HomeMy WebLinkAbout1312 Vancouver Avenue - Staff Report�' �� �y�� �r,�j � � � � � +� � � �.
'"-�'' ' � ��. ��. `•�li,���'v`,' t� a,+�"�` ie• �+ +�,`
:u. . '• t '
� . . � �� r ,� �`"
� �.�, � � � 4 � � � . � �� 'V .' -e1 6� i�f'h � t'� .t .. �� � �iY' � . �
} �;s � �'� ��. .�,-�,� � ��,' t. �� � �.� � �� �i
��'•.3s�'! J - `;.. ',�. . ��,�� -- '� + . ,
�` s � ' �s. , .
. 7� & -- - - � � � ' . : :��� • , r
���� � � � � � � � �� � �
. r �'. r�' � �. � ,� �ga�• : � . -t "�,�
f' $f 1 y . ��ai�?`t"""_-t I A'i.�Y.'^.-a r„� - I'"" ..... •
'�,..� �'•� ��y� i..-cii�-s�'T.c'tcf'�tx� �y7's1.�:ry1-r`l.,r,. . . +�J1+` .. �t
' ;4t/��y � "'. � F'_ L 1 � ^"'S ' '1^
�f . Et F". ".— -� .i'� 2'�'r'�'..�t. . : -g' .
� _
i � � �
. �~ � � � ;4 �� S Z���� ' . ... .
. �: � � � .. . ' �4'? ' ✓ .
�.
, @
� ; , � b,- �. y , .:, �^
� � ;�� , � ._.. -
l
i 3 r '.
� ����� t i'. r r�. r ' _ - .
� ��'y X �.-� +z ����-.' '��, .
i�. t ly�� � I � �z [Ts rr'� _ •• __-
..�,. � .,. , ,�"u`+a�r- ��....°` �s.a, . . .
+Wy^-w... � , 3..
Yl''. � � i�.
��m� a 9s4 .�,R�{ : � . .. ..
r 'n � � ��'. �. 1 _ � . .
cP' �
- ���� � � ���� � V �~
��
Y, p4w�' , - �
,:; �`I �'. dr �.� „�ra si� . .."� .
`,� :� �,��;,��. � _
� ..� � �. � � ., ,.. �� ;`^,�� ��;� ; �.� � „��� �� � �
.�....� <,"����; .. . . - ;.;,,_ _ ::,��
. .�,a
.r .ax� �� .a �
,.
�i� � �-�a �a� „� � ,�� �
.
,L
__
sr: b., �,� �� . � -.
. . _ . : M..�. .. �. �.»,-�..y.. ,,,,...
..
,..��` ���" - - - ..�;. ._. . ..�:...�; �..
.�
City of Burlingame
Design Review for a First and Second Story Addition
Address: 1312 Vancouver Avenue
Item #
Conseut Calendar
Meeting Date: 6/13/OS
Request: Design review for a first and second story addition at 1312 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S.
25.28.040)
Applicant/Designer: Jerry Deal, JD & Associates
Property Owner: John Shanley APN: 026-064-170
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 5,000 SF
Date Submitted: May 14, 2003 Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited
number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a
residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this
exemption.
Summary: The applicant is requesting design review for a first and second story addition at 1312 Vancouver
Avenue, zoned R-1. The subject property slopes from left to right with an approximately 3 foot difference in
elevation, and also slopes from front to rear with a 6 foot (lower) difference in elevation at the rear.
The existing house is one story with a detached one car garage. The existing floor area is 1,352 SF (0.27 FAR). The
first floor addition proposed is 335 SF and includes removing the family room kitchen and the bedroom at the rear
and building a new family room and kitchen. The new second floor will be 1,201 SF and will include a bedroom
relocated from its original location on the first floor, and two new bedrooms and bathrooms, along with a laundry
room. The first and second floor addition will increase the total floor area of the remodeled house to 2,945 SF (0.58
FAR), where 2,957 SF (0.59 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposal is 12 SF under the maximum floor area
allowed on this parcel.
The project includes the construction of a new one car detached garage (12'6" x 20'8") that will meet the parking
requirement for this four bedroom house. One uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway, so the on-site
parking requirements are met.
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front: Ist flr No change 17'6" 15' or block average
2nd,flr 20� N/A 20'
Side (left): IS` flr 4' 4' 4'
2„d itr 4' N/A
Side(right) ls` flr 11'3" 17' 4'
2„d flr 11'3" N/A
Rear: Ist flr 25' to deck 31' 15'
2nd flr 34' N/A 20�
LOT 39.7 % 28.7 % 40%
COVERAGE: (1,987 SF) (1,435 SF) (2,000 SF)
Design Review 1312 Vancouver Avenue
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
FAR: 2,945 SF/ 1,352 SF/ 2,957 SF/
0.58 FAR 0.27 FAR 0.59 FAR
PARKING: 1 covered 1 covered 1 covered
(12'6" x 20'8") (11' x 18') (10' x 20')
+ 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered
+ 1 uncovered
HEIGHT: 30' 17'2" 2'/2 stories 30' whichever is less
DHENV.• Meets Requirement Meets Requirement See Code
This project meets all code requirements.
Staff Comments: See attached.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on May 9, 2005, the
Commission requested the applicant address several concerns and placed the project on the consent calendar (May
9, 2005, PC Minutes). The applicant submitted a revised site plan date stamped June 1, 2005 and a response letter
dated June 1, 2005, to address the remainder of the Planning Commission's comments. Below are the Commissions'
concerns with a summary of responses from the applicant.
Would like to see a letter from the neighbor at 1316 Vancouver stating that they've looked at the
plans;
The property owners submitted a letter to the Planning Commission, date stamped June 1, 2005, which
states that they have attempted to contact the neighbor at 1316 Vancouver but have not been successful and
have not heard back from them.
Could some of the massing be shifted to the right? know there would be a loss of symmetry;
Concerned with what's happening on left side of the house and its impacts on the neighbor; would
like to see more landscaping, it is important to consider more landscape trees that will be visible from
the street;
The project designer notes in his response that there were several property constraints that weighed heavily
on the placement of the second floor. He notes that the existingfirst floor setback is substantial on the East
(driveway) side, but even though the first floor is increasing there still is room required for the driveway and
landscaping, which decreases the area to be used for the second floor. Pushing the second floor the right
would result in an off balanced look with cantilevers. The West elevation (left side) is in compliance with
the declining height envelope. Theproperty owner feels that a lot has been given up in order to comply with
the declining height envelope and design review.
• Show where the adjacent garage is on the site plan;
The siteplans has been revised to show all adjacent structures nearproperty line including a wood deck and
residence at the rear and the residence to the right side, there are no garages in close proximity to the
proposed garage.
�
' Design Review
1312 Vancouver Avenue
Project is nicely designed and proportioned but a different treatment should be used for the base at
the first floor, perhaps something as simple as a similar stucco texture or stone base;
The designer notes that the exterior walls below the water table will be painted with a darker color than the
area above the water table. Perimeter landscaping will also be added. At this time the owner's budget does
not allow the use of a stone base. The designer concludes that taken together the landscaping and color
treatment will set this area apart from the expanse of stucco above the water table.
• Problem identifying the front door location, can it be relocated?;
• Project is well done, although generally like to have the front door stand out;
The designer has stated that it impossible to address the front door location without rearranging the existing
living room and bedroom. The front door location is not changing with the proposal and will remain in the
existing location. The existing porch however will be rebuilt in the same location as part of this project.
The designer notes that the porch element clearly announces the front door location.
Design is nice and well articulated; could a window (high window) be added to the blank wall on the
east elevation?
The designer notes that due to the space planning in the interior and a large amount ofglazing at the rear,
the wall in question was left blank to allow for placement of an entertainment center. This area already has
a substantial amount of landscaping and no additional landscaping is proposed at this location
Can garage be moved to have more than a 1 foot separation from the rear property line for
maintenance reasons?
The site plan has been revised, date stamped June 1, 2005, with the garage moved an additional foot away
from the rear property line, so there is now a 2 foot separation between both the rear and side property lines
and the new garage structure.
Would like to see a landscape plan and tree protection plan; and
The house should incorporate more greenery, such as a vine on the house or a trellis, up to architect to
be creative.
The site plan, sheet 1 date stamped June 1, 2005, has been revised with the existing landscaping shown as
well as new landscaping added including 24" Ornamental Pear trees at the rear. There has been no tree
protection plan submitted by the applicant. The designer notes that the existing wall at the family room
already has extensive landscaping.
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:
1. 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;
3
' Design Review
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
1312 Vancouver Avenue
Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's May 9, 2005, design
review study meeting the proposed addition is nicely articulated and is a well done project, proportions are
appropriate for the site and will fit in well with the neighborhood and for these reasons the project is found to be
compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should
be by resolution and include findings made for design review. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated.
At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
April 18, 2005, sheets 2 through 7, and G-1, floor plan, building elevations and garage plan, and sheet 1, date
stamped June 1, 2005, site plan (including landscaping); and that any changes to building materials, exterior
finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment;
2. that the property owner shall trim the existing hedge along the driveway as often as necessary to provide
adequate vehicular access to enter and exit the new detached garage;
3. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or
second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or
relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roofheight or pitch, shall be subject to design
review;
4. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal, Chief Building Official, NPDES Coordinator
and City Engineer's memos dated March 7, 2005 shall be met;
5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional
shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are
built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property
owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty ofperjury. Certifications shall be submitted
to the Building Department;
6. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the proj ect has been built according to the approved
Planning and Building plans;
7. 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;
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 Department;
4
' Design Review
1312 Vancouver Avenue
9. that during construction the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff;
and
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
Catherine Barber
Planner
c: Jerry Deal, JD & Associates, applicant/designer
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
03/07/2005
d City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ NPDES Coordinator
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review and special permit for declining height
envelope for 1 st and 2nd story addition and new detached garage at
1312 Vancouver Avenue , zoned R-1, APN: 026-064-170
Staff Review: 03/14/2005
1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage.
Drainage design as shown on Sheet 1 is acceptable.
2. Replace all displaced/damaged sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter.
3. On Sheet 1, indicate whether the fence that is shown as extending beyond the
front property line is new or existing. If it is new or to be re-installed, a special
encroachment is required from the Public Works Department — Engineering
Division.
4. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 3/11/2005
Project Comments
Date:
03/07/2005
To: � City Engineer
� Chief Building Official
� City Arborist
� City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
X Recycling Specialist
� Fire Marshal
� NPDES Coordinator
Subject: Request for design review and special permit for declining height
envelope for 1 st and 2nd story addition and new detached garage at
1312 Vancouver Avenue , zoned R-1, APN: 026-064-170
Staff Review: 03/14/2005
Applicant shall submit a Waste Reduction Plan for approval, and pay a recycling
deposit for this and all covered projects prior to construction or permitting.
�, ._�
�. ' i��'
Reviewed by: y'`l� j
i�
Date: � �� ���
Project Comments
Date:
03/07/2005
To: ❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
� Fire Marshal
❑ NPDES Coordinator
Subject: Request for design review and special permit for declining height
envelope for 1 st and 2nd story addition and new detached garage at
1312 Vancouver Avenue , zoned R-1, APN: 026-064-170
Staff Review: 03/14/2005
Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence.
1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter.
2. Provide double backflow prevention.
Reviewed by: � �
-�/ �� .
Date: /�' �y�-.:.�c>`�
,
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
03/07/2005
� City Engineer
� Chief Building Official
� City Arborist
� City Attorney
� Recycling Specialist
� Fire Marshal
✓ NPDES Coordinator
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review and special permit for declining height
envelope for 1 st and 2nd story addition and new detached garage at
1312 Vancouver Avenue , zoned R-1, APN: 026-064-170
Staff Review: 03/14/2005
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited
to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices
(BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the
construction project (including demolition).
Ensure that sufficient amount of erosion and sediment control measures are
available on site at all times.
The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or
storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times.
Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available
for your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project
proponents.
For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727.
Reviewed by: �(� �-�,��� Date: 0 3f ��(cs
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
03/07/2005
❑ City Engineer
X Chief Building Official
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ NPDES Coordinator
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review and special permit for declining height
envelope for 1 st and 2nd story addition and new detached garage at
1312 Vancouver Avenue , zoned R-1, APN: 026-064-170
Staff Review: 03/14/2005
1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC),
the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal
requirements.
2) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
3) According to the City of Burlingame Municipal code "when additions,
alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of
the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as
determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in
its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures."
Therefore, this building must comply with the 2001 California Building Code
for new structures.
4) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the
property line.
5) Roof eaves must not project within two feet of the property line.
6) Exterior bearing walls less than three feet from the property line must be
constructed of one-hour fire-rated construction.
7) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window
or door that complies with the egress requirements.
8) Clearly mark all pages of the plans "Basement is for STORAGE ONLY and is
not to be used as a habitable space."
9) Provide guardrails at all landings.
10)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are more than two risers.
11)Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
12)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surFace
within ten feet. �
Reviewed by:`�,,._-- �yQ Date: � �� �Q��^-
• � . �� �,.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2005
12. 1312 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN
SHANLEY PROPERTY OWNERZ(58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Chair Auran recused himself from this item since he lives within 500 feet of the proj ect and C. Deal recused
himself from the project because of a business relationship with the applicant. They stepped down from the
dais and left the chambers.
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. C. Brownrigg
requested that C. Osterling act as Chair because he had to leave the meeting 10:00 p.m. to catch an airplane.
Commissioner Brownrigg left the chambers.
Acting Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Randy Whitney, designer, JD & Associates, 1228
Paloma Avenue, represented the project and stated that the property owner could not attend the meeting
because he is a fireman on duty. Commissioners made the following comments:
• Would like to see a letter from the neighbor at 1316 Vancouver stating that they've looked at the plans;
• Could some of the massing be shifted to the right? know there would be a loss of symmetry;
• Concerned with what's happening on left side of the house and its impacts on the neighbor; would like
to see more landscaping, it is important to consider more landscape trees that will be visible from the
street;
• Show where the adjacent garage is on the site plan;
• Project is nicely designed and proportioned but a different treatment should be used for the base at the
first floor, perhaps something as simple as a similar stucco texture or stone base;
• Problem identifying the front door location, can it be relocated?;
• Design is nice and well articulated; could a window (high window) be added to the blank wall on the
east elevation?
• Project is well done, although generally like to have the front door stand out;
• Can garage be moved to have more than a 1 foot separation from the rear property line for maintenance
reasons?
• Would like to see a landscape plan and tree protection plan; and
• The house should incorporate more greenery, such as a vine on the house or a trellis, up to architect to be
creative.
Designer noted there are a significant number of trees shown on the plan and that the garage could be moved
one additional foot from the rear property line. There were no other comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions
have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Acting Chair Osterling 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 4-0-1-2 (C. Brownrigg absent, Chair Auran
and C. Deal abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 10:05 p.m.
12
RECEIVED
, ��N - 1 2005
��� `���ju` �, ��-y�yy�,,yyru.� � CITY OF BURLINGAME
� pLANNING DEPT,
_ � �, , �.u�e 2z, 2� � �- , G� a���� �� �°
� ��
; �,lh�G�� 61,vt 'hZ�l�Gih6'1.�. r,-t� l 3/� U�mLo uv�, , GJ�%'+ �(� ..G� —���
; � l��oc� c� �i �Z , ��:c� -t-G� r,Ja� �u.' c��� . Gve
�f- a no�- .e,�},fi�ur,s� �u� (,v�,c� .�-tu.�c.�� c� ,�i.�cn�c�'�
,% 3! L (/� i.o � t�`fi� Q-n d l� �i.eGf/1� � c� ,�i�� /� Gc�r {�'' Ge�-!,�
.h is�J , � � 7�ia ' 2�, O S �.�, 4
; � � ��/ � � � ° � �e �tc���e
;'l/'� /��i ' � 7'-t� � u
� ' �--�,�:� ..,� u� ����w ,�� ��ru ..�.�� a�r,� �r.����� ��a•���u ,
� �` n-,�''.e,�
,
� C��, � ��a�.�., .����,��
°�l�S• (��7Z-9Y�1
- _
-- - - _
__
�
f _ _ . _
i - _ _
JD &
ASSOCIATES
BUILDING DESIGN & �
1228 paloma avenue
fax (650) 375-8448
email
5-15-2005
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
RECEIVIED
To:
Re:
�
J
burlingame, ca. 94010
tele. (650) 343-6014
jda@jerrydeal.biz
1312 Vancouver
Burlingame, CA 94010
JUN - 1 2005
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Following are responses to questions from the May 9, 2005 Planning Commission
meeting.
Would like to see a letter from the neighbor at 1316 Vancouver stating that they've
looked at the plans:
Several attempts have been made but to no avail at the time this response was prepared.
A letter of explanation has been attached.
Could some of the massing be shifted to the right? know there would be a loss of
symmetry:
Concerned with what's happening on left side of the house and its impacts on the
neighbor; would like to see more landscaping, it is important to consider more
landscape trees that will be visible from the street;
There are constraints on the property that weighed heavily in the placement of the second
floor. The existing first floor setback is substantial on the East (driveway) side. Even
though the first floor has been increased we must still allow for a driveway and
landscaping. This decreases the area that can be used for a second floor. Pushing the
second floor to the right would result in an off balanced look with cantilevers.
The West Elevation (left side) adheres to the provisions of the DHE. Unfortunately the
neighbor to the West does not and is in fact the type of house design that generated the
ca.11ing for the DHE and design review. It is the owners opinion that he has given up a lot
to satisfy the design review requirements.
Show where the adjacent garage is on the site plan;
It is assumed it was meant any garages near the proposed garage. The site plan has been
amended to show a wood deck and residence to the rear and a residence to the right side.
There are no garages in close proximity to the proposed garage.
Project is nicely designed and proportioned but a different treatment should be used for
the base at the first floor, perhaps something as simple as a similar stucco texture or
stone base:
The e�erior walls below the water table will be painted with a darker color than the area
above the water table. Perimeter landscaping will also be added. Taken together, these
two treatments will set this area apart from the expanse of stucco above the water table.
At this time the budget does not a11ow the use of a stone base.
Problem identifying the front door location, can it be relocated?
The front door is to remain in the existing location. The existing porch will be rebuilt in
the same location. The porch element clearly states that there is a front door.
Design is nice and well articulated; could a window (high window) be added to the
blank wall on the east elevation?
Due to space planning at the interior and a large amount of glazing at the rear �the wall in
question was left blank for an entertainment center. There is substantial landscaping
already in this area and no additional landscaping is proposed at this location.
Project is well done, although generally like to have the front door stand out;
We agree with this statement but find it impossible without rearranging the existing
living room and bedraom, both of which are to remain.
Can garage be moved to have more than a 1 foot separation from the rear property line
for maintenance reasons?
The garage has been moved to create a 2 foot separation from the rear and side property
line.
Would like to see a landscape plan and tree protection plan: and
Additional landscaping has been provided
The house should incorporate more greenery, such as a vine on the house or a trellis,
up to architect to be creativ�
Additional lar}dscaping has been provided. The existing wa11 at the family room already
has extensive landscaping.
Thank you
Jerry Deal
Principal
JD & Associate:
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org
a` ITY p .
q� '►
��n ..E APPLICATION TO T�IE PLANNING COMMISSION
�..�.�.�f
Type of application: Design Review ✓ Conditional Use Permit Variance
Special Permit Other Parcel Number:
Project address: i � i Z `! �f,�c�, � , ,� $ �
APPLICANT
Name: � � � � O G
Address: � �_� � �.�I�/-��
City/State/Zip: � �-c�-c—��� _
Phone (w): ��{' 3— Co o I�-�- .
ih)�—
c�: � 7s—����
�,ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: � (� � �3 `� � c--
Address:
City/State/Zip:
�Phone (w):
(h):
(��-
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: � o •E-( iv � �} �,.� L��.
Address: 1��� V�, r�L�u v��
City/State/Zip: ��1.� �yNG� t�r��-
Phone (w): �—� l S" (�p'% ',� —� �
�h) �
c�:
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this prq�.�ct��IVED
ri�
MAR - 4 2005
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Yl�U.1�:C�'}' DLSC121�''1'1vl�l:
'+� /��W L —C-�i1
��o�
0
��`'�=C��
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and correct to th f m knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature: Date: � �—OS
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commissi �. � ,
L ��� - 2 .�. c�S
� Property owner's signature: ~ Date:
ate submitted:
PCAPP. FRM
�s�
��2
,� � � �' �� ��-Q-, � r,,`� -�� ���'� �
� � � �s-� �- � �-��� � ��,
�
�� ���
0
� ��� CITY o,� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
.. BURLJHGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� BURLINGAME, CA 94010
'� ' , TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
�,,,�,,,,�a'° www.burlingame.org
Site: 1312 VANCOUVER AVE
Application for design review for a first and
second story addition at: 1312 VANCOUVER
AVE, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-064-170).
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following p�blic hearing
on Monday, June 13, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.
in the City Hall Council Chambers located at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed: June 3, 2005
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
�
_ _----------�---._
-
�
�
�
� �
I �
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
�� ��� w ,�
�lic�tic�n an : ar�'� th�pro�ect�ay
� �� � � _ . � _.�
�r ���� � �'
:��TM=1
Margaret Mori�e3$ � �
City Planner ��
�
A copy of the aF
to the meeting
Burlingame, C�
�, ,j
�.V��
If you challe��e
raising only t�[t5�
described in �h�
4
at or prior to�the
��
Property ow�r:
their tenants ��b�
(650) 558-7 0
PU
(Please refer to other side)
be reviewed prior
Primrose Road,
�° `�
ma� be limited to
�"e�i blic hearing,
T�)k
�rve ed to the city
�
►le or informing
�ti ;�i, please call
�' � '.�"� �� � .��,.
�
� � ��
�
� ,��
� • �,�,.
���
� ..; �<�
��CE
e
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
desi review for a first and second story addition at 1312 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, John
G. and Dawn M. Shanlev, property owners, APN: 026-064-170;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
June 13, 2005, 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:
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. Section: 15303, Class 3—
(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a)
one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized
areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this
exemption.
2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for design review are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said
meeting.
It is further directed that a certiiied copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
CHAIIZMAN
I, , 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 the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of June, 2005, by
the following vote
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review
1312 Vancouver Avenue
Effective June 23, 2005
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped April 18, 2005, sheets 2 through 7, and G-1, floor plan, building elevations and garage
plan, and sheet 1, date stamped June l, 2005, site plan (including landscaping); and that any
changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall
require an amendment;
2. that the property owner shall trim the existing hedge along the driveway as often as necessary
to provide adequate vehicular access to enter and exit the new detached garage;
3. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope
of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the
structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height
or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal, Chief Building Official, NPDES
Coordinator and City Engineer's memos dated March 7, 2005 shall be met;
that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as
window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed
professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the
certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building
Department;
6. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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;
7. 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;
8. 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 Department;
9. that during construction the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as
identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff; and
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
1: � �.� �.+��� � .��v� 'r. -� �.�.` �'��
�� �* . , E . �� 'r � � a � 1 � � a�'� ''��`��f „� : . �."� `
"� �.4 ,� , � � � f;�� � �';r, •-jt R- - 9 • �, �� ,: � �;w� c.:=
` 'h
J �1�'��'» a,,�'� �� ,�5� . =F�'" .tx�g : ; � �. *'-�t-,'�"�
�.
s a� . � ,� t sF� :��y` .
�+. ,� r � ."
�: w` g„ G` R 1ye� �:� ,.�'s
x �,�, �, ",�; ��,� � �•. �
�. �+
=,
, , /
; �� ��. �'� �
. � /
� �- K,
�� ��� -. � � � • � , ��
A _ _ 'a -,�� � . J
.. tiw�
!J � h" f` � �,A� w� � � `� %f f �!
',��. f .�� _�tivr�r�,,�� V "°.�.. F'�FS �b•� �• �'Y�°� +,� g� £
�� � '- RW-\`iA Y�� y � '_ . � � � _ , 'i g�
a . : r
:
i
, �,> • • ` �� i t �A. � P t% �� �n � � � . " ii.. � S � i'�Y, '� ..
z
a 6'�i�
`....`�i�'� . �� " � S� , � K� • t �� � • � } '� { ' �, i ^��
S _
♦ .
�
.�y `�� � Y
• � � • E� �y A.. �� . ' �°p. h
tAA;� �� ~< `�'�"����` � �� �.'. �;� �S '"��wt � � '�. Ft�� �9r� �� {�� .+� ,..� � .
4ti � !�x a . ��`� "'„� : "-�.' � � . ,��� � ; �, ,,�,' ���� .,� y�� �/ s '� Y h�'�
, '. f i
e . . - �' r` '�i . ��^ � Sc� ' � �.
��� � ��� � t '� � � ' � . . ��� � .p
. . ,
� �
. t
�' ' F� � � " '��' -,: e `x' � ��
�� � .3��� �-.. • �#.� � � � i '� �.t - �-fyJ' . �.
.
� � �
, ,
� � \' "
. �
• ' � '.� ' A '` -' � � � � ��"" - " -
�
� , ,� .. . _ - . /
.. .� ,'o,- ,-� -� .� ��'� � ,;. ., ' i r ��•'s�"�: � t \- ' Y„` `� �wx .�r'� ..-
_ � _ . ,;. ':�� � .
.,
.; '�''`�` • ,�` _, ? ,, ,. � �,
. � , � r ���,zr,r. ;.. a �i�'�'
' ' �,
- �. r � .t. .. ' �.� �
. . � c ..
��. l ,,�* . � �.�t_ �-� � ��- � � � ��
.,
� .. , �y�`t- k ., � _ �� �,,. -,�.
� <;r
. . .�
_. . �
.-
� � ..� � � . :• '.('��.� .� ,� ..... ,.� �r� ��!
.. .,•. 'y ... . 1
1 � �
� ; ' , �'�.�s , . � ����y +
_ � "� i i '� �♦"� . . ••V . �IC . � i�� k'' .. � '.,e.� � �� +.�x:
- b_ �j ' w / 1. . °q.��• �+� r' � �k=y +� ` .
�.�,�+ , m ,.
� � '�+ �"s .. s � ` - � r= f �, .. � .
� .k„ � . � � ,��i' � �t' s � 'a , n.��r �:✓, � :.±4e,
a
. _ .
_ .
t�' � � r t� • � " � 'f _ � - � ,� �,v �
� � - �" � i" `� �` ' ��' �
. . . �, �,
�Y
. . � .. r ., � � ��
� � ,
.f �, #i � � `,
- ,. y• �i+� $` -�`,'.:.r .� �`�-1L'�sr . r . �.�- �� .��
h '. � ^� �,
t �} _ ° "�. , � 3
'_^ «
�. � .� .. _- . � .� _ l�`i
d • �. \ `b.*fnG �
,�!} - . � R 3_ , ��� 1 � {� �'- � > . �]�� � _ � '�''
ia� g � / � R q A� Il�f 1�� � ! )?�. � � (� � � � �r � ' �* .
� JJ ''
.� i� .. t . 'q . � ��. t �r..yy// j�
� ' s [ i� " r_ G�� �* y ),4�'n. .a'y yt'�; `'�4 � I P. J , � ..
,��� i � \ � � �y�..4` ��..Y ��. . ��$� �..
_ q,;,� �,� ;�_ �' �. � , t- �� ` ,r . _ '� �F : � � 's. � , .�
a' . ' ` �'� � `� � � U ,► ,�'' • : . , +� � � ��
'�'� - i . '''� � a'' ��+•�'i ' ,'TV iY. �'� � �' +' � � � .
� � ,� � �, 'r �,f � r +�,�{ . .� , t. �� � �
� '�. � /' '� < , � - ,. ;�, � -> .� .. � � V "'`�
, � , ,,i _�,, �{`f �, �,* T� ,� �``_ ' _
,,��. .� ..,� � �� � . � �r �`� ,� ��: � �. ow ��;��
. - . ,.
y� � � t �,3»
, n,. �. � .. . : .. �, _ , � � � � � r
;,, s s ��. . . ... � -.. "".�, 'a r +q ' . �
��, ' � + :p'� t ' �. �� '�= r .�, :. �' � qH� � � , `���� �-
� '+e �� . . a ^ �a..�.�1 � . ;� ? .. �. � � •. >'�,
� 'µ� -�' -„�L� � + { '�", � ,,f � ^�. � \ `s �� � �a � ..+A ".; +�, �' � ��'°.. -.
' \ s�����"�� '.�s� / '�►�����,� v � �* �S
_. `, �
, . +���: r, �
.;:�. i'� - � .,:- .. '. . �t. , � . ,. . y a�� �. �..
.
_r = �`
. x � �D
�„ � .
r
�? � � �"�i
,;�► �, r�x �� �rw �� .�.".` � _` :�,�� � � _ � •�3 � �. �� � . t' ��i � � �i'. �
����. - �r =��^ �. :'?'.�'.- '`�*'��, •.� ,.� :n� � . `
.- . �
i . � ,.
,- , av,
� '„ y i' �
{� `, "�.'�► 'w try�-r"��`r t'�' •�,� �'°::'_- - = - . � �' ` " � t�F '�"��' '�'{'��' i ,�, �s .. �'� ���rt ++ � :��
� .
�4 /" 'c �' . ,q � � `�, a - . ::. � -r'� � '�'�S �� �
: . �y
P ` 'J ~ � .r .r
�, f � . . •�' G 'b _ y �# � ,, z� +
,'���. t � �✓��-,� � ..`� yA� ° t y��# S t� t C, ���q ��� �'� b+• S�'. �1'k `� ,F
`4 s sm �,� �.�
s I � ••�<�'� � � � _ � �, �� � �,:•�� . � ,' .. �; �' t� t�� g � ',,,�w� � �c����
.'"` .�.��� � "y!t ,� �"' g* : ��� ��` � �t+��"�'�.�.., y':.� � �-'� �;� 4����;, . .� � �.
� � �.i � .^� t i • � � x k � r.
i. ^ _
�r 'i�' , i at-� ' . � �' b �
. : y r !t� '�' s '
. ; .
�-
sv�'7�. +�, ; �. : 'Z'{" � . �r � �
f1 � �� . . " �. a �. i3y,� s � � 7 , �, � �i+,�. _ � a".,a� .i'
�" • ��� is�'�l ` '�. . i;+f�� 4 w � � >. ,. %p�
a'�+ `� ` '�°' .
_�
.
,� ,�
• �- � . •. . _ � , � � , ..: . • , �",, *`;, . .
, . ::. • -�
•�.
. �
. ;
� ;, ,�- . . ���r-" �.,�.,, ' �'_ �`� ;'i,`'t ��..�,°�.,� ,�� �,�,
,� �,_
' :� ,x,� � i. `� � �'�; �C.
. • ' . . .
f '' " � � � ��.�. ti � -,� �, s�„ � �..
� �j
v-.i• • :a '{ , _ ,�y� -a�.. 'tie_
_ .
.
1�. � � ' >, ti�i' �I ' t
�,. �.+pp�� �' 1�� r'„r 3"'�w�v- '�"_ . A ��. . . t� 1. •�- y .� 'a`�.�"'�.
� �I
� • , .
.
.� � . -
. 1f � ,. � '�7 ,+l.,, � i. i � y ' �; .� 4 �� .. �t ,� - '' -� r � p ..� ,_ ,,a,s
,
�
[� f� .
i� a � s .e�y� �-? ,�,�y�.�
�• !. t. + Gt . ..�.� • � � � � fT f � -3' x. � . � :it • ' t .. iF e �{ .Y':' � "+i �''.>e
D � �
�, '� '��s.�r '� :�,a�,- �1 � ;a., - �.'k��,�?"r���"e+'r.,�.` ♦'3 -.��x'�'� _ ���' z"�'..� ;.r'� �'�"�'��
' �.��. . ��� �- ir .� ,� � T.++�Y� i •, ` 'r.4 , ` , . r „, �`lh�.
,la� i�� � " � �r ,�, �.. m- .�� :�i' "`'�"f�',�.� ��� ` � .R ' �; . �•� . �..
s' �.y; ' ; ��"' d �.,�. ..R.,�.g�
_ ,
�� ,.�... �-
>
�
' ' � 20•�% '"� i� �`" .�,; � `�' . ,
. ,y:,•�- ,�.. � e.<�' -N�� ' �� p'/� �Rr"�ii '���'��- �� �r< � 4� r � ����� ;��.
� � �� ��.i.P��y:. ,i � - .k � i�. ' i . ��. '�ni�: ��� -�a�� , ^. .. � ,o' � �°' "-
�
- 1..' 'i " � � �'' , . „s� � - . '�; • � °�"� ,�,���..
,y
- . .�_, �±� - w! 1., � ' t a 1 . � . � .. ��*� � g' '�'jrs � ?
' 3"xmf� E, ` , r � �� ,� � ►� f„�•'� ,r ���b__ 1�.�, ,w" '' �� �w
% ' � %
„..
.,. � �F�* ,.= P .�� �
a� S � f �
� , J� ��rj � s�;g., � v �qs "'��,. ' � �- , 1� �R, � p.,'
,, .
�-I-e w, � I Z_
�'(�(MUNICATION RECEIY�D
�FTER PRF.�.lRATJD�
OFSTAFFR�EPi0R1�'
City of Burlingame
Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re Site:1312 Vancouver Avenue
To whom it may concern,
OS/06/OS
My concern is with the right side kitchen projection. The plans show 11' 3" to the
property line, however they don't reflect an existing hedge and fence which run along
the driveway, which when taken into consideration would leave you with only 9' or so
possibly falling short of the required 9' 6".
Sincerely,
_�_-__.--....__ �
�
���� � �- G�����- � , t : .�
Thomas John Hornblower
2100 Easton Dr.
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-343-9852
RECEIVED
�IAY 6 2005
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNINQ DEPT