The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1219 Vancouver Avenue - Staff Report•a ��.r, JiY�'� �'�':� "'. �.-.�a..ucC_,:, �� tt ;.'`,�..�;•..,�:3t' .. �- � r'�, _ .:.\ •�� L , J 1' .. .,�� .1y. . � f0 9�.•�. �i ... ¢C �r �,� �a a '^�,,�� \ � jh .� �� }.. �'� _ ��) � � � .�� h��s� � ��. . ` �. �( ��`rr � �'yi'' i �i✓ a � t �.�� SF .:s ' Y.` u �< ,�n t`c`y�'�,' r `��{it' t � �J • y .k�� . �4 '`i �i9F `�.� ' I j �'. 'J � C. � �-�--�—r�it��j ,,' � v{ �` . � ��r� �. - � _ ,; ;-.:� .. _ � y:-"�a��`��,�� . ., i�'•c"^ r � '�7� f ��L �.: ti �� ++ . r � . � '+� "`rt"°.,,:.. � �'�. F 't d�, gsaY r � < . � j� ' y � ,=C,� � :�+� t ��..' �� j ,� F�'Al:: �"t _ � � �' :��=�=�r� L ��.- '� !. �F . .. �'V�!i'. _ � ' .� .�-. .- . -.. ._ - �� .�3 V, ' i•'.t � - . _i, . �n. - _ _c, ;-. - ' � .— -, i.'% � - 1 ay_.. � _ ,; � �* . ,. ' . �Mr�, ., � t ti ` . . ' ' � _ Y , , - . � — -- � City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Item # Consent Calendar Address: 1219 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: 10/09/O1 Request: Design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Property Owner: Ramin and Natalie Forood APN: 027-340-170 Architect: Gary R. Diebel, Diebel & Company Lot Area: 9,100 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. March 12, 2001 Action Meeting (March 6, 2001 plans): At the Planning Commission action meeting on March 12, 2001, the Commission reviewed the applicants' request for a first and second story addition which required design review and a special permit for height (March 12, 2001, P.C. Minutes). Although the design review consultant recommended that the project be approved, the Corrunission expressed several concerns with the project. The Commission commented that the house is still too massive and bulky and that the design did not fit in with the fabric of the neighborhood. They pointed out that there are many examples of traditional styles in the neighborhood and that this project doesn't incorporate these features. If the applicant is flexible with the style of the house, then it is possible to have the same square footage without making the house bulky and massive. The Commission noted that landscaping could help mitigate the mass from the street. Regarding the garage, the Commission noted that detached garages dominate the neighborhood and strongly suggested that the project incorporate a detached garage. Since a special permit was required for an attached garage and the public hearing notice did not indicate so, the Commission continued this item to the following consent calendar for denial of the project. The applicant decided to make significant changes to the project following the direction given by the Commission, and therefore decided to significantly revise the project before a decision was made by the Commission. With the revised project, the applicant is now proposing a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Because major changes have been made to the project, it is now being reviewed as a design review study item. The plans from the previous project, date stamped March 6, 2001, are included for your review. Table 1 provides information on the previous project (March 12, 2001 meeting) and current project (September 10, 2001 meeting). Summary of Current Project (August 7, 2001 plans): 'The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped August 7, 2001, which includes a full landscape plan. The applicant also provided a color rendering of the front elevation and landscape plan and a letter, dated July 12, 2001, summarizing the proposed project. With the revised project, the applicant is proposing to demolish an existing single-story house and attached garage (3,239 SF) to build a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 4,238 SF (0.47 FAR) where 4,412 SF (0.48 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed house requires a special permit to exceed the maximum height by 4'-10" (34'-10" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed as measured from average top of curb). The grade at the front of the lot rises approximately 6' in height above average top of curb, 7' back from the front property line (see sheet A1.2). Because of the slope at the front of the lot, the proposed first floor finished floor is 11'-8" above average top of curb. A detached double-car garage (491 SF, 21'-8"W x 22'-8"D) is proposed which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five- bedroom house. All other zoning code requirements have been met. Design Review and Special Permit The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010); and 1219 vancouver Avenue • Special Permit for height (34'-10" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.060 a, 1). Table 1 1219 Vancouver Avenue CURRENT PREVIOUS ALLOWED/REQ'D PROPOSAL PROPOSAL (10/09/O1) (3/12/Ol) SETBACKS Front (lstftr): 20'-0" 26'-0" 19'-11" (average) (2nd flr): 34'-0" 43'-3" 20'-0" Side (left): 17'-0" 4'-9" 7'-0" (riglit): 7'-0" ��_p„ �,_�„ Rear (Ist flr): 43'-0" 45'-10" 15'-0" (2nd flr): 43'-0" 63'-4" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2620 SF 2951 SF 3640 SF 28.8% 32.4 % 40% FAR: 4238 SF 3963 SF 4412 SF 0.47 FAR 0.43 FAR 0.48 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 5 --- Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered (10' x 20') (10' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Detached Garage Attached Garage Height: 34'-10"' 34'-11" 30'-0" DHEnvelope: complies complies CS 25.28.075 ' Special Permit for height (34'-lU" proposed where 3U'-U" is the maximum allowecl). Staff Comments: See attached. 2 Design Review ancl Special Permit 1219 Vancouver Avenue September 24, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on September 24, 2001, the Commission noted that the redesigned project looks great and is a big improvement (September 24, 2001 P.C. Minutes). The Commission commented that they appreciate the applicant listening to their suggestions. The special permit for height is justified due to the slope of the lot and integrity of the design. The massing is good on this lot given its depth and there is nice articulation on the elevations. The Commission placed this item on the consent calendar. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on Apri120, 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. Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's September 24, 2001, design review study meeting and that the massing is good on this lot and there is nice articulation on the elevations, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Special Permit Findings for Height: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's September 24, 2001 public meeting, that the grade at the front of the lot rises sharply approximately 6' in height above average top of curb, 7' back from the front property line, and that the roof design enhances the architectural style of the building, the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. 3 Design Review and Special Permit 1219 Vancouver Avenue Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and special permit for height, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. 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 Department date stamped August 7, 2001, sheets L-1, A1.1 — A1.3, A2.1 — A2.3, and A3.1 — A3.3, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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 design review; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's, City Engineer's, and Recycling Specialist's July 9, 2001, memos shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Gary R. Diebel, Diebel & Company, architect � � � City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 24, 2001 Chairm n i tic c r a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Auran a ining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1219 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (R.AMIN AND NATALIE FOROOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GARY DIEBEL, DIEBEL & COMPANY, ARCHITECTI Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. C. Mink stated that he had a conversation with the attorney representing this project. Chairman Vistica stated that he spoke with the applicant about the proj ect. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Burlingame, attorney for the applicants, represented the project; noted that this is an unusual lot; this is the third time this project has been before the Planning Commission. Mr. Diebel, architect, listened to the Planning Commissions comments and the owners have made concessions, hope that the new plans address the concerns. The original location of the garage (attached, under living space) added bulk and mass, made the house look large. Revised project has garage moved to the rear of the lot. Proposal requires a special permit for height due to the slope of the lot. The 34'-10" height is measured from the average top of curb, and this lot slopes steeply up from the street, so the actual height of the house from adjacent grade is not 34'-10". Plate height shown is exactly what the Commission requested, landscape plan included that screens the house from the neighbors. Gary Diebel, project architect, stated that there are 1920's and 1930's homes in the neighborhood, tried to match new house to those homes, and to recently approved houses in the neighborhood. Because there is a driveway easement between the subject property and the adjacent property to the west, need to retain turnaround for neighbors. There is a flag lot at the rear of the subject property that wraps around the subject property on the east side, the garage for this property abuts and looks down on the subject property at the rear; the living space for the flag lot at the rear is located behind the neighbor to the west, so height of the proposed structure would not affect development on the flag lot. Commission asked why the garage was not put on the side of the property with the easement to give more space to the neighbor. Architect stated that the maximum driveway slope is 15%, and the slope on the east side was flater than on the easement side. Commission noted that kitchen roof is flat and does not match the rest of the architecture, can't a pitched roof be added with some tile to match the rest of the house? The architect stated that there is a parapet wall on the kitchen roof that picks up on the Spanish style. If a pitched roof were to be added it would require the windows on the floor above to be smaller, and they would not be uniform with the rest of the windows on the elevation. Didn't feel that a sloped roof would look as good. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments on design: ❑ Great job on re-design, big improvement; ❑ Appreciate that applicant listened to commission comments; ❑ Special permit for height is justified due to the slope of the lot and integrity of the design; � / � City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 24, 2001 ❑ Flat roof is okay, understand why designed as flat roof, window integrity is more important; ❑ Nice articulation on the elevations; and ❑ Massing is good on this lot, long deep house, not too bulky. C. Bojues made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for action. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. 8. 2849 RIVE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTI N PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AN N ATTACHED GARAGE (VAN LY, �PPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STAN Planner Keylon briefly presented Chairman Vistica opened the public questions. Commission comments on the design: ❑ Right elevation glass block is t consistent, out of place, appears to privacy, but that privacy can be acc mplished with landscaping; ❑ Doe 't blend with the neighborhood; ❑ Entrance is o grandiose, staircase is out of ch cter and takes over facade with doub e doors, scale down ent ce, should be one door; ❑ Reduce plate heights 9 feet for first floor and 8 feet for secon oor, now they are both 10 feet, ❑ Inconsistency in use of 'ndows, front is Spanish style, rear is 70 floor to ceiling glass, nee consistent window type; ❑ Left side elevation is too busy, need to ❑ O.K. to maximize view potential on left style; Van Ly, applicant ify; of house, just simplify and was available for trying to create interior it fit architectural ❑ Look at houses in the neighborhood, this house oesn't fit, it is out of scale with regar mass, it is quite different, need to make house fit i the neighborhood; ❑ Reduce bulk at the front of the house, reducing plate heig will help reduce the bulk; ❑ Note trees that were removed on plan and existing trees that ar out of range of constr not be affected; and ject description. There questions of staff. to height and will 7 1 � City of Burlingame Planning Commission 5. March 12, 2001 Commis 'on asked if there ' an issue with parking in e front setback. CP Monr e stated that there is o limita 'on on the percen ge of front setback area at can be paved one ma only park on a driv ay be een the face of th garage and the street. Co ission directed that the oject should be eco- 'endly th less paving , visual impact should b educed. Chairman Luz 'aga called for a voice v e on the motion to continu . The motion passed 7. This item concluded a :50 p.m. 2606 5 MIT DRIVE — ZO ARE CONSTRUCTION PE YOLANDA YEUNG, CHITECTI (CONTIN D R-1 — APPLICATION OR DESIGN FOR A FIRST AND COND STORY ;ANTS AND PROP RTY OWNERS; I AND HILLSIDE )N (CHRIS NGAI & ASSOCIATE�_ At the applicant's reqyr�st this item was continuec�to the March 26, 2001,�ineeting to the regull,� action calendar. � 6. 1219 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RAMIN AND NATALIE FOROOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GARY DIEBEL, DIEBEL & COMPANY, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 3.12.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if this project needs a special permit for the relocation of the attached garage. CP Monroe noted that this would be required, that a special permit for an attached garage has not been noticed, the public hearing can be held, but the Commission cannot act on the project until proper notice of all applications has been done. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Natalie Forood, 1219 Vancouver Avenue, applicant, noted that since the last session, they have incorporated all comments into plans, have worked with design review consultant and think this project fits in with the neighborhood. Commissioners noted that they are baffled, when this was here before, explicit direction was given that the project is too bulky, it needs a detached garage, now the house is 400 SF bigger, found loophole to get more area but nothing done with the bulk, realize that project went to a design review consultant, don't see how it would fit in with neighborhood; this is a big block buster, designed by declining height envelope requirements, project needs a lot of help. The applicant noted that they did not find a loophole, they aze within code, intent is to make the house look syrnmetrical, like a simple clean style, same shape windows, doesn't seem grandiose; have lowered the garage at an expanse so that it is considered a basement, decided to add extra square footage in to house, project as now proposed did go back to design review consultant; attached garage fits our lifestyle, want it in front, detached garage in back takes away yard area. Gary Diebel, project architect, noted that the roof was also changed on right side to satisfy the concern with the deck. Commission discussion: agree that this house remains bulky and massive, practically a brand new house, detached garages predominate in neighborhood; agree about mass and bulk, by lowering the garage, have lowered the datum, house now reads from bottom of garage to top of roof, proj ect lacks thought about site, 4 � J City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2001 seen no landscape representation, could help mitigate mass from street; will be looking at the roof of the garage from front yard, might reconsider garage location. Further commission discussion: commission placed in difficult position, concerns have not been addressed, but design review consultant gave project green light, this doesn't fit in to Burlingame fabric, there are plenty of examples of traditional styles in this neighborhood, this project doesn't incorporate these features, other houses have smaller spaces, smaller windows; need to have systematic approach, small things were done when the entire program of house is not in keeping with neighborhood. Public comment: Dick Sanguinetti, 1215 Vancouver Avenue, owns home directly behind this property, is concerned with the scope and scale of project and its relationship to the size of lot, especially concerned with the height exception, now enjoy view of the East Bay, will block out the view and privacy on this lot, will loom over our property, not in keeping with the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: its not the dress that makes the house look fat, it's the house that makes it look fat; still have a large box, problem is house square footage and how it is arranged, need to trim inside to make whole more believable; if applicant is flexible with style, could get similar size; in terms of perception, this is a wide lot for this neighborhood and the house is proposed setback to setback resulting in usual mass, the house goes right up to the edge of the declining height envelope, these things make it appear massive; adamant about garage, neighborhood has detached garages, two-car garage in front takes up whole front of house; that's what we want to avoid, need to do major changes to the bulk, it is not about the FAR, can do things to reduce the effect of the FAR, this design doesn't do it, cannot support; perspective drawing shows the bulk of the house, box with garage sticking out front, will walk out front door and look at garage roof, would like to see something that fits better; if consensus is to deny the project can put it on the consent calendar to deny next meeting when proper notice is given for the additional special permit. C. Luzuriaga moved to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 2001, to be placed on the consent calendar for denial of the project. C. Dreiling seconded the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 7. 1228�ERNAL AV�TUE — ZONED R-1 �APPLICATION FOI�ESIGN REVIE�G AMENDMENT AND M�HELLE DELIA, APP,L'ICANTS AND PROP�'RTY OWNERS;,FD & ASSOCIATES1 Referenc staff report, 3.12.01, .'th attachments. CP nroe presented th eport, reviewed cri ria and staff c mments. Five conditi s were suggested for e sideration. C. De noted that he will a tain from this ' em because he has a siness relationship wit the applicant. hairman Luzuriaga o ned the public hearin James Delia, 1228 ernal Avenue, appli t was available for questions. Commissioner mment: was previous opposed to the pr 'ect because of the flo area ratio vari e and that has been liminated, did not un rstand the barge ra ers; have looked at e mples of simil garages / � City o,f Lurlingame P[anning Commission Minutes � October 23, 2000 the s ape of the balcony and should be cl 'fied on all plans; metal railing on balcony is out of character and massive; cannot ind reasons or exceptions on this lo 'ustify special permit for declinin height envelope, on this side building close to the property line; vinyl slide (windows) are not compatibl ith the character of the neighborhood, ould match type of windows used in the eighborhood; side elevation is a o-story wall with no articulation; gara e roof, parapet with eyebrow, on new st ture is not in character with the 'gn of the house; concerned with th wall at the rear of the house, applicant shou � address solid, two-story wall; hou e is built to the maximum floor ar with a single-car garage, would like to see two-car garage or a decrease in the total FAR used to allow for a two-c garage in the future; concerned with ma and bulk of building, full two-st ry walls makes house appear boxy; entr oors are too big need to be reduced to human scale, windows are too big en compared to size of doors; provide a ore detailed landscape plan showi g existing landscaping to remain and ew, needs arger scale trees and planting soften mass; entry has a wide ar with double-wide doors, suggest using a single- ' e door to reduce mass. The e were no other comments from e floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighr� seconded by Chairman Luzu passed 7-0 on a at 7:45 p.m. ide a motion to sen this project to a design reviewer with direction given. The motion was Boju�s. i a called for a voice vote on the motion to send this project to the esign reviewer. The motion voic . The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not app able. This item concluded � 4. 1219 VANCOLTVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND-STORY ADDITION (RAMIN AND NATALIE FOROOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GARY DIEBEL, DIEBEL & COMPANY, A R f NTTR(� T� Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Gary Diebel, architect, Ramin and Natalie Forood, applicants, represented the project. Commissioners discussed with the applicant: is garage roof height being raised; concerned with mass and bulk, 8' first floor plate height and a 10' second floor plate height adds to mass and bulk, am more comfortable with 9' �rst floor and 8' second floor plate heights; double-doors at front entry should be changed to a single-wide door; concerned with 36' building height, special pernut for height is allowed for architectural style to be enhanced, feels that architecture is not being enhanced in this case, understands request to exceed 30' height limit but 36' maximum is too much, lower height in attic and tall side walls create a massive appearance, tudor-style homes use low plate heights with high pitched roofs and does not look massive, needs to be pedestrian friendly; referred applicant to visit new house on 1400 block of Montero Avenue on the bay side, nice house but in a wrong location this has same problem; double-door, three balconies, columns, and railings are overkill for the neighborhood, need to tone down scale and elements; concerned with scale of components, quoins applied to second floor openings suggest heavy stone construction, makes building heavy and bulky; recommend substantial steps to get building down to a human scale, similar to other houses in the neighborhood; concerned with compatibility, style presented as grandiose and substantial, should be modest and tone down; site plan is not clear about relationship between driveway and landscaping; contains a sizeable second floor deck, tends to violate neighbors privacy, should consider reducing balcony size; windows on second floor are very large, bigger than the front door, should reduce window size; not much of existing house will remain, why not consider a new house, most of the walls will be removed, only 30'-40' 3 .� City o�`Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2000 of wall length left, often fmd ternute damage and all walls are removed, new foundation will be necessary to support second floor, project results in a complete floor plan change; two-thirds of the neighborhood is composed of detached garages, since really new house why not build a detached garage at the rear of the lot and red�tce bulk; there is no roof overhang, should consider adding; solution will not be in breaking up the mass, but in working with the scale; concerned with the way the garage works, house is set up high from street, there will be a steep driveway up to a two-car garage, garage will be a prominent view from the street, present location of garage door would work better. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojues made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the direction given. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to send this project to the design reviewer. The motion passed 7-0 on a voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:07 p.m. 5. 2405 HILLSID RIVE - ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DES�GN REVIEW AND CON TIONAL NEW TW ISTORY SINGLE AM TY WEL ING ANOD DE�'ACHEDOGAORAGE DAM O. RADOS, C. Oster ' g noted that he lives w' � in 300' of the project so the da' . CP Monroe briefly p sented the project descript C airman Luzuriaga ope d the public comment. Da id epresented the project .d abstain from this project d stepped down from There were no questions o�taff. Howell, architect, and Dar�Iir Rados, property owner Commissioners dis ssed with the applicant: aske he applicant to explain reasons 6r the elevator and full basement; would like to se a condition that the basement ot be used for living purposes, hould be recorded with the deed; appears to be two-story ranch-style house, N�ills Estate and Easton Addition c ntains a certain style, that style does not look lik it fits into this neighborhood, �n struggling with the design, can� t tell character of building, see clas� elements d craftsman style overlays, w� there a goal when determining s le; concerned with the removal of o mature edwood trees, they are an im ortant site amenity at edges of si property lines, building can be de igned arou d redwood trees, there are way to save trees, can adjust baseme�} footprint. There were no other c mments fr the floor and the public hea ' g was closed. � Commission discussion: wo like to see project go to design r viewer, house could be architectural style is uncle . C. Dreiling made a tion to send this project to a desi reviewer with the direction seconded by C. De . Comment on m ion: would like to see a copy of the orist's report addressing two d� are a wonder 1 amenity for the site and Burling , should be retained. direction of The motion was trees, redwood trees 4 ROUTING FORM DATE: July 9, 2001 TO: _City Engineer �Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1219 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 027-340-170. ROUTING FORM DATE: July 9, 2001 TO: _Ciry Engineer Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single fainily dwelling at 1219 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 02?-340-170. ROUTING FORM DATE: July 9, 2001 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist Sr. Landscape Inspector _Ciry Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1219 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 027-340-170. ROUTING FORM DATE: July 9, 2001 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _Ciry Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1219 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 027-340-170. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS The following requirements apply to the project 1 '✓� 2 ✓ 3. 4 5 � Project Name• Lt��'�-�-' Project Address: � "�- � � 1�� .�e�w�;c� A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. A sanitary sewer lateral test is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. 8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Page 1 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles, trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 19 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 ✓ The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 � The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re- submit plans with driveway dimensions. t��:larif3r �� *'-� �-- '=� r-�r��- � - 1 G��C..J�^� �Qn��4�( �/`'vw-�v.�s.�, -- ---L�"`r� , ` Q \ 22 � The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations ,� Page 2 of 3 U:\private development�I'LANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc �r� c�T } "BURLINQAMi CITY OF BURLINGAME �a �° , � APPLICATION TO T'H� PLANNING COMIVIISSION �b...., ._i c.�—a'"► � �D`� • Type of Application: Special Permit�Variance Other Project Address: � a�� 1� ��(.�( I%'''�G''�� Z� �- ��. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): C' �7 � � ��% "�`� �G� APPLICANT Name: � � Gl'1 � � ' I /� , � � �� ` _ i Address: �-� ��i �L� l�l%C.�I,� �� /"f'4'� • City/State/Zip: `?L��{�� I V1(:�(� d� (k� ��' %� Phone (w): ��— S�l`� =T ��5� a (h): � S� ' 3 ��'C� 3 � � f�: 1- �/� �- ��-3 - ��-� �� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: � �� Y ��!, ,� � � i C �� Address: �7 �� ' i� �G ��% City/State/Zip:__� i,��' i i ✓IGC�,��t,�� %�/f/ C Phone (w): � � � - `� `_� �S ^ ��i � �h�; � S � - �'8�b fax: PROJECT DESCRIPTION �� C�.��c�e C��Lc �� i�.�� s�e� t�( e,� s; PROPERTY OWNER Name:_ ��C�,t�'��- Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): fax: Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. �' �� wt� I, � � F l�2-�uC� eci �ia-rac� AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the herein is true and conect to th bes o��ny knowledge and belief. , / ' `�% � � lC �� Oc^ Applic s S' nature Date given I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Com is ' n. , � i I(D�� Jr.? C� Prope y O ner's Signature Date ----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -----------------------------------------� Date Filed: 8'�� a � S 45 -t- .$ �o o R E C E I V E D Fee: �o.23•dd 2,2G,o AUG 1 0 2000 Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: I CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. i diebel � and � company 32 �Uly ZOOi Project Statement izi9 VancouverAvenue The proposed project attempts to continue the rich Spanish tradition present in many of the nearby houses in the Easton Addition. Each house is unique. Many combine flat and sloping roofs, porches and other architectural features. The geometries vary. Rectangular, angled and po box 1044 round shapes and masses are all present, often in the same structure. Arches and porches are burli ngame, californ;a common. Vertical elements such as a chimneys and low towers are also common. Each residence has idiosyncratic elements that make them special. No two are alike. 94011-1044 All the houses, however, are tied together by red clay tile roofs, form as mass, plain wall t.� 650.558.8885 surfaces, and mostly light wall colors all derived from the Mediterranean world. Designers were inspired by a numberof sources: adobe, mission, and colonial buildings; Moorish f.� 650.558.8886 architecture; medieval Spanish and Italian architecture; Baroque design of colonial Spain and Portugal; and Italian Romanesque and Renaissance elements. This broad source base makes a convincing harmony between the exterior image, interior space, decoretive elements, and the building's function. This proposal pays close attention to details such as windows, doors, and trim as well as massing, scale, articulation, and wall surfaces. The notion is to fit in with its Spanish style predecessors and its neighbors. � e.) gdiebel@diebelandcompany.com RECEIVED AUG - 7 2001 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. � �. • . . �.,_ .. . ... � ::. �:. ... Q : ' , . ..SP C1TY QF gURLtNG; . .. , EClpL. PERMI"�" �P�� : .. . .. . .. . .._ .. , :.... _, :. ... . .. ... . . __ . _� .... : .. .. . . . . . .. .. .. .: , �� The Pfanning ComR�ission is required b�l l�w to m�k� findin88 83 defined by the City`s Ordinance iCode Section 25.50). Your answerS t4 the tOilowing questiOnS can assiSt ihe Plan�irtg Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for ypur request. Rl�ase type or writE noatly in Ink, Ref�r to the back of this fprm for assistance with these questia�s. � I. ExpYain why ths hleRd of �eass, scale and dorieY�tant a�ructur+ai characterts�ica qt' ihs new cons�ructlon or pddttion are cons�strir:t with the ex�tst�ng structu�s's design and with the tx�g stneet arsd neighborhood. As a whole, the block is inconsistent and developed over several decades. House styles and size vary widely. Mediterranean, English Tudor, and 1950's ranch houses coexist. Low spreading houses are juxtaposed with two story ones. The Spanish theme of this new house is shared with others on the block and in the neighborhood including immediate neighbors. The proposed design is similar in height, mass, scale and setback of neighbors and attempts to blend in scale and spirit with the original 1920's and 30's houses. The massing steps up on the hillside from one story to one and one half to two stories. The planter, low patio walls, porch, and other details develop a scale appropriate to the site and neighborhood. Z. 3. F�Srplatn how the v�ari�ty qf'roe�'line�,facad�e. ex�riorfi'iefsh rnate�als and elev�tinns of tha proposed rtew sl�uttune or additlon are coRsistent w�th the existing atrrtcturs, street and netghbor�iood. Stucco is a very common wall surface. Its combined use with red clay tile roofs is a common thread that ties Spanish style houses together. The roof lines of the house vary in height as do other styles such as Tudor, but in a way coherent with the Spanish theme. These lines and the front facade provide design interest and relate to the architecture of the original houses. The single story, front portion of the house is particularly important on the rising hillside to relate to the houses across the street that are on a lower elevation. tl'ow will tht proposed project be consls�ent wkh the residentiat design guidelines adopted by the c�y (G.S. 25.37)' We have taken great care in design to minimize the apparent bulk and mass of the home. The design is intended to be compatible with the original houses on the block and in the neighborhood. The site is planned with a typical concept of a detached garage at the rear of the praperty resulting in front, side, and rear yards typical of the neighborhood. The Spanish style is similar to several in the neighborhood whose designers were influenced by Spanish folonial and Mission style architecture. These houses were traditionally designed in an understated way typical of the time period. We attempted to use the same sensibility in the design of this house, learning from the original houses in terms of massing and scale as well as elements including roofs, windows, vents, porches, railings, and details. 4. �cpludrt how the �ovai of any trie�s locat�d withi� the, fotrtprint qjany xsw structr�na or crdditioR £s ntc�s�► ond is eanaistent wttli ths city's r�for�tior� reqrrtnrlesntg _ Whart n�it�atto�e is pna,�,os8d forihe'i�erxov�l qf ony�irseaP B�pJaJn.why:thia�uit%�arHoa„�,r'r�pi»prf�e: � The landscape is designed by a licensed landscape architect, Michael Callan. He has designed several landscapes in the neighborhood. The landscape plan adds several trees to the property and exceeds city requirements. A small tree will be removed to allow access to the detached garage. The deciduous fruit bearing pear tree at the front of the property will be replaced by a preferable non-fruit bearing evergreen olive tree. Numerous plants will be added to the site. Some help to accentuate the entry and define important elements on the site. Trees and shrubs will be placed to give privacy between properties and give a sense of separation. We anticipate a significant improvement in the quality of the environment. ap�im/1115�8 REC��'. _ . AUG - 7 [Uu1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ,�.t�`` c�T� �,� CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINSsAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ,,� ��• BURLINGAME, CA 94010 \o,,,,p,,,„�.;' TEL: (050) 558-7250 1219 VANCOWER AVENUE Application for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single pUBLIC HEARING family dwelling and detached garage at 1219 NOTICE Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 027-340-170). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Tuesdav, October 9, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed September 28, 2001 (Please refer to otlier side) CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior ro the meeting at the Planning Departinent 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 rai�ed at xhe �i�blic hearing, described in the notice or in written eor�Ce�ponden.cevd�,liuered to the city � , � � � �� at or prior tp tlie public hearing. ' �� ' � �� ' �� '� � � j. Property owriers who receive this notice are responsibTe`�or i�iforming their tenants abo�ut this notice, For additianal� information; ple��se call (650) 558-7250. Thank �ou. � � � �� f �Y fu e �. .,A , �yg�� .i � p�" ��§.� ��L�"� r,�T,�' � Margaret Mbnroe `� � �-- �,� ;� � City Planner ` ' ��, ` ��` �°" "� �� _� _.�:� ��:�� . PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to otl�er side) � 12ESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desiQn review and special permit for hei h�t for a new two-story sin le family dwelling and detached ��e at 1219 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, Ramin and Natalie Forood, property owners, APN: 027-340-170; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 9, 2001, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review and special permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special pernut are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Joseph Bojues , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of October, 2001 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, and special permit. 1219 Vancouver Avenue effective October 16, 2001 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 7, 2001, sheets L-1, A1.1— A1.3, A2.1— A2.3, and A3.1— A3.3, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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 design review; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's, City Engineer's, and Recycling Specialist's July 9, 2001, memos shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. �� " { !�,.�, � � — � �� ,'J' .; �' f a, ti l � k�.�d A ��, � `; � � jS 4'� ti.' � �� ./q � I �,�,yj', "� ' y�<' 4^^�° N i , 4 � � � a k # ��'�' � � � � '�' '�» .'�y .� �1 � � . _ � �`S . �� .i � x Q. 'j a �. . ,i �� "�. � ° �'� ,,: �.:� � � �� > � ,� ' ,�,. � '-, ^ . �_ . qk ��. .,� � ,� � � ��r `� t �� 1' �� e, �� "a 7�✓"�„ �, .1 � �» \. a..r x � � � . °7' .,.. �1'. / .. � �� * �� FH a �," 2 x ..... e,C� x"�f � ��'Y( � .. . '�� . , - �� j� � `� ,��,. '/� '�}y �� , � �¢�7 7 , � � �. Rr.. j �"¢ . �a. c.y '�� '� � . �:�.v ;�;� �.�, �� q �� .S �: " +�: ° ;�• �� }- �F . � �. �' � ' ,�''+. r` .',` a � -:� � � `� ; � ♦ "��4 + '�`�' - , �t � � � �" �� . � . . � . `� v� i4 .�, ` '�,r *� �� " ` � y" ' * ��"`k. � ' �# ¥ . t� . .<�� f� p. b . . � � 6 ��.. � � ��.. %' �/�� ': , . '� ��s ,� _`� ++ . �,: �� Y �i ' � �� } � 4 � y v� . � - f a, ��x. � � r � `�O v � 4� .� � ' + ` � � � _ . . < �' ?� / � ry'� . '�� .�, � , a� � , Y � � . V �'S�r'��r � � � ;;� j , �' .. � �,' . . � � � . F�� ,� � y� �. � � �� ; . . . , ..>. . , '� r.. . . a,;, 4�� . t � : . � , � > � , ,� . r � . . ,� � � , : � . �,, ' r \ / :�"yr ' ... B ,"� � � r i . .. y� �_,��.� v- r� � �� ,�/ �; :� �� _. � i .:� •f ,.` � � , S•�» �� 4 �;� . -, �7 � ��c �� i � .�(� � �, ,.�0 ' +' y.��-x� w ` ! . � .;� :� � A�: � �=.a � � �q'�� , �� y ,.Yr� r . >'�"�,y ��`.,� t� �,, � '. � : . :� � y � .. ` �, �Y� � &�,�'� `" .�; h �� e� � F �' a�:'�. ,f, � l. *. y ,. ' � � e s?�& �p a... . �'"f' �` � � �� 'f� $�{' : . E'4 7� ^ a y�h �� `��'y.� �� a ,� ��3z �,�' ��a `� O �� "" m . J. �. �; ��1�,.-_ `'a ��. �. �. . - : Y .3Z � /. � �. : a s , f ., �� ' «w . �.�_ � �,.... . • .i . . ;s' a,� � "�' 'x / � � � i�* : "i��+r .. �,,, �._�„�'` � r"� a ,, '�.� - � .� �/,�: ` ` `� �: � � �,V " `( . �., g � �� q � .� �Q��'" .. � `�� . � . �l .. � .� � , �� ;� ��'� �� ,�' �� ` �0 �,�. �� y „� � � � � '� � � ': : - �1 .. � . ' ��`� yz � '��`y , ,, � � ° �Q� a`C S� ' �s '=c ' " P... ��{ �. .�t. � � �. y s �r y� � � �e� �,, . - 1 .�. �� ,°''� . � � ,'y(�,..�� i�F, , �,� e . F p p, A . �*� � , � �� 4. �"�� ,,;xj /t "�µ b4•� �:;� 5 �„�j-.J�'{s, � \".. � � ' , Q� '1 � :�, d'.� � eC'^�,. , . � � #�� _ °. � R " � � � �f6' � �� " .� ' N' �' N � �; s�.; �. � �,..nr i � s � �.."�� `�� , * ,�' � ,� i # f a r , � � °�,. ' , 5. � � y�y�� , ,. �y 3 � .: $� p , (} �g k' R�R' � � �'. � Y S , 6p�� , ��p y . �� Fta a� , y '4v i . �✓,. f ' ' L a''� +F. „'. . _ �.gii�� .�� ;� A �x'` � �� 'rP ; ��z2i �� „� ...i;w . '6.y. ' �� &��,..�w,w� � � /�1 j�i � � � � ;'}f ��v�+�' �-.aa`��! . 0 4ya ��r,�"� �i�_V .a � . �� R�Y6,d.y �.a}�'�• .. A „�i . , ';i. � . . � , � ��. � �� '��` " �`Q �� ,�`� �� ` ' '� � ! - �� ta �i r�' ` �- � ! � �; � �,� p� � � ', '` ,,, �� h ��'` . � � �, ��+3 4 �' ' � 1 .Fi � ' ��t y� =� 1 f } � ' .. . . •�- ,�Y �. . dr , � �� . � � � � � " �: . . ^ � �'`� �"�-'-t.�• '� • , . ` � .. l3'�p�',�t x � :� .+� J' k�';: � ,� . t�; �2 e_. � � .. �� : � . . . � �;µ _ �&, . * °� �d � � �; 4 � ��. �. u, x: g P�- .,_ ��, � r � �,, +� �a � � � 4 � � � A..,�_. �,�r: �'�- _. � �( b ��b � � � �� ` �.. . � ;.� � � � � � 5 ��'E...��` �` � � � O �� r � � � �,f � 'O .: . �O . �� i� t'.j.. R +� }� a.. - .. � .. '� p' �. _... 1i�. v �� +�.k', ;. � �F