The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1470 Alvarado Avenue - Staff Report11.12.19 pc meeting Agenda Item 8c MARC & ARIANE TRIMUSCHAT 1470 Alvarado Ave. Re: 1470 Alvarado Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear I�1s. 1�larkiewicz and members of the Burlingame Planning Coinmission, RECEIVED NOV 07 2019 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV ��'e are writing in regards to our house at 1470 Al�-arado �venue, Burlingame which is before the Planning Commission Eor the variance of a deck as �vell as the request to legalize an e�sting room into a bedroom. For background, we purchased the house in Januar� 2013. The house has had a deck off the bedroom level, to the best of our knowledge, since the house �vas constructed in 2000. During the bedroom legalizauon process, it was brought to our attention that it was not uicluded in the original drawings/floorplan for the house b}� the builder. ��'e are requesting the �rariance for a fe�v reasons: 1) The deck is the only means of egress from the lo�ver level and back of the house and the only� access to die backyard from the house, as the house is on a hill and the backyard is two Elights down from the main level/front door. Two of the bedrooms on the lower level have sliding doors opening to the deck, and removal of the deck would create an unnecessar� hazard as it would restrict the only emergency� egress from the house to die front door on the top le�-e1. In addiuon, it would create a one-stor5� drop from the bedroom level to the ground below. Any modification of the deck would diininish both the practicality� of the space and the o��erall aesthetic. 2) The deck does not affect our neighbors ��iew. Rather, they appreciate it and are supporti�-e of keeping the deck as is, as evidenced in the multiple letters from neighbours on our block, including those directly to the left and right of us, (please see letters included in the package we submitted). In addition, as some neighbors ha��e pointed out, removing or rebuilding the deck would be a neighborhood nuisance due to the construcrion noise and parking of �vorkers. 3) Finall�, �ahile we realize not relevant to the formal variance process, we have suffered continued financial hardship as we collaborate with the city of Burlingame to do the right thing and obtain permits for all pre-esisting, unpermitted work (which pre-existed our purchase). �'e moved away in 1�1a`� 2019 and addiuonal deck construction would add se�•eral months before �ve could sell the house (while maintaining a mortgage in Burlingame and rent in our current house). 'I'hank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Sincerel�, i VVja..� c�S � �� ,�� Marc and ��riane Trimuschat (��l'.��.11 L':'�'LC; � T/O,'�' RECEL b ED � 1 F'TF. R PRF. P.-a R.a T10.'�' November 8, 2019 415.730.4480 (Ariane) � 415.307.0200 (Marc) 11.12.19 Meeting ��.t�i :�tc:i1l��.a RF,C'�'II"?_ Item 8C l FTER PRF.P_ 1 R.-� 77� �� 1470 Alvarado Avenue Page 2 of 2 RECEIVED NOV 12 2019 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. From: Paul Lorence <plorence@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 12:16 PM To: Jennifer Gilson Cc: Pamela Lorence Subject: 1470 alvarado deck Hi Jennifer, Please feel free To: Michella Markiewicz, Assistant Planner, City of Burlingame Community Development Department - Planning Division Dear Ms. Markiewicz and the City of Burlingame, We've lived at for the past 14 years, and we know the Trimuschat family. On several occasions, we've been invited to their home socially. This is just a note to say that we have never had an issue with their deck, backyard, or well- maintained backyard landscaping. For the home at 1470, the deck from the kitchen to the yard below seems appropriate for the grading of the lot. (On our end of the street, the grade from the street to the easement is much less severe than it is at 1�70). In fact, we've been to other houses in the middle of the block where "connectedness" of a top-floor deck with the yard below is more disjointed (when it is connected at all). We're happy to expand further if you have additional questions. thanks, Paul and Pamela Lorence , Burlingame, CA 940]0 11.12.19 Meeting Item 9C 1868-1870 Ogden Drive Page 1 of 1 From: Gloria Velez [mailto:gloriajvelez@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 2:34 PM . ,. ..._ _e..�1., i;�:'� iFTER PRF.PARATI(?.�� ,✓�(., �,-r � �Ar �(p,La�r, RECEIVED AUG 20 2019 {;I�rY OF BURLINGAME ��C)D n PLANNING DIV. To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Subject: New Condos Proposed in Burlingame To Whom It May Concern: I just became aware of the condo project after reading an article in the Daily Journal and finding an architecYs rendering online. I have lived in the same neighborhood of the proposed site for almost 20 years and during that time, because of new construction, have seen the street parking dwindle. This phenomena began with the construction of the Sunrise Living facility. While there is underground parking on the site, employees are not allowed to use it. They must park on the street. It continued with the condos that were built at 1838 Ogden Dr. which is also a project of Mr. Lo. The structure does have two floors of underground parking but street parking continued to dwindle. Now with this new project, I suspect that the parking dilemma will increase. I do not share your enthusiasm for the project. In addition to the parking dilemma, the structure does not fit in with the current height of most of the apartment buildings in this area which are three stories. Mr. Lo's first set of condominiums are four stories and now this proposed structure will be six stories blocking the view of those living on the third floor in surrounding buitdings. An additional point to mention is that of the planned 120 units, only six will be set aside at an affordable rate. Does that mean that the rest will be priced out of a middle class range? Mention was made of a ground floor reserved for community gatherings. This is a quiet, residential area. Your plan would draw strangers to the site. I also question where they would park as there is little to none on the street. Any spaces that would be used would be taken from the local residents. I feel that community gatherings would be more successful at locations like the public library. I am also unclear as to the use of the public plaza to be built at the front of the building. I am sure that possible residents who would buy a unit near the public plaza would not appreciate the noise that might be generated from the activities. Again, I do not understand the reasoning behind theconcept. It is unfortunate that a recent amendment of the Burlingame master planning document loosened development regulations in certain portions of the city, specifically this area. Have their been any town hall meetings regarding the above project as there have been with the Wellness Community of the Peninsula Health Care District? They are listening to the residents and have made changes due to their concerns. If not, I encourage you to do so. RespectFully submitted, Gloria Velez Burlingame Resident 11.12.19 Meeting Item 9C 1868-1870 Ogden Drive Page 1 of 2 From: Chuck Voytan [mailto:infoat4436952936@�mail.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 3:25 PM . - .. � .. _ _� 1�'"I ER PREPARA I d m �� (�1��.5'r t �-,,- ,, �_-,,:_ RECEIVED NOV 12 2019 C;I�Y OF BURLINGAME. CDD — PLANNING DIV. To: Burlingame Planning Dept <plannin�dept@burlin�ame.or�>; CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon <ckevlon@burlin�ame.or�> Subject: Please include this in the record for the planning meeting on Nov. 12 2019 Design Review Study 025-121-190 1868-1870 Ogden Drive This project would result in significant impacts to traffic and noise. Therefore an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 is questionnable No mention is made as to the independence of the environmental consultant who will prepare and document the analysis, findings and determination that the proposed project will be in compliance. Despite the hiring authority vested with the city, If that consultant has had material dealings with the Applicant and Architect and/or property owner, independence is tainted. It would be preferable if the consultant were hired outside of the immediate business areas of both the ApplicanUArchitect and/or property owner. The General Plan adopted in 2019 is flawed in iYs conclusion that higher densities and mixed use zoning designation in the north end of Burlingame are appropriate. It's not clear who the consultant team is. Is it the applicant / architect? IYs apparent that staff have not had the required time to prepare the Zoning Ordinance Update based on a flawed General Plan adopted in 2019. Staff needs to update the zoning ordinance, independently. Despite the proximity of the Millbrae multimodal station, there are no defined bike paths from and to the station. There are no traffic lights at Murchison and Ogden nor at Trousdale and Ogden to deal with the increased traffic. In the event of a local disaster, traffic would come to a grid lock. There is no specific instance cited in the document supporting how tandem parking has been considered a similar alternative to mechanical parking. Despite meeting Tier 3 standards, the absence of available parking on Ogden for guests of existing residences significantly detracts from community benefits. What good is a cultural Arts Space if there is no parking available? The document does not address whether the 6 new Crape Myrtle trees are drought tolerant. 11.12.19 Meeting Item 9C 1868-1870 Ogden Drive Page 2 of 2 One hundred and fifty spaces is not enough parking and is based on an interim zoning standard. Realistically, one could expect 2 cars for a two bedroom unit . Where are guests going to park as there is no requirement for guest parking? At a minimum, 175 parking spaces are needed. Where are the additional 27 cars going park on Ogden as there is no more parking available? Guest bicycles are allocated space whereas guest cars are not. That is simply not realistic despite an interim ordinance. There is no study cited as to the number of bicycles travelling on Ogden per day. There is no indication as to what the credit offset would be and under what circumstances. Six units are going to waive a 3 million dollar linkage fee. That's not a bad return on investment (ROI) for the development; however, 6 units will do little to address the housing crisis in the Bay Area. There is no parking on Ogden; nor is there room for an additional 27 cars parked on the street. Unless the City of Burlingame enforces residential parking permits, provides for defined parking spaces on Ogden and furnishes street lights at both Ogden / Trousdale and Ogden / Murchison, the impact will be negative on existing condominium owners. Charles Voytan 11.12.19 Meeting Item 8C 1470 Alvarado Avenue Page 1 of 2 From: Jennifer Gilson [mailto:iennifer@�ilsonteam.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 11:08 AM To: CD/PLG-Michelle Markiewicz <mmarkiewicz@burlin�ame.or�> Subject: Fwd: 1470 alvarado l � �, �ECEIVED �lOV 12 2019 CVTY OF BURLINGAM!� CDD — PLANNING DIV Hi Michelle, Here are 2 neighborhood emails [ think you already received. Just in case, see below! Jennifer Gilson From: Colin Bryant >Date: Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 9:35 PMSub�ect: The TrimuschatsTo: <ennifer%u� rilsonteam.com>Cc: Ariane Trimuschat >, mare trimuschat >, Jasmine Blackmeir >Jennifer,We are friends and neighbors of Marc and Ariane. Below is a note I drafted up. Please let me know if you need anything else from us. Best,Colin--- --Dear Ms. Markiewicz and the Cit of Burlingame, Our names are Colin Bryant and Jasmine Blackmeir and we live at in Burlingame, on the same block as Marc and Ariane Trimuschat. We have heard about the issues our friends are facing and wanted to write a letter of support to you as their neighbors. The Trimuschats are great people and have been great neighbors. We've never had any issues with their deck and the backyard has always been well maintained and has not been a nuisance. Their house and their yard are a net positives on our street. As a neighbor and a community member 1 can't see a reason why the yard (or their home) should be altered, and frankly, making any alterations would probably very disruptive for all of us whole live on the street, with additional workers and their vehicles disrupting traffic flows on what is already a pretty crowded small street iven Merc Center is at the end of the block). Best, Colin Bryant & Jasmine Blackmei , Burlingame, CA See page 2 7,'25l2019 M�il -.Icnnifcrin �iltiontcvn.com Support letter from neighbor at 1466 Alvarado Jing Li - Wed 7,�24.'2019 5:19 PP�i r:_:Jennifer Gilson <jenni{er@gilsontearn.com>; Hi Jennifer, We'd �ike to provide the support IPtter for the deck at Marc & Ariane's home as foUows: Dear Ms. Markiewicz and the City of Buriingame, 11.12.19 pc meeting Agenda Item 8c 1470 Alvarado Avenue ;i: �Ef A � l70.' i UR? My name is Jing Li and my husband's name is Yifanc Liu. We are living at�-, Bw�lingame. We moved here since.� and luckily became the neighbor of Marc and Ariane jus�, their horne. Their entire yard has always been well maintained and has not been a nuisance. We've never had any issue with their deck We re very glad to see their family, especiaily their lovely girl Olivia, enjoyed the yard all these years. We would hate to see any alternatiori to their home or yard. Thank you for your kind consideration, Jing and Yifang. RECEfVED I��ny i `� 2G;y CITY OF BI�RLINGAME rDD-PLANNING DIV. .,� � 7/2i/2(ll9 Mail -jenniferCR gilsanic:un.com 1470 Alvarado Avenue, Burlingame Krista > Thu'j1E/Z019 3:19 P�.' ' � )ennifer Gilson <jennifer@qilsonteam.com>; :,.:Ariane Trimuschat ; Marc Trimuschat 11.12.19 pc meeting Agenda Item 8c 1470 Alvarado Avenue R�CEIVED h�V 1 2 2019 Michelle Markiewicz, Assistant Planner, City of Burlingame Community Development Department- Planning Division Dear Ms. Markiewicz and the City of Burlingame, �,ITY OF BURLINGAME �np-PLANNING DIV. Our names are Krrsta and Chris Cohendet. We live at _ in Burlingame. We live � i from the Trimuschat Family (1470 Alvarado Avenue, Burlin ame). We have spenf� time with neighbors at their home and especially in the backyard - —�We love their backyard and deck and have spent much fime making memories there. We have never had an issue with their deck and their entire yard has always been well maintained and has not been a nuisance. We would hafe to see any alteration to their home or yard as both are lovely and great for the neighborhood and home. Krista & Chris Cohendet c;C/:11.�; �,r'�'.,ti:�.�� .. � l.:d t�. AFTEK I'RF.I AR.�f I'IUN OF ST.1 FF RI_'PUI: T � ii 7/25/2019 1470 Alvarado Ave., Burlingame Jok Legallet Wed '/17,�2019 b Z� P��1 T" lennifer Gilson <jennifer@gilsonteam.com>; �: Ariane Trimuschat >; �. �r_1.1L11r. �.1 t( �,-t ll��_�' 1.L•.� 1:%1 GL� " AF'lL/( P�?L'P.�R.]'IYi1:V ' OF ST.IFF R�'PU%�T To: Michelle Markiewicz, Assistant Planner City of Burlingame, Community Development Dept., Planning Division Dear Ms. Markiewicz, Our home is at��., Burlingame, our-- neighbor to the- is 1470 Alvarado Ave. From our home we view their back yard and deck and consider it an added asset to our home in its beauty and layout. It is always well maintained adding to our enjoyment of it. We have never had an issue with the deck or any other aspect of the backyard and would regret if any changes would be made to its layout. Sincerely, Kirsten and Jok Legallet RECEIVED ;�� l 2 2019 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Mail -.Icnnifcr(� gilsontcamsom 11.12.19 pc meeting Agenda Item Sc > 1470 Alvarado Avenue , i, i 7!2Si2019 Mail -jennifcrCa gilsonteam.com 1470 Alvarado Ave., Burlingame CA Dooling, John G. VVCU //?��/�i�V IJ�.�i.IL tn'IV� 11.12.19 pc meeting Agenda Item 8c 1470 Alvarado Avenue ��<lennifer Gilson <jennifer@gilsonteam.com>; �c:Ariane Trimuschat < ; Eileen Docliny < Michelle Markiewicz, Assistant Planner City� of Burlingame f— .---"��- "P Communit � Develo ment De artment-Plannin Division �(,U.11.�1 �.�1�.11 i:�:'�' r�z:� �-: � �L y P P g � AFTER PREP.4R.�TIUN N OF ST.AFF R£POR7' Dear Ms. Markiewicz, � My w�ife, daughter and I live at Over the last 8 years our family was fortunate to spend considerable time at the Trimuschat home, including significant time in their beautiful back yard and back deck. We found both always well maintained and never experienced any issues or problems with their back deck, as it �vas used not only as the primary source of access to their backyard but was also the venuc for many dinners. Please let me kno�v if you have any questions. RECEIVED �QV 12 2019 Best, John G. Dooling ��;TY OF BllRLINGAME S��—. �''��-�=L.ANNING DIV. A�i1 �� — � � �� I �� .�� - _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ --- -�--- __ . _ __ . _ ■��■ �� r ■��■�s � �■ ��i��i�■ ■ ��/��i � �i�ir �� li��l�� 1�� i�■��1��■!�� ■�� BURLINGAME � DATE: 11.12.19 TO: FROM SUBJECT CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM 1470 Alvarado Avenue Michelle Markiewicz, Associate Planner Design Review and Variance Application The following are revisions to the original staff report for 1470 Alvarado Avenue: ,� 0 ��e ° �nux�:nn.t �.IN/NN/JI �I�i//%pM When additional plan sets were resubmitted for the November 12, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Changes were made on the plans concerning the room at the rear of the house that was converted from crawl space. The change entailed raising the floor so that the entire space has a total height of 5'-4" instead of the 6'-4" originally proposed. This change was not made known to staff; therefore, the square footage reflected on the staff report includes this in the proposed floor area ratio. • Under the "Project Description" section of the staff report, 327 SF included both the fourth bedroom and rear room, plus 107 SF for the rear deck addition. The revision noted above eliminates the square footage of the rear room (92.8 SF). • The Variance for floor area ratio originally read as exceeding the maximum by 327 SF, but did not include the 107 SF from the space under the deck addition. This would have put the proposed project over by 434 SF. However, with the changes that were recently made on the plans, the FAR now exceeds by a total of 341 SF (eliminating 92.8 SF for rear bedroom and include the rear deck addition). City of Burlingame Design Review and Variance Address: 1470 Alvarado Avenue Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Meeting Date: November 12, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review and Variance for floor area ratio for approval of unpermitted conversion of crawl space to living space and a rear deck addition (no new construction proposed). Applicant: Jennifer Gilson Designer: Marcus Yan Property Owners: Marc & Ariane Trimuschat General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-182-500 Lot Area: 5,795 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project History: The subject property was a previously approved Design Review project for a new two-story single family dwelling with Special Permits for an attached garage and declining height envelope. The demolition of the previous house resulted in the emergence of two nonconforming substandard lots, each measuring at 47.5' x 122'. The previously approved Design Review and Special Permits were approved on July 10, 2000, with a proposed floor area of 2,600 SF where 2,604 SF was the maximum allowed for this lot. Project Description: Located on an interior lot, the subject property contains an existing two-story house and an attached garage with 2,600 SF (0.45 FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. Requested applications include approval of Design Review for a second story addition to the rear deck and a Variance for floor area ratio for conversion of crawl space to living space (bedroom). Although no new construction is proposed, the work was completed without the benefit of permits. It is unknown when this construction occurred. The applicant is requesting approval to permit 327 SF of converted crawl space on both lower levels and a 107 SF second floor addition to the rear deck. The existing lot coverage has increased from 2,046 SF (35.3%) to 2,101 SF (36.3%), where 2,318 SF (40%) is the maximum allowed. With the addition of the rear deck, the space underneath now counts toward both lot coverage and floor area ratio. The previously approved FAR was 2,600 SF (0.45 FAR) and with this application has increased to 2,931 SF (0.51 FAR), where 2,604 SF (0.45 FAR) is the maximum (includes a 48 SF front porch exception). Therefore, an application for a Variance for floor area ratio is required because the project exceeds the maximum allowed FAR by 327 SF. With this application, there is an increase to the number of existing bedrooms; three bedrooms were existing and four bedrooms are proposed. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached garage provides one covered parking space (11' x 20' clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: ■ Design Review for second story deck addition to an existing single-family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)); and ■ Floor Area Ratio Variance (2,600 SF (0.45 FAR) existing; 2,931 SF (0.51 FAR) proposed; where 2,604 (0.45 FAR) SF is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.26.065 and C.S. 25.50.080 (d)(3)). Design Review and Variance 1470 Alvarado Avenue Lot Size: 5,795 SF EXISTING SETBACKS __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _. Front (15t flr): 21'-0" (2"a f/r): none at front _ _ _ ._...._.. ___ _ _.__ Side (left): 4'-0" (right): 5'-0" _ Rear (1St flr): 33'-6" �2nd fIC�: 33'-6" _ 9 _ Gara e Setback: 36'-0" _ _ ____ ___.. __.___ Lot Coverage: 2,046 SF 35.3% _ _ __ _ _ .. . . _ FAR: 2,600 SF 0.45 FAR _ _ _ _ __ # of bedrooms: 3 _ __ _. _..... Off-Sfreet Parking: 1 covered (11' x 20' clear interior dimensions) + 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 21'-1" Plans date PROPOSED , _ __ _ _ _. ' no change none at front _ : no change no change . __ no change 36'-6" (to deck) � no change � . _.. _ 2,101 SF 36.3% . __ _... 2,931 SF 2 0.51 FAR ___ _ .._ ___ __.. 4 _ . __._ _ _ __ no change no change 1470 Alvarado Avenue nped: October 30, 2019 ALLOWED/REQ'D _. __. __ 20'-8" (block average) 20'-8„ __ _. ......... 4'-0" 4'-0" _ 15'-0" 20'-0" _ 25'-0" 2,318 SF 40% __. __... 2,604 SF' 0.45 FAR __. _ ....... _ _ _ 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') _ _ __ . 30'-0" above average top of curb �...........__. ..._..... .. .3 _... . _ .......... ......... ....... .......__..._ __ . ._ . ...._. DH Envelope: I encroachment on right side no change ; C.S. 25.26.075 ' (0.32 x 5,795 SF) + 750 SF = 2,604 SF (0.45 FAR) z Variance for fioor area ratio required (2,931 SF, 0.51 FAR proposed where 2,604 SF, 0.45 FAR is allowed). 3 Encroachment on right side meets window enclosure exception. Staff Comments: None. 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: 1 2 3 4 5 Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the 107 SF addition to the second story deck is compatible with the existing architectural style since it continues the same design as the existing deck; that because the addition is at the rear of the house, the mass and bulk of the structure is not impacted by the deck addition when viewed from the street; and that because there is no new construction proposed there are no new impacts created; for these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review 2 Design Review and Variance criteria. 1470 Alvarado Avenue Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings: That the subject property slopes down from the street with a difference of approximately 20% to the rear, where existing crawl space had at least six feet or more in height and because the crawl space that was converted does not add to the mass and bulk and with the steep slope of the lot, the project may be found to be compatible with the Variance criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 30, 2019, sheets A0.1 through A4.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage which would include adding or enlarging a dormer (s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flies shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 3 Desrgn Review and Variance 1470 A/varado Avenue 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Michelle Markiewicz Associate Planner c. Jennifer Gilson, applicant Jessica Passage, Design Everest, designer Marc & Ariane Trimuschat, property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Variance Application Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 1, 2019 Area Map 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: E9D7774B-D76C-4A51-A822-ABFB035628C8 �� PLANNING APPLICATION HURLtIVGAME �OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENi'—PLANNING DIVISION 601 PRIMROSE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, BURLINGAME, CA 94010-3997 TEl; 650.b68.7260 � FAX: 660.696.3790 ) E-MAIL; PLANNINGDEPT(cDBURLINGAME.ORG Z O � 0 � � � � � a 1 t-11 D 1� 1 varad o A v� .'g�� C:.tS�¢ 4�.7 —� 8 2- 5 00 PROJECT ADDRESS �„ � 4 �) O AS6ES30R'S PARCEL �l (APNI PROJECT DESCRIPTION D Q,sC� �n . � .:�� . �..�,�� Stu �r y u.dd i fivv� ��'5,,��\,y!,._,.T,.,' � � ZO��Nd via� � alk_"`�e��9�u' �1� y_.i � . .i1 �-.:,1- ,�`�'i� '/�i t1��.) ,�'�� 1Y,�'��+.> � ,� � �.e�,��r ��ci� Isv��+-e��i . c�v� � z 0 � � 0 Z � � a °d n;` �;' ��S�VIi APPUCANT7 Z��1 �l�'�3�, ��v(c,�.� `�c-�� D S G APPLiCANT� a t�5o - 2� s - 2�22 PHONE ��q �" r p °'I �� ({a�:"��^ P`• . �'��;Y�y��,,�,n� {< <-p�L'��.: ADDRESS •� ,-; , , <<_ _;a. _ . -o , ;;, � �d�� . � ' ; _ ��? A .E MAII. �105 �(U�Je.� l�c.�, i�o�r�,karv�vi.ew t;�t �C�pcj3 RE5 � �'�l es5�i Ca�� J�'P�k • � -;;:�.,..,; r�,, . �� I B RLINGAME BU5INESS LICENSE # ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... `FOR PROJECT REFUNDS` - P(ease ptovide an address to which to a11 refund checks will be mailed to; � __ f .i � �i��_ �; . �._ � ' � ��., .. . R�''!i '. .�:1� � ''r - � �" � �,:.J� � -,�,.j`," . � . .. • . .. .. _ ... NAME aoo�ss a x � W Z 0 � O F 0 � � 1 HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY TNAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN HEREIN IS TRUE ANb CORRECT TO 7HE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. PPPLICANT'S SIQ►�TI�,�R (IF DIFFERENT FROM PROPERTY ONMERI D� A� I AM AWARE OF THE PROPOSED APPLICATION AND HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE ABOVE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION 70 7HE P1ANNl COMMI IQN/DIVI ION. r� •Gt.�. �,�- 5��4�nnbev �ii2a�9 rr owN �s i N Tu ,Qg� AUTHORIZATION TO REPRODUCE PLANS 1 HEREBY GRANT THE CITY 0� BURLINGAME THE AUTHORITY 70 REPRODUC� UPON REQUES7 AND/OR POST PLANS SUBMITTEti WITH THIS APPLICATION ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AS R� F THE FlANNIN� APPROVAL PROCESS AND WA1VE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TQ SUCN ACTION �l, aNfTIALS OF ARCHITECTIDE3I�NER1 J Z O W � 7 t�. N �PPLICATION M�E ❑ ACCESSORY DINELLING UNIT (AOU) �VARUINCE (VAR} � � IZ CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT (CUPj ❑ WIRELESS DESIGN REVIEW (DSR) ❑ FENCE EXCEPTION HILLSIDE AREA CONS7RUCTION PERMIT ❑ OTHER . . � `��,, � . . � ��„- � ;�j �' �} j �„) . � � � ' �";�_g�•��w;�3��i` DATERECEfVED� .. ..... .. ... ..... �,��;,��;a, e �W'r.: ❑ MINOR MOpIFICATION [] SPECIAL PERMIT (SP) -�-1 � � O Z � '�ti BURLIf�IGAME .... ....,. � CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION 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 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. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. .'��. ,�� ✓'1 vl� �, , �_,t b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of ihe application. ,_. -, ; .. _� ,,, � Ul./� d �,{ v'� �, '� c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safefy, general welfare or convenience. `�-t:x. �,�, �t ;;�.W �. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and characfer of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? � � � '� �ti' i�� . �� ,; �C� F� � a ,- , � � '��'i.� �U�Y r� �;.. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org rY U� �. . . :G6NC:iAME- ,��,�;-. ; ,�� Handouts\Variance Application.2008 a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditior�s applicable to yaur property which do not ap�ly to other properties in this area. oo any conditions exrsr on the site wh��n �„ake other alternatives to the variance irnprGcticable ur imnossible and are also not common to other pro�erties in the area? For example, is ther e a creek cutting tFirouyh the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd !ot shape or unusual placeinent of existing str-uct�n�es? 1-low is this pro�erty c�ifferent fi'om others in the neighborhood? The 4tn bedroom and deck off the Uedroom level were pre-existing when we purchased the property. The original owner/builder, �vho lived in the house after building it in 2000, did this worlc. The 4th bedroonl is a part of the original footprint of the house—it is not an addition. The house is on a hill, with the front door/street level on the top floor and the backyard 2 flights down. Secause of this, the decic is of great importailce as the backyard is removed from the main level of the house. The decic connects the house with the backyard. There is no other access from the house to the backyard other than through the decic. b. Explain why the variance ��equest as necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessar-y hardship might result from the denial of the appllCetloYl. Would you be unable fo build a�roject simi(ar to others in Che area a- nergfiborhoocl without the exception? (i.e., having as niuch oi�-sitc parki�Tg or bedroon�s?J Would you be unable to devefop the site for the uses allo�ved �vithout the exception? Do the r�equirements of the la�a� place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the clevelopment� of the property? To our knowledge, the bedroom and decic have existed since the construction of the home in 2000. The bedroom is a part of the original footprint of the house and does not increase that footprint. Removing the bedroom or deck would cause disruption to the neighbourhood. It would be a negative to the aesthetic of the home and would cause us to suffer severe financial hardship. c. Explasn why the proo�osed use at the pe-oposed locat�on woEl not be detrimental or injurious to property or irraprovements in the vicicrety or to public heaith, safety, general welfare or convenience. Ho�v wi(1 the proposed struct�ue or use �vithin the structure affect neighUorii�g �roperties or structures on those properties? If neighf�oring properties will not he affectecl, stute why. Thir�k about trafjic.. noise, lic�hting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views frvm neighE�oring p� operties, ease of rnaintenance. Why ivil! the structure or use wifhin the structure not affect the pul�lic's heulth, safety or genera! ��elfare? Public health indudes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systEms, water� supply safety, and thir�gs Lvhich have the potential to affect public health (i,e., underground storac�e tanl:s, storage of chemicals, situations which ei�courage the spread of rodents, insects or corrununicable diseases%. Public safety. Notiv �vill the sb'ucture or use tivithin the structure affect police ar fire protection % Wil! alarm systenu or sprinl;lers be installed? Could the structure or usn evithin the structure create a nuisance or need for �.�olice services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, trafjic) or' fire services (i.e„ stor-age or use vf flammable or hazarclous rnaterials, or potenticrlly dangerous activities like �vel��ing, tvoodtnra�h, en yirTe rernovalJ. General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning comi��unity yood. !s tfie proposal consistent ia�ith the ciiy's policy und goals for conservation and development? !s there a social benefit? Con.�enience. Hvw �vould the proposed structw�e or use affect �ublic convenience (sucf� as access to ur parking for this siie or adjcrcent �iYesf ?!s th� pro,�osal accessif�le to particular segments of tfie puf�lic such as the elderly or handicap{�ed? C. The bedroom is a private room within the footprint of a private house and cannot be seen from the outside. It is not an addition to the house and would be impossible to remove as it is a part of the structure, underneath the dining room. The deck is in keeping with the aesthetic of the neighbourhood and the neighbours directly on either side of i47o as well as many others on Alvarado Avenue have all written letters in support of the deck. Neither the deck nor the 4th bedroom affects public health, safety, convenience in any way. The ,;�' �`�" �,, _,' structural engineer has approved and stamped both the bedroom and deck. �'�i1� � � �� UF- �?Ui;LifvGHft4t= :i8r�.o-•� ;,? �r RiN� r�n� d. Ho�v will the peoposed prnject be cor��patoble with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existang and potei�atsal uses on adjoineng properties in the general viciiioty.l-�o�v does the proposedstr-ucture or use con�pare aesthetically �vith existing ��eiyhaorhood? If it does not affect aesrhetics, state why. If changes to the structure are �ruposed, �^ras the addition designed to match existing architect�u-e, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use wiN affect the way a neighhorhood or• area looks, such us a lo��g terr» uirport parlring lot, com�are your proposal to other �ises in the area and explain v✓hy it fits. No�v does the �roposed structure compare to neighborii�g structures in tern�s of mnss or bulk? If there is no chanye to the structure, say so. If a new structure is prcpose�; compare its size, appearcnce, orientation, etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. Ho�v wil! the structure or use within the structuf�e change the char�acter- of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established f�y srze, density of developme�nt and general ��atiern of land use. Wil! tl�ere be more t��affic or (ess parking available resu(ting from this use? If you don't feel the characrer of the neigi�borhood tivifl cha��ge, state Gvhy. How wit! the proposed pruject Lie compatrble �vith existing and Wotential uses in the genernl vicinity? Compare your project with existing «ses. State why you feel your project is cor�sistent tivith other uses in the vicir�ity, and/or state why your �roject �voufd be consistent with potentia! uses in the vicinity. The deck and 4th bedroom are in lceeping the character of the home and the neighbourhood. They were installed by the original owner/builder aizd have always existed as a part of the house. Changing or removing them would be a huge project, �vould negatively affect the aesthetic of the house and would result in significant disruption to the both the character and quiet enjoyment of the neighbourhood. .� �� r�� ;}�_. `� ?.�,i9 s',f �`Y U� t't;i-;LIIVGAR�F ,i�s,��r�i ,;;��.e9Nf� C�:`� RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desiqn Review and Variance for floor area ratio for approval of unpermitted conversion of crawl space to livinq s�ace and a rear deck addition (no new construction proposed) at 1470 Alvarado Avenue, Zoned R-1, Marc & Ariane Trimuschat, property owners, APN: 027-182-500; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 12, 2019, 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: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Variance are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Variance are set forth in the staff report, 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, , 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 12th dav of November, 2019 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Variance 1470 Alvarado Avenue Effective November 22, 2019 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 30, 2019, sheets A0.1 through A4.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staf�; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage which would include adding or enlarging a dormer (s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flies shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame.