HomeMy WebLinkAbout1516 Carol Avenue - Staff Report'� , I , � x� ..
M
�. ��I ,r'
� , �
��`
, , ,
:,, - �a,,. ���• . �� .
. ,� ,� x1;� 1 ir d, t � x�;, c
ti.', __ r wj r.�t'i� y. r� ';�"aa -`��'.�ya�,ra� y � �,'`
. 1•: s ..� �. ``• ' '.r�r�_�2.`�'s%.k�c'�'�."'� .._:�n
.. . ' '��i � ,. ' i .
r , . „
. . .
.
� `,�_�. �,�. „� • '
., . i
t:...'- � �: � !�� � .,.. ...:....) � .
�...y..�., h ,• ��., � � , , l� ' txJ`��.`^v.r'_
' �� "y1}�t, i I 1 .. .....�._..�1 I�
__ i�r � I. _._. � �, � .�.'— �'
.�;;; d� ;f ` � �;. ,
! � � �
_ ` %�"'� �� i��,
� �. � �,
� �;.
,�.
� `� 4 ` y`,� � a+ w6';Vikbi'+V°� -i+ . Y�� . :,� '�'
ii�'�'.1IiJ�.�hM�'R�''/.y'va+� r ..�¢.. . - .
� .:�Y�.� . n. . ..� �_..�..-....,. ........�...«- !.m..+..-�...w+....aew.«.�....�..�....�...�'�++.�Nr'i=-i+-..w
—.�.xmw�rM§V..� , .. . ,ura,a� �,:.Ifw� urn�,in..'r.v"w� �,. . � .,�.y� y,,�+�q�.sr.�,....1 .,n..
�p g� b
�4R'��� �"� �"'*� A �� r : � . , a a�t ur u � .n'�7 ,� ° o'� e.+ �Gn��yy "�u.T y� i �,
c..,,�,�„, , ,.. �
'. � .. , " '-. ; ^t 4 .:. y�'rF^1 ,�, �$T�l S
- ,
..w_ M:nt. :'. .. .�.� , ' .,.,�1:/'Y ,Ilkanxe ,FA �(!�":,�, ��
. SGI F .. _ . , . . 'ueM'� n.
r
i� ,� �;tr
��,� �!�'�+,n -
"_.'"""?+t.� �"��9°;y'� # �r. , � .
M � ��
! ..,...z7cMLi
I'�
�
�
S ►� »:k,�.,�
p� i..
r � C i:
. . , : ,-i
City of Burlingame ITEM#
Front Setback Variance and Design Review
Address: 1516 Carol Avenue Meeting Date: 7/10/00
Request: Front setback variance and design review for a first and second-story addition (C.S. 25.28.040).
Applicant & Designer: Ray Brayer APN: 028-301-040
Property Owner: Terris Linenbach & Pamela Yee
Lot Area: 5250 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, sma11 facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with
the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be
constructed or converted under this exemption.
History: This is a resubmittal of a design which was denied without prejudice April 24, 2000. The Planning
Commission reviewed a revised project at a preliminary design review study meeting on May 22, 2000. The
Commission voted to send the application to a design reviewer (see attached 5/22/00 Planning Commission
minutes). Concerns expressed by the Planning Commission included the following:
• consider a porte cochere on the driveway side, there is a big blankness;
• provide landscaping on right side, narrow the driveway to 12' width, could do a patio, garden in side yard,
with planting areas and trees, could use double strips for the driveway, need to provide a developed
landscape plan with heavy trellis;
• stucco siding looks plain, wood siding would look better, don't see bungalow elements, will still look like
a 1950's house;
• would be more successful if it had some two-story elements at the back, would like to bring some
elements all the way to the ground;
• second floor wa11 at master bedroom has a blank look, could put a band across with two small windows,
recommend a full sleeping alcove, if it were to have a bay it would have windows, can be a good sleeping
alcove with windows, triangular window is in conflict with bungalow style; and
• regarding porch, have trouble with the details but not with the concept, should have posts sitting on piers
to support, need bungalow elements for porch; since neighbors like entry in front, okay, but would hate
to see too much mass added because it is close to the sidewalk.
Summary: The applicant is requesting a front setback variance and design review for the revised design of a first
and second-story addition to enlarge a single family dwelling at 1516 Carol Avenue, zoned R-1. The project
requires the following:
front setback variance for a 11'-0" setback for a new 38 SF front porch where 18'-2" (block average) is
the minimum required; and
2. design review for a first and second-story addition.
� Front Se[back Variance and Design Review
1516 Carol Avenue
The existing one-story house now contains 1135 SF of floor area and has three bedrooms. There is also a 368
SF detached garage for a total floor area of 1503 SF. With the revised design, a 38 SF front porch is being added,
a 175 SF trellis is being added in the rear, and the interior is being remodeled to convert one of the bedrooms to
a stairway and laundry room. The 656 SF second-story addition would add a master bedroom and bathroom, for
a total of 3 bedrooms. The first and second floor addition will increase the floor area of the structure by 769 SF.
The total floor area of the remodeled house and garage will be 2272 SF (0.43 FAR; 0.60 FAR, 3148 SF allowed).
PROPOSED
SETBACKS
Front: 1 st flr
2nd flr
Side (left):
Side (right):
Rear: 1 st f lr
Znd flr
LOT COVERAGE:
FAR:
11'-0"*
32'-6"
no change
15'-9"
no change
43'-9"
28.6%
(1503 SF)
1503 SF/
0.29 FAR
PARKING:
HEIGHT:
EXISTING
15'-0"
N/A
5'-8"
19'-0"
43'-9"
N/A
32.7%
(1716 SF)
2272 SF/
0.43 FAR
no change 2 covered in garage
(19'-3 " x 17'-2")
+ 1 unc. in driveway
14'-0"
22'-6"
ALLOWED/REQ'D
18'-2" (block average)
20'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
40%
(2100 SF)
3148 SF/
0.60 FAR
1 covered in garage
(10'-0" x 20'-0")
+ 1 unc. in driveway
30'/2 '/z stories
DHENi�ELOPE: meets requirements N/A see code
*Front setback variance required for 11'-0" setback to new front porch where 18'-2" is the block average.
This project meets all other zoning code requirements.
Design Reviewer Comments: A meeting was held with the applicant and the design reviewer on June 2, 2000.
Based on the comments from the Planning Commission and the design reviewer, the applicant submitted revised
plans date stamped 7une 12, 2000. The design reviewer notes that he has visited the site, the street and the
surrounding neighborhood, and has reviewed the plans for the second story addition twice with the Designer.
Revised plans have been submitted with major changes that reflect his original comments and the comments of
the Planning Commission.
He notes that the style of the house has been changed to include more elements of the crafstman-bungalow style,
and is in keeping with the scale and look of the neighborhood. Working with the designer, the second story layout
was changed to allow better window locations and a different bay for the bed area which resulted in improved
elevations. The second floor was re-centered to relate to the lower floor gable and a large windowed bay was
added at the front elevation.
2
Front Setback Variance and Design Review 1516 Carol Avenue
In addition, brackets were added to the exterior to relate to the craftsman style and increase interest; a front por.ch
was added that uses a square tapered column with wood siding; the side porch and rear trellis were modified with
bigger scale wood-trimmed columns; windows were changed to be more consistent; the chimney was modified;
the bay on the second floor was rearranged to line up with the lower wall and connect to the lower floor; the roof
style remains a simple gable but is better organized; and the massing and breakup of the elevations was improved.
Design Reviewer Recommendations: The design reviewer notes that the applicant has drastically improved the
design from the first submittal, and it is his opinion that the plans are in substantial conformance with the design
guidelines and in harmony with the neighborhood. The design reviewer recommends approval of the project.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that
do not apply generally to property in the same district;
b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
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:
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
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.
Front Setback Variance and Design Review
1516 Caro! Avenue
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. �rmative action
should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the request variance and design review. The
reasons for any action should be clearly stated. 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 Department date stamped
June 12, 2000, sheets AO through A7, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building
shall require an amendment to this permit;
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 or changing the roof height
or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
that the two skylights shall be tinted;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 13, 2000 memo and the City Engineer's
December 13, 2000 memo shall be met; and
that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Maureen Brooks
Planner
c: Ray Brayer, applicant
4
_.?
Winges Architecture & Planning 1290 Howard Ave. Suite 311
Burlingame, CA 94010
MEMO:
Date: 6-14-00
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
ref: 1516 Carol Ave.
RECEIVED
JUN 1 5 2000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEP7.
I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and have reviewed the
plans for the second story addition twice with the Designer. He has resubmitted revised
designs with major changes that reflect my original comments and the comments of the
Commission.
1 Compatibility of the architectural stvle with that of the e�stin� nei�hborhood:
• The style has been changed to include more elements of the craftsman-bungalow
style, and is in keeping with the scale and look of the neighborhood.
2 Respect the Parking and Garage Patterns in the Nei�hborhood:
• Parking is in an existing detached garage and is not being changed.
3. Architectural Stvle Mass and Bulk of the Structure and Internal Consistencv of the
Desi�n•
• Working with the designer, the second story layout was changed to allow better
window locations, a different bay for the bed area, and resulted in improved
elevations. The second floor was re-centered to relate to the lower floor gable
and a larger windowed bay was added to the front elevation.
• Brackets were added to the exterior to relate to the craftsman style and increase
interest.
• A front porch was added that uses a square tapered column with wood siding.
The side porch and rear trellis were modified with bigger scale wood trimmed
columns.
• Windows were changed to be more consistent.
• Chimney was modified.
• The bay on the second floor was rearranged to line up with the lower wall and
connect to the lower floor.
• The roof style remains a simple gable but better organized, and the massing and
breakup of the elevations was improved.
4 Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side:
• The new second story will have some impact on shadows and scale change to the
neighboring structures. However, the plans are in conformance with the declining
height planes and the second story mass is only half the length of the lower floor.
5 Landscapin� and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components:
• Landscaping plan was not shown nor required. It should be emphasized that well
done landscaping is critical the overall appearance and feeling of the structure.
5ummarv:
• The applicant has drastically improved the design from the first submittal, and it is
my apinion that the plans attached are in substantial conformance with the design
gu`idelines and in harmony with the neighborhood.
• Recommend approval.
Jerry L. Winges, AIA
�
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Jay Vietc'h, 22 Easton Drive, noted at he has reviewed the
side•of the roperty, concerned t the tree will not be rem�
adjace easement and is not this property, the tree wil
the or and Chairman Lu riaga closed the public h ing
May 22, 2000
are beautiful, there is a l�ge tree on the left
�d. The applicant noted that t tree is located in the
be impacted. There were o further comments from
�
C. Bojues moved to ace this item on the consen calendar for action, with the a ed condition that the adjace ree
sha11 be protecte during construction. The otion was seconded by C. Os ling. There was no discussi on the
motion. Chai an Luzuriaga called for a v ice vote on the motion, which ssed on a 7-0 voice vote. C 'ssion's
action is isory and not appealable. his item concluded at 8:30 p.
1516 CAROL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING S1NGLE-FAMII,Y RESIDENCE (TERRI S. LINENBACH AND PAMELA LEE,
OWNERS; RAY BRAYER. APPLICANT_ DESIGNERI
Planner Brooks briefly presented the staffreport. There were no questions about the project from the commission.
Chaiiman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ray Brayer, BC & D, 228 Lorton Avenue, applicant, noted that the
client and applicant talked to neighbors and have implemented the changes requested by Commission and neighbors;
stepped back second floor, added brows, wanted to make it look more like a bungalow. Commissioners asked what
building pernuts have been issued at this site. Staff noted that there are permits issued for foundation repair, to replace
a water heater and for a kitchen remodel.
Commission comments: had given direction and talked about relocating the entrance to the side, that was not done;
appears that the kitchen remodel is driving the need for a front entry; as for articulation, was a porte cochere
considered, there is a big blankness on that side of the house; the triangular window is back on the second floor front
elevation; had talked about the 18' wide driveway and were given direction to put in additional landscaping, that has
not been done; currently the house has wood siding and stucco is now proposed, stucco wall looks plain, wood
clapboard or shingles would look better; project getting there but still have concerns because of the way the house is
situated on the site, uncomfortable with the entry as it stands, still pushing mass towards the front; concerned with the
alignment at entry with door offset; overall not concerned with mass, but would be more successful if had some two-
story elements at back, eliminate the layer cake look of a box on top of a box; need fine-tuning on the second floor
wa11 at master bedroom, has a blank look, could put a band across with two small windows; will the skylights be tinted,
yes.
The applicant noted that he has eliminated the additional projection on the front, now no variance is required; kitchen
remodel is 85% complete; need the driveway width, if front entry eliminated, would enter through dining room; if
widened at front would make approac� into driveway more difficult; willing to consider a porte cochere, will discuss
with owner; the triangular window on the second floor was put back in to provide relief to wall, also stepped side in
and added brow, made many efforts to reduce height, bulk; haven't nailed down the landscaping yet but will put some
in, existing house is stucco with siding and trim nailed over stucco.
Further commission comments: don't understand difficulty with porch, have problems with the details but don't object
to concept; should have post sitting on piers to support, not concerned with offset of door; recommend a full sleeping
alcove, if it were to have a bay would have windows, can be a good sleeping alcove with windows; triangular window
is in conflict with bungalow style; would like to bring some elements all the way to the ground; have questions about
driveway, could park 11 cars there, do you really want that much pavement, could do patio, garden in side yard, with
planting areas and trees, could use double strips for driveway; concerned with blank space on second floor; need more
articulation, explore entrance on side; problem is it is a backward project, doing kitchen first, could do better project,
driveway access not good reason for front entry, don't see bungalow elements, will still look like 1950's house;
Minutes -5-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes � � May 22, 2000
outriggers on front gable, bay needs something, agree driveway too big, massive, need to soften; notice that 10'
clearetnce for chimney should be to eave not building unless fireplace is gas, if gas can get ride of cap on top, need
more bungalow details; for bungalow porch could put columns in front, may need variance, okay if it doesn't project
too far.
Robert Louth, 1520 Carol Avenue and Gary Bestwick, 1512 Carol Avenue, spoke regarding the project; live next
door, supportive of project now, incorporated ideas suggested, agree if did see more bracketing it would help, would
like to see project go ahead; were concerned with porch variance and roof line, from our perspective would rather see
front porch modified than side entry, that would cause impact; house now is not vintage of others, with modification
proposed it will fit in; need for landscaping on right side, would be improvement, hope to get project moving, it is an
eyesore now. There were no more comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing.
C. Keighran moved that the project be sent to the design reviewer with the direction given. The motion was seconded
by C. Osterling.
On the motion: regarding landscaping, need more direction, important to see a developed landscape plan with heavy
trellis, narrow the driveway to a 12' width; regarding the entrance issue, keep porch on front but make it a"bungalow"
porch, since neighbors like it in front, okay, but would hate to see too much mass added there because it is close to
sidewalk; would be massing problem if closed in but porches are semi-public, not opposed to porch close to street,
lot of possibilities to go bungalow.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion which passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning
Commission's action on preliminary design review is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
SECO F�LOIT ADD T ON TO NED �STING SINGIO-FAMII.,Y RESID CE W(DEBRA ��ntirIRO,
briefly presentec�he staff report. Th�fe were no questions qf` staff.
Ch�rman Luzuriaga ope d the public hearin The applicant and de 'gner, Joseph V. C lar, introduced himself.
�ommission noted th the relationship bet en the shed roof and rtical addition need to change because it as
not drawn correctl , new roof should be wn lower than depict . Second story wi ow looks odd next to v rtical
wall. Turret ' not work with desi , it is too thin. Comp er drawing hard to r d because line weight r siding
same as wei t for edges of house. here are too few win ows and the window are too small. Need t adjust size,
number d placement of windo . Northern elevation as second story addit' n with gable over two all windows;
this 1 s odd - need better d ail to match character f house. Not much f original roof left afte addition; can old
ro be removed and pitch roof changed to bett mtegrate into additio . 6" wide eaves are no proportional; looks
0o short: Careful, how er, to provide minimu required eave to eav separation of 4'-0" bet een house and garage.
Applicant asked wh er he could add a stu co wall or covered wa kway to connect hous and garage. (Staff note:
no enclosed conn ion permitted since g ge does not have mi�imum side and rear se acks, cannot connect ho e
to garage as t' would create a non-c nforming situation). �
Commiss' n reviewed landscap plan and noted three
shrubb on the landscape pla . Applicant stated tha 1
sho on plans, but provi s ample screening of si .
Commission further viewed elevations. Rea elevatic
Applicant noted t t they originally had mor windows,
�`4" box trees in rear. ould like to see mor and larger
ere is substantial e' ting vegetation in rear rd that is not
i odd with tw windows of differen izes on second story.
but after fi t review by design re �ew consultant, removed
Minutes -6-
City ofBuriinga»Je Planning Comn:ission Min
have high gable roof and arched mdows, appreciate advice
Luzuriaga closed the public h ring. �
�pri124, 2000
esign. There w°as no public �inment and Chairman
Commissioner comment : this project has come a long a�y but could use some �ynotTe ssaging, it is a lot cIoser, �e'aIe
of detail is finer, not s bold, but there are still a c ple caf things that could b�e re orked; the skylight over t entry
could be eliminat , is there a way it could be p on ba�k ride and then boxed � come down to stairwell� he shape
of the window bove the front door should e rectan�lar, concerned abo skylights at night and cre ion of night
glow; object the curved windows at fron do not r�e��fe ta otl�er windo , is r�uch larger; would a'cant entertain
making difications in these winc�ow .
Ch ' Luzuriaga reopened the pu c hearing so the app�icant r.o � respond to questions. T e applicant notes that in
e earlier design there was a d er, but that was not well ta n, felt the skylight is less o rusive, it won't stand out�.
� curved windows were intro ced to add variety, would co der changing if requested• ould appreciate if conditi ns
added rather than come ack. Chair Luzuriaga closed� e public hearing. �
Commission discu ion: concern with skylight��he front and round windo s, there is no consistency, ouid place
project on cons t calendar if modifications r�r de, or can add conditions make modifications and 'mic windows
on rest of ho e. C. Vistica made a motion� approve the project, by re ution, with the following ded conditions:
1) that t window above the front do r and the second floor win ow behind the plane of th front door shall be
propo 'onally the same as the other se nd floor windows, horizon and rectangular; and 2) at the skylight shall be
tint , as follows: 1) that the pro� ct shall be built as shown o the plans submitted to the lanning Department d
ped April 10, 2000, sheets through A6; 2) that any c anges to the size or envel e of the second floor, 'ch
would include adding or eni ng a dormer(s), moving or anging windows and arc ' ctural features or cha g the
roo f heig h t or pitch, sha e sub ject to design review� ) that the window above e front door and the s ond floor
window behind the ne of the front door shall e proportionally the sam as the other second or windows,
horizontal and rect gular; 4) that the skylight sh be tinted; and 5) that the roject shall meet all requirements of
the California B ding and Fire Codes, 1998 dition, as amended by the ity of Burlingame.
C. Bojues econded the motion. Chai an Luzuriaga called for �ice vote on the motio to approve. The motion
passed n a 5-0-2 voice vote (C. D and Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were ised.
1516 CAROL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND DESIGN
REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMII.Y RESIDENCE (R.AY
BRAYER, BC & D, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT AND TERRI S LINENBACH AND PAMELA LEE,
PR PERTY R
Reference staff report, 4.24.00, with attachments. Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria and PlaIIning
Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chauman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant, Ray Brayer, 920 Monell Avenue, noted that this is aa
addition to a 1950's tract home, intent is to usually change it to a 1920's bungalow, not building a monster home;
residence is on a narrow, busy street, when car swings into driveway, need to swing wide, thus makes entry to driveway
tight; second story addition is set back, is a small addition.
Commissioner questions: regarding front entry, currently 15' from front property line, concern is proposing IO' setback
where average is 18'-2", as it is now, it is closer to the street than others on the block, has applicant cansidered
reorienting the porch to the side where driveway is 13' wide; regarding front facade, master bedroom has blank wall,
asked if applicant would consider reorienting the bed to add window for articulation. Applicant notes that he did IoQk
Unapproved Minutes page -5-.
City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Mrnules Aprill4, 2000
at adding a window in the bedroom on the front facade, not going 5 foot further out from current eave at front porch,
going a foot further, did explore other options, working with existing structure; original design included window, design
reviewer recommended change in shape or removal, would be open to putting it back in.
Public comment: Robert Lowe, 1520 Carol Avenue; Ann Merics, 1537 Carol Avenue; Fred Bauer, 1564 CaroI
Avenue;Tess Leswick, 1512 Carol Avenue; and Mike Mustachia, 1533 Carol Avenue commented on the project; it looks
like a box on top of another box, at a loss how it got through design review, why does plate height have to be so high,
will be looking at 2-story stucco wall, like to see plate height come down, put in dormers, lacks details of a bungalow;
do not want to see entry come out further, could be redesigned to side; like to see something done with the house, it
needs architectural work; like to keep setback the same as it is, like to see contractor's sign taken down in front; waIking
down street house already reaches out, porch would push it out even more; existing house is an eyesore, would like to
see it improved, but agree need to take design elements into account.
Applicant's response: clear that neighbors oppose front setback variance, could clean up with knee brace and keep same
eave line, would not oppose condition to do that without pushing out. There were no further questions and Chairman
Luzuriaga closed the public hearing.
Commissioner comments: have asked about relocating entrance to side; driveway is 18' wide, driveways are usually
10', have about 8' to play with, can relocate entrance; asking for 10' front setback where average is 18'-2", when you
grant a variance you need to find a hardship with the property, there are alternatives; from beginning have recommended
entrance on side, don't see limitations, there is plenty of room, if bring out any further, will crowd the sidewalk;
regarding the architecture, it is important to articulate the second story, need to look into this, does not now portray
a bungalow, should look at Cypress Avenue has some beautiful examples.
C. Keighran made a motion to deny the project without prejudice for the reasons given. The motion was seconded by
C. Vistica.
Comments on the motion: working in right direction, think encroachment towards street is not warranted, could be
entrance on side; also cathedral ceilings are proposed on second floor, plate line could be dropped and add ambience
to use rooms, the bed wall on the second floor needs a window on top, or the roof plane of the bed wall could be
separated from the other roof plane; make it less like a box on top of a box; look at windows on sides as well, there is
a lot of blank stucco; can relocate entrance to side, there is 27' between curb and house, plenty of room to maneuver
from the street; direction to go back through design review and assign to a different reviewer.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a S-0-Z
(C. Deal, Dreiling absent) voice vote appeal procedures were advised.
. �
1200 CORTEZ A'
PERMIT FOR H]
NEW TWO-CAR
� - ZONED R-1 -
T AND DESIGN �
ACHED GARAGE
�TION FOR VARIAN
FOR A FIRST ANDj:
M C. AND NOR�T
�S FOR SIDE S:
ECOND STORY
ELLEN WEST, 1
Reference aff report, 4.24.00, wit �ttachments. City Planne discussed the report,
Depart nt comments. Four co ditions were suggested fo consideration. Commiss
C rman Luzuriaga open the public hearing. Alan lin, 2086 Mills Avenue, lvl�nl
or questions. �
Unapproved Minutes page -6-
v AND A
ALAN D.
;d criteria and Planning
no questions of staff
Park, architect, was available
... . .- .• - - _ ... ..e.:.wae� �._,_i � _v. b. �..�iEAv:ri�:rX ' •.te"N?� � .d r<.�. _ 1., .. .
City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes
FROM.,THE FLOOR
,
From The Floor moved to after S%idv Items.
STUDY ITEMS
1200 CORTEZ AVENUE - ZONED R-
PERMIT F HEIGHT AND DESIGN�
NEW TWO- DETACHED GARAGE
APPLICATION FOR V,
VIEW FOR A FIRST
( LIAM C. AND N(
Aprill0, 2000
�S FOR SIDE SETBA
COND STORY ADDITI �
LLEN WEST, OWNERS;
CP Monroe presentecl��e staff report and its attachm�ts. Commissioners asked: wo� ,lc
variance is for the exist' g wa11 or for the addition; woul�the applicant provide a justifiC�
could the skylights be reco� sidered and one placed on the ear so that it cannot be seen
to the ridge on the front el�vation is the one that should relocated �
), the skyhghts s
reduce rught glow; what does�iinor modification to the existi bedrooms mean; if the sl
'ke this item to be placed on the onsent calendar. There was onsensus among the co
w relocated and a11 tinted the ite could be placed on the conse calendar. Chairman
con nt calendar for the meeting o pril 24, 2000.
DA
staff clarify if the side set ack
ion for the existing basem t;
'Qm the street (the one close
o�`�d be tinted in any event to
�lig ��can be addressed would
unissi�in that in if the skylight
,uzuna� set this item for the
217 C PIN LANE - ZONED R-1- PLICATION FOR FLOO AREA RATIO VARIANC DESIGN
��W R A HALF-STORY ADDIT N TO AN EXISTING TWO TORY RESIDENCE (DOU AS SNOW,
ARCHITEC AND AppLI(",ANT• T.VNN T�TTI �/TAUC�LTAT T„r.n r, w� �___ _
CP Monroe prese ed the staffreport and its attac ents. C. Vistica noted that ecause of possible bias he w ld step
down on this item. e left the dais. Commissioners ked: there is a triangular sky ' ht at the rear on this project hich
does not work well, t' it should be changed; this use looks good but the wo d like to see the proportion o the
front dormers made to ve a better (tall) proportion, esently look "squat"; if dor ers can be corrected would li e
to see this item on the cons t calendar; clarify the ceiling ight of the basement area, 1 oks as if height to lowest jois
is 6 feet not 7 feet, this woul eliminate the FAR variance; i it possible to add a conditi to this variance that would
lock in the use of the FAR in th basement area. This item was laced on the consent calen r for the meeting of April
2 000, with the direction that t e dormers be adjusted and a ndition be added to clarify e limitations on the use
of th asement area. The item was et for the April 24, 2000 mee 'ng providing all the infor tion can be submitted
to the nning Department in time t repare the staff report.
C. Vistica r�urned to the dais.
� 1516 CAROL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APpLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND DESIGN
REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILy RESIDENCE (RAY
BRAYER, BC & D, DESIGNER AND APpLICANT AND TERRI S LINENBACH AND pAMELA LEE,
PROPERTY OWNER 1
CP Monroe presented the staff report and its attachments. Commissioners asked: the photograph of the house on the
packet seems to be reversed, the driveway is on the other side; have a question about the porch, it does not seem to be
related to the house or to reflect other porches in the neighborhood, applicant needs more justification for the variance,
the house seems to close to the sidewalk now; many houses have side entrances, this house has a wide driveway, could
entrance be reoriented; can the skylight be eliminated; there are a number of errors on the drawings which should be
corrected before tlus application is resubmitted for action; the composition of this building is very horizontal, could
Unapproved Minutes page -2-
City ofBur[ingame Planning Commission Minutes Apri110, 2000
emphasize with trim or belly band and add a window sill line, would help; front porch seems closer to the street now
reduce distance by 5 feet and it will look as if it crowds the sidewalk, need to rethink the porch, inset it or move to a
side entrance; would the applicant provide the front setbacks of the other houses on the block; driveway is 19 feet wide
all the way to the garage at the rear, would like to see it narrowed at the front and landscaping added, maybe the
entrance relocated; the front door is off center from the porch and the center line of the roof, looks odd. There were
no further questions from the commission and the item was set for public hearing at the Commission meeting on April
24, 2000, providing the corrected plans and information requested is available to staff with sufficient time to plan check
and prepare a staff report.
804 PENINSULA AVENUE - Z NED R 3- APPLICATION FO VARIANCE FOR SIDE SETBACK FOR ONE-
STORY ADDITION TO EXISTIN SINGLE-FAMII.,Y RESIDENC�(REBEKAH GLJNDITNAS, OWN�R; LOLJIE
CP Monroe resented the staffreport with it ttachments. Commissioners as ed: the variance is based on the ex ting
house as sho on the plan being 2 feet fro property line, how was the lo tion of the• structure determined; m
unclear about t plans, clarify which walls wil e removed and which added; t existing room at the rear has few
windows, know tha the addition being within 2 feet property line is a problem wit CBC, check with Chief Building
Inspector and see wha is possible; clarify ceiling height t the rear, particularly under the oping part of the roof. There
were no further questio`us and the item was set for pub ' hearing on April 24, 2000, pr viding all the information is
submitted to the Planning�epartment in time. �
33 HOWARD AVENUE � ONED C-1 - APPLICATIOI� OR PARKING VARIANCE OR ADDITION OF
A 46 SF MEZZANINE TO AS�XISTING APPLIANCE STO�E. (RAY BRAYER, BC & D, ESIGNER AND
._�.__.--- -
CP Monro`e presented the sta.�ff report. C�mmissioners asked: does the ap��licant have another storage loc tion, if not
why is this st,rage mezzanine so small; has t�applicant considered revising thL streetscape in front of this bu � ess and
adding some tr�es; would like a condition added,that would clearly limit the use�f this added mezzanine to the orage
of appliance box��nd that any change in use fr� that specific storage use woul require that this mezzanine ar be
removed, that way�this variance would be revie�\d if the use of this mezzanine nd store ever changed from
appliance store; indicat� that now using the attic space't� store b es, is this legal under he California Fire Code; if the
storage mezzanine is deni �d can they go back to storing bp�xes in t attic area, do not wa to condone that use of the
attic area; does this plan m�et the required emergency egress from e mezzanine; realize t t this mezzanine will not
be used for additional office�o� people, but how will it be supported m below, there is a la hen display area there
now. There were no further que�tions from the Planning Commission an the item was set for p lic hearing on April
24, 2000, assuming that all the in�o\r�mation requested is submitted to the \ ng Department in ' e.
� \
ZO1��ING CODE AMENDMEN'I��- TO INCLUDE BASEMENT A�AS IN FLOOR A RATIO
CP Monroe 'presented the staff report and dis� ssed how staff had incorporated into tH�e proposed code revisio s the
Planning Comrm �sion's previous suggestions for�ending FAR to basement areas. Co 'ssioners commented: a ee
tha he definition bf basement needs to be changed �t 2 feet above grade to the top of the fi'shed floor above, but fe 1
that ' basement m�ets the three tests it should be e� mpt from an review• if exceed 250 S then h 1 'e
Y , s ou d be sub� ct
to revie \under a spec�i'a� pernut; amend special pernut fin ings to include intensification so can a dress the addition of
sleeping ar�s in baseme��s which will increase the intensit of use of a single family residence; C Anderson pointed
out that coc� could be constructed that if a, b and c are m t no permit is required but if they are xceeded then a
basement area �guld be prohibited; how do we keep people fro sleeping in a basement, how do we e force it; think
Unapproved Minutes page -3-
. '
i �
Brayer Construction & Design
(650) 347-1845 office (650) 465-1845 cell (650) 348-1845 fa� E C E I V E D
228 Lorton Ave. Burlingame, Ca 94010
Lic# 729726 A P R 1 4 2000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Burlingame Planning Department
Attn: Maureen Brooks
501 Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, Ca. 94010
4/14/00
Re: 1516 Carol Ave. — Response to study comments from planning commission.
Maureen
I am writing you to clarify/answer the questions posed by the planning commissioners
comments. I will address them in the order that is on the meeting minutes.
Comment: photograph seems reversed.
Response: Photo on packet show front of home and neighbors driveway. This was
copied from spliced photo of entire street. See revised color photo of just front of home.
Comment: .. . question about porch ... ... can entrance be reoriented...
Response: This house is on a very nanow street. This is now shown on the plot plan
(A-1). The homeowner must swing into a very narrow approach that is squeezed by a
telephone pole and a tree. This is further complicated by having cars parked near the
driveway. Many times, the vehicle must enter into the driveway at an angle and swing into
the border of the driveway on either side before being able to straighten out and proceed
down the driveway toward the garage. If a side entry were installed, it would make an
approach to the garage from one direction extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Question: can the skylight be eliminated?
Answer: The skylight in the kitchen is needed to provide additional lighting and
ventilation. The skylight in the master bathroom is small and helps brighten up the area.
have discussed this with the owners and they are willing to have these skylights tinted to
reduce their visibility at night.
Comment: There are a number of errors on the drawings.. .
Response: The dimensioning enors that were present have been addressed. The plans
are now consistent between the floor plans and the elevations.
Comment: The composition of this building is horizontal. .. belly band. ..
Response: It is our intent to change this home from a 1950's tract home to a 1900's
bungalow. The early bungalows with a stucco exterior did not typically have a belly band.
This would look out of character for the home. We did try to give a bit of vertical element
by splitting the upper portions of the windows vertically. This is common to bungalows.
Comment: ... front porch seems closer
Response: We have added only 1' to the perimeter of the front porch eave line. We
did this to give the front of the home the kind of character that many bungalows have and
to prevent it from looking like a block face structure. We could pull it back 1' if the
commission so desires but feel that this would not be a noticeable difference.. The prior
response addresses the porch as well.
Comment: the front door is off center.
Response: We are renovating/adding to an existing structure. The dining room wall is
located at the center of the home on the interior. This prevents us from having the door
centered. The client intends to hang a piece of artwork/sculpture to the right of the door.
Please feel free to contact me should you need further clarification or additional
information.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Ray Brayer
BC&D
RECEIVE�
APR 1 4 2000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
�t�� 1T �w
' BURLINQAMi CITY OF BiTRI,INGAME
�� APPLICATION TO TI� PLA►NNING COMNIISSION
�,�.
Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other �X� s��''✓ /�O1��77an/
Project Address: ����° C���� � v'�
Assessor's Parcel Number(s):
APPLIC
�v�e: � 3R�S��'/z�/�� C. �`�
Address: � � !�� �N ��L�
City/state/zip: ,C� v�G . Ci`} q4'-d/ C�
Phone (w): '"T`�— /��.�
�n�: 3�— O 12 3
f�: ��9-- Z ���'
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: �� �'i4 y�/2 //�C��
Address: � g �✓1 Td�/
City/State/Zip:�
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: � ✓��8��'H /�A M /,�.y
Address: ���� ��� �`�`�'E
City/State/Zip: ���L � �4��Jld
Phone (w): ��{/�� ��� �"7?' �
�h�; (��o� 3-�8-2��/
fax:
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
�l�� contact person for this application.
%� 9�0/0
Phone (w): ��� ' �8��
ch�: ��- a�23
fax:�T'�— Zd �-�
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:__ SEG'aNp S �d♦2Y /�OD/�O�
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.
l
App ' Ys Si re Date
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Com i sion.
Prope ner's Signature Date
----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ---------------------------- - - --
RECE11fED
Date Filed:
Planning Commission: Study Date:
Fee:
DEC - 9 1999
Action Date:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
ROUTING FORM
DATE:
December 9, 1999
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATI'ORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBrTECT: Request for design review for a second story addition at 1516 Carol
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-301-040.
SCHEDULED PLANNING CONIlVIISSION ACTION MEETIl�TG:
STAFF REVIEW BY NiEETIl�TG ON: Monday, December 13, 1999
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
�f�%I'`'t �-�- �
f GZ I� 1� /�f/�
/�� `C�%
. -� �
j;� �., f`j� Date of Comments
�C, ,���-' j ct%U
� �� i�t! �Ti�' / �
�
7-�y,9i� �� y��� �v. T� o���'
i%� ��
0
ROUTING FORM
DATE:
December 9, 1999
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CI�EF BUII.DING OFFICIAL
FIItE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATl'ORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUs,TECT: Request for design review for a second story addition at 1516 Carol
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-301-040.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMIVIISSION ACTION MEETIl�TG:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETIl�TG ON: Monday, December 13, 1999
THANKS, '� ! � � �
� �
Maureen/JanicelRuben Date of Comments
�
�
y►•
a �t ,
�p � ��t i �t r� /�! w � ,
� �
� .
� ,�,�,•, f ,t t � ✓•;s��-
j (�'w'�'t � �"� �
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a front
.�etback v�rian�.� and design reviev� for first and second tory addition at 1516 Ca_rol AvenuP� Z�nPrl R-1;
Terris Linenbach & Pamela Ye-�,_�ro��,rtv o�=merc, APN: 028-301-040;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
July 10� 2000 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials
and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the
project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per
CEQA Article 19, 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 front setback variance and design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such front setback variance and design review are as set forth
in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records
of the County of San Mateo. .
CHAIRMAN
I, Ann Keighran , 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 lOth day of��, 2000 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval categorical exemption, front setback variance and design review
1516 Carol Avenue
effective August 7, 2000
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped June 12, 2000, sheets AO through A7, and that any changes to the footprint or
floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
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 or
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
3. that the two skylights shall be tinted;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 13, 2000 memo and the City
Engineer's December 13, 2000 memo shall be met; and
5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
2
� A � � � � ���, ���� ~� �j � .� . � � � '�
� .,
,� , .
� ,
/��t,� � � . � . �
1 � ^ A`1r� a - ,� . . .. �g� . �
w
� �; �. �. � ..:. � «�, . , .
'f
� \ �a � $ �:'k%.' �,, � � 4:
� ,� .
� � a
. . ,- � � � � j'�
_
a - � � ,, � � ��`�` r
� � X �� � � �� ��� � � �
, �. � �,,
€ - � � ^��; � � ��
� `S�. ,a,+`�' �� p � . r ��� � * . �
r,
-
:. /�
C ..
/�I'� _, y�*
, ., . . ,. Y w -ae � a 3l
�
�
, .
� ' ,. � � 7 ' . `
��^ " � "+� ¢pc. � 9 y� `.� �
��� ��� � / ��� � J � r � � � � ��4
��` � � "�y � me r � ����:
:<��, , `� �}' � ` Y . fi a � �e .
� �y� � � ���. \ ��' p��
( 'q."'!'J..,. �I .i� ..,. t ... � .. � � 'P
�
� g. �r�
. � �� a� � . - � ,
�- � �� =e I ii � ,�.t� � �.� `0,� . .
�
� «
� ..
� . � .: �� .. �. .� �
3 .
-r
�.
� . �` y�
.-
. r-�.. a: ';.. t!
�
�� � �: � . t ��� � _�� �. `!.
� i �� � y .'-�,�� �/� � � � !°;, � � # �. � °�.
,
�� �� � " M .� ```�'* � } _;� - ' w
/ � �/'
� � d `�` y��� � •�,�� �'. �x'�� ��,sn t !�' "' �.'�"" # ..
� �� �
ii��� � � .. ' - O� �� �� ` �
�4'�' :� ' � . � � � \ I ""^ �
„ �
.
p� � , :
, � �x
�
.^ — F� ..._ , . � 4 .� � o . �' � •4br k '
t:
���� p� :�o ",,, 1� °"�' ��'�,
�
_ . , �, t
.- �
� � : � � � �" .; M ��. T� � -0��
� �
,
s �' ,
,
.
� �
, � , �
�� , ,, _ � y :', �- s' '5.... .. �
.��' ' �',! — p . `�F `� `;� ,
,�� � � � ,�'. � ::. y.� � l � s � „�
��r�.. _ r:�' �'
`� �"� a�` � _ � �». ;;
� � - �� �. - a , �
J�" � 1� \� �� �� � . �� � , � � ' � 4 � _ � , �'�
� .��` ��� ��... I � �� �- � iY
g � � � � +�� r� s „ s� ,. �,,,,� . A. , y� �. � :� � 'E �
� �
� "
� <
� � �
, ,
n _. —.. - ,< n= n„ � > : � r� � ' . •-s�, $ �iA ,Y
� • _ �- � , � ' i �'1 '1
$�r, _ �..
� % r
� u . �. a
:"
�' `
� ^� . ,. � , �y � , t hk9 ���� � ;
�„ ``�a: � �` 4'�� ' . , :..
r. e �'
� r._
� �� _ - �� E���- �" � � � ' .: -
�—�mz� �:. �F � � �. �.:,� a�-'` ; �' }J ^` � � �, '
� �� :�"yr� a # � �o �.
,
..
� � _ ,__��• � � "3 „ '� '�'� �� ;�' Q a
`� �;�� ,,.���' ,;� ,.�i � �i?.�rr � .r � ,::
— 3,.i'� �� � ' �y .� ��yp,� � ' a; -.
;YR �'�� vt. . s-�� � � , �°� .��` . "� .
.
.
� � � �
� _ . {�� � { �� µ � � � .. �M4+�9+T � ryj `' •• �; � �
� ��4 �" ` 'ta — #e' - x ^'"t� �i��;`s � � � �' z�� .:
`� � �.�� "y �� "��� � +✓ - ., a,. � „ 5
m
y � �P'
e.
ti
� �
_ �
e >
d _ . UI ., �
� i� _
E •
R �r �_ � �' �d_ . �° �
;'� °� 3.'.
.��s-�� ` = '-"a _� �,�'- � . - . � �Su :v�
. � ..
° , � „ �� s
_ x �. ,;;
.
�, . � —� e�-
�
� - . ,�, � p ,
,
, �
<,
° � ��. r ' .,„ :� � .,, � ;� ,
� ��
e �_ • � ��� �
.,
, ,
� ; .� � �
� �, �� � � .� ��
� , --� ,.
_ . , .. �� .
� �� .��.
�� - , t � .� � � � ���
�
� �
� � �� � -� �. <
_ ' .„ ���.
� ���' � � . �. �� �
, ,. ' � .
, �. - , , r , �
��at .:-r: - � q,�.'"� � '� �°'� �, . 'e
� , d, �
� �
�� � w ,:.'ay� _ ,� `���� ab� �3 .�� :i�,...`3�
. ry ,
fY '�' i
. ,
� ;t � �"� ' # * ��� �sa..:+. �,..
,
:
�� ,
� �
-t, �_. �
� �
�
, � �
,.�: � �� ,� � �
��► . �
. �"�� ��. �: � �y � �e��, �
�,��� �� � k:: : � � y � . .
m ^
„r�� � � � � � ��_ �� � � `� ; Crry
��`. �, ,.w ,� � �.
� � � � ��' `�r , � `� �� � � , `. 0 �
� � � �,
�,
�
��� , , � � A N
, � ,
�a� r� za - . ��x��� ��� .. � MATE�
� � ,
�� 5
. � �
� . :
� ; � �. t. � ; � � � �� �; .
;
�� � z ,� , � ,���
' � �: ,,, , � b . '� "�, . . ,.,;�. ,
w
City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Bruce McLoud, 1110 Burlingame Avenue, represented the project
and indicated he would answer questions. Commission asked on the ground floor at the side of the garage there
is a room with an entrance through the garage and an entrance to the outside, but no access directly into the house;
applilcant noted intended for a recreation room for the children and to be used as a guest room; given the
configuration and the full bath room it would be possible to rent this area, can the tub and shower be removed,
applicant noted intend to use the area as a guest room and the full bathrooms in the house are too far away to be
convenient; cannot sleep in a room that has direct access into a garage, if you remove that door as the building
department will require, you have no direct connection to the house from this room and will not be able to make
the addition, architect noted could add a hallway with direct access to the house between the room at the side and
the garage; would the garage still be 20 feet deep for parking a car, yes; a hall way from the room to the stair into
the house would eliminate the sense of this room standing as a separate unit. There were no further comments from
the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica moved to approve this application by resolution with the added condition that a vestibule wall be extended
across the rear of the garage to the stairway to create an interior access from the room at the side of the garage to
the house and that this room shall never be modified or rented as a second unit. The motion was seconded by C.
Keighran.
Comment on the motion: CA noted that the condition prohibiting the room at the side of the garage from being
leased as a second unit will call attention of future owners to the commission's concern; a commissioner also noted
than that a condition should also be added that there should be no opening between the room at the side of the
garage and the garage. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to add such conditions.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project by resolution with the following
conditions in the staff report and the three additional conditions of approval: 1) that the project shall be built as
shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 21, 2000, sheets A1 through A6, and
date stamped June 30, 2000, sheet L1, landscape plan, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require an amendment to this pernut; 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 or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that a vestibule wall with
appropriate fire rating be extended across the rear of the garage to the stairway into the house in order to create an
interior connection between the room at the side of the garage and the house in a contained hallway without entering
the garage; 4) that there shall never be a direct connection between the room at the side of the garage and the
garage; 5) that the room at the side of the garage shall never contain a cooking element or be leased as a separate
dwelling unit; 6) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 3, 2000 memo and the City Engineer's
Apri13, 2000 memo shall be met; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building
and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amendecl by the City of Burlingame.
The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:44 p.m.
1516 CAROL AVENiTE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A FRONT SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION ITERRI S. LINENBACH AND PAMELA LEE PROPERTY
OWNERS; RAY BRAYER, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER)
Minutes page -7-
�
City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000
Reference staff report, 7.10.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had
no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Terri S. Linenbach, property owner, and Ray Brayer, applicant
and designer, represented the project. Mr. Linenbach noted that the project was initially submitted in February,
the design has been improved, and the neighbors like the proposal. He also thanked the Commission for their help
in designing a house which is beneficial to his family and the neighborhood. The applicant submitted a petition
signed by several neighbors in support of the project.
Commissioners discussed the proposed addition: Commission noted that this project has dramatically changed since
the initial submittal and suggested that 6" x 6" wood members be used for the outriggers, as drawn on the plans,.
the outriggers are too thin and need to be larger. Applicant agreed and noted that there are several good examples
in the neighborhood to study. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Dreiling moved to approve the project, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 12, 2000, sheets AO through
A7, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
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 or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be
subject to design review; 3) that the two skylights shall be tinted; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building
Official's December 13, 2000 memo and the City Engineer's December 13, 2000 memo shall be met; and 5) that
the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by
the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Discussion on the motion: Commission commented that the design has come a long way and that the design is more
cohesive. The front porch works well with the house and supports the request for the front setback variance. This
is a learning process for some. The Commission reviews approximately 200 design review projects in one year,
and project demonstrates that design review sees things that individual may not see, is pleased with the project.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:52 p.m.
DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEM5
141 COSTA RICA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION� FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (LARRY MORSELLO, PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU,
DESIGNER AND APPLICANT)
City Planner presented the staff report. Noted letter from Sue O'Connell, 144 Occidental Avenue, is concerned with
the proposed height of the new house. Commission asked staff to require applicants to denote the 30' maximum
height limit on plans for future projects. There were no further questions about the project from the Commission.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, architect, and Larry Morsello, property owner,
represented the project. Commission noted that the stairway window on the right elevation should contain decorative
wrought iron similar to the windows on the front elevation. Commission asked what portion of the roof extends
Minutes page -8-