The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1813 Castenada Drive - ResolutionRECORDING REQUESTED BY: Planning Department City of Burlingame WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2005-022434 10:23am 02/11/05 R1 Fee: NO FEE Count of pages 6 Recorded in Official Records County of San Mateo Warren Slocum Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder ill I $111 11111111 I II 11111 11III 11I11 II * 2 0 0 5 0 0 2 2 4 3 4 A R* Resolution No. 012-2005 1813 CASTENADA DRIVE; APN: 025-051-070 TITLE OF DOCUMENT RECEIVED MAR - 7 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, I hereby certify this to be a full, true and correct copy of the document it purports to be, the original of which is on file in my office. Date: 02/04/2005 04Xj�V"&)\Aj� Marg •et Monroe, Chy Planner 6T k, RESOLUTION 012-2005 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition at 1813 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1, Mark and Amy Liew, property owners, APN: 025-051-070; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 24, 2005, 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, 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review and hillside area construction permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and hillside area construction permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. v 0 1�7 Chairinan Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January 2005 by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Auran, Bojues, Brownrigg, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE c ecretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and hillside area construction permit. 1813 Castenada Drive Effective February 3, 2005 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 11, 2005, sheets Al through A5, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, 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, or garage, 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 Planning Commission review; 3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 6. 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; 7. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's June 7, 2004, memos shall be met; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 9. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. A ) Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 commission has tried best to mitigate effects on neighbors with regards to roof pitch, windows and more; feel the project is a well improvement and is a testimony to how great the design review process works; this area has restrictions because of the narrowness and general lot sizes; the commission has a great deal of empathy towards the situation of the neighbors. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 5. 1813 CASTENADA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (LINCOLN LUE, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; MARK AND AMY LIEW, PROPERTY OWNERS) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report January 24, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments and also noted that the proposed addition is at the rear of the house and that the installed story poles reflect its new roof ridge. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Lincoln Lue, applicant and architect, was delighted to work with the design reviewer and feels that the building is much improved from those meetings. Applicant then passed out photos of the installed story poles. Commissioner noted: after visiting the neighboring site at 3 Rio Court, the story poles can only be seen at the edge of the rear yard at 3 Rio Court because there is a lot of vegetation on these lots. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 11, 2005, sheets Al through A5, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, 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, or garage, 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 Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 6) 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; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's June 7, 2004, memos shall be met; 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Comment on motion: very pleased to hear that they came up with good ideas and solutions through the design review process, just another good example of how design review works. �3 (-i, of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 2537 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL P RMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ANDREW AND PATTY JCDAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ZT t eier briefly presented the project descript n. Commission stated that the plans appear incomp, they had a hard time figuring out the eleva ons and roof heights and that those and other dimension and information need to be added to the plans. Chair Osterlin pened the public comment. Patty Jordan, ap licant and property owner, represented the project. Applican oted that they feel their design will be keepin in unison with the neighborhood and that they are open to any ggestions made by the Planning Commissi n. Commission asked applica : nhat are you planning on doing with th house after the addition is complete? Applicant is planning to retin the house. There is concern with th overall style of the house and the project needs to be simplified be use it does not fit in with the consistent aditional understated houses on the block. Neighbors Commented: Dave Tillman, 33 Hayward Drive, Steve Cammo , 2538 Hayward Drive and Kristen Jacobson, 2541 Hayward Drive. Li s in an Eichler -style house in the ne borhood and agrees with what the applicant is trying to do; supports th roject; feels the neighborhood is Id -looking and needs to be re -done with more creativity; addition will he with property values. Is excite that people are putting money into the neighborhood and does not want to ee a project stopped because off its different style. Is new to the neighborhood and wants to make sure th all future notification cards are sent to her at her current address; has concerns with how the view from d the light onto her property will be affected; is afraid that the trees planted along the back side may fill in nd affect existing view and light; likes to hear that the applicant is flexible. There were no other commen from the floor and the public hearing was Co fission noted: it is an attractive addition, not inclined to see prod t go to a design reviewer, design is a good art but could make the project blend better with the existing envi nment, appreciates the applicants willingn s to work with them, but feels that a design reviewer would he to incorporate the applicant's needs into e design of the existing neighborhood. Commission comments included: • concerne with the Spanish style as proposed not fitting in with the ranch le houses which pre- dominate th' immediate area; • some walls co d have more detail and windows; • story poles shou be installed for neighbor and commission inspection to outline the additions; • understands that the ouse needs an update but the front as shown is too grandiose by comparison to the rest of the area; • more information and de it needs to be provided on the plans regarding roofing material, windows, window trim, blank walls, plate height and building height; E Item # s Action Item PROJECT LOCATION 1813 Castenada Drive