HomeMy WebLinkAbout1509 Howard Avenue - Staff Report (3)0
�
K
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Front Setback Variance
for a First and Second Story Addition
Address: 1509 Howard Avenue
Item # �/
DSR Study Calendar
Meeting Date: 11/13/O1
Request: Design review and front setback variance for a first and second story addition at 1509 Howard
Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.57.010 and C.S. 25.28.072(b)(1))
Applicant/Property Owner: Jirayr and Kohar Kourouyan
Designer: Kamal Tabib, Dynamic Designs
Lot Area: 8,712 SF
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Date Submitted: November 29, 1999
APN: 028-292-260
Zoning: R-1
Summary: The applicant is requesting design review and a front setback variance for a first and second-
story addition at 1509 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1. The lot coverage is currently 20.1% (1,752 SF) and
will increase to 23.9% (2,083 SF) with the proposed addition. The existing two and one-half story house
contains 3,546 SF (.41 FAR) of floor area, including a 498 SF detached garage. The existing design of
the house is unique with a basement level that has a 5'-2" to 6'-2" ceiling height and is almost completely
above grade. The entire 1,336 SF basement is counted toward the overall floor area, but it is not proposed
for occupancy. It will have a wine storage room and the rest of the space will be used for general storage
and will house the washer, dryer and utilities. The finished first floor is approximately 6'-6" above grade
and has a 9'-4" floor to ceiling height. The second floor (attic level) currently has an 8'-0" ceiling height.
The addition would add 156 SF to the basement level, 349 SF to the first floor and 230 SF of floor area
to the attic level. The new floor area with the addition would be increased to 4,189 SF (.48 FAR) where
4,288 SF (.49 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The 498 SF (24'-6" X 20'-4") detached garage meets the
requirement for two covered parking spaces for this four bedroom house. There are no changes proposed
for the detached garage.
Background: Building permits were issued for 1509 Howard on September 15, 1999, for the replacement
of 16 windows in existing frames and re-roofing. On November 5, 1999, another building permit was
issued for reinforcing the foundation. The scope of work was exceeded under these permits with a first
and second story addition in process when the Building Department placed a stop work notice on the
project. The house has been sitting since then with bare plywood and new vinyl windows.
In response to the stop work order, the applicant submitted plans for the addition and remodel. When these
plans for the addition were routed to the Planning Department, the applicant was notified that the proposed
addition would be required to go through the Design Review process.
This project was before the Planning Commission on November 27, 2000 for preliminary design review.
The Commission referred the project to a design reviewer, with the following concerns and comments:
• Addition is out of character with the building, matches nothing in the neighborhood;
• Dormers were added without architectural consistency;
• Design does not represent bungalow architectural style;
• Tall entrance does not fit the character of the building, too tall and thin, front door looks out of
� Design Review nnd Front Setback Vnriance /509 Howard Avenue
scale, is it properly sized;
• Entrance is grandiose, the top plate of the entrance needs to be lowered, front steps are
monumental, suitable for public building, should be reduced and stair narrowed, with porch and
railings;
• Should use traditional trim, with a lighter appearance, stucco mold;
• New windows are vinyl clad, do not match others in the neighborhood; should consider mullioned
windows;
• Rear dormer is not in character with the building, too tall and thin with a roof slope that does not
match the house, looks like a box added to the structure, needs to be blended;
• Chimney on the side of the living room extends through bedroom above, plans should be corrected;
and
• Eave line on the dormer is shown incorrectly which also affects the roof pitch.
The owner has changed designers since the last Planning Commission Meeting. Staff is bringing this
project forward to the Planning Commission under design review study because the project has not been
before the Planning Commission in almost one year and has changed substantially from the original
proposal.
Design Reviewer's Comments and Conclusion (newly revised October 12, 2001 plans): The design
reviewer's October 6, 2001 memo is attached. The design reviewer recommends approval with
suggestions to add traditional sill trim to the new vinyl windows that are currently installed, to use square
columns, railing and trim on the front porch design and to install landscaping in the front and along the
driveway. All suggestions have been addressed on the current plans date stamped October 12, 2001.
The design reviewer notes that the subject property is adjacent to a three story apartment building that
fronts on El Camino Real, and therefore this site should be considered a transition lot. The house (before
any construction) has an awkward over-scaled appearance from the street due to the unusually high floor
to floor height with the first floor 6'-6" above existing grade. The bulk of the structure is existing, and is
not being changed. The new entry porch and door is set down halfway to grade from the first level, which
helps lower the awkward scale of the building. This new porch design requires a front setback variance,
which the design reviewer supports because he feels it improves the overall appearance and scale. The roof
slope has been continued over the new porch, which helps lower the roof edge height and breaks up the
mass. The rear elevation has been improved since the previous symmetrical stair appearance, the addition
at the rear now hides the staircase and helps remedy the previously awkward design. The design reviewer
notes that the proposed style is compatible with the neighborhood with the new water table, stucco base,
and siding helping to lower the scale of the structure, and he therefore recommends approval of the project.
The applicant is requesting the following:
Design Review for a first and second floor addition; and
Front Setback Variance for 9'-9" (11'-6" front setback proposed where 21'-3" is the block average-
note that the existing front setback is non-conforming at 19'-6").
All other zoning code requirements have been met.
� , 1Jesign Review nnd Front Setback Vnriance
♦
1509 Nownrd Avenue
REVISED ORIGINAL EXISTING ALLOWED/RE
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL Q,D
(10/12/Ol) (10/10/00)
SETBACKS
Front (lst flr): 11-6"' No change 19'-6"* block average -
�2na flr�; 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-0" 21'-3„
20'-0"
Side (left): 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0"
No change
Side (right): 16'-0" No change 16'-0" 4'-0"
Rear (lst flr): 100'-6" 107'-5" 114'-5" 15'-0"
(2"`' flr): 107'-6" 107'-5" 114'-5" 20'-0„
LOT 23.9% 20.1% 19.5% 40%
COVERAGE: (2,083 SF) (1,752 SF) (1,698 SF) (3,485 SF)
F�: 4,189 SF/ 3,728 SF/ 3,546 SF/ 4,288 SF/
0.48 FAR 0.43 FAR 0.41 FAR 0.49 FAR
PARKING: Two covered in No change Two covered in Two covered
detached garage Detached garage (20'-0" x 20'-0")
(24'-6" x 20'-4") (24'-6" x 20'-4") + 1 unc. In
+ 1 unc. In + 1 unc. In driveway
driveway driveway
HEIGHT: 28�_4�� No change 2g�_4" 30'/2 �h stories
Le e No change Left side See code
DH ENVELOPE: e�ro �1�� mto
heig�i���v�o�* encroaches into
the declining
height envelope*
' Front setback variance for 9'-9" (11'-6" proposed where 21'-3" (block average) is requ�red- existmg iront
setback is nonconforming at 19'-6").
* Existing non-conforming
Staff Comments: see attached.
Catherine Keylon
Planner
c: Jirayr and Kohar Kourouyan, owners/applicants
Dynamic Designs, Kamal Tabib, designer
,
�
�(�, CITY CITY OF BURLINGAME
�l �t�
BURLJN�aAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
�•• BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�•- TEL: (650) 558-7250
1509 HOWARD AVENUE
Application for design review and front
setback variance for a first and second
story addition at 1509 Howard Avenue,
zoned R-1. (APN: 028-292-260)
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Tuesday, November 13, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in
the City Hall Council Chambers located at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed November 2, 2001
(Please referto other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
..
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the application"�n"�� ��ns� i���ss�~pioject.may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at� the. Plar�ning�, D'�partinent at �Q1 Primrose Road,
�� �e,
Burlingame, California.
-0z .
If you challenge th� subject appl�cat�pn(s) in caurt ���Qu may. be limited to
raising only�hosa �ssues �ou or someone else ratsed a he C�blic hearing,
�u. 8 .s�. . .�_. �� ,�.u«,u,,.,.
described i� th� s��ic� �, - iue d to the city
at or prior t� t i�"���,� �
� �� .,� t_ t � C� �. � i � �
Property ow�ers w�io rec�i �
tenants aboi�t this � nofi�� 3�
558-7250 Thank yQu � a��, ; � d
��� � ,
Margaret Moi�r,o�� �'�� �� i
City Planner �,� �
�� � �
PU BLI�� �P
(Please refer to other side)
� � ��
��
a �.
l.��tICE
ming their
call (650)
�
ti
"(:iry of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 13, 2001
massive, the design is inconsistent with the neig:��„rhood which is primarily small ranch style houses, asked
if mass could be modified to be one-story or split level like others in the area; would face wall two stories
high, concern with blocking of light in the back yard and the affect on the character of the neighborhood, the
detached garage has a 100' long driveway, appears that 50 year old tree would have to be removed for
driveway. The applicant noted that trees are proposed along the property line fo privacy, survey didn't show
tree in direct line of driveway, will check, if it is, will work to save tree. T' e were no other comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
,�
C. Key made a motion to place this item on the regular
revisions have been made and plan checked:
❑
❑
❑
❑
J� 11.
( �
Like to see story poles at front of house to
House is nicely designed, but lot is long
Height compared to neighbors is
Would like to see a
garage location.
at a time when the following
p of proposed to surrounding properties;
narrow, size is still massive in comparison to neighbors;
will have impact from street, would like to see it smaller;
plan, and show existing tree and impact on driveway and
Comment on motion: it was 'ted that this design is an improvement over original plan, it conforms to code
with no variances, now th roof lines are shown, feel that it will fit in nicely, the neighboring roof line on
uphill side will still be ' her than what is proposed, there is a 10' setback on the right side and a 12'-6"
setback on the left, th e are large trees on adjacent property to the right which provide screening. This
motion was secondeo by C. Bojues.
Vice Chairperso Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action
calendar when lans had been revised as directed and story poles installed. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1
(C Vistica a staining, C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. his item concluded at 11:40 p.m. Chair Vistica took his seat on the dais.
1509 HOWARD AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JIRAYR KOUROUYAN,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER• KANIAL TABIB DYNAMIC DESIGNS DESIGNER)
Senior Planner Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Kamil Tabib, 912 Fifteenth Avenue, Redwood City project
designer and Jerry Kourouyan, 1044 Lorne Way, Sunny��ale, property owner, commented on the project; they
have been working with the design review consultant; trying to work with the existing building and make it
more appealing so it blends with the neighborhood, the lot is deep but the house is set toward the front,
doesn't allow for an entry without infringing on code required front setback, the first floor is 6'-6" above
grade, porch is proposed to try to break up the mass at the front; there is an apartment building adjacent to
the site on the corner of El Camino Real and Howard that is set close to the street, the rest of the houses on
the block are set back further, this new porch would provide transition.
12
;„
K:ity of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 13, 2001
Commissioners asked about the lower level windows, it seems that they are missing the top molding; the
applicant noted that this was intentional, thought it would look better with the belly band that is proposed.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojues made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following
revisions have been made and plan checked:
C
0
C
Windows should be broken up into smaller panes; should use divided light windows;
Provide a complete landscape plan that shows new landscaping proposed along driveway and in the rear
yard as well as the front yard;
Consider reducing the depth of the front porch from eight feet to six feet to reduce the impact of the
front setback variance.
This motion was seconded by C. Key. There were no comments on the motion.
Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:00 midnight.
12. 1340 CORTEZ AVENUE ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITI N AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND
AN ATTACHED GA GE (PAM POWELL, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; VIRGINIA
►UES CROMIE]
CP Monroe briefly prese
opened the public comm
they wanted to do an add
components; the additio�
declining height envelo�
with the character of the
!�ted the project description. There were no questions of staf£ Chairman Vistica
�nt. Pam Powell, 3108 Richmond Drive, Richmond, project architect, noted that
tion which would reduce the overall volume by breaking it up into several smaller
is
ncentr the rear, and the garage was kept simple, the exceptions to the
�ir ent are sed on the slope of the site, the resulting design is compatible
borhood.
Commissioners noted that on the front eleva ion, it seems that some of the existing details have been omitted
from the drawings, these are nice features d would like to see these same details carried through to the
addition. The applicant noted that it is inte ed that these details be kept, would consider adding the same
details throughout. There were no other co ments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojues made a motion to send this
❑ Should carry through some of the
will blend with existing house;
to a design reviewer with the following comments made:
❑ Concern with the mass of the two-story walls, s
sides, incorporate bay windows, not as concerned
to have some variation in wall mass;
from the existing front elevation to the addition so it
try to break up the planes of the walls on the
declining height envelope exceptions, but need
13