HomeMy WebLinkAbout114 Howard Avenue - Approval Letter+ .
CITY OF BURLINGAME
City Hall — 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010-3997
December 10, 2013
Joe Sabel
855 Jefferson Ave #475
Redwood City, CA 94064
Re: 114 Howard Avenue
Dear Mr. Sabel,
� �ITY
`� �
.� : � � r �
:�,. � e
��=..o.�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
PH: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650) 696-3790
Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the November 25, 2013, Planning
Commission approval of your application for Design Review became effective December 5, 2013. This
application was for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached
garage at 114 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1.
The November 25, 2013, minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with
the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped November 14, 2013, sheets A1, A3 and A4; and date stamped October 30, 2013,
sheets A2, A5 and A6;
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 staffl;
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 October 21 and August 16, 2013 memos, the
City Engineer's August 15, 2013 memo, the Parks Supervisor's August 23, 2013 memo, the Fire
Marshal's August 12, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's August 14, 2013 memo
shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be
placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development
Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
�: Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org :�
, � y
December 10, 2013
114 Howard Avenue
Page 2
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of
approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval
is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of
the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit
is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional,
that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the
property;
12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building
Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
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.
All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department.
This approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. An extension of
up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of
the first year.
r
:� Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org �C
I
December 10, 2013
114 Howard Avenue
Page 3
The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.6. If you wish to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within
90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law.
Sincerely,
� ;
� =/ � f --
William Meeker
Community Development Director
c. Julie and Leno Bellomo, Property owners
114 Howard Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office
(LOT 16 BLOCK 45 LYON & HOAG SUB TOWN OF BURLINGAME RSM B 20CITY OF
BURLINGAME; APN: 029-264-160)
File
�� Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org «
,+ 1
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
August 9, 2013
X Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
� Building Division
(650) 558-7260
� Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
� Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
� Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling with a detached garage at 114 Howard
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-264-160
Staff Review: August 12, 2013
1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the
City storm drain system.
2. The project shall, at its 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 Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 8/15/2013
�
� .
Project Comments
Date: Revised Plans Submitted October 17, 2013
To: 0 Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
X Building Division
(650) 558-7260
� Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
From: Planning Staff
� Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
� Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Subject: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling with an attached garage at 114
Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-264-160
Staff Review: N/A
No further comments.
All conditions of approval as stated in the revi�w dated 8-16-2013 will apply to this
project.
Reviewed by:
Date: 10-21-2013
..�._._.�,.�..,.,_,__..a....,.�.........w.....,..V _,..._..�,._......._....... �_.,...._.._.:._..��....: �.,.-4
� Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
August 9, 2013
� Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
X Building Division
(650) 558-7260
� Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
� Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
� Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling with a detached garage at 114 Howard
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-264-160
Staff Review: August 12, 2013
,,�/1 On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2010 California Building
Code, 2010 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2010 California
Mechanical Code, 2010 California Electrical Code, and 2010 California Plumbing
Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1856-2010. Note: If the
Planning Commission has not approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on
December 31, 2013 then this project must comply with the 2013 California
Building Codes.
2 Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2008 California Energy
Efficiency Standards.
Go to http://www.energv.ca.�ov/title24/2008standards/ for publications and
details.
; 3 Indicate on the plans that the tile roof will comply with Cool Roof requirements of
the 2008 California Energy Code. 2008 CEC §151 (f) 12. The 2008 Residential
and Non-Residential Compliance Manuals are available on line at
http�//www enerqy.ca.qov/title24/2008standards/
��Place the following information on the first page of the plans:
, "Construction Hours"
Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m.
Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. ,
(See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.)
15) On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that
require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for
these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning
Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must
submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job
Copy of the plans prior to performing the work.
6) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame
business license.
7) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
8) Provide a fully dimensioned site plan which shows the true property boundaries,
the location of all structures on the property, existing driveways, and on-site
parking.
9) Provide existing and proposed elevations.
10)This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of
Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any
finrelve-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 structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new
buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2010 California
Building Code for new structures. BMC 18.07.020
Note: Any revisions to the plans approved by the Building Division must be
submitted to, and approved by, the Building Division prior to the implementation
of any work not specifically shown on the plans. Significant delays can occur if
changes made in the field, without City approval, necessitate further review by
City departments or the Planning Commission. Inspections cannot be scheduled
and will not be performed for work that is not shown on the Approved plans.
11)Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of
Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certifica�te
of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been finaled. No
occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy
�as been issued.
rovide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be
demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: A condition of this project
approval is that the Demolition Permit will not be issued and, and no work
can begin (including the removal of a� building components), until a
Building Permit has been issued for the project. The property owner is
responsible for assuring that no work is authorized or performed.
13)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed
property lines
14)Show the dimensions to adjacent structures.
T�3 On the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the
property line.
-'l;(5)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-rated construction per 2010 CBC §705.2.
�7�ndicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the
��property line will be built of one-hour fire-rated construction. (2010 CBC, Table
602)
�ooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or
door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the location and the
net clear opening height and width of aIl required egress windows on fhe
elevation drawin_qs. Note: The area labeled "office" is a room that can be used
�or sleeping purposes and, as such, must comply with this requirement.
ndicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the
Department of Public Works.
20)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings rnore 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.
21)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers.
22)Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
�he fireplace chimneys must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion
of the building within ten feet or must be retrofit with a fireplace insert (not a log
lighter.) 2010 CBC §2113.9
NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically
address items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 23 must be re-submitted
before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action.
r
Reviewed b . � ! .:-�" .� � Date: 8-16-2013
Jo ,
�i0-558 70
L
1
� '
Date:
Project Comments
August 9, 2013
To: � Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
� Building Division
(650) 558-7260
X Parks Division
(650} 558-7334
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling with a detached garage at 114 Howard
w�„-,.�.._, � w a �, k�. nnn nn_ ,� w_ n
/'1YGIIUC� LUIICU R- 1� /1�IY, VL7-LO'F- 1 V
Staff Review: August 12, 20'13
1. No change in landscape proposed in renovation.
�, Tv�n naw 7d" hn� lanricr.,,,,a,rn,a traac in�li iriArl i� !?�ri��rn,a ��a� a� npr
requirement.
Reviewed by: BD
Date: 8/23/13
� Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
� Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
August 9, 2013
� Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
� Building Division
(650) 558-7260
0 Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
� Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
� Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling with a detached garage at 114 Howard
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-264-160
StafF Review: August 12, 2013
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. All sprinkler drainage shall be placed into landscaping areas.
4. 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.
Reviewed by: �� � Date: f z C��_ 1.3
�
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
August 9, 2013
� Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
0 Building Division �
(650) 558-7260
� Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
Planning Staff
� Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
X Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Subject: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling with a detached garage at 114 Howard
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-264-160
Staff Review: August 12, 2013
1) Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City's
NPDES (stormwater) permit to prevent stormwater pollution from construction
activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement appropriate and
effective BMPs during all phases of construction, including demolition. When
submitting plans for a building permit include a list of construction BMPs as project
notes on a separate full size plan sheet, preferably 2' x 3' or larger. Project
proponent may use the attached Construction BMPs plan sheet to comply with this
requirement. Electronic file is available for download at:
http://www.flowstobay.org/documents/business/construction/Countywide_Program_B
M P_Plan_Sheet_J u n2012. pdf
2) Best Management Practices (BMPs) requirements apply on any projects using
architectural copper. To learn what these requirements,are, see attached flyer
"Requirements for Architectural Copper." Electronic file is available for download at:
http://www.flowstobay.org/documents/municipalities/nd/Materials/2012%20Materials/
Architectural_copper_BMPs_FINAL.pdf
For assistance please contact Stephen D. at 650-342-3727
��Reviewed by: SD �
�
F< <J �7 f �_ . � .
Ci ,`Y U� R,`,,,.-. .,. ,-, :•.i, ��L
G_ _'.' J,.F.,�� �. .� L....
F, CIFY
4r
� � �
��
DATE
�
FROM
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
January 12, 2015
Planning Commission
Director's Report
Meeting Date: January 12, 2015
Erika Lewit, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI- REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN
REVIEW PROJECT AT 114 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing
single family dwelling with an attached garage at 114 Howard Avenue was approved by the
Planning Commission on November 25, 2013 (November 25, 2013 Consent Calendar and
November 12, 2014 Design Review Study Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A
Building Permit was issued and the project is close to completion and final inspections.
The homeowner submitted a letter accompanied with photographs to show the 4 requested as-
built changes to the approved project. The front and rear elevations from the original approved
plans are included for reference.
Planning Staff would note that two of the proposed changes (the tile at the second story window
recess and the chimney termination cap) are at the rear elevation and two of the proposed
changes (the three recessed windows and the front entry column materials) are at the front
elevation. All of these changes are in place except for the front entry columns, which have not
yet been installed. The approved columns were rounded and made of stone with a stone base.
The proposed columns will also be rounded, but will be constructed of fiberglass and painted.
If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action
calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
Erika Lewit, Senior Planner
c. Julie and Leno Bellomo, property owners
ATTACHMENTS:
Explanation letter from owner, date stamped January 7, 2014
November 25, 2013, Planning Commission Action Calendar Minutes
November 12, 2013 Planning Commission Design Review Study Minutes
Approval letter for project, dated December 10, 2014
Previously approved plans, front and rear elevations, date stamped October 30, 2013
Photographs of the as-built project (four 4" x 6" photos)
December 28, 2014
T0: Burlingame Planning Department and Commissioners
FR: Julie & Leno Bellomo
RE: Residential construction project located at 114 Howard Avenue
. � ��, � 't�r � �,�
i,i 7 20�4
,F F3•JFiLINr;r;,n��
�;
During the construction process, three minor changes evolved to fit the tone and design of the
project. We are asking the Burlingame Planning Department Commissioners to review our
completed project and approve the proposed changes. We feel that our home represents the
highest quality in design, craftsmanship and materials. At the inception of the project, it was
our intent to deliver a home that represents how we all feel about our community and the
Town of Burlingame.
Requested Change #1:
The original construction documents call out stone or wood window sills. The original exterior
finish suggested a typical sand stucco finish. As we progressed through the project and at
significant expense, we elected to finish the exterior with a custom engineered stucco finish
which provides a light mottling variegated smooth finish. The deep inset windows were
wrapped in this finish creating a look of old world craftsmanship indicative of the era design.
Requested Change #2:
At the rear elevation, there is a call out for tile to be placed within the inset below the shower
window on the second floor. This inset is on the second story and is not visible from the street.
We would like to request a change to the plan, keeping the simplicity of the home and
architecture in unison.
Requested Change #3:
The original call out suggested that the columns supporting the portico would be of angular
stucco construction with a stone base. Nearing the conclusion of construction, our design
consultant recommended the use of round columns to reduce the angularity of the entrance.
We would like the commissioners to approve this design change to improve the elegance and
softness of this entry. The columns will be constructed of fiberglass and painted in a soft
contrasting color reflective of the buildings color pallet.
Explanation of Rear Fireplace Cap:
The originally submitted plans reflect a small three stack cap piece. During the Fire
Departments final inspection, this design and installation was rejected due to a clearance issue
whereby the flue did not provide adequate clearance to the main structure. Our current
singular offset flue reflects a code demand by the inspector representing fire code
enforcement.
Photographs of the project are enclosed with our request.
Julie & Leno Bellomo
Homeowners
114 Howard Avenue
C/TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 25, 2013
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - ltems on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
1. 114 HOWARD AVENUE, 20NED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED
GARAGE (JOE SABEL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JULIE AND LONO BELLOMO, PROPERTY
OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the Consent Calendar, by resolution. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Sargent. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Davis and Yie absent). Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:07 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2. 1153 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST LOOR
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (WILLIAM PASHELINSKY, A HITECT;
MAYA EYDELMAN APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER STAFF CONTACT: ERICA S OHMEIER
Commissioner DeMartini recused himself from this item, as he lives within 500 feet of th subject property.
He left the dais.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte commu cations. Reference staff
report dated November 25, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Stro eier presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were sugg ted for consideration. There
were no questions of staff.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
William Pashelinsky represented the applicant:
■ Concurred with the comments from last meetin
■ Brought the height down to 9'-6"
■ Great improvement, nice addition to what i here.
■ Gives nice presence.
Commission questions/comments:
■ Consider a hip rather than ga on the porch roof? (Pashelinsky: A hip is difficult and would bring
the roof right on top of the ors. It would be unattractive and incongruous. Proportion would be
problematic.)
■ Why couldn't it come s aight from where it is now? (Pashelinsky: Because it is too small relative to
the top of the arch. I ould be a nice look, but it is problematic. You would have to raise the whole
thing up.)
■ Could you clari the overall height of the addition? (Strohmeier: 9" lowerthan the previous proposal,
but the plate eight is 1' lower.)
■ So height ould be 14'-3"? (Pashelinsky: Yes)
■ Have yo considered a single door rather than double doors in order to tie into the neighborhood?
(Pash insky: Owner would prefer double doors)
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON — Approved Minutes November 12, 2013
The potential is for this to be a detrimental use if they do not have their main operation fi d out.
Would potentially be a code enforcement burden without any otherbenefit other e tenancy of
the property.
Continue to a date certain? (Kane: Ifcontinuing, would advis ate certain. A shortcontinuance
for additional information to the Commission would i to see how ihis fits in with the business
plan.)
Currently cannot meet finding (a) i indings for a Conditional Use Permit. Not hazardous or
dangerous, but there is th ' e of convenience to oiher properties in the vicinity.
Vice ChairDavi ed fora voice vote on the motion to continue to the November25, 2013 meeting. The
motion ed 6-0-1-0. (Commissioner Sargent absent). The action is not appealable. This item
co ded at 8:09 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
5. 114 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED
GARAGE (JOE SABEL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JULIE AND LONO BELLOMO, PROPERTY
OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli met with the property owner. There
were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated November 12, 2013 with attachments.
Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Davis opened the public comment period.
Joe Sabel represented the applicant:
Upgrade of the existing one-story home. Has tried to work with a lot of the existing materials and the
fabric of the neighborhood, as well as introduce new materials.
Worked with the mass and bulk. Looked at maintaining light coming in to the side yards, and the
articulation of the massing from the front.
Owners spent time reaching out to the neighbors, and contacted 6-8 of those adjacent. Received
positive feedback on the initial design.
Commission questions/comments:
■ It is a dramatic change. Care will need to be taken to make sure it is integrated well with the
neighborhood.
■ Fascias at the gable ends — with the large base rafter at gable ends and the small-profile roof tiles,
could end up looking a bit like a tract home, as opposed to a barrel tile that overlaps the fascia in the
more traditional manner. (Sabel: That is the intention, to capture the "old school" look.) Could
extend fascia below.
■ Is there a plan for the sill material, on the windows flanking the entry porch? (Sabel: Not foam.
Would probably be painted wood, or stone if it fits into the budget.) Wood would be OK.
■ At the base of the entry columns it looks like there is a pedestal in the front elevation, but in the right
elevation looks like it the column is not shown the same. The two drawings do not look like they are
consistent. (Sabel: The intent is to introduce the stone element, as shown on the front elevation.)
■ Likes the detail with the deep-set front casement windows.
■ Detail on the upstairs deep-set window, on the plan does not show it thicker like it does on the lower
walls in the Office and Living Room. Would the upstairs walls be thick as well to accommodate the
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 12, 2013
deep-set windows? (Sabel: Yes, specifically in Bedroom #2 the front wall should be reflected as a
deeper-set window.)
■ On the gable ends a clay attic vent detail may help.
■ Landscape plan with bigger trees at front helps.
■ During construction should be mindful that schools are nearby — school traffic in the mornings.
(Sabel: Could have owners notify when heavier trucks are coming.)
■ Front window to right of front door is hidden behind the column. Maybe the window needs to shift to
the right 6 inches or so. (Sabel: Initially had the fireplace unit engaged into the garage so the
window was pushed back, but now pushed back to scale seating. Also it is a rare perspective
moment, and will never see the house straight on.)
■ The Bedroom #3 bathroom window is not shown on the plan. (Sabel: Correct. Forgot to put it on the
plan.) If didn't want to do a window could do an inset tile treatment that is decorative from the
outside, since there is a big window next to the bath tub right next to it. Could save money on
waterproofing. If did a tile recess could make it taller, to fill more of the gable bump-out. (Sabel:
Have considered a fixed window, sans frame. Inset tile aesthetic could be nice character to add.)
■ Could also allow a painted fiberglass window, for moisture.
■ Could do both — have a window in a recess.
■ Likes the fireplace at the rear with the French doors.
■ The front entry piece seems overscaled for the house. Maybe if the eave line lined up with the eave
around it, it would still come up from that and be prominent from the streetfront. (Sabel: Face of the
porch is lined up with the face of garage.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion:
It is fine-tuning a handsome design. Refinements and embellishments, not fixes.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Conseni Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice Chair Davis called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0. (Commissioner Sargent
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appea/ab/e. This item concluded at 8:24
p. m.
X.
There were no Co�friissioner's Reports.
XI
ion Communications:
12