The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1517 Burlingame Avenue - Approval Letter. ,,, .... ,. � CITY �� BURLINGAME _ '��'9,� � ,no0 . AATm ��/N! 6. PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 5, 2001 Ray Brayer Brayer Construction & Desi�n 228 Lorton Avenue Burlingame, CA 9401;0� Dear Mr. Brayer, CIT'Y Iip1 L 501 PRIl�IItpSg Rf�AD B[JI2LI�rGq�, C�¢�Rt�f1A 4¢010-3947 TEL: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 69G-3790 Since there was no appeaI to t�r su�p�nsion by the' City Cour1cil, the Mav 29 approval of your applicatXo.n for ciesdgn re�i�c�, �d speeial permit for de�linitz hei �o�� P��ing Commission June 4, 2001. This appliCati,a�� wa5 �Q �,llow a second story addition at 1 S 17 Buriin g ght envelope became effective ' ` � . game Avenue, zoned R-1. The May 29, 2001 minutes �f tlxe-p��b Coznmission ctat� ��t your a licati following conditions: ` " PF� on was approved with the 1. 2. 3 that the project shall be bui�t a,s showrE on tne plans submitted to the Piaauun De May 4, 2001, Sheets AO through A9, site p�an, floor plans and building elevations• g partment date stamped , that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review• adding or enlarging that the conditions of the Chief Building Official�s and City Engineer's Febru ' be met; and ary 12, 2001 memos shall 4• that the project shall"ineet a11 the requirements of the California Buildiri an as amended by tlie City of Burlinga.me, g d Fire Codes, 1998 edition, Reimbursement of yoiax desigri reviev�T deposif has been processed an separate cover. , d will be mailed to the property owner under All site improvements and construction work will require separate appiication to the approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. One e year may be considered by the Planning Commission if B�ld�g DeP�ment. This application is made before the end of the fi stp ea one ._._ . The -City o�' �3urlin a g me { � l, ... ... `J `� "� t..� L�` C i �� C: �i' ..� � � � - _ tin -� �; ' .; li . :� � u June 5, 2001 1517 Burlingame Avenue page -2- 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 yours, ,, /"��'t- �Marga � onroe City Planner CAK\s 1517BURL.cca c. Roy and Jane Borodkin Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (LOT 11 BLK 3 BURLINGAME PARK MAP NO 2 RSM 3/77; APN: 028-285-300) � . ,, . 0 ROUTING FORM DATE: February 7, 2001 TO: ✓CITY ENGINEER� CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL CITY ARBORIST CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB,TECT: Request for design review for a second floor addition at 1517 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-285-300. ST:�FF REVIEi� BY MEETING ON: Monday, February 12, 2001 THANKS, Catherine/Erika/Maureen/Ruben/Sean 2��'�° � Date of Comments �. Vd � (, i►�..t.s Qt�.-e. v�.�s �' s� I� w t� � o� �• p l ann.Q . � �� , W �� . ,� .�,� p�� .�� -�w ��t� �� .eS �p t �(�t • v � t,�.�- � ��. Q,o �a �� o �w�s �' � � , � 2, , �' �� ' �-e w-an-r�y �� v a. t c. d' Itin�. �( b.e_. �-� 7� ` � r � � �� . -- � City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9,2001 with �. skylight. Commission stated that they did not see a skylight shown on the roof plan but is shown on the elevation. What keeps this from leaking where it is attached to the house, is there flashing? The applicant stated that there was an engineering cut sheet provided that shows that detail. Commission referred applicant to the plans posted azound the room to see the type of drawings they are looking for. The provided plans are simply manufacturer cut sheets, Planning Commission can not act on these plans. Commission understands this is a small project, however the applicant still needs to provide more detail. Applicant stated that he is very concerned with the appearance of the enclosure and would not add something that would detract from the appearance of his high priced home. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: application is not complete, no idea what this patio enclosure would look like when installed, need site specific information elevations on all sides of the building where addition is visible, purpose of Design Review is to get something that fits with the building. C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. Comment on motion: what was provided at this point to the Commission are not schematic plan drawings; Design Review Consultant should demand site and building specific drawings, elevations shown from all the affected sides; have no idea what is going to be built based upon the provided plans, norie of the materials are labeled, photos lead one to believe that the patio enclosure will not look great, project needs to go to a Design Review Consultant. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chauman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a Design Review Consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-2 (Cers. Bojues and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:23 p.m.. 11. 1517 BURLINGAME AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DFSIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (R.AY BRAYER, BRAYER CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROY AND JANE BORODKIN PROPERTY OWNERS) Planner Keylan briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Ray Brayer of BC & D, applicant and designer, presented the project. He explained that he had learned a lot about process from his previous projects, tried to make this second floor addition compatible with the neighborhood. Commission comments: the drawings still need some work, the eaves shown on the right side elevation vary from 3' to 5' in depth need to be corrected, generally nice looking building, second floor needs some character, asked applicant if he is using asphalt shingles on a 3:12 pitch. Applicant stated that he spoke with a roofer that said he can make it work; second floor has two eyes at each end, match the architecture, �vindow placement needs �vork, massing is o.k. though; fixed windows on the right side do not respond to the first floor; need to visually carry piece of ground floor up to the second floor to eliminate layer cake effect and try tie floors together, special permit for declining height envelope inaybe appropriate to tie the top and bottom together, section at the rear shows varying plate height from 7' to 8', need clearance on stairwell seems tight, may help house and design to call attention to the stairwell on the exterior elevation, building framed around skylight, might try making that a lightwell , carry wall straight across and make lightwell down to the kitchen; concern with windows, first floor windows (especially right and rear 10 �.. � City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes Apri! 9,2001 elevations) are nice, much more pleasant to see character added with windows; understand that this is a tough house to add a second floor on, articulation is good, suggest trying to put furniture in the second floor to help you see there is a lot of squaze footage up there, will also help figure out where the windows want to go, problem in stairway design that will affect uses on second floor, walk-in closet is quite large, may become bedroom down the road and it contributes to blank walls on the exterior, if dressing room add windows. Suggest dividing bathroom window which is too large; master bathroom will also have to be reduced to accommodate stairs, diagonal riser is illegal, need 6" minimum tread. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the May 14, 2001 regular action calendar to allow the applicant time to make the above stated revisions. Comment on motion: applicant seems clear on the direction given by the Commission , no problem setting this for action, asked applicant to carefully check all the drawings for consistency with details like eaves before submitting them to the Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar on May 14, 2001, proving the plans had been revised and check for consistency as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-2 (Cers. Bojues and Osterling absent).. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m.. 12. 1320 DRAKE AVENUE — ZONED R 1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERM�f FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHI-HWA SHAO. PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. James Chu, applicant and designer from San Mateo, was present to answer any question and to hear any neighbors concerns. Commission comments: applicant is getting a hang of the Design Review process, designs are progressing, a lot of vertical elements, can you use another material beside stucco for the chimney, landscape plan is nice and well prepared; height encroachment is minimal, would like to see different slopes on chimney- more creativity, add a window in the living room on the north side, the other side of the fireplace, this would give a balance and add light; more windows are needed on the front of the house, only 2 windows on the front of the house, need to open up the house to the street; concern with chimney, massing and articulation of structure is good, height encroaclunent is only a small amount; nice design but left elevation still has a 16' high wall along the property line, concerned with impact on the neighbor; even though this is adjacent to the neighbors side driveway, the driveway is part of the open space and the wall has an impact on that open space, reduce walls on the left side elevation; please label the French casement windows; work on softening left side wall. There were no other comments from'the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for action when the stated revisions have been inade and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. There were no comments on the motion. 11