HomeMy WebLinkAbout1261 Vancouver Avenue - Staff Report (2)Item # � �
Design Review Study
PROJECT LOCATION
1261 Vancouver Avenue
Item # 1 D
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Design Review for a New, Two-Story Dwelling With Detached Garage
Address: 1261 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: 07/28/03
Request: Design review for a new two-story dwelling with a detached garage.
Applicant and Owner: Craig Suhl
Designer: James Chu
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 027-332-020
Lot Area: 7,005 SF
Zoning: R-1
History: The Planning Commission reviewed this project as a design review study item at their May
12, 2003 meeting (see May 12, 2003 Planning Commission minutes). The May 12, 2003 application
showed that the existing, protected size oak tree at the left, front corner of the property would remain
and the driveway would be routed around the tree. During the meeting, the applicant submitted a
report from a certified arborist (dated May 12, 2003) to show that further investigation revealed that
tree stability and health were compromised. The City Arborist subsequently reviewed the recent
certified arborist information and concurred with the findings. The applicant applied for and received
a tree removal permit. The oak at the left front of the property has been removed, the tree has been
removed and the driveway re-routed on the site plan for the project. No changes have been made to
the design of the dwelling. The application is returning to the Planning Commission as a design
review study item.
Summary: The subject property is level at the front of the lot and has a cross slope towards the rear of
the lot, gaining 12.45 feet in elevation from the right rear property corner to the left rear property
corner. There is an existing retaining wall that runs parallel to the left side property line. There is a
difference in elevation of approximately 13 feet from grade at the existing house on the subject
property to grade on the properiy immediately to the left. There is a driveway leading to a flag lot that
runs along the right side of the subject property. There is a 5'-0" PG&E easement that runs along the
right side of the property and makes up 5 feet of the 6'-6" side setback shown. Easton Creek runs
through a culvert under the northwest corner of the property, opposite of the existing and proposed
driveway.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 2,313 SF, single-story house with carport and to
grade the site, removing 340 cubic yards of soil along the left side of the property, reducing the cross
slope and making the lot nearly level. The applicant proposes to build a two-story, single-family home
with a 427 SF detached two-car garage at the left rear corner of the property. The proposed dwelling
contains 3,708 SF of floor axea (0.53 FAR) where 3,742 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The
left rear corner of the property will be supported by two retaining walls adjacent to the left side and
rear wall of the detached garage (see Sheets A.4 and A.6 of the proposed plans).
All other zoning code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following:
• Design Review for a new two-story, single-family residence with a detached garage (C.S.
25.57.010).
Design Review for a New, Two-story Residence with Detached Garage 1261 Vancouver Avenue
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (Ist flr): 30'-0" 15'-6" 27'-5" is block average
(2nd flr): 33'-0" --- 20'-0"
Side (right): 6'-6" 5'-0" to carport 6'-0"
(left): 13'-5" 9'-0" 6'-0"
Rear (Ist flr): 30'-6" 30'-0" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 30'-6" n/a 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,335 SF 2,313 SF 2,802 SF
33 % 33 % 40%
FAR: 3,708 SF 2,313 SF 3,741 SF
0.53 FAR 0.33 FAR 0.53 FAR
# of Bedrooms: 5 n/a n/a
Parking: 2 covered 2 covered in carport 2 covered
�Zo� X Zo�) (Zo� X Zo�) (Zo� X Zo�)
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20')
Height: 27'-0" single story 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: complies n/a see code
Staff Comments: See attached. The Public Works Department does not recommend a driveway
located along the right side of the property because it would require a curb cut and that the driveway be
placed over the creek box culvert.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the meeting on May 12, 2003 the Planning Commission and
several neighbors had concerns about the project. The Planning Commission requested that the
applicant return with additional infortnation about the proposed project. The Planning Commission
comments are listed below, followed by the applicant's response:
• Planning Commission comment
➢ Applicant response
• Nice design and nice articulation on the dwelling;
➢ The design of the house has not been revised.
2
Design Review for a New, Two-story Residence with Detached Garage 1261 Yancouver Avenue
• How will drainage next to retaining wall be addressed;
➢ The applicant has submitted a drainage plan (Sheet C-1) that has been reviewed and approved
by the Public Works Department.
Need to study retaining wall, provide proper engineering for retaining walls, need information on
hydrology and soil conditions;
➢ The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report and structural calculations for the retaining
walls at the left side of the property. These items have been reviewed and approved by the
Public Works Department (except for an inconsistency with the pier depth- see June 30, 2003
City Engineer memo- which must be revised on the plans).
Look at rear elevation, balcony should be eliminated, looks into neighbor's house;
➢ The 1'-0" deep x 7'-0" wide decorative balcony at the rear of the second story has been retained
to add architectural detail to that elevation.
Insta112 foot curb rather than 6 inch curb at property line to prevent cars on adjacent driveway from
rolling over the retaining wall;
➢ The retaining wall will extend 2'-0" above the grade at the adj acent neighbor's driveway for the
length of the retaining wall.
How will the retaining wall be built so that no part of the soil removal or construction encroaches
onto the neighbor's property;
➢ The applicant has not submitted a construction plan, but has indicated he will address this item
at the study hearing. The City Engineer noted in his June 30, 2003 memo that Sheets A.4, A.5
and A.6 must be revised to match Sheet C-1 and to show that the retaining wall will be built
entirely on the property for 1261 Vancouver Avenue.
• If oak comes out would like to see replacement trees be evergreen to provide a better screen;
➢ The applicant has not revised the landscape plan, but has indicated he will address this item at
the study hearing.
Erika Lewit
Planner
c: Craig Suhl
3