HomeMy WebLinkAbout734 Walnut Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame ITEM # 2
Design Review and Special Permits for a Two-Story Addition
to an Existing Two-Story Residence
Address: 734 Walnut Avenue Meeting Date: January 24, 2000
Request: Design Review for a two-story addition to an existing two-story residence and Special
Permits for height and encroachment into the declining height envelope at 734 Walnut Avenue,
zoned R-1.
Applicant: Gerry Murnane APN: 028-141-130
Property Owners: Gerry and Paula Murnane
Lot Area: 10,621 SF (roughly 50' x 210')
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
CEQA Status: Exempt, Article 19, Section 15303, addition or construction of small structures.
Date Submitted: September 3, 1999
Summary: The applicant proposes to construct a 1900 SF two-story addition to their existing
2200 SF two-story residence. The addition would enlarge the three-bedroom residence to a iive-
bedroom residence. 1300 SF would be added to the first floor and include a new covered porch
to replace an existing glass atrium porch attached to the front of the house. Approximately 600
SF would be added as new living area on the second story. The applicant requests approval of
Design Review and Special Permits to allow a maximum height of 31'-0" and encroachment of
72 SF into the declining height envelope to accommodate a change in the second story roofline
of the existing residence. The project also includes the demolition of an existing detached 1-car
garage and the construction of a new detached 2-car garage.
The following permits are required:
Design Review for the two-story addition (C.S. 24.28.040);
2. Special Permit for a height of 31'- 0" where 30'-0" is the maximum height allowed (C.S.
25.28.060.2);
3. Special Permit for extension of 72 SF of floor area into the Declining Height Envelope
along the left side (distance of 24'-0" and width of 3'-0") of the second story where an
existing roof line is proposed to change by increasing in height and changing axis of
roofline from a gable roof facing the side property line with a shed dormer facing to the
front to a gable roof facing the front property line (C.S.25.28.075).
Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official notes (September 7, 1999 memo) that the extent
of the proposed remodel and addition exceeds 50% of the replacement value of the existing
residence and therefore qualiiies as new construction. No openings in walls are permitted less
than three feet from a property line and walls within three feet of a property line must be one-hour
construction. No eaves are permitted less than 24" from property lines. The Fire Marshal notes
(September 7, 1999 memo) that no openings are permitted within 3'-0" of a property line
(referring to first floor bathroom); and that the garage eaves are not permitted to extend to the
Desigrr Review for Two-Story Additron and
Special Permrts for Neight a�ad Encroachme�tt inlo DHE 73-1 Walmd Avenue
property line. The City Engineer notes (September 7, 1999 memo) that the site drainage and roof
drainage shall be to the front street (Walnut Avenue). Planning Staff would note that the
applicant has clarified the distance between the side property line and existing bay window in the
ground floor bathroom is 3'-0". The following table compares the setbacks and size of the
proposed addition with the R-1 Zoning Standards:
PROPOSED
SETBACKS
Front: lst flr
15' -0"
25' -0"
EXISTING
15'-0"
25'-0"
ALLOWED/REQ'D
15' -0"
20' -0"
2nd flr
Side (left):
Side (right):
(street side)
Rear: 1 st flr
2nd flr
LOT
COVERAGE:
3'-0"
10'-6"
116'-0"
126' -0"
3561 SF
(33.5%)
3'-0° (existing)
5'-0"(new addition)
10'-6"
146' -0"
156'-0"
2450 SF
(23 %)
. �
. �
15'-0"
20'-0"
4248 SF
(40%)
FAR: 4622 SF (43.5% FAR) 2850 SF (26.8 % FAR) 4898 SF (46% FAR)
PARKING: 2 covered in garage 1 covered in garage 2 covered in garage
(20' x 20') + 1 unc. in (12' x 20')+ 1 unc. in (20'-0" x 20'-0")
driveway driveway + 1 unc. in driveway
HEIGHT.•
DH ENV:
31'-0"*
encroaches 72 SF**
: 1
nonconforming
30' /2 1/z stories
see code
*Special Permit required for 31'-0" height where 30'-0" allowed; Special Permit required for
encroachment of 72 SF (3' x 24') into Declining Height Envelope. This project meets all other
zoning code requirements.
Design Reviewer Comments: In his original comments date stamped October 7, 1999, the
Design Reviewer determined that the proposed design was not compatible with the existing
character of the neighborhood. Nor did the proposed design of the addition and remodel reflect
a consistent design style and resulted in an awkward structure that changed the character of the
exisring Craftsman -style home. The Design Review Consultant recommended that the plans be
revised to include steeper roof pitches and a consistent level of detail that is more characteristic
of the existing residence.
The applicant resubmitted revised plans on January 5, 2000. The revised plans were reviewed by
the Design Review Consultant who was pleased with the changes that were made to the original
2
Desi� Review for 7'wo-Story �ddition and
SpeciaJPernrits for Height nnd Encroachn�ent rnto DHE 73=1 Wah�ut Avenue
proposal. The Design Reviewer's comments (date stamped January 11, 2000) noted that the
resulting redesign will be compatible with the style of houses in this neighborhood. Other large
houses exist, which is partially due to the large (deep) lots in this area. The proposed design and
size of the detached garage is compatible with the design of the residence and is consistent with
the pattern of houses in this neighborhood. The architectural style of the remodeled residence is
much improved and reflects a craftsman style home with an elaborate level of detail with corbels,
brackets, eyebrow roof curves. The proposed front porch is a nice feature and great improvement
over the e�cisting glass atrium. The redesigned house will be more compatible with the adjacent
neighbors, and will be one of many two-story houses in this neighborhood. The Design Reviewer
noted that the applicant did not propose a new landscape plan, and that a well-designed plan would
enhance the remodel of the house.
Design Reviewer Recommendation: The Design Reviewer recommends approval of the
extensive addition and remodel proposed for this house. He notes that the resulting plan will
appear massive compared to the neighboring houses, but will have little impact on the adjacent
structures. He compliments the creative design, acknowledges the incorporation of his original
comments in the redesign of the project, and encourages the applicant to carefully select materials
which reflect the quality of the design suggested by the plans. In his final summary, the Design
Reviewer recommends approval of this project.
Janice Jagelski Planner
c: Gerry Muname, Owner/Applicant
3
MURNANE
734 WALNUT AVENUE
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
January 5, 2000
Ms. Janice Jagelski
Planning Department
City of Burlingame
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: 734 Walnut Avenue - Remodel /Addition
Dear Ms. Jagelski
REC�e�������
JAN - 6 2000
CITY OF BURLINGAI�7E
PLANNIPJG DEFT.
The following is a response to your letter dated September 24, 1999. We believe we
have answered or rectified all of the issues addressed in your letter and have also revised
the drawings taking into consideration Mr. Jerry Winges suggestions.
1. Application Form enclosed.
2. An application for the Special Permit is enclosed for the garage to remain within the
rear 40% of the lot. ($100.00 fee enclosed)
3. An application for a variance for the second story roof lineof the front half of the
residence is enclosed with the $100 fee.
4. Fire Marshall's Comments:
Bathroom window & fire wall- the property line was incorrect on the original drawings,
the structure is more than 3ft from the property line, we have revised the drawings to
correct this. The Garage has been moved so that the eaves are more than 24" of the
property line. (see drawing). Sewer drainage and roof drainage will be going to Walnut
street.
4 Architects Comments:
We have enhanced the architectural detail to be more in keeping with the mission style
of the home. We have altered the roof line to be all gables, using " craftsman" detailing
except for the front porch area. Attached is a photo of the "eaves detail" and eyebrow
arches detail we are trying to accomplish with our home.
Elevations on the roof plan have been conected.
The rear window in the master bathroom has been centered and the roof changed to a
gable. We have added a preliminary landscape design, however, we will be enhancing
this at a later date.
sci PHnNF IF,5f11�4;�-:�RRf, FAX� ((,SOI �4R-2(191caz
MURNANE
734 WALNUT AVENUE
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Included in this package are the drawings and copies for the revised pages only, we
would greatly appreciate it if you would substitute these with the originals. Please call
us if you have any other questions.
Home # 343-3886
Cellphone 222-1195 (Gerry)
Yours sincerely,
.uLC�, �L.R�%�ll-C-�
[ ���
Gerry & Pau a Murnane � �
Homeowners
R E C � � �°��g �: �F..:.
�AN - s ?�oo
CITY OF BURLi�JGF;i�I�:
PLANNING iie P �
rci PHANF: IFiSA1:i43-�RR6 FAXc ffiS01 :i4R-2A91 �
� s
! � �, �s.��'" ' � r %
��,�Ji��1 �I1��� �� � � � , �ti ; � � ��� ,� � � % � �,; � 's.
�p{{��. 11��1 y ��t �1.Jk��M �L'r` [N ,�-� �.���j/ /� _
f/I �} �� � v �' - :i ' �`^� � `""�'` 4 w`� �S�i.� '^�h � .f% /
� � }° Y � F � � ����r-��"�'����,9 ,
� �« .-r: r 1_ v . �. � { t 'T �-k �� _
� � �Fy 'L 10:� ,/
�a ' � w .: . '> . �; `" U d, ^ `' _ � �.�ri 1* x � - .
. � �"�� �
y �
- - ,e � �,,,� . � ! �,''� �� , .;�. _
x5! ;.'� `_� . . _
k� '�'r-� .r 3 r - ] .,r.ld � � c � +A. i�� �:
'� q _ w }� �:
� y� 7 r� M�' �o- Y� u, ����M4•.�� �,. �� � � , �� , �/,-�,
� yG"F—c
, �k � •
� �.5 yr ��� + R � �a r����r n��� 'i a �v��M ..� +f .��y � �� � _ ti � r�. ��y�,u * , � � '� .
. .,,�. ,;c. _.
....,.. � ...... �, , , r�
�, ��'1� k - P n . , wY4.� � , s..}.,,,A '��:` �� lJe � � r . � i I�k��y p >I +' �y''�" . ( s) � -
^�' �� .' f�' � �,I,;.��E,UqY I I iL��_� A I :.dL, v.W "a�^�
� ` � � ,��,y `
�A � ,_Y.JI - '. - AI�L1EtVhA i'n.M". y ..y;.. Kk..7 y $s � �- NiG
� °��'�` �; 'r""_."�.� 1� , �, . d }" - � .� �
+� , �ry,�y, �� '��� ,�.��
�� k
,�°�` � K. .. � .` �� '� '! ��+ Ji✓' M i � � : ��� �,?.�,�E°'�' �`� i ° .� M
�� /; G , yd� 1@ � u.:
, a:,� t� , +. � ,
. �� . � � „
�°�'�h �' `� � n� .� F
� 4 ! _ I �� I �• Sr��
� 4� � � � � � ' � —
,.
�,;,
, y �, .
�' ���
�1 5 Jr �.� a'"Fil -r,� �ti�i'(,,�` 'i c. 1G ' .`.a�,4y _ � . i
.� `I �_ } �--r ,�+s ""'.,�+r` �i � h�"., fj r��' � � ��; �„i' a v u ,�i .� �+ 1 t 1- �i', , 'c �,. "�y a'...�'"^ m-e
o� _ -�'"Y9' j"5._, �,rce {t F � }� _ �+.,w.�!`�'��++tr r�o+��r . �,� �n --T y n� � j ii I
h7t��� t��`�� �[ � r �.U^� ��' .��,�3'� �' � ��, ; ,. . .. - ' H. � } �,i �
a� �.,;r.�
�,. ... � � �-- � kr,jP�h�'�� "'y�C�ld � ��4�k�, ``- �..—'�--...'___."'"",w.Q. �- tP ,�� �— �a'�' i'd ..�.
i'�Mhr�'� 1�} >. �J�, } � � �� �*� �5 ��._ ._ --._ _._ `. . _ ___ _ ;- � � �'' ��,� �`+t�':
:r1N �h �. 4 �� z i ' ' ` ��, � ��' � �� $I � � d � � i r� .
� �`� � �P t� �rasx � 'Y ,� � u.. �, �r - � � _ .�r :- p� , �l � �n tk �. s , rr r�= '
rY��G 9 i '� ."'� v � M, r� Y � �. �e � ,rnh� .«f - � � ' �,. � [ � � . " J �m,.- �. 1 y. I
� y � � �„����� " H �' L i v � 7 � � ' � - +j ��.`ti'9�+R� �a �r»�ti 3 4 +..� 1 �� '""^"'r " � � I
m .4w � � M 1 ..� .0 � r� . .. � � ��- t � .�, i�*� _ � f ; �. ;
'� * � ii. � � � `�� � ' �'+!'� K ° l -. `S..Y� '�li r 1 L � ' � � � � ,�y i� r � -,
,':kbfii � � � ' :. ,�'r t���T7t�' k� �,2r '�r'�;,+r4 ti �'r h '-� --' ._� . � r ,���^:, +"� �" ��_..l� '�t� ��, i
�ii;,'�. F!. �;t�'�' �1��. i t � f � 9 �`9 ��rw��, �� �4��,ti;�.��� ��:.., �r�°rl .�� Hz .-yM.'^s�f� �t"�!�� YF^��fi" � � jy� � - �:�������"���"S '.� 1�+ii���r� ,C, �N�,�'�, � a _ `�' ,
',, ' ,� N `. r6lt� ���j "' �`�M;�.,, �. �� '^��,�„ y � 4 � �.1, � r...��Qv�t'�- S� Prry �,�.F ���Ta��y�i� �S 9 �fm� ��ald � � � .
h � ..�, � �, 1.� p r,4q��` �
I
�.. � �k jr� , l�," . H� i.'�Ir i� "� �M �-:" ���A i : Y.1^i�� 'A p,,�it;, N '' t�"J � '% f F al ��� � �t 7,G s�� e �L:� � � ��( w�,i � y4f u e w� ti 't 'h�: 3 1?r . " °
�s �. � � � � �,�' H i a�r '��'t£�a: �a ,�. ei f� � .-1 �,� I
�f, . � �, (a b ti � 11 r ,, � i� L et rr.Y"a ei �� S-{t f� � w ) 1 r w � a i, ��,
+��;�. �� � r !' �;r �.P' '�qia�� � �� i �.. �1t��5n����'�:� Y�r+°f .��+�t� Mi"r� �� (:':� l,�t:1�i��' Vw �t:;� ' � a� j'��� 4 '" F�,! ihe +E' � i
.{e'�.:'7,� r� 1'���, �'4� viy Kht �e�"�t �'�v ��X�t'�f fr�a ��..'� i4 s,,Pi� ��r µy i'✓ ���,� i� k�� �4 t i. �!;�} ; i �� �
��%:N T,�.. e� .v;� ro�lw,Xn r� i� � 4.�d y1' 1� . ��� yir9�}... + �t-i: i� �f' �,ty l y � � � e�i
ul r S �J` '� �.y T 1{ .'k r ?l`i ��, i� i;l :4 fyC� ". :.,4 k'' �f" r,�i � ��. y t�� 1;, ���t� � V ,
x.;,,' l ��� �k a'+� :i�� � �,��i �p�!,'{,� �'��h1F��;r U .�rX� ^1 ir ���1:�: �'�'�s�+`f r'�f �w�" ��.1� � i'�°�fiy,o,, .n� � i e p,;N� i �y, �: ° jh r #Y �, w :, �ff' ,� w �
�� � N� n'�{� 1 d!�� ? t' v� 5 � Y� f i � .�4 �'.
a, :' `Y k�:+�',st �,�i1yy w� , a �f � id:+��} rR,1��iy�"�'✓}t� �+"4w p � �4 ��J41 � �'.'�ri�i�i� I��"`f�.'^ �+G r �Ir: p '��( ���'�y+ � N g y ��'� ��� ` � .
` �SYi '�y F�,r �'��' '� Atl x����S t1 4 � � �S i .�n °� P j t ,� V ,5�, � � � y� .[ C
4t . � ��� . �d � F� C � ���e��.� � +'�' �� ,�,G�. !� f��� , �� x� F�" � - � � b�' e i �Yl� 7�%�.�T � '���k :�'4�N4 �i � k .
�� r+ �'ri K �I u��. ""pv�f�Wtti� �k�� r�� � �� X.�l V��, P' ", t�� I..��t4 '!`'��" �j�� U� 4 f, � ;t
�+ '�: ��.-.�, r i�t�4 1� �i d .i"� F:. " yt r � .' ���. �. . ♦�� .,.. .� v}�d W a ar, � ' ,
� 1 � l�� � r�u u I i � i s q x � 1 y i � � 3 �� � � i �
;l y p 1 . '� h� . � t �. flRCriTECTVRF
a� � -� � � .� - r � � , , � � i �� 41
�
. � �r y 4 .. �':Sz �h '�����+� Ir A �I �l�n � ��p' : S�" k i � � : z � , i ,° � ' '.
' � i
n
r . ,.'X . � � � � �y� l-d��' P '!. r ��i hJe'��.'f�° �� �. � � �. , . � ,.t ,.. .. ,�. � .�.- .� ., t � kt i .
--- �1.....2._.� x1.tt�.ti,r�,Qd�uLi�]�:• h� 4 i�%� ..� _ _ Y�� . ,. ��u . ,��5
�}'r -.. .. . ._ .., . .,, ,. r ._ r. ._ , , . , ..
{j
��; ; � BUNGALOWS
� ;, � �
..,'�; � �.T.,
''�"_ �' � HE BUNGALOW ORIGINATED IN INDIA, where [l�e Atiovr: Thiss�unniug
~'�, � �.
�'� �� �'• "banggolo" or "bangla," an indigenous one-story dwelling, was redesigned by esample ��f cr h�iccr! l�iur,�c�luu�
�,:'. �
`� �: has seuera! conrnto�t hnr{�cilor��
English colonials, who� added verandas to shelter them froiu the sun. European adap-
fectitu�c�s, lncl�rdin�� eqx,cc��/
��� tations of bungalow5 eventulll ��i � e�ired on En rlitih s�� ��ct �5 - i 1°
�� ,>.
,:
. . y� J p< �, ., c.i,5i c. ��nc <>n l u seaco�i5[s rrt/tc�r /c�il+ r.tur! /nr�c� s�/riurc�d
" and lok�>�irlr�c nf ���v�rl, A�„��,�„�-� l�n�rh rn/�irrn�c C'��n��>>��/rii'n/ �
Ub1L � i • �
Spaces such as terraces, courryards, or patios, �vhile others houses may
��o�r�ce both traditional porches and other exterior "rooms." Yrairie-.tiryle
houses for esample, generally feature covered terraces on dle side or hack.
�glish Tudor houses tend to have open terraces, often raised by a stone retaining
�-a�t and incorporating steps and a balustrade. Spanish Mission houses, which
�Row features from warm-climate traditions, are sometimes "H" or "V' shaped,
and center around a courtyard, often widl a fountain.
lhcrt grou� «�ell i�t ca:/ined
spuces. xere, n�ees esperliered
nguivut a ic�all so�terr tL�e sulicl
bricl2 of [he strttctime ctnd add �t
coolirig gree�� tv the spvt. Floa��-
ers plcrntecl in u�rperved s�uares
offer mcarzngeuble sp�ces in
zchicb to g�rderi.
�-. ���T
I
i
��
TYiNG H°VSF
FiND LHNDSCFIFE
74GFhiFR
57
n
-o �
r<
�o
z �,
z
z �'
c
�� �
J r
�� z
� c>
1 TT
j
L
n
z
0
rn
ry
0
0
0
i�
I
�I
li
,i
iI
c`,
Witlges Architectlrre cY� Plajrnifig 1290 Hoivar�d Ai�e. S�rrite 311
Rru•Izfrgame, CA 9-1010
MEMO:
Date: 1-10-2000
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
ref: 734 WALNUT -- M�JRNANE RESIDENCE RESUBMITTAL
RECEIVED
JAN 1 1 2000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and have reviewed the
plans for the new house, and have met with the applicant on site for an initial tour. I have
received the attached resubmittal and have the following comments regarding the project
and the design guidelines.
1. Compatibilitv of the architectural style with that of the existin� neighborhood�
• Many styles exist on this charming street, from stucco modern, to ranch, to Tudor and
Mediterranean.
• The style of the house proposed does not seem incompatible with the neighborhood.
This will be a large house but there are other large houses along this street due to the
larger lots.
• The height and scale of the proposed seems compatible. The neighborhood is a mix of
one and two story-plus houses.
2. Respect the Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood:
• New garage proposed in the rear yard replaces existing rear garage. This is
compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern and serves well to hide the
garage.
• Lots are very deep on this block.
3. Architectural St�, Mass and Bulk of the Structure, and Internal Consistenc. o�
Structural Desi�n.
• Roof lines are changed from existing steeper pitched gable roof, but have been
redesigned from the previous submittal to be now 7.5 in 12, an improvement.
• The new proposal is a creative and elaborate redesign of the window trim, details, and
style, and relates to the existing "craftsman" feel, but goes far beyond it.
• New front porch with large columns replaces original enclosed porch. This is a nice
feature and an improvement over the existing porch if details are carefully handled.
• Corbels and brackets, a nice feature of the original house design, have been elaborated
on and greatly enhanced.
• The eyebrow roof curves are an interesting and fun addition. This house will be nice
from all elevations.
4 Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side:
• The house on the right side is two stories with a tlat roof dormer facing this lot. The
proposed addition has windows looking directly into this neighboring house.
However, the second floor wall has been set back and there is the added width of the
driveway on this side which mitigates the problem.
• The house on the left side is also 2 stories and its second floor is set back from the
property line.
• The improvements have changed the direction of the main gable, and therefore, even
with the increase in peak height there will be only a minor impact on additional
shadows and scale relationships. This seems appropriate.
• The rear yard is very deep, and far to the rear is a 3 story multi-family project. There
will be almost no impact on this rear property.
5. Landscapin� and Its Pro�ortion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components:
• Landscaping is not shown, except for the existing to remain. A nice landscape plan
will do much to enhance this design.
Summarv:
1. In general, this will be a massive and dramatic house, however, the large scale of the
project seems to fit with the neighborhood and will have a relatively minor impact on
neighbors.
2. This house will be fun and interesting. It is important that the details and materials be
carried out in a quality way to retain the quality feeling portrayed in the drawings.
3. The elevations have been dramatically changed with no change in the plan. The
applicant has responded in a very positive manner to the original review comments,
and this appreciated.
4. Recommend approval.
Jerry L. Winges, AIA
2
Wzt�ges Architectzrre c� Ylanfiing l290 Howard Ave. S7+i1e 311
Burlir�game, CA 9-J010 R E C E I V E D
MEMO:
Date: 10-4-99
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, CA 94010
rei 734 WALNUT -- MURNANE RESIDENCE
OCT - 7 1999
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and have reviewed the
plans for the new house, and have met with the applicant on site for an initial tour. I have
the followinQ comments regarding the project and the design guidelines.
1. Compatibilit� of the architectural style with that of the existin� neighborhood:
• Many styles exist on this charming street, from stucco modern, to ranch, to Tudor and
Mediterranean.
• The style of the house proposed does not seem incompatible with the neighborhood.
The proposed changes, however, will alter the bungalow/craftsman original design and
feel of the e�sting house.
• The height and scale of the proposed seems compatible. The neighborhood is a mix of
one and two story-plus houses.
2. Respect the Parkin� and Gara�e Patterns in the NeiQhborhood:
� New garage proposed in the rear yard replaces existing rear garage. This is
compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern and serves well to hide the
garage.
• Lots are very deep on this block.
3. Architectural Style. Mass and Bulk of the Structure, and Internal Consistencv of the
Structural Desi�n.
• Roof lines are changed from e�sting steeply pitched gable roof. Now, roofs are all
hipped except for one large gable on the second floor. There are three different roof
pitches, varying between 4:12 and 7.5:12. This gives the house more of a typical
suburban appearance than the previous 12:12 pitch. The house has lost some of the
e�sting charm.
• The use of only one gable roof seems to be arbitrary and does not end on a wall plane
break, and the lower pitch seems to destroy the former historic feeling.
• It may also be possible to improve the design of the rather dull hipped roofs by
increasing the pitch, varying the plzte height, or use of other gables and "craftsman"
detailing.
• New front porch with large columns replaces original enclosed porch. This could be a
nice feature and an improvement over the e�sting porch if details are carefully
handled.
• Corbels and brackets, a nice feature of the original house design, have been removed,
as well as the shed dormer. Some thought should be given to replacing these details
with similar or new detail elements that add interest to the design.
• Elevations do not agree with the roof plan, and both should be reviewed and
corrected.
• The rear small hip roof with the off-center windows at the master bath looks awkward
from the exterior. Perhaps this could be a separate gable (or hip) with a lower plate
height and different window configuration.
4. Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side:
• The house on the right side is two stories with a flat roof dormer facing this lot. The
proposed addition has windows looking directly into this neighboring house.
However, the second floor wall has been set back and there is the added width of the
driveway on this side which mitigates the problem.
• The house on the left side is also 2 stories and its second floor is set back from the
property line.
• The improvements have changed the direction of the main gable, and therefore, even
with the increase in peak height there will be only a minor impact on additional
shadows and scale relationships.
• The rear yard is very deep, and far to the rear is a 3 story multi-family project There
will be almost no impact on this rear property.
5. Landscaping and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Com�onents:
• Landscaping is not shown, except for the existing to remain. A nice landscape plan
will do much to enhance this design.
Summarv:
1. In general, the large scale of the project seems to fit with the neighborhood and will
have a minor impact on neighbors.
2. I am concerned about the loss of charm and the change of style, and what could look
like a las�ge tract home if not handled carefully. Of particular concern is the loss of
detail, the standard hip roof with continuous plate height, the lower pitch of the roofs,
and the fronf elevation. The new plans look less like Burlingame than the original
house.
�
3. I would suggest the applicant take another look at the roof design, and at the same
time consider steeper gable roofs and varying plate heights. Roof plan and elevations
should be corrected.
4. I am available for a meeting to further discuss these comments should the applicant
wish to.
Jerry L. Winges, AIA