The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1813 Castenada Drive - Staff ReportItem # Action Item PROJECT LOCATION 1813 Castenada Drive City of Burlingame Item # 5 Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Action Item Address: 1813 Castenada Drive Meeting Date: 5/29/07 Request: Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition. Applicants and Property Owner: Mark and Amy Liew APN: 025-051-070 Architect: Lincoln Lue, Lincoln Lue Associates 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. History: On January 24, 2005, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition at 1813 Castenada Drive, on property zoned R-1 (January 24, 2005, Planning Commission Minutes attached). The project was referred to a design review consultant prior to approval by the Planning Commission. A building permit was issued on September 9, 2005. Request: Construction of this project was completed in January, 2007. Upon inspection of the final construction, Planning staff identified several as -built changes to the project which were not reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant submitted a letter together with the originally approved plans, building permit plans and proposed plans, date stamped April 3, 2007, explaining the proposed changes to the project. The changes include the following: 1. Front Elevation • The originally approved project included retaining the existing window shutters on the first floor windows and adding matching shutters on the new second floor windows. The project was built with no shutters on the first or second floor windows (see sheet A4). Please refer to the applicant's letter entitled "City Planning Final Inspection Report Dated January 29, 2007" and date stamped April 3, 2007, for an explanation of why the window shutters were not installed. 2. Right Elevation • The existing dining room window on the first floor was removed. The new family room window on the first floor and the new glass block window on the second floor were not installed (see sheets A3 and A4). Please refer to the applicant's letter for an explanation of why the windows were eliminated from the project. Planning staff would note that the removal of the family room window and the glass block window was included as part of a revision to the building permit, which included minor changes to the inside of the dwelling. However, the Building Department did not route this revision to the Planning Department for review and subsequently issued a permit for the revision. The applicant submitted a third set of plans labeled "Permit" for reference. If reviewed at that time, Planning staff would have directed the applicant to install the windows as originally approved or apply for an amendment to Design Review. Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1813 Castenada Drive 3. Left Elevation • New second floor windows changed from fixed to double -hung windows (see sheets A3 and A4). Please refer to the applicant's letter for an explanation of why the window style was changed. 4. Rear Elevation • The roof element above the sliding glass door at the family room was installed higher on the wall than what was originally approved (see sheet A4). • The second floor windows in the master bedroom changed from fixed to double -hung windows (see sheets A3 and A4). • The second floor deck at the rear of the house was built larger than approved (195 SF, 9'-9" x 20' as -built where 122 SF, 6-8" x 18'-3" was originally approved) (see sheets A3 and A4). With the increase of the deck size by 73 SF, lot coverage increased from 3,376 SF (21.1%) to 3,449 SF (21.6%) where 6,384 SF (40%) is allowed; floor area ratio also increased from 3,833 SF (0.24 FAR) to 3,906 SF (0.24 FAR) where 6,207 SF (0.39 FAR) is allowed. The rear setback decreased from 84'-6" to 81'-5" where 20'-0" is required. The larger deck is in compliance with lot coverage, floor area ratio and setback requirements. • Please refer to the applicant's letter for an explanation of the changes listed above. 5. Miscellaneous • Redwood trim surround was added to various windows throughout the house (see sheet A4). The as -built changes listed above require the following application: • Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition (CS 25.70.010). Summary (includes proposed revisions, plans date stamped April 3, 2007): 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 (195 SF) is proposed at the rear of the house. The area under the proposed second floor deck (195 SF) is included in the proposed floor area. With the addition, the floor area will be increasing to 3,906 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 of bedrooms is not increasing, a parking variance is not required for the existing nonconforming parking. All other zoning code requirements have been met. 2 Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1813 Castenada Drive Table 1 — 1813 Castenada Drive Lot Area: 15,960 SF Plans date stamped: April 3, 2007 Existing i Original Proposed Allowed/Req'd Approval (4/3/07 plans) SETBACKS ........................................716"..................................i......................................81-4" ........................................................................... _.............................................. ................................. ............................................. Side...(right): no change 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): 90'-0" I 84'-6" to deck 81'-5" to deck 15'-0" (2nd flr): ................... .......................................................................................... none .......................................................................................... 84'-6" to posts ;........ _. 81'-5" to posts 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 3204 SF 3376 SF 3449 SF 3000 SF ............................................................................................................................................................... 20% ......... 21.1% 21.1% ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._...._........................................_ 40% ............................ ...... FAR: 3204 SF 3833 SF 3906 SF 3900 SF 0.20 FAR 0.24 FAR 0.24 FAR 0.52 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 no change no change 1 --- ...................... ................................................ ........................ Parking: .................................. _... -................. ............................... 1 covered' .............. no change t _..._................._.............................__....__............................................. no change i2 covered (13 -9 x 20) (20' x 20') 1 uncovered i 1 uncovered (9' x 20') I .............................._... - ----- _...--.........._�9'..X.._2. Height: .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._...................................................................................................................................................._....................._............................_...._. 19 -6 27'-1" 1 no change 30'-011 DHEnvelope: ......................_................ _....... _.._._........... ...................................... n/a j .......... ...................................................... ................... ......._. complies ....................................................... .._...---------- .._..--- _.-_.... no change _........ _._....... _.... _._.... _.........._.... _................................ . see code .............................. _............. _.................................._................... Hillside Area n/a 1 required2 required2 i see code Permit: ' 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). Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer (based on the originally approved plans dated January 11, 2005): 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 noted that the proposed design was generally compatible with the style of the existing house and ranch style houses found in the neighborhood. The addition was viewed as 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 further commented that the addition still appeared 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 3 Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1813 Castenada Drive 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 design 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 noted that the project was acceptable as proposed because the addition was relatively small, and would 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 noted that the higher roof line would have some effect on the sun and light reaching the adjacent house to the right side, but would 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 would be no view blockage, the reviewer commented that the applicant 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 noted that assuming there was no view blockage, he recommended approval of the project. He pointed out that the proposed addition, while not perfect, was minor, located far back on the lot, and with the angle of view will have little effect on the neighborhood. Planning staff would note that the design review consultant did not review the revised as -built plans, date stamped April 3, 2007. Staff Comments: See attached comments from the City Engineer, Fire Marshal and Recycling Specialist. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 4 Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1813 Castenada Drive 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 the Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered (revised conditions in italics, the remaining conditions were carried over from the original Design Review approval): 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 3, 2007, sheets Al, A3 and A4, and date stamped January 11, 2005, sheets A2 and 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; E Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1813 Castenada Drive 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. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Mark and Amy Liew, applicants and property owners 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2005 commission has t ' d best to mitigate effects on eighbors with regards to ro f pitch, windows and re; feel the projec a well improvement and is estimZha the sign review process w s; this area has r rictions because of the na ness and; e commission has eat deal of empat towards the situation of th eighbors.air Osterling called for a v ice vote on the motion motion passe on a 5-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal pro dures were advised. Thisat 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. Bojues. 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. City 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 HAYW DRIVE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONST CTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PE T FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STO ADDITION (ANDREW AND PATTY RDAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPER OWNERS; G RGE SKINNER ARCHITECT) (29 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHWNE BARBER ZT Strohmeier briefly preseXthproject description. Commission stat that the plans appear incomplete, they had a hard tout the elevations and roof heig s and that those and other dimensions and information nd to the plans. Chair Osterling opened)Ye public comment. Patty Jordan, applic,#dt and property owner, represented the project. Applicant no d that they feel their design will be keepiRg in unison with the neighborhood and that they are open to a0 suggestions made by the Planning Comaiiission. asked applicant: What are you planning doing with the house after the addition is complete? planning to retire in the house. The is concern with the overall style of the ho e and the to be simplified because it does n fit in with the consistent traditional underst ed houses on the Neighbors Commented: Dave Tillm , 2533 Hayward Drive, Steve Cammon, 2 8 Hayward Drive and Kristen Jacobson, 2541 Hayward D ve. Lives in an Eichler -style house in then 'ghborhood and agrees with what the applicant is trying to d , supports the project; feels the n/ee is old -looking and needs to be re -done with more creativ' ;addition will help with property vcited that people are putting money into the neighborh od and does not want to see a project suse of its different style. Is new to the neighborho d and wants to make sure that all future cards are sent to her at her current address; has oncerns with how the view from and th ight onto her property will be affected; is afraid that the tre planted along the back side may fill in d affect existing view and light; likes to hear that the applic t is flexible. There were no other 71' ents from the floor and the public hearing as closed. Com�7dssion noted: it is an attractive addition, t inclined to see project go to a deZrevier, design is a go start but could make the proj ect blend tter with the existing environment, ae applicants illingness to work with them, but feels at a design reviewer would help to incapplicant's needs into the design of the existing ghborhood. Commission comments inclu • concerned with the Spa ' h style as proposed not fitting in with the nch style houses which pre- dominate this immed' a area; • some walls could ve more detail and windows; • story poles sho be installed for neighbor and commissio inspection to outline the add' 'ons; • understands t t the house needs an update but the front shown is too grandiose by c parison to the rest of e area; • more in rmation and detail needs to be provided o he plans regarding roofing aterial, windows, wind trim, blank walls, plate height and build' g height; 9 City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org 08U*RLJNGiAkMEAPPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: 1 ; (3��--- APPLICANT project contact person? ❑ Name: �. Address: City/State/Zip: U e(4 P,614M)L 64 Phone (w): 41 S' qIZ• �ZZ� (fax): Le G!C 1v47 2- 6 o7?yG PROPERTY OWNER project contact person?,�I Name: I%Y1.kq_)r_- 7 .t &t4 ) Address:_]A « A *Del City/State/Zip: `��utz�rinG�� C>� . C A Phone (w): .4 l 5 ' 1 Z (h): (moo &,IZ-C� � (e-mail): utlaLU mccpa-�ar,.•— ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person? ❑ Name: 1--Wv tobv Lu f - luorpC7't-A 105 Address: 5q W Atf - City/State/Zip: �+ C,l 5 � g4fl2Z Phone (w): S �Z (h): ,ON�; - 46-1�4 ^ (elf (fax): tlS- - 6� `F-- , D C, Z (e-mail): (fax): %0�0 • !V� 2 - 6 5 (e-mail): L ta.J f'j� �a Gc.. v •� Please mark one box with 0 to indicate the contact person for this project. RECEIVED APR 0 3 2007 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: QIPT GF 8IJH PLANNING DEPT. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to e t of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: 7 I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Pla ommission. Property owner's signature: Date: d7 Date submitted: `� S:\Handouts\PCAPP.FRM r" City Planning Final Inspection Report Dated January 29, 2007 APR - 3 2007 Window Shutters Window shutters removed due to the following sequence CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. • Original window contractor was not able to deliver the windows due to death of one of the principles of the company. • We were forced to shop for another window contractor. • The change of window contractor caused the delay of shipping of the windows. • While waiting for the delivery of the windows, construction proceeded with installation of the siding to get water tightness before the rain. • After the windows arrived, we have to cut the sidings to provide the larger window openings for waterproofing and water tightness. • After the installation of the windows, we have to put trim to cover the overcut of the windows. • Also there is not enough room to install the shutters in the rear. • We also try to match the kitchen window and the neighborhood houses; therefore, we deleted the shutters. • If we install the window shutters, it will not match with the overall scheme of the window. First Floor Dining Room Window & New Family Room Windows • Window in the family room and glass block was removed during the city planning architect review, which was shown on building permit drawings. • Also this is done due to two reasons: ■ a) Four fixed windows were added in the rear per city planning architect's recommendation. Therefore, we have to delete some windows to meet the title 24 requirements. ■ b) Also due to privacy for us and our neighbor, we deleted these windows. • Somehow we missed to remove one of the windows in the dining room for the submittal of the building permit. New 2"d Floor Fixed Window • It was missed at plan review with owner and architect. • Architect did not note windows to be double hung. • It was a mistake, owner always plan to have double hung windows. Roof Element Installed Higher On Wall • For structure reason, the contractor did not want to cut the top plates. • The roof element is installed on the top plate. • This will also to match the other roof line. 2"d Floor Deck Built Larger Than Plan • Original grade level was only 6 - 8 inches difference from rear sliding doors. • Original elevation was only one step down, approximate 6- 8 inches. • Due to structure beams in the crawl space and outside plaster wall, we have to lower the grade to 22 inches in elevation. • This will required 4 steps down instead one step down as plan. • Since first landing required 36" width of landing and 3 steps at 12" each. This will require a total of 6 ft length from the sliding door. • This will only leave less than 3 ft of concrete pad for uses. • Therefore, we increase the deck size, to cover BBQ grill space. • The deck was installed before the installation of landings & steps. • After the deck was installed, we came up the idea to turn the landing and steps 90 degree to exit the side way. • This gives us more room for BBQ. But the deck was already built. This is how the deck size got increase to current size. 14 JI- Avsf �±: ;�■� ,,;�•,. h .. '.•� _ - _ �* ` i t a j "` it"w�iiw•�7 it ` ..ro A MEMO: Date: 1-2-2005 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, WlNr ARCHITECTS Burlingame, CA 94010 ref: 1813 Castenada Drive RECEIVED JAN - 5 REC'D - i--ocT 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. SUITE 311, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / FAX.. (650) 343-1291 / info@wingesaia.com / TEL.: (650) 343-1101 ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANNING / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING Wl N r 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 / into@wingesaia.com / TEL: (650) 343-1101 ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANNING / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING el WIIlr� 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 �-% ��,�t� Qq� "`�'" � �1 �r-�o D?lywk�� 0 S�-�.yAz�i i d�r�..ili�✓�/ ,/32 7 2-3fD Fne Reviewed by: Date: VV �. �, ,� Project Comments Date: 06/07/2004 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official YFire 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 .s� /�'� � �y..�,c�� z"�Y � �� P l Jam_ � v_�y •�,�'.--t�� 1� � �.�•�'•-'�.� `�� t�3v •., r� � tJ`-.-r,"s`�O�P� ��C�---• V' �s--�'�-� I .� -• \ e .�� Reviewed by: � � � Date: } f� Project Comments Date: 06/07/2004 To: ❑ 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 r-�- L6 Revie a y: Date: RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND AMENDMENT TO 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 amendment to design review and hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition at 1813 Caste_nada 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 May 29, 2007, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA 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 amendment to design review and hillside area construction permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such amendment to 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 29t" day of May, 2007 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and amendment to design review and hillside area construction permit. 1813 Castenada Drive Effective June 8, 2007 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 3, 2007, sheets Al, A3 and A4, and date stamped January 11, 2005, sheets A2 and 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. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD � BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-725250 • (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 1813 CASTENADA DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for amendment to an approved 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 Mailed: May 18, 2007 (Please refer to other side) 016H16504325 $ 00.260 Mailed From 94010 US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at� 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. Margaret Monroe City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) yy� -e. , r x A t M1 I r 4 t • a 1 ,ems a rt I , u •M a jg i ` * qk fig � p., >• #-�S€.1" r�'sr !,�. l w�� t ffj � 1813 • • . • DRIVE e r' AlySpy r'� 180,5 180 Wy g 3 �� fJ y^ YL�u '�tY, t'• j� ' tit.♦ '/�'tr ti ; , 4 " N? \ f 4 III , it A•., 4��x TEb tp , -"ity of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2007 applicant. He passed the gavel to C. Terrones, stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers. Reference staff report May 29, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission commented to staff: rinsing the concrete truck into the creek would harm the creek environment; could staff add a condition from the Regional Water Quality Control Board?; only a small amount of concrete is proposed in the retaining walls, which will not drain into the creek; and there are BMP's in the code that require that runoff from truck/machine cleaning be kept in a contained area as to not enter into the storm drain system and therefore the creek. C. Terrones opened the public hearing. There were no comments concerning the project and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: (1) that the new concrete deck, as built, shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 30, 2007, sheets 1 through 4 and landscape plan; that the proposed concrete deck shall be located 2.4 feet above the existing redwood deck; and that any changes to building materials or location of the deck shall require an amendment to this permit; (2) that the project shall comply with any regulations or additional comments established by the California Department of Fish and Game; (3) that tree protection measures shall be installed as to protect the Live Oak tree in the rear of the property; (4) that no new concrete should be added in the creek during or after construction; (5) that the property owner shall keep the portion of the creek located at 1249 Cabrillo Avenue clear of debris and shall maintain the channel and protection structures on their property to insure free flow of the creek and to minimize erosion; (6) that the deck shall remain independent of the retaining walls as designed, and shall be constructed to be removable to clear debris if necessary; (7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshall's February 15, 2007 memos, the NPDES Coordinator's February 20, 2007 memo and the City Engineer's February22, 2007 memo shall be met; (8) that the applicant shall complywith Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (9) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. C. Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Chair Deal abstaining and C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. Chair Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 5. 1813 CASTENADA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FORA 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 May 29, 2007, with attachments. CDD Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. 9 conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Mark Liew, property owner, represented the project. He stated: they were not trying to disregard the permit process; problem with loss of original contractor; ordered windows did not fit, so window trim was cut; they were trying to keep within Title 24; the architect was contacted about removal of the shutters and said to keep the house consistent in the front and back; neighbor on left side has no privacy problem with second story deck as built; and they didn't intend to make changes to the project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 3 -City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2007 Commission commented: a decision was made to not contact the City for all changes made; difficult to see this number of as -built changes; was architect engaged for info about detailing the shutters?; need a way to dress up front elevation; lost design elements when lost shutters; shutters are intended to look set off from the wall; shutters should be reinstalled or an alternative should be researched; using Title 24 as an excuse is not valid; can easily re -do Title 24; expansion of rear deck can affect neighbors privacy, deck should be reduced to what it was approved at; and grey trim on rear windows is not in front. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application if the original shutters are installed and if the deck is reduced to its originally approved size, 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 April 3, 2007, sheets Al, A3 and A4, and date stamped January 11, 2005, sheets A2 and A5, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint orfloor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that the shutters shall be installed as shown on the originally approved plans and the second story deck shall be reduced to its originally approved size; (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 (8) 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. Terrones. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the shutters installed as shown on the originally approved plans and the deck reduced to its originally approved size. The motion passed on a 5-0- 2 (C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 6. 2561 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY REMODEL (SAM AND MARIE FAILLACE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report May 29, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. 11 conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, project designer, represented the project. Commissioners comments: does current garage get used for parking?; cannot imagine backing out of a garage at a 90 degree angle up a 15% slope; seems an enormous and complicated project to not add any square footage; landscaping in rear is all on top of each other; suggest move pear tree out from the laurel trees; item # 3 calls for common ivy, do not make it Algerian ivy which is too invasive; taking concrete floor :-I