The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1532 Burlingame Avenue - Approval Letter�� c�Tr o� . 6URLINGAME �'9+.. � �.•o CITY OF BURLINGAME Planning Department September 6, 2000 Robert M. and Jessica H. Fellows 1532 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fellows, Ciry Hall - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Califomia 94010-3997 Tel. (650) 558-7200 Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the August 28, 2000 Planning Commission approval of your design review application became effective September 5, 2000. This application was to allow for a second story addition at 1532 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1. The August 28, 2000 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following amended conditions: t�at the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 31, 2000, sheets A-1 through A-5, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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 design review; that the trim around the second floor windows shall match the trim on the existing first floor windows; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Reimbursement of the unspent portion of your design review deposit has been processed and will be mailed to you under separate cover. September 6, 200Q 1532 Burlingame Avenue page -2- 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. One extension of up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. The decision of the Council is a fmal 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. Si cerely yours, Marg t onroe City Pl er RH\s 1532BURL.cca c. John Matthews Architect 127 N. San Mateo Drive San Mateo, CA 94401 Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (LOT 18 BLOCK 2 BURLINGAME PARK NO 2 RSM B/17; APN: 028-283-080) � �i[}�, Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Mrnutes August 28, 2000 � 1755 BAYSHORE ffiGHWAY - ZONED O-M - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, FRONT SETBACK AND LANDSCAPING VARIANCES TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW FOUR-STORY, 77-ROOM HOTEL WHICH EXCEEDS THE BUII.,DING HEIGHT REQUIREMENT IN THE O-M ZONE, AND TO VARY FROM THE FRONT SETBACK AND FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT AT 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED O-M (SATURN INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; i.F.R CTAC'TF. Rr AC�(lC'TATRC ARC'HTTF('Tl � CP Monroe presented the staffreport. The Corrunissioners asked: intention of moving the building closer to the street was to achieve a better human orientation and less auto-oriented, with the porte cochere at the front the pedestrian accessibility is lost, need to move porte cochere to side where it was before and provide 12 foot wide pedestrian access from to property line with a pedestrian oriented entrance to establish pattern for future development in the area; would like to see additional store front windows in the breakfast and lobby areas to increase the activity at the street level, moving the porte cochere to the side will facilitate this; appreciate all that have done and effort to understand the pedestrian and increase the potential human scale of the street scape; expected the building to be closer to the street not the porte cochere , explain why it will be pedestrian orientd to have the porte cochere at the front; would like to see fenistration on the larger windows at the breakfast and lobby area to enhance their visibility; would like the plans to better show site development features such as paving patterns, what areas are permeable and impermeable; where will deliveries be made; will run off water be filtered; there are metal balconies all over the building, is there a way to use different types of inetal balconies to increase the variety and add interest; what is the status or response to the letter from the City Engineer regarding drainage; need more detailed landscape plans. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that there is a lot of information needed to respond to commission's questions and it should not be done hurriedly, so set this item for action at the meeting of September 25, 2000, provided all the information is complete and to the Planning Department in time to check and preapare the required documents and there is space on that agenda. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - TI'EMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE RO UTINE. THEYARE ACTED ON SIMULTANED USLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSIONAND/OR ACTION IS REQ UESTED BY THE APPLICAN7; A MEMBER OF THE P UBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that item 6b, 1785 Sebastian Drive and item 6d, 1568 Alturas Drive, would be removed from the consent calendar and set as the first and second items on the regular calendar. He asked if anyone in the audience or any commissioner wished to take any other items off the consent calendar. C. Deal asked that a condition be added to item 6a, 1532 Burlingame Avenue, that the trim around the second floor windows shall match the trim on the existing first floor windows. There were no further requests. 1532 BURLINGAME AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT AND JESSICA FELLOWS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS; JOHN MATTNRWC ARC'NTTRC TC� ARC':HTTRC'.Tl 1349 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R 1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERNIIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RON GROVE, PROPERTY OWNER) (65 NOTICED) (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 14, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MFF.T1Nl�l 218 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA D- APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL USE (RUG SALES) IN AUTO ROW (AL HERIZ, APPLICANT; ISAAC AND EVELYN RAT_IMFT.�:RTTRN PR(1PFRTY f1WNF.RC1 � Unapproved Minutes -3- � / City�3urlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes � August 28, 2000 C. Bojues moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and the condition added to 1532 Burlingame Avenue, by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. The consent calendar concluded at 7:47 p.m. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 1785 SEBASTIAN AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A HII.,LSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (BAY AREA SUNROOMS, APPLICANT; CHUNG-KUN WANG, PR IIPF.R TY nWNRR 1 Reference staff report, 8.28.00, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Chung Kun Wang, 1785 Sebastian Drive noted that the proposed construction is a sunroom attached to the rear of the house on the flat part of the lot over an existing paved patio; tried to resolve the issues with the neighbor and got no response. Enoch Yeung and Cheung Yeung, 1745 Sebastian Drive, submitted photos with sight line facing north from bedroom, as long as the addition is not in line of view and dust and noise is not excessive, would be acceptable; noted that whole block had a landslide 18 years ago, house built too close to hill, may hurt whole block. Chung Kun Wang, 1785 Sebastian Drive responded that as shown in the picture the sun room will be attached to the family room, will be distant from the slope. There was no further comment and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission comment: commissioners are well versed in methods of construction, this addition will take place on a flat part of the lot, will not affect the hill, it is a first story addition that will not affect sight line; would like to make the point that commission's responsibility is to make sure project conforms to planning and zoning, not construction; building and engineering staff will make sure it is a safe structure that will not cause a landslide. Chairman Luzuriage 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 July 18, 2000, sheets 1 and 2; and 2) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. The item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 1568 ALTURAS DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HII,LSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERNIIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT A. GERMAN, PYRAN� DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT; ANDREAS R. HII.,DEBRANDT AND ANNIE FLANNERY-HII�DEBRANDT, PROPERTY nwivFu c� Reference staff report, 8.28.00, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the pictures in the report were taken from the proposed deck level or the "widow's walk:; the applicant clarified that they were taken from the deck level. There were no further questions of staff. Unapproved Minutes -4-