HomeMy WebLinkAbout1470 Alvarado Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Item #
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Denaolition of a House Resulting in the Emergence of
Two Nonconforming Sicbstandard Lots (A & B), Special Per�nits for Attached Garages, and a
Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for the New House on Lot B
Address: 1470 Alvarado Avenue
Meeting Date: 7/10/00
Request: Design review for the construction of two new two-story single-family dwellings, conditional
use permit for the demolition of a house resulting in the emergence of two nonconforming substandard lots
(without 50' street frontage) (Lot A, 47.5' x 122' & Lot B, 47.5' x 122'), special permits for attached
garages, and a special permit for declining height envelope for the new house on Lot B at 1470 Alvarado
Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.57.010; 25.28.030, 5; 25.28.035, 1 and 3).
Property Owner and Applicant: Michael Moran and Joyce Martin Et A1 APN: 027-182-400
Architect/Designer: James Chu, Chu Design & Engr., Inc.
Lot Area: 5,795 SF (47.5' x 122') each lot Date Submitted: 5/24/00
General Plan Designation: Low density residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location
of limited nuinbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) 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.
Summary: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing single family residence (2,333 SF) from the
11,590 SF parcel at 1470 Alvarado Avenue. The parcel is comprised of two lots, each measuring 5,795
SF (47.5' x 122') in area, and each lot slopes downward away from the street approximately 20% from
front to rear. The existing house with attached garage is built across these two lots. When the house is
demolished the two substandard lots will emerge (referred to as Lots A& B). The lots are nonconforming
and substandard because their width is only 47.5' , where a minimum street frontage of 50' is required.
After demolition of the existing residence, the applicant proposes to build two new two-story single family
residences with attached single-car garages. The following applications are required:
• design review for the construction of two new two-story single-family dwellings (C.S. 25.57.010);
• conditional use permit for the demolition of a house resulting in the emergence of two
nonconforming substandard lots (without 50' street frontage) (Lot A, 47.5' x 122' & Lot B, 47.5'
x 122') (C.S. 25.28.030, 5);
• special permit for an attached garage for both single-family dwellings (C.S. 25.28.035, 1); and
• special permit for declining height envelope for the new house on Lot B along the right side property
line (20 SF, 1'-4" x 15'-0", extends beyond the declining height envelope)(C.S. 25.28.035, 3).
On Lot A, the new two-story single-family dwelling will contain three bedrooms and have a total floor area
of 2,600 SF (.45 FAR) where 2,604 SF (.45 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed attached
Design Revrew, Condrtional Use Permit and Special Perrnits
1470 Alvarado Avenue
single-car garage meets the requirement for a three bedroom house. On Lot B, the new two-story single-
family dwelling will contain three bedrooms and have a total floor area of 2,576 SF (.44 FAR) where
2,604 SF (.45 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed attached single-car garage meets the
requirement for a three bedroom house.
Table 1
Com arison of Pro osed Structures and Zonin Code
Lot A
Front Setback (lst Floor):
(2nd Floor):
Side Setback (left):
(right):
Rear Setback (lst Floor):
(2nd Floor):
Garage Setback:
Height:
21'-0"
none at front
4'-0"
5'-0"
3 3'-6"
33'-6"
36'-0"
21'-1"
Declining Height Env.*:
Lot Coverage:
Floor Area Ratio:
# of Bedrooms:
window enclosure
exception
35.3%
2,046 SF
.45 FAR
2,600 SF
3
Lot B
21'-0"
none at front
4'-0"
4'-6"
29'-0" to deck
34'-6"
37'-0"
20'-1"
20 SF*
36.3%
2,106 SF
.44 FAR
2,576 SF
3
Maximum/Req' d
20'-8" average
20'-8"
4'-0"
4'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
25'-0"
30'-0"
see code
40%
2,318 SF
.45 FAR
2,604 SF
n/a
Parking: 1 covered 1 covered 1 covered
(11' x 20') (10' x 20') (10' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20')
* Conditional use permit for the demolition of a house�resulting in the emergence of two nonconforming
substandard lots (without 50' street frontage), special permits for attached garages, and a special permit
for declining height envelope for the new house on Lot B.
Staff Comments: The City Engineer, in his May 30, 2000, memo discusses sidewalk, curb and gutter,
driveways, sewer lateral testing, site and roof drainage, and property survey requirements. The Chief
Building Official and Fire Marshal reviewed the project and had no comments. Planning staff would note
that a letter, dated June 22, 2000, was submitted by Steven and Robin Hurwitz, 1473 Benito Avenue, and
signed by several other neighbors, which share their concerns with the proposed project.
2
Desrgn Review, Conditional Use Permit and Specia! Permits 1470 Alvarado Avenue
Preliminary Design Review Study Meeting: On June 26, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed this
project for preliminary design review (see attached June 26, 2000, P.C. Minutes). The Planning
Commission noted that the houses are well designed, but that the entrance ways are too high and should be
reduced in height. The Commission also noted that because both lots slope downward from the front of the
lot to the rear approximately 20%-22%, the lots are too steep for detached garages. Because of the lot slope
and that the proposed houses contain only three-bedrooms, one-car garages are acceptable. The Commission
suggested that windows be added on either side of the chimney on the west elevation of house "A" and that
additional trim or detail could be added to the blank wall on the west elevation.
The applicant revised the plans to include two new 2' x 2' windows on either side of the chimney on the
west elevation of house "A" and added a new 2' x 2' window in the master bedroom located below the
chimney (revised sheets A2 and A3 for Lot A and sheet A3 for Lot B, date stamped June 29, 2000). The
applicant also reduced the height of the entrances on both houses by approximately 12 inches and made a
minor revision to the chirnney on the west elevation of house "A" by lowering the base of the chimney and
adding a corbel. The commission recommended that this item be placed on the consent calendar for action
if the changes were made as suggested.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by
the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's June 26,
2000, preliminary study session for the project, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements
of the City's five design review guidelines.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit:
The conditional use permit for the emergence of two nonconforming substandard lots and construction of
two new structures shall be approved based upon the following findings:
that the proposed design of the single family dwellings blends in with the scale and mass of houses in
the neighborhood by using steep-pitched rooflines with varying heights, wood casement windows with
stucco molding, wood corbels and shutters, stucco siding, and other architectural elements found in
the neighborhood; and
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit arrd Special Pennits 1470 Alvarado Avenue
2. that no protected-sized trees will be removed and that the existing trees in the rear yard of both lots
will screen the new two-story houses and soften the mass of the new structures.
Findings for a Special Permit for an Attached Garage and Declining Height Envelope:
The special permit for an attached garage on Lots A and B and special pernut for the declining height envelope
on Lot B shall be approved based upon the following findings:
1. that because both lots slope downward from the front of the lot to the rear approximately 20%-22%, the
lots are too steep to construct detached garages in the rear yards, and because the proposed houses
contain only three-bedrooms, one-car garages are appropriate for the two new single-family dwellings;
2. that because the proposed single-car garages are set back 36' and 37' from the front property line on
I.ots A and B, respectively, the altached garages blend in well with the house and reduce the mass and
bulk impact on the front elevation; and
3. that because the lot slopes downward approximately 20% from front to rear, the point of departure for
declining height envelope is located 10' below the first floor finished floor, therefore affecting a
portion of the structure located on the first floor, which already exceeds the minimum required side
setback of 4'-0" (4'-6" proposed); the structure extends 20 SF, 1'-4" x 15'-0", beyond the declining
height envelope and is considered a minor encroachment.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should be by resolution and include findings made for the requested conditional use permit and
special permits, and 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
June 15, 2000, sheets A1, A4 and L1 and date stamped June, 29, 2000, sheets A2 and A3 (Lot A),
and date stamped June 15, 2000, sheets A1, A2, A4 and L1 and date stamped June, 29, 2000, sheet
A3 (Lot B), and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and
amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or
enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof
height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
3. that all existing trees in the rear yards of both lots shall not be removed except for diseased trees which
may be detrimental to public safety as determined by the City of Burlingame Senior Landscape
Inspector;
4. that during demolition, site preparation and construction of both new houses, the applicant shall
comply with the requirements of Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance by implementing appropriate
�
Design Review, Conditrona! Use Permit and Special Pernuts
1470 Alvarado Avenue
`best management practices' to ensure the site is well protected and managed to prevent sediment and
erosion of storm water runoff. If construction activities take place during the rainy season (April 15 -
October 15) the applicant shall submit a winterization plan for review and approval by the Planning
Department to permit construction during the rainy season; and
5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben G. Hurin
Planner
c. James Chu, Chu Design & Engr., Inc., architect and applicant
City ofBurlingame Planni�ig Commission Unapproved A1inu[es
Jtaie 26, 2000
C. Keighran made a otion to place this item on b placed on the consent calenda . Understands neighbor's c ncern�
over �-oof pitch an eight, but if you flatten it o, it would detract from design house. Motion was seco ed by C.
Osterling.
Discussio n the motion: landscape plan an be modified to emphasize e ance; porch could be made ore prominant.
Chai an Luzuriaga called for a v e on the motion to place this ' em on the consent calendar hen plans had been
re � ed as directed. The motion p sed on a voice vote 7- 0-0 . T e Planning Commission's ac ' n is advisory and not
pealable. This item conclud at 10:55 p.m.
1470 ALVARADO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REMOVE
AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND UNMERGE TWO SUBSTANDARD LOTS, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR TWO NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCES. (MICHAEL
MORAN AND JOYCE MARTIN, ET AL, OWNERS, JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNERI
Planner Jagelski briefly presented the staffreport. There were no questions about the project from the commission.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer and applicant, represented the project. He stated
that he discussed project and landscaping with neighbor on Alvarado to the left of the project. He stated that they will
not remove any trees in the rear of both properties.
Commissioners discussed the proposed project for two new houses and stated that they are well designed, but the one-
car garages are tight and leave no additional room for property owners to store work benches or equipment. Could
possibly use crawl space as basement area for 10' x 10' work room. Entrance ways too high, should be reduced in
height. Commission noted that because of steepness of both lots 20% - 22% slope, too steep for detached garages.
Houses have only 3-bedrooms, therefore one-car garages are okay. Regarding house "A", the left (west) elevation
needs additional windows in blank area adjacent to chimney. That elevation has a long, blank wall and could use
additional detail or trim.
Bruce Gibney, representing parents at 1473 Alvarado Avenue, spoke against proposed project. Narrow homes result
on narrow lots, won't fit into neighborhood. Alvarado is very congested and one-car garages do not provide enough
off-street parking; views from across street will be affected. City Attorney Anderson stated that this is not an application
for subdivision and that two lots legally e�cist under the existing residence; these lots will be freed for development after
existing house is demolished. Doug Martin, 1475 Benito Avenue, stated that trees on lots need to remain, they provide
shade and privacy for neighbors on Benito. Save the trees within the rear 16'-0" of the property. Robin Hurwitz, 1473
Benito Avenue, area will be too urban if trees on lot are removed. Don't want to see two new large structures uphill
from home. E�sting garden is geared for shade from trees on 1470 Alvarado. Mark Grandcolas, 1432 Alvarado, spoke
against subdivision, this property is too small to subdivide. CA Anderson informed neighbor that property is already
legally subdivided. Existing parcels do not meet current standards for configuration, therefore use permit is required
to review proposed development. Owners have vested right to develop these lots according to current development
standards.
C. Luzuriaga stated that his house is located adjacent to two new homes being developed under similar circumstances.
There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Before design review was adopted, there would have been two Mediterranean homes with
attached two-car garages developed on this site. These houses look like they belong in Burlingame, rather than a tract
���
City ofBurlinganre Plannrn� Commrssiorr Unapproi��d nfin:�tes Jime 26, 2000
in Phoenix. Designs are nice; lots are short in width, but longer than average lots. The existing trees emphasize the
importance of good landscaping. By adding two windcws adjacent to the fireplace on Lot A, the project will be great.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with direction that windows needed to be added
next to chimney of house on Lot A, and that trees in rear yards of both lots need to be saved. 1'his motion was seconded
by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar
when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0. The Planning Commission's action
is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:15 p.m.
1464 CORTEZ A ENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR D SIGN REVIE�V FOR FIRST AND SECOND
CP Monro riefly presented the st report. There were n questions about the pr ect from the commission.
Chair n Luzuriaga opened th public comment. Ma am Refahi, property ow er, and Farshid Samsami, des' ner,
repr ented the project. The o er noted that he had eld checked the width o he existing garage and found � to be
9'- '/z" the 8'-4" was dete ined from the plans mg a scale, in fact the g age is only 10 inches too narr w. The
esigner noted that he had ried to keep the mass o the addition at the rear, eated a break in the plane elev ion using
smooth stucco; live in B rlingame looked at a lo of existing Spanish Revi al structures, most have expos rafters, so
added that element. mmissioner asked if t e existing first floor has 0 foot plate, designer noted it id not. How
would the existing plate be extended, de ' ner noted that the back de of the house would step do n then step up.
Commission note that concerned that a licant is asking for a var' nce for a garage which is a pa of a house which
will be demolis d, what are the groun for the variance, the fire lace will be removed, all the st s will be removed,
all the remai ' g flooring removed o e it is stepped down; if is is new construction then it s uld have a detached
garage. If 0% of the exterior wal are removed then it is a n house. Feel that the 10 foot pl te is too tall, increases
mass, t proposed tower coul be resolved better, it do not work it is too small, the ch' ney cap needs to be in
propo ion, the window on the 'ght on the front should b something special, do not see an molding. Designer noted
the mdows would be woo trim. Commissioner noted plans do not show that, windows ppear to be aluminum sash;
t entrance is too small the flat roof does not wo . Recommend go to the design r iewer. Flat roof deck at 600
is too big for the nei bors privacy, why are ther three rows of Spanish tile used fo trim. Designer intention is for
tile caps. Commissi er noted that there is a 1 of detail missing from the plans, eneral concern is mass and bulk,
scale, the garage i oo small for the building, he plate height-is a big problem i design, needs to be redesigned
address that; thi is a layer cake design, it i he most common problem addres ed in the design guidelines, Spa sh
Revival needs ot of variation, shed dor r is a lump on the west elevation, t e scale and proportions and wi ows
are not consi ent with Spanish Revival. D signer noted that the appearance of e mass is reduced from the str t with
the secon tory setback. Commissio rs noted that the second story is al ost as wide as the building and ontains
no varia 'on; need to work on the sk' with Spanish style using tile roof, wer and Spanish window treat ent; look
at ent way and make it more typic of style and more inviting. There w re further comments from the oor and the
pub ' comment was closed.
C. Bojues moved that this proy6ct should be referred to a design revi�wer with the comments mad�The motion was
seconded by C. Dreiling. J �
Comment on the motion: reluctant to send this to the design rev'ewer, needs to design a new ouse, better to have a
redesign based on the c ents made with a detached two car g age and return for another p liminary design review
before the Planning C 'ssion before going to design reviewer C. Deal offered an amendm t to the motion to direct
the applicant to de gn a new house with a detached two ca garage based on the comm ts made and return to the
-13-
/
�'�I '�� �
�
City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
June 22, 2000
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
A�ER PREPARqT10
OF STAFF
��
� ,� ,.�
� REP RT lb d3a ��d1S �O �
�ldd3ad b31�b
a3A13�3�1 NO�1�d�INf1WW0�
Reference: Planning Department Hearing on 1470 Alvarado Avenue June 26, 2000
We are in receipt of the public hearing notice in regards to the desi�m review, conditional use permit for
demolition of a single family house and the emergence of two lots and special perrnits for declining height
envelope for construction of two new residences at 1470 Alvarado Avenue. We are communicating our
opposition in writing because this significantly impacts our home value, quality of life and the integrity of
ourneighborhood.
We live at 1473 Benito Avenue directly behind the subject property. We have many concerns about the
proposal starting with the omission from the plans of numerous "old growth" trees that border the backside
of the property line and have created a privacy screen for all of the homes in the sight line. With this
omission is the assumption that the builders are petitioning to remove the trees.
Because Benito Avenue sits substantially below the grade of the property even the most innocuous home
appears enlarged by the perspective. Homeowners can see this perspective on Alvarado, Benito, Hale and
even Poppy Avenues. The Trees were planted many years ago to mitigate this perspective, create a mature
neighborhood feel, provide privacy, and shelter homes from the Southern sun exposure.
Additionally, most of the homes benefiting from the shade and privacy have mature shade orientated
landscape gardens. The removal of these trees will certainly disrupt the sun protection and result in many
tens of thousands of dollars in destroyed plants etc. In other words the absence of these trees will devastate
the many landscapes.
There already is concern by neighbors on all streets of the disjointed continuity of the architecture and
charm of Burlingame. The proposed homes leave a large "hole" in this continuity. Benito Avenue has
already suffered by new construction before there was a design review and this design as is will further
damage the appeal.
We also oppose placing two homes on this single lot; we understand the lot is not considered a double lot
and will consequently force the construction back towards the property lines to maximize the square
footage of the new homes. T'his maximization significantly hurts the charm, value and appeal of the
surrounding homes.
In summary, the proposed split of the lot, the absence of the trees from the plans and the home designs are
damaging to the neighborhood and us. We appreciate the opportunity to voice our opposition and we look
forward to resolving these issues with the city and property owners.
Sincerely,
Steven & Robin Hurwitz
1473 Benito Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
: , , .
We the neighbors of 1473 Benito Avenue have read the Hurwitz's letter and agree with its intent and
contents.
�.i , j . � `% /J � /�
l���i�-i`.i.L !� ' /� / ��� / �7 `v�-- %'> ��� / %U /T 1%
�r/LX� �2L �/� � � `� l Z ���' / ��l� /� L�
�� � �
;_,i ;,
,
': �� i � l� � ` /-�,,
j ��
� i:. /
���� (� ����/ / �" �� `C
� � T�' : ���� ���--
�.�-
a -'(� �-��� -�. . ,��_
,,<. '�. �_ �,
�/ �
�vc��
,
�(��-e-- —KLc� —
�G'`� .�.,���
�
�:., ��L � ��t v �"`� �; � ,,� � L
�..��-�,r C
�
�� �
, .' ;� L _ ��, --,.,� .
i'
(....� , % .
�
�������.%��
� �, , � �-�
,.
��� ��� �� � ��
�, � ��� � . �2�,.�-�---
� �- 7� i�.�., -� ��� .
� 1 ( ,-, -� �, �� �--�.
<; _.
/4�� ��i�7a
ly 7 5 ,�,,.,,�
I �c.o9 �.-�o CL.�. -
� 4/�� %�E.virG �� .
I '\
-:1�;, / � --�f -��-�: ��l �� )i-r' ,
i �- S i r�'� ►-I-o ����
\ y k 1 �'� �� �-Ez> �;-� _.._.
% �f�i ��v�r�
/��/ ���=� � '�� ,
���� ����'
z� � . , �� ���
� � � � �� � ►�� , -�
� �t � � �� � �o �}��-�
ROUTING FORM
DATE: May 26, 2000
TO: '� CITY ENGINEER
�CCHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
�C FIRE MARSHAL
_SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit to demolish an existing residence
and unmerge two lots, and design review for two new single-family
residences proposed at 1470 Alvarado Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 027-
182-400.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: to be determined.
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Tuesday, May 30, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
�
2 -
3 .
S 3� °in Date of Comments
� C;Q9� ; v e Lti- c�, �- �'�i,,, b� �. c 1.�. o �:' c.Q.e. �vzZ-� � �S' �-2.Q �
c�. �- (�6t. ��- 1 Z�� cc�� �� ��- � � � e w t i�,.e, e c,v� b i` Z�,."
� � � c � %
s�-V �-. �
-e.�
��u, �c i ve S� n+r� V, v :f �- .� �,. I�--� �n l�c,�-r
l l �
Cc � vr� r v�,� ..�. � P��' � a s f o� �.rc 1��� v
l �
w c�e.e���
/ V co-�6� Bz �i, �p i.6�-�. �. �a �- %+.�,� �"ti`�.e�
/ � V 1
. SQ �i.� fG�is ILC2.C�J�-�--�D (,�+-� � '"''"`-"'� � /��� a �►-1n.L� C'�f�t� _J �0
� � U /
� � :1't w � V ,J� C�L�' S �$- �.S' W-�-'vl � ! l'l�
S� f� i� y�a � c C.�ac� %Q c.v vr..F.c, e c,t v�O
a,� �-F'n-�% -�-e- L�� -�--� -�u � s �--,,
c�j ZA �) �L� w��-C lX� C `� � U L�� �S'/� 'l2_
c? n ���� � W c. f ln. � l,'� C.l�t � LL'T ��-/
i r � i I i�r ` fi
� C( L i� GL-'�.� Q��� �
� �
eu.�6�v� -
�
r� � �
�.
�'n�rr���r��
Z. S t v.-e�u � ��-e�t�i.��
� _ �/'� GZ- Q .P�c,CQ.� '1 s G��.�� L�pp � �`'�''
� C� ��
� �
� �-� �` P s L-«.�
�. �„ f t r� a�-� � c(..a�-, t'l .
� � � .y �"�-e.e �' d' %"�'�- '�c" �ti.E�
Cr �
� �Le. G-� � L c�: �� c�-� �
sf��►�► wo�..�, s �
�
.� r-�
�v
� ��
c�. �t' a..ee�-, �- � � v�cn fi��s�
J � ��.-.�
� � ����
� � � � �� � �
��' i � �
�
�' w� � �
4r� CIT �
�,R'JN�AMi, CITY OF BURLINGAME
-����' APPLICATION TO TI� PLANNING COMIVIISSION
��. ,�
Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other �=��� ����1 /
Proj ect
� �u�
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): ��' � / "` � �` �-� — ��- l
APPLICANT
Name: i
Address: �� ��i� , .�.
City/State/Zip; _ _ �/ j , �'�C�% S
Phone (w): � �C-�' /�- _j-�--��.�
(h):
PROPERTY O WNER
Name:
Address:
�
City/State/Zin: l " ��_�
Phone (w): �%�.l-�%�%
,
(h):
fax:
fax:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER —b�`"
Name: ��'`�' ��J�Li Please indicate with an asterisk * the
A���� �� � `��� � contact person
City/State/Zip� ��-� f—�-% C� � ��Z��
�,
Phone (w): c ,�� , -� � ����<< .� ��
�a_
�h) � ��.
fax�,�� -J ��� � � r-��`��
J ��
for this application.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: l��C� 1`(,�,�j ;� ;/ ��`-( l�---
��� � �a- - �� L-''.�`..\ i ��� -% �-t' ��h � � ,� -. �
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief.
� . . ��;� x_-r `� 7 Z'i � _� -� c y -,
�v
Applicant's Signature Date
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
"..._.�_ %" ��T /L `_'`' GZ�GC/ ?-- �/ � ��
:L � �
Property Owner's Signature Date
----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ---------------- ------C---------------
Date Filed: 5-24 -oo Fee: � � � o � o o + � � �oo. c,o � � � C � � � �
MAY 2 4 2000
Planning Commission: Study Date: �'Z�•ao Action Date: �•�o �oo
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DFPT.
cirr
A�," °s .
�
BURLINGAME�
'°�:.
�- <
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 'APPLICATION '
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to
propeKy or improvements in the vicinity or to public heaklt, s�fety, general welfare, or convenience.
THE PROPOSED USE FOR THESE LOTS IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE,
WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEREFORE, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY MAJOR IMPACT THAT WILL BE
DETRIMENTAL OR INJURIOUS TO PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY...ETC.
2. Ho►v fvill the proposed use be locute�l and conclucted in accordance with tlze Burlingame General
Plan and Zoning Ordina�zce?
THE EXISTING ZONE FOR THTS APPLICATION IS LOW DENSITY (R-1)
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH ALLOW ONE DWELLING PER SINGLE
LEGAL PARCEL. THEREFORE, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH BURLINGAME
GENERAL PLAN AND REGULATION. (YT MATCHED ADJOINING PROPERTIES)
3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aestlaetics, mass, bulk and character of the
existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity?
THE PROPOSED DWELLING IS LOCATED WITHIN A VARIETY OF STYLES IN
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. COMPATIBILITY IS ACHIEVED BY BUILDING AND
GARAGE PLACEMENT, WHICH MATCHED/IS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE
PROPERTIES THAT HAVE SIMILAR LOT CONDITIONS. THE PROPOSED
STYLE AND BUILDING PLACEMENT WILL NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON ADJACENT
NEIGHBORS, AND SHOULD SIT WELL IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
0
cup.frm/11 /98
l. Explain wlty tlae proposed use at tlae proposeu' locatiofi will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvenaents in the vicinily or to public health, safety,
general welfare, 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 publics's health, safety or general welfarel
Public healih includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems,
water supply safety, and thing 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 diseasesl.
Pub/ic safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protectionl Will alarm systems
or sprinklers be installedl Could the str�cture 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 of flammable or hazardous materials,
or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and
goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefitl
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for
this site or adjacent sitesl7 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or
handicappedl
2. How will tlze proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the
Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
Ask the Planning Department for the general plan designation and zoning district for the proposed project site. Also ask
for an explanation of each. Once you have this information, you can compare your proposal with the stated designated
use and zoning, then explain why this proposal would "fit" accordingly.
3. How will tlze proposed project be cojnpatible with the aesthetics, �nass, bulk and
c)zaracter of the existi�ag and pote�ztial uses on adjoining properties in tlae general
vicinity ?
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
architecture, pattern of development on_ adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 If a use will affect the way a
neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and
explain why it "fits".
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulkl If there is no change
to the 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 neighborhoodl 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 usel 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 vicinity7 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.
cup. f�m/11/98
�ar c�rr os
BURLJNGAME
��.,m �
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
I. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent ivith the existing structure's design and with the existing
street and neiglzborhood.
THIS SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION IS CREATED DUE TO A HARDSHIP'Il'� �'',�
COMPLYING WITH THE RIGHT SIDE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE. THE PROPOSED
DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH PROPERTIES THAT HAVE SIMILAR LOT CONDITIONS.
THE MASS AND SCALE OF THE PROPOSED BLDG..MATCHED WITH NEIGHBORS' PATTERN,
WHICH ALSO HAVE ATTACHED SINGLE CAR GARAGE. THE HIGH'WALL AND BULK
OF THE MASS ARE MOSTLY PUSHED TOWARD THE REAR OF THE LOT, AWAY FROM
THE STREET. GRANTING THIS APPLICATION FOR D.H.E. WILL NOT CREATE ANY
IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBOR TO THE RIGHT.
2. Explain how tlae va�iety of roof line, facade, ext,eriorfinish materials and elevations of the proposed
ne►v structure o,- addition af•e consistent ivith the existiizg structure, street and neighborlaood.
THE PROPOSED RESIDEIVCE IS LOCATED WITHIN A VARIETY OF STYLES, SHAPE,
AND SIZE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS APPLICATION WILL NOT BE CONSISTENT
WITH THOSE:HOMES LOCATED ON.WESTERN SIDE OF THE STREET, WHICH ARE
GEATERALLY LARGER AND HZGHER BUILDING DUE TO THEIR LOT CONDITION. BUT,
THE PROPOSED IS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE HOMES WHICH HAVE DOWN SLOPED
LOT CONDITION. COMPATIBILITY IS ACHIEVED BY BUILDING AND GARAGE
PLACEMENT, WHICH MATCHES THOSE HAVE SIMILAR CONDITION, AND BY THE
ARTICULATION OF THE ROOF TO MINIMIZE IMPACT ON ALL ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.
3. Ho�v will tlae proposed project be consistent ivith the residential design guidelines adopted by the ciiy
(C. S. 25.57) ?
THE PROPOSED PROJECT ZS CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
WHZCH ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON R-1 ZONE. IT IS ALSO CONSISTEDIT
WITH NEIGHBOR'S PROPERT�ES THAT HAVE SIMILAR LOT CONDITIONS. THE
PROPOSED STYLES, GARAGE PLACEMENT/PATTERN FITS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD
WITH SIMILAR TRIM, DETAILING AND MATERIALS USED.
4• Explain hoiv the removal of a�zy trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition
is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed
for the removal of any trees? Explain ivlay this mitigation is appropriate.
NO TREE TO BE REMOVED. THIS APPLICATION INCLUDE COMPLETE LANDSCAPE PLAN,
WHICH WILL MITIGATE ANY IMPACT ON ALL ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.
0
sp;jrm/11/98
1. Explaifa why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characieristics of the
�zew consiruction or additiofz are consistent witlz the existing structure's design and
with tlae existing street and neighborhood.
How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If
neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and
characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from
neighboring properties. Neigboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street.
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulkl If there is no change
to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other
structures in the neighborhood or area.
2. Explai�z how the variety of roof line, faca�e, exterior finish materials and elevations
of the proposed new struciure or addition are consisteni with the existing structure,
street and neighborhood.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhoodl
If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of
development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl Explain why your proposal "fits" in the neighborhood.
How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of "character" as the image or tone
established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the
neighborhood will change, state why.
3. How tivill the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the cily?
Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet
these guidelines?
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.
4. Explain how the removql of any trees locaied within the footprint of any new structure
or addition is necessary and is cofasistent with the city's reforestaiion requiremenis.
What mitigation is proposed for the re»aoval of any trees? Explain why this mitigation
is appropriate.
Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are
"protected" under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to
replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so.
sp.fim/11/98
GITY OF' �' URLINGA�l�1E
A eop�' of the application and plans For this Project may be rer•ie�ved priur
to thi; mcetin`r at the Plaiulin;T Depnrtment at >01 Pflllll'OSZ Road.
Burlin�>ame. C��liforni�t.
If you challenRe the subject application(s) in court, y0U 1111}' hz �11111IeC� t0
raisinR o�ily thase issues you or someone else raised AC CIIZ pllh�iC Il�il]'lilR.
described in the notice or in ti��ritten correspondence deliver�d to the city
at or prior to the public hearin�.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice. Por additional information, please call (6�0)
��S-7'�0. Thank you.
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Plerrse refei• to ntl�c�r sirle)
���, c�rr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLJNSiAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
�o BURLINGAME, CA 94010
'�,.,,,,,,,�•°�� TEL: (650) 558J250
f�+1� ALVAftADO AVENUE RPI`�:Q�27-18�-4t��
►�ctian on �n �-�pplication for canditional �_i�e PUBLIC HE�►RING
permit ta remove an existing residence and
��nmer ge t�rio 5ubstandar�d lots, design review
and special permit for declinzng height
envelope fot� two new two—story residencEs �t
i470 Alvar•ado Avenue, �ar�ed R-1.
The City of ��►rlingame �'lanning Commission
�nnounces the following public hearing on
Monday, July 10, 2@@0 at 7:00 P. M. in the
City Hall Council Ghambet�s lo�ated at 501
F�r�imrose Road, Aurlingame, C�2ifornia.
NOTICE
F�E4�l.t,1)
f ��,1'4.(2'�
�.���li3j.
���&�e�J��m ��A►- si�te)