The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2517 Easton Drive - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Design Review Address: 2525 Easton Drive Item No. 8a Action Item Meeting Date: June 8, 2015 Request: Application for Design Review for approval of an as-built trellis at the rear of an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Property Owner: Peter Jaunich Architect: MH Architects General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-195-080 Lot Area: 14,950 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, 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 June 11, 2012 the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review, Side Setback Variance (along the right side of the house) and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition and new deck (see attached June 11, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes). On April 22, 2013 the Planning Commission approved an FYI application to modify and increase the amount of uncovered decking at the rear of the house; no work was performed on the deck prior to Planning Commission approving the FYI application. Construction of this project was completed in September of 2014. In December of 2014 the City received a complaint that a trellis had been built at the rear of the house without permits. The applicant is now requesting approval of design review for an as-built trellis at the rear ofthe house. Project Description: The existing multi-level house with an attached one-car garage contains 4,676 SF (0.31 FAR) of floor area and has four bedrooms. The rear of the house contains three levels of decking. The as-built wood trellis measures 243 SF in area and is located on the upper deck at the rear of the house. Because its plate height is greater than 9'-0" above the finished floor of the upper deck (10'-0" proposed), the trellis is subject to design review. With the trellis, the floor area will increase to 4,919 SF (0.33 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 5,884 SF (0.39 FAR). Planning staff would note that approximately 1,113 SF of the proposed floor area constitutes open areas exceeding 6'-0" in height under the decking and under the previous master bedroom addition. The project is 965 SF below the maximum allowable floor area. There is no increase in lot coverage since the existing deck below the trellis was previously included in the lot coverage calculation for the previously approved project. The applicant is requesting approve of the following application: ■ Design Review for approval of an as-built trellis at the rear of an existing single family dwelling with a plate height greater than 9'-0" above finished floor (10'-0" proposed) (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (4)). This space intentionally left blank. Design Review 2525 Easfon Drive 2525 Easton Drive �ot Area: 14,950 SF Plans date stamped: Ma 29 and Ma 8, 2015 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS : Side (left): 2'-8" to house' 7'-0" to as-built trellis 7'-0" ---- ................................._.............._..........._..............................................;................._............._............................_....._._._.._........_..........................................................................................._..........................................................---..............._:............... . _ ............................................................................................................ Lot Coverage: ; 3878 SF no change 5980 SF 25.9% 40% FAR: 4676 SF 4919 SF 5884 SF 0.31 FAR 0.33 FAR 0.39 FAR Z # of bedrooms: � 4 no change --- Off-Street Parking: ; 1 covered 1 covered (15'-2" x 18'-4") no change (10' x 18') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9'-0" x 19'-6") (9' x 18') Height: 17'-6" 10'-1" to top of trellis 30'-0" DH Envelope: does not comply trellis complies CS 25.26.075 ' Existing nonconforming left side setback to existing house (2'-8" existing where 7'-0" is the minimum required). 2 (0.32 x 14,950 SF) + 1,100 = 5,884 SF (0.39 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Parks and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on May 26, 2015, the Commission noted that the project should be revised so that a Side Setback Variance is not required and voted to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar (see attached May 26, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes). After the Design Review Study Meeting, the applicant more carefully reviewed the plans and actual location of the treilis and realized that the plans incorrectly showed the location of the trellis in relation to the side property line. The trellis posts are located 7'-0" from the side property line, not 5'-6" from the property line as indicated on the previous plans (7'-0" is the minimum required). Planning staff verified the side setback measurement at the site. Staff would also note that the horizontal trellis elements are considered to be similar to roof eaves and are allowed to extend up to 2'-0" beyond the post and into the side setback, which is the case here; therefore the side setback is measured to the face of the post and not to the horizontal trellis elements. As a result, an application for a Side Setback Variance is not required for the trellis. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped May 29, 2015, to correctly show the location of the as-built trellis, and a written response dated May 29, 2015, to address the Commissions questions and comments. After meeting with the property owner to discuss the application, the adjacent neighbors at 2517 Easton Drive submitted an email, dated June 2, 2015, noting that they no longer had concerns with the as-built trellis. -2- Design Review 2525 Easton Drive Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 29, 2015, sheets S-1, S-2 and A1.01 and date stamped May 8, 2015, sheets A0.01, A0.02, A0.03 and A1.02; 2. that any changes to the e�erior finishes or design of the trellis shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl; 3. that the conditions of the Parks Division memo dated March 18, 2015 and Stormwater Division memo dated March 10, 2015 shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Peter Jaunich, applicant and property owner MH Architects, architect Attachments: Applicant's Response, Email dated May 29, 2015 Email Submitted by Michael and Tiffany Liu, dated June 2, 2015 Email Submitted by Peter Jaunich, dated May 28, 2015 May 26, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed May 29, 2015 Aerial Photo -3- CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben From: peterjaunich Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:58 AM To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben- Cc: Peter Jaunich Subject: 2525 Easton Drive Response Letter Hi Ruben, Thank you for coming to our house today to look at our trellis. I have summarized a response for the upcoming planning commission meeting. Please let me know if i need to add any additional information. Dear Planning Department Commissioners, I am writing this response to the planning commission that I attended the 26th of May 2015. Several key details of our project at 2525 Easton Drive were incorrectly noted on our architectural plans. The plans have since been updated to reflect the correct dimensions. The trellis we are seeking approval on will not require a side setback variance as previously indicated, as it conforms to city planning code and is 7 feet from the property line. I have also met with our neighbor (the Liu's) and they sent an email to the city indicating that they are fine with our trellis. Ruben has a copy of the letter and indicated tha�t it will go into the file. I have also agreed to plant additional foliage along the property line for some screening. I grew up in the Bay Area, and commuted by CalTrain to Burlingame as a teenager to work at Edlen Sporting Goods, which used to be adjacent to Broadway Avenue. It was my dream to purchase a home in Easton Addition and raise my family here. It is important to me to keep the 85 year old charm of my home intact while making improvements for my family to enjoy for many years to come. I appreciate the time and attention to detail you provide our city to ensure a better quality of life for Burlingame residents. Sincerely, Peter Jaunich 2525 Easton Drive From: Tiffany Liu Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 4:54 PM To: PLG Comm-JefF DeMartini Cc: peter jaunich; CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben; michael liu Subject: Fwd: 2525 Easton Drive - Trellis Hi Commissioner DeMartini, .3� � �:.v � ��., ^ .' JUN `� � 201� CI ( i OF BURLIP;GAl�rE rr��,_PI_,�nJP�lhlG Div., This email is to confirm that we are no longer has concerns with the trellis builded in back of 2525 Easton Dr. Sincerely, Tiffany Liu Michael Liu 2517 Easton Dr. CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben From: Peter Jaunich m> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:34 AM To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben Subject: Fwd: Good Neighbor Resolution Hi Ruben Attached is a correspondence from our neighbor that they are fine with our as built trellis. It also shows regular communication with them and what I have done to work with them which contradict what she said at the initial meeting. Thank you Peter Please excuse any typo's as this email was sent from my iPhone. Begin forwarded message: From: Tiffany Liu Date: May 27, 2015 at 8:25:23 PM PDT To: peter j�unich Subject: Fwd: Good Neighbor Resolution Hi Peter, Please see the reply from Jeff, let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Best, Tiffany Sent from rny iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "PLG Comm-Jeff DeMartini" Date: May 27, 2015 at 7:58:25 PM PDT To: "Tiffany Liu" < Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Resolution Hi Tiffany - as I mentioned to Peter, I'm not allowed to make any recoflnmendations outside of a noticed public meeting. I sent your email off to Ruben Hurin who is the Seni�r Planner on the project. Thank you, Jeff On May 27, 2015, at 7:52 PM, Tiffany Liu � wrote: Hi Peter, Thank you for the email, it is not to my intention to bring such trouble to you, all I did it was to find out what is my rights. I totally agree with your offer, moving forward as a good neighbor for many years to come. Per Peter's request I'm copy this email to commissioner Jeff DeMartini. Have a wonderful summer! Sincerely, Tiffany Michael On Wedmesday. Mav 27, 2015 5:12 PM, Peter Jaunich > wrote: Please just construct an email to the "city of burlingame planning commission" and email it to me. I need to be able to hand deliver the note and see what can be done. Thank you Peter Please excuse any typo's as this email was sent from my iPhone. On May 27, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Tiffany Liu wrote: Hi Peter, Thanks for the email, I just got home and will take Isabella to piano lesson soon. Please forward me the commissioner's email, I'll respond later today. Best, Tiffany Sent from my iPhone On May 27, 2015, at 11:49 AM, peter jaunich wrote: z Hi Tiffany, Thank you for coming over to review our trellis today. I met with your husband weeks ago and thought we had come to an agreement that the trellis was a beautiful addition and provided the much needed shade to enjoy our deck. As you know, our lots are severely sloped and outdoor livable space is a premium. We designed the stepped down deck to limit the impact on your lot in particular, and to conform to the slope of our lot. The height of the deck matches the old deck which was determined by the five stairs at the back of our home leading to the outside deck and the bay window of our kitchen looking onto the deck. The trellis height was set so it would be just above the doorway and bay window leading to the deck outside our main living space. The side setback for the trellis is actually deeper than our existing house and deck which had a variance approved. The setback for top level of our current deck matched the previous deck. After our discussion today, it is my understanding that you are fine with our trellis. In an effort to be good neighbors, and to provide privacy between our homes we have planted bamboo along the property line and painted the privacy wall the color of your choice. We also would be happy to plant additional trees to provide privacy between our homes. I hope that we can get the city to approve our side setback variance and application for "as built trellis" due to the discussion we had today and our intention to be good neighbors for our future together in Easton Addition. � � C�}�� of Burlin ame BURLINGAMECITYHALL �i � 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 '' Meeting Minutes - Draft � Planning Commission Tuesday, May 26, 2015 7:00 PM Council Chambers b. 2525 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Applicaiton for Design Review and Side Setback Variance for approval of an as-built trellis at the rear of the house (Peter Jaunich, applicant and property owner; MH Architects, architect) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin attachments: 2525 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2525 Easton Dr - Attachments All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Loftis, Gum and Bandrapalli did not visit the rear yard. Commissioner Gum spoke to the left side neighbor. Commissioner Terrones visited the rear-yard with the applicant. Commissioner Gaul viewed the rear area from befween properties. Commissioner DeMartini viewed the rear-yard with the property owner. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff� > If the plate height of the trellis were less than nine-feet, would the height need to be reviewed by the Commission? (Gardiner-no.) > Clarified that the deck is larger than what was approved and the applicant is now seeking approval after the fact. Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Daniel Nordson represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: > Asked for an explanation of the exceptional circumstances that support the request for a variance. (Nordson - the lot is a non-conforming lot and the existing deck is a/ready within seven feet of the property line. Want to be able to provide a space that is protected from the sun for the owners. Public comments: Tiffany Liu, 2517 Easton Drive: > Upset that the neighbors have not approached her to discuss the project. > Take her privacy under consideration. > Meet the City's minimum setback requirement. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: > Uncomfortable with the dramatic encroachment into the side setback. > Concerned that a precedent may be set by granting approval after the fact. Cityof8udingame Page 1 Prinied on 6/3/2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft May 26, 2015 > Felt that the original approval was appropriate. > Doesn't believe the trellis is necessary for enjoyment of the deck. > Doesn't feel that the frndings for a variance can be made. The t�ellis could perhaps be made smaller. Seems to be pushing the limits of what may be considered a hardship. > Should be managing the built environment in advance of actually building. > Can't support the variance. > The height of ihe trellis is not the issue, but the variance should not be granted. There is no property right being adversely affected; the trellis may still be used even if it meets the setback. > Could send it to design review. > The design should conform to all City standards, including reducing the height to eliminate the conditional use permit. Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to place the item on the regular action calendar when ready for consideration by the Commission. Discussion of motion: > Clarified that the applicant should consider eliminating the request for a variance. They may still request that nine-foot plate height for the trellis. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli Absent: 1 - Sargent CifyofBudingame Page 2 Printed on 6/3/2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 19, 2012 3. 2525 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MOMENTUM BUILDERS, APPLICANT; BRITT ROWE, ARCHITECT; PETER AND CHERYL JAUNICH, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 11, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jamie Pantuso, 2762 Filbert Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Believes there may be more cross-support necessary, but as presented is an acceptable solution. ■ Was the outdoor shower removed? (Pantuso — owner asked for the walls and the roof to be removed to make it more streamlined. There will be no walls.) Can stipulate that the outdoor shower will not be walled-in. ■ Expressed concern regarding privacy of the outdoor shower. (Pantuso — the privacy is protected by the heavy vegetation.) Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 4, 2012, sheets A3.1, A3.1, A4.1, A5.1 and A5.2, and date stamped May 2, 2012, sheets A0.1 through A2.6, A3.3, A3.4, Boundary Survey and Topographic Map, GPR and L1; 2. that the outdoor shower shown on the approved plans shall not be enclosed by walis; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement level, lower level, main level an second level, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 15 and February 24, 2012 memos, the City Engineer's February 29, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 13, 2012 memo, the City Arborist's February 22, 2012, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 14, 2012 memo shall be met; Cf CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 11, 2012 ■ What was the extent of the 2002 addition? Was this applicant involved in the prior variance request? (Streibing — was for a breakfast nook addition. She was the applicant then as well.) ■ Most of the floor area is under the existing roof, but unclear what is the hardship. (Streibing — the addition will allow a covered access to the garage as well.) ■ The lot is a bit under-sized when compared to a typical 6,000 square foot lot in the neighborhood; this could support the variance request. ■ Will the covered walkway be under the existing roofline? (Streibing — yes.) Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional commission comments: Noted that the requests is supportable, also noted that the applicant would need to comply with code requirements if the home is ever demolished in the future. CommissionerAuran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 25, 2012 sheets A0.1 through A4.0, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Building Official's May 29 and April 20, 2012 memos, the City Engineer's May 2, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 16, 2012 memo, the Parks Division's April 20, 2012 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's April 16, 2012 memo shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the lot coverage variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Support is based upon the notion that the lot is under sized when compared to other lots in the neighborhood. Chair Gaul called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (CommissionerYie 3 A � �,T..,. ,,.:�� i <_�-. _ �,�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ° 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 9401 O p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org i -■ • ' i � ` � __ . ; � = ' . _ " -�.,` Type of application: ,� Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Parcel#: O2�' �q5— Dg'D ❑ Zoning / Other: _ _ PROJECT ADDRESS: _ I��D2�j �G'c.,�� l�, APPLICANT project contact person ❑ PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ Payor of DSR deposit/handling fee ❑ Payor of DSR deposiUhandling fee ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: ��' �l.C�lC�I Name: �t,n�- �S a�p�iCc„r�,-�- Address: �"J�„7,� �c5�n�� i�C.2_ City/State/Zip: �u� ll� ��. � �j �� Phone: _��57� ,5,�� 0 b%�s Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax: '�l5 %2..3 `7 -75b Fax: E-mail: _� 1�� G��/Ct,�.C�• C� E-mail: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person ❑ Payor of DSR deposiUhandling fee ❑ OK fo send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: �'�7 ��GI/�6 'C'eG'�`.S Address: _ 2�� e-f -- � S�V �t p o� C` City/State/Zip: �� C�" CJ �%7 Phone: ��5 �7 d � � Fax: E-mail: C.'+�✓�te� @.w�q-tt"ho ��i S. Cowl � Burlingame Business License #: 3d23 ( PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �i CQ.C�, 'iT'��1`S f U r'�C� p� I��la �e AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beli��—� Applicant's I am aware of the proposed appl Commission. Property owner's signature: Date:_ `� / c��ZOI S nd hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Date:� 0/2.0/5 Date submiited: �' 3D ' �� r Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. s:�Halloours�rcaPPrcotro�.do� This Space for CDD Staff Use Only � Project De�cription: Term . CUP Conditional Use Permit DHE Declining Height Envelc DSR Design Review E Existing N New SFD Single Family Dwelling SP Special Permit Pr�je�# �Comments Date: To: From: Nlarcfh 9n 2(315 o Engineering Division (s�) ��2�v � BUi{C�1�1� �iiil88011 ts�r) �s-�2s� X Parks �ivisi�n (65d�) 558-7� � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Divisian (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planni�ag Staf� Subje�t: Request fc�r �e.sign t�evisw for a single-story additior� with a plate height ihat cloes not match existing at 2525 Easton Drive, zor�e€i R-1, APN: 1�27-'�95-080 Staff Review: March 9, 20'15 1. No existing tree aver 48 ir��es in €�rcumference at 54 inchss form �iase of tree may be rerr�oved �rvithout a Protected Tree Permit from the Parks Division. (558-7330). 2. Proiect irees during Gonstruction Revie�ved b�+: BD Date: 3/18/'15 Project Comments Date To: From: March 9, 2015 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 i� Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review for a single-story addition with a plate height that does not match existing at 2525 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-080 Staff Review: March 9, 2015 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger), plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay. org/Construction Please contact Kiley Kinnon, NPDES Stormwater Coordinator, for assistance at (650) 342-3727. Reviewed by: KJK Date: 03/10/15 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Desiqn Review for approval of an as-built trellis at the rear of an existinq sinqle familv dwellinq at 2525 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 Peter and Chervl Jaunich 2525 Easton Drive Burlinqame CA, 94010, propertv owners, APN: 027-195-080; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 8, 2015, 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, Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, 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 8`h dav of June, 2015 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review. 2525 Easton Drive Effective June 18, 2015 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 29, 2015, sheets S-1, S-2 and A1.01 and date stamped May 8, 2015, sheets A0.01, A0.02, A0.03 and A1.02; 2. that any changes to the exterior finishes or design of the trellis shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl; 3. that the conditions of the Parks Division memo dated March 18, 2015 and Stormwater Division memo dated March 10, 2015 shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. CITY OF BURLINGAME t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAC - BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Siie: 25�5 EdST6N DRIV� The (ity of Burlingame Pldnning Commission unnaunces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE �, 2015 at 7:Q0 P.�I. in the City Hall Council Chamhers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Applicotion for Design Review for approval af an as-6uilt trellis at the rear of the house at 2525 EASTON DRIVE zaned R-l. APN 027-195-Oo0 Nlcailed: May 29, 2015 (Please reier to ofher side) �l tli O� � L/1'11110� - ;;, - � `,� A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Qevelopment Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Califiornia. If you challenge the subject appiication(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the p!=��lic hearing, described in the notice or in writien 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. William Meeker Communiiy Development Director = _•_ " ;� � - (Please refer fo other side) PROJECT LOCATION 2525 Easton Drive Ite�m No. 9b Design Review Study City of �urlingarne Design Review and Side Setback Variance Item No. 9b Design Review Study Address: 2525 Easton Drive Meeting Date: May 26, 2015 Request: Application for Design Review and Side Setback Variance for approval of an as-built trellis at the rear of an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Property Owner: Peter Jaunich Architect: MH Architects General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-195-080 Lot Area: 14,950 SF Zoning: R-1 History: On June 11, 2012 the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review, Side Setback Variance (along the right side of the house) and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition and new deck (see attached June 11, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes). On April 22, 2013 the Planning Commission accepted an FYI application to modify and increase the amount of uncovered decking at the rear of the house. Construction of this projeet was completed in September of 2014. In December of 2014 the City received a complaint that a trellis had been built at the rear of the house without permits. The applicant is now requesting approval of design review and a side setback variance for an as-built trellis at the rear of the house along the left side property line. Project Description: The existing multi-level house with an attached one-car garage contains 4,676 SF (0.31 FAR) of floor area and has four bedrooms. The rear of the house contains three levels of decking. The as-built wood trellis measures 324 SF in area and is located on the upper deck at the rear of the house. Because its plate height is greater than 9'-0" above the finished floor of the upper deck (10'-0" proposed), the trellis is subject to design review. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Side Setback Variance. The as-built trellis is located 2'-8" from the left side property line where 7'-0" is the minimum required for this lot. The existing house has a nonconforming left side setback of 2'-8". With the trellis, the floor area will increase to 5,000 SF (0.33 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 5,884 SF (0.39 FAR). Planning staff would note that approximately 1,113 SF of the proposed floor area constitutes open areas exceeding 6'-0" in height under the decking and under the previous master bedroom addition. The project is 884 SF below the maximum allowable floor area. There is no increase in lot coverage since the existing deck below the trellis was previously included in the lot coverage calculation for the previously approved project. The applicant is requesting the f�!lowing applications: ■ Design Review for approval of an as-built trellis at the rear of an existing single family dwelling with a plate height greater than 9'-0" above finished floor (10'-0" proposed) (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (4)); and ■ Side Setback Variance for a trellis addition along the left side property line (2'-8" proposed where 7'-0" is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (c)). This space intentionally left blank. Design Review and Side Setback Variance 2525 Easton Drive 2525 Easfon Drive Lot Area: 14,950 SF Plans date stam ed: Ma 8, 2015 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/FtEQUiRED SETBAI CKS ; Side (left): ` 2'-8" to house' 2'-8" to as-built trellis 2 7'-0" Lot Coverage: : 3878 SF no change 5980 SF 25.9% 40% FAR: :: 4676 SF 5000 SF 5884 SF 0.31 FAR 0.33 FAR 0.39 FAR 3 # of bedrooms: ; 4 no change --- Off-Street Parking: � 1 covered 1 covered (15'-2" x 18'-4") no change (10' x 18') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9'-0" x 19'-6") (9' x 18') Height: 17'-6" 10'-1" to top of trellis 30'-0" DH Envefope: ; does not comply trellis complies CS 25.26.075 ' Existing nonconforming left side setback to existing house (2'-8" existing where 7'-0" is the minimum required). 2 Side Setback Variance required along the left side property line (2'-8" proposed where 7'-0" is the minimum required). 3 (0.32 x 14,950 SF) + 1,100 = 5,884 SF (0.39 FAR) StafF Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, City Arborist and NPDES Coordinator. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 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 buik of structural components. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do �ot apply generally to property in the same district; -2- Design Review and Side Setback Variance 2525 Easton Drive (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimentai or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general weifare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing an potentiai uses of properties in the general vicinity. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Peter Jaunich, applicant and property owner MH Architects, architect Attachments: June 11, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Variance Application Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed May 15, 2015 Aerial Photo -3- CITY OF BURLIMGANIE PLANNING COMMISSION —�l pproved Il�inutes June 11, 2012 3. 2525 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACKVARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MOMENTUM BUILDERS, APPLICANT; BRITT ROWE, ARCHITECT; PETER AND CHERYL JAUNICH, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 11, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: a None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jamie Pantuso, 2762 Filbert Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Believes there may be more cross-support necessary, but as presented is an acceptable solution. a Was the outdoor shower removed? (Pantuso — owner asked for the walls and the roof to be removed to make it more streamlined. There will be no walls.) Can stipulate that the outdoor shower will not be walled-in. ■ Expressed concern regarding privacy of the outdoor shower. (Pantuso —the privacy is protected by the heavy vegetation.) Public comrnents: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 4, 2012, sheets A3.1, A3.1, A4.1, A5.1 and A5.2, and date stamped May 2, 2012, sheets A0.1 through A2.6, A3.3, A3.4, Boundary Survey and Topographic Map, GPR and L1; 2. that the outdoor shower sho,:::: on the approved plans shall not be enclosed by walls; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Pianning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement level, lower level, main level an second level, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this perrnit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 15 and February 24, 2012 memos, the City Engineer's February 29, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 13, 2012 memo, the City Arborist's February 22, 2012, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 14, 2012 memo shall be met; 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 19, 2012 � e What was the extent of the 2002 addition? Was this applicant involved in the prior variance request? (Streibing — was for a breakfast nook addition. She was the applicant then as well.) a Most of the floor area is under the existing roof, but unclear what is the hardship. (Streibing — the addition will allow a covered access to the garage as well.) a The lot is a bit under-sized when compared to a typical 6,000 square foot lot in the neighborhood; this could support the variance request. • Will the covered walkway be under the existing roofline? (Streibing — yes.) Public comrnents: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional commission comments: o Noted that the requests is supportable, also noted that the applicantwould need to comply with code requirements if the home is ever demolished in the future. CommissionerAuran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 25, 2012 sheets A0.1 through A4.0, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Building Official's May 29 and Aprii 20, 2012 memos, the City Erigineer's May 2, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 16, 2012 memo, the Parks Division's April 20, 2012 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's April 16, 2012 memo shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the lot coverage variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or fuli demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: ■ Support is based upon the notion that the lot is under sized when compared to other lots in the neighborhood. ChairGaul called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motionpassed 6-0-1-0 (CommissionerYie 3 �_..,,,,- ��iti�; � �� . -`;�i� J COMMUNITY DEVELOPPifiENT DEPARTMENT � 501 PRin�Rose Roa� ° BURLItdGAME, CA 940i0 p: 650.�58.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 a www.burlingame.org j. i �- �. , � i� �, ; 1 '; `. Type of application: ,� Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Parcel#: O2�" ��- D�D ❑ Zoning / Other: PFZOJEC7 ADDRESS: D��aS �G�,S��r.�, ll�2 ��iLi�� project contact person ❑ ��O��i��i o�� project contact person ❑ Payor of DSR deposit/handfing �ee ❑ Payor of DSR depositJhandling fee ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ OK io send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: �E%�� l,(.rtlC�l Name: �— �S a�p��Cc�n,-� ,- Address: �"J��,c,� �b�r��l i.� Address: City/State/Zip: �v� ll� c�,l� � CJ 7�� City/State/Zip: Phone: �� ,�� 0 b�c�� Phone: Fax: �/ 5% 2 3�7 % 5� Fax: E-mail: � 1�u-`n� G��/C.�� CU"'"� E-mail: %��C%'i�jE�.T�QE�� project contact person ❑ Payor of DSR depositJhandiing fee ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: �'�f /�6�G�/1,� TeG�`S � Address: 2�� j � C� ��e--�- � S�U rit`r p� C� City/State/Zip: Phone: �IC. � �" 5 �%% a � � Fax: E-mail: �v�te( cCw�q-}�-ho ��i S. �n'l � Burlingame Business License #: 3d23 � PfiOJECT DESCRIPTIO�i: � C�C�. "�('�-�It�S i� r� c� AFFADAVIT/�IGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beli�"�� Applicani's signature:_ I am aware of the proposed Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: `� �c��ZOI'� d hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Date: L%�J�b ��5 Date submitted: `�' 3� ' � S � Verification that the project architectldesigner has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time applicaiion fees are paid. s:�Halloours�acaPPir�or�o�.do� �l-CIT �- .'' �_'!'}� _��' � __ .-�l��u�. . ��- -- - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ° 5Q1 PRIMROSE ROAD ° BURLINGAME, CA 9401� p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org ', CITY �F BURLINGAII�E ' VARIANCE APPLICATION The Planning Commission is required by law to make flndings as defiined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). 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 orwrite neatly in ink. Referto the back of this form for assistancP �vith these questions. a. Describe fhe exceptional or ex#raordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not �pply to other properties in fhis area. The conditions that exist on site such as the close proximity of existing structures to the property line make it impossible to build a trellis on an existing deck without it encroaching on the side setback. b. Exp/ain why the variance requestis necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofa substantial property right and what unreasonable Aroperfy loss or unrrecessary hardship might result from the denial of fhe applicafion. The Side Setback Variance request is necessary in order to enjoy the proposed trellis addition onto the existing deck. A Side Setback Variance is necessary because the proposed trellis is within the 7'-0" side set back requirement. We are prepared to provide the filing fee of $1712.00 in order to preserve this property right. Hardship in the form of outdoor activity and leisure would be spent premature without a structure like the proposed trellis to provide some shade from the sun. c. Explain why th� praposed use at the proposed location wil! nof i�e da#rimental o� injurious to property or improvements in the vicinify or to public health, safety, gensral welfare or convenience, The proposed trellis will not be detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience because ii remains on the lot of a singie family residence in their backyard free from exposure to the street view and hindrance to the publics well being. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of fhe existing and potential uses on adjoining properiies in the genera! vicinity? The proposed trellis is open in design and stays well within the existing building envelope, not to be intrusive or distracting to the neighbors. Handouts\Variance Application.2008 Projec� Comments Date: tVlarci� 9n 2a15 To: � Engineering Division (&5f1) 558-�23f1 � Building Division (650) 55�-3260 X Parics �ivisian (65U} 558-7334 From: Pianning Staff � Fire Division (s5o) �ss-7soo � Stormwater Divisian (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review far a single-story additian with a plate height that does not match existing at 2525 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, ARN: 027-195-080 Staff Review: March 9s 2015 1. I�a existing tree over 48 inches in circumference at 54 inches form base of tree may be removed without a Protected Tree Permit from the Parks Division. (558-7330� 2_ Protect trees during Construction Reviewed by� BD Date: 3/18/15 Project Comments Date To: IFrom: March 9, 2015 o Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 o Parks Division (650) 558-7334 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review for a single-story addition with a plate height that does not match existing at 2525 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-080 Staff Review: March 9, 2015 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project.notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger), plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction Please contact Kiley Kinnon, NPDES Stormwater Coordinator, for assistance at (650) 342-3727. Reviewed by: KJK Date: 03/10/15 �CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD - � BURLINGAME, CA 94Q10 �� - 1 PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: (650) 696 3790 www.burlingame.org �--_' . — .��_ __- - �. Site: 2525 EASTON DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commissian announces the following pu6lic heoring on TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall founcil Chamhers, 501 Primrose Raod, Burlingame, CA: Applicntian for Design Review for opproval of on as-huilt trellis at the rear of the house at 2525 EASTON DRIVE zoned R-l. APN 027-195-�80 Mailed: May15, 2015 (Please referfo othersideJ Citv of Burlinaame i �. { � �.. �-° �~ - � � � . <,� :,_ e_-,-._ .,'.°�1= i i.. ='��-� i Fif_G ��J�LOC F�EA�I�G ��,�� A copy of the application and plans.for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Qevelopment Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject appfication(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. William Meeker Community Development Directar �' — ' _ � _- (Please refer 'ro oiher side)