The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1523 Willow Ave - Staff Report (2)�� s :,x =`�� - ;�:, ;�, - � �W WAF•Rx - `�F a -��..-._..... __.r;� _ �� ' �, �� _ _ � � - � �� : , h � �v�;i: � " � - -''� ' ' ��. _•__v ' :: � r . , - 3 .. . - _ '--� s ��"� q-� �,�...'�3. _ �:'.'y � .- F e Item No. 9a Design Review Study PROJECT LOCATION 1523 Willow Avenue City of Burlingame Design Review, Special Permit and Variances Address: 1523 Willow Avenue Item No. 9a Design Review Study Meeting Date: May 11, 2015 Request: Application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope and Variances for side setback and parking for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Peter Suen Property Owners: Kevin Lange and Betty Chen General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 028-141-230 Lot Area: 5586 SF Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The existing one-story house and attached two-car garage contains 1,611 SF (0.29 FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to add 614 SF on the first floor and add a new 673 SF second floor along the right side of the house. With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,877 SF (0.52 FAR) where 2,887 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 10 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR. The existing first floor wall along the right side property line is not parallel with the side property line; it was originally built at a slight angle. The project includes extending the first floor wall along the right side in line with the wall of the existing house and adding a second floor over the right and center portions of the house. The applicant is requesting a Side Setback Variance for the first and second floor addition along the right side property line (3'-7" proposed where 4'-0" is the minimum required). The applicant is also requesting a Special Permit for declining height envelope for the proposed second story along the right side of the house (49 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope). Staff would note that because the house wall of the existing house and proposed addition is not parallel to the property line, the second floor extends 2'-3" beyond the declining height envelope at the front of the house and 0'-7" at the rear of the house. With this project the number of bedrooms is increasing from three to five, which requires two covered and one uncovered parking spaces to current code dimensions. The existing two-car garage is nonconforming in width (17'-6" existing clear interior dimensions where 18'-0" is the minimum required for an existing garage). The applicant is requesting approval of a Parking Variance for existing substandard parking space width. One uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The proposed project requires the following applications: ■ Design Review for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)); ■ Special Permit for declining height envelope for the proposed second story addition along the right side of the house (49 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.075 (a)); ■ Side Setback Variances to extend the first floor wall along the right side property line and for the second floor addition (3'-7" proposed where 4'-0" is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (c) (1)); and ■ Parking Variance for existing substandard parking space width for a two-car garage (17'-6" clear interior dimensions existing and proposed where 18'-0" is the minimum required for an existing garage (C.S. 25.70.030 (a) (3)). Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 1523 Willow Avenue 1523 Willow Avenue Lot Area: 5,586 5F Plans date stamped: April 30, 2015 EXISTING '' PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS , ___ _ _ Front (1st flr): 16'-5" 23'-8" 23'-8" (block average) (2nd flr): n/a 23'-8" to balcony 23'-8" 27'-0" to house Side (left): 4'-0" no change 4'-0" (right): 4'-0" 3'-7" ' 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): 28'-0" 28'-0" 15'-0" (2nd flr): n/a 51'-0" 20'-0" Lof Coverage: 1711 SF 2204 SF 2234 SF 30.6% 39.4% 40% FAR: 1611 SF 2877 SF ' 2887 SF 2 0.29 FAR 0.52 FAR 0.52 FAR _._—_._ ___.. _. ... _ _... ---_._.._ -- __— _— _ - - _ -- ___ ._-- - _ --._. # of bedrooms. 3 5 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered ' 2 covered 2 covered (17'-6' x 20'-6")' ', (17'-6' x 20'-6") 4 ', (18' x 18' dear interior) 1 uncovered 1 uncovered ' 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 18') _ __ __. __ --._ _. __ .._.__ _.._.._ _.. _... __ . __...._ Height: 16'-8' 23 -5" 30'-0" DH Envelope: n�a 49 SF extends beyond ' Special Permit DHE 5 required ' Side Setback Variances to extend the first floor wall along the right side property line and for the second floor addition (3'-7" proposed where 4'-0" is the minimum required) 2 (0.32 x 5586 SF) + 1100 SF = 2887 SF (0.52 FAR). 3 Existing nonconforming covered parking space width. ' Parking Variance for existing substandard parking space width for a two-car garage (17'-6" clear interior dimensions existing and proposed where 18'-0" is the minimum required for an existing garage. 5 Special Permit for declining height envelope for the proposed second story addition along the right side of the house (49 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope). Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. 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: 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; 2 Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 1523 Willow Avenue 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 Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (dJ removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. 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 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. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Peter Suen, applicant and designer Attachments: AppYication to the Planning Commission Letter of Support Signed by Neighbors, dated March 31, 2015 Special Permit Application Variance Applications Photographs of Neighborhood StafF Comments �lot�ce of Public Hearing — Mailed May 1, 2015 Aerial Photo � i'�1 � t BURLINGAME - E,��r -� ��"� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • SO1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: �Design Review Conditional Use Permit �Variance ❑ Parcel #: 02�'- ( 41- 23a Special Permit ❑ Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: /5Z 3 WILLoW AV�= APPLICANT project contact person � OK to send electronic copies of documents� Name: i�E?F�_c,�iv Address: /l��- i3/-fldflMA S? City/State/Zip: Sf)'/�( F2A/VG�1[v� (�q 9�/a �(/o Phone: �'i' /s� S� 3 -� Fax: E-mail ARCHITECT/DESIGNER projectcontactPerson� OK to send electronic copies of documents PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: �VIN L_i9N(.� /RE7T� lytn/ Address: 1 S2 3 I,i/LL�c,/ �vE City/State/Zip: 1�/2LlNG,//►--ME, G/a ��f a j� Phone: ��1 Z� Sd �-^��S�S Fax: E-mail:,� 1�1 iGil']�n e(�q/hG �/_ GO /f► � 4GinP��/rri•(.0 �� Name: J��_Cu� Address: /� �� AGAr3fi/t'ILr ST City/State/Zip: S,Q�/� FieANGl1G� C� 9�f!!� Phone: %��1�� s�3'6/h Fax: �� s�� . -.- . - . . . -_-u �_ F 5 20l5 E-mail: a��-Pr'S�'l �'%� G�'xti � _ CaM ,_ � � - t=, Di°✓ � Burlingame Business License #: ��Z 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2 S7'�2. y ADJiT/� To GX/.fTiNC� 1'//�4L.� - fiy��C 5� hb�.l,�' AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: �l s/�s I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. G Property owner's signature: Date:,��/�l� Date submitted: '3 -5- �s tit Verification that the project architecUdesigner has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. 5: � HANDOUTS� PC Application. doc March 31, Z015 Re: 1523 WillowAvenue Dear Burlingame Planning Department, We are a group of neighbors who live immediately adjacent to the property at 1523 Willow Avenue in Burlingame. The purpose of this letter is to let the planning department know of our support for the proposed project. We have been shown the proposed design and feel that the proposed change is appropriate for our neighborhood in terms of style and size. Additionally, we feel the new structure will be suitably positioned relative to the other houses that surround it. For all the reasons stated above, we would encourage you to approve the project. Regards, 0 Name Address ��2'� lrll.t�'"' � ,+ �t/1(�L� �'c`p�.�— Name � �� S�'�� V' ��iC�> Address �"�" � �-'Jc.� lnvk 1�''� '� L� ��'�� jC�'w.u_ Name Address ��r�s ZGJ/� ! J� �%% � ��,h�� /��,t _,6,1 ; � �� ."` � � � �t . ; ,� � L •�., `�'= �_it•tf �,y��'!c �� _-s'+,!i,"�:i��alf�'is [i;V City of Burlingame Planning Department r� cirr p. � � BURLINGAME �.. a;y t 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlineame.or� CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION Decl;r��1 I�ie i��•-� ��Ivt�e' 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 wlzy the blend of naass, scale and dominant structuf�al characteristics of the new co�zstruction or addition are co�zsiste�zt witlz tlze existing structcsre's design and with the existing street and �ieighborhood. SEE ATTACHED. 2. Explain laow the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of tlie proposed new structure o�� additio�z are co�isistent with the existing structure, street and neighborl��ood. SEE ATTACHED. 3. How will tlze proposed project be co�zsistent witlr the residential design guidelines adopted by tlz�e city (C.S. 25.57)? - �k� � "�t � E • t<� ! ' .'� _ . _.._.. , - .Fs� L� '"_ . SEE ATTACHED. �. LI':r _ � , _ �'��_!9L1�� "- � � ��,!�_i�,�,,ir �", 4. Explain lzow tlze reinoval of any trees located wifl:in the footprint of a�zy new structure or additiorz is necessa�}� mid is co�asistent witlz tlze city's reforestation requiremerzts. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain wlzy this mitigation is app�•opriate. S E E ATTAC H E D. SPE�pEw�.F�, 1. The proposed addition has positive impacts on neighbors. For instance, the proposed deck is surrounded by planting, including a new deciduous tree, strategically placed to enhance a sense of separation. A portion of the deck is also tucked behind the extension of the house, helping to separate it from the neighboring yard. Similarly, the new front gate is built from wood slats and permits light and view to pass through. The irnpact on sunlight is also minimal. Because the adjacent neighbor farade is north facing, the proposed addition would only block sunlight in the morning hours in summer. The windows on the neighbor-facing fa�ade have also been designed with privacy in mind. Specifically, they are all narrow in shape (either vertically or horizontally oriented), and are placed such that they do not look directly into the neighboring windows. In terms of mass, the proposed addition creates a complex new footprint. The new addition extends beyond the garage slightly, but is also recessed towards the middle. These articulations form a mass that appears less massive. The design also includes several human scale elements. For example, a soffit above the front door breaks the two-story elevation and helps maintain a human scale of entry. The windows also have been articulated to include smaller components that are easier to operate. The landscape also varies from smaller/lower to taller/larger plantings. This gradual change enhances the human scale at the landscape level. The proposed addition appears to be similar in bulk and mass when compared to the neighboring properties. The neighbor on the left has a similar second-level addition currently under construction. The neighbor behind is also a new two-story property. Across the street, our house looks out on a mid-rise apartment complex. 2. The proposed addition seeks to match the existing house. The new roof, like the existing, is hipped with the same slopes and eaves. The addition is also scaled such that the new roof planes are of similar size with both the existing and neighboring houses. The addition will also use an exterior stucco finish, which is the same as the existing house. We feei our addition would complement the character of our block. For example, several of the houses on our block have front porches. Our project also includes a new front entry porch, which adds a human element and is consistent with the neighborhood feel. At the same time, our design also includes some contemporary elements, which complement the new constructions in the area and the contemporary, mid-rise buildings across the street. 3. Our addition seeks to follow the residential design review criteria in many ways. In terms of architectural style, the addition maintains the same roof and ranch-style elements of the original house. Stucco and other exterior materials will match the existing. The garage and parking patterns have not been modified, and the addition has positive impacts on its direct neighbors. Thoughtful landscaping has been incorporated, along with an entry porch and other human elements. Despite being a second-level addition, the design has sought to stay consistent with the neighborhood in terms of mass and bulk. Articulation in the front fa�ade results in a complex footprint. All of these elements, combined with varied landscaping, help the new addition to blend in with the existing neighborhood fabric. 4. No trees will be removed. c�rr �j � � �� ,� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION 5�de 5�-}�back 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 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. SEE ATTACHED. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for fhe preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. SEE ATTACHED. c. Explain why fhe 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. p a ��' E�` �� >,F� ��, :� ��, E � 6 �� SEE ATTACHED. -, � ;�.,� ,.--�_.. ! r,!_� i .i G:�,1�4E �� :i;J� �=;1'J d. How wi/l the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? SEE ATTACHED. Handouts\Variance Application.2008 a. There are two unique conditions to our property which result in the minor side-yard setback encroachment in question. First, my property is adjacent to an extremely large tree in the rear. In order to avoid being completely in this tree's shade, the existing house was built as far from this tree as possible; thus, the existing house hugs the right side- yard setback. Second, presumably to center the existing house within the side property lines, the existing house was built with an approximately 1 deg. angle between the right side of the house and the right property line. This slight skew, combined with the fact that the existing house is directly on the right side-yard setback, creates the special conditions in question. Specifically, when the skew is extended to the front of the property where the proposed addition is, it creates a maximally 5-1 /16" encroachment to the side setback requirement. b. Without the variance, we would be forced to make an abnormal and irregular jog at the corner where the existing house meets the proposed new addition. This would, in turn, affect the roofline, foundation and side yard grading/landscaping. Furthermore, the distance of the jog would likely have to be increased to accommodate actual construction. These limitations, which result from existing conditions out of our control, would result in unreasonable hardships in the development of our property. c. Allowing the variance would not be detrimental to the general welfare or convenience of the adjacent neighbor. First, the encroachment is extremely minor. At the widest point, it extends less than 6" beyond the required side setback. The entire encroachment is less than 8 sq. ft. The affected neighbor's view would not be affected, as it would still be a view of our property. There would be no difference in sunlight/shading because the proposed roof eave would not be implicated. Furthermore, there would be no effect on privacy, as the side yard fence at that location would remain unmodified. d. Allowing the variance wouid benefit both the aesthetics and the character of the proposed development. Most importantly, the variance would allow the addition to be in- plane with the existing house, allowing the new to blend in with the old. Otherwise, the jog required to accommodate these unique conditions would immediately indicate the seam between the existing house and new addition. Looking at the other surrounding properties, we have not seen any other projects which have such seam at the side setback. Thus, allowing the variance would be consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity. irr � : ri � � ..�.�� ,' CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION PGt r k, n q� 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 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. SEE ATTACHED. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. SEE ATTACHED. c. Explain why 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. SEE ATTACHED. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? SEE ATTACHED. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org Handouts\Variance Application.2008 a. Our current existing garage is 17'-6" wide and is only 6" short of the 18' requirement for 2-car garages. Despite being siightly under the 18' requirement, it is easily capable of parking two cars (please see attached photograph of two parked cars). As such, we feel that it would be appropriate to consider this a 2-car garage. b. We believe this garage was built and intended to be a 2-car garage. When we purchased the house, we did so with the understanding that this would be a 2-car garage. Without the variance, we wouid be denied the real and actual benefit of owning a 2-car garage. c. Allowing the variance would not be detrimental to the general welfare or convenience of our neighbors. We have used the garage as a 2-car garage and it has not inconvenienced any families in our neighborhood. d. Allowing the variance would benefit both the aesthetics and the character of the proposed development. The current addition has a massing and scale that is appropriate for a 2-car garage. The driveway is wide and sized for a 2-car garage. Thus, all proportions of this house indicate that the garage is intended for two cars. - � --=�-- � �, �, - -- � -, � - '� ��,. =-- _ --. ��m-- �--,-= �� _ -.. _.� _ _-- --'�- �=� �4 �� _`_�- -�� .,��, -_- , _ 1523 WILLOW AVE - OFF-STREET PARKI NG VARIANCE 2-CAR ATTACHED GARAGE