The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1141 Bernal Avenue - Staff Report, ^ , V h ' ', ' .}, �' t { � �. � � . � e ` „i� .. . ~. ` .. ' . � � �. c _ . ii ` . , �.:;.� . :, � �w . . . . �, t : , n�r, S :' ,� � _ �u9� a r � . . .. $:Iw,Y. ...�v.�u, . ..�' � S a � , . )�.: ` � % y' �. . . � �v � � .,�yx. , ' �, .. • � 'i ' '�✓ �k� - t . �1' .�, 1 r . 'K #fi � � � � jt k�� I �� 7•{Y�) i�y �! . i `�f��5 f � "� .� ri . IY r A�•`S �, . � r � � .. . {,, u� l -;�. �Y S;'"�A J ' � �� i � � ' �'�C.. �� k�::: �.rE i.� �� 4r :a -� ��,,�� ' '� tl :I ,.;.r�� "''� :aii { k�� -� a ' y,l'•; '� ` � .',: �.,,;;� �* � } . . . "��. �"r r 1 j .� t^� � , • .,�i� t ' 'I . . . , w� A\ 1 \d � �yy�' j�DV '�y Vi Vi ��yS , ..... . . 1�+�k�F' . ... .r kv� M+'.3 � •r . . . .:)� � '�, ...... . � � '�'� �'ry� s�'� ,,�4�'� � �.��f ' t �r. � � � », . � � ' �„ . . �'�: � f r a�'Y'` - , .n'•er. ' e ' � „�� .0 ��9�"� 7. ,r �� t ' � f' 1 G.a,� /�.� �yi '�� .. ,. .I'� r `r .:� . r � �� 4 ,� '1�`. f, �V: �;7 - �. �, � i - t �� t.} s � � - . 'i, l � ((�� }t �a � 4* � � � . � . Js9 `,��1� � y. , �i�� i ' . ,j�Y�i � �^Y"� ��[ P � � �� 1. � �" S,�t . . � � r "-'! 4 r 1� �A�� tlf �r�, � r x� �• . � �.... G.r,�5 y 1 E i�,. $ 4P, f� �� i! � ,�y . . � � ts . , �•t �. � '!� . ,�; . ,Y t £n ..�++y� �;..:� , �! :.�� ` . �j•.n �� i :" i � � � .. ' • . . Y ` � SF, 1 ~ t , ' � . � � . � . � s ��., ti �' ; �� ,-rf;' a. �rt � r 1 i q ; � �� '�� ' � � � � :x�rt r , �� +4neb '� � � . � a �i � � ` . f " � � { Y'� t r' !' .d51rn� � "M � �-'t' ' h, 9 `i �- � � a u� �� 'I�'�' � '�i k - >at ., .� �' 9��• . t , i� i� Y �' -� 5 �i. �* ` .� � �'�f yp�{.. . � fi't' c. � �r #c'�`°o. kr�,".3.� . �;,,°� _' � r�r.�,�`, r.. . ^ Yd� � � � a= � � � � � �,l �,� x,�.; .:--�-, �. ti.� t �.. ��:. � .� m ..w y. .... � � �' ' �tz�r., � I�L_R„"-. ' - _. � at�„I,.ni� � r �,: ��„ i;; I s;.. u�;: a�t ��,, ,� 4 cwr �^:�y_--�..� 4 �, . � � ` �;� -: -^"--- --- `�`( ,j _ � � City of Burlingame Design Review for a First and Second Story Addition Item # � Action Calendar Address: 1141 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: 9/12/OS Request: Design review for a first and second story addition at 1141 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040) Applicant and Property Owner: Remy Sijbrant Architect: Young and Borlik APN: 026-183-050 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 6,000 SF Date Submitted: May 25, 2005 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Summary: The applicant is requesting design review for a first and second story addition at 1141 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing house is two-stories with a one-car attached garage and totals 2,877 SF (0.47 FAR). The main entrance is currently located on the first floor along with the attached garage, study, recreation room, and one bedroom. The second floor contains the living room, dining room, family room , kitchen and a bedroom. The proposed addition includes a major reconfiguration of the existing floor plan. The existing attached one car garage and first floor entry will be removed and a new entry is proposed along the left side of the house. The new entry is considered two stories with a 12 foot plate height ,which requires design review. The new entry is 63 SF and will be located at a level that is between the first and second floors. There will be four bedrooms, all will be relocated to the first floor. Two cantilevered fireplace alcoves are also proposed on the second floor along the right elevation. Windows on all elevations will be removed and replaced, many in new locations. The existing dormers in the middle of the side elevations will be removed. The exterior materials will be changing to cultured stone and stucco. A new detached garage is also proposed with this project. The new garage will be 438 SF and will be located in the rear 30% of the lot, and is therefore exempt from setbacks. The remodeled house will have four bedrooms which requires one covered that is provided in the new detached garage, and one uncovered parking space provided in the driveway. Although the garage has a two car 20 foot wide by 20 foot deep interior dimension, the inside space (on the left) does not have the 24 foot back up space required to be considered a code complying covered parking space. Therefore, the new garage is only counted as providing one covered parking space. The addition and new garage will increase the total floor area of the house to 3,363 SF (0.56 FAR), where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposal is 57 SF below the maximum floor area allowed on this lot. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for a first and second floor addition. Lot Area: 6,000 SF SETBACKS Front (1 st flr): (2nd flr): Side (left): Existing 16'6" 16'6" 10' Proposed No change No change 4' 15' 20' � Allowed/Required Design Review 1141 Bernal Avenue Existing I Proposed I Allowed/Required (right): 11' No change 4' � � _� ............................... .. .................................. ...................................................................................................................................... ... .. ....................................................................................................... . � Rear (Ist flr): 45' No change i 15' (2nd flr): 45' No change � 20' _ :.................................................... .. _......................................�........................................................................................................._........ Lot Coverage: 1,670 SF 2,204 SF ' 2,400 SF 27.8% 36.7% j 40% .:............................................ .................................................................. .:..... ...................................................... ....... ........................................ FAR: 2,877 SF ' 3,363 SF 3,420 SF 0.47 FAR 0.56 FAR 0.57 FAR ; # of bedrooms: 3 ' 4 � ------- _� ................... �.......................... ....................................................... Parking: 1 covered 1 covered (10' x 20') ; No change � (10' x 20') 1 uncovered f 1 uncovered , , � � , , 9 x 20 � 9 x 20 � i � ) ) ......................................... ......................................................................... .. .. . ........................................�......................................................................................,..... .. ........................................ ... .................. , Height: 23' 1" i No change ; 30' DHEnvelope: Meets Requirement j Meets Requirement � See code This project meets all code requirements. Staff Comments: Building permit number 2021937 was issued on May 19, 2003 for an addition and remodel at 1141 Bernal Avenue. The project included a second story addition of a break fast nook that was 97 SF. The earlier project was not subject to design review because of a Planning Commission policy which exempts second story additions that meet the following criteria: 1) enclosed roof area is 100 SF or less; 2) roof addition's pitch matches the existing roof pitch; and 3) height of the roof addition is not higher than the highest ridge of the existing roof. Work under the building permit was started but never completed. Some inspections were signed off on, however the work was not finished and the permit expired. The property has changed ownership since the issuance of building permit number 2021937. The new owner purchased the property in this unfinished state without a building permit. He is proposing to make the proposed changes to the house. Design review is required for this new application because the plate height of the proposed addition is greater than 9 feet. The Building Department allows renewal of permits only when the scope of work is the same. So following Planning Commission approval the applicant will apply for a new building permit. There is currently no construction work going on at this site. July 11, 2005 Design Review Study Meeting: At the July 11, 2005, design review study meeting the Planning Commission voted to send this project to a design review consultant. The Planning Commission identified the following concerns with the project. The applicant met with the design reviewer and discussed these issues. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped August 1, 2005, in response to the Planning Commission's comments. The Planning Commission comments from the July 11, 2005 design review study meeting are listed below, with a summary of the changes made on the August 11, 2005 plans to address each in italics below. Concerned with the size of the chimneys, they are too large, reduce size of chimneys and incorporate them better into the design of the house, cantilevered chimneys look odd; if a gas insert is proposed chimneys do not need to be this large; 2 Design Review 1141 Bernal Avenue Both of the chimneys on the north elevation have been reduced in size and are more in scale with the house. The architect explored bringing the chimneys down to the ground rather than having them cantilevered, however it was not possible to relocate the existing windows below the chimneys because these are bedrooms. • Show details of proposed window trim and window style, should be consistent throughout house; • Window treatment on the south elevation lacks coordination, for example there is a large horizontal rectangular window proposed and all others are more vertical; • Window trim on front elevation appears to be thicker than window trim on the side and rear elevations, window trim and window style needs to be consistent throughout the house; • Clarify mullions on first floor window located on the front elevation at the right side of the house, what do the white lines represent, this may be an error on the plans, not consistent with other windows; Mullions have eliminated from the front windows, so that all window styles are consistent. Trim has been added to all of the windows. The design reviewer notes in his analysis that there are two sill details, one pre-cast and the other wood. But he feels that this is OK to have the pre-cast at the front and entry side of the house and use wood elsewhere since the overwhelming detailing of the windows is the same. • Greenhouse window in kitchen needs to be integrated better into the design, do not want to see a metal pre- fabricated greenhouse window tacked on to the side of the house; The greenhouse kitchen window on the south elevation has been revised to a Pella box bay window to match all of the new windows. • Balcony, pedestrian gate and driveway gate proposed to be iron, there is too much iron proposed at the front of the house, consider reducing the amount of iron work proposed at the front, possible eliminate the front gate; considered a different treatment for the second floor deck at the front of the house; • Concerned with placement of gate on stairs, please verify compliance with the building code, location of gates varies on plans, please clarify locations on site plan; The front entry gate has been eliminated from the plan. The three small windows with cross grilles on the new entry, south elevation, have been eliminated. The metal detailing on the front of the house has been reduced. The railings and detailing are now more consistent throughout, with both the front rear railings revised to have posts with detailing rather just metal railings. Concerned with the wall sconces proposed on the second floor on the front elevation, light should be directed downward, do not want to see wall or facade floodlit; The wall sconces on the second floor front elevation have been eliminated. Recessed lighting has been included in the trellis over the dining room doors on the front elevation. Sheet ME2.2 of the revised plans note that light will be kept entirely within the property lines. Wall sconces are proposed at the rear deck. The plans note that the units will be shielded so that light is contained entirely on the property and does not project beyond the property line. Staircase at the rear of the house requires pickets along railing, please show on plans; Plans have been revised to show pickets on the rear staircase, sheet A3.2. 3 Design Review 1141 Bernal Avenue • Consider incorporating a solid railing design for the proposed second floor deck at the rear of the house, this deck is located at the interior of the lot off the family room, but the solid railing would help to block the view of the deck by the neighbors; The rear balcony railing has been changed to add more solid portions (posts), with the open metal railing portion reduced. Would like to see large scale, evergreen plant materials/trees at the rear of the lot; also would like to see landscaping to the north of the deck at the rear to provide screening for the neighbors at 1143 Bernal Avenue. Three new 24 inch box Geijera Paraviflora trees have been added at 9 inches on center along the rear property line to added screening. There have also been 4 new 24 inch box Tristania Laurina added along the north side property line to provide screening for the second floor deck. Design Reviewer's Comments and Conclusion (memo dated August 8, 2005): The design reviewer's August 8 2005 memo is attached. The design reviewer notes that the massing and bulk of the structure are not being significantly changed except for the new entry which seems like an appropriate addition and uses space at the side yard efficiently. The new entry also allows a more efficient and usable floor plan on this long narrow house and creates better use of the available square footage with better orientation of roorns. The new detached garage takes the garage door off of the fa�ade of this house and will be more compatible with the rear parking pattern that exists throughout the neighborhood. In the summary section of the report the design review asked the architect to consider three additional changes: 1) draw the box bay more accurately to reflect the thicker sides and base typical of the unit; 2) carefully select exterior lighting to be shielded; and 3) consider adding screening planting. Presently the revised plans do note that the greenhouse window on the south elevation has been revised to a Pella box bay window, the lighting on the revised plan notes that all lights will be shielded to not extend beyond the property line, and the additional landscaping for screening has been added on the site plans as noted above. The design reviewer notes that new window details and trim have been added to the plans, with two sill details shown, one pre-cast at the front and entry side of the house and the other wood elsewhere. However, he feels that this is OK because the overwhelming detailing of the windows is the same. He notes that the mullions have been eliminated in favor of all casements, with all windows compatible and similar. In summary the design reviewer recommends approval of the revised plans. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 4 Design Review 1141 Bernal Avenue Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution; and should 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: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 1, 2005 sheets A0.1 through A5.1 and ME2.1, ME2.2, site plan, floor plans, building elevations, landscape plan (on site plan) and mechanical and electrical plan; 2. 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official, NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal's memos dated June 23, 2005 shall be met; 4. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the proj ect 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 proj ect, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty ofperjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6. 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; 7. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 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; and 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Catherine Barber Planner c: Remy Sijbrant, applicant/property owner WINGES ARCHITECTS MEMO: Date: 8-8-2005 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 ref: 1141 Bernal Ave. — Sigbrant Residence . p �; AUG 1 0 2005 CITY OF i3URLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and reviewed the initial plans. I have had one meeting with the architect and applicant to review the Planning Commission comments and have reviewed the revised design documents, stamped "Received Aug. 1, 2005.° The design has been modified per our meeting discussion and has responded well to the Commission's concerns. 1. Compatibilitv of the architectural stvle with that of the existing neiQhborhood� • The neighborhood and street are a collection of eclectic styles. • The house massing and scale are not being changed, however new materials, new windows and details are being changed to stone, stucco and metal railings. This will replace the current dilapidated conditions and will improve the neighborhood appearance by removing an eyesore. � The style is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Resqect the Parkinq and GaraQe Pattems in the Neiahborhood� • The existing attached garage is being replaced with a new 2 car free standing garage at the rear of the property. The parking pattem in this neighborhood is a mix of front and rear garages. This proposal will remove a garage door at the front of the house and replace it with a new attractive wall and windows. • The new design provides additional parking although more driveway paving, but is compatible with the rear parking pattem that exists throughout the neighborhood. 3. Architectural Stvle. Mass and Bulk of the Structure and Intemal Consistencv of the Desian • The massing and bulk of the structure are not being significantly changed except for the new entry feature. The new entry seems like an appropriate addition and uses available space at the side yard. • The new side entry allows a more efficient and usable floor plan on this long narrow house, reduces intemal circulation space and eliminates long hallways. • The rearrangement of the floor plan allows much better use of the available square footage and better orientation of the rooms. • The unusual �eversed floor plan of bedrooms on the lower level with living on the upper floor of the house repeats the existing layout. This allows nicer spaces on the upper living areas although vertically separating this living space from the rear yard. The existing deck will be retained and improved. WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE311, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / FAX: (650) 343-1291 / info@wingesaia.com / TEL: (650) 343-110� ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANNING / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACEPLANNING / DESIGNCOUNSELING WINGES 2 ARCHITECTS The revised plans have responded well the Commission's comments and suggestions of the Design Review, and are listed as follows: o The chimneys have been revised to be much smaller and more in scale with the house. It was not possible to relocate lower windows, and one of these is existing, so these projections are still cantilevered. o New details of the windows and trim have been added. All window styles are consistent and the greenhouse window has been replaced by a compatible wood box bay window to match the other window types and styles. There are two details for the sills, one pre-cast and the other wood. I feel that this is OK to express the pre-cast at the front and entry side of the house and use wood elsewhere, since the overwhelming detailing of the windows is the same. o Mullions on the windows have been eliminated in favor of all glass casements. All windows are compatible and similar. o Front entry gate has been eliminated. Cross grilles on windows have been eliminated as well as the small windows at the entry feature. Metal at the front of the house has been reduced. Railings and detailing are more consistent throughout. o Wall sconces at front of house have been eliminated. o The entry roof at front door has been redesigned, and small trellis elements have been added above the front windows to match the entry door roof. This softens the fa�ade and better coordinates the design. o The rear balcony railing has been changed to add more solid portions, with the open metal railing portion reduced. Pickets are now shown on the rear stair. o A new wine cellar and storage space has been added under the deck to avoid a dark unused underfloor area—this improves the appearance of the rear elevation. 4 Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adiacent Structures to Each Side: There is no significant change to the massing proposed from the existing conditions. The new entry location and entry enclosure feature as well as the new rear garage will have some effect on the neighbors, but is not in my opinion a major change and is within the zoning requirements. I believe the proposal interfaces appropriately with the neighboring structures. It is noted that both neighboring structures set back more than the minimum setbacks required. 5 Landscapinct and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Comaonents: • Landscaping changes were not noted on the revised plans. I would suggest considering the suggestions for additional screening planting. �� AUG 1 0 2005 �;fiY Or 13URLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE31i, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / FAX: (650) 343-1291 / info@wingesaia.com / TEC: (650) 343-1101 ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANNING / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING WINGES ARCH ITECTS SU111I71afY: Recommend approval of the revised submitted plans. Please correct and/or consider the following additional comments before building department submittal: 1. Draw the box bay more accurately to reflect the thicker sides and base typical of this type of unit. 2. Careful with selecting outdoor fixtures. Indirect up/down shielded fixtures or down lights will be much better than the suggested hanging chandelier fixture at the entry. Similar comment on deck lights—consider recessing lights in the solid portion of the balcony railing shining down. 3. Consider the screen planting mentioned. Jerry L. Winges, AIA Principal � � `qr.0 �..vR 5 1�` r�n m¢an. � � `r V1'^ �n AUG � 0 2005 �ITY OF E3lJRLINGAME PIANNING DEPT. WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE311, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / FAX: (650) 343-1291 / info@wingesaia.com / TEL: (650J 343-1101 ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANNING / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / DESIC,N COUNSELING City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 13. 1141 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (REMY SIJBRANT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; YOLJNG AND BORLIK, ARCHITECT) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Remy Sijbrant, applicant and property owner, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that the proposed project will make the existing house look better and that they understand the difficulty with improving this house in its current condition. Corrunission expressed a concern about the comment submitted by a neighbor regarding employees of the applicants' construction business being dispersed from this site; CA noted that a condition can be added for the action meeting to prohibit dispersing of employees from this site and to prohibit construction material staging for other construction projects at this site. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • Concerned with the size of the chimneys, they are too large, reduce size of chimneys and incorporate them better into the design of the house, cantilevered chimneys look odd; if a gas insert is proposed chimneys do not need to be this large; • Show details of proposed window trim and window style, should be consistent throughout house; • Window treatment on the south elevation lacks coordination, for example there is a large horizontal rectangular window proposed and all others are more vertical; • Window trim on front elevation appears to be thicker than window trim on the side and rear elevations, window trim and window style needs to be consistent throughout the house; • Clarify mullions on first floor window located on the front elevation at the right side of the house, what do the white lines represent, this may be an error on the plans, not consistent with other windows; • Greenhouse window in kitchen needs to be integrated better into the design, do not want to see a metal pre-fab greenhouse window tacked on to the side of the house; • Balcony, pedestrian gate and driveway gate proposed to be iron, there is too much iron proposed at the front of the house, consider reducing the amount of iron work proposed at the front, possible eliminate the front gate; considered a different treatment for the second floor deck at the front of the house; • Concerned with placement of gate on stairs, please verify compliance with the building code, location of gates varies on plans, please clarify locations on site plan; • Concerned with the wall sconces proposed on the second floor on the front elevation, light should be directed downward, do not want to see wall or facade floodlit; • Staircase at the rear of the house requires pickets along railing, please show on plans; • Consider incorporating a solid railing design for the proposed second floor deck at the rear of the house, this deck is located at the interior of the lot off the family room, but the solid railing would help to block the view of the deck by the neighbors; • Would like to see large scale, evergreen plant materials/trees at the rear of the lot; also would like to see landscaping to the north of the deck at the rear to provide screening for the neighbors at 1143 Bernal Avenue. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. : City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 C. Vistica noted that several changes were suggested which will require a fair amount of coordination throughout the design and made a motion to send this proj ect to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on motion: feel that most of the comments can be addressed by the architect, not asking them to make significant design changes, neighbors would like to see this project completed quickly, feel that changes can be made without a design review consultant. Concensus was that going to a design reviewer should not take much longer than the applicant making revisions and corrections with staff. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:20 p.m. 19 �m ^ �vProject Comments Date: To: From: 06/23/2005 ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney ❑ Recycling Specialist m Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review for substantial construction and first and second story addition to single family dwelling with detached garac�e at 1141 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-183-050 Staff Review: 06/27/2005 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide double backflow prevention. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: �� Date: � _:� �. -��- Project Comments Date: To: 06/23/2005 � City Engineer � Chief Building Official � City Arborist � City Attorney � Recycling Specialist � Fire Marshal ✓ NPDES Coordinator Frorn: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review for substantial construction and first and second story addition to single family dwelling with detached garage at 1141 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-183-050 Staf� Review: 06/27/2005 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the construction project (including demolition). Ensure that sufficient amount of erosion and sediment control measures are available on site at all times. The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: � j Date: 06/27/05 Project Comments Date: 06/23/2005 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff X Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for design review for substantial construction and first and second story addition to single family dwelling with detached garage at 1141 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-183-050 Staff Review: 06/27/2005 Applicant shall submit a Waste Reduction Plan and recycling deposit for this and all covered projects prior to construction or permitting. Reviewed by: �/ - v�c�-� Date: (P/,�Z ��v 5 Project Comments Date 1� From: 06/23/2005 r�( City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Recycling Specialist CI Fire Marshal ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for design review for substantial construction and first and second story addition to single family dwelling with detached garage at 1141 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-183-050 Staff Review: 06/27/2005 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage. 2. Replace all displaced/damaged sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter. 3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 6/27/2005 Project Comments Date: To: 06/23/2005 � City Engineer X Chief Building Official ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney ❑ NPDES Coordinator From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review for substantial construction and first and second story addition to single family dwelling with detached garage at 1141 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-183-050 Staff Review: 06/27/2005 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) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Provide a legend that indicates the sxisting walls, walls to be demolished, and new walls. 4) According to the City of Burlingame Municipal code "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." Therefore, this building must comply with the 2001 California Building Code for new structures. 5) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. 6) Roof eaves must not project within two feet of the property line. 7) Exterior bearing walls less than three feet from the property line must be constructed of one-hour fire-rated construction and no openings are allowed. 8) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. 9) Provide guardrails at all landings. 10)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are more than four risers. 11)Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 12)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface within ten feet. „ ,. .. . �._� . � Reviewed=bv:...: �_��.�.�.._..--�� Date: � ��,..,�/ - � , i s � l / �/ ��rrta� �i� City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org rr � APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION �� Type of application: Design Review 'f , Gonditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: h r��f I �� v � �« - �r � ��, �, e � ��7i��N��ff� Name: Ze='h ; ��i �► I - Address: �� I L G� r-� e_ City/State/Zip:_��,6�4 e , C/4 �l `��30 Phone (w): � � � � S � - `�S-�6 �): ` 1 � I— _ 7�C� — S� S�-j �fl� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Ci:•��,u ��d ��.� l % /c Address: 2 6 f �, -r, ;� i�-� �� c��is�t�z�p: �� % �r� . � A �� Phone (w): (� S� --G �� - l`� 6 � �� PROPERTY OWNER Name: e.�n �;� : �. ,, r Address: l/ `1 /,� Pf n� e. City/State/Zip: 13c�, � l� � �Gm P , � Phone (w): C' S�o � C S�-`� s�� )� ��~-�30 - � S `7 — ✓h �y n �� Le.n ( zt N � �� Q/✓+�.n �'-tG�C..e.ci/�� 2 �l !S�" ��, H - g � tio Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for tl�is project. ��r�� d E� JUN 2 3 2005 CITY OF BURLING�ME PLANNI�JG DEPT. DESCRIPiION: � 1 +- - � •it s, �-=�� AFFADAVIT/5IGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct the best of my lcnoyvledge and belief. � '' ._ .. . _ . '' Applicant's signature: Date: �` '2 � r > - , I know about the �oposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. 4� _...._ __. _-....�.._..._ . . .. . ...... _ _.� . _./' Property owner's signature: _— -�-"" Date: •� �'' C-� j � .� Date submitted: � � �� s ca,rr.� - � � ��;��,n� G� � �� '� � ` ,�� . , �l�.-, �r � G�� f � Z� �� RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review for a first and second story addition at 1141 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, Remv Siibrant, propertv owner, APN: 026-183-050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on September 12, 2005, 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: 15301 Class 1- (e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for design review are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of September, 2005, by the following vote: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review 1141 Bernal Avenue Effective September 22, 2005 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Deparhnent date stamped August 1, 2005 sheets A0.1 through A5.1 and ME2.1, ME2.2, site plan, floor plans, building elevations, landscape plan (on site plan) and mechanical and electrical plan; 2. 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official, NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal's memos dated June 23, 2005 shall be met; 4. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 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; and 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. � �� CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 � TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 �°a,.,,n,,,,a www.burlingame.org Site: 1141 BERNAL AVENUE Application for design review for substantial construction and a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling and a new detached garage at: 1141 BERNAL AVENUE, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-183-050). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, September 12, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. - Mailed: September 2, 2005 (Please refer to other side) A copy of the aF to the meeting Burlingame, C � � �,� . If you challe `'' e raising only �� ' i� described in he; at or prior to�the Property ow . �� r�� their tenants ��b (650) 558-7 0, �� Margaret Mo o City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINGAME �� :v�� "� �' � '�� 1� ��, �lic�t� and"�'pfan� �or th`I� pro�ect°i�t�y be reviewed prior � �. �t�t� �.� �n�ng ;Departm�nt t�t��.Primrose Road, be limited to blic hearing, :d to the city PU� �=I� (Please refer to other side) .. :�s � � � �. � ' S;;no�i, ��L � e respon blE �or ��v�_�io al infor at ��. �� µ ��:��.� � ►t. � ��,,,�, � R� � � ,� �.�_..�.�,,, ;�� ,,�°� � �,, 4�1��1�.,��ICE informing please call � ,f y� � !�" � tr'q. 'A' \Y iR J�`; �1 �wi�� . `�yy � �3 d //�� - � #� � 4 • � � - � 3 ; y � r .�B �i�_ �i" 5a' �+p ue` . :� �# 4 �. Y'�� y� �`�� '� �` � � � ' g � � � �� 9�A' R ;, � € t � '� ; T" 1 � � �' �i �h�'�Y 7 -� Y i � . �� y.'"Atl � f 'K .. p� � y � a" �i A�� a �S i ° �w � � � , C ` , f' .�*�P� � r . �. : �� '�� 4.��"{ �.. �+ v'�,.a� d� � 4p m��. � r�� {` ,� .� �a., � . �' �a � tl � 4 ='e � � � � 6 � � �; ;� § rs � #V S� . .. �; , �� . �� . � . % a�.�M'A'+. ♦'Y4Qr �I� �'��M�i' �i _ , �,`� ' � � i�` � � � t a� a t , �,.�,, .� � y. � # �.� J �� `��'t S.R."�:: � +r' �' �� .P�+ � . � .. t � pF + ' Y . .u` �� . � .,r ^ �r � i:�+ 4y°� M , .r. �� 4 i: ��1`� ,.` � , '�iW- ��. � !` i(� rw�� 4.' `ySyf="A . .• .^ .r { 7� � * , . , . 4� y� �,,� , s__ � ° `�*�� ' � ,�� '� f ��# � . . . _ � . . `�I �. % ��'a /.. z S .�-�� `�` ��"5 «�'" �" c� �m�� " �� ' .S . � . � . � �,�. �" . . , ��s t � � ,� �,:� � �+w . � ��''� f a'� � � ` ,�,n �' A "�� Y� r� , .. �, ar� � ' „ , � � � �� "5; � "�� i �_� �,�v . `�� d# € I , . � ` ,. . . . � � �� ;, i / ��i � �`� s�� : � � � �� f . � , , vr ..s,r. Y .,. ' .p ^y ;4+�!> ' � ^� �l �`� t � „��,� §W �+ � � J • �`ve � �f, ' a. , , b� ±f .. �r .'� �, , .31 �,: �- ., � y > ,„�.. � �" , �E ,ti. ,��. � w g � � �s � �'J �` `'� h f � � • ` ,. ` .� ;,� � , ' • ":�, � �« � r �„ '" �� „ � � � ��'� S .;t � "'`"1' - � . , ,��. . � � �� ,�� * � hs� �, „ � U .i t a � 4 �� r� > t � � � �� °� _„ � , a � s i �#�,.�' ,� �;�,�, `� ,�+`�� ,�.� .tj�`,�y � :r' ��a°^ a ,�s,' ' %. w „�+ ��r,• d .'�,. `�' ';✓s .-Y � ��,na,`.� � �� z .� w � 1 � �Y � �+"° �,.� ,a '`�.a�, . . � �* _ h �.'Y, ,�,°" r� . � -�R, � � � � ,� . � � � .� t - �;�r�. � �� '� . � '� � � � � 1 � ' 'sy�,'.� - ,y � ��', �'y�� . v . �y , � f , d) a . if. �! �� 'L' .. � ' .� ` �,, ••. M . ,.;.{ .. y�� `0. y �' )� , f�:: ' � ��•' � 5� ) � Y4YdN-i I k..t[�'.,ti..£:L3EtYi3Vi�: *�i�w"�a€� , .9(�' �a�.'� � . � � . �� ..1. y . ` J�� ` ��'. � µ� / �, m ♦ dr � . � � • � ! =g . . .,p " �,�, S.� t, >t._ , -..';. � � � _ .�y�,.' �`;� i � � -` �"' � - ,' p ,p. , ' ��' �' �, , > o: . h . � x .. �` 3.-' .� . . ., sp . ' . . d� ♦ � . � a � � �"y'' 4 x. ' �a f� � �'� � .' , '�" .�i � �.+ .. �� ` a��". �� 1../. , / I V .. �1 ,��y" �"� # � � ��•� � � � � �� . � � • � � �� . y+� f `^ . . !' � .� _ .Xj�. ^`r �{y�k� ",� ,r �,� . f0.� � ; � .�, .. � � • � t ; . s e �C R � „y$ r : s, �3p y� • y ��. *� . J� °t v� � . , "�,,, $' �� :� � f .��P N' �4 . :/ ti., ;,i ^ Y . . �, 5 ,. �,t.. f . � . � `�� / � ` � . � � y4T - � �� +4 �� n�4 �+ - �� 4� 3 �� S� . ` �:• � r; ,e ": . :a w - ;,t � ` �..' �. ; . . � „: ., �' ♦� -- i " ' . > � . 'A '� `,'. ( �s`".�;� '� : , � y ,.b „ a� 3 ' .- ..1$p',4- -.:. ° . .,ry�,� h i "Cy Y x _ � � \ :: � �'•,, _fy o\ ar2+ _•iY �' � v A, � /r �a� � m. %' �' N'i , � . � �''� P ,�' f '�k. ° Y(Z m ^ _ �':' .St ' �; ., Y.� "� '�. A �� , .. . �� '� ^�� ' p � .� - +ap� 1� tA r � ��, � �* � � a'�z .� ' , d - ��'��" +;' ...� #� �y � ., � F ,�� a'„�gp,,. '�`�af. � a *�. �a � � � "� � I�� °� . � .s�' � � � � � I �F+.,�mr.� ,y�,�3 � . �`� .� 4 .~ � �y� � �'�� g�'s . � ]� .�-�a�- ,- ,^� �`: � '�..� �d . •w4 •��.. f �� !pi�,.- t�„� �� t. ��i �� Av:�� ". �- '� �� ' � �, ,� • �'8 � � �-%.. �; , . . �*" � u, �' �`.,_. " �� * � ',f' � ¢� T �� "d/ ; � � `�" � .��; � �� * � �' .�"a / . . �, � �' . , � * �., .+� �� ,a�W�� ,� � „��.' �'. . � - �"� � �„� � ��''�� '�" "� . � �#��.""� �.. , ... , .�,m � �� . n�. � . � �w ' �� ` � ec�w• ,�i" e� . , ., � �" ,� � � .n �1 �" � _ ' � ;,'.� . � :. _ 6 . r.g� +�;k � . � � ' �'l ' � , + � ,� �j ��{'- � � � � w�� +., /� N„�.+�" �i� r . � • y . °" 4 � �� k � 1 ` �a � � � � `'�, �a-* � �w /' �'" '�. �� ,'� , K +7t # ` � � '� � � � „, �"t'�'� �'�C�.* k . �. ,. 7 � .f '¢ A � .,��.,yyt �M, X, �� '�, , ,�,= I `.;.i �,'4'Ay "y �� . � �� r , � � y* +r ' � �:r '�z`"� � � ,�" i4t �� . h. , � � •� � a� r� � ��L; � �� i� �'� ,�"�"�'� �' .} � . , . � �,� , r/.f �� . � i�� 3".�`'a& h �� e�s �' ,:�� . i.. �{�ry$� �. � . Y"� .�+ �,.� , �� !,� A`' , � ��" �„a �,. � ; � , . 3x ''� � `�, ° r �'ra r :�,. �0�+"�k,. ��^` ; � � h . ... !� _ ,. k: �, p ~ 1 � 4 � � � � � ' . � . w r i bJ f� �i . % i `♦ � M f ��` � t'� :�'�_ /�f f' 'e, ,€ .;� � �'��, ,��r�, � `t-, ��Y� 'E � j �A� � M 4l'� :- t�` s : •1� `�.,�. -.. � � �'`e• � �Y � � \"v� P '�k R. }� � . \ `t �t • . ru` L . �' � 5 Pa�Y•fis��k` t�� i �� A=le .0�� Y �F � �!, �' < ,: "� �. �` , " �r ��r �' ' � '• ,';� .r � � - � ��'�',s � j � i� � �, , � , r � ., . a @ . � ��. ,a' � ,�y� � ,^^"r.m4 ,'fi�'6�,ji;r. �.y. '�� .A',�' � t...�e. `ia.t�.n 'S�¢ as..',-_ _ ° �, �.. , � �� _ �,`ft� ��e � ;� � .� J�, � �r '' �°`� '°'� �� "v`� �� ' �' �� r �t� . � c, '' � ` 5,,� �-�t� �w�, �, ` �' � R � ��.`� � � �� , t;b�f y� � ��. 4� i ` � � `°y� � t,' � x � � . ,,, . � i �, ,, . -.� � . /� , � , � � • "�* , ��"�`� �' � ��" �,�� f � f •'�' � � a� *� �'.� /� t � ,�. "� . /�i /� , . tr *� �'�� . _ ��. �� . � i� � t i;_ , �. . - , , 'p� g�E -. . 9 � � . > . � e „ • � _ ^� � >"r ,":>r: � wv '•' ` r r�� a ��, ,, � � `' � : f l� �1 � . : �, � "h � �, . .,: � ��+ ,y s � � � `' F�.j� ; � , �; • .'1 � �`�� ,.� _� �, �''' � T � �, , �� ,: , . ,r �� " � �.w^`$ �2 . A '. _ � .. .. . � ._ � �ti. • � w,, �� ,a� �*6 ��` �' �,�a: � �^ �: 'S > � " �� `% „� .,�F° � �' . ' � � �Qj ,� � ' y ° ,� �°,. '�:: " 7 �� .� . �`'�� . � ��, � �� . k� r �� , �. µy" �� '�' ' <�' ��"``� �. r � � `� ;� � " � '� .A . �i�/ ": e+� �/�. � � f�" � k,.� ��' - a � . � � � ,� . " %TO. � ��'�� ►� A � � ,. �` l\V � L - • '' . j .�J-�� i �� SY� r i ��M �' � �� Y� F � � �du � City'of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 be subj ect to design review; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the proj ect 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 in d in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perju , ifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning rtment staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and 'lding plans; all new wi s shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood s o-mould trim to match the exi trim as close as possible; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, ues shall be combined, where possi ,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the r not visible from the street; and that these �' 'ng details shall be included and approved in the cons tion plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) rior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a li ed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and ide certification of that height to the Buil ' g Department; 8) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspe ' n a licensed surveyor shall locat e property corners and set the building footprint; 9) that prior to u floor frame inspection the eyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and th 'ous surveys shall be epted by the City Engineer; 10) that during demolition of the existing residenc 'te preparation construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best manag ' nt practi as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedi ati of storm water runoff; 11) that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading o moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall e d to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 12) th e condi of the City Engineer, Recycling Specialist, Chief Building Official, and Fire Marshal' uly 8, 2005 me shall be met; 13) that the project shall comply with the Construction and D olition Debris Recyc Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and al tion projects to submit a Wa eduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full olition of a structure, interior or e 'or, shall require a demolition permit; 14) that the applica all comply with Ordinance 1503, the Ci Burlingame Storm Water Management and Dischar ontrol Ordinance; and 15) that the project shall all the requirements of the California Buildin de and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended b City ofBurlingame. The motion was se ded by C. Osterling. Commissione oted that although they welcome input at public hearing and comment portio meetings, there is a d' ence in the consent calendar where projects are in good shape and already have be eviewed in detai d discussed by the Commission in a public meeting verses the action calendar. The study calend is the best time to provide input on a single-family project. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 3. 1141 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (REMY SIJBRANT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; YOUNG AND BORLIK, ARCHITECT) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report September 12, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 4. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Remy Sijbrant, applicant and property owner, represented the proj ect but had no comments. Commission commented: changes have done a lot to improve the design; only a four bedroom house, do not need to have a 2 car garage, could have a larger backyard; sheet A3.1 shows a structure on the ground? Applicant responded there is a wall there on the left side. Wall not shown on landscape plan; plans are greatly improved. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 1, 2005 sheets A0.1 through A5.1 and ME2.1, ME2.2, site plan, floor plans, building elevations, landscape plan (on site plan) and mechanical and electrical plan; 2) 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official, NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal's memos dated June 23, 2005 shall be met; 4) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 5) 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; 6) 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; 7) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 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; and 9) that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: the staff report should confirm that the location of the wall is to be shown on all appropriate elevations of the plans. It's nice to have bigger back yards, but it's also nice to have two-car garages, however often garages axe used for storage. September 12, 2005 Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:08 p.m. 21 BANCROFT ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REV �ECIAL P FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND S ON (MICHAEL AND ICZ, APPLICANT AND PROP S; DAVID G. POLLARD, DESIGNER) (68 NOTIC E• � E BARBER Reference staff report criteria and staff c� staff. � with attachments. reviewed conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of :