HomeMy WebLinkAbout1417 Vancouver Avenue - Staff Report<: � �.-��
,,,r• , ,�
�:. � ,
' ���,:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
CITY OF� BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
�
December 13, 2017
1417 Vancouver Avenue File
Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
FYI Application
At the December 11, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed as-built
changes to a previously approved design review project at 1417 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1.
Included in this FYI request were as-built revisions to extend the second floor deck railing to the
second floor wall, retain the glass railing and retain the color of the garage door (white).
The Planning Commission did not approve the requested as-built revisions. Therefore, the
applicant may go forward as a regular action item as an Amendment to Design Review or build
the project as was previously approved by the Planning Commission.
BIJRLINGAME
DATE
�
FROM
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
December 6, 2017
Planning Commission
Director's Report
Meeting Date: December 11, 2017
Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI — REVIEW OF AS-BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1417 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Request: The applicant and property owner, Matina Sersch, is requesting that the Planning
Commission review this application as an FYI, given that new information is available regarding
the as-built changes.
History: An application for Design Review and Special Permit for a second floor deck above a
new attached carport 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 carport, lowering the plate height of the carport by 1'-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).
An application for FYI for proposed changes was approved by the Planning Commission on
March 10, 2014. The accepted changes included increasing the size of the uncovered deck
above the garage by 20 SF and reducing the roof depth above the garage (in front of the deck)
by 2'-0", from 4'-0" to 2'-0".
Summary: An application for FYI for as-built changes was not approved by the Planning
Commission on July 10, 2017, and therefore was called up for review as a regular action item.
At their meeting on August 28, 2017, the Commission discussed the application with the property
owner and voted to approve and deny the as-built changes listed below (see attached August 28,
2017 P.C. Meeting Minutes).
Approved: Converting the carport into a garage.
Replacing the ornamental detail on the front wall of the garage with a simplified
square opening.
Installing the wood rafter tails as shown on the previously approved plans.
Denied: Replacing the wrought iron railing on the second floor deck above the garage
with a glass railing.
Replacing the terra cotta vents at the front of the garage with a light fixture.
Replacing the stained wood garage door with a plain white painted door.
Community Development Department Memorandum
December 11, 2017
Page 2
The applicant is asking the Planning Commission to reconsider approving the following as-built
changes, based on information gathered since the August 28, 2017 action meeting:
1. Extend the second floor deck railing to the second floor wall as was originally
approved. The original approval in 2012 included the deck railing extending to the
second floor wall. The applicant was unaware that the deck railing length had been
reduced in a subsequent FYI (2014). The applicant would like to retain the deck railing
length as it was originally approved since it provides safety and does not affect visibility
and natural light from the dining room windows.
2. Retain the glass railing on the second floor deck. Since the August 28, 2017 action
meeting, the applicant consulted with several railing companies regarding replacing the
glass railing with a wrought iron railing. Several issues and concerns were expressed by
the companies, including possible leaking, the warranty expiring, and companies not
assuming liability for waterproofing. Please refer to the applicant's explanation letter,
date stamped November 28, 2017, for more detailed information.
The applicant included two letters from neighbors in support of keeping the glass railing.
Please refer to the attached letters submitted by Dina Ibrahim (1432 Vancouver Avenue)
and John McDonald (1420 Vancouver Avenue).
3. Retain the color of the garage door (white). Prior to construction, the original garage
door was painted white. The same neighbors in support of keeping the glass railing are
also in support of keeping the white garage door (see attached letters). Please also
refer to the applicant's letter of explanation.
Planning staff would note that the applicant will install the decorative terra cotta tile vents on the
garage as shown on the plans date stamped November 28, 2017.
The applicant submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed floor plan and
affected building elevations, date stamped November 28, 2017, to show the changes to the
previously approved design review project.
Other than the changes detailed in the applicant's letter and revised plans, there are no other
changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more
study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing
with direction to the applicant.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, date stamped November 28, 2017
August, 28, 2017, November 13, 2012 and March 11, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes
Previous Explanation Letters submitted by the applicant, date stamped August 21, 2017 and
June 26, 2017
Originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped November 28, 2017
�� C�TY
ti� e�
_��`�
�••,--
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 28, 2017
TO:
FROM
Planning Commission
Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
Director's Report
Meeting Date: July 10, 2017
SUBJECT: FYI — REVIEW OF AS-BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1417 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review and Special Permit for a second floor deck above
a new attached carport 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 carport, lowering the plate height of the carport by 1'-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 approve of the following as-built changes:
1. Carport (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 front wall of 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 front of garage 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 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.
Other than the changes detailed in the applicant's letter and revised plans, there are no other
changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more
study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing
with direction to the applicant.
Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, date stamped June 26, 2017
November 13, 2012 and March 11, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped June 26, 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
� + �i
JUf�I 2 6 2017
CITY OF BUP�If�dG/�ME
CDD-PLF��Il�1�PJG UlV.
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 fa�ade 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.
3. 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 Iocation 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 —
�'�� ���
Martina Sersch
Owner � p �� � _ �S _ � p / 7
�(iv
C3�7it.�-..�
J
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 13, 2012
2c. 1419 CA OS AVENUE, ZO D R-1 - APPLICAT N FOR A ONE-YEAR TENSION OF
PREVI SLY APPROVED PLICATIONS FOR SIGN REVIEW AND ECIAL PERMITS
FO NEW, TWO-STO SINGLE FAMILY D LLING WITH A DETAC D GARAGE (JACK
CARTHY, APPLIC T AND DESIGNER� IERAN J. WOODS T, PROPERTY OWNER)
TAFF CONTACT: BEN HURIN /
�timmissioner 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 condiiio in the staff
reports and by r olution. The motion as seconded by Commi ioner Auran. Chair ul called for a
voice vofe on t e motion and itpasse 6-0-9-0 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 item concluded at 7:1 p.m.
VIII. 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 applicaiion, 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;
3
ti
pue :pa�npay�s aq ��eys uoi��adsui 6uivae�� �eui� ay� a�o�aq
uoisinia Buip�in8 ay� o} pa��ivaqns aq ��eys u6isap panadde y�inn a�uei�du.io� 6uiwe�� 6ui;uau.in�op
uoi}e��i�a� �em��a�iy��e :sue�d panadde ay� uo unnoys se ��inq a�e 's�(eq pue suoi�e�o� nnopuinn
se y�ns '6uiwe�� �e �uapina aq p�noys y�iynn u6isap pano�dde ay� ui unnoys s�ie�ap �e�n��a�iy�ae
ay� �ey} uoi;e�i�i}�a� �e�n��a�iy��e ue apino�d ��eys '�euoissa�ad u6isap �ei�uapisa� �o ��a�iy�ae
�ay�oue �o `�au6isap �ei�uapisa� �o ��a�iy��e ��afad ay; uoi��adsui 6uiu.ie�� au� 6ui�npay�s o� �oiad �Z �
NOIlIaNO� H�d3 NI a310N SN011�3dSNl 3H1 Ol 2iORld SS3�02id
N011�3dSNl JNla�lfl8 3H1 JNRlfla 13W 38 ��dHS SNOIlIaNO� JNIMO��O� 3Hl
'auae6ui��n8 �o �i� ay� �q papuawe se `uoi�ip� 0 �OZ
'sapo� a�i� ua�o�iu� pue 6uip�in8 eiu�o�i�e� ay� �o s}uauaa�inba� ay} ��e �aaw ��eys ��afad ay� �ey� � � �
`�iva�ad uoi�i�ouaap e a�inba� ��eys
`�oua�xa �o �oiaa�w 'a�n;�n�;s e�o uoi;i�ou�ap ��n� �o �ei�ed �(ue :s�uauaa�inba� 6ui��/(�a� �aaua pue ue�d
uoi��npa� a�seM e�ivaqns o� s��afad uoi;e�a��e pue uoi��n��suo� nnau `uoi;i�owap pa��a}}e sa�inba�
y�iynr► a�ueuip�p 6ui���(�a� suqaa uoi�i�ouaa4 pue uoi��n��suo� ay� y�inn �(�du.io� ��eys }�afo�d ay� �ey� •p �
'panssi si �iva�ad 6uip�in8 e a�o�aq sue�d uoi}�n��suo� ay; ui pano�dde pue papn��ui aq ��eys s�ie�ap
6ui�uan asay� aey� pue :�aa��s ay� woa� a�qisin �ou �oo� ay} �o suoi}�od ay; uo pa��e�sui pue uoi�euiva�a�
a�6uis e o� `a�qissod aaaynn `pauiquao� aq ��eys san�� pue 's�uan 6uiqwn�d `s��np �ie �I� 1�4� �6
'�eadde uo �i�uno� �(}i� �o 'uoissiwwo�
6uiuue�d ay; �o �enadde ay� �nou;inn pa6uey� �o pai�ipoua aq �ou ��eys �enadde �o suoi�ipuo� ay;
'pa�inba� si �enadde �o suoi;ipuo� ��e u�inn a�ueydwo� �ssa�ad uog�n��suo� ay� �noy6nay� sue�d
panadde �o s�as ��e �o }�ed e uiewa� ��eys y�iunn `�eadde uo �i�uno� �(�i� �o 'uoissivauao� 6uiuueld
aya �(q pa;dope �enadde �o suoi�ipuo� ��e Bui�sg �aays �ano� e apn��ui o� pai�ipoua aq ��eys sue�d
uoi��n��suo� ��afo�d ay; `��afoad ay� �o uoi��n��suo� �o� �iva�ad 6uip�inq e�o a�uenssi o� �oi�d }ey� �g
'��u�siQ �uauaa6eueW /�i�enp �iy ea�y �(e8 ay� �o suoi;e�n6a� ay� ��e y�inn �(�duao�
o} pa�inba� aq ��eys ��onn a�is y�ns pue panssi uaaq sey �iw�ad 6uip�inq e �i�un �n��o ;ou 11�45
a}is ay} uo 6uinoua y}�ea �0 6uipe�6 /(ue pue sa�n��n��s 6ui�sixa ay; �o �enowa� �o uoi�i�ouaap �ey� �L
'�o��a�ia �uau�do�anaa �(�iunuauao� ay� �(q pauiw�a;ap se 'a�qisea� �i '�(�adad a�enud ay; uodn
pa�e�d aq ��eys ��afoad uoi��n��suo� ay} �o� s�a�sduanp ao saxoq si�qap `s�auie�uo� 6ui���(�a� �ue }ey� �g
:�aw aq ��eys oi.uaua Z 60Z '0£ �In� s,�o�euipaoo� �a�eMi.wo�g ay� pue `ouaaw Z �OZ `0� �Inf s,1�4Sa�W
aai� `ouaaw Z�pZ '�� �snBny s,�osin�adng s�{�ed ay; 'ouaaua Z�OZ `L� }sn6ny s,�aaui6u� �(�i�
ay� `so�.uau.� Z �OZ ' 6E �Inf PU� Z LOZ `9Z aaq�.ua�das s,�ei�i}�p 6uip�in8 �aiy� ay��o suoi�ipuo� ay} �ey� •5
`�iw�ad siy� o� �uauapuauae ue a�inba� ��eys `(s)�aua�op e Bui6�e�ua �0 6uipp� apn��ui p�nonn
y�iynn `a6eae6 �o 's�oo�� puo�as ao �s�i� '�uauaaseq au� �o ado�anua �o azis ay� o� sa6uey� �(ue �ey� ��
'(}�e;s 6uiuue�d �(q pauiui�a�ap aq o; �uauapuauae �o �,��) nnaina� uoissivauao�
6uiuue�d �o uoisinia 6uiuue�d o; }�afqns aq ��eys s�ei�a�eua ade�sp�ey �o ad/� �o �unowe pue 'y��id �o
�y6iay �oa 'sa�n�ea� �e�n��a�iy��e 'sMopuinn'saysiui} aoua�xa 's�eua}eua Buip�inq o� saBuey� �(ue �ey�
'�,�� ue se uoissivauao� 6uiuue�d ay� o� pa�uasa�d aq ��eys aBuey� siy} 'a�qe6 ay} y�iM
uoi}ena�a �ua� ay� uo s�oop u�ua�� ay� s�a�ua�;ue�i�dde��au6isap;�afo�d au� �ey; �uana ay� ui �ey;
Z60Z `S4 aaqwanoN sa;nu�W panoaddb — NOISSIWWO� �NINNb'7d 3Wb'JN172!!18 �O �(ll�
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minufes November 13, 2012
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architecturai 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 mofion 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.
3. 1552 VAN UVER AVENUE, ZONED R—APPLICATION FOR DE GN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY INGLE FAMILY DWELLI AND DETACHED GA E(MARK ROBERTSON, �K
ROB TSON DESIGN, APPLICA AND DESIGNER; D& W VELOPER LLC, PROPERTY NER)
ST F CONTACT: RUBEN HU
Reference staff report date
Meeker presented the r po
suggested for consid ation.
Questions of
wember 13, 2012, with ttachments. Community Devel6pment Director
reviewed criteria an staff comments. Eighteen (� conditions were
Vice- air Auran opened the pu c hearing.
rk Robertson, San Mate , represented the applicant.
Commission comme
■ The lot s room for a front porch; providir}�such a porch would have reated more of a Prairie-
style pearance. (Robertson — the clier�t�ouldn't be convinced due t potential impacts upon Feng
■ ' es that the height was brought dwn to reduce the scale of e house.
■ as supportive of moving the try on the right side; it w Id change the flavor of t house
creating room for a wrap-aro d porch. Wouldn't compr ise the functionality. Wou make the
home fit better on the lot.
■ On the south elevation; e 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 thi he can improve upon it.)
■ Is there a re son this approach wasn't ed on the front? To have e roof element dis ntinuous
appears u usual. (Robertson — likes t e entry; is pretty effective� makes a grand st ement.)
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 11, 2013
VII. ACTIO EMS
Co ent Calendar - ems on the Consent C endar are considered be routine. They are cted upon
s' ultaneously un ss separate discussio and/or action is reque ed by the applicant, a ember of t
ublic or a Co issioner prior to fhe ti the Commission vot on the motion to adop .
There wer no Consent Calendar � ems for discussion.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
Chair Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda
Item 2(1417 VancouverAvenue) 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:
I� •C7ii�
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 PLANN/NG COMMISSIDN — 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 staf�;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the 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.
4
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 11, 2013
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
■ None.
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 reiurned to the dais.
3. 1800 TRO DALE DRIVE, ZO ED TW — APPLICATIO OR AMENDMENT DESIGN REVIEW D
CONDO NIUM PERMIT F R PROPOSED CHA ES TO A PREVIO LY APPROVED 25 NIT
RESI NTIAL CONDOMI IUM PROJECT (BEJ N RAZI, CAMELLO C., APPLICANT; C TEAU
TR SDALE LLC, PRO ERTY OWNER; AND OBY LEVY, LEVY D IGN PARTNERS, A HITECT)
S AFF CONTACT: R EN HURIN
Reference staff re ort dated March 11, 2 3, with attachments. enior Planner Hurin pr ented the report,
reviewed criteri and staff comments. ifty-two (52) conditio s were suggested for nsideration.
Questions 1�# staff:
■ nvone.
C�r`air Gaul opened the blic hearing.
/
Toby Levy, San Fr cisco; represented t e applicant.
Commission c�elmments:
■ Is e Bluestone going t e blocks? Will grout ' nts be visible? (Levy — is a ven�r with 1'/2 inch
ickness. Grout join will not be very large ut the difference in the stone attern will create
variety. The grout II likely be recessed.)
■ Likes the change that have been made; articularly at the community ro and at the cornice.
■ Asked if the ho ' 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 e pallet and eliminated e cement board; will be Hard oard with a different t ture.)
■ 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-side elev tion could benefit from the cor ice treatment as well. ( vy— not averse
o it, but didn't feel it wo tl be necessary.)
■ Piece of sunscreen el ent at the front of the buildin which extends onto th ays looks a bit o d,
look like a"finger h k"; should revisit and bring ck as an FYI if change are made.
Public comments:
■ None.
There were no f�Grther comments and the py�lic hearing was closed
5