HomeMy WebLinkAbout1016 Toyon Drive - Staff Reportr:.� •
� �i
s � ��, � :1'�
i�, 1 ; r •�
� *•�
. y Y �
� �Y i
: i� r r+. '
.'!' k:
i ?' �A d �, Y ,
-±. `��v:
.� j ,
�
/� ' �1 1 n
-� ��' � li
r^
�x .� �
' �_~s ��F
�4,�� : . ..r.,� � +'.�,':�. .
=1
yf 4 ..
'qp�T
: ��.
1.-�: s �..` �'..:����
. �. '�; .'. .
', � ,
i
� � }_
� +� ; :
�: ��' u y;;k �E,�
,. >
�r � x �!
���' �{((��Jf� �1 ��ii�J-x i'1
�das � t^�i L. ( � ./
L �t'� r r S�� r '
��
.�^,1 N '� �d �� � y:
�+r€'� ;L i�si��"i`.��;F t ;1:
4� h-,
�ye � ��. h a�M. :.
���. k NI.
,'. -
w� , ' �
: �J
� i .• �t
..i :;.
� '. �
;�
i �
� V� �
";�
�
:
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Side Setback Variance
Item # �
Action
Address: 1016 Toyon Drive Meeting Date: 10/10/00
Request: Design review and first floor side setback variance for a first and second story addition.
Property Owners: Chong Ho and Young H. Lee APN: 026-240-150
Applicant and Designer*: Chang H. Lee, CHL Associates, Inc. Lot Area: 5,000 SF (50' x 100')
General Plan Designation: Low density residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1-(e) 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.
May 8, 2000 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission meeting on May 8, 2000, the
Commission reviewed the applicants' request for a first and second story addition and referred the project to a
design reviewer (May 8, 2000, Planning Commission Minutes). The Planning Commission expressed the following
concerns and suggestions:
• windows should be changed to match those typical in the neighborhood;
• remove wooden corner trim from the house and chimney;
• soffit detail and barge rafters should be evaluated and changed to match the detail of other houses in the
neighborhood;
• roof should be redesigned to a style which blends the second story addition in the house; and
• vertical massing needs to be broken up on the side and rear elevations.
After the study meeting and meeting with the design reviewer, the applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped
September 15, 2000, to address the Planning Commission's concerns. The following revisions were made;
• windows have been revised to match the existing windows and those typical in the neighborhood;
• wooden corner trim from the house and chimney have been removed;
• barge rafters have been scaled down in size;
• roof at the front of the house has been redesigned into one continuous roofline with dormers on the second
floor;
• to break up the vertical massing, a cantilevered bay window was added on the second floor rear elevation and
a window was added on the second floor left side elevation;
• a bay window was added on the first floor front elevation; and
• curved steps, bordered by a stucco half-wall, and a planter box were added to the front entry as suggested by
the design review consultant.
Please refer to the Design Review section for a summary of the design reviewer's analysis of the project.
Desig;a Review and Side Setback Variance 1016 Toyon Drive
,Summary: The existing single-story house contains 1,748 SF of floor area (.35 FAR), including an attached
single-car garage, and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a 25 SF net increase on the first floor and
a new 892 SF second floor, for a total of 2,665 SF (.53 FAR) of floor area. One attached covered parking space
is provided and meets the requirement for a four bedroom house. The sitting room is not considered a bedroom
since one of its walls is open 50%. A side setback variance is required to extend the existing garage wall an
additional one foot along the right side property line in order to provide the required 20' interior length for a
covered parking space (3' side setback proposed where 4' is required). A floor area ratio variance would be
required if a two-car garage is required in the future. This project meets all zoning code requirements and only
requires design review.
Table Com arin Pro osed Pro'ect with Existin and Re uired R-1 Standards
Current Proposal Previous Proposal Existing Maximum/Req'd
10/10/00 5/8/00
Front Setback -1 st fl.: no change no change 19'-6" 15' or average
Front Setback - 2nd fl.: 44'-6" 45'-6" none 20'-0"
Right Setback: 3'-0" to garage* 3'-0" to garage* 3'-0" to garage° 4'-0"
Left Setback: 7'-4" 7'-6" 5'-0" 4'-0"
Rear Setback - Istfl.: 30'-6" 30'-0" 23'-0" 15'-0"
Rear Setback - Znd fl.: 28'-6" 30'-0" none 20'-0"
Garage Setback: no change 25'-0" 26'-0" 25'-0"
Height: 25'-10" 25'-4" 16'-6" 3 0'-0"
DHE: complies complies complies see code
Lot Coverage: 36.3% 37.7% 37.7% 40%
1,816 SF 1,887 SF 1,888 SF 2,000 SF
FAR: .53 FAR .53 FAR .35 FAR .54 FAR
2,665 SF 2,669 SF 1,748 SF 2,700 SF
# Bedrooms: 4 4 3 n/a
Parking: no change 1 covered 1 covered 1 covered
(10'-6" x 20') (9'-6" x 17'-6")° (10' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20' ) (9' x 20' )
* Side setback variance to extend an existing garage wa113'-0" from the side property line.
° Existing nonconforming side setback and covered parking space dimensions.
Staff Comments: Attached.
Design Review (September 15, 2000 plans): The design reviewer and project designer met to discuss Planning
Commission's concerns and suggestions for the project. The reviewer notes in his August 24, 2000, memo that the
style is compatible with the neighborhood and that various styles exist on this block. The roof shapes have been
2
Desig�,� Review and Side Setback Variance 1016 Toyon Drive
changed and are an improvement from the previous submittal. The reviewer noted that there is lack of windows
on the left side elevation. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped September 15, 2000, with a 5' x 4'
window added on the second floor left side elevation. The reviewer commented that the rear elevation has been
offset and improved, and suggested that this elevation could be further improved by a more careful treatment of the
cantilevered room with trim or brackets at the bottom. The applicant followed the reviewer's suggestion by adding
corbels below the cantilevered room.
The applicant revised the stairs at the front entry by adding curved stairs which are bordered by a stucco half-wall.
A planter box was added at the end of the front landing. The design reviewer reviewed the revisions to the front
entry and noted that the design is compatible with the design of the house.
The design reviewer notes that the revised drawings are much improved from the original submittal. The applicant
has responded well to the suggestions made by the Planning Commission and design reviewer. It is the design
reviewer's opinion that the design represented in the most recent submittal (date stamped September 15, 2000)
is consistent with the design guidelines.
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:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings for a Variance: 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.
3
Desigrr Review and Side Setback Variance
1016 Toyon Drive
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should
be by resolution and include findings made for design review and side setback variance, and the reasons for any
action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
September 15, 2000, sheets A0, AOA, and A1-A4, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require and amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging
a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall
be subject to design review;
3. that if at any time in the future the residential structure is further enlarged or remodeled to require two covered
parking spaces, a floor area ratio variance may be required;
4. that the City Engineer's April 17, 2000, memo shall be met; and
5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,1998
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben G. Hurin
Planner
c. Chang H. Lee, CHL Associates, Inc., applicant and designer
�
City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000
�331 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY
C. Dea1 noted at he would abstain from review of this pr�
CP Monroe pres ted the staff report. Commissioner asked
staff commented tha he 43 SF was being relocated to the
There were no other que ions of staff.
since he had a business relationship with the applicant.
zy this item was being reviewed if FAR is not an issue,
c Zd floor and was therefore a second story addition.
Vice Chairman Vistica opened t ublic hearing. Bob Bussey, the father o e applicant, represented the project since
his daughter was out of town. He n ted that this was an old, poorly maintaine ouse which they were trying to make
liveable, they needed to relocate the 4 SF in order to move a stairway, they do not ' tend to change the front elevation
of the house, but are redefining the livi area within the house. Commissioner note that this was a fine project and
blended well with the house. There wer no comments from the public and the hearing s closed.
C. Osterling moved to place this item on th onsent calendar for action. The motion was seco ed by C. Keighran.
Vice Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote the motion which passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Dea bstaining, Cers.
Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent) voice vote. Commissio ' action is advisory and not appealable. This ite concluded at
10:12 p.m.
1016 TOYON DRIVE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND DESIGN REV�W
�FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHANG H. LEE, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; CHONG
HO AND YOUNG H. LEE, PROPERTY OWNERSI
CP Monroe presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission.
Vice Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Chang Lee, architect, commented that he would represent the project
and would respond to any questions the commission might have. Commissioners discussed the proposed addition with
the architect clarifying issues regarding the windows, corner trim, slope of the roof, soffit detail, lack of elevations on
the site plan, fact that aluminum windows as shown are out of character with the neighborhood, the barge rafters look
awkward in this design, looks as if the entire roof will need to be removed so there a more options in its design, and
dormers might work better to blend the second story addition into the house, wood trim on chimney should also be
taken off, there is a lack of articulation on the structure, particularly on the rear elevation which is flat and tall. It was
noted that the height and bulk of this structure as shown on the proposed plans was not a problem. There were no
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojues moved to refer this item to a design reviewer with the direction that: the windows be changed to match those
typical in the neighborhood; that the wooden corner trim be removed from the house and chimney; that the soffit detail
and barge rafters be evaluated and changed to match the type of details on other houses in the area; that the roof be
redesigned to a style which blends the second story addition into the house better using dormers for example; that the
designer needs to work on the flat walls to break up the vertical mass adding articulation on the sides but especially on
the rear elevation. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling,
Luzuriaga absent). Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:25 p.m.
PLANNER RE�ORTS
REVIEW OF ITY COUN
CP Monroe reviewe t ese
TING OF MAY 1, 2000.
minutes at the S
on May 3, 2000.
page -10-
Winges Architecture & Planning 1290 Howard Ave. Suite 311
Burlingame, CA 94010
MEMO:
Date: 8-24-2000
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, CA 94010
ref: 1016 TOYON DRNE -- LEE
RECEIVED
AU G 2 4 2000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and have reviewed the
plans for the second story addition with the designer. The designer faxed me proposed
revisions. I prepared comments and sent them to the designer. This is the review of the
re-submitted plans stamped 8-17-2000.
1 Compatibilitv of the architectural s�le with that of the e�stin� nei�hborhood:
• Style is compatible for the most part with the neighborhood.
• Various styles and sizes of houses e�st on this block.
2 Respect the Parking and Garage Patterns in the Nei�hborhood:
.
The garage faces the street and the location will not change.
Garage is being enlarged to meet code requirements.
3_ Architectural Style�Mass and Bulk of the Structure and Internal Consistencv of the
Desi�n•
• The roof shapes have changed and are an improvement from the previous
submittal.
• 2 gable dormers have been added which add interest and scale to the house.
• The elevations have been drawn more carefully and are an improvement over the
original design.
• There is still a lack of windows on the west (left) side on the second level.
• Rear elevation has been offset and improved. This elevation might be further
improved by a more careful treatment of the cantilevered room (ie with trim or
brackets at the bottom.)
• Patio/balcony could be improved with some gaps in the stucco and more detail,
planter box, etc.
• Barge rafter treatment is still unexplained but could be OK.
4 Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side:
• There will be some shadow effects on the neighboring properties from the
increased height and new mass proposed on the second floor.
5 Landscapin� and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components:
• Landscaping is not shown.
Summarv:
1. These revised drawings are much improved from the original submittal. The
applicant has responded well to the suggestions.
2. The overall changes with one larger roof, the dormers, the offsets in the back, and
the improved elevations dormers are an improvement.
3. Scheme could be further improved with additional trim, upper windows on the
west side, and careful detailing at the balcony, barge boards, and projecting sitting
room.
4. Recommend approval of the overall concept.
7erry L. Winges, AIA
CIT1' OF :UFLI��JGH�✓IE
V�1�I�NCE �PPLIC,�TIC����JS
'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 will assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extiaordinary circumstances o� conditions app/icab/e to your
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area.
The right sid�e of the residence is the existing garage, which is 3' from tY�e property
line. The existing garage is roughly 10' X 17', which is much sm��ller tl��u� the
current required dimensions of 10' X 20'.
b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
might result from the denia/ of the app/ication.
In order to lengthen the existing garage from I 7' to 20', the rear of the €;arage has
been altered to extend the garage area by 2'. 1'his is the maximum leng:h. that can be
cxtcndcd to the rear due to an existing bearing wa11. As a�-esuit, it is prc�I��sed to
construct a 1' addition at the frant of the existing garage. :Howevf;�-, the r�equired side
setback is 4' and the right side af the residence is 3' from the property line.
c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
con venience.
Thc proposc� 1' ac�drtiorr to the front of the existing garag�a will rE�quixe only a 1' X 1'
area outside of the setback requirements. This area is neecied to match tre addition to
the right side of the garage, ar�d will not be detrimentaI or injurious to prc�perty or
improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, be�neral ��e:lfare, or
convenience.
d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
The proposed 1' addition will match the width of the existing gar�ge, which would be
aesthetically pleasing and compatible.
12/92 var.frm
a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicab/e to your
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area.
Do any conditions exist Qn the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable �o�
impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area7 For example, is there a creek cutting
through the properry, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of
existing structuresl How is this property different from others in the neighborhoodl
b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
might resu/t from the denia/ of the application.
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exceptio�?
(i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedrooms7) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses
allowed without the exception7 Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship
on the development of the property7
c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
convenience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those
p�opertiesl If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting,
paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, 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 welfarel
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, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or
communicable diseases).
Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection7 WII alarm
systems or sprinklers be installed7 Could the structure o� use within the structure create a nuisance or need
for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use
flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like 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 development7 Is there a social benefit7
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or
parking for this site or adjacent sites)1 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as
the elderly or handicappedl
d. How wi// the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighbo�hood? If it does not
affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match
existing architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 If use will affect
the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits".
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulkl If there is no
change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with
other structures in the neighborhood or area.
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood7 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 cFiaracter 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 potential uses in the vicinity. ,srez,,...�,,,,