Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1417 Vancouver Avenue - ResolutionRECORDING REQUESTED BY: Planning Department City of Burlingame WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Resolution No. 58 - 2017 1417 VANCOUVER AVENUE APN 027-164-030 TITLE OF DOCUMENT I hereby certify this to be a full, true and correct copy of the document it purports to be, the original of which is on file in my office. Date: September 12, 2017 William Meeker, Community Development Director 2017-114392 11:48 am 12120/17 R1 Fee: NO FEE Count of Pages 4 Recorded in Official Records County of San Mateo Maik Church Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder II 11111 i li II'' 111 ��I I'I I I II I I II I I I I II *$ R 0 0 0 2 4 4 7 h 8 1$ 4 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved design review application at 1417 Vancouver Avenue Zoned R-1, Martina A. Sersch, property owner, APN: 027-164-030; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 28, 2017, 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 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, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in t e official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman rrC�ia o n �ccv 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 28th day of August, 2017, by the following vote: 1417 VANCOUVER AVE - RESO 58-2017 AYES: COMAROTO, GUM, KELLY, LOFfIS, SARGENT, TERRONES NOES: GAUL ABSENT: NONE RECUSED: NONE Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment 1417 Vancouver Avenue Effective September 7, 2017 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 26, 2017, sheets 1-3; with the exception of the glass railing on the second floor deck above the garage, removal of the terra cotta vents at the front of the garage, and plain white painted garage door; 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 staff); 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 Chief Building Official's September 26, 2012 and July 31, 2012 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2012 memo, the Parks Supervisor's August 13, 2012 memo, Fire Marshal's July 30, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's July 30, 2012 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 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, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment 1417 Vancouver Avenue Effective September 7, 2017 Page 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. 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; and 12. 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. CITY O I j e 9nownrr Monday, August 28, 2017 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers b. 1417 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment to a previously approved design review application. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Martina A. Sersch, applicant and property owner) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Gaul was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones had a brief discussion with Commissioner Gaul, who was the original designer on the project. Commissioner Kelly spoke to a neighbor who requested to remain unidentified. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Martina Sersch represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Height of the garage appears to be taller than what is shown on the plans. (Sersch: The plans do not accurately reflect the location of the aluminum roof flashing.) > How far back does the glass guard rail extend on the side elevation? (Sersch: Glass guard rail goes all the way from the front to the back. The original approval was for an entire deck. When it was changed it was with a smaller guardrail, but that was not what was wanted. The first approval was for the entire terrace deck and had guard rail to the rear,- it was supposed to be shown this way on the second set of drawings, but had not noticed the discrepancy when they were submitted. The building inspector said that as long as it was made safe, it would not matter where the guard railing was ended as long as it would be secure all around. Did not understand it would be a problem since it had been approved that way initially.) > The most recent plans dated June 26th show the glass rail going all the way back, as it has been built. > The applicant letter mentions that the glass guard rail would be safer than approved. However the building code would require the design of metal guard rails to limit the spaces between the balusters. Is there a reason why these code requirements would not be safe enough? (Sersch: Narrow guard rails did not feel safe with children. Kids like to throw things, worried about getting their hands stuck.) > Page 2 of the plans show rafter tails on the gable above the garage that match the gable to the right of the front door. Did not see them on site. (Sersch: They are missing and will be installed, needs to find someone to install them.) > How did all of these things that were not approved get built? (Sersch: Initially the garage was built with an opening, but there was wind along the side of the house and the bikes would fall. Were told originally it City of Burlingame Page 1 Punted on 11/1712017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 would be better to have a garage rather than a carport but did not have the money to build the entire garage. Asked the building inspector if doors could be added if certain steps were taken. Asked the contractor to follow through but has not been successful. Dispute over who is responsible for paying for the fees. Verified the installation of the rail and garage doors with the building inspector.) > Is there understanding that what the Planning Commission approves is what must be built? (Sersch: No, thought the building inspector was able to make approvals. It was not the intent to build something that was not approved.) > There was statement of intent to keep the integrity of the house, so how would the glass enclosure fit the integrity? (Sersch: It can hardly be seen. There is aluminum flashing over the garage, so thought the aluminum on the rail would match and make the rail look more safe. Would prefer glass without the aluminum on top. The house never had wrought iron detail.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Don't want to look at changes from a punitive standpoint. Asks the question, "would it have been approved when first submitted?" > Find it impossible to believe that a glass guard rail with aluminum trim and posts would have been approved originally. It does not fit with the design of the rest of the house. > Although wrought iron pickets might not have occurred anywhere on the existing house, they are typical of this architectural style. > The garage doors are stark white panelized doors. The existing front door is either stained or painted brown, and the two newer spanish houses nearby have brown garage doors. Plain white garage doors are not consistent with the architectural style, and would not have been approved originally. > Other applications are built as designed and approved. If that same standard also applies to the neighbors, it needs to apply here. Building inspectors typically advise changes to be approved through Planning. > The glass and aluminum railings are out of place with the rest of the house. > The garage plate height is supportable. The issues are with the details, particularly the garage door and the glass rail. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve Action Item with the following amendments: > Approve the enclosure of the carport into a garage; > Approve the ornamental detail on the front wall of the garage to be replaced with a simplified square opening; > Deny the request for approval of the glass guard rail; > Deny the request to replace the terra cotta tile vents at the front of the garage with a light fixture; and > Deny the replacement of the stained wood garage door with a plain white painted door. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Recused: 1 - Gaul City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 11/1712017