The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1637 Westmoor Road - Staff ReportItem # � Action Calendar �-. � _- r�ra aa�. : .. � � .�--:"-- �� f..Lr �t� s �� ' �—_.s.�,. �� -�- �:t ��".. PROJECT LOCATION 1637 Westmoor Road City of Burlingame Design Review, Parking and Side Setback Variances for a First and Second Story Addition Item # 3 Action Calendar Address: 1637 Westmoor Road Meeting Date: 12/13/04 Request: Design review, side setback and parking variances for a first and second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040, 25.28.072 and 25.70.020) Applicant/Property Owner: Jacob and Leslie Nguyen APN: 025-233-090 Designer: Peter Sano Lot Area: 5,250 SF General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Date Submitted: September 8, 2004 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construcrion 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. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. Summary: The applicant is requesting design review, side setback and parking variances for a first and second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1. The existing two-bedroom, single-story house contains 1,381 SF of floor area (.26 FAR), including an attached single car garage. The first floor addition includes adding a covered porch at the front and adding a family room at the rear of the first floor, and reconfigunng the existing floor plan. The new second floor will be 1,008 SF and will provide three bedrooms and two full bathrooms. The addition and reinodel will increase the floor area to 2,779 SF (.52 FAR) where 2,780 SF (.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed. With this proposal the remodeled house will have four bedrooms, which requires one covered and one uncovered parking space. The existing attached garage is non-conforming in width, at only 8' wide, because of the encroaclunent of the chimney into the parking area. The number of bedrooms is being increased from two to four, therefore a parking variance is required for parking space width, 8' width where 10' width is required. The existing right side setback is 3 feet. The stair case to the new second story will align with the existing right side wall with a 3 foot side setback where a 4 foot side setback is required, therefore the applicant is requesting a right setback variance for 1 foot. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for a first and second story addition; • Side setback variance (3' right side setback is proposed for stairwell to new second floor , where 4' side setback is the minimum required); and • Parking variance for covered parking space width (10' x 20' covered parking space required, where 8' x 20' covered parking space is proposed). REVISED OWGINAL EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D PROPOSAL PROPOSAL SETBACKS Front (lst flr): 20' 20' 20' 15' or block average (2"a flr): 28'6" 27'9" N/A (25' to single car garage) 20' Side (left): (lst flr): No change 3'1" garage *3']" Design Review, Side Setback and Pm�king �m�iances 1637 Westmoor Roa�l REVISED ORIGINAL EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D PROPOSAL PROPOSAL addition' 4' (2"`' flr): 4'S' 12'6" N/A Side (right): (lst flr): 7'S" 7'S" 3' 4, �2�d flr�: 3" 7'S" N/A Rear (lst flr): 33'8" 34'4" 45'6" 15' (2"`� flr): 38'6" 42'2" N/A 20' LOT COVERAGE: 35.3% 34.3% 27.0% 40% (1,857 SF) (1,804 SF) (1,420 SF) (2,100 SF) FAR: 2,779 SF/ 2,721 SF/ 1,381 SF/ 2,780 SF/ 0.52 FAR 0.51 FAR 0.26 FAR 0.52 FAR PARKING: One covered in One covered in One covered in One covered in garage garage garage garage (10' x 20') (8' x 20') ' (8' x 20') � (8' x 20') * + 1 unc. in driveway + 1 unc. in + 1 unc. in + 1 unc. in driveway driveway driveway HEIGHT: 27'6" 2T 1T6" 30'/2 �/z stories DH ENVELOPE: Meets Meets Meets See code requirement requirement requirement ' Right side setback variance (3' right side second story setback proposed where 4' is required). 2 Parking variance required for covered parking space width (8' width existing (proposed) where 10' width is required). *E.xisting �ion-conforming co�zdition Staff Comments: See attached. October 12, 2004 Design Review Study Meeting: At the October 12, 2004, design review study meeting the Planning Commission voted to send this project to a design review consultant. The Planning Commission identified the following concerns with the project: • Why is the garage being extended? Is it necessary? Could eliminate the side setback vanance if extension is not required; • This is a strong candidate for design review; need to look at the quality of the plans; • Plans are incomplete, need to show floor to top of plate dimensions for first and second floors; • Need to provide detailed landscape plan, site is pretty barren now, landscaping should enhance addition; should add at least two trees and large scale shrubs at front of property; • Inconsistency in addition on second floor with the existing style; • Should avoid different sloped roofs in redesign; • Need to provide window and eave details; • Second floor plate heights should be articulated, bring portions of the roof down to add interest. The applicant met with the design reviewer and discussed these issues. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped November 18, 2004, with the following changes: Design Review, Side Setback and Parki�rg Variances • Garage extension eliminated, no left side setback necessary; • Stone veneer added to chimney; • Eave detail provided; • Window pattern changed; • Window placement inodified; • Wood water table added; • Second floor bay windows eliminated and set back further; • Second floor roof framing modified; • Second floor staircase modified on right elevation; and • Brackets added to roof detail over rear doors. 1637 West�noor Road Design Reviewer's Comments and Conclusion (memo dated November 18, 2004): The design reviewer's November 18, 2004 memo is attached. The design reviewer points out that the homes in this area are 1950's and 60's era with low pitched roofs, attached garages, stucco finishes and wood or brick accents. In the revised plans the designer has also brought the styles of the first and second stories together through materials and elements. The plans have been revised to have less bulk than the original proposal with the second story set back from the first floor to reduce the mass. A water table has been added at the front to reduce the height of the first floor. By eliminating the extension of the garage there is now additional relief to the front elevation. The design reviewer concludes that the architectural style of this house is appropriate for this neighborhood and will blend in well, and feels that the revised plans respond to the Planning Conunission's comments. 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. Required Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be deh-imental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties ui the general vicinity. Design Review, Side Setback and Parking Variances 1637 Westmoor Road Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution; and should include findings made for design review and side setback and parking dimension variances. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 18, 2004 sheets 1 through 11, and L-1, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2. that should the primary structure on this lot ever be demolished for any reason, the variances granted for this remodel shall be voided; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal's memos dated September 9, 2004 shall be met; 5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 6. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty ofperjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the proj ect has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; and 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Catherine Barber Planner c: Jacob and Leslie Nguyen, applicant/property owners 4 Project Comments Date: 09/09/2004 To: �"City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review for first and second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1, APN:025-233-090 Staff Review: 09/13/2004 �� Li1.� �'%��.�..v�'�`v2� 7(k�i�.i. � �`2C��it��Y� T _�'�fartrl -tDitln-ny2{ �?{-4 �L�� '�'-(la.t'i��tS , �z� i��.� av� n��dl.��-,kt-� �,n�� v�,�v�.,�.�, � �.ka �� - t�- P� �.--�,�u�� r� �j� �+m� �a c� �-�, 3J �0�'L (7F3Zrtwi�l�3'L- "PK�Ct"� L '�'ii�iGta-t�r� l3Z �.-s�Gs2�-� � cn�il> �� %1,i�iU-L �„'vyL(�=�5 -��i�Ki.�� U�VI.Sta� AT Ci�cS-C) 'SS� "j27-• �'crL �nL�DYt�F.<,2r(�sx.�,kL t�t� 5�w�,A.i;t r,r11�L ��z�rr�.--¢ �ru `�1ttz' -t�`6�ttv�3^G S' '.h2,wk ��12 ��a'(� t c., 'i �S �l ti�.�+��f - cf� - {�'b�,%`t1£S Ant -�,(L-it��_,P�1 11�t�'r?u iiLr � �; �tii a ar � �i��=y2N� OIIQ Sitvj.(� - Reviewed by: Date: �-V� `��f3��_ �• Project Comments Date: 09/09/2004 To: ❑ City Engineer �'Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review for first and second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1, APN:025-233-090 Staff Review: 09/13/2004 1637 Westmoor - Prolect Comments 1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. 2) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. 3) Provide guardrails at all landings. 4) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are more than two risers. 5) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. Project Comments Date: 09/09/2004 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal � Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review for first and second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1, APN:025-233-090 ` Staff Review: 09/13/2004 i �r,i, . 191i/ %� /v'�;'l� i 7I �i : � �� / � L G C by: 17,�:T �-i��f�vi�/ /��'1� � l,,fs /G�Y� uY- � �i,,,.� /,�ri.��,; /, -�„� _ c Date: To: Project Comments 09/09/2004 ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official � Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Request for design review for first and second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1, APN:025-233-090 09/13/2004 From: Subject: ` Staff Review Ca_, �� _. ,� - _� , ` `� ` _ `>' y' '.� ]< L �� - _ '�-��--c� ._r<=.�,�v✓ � � � ��ji . \ ! _�,� r'� -'�` � c�--' �.��. `�f- '1"L-l.J�,l l`�;��.i^__ �� 9 Reviewed by: Date: City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ag me.org �� CIT7 p 4 � BURIJNGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION �,�..� p• Type of application: Design Review i. Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: , . --> Project address: � �) �� ' �� S f �`-i�' �) �� (tl s �'�- �� i'�-� ��N'l� �:#� �� I�G[� APPLIC,ANT Name:�.�1�1:�� LC��; l,�(�l� 1�;11, Address: � � � � �/�1 �,��'1111� �? � itl� Ciry/State/Zip: �)�i�'�ll�� f{1��' Phone (w): �C��' - �� • _�� `� �' � (h): �:�5 �:; - 2S �� - `l �5 `� � �� (�; 61u �, ARCHITECT/DESIGNER �- � Name: t G�'� � F� [� � Address: �� 1�. � i`� 11.TN L � i� �- I City/State/Zip: {��(� LC Q �I ��L��1 l`�1�1 �C �i Phone (w): �' � `i �f - � `5 � � (h): �fl�- PROPE TY OWNER Name: �� A�; l� `� L-1,� u�. I �� U! �IU Address: � f�-1�-1� City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. r� : - ` �: , .0 _ � �I.� SEP - g 2G04 �� 1� OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEP7. PROJECT � i1; �� -I _ � �� I,_: � YI; f+�� L"n r� 1� N t ��% L[) �=.� �� I� I' tS � r�( AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and es knowledge and belief. ApplicanYs signature: Date: � � � I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning mission. Property owner's signature: Date: � � Date submitted: PCAPP.FRM � � 5 �� V1 �(-'�J , e�-�� -t�a,� -�� S-t- � �-e_ c�� S+"�'-�y � Q� � � -�- � �-,� City of Burlingame Planning Deparhnent 501 Priinrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlineame.ore ��, ciT,r o � � BURLINGAME � �b...� CIT'�t' OF BURLINGAiYiE VARIANCE' �PPLICATION ' The Play.ning 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 can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or �xtraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not applv to other properties in this area. s E�, a rr�c� E� b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. 5��. I�YTA�J�� c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location ►vill not be detrimental or injurious to property or improve�nents in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. S� �►-�T�u��O d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aest/ietics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? S E � �i~fiAc,l��D �:-_.�._.��1..� SEP 2 8 2004 c�T�� . ��,�,��r p i ,. � VAR.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Prirruose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinQame.org a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. Do any conditions exist on the site which make other altematives to the variance unpracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area7 For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree specunen, steep terram, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood? b. Explair: why the variance request is necessary for tJ:e preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonab[e property loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. Would you be unable to build a project sunilar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitarion or hardship on the development of the property? c. Explain why the proposed use at tlte proposed locat;'on will not be detrimental or injurious to JfYO�UeI'fy fJ: iT1T�iY'fli�c;ii:�i,'i5 7/t i/�i8 .'��,iY'iir� O7' l��iZt(�i�LC lt��i�l%t� S[IfCry, general welfare or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlighdshade, 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 welfare? Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situarions which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safety. How will the structure or use within the struchue affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? 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 of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservarion and development? Is there a socia] benefit? Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potentfal uses on a�;oinirib proper•dies ira tl�e Qe.+�eral vdcinity, How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match exisring architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new struchue is proposed, compare its size, appeazance, orientation, etc. with other shucriues in the neighborhood or area. How will the struchue or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the nnage or tone established by size, density of development and general pattem of land use. Will there be more �affic 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 comparible with exisring and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. VAR.FRM To: Burlingame City Planning Department From: Jake & Leslie Nguyen 1637 Westmoor Rd. Burlingame, Ca 94010 RE: Request approval for variance exception on the right elevation pertaining to the second floor staircase. Four feet is cunently required whereas three feet is requested. a. The e�sting right side elevation is currently set back by 3' whereas 4' is now required. The proposed addition places a staircase in a potion of an existin� master bedroom. Keeping the existing set back, the proposed staircase will bring the set back to the second floor. b. We've allowed and have exhausted enough time, money, and efforts trying to relocate the staircase to comply with the new set back. In the end we could not find a floor plan that was amenable to us that would allow for the full enjoyment of living space and hence property value. c. The proposed staircase in the addition uses an existing set back of the first floor and extends to the second floor. The second floor complies with the existing declining height envelope and does not pose a threat to the immediate neighbor. Several re-designs were taken to ensure a positive impact to the neighborhood. d. The proposed staircase and its location are in the most ideal place for this homeowner to take advantage of available living space. The design maintains architecture consistency and appeal. It has no negative impact on the immediate neighbor and blends irrto the neighborhood style seamlessly. RECEIVED N 0 V 2 3 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. To: City of Burlingame Planning Department Re: 1637 Westmoor Rd. Burlingame, Ca Request for a variance exception to an existing 8' x 20' garage whereas a 10' x 20 is required. Responses: a. The existing one-car garage is a 10' x 20' size and is reduced to 8' x 20' where an existing fnepiace pr�trudes im� it by �' in the interior wall between the garage and the living room. The protrusion is a 2' x 5' space. While it is not unusual to find fireplaces at this location, most neighborhood fireplaces are located on the opposite side of the homes or within different interior walls that does not encumber the garage space. b. Since the existing side set back is conforming, it is not practical to extend the sidewalls without violating the side set back requirement, not to mention exorbitant construction costs. Relocating the fireplace would remove living space from the interio� ofthe h�use, and the forcing removal of the existing brick fireplace would result in loss of property value as well as ongoing enjoyment. c. The proposed remodel preserves the existing garage and reduces the useable width by 2'. ��isw�nidnatimpairthe garage beyond its present abiiities. Its existence has not and will not impact public health, safety, welfare and convenience of bordering neighbors. d. The homes along Westmoor predominantly have attached one-car garages at the front. Presei�ving the existing garag� wii-1 maintain tfie gEnerai �haracter and parking pattern of the street. Homeowners: Jake Nguyen Leslie Tom-Nguyen �z 7lo y' 9��-v� ��v�rVED s�P z s zoo4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Czty ofBurlingarne Plmaning Commission Mi�iutes October 12. 2004 11. 1637 WESTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND PAR.KING VARiANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JACOB AND LESLIE NGLJYEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PETER SANO, DESIGNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Jacob Nguyen, applicant and property owner, was available to answer questions, noted that proposed project is below maximum allowed FAR and lot coverage. Commission noted that if the fireplace in the living room is relocated or removed, the required width would be provided in the garage and the parking variance can be eliminated. Applicant noted that he considered relocating the fireplace, but this is really the only place it could be located and kept in the living room, would like to keep a wood burning fireplace, if relocated would have to install a gas unit, the existing brick fireplace adds a nice feel. Commission asked if the garage is now being used far parking? Applicant noted that currently it is not being used for parking, but will be once the project is complete. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: • Why is the garage being extended? Is it necessary? Could eliminate the side setback variance if extension is not required; • This is a strong candidate for design review; need to look at the quality of the plans; • Plans are incomplete, need to show floor to top of plate dimensions for first and second floors; • Need to provide detailed landscape plan, site is pretty barren now, landscaping should enhance addition; should add at least two trees and large scale shrubs at front of property; • Inconsistency in addition on second floor with the existing style; • Should avoid different sloped roofs in redesign; • Need to provide window and eave details; • Second floor plate heights should be articulated, bring portions of the roof down to add interest. C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg and Keighran absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:38 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meetings of September 20 and October 4, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council relating to the Planning Commission at the meetings of September 20,2004, and October 4, 2004. - Update on Neighborhood Meeting continued for Hospital Replacement Project. CP Monroe also noted that the Neighborhood Meeting for the Davis Drive and Ray Park residents to discuss the replacement of Peninsula Hospital occurred on October 7, 2004, and was continued to 15 � a� cirr a� CITY OF BURLINGAME '� PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 +k TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 6963790 �,,,,m www.burlingame.org Site:1637 WESTMOOR ROAD Application for design review, side setback and parking variances for a first and second story addition at: 1637 WESTMOOR ROAD , zoned R-1. (APN: 025-233-090). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, December 13, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: December 3, 2004 (Please refer to other side) A copy of the aF to the meeting Burlingame, Ca If you challe raising only described in at or prior tc Property ow their tenants (650) 558-7'< PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINGAME �lication and plans for this pro�ect �ay be reviewed prior �t t1�e�lanning Department at�501 Primrose Road, .. fo5�, �� .� � ? � " � L a:< .� . ha.�ubject application(s) in court, you may be limited to ��s��s you or someone else raised�at the public hearing, i e��r in written correspondence delivered to the ciry pu ic �earin�. "' � ,��-� . : vy�v h-:re,�eive this notice are respon�ble �or informing u��fiis��otice. For additional infor�l7ation, please call ��g� �� ;.4 t � � �� Margaret Mo ��c�'e ,� � -� �� ,� E � .! City Planner � �'' � t ,� __v� `��`''� f � q,.....o.� � {, . PU B�1��E�RINC-�VO�ICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING AND SIDE SETBCK VARIANCES RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a desi�n review, parkin� and side setback variances for a first and second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1, Jacob N�yen and Leslie Tom, property owners APN: 025-233- 090; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on December 13, 2004, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Section: 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. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption 2. Said design review and parking and side setback variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for design review and v variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed thai a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13`h day of December, 2004, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, parking and side setback variances. 1637 Westmoor Road Effective December 27, 2004 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 18, 2004 sheets 1 through 11, and L-1, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2. that should the primary structure on this lot ever be demolished far any reason, the variances granted for this remodel shall be voided; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features ar changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal's memos dated September 9, 2004 shall be met; 5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 6. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single ternlination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; and 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. � _� i � z� . rs 1 , � y: , _ � * \ � � 1: � � � � � �� :��' � .� J �•,, ` ' _ �� ' - x . ��.... � •� f r�� .`. ��`�[ �, � � � � � �, � ��"-,---_��' „ a 7 � ��: <,' r- �'� ' rj -� F�.' - � +� � '� . ' ' (�' ` _ � " � . �� i�t'� ; �: � •�� : �' . � ,��\3 � 4 � `�' ti y. �� .��- .. � �f M _ � s" `'�-- � �s � - _ ' � � e � ��% . . ::� l � � � ..� ^ �',,, ? � '�y � , �� '_ � / ��' • . , �' , `•� �..� ^ < ' ♦ � �r �� , � / � . /r� ✓y �? .i.��ta Y �{�. 1 � � , ' �"� _ :;t;' � �• j, ��► • +� y ` . �` �=- � �.�. , I ""C . � � ` _ �! � `. � /\ ,''��q� 'r_ �\' I� Iy _ ',i';. ' �`y � - � i � � r � __ , .. - .- t �� '�� •c� � 9 +h .r . �` .. . b�.R.' q . _'. . r•,.t:. , q � .�. . �.' � ,��;` � � \ / i�if � � . ',y ' � !1 � l .t _ �' t _ , c+, � �. �` ,� /l ' �` � 1 .� ► f' ,,._ , ,,�� ; ::.,'y . ; d � � - � � � .. �' ,� �! '�' y, • • ° ' ' � \ 'y �' � _. + . r . �,..�'4.- ` � � i ` ' � ac,: ' ' t�. � r,t,t'' � �: � � ,l/ � i .�,'` \ . --,y ' t � � � � �Yy 4 a § � ��+'a :�" : � *� •'�,�r'. . .r � , ' ' ��' '� `� � � . 1 ` � , / � � h ` , � /�. . }' � � � � \ , 1 ,� \ T � '� � �V ~ �� ; ��h r�♦ ,��V ,. _ , / 4-• '�. ' � _ � � , '�� r � �� '��;` ''P .'r �,�`�:;` � -; � ! �� \ v � � �m>, - ' t . ` y�� w ' y j � - i ': ` �"r. ` � `r� � _ r ti,. � - : j ,v . � � . y � � � `�n � _ - .:' � `O ' . ; �� , .i � '� � � :�_ . i � � '. ` �`!'. - ..- �:.. `� � , t ` ' �.., . � � y � ., � j� . ri' ,�. y�: N,�, • s ��., ,� fl+i ~.i••:• - ._� o "f� � ,?,�r��. ��• '� '�: � �- � � ' �, s \' _ 1 �� / � -� � - �,I �'� �, '�„� -- � _��%,� �'z- � �j-t� .• � .. � i� '��{. '� � � '� �� . - � ' '� 't � /# � � �. • ,� . '1 � ' �� -, ` _ �+ � � /' ; �- `.+ t` f � � � �.� �7, r • '. ' � _ - .. �16 � :i'- .� �S'� < . ' �� 1' � . - � .Y�~ , •'�a3'�/ ',. , i`� �� -� . _ *',��'` ": � „ , �:� '�.. �_� ,. .. - �- � �, L - � _ � � • � �"� .� .� � � - �� Item # DSR Study Calendar Design Review, Parking and Side Setback Variances for a First and Second Story Addition City of Burlingame Address: 1637 Westmoor Road Meeting Date: 10/12/04 Request: Design review, side setback and parking variances for a first and second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040, 25.28.072 and 25.70.020) Applicant/Property Owner: Jacob and Leslie Nguyen APN: 025-233-090 Designer: Peter Sano Lot Area: 5,250 SF General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Date Submitted: September 8, 2004 Summary: The applicant is requesting design review, side setback and parking variances for a first and second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1. The existing two-bedroom, single-story house contains 1,381 SF of floor area (.26 FAR), including an attached single car garage. The first floor addition includes adding a covered porch at the front and adding a family room at the rear of the first floor, and reconfiguring the existing floor plan. The new second floor will be 1,001 SF and will provide three bedrooms and two full bathrooms. The addition and remodel will increase the floor area to 2,721 SF (.51 FAR) where 2,780 SF (.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed. With this proposal the remodeled house will have four bedrooms, which requires one covered and one uncovered parking space. The existing attached garage is non-conforming in width, at only 8' wide, because of the encroachment of the chimney into the parking area. The number of bedrooms is being increased from two to four, therefore a parking variance is required for parking space width, 8' width where 10' width is required. The existing left side setback is 3' 1". The proposal includes bringing the garage forward 3', which will extend the existing wall that has a non-conforming side setback of 3' 1" where 4' is required. Therefore a side setback variance is required. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for a first and second story addition; • Side setback variance (3' 1" left side setback is proposed for garage extension, where 4' side setback is the minimum required); and • Parking variance far covered parking space width ( 10' x 20' covered parking space required, where 8' x 20' covered parking space is proposed). PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (lst flr): No change 20' 15' or block average �2nd �Ir�: 2g'-6" N/A (25' to single car garage) 20' Side (left): (lst flr): 3' 1" garage addition' *3' 1" 4, �2�d flr�: 12'6" N/A Side (right): (lst flr): 7'S" 3' 4, �2od flr�. 7,5„ N/A Design Review, Side Setback and Parking Variances l637 Westmoor Road PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D Rear (lst flr): 34'4" 45'6" 15' (2"d flr): 42'2" N/A 20' LOT COVERAGE: 34.3% 27.0% 40% (1,804 SF) (1,420 SF) (2,100 SF) FAR: 2,721 SF/ 1,381 SF/ 2,780 SF/ 0.51 FAR 0.26 FAR 0.52 FAR PARKING: One covered in garage One covered in garage One covered in garage �g° X 20�� s° X 20�� * �io° X zo°� + 1 unc. in driveway + 1 unc. in driveway + 1 unc. in driveway HEIGHT: 27' 17'6" 30'/2'h stories DH ENVELOPE: Meets requirement Meets requirement See code ' Leit s�de setback vanance (3' 1" left side setback proposed where 4'-0" is required). '- Parking variance required for covered parking space width (8' width existing (proposed) where 10' width is required). *Existing non-conforming condition Staff Comments: See attached. Catherine Barber Planner c: Jacob and Leslie Nguyen, applicant/property owners z To: City of Burlingame Planning Department Re: 1637 Westmoor Rd., Burlingame, Ca Request for a variance exception to an existing 3' side set back whereas 4' is require. Request pertains to the extension portion of the garage. Responses: a. The existing one-car garage has been extended towards the front of the property line by 3' to allow for sufficient area for washer/dryer, water heater, and drain sink. Due to the extension, we were not able to comply with the new side setback of 4' as the existing setback is 3' on both sides of the home. b. After long hours of trying to relocate the washer/dryer, water heater and drain sink, as well as the possibility of adding to the rear of the garage, we felt by extend it would be the most practical solution as it does not take away from living space. The variance exception would allow for full enjoyment of the living area and hence the property value. c. The proposed extension of the garage preserves it's present use as well as providing for needed laundry area. The extension does not impact our neighbors negatively. d. The homes along Westmoor Rd. predominantly have one-car garages. The extension will preserve its existing use, maintain compatibility, and will lend towards maintaining existing parking pattern of the street. Homeowners: Jake Nguyen & Leslie Tom-Nguyen ,� ._. ` _ _ �E��i/�� S E P 3 0 2004 CITY OF 3Uk�uvGAME PLANNIN� DEPT. �� cirr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 � a TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 b,,,m www.burlingame.org Site:1637 WESTMOOR ROAD Application for design review, side setback and parking variances for a first and second story addition at: 1637 WESTMOOR ROAD , zoned R-1. (APN: 025-233-090). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: October 1, 2004 (Please r-efer to other side) � A copy of the appl to the meeting ai Burlingame, Calj� If you ch� raising on described at or prior Property c tenants at 558-7250. Margaret N1Z City Planner (Please refer to other side) �PUBLIC HEARING ' NOTICE be reviewed prior Primrose Road, ICE be limited to blic hearing, d to the city ming their call (650) CITY OF B URLINGAME