The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1141 Bernal Avenue - Staff Report (2)City of Burlingame Design Review for a First and Second Story Addition Item # � ' DSR Study Calendar Address: 1141 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: 7/11/OS Request: Design review for a first and second story addition at 1141 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040) Applicant and Property Owner: Remy Sijbrant Architect: Young and Borlik APN: 026-183-050 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 6,000 SF Date Submitted: May 25, 2005 Zoning: R-1 Summary: The applicant is requesting design review for a first and second story addition at 1141 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing house is two-stories with a one-car attached garage and totals 2,877 SF (0.47 FAR). The main entrance is currently located on the first floor along with the attached garage, study, recreation room, and one bedroom. The second floor contains the living room, dining room, family room , kitchen and a bedroom. The proposed addition includes a major reconfiguration of the existing floor plan. The existing attached one car garage and iirst floor entry will be removed and a new entry is proposed along the left side of the house. The new entry is considered two stories with a 12 foot plate height ,which requires design review. The new entry is 63 SF and will be located at a level that is between the first and second floors. There will be four bedrooms, all will be relocated to the first floor. Two cantilevered fireplace alcoves are also proposed on the second floor along the right elevation. Windows on all elevations will be removed and replaced, many in new locations. The existing dormers in the middle of the side elevations will be removed. The exterior materials will be changing to cultured stone and stucco. A new detached garage is also proposed with this project. The new garage will be 438 SF and will be located in the rear 30% of the lot, and is therefore exempt from setbacks. The remodeled house will have four bedrooms which requires one covered that is provided in the new detached garage, and one uncovered parking space provided in the driveway. Although the garage has a two car 20 foot wide by 20 foot deep interior dimension, the inside space (on the left) does not have the 24 foot back up space required to be considered a code complying covered parking space. Therefore, the new garage is only counted as providing one covered parking space. The addition and new garage will increase the total floor area of the house to 3,363 SF (0.56 FAR), where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposal is 57 SF below the maximum floor area allowed on this lot. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for a first and second floor addition. Lot Area: 6,000 SF Existing Proposed j Allowed/Required i SETBACKS _ .......................__ . .__..............._. ... . ..._..._.................... _ ......................... ..................................;................................._................................................................ .....................:...... ................................................................ . ................................... Front (1 st flr): 16'6" i No change i 15' (2nd flr): 16'6" No change � 20' .......................................................... ........................................ . ............................. . ..........................................._.,... . .................................. _...._......_.._...._..._.......................................... , Side (left): 10' 4 4' ri ht 11' � No change i 4' ( g )� ...................................................................... . ........................................ ................................... .......................................................... ............._.................................... .............................................._............._.... . . .......................................... ..................................................... .................. � Design Review 1141 Bernal Avenue � i Existing � Proposed Allowed/Required Rear (1 st flr): 45' No change � 15' (2nd flr): 45' ; No change 20 , , � ................................................... _............ _ .... __.._.._ .................._.................._.........................................................................................................................�......................................................... _. , Lot Coverage: 1,670 SF 2,204 SF 2,400 SF 27.8% � 36.7% 40% ..................................................................................................................................... . .... .. . . . . ...................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................_. ...... FAR: 2,877 SF � 3,363 SF 3,420 SF 0.47 FAR � 0.56 FAR 0.57 FAR .................. ....... ............................................................................. .. ; ......................................._............................................................................,................................ _.........._.............................. .............................. # of bedrooms: 3 i 4 � _ ................................................................................................................................i.................................................................................................................................. Parking: . ........................._...........1 covered i � 1 covered (10' x 20') ; No change I (10' x 20') 1 uncovered ; 1 uncovered 9' x 20'. � 9.�....X...�� ........ .. ....................... ...........( ................. . )..........................................i.................... _...._............... ( ) Height: 23' 1" I No change 30' ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1........._......................................................................................................_.............. _.._....._.................................................................................................................... DHEnvelope: Meets Requirement � Meets Requirement � See code This project meets all code requirements. Staff Comments: Building permit number 2021937 was issued on May 19, 2003 for an addition and remodel at 1141 Bernal Avenue. The project included a second story addition of a break fast nook that was 97 SF. The earlier project was not subject to design review because of a Planning Commission policy which exempts second story additions that meet the following criteria: 1) enclosed roof area is 100 SF or less; 2) roof addition's pitch matches the existing roofpitch; and 3) height of the roof addition is not higher than the highest ridge of the existing roof. Work under the building permit was started but never completed. Some inspections were signed off on, however the work was not finished and the permit expired. The property has changed ownership since the issuance of building permit number 2021937. The new owner purchased the property in this unfinished state without a building permit. He is proposing to make the proposed changes to the house. Design review is required for this new application because the plate height of the proposed addition is greater than 9 feet. The Building Deparhnent allows renewal of permits only when the scope of work is the same. So following Planning Commission approval the applicant will apply for a new building permit. There is currently no construction work going on at this site. Catherine Barber Planner Remy Sijbrant, applicant/property owner 2 . 4, c�TT o CITY OF BURLINGAME �c'r � PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 e TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 �..m 90 . �.. www.burlingame.org , Site: 1141 BERNAL AVENUE �� Application for design review for substantial i construction and a first and second story pUBLIC HEARING �' addition to a single family dwelling and a new NOTICE i detached garage at: 1141 BERNAL AVENUE , --- - I zoned R-1. (APN: 026-183-050). � , �' The City of Burlingame Planning Commission I announces the following public hearing � �� !. ' on Monday, July 11, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. � � in the City Hall Council Chambers located at ''� '�, � 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. , � Mailed: July 1, 2005 � - ---- — , ! (Please refer to other side) ,__ , , CITY OF B URLINGAME ��_ �._. � . �, ..�� I A copy of the a� to the meeting Burlingame, C If you challe e raising only c`�'; described in � �he at or prior to� hf Property ow �er their tenants b (650) 558-7 0. �lic�t c� and�,�1,�r� �i� th��project :_ ay be reviewed prior �,My<C��,��ann,ing;;:i��partme�t at�S��Primrose Road, be limited to blic hearing, ;d to the city ' �� ' Margaret Mo - � .� City Planner �� ; PU � �� (Please refer to other side) i :� � �� .� � ��;; � r . - � b�i�� e respon, ble �or informing � �`r �dd'itional info ati , please call ,. � �� '� � �.�� . �,�� .,,. . �, ��;� � � �. �.��:��,�..QX� CE J City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 11, 2005 13. 1141 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (REMY SIJBRANT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; YOUNG AND BORLIK, ARCHTTECT) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Remy Sijbrant, applicant and property owner, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that the proposed proj ect will make the existing house look better and that they understand the difficulty with improving this house in its current condition. Commission expressed a concern about the comment submitted by a neighbor regarding employees of the applicants' construction business being dispersed from this site; CA noted that a condition can be added for the action meeting to prohibit dispersing of employees from this site and to prohibit construction material staging for other construction projects at this site. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • Concerned with the size of the chimneys, they are too large, reduce size of chimneys and incorporate them better into the design of the house, cantilevered chimneys look odd; if a gas insert is proposed chimneys do not need to be this large; • Show details of proposed window trim and window style, should be consistent throughout house; • Window treatment on the south elevation lacks coordination, for example there is a large horizontal rectangular window proposed and all others are more vertical; • Window trim on front elevation appears to be thicker than window trim on the side and rear elevations, window trim and window style needs to be consistent throughout the house; • Clarify mullions on first floor window located on the front elevation at the right side of the house, what do the white lines represent, this may be an error on the plans, not consistent with other windows; • Greenhouse window in kitchen needs to be integrated better into the design, do not want to see a metal pre-fab greenhouse window tacked on to the side of the house; • Balcony, pedestrian gate and driveway gate proposed to be iron, there is too much iron proposed at the front of the house, consider reducing the amount of iron work proposed at the front, possible eliminate the front gate; considered a different treatment for the second floor deck at the front ofthe house; • Concerned with placement of gate on stairs, please verify compliance with the building code, location of gates varies on plans, please clarify locations on site plan; • Concerned with the wall sconces proposed on the second floor on the front elevation, light should be directed downward, do not want to see wall or facade floodlit; • Staircase at the rear of the house requires pickets along railing, please show on plans; • Consider incorporating a solid railing design for the proposed second floor deck at the rear of the house, this deck is located at the interior of the lot off the family room, but the solid railing would help to block the view of the deck by the neighbors; • Would like to see large scale, evergreen plant materials/trees at the rear of the lot; also would like to see landscaping to the north of the deck at the rear to provide screening for fhe neighbors at 1143 Bernal Avenue. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 18 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 11, 2005 C. Vistica noted that several changes were suggested which will require a fair amount of coordination throughout the design and made a motion to send this proj ect to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on motion: feel that most of the comments can be addressed by the architect, not asking them to make significant design changes, neighbors would like to see this project completed quickly, feel that changes can be made without a design review consultant. Concensus was that going to a design reviewer should not take much longer than the applicant making revisions and corrections with staff. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:20 p.m. 14. 1556 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HII,LSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JONATHAN SUE, SLJE ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHELING TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) {51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Chair Auran noted that he received a call from Mr. Richard Wang, brother of Ms. Diana Wang, homeowner at 1549 Alturas Drive, objecting to the project noting that privacy in his sisters bathroom will be affected by the proposed addition; also stated that he would sue the City if the pzoject is approved. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Jonathan and Ed Sue, Sue Associates, 500 E. 8`i' Street, Oakland, architects, Mee and Richazd Cheung, property owners, were available to answer questions, architect provided a cross-section showing the house below the proj ect and the house above, feel there will be no loss of privacy for the neighbor below, reduced the slope of the roof at the addition to keep the roof ridge height the same as existing, reduced the plate height to match existing; pointed out that there were two fences, one on each side, located along the easement at the rear of the property, neighbor to the rear (below) removed the fencing on her side to incorporate the easement into her property, existing fence had acted as a privacy screen. Commission asked if the existing chimney will remain, it is not shown on the plans. Architect noted that the existing chimney will be removed and converted to a gas-burning fireplace. Commission asked if the proposed gable end at the rear of the house will match the height of the existing roof; yes, will be no higher than the existing roof ridge. Commission asked the architect to verify that the existing deck at the reaz is proposed to be reduced by four feet and that the house is proposed to be extended by eight feet; yes. Commission asked if some of the proposed skylights can be relocated or removed to address the neighbors concern about light and glare. After consulting with the property owner, the applicant agreed to eliminate all of the skylights. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • Plans indicate a 9' plate height on the second floor, appears to be drawn with an 8' plate height, please clarify plate height dimension on plans; • There appears to be an error on the plans on the rear elevation, the gable end at the rear of the house is drawn incorrectly, there appears to be lines missing; • Eliminate all skylights from the plans as agreed to by the properly owner; • Add story poles to show outline of proposed addition, story poles must be in place before the packet is distributed; story pole location must be verified by a licensed surveyor; 19