Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2008.06.09oil �1 te`l�ll�► 90 PORATED ♦� kLNz4PoRA7ED�/. PC Meeting 06.09.08 CD/PLG-Meeker, William Agenda Item 2a ^rom: CD/PLG-Meeker, William 2520 Valdivia Way Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:03 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Cc: CD/PLG-Whitman, Lisa; CD/PLG-Brooks, Maureen; ATTY-Anderson, Larry; David Cauchi; Jeff Lindstrom; Michael Brownrigg; Richard Terrones; Sandra Yie; Stanley Vistica; Tim Auran Subject: Letter re: 2520 Valdivia Way - June 9th Agenda - Item 2a Attachments: 2520 Valdivia - letter from Wilson on behalf of Phillip - 060608.pdf; E-Mail Response to Wilson - 2520 Valdivia Way.htm Commissioners: Please see the attached correspondence, received today (6/6/OS) re: 2520 Valdivia Way, correspondent. as well as my response to the Bill a William Meeker, Director + Community Development Department o City of Burlingame C4 501 Primrose Road 1903. 28ft1 Burlingame, California 94010 Phone: (650) 558-7255/FAX: (650) 696-3790 E-Mail: wmeeker@bur/inaame oM GENE JUN - 6 2008 CITY OF BURUNGAME PUNNING DEFT Page 1 of 5 - see over TOBIN & TOBIN William Meeker / Maureen Brooks / Lisa Whitman City of Burlingame Planning Division June 6, 2009 Page 2 Given these circumstances, we ask that this matter be continued to the first meeting in July, at which time the Philips will appear and address the merits. Absent this accommodation, I believe you have a legally defective hearing, Please confirm to me in writing that you will continue this matter as requested.. I thank youfor your time and attention to this matter. Very truly yours, TOBIN/BIN & TOBIN /'i /9", W. Stephen Wilson, Esq. cc via email: Brian Philip RECEIVED AJIN -- 6 2008 OTY OF BURLINGAMIE= OLANNING DEPT. Page 3 of 5 - see over Page 2 of 2 0 , DEIV :n JUN d 6 2008 CITY OF BURLIiNGAME: PLANNING DEFT. City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Phone: (650) 558-7255/FAX; (650) 696-3790 E-Mail: wm_egkera@burlingame.org Page 5 of 5 file://CADocuments and Settinas4meekerlLocal Settin&Ternwrary Internet FilesTontent.... 6/6/2008 PC Meeting 06.09.08 Agenda Item 2a: 6/6/2008 City of Burlingame Planning Division 2520 Valdivia Way 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RECENED J U N -- 6 M 08 COMMUNdCAU0IV RECElYi3D Dear Planning Commissioners, .AFTERPREni TloV crrr OF suRi_irdrarwr QFSTAFFREPOPT MANN IO [.Evr. My name is Brian Philip and I reside with my �amrly at 2524 Valdivia Way. Our family has resided in Burlingame for over thirty (30) years. Both I and my wife, Bridget Marchetti Philip grew up in Burlingame attended Our Lady of Angels grammar school and we are presently parish members as well as our parents and our grandparents. When we were married we decided that Burlingame was where we wanted to raise our children. Approximately a year ago we purchased our home on Valdivia Way. Not only was the home in Burlingame, but it also had wonderful views of the Bay and the airport from our patio area. Several months ago, our neighbor, who resides at 2520 Valdivia Way, notified me that they were planning a renovation, but I should not be worried that the roof -line would not increase more than one (1) foot. On Monday June 2nd, the story poles were erected and much to our surprise, the roof -line increased considerably over the 1 foot maximum he previously mentioned. The additional height will eliminate our view from a sigirificant portion of our property. - Views will be lost not only from our living room but from entertaining areas in our backyard. To further complicate matters, we were also informed that the hearing on this proposed renovation would be held on Monday, the 91h of June, one (1) week from when the story poles went up. On the morning of June 9`11 I will be leaving with family and many friends from Burlingame, to attend my sister-in-law's wedding in Italy. This will prevent my ability to attend the meeting on this subject on Monday evening. As soon as we saw the results of the story -poles, I immediately sent out an email regarding my concerns to my neighbors and to the planning commissioners. I have invited all the planning commissioners, at their convenience, to visit our home and view the obstruction caused by the renovation. If some commissioners cannot view the property until Monday morning, June 9`h, I will make arrangements for someone to be at the home to let them in. This morning, June 3`d, as a response to my email, my neighbor along with their architect and their contractor, Lindstrom Construction, came to our home. Upon viewing the story -poles from our back patio, they commented that in fact the project seemed higher than it did from the project's property. The architect mentioned that he designed the renovation that way to maintain the roof -line. I cannot understand that. The project is not adding a second story. But they are increasing the height of the roof. I could only assume that this is for additional attic storage space or higher ceilings within the existing envelope of the house. I could only speculate because we have never seen nor has anyone reviewed plans with us. I am sure using the architect's creativity that an adjustment can be made in the height of the roof -line at strategic areas that would not obstruct the view but still have a successful design for the project. Our property is on the side of a hill. Our lot slopes. The back yard area slopes to a high point of at least ten (10) feet above the floor slab of the house. Directly outside our kitchen is a large flat Page 1 of 6 - see over � � .. >� \ .. ' 2� � \<\ « T PC Mtg. 06.09.08 - Agenda Item #2a CD/PLG-Meeker, William °rom: BP [briancphilip@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 8:15 PM To: mbrownrigg@chinavest.com; rt@cssanf.com; sandrayie@gmail.com; CD/PLG-Meeker, William Subject: Project at 2520 Valdivia COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION Dear Planning Commissioners, OF STAFF REPORT My name is Brian Philip and I reside at 2524 Valdivia Way. Our family has resided in Burlingame for over 30 years and truly enjoy living here. I am writing you concerning a project that is to take place at a house adjacent to ours. Today, one week before the hearing, story poles were erected on the roof to show the new roof height. As a result of the story poles, it became evident to my wife and I that we would loose our bay and airport views from a very significant portion of our property. Based upon past conversations with our neighbor, Lee Livingston, we were told that the roof level would rise one foot or less, that is not the case. We are a young family and worked very hard to purchase this house last year primarily because of the incredible views that it offered. My family and I are leaving for Europe, Monday, June 9, for my sister-in-law's wedding and will be gone for approximately 3 weeks. Coincidentally, the hearing for this project is on the evening of June 9 and we will not be able to represent our concerns. With this in mind, I would like to invite all of you to our residence at your convenience, to view the potential obstruction. Lisa Whitman (City of ' Burlingame) advised me that the commission normally goes out to view blockage issues on the day of the hearing. If that is the only day that will work, I will arrange for someone to be here to open the house. I am iware of the Hillside Construction Permit process and understand that special attention is required when there is a project that presents a view blockage. We are already loosing a beautiful view of Mercy High School due to a second story addition at 2538 Hayward and would be very disappointed should we loose another one. We would like to see their architect develop a different solution and we are very willing to work with all parties to assist them in completing their renovation. We do however, strongly object to the project in its present format. Please contact me with your availability and thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Brian Philip cell- 650-619-7988 home-650-689-5185 RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEFT. PC Meeting 06.09.08 Agenda Item 2a: ORT 111� 2520 Valdivia Way ORIGINAL m STORY -POLE PLAN 25 VALDIVIA WAY, BURLINGAM E CA ROOF HEIIs"I•IT'AW FIN Glib, COMMUNICATION"EIVED -] ELEVATION SIFTER PREPAR 4T1ON OF STIFFREPORT • `e4��idF�4.�� �'�11�� n��i� __...._.._ : _. .. .. � lth larr WYf CINI A flydz f � I'L,ASTIC"NEITTIYG wvi u`i RIDG1aLINE 41 Z" tZ uvr6tf?.y! mw\r- ' - if _. D. •''�`" .r ir.r'- o/i ;"Ir""A5ui-� 1�)li �. su f r r pp N 75 Or r_. f 1 1 � I � I 1 (b"kH*rnaFi � Y0�1'I?AM1%0� I NVOK aassox cuez B xYA ZO:ST BOOZ n1go PC Meeting 06.09.08 Agenda Item 3: 2673 Martinez Dr. Howard Linacre, Certified Arborist I:S.A. WC=5304 COMMUNICATIONRECEIVED 451 Norfolk Drive ,4FTER PREPARATION Pacifica, California 94044 OFSTAFFRLPORT mailto. earwigz(a)speakeasy.net June 3"d, 2008 Marwan Zeidan In care of. 2673 Martinez Dr. Burlingame; GA 320 El Bonito Way Millbrae, CA 94030 Cell 650-464-6761 Marwan67kaol.com Re: Tree Health and Safety Report for 6 Eucalyptus or "Blue Gum" trees that stand in the rear backyard of 2673 Martinez Dr. Dear Mr. Zeiden, As you requested, On May 28th, 2008 I went out to -the site to assess the grove of 6 Eucalyptus trees that stand in the rear of the backyard at 2673 Martinez Dr. All the trees appeared to be healthy and had full and well balanced canopies. There was 1 tree nearest the house that seemed to be a little thick with foliage and should be thinned out sometime in the future, although I don't believe there is any problem with it. 2 of the trees are double stemmed and are in the center of the grove. There is some chance of stem failure in this area between the two competing stems of these trees, but they didn't appear to propose an imminent hazard or immediate danger of failing anytime soon. If either of these two trees were to fail between the competing stems, the trees would either fall to the East or West away from any of the structures and would most likely get Hung up in the canopies of the other Eucalyptus trees if this were to happen. I believe that some routine thinning and light shaping of some of the branches would help in minimizing the chances of this to happen. All the trunk bases appeared sound and stable and I didn't see any signs of decay or mushrooms in any of the root zone areas. None of the trees were over 100 feet tall and there are no homes or other significant structures within a couple of hundred feet of these trees. I provided a Google Earth image of the site in the report to indicate the distance and location where these trees are from any home and the direction that they would most likely fall if failure occurred between any competing stems. If I can be of further assistance, please give me a call. Thank you. Howard Linacre, C.A. I.S.A. WC-5304 RECEIVED JUN -- 5 2008 (ATY OF BURLINGAME page 1 of 2 PLANNING DEPT. 57 m 0 IL i Az - .a page 2 of 2 AMERICAN LAN® SURVEYING LICENSED BY BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS Daly City: 130 Moltke St., Daly City, CA 94014, Ph: (650) 300-7467, Fax: (415) 665-7467 Mailingg Address: Post Office Box 2255, Sausalito, CA 94966 San Francisco: 2266 20th Ave San Francisco CA 94122 Ph: (415) 497-2505 Fax: (415) 665-7467 Date: 6/4/08 Attn: City of Burlingame Department of Public Works 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Location: 2673 Martinez Dr Burlingame, CA 94010 STORYPOLE CERTIFICATION CO�LIMUNdCATlON RECaPED e4FTER PREPARATION OFSTAFFREPORT PC Meeting 06.09.08 Agenda Item 3: 2673 Martinez Dr. The this letter certifies that the story poles erected for the residential project located at 2673 Martinez Dr, Burlingame, CA, have been placed to the required heights as shown in the city approved plans. The six story poles positions were measured and the poles stand at the correct heights, to within the allowable tolerances of 0.02' or better. This concludes the report, so feel free to contact us with any questions or comments you have regarding this project during normal business hours. Sincerely, Michael Lemke Lic. No. 3603 Exp. 6/30/08 American Land Surveying 2266 20th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94116 Ph/Fx: 415-665-7467 Cell: 415-300-7467 EXPIRES J3602*ECENE JUN •- 5 2008 page 1 of 3 1 of 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEFT. U01zt1zUU0 GJI JJ -JV-JoJtov Cliff o1F BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMSNTDEPARTMENT 'B�RLJNY3}NfNE City Hall — 501 primrose Road Pladning Dlvisron Burlingame, CalifWa 94010-3997 PH: (650) 558.7250 FAX: (650) 696.3790 Date; m Project Address: Z6 73 1".07-/,41-ee /7R �NRu lsoppl - Assessor's Parcel No.: �2z5vfp-IP60 Owner's Name: AWMIA1 -atI MAJ This is to certify that on O$ (date), the story poles located on the above - referenced site were installed or inspected by the undersigned, and found to be in conformance with the design, height, and location shown on the plans, elevations, and the attached story pole plan. For additional Information, pfease contact me at,45 3A9 74-4� (phone no.) (printed or typed) C- �'GlBy�f9amP TIV %J Here RIE.0 E I V E JUN. - 5 2008 CITY OF DURLINGAMF PLANNING DEPT, 83 fdegister online for the City of Burlingame list serve at www.burlingf� n Pape 2 of 3 o �teu pPs�lt� C,?,T 2 -470- 3 LS .� _ Aw. Z II17 rm MUT it (1') • fi � 1 R I� OT li � :ice. � �• h rf • ,4(—��-+x i - - • I It ' s�� • i try, ��.,. .�- �_, - . �.:� ; :. -__., . � :F �< IM t A .� 1. - .11`• .:^Mg f qlj- tz AV ��.DDAIV 2-67m5•:^ fj: �j ,(.. b'I713 I �j p(� fj, C1T1 OFBURL.INGAiUiE"' �" PL AINING DEPT. y 2008/1UN/06/FRI 10:37 AM PC Meeting 06.09.08.4154683608 Agenda Item 3 2673 Martinez Drive Larry & Grace Ngai i �^�,�;;,CE."' ��h9 D Burlingame, game, CA Driveez 94010 June 6, 2008 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 JUN .- 0 2008 crry C„- ='!.VIUNGAME PLANNING DEP (% Subject: 2673 Martinez Drive Construction Planning Dear Planning Commission, 6�JdfMUN"=WrAfP0AFTER POFSTA 7A?< 740= 6.50- 6F,6 - 37ya We are not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on 6/9108. However, per our letter dated 2125/08, we want to make sure that the owners of 2673 Martinez Drive know that they must maintain their trees properly. During the recent stormy weather, a few branches and big leaves have fallen all over our yard to cause extra maintenance and clean up on our end. The overgrown Eucalyptus trees are becoming very threatening. We obviously do not want the trees to cause damages to our property or to the neighborhood. Please kindly remind the owner of their responsibility to maintain their trees properly. We would like to further emphasize the two points that were mentioned in our previous letter: 1) Trees --The Eucalyptus trees are overgrown In the yard which requires proper maintenance or removal. A professional arborist should provide an inspection and recommendation, if decided that these trees were unhealthy and needed to be removed, it should be taken care of before beginning the construction. We have done the same before our renovation 4 years ago. Our Eucalyptus trees were also complained by our neighbors due to safety concern. After the Arborist's inspection and recommendation, we removed our trees as they were no longer healthy and might cause hazards. Our neighbor, Mr. Lynn, at 2665 Martinez also had the same Eucalyptus trees at one point Unfortunately, a couple of them fell and broke the power lines in the rear and caused many problems a few years back, so he finally removed all of them as well. The previous owner at 2673 Martinez did try to maintain their trees; unfortunately, we are not sure if the new owner has been trimming the trees in the last 2-3 years. The trees at 2673 Martinez are now very top heavy in compared to the City well maintained trees on El Camino real. During stormy weather, we could only pray that the trees don't cause any hazards. Please be sure to obtain the proper aborst's recommendation and keep up the maintenance of these Eucalyptus trees. 2) Drainage — Proper or corrective drainage plan needs to be in place. There was substantial water coming from the house through our shared fence. We are not sure what caused the linkage but we noticed that there was a PVC pipe from their house facing our property on the fence line. They should have correct drainage system to divert the water to the street level and not toward our or other's property. The linkage or drainage from 2673 Martinez is causing excessive water on our planting area all year long. Please be sure that corrective drainage is In place during construction. We appreciate your and the owner's attention to our concerns. Thank you. Sincerely, Lg4y & Gr a Ngai ,/6wner of 2669 Martinez Drive, Burlingame Cc: Owner of 2673 Martinez Drive, Burlingame (mail box drop off) Page 1 of 1 Page I of 1 CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben From: Frank Bartaldo [fbartaldo@unitedamericanbank.com] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 4:38 PM To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben Cc: Kathy Bartaldo; CD/PLG-Meeker, William Subject: 1459 Oak Grove Avenue PC Meeting 06.09.08 Agenda Item # 5 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Mr. Hurin I was in your office yesterday and left you a voicemail message earlier today pertaining to the proposed 3 unit condominium project at 1459 Oak Grove. My wife and I are the property owners at 1463 Oak Grove the property adjacent to this project. After reviewing the information and drawings for the condos I have no objection to the proposed building just some questions and possible concerns. Primarily it appears the main entrance to the building units will be facing our property with a five foot set -back. It appears extremely tight and depending on any landscaping or fencing that may be installed access to the proposed building could be difficult. Also there may be a possible negative affect on the ease of access for the tenants that occupy our building. The driveway way on our property that borders this property is used by 3 of our six tenants and is already very narrow. If at all possible I would appreciate a call to clarify these issues. Your cooperation will be much appreciated. Frank Bartaldo EVP/CAO United American Bank 101 South Ellsworth Avenue, Suite 110 San Mateo, Ca 94401 Phone: 650 579 1573 Fax: 650 579 1501 Email: fbartaldo@unitedamericanbank.com "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited." This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email jUN - G Z008 crr' OB BunUNGAVr 6/6/2008 Page 1 of 1 PC Meeting 06.09.08 PETER R. DAVIDSON Agenda Item # 6 2694 SUMMIT DRIVE 2700 Summit Drive PHONE (650) 348-5451 PO BOX 1577 FAX (650) 348-5452 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 - CALL BEFORE HAND - JUNE 6, 2008 17w CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION,501 PRIMROSE ROAD,BURLINGAME, CA JUN ... 9 ?OC13 RE: DESIGN REVIEW STUDY, ( PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 9, 2008) -11Y or-'RURJNC.AME', 2700 SUMMIT DRIV ZONED R-1 SINGLE FAMILY, HILLSIDE PLANNING DEPT. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD MY VOICE TO THOSE CONCERNED WITH ( 1 ) EXPANSION OF THIS RESIDENCE ( BUILDING ) AS PROPOSED AND ( 2 ) EXTENSION. DOWN EL PRADO, OF THE CURRENT 10 FOOT WIDE ENCROATCHMENT ON THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY .THE ENCROATCHMENT PROCEEDS ALONG BOTH KENMAR WAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE FRONTS OF THE PROPERTY AND CONTAINS A FENCE. THE FENCE HAS A MASSIVE ASPECT TO IT OF CONCRETE AND WROGHT IRON. I HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE'69, ACROSS THE STREET ( OPOSITE CORNER ON KENMAR ) AND OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES AS FOLLOWS: EXPANSION A) THE MASS AND BULK OF THE EXPANDED BUILDING WILL VERY SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT MY VIEW- BOTH DISTANT AND UP CLOSE. BUILDING OUT TO ONLY 13' 6" FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE (#3 KENMAR ) SLIDES MASS AND BULK MORE INTO VIEW AND DEPRIVING ME OF CANYON VIEWS B ) WITH ONLY 13' 6" TO ADJOINING PROPERTY (#3 KENMAR) - MASS, BULK, LITE AND SUNLITE ISSUES MUST BE FORMADABLE. C ) MASS AND BULK, DENSITY - CURRENTLY 4 OR MORE CARS IN YHE DRIVE WAY (PLUS ONE IN THE GAGAGE) AND ALL THAT ENTAILS - ARE CERTAINLY MATTERS THAT CONCERN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. D ) WITH REGARD TO THE MAY 5 " VARIANCE APPLICATION" ANSWERS BY APPLICANT: PARAGRAF (C) NOT CORRECT AS OTHER CORNER LOTS DID NOT BUILD MASSIVE STRUCTURES - CONCRETE AND IRON FENCE - ON 10 FEET OF ENCROACHED ON CITY RIGHT OF WAY. PARAGRAF (D) NOT CORRECT AS THE MASS AND BULK DOES NOT FIT THE MASS AND BULK OF NEIGHBORS. E ) WITH REGARD TO NOTICE MAY 17 HANDED TO ME SAME DATE ( ATTACHED EXHIBIT A): PARAGRAPH (3) NOT CORRECT PARAGRAPH (1 THRU 5 ) MAYBE,- PLAYS WITH WORDS - BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF PROPERTY IS SOLD? CONTINUED Page 1 of 3 - see over k'00'4"' May 17, 2008 Dear Neighbor, It has come to our attention that you may have potential concerns regarding the proposed additions at 2700 Summit Drive, Burlingame. The additions are briefly described below: • We propose to expand what is now a relatively small master bedroom and bathroom by essentially extending the bedroom and bathroom wall to be flush with the existing #mift room wall. �aLy • As a result of this work, additional space will be necessarily created below the master bedroom and bathroom. • We will not construct a second level above the existing home. Therefore, current views and sunlight will not be affected. 44 • The home is not currently used as a day-care center, and the proposed additional space will not be used as a day-care center. � or• Only one family lives in, the home, and no additional families will move in as a result of this construction. We would like the opportunity to meet with you at your convenience to describe the proposed work in greater detail and to listen to any of your concerns. Please contact us at rm_khowi@sbcglobal.net to schedule an appropriate time to have this discussion. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Ed and Sylvia Khouri e CEIVED G{ T f OF BURLINGAM!E PLANNING C)EP"I Page 3 of 3 - see over Page 1 of 1 CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben From: Cynthia Young [cmgyoung@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 3:11 PM To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben Cc: larryyoung@hotmaii.com PC Meeting 06.09.08 Agenda Item # 6 2700 Summit Drive Subject: Public Hearing on 6-9-2008, Re: 2700 Summit Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Hurin: We will be unable to attend the public hearing this coming Monday, June 9, 2008, We are sending this e-mail to express some concerns regarding the proposed addition to the property at 2700 Summit Drive. The addition to the property of a second story to the house may block the view and disturb the privacy of the adjacent houses and the neighbors across the street on Summit. We received a note from the owners of 2700 Summit Drive stating they are not adding a second story so we are concerned that there is a conflict in the story we are hearing from your office and the neighbors. We are opposed to anyone adding a second story to their house unless all homeowners in this protected view zone are permitted to build up a second story. Second of all, granting an easement to build close to the property line encroaches on the neighbor's home and undermines the character of our neighborhood. There is already a fence that was built over the setback. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Lawrence and Cynthia Young S Kenmar Way Burlingame, CA 94010 Now you can invite friends from Facebook and other groups to join you on Windows LiveTm Messenger. Add them. now! RE CEIVED JUN .92008 ^,IT' Or BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 6/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben PC Mtg. 06.09.08 - Agenda Item #6 From: Dennis Dellinges [ddellinges@farmersagent.comj Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 3:23 PM To: CD/2700 Summit ,Ruben COMMUNICATION RECEIVED Subject: 2700 Summit AFTER PREPARATION OFSTAFFRF,PORT Ruben Hurin, I have had the opportunity to review the site plans for the project at 2700 Summit. I have noticed that a new fence is being proposed that will encroach onto the city easement where there is a sidewalk on Summit. As the plans indicate this will be a continuation of the fence on the Kenmar side of the lot, it is clear that the look, feel and mass of the fence will be out of character for the neighborhood. In addition, I would not agree that the city sidewalk should be encroached upon for the benefit of one homeowner. Best Regards, Dennis Dellinges RECEIVED JUN - 3 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. NG — F. 1 PC Mtg. 06.09.08 - Agenda Item #6 CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben From: Joel.Weise@Sun.COM on behalf ofjoel weise Poel.Weise@Sun.COM] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 10:02 AM To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben Cc: anne.righetti@comcast.net; Hannonconst@aol.com; mikgenl@comcast.net; ddellinges@farmersagent.com; Joel.Weise@Sun.COM Subject: Re: Status of 2700 Summit Drive COMMUNICATION RECLIYEU AFTER PREPARATION Ruben OF STAFFREPORT thank you for this status - Although you have indicated that the applicants at 2700 Summit desired to work with the neighbors, we have only had one visit from them where they threatened us and I would guess, had no desire to work in a cooperative manner. I regret that I will be out of the country when the meeting takes place but would appreciate it if the Planning Commission considered the comments here as well as those provided on May 7 2008. I have consolidated comments from all adjacent and other neighbors here. Given that there are no changes to the project, as far as we know the original issues continue to exist and have not been addressed by the applicants. (Please see the original comments from May 7, 200B.) In addition, after reviewing the variance application, we would make the following comments and responses to the variance application: The down stairs 'playroom' has look and feel of an in-law unit — at over 700 sgft it's the 'size of an apartment and has a separate entrance, plumbing, etc. Why is #3 Kenmar not on site map? As this is one of the most affected homes it seems it should be included. The site plan appears misleading as it does not show the actual Position of #3 Kenmar relative to the proposed addition. Addressing the Variance Applications a. exceptional circumstances. We dont see how the justification on the application addresses the exceptional circumstances or conditions that the variance requires. A lot of odd dimensions does not seem like an exceptional circumstance. If the lot is of odd dimensions then why crowd neighbors at the closes point? Why not build where there is more room, eg off the family room noted on the plan? or within the pocket of the existing patio? Why not consider the issues presented and reduce the size of the addition so that it does not penetrate so far? How is the "main living floor of the structure on Kenmar" when the house and front door faces Summit? b. why is a variance necessary for preservation of property rights etc. It is not clear that there is a hardship here. why is direct access to a crawl space and storage a hardship or necessary from within the home? it would seem that if access is needed to the downstairs area it could be built without the addition as designed. Why not expand into the existing deck? Doing so would probably not create the view obstruction that exist with the current proposal. To suggest that the master bedroom has no other options for expansion does not seem accurate. c. why not detrimental see reverse side of this page 1 CITY OF BURLINGAM PLANNING €iDPI. > Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition has been > scheduled for a Planning Commission Design Review Study on Monday, > June 9, 2008. A public hearing notice (small blue postcard) will be --.> mailed out on May 30, 2008. > Please do not hesitate to contact me by email or phone should you have > any questions. > Sincerely, > Ruben > Ruben Hurin > Planner > Community Development Department - Planning Division > 501 Primrose Road > Burlingame, CA 94010 > (650) 558-7256 (phone) > (650) 696-3790 (fax) > > rhurin@burlingame.org <mailto:rhurin®burlingame.org> Cl (',�:s JUN - 4 2008 Ci P! OF BURLINGAME. ?LANNING, IN_=Pi'. PC Mtg. 06.09.08 - Agenda Item #7 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mark Gross COMMUNICATIONRECEMD RE: 1277 Balboa. APN-152-020 AFTER PREPARATIOS ®FSTAFFREPORr Sirs: I am the owner of 1605 Easton Drive, a house that backs up against 1277 Balboa. I have serious concerns about the intended construction on that site. I am in favor of development in general, and have benefited by it, living in a house that was built on the site of a smaller house. That being said, I am concerned that we will be boxed in by the sheer walls of tall houses on all sides, and given the odd nature of our lot, this will materially affect our enjoyment and use of property, as well as our resale value. As the attached photos make clear, the combination of our shallow backyard combined with the close proximity of the proposed new construction to the fence line, its height, and its depth, will severely compromise our privacy and the aesthetic of the backyard. This concern is amplified by the fact that the house to our left, the corner house at Balboa and Easton, also has tear -down potential, creating the "perfect storm" of three towering homes penning in a tiny backyard. Help! Our hope is that the developer will consider not extending the new home any further back than the current home, and will offset the second floor enough that there isn't a sheer vertical wall within a few feet of the fence. I will be out of the country on Monday, but my wife will attend the planning meeting. We appreciate your consideration. Thanks. Mark Gross 1605 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA RECEIVELD JUN - 3 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEP'f. see reverse side of this page `�'� ....�. ��. �- � �• � ��� r' r+ x �,�" r�+ �� �- %i „ �'� h, w ��. � � I� � CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California May 27, 2008 - 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Vice-ChairTerrones called the May 27, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Cauchi Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker and Planner, Ruben Hurin III. MINUTES CommissionerAuran moved, seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg to approve the minutes of the May 12, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: Page 6, bottom of page; delete `Appeal procedures were advised". Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; referenced the Peninsula Hospital study item (Agenda Item 2). Requested that the Commission ask for the following information: a business plan and types of services that will be provided in the professional office building. The application does not specify what the use of the additional floorwill be. Currently, if a bed is not available at the hospital, it is because someone hasn't been able to be moved to a skilled care facility. Skilled nursing that was planned to be at the hospital is being moved to 1720 Trousdale (Magnolia Gardens). The helipad may well not be built due to lack of funds. The Commission should insist that the helipad be built. The additional floor will not beset back as far from the neighbors as far as originally planned. Space could be rented out to persons not practicing at the hospital. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1219 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (DES ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID ARMANINO PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER ERICA STROHMEIER Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated May 27, 2008. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 3b. 1226 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 —APPLICATION FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (1226 EL CAMINO LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND KIRK MILLER AFFILIATES, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (continued from April 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting) a. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit, and Parking Variance b. Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative and Final Parcel Map for Lot Combination 3c. 1425 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA FOOD ESTABLISHMENT TO CHANGE THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (LAURA LEFF, APPLICANT; AND GREGORY J. GORMEY PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 3d. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 22, THE SIGN CODE, TO EXEMPT CERTAIN POLE SIGNS IN THE SL DISTRICT FROM COMPLIANCE, AMEND HEIGHTSALLOWED FOR MONUMENT SIGNS IN THE RR, C-1 AND C-2 DISTRICTS, AND CORRECTA REFERENCE REGARDING WALL SIGN AREA. PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS CommissionerBrownrigg moved approval of Items 3b, 3c and 3d on the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by CommissionerAuran. Vice - Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Vill. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3a. 1790 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ANEW BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JOHN C. LEE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID ZHANG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (continued from April 28, 2008 and May 12, 2008 Planning Commission meetings) Reference staff report dated May 28, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. John Lee, project architect, 711 San Miguel Lane, Foster City; presented the project. Commission comments: Discussed roof pitch. Public comments: Jeffrey and June Kaufman, 1760 Escalante Way; still concerned that view will continued to be impacted by the blocky appearance of the addition. Architect noted that the ridgeline was lowered 16-inches; but Commission wanted it reduced by 18- to 24-inches; could further reduce the impacts. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 10. 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; 11. 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 Department; and 12. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner We. Discussion of motion: The new basement is an effort on the applicant's part to move the additional floor area belowgrade. The reduction in the pitch of the porch roof is the maximum that could be achieved. Uncertain if the space could still be useable with further reductions in plate heights and roof pitch. Majority of the addition impacts views of trees. Commissioner Vistica feels the design is fundamentally flawed; doesn't keep with the existing vocabulary of the house; will not support. Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1 (Commissioner Vistica dissenting, Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7.45 p.m. 4. 466 MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO, FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITION TOA SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND STEVE DRUSKIN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (continued from April28 2008 Planning Commission Meeting) Reference staff report dated May 28, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue and Steve Druskin, 466 Marin Drive; represented the applicant. Disagree with staff's interpretation of FAR issue; don't wish to request the Variance; will commit to the current design. Designed a room to be a workable space; and needed to work with roofline to CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 6- 0-1 (CommissionerCauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:02 p.m. 5. 1221 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO AN APPROVED PROJECT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BASEMENTAND DETACHED GARAGE (BRETAND SUZANNE BOTTARINI, APPLICANTSAND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARK ROBERTSON DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 28, 2008, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen (17) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Brett Bottarini, 1221 Cabrillo Avenue and Mark Robertson 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Through the process of framing, the design of the windows was revised. True divided light windows are problematic when used in the Prairie -style windows. Commission comments: The changes look fine, but why did they occur? Just want to be educated on why this type of change continues to occur. The scale of the plans (compressed plans with multiple floors on one page) could have lead to property owner not truly understanding the design of the windows. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; this an experienced architect and an owner that built the home next door 2 years earlier; should have known to submit changes prior to implementing them. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica 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 May 2, 2008, sheets 4 and 5 and date stamped February 16, 2007, sheets 1-3 and 6, with a maximum space between the first and second floor of thirteen (13) inches maximum second floor plate height of 8'-1",and a reduction in overall building height of at least 3 inches, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the sump pump shall be located in an enclosed mechanical room in the basement and it shall be soundproof so that the noise from the pump will not exceed 5 dBA at any property line of the site; 3. that one, 15-gallon street tree shall be planted by the Parks Department in the planter strip in front of the property; the species and location may be chosen by the property owner from the street tree list for trees located under power lines; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 16. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 17. that the project is subject to the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0- I (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:13 p.m. 6. 750 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TOA PREVIOUSLYAPPROVED NEW, TWO-STORYSINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (JAJE DU AND FATALI RUSLI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND A.S.I. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER• LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated May 27, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commission comments: The Commission feels the loss of Commissioner Osterling's skills with respect to landscape design. Insist that any species that will grow larger than 10-feet within 5-years should be called out on project plans. Jaje Du, 750 Walnut Avenue; represented the applicant. Agrees with suggestions from design reviewer. Removed approximately 430 square feet of paving. Can remove louver above the garage, if desired. Additional Commission comments: Asked what occurs behind the wall where the louver above the garage has been installed; perhaps a window may be more appropriate, depending upon what is behind the gable of the garage. Was possibility of adding windows to garage door discussed with design reviewer (applicant: design reviewer didn't think it would improve the design). Concerned with the amount of impervious paving proposed at the front of the site, could pavers set in sand be installed instead (applicant: could add pavers set in sand along the driveway borders and banding within the driveway area). CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 8. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 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; 10, 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; 11. 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; 12. that the owner is responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures detailed in the Arborist's Report date stamped June 13, 2002; 13. 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; 14. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance 9; and that no exterior light fixture shall produce a cone of light that extends beyond the property boundaries; and 15. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: With changes suggested by design reviewer, is as good as it will get under the circumstances. Asked that paving be modified with sand -set pavers in area near "Fortnight Lilies". Not certain if a window in place of the louver over the garage would be appropriate given non - useable space behind the gable. Vice -Chair Temones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-2-1 (Commissioners Auran and Vistica dissenting, Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:37 p.m. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 house is too small to accommodate the applicant's family; pushing the addition further back would detract from the usability of the yard; designers will take into account the suggestions made at this evening's hearing. Next door neighbor on downhill side, has a two-story house; there is a precedent for two-story homes in the area. Further Commission comments: Asked if the applicant realized that the entire house, with the exception of the garage, will be completely demolished to achieve the changes. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the application with direction to the applicant, as outlined in the discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner A uran. Discussion of motion: • Asked for uphill neighbor's contact telephone numbers for Commission to make arrangements for site visit. • The second floor plan appears to be very inefficient; there could be a better design; though the addition is relatively modest; doesn't significantly impact views. • Also look at any possibilities to move mass of second story addition away from neighbor. Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). This item concluded at 9:14 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Auran recused himself due to a business relationship with the applicant for Item 8 (1317 Cabrillo Avenue). 1317 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BOB AND CINDY GILSON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 27, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Bob Gilson, 30 Woodgate Court, Hillsborough and James Chu, 55 West 43rd Street, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Clarified that the ridgeline will be at nearly 30-feet; it is a lot of mass; concern about being so close to the maximum height; could the height be reduced. Complimented the porch design. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 Further Commission comments: Reminiscent of a recent project on Drake Avenue in terms of improper fit in the neighborhood; the design needs to consider what best fits with the community; be sensitive to the neighborhood character. • A photo montage would be helpful to show how the house will fit in with the neighborhood. Bring back with a softer design for the roof. Encouraged the architect and applicant to spend some time with the neighbors and getting a better sense of the neighborhood. • Neighbors need to take case for more stringent standards to the legislators. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Vice -Chair Terrones called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (CommissionerAuran recused, Commissioner Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:56 p.m. Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. Commissioner Lindstrom indicated that he has a potential conflict of interest related to Agenda Item 9 (2520 Valdivia Way) and would be recusing himself. He stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers, and the meeting, at 9:57 p.m. 9. 2520 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND LEE AND MARGIE LIVINGSTON, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated May 27, 2008, with attachments. Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Robert Medan, 1936 Los Altos Drive, San Mateo and Lee Livingston, 2520 Valdivia Way; represented the applicant. Commission comments: • Applauded the thought that went into the design. Straightforward application. Clarify that double porch columns will be installed on front (double 6 x 6s), similar to design on rear. Clarify that windows will be simulated, true divided light, metal clad design. • Like the modest design; look at design of bathroom and kitchen for accessibility in the future. Clarify wood trim over windows. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 Commissioner Brownrigg asked about subcommittee assignments and mentioned the recent Green Building event conducted by the City of Burlingame. Community Development Director Meeker indicated that he will meet with Chair Cauchi regarding the subcommittee assignments. XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice -Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary 17 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting UNAPPROVED MINUTES Public Works Corporation Yard — Training Room 1361 North Carolan Avenue Saturday, May 17, 2008— 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Mayor O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. ROLL CALL A. City Council Present: Mayor O'Mahony, Vice -Mayor Keighran, Councilmembers Nagel and Deal Absent: CouncilmemberBaylock B. Planning Commission Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica (arrived 9:10 a.m.) and Yie Absent: Chair Cauchi C. Staff Present: City Manager, Jim Nantell; Community Development Director William Meeker, - Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; and City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MEETING OVERVIEW CDD Meeker gave a brief overview of the format of the meeting, noting that the Department is seeking direction for the Planning Division work program for the upcoming fiscal year. IV. STATUS OF CITY COUNCIL WORK PROGRAM ITEMS FOR PLANNING DIVISION/PLANNING COMMISSION (FY 2007-2008) CDD Meeker reviewed last year's Work Program, noting the items that have been completed and the remaining outstanding items, noting that an overview of key indicators was included in the meeting packet. He also noted that in the coming year, Planning will continue to work on the Downtown Specific Plan and begin a State -mandated update of the Housing Element of the General Plan. Comments: Disappointed that nothing has been done regarding the policy for no net loss of residential units, in the last few years there have been several projects which have resulted in less units on a site, getting larger units and fewer units, should be a top priority to look at incentives for providing more units on a site. The biggest hurdle to proposing more units on a site is providing the required parking, might look at allowing tandem parking as an incentive to provide more units; could look at more flexible standards, at least in the downtown area or on a transportation corridor. CiTY OF BURLINGAME Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting -Unapproved Minutes May 17, 2008 • When the recommendations are refined, should be brought to the Planning Commission for review. B. Revisit the Provisions of the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Gave direction to look at this issue as a part of the Housing Element update which is already a part of the work program for upcoming fiscal year. C. Review the City's Appeals Procedures for Planning Commission Actions Don't see that many appeals now, could require the applicant to give reason. State law requires that there be an option to appeal a Planning Commission decision. Fees will go up in July to reflect cost of processing, this may discourage frivolous appeals. D. Research and Consider Adoption of a Solar Access Ordinance • Can be a conflict when second story addition is installed next to a house with solar panels, but can also be an issue with trees, always a balancing act. State law restricts regulations on solar panels based on aesthetics, aren't seeing a lot of solar installations in Burlingame,. want to make sure it is encouraged, current process is working. Technology is improving so newer installations aren't as massive as was seen in the past, Green Ribbon Task Force can look into current regulations and how to implement, provide information on website to explain process. E. Research and Consider Adoption of Property Maintenance Standards for Private Properties • Concern is with maintenance of property storefronts and overgrown fields, can we require maintenance. Staff noted that the weed abatement program was significantly reduced with budget cuts four or five years ago, is now enforced as a fire code violation; will be working on an administrative citation policy next year, can pursue as code enforcement item. VII. OTHER DISCUSSION TOPICS A. Consider Videotaping Planning Commission Meetings Will cost about $15,000 a year to implement, would not be fair to impose a surcharge on application fees to cover costs, some items are on the consent calendar, so would be very little air time, while more controversial projects may require many hours of discussion. Want the information available to the community, but don't want to increase fees, can look into next year, in the meantime can look into what it would take to post staff reports and audio recordings of the meetings on the website. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting- Unapproved Minutes May 17, 2008 • Downtown Specific Plan Citizens Advisory Committee has spent a lot of time refining ideas, hope that when gets to Planning Commission and City Council there is an understanding of what went into the process. City should be making sure that it is easy for residents to implement green choices. • Ask that Green Ribbon Task Force be given a chance to pursue the additional recommended tasks. IX. ESTABLISHMENT OF WORK PLAN PRIORITIES FOR THE FY 2008-2009 PLANNING DIVISION/PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM It was determined that the following items would be folded into the ongoing Downtown Specific Plan work program: Look at options for better use of City -owned parking lots. Encourage public art with new development. Include community education forums as part of major planning initiatives. • ._ It was determined that the following items would be considered as a part of the Housing Element update to be completed this fiscal year: Revisit the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and explore the creation of more below - market rate housing options. Develop a policy and proposed regulations to ensure "No Net Loss" of residential units when new development occurs and explore ways to incentivize the construction of additional units. Update condominium regulations. It was determined that the following will be priorities for the new part-time Economic Development Specialist Create an Economic Development program for the City. Research and recommend incentives to promote Economic Development. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m. 5 Item # Study Item City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Recreation Use, Parking Variance, and Landscape Variance Address: 1524 Rollins Road Meeting Date: 6/9/08 Request: Conditional Use Permit, Parking Variance, and Landscape Variance a commercial recreation use (indoor sports facility). Applicant and Designer: Nothing But Hoops, Inc. APN: 025-273-090 Architect: Jerry Winges Lot Area: 42,238 SF Property Owners: Edward & Madeline Roberts Trust (Linda Menon and Florence Krebs, Co -Trustees) General Plan: Industrial & Office Use Zoning: RR North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan: Industrial— Industrial and Office Space Adjacent Development: American Medical Response, Coca-Cola, Teak Warehouse, Contractor's Warehouse, and Drainage Right -of -Way CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section:15303, Class I - the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing including but not limited to (a) interior or exterior alternations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. Existing Use: Office/warehouse — coffee processing and warehousing Proposed Use: Indoor sports facility (commercial recreation use) and office/activity space Allowable Use: Air courier service, light industrial or manufacturing use, labs, office uses in conjunction with a permitted use, service businesses, warehouses; indoor sports facility (commercial recreation use) allowed with a conditional use permit Summary: The applicant is proposing to operate an indoor basketball, volleyball, and soccer facility (commercial recreation use) at 1524 Rollins Road, zoned RR. The applicant is requesting the following: • Conditional Use Permit for commercial recreation use (indoor sports facility) (CS 25.44.030, h); and • Parking Variance for 106 parking spaces (30 parking spaces proposed where 136 are required based on commercial recreation and office/storage parking ratios) (CS 25.70.040); and • Landscape Variance (6.8% on -site landscaping proposed where 10% is required) (CS 25.44.100, a,1). The 27,825 SF office/warehouse building was last occupied by Trademark Coffee. Trademark Coffee's business license at this location was cancelled in January of 2008. The existing building contains processing and warehouse area on the 23,355 SF first floor, and office and storage area on the 4,570 SF second floor. The applicant, Nothing But Hoops, Inc., has operated a similar, smaller facility for the past six years at 1881 Rollins Road and is proposing to expand their services at the 1524 Rollins Road location. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the building. Interior improvements will be made to convert the existing warehouse space to the recreation use. The applicant is proposing the installation of three hardwood courts in the existing warehouse area on the first story. A lounge and vending area will also be provided on the first story. The second story will contain a recreation area, activity rooms, offices, and storage areas. Office space will occupy 491 SF, or 1.8% of the total structure, where 25% is the maximum allowed by code (CS 25.44.020, g). Storage areas will occupy 515 SF. The remaining 26,819 SF of the building will be used for commercial recreation activities. 136 parking spaces are required by code to support this use. The proposed sports facility would be open seven days a week, from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends. The applicant notes that the sports facility will be most active from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Conditional Use Permit, Parking Variance, and Landscape Variance 1524 Rollins Road With this application, the on -site parking supply will not be increased. However, based on parking ratios established in the zoning code for commercial recreation, office, and storage uses as proposed, a total of 136 parking spaces are required for the proposed commercial recreation facility. Therefore, a parking variance is required for 106 spaces (30 on -site parking spaces provided where 136 parking spaces are required based on commercial recreation and office/ storage parking ratios). A parking and traffic study was prepared by Wilson Engineering and Transportation Consultants, Inc., and is attached. Traffic and Parking Study: Wilson Engineering and Transportation Consultants, Inc, prepared a traffic and parking study for the proposed indoor sports facility (refer to attached report dated May 28, 2008). The purpose of the study was to examine the potential traffic and parking impacts from the proposed sports facilltyat this site. The study was based primarily on a surveys conducted at the existing, smaller Nothing But Hoops facility at 1881 Rollins Road. Surveys were conducted on two weekdays and a Saturday, as well as during the peak tournament season. Results were then multiplied by a factor of 2.5 to project the parking and traffic estimates for the new facility at 1524 Rollins Road, since the new facility will have approximately two and a half times the court space that the existing facility has. Wilson Engineering determined that the net increase in traffic resulting from the new facility should be considered minor relative to the existing volume. They also determined that the average weekday evening demand for parking will be 25 to 30 spaces, which can be accommodated onsite. On Saturdays, demand could peak at approximately 85 spaces. During championship tournaments, demand could reach up to 100 spaces on evenings and weekends. The applicant has proposed an Operations Plan to address these peaks by staggering game start times by 20 to 30 minutes. This will allow players to exit the facility after their game, prior to the arrival of the next game's players. A sports facility scheduling and customer management software package called "EZ Facility 4.0" will be purchased to implement this Operations Plan. Additionally, the applicant has initiated discussions with a nearby property owner to rent parking space during periods of peak demand. Per the City's Traffic Engineer's request, a Letter of Intent has been provided to show evidence of these discussions (Letterfrom Carol H. Perkins of Frank Edwards Company, Inc. to Mike Mahoney, date -stamped May28, 2008). Parkinq Demand 2 Est. Demand without Est. Demand with Parkin Deficit g Peak Operations Plan Operations Plan Supply (with Operations 9 (2) (3) Plan) Weekday evening: 30 17 30 4 p Weekend evenin : 85 47 30 17 Tournament Weekday evening): 100 55 30 25 (1) Assumes pro rate with the e I t f Road quiva en o .5 courts relative to the existing single -court facility at 1881 Rollins (2) With Operations Plan ("Parking Management Plan") that schedules games at 25 to 30 minute intervals to eliminate overlap of arrival and following game players. Assumes approximately 45% reduction due to players from first game departing site prior to arrival of players for following game. (3) Proposed on -site parking, per Site Plan. (4) Deficit in on -site parking availability with Operations Plan ("Parking Management Plan") in place. Staff Comments: See attached. Lisa Whitman Zoning Technician c. Mike Mahoney COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 - www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application ❑ Design Review ❑ Variance 2( Conditional Use Permits ❑ Special Permit PROJECTADDRESS; [§ * Zdk KJ P, APPLICANT project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Address: City/State/Zip: J/iz.�t sG Fdti't_ Gk Phone (w): Z - 1 3v 2_ (Home): (Fax): _ "LA., tv�rdr��p5, t e (E-mail): E.XCgs,4 Fr`. A:t:HITECT/DESIGNER Cproject contact person V/ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Icaal L , id a v&e S Address: -n D t4m jwc k l'f vL . �j,0I City/State/Zip: '. vv kvga r (4 WOO Phone (w): 3 LI3 - l 10 1 (Home): (Fax): ;q3 • It-eyl (E-mail): TL-bJ& W i A &L �61 6, (eM ❑ Other: _ „ n 7 7 n ❑ Parcel Number: PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑/ OK to send electronic copies of documents Linda Menon and Florence Krebs, Co-Truste Name: Fdward and Madeline Roberts Trust Address:1611 Borel Place, Suite 7 City/State/Zip: San Mateo, CA 94402 Phone (w): (650) 430-3353 (Home): (Fax): (650) 570-78il (E-mail): lmenon@klein-financial.com Please mark one box with 0 to indicate the contact person for this proiect. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:_ �40ilf,^i �� � `) IaaoaL 5pi3rkS Fdtri%! rkC 1i(( rf)L_,'S nn CJ'!1t'r<�3°� l/, J..Jt-S GvtF� Yat- �✓C a�C �5 �✓✓t>� .j/ttic ts✓c�> , 0,FFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the Dest of my knowledge and belief. 4, iant's signature: Date: ,� 114I D� _p_� am aware of the propose ' p fic% t'on aaandd erreb uthhoprize the above applicant to submit this application tlotjherPlanninIED 0ommission. � J �)sr%lL (. �C,.c� �/,2�ropertyowner'ssignature: ' / V Date: - d6c-- I'D Date submitted: r r OF BkjO.i!.OAME S:1Handouts%PC Application' 2Q07Jiaffd6tif R' CITY OF BURLINGAME CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Answers to Questions 1. Public Health, Safety, General Welfare, or Convenience The proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or public health, safety, or convenience in the neighborhood because the use is compatible to other existing uses in the area and the business will not affect neighboring businesses, particularly because the prime hours of operation will be evenings and weekends. The use will not affect public health or safety because the business is environmentally friendly (no hazardous or dangerous materials or activities) and from our operating experience at our current facility on Rollins Road, the use will not pose a burden on police and fire services. The proposed use will not affect public convenience as the majority of business will occur primarily on evenings and weekends and all activities will occur indoors. The facility has an on site parking lot and will be accessible to the elderly and handicapped. We strongly believe that our use will be a significant amenity to the residents of Burlingame and will enhance the general welfare of the City. This business will provide a safe, positive, healthy, and fun atmosphere for recreational and sporting activities for boys and girls from toddlers through high school age. 2. General Plan and Zoning Accordance The proposed project will be conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the Rollins Road District. The use is permitted with a conditional use permit (25.44.030) (h) — Commercial Recreation. 3. Compatibility with Existing Uses in General Vicinity The use will not affect the aesthetics of the neighborhood as there will not be any changes (exterior paint excluded) to the existing structure. The proposed use will not change the character of the neighborhood because the activities will occur indoors and the majority of business occurs on evenings and weekends. The use will be compatible with other existing uses in the area including Go- Kart racing, badminton, batting cages, paintball, basketball, and health clubs. APR ',� 1 2003 cirr Of B'-'RI lNGag64r PLANNUG DEPT. RECEIVED MAY 14 2008 City of Burlingame Variance Application CITY OF BURLINGAME-, PLANNING DEPT, LANDSCAPE VARIANCE RESPONSES a. The lot size of 1524 Rollins Road is approximately 42,000 square feet and the building size is approximately 24,000. The existing gross parking area is approximately 12,500 square feet and the existing landscaping is approximately 3,300 square feet. The remainder of the site is a narrow driveway between our building and the neighbor's fence. The entire frontage of the property facing Rollins Road (and partially around the corner on David) is nicely landscaped with lawn and a series of mature trees/shrubs. The remaining areas on the lot are either parking or driveway. The back side of the lot faces an adjacent large parking lot and the south side of the building consists of a relatively narrow paved area that faces an existing building. We believe it to be impractical to landscape these areas, although we are looking at enlarging existing permanent planting areas along the building facing David as well as placing large, planting pots at various locations throughout the lot. b. The variance request is necessary on this property due to the configuration of the structure on the lot. The areas to the east and south of the building are paved and are dedicated to both parking and driving lanes. It should be noted that these two sides are largely not visible to the public. The David street side (parking) is relatively narrow and has some landscaping along the building (we are investigating the expansion of such areas).The Rollins Road side is fully landscaped. The only practical area to increase landscaping would be in the back parking area, however, this would significantly decrease parking and the landscaping would virtually be unnoticeable to the public on Rollins or David. c. The proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or public health, safety, or convenience in the neighborhood because the use is compatible to other existing uses In the area. The new business will not affect neighboring businesses because the prime operating hours will be evenings and weekends. The use will not affect public health or safety because the business is environmentally friendly (no hazardous materials or activities) and from our operating experience at our current facility on Rollins Road, the use will not pose a burden on police and fire services. With respect to the general welfare of the City, we strongly believe our development to be a significant amenity for to the residents of Burlingame. The business will provide a safe, positive, healthy and fun atmosphere for recreational and sporting activities for boys and girls from toddlers up to high school. d. The proposed use will be compatible with the aesthetics and character of the existing neighborhood due to the fact that there will not be any changes to the building, except for paint. Additionally, all activities will be indoors and the prime operating hours are evenings and weekends. Our use will be compatible with other uses in the area including Go -Kart racing, badminton, paintball, batting cages, health club, and basketball. RECEIVED City of Burlingame Variance Application MAY 4 4 2008 GIT`l OF BURLINGAME Parking Variance Responses PLANNING DENT a. Our building was originally built as a warehouse with ample parking for that use. However, an addition was done to the existing structure years ago which significantly reduced the parking capacity. The existing structure has approximately 35 on- site parking spaces. The change in use to commercial recreation requires more parking than the current number of spaces. We have initiated a traffic study on our existing business at 1881 Rollins Road and the results are Included in our response, b. This parking variance is necessary because there are not enough on -site parking spaces to meet City guidelines for our use. The Rollins Road area was developed many years ago to accommodate industrial businesses with their particular parking requirements. The "change in use" of many buildings in the area over the last several years away from industrial uses has presented parking challenges to the new tenants. It is extremely difficult to find a building in this Rollins Road area that meets current requirements for parking within the "Commercial Recreation" designation. c. The proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood, nor will it affect public safety or convenience due to two factors; our prime business operating hours are in the evenings and on weekends, and we have developed a parking mitigation plan, whereby we will execute an Agreement to lease sufficient parking spaces in a parking lot directly across David Street from our parking lot. With respect to general welfare, we believe strongly that our business will be an amenity for the residents of Burlingame. d. The proposed use will be compatible to the aesthetics and character of the neighborhood as there will be no changes (other than paint) to the existing structure. All activities will take place Indoors and the vast majority of business occurs on evenings and weekends. We will utilize our parking lot as well as the existing parking lot across the street. Our use will be compatible with other existing uses in the area including Go- Kart racing, badminton, batting cages, paintball, basketball, and health clubs. Nothing But Hoops, Inc. April 1, 2008 Mr. Ruben Hurin, Planner City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1524 Rollins Road Dear Rubin: We are pleased to present our application to the City of Burlingame for a conditional use permit for the development of a youth sports center to be located at 1524 Rollins Road. It is our aim to provide a first class facility that will provide a safe, healthy, and fun atmosphere for boys and girls to enjoy sports and recreational activities. We believe our use to be a major amenity for the City of Burlingame as it will provide parents with a professionally managed indoor facility in which their children can play year round. Our facility will house three regulation hardwood courts that will be used primarily for basketball, volleyball, and indoor soccer. We will also have event rooms that may be utilized for birthdays and other special events. We have operated Nothing But Hoops successfully for nearly six years at 1881 Rollins Road and we feel it is time to expand into a facility that will allow us greater opportunity to provide the type of programs and activities that parents and children are seeking. In addition to an expanded basketball program, we are particularly excited to offer volleyball (one of the fastest growing sports and extremely popular with girls) and indoor soccer for the younger children. We feel that our use will be an asset to the Rollins Road neighborhood as it is compatible with existing uses in the area (badminton, Go -Karts, paintball, batting cages, basketball, health clubs) and that our prime operating hours are during evenings and weekends when most of the industrial tenants are closed. We have operated successfully in this neighborhood for several years and enjoy a reputation as a good neighbor and a positive, safe place for kids to play. We look forward to working with the City of Burlingame to provide an indoor sports facility that children and their parents will be able to enjoy for years. RECEIVED APR 0 l 2000 u'ry of BURLINGAME' PLANNING DEPT.. Mike Mahoney May 28, 2008 Page 2 RECEDV MAY 2, 8 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. peaking about 7:00 P.M. with a demand for 11 spaces. Demand was very similar on Wednesday, April 23 with a peak of approximately 10 spaces at 6:30 PM. Parking demand on Saturday peaked in the 4:00 to 6:00 PM period with a demand for about 35 spaces. In summary, parking demand at the Nothing but Hoops facility on a typical weekday evening averages about 10 to 12 spaces however, during peak playoff periods, it can peak at about 40 spaces. The peaks on weekdays start at about 6:45 to 7:00 PM or after the end of a typical workday and peak commute period. This is also after most businesses in the area have closed and street parking is readily available. On Saturdays, parking demand at the existing facility is limited until about 3:00 PM when demand can start growing to about 35 spaces before ending about 8:00 PM. The proposed facility will include two full size courts, a smaller practice court, a vending machine area and possibly a small retail area in the future as indicated in the attached site plan. Assuming a direct, pro rata increase of existing Nothing but Hoops count for a single court facility to the proposed two and one half court facility would mean an average weekday evening demand for approximately 25 to 30 spaces and an average Saturday demand for approximately 85 spaces. During seasonal playoffs, the weekday demand could peak at about 100 spaces assuming 2.5 times existing operations at 1881 Rollins Road but again, this would occur in the evening or on a weekend when on -street parking is readily available. Review of the attached site plan will show the proposed project includes a total of 30 spaces. A total of 24 full size spaces and two compact spaces are in the parking area on the northeast side of the building. Another two compact spaces plus two accessible spaces are on the David Road frontage. Five additional full size spaces are provided in the existing loading dock area at the southwest corner of the building adjacent to Rollins Road for staff. Parking demand on a typically weekday (25-30 spaces) should be able to be accommodated on site. Additional parking will be needed to accommodate Saturday as well a peak basketball season demand. Discussion with the project proponent, particularly related to peak period demands during championship week, has resulted in the development of an operations plan to mitigate the parking situation during peak periods. The plan is based around use of the additional court space to allow staggering of game start times. The additional capacity will allow greater flexibility in scheduling and a staggered schedule will help minimize peak congestion. For example, instead of all age divisions beginning the same week, a staggered schedule with half the divisions beginning one week and the other half the following week could now be easily implemented. Additionally, instead of beginning games Monday through Friday evening at 5:15, 6:15, 7:15, and 8:15 P.M. when "overlap" parking occurs most frequently, games can be played every one hour and 30 minutes with staggered starting times played on two courts. This could allow as many as 40 games in one week with the smoothing out of peak traffic and parking demand. MAY 2 & 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME G DEPT. Table 1 Parking Demand Peak Period Estimated Demand Estimated Demand Parking Parking Deficit without Parking with Parking Supply with Parking Management Plan (1) Management Plan 2 (3) Management Plan 4 Weekday Evening 30 17 30 - Weekend Evening 85 47 30 17 Tournament 100 55 30 25 Weekday Evening (1) Assumes Pro rata with the equivalent of 2.5 Courts relative to the existing single court facility at 1881 Rollins Road (2) With Parking Management Plan that schedules games at 25 to 30 minute intervals to eliminate overlap of arrival of following game players. Assumes approximately 45% reduction due to players from first game departing site prior to arrival of players for following game. (3) Proposed on -site parking. See proposed site plan 4 Deficit in on -site parking availability with parking management plan in place RECEIVED Nothing But Hoops 1881 Rollins Road, Burlingame, Ca MAY 2 8 2008 Parking Survey Cary OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 11 1 Tuesday, 4/22/08 1 Wednesday, 4/23/08 1 Saturday, 4/26/08 Start Time Front Parking Back Parking IN OUT Front parking Back Parking IN OUT Front Parking Back Parking IN OUT 12:00 1 51 3 5 :15 8 5 8 4 11 :30 1 121 :45 9 6 4 7 1:00 7 5 3 2 :15 9 4 7 6 :30 9 5 5 6 :45 8 5 1 1 2:00 7 6 1 10 .15 2 2 4 3 :30 1 4 4 - :45 2 7 9 1 3:00 7 10 9 5 :15 8 13 7 7 :30 9 12 6 - :45 1 1 12 15 10 2 4:00 7 - 4 3 1 14 21 6 14 :15 7 - 5 - 5 3 1 9 18 4 :30 7 5 1 4 6 3 4 3 11 20 4 1 :45 5 4 2 5 5 4 6 14 20 7 4 5:00 4 3 - 3 4 4 4 5 15 22 1 16 :15 4 - 6 5 5 2 3 2 9 13 2 - :30 4 1 2 - 5 3 2 4 9 15 6 1 :45 5 2 1 1 4 2 4 3 11 18 7 - 6:00 5 2 3 1 3 4 4 5 14 22 2 14 :15 4 5 9 9 4 2 6 2 9 15 3 4 :30 5 4 3 4 61 4 2 4 8 15 1 3 :45 3 5 6 4 5 3 2 1 8 13 1 2 7:00 4 6 6 5 7 2 3 4 7 13 - 15 :15 6 5 3 7 5 3 2 3 - 5 1 30 3 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 4 1 :45 3 5 3 3 4 3 2 4 3 3 8:00 4 4 2 3 3 2 3 1 :15 3 4 3 2 4 3 1 1 :30 4 41 4 5 4 3 4 2 :45 41 31 3 3 5 4 1 3 9:001 41 3 -1 3 4 - Notes: Total marked stalls: Front parking - 14, back parking - 20 Many cars park along the fence (beyond the marked stalls), and in Bekins' parking including the truck ramps On Saturday that started around 3:30 pm. No problems on Tuesday or Wednesday. RECEIVED Frank Edwards Company, Inc. MAY 2 9 2008 1565 Adrian Road Burlingame, Ca. 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAMG PLANNING DEPT, 650-652-2504 May 28, 2008 Mr. Mike Mahoney Reference: 960 David Road Dear Mike, ---Per your request, this letter signifies that we have entered into discussions.regarding your proposal for leasing parking lot on David Road for a basketball business at cross streets of Rollins Road and David Road, Burlingame, California. Sincerely, / '�'W W, I_V_�eaeol Carol H. Perkins Vice President Project Comments Date: April 3, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Conditional Use Permit for commercial recreation at 1524 Rollins Road, zoned RR, APN: 025-273-090 Staff Review: April7, 2008 Comments: 1) No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of the current code for such division or group of occupancy. 2007 CBC 3406.1 Note: If the change in occupancy classification include a change in "Occupancy Category" as prescribed in 2007 CBC Table 1604.5 then a complete seismic upgrade of the existing building may be required. 2) The plans as submitted do not provide enough information to determine if code compliance can be achieved. Please call 558-7270 to schedule a pre - application meeting to discuss your project with City staff. Date: �4//Cf�19 t� Project Comments Date: April 3, 2008 To: 0 City Engineer (650) 558-7230 0 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 0 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Subject: Staff Review: Planning Staff 0 Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 0 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ✓ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney Request for Conditional Use Permit for commercial recreation at 1524 Rollins Road, zoned RR, APN: 025-273-090 April 7, 2008 Unable to comment due to lack of information submitted on the plans. Please verify the type of improvement being proposed to existing building. RECEIVED APR I q 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Reviewed : Date: 04/10/09 item # City of Burlingame Consent Calendar Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2520 Valdivia Way Meeting Date: 6/9/08 Request: Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a single story addition to an existing single family dwelling, Applicant/Architect: Robert Medan Property Owners: Lee and Margie Livingston General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 025-171-050 Lot Area: 11,966 SF Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. Summary: The existing single -story house with an attached garage is located in the hillside area and contains 2,181 SF (0.18 FAR) of floor area and three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing an approximately 162 SF addition to the front and 764 SF to the rear of the existing structure. With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 3,107 SF (0.26 FAR) where 4,929 SF (0.41 FAR) is the maximum allowed. Since the new addition will have a plate height of 10'-0" in the expanded living/dining area and I V-0" on the front porch, design review is required. The proposed house will be 1,822 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. With the proposed project, the number of bedrooms in the house will increase from three to four. Two parking spaces, one covered (10' x 20') and one uncovered (9' x 20') are required. The existing attached garage (17'-10" W x 20'-6" L) and existing driveway will meet the parking requirements. A Hillside Area Construction Permit is required for construction at this location. All Zoning Code requirements have been met. The following applications are required: Design Review for a single family dwelling addition having a plate height greater than nine feet above finished floor (CS 25.57.010, a, 2); Hillside Area Construction Permit for an addition to an existing structure (CS 25.62.020); and Table 1 - 2520 Valdivia Way Lot Area: 11,966 SF Plans date stamped: May 14, 2008 EXISTING TO PROPOSED ADDN ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front: - 15'-0" (to garage) ---- -- ..---.._ 36'-0' (to kitchen) _.... ........ ..........----------- .... 15'-0" (or block average) _.... -------. _ Side (right): 5'-0" (to garage) 38'-6" (to BR3) .... ...- .... T-0" (left): 14'-4" (to BR1) 18'-0" (to bath2) 7'-0" _...--'-----. Rear. 64'-0" 37'-6" (to MB) _-.-._...------ 15'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,205 SF 3,230 SF 4,786 SF 10% 27% 40% .,. _... ..._..... FAR: 2,181 SF 3,107 SF 4,929 SF 2 0.18 FAR 0.26 FAR 0.41 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 _-..... _............. 4 __ __ ...-- -..... -........... -_.._... --- Design Review and HACP 2520 Valdivia Way Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components Findings: Based on the revisions to the plans and on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's May 27 2008, design review study meeting, that the design is thoughtful and modest, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61,060). Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Based on the design of the addition as a single -story element and on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's May 27, 2008, design review study meeting, the project is found to be compatible with hillside area construction permit criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review, hillside area construction permit, and special permit. 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 Division date stamped May 14, 2008 sheets Al through A7 and L1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 18 and May 13, 2008 memos, the City Engineer's March 24, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 20, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 19, 2008 memo shall be met; 3. that demolition or 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; 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 dormers), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5. 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; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single I ermination 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; 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 AnaT Mom RECEIVED JUN 0 9 2008 1936 LOS ALTOS DRIVE SAN MATEO, CA 94102 U'rY OF BURLINGAME " L.ANN NG nEPT. T 650.577.8477 F 650.577.8313 robert nedan@earthlink.net ROBERT MEDAN, AIA June 2, 2008 City of Burlingame Planning Division Re: Livingston Residence 2520 Valdivia Way Burlingame, CA Planning Commission Response Dear Lisa: The plans have been modified to address the issues discussed during the Planning Commission Hearing. The changes that have been made are as follows: 1. The front and rear columns have been revised in plan to reflect the double 6x6 configuration. 2. The windows are specified as metal clad simulated divided lites. 3. The trim over the windows is shown to be wood 2x10's. 4. The story poles have been installed. Respectfully submitted, Robert Medan, AIA CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 Public comments: Fred Dias, 2516 Valdivia Way (neighbor to the right); not sure what is being planned between the houses; concerned about privacy from his bedroom that faces the applicant's home. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: Requested the installation of story poles. Vice -Chair Terrones called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 P.M. X. ``COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS XI. DIRECTOR$ REPORT Commission Communications: Community Deve4qpment Director Meeker noted that a final Pla ing inspection was recently conducted at 3066 H41side Drive, and found that excess paving " been removed from the properly on the west side of the rage, and that a planter area had en installed, consistent with the City Council's May 5, 2008 action.related to the property owrwf's (Mimi Sien's) appeal. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of May 19, None FYI: 2537 Havward Drive — FYI: FYI: Bring back as an action Accepted 16 bu Mom MATERIALS AND BUILDING COLOR LVINGSTON RESIDENCE 2520 VALDIVIA WAY, BURLINGAME CA WALL COLOR: DESERTED ISLAND OC-99 deserted istanc TRIM COLOR: GARDEN PATH 2113-30 aln ACCENT: SALMON STREAM ROOF MATERIAL: ANTIQUE SLATE 2512 VALDIVIA LIVINGSTON RESIDENCE- 2520 VALDIVIA WAY 2516 VALDIVIA RECEIVED MAR :I m 2008 CITY Or DlMLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Date: To: From Subject: Project,,.�,r�„,,�ra.,� , Comments March 18, 2008 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit at 2520 Valdivia Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-171-050 Staff Review: March 24, 2008 -- 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC). 2) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 3) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 4) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 5) This project will be considered a New Building because, 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." This building must comply with the 2007 California Building Code for new structures. 6) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been finaled. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 7) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines .)�8) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 9) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 10) Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential / non- residential buildings. Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details. 11) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. 12) On the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the property line. 13) Provide details on the plans which show that all roof projections will be constructed of one -hour fire -resistance -rated construction per CBC 704.2. ,*14) Indicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the property line will be built of one -hour fire -rated construction. (Table 602) Project Comments Date: March 18, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 lef Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit at 2520 Valdivia Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-171-050 Staff Review: March 24, 2008 Date: ifs%aa Project Comments Date: March 18, 2008 To: City Engineer (650) 558-7230 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 City Attorney Subject: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit at 2520 Valdivia Way, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-050 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Pest Management Practices ([BMPs) during construction. Include a list of SMPs and erosion and sediment control measure plan as project notes when submitting plans for a building permit. Please see attached brochure for guidance. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: Date: 03/19/2008 EXHIBIT "A' Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2520 Valdivia Way Effective June 20, 2008 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 14, 2008 sheets Al through A7 and 1-1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 18 and May 13, 2008 memos, the City Engineer's March 24, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 20, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 19, 2008 memo shall be met; 3. that demolition or 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; 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. 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; that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 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: 9. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an i CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT a 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ' 4" . BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (660) 558-7250 • FAX:(650) m www.burlingame.org Site: 2520 VALDIVIA WAY The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a single story addition to a single family dwelling at 2520 VALDIVIA WAY zoned R-1. APN 025-171-050 1 Mailed: May 30, 2008 (Please refer to other side) A copy of the appl the meeting at the Road, Burlingame, If you challenge raising only thoe described in the prior to the pub] Property owners tenants about th For additional info William Meeker Community Deg (Please refer to other side) heari 016HI6504325 0.270 m (Nailed From 94010 US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE i City of Burlingame Item No. Conditional Use Permit Amendments and Parking Variance Consent Ca endar Address: 1215 - 1219 Broadway Meeting Date: June 9, 2008 Request: Conditional Use Permit Amendments and Parking Variance for expansion of an existing food establishment (II Piccolo Caffe) at 1215 — 1219 Broadway. Applicant/Architect: DES Architects and Engineers APN: 026-193-280 Property Owners: Ronald and Elizabeth Roussey Lot Area: 3,560 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: C-1, Broadway Commercial Area Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. History: On March 27, 1995, the Planning Commission approved a Special Permit and Parking Variance for expansion of a food establishment (ll Piccolo Caffe) which required three additional parking spaces, at 1219 Broadway, Burlingame. The conditions of approval for that Special Permit and Parking Variance are included in the staff report. On April 24, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit Amendmentforan existing food establishment classified as a Limited food Service Establishment in the Broadway Commercial Area at 1219 Broadway as required by Ordinance 1619. The conditions of approval for that Conditional Use Permit Amendment are included in the staff report. Project Description: The site is located in the middle of the 1200 block of Broadway. Currently, there is a limited food service establishment (II Piccolo Caffe) at 1219 Broadway(1,153 SF) and a vacant video rental store (Network Video) next door at 1215 Broadway (817 SF of retail + 177 SF of storage). With this application, the applicant is proposing to change the food classification of the existing food establishment from limited food service establishment to full service food establishment and expand into the adjacent retail space currently occupied by the video rental store. Staff would note that there is a separate one -bedroom unit on the same property that is attached to the existing food establishment and that is not associated with the proposed project. The proposed combined space would total 2,147 SF (1,970 SF of food establishment use, 177 SF of storage area). The full service food establishment will have approximately 806 SF of seating area where previously only 675 SF of seating area was associated with the limited food service establishment. The project includes interior remodeling, combining the two tenant spaces and renovating the existing fagade along Broadway. The entrance doorwill remain in its existing location along Broadway. The existing video store storefront and signage at 1215 Broadway will be removed and replaced with a new foldable storefront to match the existing food establishment's storefront at 1219 Broadway. The existing exit into the alley way to the right of the food establishment will be relocated and recessed to comply with current building code requirements. A full service food establishment Is defined as a business which sells food prepared indoors on the premise with a full menu and provides an Indoor seating area of at least 250 SF. Operating criteria for a full service food establishment include most or all of the following: served by waiters to seated customers and where payment is made at the end of the meal; presence of a full commercial kitchen and commercial dishwasher; and food is served on ceramic plates with metal flatware and cloth napkins. The full service food establishment will have approximately 806 SF of seating area (715 SF indoor area and 91 SF outdoor area). Tables will be provided as well as eight (8) additional seats at the wine bar area. Currently, there are four full-time employees working at the food establishment seven days a week. In five years, the number of employees is expected to increase to four full-time employees during the daytime and eight full time employees during the evenings. Currently, there are approximately 300 to 350 customers that visit the site each day. In the future, the applicant anticipates a total of 400 to 500 customers per day on both weekdays and on Conditional Use Permit Amendments and Parking Variance Attachments:' Applicant's Response to Commission's comments — date stamped May 29, 2008 Partial floor plan from applicant — date stamped May 29, 2008 Minutes from May 27, 2008, Study Meeting Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit and Variance Forms Supplemental Form for Commercial Applications Approval Letter for Conditional Use Permit Amendment— dated May 2, 2000 Approval Letter for Special Permit and Parking Variance — dated April 4, 1995 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed May 30, 2008 Aerial Photo 1219 Broadway -5- LOCATION OF (N) FIRE SPRINKLER RISER (N) FOLDABLE STOREFRONT . ' N) LOCATION OF RECESSED STOREFRONT (N) LEVEL ENTRY FOYER (2% SLOPE MAX). m I (E) DINING AREA f27--1 b" f69'-11" no (N) DINING AREA o (E) CASHIER j I I I I (E) DINING AREA CD I o� CD �z �n m E EIVE (N) MY 12 9 2008 - NOT AE - FAMPE BURLINGAME - - NO NING DEPT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: ® Design Review ® Variance ❑ Other: ® Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit El Parcel Number: 026-192-280 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1219 Broadway, Burlingame, CA 94010 APPLICANT project contact person OK to send electronic copies of documents IN Name: DES Architects and Engineers, Vince AmRhein (PM) Address: 399 Bradford St City/State/Zip: Redwood City, CA, 94063 Phone (w): 650-364-6453 ext 277 (Home): PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents Name: David Armanino Address: 1333 Paloma Ave City/State/Zip: Broadway, CA 94010 Phone (w): (Home): 650-773-5319 (Fax): 650-364-2618 (Fax): -nail): VAmRhein@des-ae.com ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: DES Architects and Engineers Address: 399 Bradford St City/State/Zip: Redwood City, CA, 94063 Phone (w): 650-364.6453 (Home): (Fax): 650-364-2618 (E-mail): david@timealtas.com Please mark one box With MR to indicate the contact person for this project. MAR 1 0 2008 (E-mail): VAmRhein a0des-ae.com CITY OF BURLINGAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project is an expansion of an existing restaurant into currently vacant conti&bA0UsNlikt% I s ;ce In response to the increase in anticipated customers, an additional accessible toilet Is being added. However the infrastructure of the -building causes the toilet to be places where the existing kitchen and the range hood is. Therefore the kitchen is being moved to the new space and enlarged with a new range hood and the requisite health department approvals. The new space will Include a wine bar. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATUR by certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and bell _"plicant's signature: ✓f'� Date: 3.10.08 I am aware of the prop.Wed application nd her authorize the above.applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: 3.10.08 Date submitted: 3.10,08 S:\Handouts\PC Application 2007.handoul COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 a f: 650.696.3790 • www,burlingame.org 11 RECEIVE MAR 1 0 20C CITY OF 6URLINGAt PLANNING DEPT. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54:020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. The property Is located on small lot (+/-3,558 SF) with a mere frontage of +/-35'. The lot is bounded by Broadway (sidewalk and on -street parking), alleys and adjacent buildings. The existing building has a 70 % site coverage with the rest as private yards at rear. It's impossible to create a rear parking area and driveway without demolishing a substantial part of the property and affecting the urban traffic along Broadway. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. The building was erected on this site prior to the current zoning regulation when automobile traffic was insignificant. Therefore it has no parking on the site and cannot accommodate any. To enforce this requirement would result in a loss of approximately oni half of the building. This would result in an unreasonable loss to the owner. The expansion of building space is of a size and configuration that it is of limited use by itself and is best used as an addition to the contiguous tenancy. As this is a restaurant there are additional parking spaces that would be required. To deny the variance then would reduce the property rights of the owner as his options would be limited. The fact hat the City granted a similar variance in 1995 indicates that it is in favor of such. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The proposed expansion of food establishment will take place within the existing and adjacent tenant spaces in the same building. Hence, noise, lighting and other possible nuisances will be contained in the building. No additional structure is being planned. The project will also include upgrades and additions of equipment and structure that comply with the latest national, state's and city's building, fire, sanitary, accessibility and other standards. It includes the phased Installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system, new hood and drains, and re -construction of a code -complying storage area. With all these retrofits in mind, plus the higher quality of food and catering service provided, the project will be an added amenity to community. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The exterior upgrade of the project includes only replacing a dated storefront system (with one that matches the existing cafe storefront) and relocating entries critical to compliance with State and City's access, life safety and exiting requirement. These measures will enhance the original aesthetics of the existing building and still in tune with other buildings on downtown. Handouts\Variance Application.2007 ��b, crtr oa. BUf{l,Ij{4APtE CITY OF BURLINGA ME planning Deparhoem May 2, 2000 Ronald C. and Elizabeth L, Roussey 5571 Earl Drive Santa Clara, CA 95051 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Roussey, City Hall - 501 Nimmx Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 Tel. (650) 559-7200 Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the April 24, 2000 Planning Commission approval of your conditional use permit amendment application became effective May 1, 2000. This application was for an existing food establishment classified as a Limited Food Service Establishment in the Broadway commercial area at 1219 Broadway,, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area. The April 24, 2000 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: that this business location presently occupied by a limited food service establishment, with 675 SF of on -site seating, may change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or bar with approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 2. that the 675 SF area of.on-site seating of the limited food service establishment may be enlarged or extended to any other areas within.the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 4. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 5. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any other retail use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; h� TitV of Purlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD red (415) 696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX (415)342-6366 April 4, 1995 David Armanino 1421 Oak Grove Avenue #102 Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Armanino, Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the March 27, 1995 Planning Commission approval of your Special Permit and Parking Variances application became effective April 3, 1995. This application was to allow a special permit for the expansion of an existing food establishment and a 3 car parking variance at 1219 Broadway Avenue, Zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial District. The March 27, 1995 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: 1, that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 24, 1995 Site Plan and General Floor Plan; 2. that the conditions of the Associate Civil Engineers' memo dated February 24, 1995 and the Chief Building Official's memo dated February 27, 1995 shall be met; 3. that the caffd shall be open 5:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday and 5:00 A.M. to 10:30 P.M. Friday and Saturday with a maximum of 3 employees at any one time; 4. that the caffe shall provide and maintain trash receptacles at the front door and the side door leading to the alley; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. m ID ROUTING FORM DATE: _ p',% .q'"' i TO: "4 CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION Apu EETING: REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY:�,la v THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah c Date of Comments �--./ ��.���5 'E � �f.�-�icrU I� �IGi,GV��z cd��wit%rnf�i G�--✓t2 � -f tiG-Lp�-/ a C' ��,";,�Q .��r/�-�<.c/uv- iti-f� �idzc.�ra-C�C- CZtQ-u-, a Qiy��1�,(% Gw�r,-��<e�,..,.•-�:l � � . I� �� a je ('Do� �A� o-lq �-glyf-rif� q, fy'.'v- �p raA, Project Comments Date: Revised Plans Submitted May 5, 2008 To: d City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for expansion of an existing food establishment at 1219 Broadway, zoned R-1, APN: 026-193-280 Staff Review: N/A No comment. Reviewed by: V V Date: 5/08/2008 Project Comments Date: March 13, 2008 To: d City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject:. Request for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for expansion of an existing food establishment at 1219 Broadway, zoned C-1, APN: 026-193-280 Staff Review: March 17, 2008 The proposed exit door into the alley way is not allowed. Revise plans accordingly. Reviewed by: V V Date: 04/07/2008 Date: To: From: Project Comments Revised Plans Submitted April 18, 2008 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for expansion of an existing food establishment at 1215 Broadway, zoned C-1, APN: 026-193-280 Staff Review: N/A Items 12 and 19: The second exit, as shown on the plans, does not comply with the exiting requirements. This door cannot swing into the public right of way. Either provide written verification from the Engineering Division that the door is allowed to encroach into the public right of way or amend the floor plans on Sheet A-4 to show a vestibule at this exit that will comply with the 2007 CBC. NOTE: A written response to the comments noted here and plans that specifically address these comments must be re -submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Reviewed 12)The second exit as shown cannot swing into the public right of way. Note: A possible solution might be an interior alcove which allows the door to swing in the direction of travel without encroaching into the right of way. 13)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 14)Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 15)Provide a title block on the plans that includes the name of the owner(s) and the name, address, and ,phone number of the project designer. 16)No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of the current code for such division or group of occupancy. 2007 CBC 3406.1 Note: If the change in occupancy classification include a change in "Occupancy Category" as prescribed in 2007 CBC Table 1604.5 then a complete seismic upgrade of the existing building may be required. 17)I1lustrate compliance with the minimum plumbing fixture requirements described in the 2001 International Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29, Table A-29-A. 18)Show compliance with all accessibility regulations found in the 2007 CBC for existing buildings including: a. Accessible paths of travel b. Accessible countertops c. Accessible bathrooms Note: An accessible bathroom is required for each sex (2007 CBC 2902.2 d. Accessible parking 19)Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel 20)Please reference this project as 1215 Broadway on all plans and documents. 21)NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 18, 19, and 20 must be re -submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Reviewed by��r } 1 (/ �_ �� Date:/D� Project Comments Date: March 13, 2008 To: City Engineer (650) 558-7230 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ✓ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 City Attorney Subject: Request for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for expansion of an existing food establishment at 1219 Broadway, zoned C-1, APN: 026-193-280 A4aff Rnvinur March 47 9nnR Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. Project proponents shall ensure Best Management practices are implemented during all phases of the construction project. Please see attached brochure for guidance. Include appropriate BMPs as project notes in building plans. 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. Please distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 6501342-3727. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, restaurants are subject to pre-treatment requirements, i.e. sewer discharge permit, grease trap, etc. Please contact Donna Allen at the Office of Environmental Compliance at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: Date: 03/17/08 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMNENTS AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Conditional Use Permit Amendments and Parking Variance for expansion of an existing food establishment at 1215-1219 Broadway Ronald and Elizabeth Roussev, 3571 Earl Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95051, property owners, APN: 026-193-280; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 9, 2008, 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 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. 2. Said Conditional Use Permit Amendments and Parking Variance are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use Permit Amendments and Parking Variance are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 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 of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of June, 2008 by the following vote: Secretary _"P''. ri': Item No. _ City of .Burlingame Regular Action Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2673 Martinez Drive Meeting Date: 6/9/08 Request: Design Review for a main and lower level addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Property Owner: Marwan Zeidan APN: 025-083-060 Designer: David Miraflor Lot Area: 11,786 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. Project Description: The existing two -level house and attached garage is located in the Hillside Area, contains 2,849 SF of floor area, and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing an addition that will add approximately 40 SF of covered living space to the rear of the upper level and 2150 SF of floor area to the lower level. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to demolish a 248 SF rear deck on the upper level and replace it with a 795 SF rear deck. The proposed rear deck is uncovered and therefore not included in floor area. With the proposed addition, the floor area will increase to 4650 SF (0.39 FAR) where 4872 SF (0.41 FAR) is the maximum allowed. With this project, the number of potential bedrooms will increase from three to four. Two parking spaces, one covered (20' x 20') and one uncovered (9' x 20% are required for the proposed four bedroom house and will be provided in the garage and existing driveway. All Zoning Code requirements have been met. The following application is required: Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010, a, 5), and Hillside Area Construction Permit (C.S. 25.61.020). 2673 Martinez Drive Lot Area: 11,786 SF Planc rinfn cfnm A- ear.. �O ennn EXISTING TO PROPOSED ADDN 6.�, dvuv ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (2"d level) ...... 11 6 (to front steps no change 15'-0" (or block average) (1st level): ---...... 19'-0" (to garage) no change 35'-0" (to two -car garage) _......_ Side (left, 2"d level). _ 8 7" (to LR) _ 12'-6" (to new deck) T-0" (left, 1st level): 8'-7" (to garage) 12'-6" (to FR) T-0" (right, 2"d level): 7'-4" (to BR) 13'-0" (to new deck) T-0" (right, 1st level): ......_... ._. n/a --- 13'-0" (to master bath) T-0" Rear (21d level): --- .. __, 48'-0" (to MB) 42 -0" (to new deck) 20 -0 (1st level): 80'-0" (to garage) .....-. _._ _.._ 42'-0" (to MB) 15'-0" Lot Coverage 2440 SF ........ --..- 2958 SF 4714 SF 21% ............. --.... _.._........... 25% ... 40% FAR: 2849 SF ......... 4650 SF 4872SF 2 0.24 FAR 0.39 FAR 0.41 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 .-43 Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2673 Martinez Drive 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. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). 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 May 28, 2008, Sheets 1 through 6 and LC1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 6, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's April 6, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 9, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 9, 2008 memo shall be met; 3. that demolition or 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; 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 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: -3- CITY OFBURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes February 25, 2008 There is an opportunity to beef -up the landscaping on the garage side to break-up wall, and otLier side to soften appearance. Commissioner tyistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent I This motion was secondedk CommissionerAuran. Discussion of motion: Perhaps consider a belly -band to b up the ma ing of the side elevation, instead of a trellis element; however, could also be some r f a trellis without need for a Variance. Would hesitate to bring the trellis feature a ay around the side; asymmetric fashion would be nice. Windows maybe sufficient to so n the appearance o id a, side elevation. • The proposal is consistent . the character of the exisfin sidence. Include vines on trellis t would wrap around the side; windows garage side will also break up mass. North elevatio s mislabeled. Encoura landscaping on the right side at the rear to soften appearance. Chair C chi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when s have be evised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0. The Planning Commission's ac ' is dvisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 9. 2673 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR MAIN AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARWAN ZEIDAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND DAVID MIRAFLOR, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER• LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated February 25, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Lisa Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Marwan Zeidan, 2673 Martinez Drive and David Miraflor, P. O. Box 6910174, Stockton; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Commended the applicant for adding to under floor space to increase floor area. Questioned the need for all of the additional full baths. Asked why the existing shutters are being removed; they add to the character of the home. Noted that the plans are difficult to read. Difficult to visualize how the proposed house will look. The proposed concrete balusters are too heavy and inappropriate for the design of the structure; consider something similar to the design on the front of the structure, or look to other similar homes in the area for ideas. Noted inconsistencies in trim details between Sheets 4 and 6. • Drawings should show a clearer representation of the trim package. Noted neighbor comments regarding the Eucalyptus trees on the site; suggested working with the neighbor to address their concerns. Noted that the proposed curved windows are not consistent with the design of the rest of house. 13 COVD Design Review Memo MAY 1 9 2008 City of Burlingame Date: May 14, 2008 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 2673 Martinez Dr. Architect: Line 2 Design Planner: Lisa Whitman CrfY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I have received and reviewed the revised plans (4/28/08) for 2673 Martinez Dr. I have visited the site and surrounding area. I reviewed the original submission to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's comments.as presented in the meeting minutes. I met with the owner and architect about the project and reviewed an interim revision. The Planning Commission comments from the 2/25/08 meeting are as follows: ❑ Commended the applicant for adding to under floor space to increase floor area. ❑ Questioned the need for all of the additional full baths. ❑ Asked why the existing shutters are being removed; they add to the character of the home. ❑ Noted that the plans are difficult to read. Difficult to visualize how the proposed house will look. ❑ The proposed concrete balusters are too heavy and inappropriate for the design of the structure; consider something similar to the design on the front of the structure, or look to other similar homes in the area for ideas. ❑ Noted inconsistencies in trim details between Sheets 4 and 6. ❑ Drawings should show a clearer representation of the trim package. ❑ Noted neighbor comments regarding the Eucalyptus trees on the site; suggested working with the neighbor to address their concerns. ❑ Noted that the proposed curved windows are not consistent with the design of the rest of house. ❑ Provide details of the designs of the front door and garage door. ❑ Design consistency is required. Current design is proposing one look at the front of the house and another at the back. Public comments: ❑ Byron and Marion Maldonado, 1 Toledo Court; adjacent property owner; noted that they have a view to the airport and the San Mateo bridge. They are concerned with view impacts. Before construction takes place, install story poles to show how high the building will actually be. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ❑ Requested the installation of story poles. • The applicant has included new landscaping. I didn't do an extensive review of the landscaping, and noted the only comments in the minutes had to do with the eucalyptus trees, SUMMARY The applicant has revised the drawings and design to generally respond to the comments received. The shutters are being retained, the plan clarity has been improved somewhat, the concrete balusters have been replaced with wrought iron, there are new details now showing the front door, window, and railings. The curved windows have been deleted from the garage door. The revised design is an improvement over the initial submittal. There is relatively little to review other than some of the aesthetic choices being made. I informed the applicant that I didn't think the iron work on the garage doors was necessary, but ok if the owner wants that. I also encouraged, and still do, a little further study of the rear railing. I appreciate that there is now the desired consistency between the back and front of the house, but there is now a long, unbroken length of the railing. There does appear to be a series of intermittent posts, but not much detail about them. All in all I would encourage the owner to make a careful selection of these features, but wouldn't hold up the project for them. I support the project, especially due to the fact that the overall concept is strong; creating new space below rather than above where neighborhood impacts would surely be much greater. Randy Grange, AIA Occupant April 28, 2008 Page 2 Ann Keighran, Vice -Mayor Cathy Baylock, Councilmember Terry Nagel, Councilmember Jerry Deal, Councilmember Larry Anderson, City Attorney James Nantell, City Manager Randy Schwartz, Parks and Recreation Director (Trees) Lisa Whitman, Planning Department Christine Reed, Fire inspector Sue Harris, Code Enforcement Doris Mortensen, City Clerk Design Review Planning Commission Beautification Committee AFR 3 0 2008 Page 2 of 4 i T'd A LEE PE NRi ED AFK 3 0 2008 CITY OF PLANNING iJ�p r, 4OIX23 M:WONd TZ:GO 9002-TT-Nnf City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BtIRIJNGAjdE Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit . Variance Special Permit Other Nf f V Parcel Number: Project address: Z/� 7 APPLICANT project conta t person? ❑ PROPERTY OWNER c project contact person? ❑ Name: �1 y� Name: Address: ��y6"_ Address: City/State/Zip: ,(q City/State/Zip: Phone (w): Phone (w): (h): ��,y ` DO (h): (fax): 'S �Oc7 (fax): (e-mail): C�\/°,hr�.�.-::" rnvv. (e-mail): ARCHITECT/DE GNER project contact person? ❑ IName: _ C Please mark • - box with ©' to indicate the contact person for this project. --iii " �'.f:SJ � ,v,isx?i :: �� "t cY..z'✓��S ,�"u`F "''i aaE:' (fax): (e-mail): (V. dos —� �r AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature:M[d , L�,Z\ Dater, I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: IV NA )o� ZQ,/ Date: Date submitted: I, S:\Handouts\PCAPP. FRM Project Comments Date: April 5, 2007 To: ® City Engineer 0 Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 X Chief Building Official 0 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 556-7600 0 City Arborist ® NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ® City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for a second story addition and first floor remodel at 2673 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 026-083-060 Staff Review: April 0, 2007 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 existing and proposed elevations. 4) Provide a. complete demolition plan that indicates the existing, walls, walls to be demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a: Building Permit is issued' for the project, 5) Comply with the new, 2005 California. Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential buildings. Go to htto://www.energy.ca ciov/titie24 for publications and details. 6) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. 7) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 8) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 9) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. Reviewed by ®ate: �% rmwammmmo� --A Project Comments Date: April 5, 2007 To: ® City Engineer (650) 558-7230 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ® City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ® Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ® Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ® City Attorney Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for a second story addition and first floor remodel at 2673 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-083-060 OLUIT KeVleW: April 3, ZOO7 1) 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). Include appropriate stormwater BMPs as Project Notes. These BMPs include but are not limited to the following: • Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly to prevent contact and contamination of stormwater; • Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; • Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering site and obtain all necessary permits; • Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on -site except in a designated area where wash water is contained and treated; • Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate; • Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather; • Limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff; • Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; • Avoid tracking dirt or other materials off -site; clean off -site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping method; • The Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and subcontractors regarding the construction BMPs. 1 of 2 f Yrs�� r,i t yam+ i ri AI Is d i loss Q ME rK I� 3 a NOi mallow p 3 Y e i - RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 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 and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a main and lower level addition to a WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 9. 2008, 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: 1. 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)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. - - 2. Said Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 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, 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 of the Planning Commission held on the 9'h day of June. 2008 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2673 Martinez Drive Effective June 20, 2008 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; 10. 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 Department; and 11. 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. 6 3 _ �"�''�jy "�»" Its.. e�.�a wsaaa.i ';� •€N ;.mpg ��,x.,,,. S�( �F Cityof Burlingame Item No. am g Regular Action Design Review Amendment Address: 2537 Hayward Drive Meeting Date: 05/27/08 Request: Design Review Amendment for changes to an approved project for first and second story addition. Applicants and Property Owners: Patty and Andrew Jorda Architect: George Skinner General Plan: Low Density Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: structures provided the addition will not result in an increase structures before the addition. APN: 025-171-130 Lot Area: 11,500 SF Zoning: R-1 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing of more than 50% of the floor area of the History: On June 25, 2007, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and an FAR Variance for a first and second story addition at 2537 Hayward Drive, Zoned R-1 (June 25, 2007, Planning Commission Minutes). A building permit was issued on February 8, 2008, and the project is currently under construction. Proposed Revisions: The applicant is now requesting an Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved first and second story addition at 2537 Hayward Drive, Zoned_ R-1. The applicant is requesting changes to the grid pattern on many of the simulated true divided lite wood windows that were originally approved with the project (see previously approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped May 6, 2008). The applicant submitted building elevations and a letter, dated May 6, 2008, describing the changes to the window grids. Other than the proposed changes described above and in the applicant's letter, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. The applicant is requesting the following: Amendment to Design Review for changes to an approved project for first and second story addition. Summary (includes proposed revisions): The existing split level house, with an attached two -car garage (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions), contains 3,350.5 SF (0.29 FAR) of floor area and has three potential bedrooms. The lot slopes up from the street and the finished floor of the upper level is 11.26' above the average top of curb elevation. The applicant is proposing to add on to the first floor at the front of the house, which includes a new covered front porch, and along the left hand side and to build 389 SF second story addition, with a 116 SF uncovered balcony, over the existing lower level garage. Due to comments made by the Commission at the Design Review Study meeting, the applicant has extended the proposed front porch out towards the street an additional eight (8) feet, which has triggered the need for an FAR Variance. With the proposed first and second story addition, the floor area will increase from 3,350.5 SF (0.29 FAR) to 4,892.7 SF (0.41 FAR) where 4,780 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 112.7 SF above the maximum allowed FAR. With this project, the number of potential bedrooms will increase from three (3) to four (4). Two parking spaces, one covered (10' x 20') and one uncovered (9' x 20'), are required for the four bedroom house. The existing attached two -car garage (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions) meets the covered parking requirement. There is one uncovered 9' x 20' space provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The following applications were originally approved with the project: Design Review for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010, 5); Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition (CS 25.62.020); and Design ReviewAmendmenf 2537 Hayward Drive 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 6, 2008, sheets A3 and A4, and date stamped June 11, 2007, sheets Al, A2, A5 through A8 and Landscape Plan, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's March 5, 2007 memos shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 4. that demolition or 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; 5. 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; 6. 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. 7. 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 Department; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 11. 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; and 12. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Erica Strohmeier Planner c. Patty and Andrew Jordan, applicants and property owners. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes X. - May 27, 2008 uMc comments: • Fred Dias, 2516 Valdivia Wa (neighbor to the right); not su\aa lanned b houses; concerned about priv from his bedroom that fachome.There ere no other comments from the or and the public hearinCommissr er Vistica made a motion to pla the item on the Consen complete. This motion s seconded by Commissioner A an. Discussion of • Requested thl Vice -Chair Terrones c ve been revised as C chi absent). The) 10:1 m. REPORTS None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: >n of story poles, vote on the motion to pla\Voici The motion passed on a ommission's action is advisory item on the Consent Calendar cote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Lir kd not appealable. This item c the plans n and led at • Community Development Director Meeker noted that a final Planning inspection was recently conducted at 3066 Hillside Drive, and found that excess paving had been removed from the property on the west side of the garage, and that a planter area had been installed, consistent with the City Council's May 5, 2008 action related to the property owner's (Mimi Sien's) appeal. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of May 19, 2008 • None FYI: 2537 Hayward Drive — requested changes to a previously approved desjan review proiect: • Bring back as an action item. FYI: 1315 Edgehill Drive — changes required by conditions of approval for a previously approved design review project: • Accepted FYI. Peninsula Hospital Complaint Loa —Amended Logs for March and April 2008: • Accepted 16 May 7, 2008 Patty & Andrew Jordan. 2537 Hayward Dr. Burlingame, CA 94010 RE ' Re: Proposed Changes to 2537 Hayward Drive, Burlingame MAY .. f3 M8 Dear Planning Commissioners, We would like to remove some of the grids off our window design to archive consistent look for all four sides of the house. Please review this request and get back to us as soon as possible, we would like to order our window and doors, so it's not holding our project back. Please do not hesitate to contact me at my cell at 415-726-2904 if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Andrew Jordan CITY OF BURLINGAME 8i.1'rL :.:�fLME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 July 9, 2007 Patty and Andrew Jordan 2537 Hayward Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jordan, 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 June 25, 2007, Planning Commission approval of your application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and floor area Variance became effective July 6, 2007. This application was to allow for a first and second story addition at 2537 Hayward Drive, zoned R-1. The June 25, 2007 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 11, 2007, sheets A-1 through A-8 and Landscape Plan, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the existing height of the row of Birch and Cypress trees on the property shall be determined and noted for the record. As long as the trees exist on the property, they shall be maintained at a height no greater than the height measured at the time of building permit issuance; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's March 5, 2007 memos shall be met; 4, that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the front setback variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 5. that demolition or 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; 6. 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; 7. 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 �5 Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org ere City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 25, 2007 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 5. 2537 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO FORA FIRSTAND SECOND STORYADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (PATTYAND ANDREW JORDAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND GEORGE SKINNER, ARCHITECT) (30 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 25, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m, George Skinner, 4231 Terrace Street, Oakland, represented the applicant. Commission comments: Have dimensions of pergola been confirmed by Planner? (Yes) Plans for railings don't reflect what architect describes (Craftsman detailing). Revise plans to reflect what is intended. ■ While trees are in full bloom, it is difficult to determine view impacts of addition. Should stipulate that the row of Birch and Cypress trees be topped to current height in future, as long as they exist on the site, as a condition of approval. Planning Commission supported request for a Variance from maximum FAR in orderto permit a more inviting porch design that benefits the appearance of the neighborhood. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, Burlingame, doesn't think it is an imposition to include the stipulation to keep the trees topped to the current height as a condition of approval. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 11, 2007, sheets A-1 through A-8 and Landscape Plan, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the existing height of the row of Birch and Cypress trees on the property shall be determined and noted for the record. As long as the trees exist on the property, they shall be maintained at a height no greater than the height measured at the time of building permit issuance; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's March 5, 2007 memos shall be met; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the front setback variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 5 Project Comments Date: February 28, 2007 To: a( City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Design review and hillside area construction permit for first and second story addition to single family dwelling at 2537 Hayward Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025 171 130 Staff Review: March 5, 2007 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. 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. 4. Plans show existing deck built on top of public utility easement which is not allowed. If any portion of the deck in the easement is removed, that portion can not be replaced. Reviewed by: V V Date: 3/05/2007 Project Comments Date: February 28, 2007 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 a( Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Design review and hillside area construction permit for first and second story addition to single family dwelling at 2537 Hayward Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025 171 130 Staff Review: March 5, 2007 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 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. While the project appears to require sprinklers based upon proposed addition and remodel, the project is close. Be advised where more than one (1) addition and/or alteration for which building permits are required are made within a two (2) year period and said alterations are made to the premises of the same occupant. In such circumstances, the sum of these additions and/or alterations construction costs during this two (2) year period shall be aggregated for the purpose of calculating the replacement cost value formula. Final determination will be made and the plan review phase of the project. It is very important that you understand the threshold indicated by BMC §1.7.04.030. Designer, contractor, and owner should communicate specifically the extent of demolition and remodel. Keeping in mind any change orders and addendums which increase the total amount of square footage added or remodeled after plan review would be applied to the sprinkler ordinance. Reviewed by:� Date: �—�� Project Comments Con't — 2537 Hayward Dr. — hillside construction, 1st and 2"d story addition. 2) 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. The easement shall be protected from any site runoff. 3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls (if necessary): a. Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls continuously until permanent erosion control have been established; b. Address method(s) for diverting on -site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off -site runoff around the site; c. Address methods for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on -site. 4) Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following: a. Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; b. Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material. 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 6501342-3727. Reviewed by:� Date: 03/05/07 2of2 EROSION CONTROL CAN PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY AND PREVENT FUTURE HEADACHES �z.. Vegetation -stabilized Slope: Security f (� J(i' %� • soil in place • minimum of erosion �/ • • fewer winter clean- up problems • protection for house foun- dations r Bare Slope: Headaches and Liability ' • mudslide danger ` • loss of topsoil • clogged storm drains, flooding •t�'(•,�ryj; problems • expensive •• s cleanup • eroded or buried house foundations J .i^'i. ram" -•a .ti:. 'i. -•' i ca ,.i-.. fSv✓ /® TIPS FOR THE HOMEOWNE] eat ; "Winterize" your property by mid -September. Don't wait until spring to put in landscaping. You need winter protection. Final landscaping can be done later. Inexpensive measures installed by fall will give you protection quickly that. will last all during the wet season. =..-�ne afternoon you can: • Dig trenches to drain surface runoff water away from problem areas such as steep, bare slopes. • Prepare bare areas on slopes for seeding by raking the surface to loosen and roughen soil so it will hold seeds. Seeding of bare slopes • Hand broadcast or use a "breast seeder." A typical yard can be done in less than an hour. • Give seeds a boost with fertilizer. • Mulch if you can, with grass clippings and leaves, bark chips or straw. • Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes. • Check with your local nursery for advice. Winter alert • Check before storms to see that drains and ditches are not clogged by leaves and rubble. • Check after major storms to be sure drains a re clear and vegetation is holding on slopes. Repair as necessary. Spot seed any bare areas. Mats of excelsior, jute netting and plastic sheets can be ef- fective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with the soil and fastened securely to work effectively. Roof drainage can be collected in barrels or storage con- tainers or routed Into lawns, planter boxes and gardens. Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mos- quitos, too. Excessive runoff should be directed away from your house, Too much water can damage trees and make foundations unstable, STRUCTURAL RUNOFF CONTROLS Even with proper timing and planting, you may need to protect disturbed areas from rainfall until the plants have time to establish themselves. Or you may need permanent ways to transport water across your property so that it doesn't cause erosion. -o keepwater from carrying soil from your site and dump- ing it into nearby lots, streets, streams and channels, you need ways to reduce Its volume and speed. Some exam- ples of what you might use are: trap Riprap (rock lining) —to protect channel banks from erosive water flow Sediment trap —to stop runoff carrying sediment and trap the sediment • storm drain outlet protection —to reduce the speed of water flow- ing from a pipe onto open ground or into a natural channel • Diversion dike or perimeter dike —to divert excess water to places where it can be disposed of properly • Straw bale dike —to stop and detain sediment from small unprotected areas (a short-term measure) • Perimeterswale— todiveri runoff from a disturbed area or to contain runoff within a dfst'urbed area • Grade stabilization structure —to carry concentrated runoff down a slope Jute netting outlet protection AW Ca— Napes ditch Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Design Review. 2537 Hayward Drive Effective June 19, 2008 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 6, 2008, sheets A3 and A4, and date stamped June 11, 2007, sheets Al, A2, A5 through A8 and Landscape Plan, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's,, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's March 5, 2007 memos shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 4. that demolition or 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; 5. 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; 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. 7. 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 Department; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; r CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD W. 016H16504325 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 n PH: (650) 558-7250 o FAX: (65r (� Qi� 27� n www.burlingame.org 0 $ a. s �y�-� R9aaed From 94010 Site: 2537 HAYWARD DRIVE - US POSTAGE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the PUBLIC HEARING following public hearing an MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2008 at ' NOTICE 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 2537 HAYWARD DRIVE zoned R-1. APN 025-171-130 Mailed: May 30, 2008 (Please refer to other side) A copy of the application,* ahcl'pfa the meeting at the Community: D Road, Burlingame,:Calffar`nia:;Q If you challenge ffid"' bfect aplil raising only those issues you or described in the notice or in'writt( prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this tenants about this riotice. " For additional information. please` William Meeker Community Development !Di f6r (Please refer to other side) reviewed prior to 501 Primrose be limited to public hearing, ed"to the city at or �t glforminci their City of Burlingame Item No. Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance Action Item and Parking Variance Address: 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Meeting Date: 06/09/08 Request: Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance fora newthree- story, three -unit residential condominium. Applicant and Architect: Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates APN: 029-100-070 Property Owner: Mike Prescott Lot Area: 5,790 SF General Plan Designation: Medium -High Density Residential Zoning: R-3 Adjacent Development: Mutli-Family Residential CEQA: Section 15303 - New Construction or conversion of small structures, Class 3(b), construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (b) a duplex or similar multi -family residential structure totaling no more. than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartment, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. Project Description: On October 23, 2006, the Planning Commission approved a Condominium Permit and Conditional Use Permit for building for a new three-story, three -unit residential condominium at 1459 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R-3. The plans approved by the Planning Commission where drawn by Hunt Hale Jones. A different architectural firm, Dale Meyers Associates, was hired to complete the construction drawings. While completing the construction drawings required for a building permit and responding to plan check comments during the building permit review process, the architect noted that several changes need to be made in order to address building permit plan check comments. A building permit has not been issued. The proposed changes affect the site plan, floor plans, roof plan, building elevations, parking layout and stairway exiting from the subterranean garage. Fora complete list of proposed changes to the project, please refer to the architect's letter dated March 13, 2008 (attached to staff report) and revised plans date stamped May 30, 2008. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Amendment to Condominium Permit for changes to a previously approved new three-story, three -unit residential condominium; • Rear Setback Variance (15-0" proposed to the stairway enclosure where 20'-0" is the minimum required rear setback on the third floor) (CS 25.32.075, b); and • Parking Variance for number of compact parking spaces (3 compact parking spaces proposed where 1 compact parking space is allowed) (CS 25.70.044). Parking: The project contains three, two -bedroom units and requires a total of eight on -site parking spaces (six spaces required based on the number of bedrooms, one guest parking space and one service vehicle space). Seven on -site parking spaces are proposed in the below -grade parking garage (four standard and three compact spaces), which is accessed from a driveway along the left side of the property. The parking layout in the original approval contained six standard and one compact space. However, a 3'-0" wide egress pathway in the subterranean garage to the exit stairway needs to be provided and wasn't accounted for in the original approval. The applicant is proposing to change two standard parking spaces to compact spaces in order to provide the required pathway. However, the addition of two compact parking spaces now requires a Parking Variance (3 compact parking spaces proposed where 1 compact parking space is allowed). A delivery vehicle space is provided in the circular driveway at the front of the lot. Stairway at Rear of Building: The architect notes that per building permit plan check comments, the previously approved open stairway at the rear of the building must be enclosed. As a result, the portion of the enclosed stairway on the third story does not comply with rear setback requirement and therefore requires a Rear Setback Variance (16-0" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required on the third floor). Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Stairway from Garage to Grade: Per building code requirements, the stairway from the subterranean garage to grade at the rear of the site needs located at least 10--0" from the rear property line, or must be enclosed if located within 10'-0" of the rear property line. The stairway could not be relocated without significantly affecting the parking layout, and therefore the architect is proposing to enclose this stairway in order to comply with building code requirements. The enclosure ranges in height from 2'-0" to 7'-8" and would contain a metal door and stucco finish (see sheet P1). CS 25.32.080 (b) (2) exempts a single story accessory structure from side and rear setback requirements as long as it is located within the rear thirty (30) percent of a lot. The proposed stairway enclosure meets these requirements and is therefore exempt. The proposed stairway enclosure does not affect the common open space or common open space landscaping requirements since the previously approved open stairway was accounted for in the common open space and landscaping calculations. The table below provides a summary of the previously approved project and current project with the proposed changes. Lot Area: 5,790 SF Plans dated stamped: May 30, 2008 Previously Proposed Allowed/Required Approved (05/30/08 plans) Front Setback: is( fir. 17'-10" no change 17'-10" (average) 2"d fir. 23'-6" 17'-10" 3rd fir.. „ ...._... ..._....... 23'-6" 17'-10" Side Setback (Left). 1st fir. 5'-0" 6'-0' 5'-0" 2"d fir.. 6'-0" 6'-011 6'-0" 3rd fir: _.-_ ---, 7'-0" 7'-0" T-0„ Side Setback (Right): 9sr fir. 7'-0" no change 5'-0" 2"d flr: 7'-0" 6'-0„ — 3rd flr. T-0" T-0„ Lot Coverage: Building Height: Parking: Guest Parkina: 45.7% 38'-6" 2 7 covered 44.5% (2,578 SF) no change no change no chanae 50% 35'-0" must be Rear Setback Variance (15'-0" proposed to the stairway enclosure where 20'4' is the minimum required rear setback on the third floor) (CS 25.32.075, b). Conditional Use Permit for building height (38'-6" proposed where 35'-0" is allowed) previously approved. Parking Variance for number of compact parking spaces (3 compact parking spaces proposed where 1 compact parking space is allowed) (CS 25.70.044). Table continued on next page. -2- Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer and NPDES Coordinator. Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission study meeting on April 28, 2008, the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding this project (April 28, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes). The designer submitted a response letter dated May 14, 2008, and revised plans, dated stamped May 30, 2008. Listed below are the Commissions' comments and responses by the applicant. 1. Clarify the design of the accessory structure exiting the garage; looks too utilitarian; could have more character to encourage its use; make reference to the gate structure at the front of the property. • The accessory structure was redesigned so that it more closely matches the design of the condominium building (see Accessory Structure Elevation on sheet P1). The angled roofline design was replaced with a rectangular shape. In addition, ceramic tile roofing was incorporated to the match the roofing of the condominium building. In his written response, the applicant notes that "the design was kept simple on the walls because there will be plants in planters in front of the structure obscuring most of the wall." 2. Changes on west elevation; the change is not an improvement at the entry portico. The entry portico was changed to the originally approved design (see West Elevation, sheet P7). 3. Give more definition to ceramic the decorative element at elevator. • Details were provided showing the depth and character of the proposed ceramic tile decorative element at the elevator wall (see details 1, 2 and 3 on sheet P7). 4. Noted that the pillars are only cast stone on the first floor; concern that glass fiber elements on upper floors may age differently. On the North (Front) Elevation, cast stone columns will be used on all of the balconies and on the columns in between the windows on the ground floor (see North Elevation on sheet 7). GFRC columns will be used in between the windows o the second and third floors. The applicant notes that "we have talked to several GFRC manufacturers who have done projects that used cast stone and GFRC products and they have said that the materials look the same and have the same characteristics with the exception of weight. They have also said that both products blend well together over time." 5. Appreciated applicant using glass fiber elements rather than stucco foam. • No response needed. Criteria for Permitting a Residential Condominium: The following condominium standards shall apply to all land and structures proposed as a part of a condominium project and shall be evaluated and processed pursuant to the procedural requirements set forth for Conditional Use Permits in Title 25 of this code. No condominium projector portion thereof shall be approved or conditionally approved in whole or in part unless the planning commission, or city council upon appeal or review, has reviewed the following on the basis of their effect on: (a) Sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community; and on public health, safety and general welfare; (b) The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources; and (c) Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations. 13 Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance 1459 Oak Grove Avenue 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December2l, 2005 memo, the City Engineer's January 11, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's December27, 2005 memo, the Recycling Specialist's December28, 2005 memo, the NPDES Coordinator's January 5, 2006 memo, shall be met; that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the CityArborist; and the trees along the rear neighbor's property line shall be evaluated by a licensed arborist and protection measures defined and put into place before a building permit shall be issued." 9, that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 10. that one (1) guest parking stall shall be designated and clearly marked in the below -grade garage and marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit or used for any kind of enclosure, but shall be owned, maintained, and kept available for guest parking by the condominium association; 11. that parking assignments to each dwelling unit shall be left to the developer and tenant association however at least one space shall be assigned to each unit; 12. that the below -grade parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 13. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) forthe condominium project shall require that the guest parking stall shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 14. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 15. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 16. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 17. that if a security gate system across the driveway is installed in the future, the gate shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 1& that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; 19. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 01 Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance 1459 Oak Grove Avenue 33. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 34. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; 35. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; and 36. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, applicant Attachments: April 28, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes Applicants' Response Letter dated May 14, 2008 October 23, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Letter of Explanation, dated March 13, 2008 Application to the Planning Commission Variance Application Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed May 30, 2008 Aerial Photo 1.2 DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE -INTERIORS -P LANN IN G 851 BURLWAY ROAD, SUITE 700 BURLINGAME, CA 94010-1707 650-348-5054 May 14, 2008 RECEIVED MR. RUBEN HURIN MAY 14 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY of BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPT. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 RE: 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE — Changes per comments from Planning Commission Seeping hearing Dear Mr: Hurin: This letter is to inform you of changes made per comments from the Planning Commission: • See sheet P1 for revised accessory structure design. The design was kept simple on the walls because there will be plants in planters in front of the structure obscuring most of the wall. • Entry portico on west elevation was changed to originally approved design. • See sheet P7, details 1, 2, &3 for depth and character of ceramic tile decorative element at elevator wall. See sheet P7, North Elevation for clarification of cast stone columns on all three floors at the balconies. We have talked to several GFRC manufacturers who have done projects that used cast stone and GFRC products and they have said that the materials look the same and have the same characteristics with the exception of weight. They have also said that both products blend well together over time. Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you, Dale Meyer, AIA DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE -INTERIORS -PLANNING 851 BURLWAY ROAD, SUITE 700 BURLINGAME, CA 94010-1713 650-348-5054 March 13, 2008 MR. RUBEN HURIN RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 2 5 2008 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Ury OF BURLINGAME MANNING DEFr, RE: 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE — Changes to Planning approved drawings Dear Mr. Hurin: This letter is to inform you of changes made during the building plan check and construction drawing phase: Site Plan 1. Garage exit to grade has been enclosed. See sheet PI for elevations. 2. Area open to ramp behind vehicular portal has been covered to provide patio space for Unit 1. 3. Exterior rear stair has been enclosed per building plan check comments. Garage Plan 1. Garage walls on the North and South side have been moved in I foot to accommodate shoring. 2. The project needs one more compact stall than allowed in order to provide a 3 foot wide egress path to the stair to grade. First Floor Plan L The stair at the rear of the building has been enclosed and the door exiting out has been deleted. 2. The interior stairway has been pushed out in line with the surrounding walls. 3. The window in the Family room has been changed to French doors with sidelites since the garage ramp has been enclosed behind the vehicle portal. 4. Exterior wall at south elevation has been tined up with wall of second floor. Second Floor Plan 1. Items #1 and 2 at the first floor are the same for this floor. Page 1 of 3 Descriptions of changes March 13, 2008 2. Changed bathroom and family room windows from casement to double hung for safety on first floor and consistency on upper floors. 3. Covered garage ramp behind vehicular portal to create patio for unit 1. 4. Changed window on first floor at kitchen to French door to lead out to patio area. 5. The second floor roof needed to be raised due to structural framing therefore, it left very little room for the wrought iron element under the window on the third floor and since the wrought iron was deleted at the first floor because of the French door, we decided to eliminate it oil the second floor as well. 6. Cased decorative tile added to blank wall outside of kitchen. 7. Windows at dining room will be one unit instead of two separate units. 8. Per building code, window at entry portal has been deleted because openings other than for egress is not permitted. Sincerely, Dale Meyer, AIA Page 3 of 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT O 501 PRIMROSE ROAD + BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 a www.burlingame.org 71 D K GA i2 5i✓T i5f+C J4. - -n4l rr. p f'Lvtr2 CITY OF BURLINCIA IE The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance or.�i (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area, IlEe ATTA(UJTD b. Explain why the variance requestis necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. SCE 9LTTA6(( 1l7 C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. leg M IC'AU19V d How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? 1GC At i�uFiG� HandoutsNarlanw ApPlkatlon.200S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. _ _ R `.:�W S l=L AIAI,[��b MAR 2 6 2008 CITY OF PURLINGAMF_" PLANNING DEFT. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofa substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? HandoutsWariance Application.2008 Project Comments Date: February 21, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 X Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for application for Amendment to Condominium Permit and Parking Variance for a new, 3-unit residential condominium at 1459 Oak Grove, zoned R-3, APN: 029-100-070 Staff Review: February 25, 2008 Project Comments Date: 12/20/2005 To: ❑ City Engineer X Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for condominium permit, parking variance and conditional use permit for a new, 3-story, 3-unit residential condominium at 1459 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R-3, APN: 029-100-070 Staff Review: 12/27/2005 Page 2 of 2 10)Show the dimensions to adjacent structures 11)Show the distances to property lines or to assumed property lines 12)Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel 13)For applications received after July 1, 2005 the requirements of SB-1025 apply. This statute requires that 10% of all new covered multi -family dwelling units must be provided an accessible route of travel to the primary entry level entrance, public and common use areas and within the dwelling unit, and to one bathroom on the primary entrance level; accessible doors and doorways and; accessible kitchens and bathrooms; grab bar reinforcement around toilets, tubs and showers; and light switches within reach limitations. 14)The accessible parking shown in the basement must comply with the accessibility requirements of the 2001 CBC. Specifically, no accessible parking is shown in the parking garage. Date: Project Comments Date: February 21, 2008 To: W City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for application for Amendment to Condominium Permit and Parking Variance for a new, 3-unit residential condominium at 1459 Oak Grove, zoned R-3, APN: 029-100-070 Staff Review: February 25, 2008 All previous comments apply. Reviewed by: V V Date: 04/07/2008 PC Item # MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE: JANUARY 11, 2006 RE: CONDOMINIUM PERMITFOR 3 UNITS, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP - RESUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 7, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY NO.2 SUBDIVISION - 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE CONDOMINIUM PERMIT The following comments which needs to be addressed prior to any action. I GENERAL: Show proposed drainage system and indicate that all roof and site drainage shall go to the street by gravity. In addition, storm drainage shall be connected to the city storm drain pipeline along Oak Grove Avenue. Show direction of drainage on adjacent property to confirm that no drainage enters this site or else that drainage needs to be included in the on - site system. 2. Since this whole site is to be developed below street or adjacent grade, approvals will be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system„ and the sump pump system shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators must be so housed that they meet the City's noise requirement - see attached plan check sheet. Proposed pump and generator are to be shown. 3. If large trees are to be removed, other plantings shall be Shown on plans to help ameliorate the removals with the approval of the Parks Department. 4. Show required seven foot (T) minimum clearances at parking garage floor areas not just floor to floor. Provide room for all pipings, ducts and fire sprinklers. Disabled parking shall have access and parking area at eight feet two inches (8'2") clear. 5. All utilities to this site must be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site must be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site. 9. The garage exit pathways may not be through a parking space. Also, place bollard(s) or wall to keep vehicles from blocking exit routes. 10. Show the underground garage area vents on the plans. IV ARCHITECTURAL PLANS: Show design of trashroom and indicate size of receptacles, including receptacles for recycling. Confirm sizes needed with BFI. 2. Elevator sump drainage shall go to sanitary sewer and shall be separate from groundwater system which is to go to the storm drainage system. 3. On the Parking Level Plan and First Floor (Site) Plan, show adjacent site and street elevations for reference. 4. All building sections need to show site elevations and adjacent site elevations and shown to scale to give the relationship. 5. The sewer ejection system (shown in garage plans) does not indicate the pit, ventilation, etc. Sewer,ejectionsystem must be on the emergency generator also. 6. Individual unit climate controls as well as separate shutoffs for gas, electric and water are required. VI TENTATIVE MAPS: Add note that "#_ Condominium Units are as shown, Architectural Plans prepared by _ 2. The CCR's for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City Codes. c: Owner, Architect . F.\WP51\MES\CONDOMAP.RVW (REVISED 04/9/98) Name 3 e Project Comments Date: 12/20/2005 To: ® City Engineer / Recycling Specialist 001 Chief Building Official /' Fire Marshal r City Arborist NPDES Coordinator City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for condominium permit, parking variance and conditional use permit for a new, 3-story, 3-unit residential condominium at 1459 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R-3, APN: 029-100-070 Staff Review: 12/27/2005 To comply with the City's NPDES Stormwater Permit, the project proponent shall incorporate the following measures to the maximum extent practicable: A. Site Design Measures: • Minimize impervious surface areas; • Minimize impervious area from being directly connected to the storm drain system; • Maximize permeability by preserving open space and using permeable surfaces where feasible; • Use landscaping to treat stormwater; • Use "Bay Friendly" landscape design (see handout). B. Incorporate all applicable source control measures (refer to the City of Burlingame's Local Source Control Measures List). C. Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls: • Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls continuously throughout the duration of the construction project or until permanent erosion controls have been established; • Address method(s) for diverting on -site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off -site runoff around the site; • Address methods for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on -site; D. Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following: • Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; • Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material. 1 of 2 NEWDEVLOPmENr/REDVELOPMENTT LANDsmPING FACT SmET RA/ry San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution 41"'Wovo Prevention Program ,Amm_Ilowsfobay_org Who should use this Fact Sheet? • Development Project Applicants • City/County Planners • Landscape Maintenance Personnel • Landscape Architects • Homeowners Bay and Ocean Friendly Landscape Design and Maintenance Techniques What are Bay/Ocean Friendly Landscape Design and Maintenance Techniques? Bay/Ocean Friendly landscaping relies on alternative design, plant selection, and maintenance practices that decrease the need for pesticide applications as well as the amount of water runoff from landscaping. The quantity of pesticides entering our creeks, the Bay, and Ocean can be reduced by using techniques that: • Decrease the need for landscape maintenance by designing landscapes that minimize pest infestation and create low maintenance environments; • Select plants that are appropriate for local soil, climate, and other conditions; • Incorporate elements that reduce the potential for the pesticides to run off the • Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces; • Use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to minimize pesticide usage; Refer to the back of this fact sheet for more design and maintenance tips. What is Integrated Pest Management? Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a decision -making process for managing pests. IPM relies upon monitoring to determine pest -caused injury levels and the use of a variety of less toxic methods of pest control. To minimize pesticide usage, IPM uses a combination of: • biological controls (e.g., natural enemies or predators); ® physical or mechanical controls (e,g., hand labor or mon=.ring); • cultural controls (e.g., mulching, discing, or alternative plant type selection); and • reduced risk chemical controls (e.g., soaps or oils) The IPM method uses the least hazardous pesticides only as a last resort for controlling pests. a%.. SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM ki THE CITY OF BURLINGAME'S MODEL LIST OF STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES The following list contains measures to control sources of stormwater pollutants associated with the post -construction phase of new development and redevelopment projects. Each identified source of pollutants may have one or more appropriate control measures. A. Illegal Dumping to Storm Drain Inlets and Waterways On -site storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No Dumping! Flows to Bay," or equivalent, using methods approved by the City of Burlingame. B. Interior Floor Drains Interior floor drains shall not be connected to storm drains. C. Parking Garages Parking garage floor drains on interior levels shall be connected to an interceptor or a water treatment device approved by the City prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. D. Pesticide/Fertilizer Application Landscaping shall be designed to minimize irrigation and runoff, promote surface infiltration where appropriate, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to stormwater pollution. E. Pool, Spa, and Fountain Discharges Swimming pool discharge drains shall not be connected directly to the storm drain system or to the sanitary sewer system. When draining is necessary, a hose or other temporary system shall be directed into a sewer (not storm drain system) clean out. A sewer clean out shall be installed in a readily accessible area. F. Food Service Equipment Cleaning Food service facilities shall have a sink or other area f or cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment, which is connected to a grease interceptor and the sanitary sewer. The sink or cleaning area shall be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. New buildings constructed to Page I of secondary containment areas. The director may allow a drain for work areas (but not for hazardous storage areas) is the drain is connected to a wastewater treatment facility approved by the director. K. Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance 1) The owner of every newly constructed, remodeled, or converted commercial or industrial facility shall comply with the following requirements upon commencement of discharge. Interior floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in areas where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment cleaning wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all such materials and equipment. The director may allow an exception to this requirement under the following circumstance: a. When the drain is connected to a wastewater treatment unit approved by the director. 2) Interior floor drains shall not be connected to the storm drain. L. Fuel Dispensing Areas Fueling areas2 shall have impermeable floors and rain covers that extend a minimum of ten feet in each direction from each pump. M. Loading Docks 1) Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the director is provided. Any loading dock area with a sanitary sewer drain shall be equipped with a fail-safe valve, which shall be kept closed during periods of operation. 2) Exterior drains shall be connected to the storm drain. Such connections shall not be permitted within the following areas: a. Loading docks where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled. N. Fire Sprinkler Test Water Fire sprinkler test water shall not be discharged into the storm sewer system. Discharge shall be routed to the sanitary sewer. O. Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water 1) Boiler drain lines shall not be connected to the sanitary sewer system and may not be discharged to storm drain system. 2 The fueling area shall be defined as the area extending a minimum of 6.5 feet from the corner of each fuel dispenser or the length at which the hose and nozzle assembly may be operated plus a minimum of one foot, whichever is greater. Page 3 of 4 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Amendment to Condominium Permit Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance for changes to an approved project for a new, three-story, three -unit residential condominium at 1459 Oak Grove Avenue, Zoned R-3, Charles M. Prescott property owner, APN• 029-100-070• WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 9. 2008, 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: 15303 - New Construction or conversion of small structures, Class 3(b), construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (b) a duplex or similar multi -family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartment, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units, is hereby approved. 2. Said Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance 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. Chairman 1, , 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 9th day of June. 2008 by the following vote: EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance. 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Effective June 19, 2008 Page 2 8. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; and the trees along the rear neighbor's property line shall be evaluated by a licensed arborist and protection measures defined and put into place before a building permit shall be issued." 9. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 10. that one (1) guest parking stall shall be designated and clearly marked in the below - grade garage and marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit or used for any kind of enclosure, but shall be owned, maintained, and kept available for guest parking by the condominium association; 11. that parking assignments to each dwelling unit shall be left to the developer and tenant association however at least one space shall be assigned to each unit; 12. that the below -grade parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 13. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the guest parking stall shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 14. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 15. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 16. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; i I:n yd"_ Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance. 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Effective June 19, 2008 Page 4 27. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 28. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 29. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 30. that this project shall comply with the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 31. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 32. that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 33. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 34. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; 35. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; and 36. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. � .� >y� r: _ <� � � � \><� � \: : w. w .� � � . \���� �: :�� � y� �� : [ �:� � � y 2<��■ Item No. Design Review Study PROJECT LOCATION 2700 Summit Drive City of Burlingame Item No. Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit [Design Review Study and Front Setback Variance Address: 2700 Summit Drive Meeting Date: 06/09/08 Request: Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Second Floor Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Ora Hathaway Property Owners: Adib and Sylvia Khouri General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 026-162-240 Lot Area: 14,498 SF Zoning: R-1 Project Description: This lot is located at the corner of Summit Drive and Kenmar Way. The narrow portion of the lot, in this case along Kenmar Way, is considered to be the front of the lot. The lot slopes downward approximately 26'-0" towards the northwest corner of the lot (see attached contour map and Boundary and Topographic Survey, date stamped April 30, 2008). Along Summit Drive the house is single story, but then becomes a two-story house because of the downward slope on the lot. The existing one-story house with an attached two -car garage contains 3,395 SF (0.23 FAR) (includes 284 SF of crawl space with a ceiling height greater than 6'-0" and areas under second floor decking) of floor area and has five bedrooms. On the main floor, the applicant is proposing to add a front entry element, enlarge the existing master bedroom (451 SF) and enlarge the existing deck (304 SF). On the lower floor, the applicant is proposing to add a new playroom, bathroom and storage rooms (723 SF). With the proposed addition, the floor area will increase from 3,395 SF (0.23 FAR) to 4,468 SF (0.31 FAR) where the Zoning Code allows a maximum of 5,539 SF (0.38 FAR). The proposed project is 1,071 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. For setback purposes, the narrow portion of the lot, in this case the frontage along Kenmar Way, is considered to be the front of the lot. The average front setback along Kenmar Way is 15'-8". The proposed first and second story addition is an extension of the existing wall along Kenmar Way. At the addition, the first floor complies with the average front setback (18'-0" proposed where 15'-8" is the minimum required). The minimum front setback for the second story is 20'-0". Therefore, a Front Setback Variance is required to the proposed second story (18'-0" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required). Planning staff would note that the front property line angles away from the proposed addition. The front setback at the end of the addition is 20'-0". The existing house contains five bedrooms and with this project there is no increase in the number of bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached two -car garage is nonconforming in length (19'-6" existing where 20'-0" is required). However, because there is no increase in the number of bedrooms, a Parking Variance is not required. One uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway (9' x 20'). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010); Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.61.020); and Front Setback Variance to Second Story (18'-0" proposed where 20'-0" is required to the second story) (C.S. 25.28.072, b, 3). Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Front Setback Variance 2700 Summit Drive Email dated May 7, 2008, from Gene Weeks, 7 Kenmar Way Email dated May 14, 2008, from Jim Hannon, 2704 Summit Drive Email dated May 22, 2008, from Anne Righetti, 2707 Summit Drive Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed May 2, 2008 Aerial Photo -3- City of Burlingame Item No. Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit Design Review Study and Front Setback Variance Address: 2700 Summit Drive Meeting Date: 05/12/08 Request: Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Second Floor Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Ora Hatheway Property Owners: Adib and Sylvia Khouri General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 026-162-240 Lot Area: 14,498 SF Zoning: R-1 Project Description: This lot is located at the corner of Summit Drive and Kenmar Way. The narrow portion of the lot, in this case along Kenmar Way, is considered to be the front of the lot. The lot slopes downward approximately 26'-0" towards the northwest corner of the lot (see attached contour map and Boundary and Topographic Survey, date stamped April 30, 2008). Along Summit Drive the house is single story, but then becomes a two-story house because of the downward slope on the lot. The existing one-story house with an attached two -car garage contains 3,395 SF (0.23 FAR) (includes 284 SF of crawl space with a ceiling height greater than 6'-0" and areas under second floor decking) of floor area and has five bedrooms. On the main floor, the applicant is proposing to add a front entry element, enlarge the existing master bedroom (451 SF) and enlarge the existing deck (304 SF). On the lower floor, the applicant is proposing to add a new playroom, bathroom and storage rooms (723 SF). With the proposed addition, the floor area will increase from 3,395 SF (0.23 FAR) to 4,468 SF (0.31 FAR) where the Zoning Code allows a maximum of 5,539 SF (0.38 FAR). The proposed project is 1,071 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. For setback purposes, the narrow portion of the lot, in this case the frontage along Kenmar Way, is considered to be the front of the lot. The average front setback along Kenmar Way is 15'-8". The proposed first and second story addition is an extension of the existing wall along Kenmar Way. At the addition, the first floor complies with the average front setback (1 T-0" proposed where 15'-8" is the minimum required). The minimum front setback for the second story is 20'-0". Therefore, a Front Setback Variance is required to the proposed second story (18'-0" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required). Planning staff would note that the front property line angles away from the proposed addition. The front setback at the end of the addition is 20'-0". The existing house contains five bedrooms and with this project there is no increase in the number of bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached two -car garage is nonconforming in length (19'-6" existing where 20'-0" is required). However, because there is no increase in the number of bedrooms, a Parking Variance is not required. One uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway (9' x 20'). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010); Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.61.020); and Front Setback Variance to Second Story (18'-0" proposed where 20'-0" is required to the second story) (C.S. 25.28.072, b, 3). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 BURLINGAME p: 650.568.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 •-www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: ❑ Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Parcel Number: PROJECT ADDRESS: 2_100 SU b14 p 1 pg4j)E 171J✓Z L4 W&Ame; APPLICANT project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents 11 Name: Akdf t!Uotlte�pi ly t> dulA K61/r1 Address: 2 -.y10eq :Ewky jkjt Pr City/State/Zip: 1�u�jl �y P_ C)q 11olo Phone (w): (Home): (Fax): (F mail): Pw(CHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person al OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Or-4 lJA7-14 FNA- Address: PROPERTY OWNER project contact person OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: `Jo4Wtr its Address: �PPUfi1H%% City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (Home): R F" IV E D (Fax): NOV t UHIBY (E-mail): elTv e.- r u uuan^F PLANNING DEPT. City/State/Zip: ltty C Phone (w): (Home): 4/5- (Fax): (E-mail): . E PROJECT DESCRIPTION: {/sl Gsl leis_ Please mark one box with El to indicate the contact person for this project. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and be' f. / �cant'ssignature: /� k 0 U4-1r Date: 1 am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: `Z���ti �(i�% 1t Date: �f�r Date submitted: S:\Handouts\PC Application 2007.handout Project Comments Date: November 19, 2007 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Hillside Area Construction Permit for a single story addition at 2700 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-130-130 Staff Review: November 19, 2007 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC). 2) Comply with the new, 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential / non-residential buildings. 3)Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details. 4) Provide handralls at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 5) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 6) NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items must be re -submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. NOV 1, O 2007 CITY ME Pki,MN'Q DE'PY. Project Comments Date: November 19, 2007 To: From: Subject: Staff Review: ®' City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Request for Hillside Area Construction Permit for a single story addition at 2700 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-130-130 November 19, 2007 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. 2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 11/19/2007 WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ,ABOUT SOIL EROSION? ra Water and wind carry soil from our Bay Area land down into our streams, lakes and the Bay. This soil carries with it pollu- tants such as oil and grease, chemicals, fertilizers, animal wastes and bacteria, which threaten our water quality. Such erosion also costs the home construction industry, local government, and the homeowner untold millions of dollars a year. Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2, 000 times that amount. When we remove vegetation or other objects that hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water and Increase its chances of eroding. The foss of soil from a construction site results inloss of topsoil, minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies in the landscape. Surface runoff and the materials it carries with it clog our culverts, flood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroys wildlife and damages recreationalareas such as lakes and re- servoirs.' As an example, road and hotne`building In .)he Oakland hills above Lake Temescal filled the.take to such an extent that it had to be dredged in 1979 at a public cost of $750,000. NEED MORE INFORMATION? ABAG has produced a slide/tape show on soil erosion called "Money Down the Drain." It is available for showing to any interested group, Call ABAGPublic Affairs at (415) 841-9730. ABAG has also published a "Manual of Standards for Sur-. 9ce Runoff Control Measures" which deals extensively ,with designs and practices for erosion prevention, sedi- ment control, and control of urban runoff. The manual addresses problems and solutions as they apply to California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from ABAG and is available on reference at many focal libraries and in city and county public works and planting depart- ments. USDA Soil Conservation Service personnel are willing to provide more information on.speciftc erosion problems. This brochure is a cooperative project of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the East Bay Regional Park District. auec,uioe EAST BAY REGIONAL //A�pppp�� or eer men i'1�If'7V7 covenxueers PARK DISTRICT AM BW L .liahl-6h'emsat O}y . :J l� {4�S}B�H-9i30 PROTECTING 'YOUR EROSION WHAT YOU CAN DO TO CONTROL EROSION AND PROTECT. YOUR PROPERTY Soil erosion costs Bay Area homeowners millions of dol- lars a year. We lose valuable topsoil. We have to pay for damagelo roads and property And our tax money has to be spent on cleaning out sediment from storm drains, channel; lakes and the Bay. You canprotect your prop- erty and prevent future headaches by following these guidelines; BEFORE AND " DURING CONSTRUCTION • Plan construction activities during spring and summer, so that erosion control measures can be in place when the rain comes, • Exarnine your site carefully before building. Be aware of the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site design will help you avoid expensive stabilization work. Preserve existing vegeta- tion as much as possible. Limit grading and plant removal to the areas under current construc- tion. (Vegetation will naturally curb erosion, improve the appearance and the value of your property, and reduce the cost of landscaping later.) • Use fencing to protect plants from fill material and traffic. If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable as- phalt or porous paving blocks. • Preserve the natural contours of the land and disturb the earth as little as possible. Limit the time in which graded areas are exposed. • Minimize the length and steepness of slopes by benching, terracing, or constructing diversion structures. Landscape benched areas to stabilize the slope and improve its appearance. • As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation on all areas that are not to be paved orotherwise covered. • Control dust on graded areas by sprinkling with water, restricting traffic to certain routes, and'pavingor gravel- ing access roads and driveways. TEMPORARY MEASURES TO STABILIZE THE SOIL Grass provides the cheapest and most ef- fective short -lean ero- sion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground. completely. To find the best seed mix- ture's and plants for your area, check with your local nursery, the U.S. Department ofAg- riculture Soil Conserva tion Service, or the University of California Cooperative Extension. Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage. They also provide a favorable envi. ronment for starting and growing plants. Easy -to -obtain mulches are grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips and straw, Straw mulch is nearly ICU%effective when held in place by spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber (tackifiers), by punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tack- ing a netting over it. • • • • ,9 sA`;".«j. t11P:tM'9p. pip • • �r��S/fp esS;.ly$�.f.615d'�—,i^1�°'.k •' • • � •/%•�0^j:Ji'I�pestpil%�^'a,�b}e�;;�uN phonethe book, 5l w� �. y F O 0 U N o �pp d. 48 •o • 10 0 4 3 B b lug Ho l l r• o �� 8 a � ° �� �°5 a a sK& a C aS Ea Eaa. 14 1 !Ill agtk a'e E 3 @��•� e€d e�@@��gg� �• a€, gg S"s6 e5S Seo ���� ' Z$§5 �.'•xg�g� Fa�g� f ssl Ee � g1g @@9yyE ba �L � "€p3 `.��a q?§ gg dd ' akkg Y ` §'s� 6 q�'�qAAtssx d3i�e ^EsSg§ .i.e56 la 11171je gdM i i a V L g g s° B a 5tl E@ �i�j s55, � f n @pa�� E paSyd{S w dR3� 36'!Lk€ apz '� v$= a 4K @g 8 S u fy�a '3e3p��$ 1gg b ,g 5 g6gy FF f�s � }'xa y6ad98 tlApd! ° .1 s11s bcOd o�3e5'�tFg5"%k€8yya £ 1 g3-4a HH1i'iiulx�g 541,11411$€3� �S1H3E�U'a€nxe gl qq @ kE g tw • f n ggkyy 'as �� y E� �'8`b 5 � �a �9 A�9 H H 6qB a.¢ €$ F€ lfA d3A //Joel - Joel Weise 3 Kenmar Way 2 traffic and parking problems and trash cans and rubbish have been dumped on adjoining properties. Given that the home appears to function in part as a day care center, adding a "children's playroom" of 738' as indicated on the plans would seem to exacerbate these .issues. A further concern would be that additional families might move in and increase the noted nuisance factors. The applicants have a history of attempting to circumvent the city building and planning departments (removal of protected trees, encroachment of fences onto public easements, installation of a new roof, etc) and as such, we are concerned that they may attempt to make modifications that are not in the best interest of the neighborhood and/or not within the scope of any potentially issued permit. (Several neighbors asked how the existing concrete fence on Kenmar could be removed as it appears to encroach on the public easement.) The addition will block sunlight on some adjoining properties from the south and west. 2 Page 1 of 1 CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben From: Hannonconst@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:58 AM To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben Subject: 2700 Summit Drive Ruben: I'm writing about the 2700 Summit possible project. I live at 2704 Summit I had the neighbor's son knock on my door and tell about his parents addition. He showed me the plans and tried to explain them to me. I'm a general contractor, so, I showed him what the plans stated and where they were missing major details. The owners are trying to add to the bottom of the house and the upper level. The upper level addition is very clear on these plans. The lower addition isn't properly drawn on the plans. They want the lower addition to extend 8.5 feet further than the upper addition. No where on the plans, shown to me, is this clearly marked. The extra 8.5 feet would put the addition 11.5 feet from the property line. That would be a big change to the neighbors property. I'm concerned about the project being done properly and within the standards set in the City. Thanks Jim Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. 6/2/2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD NOR BURLINGAME, CA 94010PH: (650) 558-7250 ® FAX: (650) awww.burlingame.org P;� g Site: 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Second Floor Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE zoned R-1. APN 027-130-130 Mailed: May 30, 2008 (Please refer to other side) 0161116504325 $00.270 mailed From 94010 HS POSTAGE A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject applications) in court, you may' be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public 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. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director (Please refer to other side) M oC Ar ;N� ✓ ,F'�,c��'-� � �4 j � 5 i�£. 4.�"`b�n ,+ �.�"`. A lt� ur�, Y ANY- r� fr ;� 4 ♦ Aho , Y 5 r City of Burlingame Item No. Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances [Design Review Study Address: 1277 Balboa Avenue Meeting Date: June 9, 2008 Request: Design Review, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope, and Front Setback Variances for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Chu Design and Engineering Property Owners: 1277 Balboa Burlingame LLC General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 026-152-020 Lot Area: 6,000 SF Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house with a detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached one -car garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 2,994 SF (0.60 FAR) where 3,009 SF (0.60 FAR) is the maximum allowed (project is 15 SF below the maximum allowed FAR). The proposed house requires front setback Variances for a front setback of 17'-10" to the first story and 22'-10" to the second storywhere a block average of 27'-9" is required for both. The project in a detached one -car garage (307 SF) which provides one covered parking space for the proposed four -bedroom house. There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (CS 25.57.010); • Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side property line by 73 SF (CS 25.28.035 c); • First Story Front Setback Variance (17'-10" proposed where block average of 27'-9" is required) (CS 25.28.072, b, 1); and • Second Story Front Setback Variance (22'-10" proposed where 27'-9" is required) (CS 25.28.072, b, 3). 1277 Balboa Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans Date Stamped: May 27, 2008 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS L Gt1,7'10 f, 27 9t (block averagex)a 27 9 (btoago ck average) ' Side (left, 1s' flr): 11'-01, - 4'-0" - - -u (left, 2°d fir): 11'-0" 4'-0" (right, 15' fir): 5'-0" 4'-0" (right, 2"d fir).: 5'-0" 4'-0" - ..-._.-.. _.._..._._........ .._.... ....__.._.. ...-... .. - - .... ......_.... .-... - _.....-._-.....-. Rear (I" fir): 25'-10" 15'-0" (2nd fir): 43'-4" 20'-0" _ ........... Lot Coverage 1,967 SF 2,002 SF 39 3% 40% ... _..... .._... FAR 2,994 SF 3,009 SF 0.60 FAR 0.60 FAR' 9 Please mark one box with to indicate the contact person for this project. COMMUNITY F DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application CBS Design Review Variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑✓ Special Permit PROJECT ADDRESS: I �� APPLICANT project contact person O OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Address: Phone ❑ Other: ❑ Parcel Number: Ut . PROPERTY OWNER project contact person❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Address: 6y/State/Zip: ---- ��I Phone (w): (Home): (Home): (Fax): 5I " II 1 -1 I (Fax): _ rE-mail): & I Le ZJ�(E-mail): ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact persons' 33of d ume is l , Address: (Home): c� (E-mail)�� W-✓�IIL�• AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge 4elieff Applicant's signature: vUs[ r Date: t5 1:Z7 Ob _ Im aware of the propose ation and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit thi appl'cation to the Planning Commission. (� Property owner's signature. � �ct!rti® Date: Date submitted: S:\Handouts\PC Application 2007.handout COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. The proposed sub -standard lot (50' x 100') with an unusual large average front setback (27.8 feet)' is exceptional rare and doesn't apply to other properties in this neighborhood. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. The front setback variance requested is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of the rear yard area, due to the sub -.standard lot condition. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The requested 22.8 feet front setback variance to the proposed 2"d story is still greater than 20 feet minimum required, therefore the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to other properties in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? We felt the proposed project is compatible with some of the existing design in the "Easton Addition" neighborhood that also have similar mass, bulk and should fit well without changing the character of this area. Handoutsftriance Application.2008 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS Project Name: %A 77 �t Project Address: The following requirements apply to the project 1 A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 2 _,2C_ The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. 4 A sanitary sewer lateral test is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 5 A sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. 6 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 7 Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 8 The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. 9 A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 10 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 11 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Page I of 3 S:\A Public Works DirectoryTORMSTroject Forms\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc r, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 S:W Public Works DirectoryTORMSTroject Forms\PLANNfNG REVIEW COMMENTS.doc L� L777��Ctcomm_ Date: May 2, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff 13 Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 of Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 City Attorney Subject: Request for Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling with detached garage at 1277 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-152-020 Staff Review: May 5, 2008 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 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: 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD 016H16504325 BURLINGAME, CA94010 e. PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) (3.D www.burlingame.org- s 4r Mailed From 94010 Site: 1277 BALBOA AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the PUBLIC HEARING following public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2008 at NOTICE 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design. Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a new single family dwelling and detached garage at 1277 BALBOA AVENUE zoned R-1. APN 026.152-020 Mailed: May 30, 2008 (Please refer to other side) A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. if you challenge the'subject applications) m court; you may aie limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public 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. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Tliank you William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 1 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME si nuNcvrvi Community Development Department MEMORANDUM a_ v DATE: June 2, 2008 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 6/09/08 FROM: Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Peninsula Hospital Construction Project — Complaint Log for May, 2008 As a courtesy, the applicant for the Peninsula Hospital project has been providing the Planning Commission with a copy of the construction complaint log on a monthly basis. Attached is the Hospital's Construction Project Complaint Log for May, 2008. O m L 6 N N N t ~ a) ~ w ro `o m m w N O 4 a � o 3 m ° 3 NM o Y m ° n i am 0 W o [o oaE N Ym O O n- U a) U L .ra - N 3� O o c 3 .O m N c- o ° > c o w 0 as E a m o d 2- Y Co 0o ro a) N °��� >` E 3 m�� C C EEro�> 0 axi -o u -c m N °' o E N l6 `7 'g 16 y o o N°:L M o a) .n m va)w d a) d m �Ec o N -O 3 -N c c> N N �c>m�'w 4- 10 0- N c E c — _ - w° c a) o c E ° a3 ° c o cm 3 °rn°c° E a > ua)?sm E E E O f — N 3 = O N a) O N a Q a .� .O a C 'c c N ''a O O a U° U) a w n° a m a) ° a) c° 3 m o m a `o w a) O a) a) L to Cc 3E L N a ` 0 > m O a) w Z — =O N0 (O o pN o E E 3 a N O ro a) y 0 O O O O c).y N `0 a) c a � N 3 a) c �- a m N rn� o d o d� c c o a) a) .n ro c s c E 0 C m LO o 3 m _0 2 ,., 'l6 E � N 'ro =) m E> 2 L _ -O 'U C ns o U E '° .0 O N o y 0) c a?� N ,� d O - Q 3 cO c c o -° 0 O E o O O o O O a)- 0 o 0 Y ° Y N O, U o a) '� Z` c U an d° L N L la E 66> O �_ L E a) O L 5 3 O 0 2 O N .- ° c o a m> ° rn n T 'O N �O Q a) N N O@(D 0) c0 w C ° U N O O C .- 0� E � "—" 'N O 2 w c N m .O (U +L-+ s ca O y 0) L N O O L w y O° y c~.- a) T .O `�° 3 N L E N w N E N m O 0) C C (6 u`ai o 03 N m r- N m C (0) 'C .° E p) N m > 'E c) 3 n Lco O N o c c o U o� c s v t y = OO) a) M c m e '� a N N m {0 c°c N Ol C L O C> w y O N p O N CO O N 0 ?' C 0O O •O O. 'y- LL ° a) — 7 N O N N N a) V N N— C C N w c L O N E N o 0 0 0 o E 0) N N � O .0 2 h0 Lu E W O m o o a3 N- E:G_ TEty- ! N Q2Y .Oc N c SHva a) aa)) YH 0 m 0 0 a) > N to ❑ ❑ O 1 N N L v L6 m o '> 0 > cu m Q r d c NCA c 0 C O Q M 0 LL Z a)m N.N+ LL c N c Z O U) CD i° a L U N Y E ti E N o O 1- r co N O co co00 a) O O O (7 N O 0 N N LO U)