HomeMy WebLinkAbout1417 Vancouver Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Design Review Amendment
Address: 1417 Vancouver Avenue
Item No. 8b
Action Item
Meeting Date: August 28, 2017
Request: Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved design review
application.
Applicant: Martina A. Sersch
Property Owner: same as applicant
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 027-164-030
Lot Area: 6,000 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to
existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of
more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
History and Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review and Special Permit for a second
floor deck above a new attached open style garage at 1417 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the
Planning Commission on November 13, 2012 (see attached November 13, 2012 P.C. Meeting Minutes). An
application for Design Review Amendment was approved by the Commission on March 11, 2013, which included
reducing the scale of the project by eliminating the storage area at the rear of the garage, lowering the plate height
of the carport by V-3", and relocating the access to the second story deck from bedroom #3 to the living room (see
attached March 11, 2013 P.C. Minutes). The applicant is requesting approval of the following as -built changes:
1. Open garage (with openings on the front and side walls) was built as an enclosed garage, with a garage
door on the front wall and a door and a window along the side wall.
2. Ornamental detail on the front wall of the garage was replaced with a simplified square opening.
3. Wrought iron railing on the second floor deck above the garage was replaced with an aluminum framed
glass railing.
4. Terra cotta tile vents at the front of the garage were replaced with a light fixture. The wood rafter tails
will be installed as shown on the plans.
Please refer to the attached explanation letter, date stamped June 26, 2017, for a detailed explanation of the
proposed changes. The applicant submitted a subsequent letter, date stamped August 21, 2017, in response to the
Commission's comments on the FYI application.
The applicant submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed floor plan and affected building
elevations, date stamped June 26, 2017, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project.
Description of Approved Project: The project included building a new 235.5 SF attached open style garage (with
openings on the front and side walls) and a 93.5 SF second story deck above it. With the project, the floor area
increased to 2,695 SF (0.45 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 3,020 SF (0.52 FAR).
The house contains four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The
carport provides one covered parking space (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions) and therefore complies with off-
street parking requirements. There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other
Zoning Code requirements were met. The following applications were approved on November 13, 2012:
■ Design Review for a second story deck addition (CS 25.57.010); and
0 Special Permit for an attached carport/garage (CS 25.28.035, (a)).
Design Review Amendment
1417 Vancouver Avenue
4A47 A%inni#n
I M Aran- FR nnn SF
EXISTING
PROPOSED
ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
i.................................................................................
j
..............................................................
...................................... ..................................... .................................... ...........................................
............... ...............................................................................................
Front (1st fir):
..................................
....................................................................................................
22'-8" (to porch)
28'-10" (to garage)
15'-0"
(2nd fir):
54'-4"
37'-10" (to deck)
20'-0"
attached ara e :
............................................9.................9.....1........................................................................................................
54'-4"
?8'.'_'................................................._25'-0"...(sin..gle-car.....
ga.rag.e.).......... .....
Side (left):
3'-4" (to bay)
no change
4'-0"
riht :
.................................................................................. ( .9.)._.......
..............
5'-9"...................4'..-0".._(to....garage)...
............................................. .......................................................................... ..
...........................................................................
_4'-0"................................
Rear (1st fir):
45'-0"
no change
15'-0"
2ndflr :
............. ( ............. ..........................................................................................................
41'-3"
.................no....chan_ge..................................................................
....................._20'-0".......................
LotCovera g%e:
1,746.6 SF f
2,023.3 SF
2,400 SF
29%.....
.................................... ........ ...........
..... ...... ............................................... .....4.0%°
FAR:
2,459.3 SF
2,736 SF
3,020 SF
0.41 FAR
0.46 FAR
0.50 FAR 2
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
# of bedrooms:
4
no change
---
Parking:
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1 covered
1 covered
1 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
Height:
22'-0"
13 -9 (to railing top)
30'-0"
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
DH Envelope:
n/a
complies
CS 25.28.075
Special Permit for an attached garage (CS 25.28.035 (a)).
2 (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR)
Staff Comments: None.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
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;
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.
Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the attached garage and
second floor deck (featuring a gable end, proportional plate heights, stucco siding, terra cotta tile roof, a painted
wood garage door, aluminum clad wood windows, and an aluminum framed glass railing on the second floor deck)
is compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural
elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on
adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five
design review criteria.
-2-
Design Review Amendment
1417 Vancouver Avenue
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and
consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings
supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission.
The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions
should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June
26, 2017, sheets 1-3;
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;
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
-3-
Design Review Amendment 1417 Vancouver Avenue
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.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Martina A. Sersch, applicant and property owner
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, date stamped August 21, 2017
Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, date stamped June 26, 2017
November 13, 2012 and March 11, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed August 18, 2017
Aerial Photo
-4-
Martina A. Sersch — property owner
1417 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame CA 94010
phone - 4156245705
Burlingame Planning Department
501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010
Re: 1417 Vancouver Ave Burlingame — Design review
Dear Planning commission
AUG 2 it 2017
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANT\iING DIV.
I appreciate your comments and concerns and would like to respond with the following letter
prior to the public hearing on August 28th:
Burlingame and especially the EastenAddition is the home of many beautiful houses however
the original character homes build around 1928 are becoming a rare sight.
The goal of my remodel was to maintain as much as possible the exact original character of the
house, which I fell in love with.
Please see here in brief an explanation to your concerns on the FYI:
Glass guardrail appears out of place.
The glass guardrailings are not very visible from exterior (pictures attached) but
the safest option for children since no gaps and provide light to my living/dining
room and interior which otherwise would be very dark and behind bars. In
addition rought iron details were not part of the original house — adding this
deck railing design would have changed the original style significantly. In addition
the Aluminium railing is taking up the theme from the Aluminium roof flashing.
2. Elimination of arched opening details and gable vents.
a. Arched design details are commonly used for openings without doors to make
these structures more appealing and less dull, however since a garage door was
added these features could no longer be added as framing and style should fit
the original style of the original house —
b. With the second FYI amendment in 2013 the gable on the carport had been
eliminated. With the shorter structure its now just the triangular wall of about 1
foot depth and therefor no gable vents necessary. The first submitted plans in
2012 had a gable and it was an oversight not to remove the vents from the
second submission drawing since the gable had been eliminated (as the
structure had been shortened). There is nothing to vent as it's just the thin
framing wall. Adding vents would introduce an entrance for vermins, as drywood
termites, spiders and rodents into the wooden structure.
3. Regarding the garage doors that were added, perhaps a brown or stain color would make it fit
better.
a. Doors could re -paint the doors but most other garage doors in the
neighborhood are of a similar light color and it's currently the same color as the
previous existing garage door. Stain is no longer possible since painted. A brown
paint would make the structure look heavy and like a barn door and was not the
original color and therefor change the original style and character
4. Structure appears taller than what was approved.
a. The structure is the exact measurements as on the plan and has been inspected
multiple times through the building process - it may appear taller because of the
photo visual.
Please find below more detailed comments and explanations with pictures as supporting
evidence:
Strong winds and gusts alongside of the right side of the house which is the "weather side"
keeping the carport structure open would have resulted in an unsafe condition. We had
consulted with the inspectors from the building department to add a garage door etc— this
door should match exactly what had been on property previously as otherwise the character of
the house would change.
The garage door design is an almost exact replica of the original one — in shape as well as in
color and material.
The original white paint with rectangular burgundy frame used as an exact replica of the
original garage door fits the remainder of the house as did the original — the same paint was
used - please kindly see pictures:
2
Y
New:
The structure might appear on picture higher than approved however it was reviewed by
multiple inspections along the building process and was build according to plans. The drawings
and photographs due to the sloping driveway might make it look taller.
3
The glass railing was chosen due to multiple considerations
1. Safety as with small children the rought iron did not seem safe
2. There was no rought iron detail on the original house therefor adding this would have
changed the character
3. The rought iron railing would have blocked the view from the living/dining room
window completely and severely influenced light condition inside the house — as we are
energy conscious we did not want to create a dark hole inside that would have required
lighting even during the daytime with rought iron bars infront of the main windows on
the right side of the house — please kindly see picture —
room to deck area with glass railing
4. 1 am attaching several pictures form the close vicinity of my property on Vancouver and
Eastern drive — as you can see the garage door style is exactly the style chosen as well as
arched details are part of openings but not actual doors.
4
ft
�y I }
`ze
`" _
,.
•� �� y � / "i,� s :'mot .' ! .' ;�
s� i
I
i I ;
4
IT
Thank you very much for providing me the opportunity to submit these comments prior to the
hearing for your kind consideration.
Sincerely
Martina Sersch
Burlingame August 20, 2017
Martina A. Sersch — property owner
1417 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame CA 94010
phone - 4156245705
Burlingame Planning Department
501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010
Re: 1417 Vancouver Ave Burlingame
Dear Planning commission
RECEIVED
JUN 2 6 2017
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PUNNING DIV.
Thank you for your 2012 approval for a garage conversion and carport addition to the residence
at 1417 Vancouver Avenue and the subsequent FYI approval in 2013 to reduce the overall
length of the structure and pulling it back further from the street and current front fagade of
the house as well as enclosing the structure further for a three foot opening on the side
elevation instead of a wider opening.
During the framing period it was found that the front opening and the side opening created a
wind tunnel through the structure bringing extensive moisture and debris during rainy season
as well as causing unstable conditions for items kept inside the garage due to the heavy gusts of
wind. Therefor we are requesting to allow the following change
1. Adding of doors to the front opening of the carport (size as is) — a two part solid wood
door in front - and a solid wood door at the side of the structure as well as a solid wood
door to the access to the open above area leading to the house. This change will allow
for better conditions in the interior of the garage with the intent to provide protection
to the car stored inside the enclosure and weatherproofing.
2. Due to this change there is no more natural light coming into the enclosure and therefor
we proposed to add on one aluminium - wood clad DBL hung window by Sierra Pacific to
allow natural daylight come into the space for energy preservation during daylight time.
A window had been approved previously on the first special permit and design review
approved in 2012 for the carport/garage addition but was subsequently no longer
added as the side wall previously was open without a door.
Enclosing the entire deck area as supposed to a smaller portion with a stainless steel
thin frame (matching the aluminum flat roof flashing) glass railing to allow for safer
conditions on the deck. The enclosure of the entire deck had been approved previously
with the design review in 2012 by the planning commission during the public hearing
however it was subsequently reduced with a build in gate on the roof top. Due to the
presence of small children the owner asked to enclose the entire area for safer
conditions as well as using glass and stainless steel railing instead of the previously
suggested iron guardrail. The glass and stainless steel railing will provide better light for
the split level home living room windows that otherwise would be covered completely
by the rought iron dense guardrail providing very little light through the existing
windows. In addition the stainless steel material matches the existing roof flashing
around the perimeter of the house in design and color and therefor providing a better
matching appearance.
In addition the full glass enclosure with no gaps is more protective with the presence of
small children who tent to stick things thru the railings and through toys and other items
down if they have the option. The structure of the glass also provides a less bulky and
very discrete version of a safe deck railing without disturbing the overall Spanish style
character of the house. The previously existing house had not elements of rought iron
exterior and therefor the new railing fits well with the existing.
4. We also propose a change to the style of the front opening of the garage to match
better the existing openings for windows at the front elevation as well as other garage
door openings in the neighborhood. The originally drawn ornamental style of the
opening did not reflect the existing opening. The existing opening as well as garage
opening in the neighborhood have a minimalistic non ornamental style. The overall
exterior appearance with the addition reflecting the same frame style like the remainder
of the house for windows makes the project more harmonized and the garage addition
better melting into the overall structure.
Lastly we suggest that the two vent pipes at the front elevation not to be installed as
drawn in the plans as there is no gable to be vented and due to the weather side and
strong winds the pipe openings would lead to humidity coming into the front elevation
wall structure if installed. This could potentially cause water leakage to the front
eleveation build of the garage addition.
Instead we propose to install a coach house light at the location to provide light to the
garage entry and garage driveway at night and visibility of the house number on the
solid wood garage door.
In summary after the comments for the first permit in 2012 that an enclosed garage
space (as commonly found in the neighborhood) would be preferred over a carport in
general we hope that these proposed changes can find your approval and make the
project a more cohesive project.
The overall character of the house as well as the overall character of the neighborhood
being better served with the final built structure as proposed in this letter. There will be
no more changes to the project as this is the as build condition outline.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration —
J, ' 2,-A
Martina Sersch
Owner
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 13, 2012
2c. 141CA OS AVENUE, ZO D R-1 - APPLICAT N FOR A ONE-YEAR TENSION OF
PRE!VI SLY APPROVED PLICATIONS FOR OESIGN REVIEW AND FECIAL PERMITS
FOO SINGLE FAMILY
WITH A
CARTHY, APPLCAND DES GNERIERAN J. WOODS TROPERTY OWNER)
,Qbmmissioner Cauchi oved approval of th Consent Calendar base on the facts in the sta reports,
Commissioner's co ents and the findin in the staff reports, with commended conditio in the staff
reports and by r olution. The motion as seconded by Commi loner Auran. Chair ul called for a
voice vote on t e motion and itpasse 6-0-1-0 for Item 2b (122 ernal Avenue - Com ssioner Terrones
absent) an -0-1-1 for Item 2c 419 Carlos Avenue - Co missioner Terrones a ent, Commissioner
Sargent r cused). Appeal pro dures were advised. Thi It
concluded at 7:1 p.m.
Vill. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 2a
(1417 Vancouver Avenue) as he is the project applicant and designer. He left the City Council Chambers.
2a. 1417 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND A NEW SECOND STORY DECK ABOVE THE GARAGE
(MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARTINA SERSCH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated November 13, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Questions of staff:
None.
Vice -Chair Auran opened the public hearing.
No one was present on behalf of the applicant.
Commission comments:
Likes the changes made by the designer. Encouraged the designer to consider centering the
French doors to the gable end; suggested that if this change is made it return as an FYI item.
Public comments:
None.
Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
November 5, 2012, sheets 2, 4, 5 & 6, and date stamped September 25, 2012, sheets cover, 1, 3,
CG1 & CG2;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 13, 2012
2. that in the event that the project designer/applicant centers the French doors on the front elevation
with the gable, this change shall be presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI;
3. 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);
4. 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;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. 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;
10. 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;
11. 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;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION
12. 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
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
3.
November 13, 2012
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Discussion of motion:
■ None.
Vice -Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1
(Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Gaul recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This
item concluded at 7:23 p.m.
Commissioner Gaul returned to the dais.
1552 VAN,90UVER AVENUE, ZOYJ—APPLICATION FOR DE GN REVIEW FOR ANEW, TWO-
STORY INGLE FAMILY DWEND DETACHED GA E (MARK ROBERTSON, MAK
ROB TSON DESIGN, APPLICADESIGNER; D & W VELOPER LLC, PROPERTY NER)
Reference staff report date November 13, 2012, with ttachments. Community D
Meeker presented the port, reviewed criteria an staff comments. Eighteen
suggested for consid tion. /
Questions of
■ N
,; hair Auran opened the pu c hearing.
Robertson, San Mate , represented the applicant.
Commission
bpment Director
conditions were
■ The lot s room for a front porch; providiryef such a porch would have created more of a Prairie -
style pearance. (Robertson —the clie couldn't be convinced due potential impacts upon Feng
Sh �
■ es that the height was brought own to reduce the scale of a house.
■ as supportive of moving the try on the right side, it w Id change the flavor of t house
creating room for awrap-aro d porch. Wouldn't compr ise the functionality. Wou make the
home fit better on the lot.
■ On the south elevation; a two vertical two-story el ents are too prominent; is ere any way to
break them up?
■ Is there a means o implifying the south eleva n as well.
■ Could bring the one up higher on the col n. (Robertson —the desi is pretty effectiv ,the
vertical eleme is not too tall; doesn't'thihe can improve upon it.)Is there a re son this approach wasn'ton the front? To have a roof element dis ntinuous
appears u usual. (Robertson — likes ttry; is pretty effective makes a grand st ement.)
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 11, 2013
VII. ACTIO EMS
Co ent Calendar - ems on theIn
ar are considered be routine. They are cted upon
s ultaneously un ss separate daction is reque ed by the applicant, a ember of t
ublic or a Co issioner prior tomission vot on the motion to adopThere wer no Consent Calendarsion.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
Chair Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda
Item 2 (1417 Vancouver Avenue) as he is the project applicant. He left the City Council Chambers.
2. 1417 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW ATTACHED GARAGE
AND NEW SECOND STORY DECK ABOVE THE GARAGE (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; MARTINA SERSCH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated March 11, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Questions of staff:
None.
Vice -Chair Auran opened the public hearing.
Donna Gaul, Burlingame; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
The proportions of the project are better with the reduced height of the carport; creates a better front
elevation.
On Sheet 5, the proposed front elevation shows the railing height higher than the top of the ridge;
then on another page it shows it below the ridge. (Gaul — will correct on the drawings; it is supposed
to be higher.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 19, 2013, cover sheet and sheets one through six;
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 11, 2013
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;
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;
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.
�,.....n µu�� .....__ �� ... 4
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
■ None.
March 11, 2013
Vice -Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0
(Commissioner Gaul recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:34 p.m.
Chair Gaul returned to the dais.
3. 1800 TRO DALE DRIVE, ZONED TIN — APPLICATIO 'FOR AMENDMENT DESIGN V,225
D
CONDO UM PERMIT F R PROPOSED CHA ES TO A PREVIO LY APPROVIT
RESI NTIAL CONDOMI IUMPROJECT (BEJ N RAZI, CAMELLO C., APPLICANU
TR SDALE LLC, PRO ERTY OWNER; AND OBYLEVY,LEVYD IGN PARTNERS, T)
S AFF CONTACT: R EN HURIN
Reference staff re ort dated March 11, 2y 3, with attachments. enior Planner Hurin pr ented the report,
reviewed criteri and staff comments./Fifty-two (52) conditio s were suggested for 9drisideration.
Questions Of staff:
■ /None.
C�it Gaul opened the blic hearing.
Toby Levy, San Fro
r Cisco; represented t/eapplicant.
Commission comments:
■ Is a Bluestone going t e blocks? Will grout ' nts be visible? (Levy — is a venor with 1 'h inch
ickness. Grout join will not be very large ut the difference in the stone attern will create
/EAsked
riety. The grout II likely be recessed.)
kes the change that have been made; articularly at the community ro and at the cornice.
if the ho A ontal elements at the ds of the hallways (in the middl of the front elevation) will
remain a de il? (Levy— yes, they wil emain; they're shown on the el ations, except on the rear.
Reviewed a pallet and eliminated a cement board; will be Hard oard with a different t ure.)
■ Feels t t the change to the cor ce element has made the buil g appear lighter.
■ Can't elieve that the prior pro* ct was approved.
■ Do the cornice wrap arou the left side of the building? evy — yes.)
■ lieves the right-sidgelev tion could benefit from the cor ice treatment as well. ( vy — not averse
o it, but didn't feel it be necessary.) Piece of sunscreen eat the front of the buildin which extends onto th ays looks a bit o d,
look like a "finger h uld revisit and bring ck as an FYI if change are made.
Public comments:
■ None.
There were no Mirther comments and the ppblic hearing was
5
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 the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
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 of the
Planning Commission held on the 28th day of August, 2017, by the following vote:
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;
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 OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
PH: (650) 558-7250 0 FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 1417 VANCOUVER AVENUE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces
the following public hearing on MONDAY,
AUGUST 28, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review Amendment to a
previously approved design review application at
1417 VANCOUVER AVENUE zoned R-1.
APN 027-164-030
Mailed: August 18, 2017
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
City of Burlingame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
4y 144
?r 14 () CO 1425 ^b�,�. � ,^ � 14IVO
ra �. .4
°j
lip
i 7,1 t
p 0
If
os r
A
� v
r
N
a
Ab J 4
�M
1 � �