Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout831 Edgehill Drive - Staff Report' City of Burlingame rrEM # � Variance for Declining Height Envelope Address: 831 Edgehill Road Meeting Date: November 22, 1999 Request: First and second-story addition requiring a variance for second story encroachment into the declining height envelope by 95 SF (CS 25.30.075). Project is in an R-2 zoning district and is not subject to design review. Applicant: Randy Grange, TRG Architects APN: 029-021-090 Property Owners: Jim Baleix, Ed Rymsha Lot Area: 7649 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-2 Ac�jacent Development: Single Family 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. Date Submitted: October 6, 1999 Summary: The applicant proposes a first and second story addition and remodel of an existing one-story residence and requests a variance from the Declining Height Envelope requirement for 95 SF of area along the right side of the new second story that would extend into the declining height envelope. The project includes a 305 SF first story and 1254 SF second-story addition to enlarge an existing one-story single family dwelling from 2 bedrooms to 4 bedrooms at 831 Edgehill Drive, zoned R-2. The existing non-conforming detached two-car garage will be demolished and a new detached 2-car gazage will be constructed in the rear yazd. The extension into the declining height envelope occurs along the right side of the second story where a closet in the front bedroom would extend into the DHE by 26 SF (4'-6" x 8'-6") and the remaining length of the right side of the second story encroaches 69 SF on the right side of the second story (46'-2" x 1'-6"). The project requires the following: 1. Declining Height Fnvelope variance for 95 SF of area on the second story extending into the declining height envelope. This azea includes an encroachment of 25.5 SF from the closet attached to the front bedroom on the right side of the second story (3'-0" x 8'-6") and an azea of 69.25 SF from remaining length of the right side of the second story (46'- 2" x 1'-6"), C.S. 25.30.075. Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official notes (October 7, 1999 memo) that the left and rear garage walls are required to be fire-resistive construction; and the garage eaves shall be a minimum of 2'-0" from the property line. The City F�gineer notes (October 13, 1999 memo) that the roof drainage shall be drained to Edgehill Drive. The Fire Mazshal had no comments on the project. Planning staff would note that the proposed second story addition to the existing single family residence is not subject to design review because the project is located in an R-2 zoning district and the Design Review Ordinance applies only to those structures within an R-1 zoning district. PROFOSED EXISTIlVG ALLOWED/REQ'D . , r, : , y Finnt: Ist flr 2nd � Side (left): Side (right): Rear: Ist,tlr 2nd flr LOT COVERAGE: FAR: PARKING: HEIGHT: DH ENVELOPE: 15'-0" HH'-O" 13'-0" 4'-6" 88' -0" 88'-0" 35 % (2667 SF) 3142 SF/ 414b FAR 2 covered in garage (22' x 22') + 1 unc. in driveway 16'-3" 95 5F on second story encroaches into DHE* 15'-0" N/A 13'-0" 2'-11" 114'-0" N/A 20.9 9b (1597 SF) 1597 SF/ 20.9 % FAR 2 covered in garage (18' x 25'-8") + 1 unc. in driveway 16'-3" N/A 15' or block average 20' -0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 40% (3059 SF) 3948 SF/ 51.6 °lo FAR 1 covered in garage (10' -0" x 20' -0") + 1 unc. in driveway 30'/2 '/� stories see code *Variance required for Declining Height Envelope, and 69 SF encroach into DHE. ** Existing right side setback is non-conforming (2'-11"), but addition will meet required side setback (4'-0"). This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Study Meexing: At the November 8, 1999, Planning Commission study meeting the commission had no questions regarding this application and directed that it be placed on the consent agenda for the hearing on November 22, 1999. Required �ndings 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) the applicant proposed a second story addition that encroaches into the declining height envelope along the right side of the property. This hardship is based on both the 45'-0" width of the lot, which is narrower than the typica150' -0" width lot, and placement of the second story addition over the existing single-story residence which was built within 2' -11 " of the right side setback, where 4'-0" is required. Although the second story addition is off-set from side of the existing first story and meets the minimum 4'-0" side setback, it still encroaches into the DHE because the plate line is 9'-0" tall to match the proportions of the first floor, which has a height of 13'-4" measured from the adjacent grade to plate line (4'-0" height between adjacent grade and first story finished floor). Even with the exception criteria to measure a 14'-0" departure height from grade, the upper right corner of the second story still extends into the DHE. Yariances jor Declining Height Envelope and Design Review 831 Edgehill Road b) Without the variance, the applicant would be required to redesign the second story addition to a different configuration, or expand the size of the first story. As proposed, they would have a lot coverage of 35 9b where 40 Rb is permitted. If they added the azea proposed in the second story to the ground floor, (1254 SF = 16.49b lot coverage), they would exceed the permitted lot coverage by 11.4 W. Design review is not required in the R-2 zoning district, however, the proposed addition is designed and oriented over the existing residence to be compatible with the size, scale, roof pitch, window detail and exterior trim of the existing residence so as to appear as original construction. If the second story addition was further off-set from the right side property line, the azchitect would be required to solve a new problem caused by extending the height of the chimney on the right side without the support provided by the walls of the new seconds story. The width of the second story (25'-0') would also have to be decreased by approximately 3'-0" and would significantly impair the circulation pattern and size of the rooms proposed in this se�ond story addition. c. Except for the encroachment into the declining height envelope, the proposed addition conforms with the requirements of a single-family residence within the R-2 zoning district. Although there are windows proposed along the side elevation which encroaches into the DHE, the rooms with windows along that side include two closets, an alcove and a stairwell. There is one bedroom along that side elevation, but the window within that room faces to the re�r yazd, not the side yard. The driveway of the adjacent property also runs along this shared property line to minimize any visual impact resulting from the height of the proposed second story. d. Design Review is not required for second story additions to single-story residences within R-2 zoning districts. However, the proposed second story has been designed to match the roof pitch, scale, orientation over the first floor, and include craftsman-style azchitectural features to match the existing residence. The proposed addition fits well over the existing residence, and is designed to look like original construction. � Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Afiirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the requested variances. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 27, 1999, sheets Al.l through A2.3; 2, that the project shall comply with the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 7, 1999 memo and the City Engineer's October 13, 1999 memo; and 3 that the project shall mcet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Janice Jagelski, Planner c: Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant 3 City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 providin more landscaping at the rea if so needs to submit a plan; are the small windows on the left elevation glass block; e applicant should describ what v1i11 remain when the dem ' ion is finished and therefor why the need for the 'ance; staff should clarify t present height of the structure d that of the proposed proj t; in terms of design ch side of the house "acts o rts own", since a11 the siding is go' g to come off why could no e four sides be unified with similar materials; de 'gn reviewer noted in one place at there would not be muc dditional impact as viewe from Skyline but in an er place noted that the remodel, � structure would be very vis� e and have a large impact m Skyline, please a for clarification. There were no other questions and the it was set for public hearing t the meeting of Nov mber 22, 1999, providing all the information requested is s mitted in time. APPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY �ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMII.,Y RESIDENCE AT 831 EDGEHII,L DRIVE, ZONED R-2. (RANDY GRANGE, TR ARCHITECTS. APPLICANT AND JIM BALEIX AND ED RYMSHA PROPERTY OWNERSI CP Monroe briefly presented the staf�report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. The item was placed on the consent calendar, for the November 22, 1999 meeting. APPLICAT N FOR NEGATIVE DE LARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENE PLAN FROM SHOPP G AND SERVICE CO RCIAL TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RE ENTIAL AND LOW DE ITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PARCELS BOUNDED �ROLLINS ROAD, ON AVENUE, LINDEN NUE AND LARKSPUR NUE; AND CONDO PERMIT, PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMB ATION AND TENTATI CONDOMINIUM MAP F A 4-STORY, 12-LJNIT CONDONIINIUM WI UNDERGROUND P G AT 949-965 ROLLINS . AD, ZONED R-3 .(RONA� B. GE ATIVE AND FIl�TAI, PARNT� MAP OR LOT COMBINIO ION AND ENOTATMI IV�E C CP Monroe briefly present the staff report for both the this is the first large pro sal on this block, have the a ic single family houses 'nd; no windows on the sides the � the lack of guest arking, can park on only one 'de of Ro where will t residents put storage, conc ned because accessibl arking space does not look as ' rt will work bec� desi resembling a box; plans we not clear, could no� ' dows on the sides of the build' give it a commercial a allowed, ask the applicant to rovide the height of the oth on Linden; what is the hei to the top of the elevator par need to add more; met awnings and poles make the oje< for guest parking, ere should guest parking be , it canr. justify two driv ays for access/egess instead one, is it s� be a proble there is no place for a truck stop, parking does th pplicant nlan to do: the lar�e xv desi�n of the bu �nning approval and maps a the commissioners asked: ints considered reducing i ecause of the proximity to the :ructure make it odd lo 'ng commercial; concerned bout ins in this area; the is very little storage withi e units, 3o not want th decks to become storage as; the van �se of the n r by column in the way; co rned about the find the alconies/decks. on the eleva ' ns; the absence of pear ce; this project is proposed the maximum 35 feet ; uildings on the block and o e houses behind fronting ;t; what is the square foota of storage per dwelling unit, appear cold, reconside ; does the city have a requirement >t be put in the publi ght-of-way; how does the appli nt er, Rollins Road ' a busy street; deliveries to this ' e will s a problem the traffic is heavy on Rollins oad, what �din� dne. nt recnnnr� tn tha r.nnteYt nfthP aiahhnrhnn�• woukfl like to have the applicant comments from the neighbo o the rear; greatest need is par ' g, meet code but just minimum in other simila y sized project have 3 gues _ arking spaces; what was the r-ional for putting the balconies for the units at the rear on the sides of the building instead of on the rear of the building. There were no other 2 �f; C�ry p �R�,� CITY OF BURI,IN��E �� APPLICATION TO TI-� pLA,�ING COMIVIISSION Type of Application: Special Permit '�ariance Other Project Address:_ 8�v V Assessor's Parcel Number(s): n 2�- p2 �-- �c�D APPLICANT Name:�,�1 b y Gl� �}.�1 �'-�-E �' Address: Zo � � � ,�,�- �-� City/State/Zip:_,73 c�,� � ir! C,-�,v� � r',4- q4p i a Phone (w): � 5�.9 _ �-�� 2 �h� : .�. fvc: � Sb��� - O jl S ARCHITECT/DESIGNER PROPERTY OWNER Name:_�I M �/�'LE�x �'� � Sr�- , , Address: � � �� � � City/State/Zip: $r�t2 � ��� (�,,qMc- ,,� 9,gd� z Phone (w): ` i�-� S�-6 -- 2 �I � (h) � �.s� 3 � � �- fax: 6.5a � - g>/ �, � Name: �;�Z._� �'�-t- r� Address: �� �_��2� City/State/Zip:� r, �� ���A. 9 90/ p Phone (w):�_Sa 5'a- ol - S�- � Z �h); "_` fax:� ,,,�-o ) 5"��l - e I 1-� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: / Sr' �- � � OCT - 6 1999 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. � —4�� G-�i'�� AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to t e best o y knowledge and belief. . D Applicant's Signature Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning mmission. , d 1p Pro Owner's Signature Date �---------'-"""-""--------- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -------------- ------------------------------------------ Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. RECEIVED Date Filed:_ l o�(, /°►9 F�: � 2i o. o 0 Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: .__ _ _ � �'Y..;.'�:,`2.'�::: i+�#4t.�h . _ /j 1't'lJlIC'( l ( October 5, 1999 Planning Commission Members City of Burlingame Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Commissioner, RECEl�f�� OCT - 6 1999 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Attached please fmd the drawing package for a proposed second story addition to the residence at 831 Edgehill Drive. Although simple and straight forward in nature, the proposal does require a variance to the declining height envelope regulation. Given the conditions on and around the site, and the architectural ramifications associated with compliance, we feel that this variance is justified. Specifics for each required argument are given with the application. Here we will touch on a few of those as well as some additional points. We propose to improve over-all conditions by removing non-conforming structures. The existing, dilapidated garage is not built within the back 40% of the lot. We will be taking that garage down and replacing it with a functional, conforming structure at the back of the lot. The existing house is built less than 3 feet from one of the property lines. We would be removing part of that area, and rebuilding well within first floor setback limits. The intent of the ordinance will be maintained. Since there is a driveway along the neighboring property line, this proposal would have no daylight impacts on that neighbor. There would be no "canyon" effect, and much of the enlarged structure will be hidden by an existing row of trees. The proposed condition is consistent with the neighborhood as most of the nearby two story houses in the area have two story walls right at the set-back line. Conformance with the envelope will create a silly looking design. There is an existing chimney near the front of the house that must be extended to meet current building codes. If coupled with the wall offset required by the declining height envelope, it would leave us with a freestanding chimney tied back to the house with steel rods. The owner would like the architecture of the enlarged home to be consistent the existing architecture. The current home is a craftsman bungalow, and compliance with the height envelope will force us to forego that classic style. Given the narrowness of the existing structure, and the size of the required second floor offsets, one could not possibly conform to the ordinance and still design in the craftsman style. One would be forced into a design shaped by the ordinance itself. Within the house, there is only one reasonable location for the new stairs, and that happens to be atong the wall in question. We have managed to incorporate a wall offset of one and one half feet into the stair design, but more than that is unrealistic. We believe that this proposal is logical and preferable to one that conforms to the declining height envelope. Additional offset of the second floor wall will not benefit the closest neighbor, will not be consistent with other nearby properties, and would not allow us to create a design that is consistent with the house and neighborhood. Thank you for considering our proposal, and we look forward to the hearing. S' erel ✓Ran y Grange AIA 21 Dwight Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 G50.57).57C2 Fax 650.579.011> . � BURUNGAME ,. , CITI' OF EU�LING�IME VAF�I,�NCE aF''F'LIC,�TIONS The Planni�g 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 .your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. � E �. /�-r-r�c�-�D b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss o� unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. 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. d. How wi// 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 ray.. . 12/92 Var.frm -�, ,s.. :� 4 -.a. , . . ,. -i . , ,., .. , ;:,. �; • �a.;i�. ' 11r��hitc�rlc 9/30/1999 City of Burlingame Variance Application Attachment Property address: 831 Edgehill Dr Propery owner: Jim Baleix b c. � RECEIVED OCT - 6 1999 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Several existing conditions on the site make compliance with the declining height envelope unrealistic. First is the location ofthe existing chimney. We must extend the chimney to above the new roofline per building code requirements. An offset in the second floor at this location would leave us with a free-standing chimney supported back to the house with steel tie-rods. That would be an unsightly situation and incompatible with the architecture of the home. The second and third conditions affect the measurement of the envelope. The existing house sits almost four and a half feet above average grade below the house. The existing house is also built with a setback of less than three feet. These conditions, combined together, would force a very large offset for the second floor if we were to comply with the ordinance. The existing house is only about 25 feet wide (even less at the front). The resulting lopsided appearance would be incompatible with the architecture ofthis house and others in the neighborhood. We also have an existing plan in which there is only one decent location for a new stairway, and that happens to be on the wall in question. We have incorporated a 1 and '/z foot offset into the stair design, but more than that is not possible. Most of the two story homes in the neighborhood are non-conforming (and to a greater degree) in terms of the declining height envelope. Denial of the proposal would mean that this property owner could not build a project similar to others in the neighborhood. Strict conformance to the height envelope would force an odd architecture upon this property that others are not subject to. This proposal will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the area. The adjacent property has a driveway along the property line, and the structure there is set well back. Available sunlight to the adjacent property will be unaffected. Because this proposal retains the row of 20 foot tall trees along the progerty line, much of the addition will not even be seen. The proposal will have no impact on public health, safety, or convenience for this or other sites in the area. Conformance with the ordinance would have a negative impact on the general welfare of the community due to the resulting poor architecture it would force us to create. This proposal also includes the removal of a dilapidated non-conforming garage, and a portion of the non-conforming (in terms of setback) existing house. This will have a positive impact on the welfare of the community. The proposal will be compatible with the aesthetics and character ofthe existing house. The existing house is of the "craftsman bungalow" style and that style is being retained. This style is also consistent with the neighborhood. Denial of the application would not allow us to maintain that aesthetic. The proposal is compatible with the mass and bulk of the neighborhood. Most of the two story structures along Edgehill Drive are nonconforming to a greater degree than this proposal. 21 Dwigh� Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 650.57).57C? Pux 650.57).O1 I5 ROUTING FORM DATE: October 7, 1999 TO: CITY ENGINEER �CHIEF BUII,DING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL _SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR _CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for declining height envelope variance for a first and second story addition at 831 Edgehill Drive, zoned R-2, APN: 029-021- 090. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben Date of Comments L � r��� z✓�z e�a(�5 -{o b� �������� � � � ca �s��c�oy, �I �' � - �'C.s�s �7 vc� � �µ 2 c �.ro-� ��'�j � ez ��5 �°S � �� � ���� 1 r ✓ ✓ P . f�p�� r�c�ar �as�eh/ � 6 �p R,✓ `�/ �! v1 S C �D ROUTING FORM DATE: October 7, 1999 TO: �CITY ENGINEER _CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL _SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR _CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for declining height envelope variance for a first and second story addition at 831 Edgehill Drive, zoned R-2, APN: 029-021- 090. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben � � '- % �' "-� Date of Comments � v-� n d�a.'i �e c= c�.�--� �' c, �. �',�.,c�- i�.e s!�� � � � � c�lx.� c�. i►� �J J—o � � ci� e In-i. �� � V i+% �. � � .. f !�� CITY QF BURLINvAA1E � �ot�� c�1'rhe :ipj�lii'��ti��n �tr�d pl�ir�s f�r this project met� be revie����d prii�i• t�, th� m�ztin�* �tt th� Pli:ilni►i<T Departmeni at �U I Pr-imr�;;� R��a�i. Burlin���tmz. Calitnrni:l. If �c�u ::h:tllen«� the «�hizct appticatio�l(s) in court. vo�, �ti<<� h� li!Z�it��i t�� r��i,ir��� ��;,1�� tl����:�:� is,u�� you �7r se�rl�zone els�� iais�ci at th� pul,li� hearin«. �i���fl>>ci.� 11] lllc' llt)UiZ i)1� 111 �\'1")[[cll t'C11'I'�S��l)Ilt�c'Ili�. Cjc�l\'�l'cl{ [il C�lc �il\ �l[ ��l' �)I'ti)f (O [il2 }�LIL�IIi; hearin�T. Prup�rt� i�wner, �vho rerei��e tllis noti�e are respon�ibl� f��r infurmin�T their tznanu about this nc�tice. For additional irltc�rmation, plea�e call Ih�O� 696-7��O. Th�inl: youu. �-1�u��,ar�t �'ionr��e Cit� Pl�u,�ner �'lJ�LI� ��A���C� i���iC� (Please r-c.fcrt�� r�tltc�r�sicic�l ''�' �'"�Y� �yo'�"�� CiTY GF BURLI1VGAfulc .�_�L5.1� \ I PLAP;NiNG vEPARTPu7EiVT ��JRLIYdCf t�,?.� y;,,j PRIMROSE ROAD � i BURLINGF�ME. CA 94010 `°��,� i' TFL: (650) 696-7250 =.1. �i_!LEHi.L.L. :rF1�� f�l''1'; : �.�_y—��i_ i—��r��� =r'F'�7.Cc"tt1��Tl in'r'' '��C•.tliii��q �'rF'ly�lf 2Rt'tlOG�e ���8e��'"'�i'2i1�IV� ��a��-i.:�r��•e tor� a� fi��r=_.t ai�cf secr,�d stor•y ad7atirn ���.��� -�� a s;.ngi� famiiy` t��esidFr�c�c a4 83i E�n�h�z:t -!'r'ivG, �GTiE�d F--�.. r�e City of N�_ir,iing�m� �'lanning Commi�.sior� annoF_�r�ces the followir�g p�_tblic• he�tt'ir�q on ��.���(.fi hianday, November ��, 1939 at 7:�0 �. M. in the �:�:��,�t�ti. �' ,� __-Ft�=� J._I_.._._L, o i_C�i c� i.I._._...�; Fi ri m Y��� �r � 1 a c� t e d � t � C� I �'�.�:�.(:3?' �°���imr�ose Kc�.�d, P�.i��lir�gane. Calil=or�nia. .: .... :iriied P�aves6er� 1c, 1�99 r Plrcr.sc� �z, f'er tn otlrer srdc:) m �; *r� �, � �. - °'� �� ::� �. �; � , - �� �-` t . •� y,� ��_ �� �I 1 , } - � �n _ 'i'�� ^ ';hvr � "�,�:� ��'� - � _ t �` - . . . � " � S:: S.-''f . , � ,. '3� �. . _ } - . n b ` . . Lx . _ .. . .. . I i .� . : . :.� � 1^� .. �� r;.sy`r. . ` �1'�r,"`t_' � . ' - '- �' �. � r� �. ��.r � � �` �� , ��� a�� �- � .; �5���^�-��'� �� �� a�� �� �� ;,� � � da a� "�� 7 Id � ' �,f�-� � . ,� _ �� � �/1 / , � M�� . . � ,t�. " �� � a.. . . , . , . �- C�,�<� , �c- � ,� � d C � �ti� ... /:., � ye � A � �� �� ��; „�Pr� � �„ ` �'� � , . _ > _" F� R ` i fl ,.,.�f, . . ., � .... >'� � � '� � ���' D�iV 8y�,. �' �� � � �.. .. 8� -. _: �_� � .� � C� � , . � � � � � �� 1 . �� � . , � �� � - � Q . , ,. � � �� . . � - .,�K&.,: rr� � _ . ,, � � � : �. � 8�� � : 1 ` �;.- \ � � x G . . ....: , " „- - 'd` �%ii �9 :: o� ' ��S � �, s� � � � � +-^ s �:a�, � , i � fi„�� � 4 �, , � " �i ' •� � ,_ . . . � � Z � . �` � .... '��� '� ���,.`� .� ' 4� ' ' _. �+ Ui \ .za�;..... � . � t , ,� .x. . �_ t ;�°.$ . :N . .. . $F 2 . .. � � � . .. �'�,. � ! n �5 • � — .� � �.�1 �� �j � � P ^ A � : .. ,.:. " . �y ` � �_ \ ^� ... �y . � li Y `6 � ., � = ,: O�, �u � ,� �` � �� . �� �a � ��' � �. ���� � �„ � � � �, ��a '�yu �� . � � �� � '�i� ... . '`� . � , o-� . a A � : �. � � , . r.. r . � . , a� � . , ,,. . ti � � �ih � � u . ' `,� . �-. , �� ., - ' .� J�,� _ . �� ,� ,.. � a� � � k � �e � � � � . ,. } , � . . - , y�a� � ry ` ` .,�:� �`� . .,'l�. e y * . '� �°hA $. �/ �� {�d� ,. � i u, .r' �, tiw � '- , �'(. . v �ts r ��r�', .rl' - � ' q�. ?�" ' ' '.�. "�`� �t . w. 'f�j� ,�. l ., � 1F'h ' h`." y :: � � . y�"�}�5�1' _ h � #� �',�!% � .. �4 ��ar�- �• . � n � �a.. �'Y � ,�ir�� � . . � / . FT�, r �J � -� 9�.t�. . ,�, � - i . � �� `� a"�¢��,. � * _ KK��., . 'w� �y,e . • I. . � : ��. - , .. r � ^��p.0 t rp �°�� � ,�� i '�' � � � � . 4 , �: : ' � , :n,� � . r ,: e � �� ' : - y. : a� , , v , ,� M, ' �� �� . � •m -z�. �. F �� . : � 4 ' � � 4 �, ri ,r��� :r �'' ', 4`� , - �� ;� ,�r.#. . .. �� ya � � .' yp.e � �1� � . . . � �4 :�'fM�^� , . '��� . _ . - . � - . i ii r � ~ R '�J � ` ' ._ � . _...� . . . � .- � f F • _�_� _ . ..�. _..�a�.. __ _s.ti:.,z�:k::,:.��:�� RESOLUTION APPROVIl�TG CATEGORICAL EXEMpTION AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WI�REAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a d inin he�g t envelol�e v�*��ncp for second e�ory r1 '�on at 831 Ed�e 'll Road,�nnPr� R_2� J�mes Bal ;X �p� owner'gPN• 029-021-090; WI�REAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Burlingame on November 22� 1999, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, TI�REFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMIl�TED 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 Section is hereby approved. 2. Said declining height envelope variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such 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. DAVE LUZURIAGA, CF[��IRMAN �, , 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.� day of November , 999 , by the following vote: AYES: CONIl�IISSIONERS: NOES: CONIl�IISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMNIISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMII�IISSIONERS: SECRETARY .• EX�IT "A" Conditions of approval Categorical Exemption and Declining Height Envelope Variance 831 Edgehill Road effective Ilecember 6, 1999 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 27, 1999, sheets Al. l through A2.3; 2. that the applicant shall comply with the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 7, 1999 memo and the City Engineer's October 13, 1999 memo; 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. City of Burlingame ITEM # 3 Variance for Declining Height Envelope Address: 831 Edgehill Road Meeting Date: November 8, 1999 Request: First and second-story addition requiring a variance for second story encroachment into the declining height envelope by 95 SF (CS 25.30.075). Project is in an R-2 zoning district and is not subject to design review. Applicant: Randy Grange, TRG Architects APN: 029-021-090 Property Owners: 7im Baleix, Ed Rymsha Lot Area: 7649 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-2 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Fxempt 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. Date Submitted: October 6, 1999 Summary: The applicant proposes a iirst and second story addition and remodel of an existing one-story residence and requests a variance from the Declining Height Envelope requirement for 95 SF of area along the right side of the new second story that would extend into the declining height envelope. The project includes a 305 SF first story and 1254 SF second-story addition to enlarge an existing one-story single family dwelling from 2 bedrooms to 4 bedrooms at 831 Edgehill Drive, zoned R-2. The existing non-conforming detached two-car garage will be demolished and a new detached 2-car garage will be constructed in the rear yard. The extension into the declining height envelope occurs along the right side of the second story where a closet in the front bedroom would extend into the DHE by 26 SF (4'-6" x 8'-6") and the remaining length of the right side of the second story encroaches 69 SF of area on the right side of the second story (46'-2" x 1'-6"). The project requires the following: 1. Declining Height Envelope variance for 95 SF of area on the second story extending into the declining height envelope. This area includes an encroachment of 25.5 SF from the closet attached to the front bedroom on the right side of the second story (3'-0" x 8'-6") and an area of 69.25 SF from remaining length of the right side of the second story (46' - 2" x 1'-6"), C.S. 25.30.075. Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official notes (October 7, 1999 memo) that the left and rear garage walls are required to be fire-resistive construction; and the garage eaves shall be a minimum of 2'-0" from the property line. The City Engineer notes (October 13, 1999 memo) that the roof drainage shall be drained to Edgehill Drive. The Fire Marshal had no comments on the project. Planning staff would note that the proposed second story addition to the existing single family residence is not subject to design review because the project is located in an R-2 zoning district and the Design Review Ordinance applies only to those structures within an R-1 zoning district. Variances for Declining Height Envelope PROPOSED SETBACKS Front: lst flr 15'-0" 2rtd flr Side (left): Side (right): Rear: Ist flr 2nd flr LOT COVERAGE: FAR: PARKING: HEIGHT.• 88'-0" 13'-0" 4'-6" 88'-0" 88' -0" 35 % (2667 SF) 3142 SF/ 41 % FAR 2 covered in garage (22' x 22' )+ 1 unc. in driveway 16' -3" DH 95 SF on second story ERISTING 15' -0" N/A 13'-0" 2'-11" 114'-0" N/A 20.9 % (1597 SF) 1597 SF/ 20.9% FAR 2 covered in garage (18' x 25'-8") + 1 unc. in driveway 16'-3" N/A 831 Edgehill Drive ALLOWED/REQ'D 15' or block average 20' -0" 4' -0" 4'-0" 15'-0" 20' -0" 40 % (3059 SF) 3948 SF/ 51.6% FAR 1 covered in garage (10'-0" x 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway 30' /2 lh stories see code ENVELOPE: encroaches into DHE* *Variance required for Declining Height Envelope, and 95 SF encroach into DHE. ** Existing right side setback is non-conforming (2'-11"), but addition will meet required side setback (4'-0"). This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Janice Jagelski Planner c: Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant 2 .4r� CITY O . �R� CITY OF BU.RLIN��E ��.��:� J APPLICATION TO TI� p1,A►NNI�G COMIVIISSION Type of A�plication: Special Permit �ariance Other Project Address:_ 83 V� Assessor's Parcel Number(s): n 2 q- p2 �-. �q� APPLICANT Name:�,A..�1 b Y I� ry-IJ �-�-E � Address:__2.o S ��� �, �.�- �� City/State/Zip:� c�,� �. �� �M � �� �.p � o Phone (w): � S�-9 - �'�..� 2 (h): fa�c: r b S'a��� — O(1 -r'—� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER PROPERTY OWNER Name: Address: � �� � � City/State/Zip: $r�t2 (_��� GY9M6� � ,g; qgd/ Phone (w): ` ► S�� S�-6 -- 2 ��� (h): (�.sa 3 �- -- �- fax: 6.5� � -- `c�l C� `�' Name: �1�12,< ��'rt- I r� Address: ,�.�� b. S� 2c� City/State/Zip:� �,,2 r i� < M�',,�� 9o/O Phone (w):�so 5'�- o/ -. S�-. � Z �h� ; .._—� fa�c:�( ,c�a � 5'��1 - b� � 5 PROJECT DES CRIPTION: / s�' d- �� OCT - 6 1999 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. - /1��C,cJ Gr��� � AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to t e best o y lrnowledge and belief. � D Applicant's Signature Date I lrnow about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning mmission. '� � Pro y Owner's Signature Date ------------------------------------- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Filed:_ l o� Co �°l9 Fee: �' 2io . o 0 Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. RECEIVED Planning Commission: Study Date: Ackion Date: �'�``�,''��: October 5, 1999 Planning Commission Members City of Burlingame Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Commissioner, RECElV�� OCT - 6 1999 CITY OF BURLINGAN�E PLANNING DEPT. Attached please find the drawing package for a proposed second story addition to the residence at 831 Edgehill Drive. Although simple and straight forward in nature, the proposal does require a variance to the declining height envelope regulation. Given the conditions on and around the site, and the architectural ramifications associated with compliance, we feel that this variance is justified. Specifics for each required argument are given with the application. Here we will touch on a few of those as well as some additional points. We propose to improve over-all conditions by removing non-conforming structures. The existing, dilapidated garage is not buiit within the back 40% of the lot. We will be taking that garage down and replacing it with a functional, conforming structure at the back of the lot. The existing house is built less than 3 feet from one of the property lines. We would be removing part of that area, and rebuilding well within first floor setback limits. The intent of the ordinance will be maintained. Since there is a driveway along the neighboring properiy line, this proposal would have no daylight impacts on that neighbor. There would be no "canyon" effect, and much of the enlarged structure will be hidden by an existing row of trees. The proposed condition is consistent with the neighborhood as most of the nearby two story houses in the area have two story walls right at the set-back line. Conformance with the envelope will create a silly looking design. There is an existing chimney near the front of the house that must be extended to meet current building codes. If coupled with the wall offset required by the declining height envelope, it would leave us with a freestanding chimney tied back to the house with steel rods. The owner would like the architecture of the enlarged home to be consistent the existing architecture. The current home is a craftsman bungalow, and compliance with the height envelope will force us to forego that classic style. Given the narrowness of the existing structure, and the size of the required second floor offsets, one could not possibly conform to the ordinance and still design in the craftsman style. One would be forced into a design shaped by the ordinance itself. Within the house, there is only one reasonable location for the new stairs, and that happens to be along the wall in question. We have managed to incorporate a wall offset of one and one half feet into the stair design, but more than that is unrealistic. We believe that this proposal is logical and preferable to one that conforms to the declining height envelope. Additional offset of the second floor wall will not benefit the closest neighbor, will not be consistent with other nearby properties, and would not allow us to create a design that is consistent with the house and neighborhood. Thank you for considering our proposal, and we look forward to the hearing. S" erel Ran y Grange AIA 21 Dwighc Road, Burling�ime, CA )4010 GS0.57J.5762 Pax 650.579.U11� . ,� BURiJNGAME ���� �� �����I�II��n�j� u�� uriu � c' Maf����IC�C� �l�P����`��Oo �� �5 ,_,, . 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 followin g 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 ci�cumstances o� conditions app/icab/e to .you� property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. � E �. �-t�-r-�-c�-E� b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for 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. c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property o� improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or con venience. d. How wi// 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 T2J8z var.fm� , . TRG 9/30/1999 City of Burlingame Variance Application Attachment Property address: 831 Edgehill Dr Propery owner: Jim Baleix � c. a RECEIVED OCT - 6 1999 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Several existing conditions on the site make compliance with the declining height envelope unrealistic. First is the location ofthe existing chimney. We must extend the chimney to above the new roofline per building code requirements. An offset in the second floor at this location would leave us with a free-standing chimney supported back to the house with steel tie-rods. That would be an unsightly situation and incompatible with the architecture of the home. The second and third conditions affect the measurement of the envelope. The existing house sits almost four and a half feet above average grade below the house. The existing house is also built with a setback of less than three feet. These conditions, combined together, would force a very large offset for the second floor if we were to comply with the ordinance. The existing house is only about 25 feet wide (even less at the front). The resulting lopsided appearance would be incompatible with the architecture ofthis house and others in the neighborhood. We also have an existing plan in which there is only one decent location for a new stairway, and that happens to be on the wall in question. We have incorporated a 1 and '/2 foot offset into the stair design, but more than that is not possible. Most of the two story homes in the neighborhood are non-conforming (and to a greater degree) in terms ofthe declining height envelope. Denial ofthe proposal would mean that this property owner could nat build a project similar to others in the neighborhood. Strict conformance to the height envelope would force an odd architecture upon this property that others are not subject to. This proposal will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the area. The adjacent property has a driveway along the property line, and the structure there is set well back. Available sunlight to the adjacent property will be unaffected. Because this proposal retains the row of 20 foot tall trees along the property line, much of the addition will not even be seen. The proposal will have no impact on public health, safety, or convenience for this or other sites in the area. Conformance with the ordinance would have a negative impact on the general welfare of the community due to the resulting poor architecture it would force us to create. This proposal also includes the removal of a dilapidated non-conforming garage, and a portion of the non-conforming (in terms of setback) e�cisting house. This will have a positive impact on the welfare of the community. The proposal will be compatible with the aesthetics and character of the existing house. The existing house is of the "craftsman bungalow" style and that style is being retained. This style is also consistent with the neighborhood. Denial of the application would not allow us to maintain that aesthetic. The proposal is compatible with the mass and bulk of the neighborhood. Most of the two story structures along Edgehill Drive are nonconforming to a greater degree than this proposal. ?1 Dwight Road, Burlingame, CA )4010 650.579_57C2 Pxx 650.579.0115 ROUTING FORM DATE: October 7, 1999 TO: CITY ENGINEER �CHIEF BUII,DING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL _SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for declining height envelope variance for a first and second story addition at 831 Edgehill Drive, zoned R-2, APN: 029-021- 090. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMIVIISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 THANKS , Maureen/Janice/Ruben Date of Comments L � r��� z�'z e��l�S -� b� ����t��v� � � � � co �s��c oy. ���' � ` ►^�s(s �1 v� � �� 2 c �,.,�o-� �U�J � ez'�e5 ��S � �� � ���� r , r� v,I . P . J�Jp�� ✓�ear ��as�e�i � 6�O Up ✓�/ �! vt S C ( �D ROUTING FORM DATE: October 7, 1999 TO: �CITY ENGINEER _CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL _SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR _CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for declining height envelope variance for a first and second story addition at 831 Edgehill Drive, zoned R-2, APN: 029-021- 090. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 THANKS , Maureen/Janice/Ruben ���- � 3—�, Date of Comments `�-� v c o d��.�'� �� e_ c�.� S' c Lt. �'�-cx. i .e s�� � � � � 1 �a c�Ut- C� i � � � c�� e l.1-Y. i � � ✓ ( +% C.� - � � ..