Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1228 Bernal Avenue - Staff Report (2)City of Burlingame Design Review Amendment and F.A.R. Variance Item # 3 Action Calendar Address: 1228 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: 1/22/O1 Request: Design review amendment and an F.A.R. variance for a new, two-story single family residence with a detached garage at 1228 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.57.010 and 25.54.020). Applicants and Property Owners: James and Michelle Delia Designer: J D& Associates APN: 026-172-240 Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303- Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. Summary: The applicant was granted an approval by the Planning Commission for a design review permit and a special permit for declining height envelope on October 23, 2000 (see10/23/00 PC minutes). The applicant has submitted several changes to the approved design for the single-family residence and detached garage. The applicant proposes raising the ceiling height on the second floor in Bedroom #1 from 8'-0" to 14'-6" to create a loft. The proposed change does not raise the plate height or roof height, or alter the building envelope approved on 10/23/00. However, open spaces within a dwelling which are higher than 12'-0" are counted twice towards floor area. Therefore the raised ceiling height would add 171 SF of FAR to the proposed house. The useable loft area measures 8 SF. With the loft the house has a total of 3,590 SF of floor area (.60 FAR) where 3,420 SF (.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The 10/23/00 approval was for 3,419 (.57 FAR). The proposed change requires an FAR variance. The applicant also proposes to alter the approved detached garage. When the project was initially brought before the Planning Commission for design review study on 10/10/00, the west elevation of the detached garage was designed with a 1'-4" eave and the east elevation (the elevation abutting the side property line) was designed with a 1'-4" barge rafter and no eave. The garage was located 1'-6" from the side property line. In their review, the Planning Commission requested the eaves on the garage be extended to blend with the eaves shown on the house and recommended that the project be placed on the consent calendar (see10/10/00 PC minutes). The applicant redesigned the garage, so that both the west and east elevations had matching eaves, and moved it over (3'-0" side setback). The Building Department requires that eaves must be at least 2'-0" from any property line. The Planning Commission approved this design with the relocated garage on the consent calendar of their 10/23/00 meeting. The applicant believes that the changes regarding the garage eaves that Planning Commission requested during the10/10/0 design review study session referred to extending the eaves on the front elevation of the garage. Despite the previous submittal with a relocated garage, the applicant does not want to lose the backyard spaee required to accommodate the approved garage with eaves. The applicant has revised the garage design again so that it now matches the original garage design seen by the Commission at their 10/10/00 meeting. It has an eave at the west elevation and a barge rafter only on the east elevation. FAR Variance and Design Review Amendment 1228 Bernal Avene The currently proposed garage is located with a 1'-6" setback to the side property line and an overhang at the front of the garage which now measures 1'-6", instead of 1'-4". This revision requires an amendment to the approved design review permit granted on 10/23/00. All other zoning code requirements have been met. Staff Comments: Sce attached. Staff would note that the comment from Building Offcial regarding roof projections does not apply to the barge rafter on the east elevation of the revised garage plan. PROPOSED APPROVED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (Ist flr): no change (19'-8") 19'-8" 19'-8" is block average (2nd flr): no change (23'-1 ") n/a 20'-0" Side (right): no change (13'-2") 11'-0" 4'-0" (left): no change (4'-0") 4'-9" 4'-0" Rear (lst flr): no change (46'-0") 45'-0" 15'-0" (2nd flr): no change (41'-0") n/a 20'-0" Lot Coverage: no change (2,241 SF) 2,016 SF 2,400 SF no change (37.3 %) 33.6 % 40% FAR: 3,590 SF** 3,419 SF 3,420 SF .60 FAR .57 FAR .57 FAR # of Bedrooms: no change (5) n/a n/a Parki,:g: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered �Zo� X 22�� �Zo� x 22�� �20� X 20�� 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') detached garage with detached garage with one full eave, one barge two full eaves, 3'-0" rafter only, 1'-6" side side setback setback*** Height: no change (29'-10") n/a 30'/2 2 stories DHEnvelope: no change (addition to n/a see code west side requires special permit*) * Special permit required for the portion of the proposed addition at the west side of the dwelling which extends outside the declining height envelope- granted October 23, 2000. 2 FAR Variance and Design Review Amendment 1228 Bernal Avene ** Requires FAR variance. *** Requires an amendment to the design review permit granted October 23, 2000. 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. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings for a Variance: 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include fndings made for the requested variance and amendment to the design review permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 25, 2000, sheets 2 through 4 and L1, date stamped December 15, 2000, sheets 1 and G, and date stamped January 4, 2001 showing a cross section of Bedroom#1; with the proposed detached garage with an eave at the west elevation and a barge rafter only on the east elevation, an overhang at the front of the garage which measures 1'-6", and a side setback of 1'-6"; 2. that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to the permit; 3 Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope 1228 Bernal Avenue 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Chief Building Official's September 5, 2000, memos shall be met; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Erika Lewit Zoning Technician c: J D& Associates, designer City of Burlingame Planning Commission minutes Chairman Luzuriag pened the public hearing. F derick Morrell, questions. Com �ssion asked of applicant: a all the skylights ne� plans, windo and E are shown on the cond floor plan, while � on the elev ions window E should act lv be labeled window C.i October 10, 2000 ica and owner, was present to answer �.; it appears there is a mistake on the window E is shown on elevations, and e were no comments from the audience and the blic hearing was closed. Co missioner comment: th e are too many skylights, ese do represent an impact on neig ors because of 'ght glow and the appe nce of the roof, can see e need for the skylight above the isting kitchen but roughout addition li t should be obtained from ditional windows instead of skylig , add windows in the blank walls of the a ition so it will blend with t original house; and the windows o e second floor addition (i.e., C and E) s uld match the existing wi ows on the first floor. C. Vistica ade a motion to continue t project to the November 13, 2000 genda, with the direction that thy applican remove skylights and add indows which match those existi g to the design of the second sto'ry additi . C. Keighran seconded t motion. � C,dmment on the motion: not that the Commission did not addr ss the skylights during the st meeting for �his proj ect; made some su estions for using windows to add li t including: lengthen windo above the toilet, add small window above e vanity, could add windows in cl ets, all these added window will liven up facade of house and improve ccess to natural light in living are . Commissioner Lu riaga called for a voice vote on th otion to continue. The moti n passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Osterling and D al absent) voice vote. This decision is not appealable. The item concluded at 8:36 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1228 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES AND MICHELLE DELIA, APPLICANTS AND PR(1PF.RTY (1WNF.RC• TT� Rr ACC(lC''TATRR T)F.CTC'TNF.RI > > CP Monroe presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Jim Delia, property owner, represented the proj ect noting that their intention was to design a craftsman style house and used an existing house on Cabrillo Avenue as their example. Commissioner asked why chose to use a Doric column on the front porch, would consider another style, stick style- square posts extending from the enclosed porch rail height is typical; also concerned about the overhang on the garage, it needs to get bigger/deeper to match the house better. Should be conditioned accordingly. There were no more comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Vistica moved to put this item on the consent calendar at the meeting of October 23, 2000. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Discussion on the motion: this is a good example of a nice design, what looking for, good craftsman features; conditions need to include real brick for the chimney, and deeper eaves on the garage. Maker and second of motion agreed to add conditions for the consent item. Chairnian Lurzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this on the consent calendar for October 23, 2000, with conditions providing the information on the change in plans is provided to staff in time. The motion � Ciry of Burlingame Planning Commission minutes October 10, 2000 passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal, Osterling absent). Planning Commission action is advisory and is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 8. 1653 LASSEN WAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND-STORY ADDITION (STEVEN LESLEY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, MIKE AND LISA MILLER, PR(IPF.RTY nWNF.R41 CP Monroe presented the project description. Commissioners noted that the FAR numbers on the table in the staff report were reversed. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public com t. Steven Leslie, ar itect, represented the project noting that the request is for a declining height exc ion, not a height excep 'on, feels the overage for declining height is pretty minima122 SF in a triangul rea which is not visible. ommission asked for the reason why the FAR was 50 SF over, what was th ardship on the property; a licant noted did not realize that the area in the dormers would count, coul educe if removed dormers b they are important to design, break up the roof and add light to the attic area. Commission noted that the oor plan could be adjusted to remove 50 SF since there did not appear to be a hardship on the property to jus � y an FAR variance; plans note 12/12 pitch on the dormers but the elevations show them to be flat, prefer st per pitch better design; the second floor roof is clippcd into a hip, this rYray be a place to ask for a decli ' g height exception to complete the a oof design; is the chimney real brick or veneer; brick is prefe ble. There were no other comme om the fl r and the public comment was closed. Commission Discussion: do not see ny exceptional hardships o is lot for an FAR var'ance, design is fine need to increase the pitch on the ro s of the dormers, there is it for the declining hei t exception; feel that there are unresolved issues wit e FAR variance, dormers, tivindow detail. Chairman Luzuriaga move to take this item to action at the November 13, 2000 meeting if the information on the revisions is submitt d in time to staff for plan check and preparation of a st report, the revised drawings should resolve and redu e the FAR, show the 12/12 pitch of the dormer roofs, d information on the windows, note that the chimne will be brick. The motion was seconded by C. Keig n. Comment on the otion: good desigr�'issue is in the detail; seems to ow large expanse of glass without mullions, need t reak up expanse. " Chairman Lu riaga called for voice vote on the motion to set ite to action on November 13, 2000, if the revisions ca be made to the p ns in time for staff to review, notice d prepare report and there is room on the agenda. tion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal and Osterling abse t). The Planning Commission's action is advisory d not appealable. The item concluded at 9:05 p.m. �- ing arrived at 9:06 p.m. and took his seat. 9. 1328 DRAKE AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE, AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR EXISTING SUBSTANDARD COVERED PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION (THOMAS R.B. AND TERRI C. BOESCH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GUMBINGER AC4C1C'TATF4/ARC'HTTFC'T� ARC'NTTFC'Tl -7- .City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 23. 1000 COnsent Caleridal' - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that the commission had received a letter from the applicant for the project at 800 Airport Blvd., item 6c, asking for a continuance to the action calendar at the November 13, 2000, meeting. He asked if anyone in the public or the cammissioners wished to take any other item offtonight's consent calendar. C. Vistica noted that he would like to add a condition to item 6d, 1009 Burlingame Avenue, requiring a masonry wall between this property and the property to the east as discussed at study. C. Deal noted a business relationship with applicants at both 1228 Bernal Road and 1009 Burlingame Avenue; and he would abstain from the vote on each of those items (6a and 6d). 6a. 1228 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES AND MICHELLE DELIA, APPLICANTS AND PR(IPFRTY CIWNFRC� Tl� Rr AC�(1C"TATFC� T�FCTCTNFRI 6b. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 100 & 101 - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 - APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMI"T FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (MICHAEL NILMEYER REPRESENTING CHARLES SCHWAB, APPLICANT; PATSON DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY (IWNFR 1 6c. 800 AIRPORT BOULEVARD - ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LEASE ON-SITE PARKING SPACES (TODD GREEN, 800 AIRPORT PARTNERSHIP, APPLICANT ANT� PR(IPFRTY (IWNFRI This item was continued to the action calendar of the November 13, 2000, Planning Commission at the request of the applicant. 6D. 1009 BURLINGAME AVENUE - ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A PARKING VARIANCE AND FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING VARIANCE FOR A NEW 3-UNIT, '� CT(�RY APARTMFNT RTTTT 1�TNC'T (FRANK PANAC'C'T� APPT iC'ANT ANI� PRl1PRRTY (1WNRR1 C. Bojues moved for approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and each by resolution with the conditions for 1009 Burlingame Avenue amended to read: that the property owner shall provide a masonry wall between his property and the property to the east. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote; 1009 Burlingame Avenue and 1228 Bernal Road passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) voice vote; 1440 Chapin Avenue passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:37 p.m. The commission took a break and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 1228 Bernal Avenue Variance Application Response to Questions a,b,c and d I am asking to raise the ceiling height in my sons bedroom ( bedroom # 1 on plans) in order to create a loft area in his bedroom. The plans were previously approved with a 8 foot ceiling height in this bedroom. We are therefore asking approval to change that previously approved ceiling height in bedroom # 1. a The increased height from a flat ceiling of approximately 8 feet high to a ceiling which is 14'-6" high and follows the roof rafters does not add any bulk to the building. Prom the outside of the building you will not be able to tell that the ceiling has been raised. b The variance is necessary to raise the ceiling in bedroom #1 and will help to create a space for my son which will provide a loft and a sense of adventure. The proposed use is residential and has been approved as not being detrimental to the vicinity. d The p�oposed ceiling height change is not noticeable from the exterior and therefore will not change the aesthetics, mass, bulk or character of the existing or potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. RECEIVED JAN - 4 2001 CITY UF BUkLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION , FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND AMENDMENT TO A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT 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 Floor Area Ratio Variance and an Amendment to a Design Review Permit for a new two-story house at 1228 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. APN: 026-172-240: Jim and Michelle Delia. �roperty owners; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 22, 2001, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORF,, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, per Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said floor area ratio variance and amendment to a design review permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variance and amendment to design review permit are set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Ann Keighran , 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 22nd day of anua , 2 1, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, FAR variance and amendment to design review permit i22H BERNAL AVENUE effective February 5 , 2001 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 25, 2000, sheets 2 through 4 and L1, date stamped December 15, 2000, sheets 1 and G, and date stamped January 4, 2001 showing a cross section of Bedroom#1; with the proposed detached garage with an eave at the west elevation and a barge rafter only on the east elevation, an overhang at the front of the garage which measures 1'-6", and a side setback of 1'-6"; 2. that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to the permit; that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Chief Building Official's September 5, 2000, memos shall be met; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.