HomeMy WebLinkAbout620 Trenton Way - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 620 Trenton Way
Item No. 8a
Regular Action
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit
dwelling.
Applicant and Architect: Ted Catlin, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc.
Property Owners: Patricia and Griffin Tormey
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 029-165-210
Lot Area: 6,900 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures
are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000
SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located
is not environmentally sensitive.
Project Description: The subject property is an inte; �r lot with an existing one-story, single-unit dwelling
and an attached garage. The project proposes a first �:� second story addition, which would increase the
floor area from 1,930 SF (0.28 FAR) to 3,304 SF (0.4�3 �AR) where 3,308 SF (0.48 FAR) is the maximum
allowed (includes covered porch exemption).
With this application, the number of bedrooms in the main dwelling would increase from 3 to 7(office, study,
and playroom qualify as potential bedrooms). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are
required on-site for the main dwelling. Two covered spaces (19'-4" x 19'-0", clear interior dimensions) are
provided in the existing attached garage; one uncovered parking space (9' x 18') is provided in the driveway.
Therefore, the project complies with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have
been met.
The applicant is requesting the following application:
• Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020
A.1.b).
620 Trenton Way
Lot Area: 6,900 SF Plans date stam ed: June 21, 2022
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Front Setbacks (1st f/r): 19'-6" 16'-8" (to front porch) ' 15'-2" (block average)
(2nd f/r): - 22'-3" 20'-0"
. . . . ...
Side Setbacks
(left, 15t flr): 5'-7" no change 7'-0"
�2�d flr): - 7'-9„ 7,_�„
(right, 1St flr): 15'-10" no change 7'-0"
�2nd fli�: - 25'-0„ 7,_�„
........ ................................................................................... .
Rear Setbacks (1st flr): 25'-4" 33'-1" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): - 51'-0" 20'-0"
Design Review 620 Trenfon Way
620 Trenton Way
Lot Area: 6,900 SF Plans date stam ed: June 21, 2022
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Lot Coverage: 2,06 5 SF 2,227� SF 2,760 SF
30 /0 32 /0 40 /o
FAR: 1,930 SF 3,304 SF 3,308 SF'
0.28 FAR 0.48 FAR 0.48 FAR
# of bedrooms: 3 7 ---
1 covered 2 covered 2 covered
(13'-9" x 19'-11") (19'-4" x 19'-0') (18'x18' for existing)
Off Street Parking: 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 18') (9' x 18') (9' x 18' for existing)
Building Height: 14'-5" 24'-8" 30'-0"
Plate Height $�_0" 8'-0" 9'-0"
��Sr flr): - 8'-0„ 8,_0„
�2nd �IP�:
' ......................................................................................................................................
, .
Declining Height complies complies C.S. 25.10.055
Envelope:
' (0.32 x 6,900) + 1,100 SF = 3,308 SF (0.48 FAR)
Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:
• Windows: aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites
• Doors: wood front entry door and garage doors
• Siding: cement plaster on 1 St floor, cedar shingles on 2"d floor
• Roof: asphalt composition shingle
• Other: brick—clad plinth walls and wood-clad columns at front porch, wood gable vent, wood shutters
Staff Comments: None.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on June 13,
2022, the Commission had several suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the
Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see
attached June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes).
The following is a summary of the Commission's comments/suggestions from the Design Review Study
meeting:
• add shutters to the second floor windows to match the window character on the first floor;
• there is a feeling of heaviness on upper floor;
• consider changing the garage door to craftsman style;
• consider bringing the gable vents down a bit to even the scale of the house;
• consider placing a planter box in front of the kitchen windows; and
• provide renderings.
-2-
Design Review
620 Trenton Way
The applicant submitted a response letter (see attachments), dated June 15, 2022, and revised plans, date
stamped June 21, 2022, to address the Planning Commission comments.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the
City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows:
1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines;
2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures;
5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties;
6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and
7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure
as remodeled.
Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall
be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such
determination, the following findings shall be made:
The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of
Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically,
the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable.
2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other
circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and
3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health,
safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property.
Suggested Findings for Design Review:
The proposed addition to an existing single-unit dwelling is consistent with the General Plan
designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25;
the proposed style of the house will blend with the existing neighborhood based on the proposed
massing and variety of exterior building materials and architectural details, such as the covered front
porch with wood-clad columns, a combination of cement plaster and cedar shingle exterior siding, a
wood entry door, wood window shutters, and aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided
lites complement the architectural style of the house and is compatible with the existing character of
the neighborhood.
2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other
circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans.
3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health,
safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the
project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio and declining height envelope
requirements.
For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design
review criteria.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the
-3-
Design Review 620 Trenton Way
application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should
include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution
of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public
hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped
June 21, 2022, sheets A0.0 through A5.1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors which would include adding or
enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall
not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all
the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall
be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in
effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
C�
Design Review
620 Trenton Way
12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Fazia Ali
Assistant Planner
c. Ted Catlin, applicant and architect
Patricia and Griffin Tormey, property owners
Attachments:
June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes
Applicant's Response Letter to the Planning Commission, dated June 15, 2022
Application to the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 17, 2022
Area Map
-5-
� y
.j� �I � ' + �
���;'�i �:�
- �.
�� �
��;� :�.� ,Q�
�Avoawr�e�o �
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, June 13, 2022
7:00 PM
Online
a. 620 Trenton Way, zoned R-1 - Application f
addition to an existing single-unit dwelling
Inc., applicant and architect; Patricia and
Staff Contact: Fazia Ali
Attachments: 620 Trenton Wav - Staff Report
620 Trenton Wav - Attachments
620 Trenton Wav - Plans
or Design Review for a first and second story
. (Ted Catlin, Dreiling Terrones Architecture
Griffin Tormey, property owners) (96 noticed)
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Richard Terrones and Ted Catlin, architects, and Patricia Tormey, property owner, represented the
applicant and answered questions regarding the project.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
> Consider using a more craftsman style garage door and /ess of a ranch style look.
> 1 like the character that was present with the shutters on the left side of the main floor under the gable
end. Consider adding shuiters on the central element of the second floor. It would be nice to add some
ornamentation to it to bring a liftle bit more attention to itself since is it very symmetrical and balanced.
> There is a feeling of heaviness on the upper floor that you might want to study further. It can be
because of the deep eaves on the front balcony at the lower level or the hatching of the shingles, but
p/ease look into other solutions which can reduce that effect. Suggest raising the plate height in the
garage, which can help the roof work better so as it ferminates at the roof of the porch. It can he/p tie in
the levels and the addition of the second floor.
> Provide a colored 3D image fo help answer our questions and concerns.
> Regarding the front elevation of the second floor looking heavy, most of the windows around the house
are grouped together in three's or four's. The four windows at the front of the house look a bit small and it
gives more wall space. 1 think that's where the illusion of that weight comes from. 1 understand that these
are bathroom windows, but consider rearranging and look for a different solution.
> / agree on the heaviness and some of the comments that my fellow commissioners made. 1 think
part of it is the density and the color of the hatch that is making it graphically look that way. 1 like the
opporfunity of increasing the roof venfs or shutters in the middle area to make it look a little bit more
celebratory. Another good solution is to add a planter box beneath the window sill to take up some of the
extra space and make the middle portion a bit more prominent; this could fake some pressure off the two
City of Burlingame paye �
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2022
sides. Ofherwise, it is a great project and would like to see it move forward.
> 1 completely agree with my fellow commissioner, I would also like to suggest a planter box. All the
other comments are helpful. It is going to be a great project. It would be wonderful to see the transition of
the house wifh simple means and keeping the core house is great.
Vice-Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place on the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye: 7- Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse
City of Burlingame Page 2
U � H Dreiling Terrones Architeciu�e Inc.
Archltecture I Inlrostructure I Envlronmenis
15 June 2022
To: Burlingame Planning Commission
RE: 620 Trenton Way — Study Meeting: Response to Comments
Dear Commissioners and Staff,
Thank you for your comments at the Planning Commission Study hearing on June 13, 2022, regarding our Project at
620 Trenton Way. The following is our response to the comments and questions from the Commission. Indicated at
the beginning of each item, are the Drawings that have been revised with clouds for reference. Please refer to clouds
with delta #2.
1. A4.1 South (Front) Elevation — We have revised the fa�ade in several ways, to give more scale to the first
floor, and more detail and substance to the windows on the second floor. The revisions include:
a. Raised the porch roof to reveal more of the porch and the front fa�ade of the Kitchen.
b. Added shutters to windows on the second floor and to new Kitchen windows.
c. Added window flower box at center gable on second floor.
d. Increased size of the gable vents.
2. A4.3: North (Rear) Elevation — added shutters and window box at second floor windows that are centered
over the Living Room sectional doors.
3. 3D Rendering: We have submitted a sheet of 3D renderings for reference in regards to the massing of the
addition. These include a depiction of the revised Porch height as shown in the Front Elevation.
Other minor revisions / corrections — not responses to comments
4. Rafter Tails — removed exposed rafter tails, where existing roof structure will remain.
5. Gable Vents — changed spacing on vent slats, to be a little less dense.
In summary, we look forward to your review at the Action hearing. Based on the revisions and clarifications we have
made. We humbly ask that you approve the Project and move it forward on behalf of the Tormey family.
Sincerely,
Ted Catlin, Project Manager
Dreiling Terrones Architecture