HomeMy WebLinkAbout1404 Alvarado Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame ITEM #
Side Setback Variance, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope
and Design Review
Address: 1404 Alvarado Avenue
Meeting Date: 3/27/00
Request: First and second-story addition requiring design review, a side setback variance for an entrance
porch located 0' from the side property line where 4'-0" is the minimum required and a special permit to
exceed the limits of the declining height envelope (24 SF encroachment) (CS 25.28.040, 25.28.072 (c) and
25.28.035).
Applicant: Bill Van Housen, Van Housen Architecture APN: 027-182-260
Property Owner: 7ohn & Diane Petersdorf
Lot Area: 5795 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of
limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction
with the building of two or more such units.
Summary: The applicant is requesting a side setback variance and a special permit for declining height
envelope for a first and second-story addition to enlarge a single family dwelling from 3 bedrooms to 4
bedrooms at 1404 Alvarado Avenue, zoned R-1. The project requires the following:
1. side setback variance for a 0'-0" setback to a covered entry porch where 4'-0" is the minimum
required;
2. special permit to exceed the limits of the declining height envelope (24 SF encroachment); and
3. design review for a first and second-story addition.
The existing two-story house now contains 2536 SF of floor area, and has three bedrooms. There is also a
930 SF basement which includes a 602 SF single car garage. This basement area is not included in the floor
area ratio calculation. The first floor is being enlarged by 168 SF to remodel and enlarge the kitchen and
dining area and create a family room. The 250 SF second-story addition would add a bedroom, for a total
of 4 bedrooms. The basement area is also being expanded by 80 SF.
The first and second floor addition will increase the floor area of the structure by 418 SF. The total floor area
of the remodeled house will be 2954 SF (0.51 FAR), where 2954.4 SF (0.51 FAR is the maximum allowed).
This excludes the basement/garage area (1010 SF), wllich is exempt from the floor area ratio calculations
Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (January 31, 2000 memo) that the applicant shall provide a
driveway profile for the modified driveway, show how the underground drainage is handled for the basement,
and notes that the roof drainage shall be to the frontage street. The Chief Building Ofiicial and the Fire
Marshal had no comments on the project.
Side Se[back Variance, Special Permit for Decli�:irtg HeiglTt Envelope and Desigrr Review
SETBACKS
Front: lst flr
2nd flr
Side (left):
Side (right): *
Rear: 1 st flr
2rtd flr
LOT COVERAGE:
FAR:
PARKING:
HEIGHT:
PROPOSED
no change
no change
5' -6"
*0' to side entry
46' -5"
46'-5"
30. 8 %
(1790 SF)
2954 SF/
0.51 FAR
no change (door to be
widened to 10' )
24'-3"
EXISTING
22' -7"
39'-7"
5'-6"
1'-0" to side entry
4'-0" to building
51'-11"
51'-11"
27.5 %
(1594 SF)
2536 SF/
0.44 FAR
1 covered in garage
(14' -0" x 43' -0")
+ 1 unc. in driveway
26'-6"
140a Alvarado Avenue
ALLOWED/REQ'D
15' or block average
20' -0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
15' -0"
20' -0"
40 %
(2818 SF)
2954.4 SF/
0.51 FAR
one covered in garage
(10' -0" x 20' -0")
+ 1 unc. in driveway
30' /2 '/2 stories
DH ENVELOPE: * *right side meets requirements; left side encroaches into DHE by 24 SF
*Side setback variance required for 0' side setback for a covered entry where 4'-0" is the minimum setback
required, and special permit to exceed the limits of the declining height envelope (24 SF encroachment).
This project meets all other zoning code requirements.
Design Reviewer Comments: The design reviewer notes that the addition is well designed and blends nicely
with the existing structure, and the interior arrangement is consistent with the structural design. The
architectural style of the proposed addition is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. The
proposed addition will relate well to the adjacent structures to each side since there is only a 5'-6" extension
to the rear. The wall height to the top of the new plate will be less than the existing wall height at gable ends.
Design Reviewer Recommendations: The design reviewer made one recommendation that shutters be added
to each side of the window on the east elevation adjacent to the new doors from the family room. The
applicant has revised the plans (see Sheet 6 date stamped February 25, 2000) to reflect this recommendation.
The design reviewer recommends that the Planning Commission approve the design review application for
the proposed addition.
Study Meeting: At the March 13, 2000, Planning Commission study meeting the commission asked staff to
double check the floor area ratio (FAR) calculation because it is so close to the maximum. Planning staff has
verified the FAR calculation. Planning staff would note that when the project was first submitted, it exceeded
the FAR requirement by 48 SF, the plans were revised in order to meet the FAR requirement.
2
Side Selback Variance, Special Permi! for Decli�ii�tg Heig{r! Eirvelope and Design Review 1404 Alvarndo Averrue
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 excepdonal or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Variance Findings: Based on the fact that the proposed 48 SF porch which encroaches into the right side
setback is replacing an existing 20 SF porch in the same location, and that the property is adjacent to a 10'
wide public alley on the right side which provides adequate separation for air and light between existing
houses despite the reduction in setback, and on the design reviewer's recommendation that this encroachment
into the setback is in harmony with the design of the existing house, it is found that the project complies with
the criteria for a variance.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height, the Planning Commission must find
that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed
is appropriate.
Special Permit Findings: The proposed encroachment into the declining height envelope of 24 SF allows the
addition to blend with the existing architectural style of the house; the second floor addition maintains the
same left side setback as now exists. Therefore, it is found that the proposed mass and scale created by the
encroachment into the declining height envelope is consistent with the existing structure's design and with the
existing neighborhood.
3
Side Selback Vnrinnce, Specin/ Perniit for Declining Heigh! Enve/ope mrd Desi�n� Review I404 Alvarndo Avenue
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Design Review Findings: Based on the findings stated in the summary of the design reviewer's analysis of
the project and in the reviewer's memo of February 24, 2000, the project is found to be compatible with the
requirements of the City's iive design review guidelines.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the requested variances. The reasons for
any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
February 17, 2000, sheets 1 through 5, and date stamped February 25, 2000, sheet 6;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging
a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 31, 2000 memo shall be met; and
4. that the project shall meet a11 the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Maureen Brooks
Planner
c: William Van Housen, applicant
1404alva. sr
4
City ojBurlinganre Plan�:ing Commissio�1111inutes
March 13, Z000
1404 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL
RMIT FOR EXTENSION 1NT0 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
��%�AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BILL VAN HUESEN, APPLICANT; JOHN AND DIANE PETERSDORF,
PR PERTY WNERS
CP Monroe summarized the staff report. The commissioners asked: because it is so close wouId staff double check
the FAR caiculation. There were no further questions and the item was placed on the consent calendar, for the March
27, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time.
1313 SOTO AVENUE, ONED R-1 - APPLIC TION FOR A SPEC PERNIIT FOR HEIC
DESIG�VIEW FOR NEW T�VO-STORY SINGLEAF�MILY RESIDENCE�CATHRINE MOREY,
CP Monroe su arized the staffreport. The commissioners aske�d: why is the Iiving ro cantilevered over the area
where the garage i submerged; why is the ached garage so impo nt that it detracts fro what is a very nice house;
noticed that notes plans called the roof phalt shingle but the e vations are drawn to ow clay tile, tile works
better, what is the app � ant intending; provide ore detail on window t� and eave detail; is the oom shown as � study
a droom by the city's efinition; the excavatio for the subterranean g age places a cut 7 fee eep next to the city
sew main, concerned ab t potential for damage, �so applicant should do video inspection of t line to insure that
no co truction damage occ rred; plans show a sky �ht on the front area o he roof, this skylight ould be tinted to
reduce 'ght glow. There re no further questio�� ,a�bout the project fror�the commission. The �tem set for the
March 2, 2000, meeting pro ing all the information'�s� submitted to the Plan�ng Department in tim
�
999 HOWA D AVENUE, ZO ` D G2 - APPLICATI(�T FOR A MITIGAT� NEGATIVE DECL�TION
FOR A 3-STO STORAGE FAC�ITY WITH A BASEN�NT AND ROOF-TO�PARKING (JOHN USEN,
;� � ,
CP Monroe summari d the staff report. ommissioners asked: oi�the surface the Nega 've Declaration makes the
project look good, as if i will not be too detri ental, however correspi�dence from neighbo and petitions indicates
that those nearby have re oncerns, the negativ declaration does not ad' �_ e�ss these neighbor cd�cerns, would an EIR
add ss them? CA Anders noted that a Negat e Declaration begins w�`�h an initial study whi�i identifies potential
(quan able) effects CEQA st s social and econorru'� impacts area not envir�mental impacts. CP onroe noted that
commis �on should look at th thresholds used in e negative declaration'` nd determine if they e appropriate.
Commissi ers noted: Negative claration on page 1 notes that the residenti uses on MyrtIe are onconforming
with their C zoning but the gener plan shows the are s multiple family reside tia1, does that incons' tency affect
the project; noted that the zonin on the project site i onsistent with the gene al plan land use desi ation; the
Circulation Ele nt of the General Pla shows Myrtle to be assified as an arterial, i`s� hat the City's intenti n today;
what does the a licant intend to do a ut signage on the s cture; one of the impo ant resources city's ave is
developable land a10 transit corridors, usiri such for housing re ces traffic and congesti , this site is near th'e train
station, central to a tr it conidor, developi this site as propose removes a potential for`� olving an environmental
problem, is there a way or the environmenta document to addres this, it is a significant � vironmental problem;
question the light/shadow s dy in the document, hen this structure is uilt it will b'� a wall to � ernoon and evening
lig it will eliminate the vie of the sunset for re ' ents nearby and on e corners; i�o not feel t t noise and traffic
were ddressed, don't feel that t traf�ic generation automobile counts re correctly evaluated gi n the proximity
to th r idential neighborhood a school; concerned bout safety of truck ueued across the railroa tracks; this is
th e rance to a residential neigh orhood, this tall bu ding that looks like rison will affect the ne hborhood's
ide tity; do not see any landscaping; in next staff report staff should include the plans and staff reports for �e original
project.
-2-
��
,4r` CiT O,\
�R�N�..M�; CITY OF BURLINGAME
;,.�. �.._ ..°i APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION
, . .-,
Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other
Project Address: � � �'
Assessor's Parcel Number(s):
,� Lv ,A fZ-� va �A � �n� v �'
O 2"? - t aZ - Z�a
APPLICANT
Name: r4/Z-G'S�/ TL�T Fo�t..� �
'W/ C,[./�-�"�,T. �4�r vot
Address: C
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
(h) �.
fax:
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: MR: �J�'JQ.S .<<JD/Y�v� ��SD a,a J�
Address: /�'� � � L V,q/l�-� �''1�'' F�C/ �/E
City/State/Zip: �v��ti�'1`'1F'� C/g c1��/4
Phone (w): �- / S- �'f' 3 8- s6C'l /
�h�: f �o - 3 4� - ?38/
� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER �
Name: vi4� ��S EN �Q-CN � Tt�'G�A-�
Address: a� 50. C Lr�-EMo�u7' ST•
v i rt� 07
City/State/Zip: S�4st� �1A-�'t�t�, e'� qQ�f,�z-
Phone (w): � �D - �47- (00?7
(h):
fax: b So - 3�� - 9 3 SZ
fax:
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact pe �r application.
� CI�;�.._�
.lAN 2 8 Z000
��:I TY OF BURLIIVGAME
PL�1.�JnJ!°;�, {;c p�
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REr4�= YrqA-a � 6►QOv�l,a cL'VtZ f� SEcp�tD F'tao,a.�
14D�iT7a� �'jiQ �TG'f��/�J��4M/GY �R.�'A ��r��..i�v6 ��
,4 �"�i4S.7�7Z.-. /�Tf1 �4-A�/ 7'! a.0 -��}7chi G—x1s�7N cfi'�'j�,R.,1 c TE72
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and correct to the be�t of my kno� le�e and belief.
i.i _ .. ,
l�' ��—��
�Ap� an�'s
c 7r'�
C - // �OS
Date
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
/ -- 2� - o0
Property Owner's Signature Date
----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -----------------�� ������
Date Filed: � ' ? � � �' c
Fee: � 3 r z t '� 'c�; � �- .� � :J r,
:_��; _. R ���?QO
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: �� ., ; ,.,,;;.,�;�
� _ .,,�� , r,_ ,
�; +,�, �,,,� , �6 b � �� ������c�w�u�
,
A�/� Maf�OQf�C�[� �pp[����`���f�11�
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions will as�ist 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. Desc�ibe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances o� conditions app/icab/e to your
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area.
The primary condition, requiring this variance request, that impacts this property is that the existing
sideyard access stair and porch is in the required setback area and is considered non-conforming by
current zoning ordinances due to pre-existing conditions of the residence/dwelling under original
construction. This condition is not unusual or unique to this older neighborhood's general character, as this
condition is quite common in the surrounding areas, and throughout the city with lots that have minimum
sideyard setbacks and where the first floor is elevated above grade.
b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary foi the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication.
The desire to remodel an existing Kitchen/Breakfast/Family area with the interest to maintain the current
access to the rear of the property, a condition which would be precluded without this exception. This pre-
existing condition if not allowed to be maintained or altered, would create an unreasonable limitation to the
development of such a minor alteration/remodeling to this residence. This exception j,g necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, as there are, and have been, similar conditions
in the immediate neighborhoods. As it is a pre-existing condition that is consistent with the vicinity's
character, granting of this exception is necessary to maintain the uses allowed of the property, and those
that the owner's have been enjoying for many years.
c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be det�imenta/ or injurious
to property oi improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
convenience.
As this is a pre-existing non-conforming condition that would not change any use, character, or
accessibility to the current property, it does not pose to be detrimental or injurious to any properties or
improvements in the immediate vicinity or to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
Current stair and porch conditions would be rebuilt in approximately the same location and would be of a
similar size with only a minor increase in the porch length, in this request for exception. It is currently
most consistant with the fabric of the older neighborhoods with narrow sideyards and sloping sites.
d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
The proposed project will e compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and
potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Since the remodeled stair and porch are
within the boundaries of the existing site and in the same location as the existing, there will be virtually no
visual impact by this proposed alteration project. In fact, minor aesthetic upgrading is being proposed to
the side facade in order to enhance this residence's character while allowing it to benefit from views to a
gorgeous sideyard rose garden that is currently awkward to view. It would not breach the curent
architectural character of the residence and would be consistent with the styles of similar homes of this
quaint older neighborhood.
12/92 ver.frm
a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances o� conditions app/icable to your
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area.
Do any conditions exist on the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or
impossible and are also not common to other properties in the areal For example, is there a creek cuttin�
throuph the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of
existinp structures? 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., havin� as much on-site parkin� or bedrooms7) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses
allowed without the exceptionl 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 neiphboring properties or structures on those
properties7 If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, li�hting,
pavinfl, 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 �eneral welfarel
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., under�round
storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or
communicable diseasesl.
Pc�blic safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection7 Will alarm
systems or sprinklers be installedl Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need
for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use
flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removall.
General we/fare is a catch-all phrase meaninp community �ood. Is the proposal consistent with the city's
policy and goals for conservation and developmentl Is there a social benefit?
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or
parking for this site or adjacent sites)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 existinfl neighborhoodl If it does not
affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition desipned to match
existinp architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 If use will affect
the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to othe� uses in the area and explain why it "fits".
How does the proposed structure compare to neighborin� structures in terms o�s�a�b�� -�If tDere is no
chanfle to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, app c, orientation etc. with
other structures in the neighborhood or area.
JAN 3 1 2000
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of
character as the image or tone established by size, density of development an���fn@� e����r����tand use.
Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this usel If you ���eel the character of
the neiphborhood will change, state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the peneral vicinityl Compare
your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity,
and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. 12/92vr.fim
saiKi�'Yi.�R['�_ �.
_= GUMBINGET�
_ = ASSOC ATES
-
� d�� Easi Thirci �vF���:,N � t '!: �� , �r ,, � ��,� , ,.. �
r�x (6501 . .a l.� . • -. "
t�"�:�i� ���,r���r�,_ �:�ir,
� � Af�CHITECTS
98121.31/2.7
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 24, 2000
TO: Maureen Brooks, Planner
City of Burlingame
FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA
RE: 1404 Alvarado Avenue
Burlingame
PLANS DATE STAMPED February 17, 2000
(Received February l 8, 2000)
Sent Via Facsimile
342-8386
GENERAL
The addition is well designed and blends nicely with the existing structure. Only one very small
recommendation that shutters be added to each side of the window on the east elevation adjacent to the
new doors from the family room.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1. COMPATIBLILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITii TI IAT OF THE EXISTING
CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
The architectural style of the proposed addition is compatible with the existing character of the
neighborhood.
2. RESPECT THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS 1N THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
The existing attached garage is appropriate to the neighborhood.
3. ARCHITECTiJRAL STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURE, AND INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY OF THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN
The architectural style of the proposed addition matches the existing in all respects. The interior
arrangement is consistent with the structural design.
4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO
EACH S1DE.
The proposed addition will relate well to the adjacent structures to each side since there is only a 5'-6"
extension to the rear. The wall height to the top of the new plate will be less than the existing wall
height at the gable ends.
5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL
COMPONENTS.
The existing landscape treatment is proportional to the mass and bulk of the structural components.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review for the proposed
addition.
Time: 3 Hours
R����`��.�
F EB 2 9 2000 -�.� .; P�es�ae t&�cEo
��TY �F g�RLiiVGA��F v�mi K. Avram, AIA
i r�� c p' Associate
PLANNIR -:
e
ROUTING FORM
DATE: January 28, 2000
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUB,TECT: Request for side setback variance and design review for a iirst and
second story addition at 1404 Alvarado Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:
027-182-260.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, 7anuary 31, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/7anice/Ruben I! 3/ � Date of Comments
I
z
3
hl�. _ �
�'�,ow dyti�� p�}, �� ��
� I U
p�,�` v{ w
1 L-e�-e d,�.�.; .e.
�s�-u� •
�
s M,o w k.ow
���
�'�a,�� �-
� ���
b �c.rc�� �
�
ry�tr'°G+�
`� vm / L
f �
e��.a,� .c y
�
�� .
�'1���' CIi-� I�i/1�1.INC;A�vlf�
A copy of the �ipplication and plans for thi� project �nay be reviewed prior
to the meeting aC �tf�e Plannin�� [)ep<u'tmci,t at SU1 Yi-iitu�ose Road,
Burlin�ame, California.
If you challenge thc subject application(s) in col�rt, you �uay be limited to
raising only those issues you or somcone else raised at the ptiblic l�earii���,
described in ll�e notice or in writ�en correspondence delivered to the city
at or prior to the;public healing.;, ,
k . E . , � . .. ;:
Property owriers wlio'�ieceive*this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this;-iiofice. For additional information, ple�se call (650)
696-7250. Thank y�u. , �_
� �.��,_. `ex�.��. ''$� �,
Margaret Moilroe > ' • _ . ----
City Planner � � ' . � . .� �'� f
-�
�;; ,
PUBLIC��HEARING` NOTICE
(Please refer tn otlier si�le)
��jV CITV o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLIN('sAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� �. BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�• TEL: (650) 696-7250
14Q�4 ALVARAUO AVENUE AF�N:0�7-182—�6�
Application for a side se�.��ack vari�nce,PUBLIC HEARING
special permit for extension into the NOTICE
declining height envelope and design review
for a first and second story addition �t 1404
Alvarado Avenue, zoned R-1.
The City of Burlinga0e Planning Coe�ission �Z��11
announces the following public hearing on �:X�(2�;
M o n d ay, March 27, 2000� at 7: 00 P. M. i n t h e ��:t3Z'
bers 1 ocat ed at �Q� i �•�•• •
Grimrose Road, Burlinga�e, California.
' Mailed Mlarch 17, 200@
� (Plense refer to other side)
, � ' �'� ` _
,��,�.. �
�'�j, � �- �� ��
/ �T' � �r r1 � ,� .. ,` �±'.
. �` . ��
� ` �� � ` � .. ,� � ' tr
� �. ��" ��, �'� -��
`�-�" �` +�� rr -�:,'� _
. o ,� -�.�.
- , � ,�� ,� .
�ti
. M � Yi ��/�' �(\ .
• `
��,� , J . I�' r t k ' "I . •
,,,.y�,, ': - ; �.-�!
'� �.�. , r,
� ` i r . ��. �
�� � r
� . �,
�-� �
, �a J�.
� '4 "� :` ��' e.�
, , , `�� �4
. ,�►y' �' �
� .�� �
��� �
r ��
�� .`'� '.
� - . i
�� � T
' � � . � �. � ; �'' 1
Y °° yO8 � � :
� ,,,� 1 �.
� 5o`r' _ �y�y �� ,�Q� �`�
M�e� i �. ti f
`' � �" � � i �`
� / �R�Jf�:, �,�. � � ` . ,• �r �
1��� ' � ._�Pi ,� �
� � z� �� � �� '�� _ �� .� .ti.' -
! r!".a� r /� .. �. `' ,, �.. �
_ . . �� ry 1 , • � �`
� �t
� % � �� � �-4 '�
.�""� � �
1`� 'y "�' _� ....�. .�.' t:��� � � -� �
. $ �, � �` �"'` �
Y ' r ~ t � / ^ �`e �
• � �
�• � � �� + t � �y \ _
� , y . �
y.- . � � ��� � �4 ' �� � .
.� _. .'�' . �- �
� . � �� �-�__
- �� � -_ r,�. �. ��. �, _� � - ., y ._
�� ..
� . r . .� . ��
s. 1
�
VMM� "pR�'� � .: �.:: '� ., : -
v �.�� -� � <� _ `,
'� � `. c
t � r ,� • •,a
;� : /� �,.
'� - .�► C�1P� �.�
- �
�� � + r � '�� , I �'
������� � . � _ I
• � } . . � - . ;''I�� '� �o
R� k � a ���.' � '�. � .����
�1r, ,."_ ��'�`� �- • • �'�
.�,��. , � �� k ; �,� - ,�
- • �
. -- -' - �
�. . � � �. .
� +�(�ii ,�� . . � +
" �. R. ' �
'� � � - ''�� ..
�� �. . � -_ - ��: . ' '�,`
� '� � ' - � . . .
� � fi �
�_.
,� � ,
« .� E�
■ ;J � .3 F � � i a � � , � ■
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE
AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
� -•� - � � �-- � •�� -� . � .�� � �-- .�- � �'
- �, , ,�,� _ ,.-.. .�: •�� � ��. � t. ,- ., -� - ��_ .�� �- .� -� � .�� _ •�� �•
.�� � � �� i �_•R% • i �1 _ •1�� � •11 . �� 1 . �- �- ' 1• � •�'l � • 1� � � � �
�
: •�
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
March 27, 204�, 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
received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the
project set forth above will have a signiiicant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per
CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3, construction and location of limited numbers of new, small
facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or
more such units is hereby approved.
2. Said side setback variance, special permit for declining height envelope and design review
applications are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for
such side setback variance, special permit for declining height envelope and design review 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, Ann Keiehran , 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 27th day of March ,�44�, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval categorical exemption, side setback variance, special permit for declining
height envelope and design review
1404 Alvarado Avenue
effective April 3, 2000
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped February 17, 2000, sheets 1 through 5, and date stamped February 25, 2000,
sheet 6;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding
or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design
review;
3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 31, 2000 memo shall be met; and
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
2