The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1012 Drake Avenue - Approval LetterCITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 September 11, 2013 Mr. and Mrs. Fred Bertetta 1012 Drake Avenue Burlingame, CA, 94010 Re: 1012 Drake Avenue Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bertetta, CITY .c?': � 1 � � �'� ;:" •��.�.. 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 August 26, 2013, Planning Commission approval of your application for Design Review became effective September 5, 2013. This application was for a new, two story house with a detached garage at 1012 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1. The August 26, 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 July 22, 2013, sheet T1, GN, GP, SP, AB2.0, A2.0- A5.0 and Boundary Survey and Topographic Map and date stamped August 12, 2013, sheets G1.0, A1.0, L1.0 and L1.2; 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 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 Building Division's June 14, 2013 and July 24, 2012 memos, the Parks Division's June 14, 2013 memo, the Engineering Division's June 25, 2012 memo, the Fire Division's June 15, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Division's June 18, 2012 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 for 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; 0o Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org o° September 11, 2013 1012 Drake 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 during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. 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: 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 13. 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; 14. that 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; �a Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org �a September 11, 2013 1012 Drake Avenue Page 3 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shali shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. 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. 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, William Meeker Community Development Director c. Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, 3841 24th Street #A, San Francisco, CA, 94114, designer. Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (LOT 11 BLOCK 32 EASTON ADD NO 2RSM A/72; APN: 026-184-110) File o� Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org �� Project Comments � Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: July 23, 2013 0 City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 � Parks Supervisor (650) 558-7334 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 � Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 � NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Erika Lewit, Planning re-route of 1012 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-184-110 No further comments. All conditions of approval as stated in the review dated 6-14-2013 will apply to this project. Reviewec Date: 7-24-2013 , __ ,, �� _ -- - � i� , � �`}', �r / �1;, � ; 4 �a' _' �y¢�e�c I __.' ____ � � �II�'� �Y.i\\r. �.', `P �� I - �. _ � ,�ijI 1 :r�;.., f J � �� ' � m a a; / � a�� ` ` ' -\t , $"� �'__. ' .____. µT�S Wti � �`d.��1� In.� � �:�,� : �-I-- ��;�-f--+ M- m , , �- _� o _ , �. � 4�='=� , „i — — - � .7n - — _ - � 7� � • l �� 14��SrwM*FD ' I�.ul��. ` • WMneU�w�i CpIMWMA«Fl �'p�nu'' — � . ]0�-0 �/'\ Front Elevation 7` �� _ _ __ � � `� � � �� 1 �� G �� O � v � �r �� _ — _' �o�s�� 6' II . � ��w �m� � , � � ,�� — �E� �.._e, i ca w.�5 � �Y Q 11'V I�-I /��LO 1�'-1-J/1' y/ � Scdc. I'1" I'-0' \�0 —.�—nw'� — — — _ _ — — — _. — , x ."� . M1 . XM1 � �; �G , .. � �� ,' �,�Y'�y/ x . Y Y , l, K.j` . '`�� '< �X�X� � ic X , ',i . X � : ti,,t n ,,' ,� / � > � i � � � �r � ?� x f V �� ^;^�� .,� �tik' �,�i �-- 'r � � � x f � � - • $"�°`— — r �� , - _: � �� X � > � ` . r y >f � , � X,�� . .n� � 1�1 �l� ��.� t �� r�� x�x .��,,. _ � ��-. � � � h'�nr,ti�.;: �� — -- ' 0�° — m t � � �ao� " .Y` • �.aM �✓ /,� L� Right Side Elevation c "�"�ia�: m.s � � m-misr�ou�+�o�c.�m nw�u.� is mu� � s�.m. r � i"' �� I _ n ,� � <- - � -0� � r mc � , � � w��0� �...i . �siaain.aa� , . wouwrt NH � . Inl �+�e In1� . � � u � tao ' �` i MI � If)`Gawpe wr�� I n i � ' '�I �� eErOrn/O �b� � � IMwaOutwetu�ov.i.f��.e .-__ � 2 � �`�o � rnn., .•^" � M�.u« o� _ . ...a -- — � I ��i�.�e.��""�asrv� .. - _ a'a• �z-o• � � ;,�: o.,.e_a, � � � s�a . I S'd' S'.0' � 6'.10 I/Y 1'-) I/]� ; � In� Drlrawuy � — l _ __(� --_ n v, � � � _— .I __— ' I r (MI�. . ) ' ° --I . _ o,ia'.ii�<• . `o � - _ -_: -_ ''; , , E) GarQ`�e Floor Plans � — — — � - !��, : �� _ ,�,..�„ �� ' �.� -_ _ "" -"� �,� o y.�"�',b R �n � � yx �� p y! y sl � ;,�+� n��~a, e �+_^ � n y` .:.�� I r (I — A� _ � � -' �.` �_t�--�_'. m ;� _ -- -- __ ��;` � � �� '�� , � I ,r �.N� ,o � ,�-0• ___ .� — � �� r Y �wxi�,�.� �`��wi' --- -- 22'0 �1..��+'�"�w�;o.�.�, . - o».,,,�vs L �r.on rtsu*«cic...cEMi.+�iw...--- "�°'!�n �," =� � i �..cew+o � ,y �� `" '°""` Garage Front Elevotion u� � . � x ' — -- - � z s�� i,a•-i�.o� uio �• i� ..� /./• —_ _ � ��`i ^ y��'�~ � �c y�l� n3—= ^ `� �CK_ ,1 �—v=--�--��r l��• .1� K� I : r_ ,.� � ��. � a�, o x, . ..'{�. f � ..,r,i � ,. J [' i, r m� 1Ny��%t��Fl�wd,��",J'��Va��q��AJtId��Jfr�� :w��c-� �or�.es. � I.r 7 � u� �l._ � i - If . ..I. 4d w .:- �i - c.C�au.. �' sc: ' r a2•w�• I¢- Ic�uGt�.Mr�twnaa. • Garage Right Side Elevqtion � S�alc: 1;4'�� I'.�" t,I.O 1 � __s�wlMCneGnluxn 4 tl / •«—Y.�� _ _ fHI.VRutiu� s Y'^!A '• I ..y i}^ . �h�e�M A(El _ f' ^hH�"' . .� � �*` os�Finle � ' �n,,...�ww... . . . ,-i`".- � TM �,,,�,� �o�,,.,,, . . . '�C" . . „� kt," . � w� � . � T-.-�-«." ` [ -.:w�_.�..: " � :.e„'° «"�"a` � . W-.�—,�,_; � � � l ",`• � �_ u '-"�- = - "^-�—_.:..._. ^_="�;_.: . w:�,� r=.'yv.sir,...... + �r.o• `�f � �� . ��,.�o... � � � Garage Rear Elevqtion �,� � , I sw� i,a•-r.r ci.o � / M WwrOcn ' ) — — wn1M=n r,^� 51 � �` nw� h K . T h �C . • ij ..,' � o �� a ik .s� rod' I y , F �. �sgn � � � x �� r„'� �,� �' ,f;` �� m µ � ' L � ' � °�-.-,..,�.�;,w'"'`�f : 1 "^ � - �� f _ � .�..y-�..�. � � „ ��... ' <<�. �r � ,� - ; � '� : .:�, �o•.• — , . �.'.�°. r 1[i Ir...t�'.[�Mr�c�oerva� � �o rc�a� c -�f CD/PLG-Lewit, Erika From: CD/PLG-Lewit, Erika Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 5:14 PM To: 'tim@formonedesign.com' Cc: lennifer Bertetta; Fred III Subject: RE: 1012 Drake for the next PC hearing Attachments: 1012 Drake front an right side elevations.pdf; 1012 Drake garage.pdf; 1012 Drake roof plan.pdf Hello Tim and Mr. and Mrs. Bertetta, To begin with, please forward this email to the contractor, Greg. I was not abie to find a record of his email contact on the Building Permit application. Greg called the Planning Division to schedule a final inspection for the new house and detached garage that were built at 1012 Drake Avenue. When i visited the site on Thursday, I noted a dozen or more as-built changes to the approved project. These changes require further Planning Commission review. I have broken down the changes in to two categories- those that require a Variance and a Conditional Use Permit and those that require a Design Review Amendment: Variance and CUP: The approved plans (see the garage plans that are attached) included a 2-car garage door (minimum 16-foot width to count as two spaces) and paving in the rear yard leading up to the left side garage parking space. This approved plan provided the required number of parking spaces for the proposed 6-bedroom house (2 covered parking spaces and 1 uncovered parking space in the driveway leading to the garage). As built, the garage only provides two parking spaces (1 covered and 1 uncovered in the driveway leading to the garage). As built, the garage will require a Variance for one covered parking space. In addition, the approved garage plans show a round vent on the front elevation just beneath the ridge of the garage. As built, the vent was replaced by a window. Section 25.60 of the Municipal code requires a Conditional Use Permit for any glazed openings over 10 feet in height. As built, the garage will require a Conditional Use Permit for a window over 10'-0" in height. Desi�n Review Amendment: There are a number of more minor changes. For example, at the rear elevation, the rear, first floor window at the left size is smaller than approved. The second floor balcony is missing several thicker posts. At the front elevation, the columns are a different shape, the corbels beneath the second floor overhang are missing, and the front door element has been reduced in size. There is a horizontal trim piece missing from the front and rear elevations at the attic area. The stone base along the house appears to have been changed to brick and to have had its height increased. While most of these changes may not have individually required further Commission review, the combination of the changes does require review by the Planning Commission as a Design Review Amendment. Finally, the more major change that requires a design review amendment hearing before the Commission is that the dormer at the right side elevation has been extended in length by approximately 10'-6" . If you refer to the approved roof plan and right side elevation (attached), you will see that the approved design showed the stairwell to be tucked � under the slope of the gambrel roof. The as-built elevation actually has the dormer extended towards the front of the house and 3 additional full size windows added in the new dormer space. Summary All of these changes can be taken forward to the Planning Commission together. Design Review amendments, Variances, and CUPs all require public noticing, a minimum of one public hearing, and fees. Fees for Variances and CUPs are approximately $1,800 each. The Amendment is approximately $1000. Planning Staff does not give recommendations to the Planning Commission. I would however note that Parking Variances are rarely granted for new houses, in part because the Planning Commission must make physical hardship findings for the granting of Variances. I know that the owners are already living in the house and so it is my guess that they would like to keep the as-built design changes, rather than changing the house to match the approved plans and therefore eliminating the need for Commission review. However, I would strongly suggest that the garage at least be revised to reflect the approved plans- which would include eliminating the round attic window, instaliing a 2- car garage door, and paving the backup area behind the left side garage parking space. Please contact me if you have any questions. We should absolutely meet to discuss the application and submittal requirements if you decide to go forward for a CUP, Variance, Amendment, or all 3 items. Erika Erika Lewit Senior Planner, City of Burlingame elewit@burlin�ame.org 650.558.7254