The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About508 Howard Avenue - Staff Report� , • �� CITY OF BURLINGAME Front Setback, Parking and Declining Height Envelope Variances Address: 508 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: 8/24/98 Request: Front setback and parking variances for existing substandard conditions [C.S. 25.28.072 (2, a) and 25.70.030 (1, a)] caused by new construction requirements and a declining height envelope variance (C.S. 25.28.075) for a first and second story addition subject to design review at 508 Howazd Avenue, zoned R-1. Applicants: Peter and Jane Stevenson Property Owner: same as applicants Lot Area: 7,750 SF (50' x 155') General Plan: Low density residential Adjacent Development: Single family residential APN: 029-254-170 Zoning: R-1 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 applicants, Peter and 7ane Stevenson, are requesting front setback and parking variances for existing conditions caused by new construction requirements and a declining height envelope variance for a first and second floor addition subject to design review. The proposed addition will increase the house from two to four bedrooms. The applicants are requesting the following: 1) Front setback variance for an e�sting condition (14'-6" existing where 15'-0" is the minimum required). 2) Parking variance for one existing covered space, where two covered spaces are required for new construction. 3) Declining height envelope variance for a new second story addition at the rear of the house (left side). The proposed bathroom and closet extend outside of the declining height envelope approximately 33 SF (1'-6" x 21'-9") in gross floor area. History: In June, 1998 a building permit was issued for a 435 SF iirst floor family room addition at the rear of the house at 508 Howard Avenue. This addition is currently under construction (noted on plans). Because a building permit for the family room addition was issued within one Front Setbacl� Parking and Declining Height Envelope Variances 508 Howard Avenue year of the current proposal, the 435 SF family room is considered new square footage for determining if the project qualifies as new construction. Planning staff has determined that this project qualifies as new construction, since the first and second floor addition is 62% of the existing gross floor area. At the Planning Commission meeting on August 10, 1998 the Commission reviewed the applicants' request for front setback, parking and declining height envelope variances for a first and second story addition (Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1998). The Commission requested that this item be brought back to study when the information requested and plans are complete. The Commission requested that the plans be revised so that existing, new and demolished walls are clearly delineated. The applicants resubmitted lower and upper level floor plans (date stamped August 17, 1998) which clearly show existing walls to remain in clear, new walls darkened, new walls under construction hatched, and existing walls to be removed dashed. The existing, under construction and proposed addition azeas have also been noted on the floor plan and site plan. The applicants also included floor plans of the house before a permit was issued for the area under construction (family room addition on the first floor) (Sheets lE and 2E). The Commission asked the applicants to address the design reviewer's comments regarding landscaping in the side yards and to provide a plan. In a written response (dated August 17, 1998) the applicants note that Bougainvillea and Potato Vine will be planted in the left side yard in addition to the existing tall shrubs. Star Jasmine will be added in the right side setback. The applicants have revised the site plan to show all proposed and existing landscaping indicating the growth height for each type of plant, if known. Planning staff would note that the applicants have been informed that the proposed 92" arbor in the ride side setback would require a setback variance. The applicants have decided not to include the arbor as part of the project. In their written response, the applicants note that they have considered and evaluated several alternatives with respect to off-street parking. The applicants first considered extending the garage and upstairs bedroom towards the front of the lot in order to provide covered tandem parking for two vehicles. This solution would change the overall look and feel of the property with respect to neighboring homes and would block a significant portion of the neighbor's morning sun. The second alternative would be to e�end the rear of the garage towards the rear of the property, again to provide tandem parking. The applicants indicate that this alternative would not be ideal with their intent of trying to minimize the mass and bulk of the proposed addition. The applicants also considered a double wide covered garage, but given the e�cisting structure and its placement on the lot, this alternative would effect the e�sting living room and would alter the look and feel of the north side of the 500 block of Howard Avenue. The applicants feel that the best alternative is to maintain the existing garage structure. The applicants have submitted photographs of two vehicles parked in the garage and have drawn two vehicles parked the garage on the floor plan. Planning staffwould note that because there is only one single 8' wide garage door provided, only one covered space is provided to current code standards (where two are required for new construction). � Front Setbacl� Parking and Declining Height Envelope i/ariances 508 Howard Avenue In their letters dated August 17 (Item 5) and July 2, 1998 the applicants explain why they decided to apply for a second story addition at this time. In summary, the applicants underestimated how soon they would need an additional bedroom and bathroom and felt that all three of their children could share one bedroom for several years. The applicants would like to move forward on phase 2 and would like for construction to occur at the same time. The Commission asked the applicant to explain the extraordinary circumstances in regards to the declining height envelope variance. In their written response, dated August 17, 1998 the applicants provide several alternatives and outline the key issues as to why they feel the alternatives to declining height envelope are not appropriate. Summary of Proposed Project: The applicants, Peter and Jane Stevenson, are requesting front setback and parking variances for existing substandard conditions caused by new construction requirements and a declining height envelope variance for a first and second floor addition subject to design review at 508 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicants are proposing to add a bedroom and bathroom on the f rst floor (439 SF) and a bedroom and bathroom on the second floor (439 SF), bringing the total floor area of the house to 3,256 SF (.42 FAR) (including the attached single car garage and exempting 42 SF of covered porches, CS 25.08.265), where the maximum allowed is 3,980 SF (.51 FAR). Lot coverage would be increased to 2,281 SF (29.4%) where 40% (3,100 SF) is the maximum allowed for the bedroom and bathroom addition on the iirst floor. The deck at the rear of the house is not included in lot coverage since it is less than 30" above grade. The new height to ridge would be 20'-1" as measured from average top of curb. The present structure is two story and 18'-3" tall, measured from average top of curb. The existing two bedroom, one bathroom two story house is 1,998 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 1,300 SF (65 %), from 1998 SF (.26 FAR) to 3,256 SF (with exemptions) (.42 FAR, .51 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 cunent code requirements for setbacks, height, lot coverage, floor area ratio and parking (provide two covered spaces). A front setback variance is required for an existing front setback (14'-6" existing where 15'-0" is the minimum required). A declining height envelope variance is required for a portion of the proposed second floor addition at the rear of the house along the west wa11. The proposed bathroom and closet extend outside of the declining height envelope approximately 33 SF (1'-6" x 21'-9") in gross floor area. The existing garage has a 10'-0" wide X 22'-0" deep clear interior dimension which meets the parking requirement for one covered vehicle, where two covered parking spaces aze required. Planning staff would note that the interior of the garage measures 19' -0" x 22' -0' , but the only access to the garage is through an existing 8' wide garage door. A parking variance is required for one covered space where two are required. A 9' x 20' uncovered space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. � Front Setbacl� Parking and Declining Height Envelope Irariances *Front Setback (lst): (2nd) : Side Setback (L): (R): Rear Setback (lst): (2nd): Garage: Lot Coverage: New Construction: Floor Area Ratio: Building Height: # of bedrooms: *Parking: *Declining Height: Accessory Structures: ' : ��7.y.� �a no change no change 4' -0" 4'-0" 74' -0" 74' -0" no change 29.4 % (2,281 SF) yes .42 (3,256 SF) 20'-1" 4 1 covered (10' x 20' ) 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) does not comply none . I\ 14' -6" 29' -0" 4' -0" 4' -0" 96' -0" 96' -0" 29' -0" 18.3 % (1,419 SF) n/a .26 (1,998 SF) 18' -3" 2 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) complies none 508 Howard Avenue : � � 1 C � 1 15'-0" 20' -0" 4' -0" 4' -0" 15' -0" 20' -0" 20' -0" 40 % (3,100 SF) see code .51 (3,980 SF) 30' -0" see code 2 covered (20' x 20' ) 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) see code see code * Front setback and parldng variance required for existing substandard conditions and declining height envelope variance.. Meets all other zoning code requirements. Staff Comments: The City Engineer in his July 6, 1998 memo notes that roof drainage shall be addressed at time of building permit submittal. The 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 house is one of a series of Mediterranean style homes that occupy all of the lots on the North side of the street on this block. The proposed addition is Mediterranean in design and is compatible with the streetscape. The reviewer notes that parking is not being altered and will remain with a single garage door which is compatible with the other homes on the block. The style of the addition is compatible with the rest of the existing house design. The location of the proposed addition is an extension of the existing split level. This is sensitive to the neighboring homes and is helpful in minimizing and retaining the existing roof height. The reviewer comments that the window style of the new windows and doors is different than the existing windows, however this is not noticeable from the street. The reviewer suggests that the new window trim and stucco be painted to match the existing house. � Front Setbacl� Parking and Declining Height Envelope Variances 508 Howard Avenue The reviewer notes that there will be an impact to the neighboring property on the left side. Due to the exceptional depth of the lots, the impact is less than it would be on a smaller lot. The reviewer notes that there is a lack of windows on the previously approved right side addition and small windows on the left side elevation. The result is large blank walls without relief. The applicant has revised the plans and has addetl two clear story windows along the right side addition towards the rear of the house (family room). The applicant also added a window along the left side elevation on the first floor and enlarged a window on the existing second floor. The reviewer noted that some thought should be given to landscaping in the side yards to mitigate glare and relieve the unbroken planes of stucco that result. In a written response (dated August 17, 1998) the applicants note that Bougainvillea and Potato Vine will be planted in the left side yard in addition to the e�sting to the e�sting tall shrubs. Star Jasmine will be added in the right side setback. The applicants have revised the site plan to show all proposed and existing landscaping indicating the growth height for each type of plant if known. Staff would note that the design reviewer did not review the revisions made to the elevations. The reviewer's analysis is based on the plans initially submitted for design review. In summary, the reviewer notes that the design will have minimal impact on the streetscape and that the design substantially meets the intent of the design guidelines. Ruben G. Hurin Zoning Technician c. Peter and Jane Stevenson, applicants and property owners I m CITY OF BURLINGAME Front Setback, Parking and Declining Height Envelope Variances Address: 508 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: 8/ 10/98 Request: Front setback and parking variances for existing substandard conditions [C.S. 25.28.072 (2, a) and 25.70.030 (1, a)] caused by new construction requirements and a declining height envelope variance (C.S. 25.28.075) for a first and second story addition subject to design review at 508 Howard Avenue, zoned R-l. Applicant: Peter and Jane Stevenson APN: 029-254-170 Property Owner: same as applicant Lot Area: 7,750 SF (SO' x 155') 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 applicants, Peter and Jane Stevenson, are requesting front setback and parking variances for existing conditions caused by new construction requirements and a declining height envelope variance for a first and second floor addition subject to design review. The applicants are requesting the following: 1) Front setback variance for an existing condition (14'-6" existing where 15'-0" is the minimum required) . 2) Parking variance for one existing covered space, where two covered spaces are required for new construction. 3) Declining height envelope variance for a new second story addition at the rear of the house (left side). The proposed bathroom and closet extend outside of the declining height envelope approximately 33 SF (1'-6" x 21'-9") in gross floor area. History: In 7une, 1998 a building permit was issued for a 435 SF first floor family room addition at the rear of the house at 508 Howard Avenue. This addition is currently under construction (noted on plans). Because a building permit for the family room addition was issued within one Fi•ont Setback, Parking and Declining Height Eirvelo�e Va�•iances 508 Howard Avenue year of the current proposal, the 435 SF family room is considered new square footage for determining if the project qualifies as new construction. Planning staff has determined that this project qualifies as new construction, since the first and second floor addition is 62% of the existing gross floor area. Summary: The applicants, Peter and Jane Stevenson, are requesting front setback and parking variances for existing substandard conditions caused by new construction requirements and a declining height envelope variance for a first and second floor addition subject to design review at 508 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicants are proposing to add a bedroom and bathroom on the frst floor (439 SF) and a bedroom and bathroom on the second floor (439 SF), bringing the total floor area of the house to 3,256 SF (.42 FAR) (including the attached single car garage and exempting 42 SF of covered porches, CS 25.08.265), where the maximum allowed is 3,980 SF (.51 FAR). Lot coverage would be increased to 2,281 SF (29.4%) where 40% (3,100 SF) is the maximum allowed for the bedroom and bathroom addition on the iirst floor. The deck at the rear of the house is not included in lot coverage since it is less than 30" above grade. The new height to ridge would be 20'-1" as measured from average top of curb. The present structure is two story and 18'-3" tall, measured from average top of curb. The existing two bedroom, one bathroom two story house is 1,998 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 1,300 SF (65%), from 1998 SF (.26 FAR) to 3,256 SF (with exemptions) (.42 FAR, .51 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). A front setback variance is required for an existing front setback (14'-6" existing where 15'-0" is the minimum required). A declining height envelope variance is required for a portion of the proposed second floor addition at the rear of the house along the west wall. The proposed bathroom and closet extend outside of the declining height envelope approximately 33 SF (1'-6" x 21'-9") in gross floor area. The existing garage has a 10'-0" wide X 22'-0" deep clear interior dimension which meets the parking requirement for one covered vehicle, where two covered parking spaces are required. Planning staff would note that the interior of the garage measures 19' -0" x 22' -0' , but the only access to the garage is through an existing 8' wide garage door. A parking variance is required for one covered space where two are required. A 9' x 20' uncovered space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. � Front Setback, Parking and Declining Height Envelope Variances *Front Setback (lst): (2nd): Side Setback (L): (R) : Rear Setback (lst): (2nd): Garage: Lot Coverage: New Construction: Floor Area Ratio: Building Height: *Parking: *Declining Height: Accessory Structures: ':�'�. �1 no change no change 4'-0" 4'-0" 74' -0" 74' -0" no change 29.4% (2,281 SF) yes .42 (3,256 SF) 20'-1" 1 covered (10' x 20' ) 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) does not comply none , I� 14'-6" 29' -0" 4' -0" 4' -0" 96' -0" 96' -0" 29'-0" 18.3 % (1,419 SF) n/a .26 (1,998 SF) 18'-3" 1 covered (10' x 20' ) 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) complies none S08 Howard Avenue : ._� � __I ; � 1 15'-0" 20'-0" 4' -0" 4'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 20' -0" 40 % (3,100 SF) see code .51 (3,980 SF) 30'-0" 2 covered (20' x 20' ) 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) see code see code * Front setback and parking variance required for existing substandard conditions and declining height envelope variance.. Meets all other zoning code requirements. Staff Comments: The City Engineer in his July 6, 1998 memo notes that roof drainage shall be addressed at time of building permit submittal. The 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 house is one of a series of Mediterranean style homes that occupy all of the lots on the North side of the street on this block. The proposed addition is Mediterranean in design and is compatible with the streetscape. The reviewer notes that parking is not being altered and will remain with a single garage door which is compatible with the other homes on the block. The style of the addition is compatible with the rest of the existing house design. The location of the proposed addition is an extension of the existing split level. This is sensitive to the neighboring homes and is helpful in minimizing and retaining the existing roof height. The reviewer comments that the window style of the new windows and doors is different than the existing windows, however this is not noticeable from the street. The reviewer suggests that the new window trim and stucco be painted to match the existing house. The reviewer notes that there will be an impact to the neighboring property on the left side. Due to the exceptional depth of the lots, the impact is less than it would be on a smaller lot. The 3 Fr•ont Setback, Pa� king and Declining Height Envelope Variances 508 Howa�-d Avenue reviewer notes that there is a lack of windows on the previously approved right side addition and small windows on the left side elevation. The result is large blank walls without relief. The applicant has revised the plans and has added two clear story windows along the right side addition towards the rear of the house (family room). The applicant also added a window along the left side elevation on the first floor and enlarged a window on the existing second floor. The reviewer noted that some thought should be given to landscaping in the side yards to mitigate glare and relieve the unbroken planes of stucco that result. The applicant has revised the plans to show landscaping (shrubs). Staff would note that the design reviewer did not review the revisions made to the elevations. The reviewer's analysis is based on the plans initially submitted for design review. In summary, the reviewer notes that the design will have minimal impact on the streetscape and that the design substantially meets the intent of the design guidelines. Ruben G. Hurin Zoning Technician c. Peter and Jane Stevenson, applicants and property owners � . Item #9 CITY OF BURLINGAME Front Setback, Parking and Declining Height Envelope Variances Address: 508 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: 9/ 14/98 Request: Front setback and parking variances for existing substandard conditions [C.S. 25.28.072 (2, a) and 25.70.030 (1, a)] caused by new construction requirements and a declining height envelope variance (C.S. 25.28.075) for a first and second story addition subject to design review at 508 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1. Applicants: Peter and 7ane Stevenson APN: 029-254-170 Property Owner: same as applicants Lot Area: 7,750 SF (50' x 155') 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 applicants, Peter and Jane Stevenson, are requesting front setback and parking variances for existing conditions caused by new construction requirements and a declining height envelope variance for a iirst and second floor addition subject to design review. The proposed addition will increase the house from two to four bedrooms. The applicants are requesting the following: 1) Front setback variance for an existing condition (14'-6" existing where 15'-0" is the minimum required). 2) Parking variance for one existing covered space, where two covered spaces are required for new construction. 3) Declining height envelope variance for a new second story addition at the rear of the house (left side). The proposed bathroom and closet extend outside of the declining height envelope approximately 33 SF (1'-6" x 21'-9") in gross floor area. History: In 7une, 1998 a building permit was issued for a 435 SF first floor family room addition at the rear of the house at 508 Howard Avenue. This addition is currently under construction (noted on plans). Because a building permit for the family room addition was issued within one . ' Front Setbacl� Parking and Declining Height Envelope Variances 508 Howard Avenue year of the cunent proposal, the 435 SF family room is considered new square footage for determining if the project qualifies as new construction. Planning staff has determined that this project qualifies as new construction, since the iirst and second floor addition is 62 % of the existing gross floor area. At the Planning Commission meeting on August 10, 1998 the Commission reviewed the applicants' request for front setback, parking and declining height envelope variances for a first and second story addition (Plasuung Commission Minutes August 10, 1998). The Commission requested that this item be brought back to study when the information requested and plans are complete. The Commission requested that the plans be revised so that existing, new and demolished walls are clearly delineated. The applicants resubmitted lower and upper level floor plans (date stamped August 17, 1998) which clearly show existing walls to remain in clear, new walls darkened, new walls under construction hatched, and existing walls to be removed dashed. The existing, under construction and proposed addition areas have also been noted on the floor plan and site plan. The applicants also included floor plans of the house before a permit was issued for the area under construction (family room addition on the first floor) (Existing Site Plan, Floor Plans and Building Elevations, Sheets 1 and 2). The Commission asked the applicants to address the design reviewer's comments regarding landscaping in the side yards and to provide a plan. In a written response (dated August 17, 1998) the applicants note that Bougainvillea and Potato Vine will be planted in the left side yard in addition to the existing ta11 shrubs. Star Jasmine will be added in the right side setback. The applicants have revised the site plan to show all proposed and existing landscaping indicating the growth height for each type of plant, if known. Planning staff would note that the applicants have been informed that the proposed 92" arbor in the ride side setback would require a setback variance. The applicants have decided not to include the arbor as part of the project. In their written response, the applicants note that they have considered and evaluated several alternatives with respect to off-street parking. The applicants first considered extending the garage and upstairs bedroom towards the front of the lot in order to provide covered tandem parking for two vehicles. This solution would change the overall look and feel of the property with respect to neighboring homes and would block a significant portion of the neighbor's morning sun. The second alternative would be to extend the rear of the garage towards the rear of the property, again to provide tandem parking. The applicants indicate that this alternative would not be ideal with their intent of trying to minimize the mass and bulk of the proposed addition. The applicants also considered a double wide covered garage, but given the existing structure and its placement on the lot, this alternative would effect the existing living room and would alter the look and feel of the north side of the 500 block of Howard Avenue. The applicants feel that the best alternative is to maintain the existing garage structure. The applicants have submitted photographs of two vehicles parked in the garage and have drawn two vehicles parked the garage on the floor plan. Planning staffwould note that because there is only one single 8' wide garage door provided, only one covered space is provided to current code standards (where two are required for new construction). 2 1 Fi�ont Setback, Parking and Declining Height Envelope I�ar�iances 508 Howard Avenue In their letters dated August 17 (Item 5) and July 2, 1998 the applicants explain why they decided to apply for a second story addition at this time. In summary, the applicants underestimated how soon they would need an additional bedroom and bathroom and felt that all three of their children could share one bedroom for several years. The applicants would like to move forward on phase 2 and would like for construction to occur at the same time. The Commission asked the applicant to explain the extraordinary circumstances in regards to the declining height envelope variance. In their written response, dated August 17, 1998 the applicants provide several alternatives and outline the key issues as to why they feel the alternatives to declining height envelope are not appropriate. Siunmary of Proposed Project: The applicants, Peter and Jane Stevenson, are requesting front setback and parking variances for existing substandard conditions caused by new construction requirements and a declining height envelope variance for a first and second floor addition subject to design review at 508 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicants are proposing to add a bedroom and bathroom on the first floor (439 SF) and a bedroom and bathroom on the second floor (439 SF), bringing the total floor area of the house to 3,256 SF (.42 FAR) (including the attached single car garage and exempting 42 SF of covered porches, CS 25.08.265), where the maximum allowed is 3,980 SF (.51 FAR). Lot coverage would be increased to 2,281 SF (29.4%) where 40% (3,100 SF) is the maximum allowed for the bedroom and bathroom addition on the first floor. The deck at the rear of the house is not included in lot coverage since it is less than 30" above grade. The new height to ridge would be 20'-1" as measuretl from average top of curb. The present structure is two story and 18'-3" tall, measured from average top of curb. The existing two bedroom, one bathroom two story house is 1,998 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 1,300 SF (65%), from 1998 SF (.26 FAR) to 3,256 SF (with exemptions) (.42 FAR, .51 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). A front setback variance is required for an existing front setback (14'-6" existing where 15'-0" is the minimum required). A declining height envelope variance is required for a portion of the proposed second floor addition at the rear of the house along the west wall. The proposed bathroom and closet extend outside of the declining height envelope approximately 33 SF (1'-6" x 21'-9") in gross floor area. The existing garage has a 10'-0" wide X 22'-0" deep clear interior dimension which meets the parking requirement for one covered vehicle, where two covered parking spaces are required. Planning staff would note that the interior of the garage measures 19'-0" x 22'-0', but the only access to the garage is through an existing 8' wide garage door. A parking variance is required for one covered space where two are required. A 9' x 20' uncovered space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. 3 Front Setback, Parking and Declining Height Envelope Variances *Front Setback (lst): (2nd): Side Setback (L): (R) : Rear Setback (lst): (2nd): Garage: Lot Coverage: New Construction: Floor Area Ratio: Building Height: #� of bedrooms: *Parking: *Declining Height: Accessory Structures: '►�'�_ _91 no change no change 4' -0" 4'-0" 74' -0" 74'-0" no change 29.4% (2,281 SF) yes .42 (3,256 SF) 20'-1" 4 1 covered (10' x 20' ) 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) does not comply none �� . I� , 14' -6" 29' -0" 4' -0" 4'-0" 96'-0" 96' -0" 29' -0" 18.3 % (1,419 SF) n/a .26 (1,998 SF) 18'-3" 2 1 covered (10' x 20' ) 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) complies none 508 Howard Avenue ; _ � � 1 C __ � 1 15' -0" 20' -0" 4' -0" 4' -0" 15'-0" 20' -0" 20'-0" 40 % (3,100 SF) see code .51 (3,980 SF) 30' -0" see code 2 covered (20' x 20' ) 1 uncovered (9' x 20' ) see code see code * Front setback and parking variance required for existing substandard conditions and declining height envelope variance.. Meets all other zoning code requirements. Staff Comments: The City Engineer in his July 6, 1998 memo notes that roof drainage shall be addressed at time of building permit submittal. The 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 house is one of a series of Mediterranean style homes that occupy all of the lots on the North side of the street on this block. The proposed addition is Mediterranean in design and is compatible with the streetscape. The reviewer notes that parking is not being altered and will remain with a single garage door which is compatible with the other homes on the block. The style of the addition is compatible with the rest of the existing house design. The location of the proposed addition is an extension of the existing split level. This is sensitive to the neighboring homes and is helpful in minimizing and retaining the existing roof height. The reviewer comments that the window style of the new windows and doors is different than the existing windows, however this is not noticeable from the street. The reviewer suggests that the new window trim and stucco be painted to match the existing house. � Front Setback, Parking and Declining Height Envelope I�ariances 508 Howard Avenue The reviewer notes that there will be an impact to the neighboring property on the left side. Due to the exceptional depth of the lots, the impact is less than it would be on a smaller lot. The reviewer notes that there is a lack of windows on the previously approved right side addition and small windows on the left side elevation. The result is large blank walls without relief. The applicant has revised the plans and has added two clear story windows along the right side addition towards the rear of the house (family room). The applicant also added a window along the left side elevation on the first floor and enlarged a window on the existing second floor. The reviewer noted that some thought should be given to landscaping in the side yards to mitigate glare and relieve the unbroken planes of stucco that result. In a written response (dated August 17, 1998) the applicants note that Bougainvillea and Potato Vine will be planted in the left side yard in addition to the existing to the existing tall shrubs. Star Jasmine will be added in the right side setback. The applicants have revised the site plan to show all proposed and e�sting landscaping indicating the growth height for each type of plant if known. Staff would note that the design reviewer did not review the revisions made to the elevations. The reviewer's analysis is based on the plans initially submitted for design review. In summary, the reviewer notes that the design will have minimal impact on the streetscape and that the design substantially meets the intent of the design guidelines. Study Questions: At their meeting on August 24, 1998 the Planning Commission asked several questions regarding this application (P.C. Minutes August 24, 1998). The Planning Commission asked if the garage has an automatic garage door opener. In a written response dated August 31, 1998 the applicants indicate that an overhead automatic garage door opener was installed in 1997. The Commission noted that the photographs submitted by the applicants show a VW Bug parked in the garage. On a site visit, the VW was seen parked on the street under a cover. The Commission asked if this is the same vehicle shown in the photographs and do the applicants park it in the garage. The applicants note that this is the same vehicle. Because the kitchen remodel and family room addition is currently under construction, the garage is being used for storing new appliances, windows, construction materials and tools for use on the project. The applicants note that they do typically park the VW Bug in the garage and will be returning it to the garage at the completion of the project. 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; 5 Front Setback, Parking and Declining Height Envelope i/ariances 508 Howard Avenue (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. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include iindings made for the requested variances (front setback, parking and declining height envelope). 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 August 17, 1998 Sheets 1-4, lE and 2E; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that prior to issuance of a building permit amendment for the proposed addition the property owner shall submit a landscape plan listing plant materials, container sizes and irrigation to the Senior Landscape Inspector for approval and these approved plants and irrigation shall be installed prior to scheduling the final inspection and issuing the occupancy permit on the work on the house; and 4. 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. Peter and Jane Stevenson, applicants and property owners � REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 24, 1998 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman D called the Au st 24, 1998, regular meeting of th lanning Commission to order at 7:00 p. ROLL CALL , Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES APPROVAL OF AGENDA FROM THE FLOOR STUDY ITEMS [CATION FOR HILLS� SETBACK AND LOT 'EWART, AIA, APPI APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK, PARKING AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 508 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PETER W. & JANE G.STEVENSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and project and the commissioners asked: does the garage door have an automatic door opener; the photograph included by the applicant shows a VW parked in the garage, when made site visit saw a VW parked on the street under a cover, is it the same vehicle and do they park it in the garage. There were no other questions and the item was set for public hearing on September 14, 1998. Sl L O Coffey City Planner, Me Monroe; City orney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank bacher; Fire hal, Keith Marshall The minutes of the August 1, egular meeting the Planning ission were unanimously a oved. The orde f the agenda was approved. There were no p�lic comments. E AREA CONSTRUC OVERAGE AT 2810 �ANT AND MITRA J PERMIT AND VA ANCES FOR 1RON WAY, ZONED -1. (JOHN RSHED-BERGLOFF, OPERTY CP Mo e reviewed the staff r should be 'nstalled so that they a coverage, at would need to be and project and the c� : neighbors can see the to reduce the lot cover issioners asked: sto poles ct on views; asking 4% lot to 40 %; why does the ouse -1- Ciry of Burtingmne Plnnning Commissron Minutes A�egust 10, l998 is no encroachment per for the wall nd a stop work noti will be issued; is application should include a land ape plan, esp ially for the Ray D' e side, only a w is visible now, need some landsca ng visible fro the street; the revie r notes that this i e only house with the eaves cut of t a 45 degree ngle, has the applica looked at a 90 de ree angle, how would this look, w would it me in terms of the co . There were no rther questions and the item was s for hearing o August 24, 1998, i he requested info ation is available in tim�. APP CATION FO HILLSIDE AREA ONSTRUCTION ERMIT, FRONT SET ACK, SI SETBACK D PARKING V ANCES FOR FIRST AND SECON STORY DITION SU ECT TO DESIGN EVIEW AT 250 VALDIVIA WAY, Z ED R-1. (PAUL GUM NGER, APPLICA AND ROBERT . KUGEL & DIANA . DAMAZO, CP Mo oe reviewed the p ject briefly and th lanning Commissione asked the following quest' ns: would like the pplicant to install s ry poles so could see e bulk and effect of th im cts of the second ory; need to addres the parking issue more could two cars be pa ed i the garage; there ' a lot of mass at th front of the house, co d bay window be ad essed o reduce the ma , the location of th bay window appears wkward, please add ss; is it possible to rem e the stairs and door n the garage and incr se the area available or parking; why are the s' ing materials mixed is there a design reaso for this; how many edrooms will there be in e finished house. T item was set for pub � hearing and action the August 24, 1998, me ing, providing the re uested information is available in tune. APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK, PARKING AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 508 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-l. (PETER W. & JANE G. STEVENSON APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the Commissioners asked: plans need to be revised so that it is clearly delineated which walls are new/replace and which are removed, this item should be reset for study when the plans have been revised; address the design reviewers comments about landscaping in the side yards and provide plan; site has a problem with parking, what are the options to resolve, show studies; why did the applicant decide to go for a second story addition at this time; need a more complete set of drawings, sheet 2 in the plans is hard to understand; asking for a declining height envelope variance, reasons are unclear, what are the extraordinary circumstances. This item should be brought back to study and staff should set it when the information requested and plans are complete. APPLICAT N FOR SP WINDO WITHIN ,] REC ATIONAL US��F� �AL PERMITS )' OF PROP , R A NEW G R AN ACCESS TY LINE (4� GE AT 1445 CO E SZ"P Monroe re ewed the project a the Com such a larg accessory structure ut still not p bedroom are in the house an how many off is the plicant not providi two covered pat -2- Y STRU AVENUE, FOR FOR R-l. 'PLICA S AND PROPE Y OWNERS �ner asked: why is th applicant askin for i two covered pa ing spaces; ho many covered parkin paces are requ' ed; why spaces; this lar e garage will r trict future AUG 31 ' 98 17:18 TO-916503428386 Date: S/31/198 "ro: Planning Daparnnant City of Burlingame From: Jane & Peter Stevenson FROM-TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS T-493 P, 02/02 F-162 7'"`� ` S � a � `y;, ��I��.�. � � � . � ` k" ��._ � , .f i, d � , �R, ., [' �d'� .b.d.. .._ A U G� 1 1993 F:,'i-�`�' i_;� C�iJ};��'�;u�ivi� Re: Questions raised during 8/24/98 Meeti�g P�-H P� �� i� a[) �- f�"r (508 Howard Avenue) Two questions ware raised in the recent Burlingame Planning Commission Study Mteting (8/24/98). 1) Does the garage have an automatic door opener?: Yes. There is an auromaric overhead garage door opener that was installed in the su�nmer of 1997. 2) Ie the V'W automobile, tbat was covered and parKed 1n tLe street on AuguSt Z4`h, the same vehicle shcwn in t!►e photo as parked in the garage?: Yes. G'�rrently we are in conscruction on the Kitchen re,r,odel and fa►nily room add�eion and are using rhe garage jor the storoge of our new appliances, windows, other const,vction matertals, and the tools and equipment being uiilized on the project.. i�i'e rypioalTy park the VW bug tn tlre garcrge (as shown in rAe pho�os) and wil! be returning it to the garage at the completion of this projecr. Sincerely, Jane and Peter Stevenson Page 1 of 1 �.� H �f� � � J � �"-�.. t Aa � � �,,.� �.., oi ` � • � ..,�,. ...r an. � � v� �:,. _ r _.: . Date: 8/ 17/98 To: Planning Commission City of Burlingame From: Jane & Peter Stevenson Re: Study Questions for 508 Howard Avenue AUG Z '� 199� �iTY ib� �iJE;�.;::u;aiv�� P�AnI�;!`�:�:� i)�=�,_(. In the August 10, 1998 study meeting, the planning commission requested responses to the seven items noted below (per the Planning Department's fax dated 8/12/98). 1. Plans need to be revised so that it is clearly delineated which walls are new/replaced and which are removed. 2. This item should be reset. for study when the plans have been revised 3. Address the design reviewer's comments about landscapin� in the side yards and provide plan. 4. Site has a problem with parking. What are the options to resolve? Show studies. 5. Why did the applicant decide to go. for a second story addition at this time? 6. Need a more complete set of drawings, sheet 2 in the plans is hard to understand. 7. Askin�. for a declinin� height envelope variance, reasons are unclear, what are the extraordinary circumstances? In responding to the above questions, we feel it is important to point out that our number one priority in expanding our home was to protect the architectural integrity and style of the home as well as to ensure that our design "fits" within the context of our neighborhood. Since the scale of our existing home is small, we felt it was important to come up with a design that ma.intained the same scale in terms of room additions and overall proportions. As such, our plan calls for room and bathroom additions that are consistent with the existing style and scale of the home. In addition, since there are similar multi-level dwellings on our immediate block, the style of our house and the impact on the neighborhood would be better served by expanding back as opposed to building up. Items 1, 2 and 6. Each of these items deal with a request to submit revised plans that provide more deta.il and clearly delineate the proposed additions and changes. Accordingly, we have updated the drawings and are resubmitting them at this time. Please see attached plans for details. Item 3. We have decided to plant both Bougainvillea, and Potato Vine on the left side setback area in addition to the existing tall shrubs. On the right side setback area, we have specified Star Jasmine as well as the addition of a 92" arbor. Please see attached plans for details. Item 4. We have considered and evaluated several alternatives with respect to parking. The 1S` two options involve a parking solution designed to park two cars in tandem with access through a single garage door. • The 1S` involves extending the garage and upstairs bedrooms towards the curb. This would change the overa111ook and feel of the property with respect to neighboring homes (as noted in the design reviewer's comments in paragraph X) as well as would block a significant portion of our neighbor's morning sun. Page 1 of 3 • The 2nd alternative would be to e�tend the rear of the garage towards the back of the property. This would require that the proposed addition move even further into the rear of the property. As we are trying to minimize the overall mass, bulk, and scale of our proposed addition, we do not feel this alternative would be ideal. Lastly, building a two-door garage entrance (to allow for parallel parking), given the existing structure and its placement within the lot, is not possible without dramatically effecting the existing living room. A change that would, frankly, decline the value of our home as well as dramatically alter the look and feel of the North side of the 500 block of Howard Avenue. As such, we believe the best alternative is to maintain the existing garage structure. Since the garage is approximately 27' x 19', it is possible to park two cars in the garage and still have ample storage space. In fact, we do this regularly and have submitted photos for your review. Moreover, the existing driveway can accommodate off-the-street parking for a third vehicle, which further alleviates the need to park on city streets Item 5. When we purchased the home back in 1993, we were just starting our family and knew that we would need more living space as our family expanded (we now have three small children.) One of the ma.in reasons we selected our house was the large lot size and the ability to reasonably expand the home. Our original plan was to add on 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, a family room and a remodel of the kitchen. Since the projected costs for this plan would be quite large we felt that we needed to split the effort into two phases. The lst phase would cover the kitchen remodel and the addition of the family room. The 2nd phase would add on the additional bedrooms and hathrooms. Having recently gone through the process of designing and developing the lst phase we have a much better understanding of the magnitude of effort involved as well as the temporary disruption it can cause in your life and daily routines. In addition, we underestimated how soon we would need another bedroom and bathroom as we felt that all three kids could share one bedroom for several years. As such, we now believe we need to move forward on phase 2 as soon as possible. Although this will lengthen the overall time of disruption we believe it will be best for our family in the long run as it will occur only once at this time. Item 7. In the process of developing the proposed design, we considered several options that would avoid the declining height issue. We have listed these alternatives and outlined the key issues as to why we feel they are not appropriate. Alternative 1: Angle the roofline at a 45-degree along the left side elevation for the proposed addition. This would require that the ceiling line along the master bedroom closet and ma.ster bathroom angle down at the same 45-degree angle. Since our design alrea,dy calls for a relatively small bathroom and closet area floor plan, this declining ceiling line would significantly impact the available usable space and overall functionality. Moreover, the external view would not be aesthetically pleasing. � ,�_�, �,� ,. ,� : �,..�. ��_� �� i? d..�� . Page 2 of 3 A U G 1 r,� 1998 t��-(`,� c�P� F'sU��'.'tl Y;��iti�.;�IV�:,� PLAf�!fvf°'�:G ��'�. Alternative 2: Increase the setback on the left side elevation for the planned addition. • Leads to a design which calls for the master bedroom and bathroom to extend out even further into the backyard (increasing the left setback would require placing the new ma.ster bathroom to a rear facing wall of the home and leave us with a closet sma,ller than the existing master bedroom closet.) • Moreover, this design would require a long hallway going to the master bedroom and bathroom, a feature that would be inconsistent and uncharacteristic with the existing layout of the home. Alternative 3: Excavate below grade to allow for a 4th bedroom at code and to maintain the existing 2nd story floor height for the new master bedroom and bathroom. • Excavating below grade significantly increases the risk for leakage, moisture build-up, and flooding. It is also a costly endeavor. Alternative 4: E�ctend the existing 2nd story floor height for the new master bedroom and bathroom but do not excavate for the 4th bedroom. • The option of building the master bedroom at the existing second story level but not providing a living space below it at code would not be acceptable as we need to meet the living requirements for our existing family, as well as protect the long-range return on our investment Alterna.tive 5: Build up by placing the additional2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms over the existing kitchen and dining rooms • Creates a house that e�ends two and '/z stories above grade, would be inconsistent with the overall look and feel ofthe homes on the 500 block of Howard Avenue, and is significantly more expensive than building back and maintaining the current multi-level design In summary, we believe that the proposed design represents the best alternafiive from a standpoint of maintaining the architecture and style of the home, achieving the best "fit" with respect to the overall look and feel of the neighboring homes, and ensuring a reasonable cost for value relationship in terms of our investment. Although the proposed design requires a variance for declining height envelope on the left elevation, it does so just slightly and yet does not dramatically change the left side elevations going back. We hope that our responses as well as the attached updated plans adequately address your questions. Sincerely, � � 9 � �Fn Jane and Peter Stevenson ,"�" � �;,'� �.' �.. � � �� _ ' � U � 1 � 1998 Page 3 of 3 '.; I i Y � F _� ;.) `i � ; !',i � r� IVi E �L��;�,<,::v� ��.r--r. ry � .� � � �" .a . . . ,'� - . . .-�! . �, � :� .��; : � � �, :�: � '� '�� . .��:. � �� 4 �,. � � :�y� a �� :v' t�" 1 U rm a � � 1 '7 1998 CI i�Y f1r t�<!�={? ii�ia:=�l+%ic PLR�f�Nl�ti� L�.F�7. � T 0 ,� � • � .� """ � ___ :._. - _ �r� ►r�.��. - - -.�-_.. � ,- I ��'-- ,, �. _, i `Y � _ � = r' • �- `�"" � �N - ...,F%?�� . . � .. i��. � � � v. , �`�\ , � y� . . . . . . \ W s . , < �'�x'., . . - , . _ , t -:., - • -- ��M.er�.c�-�� :�.-:.�.._:�_ . —._::-._. . --_..-._�,..o--.�------- t ' { . '� 1 � , . i � a. , �' i � , � � ,f � . . , � .'1 , F1\ � / � . i/ � � , � r. , � �..► �� : � �. � � � •- - rt 'r' "! � � t > � , - ,:_.�.-, , <` r =,.: � � .,: �-- � Print Key Output Page 1 5769SS1 V4R2M0 980228 CITYHALL 08/04/98 10:19:14 Display Device . . . . . . BLGCOUNTER User . . . . . . . . . . . ZARUBA 8/04/98 Screen 1 10:19:11 Job Address: 508 HOWARD AVENUE APN: 29-254-170 Permit: 9800470 Unit #: Permit Application Date: 4/07/98 Appl Recvd By: EMILY ZARUBA Permit Issue Date: 6/11/98 Permit Issued By: EMILY ZARUBA PROPERTY OWNER: STEVENSON PETER W 508 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME CA 94010 Phone: CONTRACTOR: CA Lic#: 562303 Class B MEDITERRANEO DESIGN CENTER 3475C EDISON MENLO PARK, CA 94025 Phone: 650-368-1361 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER: Registry# CARL STEVENSON Phone: F2 to Continue F3 to Cancel and Exit Print Key Output 5769SS1 V4R2M0 980228 CITYHALL Display Device . . . . . . BLGCOUNTER Us e r . . . . . . . . . . . ZARUBA Screen 2 508 HOWARD AVENUE # ENGINEER: Registry# JAMES ROBINSON Phone TENANT: Phone Type of Permit: 434 ALTERATION - All Residential Bldgs Description of Work: Summary: ADD'N & RMDL FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AND KITCHEN REMODEL Page 1 08/04/98 10:19:06 PERMIT 9800470 (incl Decks - new/alter) F2 to Continue F3 to Cancel and Exit F12 Previous Screen J4�� cir o* . , �R��.,,,,� CITY OF BUItLINGAME ��.., ,..• APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other Proj ect Address: �� -i��l�� `� � � Assessor's Parcel Number(s): ��"► � 2� �) — � 7� �� _ ,/ . � � � � � ... Gl, . ... �I � • � � - � : �'u1LLI /. �� _ , y� i �� / . ' � � � � ��;.' . � .i � ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Addre: City/S� Phone ture Date � ' �h�� _ 7 fax: .�� g " � ss� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2 r�BP'►�Y1 � a2 �CI%) Q,,,�,eG(.� �A'9 , AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the be,�t of my knowledge and belief. _ 7/a I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commi�sion. �7/a /�l� Date Filed: � � Z ' `� �' PROPERTY OWNER Name: ��rNYlf.2 Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): rn�: fax: Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. S s Signature Date � •-FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -------------------- ,_, , ,--------- �� "' ,�-a �„r. : � �` r � ,� � .� Fee:��lp +�`5on (�os;f) � a�, Planning Commission: Study Date: �' �o �`� � Action Date: f U�� 2�998 ��L¢�98' ' C'�= E�lJr�f;r.� �i_,�,�v�� -,;,��,�� aliR9j Li`j��l. � I BURLJNGAME � I `ry `*� �l ._ � _ CIT1' OO F EUFLING�ME ��,�1�IANC1E HPPLIC,�,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 follov�ing 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. SE� �ciT�G4��D 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. 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 public hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or con venience. r•� 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 12/92 vx.frm a. Describe the exceptiona/ �r extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icable fo you� property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. Do any conditions exist on the site which make othe� the alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the areal 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 neighborhoodl 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 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 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 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). 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 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 removal). General we/fare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development7 Is there a social benefit7 Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)1 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicappedl d. Ho w 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 neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architectu�e or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If use will affect the way a neighborhood/area looks, compa�e your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "�ts". 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 vicinityl Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with othe� uses in the vicinity, and/o� state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. ,sres�...r.m Date: 7/29/98 To: Planning DeparUnent City of Burlingame REGEI�iED JUL 2 9 1998 From: Jane c4c Peter Stevenson CITY OF BURLINGAME Re: Required Variances (per letterdated 7/23/98) PLANNING DEPT. 508 Howard Avenue In the Planr►ing Department response letter (dated 7/23/98) to our inirial submission, it was indicated that our planned remodel qualifies as new construcrion and, therefore, we will need to submit variance applications for the following: • Front setback variance required for an existing substandard front setback (14'-6" existing where 15'-0" is the minimum required.) • Parking variance for one covered parking space, where two are required for new construction. Moreover, it was indicated that we might also need to submit variance applications for proposed height and for declining height envelope, as it was not clear from the original site and elevation plans submitted that the requirements would be met. As a result, we engaged the architect to detemune whether or not a variance would be required for either of these two criteria. Based on the calculations and informaUon on the updated plans, we meet the proposed height requirement; however, we will require a variance for: • Declining height envelope on the left side elevation According,ly, we have completed the variance application for the three items. Our answers to the questions are detailed on the pages that follow. Thank you for your time and consideration of these variance requests. Sincerely, Jane and Peter Stevenson G�/l{,� �-,�%.�''v (/ D....n 1 i.f '7 1) Froot setback variance required for an existing substandard front setback: a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. All of the homes on the North side of the S00 block of Howard Avenue have the same exisUng sub-standard front setback (14'-6" where 15'-0" is minimum for new construction.) Alternatives to a variance would be highly costly and would make our home no longer common with the setback and overall look and feel of the neighboring homes on the North side. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary,for the preservation and enjoyment of a substarrtial properry right and what unreasanable loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denia! of the application. Our remodeling project encompasses an addition to the rear of the home where we ha�e no setback issues. Denial of the front setback variance would require substantial cost and hardship to change the foundation, walls, and roofline of the front of the house. See notes above. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be deh-imenta! or injurious to properry or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or c.onve.nienc.e. The proposed addition ea�tends the existing split-level house design in the back. The affect of this addition ea�tends the two-story wall on the left elevation of the properiy by approYimately 21 feet. On a small lot, this could negatively impact the views from the home on the adjacent lots. This impact, however, is partially mitigated by the deep lot of our existing property. Moreover, the general orientation of the homes is towards the rear and not the sides. As such, the shape of the lots and the placement of the homes on the lots lend themselves to a rear-oriented views and usage. Finally, adding on to the back left of the structure (as opposed to the back right) will have the least impact on the plane of light for both adjacent properties. Given all of this, we believe that our proposed addition will t�ave minimal impact on the neighboring homes. In response to the comments detailed in the independent design review memo (dated 7/21/98) we have modified the original design plans by placing 2 windows on the right side elevation, adding slighdy larger windows on the left side elevation, and noting planned landscape improvements — all intended to provide visual relief for the neighboring views. It is also important to note that we have reviewed our planned addition with neighbors and have attained approval of the proposed design from both of the adjacent homeowners. Public Health: The proposed addition is meant to accommodate our existing family size. As we do not plan on expanding our family fiirther, we do not anticipate impacting any areas of public health concem. For example, we are e�cpecting no significant changes to our overall water usage and discharge, or with our basic sanitation requirements. Public Safety: The proposed addition should not affect areas of public safety. In particular, access for fire protection and police services will not be impeded. The proposed addition is for living space (bedrooms and bathrooms) and will not create a need for special police and/or fire services. General Welfare: We designed the proposed addition with the objective of preseiving as much of the existing open space on the property as well as the existing trees. lfiis is reflected in the overall dimensions of the new rooms in keeping with the existing scale of the home. Moreover, instead of building up, we believe that the overall community would be better served by maintaining the existing split-level design of the home. D....o 7 ..F'7 Convenience: The proposed addition is to accommodate our existing family and calls for extending the rear of our existing home. In this light, this proposed addition will in no way affect areas of public convenience, such as parking and access. 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 victnity? As stated above, our house is one of a series of Mediterranean-style homes that occupy all of the lots on the north side of the 500 block of Howard Street. The proposed addition is compatible with the rest of the existing house design. As such, it should not affect the overall aesthetics of the existing neighborhood. In terms of mass or bulk, the neighborhood is a mix of two, three, and four-bedroom single-family homes. As such, the proposed addition fits within the range of homes in the general vicinity. Moreover, since the style and front elevations of the homes on the north side of the 500 block are relatively similar, our plan of e�ending the existing split-level design of the home towards the rear, as opposed to upwards, will remain consistent with the overall style and character of the neighboring homes. From a trafl"ic or parking standpoint, we do not expect any changes to available parlcing resulting from this proposed addition. D.,..o R ..f ^f 2) Parking variance for one covered parking space: a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your properry which do not apply to other properties in this area. All of the homes on the north side of the 500 block of Howard Avenue have single garage-door entrances to the g,arage. The overall size of the garage area is large enough to accommodate two cars parked parallel (in fact we have done this on occasion), however, not deep enough to fit two standard cars tce to heel. In addition, all of the homes in the area ha�e driveways which allow for off-the-street parldng, however, uncovered. Alternatives to the variance, although possible, would make the existing garage design not common to other properties on the north side of the 500 block of Howard Avemie as well as most of the homes on the South side of Howard and the cross- streets. Moreover, the alternatives all would be quite costly. It is important to note that only the new homes in the area have two door garages. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary, for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property ri�ht and what unreasonable loss or unnecessary hardship mi�ht result. from the denial of the applicatron. A denial of this variance request would require cosdy changes to the existing garage structure as well as potentially limiting the planned use of the proposed addition. We have considered and evaluated two primary alternatives to this variance. The first involves extending the garage structure further towards the curb. This would be quite costly (changes to two exterior walls plus foundation work) and change the overall look and feel of the property with respect to neighboring homes. The 2nd alternative would be to extend the rear of the garage towards the back of the property. 'This would require that the proposed addition move even further into the rear of the property. As we are trying to minimize the overall mass, bulk, and scale of our proposed addition, we do not feel the latter altemative would be ideal as well. It is important to note that there is effectively no alternative to create a two-door garage entrance given the existing stiucture and its placement within the lot. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to properry or improvements in the viciniry or to public health, safety, general welfare, or cnnvenience. The proposed addition e�ends the existing split-level house design in the back. The affect of this addition extends the two-story wall on the left elevation of the properiy by approximately 21 feet. On a small lot, this could negatively impact the views from the home on the adjacent lots. This impact, however, is partially mitigated by the deep lot of our existing property. Moreover, the general orientation of the homes is towazds the rear and not the sides. As such, the shape of the lots and the placement of the homes on the lots lend themselves to a rear-oriented views and usage. Finally, adding on to the back left of the structure (as opposed to the back right) will have the least impact on the plane of light for both adjacent properties. Given all of this, we believe that our proposed addition will have minimal impact on the neighboring homes. In response to the comments detailed in the independent design review memo (dated '7/21/98) we have modified the original design plans by placing 2 windows on the right side elevation, adding slighdy larger windows on the left side elevation, and noting planned landscape improvements — all intended to provide visual relief for the neighboring views. It is also important to note that we have reviewed our planned addirion with neighbors and have attained approval of the proposed design from both of the adjacent homeowners. D.,..o A ..f'1 Public Health: The proposed addition is meant to accommodate our e�sting family size. As we do not plan on expanding our family further, we do not anricipate impacting any areas of public health concern. For e�vnple, we are expecting no significant changes to our overall water usage and discharge, or with our basic sanitation requirements. Public Safety: The proposed addition should not affect areas of public safety. In particular, access for fire protection and police services will not be impeded. The proposed addirion is for living space (bedrooms and bathrooms) and will not create a need for special police and/or fire services. General Welfare: We designed the proposed addition with the obiective of preserving as much of the existing open space on the property as well as the existing trees. This is reflected in the overall dimensions of the new rooms in keeping with the existing scale of the home. Moreover, instead of building up, we believe that the overall community would be better served by maintaining the existing split-level design of the home. Convenience: The proposed addifion is to accommodate ow e�usting family and calls for extending the rear of our existing home. In this light, this proposed addirion will in no way affect azeas of public convenience, such as parking and access. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bull� and character of the existin� and potential uses on adjoining properties in the �eneral vicinity? As stated above, our house is one of a series of Mediterranean-style homes that occupy all of the lots on the north side of the 500 block of Howard Street. The proposed addition is compatible with the rest of the existing house design. As such, it should not affect the overall aesthetics of the existing neighborhood. In terms of mass or bulk, the neighborhood is a mix of iwo, three, and four-bedroom single-family homes. As such, the proposed addition fits within the range of homes in the general vicinity. Moreover, since ihe style and front elevaUons of the homes on the north side of the 500 block are relatively similar, our plan of extending the existing split-level design of the home towards the rear, as opposed to upwards, will remain consisient with the overall style and character of the neighboring homes. From a traffic or parking standpoint, we do not e�cpect any changes to available parking resulting from this proposed addition. D....e [ .,f '7 3) Declining height envelope for left side elevation: a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicahle to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. The proposed addition calls for two bedrooms and two bathrooms extending out from the rear of the home. We chose this design over an option to build up over the existing dining and kitchen area which would dramatically change the height as well as look and feel of the home from nearly ail sides. Since all of the houses on the North side of the 5(� block of Howard Avem�e follow the same split level design, we felt it was more suitable to build out in the back, taking advantage of the deep lot size, rather than up. To ensure that the bedroom at grade in the proposed addition meets code in terms of floor-to- ceiling height requirements we ended up with a design that raised the level of the floor plan of the master bedroom by approximately 20 inches. This increase in the second story floor plan has caused our design to barely miss meeting the declining height envelope requirement on the left elevation. In the process of our design efforts, we explored another option which was to maintain the existing second-story floor height for the master bedroom and excavating to establish the floor level below grade for the fourth bedroom. Although feasible, this alternative would be significantly more costly and have the added risk for leakage and moisture build-up in the downstairs room. The option of building the master bedroom at the e�usting second story level but not providing a living space below it at code would not be acceptable as we need to meet the living requirements for our existing family, as well as protect the long-range return on our remodel investments. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary.for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial ofthe application. As indicated above, the option of raising the level of the master bedroom by approximately 20" to allow for a 4`� bedroom at grade seems to make the most sense in terms of project costs and home value while presenting a design that is most consistent with the existing and neighboring structures. Denial of the variance (i.e., requiring a room below that would below grade) would significantly increase the project costs, increase flood damage risks, and lead to potentially higher maintenance and insurance costs. Althaug,h the proposed design requires a variance for declining height envelope on the left elevation, it does so just slightly and yet does not dramatically change the left side elevations going back. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location wil! not be detrimental or injurious to properry or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, �eneral welfare, or c.onve.nienc.e. The proposed addition e�ends the existing split-level house design in the back. T'he affect of this addition extends the two-story wall on the left elevation of the properiy by approximately 21 feet. On a small lot, this could negatively impact the views from the home on the adjacent lots. This impact, however, is partially miUgated by the deep lot of our existing property. Moreover, the general orientation of the homes is towards the rear and not the sides. As such, the shape of the lots and the placement of the homes on the lots lend themselves to a rear-oriented views and usage. Finally, adding on to the back left of the structure (as opposed to the back right) will have the least impact on the plane of light for both adjacent properties. Given all of this, we believe thai our proposed addition will have xninimal unpact on the neighboring homes. D....o � ..f '7 In response to the comments detailed in the independent design review memo (dated 7/21/98) we have modified the original design plans by placing 2 windows on the right side elevation, adding slighfly larger windows on the left side elevation, and noting planned landscape improvements — all intended to provide visual relief for the neighboring views. It is also important to note that we have reviewed our planned addirion with neighbors and have attained approval of the proposed design from both of the adjacent homeowners. Public Health: The proposed addition is meant to accommodate our existing family size. As we do not plan on expanding our family further, we do not anricipate impacting any areas of public health concern. For e�mple, we are expecdng no significant changes to our overall water usage and discharge, or with our basic sanitation requirements. Public Safety: The proposed addition should not affect areas of public safety. In particular, access for fire protection and police services will not be impeded. The proposed addition is for living space (bedrooms and bathrooms) and will not create a need for special police and/or fire services. General Welfare: We designed the proposed addition with the objective of preserving as much of the existing open space on the property as well as the existing trees. This is reflected in the overall dimensions of the new rooms in keeping with the existing scale of the home. Moreover, instead of building up, we believe that the overall community would be better served by maintaining the e�usting split-level design of the home. Convenience: T'he proposed addition is to accommodate our existing family and calls for extending the rear of our existing home. In this light, this proposed addition will in no way affect areas of public convenience, such as parking and access. 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? As stated above, our house is one of a series of Mediterranean-style homes that occupy all of the lots on the north side of the 500 block of Howard Street. The proposed addition is compatible with the rest of the existing house design. As such, it should not affect the overall aestherics of the existing neighborhood. In terms of mass or bulk, the neighborhood is a mix of two, three, and four-bedroom single-family homes. As such, the proposed addition fits within the range of homes in the general vicinity. Moreover, since the style and front elevations of the homes on the north side of the 500 block are relatively similaz, our plan of elctending the existing split-level design of the home towards the rear, as opposed to upwards, will remain consistent with the overall style and character of the neighboring homes. From a ti�ffic or parldng standpoint, we do not e�cpect any changes to available parking resulting from this proposed addidon. D....o ^7 ..f '7 Date: July 2, 1998 To: City of Burlingame Planning Commission From: Jane & Peter Stevenson 508 Howard Avenue Re: E�cplanation of Desired 2"d Phase Addition Currently, our home is a 2 bedroom, 1 and a'/, bathroom, split-level (garage at grade, kitchen/dining/living room '/2 flight above grade, and the bedrooms above the garage) Mediterranean style home, with an existing living area of 1536 sq. ft and 572 sq. ft of garage space. The footprint of the house (including the garage) occupies approximately 19.5% of our 7827 sq. ft. lot. When we purchased the home back in 1993, we were just starting our family and knew that we would need more living space as our family expanded (we now have three small children.) One of the main reasons we selected our house was the large lot size and the ability to reasonably expand the home. Our original plan was to add on 1-2 bedrooms, a bathroom and a family room. Since the projected project costs for this plan were fairly sizable we felt that we needed to split the effort into two phases. The first phase would cover the kitchen remodel and the addition of the family room. The second phase would add on the additional bedroom(s) and bathroom. At this time we are in the middle of our first phase effort in which we are updating and remodeling our kitchen as well as adding a family room. This project was approved by the City of Burlingame in early June, work began 3 weeks ago, and we are scheduled to complete this effort later this summer. This phase 1 effort will add approximately 435 sq. ft. to our exisdng footprint of the house. Having recenfly gone through the process of designing and developing this first phase plan, obtaining appropriate approvals, selecting materials, etc... we have a much better understanding of the magnitude of effort involved in these changes to your home as well as the temporary displacement it can cause in your life and daily routines. In addition, we underestimated how soon we would need another bedroom and bathroom as we felt that all three kids could share one bedroom for several years. As such, we now believe we need to move forward on phase 2 as soon as possible. Although this will lengthen the overall time we are displaced in our home we believe it will be best in the longrun. Our phase 2 effort proposes to add appro�cimately 780 sq. ft. of living space to the home and 390 sq. ft. to the footprint of the house. One of our key priorities in expanding our home was to protect the architectural integrity of the home as well as to ensure that our design "fit" within the context of our neighborhood. Since the scale of our e�usting home is small, we felt it was important to come up with a design that maintained the same scale in terms of room additions and overall proportions. As such, our plan calls for room and bathroom additions that are consistent with the existing scale of the home. In addition, although there are numerous muld-level dwellings in our immediate neighborhood, the style of our house and the impact on the neighborhood would be better served by expanding back as opposed to building up. We ha�e reviewed both phase 1 and phase 2 plans with several of our neighbors on Howard Avenue and have received approval signatures for the plans (see below) from our two immediate neighbors. We look forward to the application and review process for our phase 2 plans. In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns or require further clarification of our plans please contact us at 650-343- 4316 (home) or 415-835-6917 (Peter's work). Thank you, The Stevensons �'� � A � � � ��r '� �� 4F�. . � _,� .1 U L - 21998 Burlingame Planning Commission Page 1 of 2 Phase 2 Addition CITY +J� �tiJr�LihiC:,4ME P LA N i� I Pu �.� �b ; i-' i We have reviewed the phase 2 plans for our neighbor the Stevensons, at 508 Howard, and believe that these proposed changes to their properiy are appropriate, tasteful and would be a welcomed addidon to the overall look and feel of the neighborhood. Patrice and Vincent McCarley Howard Avenu - _�_ �� _ Robin an Chris 512 Howard Avenue ��1-------- - ---------- ��M� t, , , ,� �°��'��.:� J U L_ 16 21998 �iTY GF i�i1RLi�v�,Ai�1� PLfi,�;N(P�!��, �SEPT, Burlingame Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 Phase 2 Addition ROUTING FORM DATE: July 6, 1998 TO: )C CITY ENGINEER _CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL _SR LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a second story addition at 508 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-254-170. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: August 24, 1998 STAFF REV�W By MEETING ON: Monday, July 6, 1998 THANKS, Maureen/Ruben 7/�1��' . Date of Comments �o � ��. ��`�%.e_ <s 1�� «y�.��e ��G'. �/ �S' � � �. � --__ _ _ _ _ __._ _-___ ROUTING FORM DATE: July 6, 1998 TO: CITY ENGINEER �CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL _SR LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a second story addition at 508 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-254-170. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: August 24, 1998 STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, July 6, 1998 THANKS, Maureen/Ruben �� G� - ��` ��Date of Comments ROUTING FORM DATE: July 6, 1998 TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL �Fm� �RsAAT, _SR LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a second story addition at 508 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-254-170. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: August 24, 1998 STAFF REV�W BY MEETING ON: Monday, July 6, 1998 THANKS, Maureen/Ruben � � '� � Date of Comments ��' � 1 � � d'-�' ��-- � � � �� '�� r ��.� Winges Architecture & Planning 1290 Howard Ave. Suite 311 Burlingame, CA 94010 MEMO: Date: 7-21-98 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 ref: 508 Howard Ave. JUL. 2 � 1998 _ �, . ..,;,,n,,�,n - �.:! � ��t ti_F�. �d: �._�itt._ds��._.. _ �'�_Fil`�livli`,.'::� i:;�'s::�—'� I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and have reviewed the plans for the second story addition. I have the following comments regarding the design guidelines. 1 Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existin� nei�hborhood: • This house is one of a series of Mediterranean style homes that occupy all of the lots on the North side of this block of Howard Street. • The scale and style of the existing home is therefore compatible with all of the houses on the north side, and appear to have been built in the same time frame. • The south side of the street exhibits totally different styles and were built at differing times. • The north side exhibits a unity which is quite pleasant, and avoids the "tract like" image of newer homes built in a similar style. • The proposed addition is in the same Mediterranean style and is compatible with the streetscape. 2. Respect the Parkin� and Gazage Patterns in the Neighborhood: • Parking is not being altered and will remain as is, with a single garage door that is compatible with the other homes on the block. 3. Architectural Style. Mass and Bulk of the Structure, and Internal Consistency of the Structural Design. The style of the addition is compatible with the rest of the existing house design. The location of the proposed addition is an extension of the existing split level scheme. This is sensitive to the neighboring homes and is helpful in minimizing and retaining the existing roof height. The window style of the new windows and doors is different than the existing windows, however this is not too noticeable from the street. • The new windows and stucco should be painted to be similar to the existing house. 4 Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side: • There will be an impact to the neighboring property on the left side due to the lengthened house and longer 2 story wall. • Due to the exceptional depth of the lots, this impact is less than would happen on a smaller lot. • The applicant has gone to the trouble of reviewing the plans with the neighbors, and has obtained their approval of the proposed design. • My only comment would be the lack of windows on the previously approved right side addition, and to some degree the very small windows on the left side elevation. This leaves rather large blank walls without relief. While this will minimize privacy concerns, it is hoped that landscaping in the side yard setbacks on both sides can mitigate glare and relieve the unbroken planes of stucco that result. 5 Landscaping and Its Proportion the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components: No landscape plans have been submitted. Some thought should be given to what is planted in the side yards as mentioned above. Summarv: • The design will have minimal impact on the streetscape. • Since the neighbors have reviewed and approved the plans, there is less of a concern about the minimal fenestration and increased length of the side property line walls. • It is my opinion that the design as presented substantially meets the intent of the design guidelines. Jerry L. Winges, AIA Principal. � � �� '� . .�� + • 1 »�` � :3,., r, � . � . ��y ... $ u a � ;n � � � . � � � # �4 �".,e � � :�.t� � �� A ��« � � � � � � ' ��, a � , s ` t �s*� � �e . 's, k � � � �� ,xK,�. �� F.�� ,. � � . �'.. �� ,,� . ... �"�� ;... ;" �s"��+�.nc$+ � �` D1�I I G H T�` ��.. .xm_s:...�` � � f � � �� o- . ��3�. r A � ��p�'� � ., ��a1f�Yr •A � a� x � . :�.� � r�� . �;, � -,� � ,. � t �.. �� ' � � �� -. .� . .. � �,a. . '�* �. �v'y _ � ., �� . � ' , ... �_.. � , e` � �r � i:9Y� �� , €ti "'""`'�'" '�< � . � .. �� . > 5s�'„.,'�� ^� ."N"'= (1'1 � � �a � � ��} 'g�id' � �' ' � �.� .,... s3 � �. �� , �"�, � • �`�,� In ''� , -r �'� �"+� ' �� , !�� s x � �•' t d T � • � .X�+ ' n � � •. �:.: � �� a "��, . �. > ��.� ,� ., � � � ��. � � ` �,�v e � � ��.�« , �^F��' '. • aG "``�. . ��, . �� .7p�" � � ��g" � � , � � � � � �� '� � } ,�� a . � �� .�. �� .�. , , ° � � � . �' ' _ ti i� �.., � �3� ��; 7" Z+Oa fi,� ' � � . . . *�' ,,;.� �, , A �.�.fi ��A�E�D��tN � - ''� , _;t :F { S }V ,� / � "3 a� � � � �. "� ;� , � � A� �;x �� , �� Y3 � .� & � '. �_ �. � a�� -" ' j. w�y .. *f 4 " S - t.: _;� a � �.�. � �"� � k � , _ a z�.�s�. . t� '•as ., � ,. :.0 ae... . _..'—� '7�,. I . � . � �� RoA� �� .� � � - _ ,,.,. „ `t � � ��;� � � t �s� � ' . `R �., � �� • c �� M ' � ,,- � � ' � . . . � � � � �� '�. � ��_ �fe.._ � .. �-,. . ��.i.:��'�'p�^::�; r� . 4 # s �, � �� .., afin. -.,, � �, d$ „;n,�. 1 a. . - AN�"1 �� a ... �h A• '� � �e� � � r :N: z c y�' t ��n � . .�vJ��" .»a '� _ 1�. .. ..7" �' .,� — �2. . � � � � ,�, 3 �� ,��o � � � sk � �� :� , � ' �;.�� ' � ,�� BLooMFiELD , ��_ �``' . ': 3 � "'� '•r„� k y� .. . y�," � , � V� . 1 � � r � '+�� _ . �' � ". �i;', . � �r _. ,. � D � �� f ' � � `* � � • CITY OF BURLINGAME fC�FJi�7 pLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD l I BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �� TEL: (650) 696-7250 ��8 Haw�rd Avenue AF�N:��9-�54-17Q� Applic�tion for front setback, parking and PUBLIC HEARING declining height envelope variances for � NOTICE first �nd second story addition subject ta design review at 5Q�8 Howard Avenue, aaned R-1. The City of Pt�rlingame F�lanning Commission announces the following public hearing on hbnday, Septe�ber 14, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. in the i y a ounci am ers located at 5�1 ��rimrose Ro�d, Burlingame, Californi�. Mailed Septe�ber 4, 1998 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF B URLINGAME ,�,. A copy of the applicat�on and plan� �o� �this projeet may be reviewed prior 'C+Sfa •Y�� J'�.... �H. :%�^i'a i� re;;, :: .. ., � �'� "' �� to the meeting at, f�ie" Planning� �epartziient �t 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Cal�r��a ' ,� � . ° �� s � ' If you chall�nge�he��sub�ect application(s) irii caurt, yt�u�:ma�,be limited to raising only�#�tose �ssues you or someone else raised at ttie�public hearing, described i��th� �ot�ce oz ui ;wntten corzespondezice dekveXed to the city �� . at or prior � t��_pi�b�,ic��tea�ng,, � '`�� . :� � .. � ,.. ;� � � � � �t d 4 � � � �, �. Property o�tn��"�rho recerve .tivs notice ; tenants abo�` �S� noti�� For addi�ioi' 696-7250 �� au;; ��' x z�; �� µ3si � �w r�s ��•. �°��`�"-�� $.. � �a" r�€ y�°n �- ) y��b. Margaret Mon�rbe � �� City Planner � ``�� ' � � � `- �� "�e��` a�`��: ,,�, PU��L: 4,��.� ��►�.R1� (Please refer to other side) ming their call (650) ;� � �� .. CE � � �.z : �� RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMP'rION, FRONT SETBACK, PARKING AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES RFSOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: 1 ' -�• � • �-- � •�• -� . • .�� • •-- .�- • •1 �, , �. , �• ,�� - � i- �� -� - •�- ,�,� • ,i� •�� i�� .�� - • •- � � - . 1: . • . , � : '� .- •�-_� : : ' � 1 ' � 1 '- - , �, , 1- - 1 - � � � �- r •� �' WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Sentember 14� 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 DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments receivetl 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 front setback, parking and declining height envelope variances are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such front setback, parking and declining height envelope 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, Dave Luzuriaga , 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 14th day of Se�tember , 199g , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, front setback, parking and declining height envelope variances 508 HOWARD AVENUE effective SEPTEMBER 23, 1998 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 17, 1998 Sheets 1-4 and Existing Site Plan, Floor Plans and Building Elevations Sheets 1 and 2; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that prior to issuance of a building permit amendment for the proposed addition the property owner shall submit a landscape plan listing plant materials, container sizes and irrigation to the Senior Landscape Inspector for approval and these approved plants and irrigation shall be installed prior to schecluling the final inspection and issuing the occupancy permit on the work on the house; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.