HomeMy WebLinkAbout260 Crescent Avenue - Staff ReportPROJECT LOCATION
263 Crescent Avenue
Item # �
Regular Action Calendar
Item # 5
Regular Action
City of Burlingame
Design Review for a New, Two-Story Dwelling With a Detached Garage
Address: 263 Crescent Avenue Meeting Date: 07/28/03
Request: Design review for a new, two-story dwelling with a detached garage.
Applicant: Kevin LeHane APN: 028-287-010
Property Owner: Chetcuti and Associates, Inc. Lot Area: 8,712 SF
Designer: Marijana Stott
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
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.
Summary: The subject site is a corner property at the intersection of Howard and Crescent Avenues.
The narrow side of the property (and by code definition the front of the property) is along Howard
Avenue. The property is non-conforming, with an existing duplex development where the R-1 zoning
of the property only allows a single-family residential development. The site is level, except for a 2'-6"
drop in grade in the rear 9'-0" of the lot, at the point of an existing retaining wall, where the property
slopes to a channelized portion of Burlingame Creek. The top of the channel represents the top of
creek bank and is also the rear property line.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing duplex (two units separated by a small yard, one
unit fronting on Howard Avenue and one on Crescent Avenue), except for the living room portion and
courtyard wall of the unit fronting on Howard Avenue. The proposed new, two-story single-family
dwelling will be added to the remaining portions of the living room and the new dwelling is designed
to match the Spanish style of the existing unit fronting on Howard Avenue. With the proposed
application, the floor area on the site will be 3,857 SF (0.45 FAR) where 3,981 SF (0.47 FAR) is the
maximum allowed.
A detached garage is proposed in the rear 30% of the lot, with a driveway entrance on Crescent
Avenue. At its closest point, the proposed garage will be 1'-0" from the existing retaining wall and 9'-
0" from the rear property line/top of creek bank. The existing unit fronting on Crescent Avenue is 1'-8"
from the existing retaining wall and 12'-6" from the rear properly line/top of creek bank. The proposed
dwelling has five bedrooms and the detached garage provides two covered parking spaces (20'-0" width
x 20'-0" length) to meet code requirements. All other zoning code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following:
• Design Review for a new, two-story dwelling with a detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010).
Design Review for a New, Two-Story Dwelling 263 Crescent Avenue
CURRENT PLANS 06/23/03 PLANS EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (Ist flr): no change no change 21'-5" 20'-5"
(Znd flr): no change 38'-4" --- 20'-5"
Side (left): no change 5'-0" 5'-0"
� ��
(right IS`fl): 7 - g�_p�� --- 7'-6�� .
(right 2nd fl): no change complies average of 12'-0"
Rear (1 st flr): 66'-0" 67'-9" --- 15'-0"
(2nd, flr): 68'-0" 67'-9" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: non-
2,540 SF 2,463 SF conforming 3,485 SF
29% 28% duplex (two 40%
separate units)
FAR: 3,855 SF 3,857 SF ___ 4,038 SF
0.44 FAR 0.44 FAR 0.46 FAR
Parking: 2 covered --- 2 covered
no change (10' x 20') (10' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
# of bedrooms: no change 5 --- ---
Height: 26'-0" 28'-8" single-story 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: no change complies --- see code
Staff Comments: See attached. Staff would note that because the proposed detached garage will be
9'-0" from the rear property line/top of creek bank and it was determined that no additional
environmental review of the project is necessary.
Design Review Study Meeting: The Planning Commission reviewed this project as a design review
study item at their June 23, 2003 meeting. The Planning Commission stated their concerns about the
project and referred it to a design review consultant.: The applicant met with the consultant on several
occasions and submitted a revised set of plans on July 18, 2003. The Commissions concerns are listed
below with the applicant's revisions immediately following:
�
Design Review for a New, Two-Story Dwelling
• Planning Commission comment
➢ Applicant's response
263 Crescent Avenue
Plate heights too tall;
➢ The first floor plate height has been reduced from 10'-1" to 9'-1" and the second floor plate
height has been reduced from 9'-1" to 8'-1".
Too big, massive and bulky;
➢ The applicant has made a number of revisions to address this comment, including: changing the
roof lines to show more roofing material on the front and rear elevations, reducing the plate
heights on the first and second floors, reducing the overall height from 28'-8" to 26'-0",
providing lower gables, landscape walls, and shifting the mass of the second story to the center
of the first floor.
Landscape plan needs work, add taller evergreens to screen addition;
➢ The landscape plan has been revised to show the following new 24"-box size trees to be planted
on site:
- 2 alder or birch at the rear of the property;
- 3 liquid amber at the right front corner of the site;
- 9 crepe myrtle throughout the site;
- 3 washington hawthorne at the right side; and
- 4 Japanese maple throughout the site.
Detailing on the front is very ornate, much more than the sides; need more balance of detailing
throughout project; and styles differ from side to side to rear, elevations should be consistent;
➢ Decorative details at the front, such as the wrought iron balconies, stone corbels, and shutters
have been carried to the other elevations.
Creek side lot, should use creek side setting; garage separates creek from house, usually a creek is
a real amenity; design should take advantage of creek side location; reconsider location of garage;
➢ The applicant has decided to retain the proposed siting of the house and garage based on the
fact that the creek is channelized, so that there is no view of the water from the property and no
vegetated creek bank area to connect the creek with the property. The proposed garage will
face Crescent Avenue, which is not as busy as Howard Avenue and will be more appropriate for
backing vehicles out of the garage.
Also, the narrow end of the lot facing Howard Avenue is considered by code to be the front of
the lot, so that placing a detached garage in that area would trigger number variances to the
code. The design review consultant agrees with this conclusion (see July 23, 2003 Winges
letter).
Kj
Design Review for a New, Two-Story Dwelling
263 Crescent Avenue
Look at window arrangement; windows should be consistent throughout project, are not the same
on all elevations;
➢ The applicant has revised the windows so that only the doors and the arched windows on the
second story have divided lites.
• Howard Avenue is a very busy street, look at shifting the house on the site to take advantage of
quieter street;
➢ The applicant feels that the current design of the house, with the front door facing Crescent
Avenue, will add more interest along the lengthy elevation. In addition, the design includes a
courtyard area on the Howard Avenue elevation that is shielded from the street by a stucco wall
and a large existing pine street tree. The design review consultant agrees with this conclusion
(see July 23, 2003 Winges letter); and
• May want to look at reducing the number of bedrooms so only a one-car garage would be required
then garage could be made smaller; less impact;
➢ The applicant has changed the design of the garage doors to make the garage seem less massive.
Design Review Consultant Comments: The designer and applicant met with the design review
consultant and communicated about revisions to the plans via fascimile. The design review consultant
recommends approval of the project (see July 23, 2003 Winges letter), noting in particular that the
applicant drastically improved the elevation along Crescent Avenue. The consultant comments in his
letter that although the Commission had some concerns about the siting of the house and garage in
relation to the creek, he believes the creek is not an asset to the property and that the proposed siting is
appropriate.
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;
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 proport'ion 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 design review. The reasons for any action
should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
4
Design Review for a New, Two-Story Dwelling
263 Crescent Avenue
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped July 18, 2003, sheets 1 through 6, and Sheet L, and that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to
this permit;
2. that 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;
3. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners and set the building envelope;
4. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation and
the second floor plate height of the new structure and the various surveys shall be accepted by
the City Engineer;
5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height
of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height;
6. 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 properiy owner or 'contractor shall provide the
certification under penalty of perjury;
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, pluxnbing 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 conditions of the City Engineer's, the Fire Marshal's memo, and the the Chief Building
Inspector's May 12, 2003 memos, and the Recycling Specialist's May 14, 2003 memo shall be
met;
10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
5
Design Review for a New, Two-Story Dwelling
263 Crescent Avenue
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm
water runoff;
12. that the proj ect is subj ect to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at
time of permit application;
13. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
and
14. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001
Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Erika Lewit
Planner
c: Marijana Stott
0
City ofBurlingam€.e Planning Commission Minutes
Jurce 23, 20�3
10. 263 CRESCENT DRIVE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMII,Y DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (KEVIN LEHANE, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; CHETCUTI & ASSOCIATES INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe briefly presented the proj ect description. There were no questions of staff. A11 Commissioners
visited the site.
Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Marijana Stott, designer, Kevin LeHane, contractor and Pete
Muncheck , applicant, were available to answer questions. Applicant noted that she had tried to contact the
Department of Fish and Game as well as the Army Corps of Engineers to find out how far back construction
should be setback from the creek, but could not get anyone to return her call. Commission noted that there is
information on-line regarding jurisdictional boundaries; moving the house closer to the creek eliminates
backyard; want to keep walled courtyard on the front facing Howard. Commission asked why one room is
being saved from the original house, applicants noted that it could be removed but thought that it had a lot of
nice finish features and character. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
The Planning Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project;
• Too big, massive and bulky;
• Plate heights too tall;
• Landscape plan needs work, add taller evergreens to screen addition;
• Detailing on the front is very omate, much more than the sides; need more balance of detailing
throughout proj ect;
• Styles differ from side to side to rear, elevations should be consistent;
� Creek side lot, should use creek side setting; garage separates creek from house, usually a creek is a
real amenity; design should take advantage of creek side location; reconsider location of garage;
• Howard side has two windows with single shutter, feels unbalanced;
• Look at window arrangement; windows should be consistent throughout project, are not the same an
all elevations;
+ Howard Avenue is a very busy street, look at shifting the house on the site to �Caake advantage af
quieter street; and
• May want to look at reducing the number of bedrooms so only a one-car garage would be required
then garage could be made smaller; less impact.
Chair Bojues made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to design review with the direction given
and return on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a
voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
10:17 p.m.
11. 1661 AL MARLE WAY, ZO D R-1— APPLICATION OR DESIGN REVIEW FOR IRST AND
SECO STORY ADDITI (RANDY GRANGE TRG ARCHITECTS, APP CANT AND
AR ITECT; JOHN LE , PROPERTY OWNE 50 NOTICED) PROJECT P R: RUBEN
12
JUL-23-z003 08:54A FROM:WINGES ARCHITECTURE 650 3431291 T0:6963790 P:2�3
7/�/��'L��7
ARCHITECTS
MEMO:
Date: 7-20-2003
Planning Commission
City of Buriingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94Q10
ref: 283 Cresoent -- New 2 story dwelling with detached garage
I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborttood and reviewed the inibal
plar�s. I prepared preliminary comments and met with the applicant and the Architect, and
reviewed preliminary changes. ?he applicant followed up by fax with numerous changes and
refinements to the plans, working with �e suggestions of the design reviewer. i have the
follov�ring comments regarding the final design.
1 Com�atibility of the ard�itectura{ style with that of the existina neisahbofiood:
• The styles in the neighborhood are diverse and are differing scales, some 2 story and
most one story.
• The existing home is on a comer lot, long and narrow. The proposed addition is a
coritinuation of the existing siyle of the house (to be replaced) and is compafible wifh the
neighbort�ood style. �
2 Respect the Parkin� and Garas�e Pattems in the NeiQhborttood:
• The existing detached garage stxuc�ure is in poor repair and is to be replaced with a new
garage, which is compatible witl� !he house style. The existing detached garage pattem
is consistent with the existing condfions and .the neighbofiood artd is very appropriate
for this lot.
• The location of the garage has been the subjec:t of comments ai the Planning
Commission. It is my opinion that #o move the garage to the comer location to "take
advantage of the creel�° with the house would be a major mistake. The "creek" is really
a dra9nage channel which is far below the grade of the existing lot, and is channelized
by concrete walls. !t is rtot a pasitive feature of the site and is in fact an eyesore and a
hazard. To orient the fieuse and/or the backyard toward �is drainage channel and use
the importarrt comer for the garage woutd take away from the neighborttood and the
anchoring effect of the house at the important comer, and put auto oriented �back door"
uses in the most important part of the site. t believe the garage is properly located on
the site, to aliow the house to maintain the cesidential qu�lity af the comer, and maintain
the lovely !ow walied gardens facing the public. It wili enhance the streetscape ta keep
the house, low walls and gardens at the comer versus the garage and driveway
including potentially parked cars. I recommend that #he house stay in the existing
position and the garage be iocated near the drainage channel as originally p%posed.
• The garage doors and detailing have been improved and the design is c:ompatible with
the house design.
3. Arc�itectural St�rt Mass and BuEk of the Struckur'e and Intemat Consistencv of the Desi n.
• The style of �te new house is in conformity with the very pleasant Mediterranean styls of
the existing house, using similar roof shapes, materiats and trim.
• The layout of #he floor plans and flow of the house makes sense with the orientation and
ihe site.
WINGES ARCHJ7EC7S, qJ�. 7290 HOW,+1/t0 AVE. SpliE3rf. su�ae�� ca �wo i Fax� (asal �-rzer i uuo�w�re.�m i r�x: (e�o) �-r�o+
ARCMlfC7URE / MASTER PLANN9YG / IKTERlQR ARCHI7ECTURE / SPACEPLWMlV6 / DESIGNCOUNSELING
' JUL-23-2003 08:55A FR�M:WINGES ARCHITECTURE 650 3431291 T0:6963790 P:3�3
'Yy � J'1 L � �7
ARCHITECTS
• The appiicant has worked long and hard to reduce the scale of the house and improve
the appearance to fit in with Burlingame and to responci to the Commission and the
design reviewer's comments. The plate heights have been reduced, roaf and projecting
elements have been changed and lowered, more breakup up and interest has been
created using balconies, landscape walls, lower gables, and introducing a hip
confguretion for the main roof. The right side elevation along Crescent has been
drasticaily improved as have all o#her elevations, and the house has a wanderful
combination of roof elements, windows, balconies and trim details. The scale has been
reduced by using lower elemerits at both the south side and the north side of the house.
• The windows have been made more consistent and better proportioned.
• The chimney shapes and massirtg have been improved.
• The balance of detailing on all elevations has been improved, made more consistent
and harmonious.
4 Interface of the Pr000sed Structure with the Adiacent Structures to Each Side:
� � There will be some scaie and shadow imp��ts on the house to the west due to greater
height and bulk of the new structure, however this is minimized by the adjoining house
being some distance from tl�e property line, and the step back of the second floor. The
roof shapes and (ioor plan configuration of breaking clown the mass facing the neighbor
is effective in reducing the impacts.
• There is minima! to no effect on the rear property due to low scale of the gardge
struch,re, and the separating effect of the drainage channel to the neighboring property.
5. L.andsca in and (ts Pro rtion the Mass and Bulk of tructural Com onents:
• Landscaping plan was not submitted and not reviewed.
umma :
1. The appticant has been particularly flexible and accommodating to improving the design,
making necessary changes, and lowenng the scale. They have been sensitive to the
suggestions of the commission and the design reviewer.
2. I believe the design is greatly improved and is in conformance with the design
guidelines.
3. Recommend approval of the design pending satisfactary landscape plans ar+e submitted
and approved if required by the Commission.
Jerry L. Winges, AIA
Principal
waw�es aacr�c'r� wc. t2m HowaRo ave. surrFsta. euxutuca�+� ca aaoro i Fax.•(aso) sas.r28t i tn�wa�a�a.c� i�: t�o1 ses-ttof
n�c�cTuxE i ,d.4sr� � i m►� �c�+rrEcrurte i sPac�ptarmvduc i a�rocounrs�vnt�
�i�/1 �Ir��
ARCHITECTS
MEMO:
Date: 7-20-2003
Pianning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, �A 94010
ref: 263 Crescent -- New 2 story dwelling with de.tached garage
I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and reviewed the initial
plans. I prepared preliminary comments ans� met with the applicant and the Architect, and
reviewed preliminary changes. The applicant followed up by fax with numerous changes and
refinements to the plans, working with the suggestions of the design reviewer. I have the
following comments regarding the final design.
1. Comnatibilitv of the architectural st�rle with that of the existin� neic�hborhood:
• The styles in the neighborhood are diverse and are differing scales, some 2 story and
�nost one story.
• The existing home is on a comer lot, long and narrow. The proposed addition is a
continuation of the existing style of the house (to be replaced) and is compatible with the
neighborhood style. �
2. Respect the Parkinq and Garage Pattems in the Neiqhborhood:
• The existing detached garage structure is in poor repair and is to be replaced with a new
garage, which is compatible with the house style. The existing detached garage pattem
is consistent with the existing conditions and the neighborhood and is very appropriate
for this lot.
• The location of the garage has been the subject of comments at the Planning
Commission. It is my opinion that to move the garage to the comer location to "take
advantage of the creek" with the house would be a major mistake. The "creeku is really
a drainage channel which is far below the grade of the existing lot, and is channelized
by concrete walls. It is not a positive feature of the site and is in fact an eyesore and a
hazard. To orient the house and/or the backyard toward this drainage channel and use
the important comer for the garage would take away from the neighborhood and the
anchoring effect of the house at the important comer, and put auto oriented "back doo�'
uses in the most important part of the site. I believe the garage is properly located on
the site, to allow the house to maintain the residential quality of the comer, and maintain
the lovely low walled gardens facing the public. It will enhance the streetscape to keep
the house, low walls and gardens at the comer versus the garage and driveway
including potentially parked cars. I recommend that the house stay in the existing
position and the garage be located near the drainage channel as originally proposed.
• The garage doors and detailing have been improved and the design is compatible with
the house design.
3. Architectural Stvle, Mass and Bulk of the Structure, and Intemal Consistencv of the Desiqn.
� The style of the new house is in conformity with the very pleasant Mediterranean style of
the existing house, using similar roof shapes, materials and trim.
• The layout of the floor plans and flow of the house makes sense with the orientation and
the site.
WINGES ARCHJTECiS, INC. 1290 HOWARfl AVE. SUITE311, BURLlN6AME, CA 990f0 / FAX: (650) 343-1291 / info�wingesaia.com / TEL: (650) 393-1101
ARCHlTECTURE / MASTER PLANNING / 1NTERIOR ,4RCHITECTURE / SPRCE PLhNNING / DESIGN CWNSFUNG
d
�t�/ ! � i r � �
ARCHITECTS
• The applicant has worked long and hard to reduce the scale of the house and improve
the appearance to fit in with Burlingame and to respond to the Commission and the
design reviewer's comments. The plate heights have been reduced, roof and proje�ting
elements have been changed and lowered, more breakup up and interest has been
created using balconies, landscape walls, lower gables, and introducing a hip
configuration for the main roof. The right side elevation along Crescent has been
drastically improved as have alt other elevations, and the house has a wonderful
combinatian of roof elements, windows, balconies and trim details. The scale has been
reduced by using lower elements at both the south side and the north side of the house.
• The windows have been made more consistent and better proportioned.
• The chimney shapes and massing have been improved.
• The balance of detailing on all elevations has been improved, made more consistent
and harmonious.
4 InterFace of the Proposed Structure with the Adiacent Structures to Each Side:
• There will be some scale and shadow impacts on the house to the west due to greater
height and bulk of the new strueture, however this is minimized by #he adjoining house
being some distance from the property line, and the step back of the second floor. The
roof shapes and floor plan con�guration of breaking down the mass facing the neighbor
is effective in reducing the impacts.
• There is minimal to no effect on the rear property due to low scale of the garage
structure, and the separating effect of the drainage channel to the neighboring property.
5 Landscaping and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components:
• Landscaping plan was not submitted and not reviewed.
Su�
1. The applicant has been particularly flexible and accommodating to improving the design,
making necessary changes, and lowering the scale. They have been sensitive to the
suggestions of the commission and the design reviewer.
2. I believe the design is greatly improved and is in conformance with the design
guidelines.
3. Recommend approval of the design pending satisfactory landscape plans are submitted
and approved if required by the Commissian.
Jerry L. Winges, AIA
Principal
WINGES ARCHITECTS, lNC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUlTE311, BURLINGAME, CA 990f0 / FAX: (650) 343-129f / info@wingesaia.com / TEL' (650) 343-1101
ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANN/NG / lNTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNlNG / DESIGN COUNSELING
�V � .. � ._ � 1x: • . . �� - o:;\ _a... / !"' - -_, � . � --
... r ,� �` � r.��:...
r� .� �,� '�' � ; ' ����� � �:� � ?� � �� ��' ���"��
\ "' y � �'° \ +,� ��`� � ��9 1 >
"t• S � �� � . -Y t , -. � � e1 - . � - y
� J ���`T�` y'%-`' � � , !f J� � i; - � -�.� 'I��y`Y�� t. �i �� . ( , I�� �� F . .. � F 2
�',! � i •� -1 � - \ ,l
�. ' ��" -; z �.J`�,�ji ` � � � �� „ ,, � �'�/�
f;; �,� ��/ � � � % ^"��, i ' � ;' � , �
� � � � . � � r
�'l�T+ � � � ' � _ _ ..., . � � 'i �
� i� ,
� � �O-� � � 'e: ,- � '�r� f � � �' �-
�
i�, � � �' � �7g�.� /` � ; f - �
��r � . O � � `.�J.. . ,�� , ... Y . .. ,Q ' �`\�p . k ` �, � .,
r �a � ` r` - � ;��'� °a a _"' ;"" . .� ��'-' _
v � _ �4 �
%s` �-.�j., .. ,,,, 5 ' c � -� �'�. .� Q �
f ` �. j � ^ : j '• t. � � �, \ F _�o.\ f f
�'f �� � '�I � �:�,- "�. �.. p ``x, � .��.. \ .� jt, � ` � • �:
'� jt'F''• '� `'wdz� T �/ � �� ,:��. L_ y . i (
�j�� �� _ , 't _ i : ,��''� / .;" l• . '� / �: <� !
V � � �
`�'��� � /' i ��• F ' !
� � ` � �� � � � ��� ` � , / < � ` > / ,�
:l.�'� .� ��� *,\�, ` � / i . �''' �/ �� � �y �/
, ,. , \
.-�A 31.. �:. � ..: " ' �� �
) V��� � Y
r �Y :Jk � ` \ /,'.: . ..�':?"�1�v� ��ti:".'.: �:,~• � `� ��y) , A''} ��� �t � �'�/E .
� �j � '_: i . � ��' . � � 3'_�� �� r �.�� �sf� '�"_ �� ''� `�` ,/
t 3
'�.. � /�'r3`* � ' ..� /F' ;`�'i:�.' �i ' t� �l '�' �i S , ._9
\; a�"} f f � ` ,� � / � ♦ ' f )"�
. c � •4 � G� �-- ` � / , �� I � '
t �`• l� �� .� 4\ •�,� " ���y :�J � y•, ,....F.
� A✓�� �i `.�: � y � . �� �' . j�� .
� !f� '� / f 1L�
� � \� � �.� `�� � � ` 7??i±�' � • t � , �
'� ,,�' �.`'� {� , '�s� �v�/. �:`�� /�� `� / � �, �
\� ���' ' �� �,-, \�� � / .: � �� � � �!:
.
�/\j'` ��i �'� E E �,'
.
! \`�, � s"�'J cy' 1 � ? _ \, G` � : = <" . . _ _ _, . y , ' \.,`;� 4
� 1, $ �
;3 - .� '"r �' ' � ��, � �,�`� ,L' i� % � �/ I� �.
e' C
. . ,� . F- ,r.. � _ �� *I {Y. ,� , ��
."� Y \ � - � � 'v�i�' � �.��� -_t ��, � r -. �y. � . . . ..
k{ 1 �y . � .. � .".,,��``.Jt'4 \� � R i :
. / \� . ,��' � .� \� � �'w ���t • F �. � e'_y%{ �
. _ .
.. . , . . - �� � � � . �G�� , Y���; � /'� l �.0 £ \ ���'/ t �R,^�/` j ''�
\ ��' � '� --` ;�� � - .. . . ^ ' _
. .
_ C% . S \ �' ��� y�� t
. _ .. \ �. ` � �v
� t �
> � �� � , . , ��`� . `,,� ;.. � � � . �.� ��c, ,r ��
♦ � f / �
,�.�+"'�' ♦ �� ' ��, `3 � �'� ``` 2b, � � �j � � _ �' � , _
if � � � _ � � � �ti������ � �
. 4 i � ',y�-/� , . '�" 1� � b. � _ . . � � � _ � `"'1
�i : � � `,� ' t� �,� �S
. . �;: '�JJ 4, Y. ' ' '4^- `; , � Sf�. \ � �; �/ � ,.
. ,� . .. � Zyi�D .. e/ � � .Jq, . �'.. � � . .
S•. ' ' �/\�J . .. . �>�� fi�,� .C`- . ��O f� V� � ��� /�4t: , . .
� p\��'� ' t \i:. . ' t� J.l. ,. d�lF � /
�`\ .. '. ' q�'✓. /'`� �,. It � .: ` , , ,�. � . .
� i� ti/�l l.- �� 7 .J ' j� � � O� _ .* �L�� Y �,C� � �� , '
` ,.. , . , X'• . . - ��j ..
.
# - ��i+' rt . � ' '��-- �� �� `�`� . � �
.. :s^ �" ����.,, Q� 0 I�'
/ �hY �. `p • Cp � ,�� = 1l�
�``� '_� � a � ��. i � � ' . '. ' a � � > ��-���{ � ` \V f'l ' �, �l' ' �}Qt , /,! /.` t, t " , /f ��
. ' � _ � � - , �.. v � ;_`� � �/".���� � v/^1�r � ;,� / '�`� YI ' �' ��' �
_ - Z� f,� �� �,���, � �` , y � �� - ;
�1,� � � � i �/ ���i
s�.t<* � a - . r p �� � � `'i i'�'' � ,: � , . �
�l' . ' A r�'� � `� �" '`� . ' " � � � '�� � � " �/ ,
� ;/ =d`� a+�.,.�� :��:.,� �E y�r.;4fix.h�,^�.:{`,,°�i.w` ��� t�� ��\ %r . �h+{• � 4��'`.;-.�.�r .
��`� � • � �' c;� \ �� \'� ` `\v C' ` . �� �' ,f' `\ .�. �' , . . . � � . .
f
�z' � \ V y
,�.y : . O � � �,�'1 d
� j�.4 t _. � r I� � 'i�� '� � ��4�4�< �.�� t� ' �'f�.. � ��� �� ��' r�� '�� s y`i1
`, ' ` ' �� , \ . � �E' : �. �,. , . a�.
,� , . -✓ 'c..: `� ♦ _`3[R � ,� �t��� S ! �-.'.. ,,� l � � ' ,,s �J/! ' , �.
c� � �- � ,� �,. �� . � ' / . ,� i ,°`�y '.� '�' � �
S, �
'��� ,� � ` .t'� 1 � , '.�� �., t _
. � -�. : ,� .i_ `" `� � ; - � ��
� s - ��. �„ ;/ ',: � , . , ' �� '
� � 1 - �. � j ' .,�# �J 1'F
._.. �Q � . �� . �� .
. � ' �� 1 t � � ' . k '�SS <y�` '� `l ;� � � �..
g' .. ��+a F � . i-� _ � � O � ' . �` }=� s'a
:
� ( /��)
. .. � . . 4 , - � _ \Y' V �� � . . �"` ` �
11: . . — , � r l � — 'f � \ �yR� �/i'� �,� . ".+���. t
��,5. . r . � �, �` �'
�� �a � � �"� � , �- , ' `� �- ;�� �� ��' `>
, r
� �
. �� � � � � ��� ���.: .� ��-�
fC� - '�, `� '1.�� i / �.:. � ♦ J . � -. - .
iml ; . �. � � . - '� . ;D°�' �e.b �` ��:� -. �' _ ��„",
a�, . �: -� 1 . "".. Y 4_� �L/�� - �. ..
„_
,¢ - #.� �� ' � - � ���' �'� . �. � �('� � �• , � �
.�y � ,; .�. �: . ,� .
. -�-� � �. � '. � •. � , f� . � �, '
, -�,� � - � � ` - 9 . u�'`�` :� , i
�, � n
n
� . . _
� Yi��"'.'��: . . ��- . �'�� � .i t��...._..4+ : ' .. . � � .. / � �1� �/'�` ��/�j�� � .
� ✓ // •
.- ' �. � ... - , . .' . `�:'��� ... . . _ � � _ . .
��4
� 1 'i� ;. ; /� � i � ���.�� �Y- /�f .
I v ,�1 � . " _. �: F� . ' i • ` � -- ' `• '.:.. -✓ � , � t ,
". �� ' i � � S. `\ -��'LC
y� �- i...-^"" , � .,. • " k�, j'� �� ���- �,�. . . � /�/ , . .
:� -_.. -. . � . � '�_ ' I .:� . � _ ., j'a'� �� .- - x � f'� _ �v. o . .
V. -
4
r
. . ' . , . . . . . � i . .
. � �. . �. . . . . �
Item # � �
Design Review Study
PROJECT LOCATION
263 Crescent Avenue
,, �, �,��,,.,�:�... �;
r � �ow,,, q ..3 . �..
�s..'v�'"'' _� _. . . ,.-.�.
Cv
1�JV�J ��( b 1�'1 lJ� ��C � �'1� �V�� Vl.�� ,
�
�
� ��
-_ �_�
. _ _ -- — __ ._
_ __
�
Item # 10
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Design Review for a New, Two-Stoty Dwelling With a Detached Garage
Address: 263 Crescent Avenue Meeting Date: 06/23/03
Request: Design review for a new, two-story dwelling with a detached garage.
Applicant: Kevin LeHane
Property Owner: Chetcuti and Associates, Inc.
Designer: Marijana Stott
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 028-287-010
Lot Area: 8,533 SF
Zoning: R-1
Summary: The subject site is a corner property at the intersection of Howard and Crescent Avenues.
The narrow side of the property (and by code definition the front of the property) is along Howard
Avenue. The property is non-conforming, with an existing duplex development where the R-1 zoning
of the property only allows a single-family residential development. The site is level, except for a 2'-6"
drop in grade in the rear 9'-0" of the lot, at the point of an existing retaining wall, as the property slopes
to a channelized portion of Burlingame Creek. The top of the channel represents the top of creek bank
and is also the rear property line.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing duplex (two units separated by a small yard, one
unit fronting on Howard Avenue and one on Crescent Avenue), except for the living room portion and
courtyard wall of the unit fronting on Howard Avenue. The proposed new, two-story single-family
dwelling will be added to the remaining portions of the living room and the new dwelling is designed
to match the Spanish style of the existing unit fronting on Howard Avenue. With the proposed
application, the floor area on the site will be 3,857 SF (0.45 FAR) where 3,981 SF (0.47 FAR) is the
maximum allowed.
A detached garage is proposed in the reax 30% of the lot, with a driveway entrance on Crescent
Avenue. At its closest point, the proposed garage will be 1'-0" from the existing retaining wall and 9'-
0" from the rear properly line/top of creek bank. The existing unit fronting on Crescent Avenue is 1'-8"
from the existing retaining wall and 12'-6" from the rear properiy line/top of creek bank. The proposed
dwelling has five bedrooms and the detached garage provides two covered parking spaces (20'-0" width
x 20'-0" length) to meet code requirements. All other zoning code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following:
• Design Review for a new, two-story dwelling with a detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010).
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front(Istflr); nochange 21'-5" 20'S"
(2nd,flr): 38'-4" --- 20'-5"
r `
Design Review for a New, Two-Story Dwelling 263 Crescent Avenue
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
Side (left): 5'-0" --- 5'-0"
(right): 9'-0" 7'-6"
Rear (1 st flr): 67'-9" --- 15'-0"
(2nd itr): 67'-9" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,463 SF non-conforming duplex 3,413 SF
29% (two separate units) 40%
FAR: 3,857 SF --- 3,981 SF
0.45 FAR 0.47 FAR
Parking: 2 covered --- 2 covered
(10' x 20') (10' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
# of bedrooms: 5 --- ---
Height: 28'-8" single-story 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies --- see code
Staff Comments: See attached. Staff would note that because the proposed detached garage will be
9'-0" from the rear property line/top of creek bank and it was deternuned that no additional
environxnental review of the project is necessary.
Erika Lewit
Planner
c: Marijana Stott
�