The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1470 Alvarado Avenue - Staff Report�� BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT � ro: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: FROM: � November 27, 1995 CITY PLANNER �-��-�-i' AGENDA ITEM # MTG. 12.�4.95 DATE SUBMITTED BY � V�z_ APPROVED BY sus�ECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING CONIlVIISSION ACTION ON TWO VARIANCES FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT 1480 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should be by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. (Action alternatives and criteria for variance iindings are include at the end of this staff report.) At the public hearing the Planning Commission considered the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 16, 1995, Sheets A-O, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and Site Survey; 2. that the encroachment of the stairwell tower into the required declining height envelope shall not exceed 20 SF (interior area) and shall not contain more than 3 windows facing the side property line; and 3. that all construction shall meet the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on October 23, 1995, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the two requests, for three stories and 20 SF exception to the declining height envelope for a new house, and voted 5-1-1 (C. Jacobs dissenting and C. Mink abstaining) to deny the request. In their discussion the commissioners noted that the issue was whether there was any hardship about the lot which justifies the two variances since this was new construction; this lot is wider and longer than many lots, there is substantial slope on the lot, but not enough for a 1500 SF basement without substantial grading; the deiinition of basement was discussed since the raising of the grade against the house caused this lower living area to be excluded from FAR calculation; if the basement area were included in FAR calculation the new structure would exceed FAR limits in the code and require a variance. BACKGROUND: Gary Sayed, property owner, represented by Marty Zwick, architect, is requesting two variances in order to build a new house, on the now vacant lot, at 1480 Alvarado Avenue,zoned R-1. The former house on this lot was destroyed by fire. The proposed 3 bedroom, 3'h bath house has two floors and a 1500 SF �2.04.95 APPEAL OF PLAIVNING COMMISSION ACTION ON TWO VARIANCES FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT 1480 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. page -2- basement. Because the basement area has habitable ceiling height and is more than half the area of the floor above, it is considered a story (CS 25.08.120); therefore the new house as designed has three stories. A variance is required for houses more than 21h stories. In addition the stairwell which extends from basement to second story is enclosed in a tower-like structure which extends beyond the declining height envelope. As a result 20 SF of the tower structure extends beyond the declining height envelope line and a variance is required. A series of three windows are placed at the upper plate line of the tower. There has been some discussion about whether this qualified the tower as a window enclosure, thus exempting it from the declining height envelope. However the city's definition of window enclosure is very specific that only a single window can be located in a"window enclosure" i.e. an architectural feature such as a dormer. /M ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives and Variance Findings Monroe letter to Gary Sayed, November 7, 1995, setting appeal hearing Gary and Lisa Sayed letter to City Council, October 30, 1995, requesting appeal Planning Commission Minutes, October 23, 1995 Planning Commission Staff Report, October 23, 1995, with attachments Notice of Appeal Hearing, November 24, 1995 Resolution 1480ALV&.495 r ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. City Council may vote in favor of an applicant�s request. If the action is a variance, use permit, fence exception or sign exception, the Council must make the findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given property and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in o�der to pass an affirmative motion. 2• City Council may deny an applicant�s request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on a project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be before the Council or the Planning Commission. VARIANCE FINDINGS (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; (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. vAh� iJ . S��(C'� �,s� r. J��e,� 2 b �`� �,� n- �c � W S+ �i /� 3 J' �. Gt� �� y/ c�=1 � ��. G � { ,�u�l, h��,�, �r l� �oc��, � G c- C� C� e� �D�'i . 3�, I5%� ii�l� RECEIVED o cr 3 0 �ss5 �� RC . l�lGG7[�J/�'fQ `fl�YJYN/Sf/CYl (�-i!�lJG/ Oj OGfiI�//iI✓ �'�IIYNiT � ./ �' lib�r� �llUGdri r.� �✓� _��r��i�> Gr�• , � � v Gv �i ��, �� f� eu� C'6 �� CB'I�v ) �'V{' G,1,�u�c� ��l�c l� r-�c�ulJ% �i �„ u��al t�� l� l��r�i, h� ��S�iy��✓�;�.�1 �P c�.i ; ��z, fn r% h.c� �vv (Jcf � �� -l- �-�rirn � f � �% �� d ✓.� �a�'7� a� ��i1o�n� / G1 � S G�2� Ji o� �i�v /L G LC, /� 7C��e /,!%�/�/�C. `'� G�i </q �% � b � /�%c� �a�.� �c �,- 3�, /5y�" �� /'��'r.(?�� ,9 � G�� l�cr �� o�, f�v cq �� D� f�c i�� LOU��rn2P� . fl� ��w" � l-' z. �u.e� �v '� � /� �C� /C �h � r,� w�,.e �o�, �e �''�� c�u�f' 2� Y�S- Y�'"7 333� �� -e �e� ��z c„�' `i�5 `�z/.S�o� ��1 �"�{ ..�'L��i/G'L� � � � . ��iGti/( C�G2, �G?�✓ �:IJiJ,�� i� 1��ii i J !�� f �1 CeY-c�j / / G � l � �.S�a �'. �� ;�� C��,� N, J,o y�� , � � J �� `'a'-,�--- �— y� C11�' OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA October 23, 1995 on the height of the other let s and what effe ould that have on e signage and proposed siz , what is the size of the tallest letter; w t would the squ footage then be; w would the effect be if the " s" in Red Roof were reduced to 3 fe - on the wall ount signs; why do ey need a free standing po sign next to their monument sign; th e is a differenc 'n elevation (height/m s) on the existing and propos monument sign, why the difference; e elevation of t building does not sho sign C or F, would like to se elevation with these si iilled in, ev if fictitious n e; a1so, would like the to commit to a font size for ese signs; If all infor tion is compl , item set for ovember 13, 1995. 3 HEE ONT SEOTBACK TC2 6 HILLS DE DRIVE, ZO R D R-�Jl (ROLA,NDO P SQUA �, PROPERTY �4. VARIANCES FOR THREE STORIES AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1480 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (GARY SAYED, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANTI. Reference staff report, 10.23.95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Ellis asked clarification about whether 8'/z" X 11" elevation in staff report was a part of the proposed project; CP explained the elevation is to show the appearance of the house with the garage located out the front. Chm. 7acobs opened the public hearing. Marty Zwick, 10 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco explained the project to the commission. The house had burned. They met with neighbors and elicited their opinions on the carport/garage/basement ideas. He felt he read the code properly, although the tower does not meet the deiinition of a window enclosure because it has 3 windows he feels it meets the intent. The tower could be removed if the commission preferred. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal discussed the definition of basement and when a lower story is included in measuring floor area ratio. He noted that while the proposed "basement" shown meets the deiinitional requirements of the UBC, it does not meet, in his opinion, the definition of basement in the zoning code since existing grade had been altered in order to bury the walls so that zoning requirements would be met. In the case of establishing FAR, zoning definitions take precedence over UBC. He felt the zoning requirements for FAR had been exceeded in this project and a variance is required. Since an FAR variance has not been noticed, he moved that the item be continued to determine the exact FAR variance and notice the additional variance request. C. Ellis seconded the motion for the purposes of discussion. Discussion: issue is hardship on property to justify any variance, this lot is oversized for the area both wider and longer; there is a slope on the site but not enough to create a 1,500 SF basement, substantial dirt must be moved to do that, could put a half story at rear within slope on lot; too much building for site. C. Deal noted that he feels that given the discussion the project can be denied because there are insufiicient findings for the 3 story variance, therefore he will withdraw his motion. The second agreed. -2- CITY C'F BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA October 23, 1995 C. Deal then moved to deny the project for excessive height finding, as noted before, no exceptional circumstances exist on the site to justify the height exception and the structure could be designed within the development envelope. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Commission voted to approve the motion 5-1-1 (C. Jacobs dissenting and C. Mink abstaining) roll call vote. Applicant was informed of his right to an appeal before the close of the council meeting on November 6, 1995. 5. EXCEPTION F A 50'-0" FLA OLE AT 1760 LINS ROAD, ZOr ROAD PART RSHIP PROPE Y OWNER A EE'S CANDIES I Reference s report, 10.23.95 with attachments. Monroe discussed �t request, Departme comments. Thr conditions were ggested for consider 'on. M-1 (1760 ROLLlNS criteria, Planning Ther as a discussio f the height of oth very tall poles. The o cited at Radi n and Anza Airport parkin�- pre ate current city egulations. / Chm. Jacobs ened the public h ring. Roger Stern, 4 Allerton, So an Francisco was prese to answer questions. he other cement v' ible was poured for ' ht standards. here were no other c ments and the public h 'ng was closed. C. alligan noted the f dings and conditions ' dicating this ole is consistent with ag poles and pole signs in is location and the are no public healt or safety iss s. He then moved proval of this sign exception application for the ole and flags with th ollowing co itions; 1) that the pr 'ect shall be built as shown on the plans submitted o the Planning Dep ment and d stamped Septembe 2, 1995 Site Plan (11" X 17") and Elevations o ag Pole (11" X 17") ith two flag ot to exceed 8' X 1 ; 2) that the wind and seismic loads with foundatio etails for the flag p shall be rev' wed and approved the building Department before a building permit ' issued; and 3) that e project sha meet all Uniform B' ding and Uniform Fire Code requirem s as am ded by the City. Motion was second�d'by C. Ellis �rid passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were acy�ised. 6. PARKI VARIANCE R NUMBER OF FO ILDREN AT O1 CALIFORNIA I LS FOR A DANCE/GYMNASTI /MUSIC ACADEMY , ZONED C-2 (W.J. BRITTO AND CO., PROPERTY Ref�erence staff re rt, 10.2�3.95, with att ments. CP Monroe discussed the equest, reviewed criteria, Planning De artment c ments. Ei ht conditio s were suggested for consideratio Cha m.�cobs opened the public earing. Amanda Blue, 2521 H ward Drive, was present to explain her �I'ication. She agreed it wou be possible to delete the Califor ia Drive entrance to discourage drop off and pick up on California Drive. here were no public comments i support of this application. Harold Coffee, 25 -3- CITY OF B URLINGAME VARIANCE Variance for 3 Floors and Declining Height Envelope Address: 1480 Alvarado Avenue Item# 4 Meeting Date: 10-23-95 Request: Variance for three floors where 21h floors is the maximum allowable (C.S. 25.28.070) and a variance for declining height envelope (C.S. 25.28.075, 2) at 1480 Alvarado Avenue, zoned R-1. Applicant: Gary Sayed APN: 027-182-430 Property Owner: Gary Sayed Lot Dimensions and Area: 55' X 122' = 6,710 SF General Plan: Single Family Residential Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(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 requesting variances for three floors at the rear of the property (2'/z stories allowed) and a declining height envelope exception. The applicant is building a new single family dwelling with 3 bedrooms, 3'/z bathrooms, kitchen, dining room, living room, game room and two car garage. The new house has two floors and a basement and sits on a significant slope. The basement is counted as a story (C.S. 25.08.120) for height measurement. The rear portion of the house over the garage creates three stories which requires a variance. The basement area does not count in floor area ratio because its walls are less than fifty percent above grade and it is deiined as a basement under the Uniform Building Code. The architect states in the application materials that the three story area at the back of the new house is unavoidable because of the 19'-0" change in slope from front to back of the lot. Instead of putting the house on pillars or enclosing the empty space below the main living area, the architect has used that area to place the garage at the back of the house. A variance to declining height envelope is required for a 20 SF interior portion of the stairwell tower. There is one main stairway serving all three levels of the proposed single family dwelling. An extension to the top of the stair has been added as an architectural feature and has a windows to allow additional light to reach all floors. The upper most section of this tower with three windows at the roof line encroaches into the required declining height envelope. The architect states in the application materials he believes the portion of the stairwell tower which encroaches into the declining height envelope, meets the intent of the code as a window enclosure because it is under 35 SF and has windows. PROPOSED Front Stbk (lst): 15'-6" (2nd): 20'-0" Side Stbk (L): 6'-0" Side Stbk (R): 6'-0" ALLOWED/REQ'D average 20'-0" 6'-0" 9'-6" 1 VARIANCES Rear Stbk (lst): (2nd): Lot Coverage: FAR: Height: # of Stories * Decl. Ht.: ** Parking: PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQD 35'-0" 15'-0" 35'-0" 20'-0" 34 % 40 % .49 .54 29'-0" 30'-0" 3 2'/2 encroachment by stairwell tower 2 cov'd 2 cov'd 1 uncov'd 1 uncov'd 1480 ALVARADO AVENUE Meets all other zoning code requirements. * Variance for 3 floors where 2'h are the maximum allowed ** Variance for encroachment into declining height envelope of stairwell tower Staff comments: The Chief Building Official, City Engineer and Fire Marshall had no comments. Planning staff would note that the code deiinition of a window enclosure (C.S. 25.08.668) for the calculating declining height envelope is " an architectural feature such as a dormer speciiically designed to house and be dominated by a window". Study Meeting: At the October 10, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting the Planning Commissioners had several questions (P.C. Minutes October 10, 1995). The architect has re- addressed the hardship for the variances in his response letter dated October 13, 1995 and discusses his rationale for using the new grade elevations when designing the house. The plans submitted with this staff report and date stamped October 16, 1995 demonstrate the existing grade changes, proposed grade 5'-0" away from the face of building and slope of driveway. The FAR would be .80 (5402.5 SF) if the basement area were included in the required floor area ratio calculation, where .54 (3647.2 SF) is the maximum allowed. The architect has broken down the square footage of each floor on page 4 of his response letter. The architect also states that his clients intend to live in this house and raise a family here in Burlingame. The plans show a chimney and eaves extending outside of the declining height envelope as well as the stairwell tower. The chimney and eaves are exempt from declining height envelope under code section 25.28.075,1 and the applicant is requesting a variance for the stairwell tower. Planning Staff would note that the elevations shown on Sheet A-3 of the October 16, 1995 plans indicate that the existing grade, at worst case, is 8'-0" lower than the finished grade along the North Elevation and 4'-0" lower, at best case, along the South Elevation. The architect used the existing grade elevations to determine the required declining height envelope for the proposed house, therefore the declining height envelope encroachment would not change. However, by using the existing elevations the basement area would no longer qualify as a basement under the Uniform Building Code and that area would be required to be counted in the F.A.R. calculation as well as in the overall number of stories. A variance for three stories would still be required but a variance for FAR over .54 (3,647 SF) would also be required. Proposed house is 1,755 SF over the maximum square footage allowed for FAR when the basement is counted. 2 VARIANCES 1480 ALVARADO AVENUE Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must iind 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; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Action should be taken by resolution and should include findings made for the variance requested. Reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. 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 and date stamped October 16, 1995, Sheets A-0, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and Site Survey; 2. that the encroachment of the stairwell tower into the required declining height envelope shall not exceed 20 SF (interior area) and shall not contain more than 3 windows facing the side property line; and 3. that all construction shall meet the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City. Leah Dreger Planner c: Gary Sayed, owner Marty Zwick and Associates, architect 3 MINUTES CITY UF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1995 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Tuesday, October 10, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan (7:35 p.m.), Jacobs, Mink and Wellford Absent: Commissioner Ellis and Key Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; and Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the September 26, 1995 Planning Commission meeting were amended to read "Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Engineer �, Frank Erbacher; and Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall" . The minutes were then approved as amended. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was amended to move Item #8, Parking Variance at 1215 California, zoned C-2, and Special Permit for parking area in the R-3 zone at 1109 Rhinette Avenue to the last item on the agenda. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. VARIANCES FOR THREE STORIES AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 1480 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (GARY SAYED, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Requests: review and expand variance requirements for height, what is the hardship; what is FAR including the basement; show existing grade at face of the building; show new grade at 5' away from face of building; show slope of driveway; show slope of the lot from front to rear of house (corners) itself; do they intend to live in the house or is it a spec house; address argument altering natural grade then using that altered grade as the basis for an exception to the building code circumventing FAR requirement; comment on code exceptions for portions of structure outside declining height envelope; show SF of all floors. If all information is complete, item set for October 23, 1995. -1- � Marty Zwick & Associates Architecture - Interior Design 10 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 415-546-0505 October 13,1995 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Proposed house at 1480 Alvarado. Dear Planning Commissioner, ��P""�T ��_ �w� �� N.__ J OCT 1 6 1995 CITY OF BUFtLIr�iafi,ME PLANNING DEPT. We received your comments from the project review meeting on October 10,1995. In response we have developed the following information. For clarity each question has been repeated in boldface type followed by our response in plain type. Additionally, we've provided some background information that may assist you in understanding how the design has evolved to its current configuration. Following the project history are our specific responses to your comments. PROJECT HISTORY Gary and Lisa Sayed recently purchased the lot at 1480 Alvarado with the intent of building their personal residence. The lot became available because a fire destroyed the previous house on the lot. After reading the planning code and meeting with staff, we developed an initial design for the house. We resolved the parking requirement by placing a two car garage at the front of the lot. In discussions with my client and with the neighbors most effected by the project, everyone agreed that this resulted in a front facade dominated by garage doors and scaled to accommodate vehicles rather than people. (See attached sketch). During a discussion with one of the neighbors across the street, the neighbor mentioned that the previous (burned) residence had its garage located under the house. Emulating this approach offered several benefits, including a full front porch, a front facade scaled to people rather than vehicles and increasing the light and air to the Evans' house to the south. T'his last point is important because the north side of the Giannini house has less fenestration than the south side of the Evans' house. By placing the drive way along the south facade we were able to increase the distance beyond the required setbacks and let in more light and air to the north face of the Evans' house. Despite the benefits of this approach, this configuration exceeded the planning department's definition of a two and one half story structure. This in tum, required us to seek your approval of a three story structure where two and one/half are permitted by code. We understand that if we were to leave the garage open (like a carport) we could have avoided the need for this variance. However, both the neighbors and our client would prefer to enclose this space so that the cars can be stored unseen. Additionally, we have provided a trellis to further screen the garage doors from the neighbors. Finally, in an effort to work within the concerns of the neighborhood, we have met to review our proposal with neighbors on either side of the lot. The neighbors approve of the design, and have written letters in support of the project. We understand that other variances of a similar nature have been approved for projects in this area. For example, at 1412 Alvarado a similar variance was approved for a three story structure where two and one half are permitted. In the staff report for this project, it was noted that by not enclosing the lowest level the applicant could have avoided requesting a variance. At 1412 Alvarado it was decided that the benefits of enclosing the space were a net benefit to the community. We hope that you will reach a similar decision in this case. 1. Is there a hardship for the stair tower? The basis of our asking for a variance for a porHon of the stair tower lies in the interpretation of the exception to the declining height envelope for window enclosures (2528.075 - 2). As we understand it, this exception was includecl in the code to encourage designers to break up roof and wall planes and by so doing create visual interest and reduce the apparent bulk and mass of a given project. Section 25.08.668, the definition of window enclosurel, both implies ( as stated in the staff report) a single window ("dominated by a window") and some latitude in what the enclosure should look like ("such as a dormer"). Rather than trying to follow the planning code definition word for word, we are trying to comply with its intended meaning. In doing so, we have included a tower, of which only a part extends past the envelope. The profile of this portion of the tower is similar to that provided by a window dormer. In this instance, we have used multiple windows in place of the single window implied by the code. We feel the mulriple windows are more in keeping with the style of the house. The glazing on a single window dormer occupies roughly 30 to 40 percent of the face of a typical dormer. In this instance, we have provided a similar amount of glazing but divided it differently. We recognize that the purpose of the declining height envelope was intended to increase the amount of natural light to the side yards between houses. We understand that the exception for window enclosures was intentionally limited so that adequate light and air would be provided to adjacent structures. We believe that our design meets those intentions by allowing more than code mandated side yard distance (by placing the driveway between the houses) from the neighboring house, and by having the stairwell tower break-up the massing of the wall and roof planes along the south side of the house. � 25.08.668 Window enclosure. "Window enclosure" is an architectural feature such as a dormer specifically designed to house and be dominated by a window. R � �� OCT 1 6 1995 CITY C3F Eiv1?Ll�t;;H��-;� PLANiViNU D�PT. 2. What is the FAR for the building if the basement is included? T'he current FAR is 32% with an allotment of 1,500 sf for non-corner lots: 55' x 122' = 6710 sf x.32 = 2,147.2 + 1,500 S.F. = 3,639.5 sf Add Basement: Total FAR if Basement is included: 3. What are the existing grades along the edge of the proposed house? 1,763.0 sf 5,402.5 sf The exterior elevations on sheet A-3 have been revised and now indicate the existing grade at the face of the building with a dotted line. 4. Where is the new grade five feet away form the edge of the house? The exterior elevations on sheet A-3 have been revised and now indicate the finish grade five feet from the building with a dotted line. 5. What is the slope of the driveway? T'he driveway is sloped at 13.7%, which is less than the 15% maximum allowed by the Planning Code without special permission. 6. What are the existing grades at the corners of the house? T'he elevations on sheet A-3 have been revised and now call-out the existing grade elevations (from sea level) at the four primary corners of the building. 7. Do the owners plan to live in the house or is it being developed for speculation? The owners, Gary and Lisa Sayed want to move to Burlingame and make the proposed house their home. Both of our clients were raised in Burlingame, attended Burlingame Intermediate and Mills High School, and srill have family and friends living in the neighborhood. Currently, they are expecting their first child and are eager to move into their new home. 'RC�� 3 OCT 1 6 1995 CIiY UF BUftLIC�.S:�E',ivlE PLANNi�!G DEPT. 8. Justify the alteration of the existing grade. Item 25.08.265 of the planning code exempts basements from being counted in the floor area ratio calculation. We understand that this exemption was intended to encourage architects to locate components of the house below grade in order to minimize the visual impacts of the bulk and mass. We believe that the visual impact of the basement has been minimized by our grading design. The two areas where this impact is greatest is at the north and south sides of the property. We have met with both of those neighbors, and have received their support for our design (see attached letters). 9. What are the Planning Code allowances for extending past the declining height envelope? Section 25.28.075 of the planning code allows certain items to be exempt from the declining height envelope. Exception 1 allows chimneys, eaves up to two feet in length, and gable roofs without windows to extend past the Declining Height Envelope. In our case, we have a chimney with a gable roof without windows and eaves less than two feet in length extending past the established limit. These are indicated on the east and west elevations on sheet A-3. Exception 2 is the allowance for window enclosures and is discussed in our answer to question one above. 10. Provide an area breakdown of all floors. Basement Level: Interior Area: Garage: First Floor: Interior Area: Porches /Patios: Second Floor: Interior Area: Covered Deck Stair >12' High: Total First and Second Floors: Minus 100 sf allowance for outdoor decks Calculated FAR: 1,290.00 sf 473.00 sf 1,763.00 sf 1,830.25 sf 380.25 sf 2,210.50 sf 1,29225 sf 136.75 sf 100.00 sf 1,529.00 sf 3,739.50 sf 3,639.50 sf I hope the answers we've provided help clarify our intentions for the project on Alvarado Avenue. If we have not answered the questions to your satisfaction, please call me before the next meeting so that we can provide you with any information you require. � F��'h�:�'��i 4 OCT 1 6 19�5 Ci�iY' C,F EiU9�l_I,,��:::i��,nE. PLAiVI�iNG ��.�'�• �� . 7� � � � � � P� - -- � MARTY ZWICK AND ASSOCIATES ]0 HAWTHORNE STREET SAN FItANCISCO, CA 94105 415 5�16-0505 • . . . ... ��-�� A� w r �� ..� ��' �� OCT 1 6 1995 Sayed Residence Preliminary Elevation i / a"=i'-o" COPYRIGHT 0 1995 �ITY G� i L'�Ri_�i•!�=,;',`�,�� PLANP�ifVU DEPT. The following writing has been transcribed from a letter by Mr and Mrs. Giannini about Mr. Gary Sayed and his proposed house. To whom it may concern, My husband and I saw the plans for Gary Sayed's house. We approve of the plans. We met with him and his architect and are looking forward to having new neighbors. Sincerely, Marino and Pera Giannini 2723 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA. 94010 � � rt �'� ��.. �' �� 0 C T 1 6 1995 CIfY GF �URLsn��,ur�E PLANiy1NG C7EPT. 2 � , ; �p (��'�irZ�i'i'L � i��Y�ii�fif/, / Q -- - �i�� i�`Z�� i:�4%f/{i � �' " �' /p� � . _�� ( / ��X _ _. . �_��.� � � /��L�-iZ- �^� � _� ..� � ' ' �� __ _ . _. _ - _ _ . �� : � ��3 - � ' � r� ��o�a i - R��/�� 0 C T 1 6 1995 CIT'Y OF E3URLINGhi�� PLANNING DEPI-. I The following writing has been transcribed from a letter by Mr. K. R. Evans to Mr. Gary Sayed. Mr. Gary Sayed Thanks for bringing the house plans for others and us to see. Mr Zwick has done much work and he was waiting to answer any question. The plans do indicate that a house built from them will be asset to the area. Truely Mrs Evans and I are truely greatful for your effort to contact us and we heartedly welcome you as our new neighbors. As the daughter Jill said "I think you lucked out." Again we welcome your family - the little one will give new life to the Avenue. Sincerely K. Rex Evans �� : �_ � � . � 4�' �.a �� 0 C T 1 6 1995 C��'i �1' i�F= BURLI�fGHiV(� PLHt�NING DEPT. 1 �/�/�_s � %1��; ,�u� �;�J� d r'_' �,,, .�-�.�-�= �e.,w•.� �� ^ �C1..,.�.�.-� . �/-z..q..Z �.3 ,�,� � � �".tH f`� .dc� , �r*,,, +L,.r� .!�"�� o�� j'�'�'`'`'`� �� G�..�.�.� ' • � r�-.�-- � ^ ` �.s,� � •��-_•<.-=..�z ,�r'^-t�-�' �� .�� -�'�P'�-` �.�.�;t� a.� �.�f' . .�: � a.�-� , � � . �� `�"�' � � � �� .� �� 2�� - 3�-� . �� - ��.�� < < +� ��;.�.� �..�. °�' , , :'`..o� r,�-e y�.�.�" �� v�a'°'.-v �-�v � ��, ,.��c� l �"-� �a� �y�-� � ^ , � '��Y ' � � -� . h� �;�- � 1ls. fC. R. Evaas 1476 Alvarado Avt bvrliagaaa, G 94020 � ��' OCT 1 6 1995 +:_',' , i)P= Ei�KLiIVC;�11V1E PLAIVNIhIC �JEF'T. i4T` CIT � � DURUN4AMi, CITY OF BURLINGAME �APPLICATION TO TI� PLA►NNING CONIMISSION •b. Type of Application: Special Permit i� Variance Other R E C E I�� Proj ect Address: l�' 8 � � L�� R-� D b � U�. S E P 01 1995 CITY Or BURLINUAME Assessor's Parcel Number(s): � z 7( SZ- 3� P�1�Nr��N� �,.�� APPLICANT o�N � Name: �N( �- /-1 S Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): PROPERTY OWNER Name: ��lI�..Y �--�Y.� � Address: Z�%? l—a �K l� ST City/State/zip: S� � C� • �`}" � o q Phone (w): �"1 � �i'87 — 33 3 3 (h): fax: ARCHITECT/ ESIGNER :� Name: M A R 7`( �.w i� K �Z A sSoGI A?�S Address: ( b �'i A wTN ��2N� City/State/Zip: 5 � �• �4 • 94105 PiiOriG �wj: �1 Cj 5�/(p -bT�bS �h�: _. fax: �f �� 5'f �— 1 o z g �): --- fax: �'I 5- � S� 2� I 3 Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. PROJECT DESCRIP'rION: fi��n! �s� 1��t�l��H— i'� aM E�T Si T�. �� P�-r��+ous�Y gv2nl�D I-�ous�. �t� ('r�4•�rvi�.IC-� �L�E. t�42�t��lr�1TS }�A�l� �t�l i`l.� �XCF-f''T-` �OiZ f� 3-SToQY �(.�V,�IT/�ohJ-�a2 wf�14� -r4 �}j21�/1k.� 1 S Q.�►N �..t �D . AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: reby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to est of my ge and belief ,� �� A�Ican�'s Signature Date I know about the pro s cation and hereby authorize th a ve applicant to submit this application to the Plannin ission. � d Pro rt Owner's Signatu Dat ---------------------------- --- ------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ------------------------------------------ Date Filed:_ 9/�/`j' 07 / (� �... Fee: `-- Planning Commission: Study Date: � rd 9 Action Date: �b � 3 5� � �, c�T. �1 �t BURLINGAME ;� . "F� 4 C;IT`,� �i)F E:�U�L_If��!(;f��P�:1E `.� f�a�lf��f��:�_;E f��F'F''LI(:f��T I��)f��`� RE��IVEI� S E P 01 1995 CITY Ut� BURLINUAME The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by t�i�� r8�nance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d1. Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary ci�cumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. � �� -�-� � I��- �. �fl fZ ��-sf°o�l S � S -� �c�- �2 v�5-r � oN `J z� N, TF-� � s S 1-E �� b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessaiy for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or con venience. � 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 12/92 vx.frm a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. Do any conditions exist on ihe site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are aiso not common to other properties in the area7 For example, is there a creek cuttinfl throuph the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existin� structures7 How is this properry different from others in the nei�hborhood7 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 exception7 (i.e., havin� as much on-site parkin� or bedroomsl) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception7 Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the propertyl c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ oi fnjurious 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 nei�hborin� properties or structu�es on those properties7 If neiflhboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, liphtin�, pavinfl, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighborin� properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or fleneral welfare? Public hea/th includes such things as sanitation (garbaflel, air quality, discharpes into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underpround storaDe tanks, storafle of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protectionl wll alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? 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 weldin�, woodwork, enpine removal). �eneral we/fare is a catch-all ph�ase meanin� community �ood. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and developmentl Is there a social benefitl Gonvenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)7 Is the proposal accessible to particular sepments 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 existin� neighborhood7 If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition desipned to match existin� architecture or patte�n of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 If use will affect the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to neighborin� structures in terms of mass or bulkt If there is no chanpe to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the 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 use? If you don't feel the character of the neiphborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the peneral 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. ,sros�r.r,,,, REC�I��C� � Marty Zwick & Associates Architecture - Interior Design 10 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 415-546-0505 September 22, 1995 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Variance Application for 1480 Alvarado Planning Commission, SEP 2 7 1995 CITY OF BURLINGtiME PLANNING DEPT. The following answers are in reference to a variance application to allow a portion of the new residence planned at 1480 Alvarado to exceed the two and a half story limit, and for a pordon of the stairwell roof to extend out past the declining height envelope. a.) Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in the area. The proposed residence which is to be built on the site of a house destroyed by fire, will be located on a lot which slopes 19'-0" toward the rear. The design for the project was developed to provide a street elevation similar in scale and detail to the neighboring houses. Further, the residence was designed to tuck the garage under the house in the area created by the slope, eliminating the garage doors from the front elevation. As illustrated in the design drawings, the majority of the perimeter wall at the lower level is exposed less than six feet. Therefore, this level qualifies as a basement rather than a story under the Uniform Building Code definition and, according to the Planning Code, is not included in the FAR calculation. By filling the cut soil around the basement level, the area where the exterior appears as "three stories," is only the 22'-0" width of the garage at the doors, and at a small portion of the opposite wall. One of our intentions during design was to maintain the two story facade at the street elevation. The majority of the other homes in the area are configured in this manner and this approach would maintain the tradition. When extending the house toward the back of the lot, the slope of the site makes the rear elevation three-stories - regardless of what the space below is used for. Typically, the space below is left open, exposing the underside of the house, or is framed-in and covered with siding. Either way, the exterior elevation is increased visually by one story. In our design, we believe that we have minimized this third-story effect by placing the majority below grade, thus creating a basement. As mentioned above, the only area appearing as three stories is at the width of the garage. In addition, the visual impact has been softened by locating a trellis for plants over a portion of the parking court. In regards to the stairwell roof, the portion which extends past the declining height envelope meets a basic interpretation of the Window Enclosure exception allowed by the Planning Code. The reason we seek a variance on this issue is because the Planning DepartmenYs interpretation differs from ours and that they have ruled that our application does not comply. According to page 362-12 of the Planning Code, a window enclosure is defined as a being "an architectural feature such as a dormer specifically designed to house and be dominated by a window." On page 362-24, exceplaon 2 also limits the floor area of the enclosure to 35 square feet. in our case, the stairwell roof tower is an architectural feature, is dominated by windows (three smaller omamental windows where it exceeds the envelope) and is less than 35 square feet in floor area where it exceeds the envelope. The main difference is that the portion that extends past the declining height envelope is part of the larger stairwell tower roof rather than being a dormer extending out from a main roof. The profile, or section that extends past the declining height envelope, matches the profile of an excepted dormer. b.) Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application The location of the garage in the basement area allows the first floor to be completely dedicated to living spaces. Further, by locating the garage under the first floor which is level with the street, it eliminates the additional footprint area that would be caused by locating the garage at street level. In regards to space configuration, the property owner feels that splitting the functaons on the first story or the second story onto multiple levels would create an unreasonable floor plan scheme. Semi-public areas, such as the living room, kitchen, and dining room are all located on the first floor and the private bedroom areas are all located on the second floor. A variance for the declining height envelope is important because it will allow the stairwell roof to remain as an intended element of the design. T'he property owner asked that the house be designed in the Califomia Mission Style. Small towers such as the one implemented at the stairwell is an important element of that style, and adds to the building's identity. 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, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The location of the garage under the house towards the rear of the lot does not appear to have any detrimental effects. Instances where garages are located toward the rear of the house can be seen in many communities throughout the Bay Area. Further, by locating the garage away form the front facade, it allows the building facade to be narrower and similar in profile to the existing neighborhood fabric This configuration also eliminates the need for the building owner to back out into the street to leave his garage and reduces the possibility of car maintenance occurring in the front yard by providing a courtyard at the side in which these activities can occur. The reduction of natural light is the primary concem in regards to the extension past the declining height envelope. Because the profile of the stairwell roof is similar to dormers which are allowed by the Planning Code, the impact of the roof extension is acceptable. Also, because the roof protrusion occurs on the driveway side of the house where the distance between the two adjacent houses is greatest, more natural light is able to reach the area which the declining height envelope is intended to serve. RE��.I�'�� 2 SEP 2 7 1995 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DFPT. d.) How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass , bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? 'The proposed residence is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood in that the front facade features the entry into the home, as opposed to featuring a facade dominated by garage doors. The project is within the 30'-0"" height limit and is provided with a low pitched roof to allow the structure to blend in with the adjoining properties. The "three story" element has been softened by locating a trellis for plants over a portion of the area. We feel that providing a solid wall surface and garage doors is more aesthetically in keeping with the character of the street. While legal per the Planning Code definitions, the alternative of locating the house on a platform of open piers, exposing the underside of the structure and exposing the covered parking tucked underneath, would create a visually disturbing presence and not blend with the existing residential character. The stairwell tower, which lends itself to the Mission Style, is compatible to the character of the neighborhood. Other nearby homes designed in the same style have similar features which help define that character. I hope our responses to your questions are sufficient enough so that you may determine whether or not the variance shall be granted. If you need any additional information, please let me know. Since ely, ,� -��-_. ,�� / ; ,; � 1�Iarty Zwick Principal ��V�I V ��.�<� SEP 2 7 1995 CITY UF BURUPJ!aF',ML PLANfVING 1�FPT. 3 �rom : HOMEOWNEP.S FINFiNCE CENTEP. PHONE No. : 415 861 2175 Rug.31 1995 11:09PM P01 5�r-�1--1�� 10'la i�CILL' IalEl t -Rfal••II�,EF-F�&C 0 ]oaepbA• A�ho t480 AlvarRdo Drlva 13urlitt�eme, CA hb410 City Einll Cily uCBuilingnina Pi�nnin� DbPar�ment SU l k'rimrord iZflad Burlingtullv. GA 4�1O10 Yto: permit fvc 1480 Alvarndo Dcivo; �3urlin�Ymo, CA 9rt01� d�5 �73 41E6 N.�1�01 �� S E P O 1 1995 CI1"Y OF BURLINGAIi-1E PLAhR�!NG pE��'T. ; 't'0 �Nhnm lt May Cut1C�Icl; Thia lcitcr ia n:�u�ing the nbova inetsti0nod propccty wnd 'a to �n�orm you tluat [ k�ave sutlivrir.cc! Mr. Gary N Say�d to procccd witii thn perniit proceea to rocoivo approv�l to Coaattuct his new homcs. !'itaye be �wxre chac tho cio�i�� f e�oro�v hnd to btl ��acheduled %r the week oi Septembc� a, t�s. We havc juac rcccival cho lnat "fina!" from the decnolirion oftl�e pcevious home yesre+•clay (Auaust 30, 1995), Iiowcvcr, thc 3cndcr haa rdJcxw tho loan documet+cs to �etlact ttut new c[osing date. Ptex.�c bC�iu tht roviow proc�8s of the en.oloead plans to avo�d furcher detay. Should yvu 1lttve any c�uC�tiona ot c��ocrns planee a►1( �tiS-945-011'�. Tlte�tic you in advAil�e for yvuc I�moly aasiatlaseo ie� t�i� m9tttec. r , �� . �vstph D. �ahe � �I.......i�..,_ ... _� �.... w.� . ..... -...ti i r v-f.arJ1 ��a.N�.li J C1d.Mf17f.tI�U • 1L01J TQ?A� P.07. t � � I � �: ' � � . , _ , , , e ��-.- � -' , � . .+ � i .�9 , y��'_ i. y• ` { i� � 1 .� � � _ � , �: � � - ,; .,:; . �' ''� � . �`� r ` � q / . .�,� �, �:,,: � . / � � . �= � � G � I �. I �h � .l�: /w� �/ _ ?h � � � � ' � _ . . � ' . ' . . " . b' � ��n[* �� 1... �` I '�J � , k `� � � � ��'t ■�� .� _ �.: _ L°� , � �� :�- � ��*� �� , ar�� ` '�`' � � T: ' `�� } - . - _ �'''� � �` ` � � s� �• � � ' ,,, s �.. . ' ` -N y � � � �� ,:� ��1 ' ` ., � � �' ` , ` �. ,' i D � . � ' `� �. ; � _ ;� ��'g � -� � .• . ` � 1� S � � � . . t r►J� _ 1�'� � . � �p�t�► � �;� ��, ��6 � ��. J � ,�.: �� ; `, ; , '��;� � � t�' . � Y �' ' } �, � � . .� �►�• ��. �� + 1 1. . � � . . .. � ' / � �OO - y .r - ..,{,..- �. � � :`�, • � � / f � _ � � p,v� �. , �� _��r _ . �} ,, � �� ` F . }� �. '� F � ` � � t 1 � � i's ., �� 1' .a � 4 � , t � ';"r ; :; �' �� 7 A . � �.¢ �� i '1 . ,R u w • �� a � ,;� '� - rt . � f' 'i � G- r r� V • .�` . �� ,��J . . '. ,i � �� • • ;tl �A`W�« � . � ��w � � � t + � ' � � �`� = ` 1 � `' �' � �t.: �f " � �,r �; a.. '� - ,r _ �, . � , *� ,, ` f£y. � °� _. . � A fJ --.� . V t� :q r�. � R r, � � _ . . � � �y. �;-• � T.� �. � l '.��_♦ ' . �, y� i . .rr � � �`t i � "'��•., � � r �.�' . � , � t I � ` - 3:c. . t 4 � j �. .0 l� � , , II .` �� ■ CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRLINGAME� CA 94010 (415) 696-7250 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 1480 ALVARADO AVENUE APN: 027-182-430 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR 3 STORIES AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1480 ALVARADO AVENIIE, ZONED R-1. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. The property owner who receives this notice is responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. Please post this notice in a public place on your property. Thank you MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER OCTOBER 13l 1995 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a variance for three floors where 21/z floors is the maximum allowable (C.S. 25.28.070) at 1480 Alvarado Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 027-182-430 ;�roperty owner: Gary Sayed, 1480 Alvarado Avenue ; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 23, 1995 , 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: l.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 Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(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 is hereby approved. 2.Said variance is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variance 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, Karen Kev , 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 23rd day of October , 1995 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and variance 1480 ALVARADO AVENUE effective NOVEMBER 6, 1995 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 16, 1995, Sheets A-0, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and Site Survey; 2. that the encroachment of the stairwell tower into the required declining height envelope shall not exceed 20 SF (interior area) and shall not contain more than 3 windows facing the side property line; and 3. that all construction shall meet the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City. CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIlVIROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (41� 696-7250 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COiJNCIL announces the following public hearing on MONDAY. DECEMBER 4, 1995 , at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the City Clerk's Office or Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 1480 ALVARADO AVENUE APN: 027-182-430 AN APPEAL ON AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR 3 STORIES AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1480 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. The property owner who receives this notice is responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. Please post this notice in a public place on your property. Thank you JUDITH A. MALFATTI CITY CLERK Friday, November 24, 1995 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND VARIANCE RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a variance for _three floors where 21/z floors is the maximum allowable (C S 25 28 070� at 1480 Alvarado Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 027-182-430 ; property owner: Gary Sayed 1480 Alvarado Avenue ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on 23rd day of October , 1995 , at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on December 4, 1995 , 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 hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: l. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, 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 Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(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 is hereby approved. 2. Said variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variance 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. MAYOR I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of December , 1995 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and variance 1480 ALVARADO AVENUE effective DECEMBER 4, 1995 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 16, 1995, Sheets A-0, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and Site Survey; 2. that the encroachment of the stairwell tower into the required declining height envelope shall not exceed 20 SF (interior area) and shall not contain more than 3 windows facing the side property line; and 3. that all construction shall meet the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City.