Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121 Crescent Avenue - Staff ReportItem # 3 a Consent Calendar PROJECT LOCATION 121 Crescent Avenue Item # Consent Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope Address: 121 Crescent Avenue Meeting Date: 10/15/02 Request: Design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a lower floor, first and second story addition and new detached garage at 121 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040 and C.S 25.51.010) Applicant/Property Owner: Joe and Lisa Larratt Architect: Inglese Architecture, Ana Balarezo APN: 028-293-090 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 8,686 SF Date Submitted: July 17, 2002 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(2) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Summary: The proposal is for a lower floor, first and second —story addition at 121 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing one-story house contains 2,551 SF of floor area (0.29 FAR), including a detached one -car garage (220 SF), and lower floor area (286 SF). The applicant is proposing to expand the lower floor area by 177 SF from 286 SF to 463 SF. The remaining area under the first floor is crawl space with 4 feet of fill material, with no interior access door to this area. Since the finished floor above the basement is over 2 feet above grade, the area labeled basement doesn't not actually qualify as a basement and is considered a lower floor, therefore counted toward the overall floor area. The 492 SF first floor addition includes expanding a bedroom and adding a family room and covered porch at the rear. The 673 SF second floor addition would add a master bedroom suite, with a full bathroom, and walk-in closet. The proposed addition would increase the total floor area of the remodeled house to 4,209 SF (0.48 FAR), where,' 4,214 SF (0.48 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing one -car detached garage is 220 SF and would be demolished. A new single car garage 335 SF (25' 11" x 12' 11 ") would be constructed, which meets the parking requirement for this four bedroom house. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for a lower floor, first and second story addition; and • Special Permit for declining height envelope along the left side of the house where 72 SF (3'5" x 21' 1 V2") along the left side extends beyond the declining height envelope. PROPOSED EXISITING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS 27' 15' or block average Front: 1st flr No change 2nd flr 43' N/A 20' Side (left): No change 5, 5' Side (right): No change 13'6" 5' Rear: 1st flr 44' 63' 15' 2nd flr 90, N/A 20' LOT COVERAGE: 38.9% 28.4% 40% (3,384 SF) (2,471 SF) (3,474 SF) 1 Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope 121 Crescent Avenue PROPOSED EXISITING ALLOWED/REQ'D FAR: 4,209 SF/ 2,551 SF/ 4,214 SF/ 0.48 FAR 0.29 FAR 0.48 FAR PARKING. 1 covered .1 covered (220 SF) 1 covered (10' x 20') (12' 11" x 25' 11 ") + 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered HEIGHT. 29'41/2" 19' 10 %2" 2 %2 stories 30' whichever is less DHENVELOPE: 'Special Permit Required N/A See code 1 Special Permit for declining height envelope on left side 72 SF (315" x 21'1 1/211) along the left side extends beyond the declining height envelope. Staff Comments: See attached. There were no changes to the criteria reported in the table above since the September 23, 2002 design review study meeting. September 23, 2002 Design Review Study Meeting: On September 23, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed this project for design review and a special permit for declining height envelope (see attached 9/23/02 Planning Commission minutes). The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns to be addressed by the applicant and placed the project on the consent calendar for the next meeting: • would like to see centered design element on the second story of both side elevations to add interest, such as a bay window or gable with the appropriate treatment; • consider extending the shingles down towards the first floor on the side elevations to tie the two floors together; • the windows on the second story addition at the rear elevation look a bit crowded; • provide more details about the garage door and materials of the garage; it will be a visible element from the street and should be tied into the details of the house; and • more large-scale shrubs or medium scale trees are needed on the property for screening of the addition and can be added to the site plan. In response to the Commissions comments the applicant submitted revised plans date stamped October 2, 2002, and a written response noting the following changes that have been made: Right side elevation - second story window changes, 3 windows instead of 4, windows are now symmetrical above the first floor bedroom #1 window which was relocated - windows are placed in a shallow pop -out of stucco with arch bottom edge, inspired by the arch at the porte-cochere - window boxes added to two first floor widows - shingle siding has been carried down from the second floor to the base -band of stucco on the first floor. 2 Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope 121 Crescent Avenue Let side elevation .f _ and now pops -out slightly 6" bathroom window has been enlarged, p p g y ( ) - the first floor roof line has been altered slightly and the chimney profile has been refined in order to create more symmetry along this side elevation Rear elevation - second story center window has been simplified to only one arch -top window similar to the second story arch -top window on the front elevation - second story finish materials changed to a combination of stucco and shingles rather than solely stucco finish Garage - wood -plank style garage door added - wood shingle siding added above stucco base line on all four elevations of the garage Landscaping P g - two Camellia varietals have been added to each side of the main front window. Design g i n Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the j Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: l . Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; p Y tY 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 j 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 September 23 2002 , design review study meeting, the front and rear elevations are nicely done, and is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for garage length the Planning Commis sion must II find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; () proposed the project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. 3 Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope 121 Crescent Avenue Special Permit Findings for Declining Height Envelope: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission September 23, 2002 design review study meeting, that the proposed encroachment into the declining height envelope is not very large, and aligns the addition over the existing first floor and is consistent with the architectural character of the building; for these reasons the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed in Code Section 25.51.020a-d. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 2, 2002, Sheets A-1 through A-7 site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2. 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; 3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination an( installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall bi included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist and Chief Building Official's memos dated July 22, 2002 shall be met; and 8. 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 Barber Planner c: Ana Balarezo, Inglese Architecture, architect 4 DATE: TO: FROM: ROUTING FORM July 18, 2002. _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal 1ZRecycling . Specialist .Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first and second story addition and new detached garage at 121 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-090. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, July LL, "LOOL 3-Wavle an4 6Z�r 4o Ak-uj4-e-- Reviewed By. Date of Comments: DATE: July 18, 2002 TO:. _City Engineer ✓Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling -Specialist Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first and second story addition and new detached garage at 121 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-090. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, July 22, 2002 Ap.� Ec�o� v>t of �3 r1�j 7 �k�ozo w 6 Reviewed By: Date of Comments: `� D City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 23, 2002 6. 121 CRESCENT AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A LOWER FLOOR, FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOE AND LISA LARRATT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ANA BALAREZO, INGLESE ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Planner Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Mark Inglese, architect, was present to answer questions about the project. He noted that the existing porte cochere would be retained to add character to an otherwise uninteresting elevation at the front; one of the goals of the proposed design is to give the house articulation that it is currently lacking; Pittosporum shrubs will be planted in the rear yard to screen the addition. Commissioner asked for reasoning behind different style windows, three different exterior materials, and the narrow clear story windows along the left elevation. Architect responded that the mixed window types and exterior materials were traditional for Craftsman architecture and added variety to the existing house and proposed addition. The narrow windows along the left elevation were to provide light in the stairwell and breakfast area without having a view of the neighbor's house and yard. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that the front and rear elevations are nicely done, but the visual interest was not carried to the side elevations. Commission had the following concerns about the proj ect and asked the applicant to address these items: • would like to see centered design element on the second story of both side elevations to add interest, such as a bay window or gable with the appropriate treatment; • consider extending the shingles down towards the first floor on the side elevations to tie the two floors together; • the windows on the second story addition at the rear elevation look a bit crowded; • provide more details about the garage door and materials of the garage; it will be a visible element II from the street and should be tied into the details of the house; and • more large-scale shrubs or medium scale trees are needed on the property for screening of the j addition and can be added to the site plan. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Kei hran called for a vote on the motion to lace this item on the consent calendar when plans had g p been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:04 p.m. j. 8 10-03-202 2.04PM FROM BARTOL ATELIER 415+9862815 P 1 a architecture Inglese Architecture 18 Bartol Alley San Francisco, CA, 94133 Tel 415.391.0186 Fax 415.986.2815 NOTES: Dear Ms. Brooks: _ 121 Crescent Avenue 10/3/02 JOB NAME/ DATE: Maureen Brooks/Catherine Won ATTENTION: COMPANY: 501 Primrose Road ADDRESS: Burlingame, (;A 94010 660 696 3790 FAX NUMBER: (1) NUMBER OF PAGES: (INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET) I have submitted the 10 sets of revised drawings with changes reflecting comments made during the Plan- ning Commission meeting last month. I feel that the revised design is better and' appreciate the feedback. The following is my written response to comments contained in the memo of September 24th, as well as comments I remember from the meeting itself. 1. Both side elevations have been changed to unify the facades. and add visual interest. a. The right side elevation has been changed so that the -windows at the second. level (3 instead of 4) are now symmetrical about a relocated window below at the first level. I also brought shingle siding down to a base -band of stucco at the first.level. ,The 3 upper windows are now placed in a shallow'pop-out of stucco with a shallow arch"bottom edge inspired by the arch at the porte-cochere. Window boxes ,have also been added to two of the lower windows. b. The left side elevation -has been changed so. that the: entire two-story section is a fairly symmetrical whole. The -upper level bathroom window has been enlarged and placed in a shallow pop -out. The roof line below has been altered for the sake of symmetry and the chimney profile has been refined. 2. See item #1. 3. The.rear;elevation upper windows have been simplified to include only the arching portion that mirrors the window in the opposing facade: I think'this change will be much more pleasing in the interior as well. l have also changed the upper level facade materials to a'combination of shingles and stucco. 4. The Garage .has been changed to have a wood -plank style garage door, and wood shingle siding above.the stucco base line. 5. The discussion at the meeting regarding trees or shrubs was addressed to the front street presentation as.i remember. We have proposed a.grouping of two Camellia varietals at each side of the main .front window. These shrubs will grow to or:past the.eave line of the front. roof and elegantly set-off the the front facade. Thank you again for your time. TRANSMITTAL. ■ I&AAovo City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org CITY GA 6URLIMCiAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review_ Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: IV LKSC-r,-NT AVE- P(n124,INUA'ME 1 GA 41-01 o APPLICANT Name: � 0�, & U SA (AEP-ATT Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): (f): PROPERTY OWNER Name: � 0 E Address: 12.1 64S6.E6NT AV5 City/State/Zip: OV14AIV&AME/ GA/ l4-010 Phone (w): (050 "& — 01ii°l (h): (650) 3q-2- �D 1 l (fl (650 ARCHITECTIDESIGNER Name: MA12K- C-O- li /*AtVA VA'MF-f--'t0* Address: I & J fA Q-To 1, S�6 T City/State/Zip: Li. 6A / `l q' 133 Phone (w): 0:15) 3 11 - D 1 S (- (h): (fl:_ ) 986 - 2815 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. RECEIVED JUL 1 7 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, R5T evraXI 1ZENo V,ATioN 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 belief. Applicant's signature: Date: ^� l 7 Z-- I know about the proposed appli i tion and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Cot c ission. ------ Property owner's signature Date: V Date submitted: 0t 1 d 2- PCAPP.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.or¢ ��l CITY CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. L Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. f 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint ofany new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the cty's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. SPECPERMIRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org L Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics ofneighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the propos,d new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood. How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city? Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet these guidelines? 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for • - • 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 S. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are protected under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so. SPECPERM.FRM City of Burlingame Special Permit Application 121 Crescent Avenue 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the street and neighborhood. • The existing structure at 121 Crescent Avenue is a one-story residence which does not have the volume required for a family of four. The proposed partial second story will provide space for a master bedroom and bathroom that the home urgently needs. The neighboring residence to the right of the property in question is a two-story structure and has a basement, this is also the case for the structure to the rear. A one-story structure with a basement occupies the property to the left, this property also has a two -car detached garage in its rear yard that includes a second story apartment unit above. • The proposed second story addition at 121 Crescent Avenue will occur towards the front of the existing house in order to relate to the neighboring property to the left, which includes a relatively high gabled roof on its front fagade. Locating the addition towards the front will also give the property more street appeal, something the clients have expressed a desire for. • The creation of a new rear porch will greatly improve the articulation of the structure's rear fagade and;will provide for a family outdoor area adjacent to the family room inside. • In regard to the declining height envelope encroachment that is visible from the front of the new addition, it is the architect's opinion that, placing the new upstairs sidewall in line with the existing first floor sidewall is necessary to create a balanced and coherent addition to the property. The architect also feels that moving the sidewall in, towards the interior of the residence, would not only be structurally problematic but would also greatly injure the appearance of the addition from the street. 2. Explain how the variety of roofline, fagade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. The proposed roof types at the residence at 121 Crescent Avenue will be consistent with the existing ones. New gable roofs will be added to cover the second story addition as well as to create a roofed back porch. The new gable roofs will be of the same pitch as those that currently exist. The front and rear fagades will be greatly improved: front steps will be added and the home's entry will be reoriented to make the front door visible from the street, and, the new back porch structure will enliven and bring relief to a relatively blank rear fagade. Exterior finish materials will be similar to those that exist on the structure and those on neighboring properties: stucco on the exterior walls, wood windows with divided lights, and wood trims of bungalow style. The existing built-up roof will be entirely replaced with either fire -rated wood or composition shingles. A few wall areas will be accented with the use of slender wood and shingle siding.. 3. How will the project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city? • The clients at 121 Crescent Avenue have expressed an interest in bungalow style structures of the past It is the architect's opinion that bringing such character to their residence and to the neighborhood is sensible, and that this style is quite compatible with other styles being developed in the surrounding area. • The project will maintain a detached single -car garage at the rear of the properly which will maintain the quality of open space between the residence at 121 Crescent Avenue and the its neighbor to the right. • It is the architects intent to propose a project that is largely consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city. City Council should easily observe how the project meets the strategies for neighborhood compatibility. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. • No trees will be removed as a result of this proposal. RECEIVED; AUG 2 9 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 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 special permit for declining height envelope to construct a lower floor, first and second story addition to a single family dwelling and a new detached at 121 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, Joseph and Lisa Larratt, property owners, APN: 028-293-090; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 15, 2002, 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: 15301 Class 1(e)(2) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. 2. Said design review and special permit for declining height envelope are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. I, Ralph Osterling, 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 15th day of October, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, and special permit. 121 Crescent Avenue effective October 21, 2002 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 2, 2002, Sheets A-1 through A-7 site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2. 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; 3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist and Chief Building Official's memos dated July 22, 2002 shall be met; and 8. 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 # DSR Study Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope Address: 121 Crescent Avenue Meeting Date: 9/23/02 Request: Design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a lower floor, first and second story addition and new detached garage at 121 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040 and C.S 25.51.010) Applicant/Property Owner: Joe and Lisa Larratt Architect: Inglese Architecture, Ana Balarezo APN: 028-293-090 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 8,686 SF Date Submitted: July 17, 2002 Zoning: R-1 Summary: The proposal is for a lower floor, first and second —story addition at 121 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing one-story house contains 2,551 SF of floor area (0.29 FAR), including a detached one -car garage (220 SF), and lower floor area (286 SF). The applicant is proposing to expand the lower floor area by 177 SF from 286 SF to 463 SF. The remaining area under the first floor is crawl space with 4 feet of fill material, with no interior access door to this area. Since the finished floor above the basement is over 2 feet above grade, the area labeled basement doesn't not actually qualify as a basement and is considered a lower floor, therefore counted toward the overall floor area. The 492 SF first floor addition includes expanding a bedroom and adding a family room and covered porch at the rear. The 673 SF second floor addition would add a master bedroom suite, with a full bathroom, and walk-in closet. The proposed addition would increase the total floor area of the remodeled house to 4,209 SF (0.48 FAR), where 4,214 SF (0.48 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing one -car detached garage is 220 SF and would be demolished. Anew single car garage 335 SF (25' 11" x 12' 11 ") would be constructed, which meets the parking requirement for this four bedroom house. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for a lower floor, first and second story addition; and • Special Permit for declining height envelope along the left side of the house where 72 SF (3'5" x 21' 1 '/2") along the left side extends beyond the declining height envelope. PROPOSED EXISITING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front: 1st flr No change 27' 15' or block average 2nd flr 43' N/A 20' Side (left): No change 5' 5' Side (right): No change 1356" 5' Rear: 1st flr 44' 63 15, 2nd flr 90, N/A 20' LOT COVERAGE: 38.9% 28.4% 40% (3,384 SF) (2,471 SF) (3,474 SF) FAR: 4,209 SF/ 2,551 SF/ 49214 SF/ 0.48 FAR 0.29 FAR 0.48 FAR PARKING: 1 covered 1 covered (220 SF) 1 covered (10' x 20') (12'11" x 25'11") + 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope 121 Crescent Avenue PROPOSED EXISITING ALLOWED/REQ'D HEIGHT: 29'4 %2" 19' 10 %2" 2 V2 stories 30' whichever is less DHEIWELOPE: 'Special Permit Required NSA See code 1 Special Permit for declining height envelope on left side 72 SF (3'5" x 21' 1 V2") along the left side extends beyond the declining height envelope. Staff Comments: See attached. Catherine Keylon Planner c: Ana Balarezo, Inglese Architecture, architect CITY o, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT eu4' �e 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 121 CRESCENT AVENUE Application for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a lower floor, first and second story additions at 121 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 028-293-090) The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on.Monday, September 23, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed September 13, 2002 (Please refer to other side) A copy of the a to the meeting Burlingame, Cal If you cha raising on described at or prior Property o tenants A 558-7250. Margaret A City Planner PU (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE limited to is hearing, to the city b1 "or'i orming their io ple e call (650)