HomeMy WebLinkAbout1444 Vancouver Avenue - Staff ReportY
� City of Burlingame Item No. _
Regular Action
Design Review Amendment, Variances and Special Permit
Address: 1444 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: September 13, 2010
Request: Amendment to a previously approved Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance, Front Setback
Variance and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new, finro-story single family dwelling.
Applicants and Property Owners: Jim and Barbara Millett APN: 026-044-140
Architect: Johnny Go, NII Architects Lot Area: 6,000 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited numberof
new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential
zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe
constructed or converted under this exemption.
History: On April 12, 2010, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review, Variances for
floor area ratio and front setback and a Special Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, Zoned R-1 (April 12, 2010, Planning
Commission Minutes). A building permit was issued for construction of the project on July 28, 2010 and
construction began shortly thereafter.
During demolition of portions of the existing house, the property owner and the demolition contractor noted that
there was "extensive dry rot and termite damage on the walls that were to remain". On August 10, 2010, the
Building Division was contacted for an inspection only for identification of existing framing dry rot site conditions
and what to do regarding replacement. The property owner states in his letter date stamped September 7, 2010,
that the inspection was "to determine how to handle the walls and floor that were to remain" and that the
"inspector indicated to demolish the area and replace like for like", referring to the damaged walls and floors.
After the inspection on August 10, 2010, the property owner and the demolition contractor proceeded with
demolition of all of the walls and floor of the existing house. The property owner notes that "the foundation was
revealed to be completely unsuitable for use" and that "the front section of the house had foundation with no
rebar and multiple signs of cracking and decomposing". The property owner states that the framing contractor
on the job, the structural engineer and an outside contractor all reviewed the existing foundation and agreed that
it needed to be replaced. The property owner then went to the Building Division to discuss this issue, and the
Building Division indicated to him that he needed to submit a revision statement indicating that the existing
foundation will be removed and replaced with a new foundation, along with a detail in the structural drawings.
The property owner submitted wet stamped revised plans and a revision statement on the morning of August 20,
2010.
The contractor called for an inspection on August 20, 2010. Later that day a Building Inspector went out to the
site and noticed that a new foundation had been installed throughout the entire house and as a result issued a
stop work notice on all work on the site until the revision regarding the change in scope was approved and
issued. The Building Inspector also contacted the Planning Division to discuss the change in the project. The
project planner then met with the Community Development Director and the Chief Building Official to discuss the
state of the project and the next steps for the applicant. It was determined that the scope of the project was
changed from a first and second story addition with Variances and a Special Permit to a new single family
dwelling which requires Variances and a Special Permit, and therefore the revised project required Planning
Commission Review and approval at a public hearing. The property owner was contacted and then submitted
an application for Amendment to a previously approved Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance, Front
Setback Variance and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new, finro-story single family dwelling at 1444
VancouverAvenue on September 1, 2010.
Design Review Amendment, Variances and Special Permit 1444 Vancouver Avenue
Revised Project Summary: The applicant is now requesting an Amendment to a previously approved Design
Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit for an attached garage for a
new, finro-story single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, Zoned R-1. The applicant is also requesting
minor changes to the window configuration towards the rear of the house along the left side elevation.
The applicant submitted a letter, date stamped September 7, 2010, explaining the reasons for the proposed
change in the scope of work on the house. Other than the request for a new house instead of a first and second
story addition and the minor changes to the window configuration towards the rear of the house along the left
side elevation, there are no changes to the design of the house proposed. The applicant is now requesting the
following applications:
■ Design Review Amendment for a new, finro-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (CS
25.57.010, a);
■ Floor Area Ratio Variance for a new, finro-story single family dwelling (3,346 SF, 0.56 FAR proposed;
where 3,020 SF, 0.50 FAR is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.070, a);
■ Front Setback Variance to a new, covered front porch (19'-10" proposed, where 20'-2" is the minimum
requirement based on the block average) (CS 25.28.072 b, 1); and
■ Special Permit for an attached garage (CS 25.28.035 a).
Summary of Previously Approved Project: The existing single-story house with a detached garage contains
2,280 SF (0.38 FAR) of floor area and has three (3) potential bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to demolish
the existing detached garage and to build a new one-car attached garage, which changes the floor area ratio
calculation. The applicant is also proposing a first floor addition at the back of the proposed attached garage
and a new 1,242 SF second story. With the proposed addition, the floor area will increase to 3,346 SF (0.56
FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR). The project is 326 SF above the
maximum allowable FAR, and therefore the applicant has applied for a Floor Area Ratio Variance. Planning
Staff would note that the total square footage of the new attached garage and storage area is 273 SF. If the
proposed attached garage and storage area were considered exempt from the floor area ratio calculation, then
the project would exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 53 SF.
The existing front setback to the covered porch area has a nonconforming setback of 19'-10", where 20'-2"
(block average) is the minimum required. The applicant is proposing to expand the area of the existing front
porch that is covered and therefore has applied for a Front Setback Variance (19'-10" proposed, where 20'-2",
block average, is the minimum required).
With the addition, the number of existing bedrooms will increase from three (3) to four (4). Two parking spaces,
one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing detached one-car garage will be demolished
and a new, attached one-car garage will be constructed (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions proposed). One
uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The
applicant was approved for the following applications on April 12, 2010:
■ Design Review for a first and second story addition (CS 25.57.010, a, 1);
■ Floor Area Ratio Variance for a first and second story addition (3,346 SF, 0.56 FAR proposed; where
3,020 SF, 0.50 FAR is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.070, a);
■ Front Setback Variance to the covered front porch addition (19'-10" proposed, where 20'-2", block
average, is the minimum requirement) (CS 25.28.072 b, 1); and
■ Special Permit for an attached garage (CS 25.28.035 a).
-2-
Design Review Amendment, Variances and Special Permit
1444 Vancouver Avenue
1444 VancouverAvenue
Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stam ed: Se tember 1, 2010
EXISTING i ORIGINAL ' PROPOSED � ALLOWED/
APPROVAL 09/01/10 Plans REQUIRED
�
SETBACKS
_ ............................................................................................{............................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................. ..................................................................................................---
_ ................
.....:....
Front (1st flr): 19'-10" i 19'-10" (to porch)' � 20'-2" (block average)
(2nd flr): I none � � no change
; 34'-7" j 20' 2" (block average)
___ _ _ _ _ 1 __ ________---------._�_ ._..__ __ _ ___ ___ _____ __�---- _ ____ _---__ _ _ � _ _ ._-_ ___ _ _ __ ______ _ _ __
Side (left): � 4'-11" � 7'-7" (to 2"d floor) � 4'-0"
r� ht >» i ,„ no change i ,„
� 9 %� 8 -1 4 -1 � 4 -0
_.. ............................................................................ ... .............................................._._._._......_...:.................._...............................................................................................�.........................................................................................................':.................. _....__..............
Rear (1st flr): 25'-0" (to deck) � 36'-6" (to deck) � � 15'-0"
2nd flr no change �
I , „ , „
( )� - -
none 39 10 20 0
_.._ ................................_........_....................................... ..........._........................_....._..................._.........................1.........................................................................._......................................._..........................._.._..........._.........................................................._:..........................................................................._.__.._.......-- ---.._..............
� ;
Lot Coverage: 2,515.5 SF ; 2,297 SF j 2,400 SF
no chan e
�
0 0 9 a
41.9 38 40 /o
/o /o i
I i
_ ..............._.......-- -----._..__.._._..............._.............. ....................__............................................._....................,...._......................................................................................._.._...._......_�i......_................................................................._.
�....._.._ .............................3,020 S.F_...._......._..__.....
FAR: 1 2,279.5 SF � 3,346.4 SF � �
, 0.38 FAR ; 0.56 FAR 2 j no change 0.50 FAR 3
_...._._..__ ............................ . ................. .....................
�
.. ................................................................_............................................................................................................................................. ................................................................ .. ..................._. _.
# of bedrooms: 3 � 4 � no change
_ ............................................................................. _..................................�.............................................................................................................. .................................................................................... ..........................................................._.........................................
...
Parking: 1 covered I 1 covered 1 1 covered
� � � � � no change 10' x 20'
I 10' x 17' 10' x 20' i )
± 1 uncovered � 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
�s° X 20°) j (s� X 20�� (s� X 20�)
__............_........_..........------- ...................._ _ �.........................._.__........---....._..........._............_,.................._...............................................................................................,..............................._._
Height: 19'-7" � 27'-2" no change 30'-0"
_...__.._ ........................................._....................................................................................................................................,................................................................................................._.._.............�........._............................----._.._._..._..._.................................................................................._..........................._......._..................._..............._..
� �
DH Envelope: complies � CS 25.28.0 45 b, 4 no change CS 25.28.075
and 5 �
' Front Setback Variance to the covered front porch addition (19'-10" proposed, where 20'-2", block average, is the minimum
requirement) (CS 25.28.072 b, 1).
Z Floor Area Ratio Variance for a first and second story addition (3,346.4 SF, 0.56 FAR proposed; where 3,020 SF, 0.50 FAR is
the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.070, a).
3 (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR)
4 Declining height envelope exemptions were applied along the right side property line for the slope on the lot and for the
height of the finished floor above adjacent grade (CS 25.28.075 b, 4 and 5).
Staff Comments: See attached original memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, City
Arborist and NPDES Coordinator.
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:
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 ReviewAmendment, Variances and Special Permit 1444 VancouverAvenue
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.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
an potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
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:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
September 1, 2010, sheets A-1 through A-6 and L1; and date stamped March 26, 2010 sheets A-7, A-8
and Boundary and Topographic Survey;
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 November 6, 2009 and January 21, 2010 memos, the
City Engineer's November 18, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 9, 2009 memo, the City
Arborist's November 4, 2009 and December 22, 2009 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's November
4, 2009 memo shall be met;
-4-
Design Review Amendment, Variances and Special Permit 1444 Vancouver Avenue
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 if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio Variance
and Front Setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void;
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, 2007
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. that 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;
13. 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 Division; and
14. 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.
Erica Strohmeier
Associate Planner
c. Jim and Barbara Millett, 1444 VancouverAvenue, Burlingame, CA 94010, applicant and property owner.
-5-
Design Review Amendment, Variances and Special Permit
Attachments:
1444 Vancouver Avenue
Letter of explanation from applicant, date stamped September 7, 2010
E-mail and photographs from applicant, dated September 7, 2010
Letters from Neighbors in support of project (six letters total)
Minutes from the April 12, 2010, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting
Applicant's Response to Commission's comments concerning FAR Variance, date stamped April 6, 2010
Application to the Planning Commission
Variance Applications
Special Permit Application
Letter of explanation from property owner
Photographs of streetscape, date stamped November 2, 2009
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 3, 2010
Aerial Photo
�
I am writing this letter to explain the disappointing turn of events that has
occurred during the start of our remodel and the resulting "Red Tag" work
stoppage.
We are still building the same house approved by the planning commission.
I have attached pictures to help explain what has occurred.
Demo started:
The right side of house and the interior wall covering was removed (drywall
and lathe / plaster) on the entire structure.
This revealed extensive dry rot and termite damage on the walls that were to
remain.
When the demo company removed the stucco, it became known the damage
was also on all the floor joists. (Please see pictures)
An inspection was called at this time to determine how to handle the walls
and floor that were to remain. The inspector visited the site and indicated to
demo the area and replace like for like.
The existing stucco went down past grade. As the demo contractor removed
this, it exposed the foundation. The foundation was revealed to be
completely unsuitable for use.
The front section of the house had foundation with no rebar and multiple
signs of cracking and decomposing.
The back section of the house had foundation with exposed rebar rusting
and multiple cracks in the concrete. (Please see pictures)
The demo contractor actually laughed that we were going to put a house on
this.
I consulted the opinion of the framing contractor I have doing the job, as
well as the structural engineer, and an outside contractor. Everyone agreed
the foundation needed replacing.
I went to the building department with this information and the Inspector
reviewed the foundation and concurred it needed replacing. He explained `�„_V
that I would need to submit a revision statement indicating the existi��� � s fi.-� °`= '--
SE.F' 201('
cmr ar ���t��..iNcaaMF
�iAr+nitvu or-_�r
foundation will be removed and replaced with the new, per an existing detail
in the structural drawings.
I asked if we could remove the problem foundation and get started with the
forming as the demo and framing contractor are waiting. The answer was
yes.
I went to the Building department with the revision on Tuesday, 8/17. The
city told me it needed to be wet stamped by the structural Engineer even
though no new calculations were required. I was able to get these wet
stamped and submitted to the City the same day that the framing contractor
called for an inspection, Friday, Aug 20 2010.
The Inspector who came out on the 20t'' was a different Inspector and he
indicated that this looked like a new house, as opposed to a remodel and
would need to check with his boss on how to handle it. The project received
a red tag that afternoon and Erica Strohmeier (Planning) called me to explain
the work stoppage. Erica and Joe Cyr (Chief Building Official) agreed to
meet with me that same afternoon.
Once we sat down and discussed what had actually happened, everyone
agreed there was never any deception or malice on my part.
I believe I handled all of these events the best that could be expected. With
each discovery of a problem, I went to the City. The Inspector who directed
us to replace the dry rot, termite, and foundation problems apologized. He
said he is not always aware of the specific parameters which the Planning
Commission has granted approval of a project. In our case, the project was
approved as a remodel.
The project was always intended to be a remodel. The design of the project
is based on existing areas remaining.
The financial impact and what this is doing to our family can't be described.
We have lived in Burlingame since 1992. We love the area and our children
attend the local public schools. Our decision to remodel was based on our
desire to stay in Burlingame. Selling and buying something bigger in the
area wasn't in our budget, and we enjoy our neighbors. The house has
needed work for years; however we waited until we felt we could afford it.
Remodeling was not an easy decision and the affordability aspect has
always been an issue. By no means did I plan on having to replace all of the ..,:
framing and foundation. If we planned on replacing the whole housc�,;�v� `� ���' '-=��'
c�-;, '� %01(1
L ( a
CITY OF F3URLINGAMF
n�_qf•IM(VG DEP'T
could have adjusted areas to better meet our needs versus working around
the existing conditions.
The original design I informally presented to a few Planning Commission
members included a two car garage attached to the house. The difficulty in
trying to make this work with the existing living room resulted in a design
that would never get passed the Design Review. I elected to go with a single
car garage (set back) in an effort to support what Burlingame likes to see
while allowing us to save the existing living room, dining room, and most of
the kitchen / family room area. As well as providing us the downstairs
bedroom with a handicapped bath.
This unforeseen issue is impacting our budget. The work stoppage from the
"Red Tag" increases this impact. It is also a hardship on the construction
workers who will now be off the job until further notice. We are currently
living in San Bruno with our in-laws, and a month of no progress makes
little sense and will prolong the time our children are out of their element
and away from their school community and friends.
We were on schedule to be watertight before the rains come, this delay will
make this unachievable.
I would think since we are replacing damaged foundations and framing with
new (like for like) this would be a non- issue. This additional work was not
an option. We had no choice. No inspector, structural engineer or builder of
good conscious would allow what was there to remain. It's unfortunate the
discovery of this damage could only be known thru the demolition process.
If I repaired these areas prior to the time frame of this second story addition /
remodel, the questioning of the project being a remodel would not exist. The
replacement foundation to be poured will be in the same footprint as the
original house. We had the forms shot by a surveyor on 8/20/2010 and he
confirmed the new matches the old. (The house was surveyed in March of
2009 and is part of the permit drawings.)
As stated before, we are building the same house approved at the 4/12/2010
Planning Commission meeting. The reasons for the variance granted to our
project during its original approval have not changed. (I have included our
original hardship letter and variance application.)
� ;.. � ,..�. „ M�p: ��.
SEF -. �d ?01f1
;ir�� oi= �uri�i�vca�,twF
�IANNI�IG DEPT.
We respect and value the service the Planning Commission provides to our
community. The Planning Deparhnent and the Building Department have
both been very understanding and great to work with during this process.
They have indicated their favorable support in helping us get back to
construction.
We are asking for your approval to continue the construction and eliminate
any further delays. We have the same neighborhood support now as we did
when we were originally approved. Actually, many more of our neighbors
have heard what has happened to our project, and are quite disappointed
with the decision to stop our construction.
Respectfully,
Jim & Barbara Millett
�-t����"1���
S E P-� '7 ?(l 1 i)
.:ITY OF SURI_INUAM�.
°IANNING DEPT
Page 1 of 1
CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica
From: Jim Millett [jmillett@rosendin.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 11:43 PM
To: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica
Subject: FW: 1444 Vancouver Ave. Pictures documenting damage
Attachments: Demo as per approved drawinfs Scan001.PDF; Termite and dry rot damage documented by
Inspector Hector Hernandez Scan001.PDF; Foundation damage rScan001.PDF
Erica
The first picture shows the demo was originally done per the approved drawings.
The second set indicates the termite and dry rot damage discovered when the wall coverings were removed. —
We were directed by the inspector to remove and replace like for like.
The third set of pictures indicates the foundation damage. — We were directed to remove and replace like for
like by the inspector.
I had some problems with file sizes. I will try and resolve it tomorrow and get the file emailed in as there are
more pictures than what is attached. I might have to drop it off as the file may be too large to email.
Thanks
JM
9/8/2010
The demo originally done per the approved drawings.
The termite and dry rot damage discovered when the wall coverings were removed.
We were directed by the inspector to remove and replace like for like.
The termite and dry rot damage discovered when the wall coverings were removed.
We were directed by the inspector to remove and replace like for like.
The termite and dry rot damage discovered when the wall coverings were removed.
We were directed by the inspector to remove and replace like for like.
The termite and dry rot damage discovered when the wall coverings were removed.
We were directed by the inspector to remove and replace like for like.
The termite and dry rot damage discovered when the wall coverings were removed.
We were directed by the inspector to remove and replace like for like.
Foundation damage.
We were directed to remove and replace like for like by the inspector.
Foundation damage.
We were directed to remove and replace like for like by the inspector.
Foundation damage.
We were directed to remove and replace like for like by the inspector.
Foundation damage.
We were directed to remove and replace like for like by the inspector.
Page 1 of 1
CDlPLG-Strohmeier, Erica
From: Sue Detweiler [soozeq55@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:14 PM
To: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica
Subject: 1444 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame
Burlingame Planning Commission
C/O Erica Strohmeier
Re: 1444 Vancouver Avenue
�ear Burlingame Planning Commission,
We live at 1448 Vancouver Avenue. Our home is directly to the north of Jim and Barbara
Millett's property at 1444 Vancouver Avenue. We are writing to express our deep
concern for their project being put on hold. PleQse remove the Red Tag and let them
continue with their project. Our entire neighborhood has already approved their remodel
project. We think the red tag is very unfair and is cQusing them unnecessary delays.
Sincerely,
Bruce and Susnn Detweiler
1448 Vancouver Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
home: 650.344.5970
8/30/2010
Page 1 of 1
CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica
From: osimonetti@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:54 PM
To: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica
Subject: 1444 Vancouver Avenue
Attn: Burlingame Planing Commiission
% Erica Strohmeier
We saw that the work on the Millett home had stopped. I spoke with Barbara concerning this
stoppage. She explained what the hold up was about.
we believe that the Milletts were up front with our city planning Commission and did what
needed to be done.
we urge you to view this situration in a positive way and allow the Milletts to restart the
construction as soon as possible.
Sincerly, Oriano and Patricia Simonetti
1452 Vancouver Avenue
8/31/2010
CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica
From: Barbara Moore [moore.barbara@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 1:04 PM
To: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica
Subject: Support for 1444 Vancouver
Dear Ms. Strohmeier,
My name is Barbara Moore and I have live at 2112 Hale Dr. for over nine years. I am
writing this letter to voice my support for the Millets, and their building project at
1444 Vancouver. All of the neighbors are sympathetic to their situation. We feel that
the city of Burlingame should remove the red tag status prior to the next Planning
Commission meeting. Please consider removing the red tag. I do not feel that it is
deserved, and I think that the city should help speed up the process so that building can
resume.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Barbara Moore
Page 1 of 1
CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica
From: Laurin Henry [laurinphenry@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:31 PM
To: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica
Cc: Jerome D. Young
Subject: 1444 Vancocuver Avenue, Burlingame
Erica Strohmeier:
I am a neighbor across the street at 1433 Vancouver Avenue and a friend of Barbara and Jim Millett. I
would like to see the construction underway as soon as possible. Haulting the remodel of their house
has not only proven to be inconvient but also more expensive. They weren"t aware of the damages done
to the house until it was in the process of tearing the house down and an inspector told them to fix the
damaged areas.
From my understanding, they are building what was approved by the Planning Commission and are not
making any changes to the original plans. I would like to give our support and have the red tag removed
as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time.
Laurin P. Henry
Jerome Young
9/2/2010
Page 1 of 1
CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica
From: McDonald Lara [larammcdonald@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 11:30 AM
To: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica
Subject: 1444 Vancouver Avenue
September 3, 2010
Burlingame Planning Commission
c/o Erica Strohmeier
Dear Erica and fellow Planning Commission members:
We are neighbors of Barbara and Jim Millett who reside at 1444 Vancouver Avenue in Burlingame. We
reside at 1420 Vancouver Avenue. We understand that the Millett's house remodel has been delayed
due to some changes in the process of the design of the house. They informed us that they had to
replace a wall and foundation that were originally supposed to be maintained through the rebuild. As
their neighbors I'd like to inform you that we have zero concerns with these parts of the house being
rebuilt and in general with the fact that the entire house is being redone. So we fully support this project
moving forward, despite the changes. Barbara and Jim are really good neighbors and we want them to
be able to have their house completed as quickly as possible so they can move back in and enjoy it.
If you have any questions about this letter and our support for the project moving forward, please feel
free to contact us at 650-342-8703.
Best regards,
Lara and John McDonald
9/3/2010
Page 1 of 1
CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica
From: Sharon Feix [feixsharon@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 8:08 AM
To: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica
Subject: The building project at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame (Millett family)
Dear Ms. Strohmeier and the Burlingame Planning Commission:
As neighbors of Barbara and Jim Millett, we strongly support their desire to complete the building
project of their home at 1444 Vancouver Avenue. We hope that you will give them a favorable report
and remove the red tag as soon as possible. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Sharon and Donald Feix
1456 Vancouver Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
9/7/2010
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 12, 2010
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2. 1444 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA
RATIO VARIANCE, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED
GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DW ELLING (JIM AND BARBARA MILLETT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHNNY GO, NII
ARCHITECTS. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated April 12, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Jim Millett, 1444 Vancouver Avenue; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Liked the porch revisions.
The design changes result in a good compromise with respect to the floor area ratio Variance.
The front entryway has been nicely changed; looks better.
Public comments:
No one spoke.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Aluminum or vinyl frame windows are shown; would like wood windows.
■ Install wood trim around the windows.
■ There is justification for the Variance; the small overage is close to the area of the garage;
additionally, there is an exceptional circumstance because of the neighboring wall at property line.
■ The slope of the lot (down slopes to the south and east) make it difficult to place the garage at the
rear of the lot.
■ Only half of the garage is visible from the street; and it is located approximately 40-feet back from
the curb, quite distant from the street.
Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
March 26, 2010, sheets A-1 through A-8, L1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey;
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. thatwood, oraluminum clad simulated true divided-lightwood windows shall be installed. Window
trims shall either be wood, or fiber painted cement, not stucco covered Fiberglas or other similar
material;
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes Apri112, 2010
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 November 6, 2009 and January 21, 2010 memos,
the City Engineer's November 18, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 9, 2009 memo, the City
Arborist's November 4, 2009 and December 22, 2009 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's
November 4, 2009 memo shall be met;
6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio
Variance and Front Setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will
become void;
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 orfull demolition of a structure, interiororexterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 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. that 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;
13. 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 Division; and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 12, 2010
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 Yie.
Discussion of motion:
■ The front door and sidelights look like they have a good muntin pattern; would like the windows to be
uniform with this element of the design.
■ The windows should be either wood, or aluminum clad simulated true divided light windows.
■ Trims shall either be wood or painted fiber cement, not stucco covered Fiberglas.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1.
(Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m.
5
TO: Burlingame Planning Commission
Erica Strohmeier- Associate Planner for the City of Burlingame
FROM: Jim and Barbara Millett
RE: 1444 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame
SUBJECT: FAR Variance
y T r�z" f` i s�+ �P ���_..`f
� � �;:� . � �... -
n. F' ; �F : �,
� F: � � ? �? F �;
:]IiY U;= u�s!'�..+;zt,��i-,;��ti.=.
F[1�1\'.�I;ty!'� ,-:;i-�i; I"
Per the Planning Commission meeting on March 8, 2010, the general
consensus was an agreement with the project design and a justification of
exceeding the FAR by the amount of the garage and storage area. The total FAR
of this area is 273'; however the variance application was for 386.45', which left
113.5' in question. We have since reviewed the drawings with our Architect in an
attempt to make the variance "more palatable". While maintaining the needs of
our family and working with the limitations presented in utilizing the existing
footprint of the house, we have succeeded in a FAR reduction of 60.5'. This total
FAR reduction leaves 53' that is not considered as part of the garage.
We have implemented the Planning Commission suggestion of reworking
the front porch. The column in the center has been removed so it doesn't block
the view of the door and the stairs have been relocated so they now face the
street with a walkway to the sidewalk, as opposed to thru the driveway. The
relocation of the entry closet allows moving the front door and the related wall
into the house by 2' which increases the porch size and reduces the FAR. We
feel this has provided a great improvement to the overall aesthetics of the front of
the house as well as increasing our ability to use the front porch.
We have also reduced the size of the second story addition by moving boih the
south and north exterior walls in 6". This compromise is in respect to the need to
make every reasonabfe effort in reducing our FAR overage.
In addition to the previously submitted v�riance reasons which were part
of the staff report, I would like to add the following information.
The property has special cir�!.imstances that make a detached garage
prohibitive. The project is a remodel that utilizes three sides of the existing
footprint. VVe have implemented a design conducive to the desires indicated in
the Burlirgame Design Review Guidelines as well as ideas from the Planning
Co_mmission and our neighbors. Compromises have been made to the new areas
while working with the limitations of the existing footprint. The denial of this
variance based on the 53' of FAR that is not part of the garage would put an
unnecessary expense �r�d i�npacfi to �he e�ivironment by requiring demolition af
an existing area just to make it part of the garage as opposed to part of the
house. This change would have no benefit to the exterior design or massing of
the project and would be an exercise of semantics resulting in an inferior product.
The project has the support of the neighboring houses and the design will
positively impact the neighborhood. The design actually reduces the existing lot
coverage, therefore providing increased greenscape. The acceptance of this
variance will allow us to enjoy similar privileges of those who are able to utilize a
detached garage.
F A � r. t
; ti. �>��.., . .. . . .. � ` . . . _
�'� �� �� �':r�' ._ .�. (%'I �.�
. 1����. . t:: l .,,i..
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 5O7 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURUNGAME, CA 94010
�" �'�''E p: 650.558J250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.buriingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
❑ Design Review � Variance ❑ Parcei #: � 2 � ` � � � ` � � �
❑ Conditional Use Permit I�( Special Permit ❑ Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: � �' � �' !/ (� Vl C0 �i �"`P 6� ,�f� P.�i���-
� Please indicate the contact person for this project
APPLICANT Pro)ect contact person � PROPERTY OWNER project contact person I�``�
OK to send electronic copfes of documents O� OK to send electronic copies of documents ��
Name: �� �, ��� �J�f'l",� � � �P�-
Address: I `�' � `� �/(� �C�%I.� �%� �`����
City/State/Zip: �� ���'U�"C� �6 e, ��U�°�'
Phone: � �� '� �J �3 � l`��S��Sa —Z71iZ
Fax:
E-maiL�b/'1')d����i3���,��'�5��'t��6�< �/'�`7
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER pro�ect contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documerrts ��
Name: �O P'Yl� � �.� t���(�,9 �9%' ' � ��-�
Address: � �`� � �"v�,� 6� Cd � (f�
City/StatelZip: ���� ����� < � ��� ��
Phone: � "�' � '" � � � �
�ax:
E-mai1: � �'Y) � ��� � �o�� �dd � l ��8�')_
� � ��
- _ I / I ,�' �
i ii1�' _ '��ll`
Address:
� � �� 2 � �-� ,�� n.�.�� �- / � s ,. , . . ,
City/State/Zip: � � �� � �C I'� f�9 j � ��` Ll "� iD l� �
Phone: � 0 � � � � � � � � ��
Fax: ��o' ���— �2��
E-maik � �
�r Burlingame Business License #: � `�' � � �
PROJECT DESCRIPTlON: Y�9� 6��� .�'� � �''���8
AFFADAYITlSIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief. r f� �
Date: �� � �
q��iiiCafi�'� �i���aiuia:
f am aware oT ihe �rapr�se� spw��w►ic� � a� �� h�r�~Z' �-'t�eri�e the �bQv� aoplicant to submit this application to the planning
Commission. �� � 2 c�.r ��
Pe�operty owner's signature: f
Date:
Datesubmitted: <<�Z14�
�
yt Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the
Finance Department at the time application fees are paid.
❑ Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the cor�tact person for this project S:\HandoutslPC Application 2008-B.handout
CITY_G^\
r: `�
�s �: i;,
�,`���
�
s, `--,-�=�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 Ptt�MttosE Ronn • BURUNGAME, CA 9401 O '
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
� `� �'` �G���
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do nof app/y fo other properties in this area._
S �E A�r��-�r�-��
���;����„ ��r_:��;
,., . _.
.,,
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for ihe preservation and enjoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the application.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location wil/ not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
qeneral welfare or convenience.
d. How wil/ the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potenfial uses on adjoining properties in the general
�e!�e�ri*y•
HandoutsNariance Application.2008
Variance Application- answers to questions
� `= - �. '�I�,rt
_,�� _:-,:.;
A. There do exist site conditions, which make a detached garage impractical
and inconsistent with the intent of the Burlingame Design Review
guidelines. The two-story wall of the home neighboring the driveway side
is built very close to the property line with the minimal side setback and
no declining height, producing a"tennis wall" appearance. The fence
dividing the two properties leaves 9' 8" of limited space to get a car down
the driveway. The combined result is a tunnel effect that makes the actual
use of the detached garage for parking a car very impractical. The
existing neighboring home negates the desired appearance of space that
usually results from a detached garage.
B. The existing neighboring structure makes a detached garage very
undesirable as well as aesthetically displeasing. The proposed addition
that incorporates an attached garage and addresses the aesthetic issues
is actually 25% below what would be allowed if we were able to utilize a
detached garage.
C. The proposed addition will help mask the neighboring "tennis wall". The
attached garage will help with off street parking, as it will be practical to
use. The overall appearance of the surrounding area will improve as the
proposed design incorporates what is desired in Burlingame homes to an
existing structure that is in need of repair.
D. The proposed addition will result in a mass/bulk that is consisient with the
surrounding area. The attached garage is consistent with the
neighborhood and the proposed setbacks and design will achieve the
intent of the Design Review guidelines. The second story is set back to
minimize the perceived mass from the curbside view. The existing
footprint is being maintained with exception of the garage side and
attention has been given to make things symmetrical and aesthetically
pleasing. We believe the design meets all the intentions of design review
and produces a structure that fits the neighborhood.
� CITY
r �,,... , . �
,�I'':'�1�;> >1
�����A�(,.,,,.�
M1Cp� �l� O
9oon
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
CITY OF`BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Pianning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type orwrite neatly in ink. Referto the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
a. Describe ff�e excep�ional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property whicf� do not apply fo other properties in fhis area.
The Front Setback Variance is required for a section of the existing porch due to the proposed
addition covering the entire porch as opposed to the existing partial coverage. As the porch is
existing, and the existing and proposed structures do not allow for much variation in porch location,
it seems allowing the existing to remain, as it is only 4" closer than the block average, is a
reasonable request.
b. Explain why the variance requestis necessaryforthe preservation and enjoymentofa
substanfiai property right and whaf unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the application.
The variance request is necessary to allow the preservation of the current size porch currently
enjoyed by the homeowner. �
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed locafion will not be defrimental or
injurious to property or improvemenfs in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience,
The proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity as the only change is covering the entire porch as opposed to the existing partial coverage.
�Crl
How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
characfer of the exisfing and pofential uses on adjoining properties in the genera!
vicinity?
The proposal of keeping the existing porch and adding cover over the section that that is cunently
open will im�prove the aesthetics of the house. The covered porch adds character to an area eurrentiy
seen as a piain flat stucco wa11. The mass and buik are similar to surrounding properiies and are
proportional to the proposed addition.
+Y � � .� � f k.,.,. � , . k
L i. :Aw 1.,,..� r'.....,, t� S ..,.
,^Ir�'.i�'� _.. ^�'
- c:ui�!
Hand out�ll/�ariance-AP,p1 i c��pr{.24D8
- � ,,..�
-, ,_, „!\f { I\ !: % !. i L Fl-.
City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • www.burfinqame.orq
� ci'rr �
�� � � � �
^`� �'i,
-!�. . ���i+i.n,�
c�� •I�
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the Cit�s Ordinance
(Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
1. Explain why fhe blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the
new construction or addition are consistenf wifh the existing structure's design and
with the exisfing streef and neighborhood.
s- -
��� �"A � � � � , �., � , _ �; r� i�� c�
:u �..
, � _ _.
2, Explain how fhe variety of roof line, facade, exferior finish materials �and elevations
of the proposed new sfructure or addifion are consistenf wifh the existing structure,
street and neighborhood.
3: Now wei! the proposed project be cons�stent with fhe residential design guidelines
adopted by fhe city (C.S. 25.57)?
4, Explain how the removal of any trees ►ocated wifhin the footprini of any new
y����r��,� �� aU������� i� � `������ ��;� ,� �nncictPn# �/!#li �'he CifV's reforesfation
�� ui���i�ci�i5. �.�ESa� !'':.�%yMt;nn ;� ���nn���! f�r #he removal of an� trees? �xpfain
�_.._
why this mitigafion is appropriate.
Rev. 07.2008 �i' See over for explanation of above questions. SPECIAL.PERMIT.APP.FORM
Special Permit Application — answers to questions
�::;��;',� ..._ ..x ?r��i.,��
i;..-t;_, ,.__.
#1 The proposed addition will fit in the neighborhood as the adjacent homes
as well as the home across the street are all two stories homes with attached
garages. The adjacent home on the North side of the garage is set back from the
house similar to proposed addition. The surrounding structures are all similar in
height to the proposed addition. The attachment of the garage will allow us to
enjoy more outdoor living space and playing area for the children. The existing
garage has a number of problems that require the entire structure to be relocated
with all new material; nothing is salvageable. An addition built by the previous
owner is too close to the garage and blocks access. The garage is very old, has
no foundation, extensive termite damage, leaks and the entire structure has a
visible lean to the South.
#2 The proposed structure is designed to maintain the character of the
neighborhood. As stated above, surrounding houses are two stories with
attached garages. We had a previous design that incorporated a two-car garage,
which we would prefer, however we changed to a single car with a substantial set
back to improve the aesthetics and support the intent of the Design Review
guidelines. The two houses on the Sough side of our home have 2 car garages.
The rooflines are similar to the surrounding homes and varying setbacks and a
variety of finish material make the design consistent with the design reviews
guidelines. The added space in the backyard will allow us to enjoy the same
privileges as the neighbors who have been able use their backyards as outdoor
living space.
#3 The architectural style is consistent with that of the neighborhood and also
has the individual character we expect in Burlingame. The attachment of the
garage will allow us to actually park a car in it; as stated above, the existing
garage has access issues from being to� close to the house. There are other
existing conditions that prohibit having a detached garage that are explained in
the hardship letter submitted with this application. The set back will achieve the
intent of a detached garage, satisfy the problems listed in the hardship letter and
provide a safe area in the backyard, as our section of Vancouver Avenue is a
very busy street. In the time we have lived here our cars have been involved in
accidents five times. The addition will interface well with the exiting home to the
South as it will help mask the large, flat, plane wall the makes up the North side
of the house. *Please see pictures
#4 No trees will be removed within the footprint of the proposed addition.
To Whom It May Concern,
RE: Hardship issues at 1444 Vancouver Avenue
, _. ,-� � � �. �
. � . .-. .
With full respect and consideration for the Burlingame Residential Design
Review process the preliminary design for our home remodel has run into an
issue with the allowable floor area ratio, specific to homes with attached
garages. Ideally, we would be adding the second story addition and not
touching the garage. However there are several existing problems that make
the demolition of the existing garage and its relocation a requirement rather
than an option.
The original garage was poorly constructed having no foundation it has been
overcome with termite and dry rot damage. The entire structure actually has
a lean to the South that is visible from the street. During the time of a
previous owner, an addition was allowed on the back of the house that
resulted in the house being too close to the garage and making access a
problem.
The first area of hardship is in regards to an elderly parent handicapped
from a stroke. The parent can navigate a small number of steps with the
proper railings in place. The attached garage entry will provide this for the
parent. Our design will allow covered access into the house as well as a
handicapped bedroom and bath on the first level of the home. The use of
stairs to a second story bedroom would be a problem. In order to do this and
maintain similar room sizes to our existing home, we are 307' over the FAR
allowed when an attached garage is utilized.
The second area of hardship relates to the neighboring home on the South
side, adjacent to our existing driveway. The two story home is built with
minimal side set back and no declining height. This gives it a tennis wall
appearance, having a long, high flat plane with only one lower window.
(Please see pictures) This neighboring structure and the 9' 8" width of
driveway from the side of our home to the fence line creates a narrow tunnel
like appearance and makes using the driveway to access a detached garage a
h�rdshi�, Th� desired aesthetics usually associated with a detached garage
��i�l nnt PxZ�t h�rP.
We have been working with our architect, consulted the advice of locals and
revised our plans several times to produce a design we feel meets everyone' �
intentions. Although we are over the FAR allowed for homes with attached
garages, we are almost 25% under the 400 sq. ft. allowed had our e�sting
conditions been conducive to utilize a detached garage. The 36' set back we
have for the attached garage provides the desired curbside appearance and
helps mask the neighboring "tennis wall".
We have used the Neighborhood Design Guide Book and R1-District
Regulations, implementing Burlingame's desired design criteria and
observed the remaining District scope regulations. As long time Burlingame
residents, we enjoy and appreciate the neighborhood Design Review helps to
maintain. The review for consideration of this issue is greatly appreciated.
Thank You
Jim & Barbara Millett
1444 Vancouver Ave.
650-343-4333
415-850-2293
�bmillett(a�vahoo. com
I452 � 14�`s8 L ---- 1�-�'r�#- � _ I��� � ('�--3-3G�
su6J�G7 ?�P��Zs.�Y'
'�/� �-,i Go Uv � Z �v � F.i U E
��1 ,�l�C�1TECT�, 1nc,
1��� 23�° Aver��e Su�t� 105
O�kland. �alifo�nia 9�-��6
i et. {51i"�; 633-72iC Fax (�1t7) 533-421�
�o-�-o�
P�t3PC�SED NE�1 S�CCa�1D �7'QRY At�D E)CIST�t�G
FiRST FL�QR ALTERA�IC}NS ANi} AI�DITiQNS T�:
Fv�R. & ��t�S. P�iLLEfT R�SlQEI�CE
1�t�'AN�{�iJVER �,VE., B�RL(��AME, C� 3�61(}-553�
Tel. �650� 343-4333
�.�.� Q��i-��-'���1
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
November 3, 2009
d City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7273
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special
Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to a
single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:
026-044-7 40
Staff Review: November 9, 2009
1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the
City storm drain system.
2. The project shall, at ;ts own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway and other necessary
appurtenant work.
3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Divisian at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 11 /18/2009
�
� Project Comments
�
�:
Date
�.
From:
Revised Plans submitted December 21, 2009
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7273
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special
Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a first
and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 1444
Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-140
Staff Review: N/A
....., n ti,w„�,....� �. �.._ m ,,. ., . �...,_..�., ,
�:
Project Comments
�<<
Date:
To:
From:
November 3, 2009
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recyciing Specialist
(650) 558-7273
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Revi�w, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special
Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to a
single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:
026-044-140
Staff Review: November 9, 2009
)
��?�n the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC).
) Per the City of Burlingame's adopted Resolution, applications received after January 1, 2009
must complete a"GreenPoint Rated ChecklisY'. The GreenPoint Rated Checklist, and other
information regarding the City's Green Building requirements, can be found on the City website at
the following URL: http�//www burlinqame orq/Index aspx�paqe=1219 or Contact Joe McCluskey
at 650-558-7273.
3) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business
license.
4) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
C�" . rovide existing and proposed elevations.
�6r� All work shall be conducted within the limits of the City's Noise Ordinance.
��*"* Owner to acknowledge this condition. (Initial here!)
7) This project will be considered a New Building because, 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 struc�ure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the
requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2007 California
Building Code for new structures.
8) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will
be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued
after the project has bee� finaled. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new
Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
�'} F'iGVluB a CGi7i�3�ctc ucf7�G�i�lO� � j�i8i �:ha� ��u�C2.SS �r� �X:StI�l� `l:'2��S, �NB��� te he �+emolished, !?@!N
walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit
is issued for the project.
10) All projects for which a building permit application is received on or after January 1, 2010 must
comply with the 2008 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to
http�//www.enerqy.ca.clov/title24 for publications and details.
11) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines
12) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures.
�� n the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the property line.
��) Provide details on the plans which show that all roof projections which project beyond the point
where fire-resistive construction would be required will be constructed of one-hour fire-resistance-
ated construction per CBC 704.2.
5) dicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the property line will be
�� ilt of one-hour fire-rated construction. (Table 602)
��1`�) �'ooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that
�complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress
windows on the elevation drawings.
17) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All �andings more than 30" in height at any point are
considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details
if your project entails landings more than 30" in height.
18) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers.
19) Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
20) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building
within ten feet. Sec. 2113.9
NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 1,
5, 6, 13, 14, 15, and 16 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning
Commission action.
Reviewed by. Date: �!, �/�..., v 9
�
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From
November 3, 2009
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
�City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7273
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
0 NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special
Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to a
single family dweiling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:
026-044-140
Staff Review: November 9, 2009
Project Comments
Date
To:
From:
November 3, 2009
0 City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
�City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7273
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special
Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to a
single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:
026-044-140
Staff Review: November 9, 2009
❑ L-1 needs to show major trees and shrubs on site.
❑ New trees and existing trees meet requirements for
reforestation.
❑ New trees must be 24" box size and noted on plan.
Bob Disco
11 /4/09
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From
November 3, 2009
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
0 Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
o City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7273
�Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
0 NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
o City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special
Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to a
single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:
026-044-140
S4aff Review: November 9, 2009
Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence.
1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter.
2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly —
Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building
Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split
between domestic and fire protection lines.
3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall
clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings
shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
Revie�nrecl bye ieT"' Date: � `��
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
November 3, 2009
� City Engineer
(650) 558- 7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
� City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7273
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
X NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special
Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to a
single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:
026-044-140
Staff Review: November 9, 2009
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction
activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors impiement Best
Management Practices during construction.
Please include a list of construction stormwater pollution prevention best
management practices, as project notes, when submitting plans for a building permit.
Please see attached brochure for guidance. The attached brochure may also be
downloaded directly from flowstobay.org. It is also recommended that the
construction stormwater pollution prevention best management practices be placed
on a full size (2' x 3') separate plan sheet for readability.
For additional assistance, contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, at (650)
34�-37�7,
Reviewed by: `���` ,,
�` � ���
Date: �'//.i � ���7 �' �
o� �;;-
.;:%� : s���,..,�
•v sroimeo�r�.mno�r��
��� o
P� ���—�
�i�i[;- i
� � . d,\, �
;,.,
-- � _ �
� "'+i.�.�.� ��-�:=:+
,._-. _�:� .
General ''"
Construction.
& 5ite Supervisiorn
� rweion r.�.m�. mnwo.
Jscbeaulc <.a.vioe .ua �edine .niHtle ro� dry
�.n�Fn v�e4 �Tnc rac�� �n� ay.ua Ol�m �mpn
rN' �n �amk�.nam�b�cfw�
JLooie �
mnc�nuo eu�:a�'u, �a;bu�4
J�nal :M1e .m�um of rvv
�onlh.�..�m b...erm�e�epo�
nyarp�+.vewaiMie.ycE ioN�cn
�nnn! �he ���e. aedutt Nmmrym �wnR�.el'ear!•n in
ma+ p�e.�wy�Uaekp.m�erbem��wFe.e
ITnie yau n iod �uRee e. M+t.
�M1�c Fnx�u nvo.ai�ble �ncmvne rM..��xls m frre
u� tuferm �ubcwu� .
awmwuam�akmen:aml Ncr�eqrm�3��idu a
Gcad lemeYM�mt P�
�o�.r`oem oee �v�r�y �my�a u.,� � om
pvlrivs, wmHe refvolv� ad �wtioe vquipuu�
ee Re dvigm�M vo ahaJd te veY av'.�y
fiom meims ar nmm Miu mkn. �oJ brnyed ifvmz
a7.K �nrye.�.�n'va�Pui�
JRery m af i1e noQ
auhc � r Cn nrt`�C� Pl�i �f
��q�m�'rvofu mawi�.. � d aFee _
lRe�o 00 �uu�e ae e.peTTd nvf.�„ N n nm.+b �a.
JDrr f�a�9 9�•�d wf�ca ilicl .buin w.u�m Jn1rt�.
ca�k�. o�dvuli Ifry�-na�n d�.hi��; i. ottucv.�.
u. �Ji W�J� �i wJw kcb�Vw i� W�.��Jiwmi .u�l
o�,,,u�m�..
!Om uP IeJ4 Mp� md eAn.PIW �maJ:�¢I� �o
Un� Ju wiewuu4ae wY �R �mwd.�u'� u k�.re
�esA�� on p+•ctl fef��a. Us [�y clemup meWu�h
�'heac�v OomLle. VYw cw� �ee �.�a. �nei��
uw�L W kap We �u.� Jwa
�co.,, ,sa m� �a�rwn m� a�mk ti r�r �
IcaY.�,Phced�wp� midermof er m�ci �i� p�
� V��'_�Lmiuy a�uret �rvmn1 We vuu��k ufnie
A Ciocc lmar'vrcmvmM�llo pmmi
4.�6sef I VaiM1s. Nerer elau oN � Emen��el�
Caing li Eow oo We mwwetov ��e.
�w� ,�� oe.m�. io�u a� ��a � aea
wohi� v�de� b� �h<lamw� wmpoey eal ihic w�.N
rt myianl alpmpe.�y. qat nikv vuqzony fm
�
vC4v�
lP�enc��u�u �do�l�on - minimirr wiu�c .�M1e�
YweNa� IVW�.ONa+mlrWeumue�)vu�d
lU��rayclN4. m��alal� wM1�.o �n=il�le. Mi���ee
6. v�d.N..s�meLds mvW�.Ye] m.wK.e�.,
.�nai�.,e,v �at mi.<o�. ma�. �i�e.re_
•Jario¢ oanc �vck utl r<6i<le m¢�mmu matmil�
au�L �a���e1 oJ� mp6ve¢� Iwnmiv� avdr4v�.
lDlryma o!m wu�n mE n�ollavu ae1rM pmpeely.
Maq romwerioe mxvuM aud.��e �y� p� �xl�i
ivrAidieqmHmq.oaur baud ylm...�ebb�e ouiif�,
bmtmvpLliaoE<om'rtrc.�ool. teievad.e�e�>.
med.b K�y�
• lud6� v mapi.N
ihem iv W. nne� ar om � cnet a oean b..Ae•
Stormwater Pollution Prevention �'rogram
Pollution Prevention — It's Part of the Plan
It is your responsibility to da the job right!
Runoff from streets and other paved azeas is a major source oFpollution in local creeks, San Fraucisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
� Constniction activities can directly aiiect Ute health of our waters unless conhactors and crews plan aheadto keep dirt, debris, and other
conshucrion waste away from storm drains and creeks. Fol lowing these guidelines wi�l ensure your compliance with local stormwater
ordinaace requirements. Remember, ongoing monitoring aod maintenance of installed controls is crucial to proper implementation.
ITeavy Earth-Moving Roadwork & Paving F resh Concrete Painting & Application
Equipment ?rc�vit:es �, Mortar Application of Salvents & Adhesives
Operation �� �
�A. n>> f
�j.�.Fa
`�'�r -
, 1
. - ... < . . . �
Avin6 C�mrqfen
Remwe ex60eF vRe,.�wo Wy wLn WwN�4J e�++'
���.
SM1eplauhgamy.evavorewdhlemalu�e�enx lS:�IauhnikuN�•nryn•geaai�anluem�io�Houdon
�tkvso�a rnmn�n.ry �ea., i��,� .ba+>bo��nsm�mme.m��.eu�ardmMn
. . • va>'fimv ora�i�.m�am�Nrn -
r•e..��.�a,y,domni���.4�.r�.r.:..ea �.� �e��m,w-n+bv.a�a.��w�� m�.n.., H
rtticl�a cqWv�o� c. N�xi �Yb`I4 � Mimtemalc�,�tlt�
JAI��munall.etic4naedLoryeNCum�inq�.<Ifie. 1 nMm�a �em �fYen
Mim�yfnrulrtyurleals. reeAcetGnvwdil�beamG.ert�unoRuaualex.•v.
Ix+u ud F+ded attu
J V�fia m� m � ..W.<tiJ<�W
. imcmrvliNpoH�4
� u,o� �,a� m.�„m �wi..<mam. os w;�o� .Wi.e�
� M� O�+m �0.` :lomf m
pAl� fnliectnllapeneM�.h.�io.ee p
Ei�Nte of iM1nOt� bn IrtMe I�v«� F'� 1.
P��omm.si ou m mn��. �, dm.vwrdw� a
J ¢oq<Ie�a�d.ehitl.hNvio
[Am 'y ;Ne ImmediwlY xLm eb%6�PP�
✓ Ne x Ine Loua'R� p�vemem a�pemnDk
. Wbue11WNN.eiV�ledtl�<dn'<IemuomeA
aM �ebwlm m� viil� m Rm ovbw p).prn
pmsiEh. If �w mun uu vaiv, �eajm crouyn �u kery
m� eon 6�.v.
ly�reepurspilkOEryon�whimm�iluny e�e�aai
�.mrim�..am.m...� W�n..,i�,�m,�y�km.
llm a+linle ea.,. u pmi61. fa du.� mmvt
J CI.� u� api W aii il'vt veuby dlsiv0 up mE ��m.rlY
dupmmR ofmnm�m�ad �L
! Rrnnn �ipufium� mJh b�M1e qipqnv�e � �I iennnas
p.a:itl.reeu..y.:,eeq vm��n
,oevan��Rw� o�e�uas�n.k,�n,ema
oiLTa�eyanaryyullOs Wbvivta�nef' IIOiil
911 or�w.lmal ��ory�n�mw�bv. ]7Ca'il
Cmcravu i Omm efPmm�xy SerNea wmin�
¢ I�J 9Tl-]S50 R<bav�l.
..s - f
i� a �eti-.. • . .
! i)n<IrTSE Impiemee� nvniorv.¢NmvncmNVlpLw fa
rmdvay wba�mmK
! ScAdWe ue..tiw a�EpvJi.g.M fm tlry.mN�e
JMcxylqulpmm�fvlul ud�IrwtMCN�oan
�MI>.
lPMommaje... eGwvhmfafqu�P
m+vu�tlteiile.
J\Wmrt {mgmveWck�aµipmemmumceaonmurtbe
ew. w H k, a.: wi•. �d.my m�a K. �,r
� aew�.m ��.
J po od�ec Natl a� ro lubrim�ea ebn equl0�a
l Rrtrele naE o� M��ak� rnucrtie. Lmken aryhN, cx
s�b �paable
Jirvn by.smusivgWa�b�nmaogem�u�ryamr.c
Gvm[ Gv�mic0'av
lCn.avec�T�ezaeEmn.ssMmll�wh�mrn�InT�w Jn.o�lpa•ioS.aE�deeauvl�ewe�.n�b.a�ximnie
�hni� ihmvF u�mcvv4 b�(mcfml�ov�mw�Mli m�x tlu� u ovc
� �,<..a...�e�u�m.m.me�wmin.i,.�yn�.
���� �o��a��ai.�.�w,m��o� "'1�R'4�°E
nw�a. A�� .arbenn.��N�'m.umRuwM
lRaval�'«mnlsilurtaafaoileumOudwewcooevl� l�e.u�.z.6e��u.w�eal6ameape�eL-�Fgr<ga�coo
.se,.H._,im,,,m.,�eWMmx �n�w;mw�.�.m��o,�, wmm,�..�a-
i:��ea.ma�.o�ti,wxmaK.�.. �
! Ce.v��odmJe md abcrcm�ennee ma�aialt wi6
CmenlBvmu.vesso'en Ole�ic�rp.P�uva�auniufellmJy«.�a�mQviO
l9:L.�.I�au..tiae..dgWi.p.ehf.bT.uyv. ��Oarvy�arfioc0�cf�R�eodbvmf.
! Ca�rS driv� bem�p�.er nim JnP Fo e abv�ln� mm'ml
lvmm.m„�n.,yNmMo��.p,ina�.,Y(��.loF,��e. Iaw�uy em) 6ed�wum.a�»�mvUmun.
! l'levuo.0 wWs rod Iw miuF'k1'memad+c.im
JkLmrtfiRtivRmwbm�eLicidWinCmmlmie�eoaott�u ahwbeai�weriilahav�mtiLLupudnme.�ecwi.mi-
6.Jeo.w:iw.�ah.,i0in.mmVlckyb�meJw..e.-ry o�iNuK
wm aww �hai�n. '! Colka uE re�ek w appopri.�eh ti�pott ofvwu
aEm.iregn�elors�od.
JP�oa�vsd'veddlmWb'xa�eur�i��y�upmm��n��rm �.1�vqo�a.�pyllntlonMm�vwebfttmMmviml.
� D
,
' �\
BaeNln! hler M1nluel,
J%sp aLL 6¢md yal paEuda md wup� vwq ypm
si..m� h,w'n. we Sun�s m..5 md .�om e..te.. ��qa�e ..M�e 6m
l6oNrzy�ueyuEutlWemamutMwihSNnY��e I�n.NYmn.wl�a4�.Wdmlu6iWihart
bwn dry aM ve� rna�ai�4 vda wrv, Me�a^.d 8vm e�tla�n wuv.s md mua Ee ti+oaed of �i a hamEoin
�•r•Cmd�weEPmx�dn��m�lsfivmniod da+kmll¢tionfiully(meue�yavMulsamw�v
vwF^^^i
J Sawe W Cx ulmncv[ eller Mry veoµs.Be pue b k.ap
.'md-bF.vrmcaponGnae�y6mpees.amm Pautfvgelev�
Mtr��.nlnlal4aErviwR. JNwcGmb1uLa+orrlueptinimnWuminba
�trte� �WIq nvm Mau, m �treaa
Landscaping,
Gazdening,
and Pool Mai.ntenance
�'\ ■�'
� N ■■�n '
J Nwm aalpJe. ud laalvpiq• m+vuh Ilmm vIM md
rw M sum[ W�m wJo uM m �aweJ plutie �huimg
J9n�rt0��. fvti4em.vqahcebuoiiw mJomi�n
in xikd p ara�e oEuiet
J SeLeuWe psdi�;uJ uun�i�u pojeca Im �h. weui¢
J N'a.6 us weoe�e miem odY'm dei�ed�ss6w� uvs J Uu �mrya..�y �k[kA� w Nicnea �. tin.. �un.Ha.��Y
mm.wa.uc.w�..iR.wuao.emwew�m �eu.uR-e..dv.w..w��owu„�.neem.a�.��� w�.W�om�.
�nvx4wmv�d'm.[umrirsaeFUEmuMni.q,meefu panbleAivcmWemimyssw:rooccyouM�e�wiM
�ub.e..Wh...�e.vpo��3lq�awk.u6evl�P�ieY Mm� �oo�m�M1�l.+dw uwu.miamM1awtl. lRcue um�oinioku.iM1bvboln.h�m.m�erwi�
. . .Ne�vG�ponof MMlvb t�evna'wm .n�Jwn��hao�� aaWu nu um.�vu
Ihe irteet nomrG�ua ��s. dikhu. w �ert.m.. �y .
i:a ou-e.se vreo. v.w a. i.�,.xo �o w. �.�e,� �.�- � n.-..sr.m. s,. awi.m re� er.�.,.� .o�ooi ro�
tMlveCouwcUoa siN.m�Jcleu�.riNJwux�rwl.�o�WrpnryawuWwa. u�Ale.
Jl�n i�u�n.�fivF�unmmmrnzy�Weef��eill 1➢�cmEmee� m6m �v.�i�pn�ofee�eu
�n�hry. Srpud.aedm� u daua• e. Wd���DeN%artl�e
' ' J C'vc W c�+:oGa.ud fdlo� I.Ri ��mi�nx �..� on
!&�vpuilpvveimJlmianwoipahe�ypl�uic fYu��v+I m,mlmiwe.uau uv'tUi
dW W�h,. IPJn�cM1iry�n�Ea�tRmnen-lmNoo�M'adOPieB amainm�.Mtr.•�. � �af�wW
od �md blaiv6 m�Y M1e s��p vp oe m11m�E in ple�rie
JNpevcl�iv6�N�dnrex�wddm�IX�vmtlxrioy NopcluWadNryaeEo[utraR JUiryeseol�muNpe Nna[mautlwe�nic
.e.L G.�. o�w tin ve� m�dwv 5e A��ew.� v uio
Ne�uutur�FnmMm.
JAe•�m�.p{veg, �atbmdri.e+at.qativ uew�vmion
iameamo6s�o Mu�a,lioxagyega�< b Em
a�m tm1.y+Je mla 0i�1.
J Placc h�y erlu or aptt w�bu uwco� doxarlop� m
moR�myie;mm�armmnrn�bc( i�mtl�q
Amen/ We.wmdvn
wrcE ; roJ udyevEel R�dwa�o Hu m�Y 6e mc J,1.o�� C¢waEeo N�akk'm:
..d. 6am a aryhWercw JATmMukuieu �evw.heam mn�dWiJlikn�eu
�vutW.samtiiluma.�enN�•.�fwcwwminn:oo J Md:.g+poWv+.em+46.mnm�emvnall ���V�W^h..
mC<ovvn�FeReGindWeerOuliryCrmolpoud: `� �dplmabvmYe�i¢.
fTLke�vebmtrn Eoeieq�melemnm�iW l0.ecytl<la�e'Luvlalbmk<v�aaamea�almEfi➢.
. L4n�.Iw�JernGUantiJ�el wa..b. R^mm�
..u��eom.,maeeuw� w�,eow�a �tx+w�arwwi�aoro,....�en•m�dcpw�
a �hwd.eW lPmuvi�uE��m mwewkvdmi�6�n�.o�tl�vy.5lw.tl mdmwmmm�tn�6
� INmWEurvi�.4En�,wwk vwMslunhVoii¢mtlrtmewfiombe
JTk.�a�maeJowe�biudwuWa�hndditiLaeJry JNe.v ..�G�u�Nu�uvutm�siLL -
+.�n �u�.
JCI�i�Ypuv�avi➢Pu6�etlEoevMNlp�uEJow Jfillcat6..iaudyvAoc5ppul�.�wuRwune.�ud�a.
GaaA..iuepaie��a�paieuc�t�iv6kaEweiEuryl m�wiingvltip�t�an-a.�.vdmmpos�
nv mvu M A�q.a.1 nf u n�a�Emr..�ea.
q.a
✓ Do oo� pleuyW wv�� iv �oncv In rmon�uoe..iU
JP�TmaViGOdReebvinBEuLd'�vLc�hriors�nWGPI�- �bn0e]aE�ulert[�<W9.kave�4ppmPUEP�F
o.t�lornhain..ti.Av�omw�Jin a[orP�uVioqqm.M6�6eremu�ces.0.,�.te
wudqmkinawJ.(k.rLcrk.iWOeYvl�r�xna b�ImtlfiOdYmm�vAayW.M�
t.vmmiy o fieda¢ifwu w wllm Imop er
•.�w..aF�:ldinpekan�ng..r.rmdlirprnmp�mier! Jlbm�bbvmNaln.v.erc.We@eaam.
�w�.�>eo�owi �.�� �ye� �i�a w ss.x� uK
� �Mrm�e��.;ri� Peel/FautiaSp� Muetmmce
JNe.vT �eJo�fiuFc-!=rve•-ai«aaracna
R �v'L.louelelb�vplmwLoercpvdlc .rwrw�4u�
! Nepele or Euyes efaaov v� Lucd piet �l •
hnnel�oWlun.tlw�.vlemliee'mnl.e�L'ry.rrucup. JWbmenpw6ga�a.elu�letdlmin<d'w�ukfmSrn
a'h�oV�ry.�c�Lom�YWYM.wPYOuwau.ud 'Idry�.TbrtcFk�wcMdni�wE�6�.A..11ywm.
bmme�ngr.mENaplbRsvypeEiapnedo[eRv- Imd¢apeEaqmdnlnOedMlminrcnv�ia�n�num
hy;einawiuryWMfill, bain.
laweM�ornell-Latedv�mtllivpwsafacemtlqolQ J(,TIo�4v�NrunmryliemJiiWvgedieWeqeiury
indntl�nRnoEge.ulue�dom...ne �e.e(�I��I�nedM�M1eLiulx.v6�imb�ini�nrib)h'
ws��.1m. m. �tllig.irt msave. Nw •�wiiwe�
lSwY9uuery{memm��bwJE<hNnimW�SmMa�m tlan
fmiayPvrtmmaelHel�Fll'rrizien�eFNiWrtcy�yo� .
n! �m wane Nryonl J po ne� uw mppv.b,�ed J�mda Gnud Jpe xiW
� �PO�-MiN pool �Mmi-
Storm drain pollut�ers may be liable for fines of up to $25,Q00 per day� !`�����(�m�m�ylcS4m�e�m.ndrn�l< ��.��e;,,�dew,��o�v�.�,�,�
eam�w.dx.Cbvkwi�bi4e.eaavnpNi�'n�bv�- sDlesy�mevedyU..�..�l�veammtpm�.
.�v-pouq.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT,
VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
Amendment to Desiqn Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance, Front Setback Variance and Special
Permit for an attached qarage for a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached
aq rage at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, Jim and Barbara Millett, property owners. APN:
026-044-140;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
September 13, 2010, 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 (a),
which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures
including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is
exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family
residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption.
2. Said Design Review Amendment, Variances and Special Permit are approved subject to
the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review
amendment, Variances and Special Permit 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 13th dav of September, 2010 by the
following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review Amendment, Variances and
Special Permit.
1444 VancouverAvenue
Effective September 23, 2010
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped September 1, 2010, sheets A-1 through A-6 and L1; and date stamped
March 26, 2010 sheets A-7, A-8 and Boundary and Topographic Survey;
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 November 6, 2009 and January 21,
2010 memos, the City Engineer's November 18, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's
November 9, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's November 4, 2009 and December 22, 2009
memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 4, 2009 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 if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area
Ratio Variance and Front Setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code
granted here will become void;
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
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review Amendment, Variances and
Special Permit.
1444 VancouverAvenue
Effective September 23, 2010
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, 2007 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. that 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;
13. 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 Division;
and
14. 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.
a CITY O� BUP,LINGAME
' l COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIiv1ROSE ROAD -_ _ -
`, �,, _ J BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ' -
�; PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: (650) 696 3�90.�
- vwvw.burlingame.org _ _ _ -
Sate: 1444 1/AyCOUVER e41iENUE � �" -
The City of Burlingame Planning CommiSsion announces the
following public hearing on MONDAY, SEPTEM�ER 13,
20i0 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, i01
Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Amendment ta a previously approved
Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance, Front Setback
Variance and Special Permit for an attached garage for a
new, two-story single family dwelling at 1444
VANCOUVER AVENUE zoned R-l. APN 026-044-140
Mailed: Se�tember 3, 2010
(Please refer to other sideJ
- =� ,-
i ..r �.: �
I �= - ,: -
`- • _
C%fv of �url%n�o�
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
r�ising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered #o the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners v�rho recei�re this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional inform�tion, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
��l��l� ����ONG R��`����
(Pleas2 refer to orhar side)