The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1825 Castenada Drive - Staff Reportii� �� CITY o� � STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME m `�o� 90 �FATm .�uME 6• To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: � y;�i]u_� JANUARY 25. 20001 CITY PLANNER AGENDA ITEM # MTG. DATE 2.5.01 SUBNIITTED BY e� I U �- APPROVED BY sus.�cT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION ON A DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should be by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. The criteria for each of the requests and the Council's action alternatives are included at the end of the staff report. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on January 8, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to approve the design review, special permit for attached garage and hillside area construction permit for the new two- story house on this property. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 (Cers. Luzuriaga, Dreiling dissenting, C. Keighran absent) voice vote. In their motion the commission required that the location of the story poles be verified by a licensed surveyor to insure their accuracy, that once verified a photographic history of these poles be prepared and that if upon framing the structure is different than the way the current story poles show it, the Planning Commission shall review the application again. Five neighbors spoke in opposition to the project. Commissioners in favor of the motion noted: with the proposed FAR ( existing house is 2300 SF, proposed house is 4500 SF, code allows 7200 SF on this big lot) this house fits well into the neighborhood , mass will not disrupt the fabric of the neighborhood that much, would rather see an addition to the existing house, but applicant has right to build a new house; resource management is important, architecture blends well with the neighborhood, although larger house it is within the code, change is inevitable; lot is wider and larger than others but mass and bulk have been kept down, rooflines mitigate mass, did a good job, not issue of popularity; owner is entitled to a second floor, would like confirmation of second floor placement during framing to insure that it will be as represented by the story poles; understand the feelings of the neighbors that the house will violate the neighborhood, but architect has done a good job with keeping the mass and bulk down, do not perceive this as a monster house. Commissioners in opposition to the motion noted: opposed to demolition of an existing house in good condition and replacement, there are lots of ways to use existing floor areas, would have less impact on the neighborhood and demonstrates more respect for the community; torn between what is allowed by code and design review, this is a uniform neighborhood of single story ranch-style houses, project would change this fabric, cannot support. APP�'AL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION ON A DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR . ATTACHED GARAGE AND HILL ;IDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 � February S, 200I BACKGROUND: The applicant, G&B Contractors, is requesting design review, a special permit for an attached garage and a Hillside Area Construction Permit in order to demolish the existing 2,322 SF (.11 FAR) one story house with attached two car garage, and replace it with a 4,500 SF (.21 FAR) two story house with attached two car garage at 1825 Castenada Drive, Zoned R-1. The new house will have six bedrooms and two covered parking spaces to current code requirements. The proposal includes a 232 SF wine cellar which meets the definition of basement and is not included in the FAR calculation. The Commission reviewed this project at Preliminary Design Review study on December 11, 2001, and suggested some changes to the applicant: the straight-up two story wall on the east elevation be altered to reduce the vertical impact on the neighbor; a more detailed landscape plan be developed which includes a selection of larger-growing plant material to screen the second story addition for the neighbors; the applicant was directed to install story poles (see photos attached). Their response (plans date stamped December 21, 2000) shows the addition of two windows on the east elevation, one on the first floor and one on the second floor, toward the rear of the elevation; and a revised landscape plan which added a tree to the front, left side of the yard, continuation of shrubs along the left side property line and added shrubs along the front property line. ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives and criteria for design review, special permit and hillside area construction permit Monroe letter to G&B Contractors, January 18, 2001, setting appeal hearing Richard Kelley and Lylian Kelley letter to City Clerk, January 15, 2001, requesting appeal Planning Commission Minutes, January 8, 2001 Story Poles, photos taken by staff, January 8, 2001 Photos submitted January 8, 2001, by applicant , show story poles installed from up the street, down the street and across the street. Planning Commission StaffReport, January 8, 2001, with attachments Resolution 2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES l. City council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance>usepermit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance, the Council must make �ndings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an a�rmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance Nol 1591 adopted by the Council on Apri120, 1998 are as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural sryle with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA The planning commission may grant a special permit in accord with this title if, from the applicant and the facts presented at the public hearing, it finds: (a) the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or additional are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior fmish material and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR AN HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Code Sec. 25.61.060: Review by the planning commission or city council shall be based upon the obstruction by the 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. CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall - 501 Primrose Road Planning Department Burlingarne, Califomia 94010.3997 Tel. (650) 558-7200 January 18, 2001 G&B Contractors, Inc. 1498 Carroll Avenue San Francisco CA 94124 Dear G&B Contractors, At the City Council meeting of January 17, 2001, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 1825 Castenada Drive , zoned R-1. of your application for design review, special permit, and a hillside area construction permit. This application was to allow for a new, two-story residence with attached garage at 1825 Castenada Drive. A public hearing will be held on February 5, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, � Mar aret�onroe g City Planner MM/s 1825CACC.acc c: property owner City Clerk . , � JhNUAF.Y 15. 2001 A�N MUSSO. CITY CLEP.k CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL 501 PRIMROSE ROAU BUP.LINGAME. CA 94010 RECEIVED :l �,�! 1. �� IQ�1 CITY CLEKK'S �FFICE �,�T�! �F 4�1R�II�;GAME RE: 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE 1....REMOVAL OF EXISTING RESIDENCE 2....HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 3....5PECIAL PERMIT: NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE 4....SFECIAL PERMIT: ATTACHED GARAGE FOR NEW TWd-STORY RESIDENCE. DEAR MS. MUSSO, WE WISH TO API'EAL THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING GOMMISSIO[� REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 1825 CASTENADA DRI��E AND THE PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AND WINE CELLAR. ATTACHED IS OUP. CHECK #"T9'� IN THE AMOUNT OF �250.00 TO CQVEP. THE APPEAL FEE AND NOTICING COSTS AS REQUIRED. SINCERELY� r�.��r�_�r� �' � �� : � � � �, , IAN L�EY = -� � 1821 CAS ENADA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010'. C650)697-8785 LTK:Ik Et�CL . HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY CUUNCIL Please schedule an appeal hearing for FeAruary 5, 2000 Ann Musso, City Clerk CITY OF BURLINGAME FINANCE DEPARTMENT CASH COLLECTIONS DIVISION O1/16/Ol 03:25pm REFERENCE - 12071-25-3 MISC BATCH 517 - UTILITY BATCH 516 FROM : RICHARD KELLEY ACCOUNT : 10136600 ZONING & SIGN PERMITS TOTAL PAID 10136600 CHECK 250.00 RECEIVED BY COUNTER 250.00 250.00 1 � 0 � s , � , �� _ _`i . City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 a window or other element could be added to break it up. The architect noted that there was a window at this location in the previous plans which provided light for the stairway, window was removed, is set back 12' from building edge on second floor, window on front elevation now provides light and ventilation to the stairway, the blank wall will not be seen from the street. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: in favor of this project at previous meeting, applicant has addressed the Commission's concerns. C. Luzuriaga 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 November 3, 2000, sheet A-2 and December 28, 2000, sheets A-1 and A-3 with revisions to the rear roof line; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window(s), adding a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Discussion on the motion: pleased with the quality of drawings and revisions to the roof tied the roof structure together. Chairtnan Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:21 p.m. 5. 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (G & B CONTRACTORS, APPLICANT; DEAN FANTHAM AND YVETTE GOROSTIAGLTE, PROPERTY OWNERS; ROBERT A. WILLIAMS, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Yvette Gorostiague, property owner, addressed the Cominission's concerns, have revised the East Elevation, provided a landscape plan, added story poles with ribbons, provided photos of story poles on house, which show how the construction is not blocking neighbors' views, hillside at rear of property is 80' high, made efforts to contact neighbors, sent out a letter to concerned neighbors and received only one response from owner at 1809 Castenada Drive, did not leave a name or phone number so she could not respond. Sam Honeo, 1812 Castenada Drive, Mrs. Richard Kelly, 1821 Castenada Drive, Bob DeVincenzi, 1809 Castenada Drive, and William and Christine Kahn, 1837 Castenada Drive spoke in opposition of the project, noted that every house on Castenada is approximately 1700-1800 square feet in size, proposed house is 4500 square feet with six bedrooms, have lived in his house for 25 years, the neighborhood is peaceful and pleasant, there is little traffic, the proposed house is a monstrosity compared to other houses in the neighborhood, spoke with the property owner and asked why such a large house is needed, owner told him that there was not one to meet their needs available; went to the County Hall of Records and found that there are several owners at this property, there is a$600,000 mortgage on the house, concerned about the financing for the house, what guarantee is there that the house will be built after it 7 � City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 ' has been demolished. Commission noted that the city cannot guarantee that the house will be built. There is only one two story house on a block of 84 houses, six bedroom house will be too big, have lived in house for 43 years, submitted a letter noting her concerns with the project, her property is 450 feet long and only one which is flat, they use 300 feet of the rear yard, the subject lot is steeper, the proposed house will be an eyesore, second floor looks into their yard, will have no privacy, chimney extends out two feet and is five feet from the property line, concerned with sparks from the chimney landing on their roof, house looks nice but should be built somewhere else, husband ill am concerned with noise from demolition and construction, bought there second house in Burlingame because they wanted to stay in the city, submitted photographs taken from inside her house towards the proposed house, will loose light and get darker, house will be built closer to the street, will not see traffic when backing out of garage, east elevation shows a two story house going straight up, will loose their view from the bedroom and bathroom, adding 2300 square feet and a wine cellar, digging for the wine cellar could affect their house, did not respond to the applicant because she felt that the owner could not be ; convinced to revise the project; would fit in the neighborhood if the existing house were remodeled and an addition was made which was consistent with the architecture of the neighborhood, lots in the neighborhood are big enough to build a seven story hotel, would like to see an elevation which reflects the detached garage, there are none in the neighborhood, not all neighbors received the owners letter, made copies of the letter and distributed to the neighbors. Further comment: have lived in our house for 36 years, Castenada Drive is only two blocks long, half of which is in Burlingame, have no objection to the property owners themselves, they are wonderful, feel that when the owners realized that the proposed house was going to be three times as lazge as the other homes in the neighborhood, they thought to ask the neighbors how they felt and received objection, neighbors should have shown the project to the neighbors before submitting an application, Castenada Drive was built 40 years ago, existing houses were built to a maximum, became a community of single story houses, raised five boys in three bedrooms, existing homes can accommodate families with children, have rights as a community, house is an intrusion on the community, don't know how long owners will stay, may become a problem with the number of bedrooms and increased traffic in the future, house could be built and sold right away, could be appealing for larger families or multifamilies, feels story poles are not accurate; am a teacher who taught carpentry, this is not something we want to see, site is large but most of it is unusable, there is only one other house in the neighborhood that is two story, the neighborhood is composed of different ethnic backgrounds, many have a hard time speaking at a public hearing before the Commission, one reason why the whole block is not present tonight, there is no way one can build towards the rear of the lot, hills rises steeply at the rear, existing house was well maintained, house is expensive and it is a waste to demolish the house, there are enough alternatives, cannot ignore neighbors' wants and needs, asked if story poles represent room height or roof height. Commission clarified the neighborhood concern to be that the existing single story house is 2300 square feet and that the proposed two story house is 4500 SF, code allows 7200 square feet based on the size of the lot, the aerial shows 12-141ots with a similar situation. Public testamony continued; noting concern with the potential the view blockage from his house at the previous meeting, have looked at the story poles and feel that there will be no loss of view,to him would like to withdraw objection; would like to make sure the proposed house does not exceed the building envelope as shown by the story poles, noted that he received a letter from the owner and did not respond because he was out of town during the holidays. The Commission's decisions at the previous meeting were thoughtful, is not against this project but does not live in this neighborhood, reviewed the story poles, can only see the story poles from his rear property line, project has no impact on his property, is concerned about throwing away the house. : • City of Burl.ingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 In response: architect for the proj ect, noted that the proposed house has an attached garage, a licensed contractor installed the story poles which were laid out very accurately to match the proposed plan, horizontal ribbons show the plate height and the roof ridge, not proposing house closer to the street, second story is pushed back, structure is not three times as large, Planning Dept. classifies this house as having six potential bedrooms, there is one exercise room and one hobby room without closets which were counted as bedrooms, so really have four bedrooms; property owner noted that it is their intention to live in the house for a long time, went to schools in Burlingame, family lives nearby. Commission noted that each application is based on merit. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: will vote against the project, opposed to this approach to building in Burlingame, there are plenty of ways to use the existing spaces, fit into smaller spaces, has less of an impact, has a high respect for the community, would not do something to disrupt the neighborhood, instead would buy a house, live in it for a couple of years to find out what the needs of the neighborhood are, opposed to demolishing a house in good shape; perplexed with the house to family ratio, this house fits into the neighborhood well, mass will not disrupt the fabric of the neighborhood that much, would rather see an addition to the existing house, but have right to build a new house, can support the project; resource management is important, architecture blends in well with the neighborhood, house will be larger, within the code, have to act on design review, change is inevitable, can support project. Further discussion: understand the concerns of neighborhood change, lot is wider and larger, the mass and bulk has been kept down, rooflines mitigate the mass, did a good job, this is not a popularity contest, can't take into consideration whether the house is for a developer or owner, cannot only act on neighborhood complaint, owner is entitled to a second floor, would like to see the placement of the story poles verified by a licensed surveyor, suggest that a photograph be taken at different angles before and after construction to ensure accuracy with the story poles, what if story poles are off by two feet? CA suggested that an inspection be conducted during the framing of the structure, if it is found to be off then project will have to come back to Commission; torn between was is allowed by the code and design review, this is a uniform neighborhood of single story ranch-style houses, project would change the fabric of the neighborhood, not in support of the project. C. Vistica moved to approve the application with the added conditions that the height of the story poles be verified by a licensed surveyor during the framing of the structure, that the surveyor shall also provide a photographic survey at different angles before and after construction, and that if different the project shall be reviewed by the Commission, and that project shall comply with the proposed demolition recycling ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues 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 October 30, 2000, Sheets 1-4, and 6 and December 21, 2000, Sheets 5 and 7; 2) that the height of the story poles shall be verified by a licensed surveyor during the framing of each floor, second story plate line and roof ridge and be submittted to the City Engineer for verification at each step, and that the surveyor shall provide a photographic survey at different angles conducted before and after the construction, and that if either the framing or photographs are different than the approved plans the construction shall be corrected or the project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 3) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 6, 2000 memo shall be met; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window(s), adding a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 6) that the project shall meet all 9 , City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Discussion on the motion: understand the feelings that the house will violate the neighborhood, architect has done a good job with keeping the mass and bulk down, not perceived as a monster house. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 roll call vote (Cers. Luzuriaga and Dreiling dissenting, C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m 6. 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DAMIR O. RADOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DAVE HOWELL, , DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the applicant had a permit to remove the redwood tree because it was damaging hardscape; he also noted that there are two redwood trees on this site one straddling the property line on each side of the site. The documentation is not clear which tree is addressed or whether both trees are included. The CA noted that this item could be continued until the city arborist can clarify his statement. C. Osterling noted that he lives within the noticing area of this application so will abstain from this item. He stepped down from the dais. Commissioners asked if a trees straddles a property line does the neighbor have something to say about its removal; yes, both property owners need to agree to have the tree removed. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Dave Howell, designer, 2825 Hillside Drive, represented the project. He noted that this project had been referred to, and reviewed by a design review consultant and the consultant recommended it. Commissioners noted that the City arborist needs to look at both trees, if the tree is causing damage to the existing foundation it is not relevant since this is a request for a new house, need to know if the arborist was aware of this. Applicant summarized the revisions made to the design in response to the commission's last review. Commissioners noted that by itself the design is all right however don't see how this design matches this neighborhood, it would be consistent with the Trousdale area. Applicant noted that this neighborhood is eclectic. Commissioners expressed concern about the trees, not the one to the west next to the garage as it is in decline, but the one on the east; the tree removal permit is not clear about which tree, although it does not appear to include both trees; tree to the right should be retained, could pull the foundation of a new house back and accommodate nicely, in some circumstances variances have been granted to save a tree. Applicant noted that the tree to the right is affecting the foundations of both houses. Applicant noted that he believed that the tree permit was for removal of both trees. Commissioners noted that the backdrop of trees is a big component of the character of this neighborhood and this proposal removing the two redwoods would take a big chuck of that backdrop, there is a lot of opportunity on this site to design around the trees, would like to see what is being done to respond to the neighborhood not just the site plan. Also concerned that there was not enough FAR set aside to provide for a two car garage in the future without having to get an FAR variance, don't like to be put in that position with new construction. Applicant noted he has worked with the design reviewer as directed, why is the commission reviewing it now? Commissioners noted that a project must respond to both the clients needs and uphold and reinforce the neighborhood character, in this case that was not done. Applicant noted that this is the house the client wants, on the same footprint as existing, and it is within the code requirements. CA 10 Story Poles at 1825 Castenada DT1Ve, January 8, 2001 (Photos were taken by staff from across the street.) ... `�— � i.. . - ' • ' Y � � •. � � ... . � � ..�r._ r ,� � /'""""""�`+-`— � .�`.r� ` � � '" � " �� I , � ' „_ /''� \ ...��.r�r� �' � � � ......,..;F . , i� , � . „ � • _ _-__ --�—,,_..�,r,,, , _ ` +* ' ` .i. �r— " „ �r. ;: ' , ;, _ � ', �.� �F.. , '" a'�,�Z � . � � �� !�'� �"r +'�w �..`..r�a.. , , .. -.. � . .:�� d s � °a _ ' .F4 n.�Ty._,._ . . . .. .... �'��11..� .• .. � i . \I . . ' : . �� `�� `� � �� .f� ,�s• • • / �: iyM�� . r� �_ �� !`�!_I� � .r �j '�• � � � �' • ' � • �. � •'T� . ' '��' � + ��. �. ti , a.,:' M _ • L� � , -- .� �� -- -- _ . . -, � � ,� � �` - _ �'� - � � � /� ' � � � � � ... � . � *� ��" ,�..y �� ` � µ '�• yM *�.lr� t�r'1� y � --'� ._�_ �."�'"��',.s A:�t�'S.�C.'+JIF'.tit�j4��! b «R. �t•� .. _. �� ,. 1 � � � � ~r S ' � 1 �.' � � , ` , �� _ ~� �� .w ,�- Y � : �-� � 1,s� ;,�= R.r: . , a. � � �''�'' ' ' � � �. . �,, �� - . � � ..�.�.< ; . _vP .. �' :� . . �`� a ., � . ` z�t "�"� � .F� + M:'�r " N4 �Y ", �..d ;. / Item # � PROJECT LOCATION 1825 Castenada Drive City of Burlingame Item No. Design Review, Special Permit for Attached Garage and Regular Action Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 1825 Castenada Drive Meeting Date: 1/8/O1 Request: Design review, special permit for an attached garage, and hillside area construction permit for new, two-story residence at 1825 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1 (CS 25.57.010, 25.61.010 and 25.28.035 (1)). Applicant: G&B Contractors Property Owner: Dean Fantham and Yvette Gorostiague Designer: Robert A. Williams, A.I.A. Lot Area: 21,028 SF APN: 025-051-040 Zoning R-1 General Plan: Low Density Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303- Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. Summary: The applicant, G&B contractors, is requesting design review, a special permit for an attached garage, and a hillside area construction permit for a new, two-story house at 1825 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1. The existing 2,322 SF (.11 FAR) single-story residence with attached garage will be demolished. The proposed two-story residence with attached garage contains 4,500 SF (.21 FAR) where 7,829 SF (.37 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There are six bedrooms proposed and the two-car garage meets the parking requirements. The proposed 232 SF wine cellar meets the definition of a basement and is not included in FAR calculations. The attached garage requires a special permit and a hillside area construction permit is required for any construction on this site. All other zoning code requirements have been met. Staff Comments: See attached PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front: Ist flr 17'-6" 15'-0" block average =15'-8" 2nd flr 39'-0" �a 20'-0" Side (left): 7'-2" 5'_p" 7,_�„ Side (right): 7'-2" 7'-0" 7,_0„ Rear: 1 st flr 202'-0" 202'-0" 15'-0" 2nd flr 200'-0" n/a 20'-0" 14% 11% 40% LOT COVERAGE: 2,937 SF 2,322 SF ( 8,411 SF) .21 FAR . .11 FAR .37 FAR FAR: 4,500 SF 2,322 SF 7,829 SF # OF BEDROOMS 6 n/a n/a � . 1. , Design Review, Special Permit, and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1825 Castenada Drive � PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D 2 covered, attached* 2 covered, attached 2 covered �2o X 20� (2o x 20� �Zo X 20� � + 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered PAItKING: 9' x 20' (9' x 20') (9' x 20') HEIGHT: 30'-0" n/a 30'/2 %z stories DHENVELOPE complies n/a See code * Requires a special permit This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Preliminary Design Review Study Meeting: On December 11, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed this project for preliminary design review (see 12/11/00 minutes). Commissioners noted that the east elevation is a straight-up, two-story wall and suggested something be done to reduce the vertical impact of the wall. They requested a more detailed landscape plan with a selection of larger-growing plant material. Five surrounding neighbors commented on the project, expressing concerns about the size of the house and the additional cars that might park on the street. The Commission requested that the applicant install story poles no later the five days prior to the January 8, 2000, meeting and placed the project on the regular action calendar for that meeting. In response to the Commission's concerns the applicant has submitted revised plans date stamped December 21, 2000, sheets 5 and 7. Revisions to the project include: ❑ the east elevation has been revised to include two additional windows, one located on the first floor and one located on the second floor, both at the rear portion of the proposed residence ❑ the landscape plan has been revised, adding a tree to the front, left side of the yard, continuing shrubs along the left side property line and adding additional shrubs along the front property line. In addition, the owners plan to install story poles by January 3, 2000. They have also circulated a letter (see attached dated December 18, 2000) and attempted to contact immediate neighbors in an effort to discuss their project and the neighbor's concerns. Required Findings for Design Review: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. ..Design Review, Special Permit, and Hillside Area Con,�truction Permit 1825 Castenada Drive Requia�.ed Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. 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. Afiirmative action should be taken by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: Conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 30, 2000, Sheets 1- 4, and 6 and December 21, 2000, Sheets 5 and 7; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 6, 2000 memo shall be met; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Erika Lewit Zoning Technician c: Robert A. Williams, Architect DATE: October 31, 2000 ROUTING FORM TO: ✓ CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review, special permit, and hillside area construction permit for a new two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage at 1825 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-051- 040. SCHEDULED PLAI�INING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, November 6, 2000 THANKS, Maureen/Erika/Ruben >. Z . �� 6 � Date of Comments �e ��cG� s� f� �a.•a; � d� �``°�'� ��v c.,n.d � � ��n- � � . �% . • �/ � �� f 6 �• �- �a �� ' .t �� T h.t m o�✓-S �'�-y � .c !-��e`� � J , �� J . .�rrrn r i/� � c,J�c� r�I c cut,. ,•er�c o r c or� � � l�c, rcL`G 3 /� ve run� � � � w � �� - .S'e w�c � G��-� �"u � � r a ,2c w�l-e� -�!�''`.� `un � r ROUTING FORM DATE: October 31, 2000 TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL ✓ FIRE MARS�IAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB.TECT: Request for design review, special permit, and hillside area construction permit for a new two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage at 1825 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-051- 040. SCHEDULED PLANIVING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, November 6, 2000 THANKS, Maureen/Erika/Ruben � � Date of Comments �� .�� ROUTING FORM DATE: October 31, 2000 TO: CITY ENGINEER ✓CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARS�iAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review, special permit, and hillside area construction permit for a new two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage at 1825 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-051- 040. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, November 6, 2000 THANK5, Maureen/Erika/Ruben � ( �� Date of Comments ;�v C�-�,w� . �D� �� City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2000 14. ' 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (G & B CONTRACTORS, APPLICANT; DEAN FANTHAM AND YVETTE GOROSTIAGUE, PROPERTY OWNERS; ROBERT A. WILLIAMS, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Bob Williams, architect, and Dean Fantham and Yvette Gorostiague, property owners, represented the project. They noted that from their initial studies of the clients space needs and condition of the house led to the conclusion that the appropriate move was to demolish and rebuild the house. Much of this lot is very steep and wanted to retain the flat usable rear yard, so went to two stories; rear of the lot is about 85 feet above curb. This will be the first two story house on this side of the street, but there are a number down the street in Millbrae. Second story allows greater side setbacks than the original house. Commissioners asked: there needs to be more information/detail on the landscape plan, should include selection of plant material which will grow larger; what is the size of the house, 4100 SF with 400 SF in garage. Applicant should install story poles so neighbors can see effects of addition. The following members of the audience then spoke: Bill Kahn 1837 Castenada; Dr. Bellinger,3 Rio Court; Larry Barich, 1821 Loyola; Samuel Honeo, 1812 Castenada; Bob Debenchenzi, 1809 Castenada. Do not want such a big house on this block, concerned about view obstruction, would like to see story poles installed; proposed house not fit existing quaint character; too many cars on street now, unable to sweep streets, these people now park on street, larger house will generate even more cars; this is a big lot and if approved would open door for bigger houses in this area. Applicant responded: the proposed house is about two time bigger not three times; it is no deeper on the ground floor, the houses above are 80 feet higher and will not be affected; the second story is set back 40 feet from the curb and side setbacks are 3 to 6 feet greater than existing; did not want to grade into the hill. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussed: why does the house need to be removed; this is a long deep lot, can the house be reoriented; story poles should be installed; neighbors should bring photos of story poles taken from areas inside their houses to the January 8 meeting; concerned about the appearance of the east elevation, this is a straight up two story wall, which will have a noticeable impact on the neighbors, need to reduce the vertical impact of this wall. C. Deal made a motion to put this item on the January 8, 2001, regular action calendar and to require that story poles be installed at least 5 days before January 8. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to set this item for the January 8, 2001, regular action calendar and to require story poles be installed. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of December 4, 2000 CP Monroe commented briefly and indicated this review would be continued at the January 8, 2001 meeting. - Committee to Review Proposed Commercial Design Review Ordinance and Guidelines. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the Council's request that the commission appoint two or three of its members to participate in a committee to revise the proposed commercial design review ordinance. After brief discussion Chairman Luzuriaga named Cers. Dreiling, Vistica and Luzuriaga to sit on the committee. CP Monroe noted that the first meeting would be in January 2001. r� December i8, z000 Decu- v, : d� a�Irs. ?t. xeltiy. l�Ve are interested in spenki.�g witfi you regard'utg tfee plans of aur ntw kouse. l�Ve, Cike you, are concerned about a�ty neig especia�'y wfien it a�j`'ects our famiCus. Growi�g u� in BurCrngame, I've sern t�i,e area. cfia�ge a�ut evofve into trie cfesirabCe area it is to�cfay. �Ve resyect tke city r ' a,nd', pianni�g proctss, wkich enrures �ames continue to fct into tFie �hcr!'�game ern►u'vnmen.t. ?fiat is wfiy we've taken greax cfeal' of time cfts our house to meet tfie city r �fit �y wit�i t�ee ne' Fidorhoo� 6e�u i8 �'s9 any fami!'y in t�i.e area. l�Ve tiave design�ed' triis �inuse to re�ect how im,�ortant a sh'ang f'amify cnvironment is to us. 1�Ve are going to raise our ctmiCy i�t t�iis rwm,e an�f want it to promote tfiis f ' y atm.ospfiere. 1�Ve would Gke tfie opportunity to talk to you further so we can 6etter understa�td eac�. other s position. Please calrus at Dean's celrp�wne numder (6so) �87•1124 01' 01L1' ti.ome nurn6er (650) 631-2947• aCindes t ?tegards and 3�['a�py .3�foCufays, � � i �G,�,�� i ��-� i�--`"-�`� 7z �; _ :�_. Dean � (11y�"ette ,fantftam RECEIV�D D E C 2 2 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. � r'4r` C I T O* � BURIJNQAMi CITY OF BURLINGAME ��,... �J APPLICATION TO THE PLA,NNING COMNIISSION Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other �f �� Project Address: l` �=� � /c��.-� �_ cae'�. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: �� l3 �"��n.Uz�«�C�� `�2 �' Name: ��cti�. �.'a�,,�'� �1' G�.-r2.�iu_eiu �. Address: /�i � � �- rc�'vt�� ;�l-� Address: �53�� ,✓��-7'��i S l�lc • City/State/Zip: .5�,-c f�"��r��,��'' �2 ��/��City/State/Zip: i3 �y r2 L r N C;'�. �� c�� y�Q� n Phone (w):_�tc; -- �Z .�- 3,<r� Phone (w): 657 - 3 ;�5? � � � � �- �) � �h) � fax:_ �[ [�� -`� i Z- 3/� G_ Name: Address: " �° �- City/State/Zip: ' Phone (w):_ �� J� � l j �� / � (h): f�: L,��.��:� ��L/3 2�7 Z FROJECT DESCRIPTION: fa.x: � _ Please indicate with an asterisk * the Z contact person for this application. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 . ��,- t"�r �� :.� / l� :3 � c� p Ap licant's Sig ture Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. `�j'" ��' � � � s Date Filed: � 0• 3 0• O O fure Date OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------------- - - -- RECEIV��- � Fee: OCT 3 0 2000 Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT A�� c�Tr o� , BURUNGAME ��,,.o � The Planning Commission is required by law tc� make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent ivith the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neiglZborhood. �/� are �oPoJ �NE� 'TD �rry � �+�y �',�++,G �i,� �� C � �-� ,� T� �fH E tfdZt S ��3 . Cc�r�.��Nrc y, �rx� �x�sr��vg r��rs� � r�,, � rr��H�� +� g� D �� l5 COIUSIST�tr/i W�rH Ti�f� l�i�sT oL� �'H�' lu��ihlf►3urc�lov�. 7F-!€rZ� r�2� �V'0 ACT/3CHA'� L-� C-� ►�s% f�i �� N TFff� .�V�"t� ��`� �' 2. Explain how tlze variety of roof line, facade, e�t,eriorfinish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and rteighborhood. TN� A�rA-C� %�r�� c�-�� W i c.c_ �'_' rr��' s�-rn r eoo � L �N � � ,�►�r��-j �'1� oF TH� �o�rr.�� 1�t.�S �95 �i/� ��n� li�-�s�'�. J..�vK R��. o� �N-� Si� y" � 3. 1� l.fJ�r' � �f�Z S�9-m iz 'Tr-Fl S),5 % it/ L/ �t6 � f,U ! TK �U��l C� H-is'c��2F�-o6.D . �c �r� �rt� How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C. S. 25. 57) ? T/f� l�-Tl/aC�� j'�i� � M��%� Tr/��' l��Sl A� ��C. .�'� � lv � i� r U� �-/�� ' �1�i i lfi Trl�' f`h°�°��-l'�3�-- S�7' Q1�3-C�-il S� � 7�U C-� �l%n ��, ,4�' p c��'� af �- j7y oF= 7Hz 1t,��r c� ��-Et�� G� . 4. Explain hoiv the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the cily's reforestation requiremeizis. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. %l%/J "ifi'CF' S �tt'f �L i!�� 1 AJr�--� . RECEIVED D E C- 4 2000 sp; frns/Il /98 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant strccctural characteri.�tics of the �' new construction or addition are consi.�stent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neiglzborhaod. How will the proposed structure or addition affect nei,yhboring properties or structures on those propertiesl If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties. Neigboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. How does the proposed structure compare to neighborin,y structures in terms of mass or bulkl If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addr'tion are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhoodl If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal "fits" in the neighborhood. How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood7 Think of "character" as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. 3. How will the proposed project be consisteni with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city ? Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet these guidelinesl 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with th�.;t of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structu�es on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bu!k of structural components. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees ioca�ted within the footprint of any new structure or -addition is necessary and is consi,stent with:: the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the rernoval of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposall If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are "protected" under city ordinance (C.S. 1 1.061, why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so. sp. frm/11/98 � � . � _ ROBERT ALLEN �� WILLIAMS • ARCHITECT �" � C� U N - �, � . � �� l n2� , vt acCa. �r1�K acKp � ._ - i :r }v' ti F.::� �rtL� �� - -�� . b��5 � � �� -- a�v��e,o � !� l b�l 18�3 l� �7 1�21 f c�� g� l �37 l�� 2 « ►S 25 =- I� �— 01, � � _ ' < << 1'�-� 1(�e,oc.�u�,p � l7 -- Cp �� ax . ��s � � � � � `� , �- �S -� `� � _ � . ��.�1 RECEIVED ocr3oz000 CITY OF BURLINGAME 307 So. B Street, Ste. 2• San Mateo, California 94401 • 650/343G2010 � � � i � c� l�' d `' - �5' � " ��, r � �, � l�`-1��, . ��' � �� , � �r � lr I � DECEMBEF, 08, 200Q MAP.GARET MONROE, CITY PLANNEF. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� CA 94010 RE: 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE 1....REMOVAL OF EXISTING RESIDENCE 2....HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 3....SPECIAL PERMIT: NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE 4....SPECIAL PERMIT: RTTACHED GARAGE FOR NEW DEAR MS. MONROE: �.�,,,,, �-/�f_ �� ,�-;� � ,l. �r. � /�'� � �,��_�-.�_�, .�� ':� . RECEIVED D E C 1 1 2000 CITY Of BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE. WE OBJECT TO ALL THE CHANGES BEING PLANNED FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE AFTER CAREFULY REVIEWING THE APPLICATION AND PLANS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: THE SIZE AND HEIGHT OF THE NEW STRUCTURE REMOVES ALL OUR PRIVACY IN OUR BACKYARD WHICH WE HAVE LANDSCAPED BEAUTIFULLY. OUR LOT IS APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET WIDE BY 450 FEET DEEP. WE ARE ORIGINAL OWNERS AND PURCHASED OUR HOME FOR THE AREA'S RANCH STYLE BEAUTY. WE CHOSE YARD INSTEAD OF VIEW, BUT NOW FEAR THAT THIS NEW BUILDING WILL DEPRIVE US FROM ENJOYING OUR CAREFULLY PLANNED DECISION. BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE AND HEIGHT AND LESS FRONT YARD (BUILT CLOSER TO SIDEWALK THAN EXISTING RESIDENCE) IT WOULD BLOCK OUT ALL OUR WINDOW LIGHT ON THE ADJACENT SIDE OF THE NEW STRUCTURE. WE DQN'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOMEONE WOULD PURCHASE A VERY DESIRABLE HOME FOR �785,000 AND THEN PROCEED TO DEMOLISH IT SO THAT THEY ARE REALLY FAYING AN EXORBITANT PRICE FOR JUST THE PROFERTY. TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM, THEY SHOULD SELL THE EXISTING HOME AND PURCHASE A LOT IN A DISTRICT MORE SUITABLE FOR THE OVERSIZED TWO-STORY DWELLING THAT DOES NOT FIT IN WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT CONSISTS OF MOSTLY ONE-STORY RANCH STYLE HOMES. SINCERELY, ,t ,� /,: , 'y.- " � -� � _� DR. RICHARD B. KELLEY (D.H'.S.) i --, , , � , ,; ;, -,. �--� i.,.:.��' E '. � C�,� LYLIAN KELLEY � 1821 CASTENADA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �� C650)697-8785 LTK:Ik � � ��, CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLJN(iAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ,,,�+ BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE Application for design review, hillside area construction permit, and a special permit for PUBLIC HEARING attached garage for a new, two-story residence at 1825 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1. NOTICE (APN: 025-051-040) The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Mondav, January 8, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed December 29, 2000 (Please refer to other side) .�.4�� . . �'�Y �. �� `� p �'.'�'i� '" S'� ��+t!Y�'� �„'�� ei .G�'.�;-a',� y; '":^.'.'-s�R�'v'��!"`�'a'�i-`?'��'��"�+.. �. .`wJ_vs _,�r� g • s"�¢%..� '� �c .'9' +g•.<: i��'��'`7: ��° ,�;• �e'�r . 5 '.�t. , . , . . , . .. , , y^.. � . . . . � CITY OF B URLINGAME ,: . � A copy of the application and plans� for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at �the�� Planninb�� Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Calitornia. If you challeiige the-subject application(s) in cotirt. you may�be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in wriCten coiTespondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public heariug. �- .. �.,. Property owners who� receive this�ilotice aie re"sponsible�for informing their tenants abont this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank yUu. . �� ¢ � ��=µ �� :.,°� ,� :� � ° p�' � .�.a_.� �� ,' � �� Margaret Monroe _ ��° �.�� °" �� a- . r . f „� � . City Planner �' � �� _ �` �� , . � �,., .;: PUBLIC HE.ARING �NOTICE (Please refer to other side) ��, CITV o� CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLJN�iAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 y'• TEL: (650) 558-7250 �,.. 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE Application for design review, hillside area construction permit, and a special permit for PUBLIC HEARING attached garage for a new, two-story residence at 1825 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1. N OTIC E (APN: 025-051-040) The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Mondav, December 11, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed December 1, 2000 (Please referto other side) „ ` , .., :., ..�_.;.�;�;.,::w.aew:�a�.e.at"��•--...:.a::3.;� ... �.......,�ar...��;;hai,�...:.i.:e„se�.<.«...�; �-��:s:z�.-�:so;o .:�a'��.�""'�i�'ci�'�'�'�a�.�' `'�• _ �:`�+ . i. . '. �.�: -. , a, -.,_ . � . .M,., , r � � u,i ��Lr�� : ' 4 � � , . . . , .. ,, i r . CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the' Planning Departinent at_ 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject applieation(s) in court, you may` be limited to raising only those'issues you oi' someone else raised at the_public hearing, described in the �notice o�tin_wriCten cor.��espondence deliver�d to the city at or prior ro the public hearing. ` � � Property owners who receive this notice are resporisible for`iriforming their tenants abo�it thi� nofice. For�� additionaL information; ple��e call (650) 558-7250. Thank ��u � �� :. � �� F�,.� 1 � � k 1 " r': 9+,.� . E i uS3 � � �' �� Margaret Monro�� `�� ' �_ �`��'��`�� ` �,�� City Planner "�`;� � .� a �, e�". .� . �� + � �1 i.. � __ ,_.e _ . : �', _ ,F- ,.q � PUBL�;C�HEARING�NOTICE � (Please refer to other side) ;� � RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT, 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 Desi�n review, special permit, and a hillside area construction permit for a new, two-story residence with attached ara e at 1825 Castenada. zoned R-1, Dean Fantham and Yvette Gorostiague, pro�ertv owner. APN: 025- 051-040; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame January 8 2001, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3, construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units is hereby approved. 2. Said design review, special permit, and hillside area construction permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review, special permit, 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, Ann Keighran , Secretary of the Pjanning 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 8th day of January , 2001 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY � EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for design review, special permit, and hillside area construction permit 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE effective January 17, 2001 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 30, 2000, Sheets 1-4, and 6 and December 21, 2000, Sheets 5 and 7; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 6, 2000 memo shall be met; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. � ' ' y _ �_ � . ' • ,"'� :� ' '+t�I a�' � � �� I �v . . � ...y'*. w �� i,� ` a ' � �' � �s.`x. � � � _ $ J 1� � ��:'� r � � l� :�� - � .;� 3, . `; �.;,' � � °�' _ � � ' '��,� �` � `'� , M, , ,� ��a �� r � �� 4 �� .�� "� � `�� - � � ,: �� u,�� _ „ , y � � � _ ,� , ! +R . � � v- -�� . . � - �, � �� . : r �� t� _ i�� i �� ,c" �, � r�� . ,,. � ;+- . ... , . �. � . . . , y '�A _ r T � � ° � ��m �`� # � �� "� _ �� , , !�. .�..� � � : , � ,: �� . �� , ' ,_ � , �, � �, �. , � �' . ,. , � �, , � , � � � ' ,>�'„ �+ ` �, � `� � � �� - � � � O �.� � � ,� � � , t^� , � � � . s ,� . � � � � � _ � , � � : *� � e , � �� i � _ x, . � � � � e_ — � � ry � , N � � �� . f � � :, �� , , � � � _ s� � � � � � �. � « � � . r F � R Y �y aP ' s . .��r �� ..r. a � § . �i � a = f�' ��w . �. � , �� , � . . �!'� _ -, � � � R ��. + , �;, , � t< �, � � �� ' '��t �� y � r . . �. � � . t�� e� � �- � �, / , �, � f °& � �� . , ` a � � � � F � �� '� ' ��"• r � �'� m. �; � � �a .e�; "�' r .�` , .� � tl � ��: '' �� >> � ` .� ,,,.��. ' , . a _ � �, �r � � . , , , r � -y ,. , � '* . � , v) �' �� - �, � �.. , �:= � r, . . � Q r � ... . g�, „� �� ti � � �, . ,, �r � c�j . � � � , � � °_ �, J < < � .�`ws* .�e_ e A. , � i d i _ T s�s, . < <r �; � �,� . � � �� i . . .. � • �,� x ��. '�a � � <�� S � ,� , '� � 1 � � „�x ..y„ �•�. g ��' �.F �,- � � t �; ��,� � . �' � "� _ " �,-"� °�r �p,� �� "'� ; �x: ,.�� . �..,, .� 3 '@. �^ e �k� � ��h '�-w � � �' f �. ,�, � � � � � � 2��: � � � y'3"� � /� � � ��r"� �� 4 � ' e k�" ./ � . � J . ,�4 `� _p �� ° � i," §4�s'��,:a�"' � �i �/� : �� j� �� . � � .. � 4 . � �._ v � w a . 3 $. ' `'� �'� '"�:� { ^ ' ' w '#„ � " . �y � : � x ' . � ,� - ,�� ._ � � � � f D,� r: � ` � .� ; � � �. � � x,� �^ p � ,� � . �.. �, � �.. :�� 1 � � �. � �, , ;• � �� P �� . � ,�� ., V e `� W �� Y, ' � . f '� � � � q; �" � . � �°..�y �� TT.y . �by, �� / :� A 'a� .��*� �� : . ° Y. -. p � ,.. bsj - $ , . � � #�., , R1` l �� /� r � ,� . 9�, - , . , � d �� ;. � � , . . . ,� � 4 �� `�.,a�: �' , `� � .'" s � t: � LJ Y , � ,� : � a . 's' �,�� , �„ >..,.� .F i x,� � a� x . ea1I1 Q � - y� � ?� , s�lr � , � � s� '� �� i�" �``� t "� �` • + � > ��'� `r - �. , E ,' • �y' � . y� � rr , t 1{.�- y, � O` , +� , . -:��6 � • �T..' , , p ,, a�� .' -- �;a a � . . y � `i, . . ... � f. 3 +e-, ? w� ' , 7 � . � ,_ �;� �� „ ��o. _ . N � � �� a . 6` '"A � k,.�, v � q�4 E �� ii x�� .� i '� � � � ` * � � � �; -� ; , � �me � � �� . � �. ' � �:� " , Oy� ;� o� � � � � �a � � -�r� � � `�� , , ,, ,� � � � � � � �' �� . � � . , �` �'' �I% i t . � G�� . � ��' � � Fb- � 4 � � �' � . �, �:. � � .�+. �,�� .j � � � f' 'M �t C i ...,� � § �� /� �� O S • sl � �� ""_".� R` � �'�'8�'�� p�Raa�j r ;}g �, � �~? f'�'�L _ �n ! � � S ?�' , . � � � \ � �r • . , ,. . . . � ,� �. � ��. - �� . ' .. � b � .�i,� iP:s. ,x '`- . � � � � __ _. — . . _ _ — _—_ �_ .._..___ ��.� _ �.__ .M . RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT, AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on January 8, 2001, at which time said application was APPROVED; WHEREAS, this matter was apnealed to City Council_ and a hearing thereon held on February 5, 2001, 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 hereby RESOLV�D� arid DETERMINED by this Council 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 founcl that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3, construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units is hereby approved. 2. Said design review, special permit, and hiltsid'e'area construction permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached he'reto. Findings for such design review, special permit, 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. MAYOR I, ANN MUSSO, City Clerk of the City, of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5�' day of Februarv, 2001 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for design review, special permit, and hillside area construction permit ' 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE effective FEBRUARY 5, 2001 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 30, 2000, Sheets 1-4, and 6 and December 21, 2000, Sheets 5 and 7; 2. that the height of the story poles shall be verified by a licensed surveyor during the framing of each floor, second story plate line and roof ridge and be submittted to the City Engineer for verification at each step, and that the surveyor shall provide a photographic survey at different angles conducted before and after the construction, and that if either the framing or photographs are different than the approved plans the construction shall be corrected or the project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 3. that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 4, that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 6, 2000 memo shall be met; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, ,replacing or relocating a window(s), adding a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. ROUTING FORM DATE: October 31, 2000 TO: ✓ CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BLTILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY � FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB.TECT: Request for design review, special permit, and hillside area construction permit for a new two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage at 1825 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-051- 040. SCHEDULED PLANI�IING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, November 6, 2000 THANKS, Maureen/Erika/Ruben �� 6� Date of Comments 1. p vo v� cEc s r�,e �a.� i � c� ��' � p l�� `�'►' � � � �% , t � / 6 ✓�, �,.�. � / z, � va,/�c-c �' .r G�-�,l.� H.o' � ht m a✓-e .� .� k�-�`o�-i • V Q� �a�»�. ri� � c.�3"�c� ri� c u.c,t, ..ert o r� or� � � l �c, r c L� �� Swe- a�. ,�t. c-�y+J.� �� ' � 3 . ,� � u �� .�� • .S'ew.c.� rr ,