42'
Existing: 116.42' + 17.19' = 145.26' (28'-10" above average top of curb)
Proposed: no change (new ridge is lower than highest existing)
Allowed: 116.42' + 30' = 146.42' (30'-0" above average top of curb)
• The proposed project complies with overall building height regulations.
6. Declining Height Envelope (DHE) (Code Section 25.26.075)
Points of Departure - Left Side: (119.10" + 125.85")/2 = 122.48'
- Right Side: no change
• The proposed project complies with declining height envelope regulations.
7. Parking (Code Section 25.70.030)
4 bedrooms existing, 4 bedrooms proposed
Existing: 1 covered (10' x 19'-10') + 1 uncovered (9' x 20')'
Proposed: 1 covered (10' x 20') + 1 uncovered (9' x 20') z
Required: 1 covered (10' x 20') + 1 uncovered (9' x 20')
' Though the existing garage door meets the dimensions of a two-car garage, the existing garage interior is
only 15'-7" x 19'-10" clear, which meets the minimum dimensions for an existing single-car garage (min.
dimensions are 9' x 18' for single and 18' x 18' for double).
2 Once a covered parking space is altered, it must be made to meet current code dimensions requirements.
The new garage also has a two-car garage door, but although the interior length of the garage is being
increased (to 20 feet ), the width of the space is allowed to be reduced (to 12'-5") because the width never
met the minimum dimension for two spaces; the existing and proposed garage meet the requirements for a
single-car garage.
• The proposed project complies with parking requirements for a 4-bedroom house. Please note that the final
Planning inspection of the project will confirm that there is no door present (standard, pocket, or barn door)
between the lower level guest bedroom and the exercise area.
8. Landscaping
• The proposed project complies with landscaping requirements. There are two existing protected-size
redwood trees in the rear yard that will remain and one 24-inch box size tree proposed in the front yard.
Please contact Erika Lewit if you have questions regarding these plan check comments:
elewit(a)burlinqame.orq or (650) 558.7254
2
,. ,
_�. , �
City of Burlingame
Planning Department
(650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 (fax)
Plan Review Comments
� �-���� '������
�L a�� ����-�
` , �-2
c ��j ,� -�I �o'
�,,, � '��1 c � .;�- �
Job Address: 1327 Castiilo Avenue
Job Description: Design Review for first and second story addition
Date: 9.22.17 ar�d 1p - 2�-• ��
Calculations: +-{���b �� �,�4, i+� � �� t��p �, r�c"��;,,
r �r,+
��k��s-���
1► , t�
�. -�--5
�. �
� 3�0.5
i "�- �--i
s� ��
,�,�.6
► d �.5, �
��i,S
I�d1,1
� ���
1,�$ Er� �����
F�oo,, .A�� a��: o M Zu
� �k� .~ j�.....__.....�.._....�
��_� �� . �
� � �. �
(�c, -E- Co,,�e.,,� ��.. t�-d. 'a� _
_. ------�--�o
�'1' r' a c� ��
3ro� 5
r�--�,.�
�lo �
t� o
�t•`��
q.a
30 . c�
�35�b
(U�-�i��o
� �l � s S ��
2,1��� ��"�
(0,32� h �c�o� �- � �oo = 3�020 � �C��5�3 ��+C?
' � �� r,
�v�% -r� ��'��^ F.�a`.� `�,..
� �., 4' 5.���,� � 1
,
t� ,,--- � �- �
��.
�i�, �
���.�
���5 �
��t �
►�� '
�,�
2., c� a c� � � �% � , �-t �,.r...-�
_�..�...�-M-
( 5o.a �o�. �����- poYc.�
��� c �^��p � ,,� r'��+ 'a �� c � s��' � !
1
�� ��
���� ��,a.o
2 � '-�1 � �
t� � ��,- � �3 �
� . -�.s
,��o , 5
� �, �. o
;��_�.�
L �-� � , �
I���
3� � �
��. r�
��R � Q+� — i oo �� f ietid
'� ��,¢�t . �� 'L:l t�, �� -�
� �; � �_ �� ��. �,,. ��