HomeMy WebLinkAbout1464 Vancouver Avenue - Staff ReportPROJLCT LOCATION
1464 Vancouver Avenue
(existing house demolished in August, 2004)
Item # � ct,
Consent Calendar
Existing House Before Demolition
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Item #1 a
Consent Calendar
Address: 1464 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: 12/13/04
Request: Design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Architect: John Stewart, Stewart Associates APN: 026-044-190
Property Owners: Michael Gong and Amy Lui Lot Area: 6520 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited
number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in
a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three sin�le-family residences maybe constructed or converted under
this exemption.
History: This project was originally submitted to the Planning Department on May 9, 2003, by the former
property owner. On June 23, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and referred the project to a
design review consultant to address several concerns with the project (June 23, 2003, P.C. Minutes). The design
review consultant began review of the project, but in August, 2003, the project was withdrawn by the former
property owner. The property then sold and the new property owners are now proposing the current project,
which is a totally new design by a different architect.
Lot Line Adjustment: On November 22, 2004, the Commission approved an application for a lot line
adj ustment between the two properties at 1464 and 1470 Vancouver Avenue (November 22, 2004, P.C. Minutes).
The lot line adjustment shifts the property line between the properties 3'-6" towards the right for 52' in length,
therefore reducing the lot size at 1464 Vancouver Avenue from 6,702 SF to 6,520 SF. This smaller portion of the
lot would now measure 10' wide x 52' long. The proposed project for a new, two-story single family dwelling
and detached garage is based on the adjusted lot line and reduced 6,520 SF lot size.
Planning staff would note that the adjusted lot line would have caused the existing house at 1464 Vancouver
Avenue to be built across the left side property line. Therefore, in order to proceed with the lot line adjustment
application, the applicant was required to demolish the existing house. The applicant applied for a demolition
permit and demolished the house in August, 2004.
Summary: The applicant is proposing to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car
garage. The existing house was demolished several months ago in order to proceed with the lot line adjustment
at 1464/1470 Vancouver Avenue. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,536
SF (0.54 FAR) where 3,587 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project includes a detached two-car
garage (427 SF, 20'-8" x 20'-8") which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed four-bedroom
house. All other zoning code requirements have been met.
The applicant is proposing to remove a total of five fruit trees and one 18-inch diameter pine tree at the rear of the
property. The applicant will be required to apply for a tree removal permit from the Parks Department to remove
the pine tree. The proposed landscape plan indicates six, 24-inch box trees and four, 15-gallon trees to be planted
throughout the site which complies with the City's reforestation ordinance. The applicant is requesting the
following:
• Design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage (CS 25.57.010).
0
Desigri Review
14G4 Vancouver Avenue
Table 1 —1464 Vancouver Avenue
Lot Size: 6520 SF
EXISTINGI PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
__ _.._. _ _ _ _.....__ : __.._._._ _ .... _ , ____ _ __ _.. .........
Froiit (lst flr): ; 15'-5" 17'-0" 16'-9" (block average)
(2nd flr): ; none 20'-0" 20'-0"
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ; ____ _
Side (left): 3'-0"z 9'-4" 4'-0"
(riglit): '', 5'-0" ; 12'-6" 4�_���
_ _ _ _ . __ , _ _ _ _
Rear (lst flr): ' 62'-8" 43'-0" to bay window ; 15'-0"
(2nd flr): ; none 43'-0" to bay window 20'-0"
_ _ _ ......... _ _..... :...._ _ __ _ __
Lot Coverage: : 2008 SF 2340 SF 2608 SF
30.7% 35.8% 40%
_.._ __. __... _ _ _ __.... :_._ _.... � _.. _.......
FAR: ' 2008 SF 3536 SF 3587 SF
0.31 FAR , 0.54 FAR 0.55 FAR3
_ _ __ _. _ __ : _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __
# of bedroon:s: ; not available 4 ---
_.._... _.._. _ _ _ _ :...... _. __...... _ , _...... ___..
Parking: ; 2 covered 2 covered 1 covered
1 uncovered (20' x 20') (10' x 20')
(attached carport) 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
; (9' x 20') (9' x 20')
_ _ __ _ __ _ : _ _ ___ _ _ . _
Heig/it: single-story ', 29'-4" 30'-0"
DHEizvelope: , complies complies ' CS 25.28.075
' Information on existing house was obtained from the San Mateo County Assessor's appraisal report and from
data shown on the plans.
Z Existing nonconforming side setback (3'-0" existing where 4'-0" is required).
'(0.32 x 6520 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3587 SF (0.55 FAR).
Staff Comments: See attached.
2
Design Review
1464 vancouver Avenue
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on November 22,
2004, the Commission moved to place this item on the consent calendar with some direction (November 22,
2004, Planning Commission Minutes). The following are suggestions made by the Commission and a response
to each question provided by the applicant:
1. Rig/zt side elevation is a two-story wall exteizdiizg t/ie e�ztire leizgtlz of t{ze lzouse, co�zcer�aed that it is not as
articulated as is the left side elevatio�z, mass needs to be broken up along the right side, would like to see a
softer look aloitg tl:e right side.
The architect submitted revised plans, dated stamped December 2, 2004. On the right side elevation
(sheet A4), the box bay window in the kitchen was removed and a new box bay window was added to
bedroom #1 on the second floor. No other changes were made to the right side elevation or any of the
other elevations.
2. Conceriied tliat tlle liouses will appear to close to eaclz other because tl:e lot and neighboring )zouse jog
towards tl:e rear of thc lot, tl:e 2 foot wide fireplace will make tlie houses look like tliey are overlapping
each other from tlie s[reet, concerned that tlzere is not much open space between the houses towards the
rear.
There were no changes made to the building design along the left side of the house adjacent to 1470
Vancouver Avenue. However, the applicant changed some of the tree species and sizes along the left side
property line to provide additional screening from the street and between the houses (see revised sheet
L1.0 and letter from landscape architect, dated December 2, 2004). The two pittosporum trees
(evergrecn) along the left side property line were inereased in size from 15-gallon to 24-inch box. In
addition, the proposed tree at the left rear corner of the lot was changed from a 15-gallon lemon to a 24-
inch box Grecian bay laurel (evergreen).
3. Landscape plan indicates a lemon tree to be planted i�: the rear left corner of the lot and a laurel adjacent
to tlie garage, suggest cltal:gii:g tliese trees to a larger evergreen species to add screening for iieigl:bor.
The landscape plan was revised to show new 24-inch box Grecian bay laurel trees (evergreen) to be
planted in the rear left corner of the lot and adjacent to the garage (see sheet Ll .0).
4. Proposed coast live oak tree at tlae froilt of tlie property is squeezed ir: between the Itouse and side property
lir:e, this tree should be moved furtlzer out in to the front yard, will also help to break up tl:e mass at the
froiit of t/:e liouse.
� The landscape plan was revised to show the new coast live oak tree moved further into the front yard.
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;
3
Desigri Revietiv 1464 Vancouver• Avenue
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's November 22,
2004, design review study meeting, that the new house is well designed and articulated, that the FAR is below the
maximum allowable by 51 SF, that the tree screening added to the chimney makes the houses look separated
from the street, and that the lot frontage adds variety to this long block, the project is found to be compatible with
the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include findings made for design review. The reasons for any action should be
clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
December 2, 2004, sheets A1 through A6 and L1.0; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of
the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the
roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
3. that the property owner shall apply for a tree removal permit with the Parks Department prior to removal
of the existing 18-inch diameter pine tree along the right side property line;
4. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and
set the building footprint;
that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
G. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
7. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved
in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury.
Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
4
Dea•ign Review 1464 Vancouver Avenue
8. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according
to the approved Planning and Building plans;
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 conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and Recycling Specialist's September 13, 2004,
memos, and the Chief Building Official's September 10, 2004, memo shall be met;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
12. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation
Water Management Plan must be submilted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit
application;
13. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence,
the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm
Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
John Stewart, Stewart Associates, applicant and architect
Michael Gong and Amy Lui, property owners
C,'ity of ftur�lingarne Planning Commission Unapprovert Miraa�tes
Noventbe�' 22, 2004
6. 1464 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (STEWART ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MICHAEL GONG AND AMY LUI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (75
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the proj ect description, noting that this proj ect is proposed for the now vacant
lot created by the lot line adjustment. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, noted
that he designed the new house next door at 1470 Vancouver Avenue, that house was built with a 4-foot side
setback, with the lot line adjustment the setback at 1470 Vancouver will be increased to 7.5 feet; the new
house at 1464 Vancouver has a 9.5-foot side setback, therefore the total distance between the houses will be
17 feet, double the distance found on typical 50-foot wide lots with 4-foot side setbacks for each house; the
extra portion at the front of the lot gives variety to the streetscape and house design because it allowed for a
one-story design to be incorporated on this part of the house, provides something different in the
neighborhood. Commission asked if the architect thought about applying for a special permit for height to
exceed 30 feet to eliminate the clipped roof. The architect noted that based on the proposed roof pitch, the
height would increase by approximately 8 feet. Coinmission noted that simulated slate is proposed on the
roof and asked if using real slate is a possibility? Architect noted that real slate would probably not be used
since it is costly and adds a lot more weight to the roo£ Concern is that the Commission has seen several
project come back to request using composition shingle rather than slate as approved, just want to make sure
applicant is confident that they will use a simulated slate roof. Architect noted that he has used this product
on several houses in Hillsborough and it works very well. The architect made a strong point about changing
the neighborhood fabric by adding variety with the lot frontage and house design on this very long block.
Commission noted a concern with the flow from the living room to the rear yard, cannot enter back into the
house until you get to the rear. Architect noted that the door from the living roof and terrace was designed to
provide a space for a small table and chairs, not really as an access to the rear yard. Commission asked if
any thought was given to providing a smaller garage since only a one-car garage is required for a 4-bedroom
house. Architect commented that the property owners want a two-car garage to park their vehicles.
Architect ask if the proposcd sctback between the houses is acceptable. Commission noted that the proposed
setback works well. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
The Commission had the following comments and concerns:
• Right side elevation is a two-story wall extending the entire length of the house, concerned that it is
not as articulated as is the left side elevation, inass needs to be broken up along the right side, would
like to see a softer look along the right side;
• Concerned that the houses will appear to close to each other because the lot and neighboring house
jog towards the rear of the lot, the 2-foot wide fireplace will make the houses look like they are
overlapping each other from the street, concerned that there is not much open space between the
houses towards the rear;
• Landscape plan indicates a lemon tree to be planted in the rear left corner of the lot and a laurel
adjacent to the garage, suggest changing these trees to a larger evergreen species to add screening for
neighbor; and
• Proposed coast live oak tree at the front of the property is squeezed in between the house and side
property line, this tree should be moved further out in to the front yard, will also help to break of the
mass at the front of the house.
C
City of Burlingame Plaraning Commission Uianpproved Minutes
Nove�nber 22, 2004
C. Bojues noted that the house is designed well and is confident that the architect can make the suggested
changes to the project, and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the
suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on motion: the overall design is good, however want to make it clear that the right side elevation
needs more articulation, prefer to see the proj ect come back as a regular action item; Commission noted that
the project can be pulled off the consent calendar if there still concern after the changes have been made,
recommend that project be placed on the consent calendar; architect needs to give serious thought to the
concern about the two houses visually overlapping each other, open space could be added by moving the
fireplace in by an additional two feet, will pull off the consent calendar if project comes back as proposed
tonight, concerned with the configuration of the lot, existing house at 1470 Vancouver is squcezcd in;
architect clearly understands concerns expressed by the Commission, feel consent calendar is appropriate
given that the architect can resolve the concerns.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m.
7
<'ity of Burlingame Planning Cornrnission Unripp�•o>>ed Miiautes
November 22, 2004
built according t e approved Planni g and Building plans. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues
shall be com 'ned, where possible to a single terminati and installed on the po ions of the roof not
visible fro the street; and that t se venting details sh be included and approve �n the construction plans
before uilding permit is iss ed; 7) that prior to sc eduling the foundation in ection a licensed surveyor
shall ocate the property co ers and set the build� g footprint; 8) that prior underfloor frame inspection
th surveyor shall certif the first floor elevat' n of the new structure(s and the various surveys shall be
ccepted by the City ngineer; 9) that du ' g demolition of the exi ing residence, site preparation and
construction of th ew residence, the plicant shall use all app ' able "best managemcnt practices" as
identified in Bu ngame's Storm Wat Ordinance, to prevent e sion and off-site sedimen ion of storm
water runoff; 10) that the projec s subject to the state-i ndated water conservatio program, and a
complete I gation Water Mana ment Plan must be sub � ted with landscape and irr' ation plans at time
of permi application; 11) tha demolition for removal the existing structures a any grading or earth
movi on the site shall n occur until a building ennit has been issued a such site work shall be
re red to comply with the regulations of the B y Area Air Quality Mana ment District. 12) that prior
t scheduling the roo deck inspection, a lice ed surveyor shall shoot t e height of the roof ridge and
provide certificatio of that height to the Buii ng Department; 13) that e conditions of the City Engi er's
March 10, 2004, hief Building Official's nd Fire Marshal's Marc 8, 2004, and Recycling Sp ialist's
March 3, 2004 memos shall be met; 14 that the applicant shall c ply with Ordinance 1503 e City of
Burlingame torm Water Manageme and Discharge Control dinance; 15) that the proje shall meet all
the requir ents of the California ilding and Uniform Fire odes, 2001 Edition, as a nded by the City
of Bur ' game. The motion was econded by C. Keighra .
C ment on the motion: C mmission noted that this 's a two-story house in t illside area, but beca e
t e house is located on a own sloping corner lot w' h Teinple Shalom and s ool located across th treet
and behind this prope , there is no view obst tion created.
Chair Osterling c ed for a voice vote on t motion to approve. T motion passed on a 0-1 (C. Keele
absent). Appe procedures were advised. This item concluded 7:25 p.m.
4. 1464 & 1470 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
AND VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE (MICHAEL GONG/AMY LUT AND HERBERT WEI,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report November 22, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting the
history and the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Two conditions to be amended to the mapping
action were suggested for consideration. CA Anderson noted that six years ago the city granted a variance to
the lot on the left (1470 Vancouver Avenue) because they assumed the deed agreement was OK.
Commissioners asked staff: with this proposed change does the variance granted in the 1990's go away; no,
but the distance to side property line becomes better by 3'-6"; seems this is a pubic policy issue, in the past
two properiy owners made an agreement without notifying the city, now they do not meet the 50 foot
frontage requirement, those who granted the variance in 1998 were not aware that this agreement was not
recorded, so Planning Commission did not make a conscious decision about this lot line adjustment at that
time. CA noted that it is correct that the lot line adjustment was not considered in 1998 and city did not
research original subdivision at that time.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. John Ward, represented the property owners. Staff report
presents the history and facts clearly. Commissioner asked why not return to both lots having 50 foot
frontage at this time, since the transfer was not legal when it was done? Applicant noted in this case history
4
City of Burlingame Planning Cornrnission Unapprovecl Minutes
November 22, 2004
guides, the city action in 1998 allowed a new house on 1470 Vancouver, so in fairness and equity the city
should acknowledge this situation and make it legal now. In addition a 50 foot frontage would not work for
the current applicant on 1464 Vancouver. There were no further comments from the floor. The public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Do I understand that in order to reuse 1464 Vancouver the lot line adjustment had
to be done? CA noted that property owners of 1464 Vancouver were bound by a private contract signed in
1951 which required them to return 3'-6" to the property at 1470 Vancouver if the house on 1464 Vancouver
were ever demolished. The house at 1464 Vancouver had to be demolished in order to adjust the property
line because we do not allow a property line to cross under a structure. So this lot line adjustment was not
imposed by the city? CA No, although at design review the commission could make adjustments to the siting
of the proposed structures, however, the proposed project is just coming forward. Would like to consider a
condition to the lot line adj ustment that the left side setback on 1464 be increased so that the space between
the two houses is equal to the combined side setback on two 50 foot wide lots e.g. at least 8 feet, so that from
the street these two lots are visually the same as all the other lots. As it looks now, the two houses appear as
if they could overlap. CA noted that such a side separation requirement could be considered in design
review. Could condition the map so this and all future houses would have to comply. If remove the house
at 1470 Vancouver could a new house be built to property line? CP noted no, it would be required to meet
the 3 foot side setback for a 40 foot wide lot.
C. Bojues noted that he can accept a modification in the lot line to increase the street frontage on 1470
Vancouver, if the side separation were adjusted to guarantee at least 8 feet between the two houses then it
would be the same as two 50 foot lots; moved approval with an added condition that the minimum setback
between 1470 and 1464 Vancouver shall be 8 feet, the equivalent of two 50 foot wide lots, by resolution
with the following conditions: 1) that letters of no objection from the mortgage institutions as indicated in
the preliminary title reports shall be submitted to the City prior to the recording of the lot-line adjustment;
2) that the lot line adjustment shall be recorded with the property at the San Mateo County Recorders Office
and a copy of the recorded document shall be sent to the City Engineer; and 3) that there shall be maintained
a side separation of at least 8 feet between the two houses at 1470 and 1464 Vancouver Avenue, which will
ensure a consistent appearance with the residential character of the neighborhood. The motion was seconded
by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the lot line adjustment with the added
condition that the side setback between the two properties at 1470 and 1464 Vancouver shall be at least 8
feet, the minimum side setback for two 50 foot wide lots. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent).
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
IX. DESIGN �VIEW STUDY I'�EMS
6. 14�
T
AP
NC
CP
lot
ANCOUVER A
►TORY SINGLE�
ZONED R-1
�APPLICATION FOR SIGN REVIEW F A NEW,
AND DETACHED G GE (STEWART SSOCIATES,
GONG AND LUI, PROPERT OWNERS) (�
AMILY D
DESIGNER; MIC
!briefly presented the roject description, not� g that this project is oposed for the�fow vacant
by the lot line adju ment. There were no uestions of staff. �
Cizy of'Burlingame Planning Cornmissio�a Minutes
Jur�e 23, 2003
9. 1464 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (KEVIN LEHANE,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHETCUTI & ASSOCIATES INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (70
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. Gommission ask what the correct floor area is,
table says 2,630 SF, text says 3,630 SF. Staff stated that there was an error in the table and that the con-ect
floor area for the proposed proj ect is 3,630 SF. Commission asked if staff has the existing floor area for the
house. Plnr. Barber stated that a rough estimate of the floor area is possible using Metroscan, infornlation
comes from the County Assessor's office and there is no way to know how they calculate floor area. There
were no further questions of staf£ All Commissioners visited the site.
Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Marijana Stott, designer, Kevin LeHane, contractor, and Pete
Muncheck , applicant, were available to answer questions. They noted that the floor area of the existing
house is approximately 1,360 SF. Herbert Wei, 1470 Vancouver Avenue, property owner to the left, stated
his concern with loss of privacy due to the project. Stated that part of his purchase agreement when he
bought his property was that when the adj acent property was sold the 3.5' x 52' area which creates the "L"
was suppose to revert back to him. Is not sure if this is reflected on the plans. CA Anderson noted that is a�i
issued between the private property owners, does not have anything to do with the City. They are going to
have to work out that issue. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
The Planning Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project:
• Project is too big, plate heights are too tall; feels massive; needs to be 15% smaller;
• Entrance balustrades are not typical of Burlingame; bulkier than you usually see on this type of
house;
• Round columns are o.k., question the stucco rclicf at thc top, not found anywhere else on the house
• No consistency among elevations, the style changes on each elevations;
• Too much detail, need to tone down;
• Left elevation is simpler and flows nicely;
• Right and rear elevations are large;
• Plans note Styrofoam trim, generally discouraged, suggest wood trim, stucco mold;
• Landscape plan needs more trees; add evergreens at front to screen size of house; add landscaping on
side of driveway;
• Site plan needs to address how this project will relate to the property on left, subject lot is a lot wider
than adjacent lots, adjacent house is right up against setback, this property wraps around adjacent
property, need to address by stepping the building bacic or by adding screening;
• Proposal is between two large houses, lot is larger so setbacks need to be respected and increased so
it doesn't look like an alley between the houses; and
• Shutter size needs to be appropriate for windows, shutter should be proportionate to window size ai�d
look as if they could be a usable shutter.
C. Keele made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the cominents madc. The �notion was
seconded by C. Keighran.
Comment on motion: the designer has a lot of talent, direction from design reviewer will help address
Planning Commission comments; like the stained glass, cooper detailing, columns.
11
C'ity c�f Bui•lingarrte Planning Contmission Mirtutes
June 23, 2003
Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the direction
given and return on a regular action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed
on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded
at 9:55 p.m.
10. 263 SCENT DRIVE, 2
S RY SINGLE FAMIL
AND DESIGNER; CH CL
PLANNER: ERI EWIT
CP Monroe bri y presented the project des iption. There were no qy�stions of staff. All Coin issioners
visited the s e. �
Chair jues opened the public co ent. Marijana Stott, signer, Keviil LeHane, ntractor and Pete
Mun eck , applicant, were avail le to answer questions. pplicant noted tliat she d tried to contact the
De artment of Fish and Game well as the Army Corp f Engineers to find out w far back construction
ould be setback from the c ek, but could not get an ne to return her call. Co inission noted that there is
information on-line regar ing jurisdictional boun ries; moving the house oser to the creek eliminates
backyard; want to keep alled courtyard on the ont facing Howard. Co lission asked why one room is
being saved from the riginal house, applican noted that it could be re oved but thought that it had a lot f
nice finish feature nd character. There w e no other comments fro the floor and the public hearing as
closed.
The Planni g Commission had the ollowing concerns with e proposed project:
• o big, massive and bu y;
• late heights too tall;
.
i
.
.
.
•
.
Landscape plan nee work, add taller evergr ens to screen addition;
Detailing on the ont is very ornate, muc more than the sides; need n re balance of detailing
throughout pro' ct;
Styles differ om side to side to rear, evations should be consiste ;
Creek side ot, should use creek sid etting; garage separates cree from house, us�ially a cree s a
real am ity; design should take dvantage of creek side locat' n; reconsider location of g age;
How d side has two windows ith single shutter, feels un lanced;
Lo at window arrangemen , windows should be consist t throughout project, are
a elevations;
oward Avenue is a v busy street, look at shift� g the house on the site t a�
same on
advantage of
quieter street; and
• May want to look reducing the number of be rooms so only a one-car rage would be required
then garage coul e made smaller; less imp ct.
Chair Bojues made otion to send this project o a design reviewer wit e comments made. This tion
was seconded by�Osterling.
Chair Bojues alled for a voice vote on th motion to refer this ite to design review with th irection given
and return the regular action calend when plans have been vised as directed. The otion passed on a
voice vo 7-0. The Planning Com �ssion's action is adviso and not appealable. T� s item concluded at
pNED R-1— APPLICATIO FOR DESIGN REVIE FOR A NEW TWO-
WELLING WITH DETA ED GARAGE (KEVIN HANE, APPLICANT
TI & ASSOCIATES I ., PROPERTY OWNE 51 NOTICED) PROJE�i7`
12
�
���
�
MICHAEL CALLAN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
63 Bovet Road #314
San Mateo, CA 94402
PHONE: 650.372-9220
FA X: 650.372-9219
City of Burlingame
Planning Department
Project: Lui/ Gong Residence
1464 Vancouver Ave.
Burlingame, CA
Re: Landscaping Plans
Revisions
RECEIVED
D E C- 2 2004
C�TY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
December 1, 2004
Please review the following revisions to the Landscape plans in response to the
planning commissions minutes.
1) The two trees at the rear of the property were revised so that both are
evergreen laurel trees with 24" box size for screening purposes.
2) The two pittosporum trees on the left side were upsized to 24" box size to
provide evergreen privacy.
3) The proposed coast live oak tree at the front was moved forward therefore
reducing the lawn area. This was done to allow more room for growth away
from the proposed house structure.
I appreciate your time regarding this matter.
Regards,
/
�/� � ' / � -
Michael Callan, ASLA
Landscape Architect
Ca License #4076
Project Comments
Date: 09/09/2004
To: � City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
Planning Staff
Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling
at 1464 Vancouver Ave, zoned R-1, APN:026-044-190
09/13/2004
ll.; � �t-�� �i�
cti�1�'�zu kL�
�;' C�„%L- �►�t�-�v7a�t���Q— �'�ii.rz�z�t��%n GS 1�-�1ti-u-c���. ��1���
C�LtiVi Ll C�.v�YZ(LS —��,i..��y,Lo(� n w t S L�.( �I" ��) Sl'P� �� 2 S �,
�= t� Z �+� ��c ti�nr/c. --.,� ry �..�;J 5�,.; �,��c j�srr._ d�-#=� ,a�.�� -
(:.'' ,�4 N;�z+..! i,at i.c,.�.$ �-Yr)d dLti�,�:---���dr L�.,�_�---�—U:� L�=1��_n��,.�..a
v�ctiwvEiZ !�v
�
`"h'C�V ��7d►tq������r�+;l'�-�3 � L�l,� kkr+: Y� (4'Z� �►� 4Lc-'�u
� �"� �—c- ", l't'' i�D Cti�r lY�+,�;�-�.1' �L P�� S U�7 Y1,L �•f���v � F-'1% .�; Sl,.�.�,
��"�' �,�rVv L � �i'L
L� f��
'p����'�vs� , —t-►�-� �=�z��u.�..�f- s�v� ���z�. '� ��--�'��� ' L ���,
�-Tt� � � �� �� o v r� � �,N,;��rz _t� _ _ --
Reviewed by: �,� c�5 � Date: � l['�� �'
f'
I■
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS ��^' �% ''� �y`y'
Project Name: ,s,.�t.G �--�r-y ��,
Project Address: ��d ��=��►Z-
The following requirements apply to the project
1 � A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land .
surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners,
easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the
building permit issuance.) �,a�,wL-'�' l'� /�-=���g��s. �c7��t�/ �cwµ�r�-� s"�'''�-
�C y�T" �( T�1L' ��a.�� a�d� �,�,��,.�tc�►� �r�tr�-,y�.�t� ..J�- �1u7tz�
2 `� The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to
drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit
issuance.)
3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for
approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
5 � A sanitary sewer lateral i�10! is required for the project in accordance with
the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.)
6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis
shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any
sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures.
8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project.
9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should
identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City
Engineer.
10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements,
monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map.
Page 1 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
11. '� A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map
for reviews. �'�,z ,�},�T� �it.c�;-n,�t,�� �-t' i���.,�- e�n c'`i�^-l'-' ��-,�,.���;�,,.z�z
/�b�..`..+�'.
12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel
map.
13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
14 � The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
appurtenant work.
15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan.
16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause
adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic
and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic
calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year
flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements.
18 Any work within the drainage a.rea, creek, or creek banks requires a State
Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek.
20 �_ The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to
prevent storm water pollution.
21 The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re-
submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is
proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject
to City Engineer's approval.
22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans
showing the driveway profile with elevations
Page 2 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
�,.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm
water from the street into private property.
24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The
sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the
property.
25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
Project Comments
Date:
09/09/2004
To: ❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
� Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From:
Subject:
Planning Staff
Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling
at 1464 Vancouver Ave, zoned R-1, APN:026-044-190
Staff Review: 09/13/2004
(� ^
� �—<� ..� � cVlPa �- �i•"S � ��a�:��, �� �c� .
��.,�.l.c��c� i%i�J ��� •�c-.�..��. •
Reviewed by: � --, �,
�� ,
__�
���-f�1
Date: ,
� � =' ,� �� ��`_i
Project Comments
Date: 09/09/2004
To: ❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
�Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling
at 1464 Vancouver Ave, zoned R-1, APN:026-044-190
Staff Review: 09/13/2004
�/l3l o
Project Comments
Date: 09/09/2004
To: ❑ City Engineer
� Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling
at 1464 Vancouver Ave, zoned R-1, APN:026-044-190
Staff Review: 09/13/2004
G �'� ,�f1iA-�-1 � � n
Date:
�� �- �/U/
1464 Vancouver - Proiect Comments
1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame
Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements.
2) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line.
3) Roof eaves must not project within two feet of the property line.
4) Exterior bearing walls less than three feet from the property line must be constructed of one-hour
fire-rated construction.
5) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies
with the egress requirements.
6) Provide guardrails at all landings.
7) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are more than two risers.
8) Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
City of Burlingame Planning Depactment 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ag me.org
..''�'• i
�
;�;�,�
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING �OMMISSION �a
Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance
Special Permit Other Parcel Number•:
Projectaddress: 14CP�} Vf�c►Jc4V+V�� Av� �
APPLICANT � PROPERTY OWNER
Name: v �V�.r � � j� Name: I� «-H PSF=L 4 c� NG � RM`1 C�U I
Address: �3 �( l,l'Q_I Y2,f'z,� s� . Address: �`� 6� V.tYn c o-w,,.P� ii �v`�
City/State/Zip: ��N C!'CV��US ,�A�140�oCity/State/Zip: ���nS c-�-.F GA , ��0/0
Phone (w): � 5 U� S�'t I— is 2�� Phone (w): 6 s fI - S 6 �- Z$/� .
(h):
�so - s� I- �s2g3 the contact person for this pro�ect.
(fl: �50 ��c 1 ���� (�: .
.�„
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER --- � � � � F�V IE D
Name: �o HN sT�WP�� Ad�t � tT � I
Address: 1 3s 1 c�u I�L �T. S E P-$ 2004
City/State/zip: s�N ��-cr�� c� ��}o� o please indicate with an asterisC� ��i `,;.;� `'. J k`-� E P T"' E
Phone (w)
(h):
��: ��U r 5� I- 9 57 �
PRO
�
�-� Lr
W �sc�-
F �so
(h):
L� � T'21 N 4�.YL.
s�l-�s2�3
S�1 �s��
ESCRIPTION: �'�� ��SF� C.� 1 I l� �'p�-T�� ��O
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and corre to the best of y knowledge and belief.
, � _D . �,,.
Applicant's signature: � Date: '� / � � • "
I lmow about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commiss'on. � :
Property owner's signature: �'i� Date: JU—� � ��I'�
Date submitted: `� ��
PCAPP.FRM
�r wi �.7
� �
� 1 �U � s �, } ��s .� QM � -�
�
��� �
: �� �
�.� � S C
�� CIT7 0,� CITY OF BURLINGAME
'� PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURIJNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
� ,• TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
'''��,,,m,,,,,�.'� www.burlingame.org
Site: 1464 VANCOUVER AVENUE
Application for design review for a new, two-
story single family dwelling and detached
garage at: 1464 VANCOUVER AVENUE,
zoned R-1. (APN: 026-044-190).
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, December 13, 2004 at 7:00 P.M.
in the City Hall Council Chambers located at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed: December 3, 2004
(Please refer to other side)
A copy of the a�
to the meeting
Burlingame, C�
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CITY OF B URLINGAME
���� � -���� �- ��- ��
�.0 �_.�,,.�..�..,.�.� , �
�.�
�li��� an �'`t pro�ect� y be reviewed prior
t a�`-=� Primrose Road
��� - �;,�� � ,
If you challe e t'� uliject applic
raising only s_�u �r so
described in h � e rit�
at or prior to he pu�� ea n.
����
� �
Property ow �rs o �e�e. . i
��: �
their tenants bou��his��t��e �
(650) 558-7 0 T�iank�p�� ,��
P scro,c E; �
t. "r'1v i (' �. a�
�� .��`� _
Margaret Mo {y�
City Planner ,�
PU � �
(Please refer to other side)
��
atl° s) in court, m
me e else raise� `€
� � e c� li��
� � �. �.
��,�.,�.�,
� � � e respon �� bl�
�t�r io al infor�iat
� ; �'
t ` �
�
"`►��
��
�: CE
be limited to
blic hearing,
�d to the city
informing
please call
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of thc City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
design review for a new, two-story sin�le family dwelling and detached �ara�e at 1464
Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, Michael Gon� and Amy Lui, property owners, APN: 026-044-
190;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
December l3, 2004, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other
written materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and
comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no
substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the
environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3—
(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a)
one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized
areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this
exemption, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for such design review are as set forth in the minutes and recording of
said meeting.
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 13`h day of December, 2004 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review.
1464 Vancouver Avenue
Effective December 27, 2004
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped December 2, 2004, sheets Al through A6 and L1.0; and that any changes to
the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review;
3. that the property owner shall apply for a tree removal permit with the Parks Department
prior to removal of the existing 18-inch diameter pine tree along the right side property
line;
4. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners and set the building footprint;
5. that prior lo underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation
of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building
Department;
7. that prior to sclleduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department;
8. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance
of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project
has been built according to the approvcd Planning and Buildii�g plans;
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 conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and Recycling Specialist's
September 13, 2004, memos, and the Chief Building Official's September 10, 2004,
memo shall be met;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review.
1464 Vancouver Avenue
Effective December 27, 2004
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
12. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a
complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and
irrigation plans at time of permit application;
13. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the
new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as
identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff.
, ,��/- - ,
V � 5� �'�,<J'r '�wI �� 1 �+4j,��!*"* c' -�4�` �� i aY � i ! � : r . �� �' ;
k \ '+ .
� � '�ti �"`� ��'f�." 'E � �'� �'`* � " F �� �r � � � � � � .
t �� �� ;�w,. s .. ;!' , �; • x. «
'� ,+�- r �' "�' " �n � �( '> � .
�� i��" }'.� ., sr �,} ' �:�,... � �- � .� E� =� •�t ��, �� . ���:
S - _ , r �. 1 ; (� r ' ::�'kif,�� t
. .
. , � . ', _, -,. � �.
. . - Y � ,.` .. ' � : �.�: �J � � e.. .
, � �,ti:�, . �
...
r �f �f "i� p ' � • `,F- � .•Y `'u ✓'�
. ,,
.. -
.✓, _
w � � . � �.��o;� , r("� , � � ;�'' � .
� . ' . �
� - t�t`•� � r�_ �'_ � �� ` �
a� � � � '�� �,. M " � I'` r_ � . " ,� _ .
, .a • ��, , �' Q ,-.�.,� ��':� , .�e
�°^ ry�..��~ . \ ��' �� . . � �,�.�.� . �eh
,-t+t� � `� r "� �. : J �� r • � y �,,,�' � r ` �� ' `' y •ti ", y � �
. �:.+ �."' - � * �„�.: ^.•�� . . ,.i �.7. . ..�'� ,.�� • � ".��• � �,� � �1' �,� ��, i,.
.` � � � f�. ., ��+(t�
,�S . . . � _ � _ .'��� ,% ' ' ,
,�� •" \ � .. � � • � � ` ,� . � ,�, � . . e � ��
�'� � ,r= '° . .'. �"l r .•...w '',r� ,�,.. ' � �' .� ., (.�:y
. � ..
� ,
. :, . .
. � .t� ,. � �, . � a � � �ti.! �� .
� .
...� .' , , . � . , .
r.-% f . y .,' � , �, �.. �i
�,� . 'x
�' �l � i � �`� �� .y � ;� ,� 1�.
�r . 4���r ,� "`� :; � ��;, �^ ,��� � r �� r ~ � � `i '",� `. :� '� '�;
, y., , ,� Y '�y, , I ' , ;' ",
� .J^ .. e`�(!tfl ":. � ,H`�} �'� j��Y '%� � � "��•• �� �i' .� ¢' }. � ���I � ..gy�yv ` .. � , `�yf .
" �
. � ., �r �-' �r '� fi� ,y� ` ��..� � � {* ,,i
� f
f . i ` - -i • ,
, � �$� . �}��
! . ���r
� , .� R�' "�'
'
� �• , r . ' � ,. •
�,� Ai' • �/ �44K5., �; � ' Y � � y 1J, ,.: r `�"l,•r*� .. '� ^` ��' , �^���
!Fy � �+.�
� , � � . f �b� X �•,� Y .y �� � �, � � 3A A.
� .,,
� , �e
� L ,.� � �� � �. � '°:�.� � k ' �� .. � .. .���� �
T � � � �
r �' I . r ' .. � i'1 r
, � f jr� s' �w� ` . . � f � "' q •*�y, . '� �,r •:� e w.�. .
� r , ' '� ' ,�1' ` -: '�+� �''�. '�, , ? ' ' '
� t ,. '`� � '. A `y� �� �,", �'�"� ` , �r - ��"�,:n�''�
�, �.��' ,.� �%",,�:' � ,� �� � , � `� �;?"` " ,'
��'�`. �� '', ' "` .rL,1��:.s ; �►�y.'�;���. ��� �� . f ���� r.
� y+y , -r w� V� .. •F��
1�7�+.�= �� 4� d _� � •�� �'�, y�;{�t�#' µ N: � ���' ' � .. .uY 4 'i
��� � t • �r_' 3r��F �, ¢� �' �, , ` , i ,
�r � � � .�. � �, �G� � r '. ,
,� y I'- , ,� s �r - ��Y�i . . �; '�, r� � `
.. r t ` ..r , r,� .. y� � , /�� � �-✓ `�+'�7 • ' .. ' , .. ,� " y',
,•,�
- �, �� . , , �x � ' � . j ` a.. �� �z �=� j ;' �' ` �� �'
.
,. . .
��- � . � �r' f �` ir vry� �_ . � � F ,�� .,,,. - 1 . y�/,
, '�y . . . . . �Y'���� �� �� ` r� ' �' A� r��Mf � i �'�. »l���y..it"`
, �� 1' ��J � � k�� � � � � � � ?, � w�� ,F
� , ` } h . !� �' ��� S
,� � �+r � � t'`�,� ti� . � .� �,�. ,� � , �' � , � :� � r �
,
, , � '
� ,9 1 +'',�+, '��,/ �''��.�'{I� r. f� �� �r �.'+\ ,,.(.:. .Y/
� ,r� t''�i � . � `� �"�,� ' �';;"a.S""a,,.. � ,ti °' �+ } � ' , yy��, . /�[ � 1 . ..T � �.
w- • �r ,w � :, i , r., a" '#ti`°` r ` . .. ..' a r� � `� •. �
� �!~ � �5 •}��': � � ,� {`�.� .`t�r I � '�' `T P : � i .
� � � � , •_ »* � � �#� ,��, �, f s a�� ,� 4�
� f�+j � $' � "�L:y {� � �.
ti � �..�� �' y .; J,, ,� � �. . � ,� ♦ � �� • �r r, � .
•. r �:: `•.�• � ''; }� l,
. j � - A' � Y � - � A _
;� .,, � �,, ti �,
�I � • .,«` "� �' � :�' '* ` ;,*� , r : P *
�'f ', .� + ��s , . � A .: ,""`rn „� ;a,«�� ,� * , � r . i�'•
: . .. ..
. . ,
z_ s ? �; ''� - y'' ` t. : � 'i �
. .. _ �
� .,_
+► x , •«�� � , . „�r,-
'C _ ` � � �
.�
y '� ' ' ' �"' �'r tl . r, �a '`�* l
� � � � w �3C� } � r+'► � � '� yx ;fiir� � � � � � a
" �;.:,���.'4:= ". . � ;�+ �,�,�'',"
.,
�*�r,e �' , a �. � ' .
� s�� �, �`� �v'� �' �?��;� �` � ,�'� . ~ 4� �, �' � i � -
.
,
«
.�
~ , �` '�x � ��� '"� '� �R'�;,� . � �,! �� ,� h�+,, � ^�C�
;q�,` ` . ��." • + �' � �l ` iP ,�Yi<
.
� �;�y i �u�' qµ�„
i"� � ,�, '". . i !'�} �� ,'v, x �i"' ,,'�'' �",
�'1�q�� l � t �• y t�...r 7 N�
'i'L`� 6 � � �yr*.,�, �� �4q� ,��,ID. i "'�,�, b• - ry}k .,; �,�^:
,� . -,,. ; . �. . �. � ,. 1 , �.
'G.'� , ..�,,.. � . I. , . �,.� ' �''t�N 'py �{y,ry�} fj
� J� ` . . ���' ' 1 •�' 'F.` / �Y..
_� 'i' � * � ' .�1 .;
' :...
. ��: �, .��r' �.
c_ � r w. �
.
� �� � . . " y � �r` . '`� ► 1464 VANCOUVER AVENUE '����"� �
. �y � ', , ':.
, r.. ,
�•: , ,. , , ,��� ; . � ,
a" � i.'+I '.�,�^r'S � � ,. — ��t i*
. � . .r ��^r . , �, P s% " s �`y1' rr � .�'�, ��+r �l :w
�� 1 T'�M_ ` � � ' .r r .+' f" �� �
�� '� "1! J a �!E'v . . } t � ��
.a� , � � �'�_ * .�; � � �/' `p;, r� � r ' -� is.. t, ,b z����!-f;h .
�, �t. � � K �'� � �/ ^- �� �� � i . • $ k �f �,. i� � � i� . �'A'� .
y' ♦ r,�� ^.�� �.�,'� �.F S, ��. .� � ' . yJ r 4 , y. ���"'' ..
. Y -
, } +�7 , _ � � R.
� �
� . r . �
. .
`��� a-
. . ' i� � . ,t �. '�� ' y��1�'� �' , � �
tii�, +� ,�^'�� ,.it\ ., � tay . _ , �'-�., : �Y �.• y`"h
�'�i%• �/ (��' I ,�u._�:_ . �, k � �� �1,y./-
{ 1\ '3 � y , , ../ �r" . "' , �iy�,.:-� ,���. � . .. �, .,c�},.� �; ;P � � t r�w
`7• •�-, � •� _ ��T�. � - � ;r�( ��'N °�° �l?,.�' . �C?.. r�
z �. . . , . .,.
A
- -, ; � . ,ts : L. .. �... �i.� . ��_ _ ..'�3�:, �� .d w ��"� •� � ��• r � �. v ���� ' J�
_ �. . � r: � � . .�.�..::'..�"
PLG-Hurin, Ruben
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Michael and Amy,
Add decorative brick trim around both chimneys at the angled portion and top edge of the chimney.
Thank you for meeting with me this afternoon to discuss the project at 1464 Vancouver Avenue. The following is a
summary of changes required based on our discussion today:
1. Paint the decorative trim on the gable ends at the front of the house (paint color to be chosen by the property owner
but should match the eave/fascia or window trim).
2
3
Add planter box beneath the second floor window at the rear of the house.
PLG-Hurin, Ruben
Wednesday, August 09, 2006 3:07 PM
'm ike_gong@yahoo.com'
Summary of Required Changes to 1464 Vancouver Avenue
4. Add trellis above garage door and paint to match eave/fascia color. Trellis can be open and can extend a maximum
of 24-inches from the garage wall.
Please call or email me as soon as these features are added. I will then visit the site and verify that these features were
installed as summarized above.
Best regards,
Ruben Hurin
Planner
City of Burlingame - Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 558-7256 (phone)
(650) 696-3790 (fax)
rhurin@burlingame.org
��-e w� s l - �-
P
����.
b ' � � �ac, �n¢ �.
�a�e �c� � ^�P eMc� � S.« a
_ _
8' Z3�oG
�
1
�
� .;�. __ ..
�: ,,-�a�
�:
, �e : �;; .
��� �''�.
�4r '�,
`�.t.�+
L.'��s•.
�
�.
�:�
�: .�
�:� .
r,,- a
3�•
f!' �,
' _� � . ���
,.. � _.�. a . _ .
��.`�C � . . i
� ��' -.. . �i � 1 ..
�� CITY p
� �
BURLINGAME
�.� �;�;� �i �,a
�AATED JUNE 6
To: Michael Gong
From: Ruben Hurin, Planner
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
(650) 558-7250
www.burlingame.org
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Planning Inspection of 1464 Vancouver Avenue
Date: August 8, 2006
Mr. Gong,
Per your request, I inspected the new single family dwelling and detached garage at 1464
Vancouver Avenue on Friday, August 4, 2006. The Planning Commission approved the project
on December 13, 2004, with 14 conditions of approval. Conditions #1 and #2 state the following:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department date stamped December 2, 2004, sheets A1 through A6 and L1.0; and that
any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to
this permit; and
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review.
While conducting the inspection, I noted the following architectural features which were shown on
the plans but not built, and therefore Planning cannot pass the final inspection based on
Conditions #1 and #2 above. In order to receive Planning Department approval of the final
inspection, these features need to be incorporated into the project. If not added, an application
for FYI (informational item) needs to be submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission (please see Planning Department for FYI application procedures). The following
architectural features shown on the approved plans are missing:
• Wood trim around windows and doors was omitted;
• Trim on gable ends on front of house is stucco and not painted wood; trim added to
second floor gable end at front of house;
• Brick trim on chimneys was omitted;
• Decorative chimney caps were omitted;
• Planter boxes beneath windows on the right and rear sides of the house were omitted;
• Vent, center brace, covering over garage door and decorative garage door as omitted.
If you should have any questions please feel free to call me at (650) 558-7256, or email at
rhurin(a�burlinqame.orq.
Regards,
Ruben Hurin, Planner
J
�\
\,
:t
�i
:� , �.� .� �\
Ft ��
r� .'.�.. ..
.�:.:
��
�"'` .1 q.
't:,:r.'".,- ,
#J_I;�.i:".[,. ... ,.. .
0 ra�
w�
/
/
+��
� .:l
�
u ■r� r■ �r�
i■ ■�■ i�■ ■�■
�
�_ - W
..'� _ . . ..
. , ,.., :
�.;;; - �,�����1
..� :.*.,
�" ��� �
s i: �,_.v �`�;t
�pr ��� ��
��;;v!! � , ' .
:. :� ; , .
`�� �. a.
:. � � e- -w
���'.T•. � , ,
��lMN'• ,��,� ��I
1 � .
� : ;- ."'`�.,,.�W##�i'�I
,
w� �j��
�;' �'sr.
, -�:, �
�.
��
�
�� ,
��
;'�
� § �`��� �F�:.
� =w ^,.<�
. � �.��. �� . � �:..
� � � � �� �;�,
� �� ' 11 r�� �� �,. ,
"�� � ��' !�� �' '1
T ������ �
I I � ,.
,, �' a> � �__
� I � � :.�-
_7 1 . fi .. ('�
4 �
�. ��.
j ��'�} � , f �` / , 1
U
���i�'+`, ��-1�V y,� r . � r �y
� .,��1 s �ti { -: � . �: �� ti
4 # ,� ' �'F� 1�� t ' � '
�� � ��� ��f� �
E1�, r ti � '
��, rF �� r ^h . � ��� ' •.
�.
� �r. �� ����, y ''' �
�, , � *,>>� , �
..y�� �. iJ; ,,� .
..�e�..' a li, . � , � �` , ' � � � r �• ;
i;'k �.�'�. � �;•
�;. � �S z � �. . '• � 2 •'a
,:°,�"��;,�w;� r;�e�',' ;•�'
t;: t� � ,,.;;� .,,��,t����
�; �� �` �'�,'''�'�"�' •'` ,,�• :�;.'.
M `��.�''� �.��,�,r;�e,, ?;-:,a,� ` �
,�.� �
,. ; ' < ?�"; ,�,'
.��4��' �.��! '
�
i �.
..�f
' �
;�r r a� � ,
Ir H�a���ry'� � _..
� ! t � , ;.
, � � � ;�� � ,
5 r�� � ����
.... r,� � �; . �
PLG-Hurin, Ruben
From: PLG-Hurin, Ruben
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 4:56 PM
To: 'mike_gong@yahoo.com'
Subject: 1464 Vancouver Avenue Final Inspection
Attachments: 1464 vancouver final.pdf
Michael,
Attached please find Planning comments regarding the inspection at 1464 Vancouver Avenue in Burlingame.
IJ
�
1464 vancouver
final.pdf (80 K...
Best regards,
Ruben Hurin
Planner
City of Burlingame - Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 558-7256 (phone)
(650) 696-3790 (fax)
rhurin@burlingame.org
�[3
�����
BU RLI NG,r4ME
4, ��
�.
� -
MEMO
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 20, 2006
Planning Commission
City Planner
Planner's Report
Meeting Date: 6/26/06
FYI — RESPONSE TO COMMISSION COMMENTS REGARDING DESIGN
REVIEW PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT 3121 MARGARITA AVENUE,
1464 VANCOUVER AVENUE AND 2301 HILLSIDE DRIVE
History: On June 12, 2006, the Planning Commission had some questions about ongoing construction of design
review projects at 3121 Margarita Avenue, 1464 Vancouver Avenue and 2301 Hillside Drive. Following is a
summary of the concerns expressed and Planning staffs findings.
3121 Margarita Avenue
Planning Commissioners commented on this residence under construction, noting that it looks bigger than
approved, and asked if Planning staff could check to make sure it complies to approved plans. Planning staff
visited the site, took photos (see attached) and compared the construction with the plans approved by the
Planning Commission. Although all of the details have not yet been added, the building footprint, shape and
height conform to the approved plans.
It should be noted that the conditions of project approval require that the roof ridge be surveyed by a licensed
surveyor to verify the height, and that all architectural details be certified to conform to approved plans. The
building inspector indicates that the roof ridge will be surveyed prior to the final roof deck inspection. Generally,
any changes to the footprint or architectural details are brought to the Planning Department's attention by the
Building Department. There were minor changes made to window and door locations which received
administrative approval by the Planning Department.
1464 Vancouver Avenue
The Planning Commission asked about the roofing material used on the project under construction at this site,
noting that the random color pattern being used is not attractive (see attached photos). It was requested that
Planning staff determine what type of roofing material this is so that it can be avoided in future projects. The
plans call for simulated slate roof shingles. The project architect notes that the property owner selected the
roofing material and will try to find the name of the manufacturer prior to the June 26t" Planning Commission
meeting. Planning staff would note that with any manufacturer of simulated slate tiles, often two different colors
of tiles may be selected to provide a more random pattern.
FYI - PLANNING COMMISSION
3121 Margarita Avenue, 1464 Vancouver Avenue & 2301 Hillside Drive
June 20, 2006
2301 Hillside Drive (address has been changed to 1373 Columbus Avenue)
Commissioners asked about the balustrades used as railing for the steps leading from the door along the side
property line to the sidewalk, and whether the railing was shown on the approved plans. The approved plans
showed stairs cut into the slope leading from the front door to the sidewalk, but no railing was shown, except a
five-foot balustrade section at the top of the steps adjacent to the door (refer to attached North �levation).
Planning staff would note that although this change to the plans was not reviewed by Planning, it would not have
triggered review because the building code requires railings 42" high along a stairway. The stair railings are not
considered "structures" in the side setback, but are reviewed in the same manner as a fence.
Maureen Brooks
Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Photos of 3121 Margarita Avenue
Photos of 1464 Vancouver Avenue
Photos of 2301 Hillside Drive
North Elevation, 2341 Hillside Drive
-2-
�.:.,
�_ _ ' . _�__,_,��
w. .,�.: .
._. ,
�� - -- -
� ; �;-.
-3-
3121 Margarita Avenue
1464 Vancouver Avenue
:� _
� w_m , :�� .�`
N
(� �r
v�� . �+� ,
L .'"� .-'i.t
:�f
.�
"ptk�.w'_.. .
�.W .
: �nee,.-.,�_s;i� y .1
. ... 6'R14,.: �. �
s.�.,. —eM..
9�7ti7l4'A'O:A4�'7Y
� l
�ti ��.7 ty R s. •.
iW����`Y%�A`.� 1M1'y��
� l
� 1
�`
'���
� � Q'J�p�y�
� . � '�+�°�°°�o ��+�►�
1
�ti t.
. . -.asf `S...t � i'.�..; !+ .� r �.;'..ou t . Y. �,,�+r...« �.s�� ^Y�'. . � . .. . _ .. .�`�
_t}_
2301 Hillside Drive (changed to 1373 Columbus Avenue)
__ - �_�---__----..--
I�■ _ °'_ — —
IG■ _ _---�
I�■ � —� - - " "
-----_
i�� � -- _____-- �... �� - _
� �- �
- - - —� ����: ___-
.
. ' ,.,� -- - = _ - -_
- �- - -�,.- . —__ __
.
- - � �.�,_ � � -
r -
, ::; .r . , _. . , ---'- _ .
� � ���■ � . _ _ _ _..-- . . , .
.., ���■ .. � ., . . . .
`i��■
I[:�f 0��l� • ■�■ G�■
■�■ ■�■
II 111! `
Ilfi! � ; . ■■■ ■�■
� ���� - .., ' ■■■ ■■■
�' — � 0�■ ■■■
��..��_ � � �..�,� � , �s ��
�; � ,c --���
,� __. 4i� ?',�,�`'� ' /�I � «1' i , � � � _ . �: `rS ?.-R
..._ w,.,...rw�e..i � �s -':S+�z��
�.uu�r.� �u���«nuunr� �n.��u,����,.. ,... .�....�....
.'�^"�"'��- _ �. �. ,
� a�:�r� e�--ir—�-- -
� �
�,,,r '� �� .�4 �-..a
.�—' ."K��::3t
.`\\
�
.�
�■�.
{nil�
-. �.�tk
_5_
12 12
CTAAII'1ADn o� nr+ r��v (11 In
Jan 10 06 09:39a Bh Surveying 6506371059 P•1
B & H SURVEYING, INC.
CALIFORNIA LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR #7701
901 WALTERMIRE ST • BELMONT, CALIFORNIA 94002 •(650) 637-1590 • FAX (650) 637-1059
January 10, 2006
City of Burlingame
Building Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Ridge Height Certification
Building Permit No. 0500399
1464 Vancouver Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is to certify that on January 9, 2006 our survey crew checked the ridge height at the above mentioned site
based on the approved building plans. The ridge elevation is 112.34. The calculated height limit is 112.72 as shown
on Sheet A4 of the approved plans.
!/l/
Wayn Haas, PLS
/�Q 4AN p S��
�?5 p,•�NE h'q,q Lc�`
v� � s �
�' LSnoi �
* ExP 1 �.-3 f -06 *
Nh ��Q
\��� CA��i/
N:\bh�5057-0S�survay�5057-RidgcCert.doc
B&H Page 1 1/102006