The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1600 Willow Ave - Staff ReportI m CITY OF BURLINGAME Height Variance Address: 1600 Willow Avenue Meeting Date: 8/10/98 Request: Height variance (34'-0" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed as measured from average top of curb) (C.S. 25.28.070) for a first and second floor addition subject to design review at 1600 Willow Avenue, zoned R-1. Applicant: James Keighran APN: 028-133-150 Property Owner: same as applicant Lot Area: 8,490 SF General Plan: Low density residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single family residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Requests for this project: The applicant, Jim Keighran, is requesting a height variance for a first and second floor addition subject to design review. The applicant is requesting the following: 1) Height variance for 34'-0" where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed as measured from average top of curb. Summary: The applicant, Jim Keighran, is requesting a height variance for a first and second floor addition subject to design review at 1600 Willow Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant is proposing to enlarge the kitchen and breal�ast room and to convert an existing single car attached garage to a family room on the first floor (182 SF). Off-street parking would still be provided by an existing detached single car garage at the rear of the property. The applicant is also proposing to add a bedroom, bathroom, laundry and an uncovered deck to an existing second floor (555 SF), bringing the total floor area of the house to 3,428 SF (.40 FAR) (not including the detached garage and uncovered second floor deck). Lot coverage would be increased to 2,858 SF (33.6%). A height variance is required for the height of the new addition. The new height to ridge is proposed to be 34'-0" as measured from average top of curb (where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed). The present structure is two story and 32'-0" tall, measured from average top of curb. This project does not meet the definition of New Construction since the proposed addition is 27.4% of the existing gross floor area (50% required). Height T/ariance 1 G00 GVillow Avenue The existing three bedroom, two bathroom house is 2,691 SF (including the covered single car garage and covered porch). The first and second floor addition would increase the floor area of the dwelling by 737 SF (27.4%). The proposed addition increases the number of bedrooms in the house from three to four. Existing single-family dwellings increased in size to four bedrooms must provide one covered and one uncovered off-street parking spaces to current code dimensions [C.S. 25.70.030 (l,b)]. The existing detached garage has 17'-6"W X 27'-0"D clear interiar dimensions, where current code requires 10'-0° x 20'-0". An uncovered parking space is provided in the 24'-0" long driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. � � �II�� Side (R): Side (2nd): Rear Setback (lst): Rear Setback (2nd): Lot Coverage: New Construction: *Building Height: Parking: Declining Height: Accessory Structures: 18'-6" 35'-6" no change 51'-0" 33.6% (2,858 SF) no 34'-0" no change 1 uncovered complies none EXISTING 6'-0" 19'-6" 51'-0" 75'-6" 31.2% (2,655 SF) no 32'-0" 1 covered (17'-6" x 27'-0") 1 uncovered complies detached garage ALLOWED/REQ'D 7'-6" 12'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 40% (3,396 SF) see code 30'-0" 1 covered (10' x 20' clear) 1 uncovered see code see code * Height variance for 34'-0" where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed as measured from average top of curb). Meets all other zoning code requirements. Staff Comments: The City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal reviewed the project and had no comments. Design Review Comments: In his comments the design reviewer notes that the addition does not conflict with neighborhood patterns and that it does not alter the character of the existing residence. The style of the addition is consistent with the style of the existing residence. The reviewer comments that the roof design works well and results in a building that seems small in scale while providing a substantial increase in functional space. In regards to interface with adjacent structures, the reviewer notes that there is no substantial impact from the added mass and windows. The windows have been located so that privacy is maintained at 1612 Wil]ow Avenue. Study Quest�ions: At their meeting on July 27, 1998 the Planning Commission asked if this item could be brought to action on the consent calendar (P.C. Minutes July 27, 1998). The city attorney noted that it would be possible if staff prepared the findings for the heiglit variance. The commission voted and the motion was passed to place this item on the next consent calendar. 2 Design Review for a Second StoryAddrtion Findings for Height Variance: The height variance shall be approved based upon the following findings: 116 Costa Rrca Avenue 1. that there is an 8' change in slope from the front of the property to the rear which causes the proposed structure to be measured taller than it would if the lot were flat; 2. that the height of the proposed roof is consistent with the existing roof structure and matches the existing roof pitch and is designed to reduce the scale of the additional height requested while providing functional space within the structure; 4. that the window locations promote privacy and present no substantial changes to the adjacent properties; and 5. that the proposed addition does not conflict with the neighborhood patterns because the houses in the neighborhood consist of various architectural styles. Findings for Design Review: Based on the comments of the design reviewer's analysis of the project as summarized in the staff report and in dle memo dated June 30, 1998, 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. 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 June 17, 1998 Sheets 1-5; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3. 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 G. Hurin Zoning Technician c. Jerry Deal, architect 3 4r� cir � BURUNyAMi CITY OF BiJRLINGAME �� APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMNIISSION Type of Application:_Special Permit_Variance_Other Project Address: ��O � r �-�' �� Assessor's Parcel Number(s): Q 2� '- � 5�� '" � S� APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: .J I I``l �� G�-} ('�R r� Name: _�f l'vl ��i��"^� Address: f��`� � i �--�� Address: I�� "� �� '`, City/State/Zip: �`-� � �1�-�'n� C-A ��'� ° City/State/Zip:_ �� C�v�E. �� 9�1t�f d Phone (w): (h): � �S - % �y- l fa�c: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: J!> � �-SS �= c-( pj�-S � Phone (w): �h�:_ � �S -`�4-�=-� Please indicate with an asterisk * the Address: f 2-�-� f'��'''� City/State/Zip:_(� y�'�� i � � �/G Phone (w): s� 3- 4� a I�- contact person for this application. �h�: fax: �3 "� 5 ~ ��-�Y� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: S��+� P�Lo d(z �-p� (-7"( � r�I AFFIDAVIT/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. �_� Ap ' ant's � nature Date L I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. , ` r � � /,�-�'� Prop Owner' ignature Date ----------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ------------- Date Filed: � • � � ' � � Fee: '� �'lo -} � SD o T�oas �=i- Planning Commission: Study Date: �' 2�' �� Action Date: g• I o,�� REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 27, 1998 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the July 27, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: Commissioners Bojues, Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal None City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attomey, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES Chairman Deal called for approval of the minutes of the July 13, 1998 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. There were no objections and the motion carried on a voice vote 7-0. APPROVAL OF AGENDA FROM THE FLOOR The order of the agenda was approved. % There were no publ' " comments. STUDY ITEMS � �;, APPLICATION FO� HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION SUBJE T TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1600 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JAMES C. & RYAN KEIGHRAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) PC Monroe reviewed the project briefly. C. Keighran noted that she would abstain from any action on the project because she is related to the applicant. Commissioners asked if this item could be brought to action on the consent calendar. CA Anderson noted that it would be possible if staff prepared the findings for the height variance, the commission found them acceptable and there were no comments from the public. C. Coffey moved to place the item on the next consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Key. C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and would also abstain from any action on this item. Chair Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the next consent calendaz. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal and Keighran abstaining). F, ciry �� ,�r BURLJNGAME �d CITY OF EUFLING/�ME VA�IANCE AFPLIC/�TIONS 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 �^�hethpr the findinc�s can be ma�e 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 circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. lj � �} 7Z�lC�� / � s- � , � r g - -,, ir� ��. s�._ � �i u..�. � J U N 1 7 1998 CITY OF 6JRLINGAME PLANNING JEPT. b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary foi the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property iight and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denial of the app/ication. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to propeity or improvements in the vicinity o� to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. 0 How wil/ the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and poteniia/ uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinifyT 12/92 var.frm a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. Do any conditions exist on the site which make other the atternatives to the variance impracticable 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 specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures7 How is this property different from others in the neighborhood7 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 exception? (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedroomsl) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception7 Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the propertyl c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the pioposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or impiovements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those propertiesl If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, 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 welfarel Public hea/th 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). Pub/ic safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protectionl Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installedl 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 removall. General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and developmentl Is there a social benefitl Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sitesl7 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicappedl 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 neighborhood7 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 neighborhoodl 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 structures 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, orientation 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 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 use7 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 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. ,zrez,,..�.� �� CITY OF BURLTNGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION: J U N 1 7 1998 CiTY (1F BURLINUAME ansu�ers to questions a,b,c, d P LA N N I N G U � PT. VARIANCE T� HEIGHT a. O�u lot slopes up &om Willow making it difficull to built a sccond floor addition wluch is in kaeping with the Tudor design of ihe house. b. Because tl�e lot slopes upward w�e ha�•e less height auailabie ta us than a standard tlat lot. 'I'he variauce is also necessary to have the addition match the e�siing architecture. 'This is not onl_y aesUietically necessary but it also a requirement of the Desi� Review- Guidelines. Denial of the variance would in effect tell us tl�at you cannot built a second floor addition c. Approval of the proposed variavce K�ill allow us [o build an addition to the esisting second iloor and to keep it in character with the e.Yisting building and tUerefore it will blend in with the surroundiug properties. This adherence to the design character of tbe exisking house will not be detrunental or injurious to property or improvements in the cicinity, but in fact, will be a positive addition to the neighborhaod. d. The proposed addition will be true to its original design and will blend in ��ell w�tl� the varied styles iv the neighborhood. Without the variance we would need to put a flat roof ov a portion of tbe second ffoor roof and this would surelv be incompatib(e with tl�e character of the ueighborhood. ^�`' �� o��' a �� a�� j � � / q�� / �^� / � / _ .. _ . --- , _ t � � �.. � ._ . _ �� '�. �- � �6 � 's .6�� f�o � � .6 a, ,�. 0 ca �� 9` , �� , � s� � � N -F ti� � / / � �/ � "�/ � �� ?ti. O � �_�� .�� / h�� a'�' . ` � 1 1 � ��d _ � � �t^�-- a } / / ♦ / I �� ^a 1 . . �,,.� �� a- � ♦ / / / � t.-.�►� +� /