HomeMy WebLinkAbout1509 Howard Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Design Review and Front Setback Variance
for a First and Second Story Addition
Item #
Action Calendar
Address: 1509 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: 12/10/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 APN: 028-292-260
Designer: Kamal Tabib, Dynamic Designs
Lot Area: 8,712 SF
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Date Submitted: November 29, 1999 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 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 23.4% (2,046.5 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 furnace. 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 4,152 SF (.47 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.
The applicant is requesting the following:
• Design Review for a first and second floor addition; and
• Front Setback Variance for 7'-9" (13'-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.
Design Revi�w and Front Setbnck Varinnce 1509 Hownrd Avenue
REVISED ORIGINAL EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
(10/12/O1) (10/10/00)
&
11/29/O1)
SETBACKS
Front (lst flr)• 13-6"' No change 19'-6"* block average -21'-3"
�2�a �r); 27'-6" 27'-6" 27'-0" 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"a flr): 107'-6" 107'-5" 114'-5" 20'-0„
LOT 23.4% 20.1 % 19.5% 40%
COVERAGE: (2,046.5 SF) (1,752 SF) (1,698 SF) (3,485 SF)
F�: 4,152 SF/ 3,728 SF/ 3,546 SF/ 4,288 SF/
0.47 FAR 0.43 FAR 0.41 FAR 0.49 FAR
PARKING• Two covered in No change Two covered Two covered
� detached garage in (20'-0" x 20'-0")
(24'-6" x 20'-4") Detached + 1 unc. In driveway
+ 1 unc. In garage
driveway (24'-6" x 20'-
4")
+ 1 unc. In
driveway
HEIGHT: 2g�_4�� No change 2g�_4" 30'/2 �/2 stories
Le si e No change Left side See code
DH ENVELOPE: he�i �i���ve't���
* encroaches
into the
declining
height
envelope*
' Front setback variance for 7'-9" (13'-6" proposed where 21'-3" (block average) is required- existing front
setback is nonconforming at 19'-6")
* Existing non-conforming
November 13, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting: On November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission
reviewed the proposed first and second story addition for 1509 Howard Avenue. Staff brought this project
forward to the Planning Commission under design review study because the project had not been before
the Planning Commission in almost one year and changed substantially from the original proposal. The
project went before the Commission at this hearing with a recommendation of approval from the design
Design Revdew nnd Front Selbnck Vnriance 1509 Howard Avenue
reviewer. The Planning Commission voted to place the project on the action calendar, but requested the
following additional changes:
• 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; and
• Consider reducing the depth of the front porch from eight feet to six feet to reduce the impact of the
front setback variance.
The applicant was not required to go back to the design reviewer. The applicant submitted revised sheet
A3 and L1 date stamped November 29, 2001 reflecting the above requested changes, including divided
light windows (Millgard-vinyl clad), rear and side yard landscaping, and reduction of the front porch width
from 8 feet wide to 6 feet wide. The site plan and floor plan, date stamped October 12, 2001, have been
revised and initialed by the designer to show a 6 foot wide front porch.
Design Reviewer's Comments and Conclusion (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 xhe 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 syinmetrical 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.
Processing History: 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:
Design Revi�ew and Front Setback Vnriance
1509 Howard Avenue
• 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
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 Comments: see attached.
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
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required 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;
Design Revi�w and Front Setbnck Variance
1509 Hownrd Avenue
(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.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative Action should be by resolution and
include findings made for design review, side setback variance and special permit for height. The reasons
for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped October 12, 2001 Sheets A1,A2, A4, and date stamped November 29, 2001 Sheets A3 and
L1;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Recycling Specialist memos
dated October 22, 2001 and November 15, 2001 shall be met;
3. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of
the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the
structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or
pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Catherine Keylon
Planner
c: Jirayr and Kohar Kourouyan, owners/applicants
Dynamic Designs, Kamal Tabib, designer
ROUTING FORM
DATE: October 22, 2001
TO: ✓City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first and second story addition at 1509 Howard Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 028-292-260.
ROUTING FORM
�
October 22, 2001
DATE:
TO: _City Engineer
✓Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
City Attorney
Planning Staff
FROM:
Request for design review for a first and second story addition at 1509 Howard Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 028-292-260.
SUBJECT:
, „ , ., � �,.,,,
� i r�rr n� v� w: rviuuuay, VI,IVUCI ��, �vv�
•� e�✓'� l't �v's �t e3 (� Co
��-� � r o •�-, �,�v�, r � � � � � b �
c�� I � �� -���� ��t
%�l�v� s � v�s � �(7�f �l� f ��� �
-�ti�3 �s � ���-S��r ���«��y. �o��e 5�.��
G'k� ��-�-�, �'i�r'� �1�0/' a 7r� �t��5 S w ry caa�s
� � _ / _,U_ � `
i � �zs���� � n�los�" roa-.�s . -
"1 � ,F. „'� J� �
s�-�-�c� ���� � r ���� v�-+fe
i� z-� �► �� �� S���,'—,�% G�-C-f f�
i� � �l `S �'/
Reviewed By:
Date of Comments: C��Z-2� i I
ROUTING FORM
DATE: October 22, 2001
TO: _Ciry Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
✓Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first and second story addition at 1509 Howard Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 028-292-260.
�T � r�r� TTT nTt� � 1 l 1 /'� _. _ 1_ ___ '11 1/l/l 1
ROUTING FORM
DATE:
October 22, 2001
TO: _City Engineer
Chief Building Official
✓Fire Marshal
Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Planning Staff
Request for design review for a first and second story addition at 1509 Howard Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 028-292-260.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, October 22, 2001
.
�. �/�% l �n�c� �� Ee l� '��� 5 G�Y � r(��
�
� �v�- �� � �� ��2� �5.� � �� ��
� . -
�� �
�s� �
�r � �� �� w �,��lo , �
� ��
�.. i�' O�.c c� c. �,v�.�„ aT ���-l. ��c_ Y ul,r �
.
'� � S� � �� ��- ~� � �� �;�
���� ��� �
F^ .
� ��� l \ �V L V V _ v � � � \ � \ ` 1 �
v
�----�
�
� � •
Reviewed By: `��'lSJ► 1�"� Date of Comments: `���^ � I
' City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 13, 2001
11. 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; KAMAL 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, Sunnyvale, property owner, commented on the project;
they have been working with the design review consultant; hying 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 infi-inging 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.
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:
❑ 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 ADDITION AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND
AN ATTACHED GARAGE (PAM POWELL, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; VIRGINIA
CULBERTSON AND JACQUES CROMIER, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica
opened the public comment. Pam Powell, 3108 Richmond Drive, Richmond, project architect, noted that
they wanted to do an addition which would reduce the overall volume by breaking it up into several smaller
components; the addition is concentrated to the rear, and the garage was kept sim�le, the exceptions to the
13
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the c hearing. Rocky Cologne, applicant, w s present to answer any question�
and submitted several photo s taken of surrounding parking lots durin ening hours. Commission ask
applicant had any object' to a five year sunset clause, at which ti e parking variance would be ewed
based on the parkin itions at that time? Applicant responde . There were no further comm from the
Commission or audience and the public hearing was clos
C. Bo' " moved for approval by resolution of the ing variance with the followi "onditions: 1) that
cl om use shall be limited to 257 SF on th cond floor at 1243 Howard Av with a maximum ne
ployee on site, as shown on the pl ed to the Planning Department date stamped Oct 16 and
July 28, 2000 (81/z" x 11" floor plan d site plan); 2) that the classroom (traffic school) sh e�limited to
operate within the hours of 6:00 p and 9:30 p.m., two nights per we �n weekdays only, '� � a maximum of
eight students and one employ n site at any one time• t art' ' ts in the evening ses shall be required
to park in the public parki ts located between Ho r and B Y" ater Avenues; 4) t ' y changes in operatio�
floor area, use, hours peration, or number of e loyee students, which ex s the maximums as sta '�°in
these conditions require an amendment to this se ing variance; 5) th e conditions of the Fire shal's
and City En ' er's July 31, 2000, memos shall b ; 6) that the use an improvements made t e building
for this shall meet all California Building ire Codes, 1998 on as amended by the C' f Burlingame
an• the application for a parking vari or classroom use be reviewed by Plannin mmission in five
ars, in November 2005, and renewe ased on the parkin nditions at that time.
A.
C. Deal seconded the motion. scussion on the m': this parking variance su rts a small business use in the
downtown area and parki present is not a p em in this area in the publi s between Howard and Bayswater
Avenues in the eveni when classes wil eld, so there is no detri impact.
Chairman L iaga called for a v' vote on the motion to
6-0-1 (C eiling absent). A al procedures were advise
�with one added condition. The motion passed
is item ended at 9:00 p.m.
DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
11. 1509 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (JIRAYR KOUROUYAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
MATTHEW BOLAK, ARCHITECT)
CP Monroe summarized the project . Commissioner pointed out that the picture of the house on the cover of the
staff report was not the same as the house presently on the site, was a building permit issued for the changes now
in place. Staff noted that they would provide a building permit history for the site for the action packet; and
commission could go ahead and provide design direction at this time.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Matthew Bolak, property owner and applicant, represented the
project. He noted that the work on the house began as an interior remodel and discovered that the house was not
properly built, came to the city for a building permit to fix and discovered that needed to apply for front setback
variance and design review. Want to keep existing building and increase the useable space as much as possible by
flattening the roof, adding light wells, put on stucco finish, add colutnns at front to emphasize entry.
Commissioner comments on design: the 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; the tall entrance does not fit the character of the building-too tall and thin; should use a traditional
trim, with a lighter appearance, stucco mold; new windows are vinyl clad, not match others in neighborhood; the
-�-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2000
slope of the roof on the front dormer is not consistent with the roof of the house and the window in the dormer is
out of character; the front steps are monumental, suitable for a public building, should be reduced; the rear dormer
is not in character with the building, too tall and thin with a roof slope that does not match the house; the chimney
on the side of the living room extends through the bedroom above, plans should be corrected. The front door looks
out of scale, is it properly sized; the eave line on the dormer is shown incorrectly which also affects the roof pitch;
should consider mullioned windows. Front entrance is grandiose, the top plate of the entrance needs to be lowered,
entrance stair narrowed, with porch and railings added; dormer at rear looks like a box added to the structure needs
to be blended. There were no further comments and the public comment was closed.
C. Vistica moved to refer this project to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chairman
Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a
6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent) voice vote. This action is not appealable. The item concluded at 9:25 p.m.
12. 1821 RALSTO AVENUE - ZONED R-
AND SECO STORY ADDITI0��1(�
AND A BREK, PROPERTY O�NEP
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN VIEW FOR A FIRST
F. CROSS, APPLICANT A ARCHITECT; CARTER
CP Mo� summarized the project/ There were no questions of staff�r6m the commission.
Q�iairman Lurzuriaga opene e public comment. Noel Crioss, plicant and architect, represente e project.
Worked on this project t atch the existing house, put a hipp roof to the side and a gable at th ear, match the
existing materials windows as much as possible; add' on is at the rear and not visible f m the street, only
neighbor to the can see.
Commi 'oner commented on the design: th ou, this project shows that matchi the existing can be done, t
roof tch matches, the louvered fence is a n' amenity. There were no further c ents and the public com ent
was closed.
�
C. Deal moved to put this item the consent calendar for the Dec ber 11, 2000, meeting. Th motion was
seconded by C. Keighran. C irman Luzuriaga called for a voice te on the motion to set the ite on the consent
calendar. The motion pa d 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). This ion is not appealable. The ite concluded at 9:32
p.m.
13. 341 GHT ROAD - ZONED R-1 - AP ICATION FOR DESIGN REV W, PARKING AND LOT
C ERAGE VARIANCES, SIDE A FRONT SETBACK VARIAN GLE F�AMILYIDWELL��.3�IG
FOR AN ATTACHED GARAG OR A NEW SINGLE-STORY,
ZT Lewit summarized the projec . There were no questions of staff om the commission.
Chairman Lurzuriaga ope d the public comment. Doron Klein pplicant and designer, repres ted the project.
This project began as emodel, demolition contractor inadve ently removed the entire hous o had to resubmi
as a new house su ' ct to design review. For present sub ' al talked to neighbors and rev' ed project, remo d
roof deck and dressed other concerns. Neighbors nt single story house. Virtua all the houses ' the
neighborho have attached garages; irregular shap f the lot would make it hard to ave a detached g age on
this site ther variances are for conditions which ere existing with the former ho , want to use the undation
of t structure; can reduce lot coverage to w t is allowed, did not have time revise the plans or tonight's
eting. Was trying to work with the neigh rs who want a single story hous .
-s-
„r� °* CITY OF BURLINGAME
euRunp,u�+E
�� . APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION
\�...
Type of Application: Special Permit /� Variance er ��� 1� 1 �,��
Project Address: I S��T � �� 1 I 1 ,'�.� )T 1� ���i�
Assessor's Pazcel Number(s):
APPLICANT �ee, ���� C�w�P� PROPERTY OWNER
� �+=o
Name: , „ Name: r
Address: � , , _ Address: K
City/State/Zip: 'ty/State/Zip: �
Phone (w): , _ _ _ — T_ Phone (w):
�� ���
fax: �_
CHITECT/DESIGNER �am a ( T� � �
h a w� � c, pe,� �'o,v�5
Name:
�a --ts� e u,�
Address:� ^ - ' '� ' ”
City/State/Zip: R �''�G� C- � �`���
Phone (w): � --S O�j�
(h):
f�: �8- � �q.�
�I1�:Tk V ) `L� �� — � n L1 a (�
.
fax:�� ti � \ 2�1 (� -- („ �t �i �
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:�Jt U�t7_ YTi�j�� "C,����1 p �Zpl�`�
t,� �Am- � -� �� � ��' I��(���, ��� �-' � � f '
z t� G� ��'O Y' � a c� ��/� �� ��'c" tro,✓z--� �' l'-'P�L Y'
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.
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
/
ir� � —
Pr rty wner's Signa e Date
--------------------I-------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ------------------------------------------
�� RECEIVED
Date Filed: � I i� l�`� Fce: � o0
NOV 2 9 1999
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANN►NG DEPT.
' , CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
_ �
' � Q-� ; /� 0 q w,a,�.�l ...�..
� CITY � �
�� � CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURIJNGAME V��CE APPLIC TION
�`�4..,m • f Y' � � W r t�y � v�
.�.,..•'�� �
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's
Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist
the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for
your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance
with these questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
r
��-i� EXIsTC-� "�1f5� 1S �J u�c�l��.L`� -frNGH t-}��E W/ Ai-�-I�N
1 t IeST �Lo 02 ��V£�- �(�o -� t�S�V� Ext s-Z-C� �P � r
�T '�'s �.j ��lKW�D � V� �CA-t-� � c� � � �12� M
"'�F-t� �`f��T •
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship might result form the denial of the application.
� � N�.�, �N-�.� ���-► � M,��N�a���o� r�
' sET �c�lN N�i.-� W Ek'`r �['c� �t�t7� ��M 1�,T L�fEi-
� +4-�t-i�5 To L.ov�tER'�ir�� ,4--w1�►�l�4�P �c.-� �. c�TrE
�Tiz �lG-�-�l�-E .
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safery,
general welfare or convenience.
"�}�� -�{-�� i�3�� � t�ic`f lo � �T�R'�' i��R'�Yt�lJ`T- ���
��t' ts �t�1�s��REo � TR�us �`T i oN L.c�-�'/-+� us�. fi"��'1
► �--
�'�TM�Ct�l�T' 1`3�.t� � 1 o S 11.�� ��NI Ir-`( 1�,��.}go'fZi-4c�oD �
IT W��� IM�v£ �H� N�+�r-�dR�o� �
� 1 fi�N 1'T ib1�t La--r t� sC.�U �E �� ��-. �( � Lt� �@�c� Ft�'S� DE O��R�P -
�Y �T��r t� ��} c v tzc-3 w / h1 � �-�- [3�.� �c ��-�1-�, �H� `t'rt�N '��� � os�b
�Y ��� d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
viciniry?
�T 15 �"1����IT1�lJ LoT�H'fll�S�� iT WI�--L IN`+��V�
A�'S �t-�- 1��1�8`��lT �T't-+� V IC•1fJ�Ti �
VAR.FRM
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650; 696-3799
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your
property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
Do any conditions exist on the site which make other alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not
common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree
specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others
inthe neighborhood?
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship
ircight result form the denial of the application.
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as
much on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do
the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property?
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If
neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping 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 welfare?
Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water
supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals,
situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases).
Public sa etv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or
sprinklers be installed? Could the structure ot 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 of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially
dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
�eneral wel are is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for
conservation and development? Is there a social benefit?
�onvenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site
or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped?
d. How will the proposed project be coinpatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character
of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state
why. If changes to the siructure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architechue, pattern of development
on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term
airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits.
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the
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 neighborhood? Think of character as the image
or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking
available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project
with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project
would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity.
VAR.FRM
Winges Architecture & Planning 1290 Howard Ave. Suite 311
Burlingame, CA 94010
MEMO:
Date: 10-6-2001
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
ref: 1509 HOWARD AVE.
I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and have reviewed the
final submittal plans attached, dated Oct. 5. I have also met with the owner and the
designer on two occasions, and have reviewed numerous alternatives. I have the
following comments regarding the design guidelines as they apply to the final submittal.
1 Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existingLneighborhood:
• This is a typical neighborhood of older homes of various styles and sizes.
• This lot, however, is the first house on the block ne� to an e�sting 3 story
apartment structure. It should be considered a transition lot from the busy
E1Camino frontage to the single family neighborhood.
• The style as proposed is compatible with the neighborhood.
2 Respect the Parking and Gara�e Patterns in the Neighborhood:
• Most houses have detached rear garages in this neighborhood. There is no change
proposed to the existing detached garage.
3. Architectural Stvle Mass and Bulk of the Structure, and Internal Consistencv of the
Desi n.
• The existing house is an unusually high house with a high floor to floor height, and
with the first floor level at 6-1/2 feet above existing grade. It has an awkward
over-scaled appearance from the street.
• The existing house is bare plywood with new vinyl windows, and has been sitting
in this condition for some time. Construction was stopped due to failure to secure
the necessary original permits.
• The new entry porch and entry door proposed is set down halfway to grade from
the first level, and helps to lower the awkward scale of the structure. I support
the idea of a front yard setback variance as the only way to add the porch element
and improve the overall appearance and scale.
• The roof slope has been continued over the new porch and helps to lower the roof
edge height and break up the mass.
• The structure's bulk is not being changed since it was existing. The new water
table, stucco base, and siding will help greatly to lower the scale of the structure.
• Recent changes to the rear elevation improves the previous symmetrical stair
appearance, hides the staircase, and helps remedy a previously awkward design.
• The vinyl windows will be improved in appearance by the introduction of wood
trim and sills.
4 Interface of the Pr�osed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side:
• There will be little impact to either neighboring structure.
• The left side of the house faces a 3 story apartment building and a large parking
area.
• The left side elevation has been changed to lower the roof at the rear of the house.
• The right side of the house is not changing scale.
5 Landsc�in�and Its Pro�ortion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Comvonents:
Landscaping is not shown.
Front and driveway side landscaping will be key to improvement of the overall
appearance. I recommend a careful landscape plan be developed and carried out,
and that planting on the right side of the house be added, reducing the amount of
asphalt seen from the street.
Summarv:
1. This applicant has made significant changes to the plans and has improved the
design from the original submittal.
2. Recommend approval, with the following suggestions:
a. Sills at the windows should be designed as sills and extended beyond the
side trim in a more traditional manner. Detailing of the trim will be key to
mitigating the vinyl windows already installed.
b. Carry through the porch design in a manner as discussed using a square
column with compatible trim on railing and stair.
Jerry L. Winges, AIA
� c'TY o CITY OF BURLINGAME
eu�r�, .^-^�.•�y�
wr�E� PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
��,-�>�i,+��;�- „j BURLINGAPAE. CA 94010
``�;�..��� TEL (35i!) 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
Monday, December 10, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in
the City Hall Council Chambers located at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed November 30, 2001
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at the' Planning�� Department at �5(�1 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California. � � �` „
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, �you may�,�be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone�else raised a� the�pablic hearing,
described in the notice or in� �written correspondenc�li�er�d to the eity
at �r prior to the public hearing. :� ���t ,�h�� �
Property owners who receive.ttu� notice are responsi�if�� or�i�orming their
tenants about this� notiCe �``oi���"additional�; informatio x ple�se call (650)
558-7250. Thank you. � p` ��;° �
y � � ' � ,�- .� ���. �
��� � ��� 1 ��t�"�w� ��
qr
.s h ip sA :(' y ��— L` P�
Margaret Monzoe � �` r� -�
City Planner ��' � � ...`""". � -
_.,� �:� � r . . . � .___ �' � �
�� � ;f�
PUBLI� �H�ARING _NOfiICE
(Plea.se refer to other side)
�
o-
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
DESIGN REVIEW AND VARINACE
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desi
review and front setback variance for a first and second story addition at 1509 Howazd Avenue, zoned R-1,
Jirayr and Kohar Kourouyan, property owner, APN: 028-292-260;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
December 10, 2001, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials
and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received
and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set
forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article
19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - 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.
2. Said design review and front setback variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and variance are set forth in the minutes and
recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records
of the County of San Mateo.
• � I'
I, Joseph Bojues , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Bu.rlingame, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the l Oth day of December, 2001 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and front setback variance.
1509 Howard Avenue effective January 7, 2002
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped October 12, 2001 Sheets A1,A2, A4, and date stainped November 29, 2001
Sheets A3 and L1;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Recycling Specialist
memos dated October 22, 2001 and November 15, 2001 shall be met;
3. that any increase to the habitable basement floor azea and any changes to the size or envelope
of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the
shucture, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof
height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
. �' . � � -� � ` � *T� �
� �.
-a"f� � � � 7��r �-/ '� � `,`� � r#�
-�
� �� � � ��� � � i�- ,� � � �, �� � � .
s
� ��, s y ���, �`
. _
� �� .� � �
. .
_ �.. �� 4� `+ �
4. Y � � �g 'Ir
�: � 1 , * . / '�1 �� � fi ..
t..� ... � .. .. � y ::� � I � ���� ,�� �� �.�
i � � � ��
��=� tii � .
�
_ �„�� _ �� `, - �.
��
.
�_ - �� � , . �s
� _,..,� �� �! . .-�, '� � ` . '"�
` � � x 4 � , . � �
^ M
1 � }
i � ^� . n-
, .. � ��
.
,, ;.:.
� ` �f �'`- �� �
� �`� � r�; a �"' > �
� � �.
�.. O , . : , .
� �' {�,( 9
� ,8,,. �� , ' � j ` . �y �.� jlf� : 4
*i, � � .'�i.s 4y. ... °'" �.� , � �
h: � �. �+ � � � H' �� 4.,^ ; � . . . ,�
` � � �� � ��
- � � �(� � �. � .. r ,"
_ - ` ��p � � ' �'` . r ^���.4 ;n'�
>. � �� ; .� �;. ,�,; .i' �
�'y _
� � 4� a�v s. � ' .. . f+�' � � �
�
• �
v
_ � .. , ., � �.,
r.... . ,: � y �
,. �//�y . d,... ..� OO .' ��y(
-_ .. `1 S f �� O ��,...� �n/�'v� J
l_ . � . . � ., � � .
. � � -: .�. . 'ywJ .
i. _ .. > ,.. Ih ... � � `� � �,ti
' Y 11 , '� � .. .... ,: �. ._,:,. , ad y!
i, t
H
: S ;
'�.
. , � �,.: v .-� `a� � j : �.. z�.
. , �N+w- . . .
. � " `
- . ,
� y
r�
�+ � � ,;,� �+ � � �� '� -
_.�r�l�►. � �` ��; � � .�.
��< �a= � µ'�`� ��. t3 ���' .a, �y . # ".�`�' � r � ,
' �.. ���IN�N��F � t��,` °- ,� ��
��� �' �
,
�., � , �7_ , r . , ,�� M �.
^ ' '�: ' � , �� �' � � . _
" ..M�" '' f � � r:::.. �. • '+ ^� �*
' '' .t . } � `� .
�` �� . ... �,,j�. , � � elm ` Aid ' ;,: S +n.� 'P� ,.
'" .J,.' -yK�,' � �I�,,,'�: " ... �� �,. �, �'�'.i�� � ..
' �'�` ,� �,w.,,. � 'fi � • � . . � . �
".�pxe .� �`'y � . ���L: ��
� , �� � � .�� �` 1 ����
� .,
j � ��. �% . a� �. ;` �� �+ .I »�'°�11 I : �"... � �e�R`'o-� . �f e ������ ..
.
� � f '�' d>^ r'.� ` �
:
"' � � � ,� �'. , .;� ._
,,,�, . `�' �• � `� �� s��
.���� � t` �, `
•.i�'. re'' I � � � , r�. , .
� � ��^L 3 � ��� ) _ 4 fy# 5 : . r � �' � .
N..
f�Lq .}}� ' > > � f
L •
i
., � �� „ 1 � �:. . "� ",L ' �� .R "� , �' �"
n
. �S� � �r„r � '"� �`�� � �� � � � �
�o �_ . � ..� � ., .�
���, ��~� ���� � � � �
�r ,.. � �, � � � �.
� � �� -0e � � � � e
a� � s � r�
��
,� �
_: r �
x
� � � � � � � . �F �: °�
�� � ^ . i �� � � �F �` �' F � '
� �f
. � �� �..4 � � ��: �
y. � ���� � � .. � � 6 ` +.�
., �.. . �` r!
,:r- -: r. g�iti • .' a � .
. �. �. �� � . .
�
� �
r6 /� y,
� - � . .:i�. �� i3 y/� ' /\ !l'•l
,,e, .,
� . "
., : �. , , ^«,
`.��
;. �� •.. �'w5 .v . � .�. X`n'::.� ' �y�.-\. `' .
d ����.
V
. �� ,� �. :�� _ �,r`
�t�. � a 1�
���: � � � � ;� y .
,1,; . � �:�,�. - Y � ` i�� �' \l rr� ��
\\� . . :..� y ' � �r
v�` 'ra�'.! .�-Y . A�� �' � � � .. , �� �� �
V� ��;r.,` £f .. . fiA�� } „ � �� H
/ . � + ��;: .r "� .� �4..• `�°..„ 'rt�'(: ., J ' �. ��
�, x
w� � . �, _ '.^�"' '� ��'� (�'' .;� � ..� ��x� �
,_ � .. .�
3
� . �� .
1. ' �� k � � �4 ' i . .
} `
. _ - � � ��'.•��. t�� � �..• �r . � � � ' �
��. :
,.'4f4.: . . . . " �