The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1470 Vancouver Avenue - Staff Report�► � . � � .�� CITY OF BURLINGAME FRONT SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES Address: 1470 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: 6/22/98 Request: Front setback, side setback and parking variances for existing substandard conditions [C.S. 25.28.072, (2a), C.S. 25.28.073 (3b) and 25.70.020 (2)] caused by a second floor addition triggering new construction requirements (C.S. 25.28.065) at 1470 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. Applicant: Charles Schembri APN: 026-044-200 Property Owner: same as applicant Lot Area: 5,272 SF - General Plan: Low density residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single family residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(a+e), 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. Requests for this project: The applicant, Cfiazles Schembri, is requesting front setback, side setback and parking variances for existing substandard conditions caused by a second floor addition which triggers new construction requirements (68% increase in area). The applicant is requesting the following: 1) Front setback variance to an existing attached double car garage (17'-6" existing where 23'-0" is required to the face of the two car garage). Staff would note that 19'-6" is the average front setback on this block. 2) Side setback variance to an existing chimney (3'-0" existing where 4'-0" is required). 3) Parking variance for an existing substandard two car parking space width (16'-0" clear interior dimensions existing where 20'-0" is required). Door swing on side of garage encroaches into the required 20' x 20' clear area. 4) Parlcing variance for an exisdng substandard uncovered parking space length (17'-6" existing where 20'-0" is required). Since this project qualiiies as new construction, the parking space length is measured to the front property line. Staff would note that the distance between the face of the garage and the edge of sidewalk is 21'-0". Front, side setback and parking variances 1470 I�ancouver Avenue Summary: The applicant, Charles Schembri, is requesting front setback, side setback and parking variances for existing substandard conditions caused by a second floor addition which will increase the house by 1,249 SF, 68%) at 1470 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant is proposing to remodel the interior rear of the house which would include replacing two existing bedrooms with a family room and stairway. The applicant is also proposing to add three bedrooms and two bathrooms on the second floor (1,249 SF), bringing the total floor area of the house to 2,994 SF (.57 FAR) (including the attached garage and exempting the covered porch, CS 25.08.265), where the maximum allowed is 3,187 SF (.60 FAR). Lot coverage would not be increased and would remain at 1,981 SF (37.5%), which includes uncovered decks which exceed 30" in height above adjacent grade. The main floor will have a kitchen, dining room, living room, family room, two bathrooms and an attached double car garage. The new height to ridge would be 27'-6" as measured from average top of curb. The present structure is single story and 15'-8" tall, measured from average top of curb. This lot is 36' wide at the front and 50' wide at the rear and has a 13'-6" jog at the right side property line. The existing three bedroom, two bathroom house is 1,830 SF (including the covered porch). The second floor addition would increase the floor area of the dwelling by 1,249 SF (68%), from 1,830 SF (.35 FAR) to 2,994 SF (with 85 SF of covered porches exemptetl) (.57 FAR, .60 FAR allowed). Because the floor area of the main structure would increase by more than 50%, the project is considered new construction and is required to meet current code requirements for setbacks, height, lot coverage, floor area ratio and parking (provide two covered spaces). '�1 i� 91 Front Setback (lst): (2nd): *(Garage): *Side Setback (L): (R): Rear Setback (lst): (2nd): Lot Coverage: no change 41' -0" no change no change no change no change no change 31'-0" no change New Construction: Floor Area Ratio: Building Height: *Parking: Declining Height: Accessory Structures: yes .57 (2,994 SF) 27' -6" 2 covered (16' x 21' clear) 1 uncovered (9' x 17' -6") complies none 9 . I► 17' -6" none 17' -6" 3'-0" to chimney 4' -0" 25' -6" to deck 31'-0" to building none 37.5 % (1,981 SF) no .35 (1,830 SF) 15'-8" 2 covered (16' x 21' clear) 1 uncovered (9' x 17'-6") complies none : .� � � : � 1 19' -6" (average) 20' -0" 23' -0" 4' -0" 4' -0" 15'-0" 20' -0" 40 % (2,109 SF) see code .60 (3,187 SF) 30' -0" 2 covered (20' x 20' clear) 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) see code see code * Front setback, side setback and parking variances required for existing conditions triggered by new construction requirements. 2 Front, side setback and parkirrg variances 1470 VancouverAvenue Staff Comments: The Chief Building Inspector indicated in his June 16, 1998 memo that the applicant has submitted a manufactured chimney that meets code requirements. The Fire Marshal refened to the Chief Building Inspector's comments in his June 15, 1998 memo. The City Engineer had no comments. Design Review Comments: In her comments the design reviewer notes that the house adds to the variety of styles in the neighborhood. The style and massing of the proposed addition seems to be in keeping with the neighborhood. The lot is unusual; it is a flag lot. The reviewer notes that the proposed second story addition is set back from the front of the house, therefore reducing its impact from the street. The existing property is well landscaped. Although the existing landscaping will not screen the proposed addition, there is a lot of tall growth on the north side of the property, approximately 10-12 feet in height. Study Questions: At their meeting on June 8, 1998 the Planning Commission asked how would the door located on the side of the garage affect the use of the garage for parking (P.C. Minutes June 8, 1998). The applicant provided a drawing to scale showing his vehicles parked in the garage in relationship to the door swing. The drawings show that the door swing will not encroach into a vehicle. The applicant also provided photographs showing both vehicles parked in the garage. 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affrmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the requested variances (front, side setback and Front, side setback and parking variances 1470 vancouverAvenue parking variances). The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1, that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped Apri130, 1998 Sheets A1, A2, A3, A4, AS and A6; 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 further to design review and commission action; 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. Stewart Associates, architect 4 City of Burlingame Plnnning Commission Minures June 8, 1998 APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1470 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (CHARLES J. SCHEMBRI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: it appears that the man door to the outside is 12 feet or more from the entrance to the garage, how would it affect the use of the garage for parking; could the applicant provide a drawing to scale showing two cars parked in this garage; C. Luzuriaga noted that he lived on the edge of the noticing area for this project so would abstain from any action on the item. There were no further comments or questions and the item was set for public hearing on June 22, 1998. APPLICATION FO A SPECIAL PE IT AND PA ING VARIANCE F R A KITCHEN APPLIANCE S WROOM AND RAINING F ILITY AT 877 M COLM ROAD, ZONED O-M. ARRY LAMPK S, DACOR I ., APPLICANT AN GUNNAR HAWK, CP Monr presented the s ff report and c mmissioners asked: a there 9 existing park' g spaces the property, o ly six are mar ed; what will the re aining unused space i the wareh se area be used r; will the app 'ances in the demonstr ion area be hooked up; is is a 15 00 SF building, ' all warehouse t would require 15 pa ing spaces, there appe s to be 19 SF of office ' each tenant s ace or 3800 SF of fice on the site now, rovide a c culation for the arking require ent under current co for this site with and��vithout the equested use; o of the parking paces shown on the pl s is in front of the driv in door, will this door be ne ed for deliveri s; could three parking aces be put along the estern property line instead o two; what are e duties of the one e loyee who will be on s' e regularly; need to look at e ire proposed u including use of rem 'ning empty warehouse ea; parking in this area on-st et is a proble , close to Marriott so u d by their employees o early morning shifts and lots f red zones o street so trucks can neuver, look at parkin availability compare to othe streets in imm diate area; will produc be sold from this site, here will products s d be pi ed up. There ere no further questi s and the item was set or public hearing on une 22, 998, providin the information for th responses could be co pleted in time. APPLIC ION FOR DESIGN EVIEW FOR A SEC D STORY ADD ION AT 1241 BERNA AVENUE, ZONED 1. (JOHN MATTHEW ARCHITECTS, PLICANT A D JAME J. AND F. CANNIZ RO PROPERTY OW ERS 59 NOTIC D Pla ing staff report of Jun 8, 1998, summarized t e project request a the design r iewers re ommendation that the rm and details of the ddition are in complete harmonv with the -2- � PS' ��i�� , , s, �. � p` '� N �. ' x `� ` a-� c� -- � �: � R��'��;��- �-. ; � , ,JUN - 9 1998 CITY OF BUr�� !' " '`�; r RLANNING L�ti=T. �iUOi� T �� 1�� . �,o�l �-�� ..� � �, � �.::��n�� i � ��a �� J U N— 9 1998 CITY OF BURLiPJUANE PLANNI(�G DEPT. �;�_ �n � w C � �� ' 'r � � � l.� l�� r � .J - . � � � '• .�" � � �.;� h. ' �ti' : • � .� � 1 ,:,, �. ; �,.+,�� '��.. . �f�' �a, ��~��a� . \�t '� ` , �: . • �` � . .. ' �- • a: �' I ��, : �. � <, . - '- ',,, +� �. f : . � . �: • �." �� N y` . - - ' . - . •M •� • �'' � � y •/��* . ^l.r•' . +++'�' ` - � �. , � . ... _ � � , - I � •� � y� . �..-- _ �+ 7i . . r...r+�•. � -�.�'� e..w�r ■ ` �. � s ��r— - -_-- -�� r -=--_ -- - - -- • � ,, . . _.. � .�. � � w,_ . .. � _� .. :- . -�, • i . . �=: ♦ :Y� �"� •�. . . <: ' , s. � �� .. '�' - . i° ( '�� ', �� . ' . �. ``� ' � 1 - -r 7;H.:. _ , •-Y :� `�� ' . � �" _ �'a_ .�r i � - � - �� 't..�'�'~�c� r �� _ .S .. �� _.� M�'k�.��' ti . � � ' `� ��''�-� , �- � � �f '' � _` � � �� i - , A I . ,. � :rr .. V .�� .:! � _ ` h. ,� �' �� -�'a �,-. � �`2� Y ` s•''• �, �wH � � ��`'�- `Y � w c• ,_ �� ^�� •�� - — � i.; �;�� , J _ / 0 •�jr , `� � . .�. �_ . .yz_ • � .� • ' ��--+� - � - �s �. �-- _ - - - - -- -- � — _ � • . ', � - i � - �; Y �- .'�" � � � �.._ _ - ' �{� �� / � • \ I � !.. �cc— . ,.aC�'r �"'��s 1� � � �� 1 r „w � _ — --,'� - -'''�'�w't�a':.. �^ , a. . . - - - _:.�..� . .i �. �,, A /4r� GIT } DURLIN¢/�.Mi i CITY OF BURLINGAME !a." APPLICATION TO 1� PLA►NNING COMNIISSION �� Type of Application: Special Permit X Variance Other Project Address: `� 1 D y �iN �n t1 �$�, ��r N � L �� U i2. l.r 1 h)fo �'f �� Assessor's Parcel Number(s) : 0 2�p - b��- - 2 D D APPLICAN PROPERT OWNER � Name: � 1. � � �J G � V� � �R. � Name: � l� �.� `J � � V � $ �. � Address: ��'�� '�� 00 � g1�, �'( V$n}V� Address: �. �'1 � pt� Co� V�1�t. U�� City/State/Zip; Phone (w): (h): fax: j �R.L1Nb�i'��' �i� 1°� �'� 1� �5 1 l �O — � l � �4- i 0 � �r �-- - � � 1 �uU �J�'�E'� J�� City/State/ Phone (w) (h): ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name:_ � � � � � �� oC� � '(�� Address: ��J 5 �' V R�� -- � T�L� �S T City/State/Zip: � �� t �1� L� �' °1 � 7 a Phone (w): ��D rJ' 0� 5 � � - ��'1- � fa�c ►�1�/r:� � ,1 i� ►��A�v� �' 1 G � � °l �-a i� "Il�-'��-�'r � �4-- �- � F�o 1 �-�- - ��-� � Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. �h): - _ fax: ��p�JD rJ� - 651z% :CT D CRIPTION:_ � `� �J1D v + �. � � � �o w � �L��'� � �1'�1 vt�i , � AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief. � r� �- �-1�� Applicant's �ignature Date � i I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. . ��j �� - �. � ��8 Property s SignatureU Date -FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -Tl� � � Date Filed: F�; Z I D. D d Planning Commission: Study Date: �D 8�� Action Date: � ZZ a�' 1470 VANCOiJVER AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CHARLES SCHEMBRI Apri129, 1998 ��y�� .�., City of Burling�me Plannuig Department c��y �ti- soi �� R�a A P R 3 0 1998 Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Variance Requests Reference: 1470 Vancouver Avenue Dear Commissioners: CITY OF �JRLI(yi;i�M;F PLAf�iVINCa DEF�. Thank you for the opportwuty to present the following variance requests for my proposed 1200 S.F. 2na floor addition . This addition qual�es as new constuction as it exceeds the 50% of the existing gross floor azea by 340 S.F. hence the need for the following variances. A. 20' garage width 25.70.020 The existing garage is 18'6" wide, 1'6" narrov�ner than now required My garage dces provide covered parking for two cars as required and my driveway provides uncovered parking for two cars even though only one is required I own two vehicles both of which are stored in the garage leaving the driveway open for any visitors. The g,arage width is an existing condition which would be very costiy to change and the change would not result in any benef'it to the public as the available parldng spaces would not be increased Increasing the g,arage width may even result in a less attractive and pleasing front elevation o� the house as the garage is situated at the front of the lot. B. 23' garage front setback 25.28.072.2.A The existing garage has a 17'6" setback from the property line and a 20' setback from the back of the sidewalk. The setback is very similar to the average setback on the block of 19'6". As the lot has a property frontage of 36' 6" the �rage was situated at the front af the house with the living azeas behind it The garage is only one story tall with a 4:12 pitch roof so it is not overbearing. The proposed addition will not be on top of the g,arage rather it will be on top of the living azea of the house well back from the front of the property. Once again the front setback is an existing condition which would be impractical and costly to change without any perceived benef"it to the public. C. 4' Chimney setback 25.28.073.3.b The existing chimney has a 3' setback from the side property line in lieu of the 4' setback currendy required In order to mitigate this the chimney will be stepped over 2' at the second floor level for a setback of 5' from the property line. The neighbors home on this side of the lot is approximately 45' away from the property line which also greatly mitigates any impact. Lastly this is an existing condition which is impractical and extremely costly to change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April ?9. 1998 Page 2 In summary I would like to state that I am very sensitive to the regulations developed by the Planning Commission and wish to comply with the goals of construction which is within the character af the surrounding neighborhood. I have proposed an addition which is within the existing character of my home and the existing area. My home consists of a single story ranch style home of approximately 1300 S.F. with an attached �arge o� 400 S.F. The proposed addition vw�uld add 1200 S.F. a� living area for a total square footage of only 3000 S.F. The addition is in the rear of the property, would not block the view or sunlight of any adjacent property, and is setback from the first floor footprint so it will appear as part of the original house design. This addition would allow me to have a small family and remain living in this home and community which I enjoy very much. Once again thanks for your review of my variance request. Sincerely, Charles Schembri Property Owner 1470 Vancouver Avenue � � - �BURLINGAMF . \bO II U �� fJ��OlIl1�11J!/'VU�U� 4°� ��:•\��. �.��.. V ��lru�� !/11Y U ��`O!/'"U�� The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d1. Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. � {�-�� f� O ��G '�j �� LI G �9 � �o � �o � I� �15�N �.� � � �� b. Exp/ain why the variance �equest is necessary foi 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. f c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or impro vements in the vicinity oi to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. 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 12/82 vx.frm a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to yoSn property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. , Do any conditions exist 4n the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area7 For example, is there a creek cuttinq throu�h the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existin� structures7 How is this property different from others in the neighborhoodt 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., havinp as much on-site parkinp or bedroomsl) 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. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. � . How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neiphborin� properties or structures on those propertiesl If nei�hborin� properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, liphtin�, pavinfl, landscapinp sunlipht/shade, views from neighborin� properties, ease of mainte�ance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or peneral welfarel Pub/ic health includes such things as sanitation (flarbape), air quality, dischar�es into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underflround storape tanks, stora�e of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseasesl. Pub/ic safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protectionl wll alarm systems or sprinklers be installedl Could the st�ucture or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly patherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dan�erous activities like welding, woodwork, enpine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaninp community pood. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and poals for conservation and development7 Is there a social benefit7 ' �onvenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parkinp for this site or adjacent sites)7 Is the proposal accessible to particular se�ments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped7 d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and cha�acter of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If chanpes to the structure are proposed, was the addition desipned to match existinp a�chitecture or pattern of development on adjacent p�operties in the neighborhoodT If use will affect the way a neiflhborhood/area looks, compa�e you� proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it 'fits'. How does the proposed structure compare to nei�hborinp structu�es in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no chanpe to structure, say so. If a new structu�e is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structu�e or use within the structure chan�e the character of the neighborhood7 Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and �eneral pattern of land use. wll there be more traffic or less parkin� available resulti�� from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neiphborhood will chanpe, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existinp and potential uses in the fleneral vicinityl Compa�e you� project with existin� 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. ,tias,,..m„ �?�C�I�lE'� C1TY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATIONS REFERENCE; 1470 VANCOUVER AVENUB PROPERTY OWNER: CHARLES SCHEMBRI APR 3 � 1998 CITY OF BURLINuHiJIE PLANNING DEPT. A. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstcuices or conditions applicable to your property which do not applv to other properlies in this area. The lot is irregulazly shaped as it has a street frontage of 36'6" in lieu o� 50 ` as is normal for the other lots on the block and in the surrounding area . This reduced street frontage is the prime reason that the garage width and setback are slightly less than currenfly required. B. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservaiion and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unrearonable property loss or unnecessary hardrhip might resultfrom the denial ofthe applicalion. Without the variance approval I will not be able to add the second floor addition which will allow me to house a small family and remain living in this area. The present home size of 1300 S.F. of living azea is not adequate for a family. The proposed addition is similaz to other homes in the area. The majority of homes on the block are larger than mine and are two story homes as well. Without the variance approval I would not be able to develop my home for its intended purpose, would lose a substantial property right, and would suffer an unnecessary hardship as I would not be able to provide a comfortable house for a small family as I desire to do. C. Expl�n 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, saf'ety ,general welfare or convenience. The proposed addition will not in any way negatively impact the neighboring properiy owners or occupants. 1. Public Health The proposed addition will not add an underground storage tank or the storage of any chemicals. The bathroom water closets will tie into the existing sanitary sewer system, as will the domestic water, both o� these systems can easily handle the small increased demand There will not be any impact on either sanitation nor air quality as a result o�f this addition. 2. Public Safety The existing home has a monitored alarm system by ADT services, this service would be extended into the addition as well. The addition will not create a structure which could be utilized for unruly g,atherings, loitering ar traffic. The addition will not be utilized for storage of hazardous materials or for poteniially dangerous activities. There will not be any increased fire risk as a result of the addition and a non-flatrunable roofing material is being considered to even reduce the existing risks. 3. General Welfare This proposed addition is consistent with the city's goals for conservation and development. The addition will only increase the total floor azea to 3000 S.F. this is considerably less than the 3177 S.F. allowed The project is w�ell aligned with the City of Burlingame's character and in no way exploits the lot or the neighborhood. The addition vwuld allow a very small home to be expanded to a modest living area a� 2600 S.F. which would accommodate a small family. 4. Convenience The project does not affect access to or parking for this or adjacent properties. No changes to the front portions of the lot including the driveway, sidewalk, garage or front entrance to the home have been proposed The parking demand for this property would not be increased and parking for 4 cars is available on the property. 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? The existing home was constructed in 1954 and is a single story ranch style home. The proposed addition will also be ranch style and ries in very well to the existing home as can be seen by reviewing the architectural elevation drawings A4 8c A5. Several homes in the surrounding azea w�ere also built in the same time period and mimic the ranch style home. The majority of the homes on the block are two story homes and are comparable in size, appearance and orientarion High quality materials will be utilized for the construction, resulting in a aesthetically pleasing home. The addition is situated in the rear of the lot, which will scale down the size of the addition even more from the street elevation which is the typical public view of the home. The addition will not alter the tone of the neighborhood as several homes are very similar in size, density and mass. This project will allow a small family to live in the area, which is the primary use in the vicinity. The project will also not hinder or obstruct the views,sunlight or shading of any surrounding homes due to its small size ,generous setbacks and orientarion towards the rear of the lot. ROUTING FORM DATE: May 1, 1998 TO: �CITY ENGINEER _CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FII2E MARSHAL _SR LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR _CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for a front setback, side setback and parking variance and design review for a first and second story addition at 1470 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-200 (Charles Schembre applicant and property owner). (Revised Plans) SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: 7une 22, 1998 STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, May 4, 1998 THANKS, i Maureen/Kristin/Ruben ��v �.�>-r-air�; t� � Ts , SM Date of Comments � ROUTING FORM DATE: I o � TO: CITY ENGINEER ✓ CHlEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR l'ro �-�' �-� b a c k. S� d, e U.1' (G i� al ) 0. Y� G.VI. C e S �7J � Gi. � S�" £ Zn d S� AT _ L l � S�� a� (c..._ a ,� d acld ��-h'o,� ►�� o �v E re.% /� v SCHEDULED PLANNING CONIlvIISSION ACTION MEETING: 5' 2co��l �' STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: `�% � 3 f`� � THANKS, Maure 'sti uben Date of Comments % G �t��-►neY ��SCT �O�' �rt5'�� !`e�(z� C��3�C"�� C o�Z- ►�P v�✓ e�'^ e-�S - ��2GQ�i51 �� re s cI Ga�c �� y . �� - �� G�� _ �� c �►� �� 02 � . � � �'� G�i��/�Y �'/� K•f!''1 � !z �'� ��P�lz�- �Oplcr�r. � �ir � K �� o�� y� o� C 1 �--c �D%S ✓'�ce��e� ��-t�'/�'y-- �Y � � re`o`aGe � � �r �� s Sd�►Mc f�� ,�- ,�►� �s �� r�c�uc�! o� 6�- ��l/ � °�'� ��5� c,� ovf� Sr�r.sf�- ��_ 2 �ca�lv��v�'� _ ,�'�s`� (�o� �"�V� rcw` �� /��- ROUTING FORM DATE: May 1, 1998 TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL ��'FIIZE MARSHAL _SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for a front setback, side setback and parking variance and design review for a first and second story addition at 1470 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-200 (Charles Schembre applicant and property owner). (Revised Plans) SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: June 22, 1998 STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, May 4, 1998 THANKS, � < <� � Maureen/Kristin/Ruben `�) Date of Comments _�� = - _��=; � �, \ �5�� , ``�t'�� Ci-E; ��C�� ` 5 41�1,� 1 Gl�� Y�nYlf� Cc.titic� 4 \ L ' �'� � Vu-� Ce,l � Q-� �� '�� 1 C C��C_�j ��t'C,L��,'( �_ L � � / � l ____^ ��,4��- ��c-�-c�� - � s-� 8 . d ,�, .� ;�,�, �.�.�,�d �:� o � -��P ��. �.� ��d �< < �-�.. �� . . , . � � � c�<< Oati.c�c�.� M,vb� ►+��e�' �6C� . Seo Ch. 6u(d�� O-��i�a- s�owt. � �� Design Review Comments City of Burlingame Applicant Name: Charles Schembri ��U�� Applicant Address: 1470 Vancouver Avenue Date of Comments: 11 May 1998 Design Guidelines MAY 1 1 1998 CITY OF BURLiNGAME °LANNING DEPT. 1. COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The house adds to the variety of styles in the neighborhood. 2. RESPECT THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. N/A — The garage is existing. 3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURE, AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN. The style and massing of the proposed addition seems to be in keeping with the neighborhood. However, due the unusual lot and location of the adjacent house, the proposed addition will seem massive to the adjacent southern neighbor. Please read #4 below. 4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO EACH SIDE. The lot is unusual due to the fact the house is located on a flag lot. The front house overlaps the proposed house's front elevation from the street. The proposed addition will block north light of the neighbors' house at its northeast corner. This neighboring residence is additionally impacted due to the fact it is a single story residence. The newly proposed second story addition is set back from the front of the house, therefore reducing its impact at the street elevation. There is a very large colonial style house to the immediate north of the said property, which is located approximately 50'-0" from the proposed addition. This reduces any impact to that north neighbor. 5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. The existing residence is beautifully landscaped, illustrating respect to the neighborhood. There is a lot of tall growth on the north side of the property to approximately 10-12 feet high, although, this will not screen the proposed 2 story addition. Catherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIA �'��Z�(.�✓ � � ,�t: 4 � � 1 � y� � ,l#` I . �`� -'� _ ; :� �. �, ,, y , i�4��r '� �� .s. H.' �K 'r � ' 'y ' �,: � ; •' '� }• � �.,' �. �� ".,. � �� 'i+ ��«;,,y^� + ,I1 * ! '�� ` ;♦ �.:,,. � ;.. . � +�e:�� . ¢ i', � '��,'�.1:� � � . �.'�':.- ,. �� - '� .�}• � �: , } .- . � • .. .. � `. . '�i s. � ' ... y, f'' +, ' ' r�,,F�� ' x��.'�lsy"�. —y,. � pR� �, �t� , ��y(,;5 � � � r YA I �` ,� E. ` *� �;;: , r � ;,t i;,,,. ��'�y� :, ,y� i � �� t r �Y - 4' � t 't'R Sa � � _ '! � t l�'� - � ��i � `jp y4 �:' eE"T�- � <., � �s '3 -' �}�;_ �� d � s- y� �. a n _ �q� 4 C � . t � � vi y � � �.qe # . . P. . T� 1 , � �� ;4 �� a':. �r � .w . ' ' �� :r "- y ��' µ��. � � � �t . y;� � ,�' z � *sF, ` . .� �§�� ,� . .: .a:, �� !i:"' t • . � M r• M'" A 4rI i " .. � �t�„f., T f y'jI]. `�,, {� l .`I! 1't ".�f •� 'ml. µ �,�.� sa ��i�i. t �. F'r �_.� � � ! . �,� � ' t ,!oR4��C. .�'e�( ' c• \ �.y ' t " ' p �.�,;r � i i ..� i �� t�; l� � . i, . , '. '�• �� ^, > : ? 7;, ,"t ,"'¢a x� ' , �•��'"` �! �/ ,r +�` t � ` ,�,•' "" °�~ `�; }��:�'� n � � � �� p�,1 � � a �� =�� ` � �= ,� ;'�pa' � ... i i�' `� � ` 14 . .� . .. '„� i-`` :�, i� A �' � N. t � a ��M' v ; .,2'� ,�. tY i+ � � �..' , tl �� '�e .i''► � i. ,',� " Q., ,"[I4Ts.�.�• �' �� t ;. ;';�t; '�',.y °' ,�� ,� �` ; 3`�.-, r a . .. .. ``7�' �- 4l.'�.. � ` � �.ya ��'i � tq. i,xti {�' � 4 # �.�''s. � � " �'13* � •. �;� r� � i�,4p�' s� ..J � � �� -:�� -R �v.�-:.. ti,. .. � . M s,�i�h' .,, � r rr''� ��'. +'w4s �" ��'. w' n , .��'1�� . I'° � �%� '�t�,q'.a�� r . xa t � e. �: '�. i.� � � - .i�^' � . ��-t , g ��'t • � � ia M r'� . . i?. h � � _ :j.y S� �1 J �. „i��. ��"•� ..: i <;�. , ` : .. '+ �� ! y. .� ?4 � . . .t� �! t t �y' ��+.� ° y �. � w ��a�:� i p.�.i�O � .1.` .�,i.. :�� i �. � � �� ° L.� r � :� �' ..+ � �rj K � ; .., �' E.� ��. .�k„ � ��%7l�r� , 7"' y � " f �. , �.: �•]_��y�a � ,:; �.� ,.. � �""+� �� .j�1' �� ' : S � � 'T ti �t;.:. _ .. � � � � • . � � j� � �• � �Y.,. � . . . ~� wts " �� _ ..,y.. ,��' �'�. ,;1 � ;,�,; y „J.. � �'t . �. 4� .tii f} t �� i_ . . �.r � '' ,. ,�:�". ` �.r:. � � ~ • �� i t . ..� t� ��1 �� ~ � � �. .�.iM�.,, \ , . �. . �. ; !. . � � . � jr' �, �a'y r �.� , _�q+y • . 'J'� .� '� . `�� y .�{ , qF 4 � ` �� r � , �.1�. �..;� 4�ir Ak' � ��n� t. 5��"f' . `` S � .L �.:,P ��/�� J -_t.p�k .� i � � .. �Fi�.` � � y t .� ' k f . . ,�: .� �,�� t .� �:; . :, � . \��o��`'°. �1�� , N � -�� ..�� ^ ��+;4 �;y._ a � �;��a��, t., „ �ny��n i � ��O N � �p �, ;�� r � �� .�.e 'R • P 7Y � •, �' ��. e�` .;� �., ; , i'-. rc fi— � P� *.';-at�� ' �^. ' � ` *�r ?jz ` � , , ..,'��ct� �'r,.',��' ' A . ,. � . �. . . � ;;;:1 , o __ . • � � .,� ,x j � 1 ,�; ia.�' ' OO �+, .,.u, � * 'e'�€ � t x,�,s � �'� � �Cj� : ..� ' L�h � ��, .� '. --�- �',�� ` 5 ,� � e � � ' *�"'`�' � , �• � _ �'; y ,�xfs i k� ,,� �, • , + � ' � ,, ,� � �,. * ,� � + .- 1�� .,�� .�'�s� . - y�0�'�. r �z �� y ta� a ` u�yY .,. � _ � i , i �,,�.�.Kl`'+'' i �i y ��,��t�� iSj�a k� �Q+�.=#�,+�.,"�r,�.. h_:-h . � 1pC�t - ,�. a��! +�`' »�� b-� "�t �6 ` ��A��`"' 5.::'` � a� �ti f . �;` i. ,-�� -° � Ar� �� , � Z�oS , ��', ' ��-<� �::�: ,� z�,�� . ,4 �� . �� - VV �/t- ,��. �,.., '�:p 9 p . ,�. .�. �,..� � � �. , y � � .' . . �_ - � �� "�. � T �j P�GO �' ��?{ ,�h- , �;; � '�� " z��n� � ir ,� �`; y �;vq� � . . � ,e r'..�... x ^k�� < .. ^ �' .. -:�; ,� . �+�'t_' '�� . t `�t �� e� t4 �.. �'� � . t � .F/ 4� •t ;�. ;` �.r F � z � y.�� . �i , .� �_ .N�� _. *1.,:'.... � .. �-;- � ` - "'�a� � - � �" . '+1 �.�;:� }'�.ts f��< . �� ` ' .s' '' .:�"�� s �1 �1 "� Y � " 4 y` `°�c�C�� c ,..'t � �p, �,� � .M �� A�rr� � �. '' i}?��' � l !�"" '� J t � $� � � ; ''re� � .. �, _ � ��..�.. � �j ro. r, ��`d � O �d�' +6 ��:C., b' < `�.�.`� � � �� k,' {y��i ,�..f'?' � Q '� 1 � $ �.� a "� a s � e" r. ' .y��#.��i� - t � � ry•`� � l � e.� � `�'- ' . �'�� :� '��F..� �.j �� 4��Sjy�'�.r � 1'�.� ^� � ��' � T �._a.�- q` _ .� F � _ � . � P... � Ma `'�3 k .� f �.t�> '4 ", ��.. ,S - �;; : �� ...,1 ». . .,. a[ t . f _ . '� � �. � (- ` � � .�� ' it' � �y�F,t %7� 4:' " � .r:,,� • V O~ I t �'� y ,€ �� p � � �q1 'i`,„�. . . � h, f/ ��, ` i` � � , ,' • �' .�f', . � ,� ' � �'t� j'„ a `A�i: � , �� t . ` ;� - ��l� i1r� " j - r,� . ' ¢ g , : .� � e «�t' � �' ' �. �, � � q,� : ,�`� �� . • '�.��r .�`-� � ".. -.x %,d° �'��,h� `�y-.,.�.�� , �;' „4: �+.2 ': � �Zq'�`f��1 »,. . . �� 1i�� - ' 3.s � '�"*. +,w, �� .. . R,&. F � ; d`,,p yr;a�k�M. A tin.. -� . ar�"+_.� w �j� 10�: d,�¢*xy„wy+ . t ...�a, � , s'",� `P!C1l,ht r ,r.� � r� ;�, - � � w� �r F i .. " x � f ��J.r, ��p y� Mj�t {' t� �,- �.�'r:>eSi- � "s'F `�„ ``'�„„� GO � ekLy, �3� :y �_ � ,�� _ � a t . r �j �� „^«- �P t . �, . ,�i ,. . � �. ��: -.�.�:.. ,.i � . .N ai. '� ; , ' S�'; i :� .�• � . .. � ��:.t: . . '�L+R +� �� . . _ � +*r •w . � � . t �� f . • CITY OF BURLINGAME rlf�Ii�l pLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 696-7250 't:, '.� ?_ 't 1470 VANCOUVER AVENUE AF�N:0�6—Q�44—�0Q� Application for front setback, side setback PUBLIC HEARING and parking variances for a second story NOTICE addition sub.ject to design review at 1470 Vancot�ver Avenue, zoned R-1. The City of Purlinga�e Planning Commission anno�tnces the following public hearing on Monday, June ��, 1998 at 7: 00 P. M. i n t h e C i t y a o�mci am ers located at �01 F�rimrose Road, Purlingame, Califor,nia. Mailed June 1�, l998 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF B URLINGAME f="'.: ?' .+ : �� !� A copy of the application and plans foz this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only; those issues .you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notic� or in written conespondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing; ' ' e.... � aw.. Property owners who teceive this'notiCe'are responsible for infornring their tenants about this' notice. ForqaddiGional information, }�lease call (650) 696-7250. Thank you. ' � � , f ��..�.� ; � : � � i , � , Margaret Monroe k '. ,� ; � �- . � Ciry Planner � � � .. � ` '� � _ PUBLIC HEARfNG Nt�TICE �.. _ (Please refer to other side) ;-�F �; ; RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, FRONT SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING 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 fr n �back, side setback and narkin� variances for existing substandard conditions for a�econd floor addition at 1470 Vancouver Avenue _ zoned R-1, APN• 026-044-200; Charles Schembri,�opert,y owner; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 22, 1998, 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 DETERNIlNED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, per Article 19. Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(a+e), 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 is hereby approved. 2. Said variances are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variances are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Mike Coffe�, 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 22nd day of June, 1998 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and variances. 1470 VANCOUVER AVENUE effective JULY 6, 1998 1. that the project shall be built as shown an the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 30, 1998 Sheets A1, A2, A3, A4, AS and A6; ' 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 further to design review and commission action; 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. �