HomeMy WebLinkAbout1521 Willow Ave - Staff ReportL:� � ,r �-' ' • �
,, k��' , :: ,�
1 . , '�` . F, � �,- t
��r� � J S' f��: .. � •,
f�<� �,�. ..•. k` � � ,�:g �
' , �: .' v. , ' + .,� a...n,"'�;P
:w-a_ yy d.� , � ' � - . '� . , ` ' � �' �y.
'� .l�� ,. +e �.,� �' ''��j. � �+i
..� y ��pp � �.�f _.- � .i� ~4 � . ��e: �e �.
J Z-. " � - � ` �_Y 3��
kn
l � . ���..
�� � ,� '� �� �Y _ ��
� � - i. _ . _ r�;�'x �,i
�� - � � �
- �.- � - ' _ ,� �. � -�
. � 5 � � � - _ . �. � s..,d� 3 •�` �
3
�Px sy` �.�.��r-�£-����'�?E �2.� . .' _ n� .. �
.9°' : €�" � �` . _ f'
�� � .
t.�� - h . y_ � -i`�
��'� ..�.� .: �1:�� � a � � T � '.
�t �� �L -.1 ���� 1 .~ 7� h-��
i . x �Y2� �n� E,�� - _�, � � . � � �'�� � � � 'i�
- _ i _ i4S,,�r_' ..' t u'7 S .�_:-.� ,�"Y _
..� ,� ' _ Z ' _ u -•�p�. � - � �y �.- � �• � �1
_ F :i�Z '� R�
- # i' - �,_ ��e 'n � ` _"_�� _- : .. - �•
. . _ �_ ' .�—��- � -
� . ' _ � �l' � ..� 'w
���;- _. - -. ..- . ._. _5�n�_-
� 1- .
� �f
1 1
� y 3^r.-
S�Lz.. . _._ _. . . _
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1521 Willow Avenue
Item No. 5
Regular Action
Meeting Date: May 27, 2014
Request: Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single-family
dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: Mark Robertson APN: 028-141-240
Property Owners: Robert and Jessica Lawson Lot Area: 9,385 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions
to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase
of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
May 12, 2014 Regular Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission regular action meeting on May 12, 2014,
the Commission had comments regarding the proposed design of the two-story element at the front elevation,
and in particular, the proposed wood trim (refer to the May 12, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes). The
Commission voted to continue this item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as
d i rected .
The designer submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped May 19, 2014. The revised plans
show that the proposed wood trim at the two-story section of the front elevation has been removed and a 1-foot
overhang with corbels has been added at the second floor. The additional 15 SF of lot coverage and floor area
from the overhang does not take the project over allowable lot coverage and FAR maximums. There have also
been revisions made to the windows at the entry to address Commission concerns.
Project Description: The existing house is two stories with an attached carport at the front of the dwelling.
There is also a detached accessory structure at the rear of the lot that is used for storage. The applicant is
proposing first and second floor additions to the main dwelling. The existing structures on the site total 3,241 SF
(0.35) of floor area. With the additions, the total FAR on the lot will increase to 4,098 SF (0.44 FAR) where 4,103
(0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR.
The proposed additions to the existing house will be at the front and the left side of the existing first floor and to
the existing second floor. There is an existing protected-size oak tree at the rear, right side of the property,
between the house and the detached storage structure. The applicant is not proposing to remove this tree and
the Parks Supervisor notes in his February 18, 2014 memo that any construction within the drip line of the tree
requires that a Tree Protection Plan be in place prior to the start of demolition or construction on site.
There are five bedrooms in the existing dwelling and with the proposed additions, the number of potential
bedrooms will not be increased. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The
existing attached carport provides two covered parking spaces that are non-conforming in width (8'-10" x 20' for
each space where 9' x 20' is required for an existing covered parking space). The applicant is not proposing any
changes to the covered carport and the number of bedrooms is not being increased, so the existing parking is
not required to be redesigned to meet current code standards. All other Zoning Code requirements have been
met.
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)).
Design Review
1521 Willow Avenue
1521 Willow Avenue
Lot Area: 9,385 SF Plans date stamped: Ma 19, 2014
PROPOSED CURRENT
EXISTING PROPOSAL ALLOWED/REQ'D
5.1.16 plans 5.19.14 plans
SETBACKS ;
Front (1sf flr): ; 24'-6" 29'-10" 28'-10" i 23'-8" (block average)
(2nd flr) ; 52'-0" 34'-0" No change 23'-8"
Side (left): '; 4'-1 "' 7'-6" No change 7'-0"
(right): 5'-6"' No change No change 7'-0"
Rear (1st flr): °; 22'-0" No change No change 15'-0"
(2nd flr)� 22�_0" No change No change 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: ; 2726 SF 3076 SF 3091 SF 3754 SF
29a/o 33% 33% 40%
-...... _....
FAR: 3241 SF 4083 SF 4098 SF 4103 SF 2
0.35 FAR 0.436 FAR 0.436 FAR 0.44 FAR
# of bedrooms: : 5 5 No change ---
Parking: :: 2 covered, attached No change No change 2 covered
carport ;(18' x 18'), for existing
(17'-8" x 20') 3 1 uncovered
1 uncovered (9' x 20')
(9' x 20')
Heighf: ", 24'-0" 28'-1" No change 30'-0"
DH Envelope: ; --- complies No change CS 25.26.075
' Existing side setbacks are non-conforming (4'-1" existing at left and 5'-6" existing at right, where 7'-0" is required).
2 (0.32 x 9,385 SF) + 1100 SF = 4,103 SF (0.44 FAR).
3 Existing covered parking is non-conforming in width (17'-8" existing, where 18' is required for existing spaces).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division,
Parks Division, and Stormwater Division.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on April 28, 2014,
the Commission had several suggestions regarding this project (refer to the April 28, 2014 Planning Commission
Minutes). The designer submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped May 1, 2014. Listed below
are the Commission's comments and responses by the applicant.
1. The gable wall at fhe rear (South E/evation) appears massive and plain; consider adding windows io
enhance fhe design;
-2-
Design Review
1521 Willow Avenue
• The proposed window on the left has been changed to a bay window and the window on the right has
been increased in size to help break up the stucco fa�ade.
2. The proposed panes of g/ass in the French Doors do not extend to the base of the dooras they do in
the sidelighfs adjacent to the doors; can the two elements be revised to be consistent;
• The panes of glass in the French doors have been changed to match the panes in the sidelights.
3. The timbers used to trim the front elevation at the two storygab/e look small and not proportional to
fhe massing of fhe house. Could this trim element be redesigned or can a window be added at the
first floor where there is a blank wall fo ba/ance the two-story wa/l;
• The designer has not revised the plans for the front elevation. In his response letter, the designer
addresses what he believes the proposed plan achieves.
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:
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.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the 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 date stamped
May 19, 2014, Sheets 1 to 8;
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 staffl;
3. 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), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's February 24, 2014 memo, the Building Division's
February 14 and March 31, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's February 18, 2014 memo, the Fire
Division's February 18, 2014, and the Stormwater Division's February 26, 2014 memo shall be met;
5. 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;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
-3-
Design Review
1521 Willow Avenue
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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. 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;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013
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:
11. 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;
12. 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;
13. 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
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (tr�m materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Erika Lewit
Senior Planner
c. Mark Robertson, applicant
Attachments:
Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, date stamped May 19, 2014
Minutes from Regular Action Meeting, May 12, 2014
ApplicanYs Response to Commission's comments, dated May 1, 2014
-4-
Design Review
Owner's Response to Commission, date stamped May 12, 201
Minutes from Design Review Study Meeting, April 28, 2014
Application to the Planning Commission
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed May 16, 2014
Photographs of streetscape, date stamped February 13, 2014
Aerial Photo
1521 Willow Avenue
-5-
MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o
5/18/2014
ATTN: CITY OF BURLINGAME — PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: LAWSON RESIDENCE
� 1sr & 2No STORY ADDITION )
1521 WILLOW AVENUE
BURLINGAME, CA. 94010
RE: RESPONSESTO 4/28/2014 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS.
DEAR COMMISSION MEMBERS:
The Commission voiced strong irritation at our trim-out design of the Street Elevation for our addit�on
sm we have revised our design as directed:
(Please Refer to the" Street Elevation" on Pg. #5 of the plans.)
+ The trim has been removed.
. The large 2"d Flr. window has been replaced with two corner windows and a center pencil window as
was discussed by Commission Members.
• The 2"d Flr. has been extended forward 12" to overhang the first floor. This breaks up the massing on
the front wall and adds a horizontal element to tie in the (E) House lines.
• Redwood 8X Corbels were added to accent the overhang.
s The flanking pencil windows on the first floor were pulled in a little to frame the lapanese Maple and is a
design element strongly desired by the homeowners.
• In addition, pencil windows were have also been added flanking the (N) Entry door . This brings the
total number of pencil windows used to five and creates a unifying element spread throughout the front
fascade of the house.
A!I other pages have been revised per these elevation changes.
We hope that these design changes are more in keeping with the Commissions desires.
Thank you for your kind consideration,
Sincerely, /� � ,;
��iG4L� 1 �-' ��
�
-� y� i_�. ��
. . - . . .' �i�!.J�� -.;'-,t..s�
918 E. GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399
CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2014
There wer�io other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commi�si.on comments:
■ Have considered o rojects where square footage is removed to permit additions in other areas
on properties that excee AR.
• Agreed with staff's interpreta ' n that it is inappropriate to consider a variance from setback
requirements in instances where t ddition proposed continues to cause the property to exceed
FAR restrictions.
■ Requested that the applicant consider othe tions, including using the existing attic space for
additional floor area, and revise the project withou variance request, then present the item �o the
Commission following revisions.
Direction was provided to the applicant; no action was taken by the Comr�ission. This item concluded at
10:29 p.m.
11. 1521 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNERAND
APPLICANT; ROBERT AND JESSICA LAWSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (108 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT:
A91 Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Yie indicated that she had metwith the owner of
the property. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Community Development
Director Meeker briefly presented the project description.
Questions of stafF:
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Are the tall, skinny windows being retained? (Robertson — they're being reused elsewhere on the
structure. Have taken a Japanese eclectic approach.)
■ Requested more information regarding the seventeen foot high window on the front. (Robertson —
have emphasized the location of the window with the tall trim pieces. A Japanese Maple tree is to
be planted in front of the area.)
■ Feels that the spindly trim pieces on the front elevation do not fit well with the design, they weaken
the design, though the window is a nice element. Will the elements be proud of the wall?
(Robertson — yes, with stucco behind.)
■ How will a six-foot high and six-foot wide window work in a bedroom, particularly relative to privacy?
(Robertson — is a copy of what is there currently. Blinds will cover the window. It is not one that will
typically be used for viewing.)
■ Feels the tall, spindly trim element on the front elevation is out of proportion.
■ Believes that there are a lot of charming elements in the design. The loggia windows work nicely
with the space.
■ The tall trim pieces on the front gable will frame the Japanese Maple tree, but nothing else. There is
no window in that area. Believes it may be an appropriate element in that area. As an alternative,
21
C/TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes Apri/ 28, 2014
could perhaps install a"slot" type window down the middle of the gable, it might capture some of the
charm and details of the original house.
■ Agrees that this element of the design should be revisited and integrated better.
■ On the south elevation, there is a large, broad gable; perhaps revisit the design in this area to
reduce the amount of stucco and add character to the design that is consistent with the initial home
design.
■ Noted that on the south elevation, the windows framing the French doors do not have the same
framing as the door, consider making these elements consistent.
Public comments:
■ None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Charr Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's
action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m.
12. 325 CHAPIN LANE, ZON R-1 -APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING, DESIGN REVIEW AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY D LLING AND NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (NICK ROGERS, APPLICANTAND
PROPERTY OWNER: CHRIST S ULDING. ARCHITECT) (43 NOTICEDI STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the pro�
staff report dated April 28, 2014, with
description.
There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference
chments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
N'ick Rogers represented the applicant.
Commission comments: \
■ Beautiful house.
■ Plans call for a left hand driveway back to the bark play area; it pears to already be there.
(Rogers — will be paved or integrate it with the proposed semi-circular iveway.)
■ The design keeps with the historic architectural character.
22
MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o
5/1/2014
ATTN:
PROJECT:
RE:
CITY OF BURLINGAME — PLANNING COMMi5SI0N
LAWSON RESIDENCE
(1� ANQ 2ND STORY ADDITION)
1521 WILLOW AVENUE
BURLINGAME, CA. 94010
RESPONSES TO 4/28/2014 DESIGN REV�EW COMMENTS .
DEAR COMMISSION MEMBERS:
. �_-r, ��.�
',;l�j�;' � ��;',;
_.._ ',t:'�:
We received three main comments from the Commission during our Design Review Hearing:
1) Rear gable wall (South Elevation) appears too massive and plain — consider more window�.
2) French doors and sidelights (South & West Elevations) do not match — consider matcF�ing.
3) Street Elevation - trim at addition looks "spindl�', and blank wa►I at lower floor is strange.
Responses / design changes resulting from comments_
1) Rear Gable wall:
The rear gable wall of our addition ( South Elev. , Pg. # 6) faces into a wooded hillside and has no visible
neighbors facing it, so little time was spent on this Elevation's design. The Elevation does look a bit
plain and thus massive with all the stucco. We decided to add a Bay Window to the second floor and
enlarged the other window to break up the plain stucco fascade. This added articulation and enlarged
window treatment breaks up the mass quite nicely.
2) French door & Sideli�hts:
The Commission considered that the French doors/sidelights ( West Elev., Pg. #5 and So. Elev. , Pg.#6 )
looked too different and didn't work together. We have redesigned the sidelights to exactly match the
doors at all four locations on the plans.
3) Street Elevation:
We were a bit taken aback by the Commission's comments about the "spindl�' look of the design. The
8X8 timbers used to trim out the existing house are extremely massive and chunky! I believe that the
reduced plans used for our review do not correctly illustrate the design that we propose. I have
included a full size blue-line drawing of the Street Elev. in our resubmitted plans. I have colored in the
trim to match the (E)house format. I feel this colored image communicates our design far more
accurately than the reductions. I realize this design is a bit "artsy-fartsy", but it is the result of many
renditions, a great deal of refining and I'm quite proud of it— my clients and I think it is absolutely
beautiful! We feel it perfectly compliments, is in balance, and harmonizes with the (E) house.
Sincerely,
�
: �� ''� `�"��
918 E. GRANT PLACt, SAN MATEO, CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
♦1FTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
1521 Willow Ave
Burlingame
CA 94010
��-
, � �-� ��
. . l. u � l! i `i�
C= �:!R-{:«:c,!,':E
C�_ � -- ��-Ii��i;vC D's`i.
May 2�d 2014
Dear commission members
We are writing in support of our application for the addition on 1521 Willow, and in
response to feedback received during the design review 4/28/2014.
We have changed our design based on your feedback on the doors/windows and on the
plain rear elevation.
We've spent a lot of time since the meeting considering your feedback on the front
elevation. We've explored a lot of different options, but still believe our initial proposal is the
best one. We are writing to try and explain why:
1. Why the big window upstairs?
One of the features of the house we've always loved is the large window in the downstairs
living room. In researching the original architect - John Hudson Thomas, a student of
Bernard Maybeck, we liked this Maybeck house in Berkeley where the same large window
continued upstairs. This was the original source of the idea.
`��� -
�� �� �
� � �� ('
�•
: : y
�,.ori - = a
�+ ��
_ � . �_- _-
�.,:
� _ � �
$ " - '; � -
� `�
s '. . � �
'` -#'r�"'''_��+ '.� r��'� �"'�- „�' �t? � �--! �
__: �7 �a�4 'a.�'r+������ _ _ _ a � ._. �•-s'�--
��.-_-_��?" �`_
_ �
�l: _
•^�_ - i
��"s� .�! _ _
- - �%��`= - =-
F � �� - -
�i
�4 ", -
- � -'_' -if.
__ �_ , c' �-> _
ri �' -,5
e �.
� �,
�� �t�
�- �,A
� - '�
� � � �
' � '.'g
0
v'i � _ '.�. _ - _
. � � � - .• .- P�
�. . . �_ � ��- _
� . '# 4__-.. Y T -
. . ._ ' _ _ ���. _
' � "
. . .. -. ' '� ; Js ��!
;
_- :��_�i� - f��,��"-�,-: ��'
3. Aren't the wooden elements too "spindly"?
- No! - 11 year old boy for scale
In summary — we a� e really excited by our design, believe it is in keeping with the house
anc will greatly enhance it. We hope you agree!
Cheers
Rob & Jessica Lawson
EXCERPT — April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
1521 Willow (Agenda Item 11)
11. 1521 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK
ROBERTSON, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; ROBERT AND JESSICA LAWSON, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (108 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Yie indicated that she had met with
the owner of the property. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments.
Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
■ None.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Are the tall, skinny windows being retained? (Robertson — they're being reused
elsewhere on the structure. Have taken a Japanese eclectic approach.)
■ Requested more information regarding the seventeen foot high window on the front.
(Robertson — have emphasized the location of the window with the tall trim pieces. A
Japanese Maple tree is to be planted in front of the area.)
■ Feels that the spindly trim pieces on the front elevation do not fit well with the design, they
weaken the design, though the window is a nice element. Will the elements be proud of
the wall? (Robertson — yes, with stucco behind.)
■ How will a six-foot high and six-foot wide window work in a bedroom, particularly relative
to privacy? (Robertson — is a copy of what is there currently. Blinds will cover the
window. It is not one that will typically be used for viewing.)
■ Feels the tall, spindly trim element on the front elevation is out of proportion.
■ Believes that there are a lot of charming elements in the design. The loggia windows work
nicely with the space.
■ The tall trim pieces on the front gable will frame the Japanese Maple tree, but nothing
else. There is no window in that area. Believes it may be an appropriate element in that
area. As an alternative, could perhaps install a"slot" type window down the middle of the
gable, it might capture some of the charm and details of the original house.
■ Agrees that this element of the design should be revisited and integrated better.
■ On the south elevation, there is a large, broad gable; perhaps revisit the design in this
area to reduce the amount of stucco and add character to the design that is consistent
with the initial home design.
■ Noted that on the south elevation, the windows framing the French doors do not have the
same framing as the door, consider making these elements consistent.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
EXCERPT — April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
1521 Willow (Agenda Item 11)
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when
complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
■ None.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when
plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning
Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m.
��
��
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
� Design Review ❑ Variance
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit
� Parcel #: � �� " ���� ` ��/-�
� ❑ Other.
PROJECT ADDRESS: I� 2- I �L I C.._LU �`V {� V�� �
O Please indicate the contact person for this project
APPLICANT project contact person�
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: �'�r� �ir�, F�1��.1� l ��!'l�#
Address ��� I %� � � �t �fi� /� ��� �
City/State/Zip: �h1 N ����1Tr=�% �,, (� �
���?i �!�(�
Phone: ("'r� �' _ '�-i� - !! � `�
PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: �,!-1�� L-� W`�1v
Address: I� 2 j i'1�rLL�; (vf I �Vi �
City/State/Zip: �1/���L-/fl�%�%i�1'1!' �, ��- �l�'11(1
Phone: �I I%`" � �� -- j?�_� i
Fax: �� �/� _ ��� ( " ���% `� Fax:
;i
E-mail: I2}r�V;)i'� :C %�,c=�s-�7`;�%l�! C�� ��f'�',^I�L C::�/'� E-mail:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER pro�ect contact Person�
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
��r
,�
Name: f'�'� i� P 1� 1ti:'�? "^��:1 '�'i V
Address: `���� �. Ct���-i� f L� �
City/State/Zip: �?1��1 Yv� t? I�`i �il� r `��[��C �
Phone: 5C� `7 %l ` (1 � �j
Fax: �=�fi1 ._ `? l� ` 13�1��
E-mail: i�i f�NI� f'�l '"�''= �� �N '1 C 19%� f L- �' �`I
�ZJ��� r � � cv l ' �G f,
* Burlingame Business License #: � 7 E S3 ?S
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: f�(-�1+ >�l'� l�� I-L,�C'� ;���f)l l�C'.N 1�Ni� �X1�_ ��F.
2�'�' I�G;-C��� �a���iT���i ��'i� �Z�:ri�'1�� i=�'�Z �'��C��J l���i�l��N ��� �
�C���'� � �r���'��� o� i??� -� i L� �L'l7� �
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief. /
ApplicanYssignature: I��,l����` Date: �-��'`/ J�
��`'--�
I am aware of the proposed application a,�d hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission. �` ! l
Property owner's signature: �s, _ Date: ZI ��-IIG
�� - t Ex
Date submitted:
* Verification that the project architecUdesigner has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the
Finance Department at the time application fees are paid.
❑ Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. s:IHAN�ours�Pcappiicotion zoos.hondout.doc
CITY OF BURLINGAME
� � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
`=?;, \ ; � BURLINGAME, CA 94010
-'�" ' PH: (650) 558-7250 e FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 1521 WILLOW AVENUE
The City of Burlingnme Planning Commission announces the
following puhlic hearing on TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2014 at
7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Cham6ers, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review for first and second story
additians to an existing single family dwelling at 1521
WILLOW AVENUE zoned R-l. APN 028-141-240
(�ontinued from the May 11, 2014 P/onnrng Commission
MeetinqJ
Mailed: May 16, 2014
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLtC hIEA�IIVG
NOTICE
�itv of Burling�ame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed� prior t�
the meeting at the Community Development Dep�rtment at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLlC HEAlZING tdOTICE
(,�lease reier to other side)
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review
1521 Willow Avenue
Effective June 6, 2014
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. 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;
12. 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;
13. 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
14. 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.
C/TY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 27, 2014
is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of
the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
10. 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;
11. 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;
12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2013 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:
13. 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;
14. 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;
15. 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
16. 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.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
■ None
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-1-0-0.
(Commissioner DeMartini dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised.
5. 1521 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER
AND APPLICANT; ROBERT AND JESSICA LAWSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA
LEWIT (CONT/NUED FROM THE MAY 12. 2014 PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON MEETINGI
�
CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON — Approved Minutes May 27, 2014
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference
staff report dated May 27, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
■ Revision is good — breaks up the tower.
■ Was there an issue with the entry? Added the pencil windows to
(Robertson: Did that to amalgamate the design, create some uniformity
pattern worked.)
■ Likes the changes — looks like it has always been there.
■ Appreciate not removing the oak tree.
Public comments:
■ None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
■ None.
the side of the doors.
. Thought the repeating
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped May 1, 2014, Sheets 1 to 8;
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 staf�;
3. 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), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's February 24, 2014 memo, the Building
Division's February 14 and March 31, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's February 18, 2014
memo, the Fire Division's February 18, 2014, and the Stormwater Division's February 26, 2014
memo shall be met;
5.
�
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;
that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
7