The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About260 Crescent Avenue - Staff Report� � � \i 1`-��'1ap'i.�, !��D,� �a,E( � , .. � t`� 1�✓ �� / ,'P�' 4i ,� � �`� � � • � �il� '�, i ;,j. ',� ' � P.v .�" "` . k • Cw�:d•� �� q � �i� �Si �I � �/ � , ��`' � '.';� �'�7j � �� .�� `�'J�• f � �` '�� •,��.`..K��, , 'R~r� ei.i`��^�� 7•. r�M9 �t�p � r � , � � ,, t• � � ��j.S-�� `�il/�!� ��s_��,�� D /~��"� f �� ,�� 1�� r ` � a' s e d � ;>. �. �,�'"> �,�� `A� '��I;.`�� '� `� � . `�,�� ,��, '� � � T� 1 �� y f ' � �� w�.�it��`y �,f �:,�1 \ ��', �� !� � �,�1{ "" '� j �� '� � � � � / � �r+� . i� 1 � � � � �•`�'"� �.1� ��F ?��ir�� G"°� �4��.ti�. � .` _� t�' �.: 'e�' r �.. ,��j �, • � � ` eC ,�� a ; ,'�,•�" -'� _ �li:�� °� .',, c;, 's � .t ..'�"l+ � i i � ,�l� . � 1=� `�\ ,. �.'� "' .��`f"� �~ �� 1' �>ai1 1. el� � .6�5 � � 'kk � �� {T�i✓ �t . ~ �, i '� �j ';�� :. ' � L 3Y. �'c ��\ '"=„*J `� � N�!�o' 5:�,�� i� �. "�;i'?� d♦r :_'� ,��_,� •j. �� ., ,� `\ { � , . -�� •. � �, � �� .. '� ,r�'� �6 • r� �B� .,y�:` �r �. �':+. � 4�� `-w ,, � j.= ; �i k; ,�,�.� ,��,, ��,1. � �� `�... f ��i� "� +`g '�.k �:��- ;F•• t� ; � �1 - ` ', ;: ;y t A� �,;�. �;;F��ljl�"� � z+-� �� S!! �1 ;�1 v`�t� �, �'�`"':s.. _ r �\.��s� �ti• ,x�-,as- - �:� fs�.y��/�� sT�! -`ti�,43%'L.,�;� , l�� . sr�1 ``. � � �t��,�j.�� .. �� }.'-{' .: ;"� I ''S,.U�.x.+-b',�^ � . � _.s� - 1 �♦��J..�. .�� .��r,�`" ��'!'"` � P�4_s �� _ , `.� '��ai � '`��'SMf .'�Yr �F`. r �_.� � { �f � < <-,�'-�' ,� — �� . �-,� � -' w. �,� -:{� "` �' ,` ��. i �.�,�"�. � .` �'rc�T� / R��ji�. � �! �# � � . ::� � � �y. ,"_� - �� z - �� r� ,� ;[��' �_r '��/ � �' �a : � � k i � v . 4�.ti��•.i 7 -'� a'"-.=.:1� i► • ;y V ��,:. I Y `.� ;rrp�. _.i. - i_ �t � � S . � ��,��i �r�':�i�Vs-��/ AE � �� ' _ i ^r � � r -. i� Y �.ia cs� !�i 1.�. � I ._t .�t��. ' �� r ��; j�� '-.�� f �i1��+rt� r�;:g �� /�: « � , � ,� ; ::e��, , e � . ' r=? l��a�rFg� T ��%��1, � �� , - �;,��`� 1��'�l�. �r... ..,.. �t t�` q-- r 1 � / t �� Y ? .� ��'i'!'� � l ."_' 1 _ . I . � � . -Y /�_ ^i j �.,f.h,.a y Z'O�W�' y..- .- i��= .�.,¢l.,A��•r•yr,i,,« +ti o'�,� �.^'+.... .c r.c'r� ,r�;�J; . �� i��r62°1�-�vv-a+w��_�M+e� �i-�".�i : .. . ' "�.�.�� iyP. �A' ,�i.,k'li K� t � ^k'VS�ss'!+'^ L �O . ,_.aee., 3" ..�r. . b+�+--•� - -'w�� i ^ - �.....ry, -�'`S .+-� a' �',r-Xa^^;j,:aa.n.+iD - -.� � '�� . � .- .' ' " -.� :.. = _ . _. �' . .:�.' _ "� -Y' •.r-.-..-. ...-+..+. �."'�r"-�y�`�-' . v ^,a. ' 4- . ' . . � y.��i . . .�.-� , . � -. .. „ .. . . .. .',y*.�. 4:..: �_{�+».rn�. <<h3 ,i �.i.�� . ..� «. . . �';`. , _ _� � i IT City of Burlingame Variances and Design Review Address: 260 Crescent Avenue Meeting Date: 4/26/99 Request: Setback, lot coverage and floor area. ratio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand living area. into an eacisting basement level, and a side setbacl� variance for a new detached garage at 260 Crescent Avenue. Project is subject to design review. Applicant: Tony Brandi APN: 028-286-110 Property Owner: 7ose Montes Lot Area: 3,134 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construetion 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: This project was submitted to the Planning Department after October 23, 1998 and was reviewed under the R-1 District Regulations now in effect. History: At their March 22, 1999 action meeting, the Planning Commission denied this project without prejudice with speciiic direction that the decking at the front and rear be removed, that 81 SF be removed from the detached garage, and that the concrete wa11 be extended to keep water out of the staarway (Mazch 22, 1999 P.C. Minutes). The applicant revised the plans to comply with Commission's direction and resubmitted the revised project for review at the April 12, 1999 Planning Commission action meeting. At their April 12, 1999 action meeting; the Planning Commission continued this project with direction that the detached garage be increased in size to 309 SF (13' x 23'-9") as originally proposed, that all windows be upgraded from sliding aluminum to wood frame, and that the shape of windows on the front facade be revised to include diamond and rectangular windows as originally proposed (April 12, 1999 P.C. Minutes). The Commission suggested that the revised project be brought back on the consent calendar. The staff report from the March 22 and April 12, 1999, Planning Commission action meetings axe also attached for your review. This 3,134 SF site has a creek located along the right side property line. In February, 1998, the creek damaged a section of the house wall during a release of water from the Crystal Springs dam. A building permit was issued in February, 1998, for temporary shoring of the basement wall along the creek. In December, 1998, a building permit was issued to upgrade/reinforce the foundation. The applicant is now applying to expand living area into an e�sting basement and add uncovered decking to the main floor. r + 1 Variances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue This lot is irregularly shaped, substandazd in size (3,134 SF) and measures 59.75' wide and only 53.5' deep at its longest dimensions. The average size of the sunounding lots in the area is 7, 600 �SF (50' x 152'). The lot slopes downward into the creek from left to right approximately 8'-4". Approximately 10% of the lot is within the creek bed (measured to top of bank). Resubmitted Project: The applicant followed Commission's direction and submitted revised plans date stamped April 19, 1999 for a three bedroom house. The revised plans show the proposed detached gazage increased in size to 309 SF (13' x 23'-9") as originally proposed, all windows upgraded from sliding aluminum to wood vinyl coated double-pane casement windows, and the shape of windows on the front facade were revised to include diamond and rectangular windows as originally proposed. With the revisions, the project requires the following variances: • Front setback variance for new second floor decking (11'-2" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 b,3). The applicant has removed the semi-circular decking at the front of the house. In the previous proposal, the deck at the front had a 5'- 2" setback where 11'-2" is now proposed. • Rearsetback va�iance for new second floor decking (6'-0" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required)(C5 25.28.072 d,2). The decking at the rear has been removed. In the previous proposal, the deck at the front had a 1'-0" setback ,where 6'-0" is now proposed. The exisring rear wall of the house is 4'-2" from property line, this condition is not changed. . • Side setback variance for new second floor decking (5'-0" proposed where 6'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 c, l). The applicant reconfigured the decking along the creek side of the house to form one long deck where he had proposed two separate decks before. The setback of the new continuous deck varies from as close as 5'-0" at the middle of the deck to 6'-6" at the ends. In the previous proposal, the two decks had 4'-0' side setbacks. • Lot coverage variance required (52.6%, 1651 SF proposed where 40%, 1254 SF is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.065). Lot coverage has been reduced by 41 SF (net reduction of 41 SF in decking). The decking at the front and rear of the house was removed (94 S�, but the applicant reconfigured, merging the two decks and filling in the gap between the decking along the side of the house which added approximately 44 SF to the deck in the side yazd. The new decking totals 152 SF, while in the previous proposal the decking totaled 193 SF (41 SF net reduction). • Floor area mtio variance required based on the size of the house for 2,182 SF (.7 FAR) where 2,103 SF (.67 FAR) is the maximum allowed (CS 25.28.070, b). For interior lots with detached gazages, the code allows 2,103 SF at this site [(. 32 x 3134) + 1100 SF] for the house, plus up to 400 SF for the detached garage. The applicant is also proposing a new 309 SF detached garage. The proposed deta.ched garage complies because it is less � � Yariances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue than 400 SF. The variance is for the house which exceeds the maximum allowable floor area for the single family dwelling. The total FAR proposed is .8 (2514 SF) (ma�cimum allowed is .8 (2503 SF); so based on the total FAR a variance is now required for 11 SF. • Side setback variance required for a new detached garage located forward of the rear 40 % of the length of the lot line (0'-6" proposed where 6'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.073 2,d,2). . • Design review for new uncovered decking on the second floor (CS 25.57.010). Redesigns of Apri15 and April 19, 1999 were not reviewed by design reviewer: Summary: The existing house is single story along the left side property line and two story along the right side property line. Because more than one-half of the existing basement wall height is above grade, the basement is considered a story. Therefore, the existing main floor (at street level) is considered a second floor. The addition of the uncovered decking is on the second floor and therefore subject to design review. From the front at street level, the proposed decking appears to be on the ground level: The existing house now contains 1,263 SF of floor area. and has three potential bedrooms. There is also a 310 SF detached single car gazage, for a total floor area of 1,573 SF (.50 FAR). The applicant is proposing to remove 73 SF at the rear of the house. This section of the house was built on the rear property line. The applicant is also proposing to expand living area into an existing basement which would include a bedroom, bathroom and family room (992 SF). The total number of bedrooms is not being changed and will remain at three. The proposed family room does not qualify as a potential bedroom. The total floor area proposed on the site is 2,182 SF plus a 309 SF detached garage (.8 FAR). Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (December 30, 1998 memo) that all lot and roof drainage shall be addressed and brought to the public street. A property survey will be required at the time of building pernut submittal for the proposed detached garage and shall be completed by a licensed land surveyor. The Chief Building Official notes (December 22, 1998 memo) that FEMA flood plain requirements sha11 be verified at time of building permit submittal. There were no additional comments. PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front: 1 st flr: no change 9' -2" 15' 2nd flr: *11'-2" 9'-2" 20'-0" �? : � i trariances and Design Reveew Side (le, ft): Side (right): Rear: 1 st flr: 2nd flr: LOT COVERAGE: FAR PROPOSED no change *5 � �� no change *6' -0" *52.6% (1;651 SF) EXISTING 18'-0" 10'-0" 4'-2" 0'-0" 50.1 % (1,573 SF) 260 Cre�ent �lvenu� ALLOWED/REQ'D 6'-0" 6'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 40 % (1,254 SF) House: *2,182 SF (.7 FAR) 1,263 SF (.4 FAR) 2,103 SF (.67 FAR) Detached Garage: 309 SF (.1 FAR) 310 SF (.1 FAR) 400 SF (.13 FAR) Total FAR: 2514 SF (.8) 1,573 SF (.5 FAR) 2,503 SF (.8 FAR) PARKING: 1 covered 1 covered 1 covered (12' x 23') (10' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered � (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') HEIGHT: no chang� 20' -10" 30' /2 lfi stories DH ENVELOPE: complies N/�4 see code * Setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand living area into an existing basement level, and a side setback variance for a new detached garage. This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Findings for Setback, Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio Variances The setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances shall be approved based upon the following findings: 1. that exceptional circumstances e�st on this property which do not apply to other properties in the area; the lot is irregularly shaped, substandard in size (3134 SF) and measures 59.75' wide and only 53.5' deep at its longest dimensions and approximately 10% of the site is located within a creek. The average lot size of the surrounding properties is approximately 7,600 SF; 2. that because the lot is presently developed, substandard in size, virtually square in shape, and has a creek located along the right side property line which reduces the buildable area on the lot to 90%, granting variances for setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratio is necessary for the preservation and continued safe use of the house and prevents unnecessary hardship caused by potential flooding; n � : Variances and Design Review 260 Crescent Avenue 3. that because the lot slopes downward into the creek approximately 9'-4" below the street level, the proposed deck addition on the second floor, which is at street level, will have little additional impact on the adjacent properties separated by the creek bank vegetation and the remodel proposed to the house will be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood as determined by design review; and 4: that the proposed deck addition is consistent with the existing architectural style and period of the house, and provides useable yazd space on this unusual lot which by virtue of its size and sha.pe has little useable outdoor space; and therefore, is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. �ndings for Design Review: Based on the comments of the design reviewer's analysis of the project as summarized in the staff report and in the memo da.ted February 18, 1999, the project has been found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review guidelines. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative 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 April 19, 1999 Sheets A-1 and A-2 with a 309 SF (13' x 23'-9") detached gazage; 2. that any changes to the footprint or floor area. of the residential structure or accessory structure or addition of accessory structures including decking shall require an amendment to this permit; . 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding, enlazging or changing the shape of a window(s), deck(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4. that . the City Engineer's December 30, 1998 memo and the Chief Building Official's December 22, 1998 memo shall be met; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Zoning Technician c: Tony Brandi, applicant 5 . 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999 Chairman Deal opened the public hearing.. tocker, 1522 Carlile Drive, San Mateo was present representing the applicant. He comm d he would answer any questions; thought only other signage besides blade signs might be 3 d s on windows. The public hearing was closed. Commission Comment : there has been some confusion about this ication which has been clarified by understanding t size and measurement of the Banana Re ic blade signs; do not like having only one blade sig ff-set from the center of the facade, pr two like Banana Republic; size of signage has been nfirmed, do not feel it was lopsided, en many stores with one blade sign, the color is elega and program simple, do not want t' crease size exception. �: Luzuriaga moved approval of e application based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in e staff reports, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the signs shall be installed as s wn on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 16, 1999 and ' accordance with the proposed signage table in the Planning Commission's April 12, 1999 staff port; 2) that any increase in the number or size of signs on the primary frontage, includin easonal advertising signs mounted on the window all require an amendment to this sign ' n; 3) that all future sign programs on this site all have the same black and white color s eme; and 4) that the project shall meet all the re ' ements of the municipal code and of the 1995 edition California Building and Fire Codes as ended by the City of Burlingame. i e motion was seconded by C. Key. C irman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES TO ADD NEW UNCOVERED DECKING SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND TO EXPAND INTO AN EXISTING BASEMENT, AND A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AT 260 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (ANTONIO M. BRANDI, APPLICANT AND JOSE AND MARIA MONTES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (RESUBMITTAL OF PROJECT DEIVIED WITHOUT PREJIJDICE) Reference staff report, 4.12.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. In her review of the staff report the city planner noted that there was a minor code interpretation issue in this application, the FAR formula includes a bonus for a detached garage, if the garage is smaller can the remaining square footage be shifted to the FAR of the house. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Toni Brandi, 942 Larch, South San Francisco, represented � the applicant, objective is to make the house better, they are removing 73 SF at the rear of the structure and reduced the garage by 79 SF, feel that at 10' by 20' they won't be able to open the garage doors fully, would prefer a 12 foot width, could do that without changing the design of the �structure. Kathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands, Christo�her Andrews, 1524 Cypress spoke: glad to see this house purchased after the flood, it is charming, sold at a more affordable price because there was some restriction on what can be done because of the lot; am concerned about the addition of a bedroom in the basement, this is the area which flooded, concerned about the safety of a child who might be sleeping there in the future; the house was built in a cottage style with diamond windows on the front, the proposed windows look as if they came from Home Depot, hope they keep the deck at the front it maintains the scale of the house, the balconies prop�sed do not; agree that this house is valuable to the -5- �_ i Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April I2, I999 neighborhood and the lot limits what can be done; the neighborhood associates with this house because of its close linkage to the creek; looked at the plans and this was referred to as a Cape Cod house, in my opinion half round windows do not suit this part of Burlingame, prefer to see a cottage style with eight panes over one or eight panes over two for windows. The architect for the project responded: the existing windows in the cottage are too small, code requires that they be increased, have done this by combining two by removing the middle post, added rounded windows to try to modernize the appearance of the house some. There were no further comments from the floor and the public ttearing was closed. Commissioners comment: do not feel that it was the intent of the detached garage incentive to aIlow any extra garage square footage to be added to the house, so should look at the FAR of the house against the formula without the detached garage include; see the code differently, reduce the size of the garage so that total FAR complied and a variance was avoided; feel the same, looking at total FAR not house and garage; favor the project, modi�ed as we requested, this is a substandard lot, agree could make the garage 12 wide; concerned about the windows, they are all aluminum sliders, prefer a better quality wood frame window in keeping with the house's appearance; agree about windows; this is a unique lot, a left over piece, done a good job within the limitations; no rear yard so side deck over creek serves that purpose and therefore is necessary; willing to increase size of the garage to original size with the laundry, it would still blend in. � C. Coffey moved approval of the variance and design review requests based on the restrictions on construction caused by the idiocrasies of the lot, by resolution, with the staff conditions I to 5 including the following changes to conditions that the garage be permitted as originally submitted and that the windows be upgraded from sliding aluminum to wood frame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: the windows have changed from the original plan (dated February 11, 1999) to this one, the �rst plan had a diamond window it was changed to an octagonal and others were changed from square to hemispherical, prefer the original window placement; agree the February 11 facade was preferable, looks less like it came from Home Depot; can we amend the motion to include approval of the facade as shown on sheet A-2 of the February 11 plans except without the decking shown; applicant could resubmit, can apply for a building permit just � can't pull the permit until approved. Reopened the public hearing: asked the azchitect about using original plans; when discussed the revisions with the City Planner she said that revised plans should show what applicant wants to do; diamond window is in a closet, there is no reason for it to be there, he likes round windows, if prefer can put a square window in the attic area, not trying to slip changes by the commission. Did not think you were. The public hearing was closed. C. Coffey withdrew his motion. Made a new motion to continue this item to the next meeting; asked that the applicant submit a new site plan with a new garage footprint and revised front facade; the changes should be brought back on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. _ Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue with direction. The motion passed 7- 0. The continuation is not appealable since there was no action on the requested exceptions to the zoning code. � � M • � t f�' of BurlinBame Ptaruw+8 Commtssion M»u�tes motion was seconded by G. I�ey. On t motion: at first the front elevation loo kwar a sense what a pedestrian will see, the property is u a� indeed create a sition; try to create some privacy for reason for exceptio was structural integrity of buildin important to know t at there are better and more val confirmed that the gl s block, except for the bathroc removed from the plans ited in this approval, and were March 22, 1999 , but the computer montage provides iinst the apartment b' ding and does �s site in design; applica stated that first floor over second floo walls, l reasons for the exceptions. CA �window, and skylights had been a part of this approval. Chairman Deal called for a oice vate c�n the motion to approve. �motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advise _ APPLICATION FOR SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES TO ADD NEW UNCOVERED DECKING SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND TO EXPAND INTO AN EXISTING BASEMENT, AND A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AT 260 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (ANTONIO M. BRANDI, APPLICANT AND JOSE AND MARIA MONTES, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 3.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. City Attorney noted that the city does not recommend building decks over creeks as is requested by this applicant. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Tony Bandi, architect, representing the owner spoke. He noted that they are not adding any square footage to the building, they are changing the garage to increase the yard area; it is unfortunate that the main floor is called a second story because the decks then cause a lot of lot coverage; the house had a deck over the full extension of the creek, it decayed and fell down; submitted pictures to the design reviewer, they are trying to enhance the appearance of the property; the deck at the front is not an appendage, it is a continuation of the deck on the side. Commissioner asked if all the windows would be replaced and what kind, will replace with sliders, no divicred mullions, would be windows by the new front entrance; there would be French doors on the creek side; commissioner noted have decking at the rear where CBC will require one hour construction for fire protection, how will you address, build of heavy timber or cut back so meet fire requirement, hoped it could be grand fathered since deck was there before. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: have a problem with the decks, aesthetically reminds me of a summer place, not fit in with other houses on the block, am opposed; also concerned about decks over creeks, the garage is all right; unique lot, left over from other development years ago, no land and little cottage, have to help so that they have a livable structure; the deck over the creek is their yard; realize circumstances, hard to get livable area, this is a good effort, hard to judge this project on current code; concerned about creek next to the house, small lot but not crowded, � s ,� ( ' Ciry of Burlingnme Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 have adequate space; saw no yard at rear, deck may not fit into neighborhood but it enhances the house, this is a 3100 SF lot without a rear yard; concerned about the FAR, this project is over the maximum by 81 SF, FAR formula provides a benefit to smaller lots, and still exceed, so cannot support FAR variance, can take 81 SF from garage and comply; 81 SF could be added to the rear yard; see no reason for the deck at the front and need to remove the deck at the rear because of code requirements, side deck over creek is all right since need some useable area, if remove front and rear deck extensions would reduce lot coverage to about 51 % and eliminate FAR variance, see the hardship for the other variances. Chairman Deal moved to deny this application, without prejudice, and directed that the decking at the front and rear be removed, that 81 SF be removed from the garage so that a variance for floor area ratio was no longer necessary. The motion was seconc�ed by C. Key. Cornment on the motion: suggest that it be clear that the area removed riot be added someplace else on the site; concerned about the elevation of the outside door to the lower level, door is 16" above the standard flow in the ereek, need to continue the wall in front of the door to keep water out in a flood. Chairman Deal noted that a direction be added to require that the concrete wall be extended to keep water out of the stairway and that this project, with the proposed revisions, can be brought back on the consent calendar, C. Key the second agreed to the changes to the motion. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice with direction The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FO OT COVERAGE VARI ' CE FOR A FIRST AND SE OND FLOOR ADDITION SUBJ CT TO DESIGN REVIE AT 1420 CASTILLO AVEN , ZONED R=1. SCOTT WYN APPLICANT AND KA N AND DAN MCGEE PRO ERTY OWNERS Reference aff report, 3.22.99, with ttachments. City Planner an Commission discussed, reviewe criteria and Planning De artment comments. Four con itions were suggested for consid ation. There were no q stions of staff. C irman Deal opened the p lic hearing. Scott Wynn, 178 gbert Ave. , San Francisco and an McGee spoke. Desig review comments were favora e. Does the commission have any questions. Commissione s asked, would you explain the ole of the skylights in the ventilatio system, use skylights t draw stagnate, warm air up out of the house; would you cons' er tinting the skylights reduce night glare, yes it wou also reduce solar load; upper bat oom has three small op ' gs are these windows, yes pl shows as 6" elevation as 12" t y are to let light .in to th bathroom during the day, the iew is poor from this area. Th e were no further comm ts from the floor and the publi earing was closed. , C. Coffey noted that the design review o this project was favorable, c support, the lot coverag is 44 % but a lot of that is dec on this steep lot and not offe ive to any one; the detach d garage should be considered nce it is something commissio encourages people to -10- m G�tj' aj'&u'lingarae Plannfng Comr�rskm Minurea �• M�rch 8, 1999 STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBA ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN ARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY EW AT 2308 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (JOHN ND PROPERTY OWNERS) �P Monroe summarized th project briefly and the Commissioners asked: does the .66 FAR indicated in the staff ort include the accessory structure to be removed; how much landscaping is being 1 t at the rear of the house by being covered by the addition. There were no further question and the item was set for public hearing on March 22, 1999, providing all the information ' into the Planning Department in time. � APPLICAT N FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE D PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST ND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJ TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1411 GROV AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MICHAE HACON, APPLICANT AND JOHD� CP Monroe summarized the project brie and the Commissioners asked: this �ect is mostly new construction, what would be the e ects of adhering to required setbacks • ans show several skylights, can this number be red ed or can they be concealed from street; would like a picture of the garage with the or open, can two cars be parked i e garage, also show in a picture; could engineering te, commission when the sidewalk r ir is scheduled for this area, the driveway apron for tYy�'s srte is very wide; would like the icinity map in the staff report at a larger scale, cannot rx�'ad; there is a lot of glass block i his building, it commences to make the structure look i�iuman, could the applicant use mdows with curtains instead; have the Chief Building I�s�ector confirm that the propose terior stairs meet the CBC, if not altering them could af�t the design and should be a ressed before action. There were no further questions a the item was set for publi earing on March 22, 1999, providing all the informat' n is into the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND SETBACK VARIANCES FOR FRONT ENTRY . �AND DECK ADDITIONS AND A NEW SINGL'E-CAR GARAGE SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 260 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (ANTONIO M. BRANDI, APPLICANT AND JOSE AND MARIA MONTES PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe summarized the project briefly and the Commissioners asked: what is the condition of the creek at this time, the minimum flow line and the mean water line; is applicant aware that there is currently a lot of silt in the creek and it may not be as deep as he thinks, what does the applicant know about the current conditions of the creek; need a more detailed drawing showing the existing and proposed elevations; there is a laundry area shown in the garage, add dimensions for this area on the plans; has the basement area flooded in the past, will the potential of flooding affect its use; can the size of the garage be reduced to eliminate 81 SF and take away one exception; explain the reasons for the side deck, concerned about the privacy of -2- � 1 ,. , (� Df B(tfi�ll�,Glfi2 P�Q/JI1�7i8 `OfJ)I17JSS�lH{ i��7lGlFS Mnrch 8, 1999 the neighbor next door; has the applicant considered a two car garage, why did he add only a one car garage; why is the semi-circular deck extending into the front setback needed when there is so much other decking; FAR formula works in favor of small lots, they are asking to increase even more, why. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on March 22, 1999, providing all the information is into the Planning Department in time. APPLICAT N FOR LOT COVE GE VARIANCE R A FIRST AND'SECOND FLOOR ADDITIO SUBJECT TO DESI REVIEW AT 1 0 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. SCOT YNN APPLICANT AND KAREN A DAN MCGEE_ P,RnPRR'ry nwlvFuc� CP onroe summarized b a disabled child at the s the child wheel chair skylights in the roof, ro neighbors; provide ' forr / �roject briefly an the Commissioners ,�sked: there is a ramp used , what are the A requirements for'such a ramp, does it comply, id, how does e child use the ram�; there are a large number of, more infor ation on their purpose, how the light would affect e on wh was counted as habitable space within the structur since nown n the plans; what is the ceiling height in the stora e areas, wil he 6 skylights not beccsme beacons of light at nig ; situation r nd floor above-seemir�gly first floor- where add' ion is being ere no further questio�s and the item was set for ublic hearing all the information is� into the Planning Depart ent in time. there is a lot of st rage space s please show on section; why here that bas ent is first floo made is se nd floor. There on Marc 22, 1999, provid' g CATION FOR A IGN EXCEPTION FO,� AREA AND NUMBER F SIGNS ON THE �RY FRONT E AT 1354 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONE C-1, SUBAREA A. E MAGUI BEBE APPLI__CANT AND PAUL AYOOB_ PR PF.RTY (1WNFR1 CP Monroe su arized the project briefL� and the Commissioners ed: seems to be a conflict between the s' n permit application an,d the staff report, permit plication says 4 signs, staff report 5, w ch is correct; signage rkquest seems similar to o ers seen recently, could sta provide a ble of recent sign exce�tion applications on Burli ame Avenue frontage; could he applica provide samples of the lor palette for the signs; ' a vertical banner allowed; a ress the bl e sign's compatibility w' h this building. There w re no further questions and e item was et for public hearing on arch 22, 1999, providin all the information is into th lanning. D artment in time. ` APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FO THE AREA, NUMBER O SIGNS AND HEIGHT bN THE P ARY FRONTAGE AN FOR AREA AND NUMB OF SIGNS ON THE SECONDAR FRONTAGE AT 1010 ADILLAC WAY, ZONED -2. (OLIVEIRA SIGNS, APPLIC T, AND JAMES HA NAY, RECTOR MOTOR CAR COMPANY� CP Monroe mmarized the project bri y and the Commissioners a ed: will any of signs on C dillac Way be lit at night, if so how long; applicant sh ld submit the coli for the 'gns; the photo copies of e building are too dark to ead, ask applic � photo aphs for next packet; sub ' a letter addressing the Broa way frontage and y �three palette � submit no signs -3- .. . , ,, �f�EJ�oVs �'�VI G•�-�ltr�.1' �-v�Tl �l� �D City of Burlingame Variances and Design Review Address: 260 Crescent Avenue �� ;� Meeting Date: 4/ 12/99 Request: Setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances. to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand living area into an existing basement level, and a side setback variance for a new detached garage at 260 Crescent Avenue. Project is subject to design review. Applicant: Tony Brandi Property Owner: 7ose Montes Lot Area: 3,134 SF APN: 028-286-110 General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential. CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, sma11 facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. Date Submitted: This project was submitted to the Planning Department after October 23, 1998 and was reviewed under the R-1 District Regulations now in effect. History: At their March 22, 1999 action meeting, the Planning Commission denied this project without prejudice with specific direction that the decking at the front and rear be removed, that 81 SF be removed from the detached garage so that a floor area ratio variance would be eliminated, and. that the concrete wall be extended to keep water out of the stairway (March 22, 1999 P.C. Minutes). The Commission also suggested that the floor area and lot coverage area removed not be added someplace else on the site. The staff report from the March 22, 1999, Planning Commission action meeting is also attached for your review. Planning would note that the lot area should be 3,134 SF and not 3,127 SF as indicated in the previous staff report. This staff report reflects that change. This 3,134 SF site has a creek located along the right side property line. In February, 1998, the creek damaged a section of the house wall during a release of water from the Crystal Springs dam. A building pernut was issued in February, 1998, for temporary shoring of the basement wall along the creek. In December, 1998, a building permit was issued to upgrade/reinforce the foundation. The applicant is now applying to expand living area into an existing basement and add uncovered decking to the main floor. This lot is irregularly shaped, substandard in size (3,134 SF) and measures 59.75' wide and only 53.5' deep at its longest dimensions. The avera.ge size of the surrounding lots in the area is 7, 600 SF (50' x 152'). The lot slopes downward into the creek from left to right approximately 8'-4". Approlcimately 10% of the lot is within the creek bed (measured to top of bank). � , . t Variances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue Resubmitted Project: The applicant followed Commission's direction and submitted revised plans date stamped Apri15, 1999 for a three bedroom house. The plans show the front and rear decking removed (94 S� and the proposed detached garage reduced by 79 SF to 11' x 21' . Plans also show the existing concrete wall along the creek bank extending to the front property line to keep water out of the stairway. With the revisions, the project requires the following variances: • F3rorrt setbdck variance for new second floor decking (11'-2" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 b,3). The applicant has removed the semi-circular decking at the front of the house. In the previous proposal, the deck at the front had a 5'- 2" setback where 11'-2" is now proposed. • Rearsetback variance for new second floor decking. (6'-0" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 d,2). The decking at the rear has been removed. In the previous proposal, the deck at the front had a 1'-0" setback where 6'-0" is now . proposed. The existing rear wall of the house is 4'-2" from property line, this condition is not changed. • Side setback variance for new second floor decking (5'-0" proposed where 6'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 c, l). The applicant reconfigured the decking along the creek side of the house to form one long deck where he had proposed two separate decks before. The setback of the new continuous deck varies from as close as 5'-0" at the middle of the deck to 6'-6" at the ends. In the previous proposal, the two decks had 4'-0' side setbacks. • Lot coverage variance required (50.1 %, 1573 SF proposed. where 40%, 1254 SF is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.065). Lot coverage has been reduced by 120 SF, which includes the 79 SF garage reduction and a net reduction of 41 SF in decking. The decking at the front and rear of the house was removed (94 SF), but the applicant reconfigured, merging the two decks and filling in the gap between the decking along the side of the house which added approximately 44 SF to the deck in the side yard. The new decking totals 152 SF, while in the previous proposal the decking totaled 193 SF (41 SF net - reduction). • Floor area �ntio variance required based on the size of the house for 2;182 SF (.7 FAR) where 2,103 SF (.67 FAR) is the ma�mum allowed (CS 25.28.070, b). For interior lots with deta.ched garages, the code allows 2,103 SF at this site [(.32 x 3134) + 1100 SF] for the house, plus up to 400 SF for the detached gazage. The applicant is also proposing a new 231 SF detached garage, which was reduced by 79 SF from 310 SF to 231 SF at the request of the Planning Commission. T'he proposed detached garage complies because it is less than 400 SF. The variance is for the house which exceeds the maximum allowable floor area. for the single family dwelling. 2 � Variances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue • Side setback variance required for a new detached garage located forward of the rear 40 % of the length of the lot line (0'-10" proposed where 6'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.073 2,d,2). • Design review for new uncovered decking on the second floor (CS 25.57.010). Redesign was not reviewed by design reviewer. Summary: The elcisting house is single story along the left side property line and two story along the right side property line. Because more than one-half of the existing basement wall height is above grade, the basement is considered a story. Therefore, the existing main floor (at street level) is considered a second floor. The addition of the uncovered decking is on the second floor and therefore �subject to design review. From the front at street level, the proposed decking appears to be on the ground level. The existing house now contains 1,263 SF of floor area, and has three potential bedrooms. There is also a 31U SF detached single car gazage, for a total floor area of 1,573 SF (.50 FAR). The applicant is proposing to remove 73 SF at the rear of the house. This section of the house was built on the rear property line. The applicant is also proposing to expand living area. into an existing basement which would include a bedroom, bathroom and family room (992 SF). The total number of bedrooms is not being changed and will remain at three. The proposed family room does not qualify as a potential bedroom. The total floor area. proposed on the site is 2,182 SF plus a 231 SF detached garage (.77 FAR). Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (December 30, 1998 memo) that all lot and roof drainage shall be addressed and brought to the public street. A property survey will be required at the time of building permit submittal for the proposed detached garage and shall be .completed by a licensed land surveyor. The Chief Building Official notes (December 22, 1998 memo) that FEMA flood plain requirements shall be verified at time of building permit submittal. There were no additional comments. SETBACKS Front: 1si flr: 2nd flr: Side (left): Side (right): PROPOSED no change *11'-2" no change *5' -0" EXISTING 9' _2 �� 9'-2" 18' -0" 10'-0" 3 ALLOWED/REQ'D 15' 20'-0" 6'-0" 6' -0" ., Yariances and Design Review Rear: 1 st flr: 2nd flr: LOT COVERAGE: FAR House: Detached Garage: Totat FAR: PARKING: HEIGHT.• DH ENVELOPE: no change *6'-0" *50.1 % (1,573 SF) *2,182 SF (.7 FAR) 231 SF (.07 FAR) 2, 413 SF (.77) 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') no change complies �- �� 4'-2" 0'-0" 50.1 % (1,573 SF) 1,263 SF (.4 FAR) 310 SF (.1 FAR) 1,573 SF (.5 FAR) 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 20'-10" N/A 260 CrescentAvenue � �� _ 1 : � 1 15' -0" 20'-0" 40 % (1,254 SF) 2,103 SF (.67 FAR) 400 SF (.13 FAR) 2,503 SF (.8 FAR) 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 30' /2 lh stories see code * Setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand living area into an existing basement 1eve1, and a side setback variance for a new detached garage. This project meets all other zoning code requirements. 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) 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 hazdship; 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; and d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of e�sting and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. 4 ' .. Yariances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: l. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the pazking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the requested variances. The reasons for any action should be clearly sta,ted. 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 April 5, 1999 Sheets A-1 and A-2 with a 231 SF (11' x 21') detached garage; 2. that any changes to the footprint (including decks) or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a window(s), deck(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; � 4. that the City Engineer's December 30, 1998 memo and the Chief Building Official's December 22, 1998 memo shall be met; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Zoning Technician c: Tony Brandi, applicant 5 ; �REU IoVS �Ppc.ic�T1v� ITEM#9 ��i.II�D ��Ti�ov-T P��j�nicE City of Burlingame . Variances and Design Review Address: 260 Crescent Avenue Meeting Date• 3/22/99 Request: Setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand into an existing basement level, and a side setback variance for a new detached garage at 260 Crescent Avenue. Project is subject to design review. Applicant: Tony Brandi Property Owner: Jose Montes Lot Area: 3,127 SF APN: 028-286-110 General Plan: Low Density Residential • Zoning: R-1 Adjacent 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: This project was submitted to the. Planning Department after October 23, 1998 and was reviewed under the R-1 District Regulations now in effect. Summary: The applicant is requesting setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand into an existing basement level, and a side setback variance for a new detached garage at 260 Crescent Avenue. The number of bedrooms is being increased from two to three. The project requires the following: 1. Front setbackvariance for new second floor decking (5'-2" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 b,3); 2. Rear setback variance for new second floor decking (1'-0" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 d,2); 3. Side setback variance for new second floor decking (4'-0" proposed where 6'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 c, l); 4. Lot coverage variance required (54%, 1692 SF proposed where 40%, 1251 SF is the ma�cimum allowed)(CS 25.28.065); 5. Floor area ratio variance required (.79 FAR, proposed, 81 SF over maximum 2410 SF, where .77 FAR is the ma�cimum allowed)(CS 25.28.070, b); 6. Side setback variance required for a new detached garage located forward of the rear 40 % of the iength of the lot line (0'-0" proposed where 6'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.073 2,d,2); and 7. Design reyiew for new uncovered decking on the second floor (CS 25.57.010). '� T/ariances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue History: This 3,127 SF site has a creek located along the right side property line. In February, 1998, the creek damaged a section of the house wa.11 during a release of water from the Crystal Springs dam. A building permit was issued in February, 1998, for temporary shoring of the basement wall along the creek. In December, 1998, a building pernut was issued to upgrade/reinforce the foundation. The applicant is now applying to expand living area into an e�sting basement and add uncoverecl decking to the main floor. This lot is irregularly shaped, substandard in size (3,127 SF) and mea.sures 59.75' wide and only 53.5' deep at its longest dimensions. The average size of the surrounding lots in the area is 7, 600 SF (50' x 152'). The lot slopes downward into the creek from left to right approximately 8'-4". Approximately 10% of the lot is within the creek bed (measured to top of bank). Summary: The e�cisting house is single story along the left side property line and two story along the right side property line. Because more than one-half of,the existing basement wall height is abo�e grade, .the basement is considered a story. Therefore, the existing main floor (at street level) is considered a second floor. The addition of the uncovered decking is on the second floor and therefor� subject to design review. From the front at street level, the proposed decking appears to be on the ground level. The existing house now contains 1,259 SF of floor area and has three potential bedrooms. There is also a 329 SF cletached single car garage, for a total floor area. of 1,588 SF (.51 FAR). The applicant is proposing to remove 69 SF at the rear of the house. This section of the house was built on the rear property line. The applicant is also proposing to expand into an existing basement which would include a bedroom, bathroom and family room (992 SF). The total number of bedrooms is being increased from two to three. The proposed family room does not qualify as a potential bedroom. The total floor area proposed on the site is 2,182 SF plus a 309 SF detached garage (.79 FAR) where 2;101 SF plus 309 SF for a detached garage (.77 FAR) is the maximum allowed. A floor area. ratio variance is required for exceeding the maximum floor area allowed by 81 SF. The existing house is non-conforming in lot coverage (1588 SF, 50.7%). The proposed deck addition would increase the lot coverage to 54% (1�692 SF). A lot coverage variance is required for 54% (1,692 SF) where 40% (1,251 SF) is the maximum allowed. The project also includes adding second floor decking (193 SF) along the right side of the house. The decking wraps around the right front and rear corners of the house. The proposed decking requires several setback variances. A front setback variance is required for 5'-2", where 20' is the minimum required on the second floor. A side setback variance is required for 4', where 6' is the minimum required for this lot. A rear setback variance is required for 1'-0", where 20' is the minimum required on the second floor. The proposed decking..complies with declining height envelope requirements. The existing attached single car garage (329 SF) would be demolished and replaced with a new detached single car garage. The existing garage is located forward of the rear 40 % of the length of the lot. The proposed 309 SF garage measures 13'W x 23'-9"D (12' x 20'-6" clear interior 2 a � ` Variances and Design Review 260 CrescenfAvenue dimensions). A 9'W x 20'D uncovered parldng space is provided in the driveway. The detached garage is located forward of the rear 40 % of the length of the lot line. A side setback variance is required for 0'-0" where 6' is the minimum required. The proposed detached garage complies with all other accessory structure requirements. Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (December 30, 1998 memo) that . all lot and roof drainage shall be addressed and brought to the public street. A property survey will be required at the time of building permit submittal for the proposed detached garage and shall be completed by a licensed land surveyor. The Chief Building Official notes (December 22, 1998 memo) that FEMA flood plain requirements shall be verified at time of building permit submittal. PROPOSED SETBACKS Front: Ist flr 2nd fl� Side (left): Side (�ight): Rear: 1 st flr 2nd flY LOT COVERAGE: FAR: PARKING: HEIGHT.• no change *5 �-2�� no change *4' -0" no change *1'-0" *54 % (1,692 SF) *2,182 SF + 309 SF for detached garage .79 FAR 1 coveretl (12' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) no change EXISTING 9'-2" 9'-2" 18'-0" 8'-0�� 4'-8" 0' -0" 50.7% (1,588 SF) 1,259 SF + 329 SF for detaehed garage .51 FAR 1 covered (10' x 20') - 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) 20'-10" ALLOWED/REQ'D 15' 20' -0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 15'-0" 20' -0" 40 % (1,251 SF) 2, lO1,SF + 309 SF for detached garage .:77 FAR 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 30'/2 lh stories DH complies N/A see code ENVELOPE: * Setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand into an existing basement level, and a side setback variance for a new detached garage. This project meets all other zoning code requirements. �3 a T/ariances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue Design Reviewer Comments: The design reviewer notes that the application is unique because the project doesn't really fit the Standard Design Review Guidelines. The proposed decks, which are slightly above sidewalk level, are technically considered a second floor addition since they occur abovE the basement level of the house, which on the creek side of the property, is entirely above grade. � In the initial review of the project, the reviewer had several questions/requests regazding the support and material of the proposed decking. The applicant revised the plans to address the reviewer's comments. Design Reviewer Recommendations: The reviewer notes that the initial submittal has been revised in accordance with the Design Reviewer's comments. The reviewer recommends that the Design Review for the proposed decks be approved by the Planning Commission. Study Meeting: At their meeting on March 8, 1999; the Planning Commission asked several questions regarding this application (March 8, 1999 P.C. Minutes). The Planning Commission asked the applicant to address the current conditions of the creek. In a written response, dated March 12, 1999, the applicant notes that the creek water flow level has been the same since the house was construeted in the 1920's. The applicant indicates that his. client has dredged the creek along his property. The wall along the creek has been repaired and upgraded to a safe elevation based on the past flood water line. The Commission requested a more detailed drawing showing the existing and proposed elevations. All changes to the building elevations are labeled on the drawings. Other than the main entrance, all windows openings are the same, but contain new windows. The applicant notes that pictures were submitted for the design reviewer. The applicant adds that the architectural design of front and side elevations have been scrutinized and approved by the design reviewer. The applicant believes that all architectural refinements were properly thought out. The laundry area is based on the remaining area beyond the 20' minimum length required for the covered parking stall. This laundry area measures 3' x 12' or 36 SF (interior clear area). The Commission also asked if the size of the garage could be reduced to eliminate 81 SF and eliminate one of the exceptions. The applicant notes that the .�ew garage is a replica of the existing garage. The applicant also points out that approximately 65 SF has been removed from the rear of the existing house. The Commission asked the applicant to explain the reason for the side deck and noted that privacy of the neighbor next door was a concern. The applicant indicates in his letter that the proposed decking is located at the original floor level. Therefore, the position of the observer in relation to the adjacent property is the same since the house was built. In addition, there is a 7' fence located 20' away blocking any view generated from the decks and windows: The adjacent house is also set back from the proposed deck. The applicant did not respond to the question regarding extending the deck into the front setback. 4 ' h Variances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue In regards to adding a two-car garage, the applicant notes that the geometry of the lot makes it impossible to generate room for a two-car garage. There would also be a further increase to lot coverage and floor area ratio. Regarding increasing the floor area ratio, the applicant indicates that the existing basement has been in use since it was built. The proposed design only represents a new internal layout. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions e�cist 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; and 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. 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 s�ructure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Planning Commission Aetion: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the requested variances. The rea.sons 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 February 11, 1999 Sheets A-1 and A-2, and that any changes to the footprint (including decks) or floor area of the building sha11 require an amendment to this permit; 5 f � ' Variances and Design Review 260 Crescent Avetza�e 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a window(s), deck(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the City Engineer's December 30, 1998 memo and the Chief Building Official's December 22, 1998 memo sha11 be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Zoning Technician c; Tony Brandi, applicant a .J ' • - /Ar� Cir Ow � � - BURLINQAMi .- ,,e�:e ��.... � CITY OF BURLINGAME APPLICATION TO 1'�� PLA►NNING COMNIISSION Type of Application: Special Permit� Variance Other Project Address• 2� T � � �� Assessor's Parcel Number(s): D 2�- 28� -- 1 J O APPLICANT Name• �� Address: �d � L�},t �G�!�.�J City/State/2�'�--�•'� ��' �� _ Phone (w): �� J�` g9 -2�/2- (h): fa�c: l'os0 �%/ - 8�� 2 ARCHITECT/DESIG +'R Name:,r��,Vlo �. ,�,�ii�O/ _ Address: �� =�%'�-�f� � - City/State/Zip: v� • S •7� � �� Phone (w): �P S o S�`� - 2.�/2 PROPERTY OWNER Name: ��o�'�.. �'�—!o �CJ � � Address:� 7 ��i' �f�_ City/State/Zip: /� //� `>�' � ��zJt �-'� -� Phone (w): (�.5� � 5 �� - �f� /� ro�: f�• �� iY.� Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. �) � �: �-�� 8 7/ - ��6,62 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ��-��'��%�� /i��GK/ ,�i9'Lf'�/'�l/�S A��'IDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect �h b�st of my knowledge and belief. )�'�'�e 's Signature /2 2� 9� Date • I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. .� / `�� 'Y� I/! � Property wner's Signature Date --------------------�----------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY --_-�------------------- Date Filed• l Z% Z� � 9F� F�. ��I d-� Planning Commission: Study Date: 3- �' "� � Action Date: 3- 2z - 9 9 � . , �a� CITY O� � � ` BURLINGAMS �� u u �� uu��u��` UYV°� t � �,- � �ar�o�� pp�uc��aa�u�� ,ro, ; _ n 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 circuinstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. .�v� -�`o �.� �� p� L��" 7-�� ,�o�i�� L� �o ��. ,�iv� ,v��t-�.., 7',�.,e�5 �v �y ,q�t�c/(-- �� g Ti�ry ��U�4� �� xJ � ,T� N�v/��► o�ic� � ��[� �D � � i�'��p �'-�v �T � �%y ��s�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 or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. �� d'�IS A2� `�Yl�-(.�.J � iiJ�.t,(� /i%�' �' L�l�� y�� /�' l� � �v.�C�- ,�Glf�'--� 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. �'-�.�. .�iv%�r9'�t/�r G��'�,� L� 'U�D % �U��J �i�� 7�X� 7— �.0 7�A'�t/� ,��c.� 7�. ��¢�(� L�1F� �� (iG-�l,��G� �� .�`� - � 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 �"�� G,�'��t� � �(%%%�'�� F� 7r�� ?D/�0�� ,� 6?��—. j,c�j��'�rJ?�� D�4�f¢ iiGl.r� 7'�� --- �' ��— 7��C�' /�t! �,�> !/� %�l� %�� /�/� G��,v ,�,T �o� � . 7��I�d�%' � ar�s �.�.s� e. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e � to y�ur property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. l�,, Do any conditions exist on ihe site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cuttinfl through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd (ot shape or unusual placement of existing structures7 How is this property different from others in the neighborhood? 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. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exceptiont (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exceptionl Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship �. on the development of the property7 c. l�x�/ain why the proposed use at t.he proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic f►ea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties7 If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, naise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare7 Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwate� systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., under�round storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations: which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseasesl. Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protectionl Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed7 Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General we/fare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development7 Is there a social bene�t7 Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent siteslT Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? 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 How does the proposed structure or use_compare aesthetically with existing neighborhoodl If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 If use will affect the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it 'fits'. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring suuctures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, o�ientation etc. with __ other structures in the neighborhood or area. - How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood7 Think of character as the image o� tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. WII there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity7 Compare your project with existing uses. State why you teel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/o� state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. ,zroz,,...m� , .. a' ROUTING FORM � DA�: December 21, 1998 TO: �CITY ENGINEER _CHIEF BUII.DING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNEId SUBJECT: Request for lot coverage and setback variances for front entry and deck additions and a new single-car garage at 260 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-286-110. SCHEDULED PLANNING CONIlVIISSION ACTION MEETING: February 8, 1999 STAFF REVIEW BY: Monday, December 28, 1998 Please r�ote: There will be no staff meeting on Monday, December 28, 1998. Plea�e return your comments by that date. THANKS, Maureen/7anice/Ruben � 2/3 °� ag Date of Comments ' ¢ �l�ct.� �2¢. �e G a � �i e •�i�'� J1..e�o� � ��,, _� � o f- a� �a� o�:�,� � �c� 6 L��..�.,�..�D G�,•�� ✓� � .,,,.,-,,� ��.f � ' , � cir .� ct "', /�OpG"l� � / � 1/�C [�T � �� Y' 4 f � , �° �..�.� ,�.m �� l rO � r� U vr � �' Wt !/ . �� . .` 1 ROUTING FORM DATE: December 21, 1998 TU: CITY ENGINEER �CHIEF BUII.DING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for lot coverage and setback variances for front entry and deck additions and a new single-car garage at 260 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-286-110. SCHEDULED PLANNING CONIlVIISSION ACTION MEETING: February 8, 1999 STAFF REVIEW BY: Monday, December 28, 1998 Please note: There will be no staff meeting on Monday, December 28, 1998. Please return your comments by that date. THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben ��''�'`t �'� ��- 2 r �e. wl. e-� - ��) � ate of Comments �„�i�/ � `� K 1/'�r�l�''�`.0 �� Feb-18-99 10:59A Gumbinger Associates .� ` r 98121.8/2.7 MEMORANDUM DATE: Febraary 18, I999 T0: Ruben Hurin, Planner City of Burlingame FROM� Pau11. Gumbinger, FAIA RE: Second Floor Deck Additio Z6U Crescent Avenue Burlingazne �, PLANS DATE STAMPED FEBRUARY 11,1999 (Initial submittal date stamped January 25, 1999) DESIGIV GUIDELINES 650 579 1402 P.O1 � � ..� .-� GUf�/IBINGET� � � ASSO�IAI�ES .�. �� ;�ii:isf'�itta:�s....r- .,l.,:?I:(:.'a�n:',,Y�:, ^,�.�.�.�; � (il� IC:�,�ll � . ;i. o �j� �n'.I'� ,�`��:.��,,,. . F��'itL� ylUtt':�Iti:."e. ;pt:.:: �V`: A(?CHITECTS �ECEIVE� F E B 1 8 1999 �:ITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Sent via Facsimile 342-8386 This application is unique because the project doesn't really fit the Standard Design Review Guidelines. The project consists of new deck additions at the main floor level of an existing house which is currently being reconstructed. The proposed decks which are siighily above sidewalk level are technically considered as second floor additions since they occur above thc basement level of the house which on the creek side of the property is entirely above grade. RECOMMENDAT[ON ihe initial submittal has been revised in accordance with the Design Reviewer's comments. It is also understood that the City Engineer has no problem with the decks overhatig the creek. R is therefore recommend�d tt�at the Design Review for the proposed decks be approved by the Planning Commission. Time: 2.5 Hours ', i, �I ,1 ( ;i.�•� i: �r �: �a�r. F!11F� ('« :s�:�i�. �i',; �c C.ti) 'V�k'�r� k. ijv�i.n-�. :14a % \ ti; �A 1r.7i(?. ., .. t 0 - GUMBINGET� _ - ASSOCIATES - = 60 Easi Third Avenue, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA 944p1 Fax: (650) 579-1402 • TEL (650) 579-0995 E-Mail: gumbassoc@aol.com AI�CHITECTS 9$�2�.g��.� R ECEIi/E�J MEMoxa�u� FEB - 8 1999 DATE: February 3, 1999 CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: Janice Jagelski, Planner PLANNING DEPT. Burlingame FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA � RE: Second Floor Deck Addition 260 Crescent Avenue Burlingame GENERAL COMMENTS/QUESTIONS 1. How are proposed decks supported? 2. Has City Engineer approved decks that overhang the creek? 3. Cross Section shall show new deck and railing. 4. Height of deck railing not shown. 5. Spacing between vertical railing members not in accordance with Building Code. 6. What is railing material? 7. Existing guard rail along sidewalk over creek not drawn conectly. 8. Change street address to Crescent Avenue. RECOMMENDATION The plans shall be revised and resubmitted for approval. � � i , i�� Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA President & CEO Noemi K. Avram, AIA Associcrte ., , �. CONTINUE FROM PREUIOUS PAGE 001 Bt�ndi/Associates Architect 90I l.Arch Avc. S. San Francisco, CA 94080 (G50) 589 -2512 Burlingame Pla�ming Department March 12, 1999 SOl Primrose Rd. Burlinga.mc, Ca 94010 � �� I � � Mr. Ruben Hurlin Zoning Technician. MAR 15 1999 Rc: 2r,o i`resoen� �ave�,uc varianoe. Dear Ruben, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ln summar�zcd form thc followiug i� t�n outlinc; respond to the Conun'issroner's eonccrns; 1,- Rogarding d�c crcck water IIow Ivve:) has bccn rhe same slnce thc liouse was conscruct�:d during dtc t.wc,►lic� nu maini�:nance ha5 bect� providc�d��tl��^ t��n thc na�ural flow that mothcr na.t.ure l�a� Wruvidul. I�iowever n1y clicut lias donc �ra�,��iLong lus property in addi�ion l�c has.repaired and upgruded thc wal) alo��g tl�e Cr�ck lu �afc cicvation based upon the past fl�od water ] ine. 2.- Wc sub,nitu�ci pic�ura� of thc projeet for their Board use, all changes t4 the buitding eicvations aze properly labcicd in die drbwinb►�, Othc,7 than the main cnuance all window opcninbs are the same widi new wind�w�. 3,- Thc laundry ar�ca is bascd in tl�e 1e11e�vcr area beyond the 20' dimension for the car stall wlticl� is 3'-9". Typicr�lly �uch dimcnisions are not needed to descrihe axcas, The use may chan�c to sl�clving i��stead, all dcpcncis in owner's cciteria. 4.- T1�c new garage is thc ��cplica of existing brarage so no extra square footage has been added. Howc�cr wc havc delcted about.GS S,F. of cover ccrostruction to the overail iot eoverage. 5,- Our desig,i� dues nol �utd any covered square feet. The fact that city ordinance qualifics our dcck as socond story is bas�ui up�n a technicality sucl� regulation inc;n;ascd our lot covera�e (for the reca•d the properly t�xd a l�al deck bullt b�fore, bul it. wus removed due to decay) 6.- Regardin� privacy, Our decic� and windows are located at tlie original floor Icvcl so the position of tlic o(�acrvar in relation to adjace�tit properry is the same since the original building w�s buih. Fuitl�ermoi•e, lhcrc is a T fence locaced 20' away blocking a��y view generatcd from dccks and windows, in additiou ih� auljaccnt house location is set back from the pmposcd deck, 7.- Architectural de�ign of front and side elcvations have been scrutin'rzed and approved by your arc,hitcctural reviewcr. Wc belief that all the architactural retincmcnts were properly thoughl out. k.-'1'he geomotrical size of die sit� «�akus it impossible to �encrate roan for 2 ca�r ga.ragc and also the incrcmcnt of additional lot covcragc will �rv� bc wolcomcd by the Board, which is so against. 9. - The exisdng basc�nen� lias bcirig in us�o since it was built. Our proposed desi�n only rcpresents a new internal layout. l hoNe tha# wc have auswes•ed thG Planninb Board's e{uestiens. If additional info is nc:cded please give a call, � • �� CONT I NUE FROM� PREU I OUS PAGE. _.002__ ___ ___ ___ _ �___�_ o• •-- . - Cail, V ,. .� - s� o� �-- - ony Dr2u�di, Arohitoct m ' � `�. Print Key Output 5769551 V4R2M0 980228 CITYHAI�L Display Device . . . . . . BLGME00 User . . . . . . . . . . . MINDERMAN Screen 2 260 CRESCENT AVENUE ENGINEER: Registry# ��T•TT� TENANT: # Page 1 Ol/12/99 11:33:11 PERMIT 9800240 ISS�ED � Z(25 I°l � F,�p�: ��,1� � Phone Type of Permit: 927 Minor misc work/repair; not bldg construction or alteration. Description of Work: Summary: TEMPORARY SHORING BASEMENT WALL AT CREEK-SIDE. NO OCCUPANCY PER CURRENT RED-TAG BY CITY ENGINEER. F2 to Continue F3 to Cancel and Exit F12 Previous Screen - e ' �� a i- Print Key Output 5769SS1 V4R2M0 980228 CITYHAI,L Display Device . . . . . . BLGME00 User . . . . . . . . . . MINDERMAN Screen 2 260 CRESCENT AVENUE ENGINEER: Registry# Phone TENANT: # Page 1 O1/12/99 11:33:47 PERMIT 9801797 �Ss v� : �2�g�9 � Phone Type of Permit: 434 ALTER.ATION - All Residential Bldgs (incl Decks - new/alter) � Description of Work: Summary: FDN UPGRD /REINFORC F2 to Continue F3 to Cancel and Exit F12 Previous Screen `i �+ . ._- . - � .. .'� w I. ' # � . � o � . � ��' � � � �`� �� A�`' � v p �';�_.,7�w � � '� , t m � " � i� . . . , :. � Q . . . - ;� �� . r. — �. T' x ; ' _ r � �, t �� a; � 3 � � .. . _ m � :: � , �„ � \� � ,: !"' ' • P�� ' ,' _ d. � � / �-� ; ��_ _ �.� F � � �� m ,r. �� -.. . ��V ��'.. . h yQ,,A ' ��,� � � � �. �.�'.;�s� i tie a � �:. �� .�, ; "3 � . � I R � _ � - 1t � "�� .. .�: . . - a. �� - . .� � . n . �`, . � � .. . � � . �• �" � - �, � � I .. • � �,_ ,', y' \ �L / � _. ,. � - . �. �. g . . . � � � ' �, `'3 � . . . i . �a ' . . <. , .. ..: . . _ . . " � � � e ��. s a e i � � � � , s . � ,� : � .. � �- � _ � �Zin � �j =� � � I m �p�i;�y. � �v�` �'�� . +� ��.�- � '. '� �!�;a�` 'ax Y � � k' I"' �^:�� S f•.' a H� , � � .:� � �' �q �E *�-� .. w. �k � a#` r" V +si� :��' � iS°� �' � �P� -*'S�f t�°�r,`� � '��'..vi' , ' j� , ` w � r� :�` _�' ,� �1� ;�.� �, r � � � :n. �., -'" -�� 't�. ` e �e ; , a. � � �#' �� I� ,� $ ". � -i #a �'��'� � er+'"� � � �,ff � .., � � -�' , � � �- �. :` � ...�,� �'� c � �. �� ,,. �. � �: �- � �:n �;�,�; �� . � �.�� -� �,�a � - � � �� _ , . -� ' � '�� _ ,��. � � �,,� . � ��. 5.,. �w�� `�, ��" �„ �.�� ,�� ` . a �� .�' � ,.�� ;x . � � � �� = b .��`� 4�� -� � �,�'�� ,� �.� � � � �_ � � � �r r` = ,� � � � � , W x �`' �_ I� .- 'i% . , .: S" �'� ...' � ;._ . ' ��.}, ,� � �� , " :'�' ' +�fu'=" �. � q � ��s ` � �, xa '� � �w � p, ,P "�� ' � - t � L' � �ua��, '� . ;'� �`. � I „ � �,,,�, - � �s� ,A�e„pk. '"a v, �,,, � ' �,:. , '�n. � ~. �, . � '�s' ' �` � i •'I=. �. ,�_. `� - . c� r �� .y .. �ya ;}� � 'c �,��r� .,, . , '� � � �p�; '��i °�f , �. , _ . ct � . � Y� _ ��g ^a � 'r �•w �s ��' ~� �y"'+� �". r � �s^ . . ' bk•� , > _ .,.., , h� - x r+ . �" , � .� . ��_ �� f � s� vy' � �� ` " � p il �� • R .' � , _: >� ,. .-� , �� .�i � -� �.I � �, . � � . � e n� �., � '' ' � �, g g P+ _� � i ��,�'p. � ,� �� , _ Z "� �_ � � S �4_�: ' � � .t �."F I - . . �� .�. s�� .. .. �N� � � k L� � � ; —y �� + �'� � :�' � �_ '�a .�. 9��.:_+�.. &°�'�+i� ., •�b �' �. f . '. s ' u... � � .��Y. _. 4 . �,�,.�.�yy �`R'. �� i�l�� a �"' � ��p ...$'�p� �'C . . �� Y�� . sl ., ��' �' � �' . � -� � • -� � y �. �� S ,E i � �� ' E . � f(� �' I � ... ..� . � .1 .. }I l .N t - �' �' . � �. .;_ � . � ;. � ar+�r = � a , = , _ � �� .. _ ,— � .�; . ,�,o; ��, � �n��. � „ .�� " _ � �� .� � ' -� � " �4 � � � � d � - � I� _ � �� `��'� � �� 3 ��; � �� ' . � 37 �. .� �� ,: h '�" , p � S � :� �,. � �� "�� - � 4 � � � � � I � � � � � �� ` � �� .y� �� .� � �, e � . , � _ „ � i '� � ,�� , � T` r . �.v R t �'� ' ,.: YS �"� �. � . � '..IN " � f __ ` k: � � r ,a , �° .. � , r � � � a � �� - p � 3 �,� g . _. � �. �P._ � � � 9� �-;, ,�,� �, ,, � J �. .�� ; . � �� 7t s1c �� " .. 4 . - �' � , . : .. � � �% '_ �.'� �S:OQ � e� . - E", f''� . �� ""�.._� . V� � � M, � �� .. 3: I �. 154� � ' y � � � t ,�"�' �, _ R�E. � : I w ; "�' � =�s �� ' O ry .: �. • - � - , � a � ow�ph� �• � • ,� g .. .. , . _ � , . � "R � . A { A . py l 7t' a a� __ ' �y - .rr��. d K' . 'tE �� - t _ k � � �, 'Y'� �r . �� " a4 G , . , � '� �.�, � q r ,* . : GI�.�G ;3� � � p�� y ,�� w� �,'� � � _� � � ''� . ;, ;,,,�1c'� `. ' ,� � +� ,: � � ;� , � � � �� _.� t�`'� i'.=� �(AOO e �; _ �� ` �� i,r - ' . � ` ,- x; . . ., � A I � t, ,:: , ' � � „' � ,� , L . � ��. , � � � , �,�....« �� E � � '� "s � � • �.� .; 4 ' F�l .. . .�.. , �f_�y... � . '. , ,� , '� � � � �; � „�� . � ..�:� . � : ,'." . ,. ,. � � �: ; .. -�; _ i� � r , �. � � e,; . ►S"� F�' � . •> � N� � #�_�';.� . � .-.rd : � „ - �, � .. .... ��1� FJ ��i +. �� :- . 'S� �4�� '�,.��.. xr,�� i' :,s}��_,, ..6: �. ... �ir i�^ -�:�.� r�� '�. � �' .��.�� v€ _ � � _ . F��:t'� . � �y�� .. � - ,rau� !a � � �t"�� i� � � .iC {� � � , ' • � ,. ..�"" i� . a �.,, ° ,:,�+ ��. � # _ � , .. � � �:, p � `_ � d �_• ' .-+� .. .�t. ,;W.. � .x� � -s�.! . ...�s _ ;� a . ;� �i �r��: �� .�r" _'F=�' �t ��if / � �� '�. _" . . _�a�� ' ' � s '�� . . .. . . 1t:i� � :. � � � . . . . . . . . ��.�i�. - - .. �� m ��. . . �j� � .�,� �j � �! �N� �. :r¢42g .` . . '��- � �.� �. �_�' � . *3e •4�9 ,. .., . t� P �µ �. . . h � 1a ... . . .. .. . . . _ . � ... . . fF•' r - . , . .. . ��. ,_. .. � . . . . F . . ' , '^.�a ' Y� '� A . .9r .. .. ... . , . . . � .,.�'i . . . . fl�'. . '�. � _ '�f � �d,.,;A . . . . ,,�. . :� . �{t��... ;:,.,§ . .. ... , �� GOSTq � R� C.4 4 4 t v 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME euR�� PLANNING DEPARTMENT . �501 PRIMROSE AOAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 696-7250 ` �E� CRESCENT AVEIVUE A��N:��6-`8€�-ii� Applic�tian far setback, Iot coverage �nd ' ' floar �rea r�tio v�riances ta add new '' - uncovered decking sub.ject to design r�eview and pUBLIC HEARING � to exp�nd inta �n exiating b�sement, and a NOTICE side setb�ck variance for a new detached gar�ge �t �E�@ Crescent Avenue, zorted R-1 ,: ' iresubnittal of project denied without ' prejucide). ; � � The City of B��rlingame F'lanning COGi�115518Ti � �nno�mces the following p��blic hearing on f�onday, April f�, 1999 at 7:0� P.M. in the i y a ounci amaers loc�ted �t 5@1 � • ; F�rimr^ase Ruad, A��riirtgame, Caiifornia. � :.;:�- � Maii�d April 2, i999 (Please refer to other side) � ��ti r � ��.��.�"�r�� A copy of the ap� to the meeting Burlingame, Ca�li' If you chal CITY OF B URLINGAME . �� ;;. � k� � � w��8 � �,,�� - � � � � � �� - � i� � „r- may be reviewed prior � �' Ol Primrose Road, ,�', �"_ �, ' � ubJ , �.- be limited to 3 raismg onl ssues � ` ed a , blic hearing ; : described ' ' =w ' p da -m ��ve to the :city , at or prior . . . �:; � � .a:.�x �= €� ��... -:� � �. . _. Property, o o-iec�ive, �i ponsibl ornung their .. tenants abo '`.,�„� o di - informati.o se call (650) , ° ,. : ` 696-7250. xx�T . ' ;. - � �� ;:� .... . , .. . � � g �� ` �s � .. � 3�.�� 3 � . : � Margaret M .� � � � 'City P1a7uier � _ ,�:,j ' � r :_ , � � ' � , _ .,. . . ... , . , , � : � - PV - ICE , _ . - �. _ . _ . . ;;h�: �.$ F?9l`�,',�h.,'��. .=�t'4 r:3,�-•'• `a a ...-�F7 ;5;�:.� �s . . . . . f� (Please refer to other side) ;� , . . , s�- - . - ,- � _ ,,: , ; - - - ,_ � .�. ., .: ,� + , ,� u RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND VARIANCES FOR FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for etback lot coverage and floor area ratio variance to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to ex�and livin� area into an e�sting basement level subject to design reviewYand a side setback variance for a new detached garage at 260 Crescerit Avenue. zoned R-1 APN• 028-286-110; Jose Montes, �ro�erty owner; WI�REAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on April 26, 1999, 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 dQcuments 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 Article 19. Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units is hereby approved. 2. 5aid setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances 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. •.o I:u:�l I, Dave Luzuriaga , 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 26th day of April, 1999 , by the following vote: AYES NOES: AB SENT COMIVBSSIONERS: CONIlVIISSIONERS: COMIVBSSIONERS: SECRETARY �- �' � y � EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and variances for setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio. 260 CRESCENT AVENUE . effective May 3, 1999 1, that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 19, 1999 Sheets A-1 and A-2 with a 309 SF (13' x 23'-9") detached g�'age� . 2. that any changes to the footprint or floor area. of the residential structure or accessory structure or addition of accessory structures including decking shall require an amendment to this permit; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding, enlarging or changing the shape of a window(s), deck(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4, that the City Engineer's December 30, 1998 memo and the Chief Building Official's December 22, 1998 memo shall be met; and � 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. � 4 � �.iL City of Burlingame Variances and Design Review Address: 260 Crescent Avenue Meeting Date: 4/ 12/99 Request: Setback, lot coverage and floor area. ratio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand living area into an existing basement level, and a side setback variance for a new deta.ched garage at 260 Crescent Avenue. Project is subject to design review. Applicant: Tony Brandi Property Owner: 7ose Montes Lot Area: 3,134 SF APN: 028-286-110 General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent 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: This project was submitted to the Planning Department after October 23, 1998 and was reviewed under the R-1 District Regulations now in effect. History: At theu March 22, 1999 action meeting, the Planning Commission denied this project without prejudice with specific direction that the decking at the front and rear be removed, that 81 SF be removed from the deta.ched garage so that a floor area ratio variance would be eliminated, and that the concrete wa11 be extended to keep water out of the stairway (March 22, 1999 P.C. Minutes). The Commission also suggested that the floor area. and lot coverage area removed not be added someplace else on the site. The staff report from the March 22, 1999, Planning Commission action meeting is also attached for your review. Planning would note that the lot area should be 3,134 SF and not 3,127 SF as indicated in the previous staff report. This staff report reflects that change. This 3,134 SF site has a creek located along the right side property line. In February, 1998, the creek damaged a section of the house wall during a release of water from the Crystal Springs dam. A building permit was issued in February, 1998, for temporary shoring of the basement wall along the creek. In December, 1998, a building permit was issued to upgrade/reinforce the foundation. The applicant is now applying to expand living area into an e�sting basement and add uncovered decking to the main floor. This lot is irregulazly shaped, substandard in size (3,134 SF) and measures 59.75' wide and only 53.5' deep at its longest dimensions. The average size of the surrounding lots in the area. is 7,600 SF (50' x 152'). The lot slopes downward into the creek from left to right approximately 8'-4". Approximately 10% of the lot is within the creek bed (measured to top of bank). Variances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue Resubmitted Project: The applicant followed Commission's direction and submitted revised plans date stamped Apri15, 1999 for a three bedroom house. The plans show the front and rear decking removed (94 SF) and the proposed detached garage reduced by 79 SF to 11' x 21' . Plans also show the e�isting concrete wa11 along the creek bank extending to the front property line to keep water out of the stairway. With the revisions, the project requires the following variances: • Front setback variartce for new second floor decking (11'-2" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 b,3). The applicant has removed the semi-circular decking at the front of the house. In the previous proposal, the deck at the front had a 5'- 2" setback where 11'-2" is now proposed. • Rearsetback variance for new second floor decking (6'-0" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 d,2). The decking at the rear has been removed. In the previous proposal, the deck at the front had a 1'-0" setback where 6'-0" is now proposed. The existing rear wa11 of the house is 4'-2" from property line, this condition is not changed. • Side setback variance for new second floor decking (5'-0" proposed where 6'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 c, l). The applicant reconfigured the decking along the creek side of the house to form one long deck where he had proposed two separate decks before. The setback of the new continuous deck varies from as close as 5'-0" at the middle of the deck to 6'-6" at the ends. In the previous proposal, the two decks had 4'-0' side setbacks. • Lot coverage variance required (50.1 %, 1573 SF proposed where 40 %, 1254 SF is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.065). Lot coverage has been reduced by 120 SF, which includes the 79 SF garage reduction and a net reduction of 41 SF in decking. The decking at the front and rear of the house was removed (94 SF), but the applicant reconfigured, merging the two decks and filling in the gap between the decking along the side of the house which added approximately 44 SF to the deck in the side yazd. The new decking totals 152 SF, while in the previous proposal the decking totaled 193 SF (41 SF net reduction). • Floor area ralio variance required based on the size of the house for 2;182 SF (.7 FAR) where 2,103 SF (.67 FAR) is the ma.�mum allowed (CS 25.28.070, b). For interior lots with detached gazages, the code allows 2,103 SF at this site [(.32 x 3134) + 1100 SF] for the house, plus up to 400 SF for the detached garage. The applicant is also proposing a new 231 SF detached garage, which was reduced by 79 SF from 310 SF to 231 SF at the request of the Planning Commission. The.proposed detached garage complies because it is less than 400 SF. The variance is for the house which exc,eeds the maximum allowable floor area for the single family dwelling. 2 Yariances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue • Side setback variance required for a new detached garage located forwazd of the rear 40 % of the length of the lot line (0'-10" proposed where 6'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.073 2,d,2). • Desigrt review for new uncovered decking on the second floor (CS 25.57.010). Redesign was not reviewed by design reviewer. Summary: The existing house is single story along the left side property line and two story along the right side property line. Beca.use more than one-half of the elcisting basement wall height is above grade, the basement is considered a story. Therefore, the existing main floor (at street level) is considered a second floor. The addition of the uncovered decking is on the second floor and therefore subject to design review. From the front at street level, the proposed decking appears to be on the ground level. The e�sting house now contains 1,263 SF of floor area and has three potential bedrooms. There is also a 310 SF detached single car garage, for a total floor area of 1,573 SF (.50 FAR). The applicant is proposing to remove 73 SF at the rear of the house. This section of the house was built on the rear property line. The applicant is also proposing to expand living area into an existing basement which would include a bedroom, bathroom and family room (992 SF). The total number of bedrooms is not being changed and will remain at three. The proposed family room does not qualify as a potential bedroom. The total floor area. proposed on the site is 2,182 SF plus a 231 SF deta.ched garage (.77 FAR). Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (December 30, 1998 memo) that all lot and roof drainage shall be addressed and brought to the public street. A property survey will be required at the time of building permit submittal for the proposed detached garage and shall be completed by a licensed land surveyor. The Chief Building Official notes (December 22, 1998 memo) that FEMA flood plain requirements shall be verified at time of building permit submittal. There were no additional comments. SETBACKS Front: 1 st flr: 2nd flr: Side (left): Side (right): PROPOSED no change *11'-2" no change *5' -0" EXISTING 9�_2�� 9'-2„ 18' -0" 10'-0" 3 ALLOWED/REQ'D 15' 20' -0" 6'-0" 6'-0" Variances and Design Review Rear: 1 st flr: 2nd flr: LOT COVERAGE: FAR House: Detached Garage: Total FAR: PARKING: HEIGHT.• DH ENVELOPE: no change *6' -0" *50.1 % (1,573 SF) *2,182 SF (.7 FAR) 231 SF (.07 FAR) 2,413 SF (.77) 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') no change complies -_ �\ a 4' -2" 0'-0" 50.1 % (1,573 SF) 1,263 SF (.4 FAR) 310 SF (.1 FAR) 1,573 SF (.S FAR) 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 20' -10" N/A 260 CrescentAvenue i � 1 C � 1, 15' -0" 20' -0" 40 % (1,254 SF) 2,103 SF (.67 FAR) 400 SF (.13 FAR) 2,503 SF (.8 FAR) 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) 30' /2 lh stories see code * Setback, lot coverage and floor azea ratio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand living area into an e�sting basement level, and a side setback variance for a new detached garage. This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; b) the granting of the applica.tion 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; and 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. 4 Variances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as esta.blished in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 aze outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the pazking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the requested variances. The reasons for any action should be clearly sta.ted. 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 Apri15, 1999 Sheets A-1 and A-2 with a 231 SF (11' x 21') detached garage; 2. that any changes to the footprint (including decks) or floor area of the building sha11 require an amendment to this permit; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a window(s), deck(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4. that the City Engineer's December 30, 1998 memo and the Chief Building Official's December 22, 1998 memo sha11 be met; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Zoning Technician c: Tony Brandi, applicant 5 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND VARIANCES FOR FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO RESOLVED, by the Planning Corrunission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for set ack lot covera,�e and floor area ratio variances to add new uncovered deckin.g on the second floor and to expand livm� area into an e�sting basement level subject to desi�n review and a side setback variance for a new detached garage at_260 Crescent Avenue zoned R-1 APN• 028-286-110; Jose Montes, �ro�erty owner; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission af the City of Burlingame on A,�ril 12, 1999, 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 Article 19. Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units is hereby approved. 2. Said setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio varian,ces are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances are as set forth in the minutes and recordirig 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. CFI��IRMAN I, Dave Luzuria�a , 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 A�ril, 1999 , by the following vote: AYES: COMNIISSIONERS: NOES: COMNIISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMNaSSIONERS: SECRETARY R EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and variances for setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio. � 260 CRESCENT AVENUE effective April 19, 1999 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped Apri15, 1999 Sheets A-1 and A-2 with a 231 SF (11' x 21') detached garage; 2. that any changes to the footprint (including decks) or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors,. which would include adding or enlarging a window(s), deck(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4, that the City Engineer's December 30, 1998 memo and the Chief Building Official's December 22, 1998 memo shall be met; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. � , � �_ ;i City of Burlingame Variances and Design Review Address: 260 Crescent Avenue Meeting Date: 3/22/99 Request: Setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand into an existing basement level, and a side setback variance for a new detached garage at 260 Crescent Avenue. Project is subject to design review. Applicant: Tony Brandi Property Owner: 7ose Montes Lot Area: 3,127 SF APN: 028-286-110 General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, sma11 facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. Date Submitted: This project was submitted to the Planning Department after October 23, 1998 and was reviewed under the R-1 District Regulations now in effect. � Summary: The applicant is requesting setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand into an existing basement level, and a side setback variance for a new detached garage at 260 Crescent Avenue. The number of bedrooms is being increased from two to three. The project requires the following: 1. 2. 3. � 5 Front setback variance for new second floor decking (5'-2" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 b,3); Rear setback variance for new second floor decking (1'-0" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 d,2); Side setback variance for new second floor decking (4'-0" proposed where 6'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 c, l); ' Lot coverage variance required (54 %, 1692 SF proposed where 40 %, 1251 SF is the m�imum allowed)(CS 25.28.065); ' Floor area. ratio variance required (.79 FAR, proposed, 81 SF over maximum 2410 SF, where .77 FAR is the ma3cimum allowed)(CS 25.28.070, b); 6. Side setback variance required for a new deta.ched garage located forward of the rear 40 % of the iength of the lot line (0'-0" proposed where 6'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.073 2,d,2); and 7. Design review for new uncovered decking on the second floor (CS 25.57.010). � Variances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue History: This 3,127 SF site has a creek located along the right side property line. In February, 1998, the creek damaged a section of the house wall during a release of water from the Crystal Springs dam. A building permit was issued in February, 1998, for temporary shoring of the basement wall along _ the creek. In December, 1998, a building permit was issued to upgrade/reinforce the foundation. The applicant is now applying to expand living area into an e�sting basement and add uncovered decking to the main floor. This lot is irregularly shaped, substandard in size (3,127 SF) and measures 59.75' wide and only 53.5' deep at its longest dimensions. The average size of the surrounding lots in the area is 7,600 SF (50' x 152'). 1'he lot slopes downward into the creek from left to right approximately 8'-4". Approximately 10% of the lot is within the creek bed (measured to top of bank). Summary: The e�sting house is single story along the left side property line and two story along the right side property line. Because more than one-half of the existing basement wall height is abo�e grade, the basement is considered a story. Therefore, the existing main floor (at street level) is considered a second floor. The addition of the uncovered decking is on the second floor and therefor� subject �o design review. From the front at street level, the proposed decking appears to be on the ground level. . The existing house now contains 1,259 SF of floor area and has three potential bedrooms. There is also a 329 SF detached single car garage, for a total floor area of 1,588 SF (.51 FAR). The applicant is proposing to remove 69 SF at the rear of the house. This section of the house was built on the rear property line. The applicant is also proposing to expand into an existing basement which would include a bedroom, bathroom and family room (992 SF). The total number of bedrooms is being increased from two to three. The proposed family room does not qualify as a potential bedroom. The total floor area proposed on the site is 2,182 SF plus a 309 SF detached garage (.79 FAR) where 2,101 SF plus 309 SF for a detached garage (.77 FAR) is the maximum allowed. A floor area. ratio variance is required for exceeding the maximum floor area allowed by 81 SF. The existing house is non-conforming in lot coverage (1588 SF, 50.7%). The proposed deck addition would increa.se the lot coverage to 54 %(1, 692 SF) . A lot coverage variance is required for 54% (1,692 SF) where 40% (1,251 SF) is the m�imum allowed. The project also includes adding second floor decking (193 SF) along the right side of the house. The decking wraps around the right front and rear corners of the house. The proposed decking requires several setback variances. A front setback variance is required for 5'-2", where 20' is the minimum required on the second floor. A side setback variance is required for 4', where 6' is the minimum required for this lot. A rear setback variance is required for 1'-0", where 20' is the minimum required on the second floor. The proposed decking complies with declining height envelope requirements. The existing attached single car garage (329 SF) would be demolished and replaced with a new detached single car garage. The existing garage is located forward of the rear 40 % of the length of the lot. The proposed 309 SF garage measures 13' W x 23' -9"D (12' x 20' -6" clear interior � 9 � Variances and Design Review 260 CrescenfAvenue dimensions). A 9'W x 20'D uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway. The detached garage is located forward of the rear 40 % of the length of the lot line. A side setback variance is required for 0'-0" where 6' is the minimum required. The proposed detached garage complies with all other accessory structure requirements. Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (December 30, 1998 memo) that all lot and roof drainage shall be addressed and brought to the public street. A property survey will be required at the time of building permit submittal for the proposed detached garage and shall be completed by a licensed land surveyor. The Chief Building Official notes (December 22, 1998 memo) that FEMA flood plain requirements shall be verified at time of building permit submittal. DH complies N/A see code ENVELOPE: * Setback, lot coverage and floor area ra.tio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand into an e�sting basement level, and a side setback variance for a new detached garage. SETBACKS Front: 1 st flr 2nd flr Side (left): Side (right): Rea�-: Ist flr 2nd flr LOT COVERAGE: FAR: PARKING: HEIGHT.• PROPOSED no change *5 �_2�� no change *4' -0" no change * 1' -0" *54 % (1,692 SF) *2,182 SF + 309 SF for detached garage .79 FAR 1 covered (12' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) no change EXISTING 9'-2" 9' -2" 18'-0" 8'-0" 4'-8" 0' -0" 50.7 % (1,588 SF) 1,259 SF + 329 SF for detached garage .51 FAR 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) 20' -10" ALLOWED/REQ'D 15' 20' -0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 15' -0" 20' -0" 40 % (1,251 SF) 2,101 SF + 309 SF for deta.ched garage .77 FAR 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) 30' /2 lh stories This project meets all other zoning code requirements. 3 . �. Variances and Design Review , 260 CrescentAvenue Design Reviewer Comments: The design reviewer notes that the application is unique because the project doesn't really fit the Standard Design Review Guidelines. The proposed decks, which are slightly above sidewalk level, aze technically considered a second floor addition since they occur above the basement level of the house, which on the creek side of the property, is entirely above grade. In the initial review of the project, the reviewer had several questions/requests regarding the support and material of the proposed decking. The applicant revised the plans to address the reviewer's comments. Design Reviewer Recommendations: The reviewer notes that the initial submittal has been revised in accordance with the Design Reviewer's comments. The reviewer recommends that the Design Review for the proposed decks be approved by the Planning Commission. Study Meeting: At their meeting on March 8, 1999, the Planning Commission asked several questions regarding this application (March 8, 1999 P.C. Minutes). The Planning Commission asked the applicant to address the current conditions of the creek. In a written response, dated March 12, 1999, the applicant notes that the creek water flow level has been the same since the house was constntcted in the 1920's. The applicant indicates that his. client has dredged the creek along his property. The wa11 along the creek has been repaired and upgraded to a safe elevation based on the past flood water line. The Commission re�uested a more detailed drawing showing the existing and proposed elevations. All changes to the building elevations are labeled on the drawings. Other than the main entrance, all windows openings are the same, but contain new windows. The applicant notes that pictures were submitted for the design reviewer. The applicant adds that the architectural design of front and side elevations have been scrutinized and approved by the design reviewer. The applicant believes that a11 architectural refinements were properly thought out. The laundry azea. is based on the remaining area. beyond the 20' minimum length required for the covered parking stall. This laundry area measures 3' x 12' or 36 SF (interior clear area). The Commission also asked if the size of the garage could be reduced to eliminate 81 SF and eliminate one of the exceptions. The applicant notes that the new garage is a replica of the existing garage. The applicant also points out that approximately 65 SF has been removed from the rear of the existing house. The Commission asked the applicant to explain the reason for the side deck and noted that privacy of the neighbor next door was a concern. The applicant indicates in his letter that the proposed decking is located at the original floor level. Therefore, the position of the observer in relation to the adjacent property is the same since the house was built. In addition, there is a 7' fence located 20' away blocking any view generated from the decks and windows. The adjacent house is also set back from the proposed deck. The applicant did not respond to the question regarding extending the deck into the front setback. 4 , 'M : T/ariances and Design Review 260 Crescent Avenue In regards to adding a two-car garage, the applicant notes that the geometry of the lot makes it impossible to generate room for a two-caz garage. There would also be a further increase to lot coverage and floor area ratio. Regarding increasing the floor area ratio, the applicant indicates that the existing basement has been in use since it was built. The proposed design only represents a new internal layout. Required �ndings for �ariance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions e�st 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; and 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. 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commissian should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the requested variances. The reasons for any action should be clearly sta.ted. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: l, that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 11, 1999 Sheets A-1 and A-2, and that any changes to the footprint (including decks) or floor area, of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 5 !` Variances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which .would include adding or enlarging a window(s), deck(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the City Engineer's December 30, 1998 memo and the Chief Building Official's December 22, 1998 memo shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Zoning Technician c: Tony Brandi, applicant � _ ,-_�_; City of Burlingame Variances and Design Review Address: 260 Crescent Avenue Meeting Date: 3/8/99 Request: Setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand into an e�cisting basement level, and a side setback variance for a new detached garage at 260 Crescent Avenue. Project is subject to design review. Applicant: Tony Brandi APN: 028-286-110 Property Owner: 7ose Montes Lot Area: 3,127 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent 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: This project was submitted to the Planning Department after October 23, 1998 and was reviewed under the R-1 District Regulations now in effect. Summary: The applicant is raquesting setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand into an existing basement level, and a side setback variance for a new detached garage at .260 Crescent Avenue. The number of bedrooms is being increased from xwo to three. The project requires the following: 1, � 3. 4. 5. Front setback variance for new second floor decking (5'-2" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 b,3); Rear setback variance for new second floor decking (1'-0" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 d,2); Side setback variance for new second floor decking (4'-0" proposed where 6'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.072 c, l); Lot coverage variance required (54%, 1692 SF proposed where 40%, 1251 SF is the maximum allowed)(CS 25.28.065); Floor area. ratio variance required (.79 FAR, proposed, 81 SF over maximum 2410 SF, where .77 FAR is the maximum allowed)(CS 25.28.070, b); 6. Side setback variance required for a new deta.ched garage located forward of the rear 40 % of the length of the lot line (0'-0" proposed where 6'-0" is the minimum required)(CS 25.28.073 2,d,2); and 7. Design review for new uncovered decking on the second floor (CS 25.57.010). �. Variances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue History: This 3,127 SF site has a creek located along the right side property line. In February, 1998, the creek damaged a section of the house wall during a release of water from the Crystal Springs dam. A building permit was issued in February, 1998, for temporary shoring of the basement wall along the creek. In December, 1998, a building permit was issued to upgrade/reinforce the foundation. The applicant is now applying to expand living area into an existing basement and add uncovered decking to the main floor. This lot is inegularly shaped, substandazd in size (3,127 SF) and mea.sures 59.75' wide and only 53.5' deep at its longest dimensions. The average size of the surrounding lots in the azea is 7,600 SF (50' x 152'). The lot slopes downward into the creek from left to right approximately 8'-4". Approximately 10% of the lot is within the creek bed (measured to top of bank). Summary: The existing house is single story along the left side property line and two story along the right side property line. Because more than one-half of the existing basement wall height is above grade, the basement is considered a story. Therefore, the e�cisting main floor (at street leve�) is considered a second floor. The addition of the uncovered decking is on the second floor and therefore subject to design review. From the front at street level, the proposed decking appears to be on the ground level. The existing house now contains 1,259 SF of floor area and has three potential bedrooms. There is also a 329 SF detached single car garage, for a total floor area. of 1,588 SF_ (.51 FAR). The applicant is proposing to remove 69 SF at the rear of the house. This section of the house was built on the rear property line. The applicant is also proposing to expand into an existing basement which would include a bedroom, bathroom and family room (992 SF). The total. number of bedrooms is being increased from two to three. The proposed family room does not qualify as a potential bedroom. The total floor area. proposed on the site is 2,182 SF plus a 309 SF detached garage (.79 FAR) where 2,101 SF plus 309 SF for a detached gazage (.77 FAR) is the maximum allowed. A floor area ratio variance is required for exceeding the ma�cimum floor area allowed by S1 SF. The existing house is non-conforming in lot coverage (1588 SF, 50.7%). The proposed deck addition would increase the lot coverage to 54 %(1, 692 SF) . A lot coverage variance is required for 54% (1,692 SF) where 40% (1,251 SF) is the maximum allowed. The project also includes adding second floor decking (193 SF) along the right side of the house. The decking wraps around the right front and rear corners of the house. The proposed decking requires several setback variances. A front setback variance is required for 5'-2", where 20' is the minimum required on the second floor. A side setback variance is required for 4' , where 6' is the minimum required for this lot. A rear setback variance is required for 1'-0", where 20' is the minimum required on the second floor. The proposed decking complies with declining height envelope requirements. The existing attached single car garage (329 SF) would be demolished and replaced with a new detached single car garage. The existing garage is located forward of the rear 40 % of the length of the lot. The proposed 309 SF garage measures 13' W x 23' -9"D (12' x 20' -6" clear interior 2 t Variances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue dirnensions). A 9'W x 20'D uncovered pazking space is provided in the driveway. The detached garage is located forwazd of the rear 40 % of the length of the lot line. A side setback variance is required for 0'-0" where 6' is the minimum required. The proposed deta.ched garage .complies with all other accessory structure requirements. Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (December 30, 1998 memo) that all lot and roof drainage shall be addressed and brought to the public street. A property survey will be required at the time of building permit submittal for the proposed detached garage and shall be completed by a licensed land surveyor. The Chief Building Official notes (December 22, 1998 memo) that FEMA , flood plain requirements shall be verified at time of building permit submittal. SETBACKS Front: Ist flr 2nd flr Side (left): Side (right): Rear: 1 st flr 2nd flr LOT COVERAGE: PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D no change *5 �_2�� no change *4' -0" no change *1'-0" *54 % (1,692 SF) FAR: *2,182 SF + 309 SF for detached garage .79 FAR PARKING: 1 covered (12' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) � HEIGHT.• no change 9, _2 �� 9'-2" 18' -0" S'-0" 4'-8" 0'-0" 50.7 % (1,588 SF) 1,259 SF + 329 SF for detached gazage .51 FAR 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 20'-10" 15' 20' -0" 6' -0" 6'-0" 15' -0" 20'-0" 40 % (1,251 SF) 2,101 SF + 309 SF for detached garage .77 FAR 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) 30' /2 lh stories DH complies N/A see code ENVELOPE: * Setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio variances to add new uncovered decking on the second floor and to expand into an existing basement level, and a side setback variance for a new detached garage. This project meets all other zoning code requirements. � y Variances and Design Review 260 CrescentAvenue Design Reviewer Comments: The design reviewer notes that the application is unique because the project doesn't really fit the Standard Design Review Guidelines. The proposed decks, which are slightly above sidewalk level, are technically considered a second floor addition since they occur above the basement level of the house, which on the creek side of the property, is entirely above grade. In the initial review of the project, the reviewer had several questions/requests regarding the support and material of the proposed decking. The applicant revised the plans to address the reviewer's comments. Design Reviewer Recommendations: The reviewer notes that the initial submittal has been revised in accordance with the Design Reviewer'.s comments. The reviewer recommends that the Design Review for the proposed decks be approved by the Planning Commission. Ruben Hurin Zoning Technician c: Tony Brandi, applicant n