The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1625 Howard Avenue - Staff ReportItem # 3 b Consent Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review, Special Permit foY Declining Height Envelope and Parking Variances for a Second Sto�y Addition Address: 1625 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: 5/8/06 Request: Design review, special permit for declining height envelope and parking variances for a second story addition Applicant and Architect: TRG Architects, Matt Mefford Property Owners: Dan and Elllen Conway General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 028-316-290 Lot Area: 5,357 SF Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. Summary: The existing two-story house, with an attached garage, contains 2,312 SF (0.43 FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The 378 SF second floor is tucked within the roof structure and is currently has only one bedroom. The proposed second story addition would add 587 SF and bring the second floor total to 965 SF. With the proposed addition, the floor area will increase from 2,312 SF (0.43 FAR) to 2,795 SF (0.52 FAR) where 2,814 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 19 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The code requires two covered parking spaces (20' x 20') and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') for this five bedroom house. The den on the first floor meets the code definition of a bedroom and is therefore counted as such. There is one covered parking space (8'6" x 18') provided in the existing attached garage and one uncovered space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. Therefore, a parking variance is required for one covered parking space where two are required and for parking space dimension for the existing covered parking space that is 8'6" wide by 18' deep where a 10'wide by 20' deep space is required. As proposed 20 SF along the right side of the second floor encroaches into the declining height envelope and requires a special pertnit. The following applications are required: • Design review for a first and second story addition (CS 25.57.010); • Special permit for declining height envelope (2' x 9' 7"= 20 SF encroaches into the declining height envelope on the right side); • Parking variance for one covered parking space where two are required; and • Parking variance for parking space dimension for the existing covered parking space (8'6" x 18' where 20' x 20' is required) (This space left blank intentionally) Design Review, Special Permit and Variances Table 1 —1625 Howard Avenue 1625 Howard Avenue Lot Area: 5,357 SF EXISTING � PROPOSED � ALLOWED/REQ'D I j SETBACKS ' i i ............................ .. ,.......................... Front(1 Sr flr):... 15' � No change � 15'-0�� 2nd �rj,�: 30'6" i No chan e ' 20'-0" .� 6 ................................................................_._...._.................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................�......................................................................................................................................................................................... Side (right): 4' � No change � 5'-0" (left): 0* � No change ; 5'-0" � , Rear (IS` flr): 15' � No change 15'-0" (2"a ftr): 30' ; 37'-0" ; 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,996 SF 1,869 SF � 2,142 SF 37.2% � 34.8% 40% i.............................................................................. .................................. FAR: 2,336 SF � 2,795 SF � 2,814 SF 0.43 FAR 0.52 FAR i 0.52 FAR _ ............................................................ .................... .. . .. _; ......................... ...... ...........................................................................................�................................................. .................... ..... ..................................................... # of bedrooms: 3 � 5 I --- i i � .................................................. .... Parking: 1 covered ; ; 2 covered (8'6" x 18') 1& z (20' x 20') 1 uncovered � No change I 1 uncovered (9' x 20') j � (9' x 20') _... � ................................................................................ ... , Height: 26'6" 25'6" j 30' ; _._._........._._ .............................. ..... .... ............................._...... .... ...................................................... ...._................................................................................................... ...... DHEnvelope: complies ` Special Permit i CS 25.28.075 Required3 � * Existing non-conforming 1 Parking variance for one parking space where two are required; Z Parking variance for covered parking space dimension (8'6" x 18' proposed where 10' x 20' required); and 3 Special permit for declining height envelope (2' x 9'7" = 20 SF will encroach into the right side declining height envelope) Staff Comments: See attached. The subject property has a trapezoidal shape making the measurement for declining height envelope difficult to show on the elevation drawings. Therefore staff has requested that the applicant provide a visual model showing the declining height envelope measurement in relation to the lot line to clarify the actual area of encroachment for this unique situation. April 24, 2006 Design Review Study Meeting: At the April 24, 2006, design review study meeting the Planning Commission had no requests for changes to the proposed plans and voted to place this item on the consent calendar. The Commission however, requested that a condition of approval be added to the project that requires the parking variance to go away if the house is demolished. � Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 1625 Howard Avenue Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 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: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's Apri124, 2006, design review study meeting the proposed addition looks great and blends in well with the existing character of the house; the added mass is nicely articulated with a complicated roof plan and will interface well with the neighborhood, and the proj ect is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. Required Findings for a 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; (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. Variance Findings for Parking: The attached garage is currently non-conforming to current parking space dimensions with an 8'6" width and an 18' depth; only a portion of the covered parking is less than the required parking because the chimney encroaches into the garage, however the property owners are still able to park a vehicle in the garage; the width of the garage can not be increased without a major demolition to this `classic' house because it was built originally on property line; although there is only one parking space provided where two are required, there is a 35' long driveway that can accommodate parking for two vehicles, so three off-street parking spaces are provided on-site as required for a five bedroom house, even though only one, not two, are covered, and for these reasons the project is found to be compatible with the variance findings listed above. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exists on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the exiting structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 1625 Howard Avenue (b) the variety of roof line, fa�ade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with there is design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Special Permit Findings for Declining Height Envelope: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commissions April 24, 2006 design review study meeting, that due to the trapezoidal shape of the subject property it is difficult to keep the entire second floor within the declining height envelope without designing several offsets; that part of the beneficial design of this remodel is to integrate the flat roofed garage which extends to property line into the body of the house which affects the rooflines and location of the second floor; the portion that encroaches beyond the declining height envelope is 20 SF and because of its location will not have a severe impact on the adjacent property and for these reasons the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review, special permit and variances and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 14, 2006, sheets A-0 through A-6, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that if the structure is demolished or if the building envelope is ever changed at a later date, the parking variances shall become void and the side setback requirements in effect at the time of demolition or additional remodel also shall be met; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, 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 Planning Commission review; 4. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 6. that prior to final inspection, Planning Deparhnent staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; � Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 1625 Howard Avenue 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Recycling Specialist, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 14, 2006 memos shall be met; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10. that demolition or removal of the existing structures or any part of the existing structures and any gading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued; and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 12. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Catherine Barber Planner c. Matt Mefford, TRG Architects, applicant and architect 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 12. 1625 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (MATT MEFFORD, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAN AND EILEEN CONWAY, PROPERTY OWNERS (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, proj ect architect, 205 Park Road, Burlingame, Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, Burlingame, and Dan Conway, property owner, 1625 Howard Avenue, had the following comments: complicated roof structure, qualify for the declining height envelope exception, the garage is existing, built to side property line, and too short, if extend length then would trigger side setback variance; hard to get away from parking variance; five bedroom house- could open up wall to den so the den doesn't count as a bedroom; driveway is 35' long and they park two cars in driveway now; beautiful remodel, Howard Avenue is wide and can accommodate a lot of cars and two cars can be parked in the driveway, so parking variance should not have a big impact on the street; use the existing garage for parking a Saab 93, only store car cleaning supplies and bucket in the garage, the garage is not used for bulky storage. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments: looks great, a lot of little components that are tricky, need a good roof framer; concerned that there is no parking now, and then there will still be no parking when it is finished, can garage be demolished and a new garage constructed; project architect replied that it cannot be done without a variance; can't really make garage conforming without tearing down, because of the historic nature of the house, it would be a loss; if owner can get a car in the garage now, would like to see proj ect go through without changes to the existing garage. There were no further comments from the public. Chair Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: CA Anderson told the Planning Commission that a condition can be added to the approval that states that if the house is demolished the parking variance goes away. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. l: �� CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURIJNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 X� 01SI-116�04325 ; , TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-379 '' �..E, �,.�«�� www.burlingame.org y, � oo.� 6 0 � l� , v1 — � � 2 I�i�ed From 9401(D Site: 1625 HOWARD AVENUE US POSTAGE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the PUBLIC HEARING following pu6lic hearing on Monday, May 8, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall founcil Chambers, 501 Primrase Road, NOTICE Burlingame, CA: i Applicatian for design review, special permit for declining height ' - envelope and parking variance for a second story addition at � 1625 HOWARD AVENUE zoned R-l. (APN 028-316-290) j i Mailed: April 28, 2006 i i(Please refer to other side) ; ,: Z _. CITY OF BURLINGAME , .0 a:� .. A copy of the applic�,t,t�n and��ilan�'s �`di `this project may be reviewed prior , to the meeting a,t�C��a�l��=;D�partment at��S��;Primrose Road, �� Burlingame, Ca1�i�g�ia � ��,� r+��, .,� �y, � �'_" ��r �� ,; `,� �. � If you challe�`� ��`�' �>_� �" w . t� nge t �,�L raising only ��; described in �he�ic��e at or prior tosthe pubii ��„�„��.�,� ��:.. Property ow�ers vi�o:; r their tenants��bouC�hj (650) 558-7�0 '�� x y �„ ��,�; '�� Margaret Moru-�b� �� City Planner �;,��,, � Pu�� (Please refer to other side) ��,;�n co,u�t, ya� ma� be limited to meone else raised a�t1f� p�blic hearing, ��'��'espQ ��t� '��l�ve;�ed to the city `� ��,�,.?fi� :�� :�g '��A ��.� � � . �, � � .: ��F� ,�•:: � ��:::,. � > �'!�� re respon�ible or informing ��z� a�t��lo�al infor � ati please call � � �"► , ' a� � ` �°�� , � � i� �' "'��„'�� `;` � ' .�.��.�'.c. � r . � u �� , �,. � , "� � - ��` �,, � ' � � . .,,�',� � �,� xsre � �-r'� �� ',��9 S' * i� ��V��V.OTICE RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW , SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review, special permit for declinin height envelope and parking variances for a second stor�addition at 1625 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, Eileen M. Stanlev and Daniel Conwav, propertv owners, APN: 028-316-290; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Mav 8, 2006, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said design review, special permit and parking variances are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for design review, special permit and parking variances 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 ofiicial records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of Ma. ,v 2006, by the following vote: ��r:rav EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, special permit and parking variances 1625 Howard Avenue Effective May 18, 2006 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 14, 2006, sheets A-0 through A-6, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that if the structure is demolished or if the building envelope is ever changed at a later date, the parking variances shall become void and the side setback requirements in effect at the time of demolition or additional remodel also shall be met; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, 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 Planning Commission review; 4. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 6. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Recycling Specialist, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 14, 2006 memos shall be met; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10. that demolition or removal of the existing structures or any part of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued; and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, special permit and parking variances 1625 Howard Avenue Effective May 18, 2006 Page 2 11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 12. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.