The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1243 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff Report_ � y �--•e.. „_.. � � � ;: y r� . �- . Y � - rcn E 5 � v '�: � � � � �ei�� __. _'./.. � � .:}, ' � � .. jF, � � � '� e� i � • ; �1 � � s' x� { � s �'4",�wl�. � � �� i ' ! � , . �•?�� %•i . r y��'��'j .a ::►"• � . • r•.�, `-��. . ••.,ti` ` ,L '� � �• �'`� '•_� ' • • . • " • , � . e, j;�sr� '" ' r `,�,•. � ' ,� •, ..t « � � . s . • i � �� j � ''�, ` ; �r� !. � :. r.I. '.... ,Yy�� J�.��S, �'��. `� .;' �;� '��J�� Msi �r •' �', i . • . .�� w, � ;� 77I� ''1• �1 .I.r� '� :►�.. . 'Y �`:.�.♦ � ,.'' �w••h�Vi •.� 'r,. J�. .�.' �� ,' �* • �, �.�l,i�� .r ..v�' ; o I ;� i • • h 4 �,w ,z�� ""• , . ,j . ' �.+'. ,. . . L .,! _ �}�� . � �F�� '* � • • r ., � � ''w.. �� , •�;�•.,•ir•,n ; .* � �, � • :�,t.9.. .11 G •M �a� �. � ! � `�,�'��'' .s ! � �. '•M e� � ,11 • s ��• �C�A: .':1 +, • �* ��i+'•.; : ':�.f ; a,� _�� , � ' � •'r ��•, � '_'` �a.�+. '' � �;t� � � '. 4' e.�$.�4�4a�^" �' y � t.,.� � Rt� �.� � � .'�,`��/j�, �.r• �"��. � ,i+ A�,'..�Ii� �' '.. `'�.- f r.+-��: �ry.. }. " :i ;y= � � •� .... - :. .. .......�..:; � ,t� ; a � � � i+ i t ��;; ` y �"J� , ,� �T * �� . # ir �Y`�` ° . `� , k� �, � ,I r[ " -+�, � a r . g� I� ,% i � 16ti.� ,tjt� " � # ' . r,_ � . �°� rF ,:,f,.. � 9 .�� . £..a:', " [ . . � e I� . .j _ �„ � �� 1 � L/ { a . �i , . ' ��+a" � � . ��s +^-�,•,, � � r+�' � ��:��;� ✓"y' y "T ,z , � ,,l�. j �� ; / � �f K �~ \, "� '��$��.. .. ' .R�� Y,,r. �'4."�;t:'.-4� �.�"�� . �. . , . . ..r.;,«.�:,r�^r^..» "^^^n.'*?i' . . .. . ... � �, �� ._ . . T`"'n.'� 'Kp ��: ��.� _ Y-,w ,. n,�Littar "' . .�cx.,.�. _.��...m r....,... x �. . � . . . . _ . City of Burlingame Design Review, Parking Dimension Variance and Front and Side Item #� Setback Variances for Substantial Construction including a First and Action Calendar Second Story Addition Address: 1243 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: 8/14/06 Request: Design review, parking dimension variance and front and side setback variances for substantial construction including a first and second story addition at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.57.010, C.S. 25.70.020(2), C.S. 25.28.072(b) and (c)) Applicant/Architect: Stewart Associates, Farhad Ashrafi/Debbie Kaufinan APN: 026-171-060 Property Owner: Frank Knifsend Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per 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. Summary: The existing house is one story with an attached one-car garage. There is a 292 SF accessory structure located at the rear of the property. The proj ect includes removing more than 50% of the exterior walls, including the attached garage, and adding to the right side and the rear of the building. Code section 25.08.643 defines substantial construction as wholly new construction, or removal and replacement of 50% or more of the exterior walls of a building. The second floor addition will be 1,315 SF and will add three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a study. Because the first floor reconstruction includes removing the attached one car garage, the lot coverage will actually decrease. The existing lot coverage is 37.9% (2,276 SF) and will be reduced to 36.3% (2,180 SF). The floor area of the house will increase from 2,123 SF (0.35 FAR) to 3,306 SF (0.55 FAR) where 3,312 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum floor area allowed on this lot. The proposal is 6 SF below the maximum allowed floor area. There is an existing 292 SF accessory structure located in the rear of the lot that is currently used as storage. As part of this project, the applicant is proposing to convert this structure to a one car detached garage. The conversion includes removing the existing windows located on the rear and left side walls and installing vertical siding to match the existing siding. With this proposal, the number of bedrooms will be increasing from two to four. The study is not defined as a bedroom because it is less than 70 square feet in area. The code requires one 10' x 20' covered parking space and one 9' x 20' uncovered parking space. The detached garage will provide one covered space 13'-6" wide by 19'-8" deep and one uncovered 9' wide by 20' deep parking space will be provided in the driveway. Therefore this proj ect requires a parking variance for parking space dimension for the depth of the garage. The existing front setback is non-conforming at 15'-10" where the average front setback for the block is 16'-10". The proposal includes reducing the width of the front setback encroachment from 43'-6" to 16' with the removal of the attached garage. However, this involves removal and reconstruction at the same non-conforming setback, therefore a front setback variance is required. The existing left side setback is also non-conforming at 3'-10" where 4' is required. A small portion of the first floor will be extended along the left side, therefore a left side setback variance is required. There is also more than 50% of the exterior walls of this structure being removed and/or reconstructed, which is defined as substantial construction as per code section 25.08.643. Code section 25.50.080 (a) states that the footprint of a nonconforming structure may be enlarged only if the entire structure is made to conform to all parking and physical dimensional standards in the district in which it is located. Therefore a parking variance for garage length is required. Front and left side setback variances are also required for this proposal. Design Review, Parking Yariance, Front and Side Setback Vnriances The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for substantial construction for first and second floor additions; • Parking variance for parking space dimension (10' x 20' required, 13'6" x 19'8" proposed); • Front setback variance (15' 10" proposed where 16' 10" is required); and • Left side setback variance (3' 10" proposed where 4' is required). /243 Cabrillo Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Proposed ' Existing ; Allowed/Required SETBACKS 1 ....................................... �_................................. ........................._................................... ,..... i n ...... Front (lst flr): No change I 15 -10 15 or block average (2nd flr): ; � (16"-10") 20' ' N/A ; 20' (. . f) ......................................................... g . _ ............... ............................................<.......... .. Side le t: No chan e2 ! 3'-10"* � 4' (right): 8'-3" to 2°d flr bay 10'-9" :....................... . .. : . ......................... ....... . ..... ................... . Rear (IS` flr): 48' S9' ' 15' (2,�d.�r)� 53' N/A 20� , . Lot Coverage: 36.5% 37.9% ; 40% (2,192 SF) (2,276 SF) � (2,400 SF) _ t ................................... . ...... FAR:.. 3,306 SF/ 2,123 SF/ ; 3,312 SF/ 0.55 FAR 0.35 FAR � 0.55 FAR _....__. . _ ............................... :...... # of bedrooms: 4 2 _ . . ... ...........................:. .. ....... ... . ............ : ..._............. Parki ng: ..... ............................................... . , No change 3 � One covered One covered �i3�-6�� X i9�-s�� * (ia X 20�) + 1 unc. in driveway + 1 unc. in driveway ................................................................. .... ....................................................... , < .. .... .................. .............................. . Height: 29'-1" 19'-3" 30'/ 2'/2 stories _ ................................................................ . ............................................... ....._....._._................................. . :................................. DHEnvelope: Meets requirement Meets requirement See code * Existing non-conforming � Front setback variance for 15'-10" front setback where 16'-10" (block average) is required Z Left side setback variance for 3'-10" left side setback where 4' is required 3 Parking dimension variance for covered parking space dimension (13'-6" x 19'-8" proposed where 10' x 20' dimension is required for covered parking) Staff Comments: see attached. June 26, 2006 Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission action meeting on June 26, 2006, the Commission expressed concerns with the project, suggested several revisions and voted to deny the project without prejudice, with direction given to resubmit a revised project addressing the Commission's comments (June 26, 2006, P.C. Minutes). Following is a list of the Commission's comments (in italics) followed by the applicant's response. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped July 24, 2006 to address the Commission's comments. 1. Combination of lack of design and number of variances makes the project unapprovable; 2. Cannot support motion because do not believe have given appropriate guidance; -2- Design Review, Parking variance, Front and Side Setback �ariances 1243 Cabrillo Avenue 3. Difficult to develop dynamic design because confined by existing nonconforming conditions, with new building could loosen up and �nake a better design possible; and 4. Plans lack detail, no definition of the window rype, want sizing of corbels, outriggers, dimensions missing in many places, cannot tell room sizes etc. The proj ect as shown on the revised plans date stamped July 24, 2006, has been revised in the style and materials. However, only minor changes were made to the building footprint. The revised proposal consists of a first and second floor addition which builds on the original footprint of the structure. The primary changes to the proj ect are: • Cultured Stone Veneer added along the base of the building and on chimney; • Stucco finish on the first floor walls; • 4 x rafter tails at every other rafter; • 4 x wood brackets at gable ends and under second floor bay window projection; • Hardi-plank siding on second floor and on gable ends; and • Roof Overhangs increased from one foot to two feet throughout. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant the requested parking dimension variance and front and side setback variances, 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. 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: 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for the requested variances and for design review. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: -3- Design Review, Parking Yariance, Front and Side Setback Variances 1243 Cabrillo Avenue that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 24, 2006, sheets A1 through A7, L1.0 and Sheet 1, Boundary Survey; and that any changes to building materials including casement windows throughout, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 10, 2006, memo, the City Engineer's April 10, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's Apri17, 2006, memo, Recycling Specialist's Apri124,2006, memo, and NPDES Coordinator's April 10, 2006, memos, shall be met; 3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4. 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; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10. 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 11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Maureen Brooks Senior Planner c: Stewart Associates, applicant/architect � ' City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 6. 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION 1NCLUDING A FIIZST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FARHAD ASHRAFI AND DEBBIE KAUFMAN, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS AND DESIGNERS, FRANK KNIFSEND PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report June 26, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Frank Knifsend, property owner, 1243 Cabrillo Avenue represented the proj ect. Lived here 7 years, family growing, incorporated most of the good suggestions from the study review. Commissioner noted that there is a Dogwood in the rear yard near an Acacia at the rear, these two will not do well together, can the Acacia be removed and a more substantial tree from the Street Tree list be put in the place of the Dogwood? Acacia is in the easement, believe planted by the neighbor, will ask if can remove and will plant another tree in my yard. Why are you working within the existing foundation of the house, removing most of the walls and under pinning the foundation, might be better, more conforming to zoning code and cheaper to begin with a new house; will talk to a contractor, wife likes first floor layout reason did not begin from scratch. Only reason given for variances is cost, cost is not a hardship on the property, hardship must be a physical condition on the lot. Feel that the exceptions to the code are small, 2 inches, 4 inches and a substantial reduction in the amount of the existing house which encroaches into the front setback a foot. Previous comments made at study are not adequately addressed including the relationship of the first floor to the second floor at the front, lack of detailing on the front porch which will result in not being able to build the porch as shown and a return to the Commission with an FYI, poor detail on the gable ends, so may not turn out as shown, on the rear elevation the windows at the bay on the second floor are not resolved; right side elevation upper balcony with bay window does not work, it is not integrated into the fa�ade; wainscoting around the house is not an even height, not sure what is going on below, it is okay on the front but too small on the sides; lack of detailing will result in it being built differently so will have to be changed in the field and will result in an FYI. Commission noted not so concerned about the variances as I am about the detailing, the wainscoting on the left side is broken at the utility door, should continue around to the rear, and if it is on the side needs to be full height, will reduce the apparent height of the building if it is the same height all around. Have same concerns about design detail and bay window on right side, also need better gable end, on front elevation the gutter return on the left does not balance with the right side. Architect noted that this maybe because of the visual projection of the bay window on the side elevation. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: not able to support the number of variances requested because the design is not resolved, the work to address the comments at study was not well integrated into the design; agree a jumble of components, perhaps responded too fast; variances requested are understated, 2 inches on the side, front is OK because encroachment is reduced substantially, concerned about the garage created from the shed in the rear, design of this building is not related to the house at all, feel a denial is appropriate. C. Vistica, noting that it would be cheaper to begin again on this design, moved for a denial without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: Applicant has heard comments, should listen to tapes, denial without prejudice gives him the most options in terms of time and design; clarify not as concerned about the variances, generally minimal, and would support if had a design that would stand up to the objectives of the design guidelines; can this item be referred to design review? CP noted that it cannot be referred to design review 7 ' City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes 7. June 26, 2006 now, but if denied without prejudice a resubmittal would be treated as a new project and can be referred to design review, a denial without prejudice leaves the amount of change for resubmittal up to the applicant, no additional fees are charged by the city although the applicant would be required to pay for the design review process if it is required. Need to give the applicant direction: ■ combination of lack of design and number of variances makes the project unapprovable; ■ cannot support motion because do not believe have given appropriate guidance; ■ difficult to develop dynamic design because confined by existing nonconforming conditions, with new building could loosen up and make a better design possible; and ■ plans lack detail, no definition of the window type, want sizing of corbels, outriggers, dimensions missing in many places, cannot tell room sizes etc. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny this application without prejudice with the direction to redesign as noted. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 110 CL DON ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLI TION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TINA CHENG, APPLICANT A, PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEA JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (66 C. Deal recused himself b the dias and left the cham Reference staff report June 26, 2 and staff comments. Fifteen con he has a business relationship with%ie applicant. He stepped down from with attachments. CP Monroe present the report, reviewed criteria ?i�were suggested for consideration. Ther ere no questions of staff. Cha� Brownrigg opened the public heari . Tina Chen property owner represent the project. She summ 'zed the change they had made to the p s since the study session. Commission a ed what surface material s proposed for the driveway, stamped c crete would be OK since there is not mu hard surface proposed fo is site. It was noted that the project wo d benefit from a more artistic garage do conveying a more elegant earance stylistically supporting the de � of the house; also the second floor lcony at the rear is rather la e, in this case it might work since it is a e center of the lot, but generally disc rage such large balconies cause of impacts on the neighbor's priv . Applicant noted they were willing to reduce the size of the ba nv. P Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenu Like to note a typo on the data chart, F .49, does the trellis cantilever fro he wall? Yes. Counted the anish houses in this area, there are a lot b most of them are one story; this de � is OK but the rear is more destrian friendly than the front, will invit entertainment in the rear yard; goo house, but too big. There w e no further comments from the floor. e public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted at little bungalows predominat in this area, this project will stand out, but ey have kept the tree, reduced t e garage from three to two car this is a much better project so move roval by resolution with the fo owing conditions: 1) that the pr 'ect shall be built as shown on the plans s mitted to the Planning Departm t date stamped June 13, 2006, s ets 1 through 5, G-1, F-1 and Ll and date April 25, 2006, Boundary and pographic Survey; and that any hanges to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and am � ndment to this permit; 2) that the nditions of the Chief Building Official's : STEWART ASSOCIATES ARCHI'I'EC7'UKE • INTF,RIOKS • PLANNING 1351 LAUREL ST. • SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 TELEPHONE: (650) 591-8283 FAX: (650) 591-9578 May 30, 2006 Maureen Brooks City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re Dear Maureen: 1243 Cabrillo Avenue/Knifsend Residence JOb 0505 ��2�' .q „ •:: .�,a i, �',+, Y C -s � 4 e. 3�;w �x..:.�� .... �. .. . _� .u, JUN - 1 2006 �,��.; :-,:� _-�;_[;,i_!i�.�;:ar,i,;. f�1 �,Cv'`j`:f'�+_S i?`-=�r'T.. In response to the Planning Commission's Comments of May S, 2006, the following changes have been made and noted as Revision #1. • Existin� foundation can be underpinned to new foundation, adding to support the new 2° floor. • See Landscape Plan for Driveway Construction. • Overhang projection at 2"d floor increased in width. In addition, an 18" deep bay window was added for further prominence. The roofline was revised to a gable. • There is no open truss work at the entry gable. All gable end treatments will be shingled, painted to match the finish at lower floor wainscot. • Gable at entry is governed by the sill height of the bedroom window due to egress requirements. • The design was not derived by the declining height limit. The driveway setback has shifted the upper floor addition to the left and gives that perception. • Design features are introduced in the chimney's brick work. The height of the chimney was increased by 2'-0". • Any electric gate installed will have an in-swing and will not compromise off- street parking. � • 2°d floor's left side elevation is broken up by introducing a 1'-6" recess at the Bathroom #2. • Roof line is broken up by new gables at side elevation. • Existing building elevations are attached. • Casement windows are noted on front elevation. We hope that these revisions address the Commission's concerns and garners the Commission's and Sta.ff's approval. If there are any other questions, please contact me. Sincer ly, � Farhad Ashrafi, AIA City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 8, 2006 9. 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING VARIANCE AND FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING A FIIZST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FARHAD ASHRAFI AND DEBBIE DAUFMAN, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS AND DESIGNERS; FRANK KNIFSEND, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. John Stewart, project architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, commented that a letter was written regarding the variances, wanted to reiterate that they are all very close to code requirements including only 4" off in garage depth and 2" off in side setback. The Commission made the following comments: ■ has the existing foundation been analyzed? Can it support a second story without replacement? ■ unit pavers in driveway should be built on sand to be permeable; ■ second floor of right side elevation doesn't read well, a 1' proj ection is not deep enough to break up the plane, needs work along this side; solution along right side is not to just bump out the projection 2'; need to change roof lines; ■ rear second floor gable end needs a vent in the triangular axea; can add a false vent at gable; ■ is there a knee brace at the front above the porch, clarify open truss work; porch would look better if it were wider instead of the shingles continuing over; ■ design looks like it was driven by the declining height envelope; ■ chimney needs more distinctive, have more style; ■ if electric/automatic gate is put in across driveway, an off street uncovered parking space should be retained when the gate is closed; ■ stepping back massing along left side is good; ■ side elevations are broad; design should take cues from neighbor to the right; ■ roof element could come down to help break up the massing, break the roof line; ■ existing elevations are needed, add to next submittal; and ■ note casement windows on plans. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made, plan checked and there is room on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. 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 10:25 p.m. 24 01/06/20b6 l�:�i o��byb�l�v c'iTY Of �iURLINCAMC PLANNiN(i nP,PARTMf;NT 501 PRIMROSB RQAn i` (650) 558•7250 F(GSO) G96•»9U ��.�»a� AFPLICATION TO TH. E P�A,NNING COMMISS�ON �....,._.��' Type of application: Design .Review�_ Conditional Use Permit Vaciance�_ Special Permit Other Parce� Nu�nber: Pro,ject nddres�: I'%L1-� Ca.bri,..e AP.P.T �CANT Name:�OvNk- L�-+��SGKt,� Address:�2.,�' �7 C.ab Ir� � � O PROPERTY OWNER Name: �' SG Address: ( �'3 C�Y� �� o ' o C'ity/St1te/7ip:�VY �K AM'lC �1 Phot�e (w): �oSO ' S� ` q'L a�l Gh>:.�,� �' 3vo t (�� A�tCT�iTTT CT/DESIGNER cary�s�t�z��: �urli Q�c � �4oto Phonc (w): a�� . u (�. Name: �Soua.��S' �' ��1GIid pt5i11'Q�t� �✓��'.�Ol G�'rii ah Address: J�-J� ( LaW Vt� `'J'�'• City/State/7..ip� � CQI.d �os C� °��O?D Please ir�d�cate witla an asierisk k tl�e contaet pexson for this �roject. Niwne (w): �� ' S�I I-�$ 28?� p,): - �• `�-31�� PROJL+CT DESCRTPT�ON:��VYI.GdG� Q.�_t"��low AFFA,AAViT/CIGNATURE: .i hcreby certi,fy under penalty ofpeijury that the information give�� herein ia true and co ect to tk�e est of y knowledge and belief. ApplicanC's signature: Date: 4T / �Co I know about the propoaed appaication and l�ereby autho��.i.ze the above applicant to subu�it this applicaaon to cl,�c Plamiing Co ,. issia Property owner's signawre: Date; �i'�r l�_, PCMP.PRM ��.+ �� APR � '� 2006 GITY OF BYJRLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. . `. ',. , , �N`��- ,'iN -, ��:�y►,.. � fi` ' :-� ,; ', �.;'�;1G . . ;�.; � �; e; �•• a' +. �'i ;.).; fs �' 1,'ti :JO,�i'f li Yr rC•• ' , 4 ' �'. �..� a J� ,, ,r. . '� A � � , '� •..;1�:i .. ; .��.. , t��.iV,.9�' }!'� 1V- � . �; N�.O" �� i �•,��t�,�. :: �i.� � , R� �, � t. t � -. 4.��', ,�-ti1. SN�q,�N.;V.i �:; � ,a ;`� ' , 'u.`:? •,j��R. � M1 � � j �i�t�` '�cr'� ^�a i t��Q Tit'�iAA�.� �a j:,�:��J�.4 'VO s^.'R� ii1`�+: �. �,!�fY'{�;y. ' �' �� i'�Ai�.... ��yi ' ,�� . .r .. � • i � �.IC. v _ , r. ' t �� r � �. .. . "� '�' � �.1�+ �,,tir '.,,,� r • � • . Ci; C3 �'N .'`i � �;' �3: ►..�F► �-• �rh.L'�i � tS � " �� .� . . . • : � ; �, .. n ;-+0 �'�l �� • � �c� • c�`°:.+ , � : �. •-„�cti' 3J�'.F.S% 1 :��,nj;'• ; S�'::i('a.,,'�(°,��,,. �Si c�,, �J �,w � �or�� V c�r �, ��ncC � S i � �:� },qctic_ v or; v�rr�e �1 .�c� � n� ��k b�� p�c-; v�nCe � i;ti �^rS.1- °�''W See c.�� ot.rr;td� },��.. . S �?� STEWART ASSOCIATES ARCHITF,C'I'URN; • IN'CERIORS • PLANNING 1351 LAUREL ST. • SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 TELEPHONE: (650) 591-8283 FAX: (650) 591-9578 Apri15, 2006 City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attention: Re: Planning Commission & Planning Department Knifsend Residence 1243 Cabrillo Dear Commissioners: Job 0505 We are submitting this project for your review. For our purposes, we are considering it a remodel and addition. We are retaining the foundation and some of the walls at the main floor. We are also going to remodel the e�sting accessory building into a garage. The result will be like a new home with a detached garage. This is the Planning Commission's preferred arrangement for the garage. According to your ordinance, you will consider this a new home as we are removing more than 50% of the walls. In order to achieve this change, we will require three variances, all for existing conditions and for minor amounts. These variances are for a front setback, garage depth, and left side setback. A severe financial hardship will be created if we are not allowed to keep these existing conditions. I have included the required findings for these variances, although it is always difficult to make findings in these situations. In all other Peninsula communities, existing non- conforming conditions do not require variances. We look forward to your review. If you have questions, do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your consideration of these variances. Sincerely, � �i��U� t r�`" / John L. Stewart, AIA, CORA cc: Frank and Robin Knifsend Encl: Variance Findings R�A � � '! ''M.-r.�. v APR - "� 20U6 CITY OF BURLl�v�aA.F.-:- pLANNING CE.P'� �.' City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3%90 www.burlinQame.org �� CIT7 Q� BURIJNCiAME �.,m � e � �. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoymeHt of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to properry or improvements in the viciniry or to public health, safety, general welfare or conve�ience. aG 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 viciniry? REC�� APR - 7 20uh CITY OF BUFiL.I' VAR.FRM PLANNING D, City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.bur:ingame.orQ �� ,' a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. Do any condirions exist on the site which make other alternarives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceprional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood? 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 form the denial of the application. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property? c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to properry or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenienc� How will the proposed shucture or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlighbshade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare? Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situarions 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 protecrion? Will 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 fue services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit? Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? 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 viciniry. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. � How does the proposed structure compaze to neighboring struchues in tem�s of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the siructure, 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 neighborhood? 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 neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? 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 potenrial uses in the vicinity. VAR.FRM City of Burlingame Variance Application 1243 Cabrillo Garage Size Variance a. The e�usting accessory building we are converting into a garage is only 19'-8" where 20' is required. It is 13'-8" wide where 10'-0" is required. b. Tearing down the building to extend it would be a financial hardship. c. The building is existing_ There will be no change in the structure except for replacing a garage door and filling in some windows. d. The garage will be similar to the neighborhood garages. �� ",,��. APR � 7 Zt)06 CITY OF l3liFs�, : _. . PLANNING iu;: �'' City of Burlingame Variance Application 1243 Cabrillo Side Setback Variance a. A portion of the existing house is in the left side setback. The required setback is 3.9' where 4' is required. b. The entire foundation and framing at this side of the building would have to be removed and replaced, which would be very expensive. c. The encroachment area is existing. There will be no increase in the non- conformity. d. The area under encroachment has been integrated into the design of the building. I,�, ,,i APR - 7 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNIfUG DEPT City of Burlingame Variance Application 1243 Cabrillo Front Setback Variance a. A portion of the existing house is in the front setback. We are reducing the width of encroachment from 43'-6" to 16'-0". The encroachment is 1'-0" (the existing setback is 15.9' where 16.8' (16'-10") is the average setback.) When the house was built, the setback rule was not in effect. b. If we have to move the front of the building back, it will increase the cost of the project. c. The encroachment area is existing. There will be no increase in the non- conformity. d. The area under encroachment has been integrated into the design of the addition. ��., �_ APR -- i 2006 CITY OF �UHLfNGHivit PLANNING DEPT ., , '� ��, . ,,,. i '�� . y. . rd �►.� '� ► • , i.. r� , � � • r. . � i��'� , , , � . � �t� ' � � �. -- ' �� , . . �`�� r 'yi .��' t e �.� i �'i4 �`/ ��{ � � ^Y. �-rf-'�_ �".w ?s � ' NEIGHBORING PROP�RTIES �ECEIVE� APR - 7 2006 CITY OF SURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1249 CABRILLO 1245 CABRILLO 1243 CABRILLO 1237 CABRILLO 1235 CABRILLO SUBJECT PROPERTY Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: 04/07/2006 ❑ City Engineer X Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Planning Staff Request for design review, parking variance, side setback variance and front setback variance for a first and second story addition at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-060 04/10/2006 1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 4) Provide a legend that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, and new walls. 5) According to the City of Burlingame Municipal code "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." Therefore, this building must comply with the 2001 California Building Code for new structures. 6) Comply with the new, 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential buildings. Go to http://www.enerQy.ca.qov/title24 for publications and details. 7) Roof eaves must not project within two feet of the property line. 8) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. 9) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 10) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are more than four risers. 11) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 12) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface within ten feet. Note: Show compliance on the plans with items #7 &#8 above prior to moving forward for Planning Commission approval. Reviewed b�----=�-----�:��--��% Date: �l�o% �c 0 Project Comments Date: To: From: 04/07/2006 d City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for design review, parking variance, side setback variance and front setback variance for a first and second story addition at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-060 Staff Review: 04/10/2006 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. 2. Replace all displaced/damaged sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter. 3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 4/10/2006 Project Comments Date 04/07/2006 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist d Fire Marshal O NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for design review, parking variance, side setback variance and front setback variance for a first and second story addition at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-060 Staff Review: 04/10/2006 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide double backflow prevention. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: �-- � �� i2� Date: ��_��- Project Comments Date: �� From: Subject: Request for design review, parking variance, side setback variance and front setback variance for a first and second story addition at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-060 Staff Review: 04/10/2006 Applicant shall submit a Recycling and Waste Reduction Plan for approval, and pay a recycling deposit for this and all covered projects prior to construction or permitting. Reviewed by: 04/07/2006 ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney X Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Planning Staff Date: � � � � Project Comments Date: To: From: 04/07/2006 � City Engineer � Chief Building Official � City Arborist � City Attorney � Recycling Specialist � Fire Marshal Q NPDES Coordinator Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review, parking variance, side setback variance and front setback variance for a first and second story addition at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-060 Staff Review: 04/10/2006 1) Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the construction project (including demolition). Include appropriate stormwater BMPs as Project Notes. These BMPs include but are not limited to the following: • Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly to prevent contact and contamination of stormwater; • Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; • Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering site and obtain all necessary permits; • Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site except in a designated area where wash water is contained and treated; • Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate; • Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather; • Limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff; • Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; • Avoid tracking dirt or other materials off-site; clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping method; • The Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and subcontractors regarding the construction BMPs. 1 of 2 Project Comments — Con't-1243 Cabrillo Ave.-1� and 2"d story addition. 2) The public rigk�t of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. 3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls: a. Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls continuously until permanent erosion control have been established; b. Address method(s) for diverting on-site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off-site runoff arount the site; c. Address methods for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on-site. 4) Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following: a. Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; b. Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: �� Date: 04/10/06 2 of 2 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND PARKING DIMENSION 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 design review, front and side setback variances and parking dimension variance for a first and second story addition to a single family dwellin�at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, Frank Arthur Knifsend and Robin Hidek Knifsend, property owners, APN: 026-171-060; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Au�ust 14, 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 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, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review, front and side setback variance and parking dimension variance are approved, subj ect to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review, front and side setback variances and parking dimension 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, , 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 14`" day of Au�ust, 2006 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, front and side setback variances and parking dimension variances. 1243 Cabrillo Avenue Effective August 24, 2006 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 24, 2006, sheets A1 through A7, L1.0 and Sheet 1, Boundary Survey; and that any changes to building materials including casement windows throughout, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 10, 2006, memo, the City Engineer's April 10, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's April 7, 2006, memo, Recycling Specialist's April 24,2006, memo, and NPDES Coordinator's April 10, 2006, memos, shall be met; 3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4. 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; 5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the proj ect 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; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. 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; -2- . EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, front and side setback variances and parking dimension variances. 1243 Cabrillo Avenue Effective August 24, 2006 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 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 11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. -3- �� CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD � . � � • � • - � • gURLINGAME, CA 94010 ';�,�" ' ' �`�`� �� ' o TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-379 ,� �..,'� $q.,�,,,,,e www.burlingame.org � `-� � , x� k �': Q�{% � ��. � m,�� ,� �� _..�� µ� � Site: 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE '��9 '� The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, August 14, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chamb�rs, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for design review, front and side setback variances and parking dimension variance for substantial construction including a first and second story addition at 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE zoned R-l. (APN 026-171-060) Mailed: August 4, 2006 (Please refer to other side) Q1fif--A165�?�s :i 2-�-� � ��.�� r. �� o� �� :� r:� �J� �as�',�� PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the application and pl�ns for�this�project �nay be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 .Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the'subject application(s) in court, you may;' b� limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at th,e public hearing, described in the notice or,in�v�ritten correspondence del'ive�ed to the city at or prior to the public hear'ing: , �_,rt .... . ,_ .F ..n�,;�: Property owners who receive this notice are responsible �for informing their tenants about'�this notice. For additional inforrilatioii, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank �¢u - ` , � � , F : ; � � i,, � i�� 7 � 5�f�i� s'��, , `'C"ti (? � . ....... �,� Margaret Monroe ' t �, � "� �� ry� °`,.�" City Planner �. �:. � � :: . � ` �` ��' PUBLIC:�HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) , �`. »' ' a '��' � � . �'� �. ., .�. � . � � �, �. y;� r.�,. ,� `^,,, � '� s t� je� '. ��:. L� tfJ,� � i .�, a'°�n�j2�" ��i9 ��, .� �.. ,9 t � , �� a- '^'.� �, , � ,s �A`j� �\� �� =a�.![�� / - w'�i ,� � � �' y. '��. �� , , - ,. .. �'�` �� ^� �"' � ` 4�r � '` �'`� �` �' + ' �.,� � � +, : Y , �ati"- z°� `.�" � , �n� _ ., . » � , . . .% � ,'. i �� • 4 �,� �4� � s. � Y �; '> p . � t � . . � a � � � 1 � 4 } 7 , \ � tV �� : i �ii` .�,�,i .� �`ftj� � . � �� f la� _� i ;i'_ � . �\/y� m ,�f` LL 4 �%/' � �� ,.�r k ��/' / " %��^ 3. � � /n;,''��$ �� ` }� l �n,.' < .`� �= ., . ,e�` ��y� /' � ,�` - py� � �~' S� � �" e,C � . .r�l�?!�� '`�.. .. '�6' � s� .` e�� `�� =J� ' � � • � �` � j� ��r� . + .� . .. �/ > ,. . . a j .' . � g �"i%,. ., �'�? ,.. « ^.�' �. � ' � �,�,� � �� .i � . - i� >..�� Il��t� i�l� 4 . �., y:Sr �(��, ,�r*}�ya,,.� , r � �'.:�� { .. � a � � ' �j ^k . � � • # K`.- � � d� r.. y. � i . � ��l �t . � /�` '��;+,�$��,Y� \L.� . f' '�R::�''� S 2 "�� ,, m^ `..(E,�F,,,'� hrih� �� , ��t"�t '�• ?w_ ,. / i ,� `� ,� ` 3k `` ��, t � V / "� `� ,��,, r%�'� � �'^�,� ,'� > �� .� n �',�,, . � � v � � � �� ,� � .,�. �� ` ��9*e . � �"`n � � �'� �� • � �;� �^� � `'� � / ��. �'4 t y;".y�"r �y ��'t'�l r.,�i ` . � ��*'',/A. t � �. y �"�, �?�'�, ''°'0.}�%iCa� . ' 1'� r�Y+,�l " ; e� .ik"�� + \.4� f � �`!� �, ; f � *� t . �-� �� e \��5� �w��, . ��y�' � .' ��?�`� i'�X�,��' � �� . h;�'. ., a � � l�t. .,r:� � },� � ��,� �� ,,,: . � ..� � ,:,�1 _ ,�y , {"'� w i , �a. ��,,, , . �r j' y \� � \, i' � �� , ,t ; � �' c , > �.�� `�, »�w-.., I , '�� y� t!f � * � �; �+�"`�*,_ �i`: .:: . �..�� r . . .. � . . � , . , r .. � � a - •�'�`. �� a...:� � '� �. .! '�'e .,.. :; � . ti. ` ' r „ � � ,K � - � * �� . �� ei d<: ' - ,,g � . e . �� . � �� . . � «a �� x� � . � � � .�, = s' '% .r ,. . � " ��. ' t '� . . 9i�� P �� • Jlr` . / '{� �y�i✓ : � � } " . aeC .� ' / vt / ,�' � • !r: ♦ r o .t a `. � ! / �. Y _ , . •' , m � , �, � ; � w.�. � t �. � `�, �� ' �� a� .,` . �, �, i ��,'",� /� �� ? �;., I♦ j �� l� f � `I*ry � \} _� , .a' -�*, 't�` , �� -"'� 1�"�, � <� � .�,�� ' � �'� �.�'.� . 'tf� �.. fi�R}_,:� �i .. , . � �� , , 7 . E '_ � �� {� yz . � �� w, � . '�, �� t ' k� � � � � .. T, � . y�t(•, g �,' � � y` s�i ' �y�C4 +-R,�� ',� � �,.i �'. •, '�V�.��P"'�4, "'. � � � � � . f, i �� - �r� ,°��„ �,� ��'�� ,�� .� ' � �, fw'' f �,� �: . 4> � � � � s�„ �. �� .� �` �r ' � 4�,Y / .� �' , , � �4' LL , . � .., , . .. y� , , � } � a� 3 y .� D.'4 �`• t . €��,y,yq �/+�r� � � � . = M F' � �t� �^h �, � � � f�Yi� • �� ,rhu r y�.:. �.t��'� � r r' +x . . . � � i�� A§• s ° 'i> �f�f�° ; , J � . : , .�.� � ' �,� � - , '� �� _ . .. .� •- TM .. �� +�� ' �'� � �� ` g i 1 w, . �� ,� `V RM � a � � ' � y �� Y � � y . T ,�`r^ �� Af � i .�;:� �� ,h ii`" `�.,\RS / +,re.= 4 �� ; �i `!y ui.-ty ;� � `� " -. � � . . �" . � &� i�p � /l o- � N ti { i } • � �/��.,,�,,, § ,. _C � n`� � � � * ' ' \ x { t / � v .. ,y` K. �� ( �` wN'� �y, ��/ 7 � . � ... 4,>.� . . / . ' S� / �' \ �`1i+d .d` � T�',�"t � � p�� `� �Fj�• "ti r ie "* ,�"� � ^ F s� . . .i � ' �'to. �w•s fk�� ,� �� h ��" �{ � ., a � . � �;` , k' � .� a� . �T�i�'? z '�'�c" ...,• . �.'i..;. l'-,. � � . : � � � "i ^,h7 .,�t�. '' ' , ..y � 'r�� .� � t / �� ` �FLL'�+. . �`�: . � 4 � z •� �� a�'� �.: `. . .. � ��'�"� � , �'� �� A � • ... � ,... , � � . mx / ;�.. . � *� � ��.,�f - a � � ga ^, , �� ^�.. , {�'�ry ,�. -.�� n� ,'r X�\K � . ./+.� � „�• `�'S"�'4� �'f" t. � ;,� :,� ��:.. , . . c � .. � . \�. . �: ti� t1. - � <S'`'.!. „, ':r - ,- �: : � a ,�;' . ' '' {��'�' , 3 ; � a , > i ��_ � , �� .. ; ... � ,�„ .V . ...� "s � k. �' N" � 4 �` � _ c : >. � y , "4 � ` � ,v V ,�w.� �. < '► " �` , ,�.'�� -zz.� t„� ,s,. �'L .;T � , .�• �t .Ay,� `� �� e� � `.AY'..�,i. .1• �•i ;.:.z� s s �+�`.��ja � �� \\ `� 1 tt \1�j., �; p, �li'� ` k*"" � , • � . •.' S � o "+n ., . }. � ( � �i �e. � , •°� ��'N � � �d� � � n".. d� id� ��t�l%r+i�+ Q a� Y � -�, . . � �� y^ �' *y* i • 1 , � {' � �! � ' * + �, b � � �� ,?� '� ,l „ a �, � , �, ,_ � / �� , . �, � � � . �, � r �"+ "' . � �# .!� � 4� �'�g` iT. y., � � � / � . �F � .; '�� ' .d�, r 0. y�` � ��tr` � �`''" "l� ��, ^J��. �^• �i f H'� ' ty �d��*;� � . t�"�'�o �s�r � r �.ti��i ,,�`#'y :� � � � � /�' � t �� s �. t �� f y � � ��-•' =� : . ,� � f � �,� �� .,.,y d"��'a �,�E,A'+ �t:.�� .� � • �,� •��Y�� L� '%,�. ,� � r�'� �, �w��: � � P .�' ! ' - '«.`_' ft }L, `;, ti ! � •� . �� _ � "� �i. r. °,�, �y, t•.• � ~t �. 3 �'�'`"� , »t�` � � -�i` ,�.. i � i�`'y, �( P,� y�i � i." � ' �'+�,', � ��. �2 °3� � � � <, � � n �/ .. P �� ... '� � , 5 �y µ 4� ._ � `t V.'. � ...\ . � � . � �i "�. Y$ �i� � :.,_ ��' t a �' � ".�x �� p�i, � � } ,�v4- + �'� �'. �?�``� � �i... �.";k ``l,!'�.� , y, . , 3 ..� r � � f d� t 'Y. V y:. t1( �� ., i � � t. � 4 . �,., � b $ �Y , � , � � Y r . ' l �� ` � � � � e r1J �� . ! E �� t� � r �"*�" � " a s.� i � "�'` � - ='�.� i' rr �`� . : }. s �s � �: , � t�:: ,, � yt / S9'�'�. -Sr � � � 4 r � %` �n / , y » ��/\' �� a�,<'�,�i . "� �. » '?;�' �"t %' ,rq'"� � ;� "`�' �^4',' w 4 t \ gt , _ . �� ' . ��g �� % +� �+ � ,�y�`� ��J � f� �b �'.�yy�i�� "''� �t r. f { ' �.. + �n � . � �F¢,, a .. . � ., � . t ` a ~ wr �� Xu �. � x ,�r ,. . `�,>„d� z* s�": b ?� ' � . • •;� p � -.�,�� t i ` ti1,�'✓� � � ' �'tr � � �';�h ti! � �h'" ' "X O y`r{�' \ �11 t � iA � +' ; t� "`, t' w v:^: '��> '�: � . � y � � �+ � •� f n.��' � 1 r X'j ` f_� ,C�¢ '�� '� "V', " �`�8 ��,i �+�.�`�M `'�` � � i' ��' � t 1�»�" ' i �� + f � "�w �� "s,';�.� . �� s'� -�� ,� { � �fi k,„ >a�"�.�� +��g �� r ��"+,,, � ,� s �2 -6' � <•+ • �� ``. "�t �. ° �. •��;,t ,`'t��:K: � 23 ;f � ► ,/�, �' / � �� ,,tit � %�'... '� � �.. :.:'�t. `� �/ � s�'� � � � � � � � '� r R+. . u � a _ . , � _ � ,. � . .� Ib a y, ., . $ ., x �'+� + �iP .,y, V �'`�1 � 'k.a � / "� .... . 0.� �� / ' � ts, , , . a vr � .,-'. /� ,� � ..; '�l � '�� -o...�a�we�mw�� ''1 . � p ^: � , . . \ yy 7 . p. .x.r : . A�. y� ,.. � � q / • � M �y. . :�i. �.�� 'a: . . �, � � ,@?� k� y w �� :� rl` � �% � �� Di � I � . � ��II' � �F � _ nr+ �� . � �, '� ; �. � p, ��, ��. � . �" `�v. � -; , t , fi ,�, �%m j , a t�i� r'q` zx /�iR� °g?• , �;i�, �y. � .�A a:� � : ;. �, , � �" ,., e .�t`� � '� s µ �f• 1 � i �``i�� 7`�'� /'� 1 i. ':�.�^Lv ` � .� / - 1 / 1 � � �� . � . a � � _� � ''� '� ; r'_1��V� ... � �g ... . � - !„1 y �� 1 � ' . , „1 '' ��' � , � " • ` "° -:r �',� o�.: „, r, � � O v � � ) '' . �.;,., r . . � r �, . F + , x City of Burlingame Design Review, Parking Dimension Variance and Front and Side Item #� Setback Variances for Substantial Construction including a First and Action Calendar Second Story Addition Address: 1243 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: 6/22/06 Request: Design review, parking dimension variance and front and side setback variances for substantial construction including a first and second story addition at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.57.010, C.S. 25.70.020(2), C.S. 25.28.072(b) and (c)) Applicant/Architect: Stewart Associates, Farhad Ashrafi/Debbie Kaufman APN: 026-171-060 Property Owner: Frank Knifsend Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per 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. Summary: The applicant is requesting design review, a parking dimension variance and front and side setback variances for substantial construction including a first and second-story addition at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing house is one story with an attached one-car garage. There is a 292 SF accessory structure located at the rear of the property. The project includes removing more than 50% of the exterior walls, including the attached garage, and adding to the right side and the rear of the building. Code section 25.08.643 defines substantial construction as wholly new construction, or removal and replacement of 50% or more of the exterior walls of a building. The second floor addition will be 1,319 SF and will add three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a study. Because the first floor reconstruction includes removing the attached one car garage the lot coverage will actually decrease. The existing lot coverage is 37.9% (2,276 SF) and will be reduced to 36.3% (2,180 SF). The floor area of the house will increase from 2,123 SF (0.35 FAR) to 3,310 SF (0.55 FAR) where 3,312 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum floor area allowed on this lot. The proposal is 2 SF below the maximum allowed floor area. There is an existing 292 SF accessory structure located in the rear of the lot that is currently used as storage. As part of this project, the applicant is proposing to convert this structure to a one car detached garage. The conversion includes removing the existing windows located on the rear and left side walls and installing vertical siding to match the existing siding. With this proposal, the number of bedrooms will be increasing from two to four. The study is not defined as a bedroom because it is less than 70 square feet in area. The code requires one 10' x 20' covered parking space and one 9' x 20' uncovered parking space. The detached garage will provide one covered space 13'-6" wide by 19'-8" deep and one uncovered 9' wide by 20' deep parking space will be provided in the driveway. Therefore this project requires a parking variance for parking space dimension for the depth of the garage. The existing front setback is non-conforming at 15'-10" where the average front setback for the block is 16'-10". The proposal includes reducing the width of the front setback encroachment from 43'-6" to 16' with the removal of the attached garage. However, this involves removal and reconstruction at the same non-conforming setback, therefore a front setback variance is required. The existing left side setback is also non-conforming at 3'-10" where 4' is required. A small portion of the first floor will be extended along the left side, therefore a left side setback variance is required. There is also more than 50% of the exterior walls of this structure being removed and/or reconstructed, which is defined as substantial construction as per code section 25.08.643. Code section 25.50.080 (a) states that the footprint of a nonconforming structure may be enlarged only if the entire structure is Design Review, Parking Variance, Front and Side Setback Variances 1243 Cabrillo Avenue made to conform to all parking and physical dimensional standards in the district in which it is located. Therefore a parking variance for garage length is required. Front and left side setback variances are also required for this proposal. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for substantial construction and first and second floor additions; • Parking variance for parking space dimension (10' x 20' required, 13'6" x 19'8" proposed); • Front setback variance (15' 10" proposed where 16' 10" is required); and • Left side setback variance (3' 10" proposed where 4' is required). Lot Area: 6,000 SF Proposed Existing i Allowed/Required SETBACKS ................................................ i...................................... �_.......... . . . ... ................................... ..... ;..... ;... Front (lst fl'r): No change 15'-10" 15 or block average (2nd flr): (16"-10") 20' N/A 20' 2 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. Side (left): No change ' 3'-10"* i 4' (right): 8'-3" to 2°d flr bay ! 10'-9" 4. Rear (ls`flr): 48' i .....................................................................59�.............. 1.5�........................................................... �2nd J''r�� 53' N/A 20� �.. : . , Lot Coverage: 36.5% ; 37.9% 40% (2,192 SF) � (2,276 SF) (2,400 SF) : ........... ............ ................................................. .. .. . . . ......................:............ FAR: 3,310 SF/ � 2,123 SF/ 3,312 SF/ 0.55 FAR I 0.35 FAR 0.55 FAR i.........................................................................................................................................................:.................................................................................. # of bedrooms: 4 i 2 � .........................................................................................................................................................:...................................................................._......................................................................... Parking: ...... .................................................. .. I No change 3 I One covered One covered (13'-6" x 19'-8") * (10' x 20') � + 1 unc. in driveway + 1 unc. in driveway � ................................................. .. ... .. .............................. ... :................ .. ... _......._....... . . Height: 29'-1" 19'-3" 30'/ 2'/z stories : ; ............................... DHEnvelope: Meets requirement ; Meets requirement See code * Existing non-conforming ' Front setback variance for 15'-10" front setback where 16'-10" (block average) is required 2 Left side setback variance for 3'-10" left side setback where 4' is required 3 Parking dimension variance for covered parking space dimension (13'-6" x 19'-8" proposed where 10' x 20' dimension is required for covered parking) Staff Comments: see attached. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on May 8, 2006, the Commission had several questions and suggested revisions to the project and voted to place this project on the regular action calendar (January 9, 2006 P.C. Minutes). The applicant has submitted revised plans date stamped June 1, 2006, together with the attached letter date stamped June 1, 2006, responding to the Commission's comments. The following is a list of the Commission's comments (in italics) followed by the applicant's revisions made to the plans. -2- Design Review, Pnrking Variance, Front and Side Setback Variances 1243 Cabrillo Avenue , •' � l. Has the existing foundation been analyzed? Can it support a second story without replacement? The applicant notes that the existing foundation can be underpinned to the new foundation, which will add support to the new second floor. 2. Unit pavers in the driveway should be built on sand to be permeable. The applicant notes that the landscape plan has been revised to show that the new concrete unit pavers will be installed over a 2" sand base. 3. Second itoor of right side elevation doesn't read well, a one foot projection is not deep enough to break up the plane, needs work along this side; solution along the right side is not to just bump out the projection two feet, need to change roof lines. • The applicant notes that the length of second floor projection has been increased from 12'-10" to 15'-2", and a bay window was added for further prominence. The roof line for the proj ection was changed from a hipped roof to a gable. 4. Rear second fl'oor gable end needs a vent in the triangular area; can add a false vent at gable. The revised plans show shingles at the gable end rather than siding, with a knee brace at the peak. 5. Is there a knee brace at the front above the porch, clarify open truss work; porch would look better if it were wider instead of the shingles continuing over. The applicant notes that there is no open truss work at the entry gable and notes that the plans have been revised so that all gable end treatments will be shingled and painted to match the finish at the lower floor wainscot. It is also noted that the width of the gable at the front porch entry is governed by the sill height at the bedroom window above in order to meet egress requirements. 6. Design looks like it is driven by declining height envelope. • The applicant states that the design was not driven by the declining height limit; the driveway setback has shifted the upper floor addition to the left and gives that perception. 7. Chimney needs to be more distinctive, needs more style. The revised plans show that design features have been introduced in the chimney's brick work, and the height of the chimney has been increased by 2'-0". 8. If electric/automatic gate is put in across the driveway, an off-street uncovered parking space should be retained when the gate is closed. • The revised plans show a proposed future electric gate location located toward the rear of the house, approximately 47' from the front property line, which will allow adequate space for a 20' deep off-street parking space. In addition, the applicant notes that any electric gate that is installed will have an in-swing which will not compromise any off-street parking in the driveway. -3- Design Review. Park�ing Variance, Front and Side Setback Variances 1243 Cabrillo Avenue 9. Stepping back massing along the left side is good; but side elevations are broad, need to take cues from neighbor to the right; roof element could come down to help break up the inassing, break the roof line. • The applicant notes that the second floor left side elevation has been broken up by introducing a 1'-6" recess toward the middle of the wall, and the roof line is broken up by new gables on either side of the recess. 10. Existing elevations are needed, add to next submittal; and note casement windows on the plans. The applicant notes that the existing elevations are attached to the revised plans; and that casement windows are noted on the front elevation. Condition No. 1 listed below requires that there be casement windows throughout. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant the requested parking dimension variance and front and side setback variances, 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. 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for the requested variances and for design review. 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 June 1, 2006, sheets A1 through A7, L1.0 and Sheet 1, Boundary Survey; and that any changes to building materials including casement windows throughout, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; � Design RevieH�, Pnrking Yariance, Front and Side Setback Variances 1243 Cabrillo Avenue � ' � r 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. 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; 4. 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; 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; 6. 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; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 10, 2006, memo, the City Engineer's April 10, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's Apri17, 2006, memo, Recycling Specialist's April 24,2006, memo, and NPDES Coordinator's April 10, 2006, memos, shall be met; 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; 9. that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 10. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Maureen Brooks Senior Planner Stewart Associates, applicant/architect -5- �. - Item # q. Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review, Parking Variance and Front and Side Setback Variances for Substantial Construction including a First and Second Story Addition Address: 1243 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: 5/8/06 Request: Design review, parking variance and front and side setback variances for substantial construction including a first and second story addition at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1(C.S. 25.57.010, C.S. 25.70.020(2), C.S. 25.28.072(b) and (c)) Applicant/Architect: Stewart Associates, Farhad Ashrafi/Debbie Kaufinan APN: 026-171-060 Property Owner: Frank Knifsend Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Date Submitted: Apri17, 2006 Summary: The applicant is requesting design review, a parking variance and front and side setback variances for substantial construction including a first and second-story addition at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing house is one story with an attached one-car garage. There is a 292 SF accessory structure located at the rear of the property. The proj ect includes removing more than 50% of the exterior wall, including the attached garage, and adding to the right side and the rear of the building. Code section 25.08.643 defines substantial construction as wholly new construction, or removal and replacement of 50% or more of the exterior walls of a building. The second floor addition will be 1,319 SF and will add three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a study. Because the first floor reconstruction includes removing the attached one car garage the lot coverage will actually decrease. The existing lot coverage is 37.9% (2,276 SF) and will be reduced to 36.3 %(2,180 SF). The floor area of the house will increase from 2,123 SF (0.35 FAR) to 3,310 SF (0.55 FAR) where 3,312 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum floor area allowed on this lot. The proposal is 2 SF below the maximum allowed floor area. There is an existing 292 SF accessory structure located in the rear of the lot that is currently used as storage. As part of this project, the applicant is proposing to convert this structure to a one car detached garage. The conversion includes removing the existing windows located on the rear and left side walls and installing vertical siding to match the existing siding. The number of bedrooms will be increasing from two to four. The study is not defined as a bedroom because it is less than 70 square feet in area. The code requires one 10' x 20' covered parking space and one 9' x 20' uncovered parking space. The detached garage will provide one covered space 13'6" wide by 19'8" deep and one uncovered 9' wide by 20' deep parking space will be provided in the driveway. Therefore this project requires a parking variance for parking space dimension. The existing front setback is non-conforming at 15' 10" where the average front setback for the block is 16' 10". The proposal includes reducing the width of the encroachment from 43'6" to 16' with the removal of the attached garage. However, this involves removal and reconstruction at the same non-conforming setback, therefore a front setback variance is required. The existing left side setback is also non-conforming at 3' 10" where 4' is required. A small portion of the first floor will be extended along the left side, therefore a left side setback variance is required. There is also more than 50% of the exterior walls of this structure being removed and/or reconstructed, which is defined as substantial construction as per code section 25.08.643. Code section 25.50.080 (a) states that the footprint of a nonconforming structure may be enlarged only if the entire structure is made to conform to all parking and physical dimensional standards in the district in which it is located. Therefore a parking variance is required. Front and left side setback variances are also required for this proposal. r l�esign Review, Pnrking Yariance, Front and Side Setback Variances The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for substantial construction and first and second floor additions; • Parking variance for parking space dimension (10' x 20' required, 13'6" x 19'8" proposed); • Front setback variance (15' 10" proposed where 16' 10" is required); and • Left side setback variance (3' 10" proposed where 4' is required). 1243 Cabrillo Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Proposed Existing � Allowed/Required SETBACKS � � � ; , � � .......................... .... ............... ;...................................................................................... Front (1 st flr): No changel ; 15' 10" � 15' or block average � (2nd flr): 20' � N/A (16' 10") ; 20' . : ......................... ....... ................................................ ............ Side (left): No change2 3' 10"* 4' (right): 10'9" ; 10'9" ... . ... . ........ ..................................... . . ....................................................................................................................................... . . . , , ; , Rear (ls`,flr): 48 59 ; 15 , , �2nd�r1� 53 ; N/A i 20 i � ........ . Lot Coverage: 36.3% ; 37.9% 40% (2,180 SF) ` (2,276 SF) (2,400 SF) _ : .......................................................................... .. .. FAR: 3,310 SF/ 2,123 SF/ 3,312 SF/ 0.55 FAR 0.35 FAR 0.55 FAR .� _� ................................................ ...................................................... . .. .. # of bedrooms: 4 2 .� ..................................................................................................................................................:................................................................................................................................................ ..... . Parking: No change 3 One covered One covered (13'6" x 19'8") * (10' x 20') + 1 unc. in driveway � + 1 unc. in driveway ....................................................................................................................................................................................._......_.....................................................................4............................................................................_...................................._..............._......._........._i................................................................................................................................................ Height: 29' 1" 19'3" 30'/ 2'/z stories � .......................... . . ................................................................................. DHEnvelope: Meets requirement Meets requirement See code * Existing non-conforming 1 Front setback variance for 15'10" front setback where 16'10" is required Z Left side setback variance for 3'10" left side setback where 4' is required 3 Parking variance for covered parking space dimension (13'6" x 19'8" proposed where 10' x 20' dimension is required for covered parking) Staff Comments: see attached. Catherine Barber Planner Stewart Associates, applicant /architect