The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1516 Bernal Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1516 Bernal Avenue Item No. 8a Regular Action Item Meeting Date: April 11, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Azadeh Masrour, AMS Design LLP Property Owner: Behzad Hadjian General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 026-033-160 Lot Area: 6,000 SF Zoning: R-1 Note: This application was submitted prior to January 5, 2022, the effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance, and therefore was reviewed under the previous Zoning Code. Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-unit residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-unit residences as part of a project. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot. The site currently contains a one-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing single-unit dwelling and detached garage and build a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The total proposed floor area would be 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR), where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). There would be a total of four bedrooms in the proposed dwelling. Two off-street parking spaces are required, one of which must be covered. The proposed detached garage would provide two covered parking spaces (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') would be provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project complies with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: ■ Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)). 1516 Bernal Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamaed: April 6. 2022 Front Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): Side Setback (left): (right): Rear Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): _ _ _ _ ......... Lot Coverage: PROPOSED 20'-6" 25'-0" _ ................... 4'-0" 12'-6" 44'-5" 46'-10" 2,173 SF 36.2% _ __ _ ALLOWED/REQUIRED 20'-5 3/4" (block average) 20'-5 3/4" (block average) _ _ 4'-0" 4'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 2,400 SF 40% Design Review PROPOSED FAR: __ # of bedrooms: __ _ _ Off-Street Parking: Building Height: _ _.. _ __.. Declining Height Envelope: 1516 Berna/ Avenue ALLOWED/REQUIRED 3,420 SF 3,420 SF' 0.57 FAR 0.57 FAR _..... _ _ _ 4 --- _ _. _ .._ _ _ _. ...... . 2 covered 1 covered (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions) , (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') _ : _ _ .... 28'-10" 30'-0" _ _ Complies C.S. 25.26.075 ' (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites • Doors: wood doors • Siding: horizontal wood siding/board and batten on gables • Roof: composition shingles Staff Comments: None. March 14, 2022 Action Meeting (project continued by the Planning Commission): At the Planning Commission Regular Action meeting on March 14, 2022, the Commission continued the application, directing the applicant to consider the following comments and suggestions (see attached March 14, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes for additional details): � scale of elevation drawings and rendering to be consistent; • accurately show board and batten siding on gable ends; • add decorative brackets to the garage to be consistent with the main dwelling; • provide more details on landscape plan; • reduce the size of the front bedroom windows; and • reduce the amount of exterior lighting The applicant submitted a response letter, dated March 2022, and revised plans, date stamped April 6, 2022, to address the Commissioner's comments and suggestions. Changes to the project include accurately showing the board and batten design on the house and garage gables, revising the exterior lights, correcting the scale of the siding, and reducing the size of the second story windows. The applicant provided an arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated March 30, 2022, which assessed potential impacts to the neighbor's tree from removal of the existing driveway and installation of the new retaining wall along the driveway. The report provides a tree protection plan to be followed prior to demolition of the driveway and during construction of the new driveway and retaining wall. A condition of approval has been added (see condition of approval #2). -2- Design Review 1516 Berna/ Avenue Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting on January 10, 2022, the Commission expressed several concerns with the project and referred the application to a design review consultant (see attached January 10, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below is a summary of the Commission's main concerns: • Design is a stucco box without any ornament, charm or character; • Lacks a typical hierarchy you would find between the first and second floors; • Address proportion and scale, large entry door and tall plate heights; • Consider reducing second floor plate height; • Windows are too large and have no hierarchy; • Needs more detailing and character; • Concerned about the driveway and adjacent neighbor's nonconforming wall foundation being affected; • Concerned about the vinyl windows, they often look clumsy; and • Clarify window material for all windows and note on the plans. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped March 7, 2022, to address the Planning Commission's comments and concerns. A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next section. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: Please refer to the attached design reviewer's analysis and recommendation, dated February 10, 2022, for a detailed review of the project. The design reviewer notes that the design has been changed to a craftsman style with horizontal siding, roof eave brackets, vertical siding at the gables, and stone bases at the porch columns, which added great detail to all elevations. The mass and bulk has been addressed by reducing the first and second floor plate heights to 9'-0" and 8'-6", respectively, giving the house a better scale to the street and to the craftsman style. Furthermore, the roof slopes have been changed and roof gables have been added to both side elevations to break up the roofline. Lastly, the size and style of windows has changed so that they are consistent, detailed, and compatible with the craftsman style. Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer recommends approval of the project as proposed. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 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. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the proposed structure (featuring hip and gable roofs, composition shingle roofing, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated divided lights, horizontal wood siding, wood doors and architectural details) is compatible with the character of the neighborhood, and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. -3- Design Review 1516 Berna/ Avenue Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 6, 2022, sheets A-00.02, A-01.01 through A-05.01 and C-1 through C-3 and L1-L3; 2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing the tree protection plan as defined in the arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. dated March 30, 2022; 3. 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 staf�; 4. 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; 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; 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, in effect at time of building permit submittal, 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; -4- Design Review 1516 Berna/ Avenue 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 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; 14. 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 15. 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. Fazia Ali Assistant Planner c. Azadeh Masrour, AMS Design LLP, applicant and designer Behzad Hadjian, property owner Attachments: March 14, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes ApplicanYs Response Letter, dated March 2022 Arborist Report Prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated March 30, 2022 January 10, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Analysis, dated February 10, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed April 1, 2022 Area Map -5- � y '` '`;;� ii j �' ,:� - s ��co : ?rOqATCD , City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, March 14, 2022 7:00 PM Online d. 1516 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Azadeh Masrour, AMS Design LLP, applicant and designer; Behzad Hadjian, property owner) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali Attachments: 1516 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1516 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1516 Bernal Ave - Plans All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Azadeh Masrour and Behzad Hadjian, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Public comments submitted via e-mail by Frances O/son, 1520 Berna/ Avenue: I have a one-story property next to this new proposed development and want to be sure my house will not be dwarfed or lose sunlight with the size and placement of the new house. Thank you for your consideration of the adjoining properties. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > There are decorative brackets on the gable ends all around the house, but was not reflected on the detached garage. Recommend adding the same detail to have a more consistent look. > Locations for exterior lighting have been identified around the house. Consider providing exterior lighting at the side entry door and the garage as well. > The wood siding seems to be drawn bigger than 5" or 6" as intended. It throws the scale of the fa�ade and appears to be close to a foot. It is important to draw the siding correcf/y and to sca/e to avoid the doll house impression. In general, if is going in a really good direction. > The board and batten siding spacing above the front pediment feels really tight. I don 't think you can get batten that close together,• it does not fee/ realistic. Neither of the siding representations feel realistic to me, recommend that you pay some attention to that design element. > Suggest to also show board and batten siding on the front and the rear gable ends. > Please specify dimensions, any corner conditions and pieces that may need to be added for the window trim details. > On the landscape plan, provide more information on what was envisioned for the right hand side of the property by the driveway. City of Burlingame page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14, 2022 > This has come a long way. Make sure to have the 3D rendering reflect the correct sidings for a more accurate look. My biggest concern is that the sliding doors are extremely large at the proposed rear elevation. They look out of proportion from the rest of the home. > Should think about the detail of how to end the wood siding at the bottom and how it's going to work with the foundation vents. > Civil plans do not address any of the sife issues raised from the previous meeting. The proposed driveway and retaining wall are two feet from the neighbor's house. 1 am concerned for the tree on their yard and the potential damage to their home when consfruction starts. > Drawings do not address the wall across the front of the property and the five-foot height difference between the sidewalk and the house, more information needs to be provided. The renderings suggest that you are on a flat lot but you are not. The civil drawings need to show the scope of whaf was intended for grading and/or refenfion in this area. Site issues need to be addressed and how that will impact the neighbors. > The project is heading in a really good direction. It has made a lot of progress since the original proposal came in. Based on the comments and questions raised by my fellow commissioners, what we are looking for is to see drawings that are close enough to be credible. The windows, window trims and sidings are not credible as shown. Much of the project is acceptable, it is just some parts that are disproportioned. We need to see something adequate to solve the problem so we don 't end up with a design that will come back to us later because it was not buildable in the first p/ace. We need to see that the design is close enough to be built so it does not get completely changed in the process of building it. The request for a detailed landscape plan and some sense of topography is reasonable. The complete design is not quite there yet. > 1 agree with my fellow commissioner. The project is going in the right directron, but it definitely needs some more defail and clarifications on the right wall on how if will impact the neighbor's tree. > To address the public comment, this is nof a very tall project but it can be a lot taller because it is on a hill. Unfortunately, we can't do much about it. The project is definitely much better than before. Details and the topography issue needs to be straightened out to avoid problems at the end. > The scale of the windows is too big. You will not have enough room for a bed wall and may be a source of temperature concerns. The window sills are going to be too low which will potentially cause some privacy issues if you have the windows open. The window trim does not have a hierarchy compared to what you see in a more traditional craftsman style. I can appreciate the large doors at the back, but fhe other windows are big, particularly the one located af the side of the house where the stair is. > Some of the details need to be worked out. If it you are using Hardie siding then you need to know how the corners will work. That is an area that the commission constantly has trouble with because it changes the look of the elevation. > There is a lot of exterior lighting shown. /t needs to comply with fhe exterior lighting ordinance that we have. > The elevations and building sections do not reflect the site topography at all, the street and top of curb was not shown. It isn't a tall house from the top of the hill, but it looks like it well exceeds thirty feet from the average top of curb. The overall height needs to be looked at. Site issues need to be resolved. > As my fellow commissioner said, the design needs to be credible; we need to be confident thaf what we approve is buildable for the client but also for the neighbors. l appreciate the 3D renderings, but that is not what the street looks like at all. 1 am missing the entire effect of being able to see three dimensionally how this is going to sit on the site. The rendering should reflect what is actually proposed. > Need to provide more information regarding the site and the front wall to be able fo understand how the front is going to be solved. This is definitely a huge improvement. In order for us to feel confident on this project, more refinement needs to be done. Vice Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6- Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff Absent: 1 - Terrones City of Burlingame page 2 A S Design 4010 Moorpark Ave. # 101, San Jose CA 951 17 Phone: 415.254.1606 azadeh ��AMSDesianllp.com Response Letter to Correction List Date: March, 2022 Subject: Response to Review Comments of "1516 Bernal Ave." Provided by: AMS Design (Sahar A.) • sheet A-02.03: Board and batten deign is added to the garage's gable to be consistent with the design of the main house. • Sheet A-02.01, A-02.03: Exterior lighting fixtures are revised based on the comment. • Sheet A-02.01: Rendering was revised to be consistent with the plans and represent the actual look of the house (particularly window sizes). • Sheet A-02.01, A-02.02: Siding scale is revised to meet the comment requirements. • Sheet A-02.01, A-02.02: 2nd story windows are revised based on the comment requirements. • Sheet A-Ol .01, A-01.02: We have different size of windows. • Sheet A-02.03: Window trims , exterior and interior corners detail have been provided • Sheet A-02.01, A-02.03: Exterior lighting fixtures are revised based on the comment. • Sheet A-02.01, A-02.02: Elevations are updated to show mentioned requirements. • Sheet A-02.01: Gables are updated to be consistent everywhere around the house. • Sheet A-02.03: Board & Batten siding is added for garage to be consistent throughout the house. • Sheet A-02.03: Please see the typical window type detail. • Wood retaining wall with post and kick board (which is the continuation of the fence) will support neighbor's front yard, please see grading & drainage plan. • Arborist provided protection tree protection plan during the construction and removal of existing garden wall • Please see updated grading & drainage plan set and landscape plan for the slope of the driveway and front yard. • Rendering is updated to be in compliance with elevations and design of the house. • Sheet A-02.01, A-02.02: Based on the elevations, 26'-3" is the dimension from natural grade to the top plate height of the building, but the 28'-10" is the dimension from average top of curb to the top plate height of the building. Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 276793 CERTIFIED PORESTER • CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON PRESIDENT JF,ROMFY 1NGALLS CONSUi.TA NT/ESTIMATOR Mr. Behzad Hedjian Bay Area Home Builders Belmont, CA 94002 Dear Mr. Hedjian, March 30, 2022 RE: 1516 BERNALAVE., BURLINGAME (TREE#1 LETfER) 535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A SAN CARLOS, CA 94070-6311 TELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400 FACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443 EMAII.: info@maynetree.com At your request, I am responding to your inquiry about Tree #1 identified in the arborist report dated July 23, 2021, created for the above-mentioned property. This tree is located on the neighboring property near the front right corner of the client's driveway. Limitations of this Letter The following tree protection plan is based on my interpretation of the plans that were provided to me. I accept no responsibility for any misinterpreted portions of the construction project or if the provided plans for the project were changed without my knowledge after I received a copy. Plan Review Specific for Tree #1 This tree will be impacted by the removal of the existing driveway and installation of a new retaining wall roughly 1'/2 feet closer to the tree. Due to its proximity to the property line, roughly 25°10 of the root zone will be impacted by excavation needed to construct the proposed improvements to this area. I suggest performing a preliminary hand dug excavation prior to demolition of the existing driveway. This excavation should not cut any roots larger than iwo inches in diameter during the process of removing soil and should follow the approximate line of where the new excavation will take place. Once completed an inspection of the area can take place to determine the extent of the roots found and what the potential impact to the tree would be. When work is being completed within the dripline of any protected tree it is important to minimize the disturbance to the roots of the tree. Therefore, any excavations within the dripline of any protected tree should be accomplished by hand digging or use of compressed air tools. All roots less than 2 inches in diameter that are exposed during any excavation should be cut cleanly with hand pruners or loppers back to the wall of excavation nearest to the tree. 1516 Bernal St., Burlingame 2 March 30, 2022 Any roots found that are larger than 2 inches in diameter should be left uncut and intact; the site arborist shall be contacted immediately. The roots in this area should be left untouched until the site arborist can identify, inspect, document, and make a final decision as to the root's fate. Trenches should be filled as soon as possible to minimize the drying out of any exposed roots of the protected trees. If any trenches are to be left open for longer than 24 hours, then the wall of excavation that is closest to the protect2d tre2s shall be lined with 3 to 4 layers of burlap. These burlap layers shall be kept moist throughout the duration of the trench being open. Using plywood to temporarily cover the exposed trench is recommended to reduce potential accidents while the trench is open. I believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at my office. Sincerely, JeromeyA.ing II Certified Arboris #7076A JAl:lg S��`�TY �F q9 �Q,�, ��( A. Uy� �� , �� tP �'G'�. z � c W NO. WE 7076P► m 7 l, *: \,�* c �\�� ' �qr, �r Fr� �F�'� � ;�^�3iY� f�? " � � BU�S.INGAME � � I�� City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, January 10, 2022 7:00 PM Online a. 1516 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Azadeh Masrour, AMS Design LLP, applicant and designer; Behzad Hadjian, property owner) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali Attachments: 1516 BernaP Ave - Staf( Report 1516 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1516 Bernai Ave - Psans All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the sfaff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Azadeh Masrour, designer and Behzad Hadjian, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Consider other materials in place of stucco to reduce massing. > Correct draftrng errors and make sure all egress windows are noted on plans. > In looking at the new driveway, it appears as though the existing wall that holds up the neighbor's entire property is being eliminated for a driveway. I also recognize that almost every house on this block has a nonconforming side setback on the left in which the house is only a few feet off your driveway. I am concerned for the neighbors because if you touch that wall, the neighbor on the right is going to be in your driveway. It would be challenging if we take this fonvard to the next step in the approval process and you come back in two weeks and say you don't have any problems. I encourage you to resolve this wall issue with your neighbor to avoid problems because fhere isn't a side setback, and they are right fhere next to your property. 1 would be concerned for their home foundation as that wall gets disturbed. It is something that needs to get resolved if you are going to cut back and take advantage of that driveway. If you are keeping the driveway and retaining wall as-is, then you are not impacting the neighbor. But the drawings indicate cutting all that back. > You might want to verify exactly which wall the Public Works Division was talking about in terms of what needs to be removed. Looking at the survey, the front retaining wall that is over the property line towards the back end of the sidewalk is outside of your property line. In my experience, because you are now pulling a building permit and scrapping the lot, typically Public Works will require you to remove that wall and gef it within the property line. So, it is likely that the wall Public Works was directing you to relocate may have not been the driveway wall because that is fully on your property. I suggest that you revisit that with Public Works because, as my fellow commissioner is saying, if you in fact take thaf City of Burlingame Page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 10, 2022 property line and move it over to your property on the right hand side it is probably going to encroach on the foundation wall of the neighboring house. It may potentially make your driveway difficult, if not impossible, to build which means the house cannot be where it is located in which case the design cannot move forward. > From the design review standpoint, I am having di�culty with the project. It really is a stucco box with asphalt shingles with dark windows and trim. The project is at the maximum FAR, almost at the maximum height, this looks like the type of project that would have been built prior to design review and the design guidelines being put in place back in the 1990's. lt is just a stucco box without any ornament, any charm or any character. l'm finding it hard to see how this addresses the design guidelines. There isn 't a typical hierarchy that you might see between first and second floor. 1 see the proposed vinyl windows; the problem with vinyl windows often times, as we've talked about in the past, is thaf they have a very clumsy look to them. This is a good candidate for design review consultant. > 1 was looking at proportion and scale, there are some funny things going on there. The first thing that caught my attention was the front fa�ade, because everything is so big and puffed up, it looks like a doll house. It somehow lacks people scale. There are windows everywhere and they don't seem to be related to each other. The smaller windows that show up on the second floor on the left and right elevations seem to make more sense, then suddenly there's a big window fhat's inserted and all the windows seem too close together somehow. It feels very utilitarian. lYs a box with windows in it. > I agree with my fellow commissioners. It felt like a box on top of a box and the windows are too large. This is a perfect candidate for a design review consultant. It needs something, not just blank stucco and large windows. The upper floor windows need to be much smaller to give it some charm and adding corbels would be great. I'm not opposed to having stucco, but we need to have some sort of character and details added to this house in general. > 1 agree with my fellow commissioner. 1 wanted to add that, 1 belreve the designer stated at the beginning of her presentation that this is her first project in the City. This is where the design review consultant can be very helpful in familiarizing this designer with some of the design details, styles of houses, and some of the aspects of housing that we review in our design review process and help her fo pull together a more complete design and presentation for us to review next tirne around. > I agree with my fellow commissioners. The design review consultant generally helps a candidate get through the process faster and makes it work and be more compatible with our neighborhoods. This street is probably one of the most traveled streets in the area and there is an opportunity to do a reafly good design. Would love to see that in this neighborhood. > There are technical things I'm concerned about. The driveway concerns me. The fact that these properties have a nonconforming side setback concerns me. I think that fhe garage at the moment is currently shown on property line, yet we have eaves extending over the property line. There are some real details that need fo be thought through for it to be approvable and not have problems downstream with changes for things that didn't get flushed out. So, 1 too think it's a candidate for a design review consultant. > About windows and the plate height on the second floor, if that plate height came down from nine feet probably to eight feet, it's much harder to put in large windows on the second floor with a lower ceiling and those two things are related. So 1'd like to see them revisif that second floor plate height. Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6- Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaui, Loftis, and Schmid City of Burlingame paye p `��/I�IG�� c�i��=c�rs Feb. 10, 2022 Burlingame Planning Commission City Hcall, Burlingame, CA Ref: Design Review Comments: 1516 Bernal New 2 Story House Dear Staff and Commission Members, I have reviewed the drawings and your comments and have viewed the video of the Planning Commission meeting for 1516 Bernal. I have met with the applicants at City Hall and have visited the site. After working with the designer on a zoom meeting and reviewing initial changes, I have received the final revisions and they are much improved from the original submittal. I have the following comments addressing your points: 1) The design has been changed to a craftsman style. 2) Roof slopes have been changed and the use of 3 slightly different slopes with steeper slopes at the first and second floors have improved the scale and configuration. 3) The second floor plate height has been reduced to 8'-6" and the first floor plate reduced to 9'-0." This gives better scale to the street and to the craftsman style. 4) Stucco has been replaced by horizontal siding consistent with the style and creating texture and detail versus the prior plain stucco. 5) The entry door has been reduced in size to be more in scale with the new design and the slightly lower porch dimension. 6) Windows have been changed from large single windows to ganged 2 and 3 unit casement windows using a similar module size and simplified divided lites. Trim and sills have been added and the same treatment is repeated on all sides of the house. All windows are now more consistent, detailed and compatible with the new style. 7) Both side elevations have been improved with the addition of gables that break up the roof line and recall the gables on the front and rear of the house. 8) Brackets, vertical siding at the gables, decorative lights and stone bases at the porch columns as well as eave trims have added great detail to all elevations and present a friendly and harmonious appearance. WINGEJ ARCHIIECTS,lNC. I l'15 BR:JADWAY", SUITES. BURLINGAM,E, CA 940'D l jlw^c_wingesa�c.co;;� / TEL !650j 343�110i ARCHITECTURE / INTERIOR ARCHI7ECiURE J SPACE PLANNING l MASTER PLANNWG l DESIGN COUNSELlNG �i`/lI�IG�� a�c�i'r�c��s 9) The garage has been detailed and redesigned in the same style as the house and the garage door design is compatible with the style. 10) The landscape plan has been developed much further and makes good use of the lot. The front yard treatment, pathway to the street and how the house sits in relation to the slope of the lot have been clarified by the nicely done renderings. The applicant and designer have responded exceedingly well to the comments and suggestions and have met the intent of the city's design guidelines. The design has evolved into a wonderful example of this style and will fit very well with this street. I heartily recommend approval of the revised plans. Jerry L. Winges, AIA LEEP-AP / � WINGES ARCHITEC7S, WC. 1 126 BROADWAY, SUITE 5. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / jlw�wingesaia.com / TEL: (650� 343-1 101 ARCHITECTURE l INTERIOR ARCHITEC7URE / SPACE PLANNING / MASTER PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING z O F- Q � � 0 � z � U W � O OC a z O � a � � O LL z H Z a C� J d a Q a 2 N � w z � O ta. O H � a 0 � � Q ti�c�i r �:- �� PLANNING APPLICATION BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT-PLANNING DIVISION � 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, 2ND FCOOR, �URLt1VGMAf, CA 94Q1'Q-3S97 � TEL: 650.558.7250 FAX: 650.696.3790 E-N1AlL: PLANNINGDEPT BURLINGM�IE.ORG � � � 1516 bernal ave., burlingame, CA, 94010 p26-033-160 PROJECT ADDRESS �� ASSESSOR'S PARCEL � fAPAf) PROJECT DESCRIPTION - NEW 2 STORY CUSTOME HOME . 6/27/2021 DATE �--� _- 3420 SQ Bt1lL�If�G AREA fNCLUQ4Nt� 4�EDS, 4_5 BATH, 1�Af1NEDRY ARt[3 2 CAR �ARAGE. BEHZAD HADJtAN PROPERTY OWNER NA- ME ��APPL{CANT? �� _ - _ �� Q,��.,_ `��'.'�'.� PIiONE 1516 bernal ave., bur6ngame, CA, 940i0 f►Di}R�SS BEHZAD@BANOMEBUILDERS.CO�M L�� Azadeh Masrour 4Q10 MOORPARK AVE#101, SAN JOSE, CA 95117 _- -- - --- ARCHITECTJUESIGNER APPi.}CAWT? — -- - -- i4DDRESS �15) 254-1606 AZADEH�AMSDESiGN��P.COM PHONE E-AfAIl. ---- ---------------_____---------- .___95 __.___ _._: _ ` BURLiNGAME BUSlNESS LlCENSE � Se-.� �� c�.tt. ` �A� � c�c� �Cc � ��.`�`��+�� L��i��;�? cy.�:�. *FOR Pl20:�£CT ft�FUNDS' - Please provide an address to which to aA re'�und checks w�l be rrsar7ed to: = ► ._ . � �. � I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE lNFORMATION GIVEN HEREIN IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEL[EF. /�„ //, . i'iF; �,.,., APPUCANT'S SiGidIATURE fIF DIfFEREt�7 FROIII PROPERTY OWNERi S'i I AM AWARE OF THE PROPOSED APPLICAT{ON AND NEREBY AUt'FiOR(ZE THE RBdi/E APPLiCANT TO Sl1BM4l' TFNS APPEICATtON TO THE PUWPEtNG CON�lfSSION/DNISIO(Y. ��/.;,,,/ i/a„�„ PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATltRE si2�i2o2� DA'fE Rt ZOPHNG � AUTHORIZATION TO REPRODUCE PLANS I HEREBY GRAtdT TtiE CITY OF BURLiNGAME THE AUfli(aR1TY TO REPROD�UCE 11PON REQl3'EST At�lOR POST PLANS SUBVIA�TTED WlTli ililS APPLICATION ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AS PART OF THE PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESS AND WAIVE ANY CWMS AGAINST THE CITY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO SUCH ACTION .��«.�S OF ARCFHTECTIDE�R! } � Z O W cn � � � H � �t�� ❑ ACCESSORY DWELLING Urk1F (Aatl) Q VARIANCE (VAiZ`y ❑ CONDlTiO�tAt USE PERMIT (CUP) ❑ WfE2ELESS � DEStGN REVdFMY (DSR) ❑ FEt�E EXCEPTKNJ � HILLSfD� AREA CflNSTi2UCTFON PERMIT ❑ p7'HER: ❑ MINOR A�DtFfCATION ❑ SPEGIAL PEF�41T (SP) � ��EIVECJ ,�'�IJG 3 4 2021 DATE RECENED: ' '�F F�URLINGAME = _' � `. N D -n T � � m O Z r � RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desiqn Review for a new two-storv, sinqle-unit dwellinq and detached qaraqe at 1516 Bernal Ave, Zone R-1, Behzad Hadiian, propertv owner, APN: 026-033-160; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on April 11, 2022, 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 Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, 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. Chairperson 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 of the Planning Commission held on the 11th dav of April, 2022 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1516 Bernal Ave Effective April 21, 2022 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 6, 2022, sheets A-00.02, A-01.01 through A-05.01 and C-1 through C-3 and L1- L3; 2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing the tree protection plan as defined in the arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. dated March 30, 2022; 3. 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; 4. 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; 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; 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, in effect at time of building permit submittal, 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: EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1516 Bernal Ave Effective April 21, 2022 Page 2 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. 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 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; 14. 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 15. 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. �CITY OF BURI.INGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ��. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 J�� PH:(650)558-7250 www.burlingame org Project Site: 1516 Bernnl Avenue, zoned R-1 The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following virtual public hearing via Zoom on Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:00 P.M. You may occess the meeting online at www.zoom.usJjoin or by phone at (346) 248-7199: Meeting ID: 841 5624 4475 Passcode: 305412 Description: Application far Design Review for a new, two- story single-unit dwelling ond detached garage. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to: �u6liccomment(C�burlingame org. Mailed: April l, 2022 (Please refer to other sideJ PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlinpame - Public Hearing Notice If you have any questions about this application or would like to schedule an appointment to view a hard copy of the application and plans, please send an email to plannin�deptC�burlin¢ame org or call (650) 558-7250. Individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed, should contact the Planning Division at planninedept(c�burlinaame or� or (650) 558-7250 by 10 am on the day of the meeting. If you challenge the subject applicafion(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the pub�ic hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. Kevin Gardiner, AICP Community Development DireCtor (Please refer to othersideJ _�.�3,� ..�� D � ?� � ��r� �Q � fl �r�� it� �'� `c�� -.�J� �I� "�� 1�� ` g r� � �� , r�� r � • r ll�� -! r ' _ � y� J� V ?,� �`'3 _ D ��1.•? �� p ��v'� �l � �� 1 ��` �� p�� o� � ��_. ��'h �S ��, , .� - v- .-�� yw� ,-,y� • c�"� „��. Z o � pt{i' ,'+��` b ' G " � � � :� �� t,� N � � �" 4'� �.; a� �, � �? �� ;�� w � n �' �� .:••'' � � � �p .�f! �; ^� o � , �� ,7� v � ni rya �� : 4� r't; ;- � f� :, � •.� �� • �� G��:: i �, n C' � �j� � ri �J•u(�� D �� J �J� ` fi`�- g�� ,��i � � �� D��?, � ��`�c�? h?�� a�� •� tl� J �3C•�3 , FI p�? � �"� �l r�� 3 � �� `�4 fi `�� `�v�� c: �F�41� t�� 7�,�� = `� � j � � . ��t �� ~ �]� � f1'�,� � . �� D��4 3G� D�'. �? �� , `�F;� ��3 ��''r% � �� , �' � �� 7 . ��?G, ti� � ��p .c ��' � �� , ,r �'- , s7�. j `�r-� � ��;,,} '�t7�,•�, �. �'� �Q� S �',; � :?,� �, ?�fl ��; � ��s5 � � �,;, � �'%� � � �� 1 �� a � '�c�{,, �Q�� i7�� aL•?,�, � �� f�� ,�? �� a . d t-�f� Cr � a�� a��p ��. �� . �a� �,� ;, 1 � ,'�i ,� a n �'-,,� �..�� t7� unF - � �� E�r, �� c�„ � �� t7,. � - - , h �<.