The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2627 Easton Drive - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Design Review and Side Setback Variance for First and Second Story Addition Item # � � Consent Calendar Address: 2627 Easton Drive Meeting Date: March 12, 2001 Request: Design Review and side setback variance for a first and second story addition at 2627 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040) Property Owner: Tricia Godowski APN: 027-195-150 Applicant/Architect: CSS Architecture, Martin Dreiling Lot Area: 6,749.55 SF General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. February 26, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission meeting on February 26, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed the request for a first and second floor addition and placed this item to the March 12, 2001 consent calendar. The Commission noted that there was an inconsistency in the roof and floor plans, with the roof plan showing a new projecting bay along the left side of the house. The applicant stated that this was an error on the roof plan and that the bay window had been left on the roof plan from the previous proposal. The Commission also noted that with this proposal the overall FAR would decrease. The Commission questioned the need for the parking variance request, since they only saw four bedrooms on the plans. Staff noted that the proposed office off of the master bedroom qualifies as potential bedroom because of the hallway access between the rooms. The Commission ultimately felt that this offce should not be considered a bedroom, or a potential bedroom, since one has to walk through the master bedroom to get into the office, therefore there is no need for a parking variance. A motion was made to place this item on the March 12, 2001 consent calendar with a condition that doors shall never be added in the master bedroom to form a hall, which would create two separate bedrooms. Summary: The applicant is proposing a iirst and second floor addition at the rear of the exiting two-story house at 2627 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 (plans date stamped 2/14/O1). The project includes in-fill below an existing covered porch at the rear of the first floor (total of 196 square feet), in-fill below the pantry on the left side of the %rst floor (total of 34 square feet), squaring off the bay window at the rear of the second floor, and remodeling the interior. The existing two-story house contains 3,397SF of floor area (0.50 FAR), and has 3 bedrooms. The first and second floor addition and remodel would add 1 bedroom, for a total of 4 bedrooms. The parking requirement is met by the existing attached one-car garage. This project would reduce the overall floor area of the house to 3,226 SF (.48 FAR), where 3,260 SF (.48 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The applicant revised the existing drawings to remove the bay window shown on the left side of the roof plan. The applicant is requesting the following exception: • Side setback variance for a 1'-3 lh" for a first floor in-fill along left side property line, this addition would be flush with existing non-conforming wall which is nonconforming at 2'-8 '/a" from the side property line (2'-8 'h" side setback proposed where 4' is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.28.072(c)(1)). 1 � Design Review and Side Setback Variance 2627 Easton Drive PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front: Ist flr 28'-0" 28'-0" 15' or block average Znd �P 2g�-�� 2 0�-�� 2��-�n Side (left): 2'-0'/z" (in-fill)I *2'-0 %2" 4'-0" Side (right): No change *2'-9 3/a " 4'-0" Rear: Ist flr 66'-0" 77'-0" 15'-0" 2nd flr 66'-0" 65'-4" 20'-0" LOT COVERAGE: 28.6% 30'2% 40% (1,935.38 SF) (2,042.25 SF) (2,699.82 SF) FAR: 3,226 SF/ *3,397 SF/ 3,260 SF/ 0.48 FAR 0.50 FAR 0.48 FAR PARKING: No change One covered in attached Two covered in garage garage (14'-6" x 21'-0") (20'-0" x 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway + 1 unc. in driveway HEIGHT: No change 20'-6" 30'/2 �/2 stories DHENVELOPE: Meets requirement Meets requirement See code *Existing non-conforming condition ' Variance for a frst floor side setback (1'-3 '/2" proposed where 4'-0" is required). Staff Comments: See attached. Design Review Criteria: 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. Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's February 26, 2001, design review study meeting, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guideline's. The proposal would remove the fragmented additions at the rear and create a clear consistent style along all sides of the structure. 2 Design Review and Side Setback Variance 2627 Easton Drive Required Findings for a 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 not apply generally to property in the same district; (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 detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Variance Findings: The left side wall is currently non-conforming with a 2'-8 %z" side setback. The variance request for a 7'-0" extension to this wall will be compatible with the character of the structure and will in-fill an existing void below a second floor extension. There will be no openings within this extension. Based on these findings, and the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's February 26, 2001 design review study meeting, the project is found to be compatible with the variance criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative Action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and side setback variance, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 14, 2001 Sheets A 1.1 through A 4.4; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, and Chief Building Official's December 18, 2000, January 1 l, 2001 and February 5, 2001 memos shall be met; 3. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and 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; 4. that doors shall never be added in the master bedroom on the first floor to form a hall between the master bedroom and the office and/or a door shall never be placed at the entrance to the office area so that two separate bedrooms are created; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Catherine Keylon Planner c: Martin Dreiling, CSS Architecture, applicant and architect 3 Sent By: CITY OF 3URLINGA�E PLANNING; 650 696 3790; Nov-29-00 3:08PM; Page 3/3 ,�-„V;, � CITX OF BURLIlVGANT� - • � �`� APPLICATIdN TO THE PLANNIlVG COMIVIISSION Type of Appliration:__ .Special Permit Vatiance�Other Project a•� �/:�/e. , 3�r��,�t� aw+� C� 9� a IO Assessor's Pazcel Number(s): b 27— 19 5— 15 O AP�ZICANT Narne: C SS �412C �l I T E�T v�� Addre4S: � � � 3., � a n.�w /Q �ie _ c�ty�st�r�2ap.�� I� �� r�e-_, �� 9�0�0 Phone (w): (� 50 .(09(0 . I z oC� c��: �: �sa 3�3 9� S � PROP�RTY OWNER Name: I�� c. � w G od o HJsk, Address: Z�vZ% �G-5%o✓l �/� ��- City/State/�ip: ?�v ✓�: � g a/nC CA . 9�alo Phone (w); ,,� d ' � �., /., � m): �� S( f�: ,�a00 ��-a(t8� � ARCHiT�CT1DES�GN�t - - G ru��rT l�G�vf�-r�.— M� r�nN� iea�e N�e. S 3 ►��.�N� Address• I � d 3.��A n• Q��(C. contact c��s��rz�p: � �f I; �.4 a w� . cA _��lo Phone (w):_ �50 ,(��(n. 1 Zv a ih): fax: !0 5 0 3�-3 9� 8 5 �'R�JECT DESCRI�1`YON: indicate with an asterisk * the person for this application. L �-o r�c.��r j�r�� i�Z �� ._ R�Mov�� L�� A��J,•�,r G� ��+� •ST�T7h.r�.�r7 ,ot��1VLvG�il�r-� j''�IMb� „�� 1v�1S A�'k'LDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that thc inforn�,tion given hcrein is true and cor�t to t best of my kno edge and belief. � ► IZ H vb Applic�nt's Signature Date , /I I lrnow about tbe proposed application and hereby application to the Pl�rtning�C-vmn�ssion � _ Owner's Date appIicant w submit this �.. - ____�---- - ______---FOR OF�'XC� USE ONL.X ---------------��--..�.,.��-_y__ x Date Filed: I 2• � 5� o c� Fee: � 3�5 f.� Sbv Planning Commission: Study Date: Activn Date: ARCHITEC�U� � January 16, 2001 City Of Burlingame Variance Application Re: 2627 Easton Drive In regards to the proposed alterations to 2627 Easton Drive a parking variance and a setback variance has been requested. This letter will address these issues and hopefully justify their acceptance: The first variance application is relevant to parking. The parking variance is required because there could be 5 bedrooms which is the number that requires and additional covered parking space. The apparent bedroom # 5 is not a bedroom but an alcove off the master bedro�m serving as an Office/ workout room. While it could be transformed into a bedroom, it is smaller in size, less convenientand would severely limit access to the exterior of the house from the other rooms. We have chosen not to reconfigure the room to provide a 50°/o opening as that would decrease the functionality of the interior spaces for the benefit of the owner. Reconfiguration would reduce an already minimal size master bath and wouJd add excessive space to the circulation portion of the bedroom. We are concerned that the current ordinance could possibly limit the ability of Architects to create complex smaller spaces rather than large, rectangular spaces. Smaller complex spaces can create much more functionality in a smaller building, or in an existing building while reducing the need to add larger spaces. Provisior� of additional parking is not possible as the cutrent garage is partially below grade and the current driveway is confined by retaining walls. There is no additional access possible without substantial regarding of the front yard and the resulting creation of a double -wide garage door. This would pose a substantial impact to the visual character _ of the neighborhood and would be inconsistent with the intent of the design review guidelines. Additionally, due to the narrow width of the lot (45'), the creation of a double —wide drive would reduce the availability of stre'et parking for guests by one space. Please nofe that this proposal results in a net reduction in floor area, FAR and lot coverage and rEmoves a potential additional bedroom from xhe upper floor. The second variance application is relevant to side yard setf5ack. This request proposes the continuation of an existing ground floor wall, eliminating an unused void below and existing second floor extension. The variance occurs in part because of the close proximity of the adjacent sewer parcel. The effective setback from the adjacent residence is increased by 5' due to the presence of this parcel. The proposal is part of an overall effort to improve the fragmented appearance of the existing building. It occurs in an area that has had numerous low quality additions and alterations, many of which are at the end of their useful life. The existing ground floor wall extension remains 9" inboard of the existing upper floor wall, maintaining the lower floor wall plane and generating a shadow line and corbel opportunity at the upper floor transition. The proposal has no impact on Lot Coverage and, given the 100' balcony exemption, no impact on FAR. The proposal also deals with the following aspects of the design review application: • ' • Removal of substandard and unattractive construction at the rear yard. • Removal of incompatible windows and replacement with harmonized wood windows. • Reduction in visual impacts to the neighborhood by removing an existing substandard second floor room. • Reduction in privacy impacts by including solid railing at deck and by enclosing the stair in a solid railing. • Relocation of stair further from the property line. • Creation of consistent visual language at the rear and side yard so th�t the entire house has consistent style and character. • No changes to the front yard as this is the most consistent and attractive portion of the house. Sincerely, RECEIVE� JAN 1 7 Z001 We hope this clarifies some issues and presents a reliable case for the requested variances. If there are any questions please feel free to call. Thank you for your time. Brad Reinschell C S S A S S O C I A T E S A R C H I T E C T S CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1 1 0 3 J � a n i f a A v e n u e B u r I i n g a m e. C A 9 4 0 I 0 650 696 1200 • 343 9685 fax dreilingC�pacbell.net , , � � 0 . � , , . 2�2� �0.s,-�� ,.. t�� G� C�4�G��Of�C��fI�C� ��'��{�� ( p�,p��A�a2ny� �4�� x4��l�r� � : ktr /a�'� E�'. �v ✓ 1 � N o� VkP � C/� . , @1' /i�1�O�U�J�4oLS �I��a� U D�U�Ie� � .,, � �, f � i �I � ✓��'��'%��:. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions will 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. a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to you� property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. `T�;S �'� ��eS� �ro�dy�5 �. t��-inva.�� on �� .� e7c�S�� wa I�, dn `.i'�e.. ro � n.� �l o a f/ e' �� n � rw� ��►g C� rn u/� v S�1 J v� d {� �. � o�.J c. v� 2y4 5`t-• �'jQcor.� ��nc�,� Q��2wS � D✓l, j�a. ,(�2cLve•S-�-ed VaV� e..r�.Ce, dCLv✓S i^ �c�,�� . �2 c a v S,e. �`t'�e �� o S�- �/dX i M�-�y a� a v�. a J 0.� �'�' S e� e✓�o► ✓ c.�. (. 1�- C� y�e�` t-, v2 �-�' b c z � � G �-' i d M` t� r� e- a. e� � o.. u. n.' t- f e S; d O, V � G¢- �� c� e �- S� d�� S� c� ✓�. -l� �-tl�e. � re.sevi.ce, v�- -{�j..: S � Q-rc�� . b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary foi the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. 1 hZ � r a o.5 a.` , 5 � G.1�T pi o� ✓1 p�( � f a- [ 1 �'�"o /-�- -I-o � M P�'t� �! ��Y�2_. I ��r0.� w�.,w Q � �� e �,r a � � �-� � �� s�-� � 6� , f a ; � , �-�- o�� r s � ✓� a✓t a� r� c�.. -t�--�- h.w s r � w�e r o � s I o�- Q � 0. l. �y a a d.��: a�- s 0.,�. d a. i%e,/ a.�-; r� n. S� �.►� � v�� e-� �J I�: �� o. �e o�.-� �%.e ¢.tio� o-� �-1,..e,'r v S.e--�✓ 1�� e. c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/-we/fare, or convenience. �l�r5 �1'o(JoSal h�`S l'�v �r'�Pa.c� on ��T �a✓traQ2 ct.�d a�►Uev� `�"� y J �� 6AI�n,�y e�� ;a� ,,�a ��P��- o�, r,��. �� aa a:�: o„ -�-e�SS ( ( �I cex�s�(�n3 p. ( S a o. � lo �J S�o ( o. re.� v c�.i � o.^ 8T o.tl � S-1-o.. l�� r��^e �/ �� v.� � '�� r� y�Q�� y I`� '�•� 0..( S � Q. C�� 7 1�/ ! �- �� S i S��!/\�� - � � ` ` / jar� vAs e�e�-t-vs c.ev� -�'%- rc.a-f� o�. c�J s' : d e S� �c.. c�....c� G G..a. /c�.� ?�� . d. ' Ho w wil/ the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT I�►�S �/'d�aS�� ''er►'�-�.,`� 9`��hoav�d�f'�e.. e�.�`s.�.�v�q �f'/�e✓ ��do✓ b�/� �( � j�.a. � n-�o.., r� � `-i�e. � v w1 e� -�`l,00 ✓ t�ra �( 7�a- v� a c�J\J e w�✓�,. , �l ( � �� a- S�c� v�,.) l�r� ac�-� co ✓� I OPPa ('tv✓�.��rG'i.� T�- v��e �� o d l � V a v�.S ,�, a/� ,�5 V►'�- n� � o/l;� d a. � o J e_� a C� n S.3�f �-�'Y �'%y �e. e�, wd G{��Gc c'1'.c.f� i S N'to�. i��-c� , V�-d �C h r�l �� M; r.o�,'{' i o✓\ r h, /[�v S� d 12/92 v • �/ ,, ��./ � I V L U ar.frfn V D�� D l.J 0..✓t �-�f�� e'7`�Cf/i S� O f�. . JAN 1 7 2001 _ `?.. .,. _ • CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. EASTON DRIVE N 49'03'00" E 46.30' - � — — \, � .\ LOT 31 � , � cn, o � � 0 oY � 2.81' 1 \ GARAGE 1� 1.02' � � 0 'o 0 BAMB00 FENCE ` 3' WOOD FENCE 4' CHAIN LINK FENCE � 6' WOOD \ FENCE 1 5' SEWER EASEMENT 8 R.S.M. 34 LOT 29 5.00' 4' SEWER EASEMENT- 8 R.S.M. 34 �`�3'00"' W 46.40" HILLSBOROUGH OAKS 20� R.S.M. 11 LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS 2495 INDUSTRIAL PARKWAY WEST HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA 94545 (sio) $s�-4oss FAX f5101 887-3019 � 2 STORY STUCCO HOUSE / (so') 2.04' 0 10 20 40 \ \, SCALE: 1 " = 20' 2.71' , Z � / � 0 \� 0 �os x � LOT 30 � 8 R.S.M. 34 � 0.15 ACRES o BOUNDARY PLAT 2627 EASTON DRIVE BURLINGAME CA 94010 sax �a�o covx� JANUARY, 2001 APN 027-195-150 JOB NO 201003 �r� GITV a� CITY OF Blf�iLINGAME BURLJNGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD o�G.. � BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 2627 EASTON DRIVE Application for design review, side setback and parking variances for a first and second PUBLIC HEARING floor addition at 2627 Easton Drive, zoned R-1. (APN: 027-195-150) N OTIC E The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MondaY, March 12, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed March 2, 2001 (Please refer- to nther side) CITY OF .� URLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at th� Plai�i�ing Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the�subject application(s) in court, you may��.be limited to raising only those i'ssues yo�ti or someone else raFsed at� the public hearing, described in the °notice� or �in �� written correspo,ndence delivered to the city at or prior to the :public hearing. Property owners=who receive� this notice are responsibla for informing their tenants abo�it this notice. � For addiiional information;, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank �au. ,� � ; �k9�`�� :��_ � ° ��,n `` �;: Margaret Mo�roe � ^' s�:, ,/� City Planner � '� �` � � � `�� > �� 4e , PUBL�G�=iL�4R1NG_�1VOTiCE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and a side setback variance for a first floor and second floor addition at 2627 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, Tricia Godowski, property owners, APN: 027-195-150; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 12, 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. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the siructures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review and side setback variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and side setback variance 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, Joe Bojues , Acting 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 12th day of March , 2001 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ACTING SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and variance. 2627 Easton Drive effective March 19, 2001 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 14, 2001 Sheets A 1.1 through A 4.4.; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, and Chief Building Official's December 18, 2000, January 11, 2001 and February 5, 2001 memos shall be met; 3. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and 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; 4. that doors shall never be added in the master bedroom on the first floor to form a hall between the master bedroom and the office and/or a door shall never be placed at the entrance to the office area so that two separate bedrooms are created; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. ■ • � � Item # Design Review Study City of Burlingame Side Setback and Parking Variances and Design Review for First and Second Story Addition Address: 2627 Easton Drive Meeting Date: February 26, 2001 Request: Parking and side setback variances and Design Review for a first and second story addition at 2627 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040) Property Owner: Tricia Godowski APN: 027-195-150 Applicant/Architect: CSS Architecture, Martin Dreiling Lot Area: 6,749.55 SF General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Summary: The applicant is proposing a minor iirst and second floor addition at the rear of the exiting two-story house at 2627 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 (plans date stamped 1/22/O1). The project includes in-fill below an e�sting covered porch at the rear of the first floor (total of 196 square feet), in-fill below the pantry on the left side of the first floor (total of 34 square feet), squaring off the bay window at the rear of the second floor, and remodeling the interior. The existing two-story house contains 3,397SF of floor area (0.50 FAR), and has 3 bedrooms. The first and second floor addition and remodel would add 2 bedrooms, for a total of 5 bedrooms. The office proposed on the first floor is defined as a bedroom (C.S. 25.08.125), and triggers the need for a second covered parking space (C.S. 25.70.030(c)). There is an existing attached one-car garage. This project would reduce the overall floor area of the house to 3,226 SF (.48 FAR), where 3,260 SF (.48 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The applicant is requesting the following exceptions: • Side setback variance for a 1'-3 '/a" for a first floor in-fill along left side property line, this addition would be flush with existing non-conforming wall which is 2'-8 '/z" from the side property line (2'-8 1/z" side setback proposed where 4' is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.28.072(c)(1)). • Parking variance for one covered parking space (one covered and one uncovered parking space proposed, where two covered parking spaces and one uncovered space are required for 5 or more bedrooms (C.S. 25.70.030(c)). PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front: lst flr 28'-0" 28'-0" 15' or block average 2nd flr 28'-0" 28'-0" 20'-0" Side (left): 2'-0 %z" (in-fill)' *2'-0 %z" 4'-0" Side (right): No change *2'-9 3/4 " 4'-0" Rear: lst flr 66'-0" 77'-0" 15'-0" 2nd flr 66'-0" 65'-4" 20'-0" LOT COVERAGE: 28.6% 30'2% 40% (1,935.38 SF) (2,042.25 SF) (2,699.82 SF) FAR: 3,226 SF/ *3,397 SF/ 3,260 SF/ 0.48 FAR 0.50 FAR 0.48 FAR PARKING: No changeZ one covered in attached Two covered in garage garage (14'-6" x 21'-0") (20'-0" x 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway + 1 unc. in driveway r r PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D HEIGHT: No change 20'-6" 30'/21/2 stories DHENVELOPE: Meets requirement Meets requirement See code *Existing non-conforming condition ' Variance for %rst floor side setback (1'-3 'h " proposed on the first floor where 4'-0" is required). Z Variance for one covered parking space (one covered and one uncovered parking space proposed, where two covered and one uncovered parking space are required). Staff Comments: See attached. The subject property has a unique situation where there is a 5.15' X 150' piece of land located along the east (left) side property line. The Department of Public Works has stated that this parcel is not an easement, but an offer of dedication per the subdivision map. There are City water and sewer lines located in this property. There are existing windows on the east and west side walls of the proposed project that are located within 3 feet of the side property lines and are proposed for replacement, in part for design and in part to meet egress requirements for the two bedrooms being located within this first floor. The Chief Building Official has commented that new windows and the increase in the area of existing openings is not permitted on walls less than 3 feet from the property line, but has stated that existing windows can be replaced and the type of window can be changed , so long as the area of the existing opening does not increased. Catherine Keylon Planner c: Martin Dreiling, CSS Architecture, applicant and architect