HomeMy WebLinkAbout717 Vernon Way - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Design Review
Item #
Consent Calendar
Address: 717 Vernon Way Meeting Date: 10/09/07
Request: Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling.
Applicants and Architect: Daniel Ewald APN: 029-172-050
Property Owner: Barry Sudbeck and Jennifer Hertz Lot Area: 5,027 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(2) - additions to existing
structures 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.
Summary: The existing single-story house with a detached one-car garage contains 1,765.4 SF (0.35
FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to add 180 SF at the back of
the existing first floor and to build a new 1,008.4 SF second story. With the proposed remodel and
addition, the floor area will increase from 1,765.4 SF to 2,910 SF (0.58 FAR) where 2,910.3 SF (0.58
FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes porch and chimney exemptions).
With the proposed addition, the number of bedrooms will increase from three to four. Two parking
spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing detached one-car garage
(9'-1" x 19' clear interior dimensions) is non-conforming in both length and width, but because no work
is proposed to the detached garage it may remain as non-conforming. One uncovered parking space
(9' x 20') is provided in the driveway to comply with the on-site parking requirements. All other zoning
code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following:
■ Design Review for a first and second story addition (CS 25.57.010, a, 5).
717 Vernon Way
Lot Area: 5,027 SF Plans date stamped: September 26, 2007 and Auaust 30, 2007
Existing
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flrJ:
Side( left):
(right):
_ _
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
__ _
Lot Coverage:
FA R:
# of bedrooms:
_
Parking;
DH Envelope:
15'-6"
none
0'-0" (to garage)
4'-0"
__.
38'-9"
none
_ ......
1,787.15 SF
36%
1,765.4 SF
0.35 FAR
3
_. .
1 covered
(9'-1" x 19')Z
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
19'-11"
_ .. _. ..... .. _
n/a
Proposed
17'-4" (to trellis)
33'-10"
14'-1" (to 2"° flr)
4'-0"
24'-3" (to eave)
27'-9"
__ __ _ .
1,967.15 SF
__
39%
2,910 SF
0.58 FAR
_ .........
4
no change
30'-0"
__ __
Dormer exemption
Allowed/Required
15'-0"
20'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
2,011 SF
40%
2,910.3 SF
0.58 FAR
___
1 covered
(10' x 20' )
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
30'-0"
_ .. . .....
see code
Design Review
717 Vernon Way
' (0.32 x 5,027 SF) + 1100 SF + 201.7 SF = 2,910.3 SF (0.58 FAR).
2 Existing nonconforming covered parking space dimensions (9'-1" x 19' existing and proposed
where 10' x 20' is the minimum required).
Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire
Marshal and NPDES Coordinator.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on
September 10, 2007, the Commission suggested a few changes to the project and placed this item on
the consent calendar (September 10, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes).
The architect submitted a response letter and a revised site plan, landscape plan and building
elevations, date stamped September 26, 2007. Listed below are the Commissions' suggestions and
responses by the applicant.
1. Barge rafters on the north elevation are not flared out on the two dormers; windows in dormers
look like they are squeezed in; dormers are tiny with a!ot of roof above; the computer rendering
seems to have more appropriate proportions; check the dimensions; perhaps narrow the dormer
windows to improve proportions.
The two front dormers were revised to include barge rafters that are flared out; the windows in
the dormers have been narrowed to a 42" wide double hung window which provides for more
space between the window trim and the rafters; and the side elevations have been revised to
depict the appropriate height of the dormers, as seen from the front elevation (see response
letter from architect and revised building elevations, sheets A3.1 and A3.2, date stamped
September 26, 2007).
2. Would prefer a porch, rafher than a trellis over the main entry, but will accept either approach.
• The architect responded that a roofed porch was looked into, but that the owner prefers the
openness of the trellis (see response letter from architect and revised front elevation, sheet
A3.1, date stamped September 26, 2007).
3. Landscape plan needs to incorporate more substantial materials; perhaps provide a tree on each
side of the walkway.
� The landscape plan has been revised to include a cluster of three new birch trees to the left of
the brick walk in the front setback area (see response letter from architect and revised
landscape plan, sheet A1.0, date stamped September 26, 2007).
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted
by the Council on April 20, 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;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
r
Design Review
717 Vernon Way
Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's
September 10, 2007, design review study meeting, that the first and second floor addition is well-
designed, that the architectural style is consistent throughout the house, and that the project is
consistent with the mass and bulk in the neighborhood, the project is found to be compatible with the
requirements of the City's five design review guidelines.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review. The reasons for any
action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped September 26, 2007, site plan, roof plan, landscape plan and elevations, and date
stamped August 30, 2007, streetscape, floor plans, building sections and site survey, and that
any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall
require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 7, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshall's and
NPDES Coordinator's July 5, 2007 memos and the City Engineer's July 9, 2007 memo shall be
met;
3. that demolition or 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;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2001 Edition, 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:
8. 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;
3
Design Review 717 Vernon Way
9. 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 Department; and
10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
Erica Strohmeier
Pianner
c. Daniel Ewald, architect.
C!
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Item #
Design Review Study
Address:717 Vernon Way Meeting Date: 09/10/07
Request: Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling.
Applicants and Architect: Daniel Ewald
Property Owner: Barry Sudbeck and Jennifer Hertz
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 029-172-050
Lot Area: 5,027 SF
Zoning: R-1
Summary: The existing single-story house with a detached one-car garage contains 1,765.4 SF (0.35
FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to add 180 SF at the back of
the existing first floor and to build a new 1,008.4 SF second story. With the proposed remodel and
addition, the floor area will increase from 1,765.4 SF to 2,910 SF (0.58 FAR) where 2,910.3 SF (0.58
FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes porch and chimney exemptions).
With the proposed addition, the number of bedrooms will increase from three to four. Two parking
spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing detached one-car garage
(9'-1" x 19' clear interior dimensions) is non-conforming in both length and width, but because no work
is proposed to the detached garage it may remain as non-conforming. One uncovered parking space
(9' x 20') is provided in the driveway to comply with the on-site parking requirements. All other zoning
code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following:
■ Design Review for a first and second story addition (CS 25.57.010, a, 5).
717 Vernon Way
Lot Area: 5,027 SF Plans date stam ed: Au ust 30, 2007
Existing ' Proposed Allowed/Required
SETBACKS '
__ __ _ _ _ ___ __
Front (1st flr): 15'-6" 17'-4" (to trellis) 15'-0"
(2nd flr): none ' 33'-10" 20'-0"
_ __ __ __ _
_ _ _ _ __
Side( left): 0'-0" (to garage) 14'-1" (to 2"d flr) 4'-0"
(right): 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0"
__ _ _._ _ i_ _ __ __
Rear (1st flr): 38'-9" 24'-3" (to eave) 15'-0"
(2nd flr): none 27'-9" 20'-0"
__ i _ _ __.
Lot Coverage: 1,787.15 SF 1,967.15 SF 2,011 SF
36% 39% 40°/a
_ : ........ _ .. . _
FAR: 1,765.4 SF 2,910 SF 2,910.3 SF'
0.35 FAR 0.58 FAR 0.58 FAR
_ _ __ __ __ _ __ _. _
# of bedrooms: 3 4 ---
_ _ __. ; __.
Parking: 1 covered ' 1 covered
(9'-1" x 19')Z no change ' (�0' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
__ _ ___ __
Height: 19'-11" ' 30'-0" 30'-0"
_ .
DH Envelope: n/a Dormer exemption see code
' (u..5[ x 5,u[! Jr) +"I "I UU Jr + ZU"I. / Jf = L,y� U.� 5F- (U.5t5 rHK).
2 Existing nonconforming covered parking space dimensions (9'-1" x 19' existing and proposed
where 10' x 20' is the minimum required).
� Design Review 717 Vernon Way
Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire
Marshal and NPDES Coordinator.
Erica Strohmeier
Planner
c. Daniel Ewald, architect.
2