Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1813 Castenada Drive - Staff ReportItem # rj City of Burlingame Action Item Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 1813 Castenada Drive Meeting Date: 1/24/05 Request: Design review and hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition. Applicant and Architect: Lincoln Lue APN: 025-051-070 Property Owners: Mark and Amy Liew Lot Area: 15,960 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 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. Summary: The existing single -story house contains 3,204 SF of floor area (0.20 FAR), and has five bedrooms. An existing 541 SF covered patio at the rear of the house will be removed as part of this project. The applicant is proposing a 591 SF first floor addition at the rear of the house and a new 557 SF second floor directly above it. A new uncovered second floor deck (122 SF) is proposed at the rear of the house. The area under the proposed second floor deck (122 SF) is included in the proposed floor area. With the addition, the floor area will be increasing to 3,833 SF (0.24 FAR) (exempting 100 SF of covered porches and chimneys) where 6,207 SF (0.39 FAR) is the maximum allowed. With this project, there is no increase in the number of bedrooms (five existing). The existing attached one -car garage (13'-6" x 20') is nonconforming since it does not provide enough parking spaces for a five -bedroom house (two covered and one uncovered required). One uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway (space can be measured to the edge of the sidewalk on an existing house). However, because the number ofbedrooms is not increasing, a parking variance is not required for the existing nonconforming parking. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design review and hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 and 25.61.020). Table 1 -1813 Castenada Drive Lot Area: 15,960 SF EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS ...... ........ _...... _..... i Side (right): 7'-6" 8'-4" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): 90'-0" 84'-6" to area below deck 15'-0" (2nd flr): .._...................... ....................... _............ ......._.......__....................._......__.._. none ......................................... .............................................................................__....... 84'-6" to deck ... _.......................... ................... ........................................................ ....... .................... 20'-0" ................. .................................................. .......................................................... Lot Coverage: 3204 SF j 3376 SF 6384 SF ......................................................................................_.. ............................ 20% ........................................................ _........................................... 21.1 % ......................................................................................................................_............................................................................................_._........._.............................................._...... 40% FAR: 3204 SF 3833 SF 6207 SF 0.20 FAR 0.24 FAR 0.39 FAR Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1813 Castenada Drive Table 1 - 1813 Castenada Drive Lot Area: 15,960 SF EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D # of bedrooms: 5 5 I --- Parking: 1 covered ' I no change 2 covered (13'-9" x 20') 1 1 uncovered 1 uncovered ......................................... ........................................ .................... .......... ................................................... (9' x 20') .......................................... ........................................1................................................................................................................................................ Hei'......................................................................................................................................................... Heighht: t: ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 19'-6" ..................................................................................................................................... 27'-1" . 30'-0" i............................................................. _............................ .............._.......... DHEnvelope: n/a I complies see code Hillside Area n/a required2 see code Permit: i 1 Existing nonconforming parking (one covered space existing where two covered space are required for a five bedroom house). No change in the number of bedrooms (5) is proposed. 2 Hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.61.020). Staff Comments: See attached. Neighbors at 1825 Castenada Drive and 3 Rio Court submitted letters expressing their concerns with the proposed project (dated November 8, 2004) and are included in the staff report. November 8, 2004 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on November 8, 2004, the Commission referred the project to a design reviewer with direction (November 8, 2004 P.C. Minutes). The following changes were made to the project: ■ Footprint: The family room was increased in size by 2'-2" towards the right side property line to create variation along the right side of the house. A small hip roof was added at this location to break up the two-story vertical wall (see Right Elevation, sheet A4). ■ Roof Configuration: Hip roofs were added to the right and left sides of the house, where gable ends were previously proposed (see Building Elevations, sheet A4 and Roof Plan, sheet A5). ■ Front Elevation: Shutters were added to the second floor windows to match the shutters on the first floor. The stucco exterior on the second floor on the entire second floor was replaced with wood siding to match the existing wood siding on the front of the house. ■ Rear Elevation: Transom windows were added in the blank space between the bottom of the second floor deck and windows and door below. A roof element was added above the rear glass door. 2 Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1813 Castenada Drive Right Side Elevation: To break up the vertical two-story wall at the rear, the addition was extended closer towards the right side property line by 2'-2". A roof element was added above the first floor window at this location. Glass block was added on the second floor to match the existing glass block on the front of the house. ■ Left Side Elevation: There were no changes on the Left Side Elevation. The following is a list of the Commission's direction and responses by the applicant. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped January 11, 2005. A summary of the design reviewer's analysis, dated January 2, 2005, is provided in the following section. 1. Why isn't the wood siding continued up the front elevation on the second floor? The plaster is more dominant. Rear elevation is all plaster, consider adding shutters to the second floor to match the first floor, neighbor will see big blank wall, sheet A4 has a lot of plaster. The applicant revised the exterior materials by carrying the wood siding around the entire second floor (sheet A4) (stucco was previously proposed). On the front elevation, shutters were added to the windows on the second floor to match the shutters on the first floor. On the rear elevation, the rear windows were resized and improved with transoms. A roof element was added over the door at the rear of the house. The design reviewer notes that these changes benefit the proportions and tie the addition better to the existing house design. 2. Concerned with the additions affect on views, need to install story poles. • Story poles have been installed outlining the envelope of the proposed addition. 3. Addition looks like a block stuck on the back of the house, there is no melding of the addition with the existing structure, doesn't tie in with the existing architecture at all, addition is not integrated into the existing style. • Based on the revisions listed on pages 2 and 3, the design reviewer notes that the changes will benefit the proportions and tie the addition better to the existing house design. Please refer to the design reviewer's analysis, dated January 2, 2005, and the summary in the next section. 4. Plate heights should be lowered, 10' at first floor is too large. • There were no changes made to the plate heights (10 feet on the first floor and 8 feet on the second floor). The design review discussed the plate heights with the applicant and notes that if the plate heights were lowered, the view of the bay would be lost from this house. He also notes that the higher plate height will have little effect on the neighbors, assuming there is no view blockage from the proposed addition. Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1813 Castenada Drive 5. Concerned with large balcony off of the rear of the second floor impact neighbors, should considered eliminating. There were no changes made to the second floor deck. The design reviewer notes that the second floor deck is located on the center, rear wall of the house and away from the side property lines. Therefore, it only looks onto the property owner's rear yard, which slopes significantly up towards Rio Court. In addition, the deck is only accessible from the master bedroom and therefore would not likely be used as a gathering place. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer (dated April 23, 2003): The design reviewer met with the applicant to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project. In a letter dated January 2, 2005, the reviewer notes that the proposed design is generally compatible with the style of the existing house and ranch style houses found in the neighborhood. The addition is relatively minor and located quite far back on the lot against the sloping rear yard. The drafting errors noted by the reviewer were corrected by the applicant. The reviewer comments that the addition still appears to be a block attached to the rear of the house, rather than integrated into the roof. In discussing the project, the property owner noted that he did not want to build over the existing house or to block the new view created from the new bedroom on the second floor. The designer reviewer and applicant considered various roof configurations which involved changing the existing roof. Based on the slopes and dimensions, the alternatives considered increased the roof massing and added bulk, while eliminating the view potential from the new second floor. The reviewer notes that the project is acceptable as proposed because the addition is relatively small, and will not have a great impact on the street since it is set far back on the lot and located against that green hillside. In regards to interfacing with adjacent structures, the reviewer notes that the higher roof line will have some effect on the sun and light reaching the adjacent house to the right side, but will only have an impact in the morning hours. This has been mitigated with the revision to a hipped roof on the side of the addition which reduces the height and scale of the addition at the sides of the house. Assuming there is no view blockage, the reviewer comments that the applicant has made an adequate attempt to mitigate the effect of the higher roof and to minimize the impact on the neighbors, while providing a compatible house design consistent with the neighborhood. In summary, the design reviewer notes that assuming there is no view blockage, he recommends for approval of the project. He points out that the proposed addition, while not perfect, is minor, located far back on the lot, and with the angle of view will have little effect on the neighborhood. 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; 4 Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1813 Castenada Drive 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. Required Findings for a Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a hillside area construction permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and hillside area construction permit. 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 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; 5 Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1813 Castenada Drive 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. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Lincoln Lue, applicant and architect R City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 8, 2004 8. 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) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Lincoln Lue, project architect, 1567 33�d Avenue, San Francisco, noted that this is a small house on a large lot, reasonable addition proposed, only 60% of allowable FAR proposed, want to expand the living room and family room on the first floor, add sitting room to master bedroom on second floor, impact to street is minimal, hardly visible from the curb, owner can fit two cars in the garage even though it doesn't meet the City standard for width. Commission noted that the cricket at the intersection of new and existing roof does not have much of a slope and will be visible from the neighbors. Architect noted that the roof may need adjustments made to the cricket, could end up larger during engineering but will not be visible from the street; did not think views would be affected because of the steep the slope at the rear of the lot; bridging the addition with the existing structure would create a large roof area and wanted to design the project to be hidden from the street. Mahmound Tabrizi,5 Rio Court, like neighbor at 3 Rio Court concerned with view blockage caused by the project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Why isn't the wood siding continued up the front elevation on the second floor, the plaster is more dominant; • Rear elevation is all plaster, consider adding shutters to the second floor to match the first floor, neighbor will see big blank wall, sheet A4 has a lot of plaster; • Concerned with the additions affect on views, need to install story poles; • Addition looks like a block stuck on the back of the house, there is no melding of the addition with the existing structure, doesn't tie in with the existing architecture at all, addition is not integrated into the existing style; • Plate heights should be lowered, 10' at first floor is too large; and • Concerned with large balcony off of the rear of the second floor impact neighbors, should considered eliminating. C. Auran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: it is a challenge to go up on these ranch style homes, should consider installing story poles before re -designing so architect knows from neighbors if views will be blocked before making changes to the drawings. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to design review with the direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 10 MEMO: Date: 1-2-2005 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, WIING� ARCHITECTS Burlingame, CA 94010 ref: 1813 Castenada Drive RECEIVED JAN - 5 RECT - 2ooS- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and reviewed the initial plans. I have had one meeting with the architect and applicant regarding the original plans and comments. I have the following comments on the revised plans dated 12/17/2004. 1 Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing neighborhood: • This is a harmonious Burlingame neighborhood of ranch style homes, all built in the same decade. • Most all of these homes are single story with a few second story additions here and there. Most homes have typical low slope pitched roofs of approximately 4:12 and 6:12. • The proposed design of the addition is generally compatible with the style of these ranch homes, and with the style of the existing home. The street side elevation and scale of the home at the front is not being altered. The addition of the second story, while not typical for this neighborhood, is relatively minor and is located way to the rear of the lot against the background of the hill. 2 Respect the Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood: • Most homes in the immediate vicinity have similar attached 2 car garages facing the street, with prominent garage doors. • There is no change proposed to the garage and the type and style is compatible with the neighborhood. 3 Architectural Style Mass and Bulk of the Structure and Internal Consistency of the Design. • The addition still appears to be a block attached to the rear of the house, rather than integrated into the rest of the roof. The applicant does not wish to build over the existing structure, nor to block the new view that would be obtained from the new upper bedroom. • We looked at the alternative of different roof shapes which involved changing the existing roofs. Due to the slopes and dimensions, the alternatives considered only increased the roof massing and added bulk, while deleting the view potential from the new upper floor. Because of the relative small size of the addition and the angle of view from the street, and because the addition is way back on the lot and the house is seen against the backdrop of the green hillside, the revised proposal seems more acceptable. Although this is awkward in appearance in the elevations and would normally not be approved, this seems like the least disruptive solution assuming that the applicant will not build over existing space. WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE311, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / FAX.. (650) 343-1291 / info@wingesaia.com / TEL (650) 343-1101 ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANNING / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING W1!tr ARCHITECTS • The elevations of the addition have also been improved and are more compatible with the existing house. The gable roof was changed to a hip roof which reduces scale and bulk. At the right side elevation, the upper level of the addition is now set back from the lower floor, with new roof elements added to break the scale of the right side wall. Siding has been added as well as shutters to match the rest of the house. The rear windows have been improved with transoms, a roof element added over the exterior door, and window sizes changed. All of these changes benefit the proportions and tie the addition better to the existing house design. • We discussed the 10' plate height. If lowered, the addition would not allow a view toward the bay. It would seem a shame to lose this view, and the higher plate height will have little effect on neighbors (assuming no view blockage.) I do not think it is necessary to lower this plate unless there is view blockage. • The balcony to the rear also does not bother me due to its central location on the lot, the focus to the rear hill and not the side neighbors. This is not looking into any rear neighbor yards. • Drafting errors should be corrected on the right and rear elevations. Section 1 /A5 should be modified to show the new configuration. The roof over the 2' extension of the lower family room should be lowered to line up with the roof element over the rear door. Roof plans should be updated. 4 Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side: • The higher roof line will have some effect on the sun and light reaching the adjacent home to the right side (west side), but will only be an impact in the morning hours. This has been mitigated by the recent change to a hipped roof which reduces the height and scale of the addition at the setback line. • There will be no to little effect on the neighbor to the left. • There are no apparent neighbors to the rear that would be greatly affected due to the steep upslope and the elevation difference between Rio Court and Castenada Drive. However, the effect on any view blockage from neighbors to the rear is unknown, and story poles should be installed to assure the rear neighbors that any effect will be minimal or below their view angle. The relatively small addition with respect to the lot width also seems to mitigate the problem. Views from the rear neighboring houses appear to be blocked by the existing trees on the hill, much more so than this addition which is way below the tree height. • Assuming there is no major effect on views from Rio Court, I feel that there has been an adequate attempt to mitigate the effect of the higher roof and to minimize the impact on the neighbors, while providing for a compatible house design consistent with the neighborhood. WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE 311, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / FAX. (650) 343-1291 / info@wingesaia.com / TEL (650) 343-1101 ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANNING / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACEPLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING WIINr� ARCHITECTS 5. Landscaping and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components: • The minor changes at the front lawn area to allow additional paving should not affect the neighborhood or overall appearance of the house in a major way. The additional concrete walk area is partially hidden by the extension of the landscaping. I would suggest that this additional paving might be done in a different paving material to mark it as a "pedestrian" walk, to discourage the feeling of additional parking area in the front yard. Summary: 1. Story poles should be erected to demonstrate to rear neighbors that views will not be significantly affected. 2. Drafting errors and changes to the roof at the Family Room should be made. 3. Assuming there is no significant view blockage and the corrections stated are made, I recommend a qualified approval. I feel that this addition, while not perfect, is minor, is way back on the lot, and due to the angle of view will have little effect on the neighborhood. Jerry L. Winges, AIA Principal WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE311, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / FAX. (650) 343-1291 / info@wingesaia.com / TEL: (650) 343-1101 ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANNING / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING Project Comments Date: 06/07/2004 To: 0 City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for a 1st and 2nd floor addition at 1813 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1, APN:025-051-070 Staff Review: 06/07/2004 Reviewed by: Date: F— Project Comments Date: 06/07/2004 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official 0 Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for a 1st and 2nd floor addition at 1813 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1, APN:025-051-070 Staff Review: 06/07/2004 cs Nk lzls S��� Reviewed by: !� � Date: s � Project Comments Date: 06/07/2004 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal 0 Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for a 1st and 2nd floor addition at 1813 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1, APN:025-051-070 Staff Review: 06/07/2004 c 7 6� Revie a y: Date: City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.orQ "y E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review i-� Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other— y" Parcel Number: Project address: / / 3 A APPLICANT Name: 41A C"1�/ d�(K6 Address: / s Z `%- 3 3 —6 PROPERTY OWNER Name: ti�Ikr"k "' x h y Address: /(?/ :3 «s'�G-��� �� /El . City/State/Zip: 21City/State/Zip: /5`//`,r-/G� �► r' Phone (w): i�/S�� S-Sz�2 Phone (w): (h): (h)• ARCMTECT/DESIGNER Name: / / N. -+e IAA GG-IA5, Address: / 5:& Z' City/State/Zip: S; • /f Please indicate with an asterisk Phone (w): the contact person for this project. (h): E I VE D (f): PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 7. A•2�ic'ir7 X-7 /-? 7 JUN - 7 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correc o the best of my wledge and belief. Applicant's signature: �/ �1 Date: e Ui�T I know about the proposed application to the Planning Property owner's si authorize the above applicant to submit this Date: 617111-�� Date submitted: ✓lsr> k' 2 �,�`f� PCAPP.FRM Nov 08 04 06:05p DF/YF (650) 552-9380 p.1 RECEIVED NOV - 8 Z004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. FAX MEMORANDUM DATE: November 8, 2004 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mr. and Mrs. Fantham FAX #: 650-696-3790 Pages: 1 (including cover) Subject: Letter of Concern Dear Sirs and Madams, We've reviewed the plans submitted for the first and second story addition to 1813 Castenada Drive. Based on the plans, we noted the second story addition to be vertical and flat. Our concern is that the second story will look like a box added to the back of the house. We would like to see the second story more integrated with the first story with some variation in architecture. We welcome a second story addition to the neighborhood and look forward to seeing a final design that will flow nicely with the rest of the block. Best Regards, Mr. and Mrs. Fantham 1825 Castenada Drive Buringame, CA 94010 C1- 71 iv -��.Q (/W D S � ✓J �� I"KJIYLA T CON �,S f/7 LLL-�`<7 s.._�—..-. "�- PLANNING DEPT. OZ CITY OF BURLINGAME ACITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURRLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 s TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 1813 CASTENADA DRIVE Application for design review and hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition at: 1813 CASTENADA DRIVE, zoned R-1. (APN: 025-051-070). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, January 24, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: January 14, 2005 (Please refer to other side) A copy of the al to the meeting Burlingame, If you challe e raising only described in ' hel- at or prior to he Property ow r! their tenants bl (650' 558-7 0, Margaret M( City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF BURLINGAME (Please refer to other side) be reviewed prior ,Primrose Road, CE be limited to blic hearing, ;d to the city )r informing , please call 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. 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 24`h day of January 2005 by the following vote: Secretary 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.