HomeMy WebLinkAbout1260 Bernal Avenue - Staff ReportITEM # 2
City of Burlingame
Rear Setback V�rriance arid Desig�t Review for a Secoyid Story Addition
Address: 1260 Bernal Avenue
Meeting Date: 9/14/98
Request: Variance for a rear setback and Design Review for a second story addition with a 13 ft.
rear yard setback where 20 ft. are required.
Applicant: Ken Ibarra
Property Owners: Mr. and Mrs. Richard Medeghini
Lot Area: 5,264 SF
General Pl�n: Medium Density Residential
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
APN: 026-172-340
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 proposes a 1,214 SF second story addition to an existing 2,751 SF
single-story dwelling with 2-bedrooms and 1'/z bathrooms, located on a corner lot at 1260 Bernal
Avenue at Easton Avenue, zoned R-1. The project requires a variance because the second story
would have a 13' setback from the rear property line where a minimum setback of 20' is required.
The project is subject to design review.
The existing 52.3% site coverage is non-conforming with current standards allowing a 40%
maximum site coverage. The existing one-car garage and uncovered off-street parking space are
adequate to serve the proposed expansion which is not considered new construction (44%
increase proposed, 50% constitutes new construction).
SETI3ACKS
Front: Ist jlr
2nd flr
Side (left): 1 st flr
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
14'-0"
30'-0"
14'-0"
15' or block avg.
20'-0"
3'-0"
�
Side (right/corner): 1 st flr 7'-0" 7'-0"
2nd flr 12'-0" -
4'-0"
7'-0"
12'-0"
Rear: 1 st flr
2nd flr
LOT COVERAGE:
FAR:
PARKING:
HEIGHT:
23'-0"
DH ENVELOPE: meets rec�uirement
Number of 13e�lrooms: 4
2
�� �
see code
N/A
* Variance required for proposed 13' rear yard setback where 20' required. All other
zoning code requirements hlve been met.
St�ff Comments: The Chief Building Official, states (August 3, 1998 memo) that the proposal
constitutes new construction under the definitions of the California Building Code. The City
Engineer states (August 3, 1998 memo) that drainage from the roof shall be addressed under the
building permit. The Fire Marshal had no comments on the project.
Design Reviewer Comments: The project was originally submitted for review by the Design
Review consultant on August 17, 1998. The Design Review Consultant found the proposed
design to harmonize with the existing character of the residence and that the scale and proportion
of the addition would be consistent with older houses in the neighborhood. In order to ensure the
addition would be consistent with the existing design components, the Design Review Consultant
recommended that the applicant match the eave, trim and window details of the addition with the
existing eave, trim and window details, particularly noting the type and proportion of the
windows. Revised plans reflecting these recommendations were submitted on September 4, 1998.
Janice Jagelski
Planner
13'-0"
13'-0" *
52.3%
(2751 SF)
71%
(3,754 SF)
13'-0"
52.3%
(2751 SF)
52.3%
(2751 SF)
15'-0"
20'-0"
40%
(2105.6 SF)
55 %
(2884.5 SF)
1 covered + 1 uncovered 1 covered + 1 covered + 1 uncovered
in driveway 1 uncovered in driveway in driveway
c: Ken Ibarra, applicant
,�r� cir w
�R�n��, CITY OF BURLINGAME
�..�� APPLICATION TO 1�� PLANNING COMIVIISSION
Type of Application: Special Permit Variance�Other �'��J /L�r�� ��„J
Project Address: �Z6C� /.��f�dL,✓r�[� f�7/F�J4.�
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): C� 26 — l 7Z - 3 4�0
APPLICANT
Name: �S'� � ��9"�'L2f�- �
Address: 68 v� C�.�� «1 D i�kf,%-�
City/State/Zip: �i't-t/nl c7 'C� `)ydGG
Phone (w): 6S-� �s �9 -��
(h):
iax: �.ST� — �7 � — 3 Z.T3
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: �'� {v ,� f�-�'pc� �bV✓�
PROPERTY OWNE�t
Name: M,.��M,�+�f h.�,C�� tit �J �8 �z�J�
Address:_ l zb� ��,� �,.�
City/State/Zip: ��—.
Phone (w): 3 �y — Z� 2Z
(h):
fa.x:
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
Address: contact person for this application.
City/State/Zip: � �� � � � � �
Phone (w):
(h):
J U L 3 1 1998
CITY OF BURLINGAME
f�' PLANNING DEPT.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:_ �`���ew✓�—�y?l�z-�j ,�y�-,�G yZ�J
_ ��- r���� �s�.� ��� �
0
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and conect to t e est f my lrnowledge and belief.
3� �
Applic t's Si ature D e
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Plannin Commission.
� �7 r6 �8
Property Owner's Signature � Date
---------------------------------------- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -�� �����
Date Filed: Fee: JUL 3 11998
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: CITY OF BURLINGAME
ING DEPT.
�.
Ibarra Associates
ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING
September 8, 1998
City of Burlingame
Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
:�i._! � 5'� 19U�
Re: Variance for 1260 Bernal Avenue
Planning Commission:
_ ;-, :
.,�. , i.;�`- ._ _ .t�...i;'�..i�;f'v2E�
�'i..•i�;. ,.;�.a � ���!.
The following statements apply to the above mentioned application for a rear setback ��ariance for a
proposed second-story addition. Specifically, the variance is as follows:
Second Floor Rear Setback Variance: The rear setback of the existing first floor measures 13'-0". The
proposed second-story addition is designed to match this existing rear selback of 13'-0". Section
?5.28.072(4a) of the Burlingame Zoning Ordinance requires the minimum rear setback to the second
floor to be an average of 20 feet from the rear property line, except that no more than 25�/c of the length
of the rear wall of the second story shall not extend to the minimum first floor rear setback of 15 feet.
The following statements «�ill hopefully assist you in determining adequate findings in order to approve
these variances.
1) Describe the exceptional or extraordinar_y circumstances or conditions applicable to your propert_y
which do ru�t apply to other properties in the area.
The existing dwelling, situated on a corner lot, is a large one-story structure. The legal non-conforming
lot coverage of the property is 523%, over 12% greater than the allowed maximum. The existing
dwelling does not conform with any current minimum setback requirements. Most, if not all of the
surrounding properties, have rear yards in excess of 20 feet. The fact that 1260 Bernal is on a corner lot
with a skewed frontage, has resulted in an exceptional circumstance regarding the non-conforming
placement on the lot.
2) Expinin why the application request is necessary for the preservation and enjo_yrnent of a substantial
propert_y right and what unrensonable property loss or unnecessary /uirdship naight result froni the denial
of the npplication.
The e�cisting dwelling, as stated previously, is "maxed out" in regards to lot coverage. In addition, the
location on a corner lends itself to some measure of concern regarding second-story massing. The new
second-story design is proposed to be sensiti��e to mass and bulk, set back from the first floor at the most
prominent sides. The rear of the dwelling has the least prominent view from the street and adjacent
properties. Care has been taken to minimize the visual impacts on the west, north and east sides. The east
side (interior side yard) offers some relief to the adjacent property by not extending the second floor the
full length. Compliance with the required second-story rear setback would be an unnecessary hardship
since it would be, not only detrimental to the adjacent neighbor on Easton, but also would restrict an
"open volume" design of the Family Ra�m which is bound by a 3 foot sideyard.
600 EL CAMINO REAL, SAN BRUNO, CA 9d066 (650) 589-4613 (650) 873-3253 F�AX
1260 Bemal Avenue
3) Explain why the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrirnental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience.
Again, as mentioned previously, the rear yard is the least prominent or viewable side of the dwelling. In
addition, the adjacent residence on Bernal has a larger than noimal side yard full of landscaping, plus the
driveway. The minimal impacts on the adjacent residence on Easton have been explained above. With
these reasons, the granting of the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to the properties in the
immediate vicinity.
4) Discuss how the proposed use of the propert_y will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
The proposed improvements to 1260 Bernal will be a very reasonable improvement to the mixture of
different styles in the vicinity. The style and proportions of the addition is consistent with the e�isting
building. There are many examples of poor aesthetics and proportions in the vicinity. The prominence of
1260 Bernal on an open corner, will be complimented with the proposed "setback" features of the new
second floor.
We hope these statements are adequate for you to substantially support the second-story rear setback
variance for 12Fi� Bernal Avenue. If there are any questions or comments please contact me immediately.
Sincerely,
KENNETH F. IBARRA, A.I.A.
(for Mr. & Mrs. Richard Medeghini)
(SS
A R C H I T E C T U R E
C S S A s s o c i a t e s A r c h i t e c t s
1 1 0 3 J u a n i t a A v e n u e
B u r I i n g a m e C a I i f o r n i a 9 4 0 1 0
Architectural Review
FILE
.bb Number
�w ��r--
CS S ARCHITECTURE
7 0 :
Planning Department ��e� 24 August1998
City of Burlingame Project Medeghini Residence
501 Primrose Road 1260 Bemal Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Application Number
Distributed Va Noted Method Onty Mail
Dist Code
App Applicant
Own Property Owner
■ CB Agency City of 8urlingame
F File
Fax ■ Net
Review Time .5 hours
Compliance With Guidelines
Item Subject Actfon
7. Compatibility with Neighborhood Style
There are no dominant styles in the neighborhood. This application proposes to harmonize with
the existing character of the residence. As a result it will fit in with the existing neighborhood. The
scale and proportion of the proposed components are consistent with the components of the
older houses in the neighborhood.
2. Parking and Garage Pattems
Not applicable
3. Architectural Style, Intemal Consistency
The style of the addition is consistent with the style of the existing residence. As a condition of
approval, we recommend that proposed roof eave details match existing, that proposed windows
match existing in proportion, type, and muntin details. The plans do not fully indicate these
intentions.
4. Intertace with Adjacent Structures
Impacts on the adjacent structure have been minimized by holding portions of the addition back
from the building line. Window placement has followed the pattem of the existing residence and
generates a lower impact than that of the previous addition at the adjacent site.
5. Landscaping and Its Relation to Proposed Building
Not Applicable
Conclusion
This application represents a reasonable addition to the existing residence. Care should be taken
(and required) to ensure that proposed details actually do reflect existing conditions. Otherwise
the addition may look like it was simply dropped on to the roof.
Recommended Action:
Approval With Conditions: Match existing eave, trim and window details. Match existing
window type and proportions.
Martin Dreiling
CSS Architecture
6 5 0 6 9 6 1 2 0 0 F a x 6 5 0 3 4 3 9 6 8 5 d r e i I i n g@ p a c b e I I. n e t
ROUTING FORM
DATE: August 3, 1998
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
�FIRE MARSHAL
_SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUB,TECT: Request for rear setback variance and design review for a second story
addition at 1260 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-172-340.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: September 28, 1998
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, August 3, 1998
THANKS,
Maureen/Ruben
��� � � C� � Date of Comments
� v "'�1,��