Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout701 Vernon Way - ApplicationCfTY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 �� CIT7 �� BURIJNOAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ��,.,� Type of application: Design Review � Conditional Use Pernvt Variance Special Pernut � Other Parcel Number: Project address: APPLICANT 7 0� U��'tii_p V� I� G Name: ���y ����� Address: 2t� � �c� ►�� �� � 2�3 City/State/Zip:�"� r`` �� °` ""� « i Phone (w): `S� � S�6 � 2�� �S`�p'^ (h): (fl� �`jq'- � �� S ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: �� ��i v` � � � G � Address: City/State Phone (w (h (f PROJECT DESCRIPTION: e�cs-�- 1�.0�,���i � PROPERTY OWNER ���� �ous � w Name: Address: � � � v��"2' h �UO�`/ City/State/Zip: �rli`,`0��"'��� � Phone (w): (fl� Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2005 C�TY OF BUALINGAME pLANNING DEPT. a� �� �a,,, , c -1-�c� AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. � ,� Z�-- 8 S Applicant's signature: Date: I know about the proposed lication and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning ommission. Property owner's signature: ( a/Z.,/• � PCAPPFRM �G2tA�.�i G�-b G��ov�P cl es; QT i � U� L w A.n oL S�C / a � p-c� M �'� U � -�irS.� a�d Seca� `� 5��� ( � -�j� 6t�r^L �� �{oL � � Df� ��vA4 City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin a�g ���, aT. o� BURLlNGAME � b.. CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION �'` A-{-�a��ne d (_paraq.e, 1 The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend ofmass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. S e e a}�a� �.e d 2. Explain iiow the variery of roof [i�te, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of tlze proposed new structure or additio�z are consistent with the existiizg structure, street and neighborhood. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with fhe residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? 4. Explai�z how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of arly new structure or addition is necessary a►:d is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. f.`ITo[N7�:iu�� �ul City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new constructio�z or addition are consistent with the �istingstructure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlighUshade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and struchues include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other struchues in the neighborhood or area. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior fcnish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. How does tl�e proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood. How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the ciry? Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet these guidelines? 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for 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. 4. Explain how the re`noval of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this �nitigataon is appropriate Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are protected under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so. f Y J:L�17 �1:7� � 11 �:� u � RECEIVED Attachment A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR Attached Garage 701 Vernon Ave. FEB -1 2006 ciry oF suRurjcrm�►e pLRNNiNG DEPT. This is a proposal to keep a garage at the same location as the existing garage, but attach it to the house. 1. The mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. The proposed garage is similar in size and location to the existing garage and to others in the neighborhood. While there is a mix of attached and detached garages in the vicinity, there is a much stronger pattern of attached garages (especially around the subject property) with 332, 340, 401, 424, 430, and 431 Bloomfield all corner lots near to the subject property with attached garages. 325 Bloomfield, the next door neighbor, has a detached garage, but a new detached garage at 701 Vernon's property line would have a negative impact on 325 Bloomfield (and the streetscape in general). A detached garage would either be up front and looming over the neighbor (reducing perceived open space); or pushed back to the rear inside corner which would further limit what little yard this property enjoys, wipe out the trees in the back corner, and create a confluence of four garages packed together. Keeping the garage where it is will have a significantly smaller over-all impact than moving it, and preserve the existing character. 2. The rooflines, farade, materials, and elevations of the proposed garage are similar to that of the existing and proposed house. The proposed garage is consistent with the existing street and neighborhood. 3. 1. The architectural style is compatible with that of the existing house and character of the neighborhood. 2. The attached garage being proposed is consistent with the neighborhood. 3. See items 1 and 2 above for comments about style, mass and bulk. 4. There will be minimal impact on neighboring properties as this proposal seeks to keep the garage in its existing location and simply attach it to the house. 5. There is nice existing landscaping that will be maintained and enhanced. Keeping the garage where it is will help to preserve existing trees and vegetation. 4. No trees are being proposed for removal (which is a main reason why the owners wish to maintain the existing garage location).. City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinQame.orQ ��� CITY O� BURIJNGAME �'�+,.,m CITI' OF BLTRI�INGAME V ARIANCE APPLICATI4N � Pa r I�. �'��' The Planning Commission is required by law to nYake fmdings 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 extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. ��C A,'f"ra� C h e c� b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonab[e property loss or un�zecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. c. d. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvenients in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenie�:ce. How will the proposed project be compatib[e with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? VAR.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinQame.org a. Describe the exceptional or extraordiHary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not app[y to other propert�es in this area. Do any conditions exist on the site wluch make other altematives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing sh-uctures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood? b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or uhnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the app[ication. Would you be unable to build a project similar 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 limitation or hardship on the development of the property? c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the viciniry or to public health, safety, 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 sunlighUshade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the sri-ucture 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, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safety. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protecrion? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the struchue 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 welrare 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 social 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 wi[I the proposed project be compatible wiih the aestltetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the str-ucture are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattem 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 auport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring sri�uctures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation, etc. with other shuctures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will 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 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 vicuuty, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. VARFRM RECEIVED January 6, 2006 FEB - 1 2006 Attachment A CITY OF BURLJIVGMAE PLANNiNG DEPT, VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR PARKING a. The existing house is configured on its lot in such a way that there are few options available for conforming to all of the zoning code requirements. There is a linear strip of interior yard space that is precious to the owners and their young children. Pushing the garage further into the property to provide parking on the driveway in front of it would cut the yard in half and create a"no man's land" on the other side. Detaching the garage in the back corner would also destroy much of the limited yard and destroy the trees in that area, which are an integral part of the current outdoor space. Both of the above options would eliminate the parking variance, but force a lot cover variance request to achieve a decent design for the house*; as a corner lot, this property has three times as much street parking as does an interior lot (for which the zoning code is primarily written). b. Due to the configuration of existing structures, the variance request is necessary in order for this property to maintain a reasonable amount of contiguous, usable, open space. Such open space is critical to the enjoyment and livability of the property. Denial of the application and the subsequent loss of usable open space would create an unnecessary hardship. Many other homes in the general vicinity have, and enjoy, the exact same garage/parking situation that is being proposed; this property should not be denied the same rights. Furthermore, the resulting hardship would be unnecessary; the subject property has 150' of street parkina, 100' of which (on Bloomfield) goes unused. c. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. There are no proposed changes in use at the proposed location. The garage and parking will remain unchanged. d. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. The aesthetics match and blend with what is there. The mass is sympathetic to the neighbors, with great distances between them and the proposed new upper level. Moving the garage closer to the neighbors to accommodate additional parking would create a greater impact on them. * If the garage is moved from its location, or detached, the area of the proposed upper level that sits on top of the garage wouid create the need for a significant lot coverage vanance request (even though such a move would drop the FAR numbers well below allowable limits). Pushing the second level back over the house will not work well with the need to develop an exceptionally efficient layout.