HomeMy WebLinkAbout1337 Vancouver Avenue - Staff Report (2). �•��. :
� . � . . ,.., . 4r` :lk�� l 1 � � .
�� 7 ,
n
' . . , . . f y.: i.rAN.�v '. . t'r �. lj.'.� �r � � ' . .
_.. . ... �. ' �S.'.�.� t1C'h ,' �,�' ` }�� 7 . .
J '/ •''' y'" + • • .
, r � ,;; "�.�,,,Y', '�;, .
����, 1�. � ,' ., f .
• � : r ,t "�tZ�;F� � . •'�� � ..l ' ' � .
� •" ' � � •. } � �'` - . .:
t ,�.:t.. �, :. • .
I r �"�� .�r � . . �:.�..
/I :.r.� ` i � , f�. t �
� � �� �(a`� �°.�: - _ , 3
�:. . " '�j . . ♦ '' , ' , ' .
*y� %�t, k.�'• I. �, •
'� � ' ",r,
-t�
` ,
� • ,, � �'. , � , .. .
' . '. `, � • . .
„�. .: 1�''' • �.., • 1 . .
0
�
�
� - � ---o��f^���'a,:d.7: :�:
�
'��rl .. . . .� � i .._ , �
- � .E�r� *M���I,� ._ �`Ni
. � —..,s .e... - — S : �;•:• ,� _ ^ _i
� _ I { � ,:-•.
. . - � Ea 4, , .. �� �" ::c
� �, .
� �. � �
I � i � ,1 �
1 ', r �; ' ,,.
. ' ��� �, 9( ,�.�,. _:+er�.�l � ' � �� �}�,�� _'$ ' ,
___...:�:.��• I _.,r ��, i ;!•.�� — • � 1: _ �--11a.. ----.t` .
r _,,-, j'i .,n_R _ ;� • �� �.� �', ,, � - _-
- - - . r — . '\.�. - — .
.�' -� - . _ __ ` ,. e';:v,�^..���.:.
.. • y ,.
—b J'�'� � � �,. � �'-i i ` Y��� . � '•7 ! ` � ( 3'� .
. . ,�;' '` , � . . - s ✓ • .�'_f
� 1 . :c rta� ..t ,4 •\�'i\��Iw �!C •l./ •
�+ i . . _ •.v.�,s • '� ' _ _ .;�}x.` �`y,' .
. +�y� � �. J r�,C.�' - ' ��' '
. r � � ' ♦ S�' �� - ,'� ` `�� � . : i • � '
,_v,, s', �:�,.:�- • _ A . . _-
l - r _�'�'�', � „p���� .�',� ��� �+, .
- -•� .�tj � "'-P i.: s .,� .
� ='.�'' d''.u� � � 1's_�7��4� •'.1+'�..� . ..�' �:• . ; �' .
�
Item # 2
City of Burlingame
Front Setback Variance, Special Permit for Height, and
Design Review for a Two-Story Addition
Address: 1337 Vancouver
Meeting Date: July 26, 1999
Request: Front setback variance (15'-0" front setback provided; 20'-7" setback required),
special permit for height (30' -6" proposed; 30' -0" allowed) and design review for a two-story
addition to an existing 1,118 SF one-story single family residence at 1337 Vancouver avenue,
zoned R-l. (C.S. 25.28.072.b.1; 25.28.075.a; 25.28.060.1; 25.57.010)
Applicant: Todd Arris APN: 027-151-130
Property Owner: Allyson Willoughby and Todd Arris
Lot Area: 50' x 120' = 6000 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing Facilities,
Class 1(a), Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions,
plumbing, and electrical conveyances.
Summary: The applicant, Todd Arris, is requesting a front setback variance, a special permit
for height, and design review to allow a two-story addition to an existing 1,118 SF single-
family residence at 1337 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The following applications are
required:
l. A front setback variance is required for an addition to the front of the residence that
would reduce the front setback to 15' -0" where the block average is 20' -7" (C . S
25.28.072.b.1)
2.
��
A special permit is required for a height of 30'-6" where a maximum height of 30'-0"
is permitted (C.S. 25.28.060.a.1);
Design review is required for a second story addition (C.S 25.28.072.b.1)
The proposed two-story addition will increase the size of the house from 1,118 SF to 2544 SF
by adding 517 SF to the first floor and 909 SF to the second floor. With the addition the two-
bedroom house will be enlarged to a four-bedroom house. The existing 460 SF detached
garage will not be changed with the application.
Front Setback
Right Setback
Left Setback
Rear Setback
Height
Existing
24' -7"
6' -0"
9' -0"
50' -0"
20' -0"
Proposed
15'-7" *
6' -0"
9' -0"
47' -0"
30' -6" *
Required
20' -7"
4' -0"
4' -0"
15'-0"
30' -0"
Front Setback Yariance, Special Permit
for Height and Design Review
Declining Height
Envelope
Lot Coverage
Floor Area Ratio
No. Bedrooms
Covered Parking
Existing
N/A
1578 SF = 26.3 %
1578 SF = 26.3 %
2
2 covered + 1 unc.
Proposed
exception (CS
25.28.075.b.5 and
CS 25.28.075.b.6)
2303 SF = 38.4%
3004 SF = 50 %
4
2 covered + 1 unc
1337 Vancouver Avenue
Required
see code.
2400 SF = 40%
3420 SF = 57 %
N/A
1 covered + 1 unc.
* Variance requested for front setback and declining height envelope. ** Special permit
requested for height.
This project meets all other zoning code requirements.
Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (memo dated June 24, 1999) that all roof drainage
shall be directed to Vancouver Avenue. The Fire Marshal and the Chief Building Inspector
had no comments on the project. Planning staff notes that the project description has been
modified and that a variance from the declining height envelope is not required because the
project qualifies for an exception from these regulations pursuant to C.S. 25.28.075.b.5 and
CS 25.28.076.b.6 which allows the measurement for the declining height envelope to be taken
at a height of 14 feet above the side property line, rather than 12 feet above the side property
line, with the grade at the side property line calculated by averaging the elevation of where the
side property line meets the front and rear setbacks. By measuring the declining height
envelope with these allowances, only 1'-6" of eaves extend into the declining height envelope,
which is permitted pursuant to C.S. 25.28.073.1.c.
Design Reviewer's Comments: In his comments, the design reviewer notes that the
architectural style of the proposed iirst and second story addition is compatible with the
existing style of the residence and the character of this area. The addition has been well
designed and oriented over the existing structure to mitigate mass and bulk of the two-story
residence. The resulting residence will integrate well with the neighboring houses. The
existing landscaping does not require modification since it is proportional to the mass and bulk
of the residence. The existing detached garage will not be changed with this application, and
the two-car garage provides adequate covered parking for this project.
With respect to the requested variance and special permits, the design reviewer determined that
the special permit for height are acceptable, particularly because of the hardship caused to this
existing residence by the 23 % slope in the front yard; the elevation at the top of curb is 7'-7"
below the level of the first floor. This steep slope restricts the vertical height of the building
envelope which causes the second story addition to extend 6" above the 30'-0' height limit and
into the declining height envelope.
The design reviewer did not, however, support the request for the front setback variance, and
2
Front Setback Variance, Special Perntit
for Height arul Design Review
1337 Vancouver Avenue
recommends that the house be redesigned to eliminate the covered porch and move the
uncovered front porch back to conform with the average 20'-7" front setback established by
the other houses on this block. The design reviewer recommends that the applicant resubmit
revised elevations of the project without the covered entry, and to also modify the design of
the railings around the front porch to be more compatible with the design of the residence.
Design Reviewer's Recommendation: The design reviewer recommended that the proposed
two-story addition be approved and recommended that the covered front porch be removed,
that the front entry porch be moved back to the face of the residence, and that the railing
around the porch be redesigned to match the character of the residence.
Applicant's Response: In response to the design reviewer's comments, the applicant has
redesigned the railings around the porch and added an additional window on the east side of
the entryway which had been omitted in the original submittal. These plans were resubmitted
to the Planning Department and date stamped July 20, 1999. The applicant also prepared a
written response to the design reviewer's recommendation to eliminate the covered porch area
and move the front porch back to the conform with the minimum front setback. The applicant
would like to keep the covered entry as proposed because it will provide a necessary transition
area from the outside to the interior of the house, particularly in inclement weather. The
covered entry and front porch have been designed to appear as an integral part of the original
structure, and are consistent with the size and design of other original porches in this
neighborhood.
Janice Jagelski
Planner
c: Todd Anis, applicant
3
,tr� cir o.
BURLIN�AMii CITY OF BURI�INGAME
�ti. J; � APPLICATION TO 1� PLANNING CONIlVIISSION
Type of Application:,�Special Permit�Variance�,Other �� S�� N�.�J \�W
Project Address: 1337 VANCOUVER AVENUE
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 0 2 7-151-13 0
APPLICANT
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: TODD ARRIS* Name:TODD ARRIS & ALLYSON WILLOUGHBY
Address: 133Z vANCOUVER AVENUE Address: 1337 vANCOUVER AVENUE
City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME CA 9�010 City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME CA 94010
Phone (w): ( 650 ) 377-5712 Phone (w): ( 650 ) 377-5712
(h): ( 650 ) 342-7574
i. . � •
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: DAN PHIPPS
Address: 1031 POST STREET
City/State/Zip: ;SAN FRANCISCO CA
(h): ( 650 ) 342-7574
fax:
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
Phone (w): 415 ) 776-1606
�) �
�. � . •
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
� �n� s � .,3
Appl cant's Signature Date
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Plary �i g Comr�iss�on�-,
Owner's Signature `Date
�----------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Filed: �0�23 / 9 � Fee:
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date:
�a� CITY O�
I BURIJNGAME
� �,
! A. .�'' l _--
��...
CIT1' Ci)F :U� If�v���I`JIE
��,' /��I,y�`JC,E ��F'F'�I�_f'�T I��)N,`_�
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 wiil 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
qUeStIO�S. (majority) of the first floor
mass is 25!� from the uroperty.line.
a. Describe the exceptiona/ oi extrao�dinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to you��
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area.
We are preserving the original house and adding a new second story.
Accordingly, we are bound by the existing location of the house. The
addition adds a small (12'x9') enclosed entryway and covered porch,
replicating the existing "eyebrow" design of the front facade (and replacing
the existing porch, which is not original and not in keeping with the style
of the house). This entry area is integral to the proposed design (the
current front door opens directly into the living room) and covers the same
footprint as the existing porch. Both the existing and the proposed design
�iave �Xp��� w�y ��e var,ance equest is nece sa�'yr�'a�re�h�preservation ana�enjoyin�nt a`
D
substantia/ property iight �nd what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication.
The entryway is integral to the design and the preservation of the
house's original facade detail. Because the original house is being
maintained, we are bound by the existing setbacks. Without a variance,
the only way to maintain the design would be to demolish the house and
build a new house farther back on the property.
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.
This proposed variance is a matter of plannin�r/design and is not
a matter of public health or life safety.
d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, inass, bu/k and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityl
The addition is designed to match the original house in both style
and size. Many houses in the neighborhood have covered entry areas.
In addition, the proposed entry is in scale with the house, which is
significantly smaller than many others nearby.
t 2/92 vx.frm
a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to' your '
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area.
Do any conditions exist on the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or
impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cuttin�
throuph the p�operty, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of
existin� structures7 How is this property different from others in the neighborhood7
b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyrr�ent of a
substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication.
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or nei�hborhood without the exception7
(i.e., havinp as much on-site parkin� or bedrooms7) 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 propertyt
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/faie, or
convenience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structu�es on those
properties? If neiphboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, liphtinfl,
pavinfl, landscapinfl. sunlipht/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of mainte�ance. Why will the
structu�e or use within the structu�e not affect the public's health, safety or peneral welfare7
Pub/ic health includes such things as sanitation (garbape), air quality, discha�pes into sewer and stormwater
systems, wate� supply safety, and things which have the potentia! to affect public health (i.e., under�round
storage tanks, stora�e of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or
communicable diseasesl.
Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection7 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 fire services (i.e., storage or use
flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removall.
General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaninp community pood. Is the proposal consistent with the city's
policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit7
�onvenience. 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 p�oposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as
the elderly or handicapped?
d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e 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 neighborhoodl If it does not
affect aesthetics, state why. If chanpes to the structure are proposed, was the addition desiqned to match
existinp 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 nei�hborin� structures in terms of mass or bulkl If there is no
chanpe 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 peneral pattern of land use.
�II there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use7 If you don't feel the character of
the nei�hborhood will chanpe, state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the �eneral vicinity7 Compare
you� project with existin� 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. ,�as,,...+�„
� . � cirr o
�,*s'�:�'��kec��a7•�,�1' �^ ,
' � � � � BURl1N6AME -
'�' x'� �,,.o � ...
The Planning Commission is required by law to:make.findings,as defined by the City's Ordinance
;,7. . , , . _ .
'� �"�Commis'seonl�n mak ng the decis onWer�s�,�to�the following 3questions � can �assist tfie YPlanning
^ . • � . . 4 . . . .. . �.
as to �w�ether the findings can be made ;#or: `;� -: �-. ?.
o e
�,� ,�, . Please t , s. ,:� . � , � ; . , . � ,,,. your. request. �
ype or write neatly' in ink �' Refer to .the ; back of this form for assistance`'with these
'�r �'questions. � '
�`
, -. I• , , : h� ; ,::, , ,�.,;r :,; ,. ,, . _:, , :> . ,., .
�F;:
Explaan why �,� the ,blend . of mass, scale , and . dominant struciural characteristics ,of the rcew
constrc�etion or additaon are consistent,with the existing st�cture's design and tivith=the ezisting
� ;� .. .
� sti-eet and neighborhood. ' .
.
, � ,, . ,
, .
... ... , . ,
. , ;. - � , :
�, .,�i: �, ;:, .�..The design objectivel;�was',t�o'� create a second 'story addition Yn keeping
with .the ,originaL:house'-s ��design �•(-wh'ile'`retaining the``ma�ority of'the
existing structure);: rather;�,;than;; meximizin s uare "footag'e �'The mass and
- , . . _ J �` q
scale of� the house is,`less than �that;,of,,,many'bther.:,houses;±on'the`"street.
�� ' , ..�
y� Due to the existing sitei grades�,;i(the,;:�first,,,;floor,.;;is ,:approximately;-:8'{.•_higher
`- than 'the average street"curb` elevat��,on),�hthe roof;,hei,ght.;.;as�,;measured ;from
�. the street is approximately�-30' 6", thereby necessitating this�special-permit:.
� � i T� �.� ,F ��'i �I�r� L "^ ( �..; ,e,� � . . ? }�3. y r:i;!�' c- ,+'r? 4 +N
§a�$"t�r� `�� ; �� .a.���� �•.:� tY:'t;;�"'?ro�[`'?- �?1.. ,aN�,�?r',�J�',3�i1�.TMo��i�r,�htyt �.�"rd .r�. s . . �>.7 _ �-_ .-. r.:.
, ,,,,ri: ; Explain how the variet�
neiv structure. or addat
The addi��on,is�
' `"being. retained) . �h�
€�' �� materials will "all -ma
�-� ,�::.proposed 'elevation i's
z� k.s i•'�k j !�;x . . ,
��. � ,a �.a�
�. .nA r � (.�l
7
��+J Y� . � . ..
aon.aie consistent,�
des;igned to _;m
"de�sign" of th
tchF�the yex�is`t
a..less'�than"th
,text,eriorfcnish materials and elevations'of the proposed
�th the existing structure;"street �and ia`eighborhood
rror :the.;.original °house :(wfiich �`i�s `largely'�`
facade, ;roof:;line: and,�;;exterio,r��finish�
��:,4.� - .
ng�,�,house, ,, As. ,�discussed above, ,2the. :
t�y��of many other houses :on �tl�e str:eet ,_: K,:
V�4�:�]":a i .T.. S�i �` 'Ff ,.�. 4r� }'� +L... .
� ' s �
�, R
� ' � ih '
n'; 1Y 4 F.r� ���y ': )Y ti y t.i � !L ;'6I x ��� t.,'N' ...
' � Y .1 ! � S 1 x "rv.. .:�f•�r�+'
�
F'�Jf�"�1 A . . � . . -1 �. . . � ' . _ . .
_ .1 . �:t : .. .. � � . . _ . � . � � .. .. . , . . . . .. .. -..._ .. . ... .. _
f ��: 5
,}Y
ith -;the;;residen
� �,CITY . �. �, . . :,,,�, r' .--.: n sl �: d'� � a�`.�" i ... A *a�rti.�',T� � � w •y±���+����,�i/T�, ' s �� ..�
d r e f!���ppp�a. J iu P�+4��y����. ° '}
-.- .� ;; ,t. O,p � _. •
, n ���� ��� �y
H�4•re'?��f�� �; ,� '� � t�' k ' d� �!G�,v� "�4, �• � r JU'��,}p'°�r^ -r � ,
..b.i,�'t,,� � �� � �LII��Lti . �.tu . :._..^ . � �RM ,�� d
� I BURLJNGAME - �O� ���� � � �' r
`� . . . #:.J,,e a ,x1��.... ,� �, y �*5 ��� �8: t r a' { ti`Pi'i, XP�'� ���r ��y �."'� ��,
i . , . .. �G�G�OG�I►��C� �G�I�'L��(�t�1'�0�(�� ��� ,�i
��...�` �r = ,� r .,,; .�
, ; . a � , ,�,
.. f.1�.A ' � .1 ��� . � . . �. t:'id � '� rI �� 1 � y.. �w� � . e��� 3 3d4� ..Y.k�}t • '�d �id� �k� 7 a :�.'�'LTv��c !'Sl���ls '�',5'r+7:. �, �..• � • .t . 2��
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 foilowmg;�questions vvill assist-the� Planning s�
Commission in making tHe decision as �to viihether the�findings�.canj`�be .made'for your �equest.�����:
Please type or write neatly�. in ink. � Refe� to �� th� backY of .this form fo�; assisXance, � ith these
F s �, , ,��, ti, �:���+'��t�' a�t.,;�� ����-�.��'���#�P7�;��f s� ���+x���M',��, �;���b���� �:'� a,��w�_�v� �e�#"�' ..+� ��, �
questions. � .,
� � 'a 'r. � ti� d.�, hH� r ia b � i � �yyry �
,,� . .. �• 9 . .. - . .. , . . . , � N.i-�� . `49 �„4�1'}„'� % i :: �5�'�h Tih��l.., ���. � o c�'��7b�S. `� � w. `. � � �'�' d .<s �4T��' ",� T ; ;' 2% �y � t F b � S•�, Y3 fl �N ".)� t'a+�+4+`�vnY�Wi�d ;� `'�} ' `^,���t'
� � . � . - � ay; - ��lt. ;,'.,1= 51 4.._'�� ' {3i.
�� W °i`�':`rAi,`4��F�i�7���,r. 'st'��".`�, �`t '�t4:�4'S a.:��:"`�' i,@'"r'w�° `���4.'r�±:"`?,q."�';�,�;i'�VCS. �.���-. �.. :-,:;�'�.tv:'
a. Describe the exceptiona/ or, exfraordinary c�rcumstances_ o� conditions , app/icable to . your �� ,
property which do not apply to other�ro�erties /n this area , � , _
. „1��5��b���.t�.,�r i:��� � .�. . « .� , e..'rl8�i:f�4lr�A'i�is4�&, erA r.sY�ri'b•.�trc%.��i:�.✓,.a,H14�4dUdii. f- t�:'Eiisli!&lv4e+t:jt'.i�-h7 �. r.r..i�!�.�� ��tiYi:�YY! P� kl'ft*�+�irw�.�f' ..: �y�r. :"��^;+:,:
��: �� �: ;T•he< original�deta'ched� garaMge��iri��t�he���re�'r:� of���tlie:-�p`Y`ope'rty�����`tali�idh'� is ,�Y�� ° � 4'�
'�beiri reta�ined,' re uires=sa���drivewa a�alon '��the' �south �ed ea<'of�R�t�lie' 3�ro"`ert ' �'�
. g�' q Y'��, g , , J p p y,�. �,r
is offsetdaccordindllvtoathetno``existin ' ,, eY�ngs retainedF,,�.,
� � `°
i s,�
g y rth. �As a result of this, thebproposed ., ,t:
y g s ruc ure, w ich
s,econd�ustor encoraches�,sli htl �1 ,roximately s10" ) into';the "declin'�.ng .1� ,
�hei ht e y � � � ,� � aPP
„� jg nvelope.:. p�; n �� �t �,� '�
, �, +� ,,{� {.
, .
. .�"'�. . _. . . . k;� v�. "�P �.i��.�h�� �F. . . a."4V'. �i�b. � .:i�d ti�¢ i����' �� �r'aF , ..... . .. LK',;,v���.
. � . . . � � i> Yt"�� rfq�"�" a , .` �
. � ' . . N' �-'A.�.,i w � , �� �,"�, ,
_ . . . . . � . . ' . ��,..
. . . : .,: . .r�. . �� f "���
���b ��rExp/ain why the �variance�'requesf'is necessary'for the preseivatio'n�anal�eno��� %irrent of a�
.�«ti.. ., . . �.r ..?4; �'h �,. a,. �n A ? �s��':ihd �Fr.: ._ � ..',� . ..<M:.,.. y,�r,.*m:a�rFp�qn7�h`('�.�$1 ��"i`'Z!Y!f#�Pwf f!x�0�'E�'�',:s�rw� ,�,� _+� r�:.:
` a�y�2�'"�¢�' ���substantia/ Aproperty right.�n'd' what'��reasonab/e propert y,R/oss or unnecessa ,hardship�:,.
tafil S�aM`v c��t ' tit.: c.�. � ,� 3,4 «i°. d" �:#:-i �I {,�4`sY�:?�a.�uS,krE$1 ���f?'�"�
rriight resu/t fromi"the denia/. of,the appl�cat�on. �
:.,.: . .. �. ! s.;... ..: �•:.,,...i w '�;tfi1.:,�� aaAtw :.;. �..a :�iolii =- +, . ,t, e: a ��ri.r` 1 ri�.�d'd':� �� �JS'�+k:d..�`"1e ksi��.:
, , ,
F.or ,aesthetic reasons,,�a���rarian,ce��se,�ec,essa;r�ya�t,o �re1�a�.n�,ther�+�ysymmetry =
c�ti � a: .�.; .,, ., -
� of �tY�e,w;second,,;story, _�desi;gn�,,.;;�,�n ;�:add�.,t;i,o,,n:,,� the�f,unc,t�io,n�,sof,��se�v�,Xa�76�r.00ms :�.
: in��the second story., woul;d„be,�,sigriificant.ly com,promi;sed�,i5f„�th�.,�o.,,r,�th.�;�iall,, ; „y�
had to be moved. Most importantly, � it would decrease�;�;,the;;si,ze��o�,,,�rhe r,
�,
second . bathroom and the second bedroom, closet ` to the, point� , of�"'seriously''��� ''� �'
;{� Compromising°`�their `use :�� �.� ti��,�,��,��. ��� uo�a��:�°� ::::� >�._��.} � �;:.: ��wz� �:z��� �^�� �:-� ..�.��',,�* �k�.<<�,.`..����� ;u . ,.,,.
4d . 1 .i . .L k. , : .: '
i� . �t S � bd �� er�t1� �i9a�z ',i cobalw+' t �i,•pw ,�y:.t 3� �,r. �'vy'���' ^�k' x-�+,�^'w�� - < ,� .,
C11 t �ri`w n. f1 . a ; � 7 r� "�r� y�'��'�� a1 '�d � ''�;i' + ' �� ° -
_ : � a* T � � aF � . � F � ��� � �> °t � t'��,R a .: . �yr...
;Y;,"j; o �- . tre.; . �.:,. . � '� l�k r ' , a�:# �y.�rw ri s� Y�'�R� ; �n9 ��i � .� A, ^�' f'` `» � ra,� �_; .�9�t,� , .
. . ��� . �' , yr:s ,�:. ks a ��, �"i ' ,:, �'�Cy or.�+� s::'".r ' a��i`'� , .: �
�,, c�. Exp/ain _why the, proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious ��
' -�� '�to ro � ert or'im roveinents`i�`�the.,vici�ity`or to p'✓ub'/ic ,hea/th,"safety�'ge�% we/fare, or }';
P P Y p 4 �, xM ��. .�
convenience �' ' ' ; .. f �::
'k'.., r'� �:$.'� , 9<c',:�i.�,s t,�.�' k+.i�. t� �tr'vr s�#. t r6,v�ii�:� d.t�F�h;�«;'�•fi„j t���e�f idyx.l�,%"r'r W!�'��'��R �' � � -
�� �'�
"��� �� - � TYiis ' propos�ed � variance°''is��a'�''ma't�t�r r- nf � plannirig/�d'es3gii� �afii$d����s��`nb�t � f �' �,��-
� � :,.�'" 4�F1 �fi ��" �� CIv � "
a matter of. pulic health,.or life safety. � �r,,� �11r ��,� yd�;s,
.' ' .a� .i. � . ,. .. � , � . � : , , �. � S .'. y.':l': ' ,. •1 .. .. .. � . .. ': r �9YY�1 {�..�,t > � qi,�:f ��'ns5�, wr7�ju�'a' �
"�! '�++�A7�r�+�?^����r ."tu't4��4,k , xp1: ni r�°� ����as�a ��� F �,��"� � � `' � � �j'�is �� c�� �� ' ai
N �- �°." � 7's,� i�� y t�`�!�' �'�ti�'.���,°�, �. �`�� :�.c,� '��`
` r- - ' ��^��'� . , :'`��r� 6�d`;�''�, :�' � c�.�: '�� �`x�`�'�7 �� �''�';� �J� }�: ;r�v �� �' �r�F • �.
,; , ; :
- .. ,:., . �, .. �.
�i� �y
+ , r {v� z. s,l rx r�.�t' c�* :��.� t« "t�'"r�;�y i ��ai:; . F�, ,f��'� 'W,4�-s�'�' '�+�:'r''-� �. 3;.` 4; ;`�
�,
. �� . .,.;. , � . , ,., :
.-
- , . - _ ! �, -` �. .: � .
, . , t . ,.. :, ..
`�� .' F � . _„„�. . ' _ . _. �'. . �.. . ., .. �-.: . . .. .. n l.,w i J n. x :n�.r. � U �.. _ �.Y.i.. . .. Ira. .i.�.�. . .Y.wiY��.
s C , :,:�; s ; -- � � R F z.�. '� . k.". :_�:.i� .,��: fFi .M�r Fs 7!' �f:;k �'Y- �
�hy n!„<`G;_ iv � c"�{t ti;"� , raat�"n � ? „�
��. �� � �► ►y.���. �,�/, i�����h
� 337 1�a n ��ov,�-c� /-��.
�;�r; �' ..?�� � C� � 1 �G �(: �S
REc���E�
JUN 2 91999
C� P ANN NG pE.PTME
Ac�.re s S��%n ro�v�r � w�e��" s��e..�
i3�3
i3 t7
i32J
1325
��2�
s�b�ec�' -.1 � 3.3
i33�'
i 3q- J
��45
134�
i353
i357
i3(�►
13�.5
I �3Co �
( 3 �3
I ?'1 �7
'�3�[
A�'�•
/ >i
�►s��Nc-F r� �' = t3 `'c�
�►s�,r►c2�
2� � ����'���
��
�
3 9� I
�
3-q
35�
3�4 �
z9 r
�5 �o
�� �
3C�
3� (-� � e��)
39
35
�5
�5
35
3� � .
32
` Y
c�os _ 33 — �� Z
8 —
ROUTING FORM
DATE: June 23, 1999
TO: �CITY ENGINEER
_CHIEF BUII.DING OFFICIAL
_FIRE MARSHAL
_SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
_CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first and second story addition at
1337 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 027-151-130.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, June 28, 1999
THANKS,
Maureen/7anice/Ruben
�a4 al,��' e s�..r.e
�
6 2 u Qy Date of Comments
� � � ,y-�r, c <s � v�e2 �,
�
�
� ,������: , , �
.� .�
�-
--
--
_�
98121.17/2.7
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 6, 1999
TO: Janice Jagelski, Planner
City of Burlingame
FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA _
RE: 1337 Vancouver Avenue
Burlingame
PLANS DATE STAMPED June 23, 1999
(Received June 29, 1999)
GUMBINGEI�
ASSOCIATES
= 60 Easi Third Avenue, Suite 300. San Mateo, CA 94401
Fax (650) 579-1402 • TEL (650) 579-0995
E-Mail: gumbassoc@aoLcom
AI�CHITECTS
�� ,�������
�1 U L -- 7 1999
�;;i�f�Y �� F���L��GAME
Fa.�NNING DEi�T.
Sent Via Facsunile
342-8386
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located in a blended neighborhood of one and two story homes. It is
immediately adjacent to 3 two-story homes to the left (south), two of which are somewhat
overwhelming (1329 & 1333 Vancouver Avenue.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1. COMPATIBLILTTY OF TI� ARCHITECTiJRAL STYLE WITH THAT OF TI� EXISTING
CHARACTER OF TI� NEIGHBORHOOD.
The proposed architectural style of the new addition is compatible with the existing character of the
neighborhood.
2. RESPECT 'THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN TI� NEIGHBORHOOD.
The existing detached garage is appropriate to the neighborhood.
3. ARCHITECTLTRAL STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF TI� STRUCT'URE, AND IN1'ERNAI-
CONSISTENCY OF TF� STRUCTURAL DESIGN
The overall design of the proposed addition is well conceived. The second floor addition has been
placed in the center of the e�sting house and steps back from the front, sides and rear which mitigates
tha mass and bulk of the struchue. The internal arrangement is consistent with the structural design. .
4. INTERFACE OF TI� PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH TI� ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO
EACH SIDE.
The proposed structure will interface well with the 2 story houses to the left (south) and because of the
stepbacks in massing, will also relate well to the 1 story houses to the right (north).
5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL
COMPONENTS.
The existing landscaping is proportional to the mass and bulk of the struchual components.
DISCRETIONARY PERMITS - CO1��IlvIENTS
T'he Design Reviewer supports the special pernut for height since is only amounts to 6"+/-.
The Design Reviewer likewise supports the variance for declining height since it affects only a very
small portion of the structure (basically roof overhang).
With respect to the variance for front setback, the Design Reviewer supports the concept of the
covered front porch, but believes the projected entry should be eliminated because of its encroachment
into the functional space of the porch itself.
MINOR DESIGN ISSUE
The railings on either side of the stairway to the front porch are not appropriate to the architectural
style of the house and should be resubmitted for design review prior to issuance of a building pennit.
RECOMI��NDATION .
It is recommended that the Design Review for the proposed addition be approved by the �,mb�nger, FAia
Commissi0n. President & CEO
Tune: 2 hours Noemi K Avram, AIA
Associate
July 20, 1999
Janice Jagelski, Planner
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: 1337 Vancouver Avenue
Dear Janice:
�; � � �;,�,, �,� s .+�e�V a.�,� r..
JUL 2 � 1999
�.. � I `r` � +- E:3'i_! ! i i...; ;`, +.1;"v i','� !:.
PLF1�il�!l�d, E:��_"4�i.
The following are our comments regarding the Design Reviewer's report on our
proposed addition at 1337 Vancouver Avenue. As you know, our project is on calendar
for the July 26, 1999 Study Session. We would appreciate it if you would forward this
letter to the members of the Design Review Board for their review before that meeting.
Introduction
Our home at 1337 Vancouver Avenue is a two bedroom, one bathraom
bungalow built in the early 1920's. �hen we bought the house it had been abandoned
for some time and was on the verge of being demolished (to be replaced with a massive
new home). We have lived in the house for five years and have done a great deal of
restoration during that time.
Unlike much of the ongoing construction in Burlingame, we are not building this
addition for speculation; we intend to live in the house for years to come. We love the
original style and character of the house and decided to expand only if it would be
possible to maintain the original feel of the house. In designing the proposed addition,
we have made a concerted effort to mirror the original architecture of the house and to
design an addition in proportion to the existing house. Although it would have been more
logical from an investment standpoint to demolish the house and build the biggest new
house possible, our goal is to retain the bungalow charm of the house, while creating
more livable space and a better functional design.
Front Railin�s
The Design Reviewer's report states that "the railings on either side of the
stairway to the front porch are not appropriate to the architectural style of the house and
should be resubmitted for design review prior to issuance of a building permit." We
agree with the Design Reviewer's comments and have submitted a modified drawing
depicting a new design for the front railings which is more consistent with the era and
style of the house.
Janice Jagelski
July 20, 1999
Re: 1337 Vancouver Avenue
Front Entry
The current entrance to the house has a 9'x 12' front porch, which was added in
recent years and is not consistent with the original design of the house. The plans for the
proposed addition call for converting the existing deck to a 4 1/2' enclosed entry way and
a 4 1/2 foot covered porch (covering the same footprint as the existing porch). The roof
covering this area will echo the existing "eyebrow" element of the original front fa�ade.
Although the proposed front setback is the requisite 15' from the property line, a variance
is required because the average setback on the same side of the block exceeds 15'.
The Design Reviewer's report states as follows:
With respect to the variance for the front setback, the Design Reviewer
supports the concept of the covered front porch, but believes the projected
entry should be eliminated because of its encroachment into the functional
space of the porch itself.
While we appreciate the Design Reviewer's input, we respectfully request that th�
Design Review Committee consider the reasons behind the proposed front entry design.
First and foremost, from a functional perspective, the front entry provides a much needed
transition from outside to in. As the house is currently designed, the front door opens
directly into the living room. There is no coat closet. near the frant dooa° nor any area to
take off wet shoes, store umbrellas etc. Based on our Exptrienc� living in the home we
believe that the small entry set forth in the proposed plans will enhance the current access
to and funetion of the house.
The Design Reviewer expressed a concern that creating an entry will impinge on
the function of the front porch. A review of the neighboring homes of comparable age,
however, reveals that many have similar entry/porch designs (ex. 1340 Vancouver).
Furthermore, the front porches of many of the neighborhood homes from this era are
smaller than the proposed design or eliminate the porch entirely and simply have stairs
leading directly to an enclosed entryway (ex. 1336 Vancouver). Having lived with the
existing front porch for the last five �ears, it has been our experience that it is actually too
small to function as anything other than ingress and egress to the house (i.e., there is not
sufficient space for chairs, benches etc.) Accordingly, the proposed modification of the
patio would not change its existing function.
Second, from a design perspective, the front elevation will essentially look the
same with or without the proposed entry. The south view of the house is the only other
view from which the entry will be visible. � To minimize the visual impact of the south
wall of the entry, we have proposed incorporating a window consistent with the house's
� The north view of the front of the house is blocked by three large birch trees planted in the corner of the
property.
Janice Jagelski
July 20, 1999
Re: 1337 Vancouver Avenue
original windows.2 It does not appear from the contents of his report, however, that the
Design Reviewer's comments regarding the proposed entry stem from concerns with the
design.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our thoughts to the Design Review
Board. If you have any questions or need any further information, please feel free to
contact either of us.
Si cerely,
�� Nm �,
Todd Arris
Allyson Willoughby
1337 Vancouver Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650)342-7574
cc: Burlingame Design Review Board
2 The original elevations submitted to the Design Reviewer erroneously omitted the proposed entry window
on the front elevation (although the window was referenced in other sections of the plans). The current set
of plans reflects the proper south elevation details.
y ��
_ �
� ,�
�. �
�F �
+ q.i°
3,
�. .... . ���.. �� � ���
� �
� �'` � Mn_ �roY�� . ��v rp ���°k. -
t .. � ., ..:� � ;�� � � p
�s ' e.:{ � � �.�,� �R �� � i �,.Ay 5.
�. .. �.�•�. A� ��' �� — �, � ��_.
,,{ A � $; �i�r- w� ��� , �4
� y�� �� ..�� d, aw�R � � g`��
� .. i .. - . �v`� ,. .. . :. �':b� � � �F.�MG. , . r+4! � .wc�• ".
r
� � :r'�- r , •
• -. q ' �' ,.... , �
. _
� Fu`nb '1. ....0 � '�' . fqV 'Y ':�;:
• V " � � �• d
� 4� , 1 _ '� �v .' ,:�
. . :.a . . . . , .
• . � � � �„1 �.�y"
��,.. y; . . % `�€3 . '�"� _ 'i.. �
�.
, : ; ._ _ ,. t..
¢` �. ,. � d� � � - � �
.: . � � �
� �� ,, � � � '' � :� � �,:,,� � � : � � � ��'
� � � - +�' "� � ' ..� �� . ''� . L `'.;�
� `',� > . �^d� ,�� �^' "a '�t`:ts '�K^
{�� $�RNA� �"�� �� V .� � s pvEN� E.� � .
,�.. _. . ,, .
�
�
�
�
t�
..,+r-
fl ;
� .�
� - -�. �
� .. ., . .
,
� , � �
M �
ts _ - � �' :+�
,.� i �� ���. � �a 1� � :��
VANCOVVEi�``
,, �34'� , ►3� �,
,� y
',jj{{� �w� ,
E�.. � ' ' M ` ,b'
C �Y ` � "'`�`, � � � _ � 7
� � � >s�
� ��. , i�"`" s .e _,.�.'w � ry � , a1k
�-
� . � � T��r.�
u" Y
�
• �W � , �r
ti R'�
�!',s
�;
� ';
. �� �
ai � �
r '" ' �'d
, ;«.,, �. :�;;
q�.�u .. . '..
� � �: �'°��; � � � r; �� �.w ..� ,. . �t.,.
�, aE�, .9. .. ._ .,� x.: � _,.� �.
.
�
. . .. .., .,., ` - �'
� f . N �u'
�t �i>, 8
�
� *S� - ��'��k _ �i � ��.�1 �-.
j �`�93i :�'3Z i�.riri r, _ Y � � ,�
�'` £ �
AvENV� �� =��` � ,�''�. °'�`�f
�. ��. � � �� � �
� ���
i���. ► l3z, : �� �� "� °_ , _
��� , � �: � 4 � ,��`��p � .�Tp
,
� �,; � „
�,,.., a � ��Ie^y,�'.. �..: .: � !� .
% ��, �� � � � � v `� �a ����
:a� <,�.
�
n ,
�
� � � � a
�
� . , ; ,< , ���a � �;
' �,
. �
�.� ° �� R �- � �. .. . � �^ .� . _ ,
..
f ,"�. `� a�� �,.�'
� ;
. . ��� ,.
-� PT:,
� a
fa,s t:r:�, . 't'.
x� , f; •� t ., r
V
, � ,
. ��.. . .�... . _ ...
' 7 � P�
� � . - fi' .�� .
€'.. �
„ ��� �� �' ,��� � � g �3 .�. � �. y } ( t r,.
�"��DE S oTo �.� � µ � ��N �:E' ,
p.
e�+� � � . Y a
_ � � ���.;�.. F � �.
:. � *3"}ry. � „.. : `�'� � : ' �
' �P ; � � ¢.� �� .
{ ' � � �✓ . :� a�� �} �" :
Vd
� �:. � f {�: "�. i �*'.
� �r,' :r�"� . v� 7' .e�7—x�,,
� ;�,
� �t�..�. �� � �
�� �, � , ..< �
��; � , , _ �
� r � _�� '� ' � �
_ � �,r {� ` � �
. � " � °�� "� ��
� � '�, J (�
� ~�
�..��'��� �a`x� �.:
� 4 �
, w � �:, �
� v�. �.
��� a
� a
-.�,� 4
i�t, a . �, `.'�
� ' � -bS :'.k. < . �
�y_ .�.�
� ZoNE: R•I
City of Burlingame Plan Review Process Buildinp Department
8AM — 5I?M 690-1600
i'LANNIi�G DEPARTMENT 69h-7250
P/�GE: _�
<s��>
Job Address: �3�� V�P�.) C�i-�'��- k'_ `.i Application Number:
Job Description: S��Cc.�N� ''�' ,'. ' '�� � � �J� � � �i�lhnl�E
_, 1 � „ /'
.�i'� P� 1`-. ��� ��-..�;��,/1��t'.;E\.! .. `' ._,.'.; � a �..�9... „ ��_(, ,;..r.y;. .r.' /VI � �
�„_
1'�,C'�:.� � ;U,' x ? 2 � - �.� c^� r-, t�' � 'r';� '> � :� t''� ��� Fr��nn J�Nco �J�
, 1—
/G� �-7C . L o> " c v J F-I�'�K_� : c./ �°.�� ��.. y o� �
/"� ., � �,� ��- � :�:' � � z c�, u � �� �_� ^ � - :� �- �` � � F� - ,r�- �:
�.Y/S�`� N c;'�� 1'P�� �:)� r ', `r:.t ,ay.., f� r-'��,�;_ {f' � -;�
`� �; .� S�`( I:� � �'" �'" Z- � � - � � S � � � � ' � �"'J o� � ���_E
T�1��4T S�fl� �' �„ ��r�° ,�� o ,
�- � � `� S i ��- �i � � , , 9 , o , - � ,,� ,,
, ,
�zE��« 5� � ��c(c �ia- U � �18 _ � ,.
—y—� ��j�y���r �F- r i A-L �,!1 _ J ' '
� � � �..f '� ���Ci 1�� � S � A��� � � � -- %�% / i�•� =_a�� /'.✓� 1 �/ � 0' .
V '
� C %` . -
.— � ._
� 4-{-� .,��'?.;�1; .• �,Z� «�J�. C? 4= l t- s E�.i r s� f, �;.�
1 v����.,E �� 1 ��i��� - �(� `��, ��a 3� - 3F?yDa �io� = Zyaa �
�� � �i � �= 2 ��' 3 v�1 y � -- � o �/ %�,{ � _� �.� �,� �
�' �(�0� i � Ca/I
�� �
�j � c C'i I
�.���.�
(G, , /"P_ !"nc.
�tr% �
�� �:< < < .��,
:�: - f
� _
�-- U�.,�, ("�; c�
Y � r�� ,-,� << ;.�.,,�
��
��' ;`'"���
LS� �(�
,� �,.���
�` c . � ' —
� . � �
✓', � � _.. � �
C vr i=- — c�c, � �-��-
_.;=-, �� - , � �i
l'� �.._ -�: _._ ..
�..�� �..., �. ,�,�° � p Q°�' /.�� rf! �.. /� .�!:L�� r s f "i � � "�w � V C V � "" I � ! V �%i� /I
;� .
-Q,-�_�I �Q. f
�I��M �=1
-� ✓ Nl r /1 �� C' ��, .�` / �'' � C
�, ( rr' !� r�; t-t' i vq r; a✓1 c� �� oQ.s.��i,'n �
Pa
�' - � ��
� � �ske�l
�� �
�_ � � ��
�
-- � J
�-� f- �iQ C' � I � /I -� �� � T-in ✓� �/" � d J .� ; c�-�� � � � S � �o �' �