HomeMy WebLinkAbout110 Clarendon Road - Staff ReportI Item #
Regular Action
PROJECT LOC�TION
110 Clarendon Road
Item # %
Regular Action
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 110 Clarendon Road Meeting Date: 06/26/06
Request: Design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage.
Applicant and Property Owner: Tina Chen APN: 029-274-160
Designer: JD & Associates Lot Area: 7,900 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited
number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in
a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-familyresidences maybe constructed or converted under
this exemption.
Summary: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 1,685 SF (.21 FAR) single-storyhouse to build a
new two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage. The proposed house and detached garage
will have a total floor area of 3,838 SF (0.49 FAR) where 4,028 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The
proposed floor area is 190 SF below the maximum allowed FAR.
The project includes a new 504 SF detached garage (21'-0" x 24'-0") which will provide two covered parking
spaces for the proposed four-bedroom house, where only one covered space is required. One uncovered space (9'
x 20') is 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 two-car garage (CS 25.57.010).
Table i —110 Clarendon Road
Lot Area: 7,900 SF
ORIGINAL REVISED
EXISTINGI PROPOSAL � PROPOSAL ' ALLOWED/REQ'D
(04/29/06) (06/13/06)
SETBACKS �
Front (1 st flr): ' 15'-0" 21'-4" no change 21'-4" (block average)
(2nd flr): none 21'-4" 26'-10" 21'-4" (block average)
Side (left): : 3'-8" 4'-2" no change 4'-0"
(right): ; 19'-10" 8'-0" (to trellis) no change 4'-0"
Rear (Ist ftr): ; 97'-0" (to house) ; 67'-5" no change 15'-0"
(2nd flr): : none 67'-5" no change 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: ; 1,685 SF 2,679 SF no change 3,160 SF
21% 34% 40%
_._.._._...---_....._....__.._._._.......__..........._ _.._...._........_._..._; .........................._......._..---...._.__.__......_......-- -- - ---......_._..................._....__....----------....._ti..._.._........._..__........._..__.............._...---------- -------------.._------ _.....-----._.._.._. _
FAR: � 1,685 SF 3,993 SF 3,838 SF 4,028 SF
0.21 FAR 0.50 FAR 0.59 FAR 0.51 FARz
--.._..__ ........................................... ..-.........-----....:...-- ---...__......._...._._.._........................._.............._..__....__...----------------._....._......_;....._......_.._...................._.._..-------------_-----._..---._....__.....---._....._...._................._......._.........----.....---
# o bedrooms: n/a 4 4 ---
Design Review
Table 1 —110 Clarendon Road (Cont'd.)
Lot Area: 7,900 SF
EXISTINGl
Parking:
Height:
-. . _........ _ ............... _. _........ _......
DH Envelove:
1 covered
(10' x 20')
1 uncovered
XL
n/a
n/a
ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL
2 covered
(27'-4" x 20')
1 uncovered
y' X GV')
25'-10"
.................................
;omplies
REVISED
PROPOSAL
2 covered
(20' x 23')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
_. ... _.. _... _.. _.......... _............ _ _.......
no chan�e
110 Clarendon Road
ALLOWED/REQ'D
1 covered
(10' x 20')
1 uncovered
�y' X LV')
_...__.... -.------.._.__._.......__...._
30'-0"
CS 25.28.075
' Information on existing house was obtained from the San Mateo County Assessor's appraisal report and from
data shown on the boundary and topographic survey.
z(0.32 x 7,900 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 4,028 SF (0.51 FAR)
Staff Comments: See attached.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on May 8, 2006, the
Commission referred the proj ect to a design reviewer with direction (May 8, 2006 P.C. Minutes). After warking
with the design reviewer, the applicant made several changes to the project. The following is a list of the
Commission's direction followed by the applicant's revisions made to the plans. The applicant submitted revised
plans and a response letter addressing the Commissions concerns date stamped June 13, 2006. Some of the
requested revisions were included in the revised plans, others were not (see below):
1. Think the project is off on the wrong foot, it is huge and has no consistency with the adjacent houses in the
neighborhood.
■ The design review consultant noted that this is a neighborhood with an eclectic mix of both one and two-
story houses and that there are many Spanish style homes, both one and two-story, in the neighborhood.
He also notes that he does not feel that the style chosen is out of sync with the neighborhood nor the
future of the neighborhood (Letter from Design Review Consultant, dated June 13, 2006)
2. What is the need for a three car garage; too big.
The 579 SF, three-car garage (27'-4" x 20' clear interior measurements) was reduced to 504 SF and is now
a two-car garage (20' x 23' clear interior measurements). The garage was also pushed five feet back,
closer to the rear property line which was possible because of the removal of an existing pine tree along
the rear property line (Revised Site Plan, sheet 1 and Revised Landscape Plan, sheet Ll, dated June 13,
2006).
3. Problem with removing the huge pine tree without the effort to design the house to keep it; large trees in the
Year yard have a very large privacy effect for owners and neighbors; proposed house makes a major
statement with concern to mass and bulk and to take the large pine tree out and build this house would be
counterproductive; there's no comparison in size between the two pine trees on the propeYty; should get an
arborist report and install tree protection measures during construction to protect the tree; a landscape plan
should be provided to incorporate larger scale and more landscaping in the front yard.
2
Design Review
110 Clarefadon Roacl
The applicant submitted an arborist report on May 26, 2006, indicating that that the pine discussed in the
middle of the lot is actually a 37" Cedar and is in fine health and only requires some clearance pruning.
The report also indicated that the 24" Monterey Pine in the rear yard is diseased and removal of the tree is
recommended. Lastly, the arborist recommended installing protective fencing at 15 feet from the tr�ulk of
the Cedar tree that must not be encroached upon by construction activity, other than the removal of the
small shack. The applicant submitted a Revised Landscape Plan to address all other landscaping
concerns expressed by the Planning Commission (Revised Landscape Plan, sheet Ll, dated June 13,
2006).
4. Front entry area inside 36" wall could have F�ench dooYs opening into it.
• No change was made to the proposed casement windows in the patio area at the front of the house
(Revised First Floor Plan, sheet 2 and Revised Front Elevation, sheet 3, dated June 13, 2006).
5. Plans call for a concrete deck in the rear, seems a little out ofplace.
■ A note was added to the concrete deck in the rear stating that it will have concrete steps with tile and that
it will be surrounded by a wrought iron railing (Revised First Floor Plan, sheet 2, dated June 13, 2006).
6. At the rear elevation next to/below the balcony, there is a narrow piece of roof tile caused by the balcony on
the second floor above; balcony should be revised so roof can be better addressed.
■ The narrow tile roof below the second story balcony was removed from the plans (Revised Rear
Elevation, sheet 3, dated June 13, 2006).
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer (dated June 13, 200�: The design reviewer met on May
19, 2006 with the architect and property owner to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the proj ect.
In a letter dated June 13, 2006, the reviewer notes that the neighborhood and street are an eclectic mix of styles
and homes, both one and two story. He also notes that the style of the proposed house is appropriate for the site,
the street and the heritage of the Peninsula.
The reviewer comments that the applicant has changed the plan, elevations and roof plan to respond to the
Commissions comments, and although it remains a relatively large house, it is within the zoning envelope, well
below the height limit and requires no variances or special permits. The mass has been reduced from the original
proposal at the front by pushing back the second floor bedroom and by adding a balcony. Also, window, trim,
wood trellis and wrought iron railing details add to the composition and quality of the look. The detached garage,
which is being changed from a three car to a two car garage, is compatible with the detached garage parking
patterns in the neighborhood.
In regards to interfacing with adj acent structures, the reviewer notes that the higher and longer rnass is along the
driveway side, which faces another driveway area on the adj acent property and that the shorter elevation and the
entry courtyard area faces the property to the left, which also has a driveway separation. He states that the overall
massing seems to be laid out appropriately with the adj oining houses and that there seems to be no maj or impact
on the rear of the property to the right which faces the other major street. He also notes that that there will be
some scale and shadow impacts versus the existing condition, but no more than would be expected with any new
construction.
In sununary, the design reviewer notes that he recommends approval of both the house and garage plan with the
3
Design Review
110 Clarendon Road
stipulation that the landscape plan be re-designed and re-drawn in a more exact and professional manner.
The designer submitted a response letter to the design review consultants comments on June 14, 2006, along with
the revised plans dated June 13, 2006, stating that the landscape plan has been slightly revised in that the
triangular areas next to the front lawn area have been eliminated, the concrete driveway has been called out, the
front patio area has been labeled with Saltillo Tile and the paving at the rear has been changed. He also notes that
the owner feels that the landscape plan, as shown, is adequate to visually soften the property.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria far design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
l. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include £indings made for design review, and the reasons for any action should be
clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
that the proj ect shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
June 13, 2006, sheets 1 through 5, G-1, F-1 and Ll and dated Apri125, 2006, Boundary and Topographic
Survey; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to
this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 31, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's, Fire
Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's Apri13, 2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist's Apri15, 2006
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 first or second floors, which would include adding or
enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof
height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
5. 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 contractar shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury;
certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
L�
Design Review
110 Clarendon Road
6. 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 proj ect has been built according
to the approved Planning and Building plans; all windows shall be simulated true divided light windows
with three dimensional wood mullions and shall contain a stucco-mould trim;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the properLy corners
and set the building footprint;
10. 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;
11. 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;
12. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Trrigation
Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit
application;
13. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration proj ects 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;
14. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
15. that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,
2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Erica Strohmeier
Zoning Technician
a Tina Chen, Property Owner and JD & Associates, Designer
5
0�/15/2006 15:42 FA% 1�5D�758448 JD&ASSOCIATES
� �.�ir
A��C��IAT��
$ur��nv� n�s��rr � �rr�n����rnr�
1228 palo�a avenue buriingame, ca. 94D10
�aX ��sa� �7s-sa4s �t�. ��so� �4���aia�
01-��i�
jda�jerryd�al.biz
6-13-2006
Ta: P1a�tinin� Cammissipn
City afBurlingame
Re: �espanse to Planning Cammissian cpmments and
those af the i]esign Reviewer
1 T 0 Clarendon Rpad
Eurliname, CA 94a10
l7WELLING I�7V�I] GAR�GE
� aaiiaoi
�� ,_ _ 1�
JUN 1 4 2006
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
'I'�ie applicant �.tid I l��ve worked with tl�e design rcviewer and have made cha�ges tk��t �reflect the
wisk�es a£tize planning commissian rega.rd.in� �� dwelling and the detached gaFag�. Tt is our
hope the plar�r�xz��; canatxzission a� ees with 1us very posi�ive commez�ts regarding the projacG.
•r�• �'1.
The tandscap�ng plan h�s be�n revised slighily in tf�at the tri�ttguiar areas next io the fron� lawn
area f�ar�e been elirnina�ed; ��ozacr�e driv�way has heen called aut; fhe walled �re� le�ding to
the cavcred porch a,iong r�vith Yhe walk�v�y has 5a1ti11a Tile; and paving at the rear yard has bee�n
ch�nged. �"ize f?wner fe�ls that the landscapin� plan as sk�c�wn xs adequate to visually saften the
praperty. The very large ��d prominent cedar iree vvi11 rem�in a�d become a focai point ofthe
rea.r yard. The �oids i� th� pIan ihat are being set a�ide, ar� f,or srn�11e� plants t}�at wi11 be
planted at the discretion o�Yhe �pplicant. Tt is aur feefing that the major �spects af the
landsoaping are in place.
W� Iook farafard to a positive vote on the proiect.
Thank yt�u,
�� ��
Jerry Deal
Principal
JI] & Assoaia#es
Jun 13 06 12:08a Jerry Winges 6503431291 p.2
WINGES
ARCHETEGTS
MEMO:
Date: 6-12-2D06
Planning Commission
City af Burlingame
501 Primrase Road,
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: 110 Clarendon Road, Buriingame — Second Story Addition and Garage
gp��� a� � r. T� ..,,�., �
tl a���.F. ��- . ...;.�i
JUN � � ��;��
�'.ITY OF Bi}R;_1i=<i;a,�;rr:�
PL4NPJIiVG s��f= �.
I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and reviewed the ini#ial
plans. I have had ane meeting at the site with the designer and ane mee#ing at city offices with
the designer and �lanner to re�iew the Plannirtg Commission comments. The a�aplicant has
modified the plans and has responded to fhe comments of the Cammissian. 7h�e fallowing are
my comr�ents on the re-submittal date stampec�: May 26, 2fl06.
1. Cornoatibility of the architectural style with that of the existinq neiahborhood•
• The neighborhood and street are an eclectic mix of styles and sizes of homes, bafh 2
story and single sfory.
• There are many Spanish style homes in the neighborhood, bo#h large and small, and
some straets contain blocks of only Spanish style homes, afso bo#h 2 story and flne
sto ry_
• I do not beEieve that the style chosen is attt of sync with the neighborhood nor the future
of the neighborhood. I feel fhat the s#yle is appropriate for this site and street, and the
heritage af fhe Peninsula.
• Larger F�ouses conforming to the zoning and design guideiines may not necessarily
conforrn completely with predominantly oider s�naller houses in a neighborhood. There is
no reason in my mind to look backward and to demand that an owner cannot buiid a
quality house per the current regulations, based solely on the statement of incorrtpatibility
with the smaller existing homes. These homes, many of poor quality, too small or
outdated floor plans, may likefy be remodefed, enlarged or replaced in the future to
insure the IoRg term viabiEify of the neighborhood and #he neecis of growing families.
2 Respect the �arkinq and Garaqe Patterns in the Neiqhhorhood-
• The existing separate rear garage �attern is prevalent throughout Yhe neighbarhooci. The
existing garage is being demolished and replaced with another detached garage, pushed
#o the rear of the lot
+ The proposed garage style and Eocation are appropriate to the site and neighborhood.
• The garage has been dawnsized frorn the ariginal plan to be a two car garage ir€ iieu of a
3 car garage. This responds welk to the comments by the commission regarding the size
of the garage.
3. Architectural Stvle Mass and Buik of #he Structure and Internal Consistency of the Desiqn
• The applicant has changed the plan, elevations and roof plan to respond to the
Commission's comments. This remaiRs a refatively large house but is within the zoning
envelope, well below fhe he'sg�t limit, and requires no variances or special permits.
WfNC-ES ARCHfTEC7S, INC. 1290 NOWAR� AJE SU1TE31i, 6URLINGAM�, CA 940i0 / FAX: (fi50) 3C34297 / inlo�dwrngesaia.com J TEL�(65D) 343-11a7
ARCHffEC7URE . MASTER PLAMN1fJG / /NTERfDR ARCNI7EC'fURE , SPACEP�NNlNG / DESlGNCOUNSELlNG
Jun 13 06 12:08a Jeriy Winges 6503431291 p.3
WINGES
ARCHITECTS
2
• The mass has been reduced from the original proposal at the front by pushing back the
second flaor bedroom and adding a baEcony this reduces the apparent mass on tF�e
street and adds interest to #he street eJevation. I think this is a major improvement.
• The smali roof skirt at the rear of #he house has been eliminatec[ as suggested and the
rear and side ele�ations have beet� improved.
+ Windows and trim details F�ave beer� madified and one large expanse of stucco is treated
with a wood frellis_ Ali elevations seem balanced and look like they beGong to one house.
A few cunred details at wall tops and cE�imne�s add to the composition.
* Trellis elements, beam tails and wrought iron details give the house a quality look. I do
not believe that restricting the at�aunt of detail is waTranted, as long as the defail is
carried out in a qualify way, fi#s the style, and fhe owner is willing fo Pay far it. I beiieve
this adds value to the neighbarhood by setting a higher tone.
4. Interface of fhe Proposed Structure with the Adiacent Structures to Each Side•
• The higher and longer mass is on the right drivaway side, which faces another driveway
area on the adjacent propsrty. The shorter elevation and the entry courtyard area faces
the proper#y to the left, which also has a driveway separation. ihe overa�l massing
seems to be laid aut appropriatefy with the ad}oining hauses and dri�eway locatians.
• There will be some scale impacts and shadow impacts versus the existing conditions to
the neighbor an the left which is #o be expected with any new construction, but this is
minimized by the above and the tact #hat the main raof gable is parallel ta the iength of
the site.
• There seems to be no major impact on the rear of the propetty to the right +nrhich faces
the other major street.
5. Landscaoinq and Its Proportion ta the Mass and Bulk of Struct�ral Comno�ents�
• An arborist repflrt has been prepared and reviewed regarding the two trees. The
applicant has elected to change the plans to save the 37" existing deodar cedar tree in
the middle af the rear yard. This is a magnificen# specimen and in my mind well worfh
saving.
• The existirtg pine tree at the rear of the lot is to be removed—it is unhealthy and not
worth savir�g, and removing it seems appropriate.
• The rest of the Eandscape plan is gra�hicalfy confusing and not welf cammunicated.
There are areas between piant fypes that are not clarified and seem unresolved. The
symmetricaf lawn at the fronf and the leftover triangular areas should be recansidered.
The rear yard pfan and Iayout of the pa#ias and walks seem arbitrary and not related well
to the existing tree and the house, nor the shape af the lot. Paving and driveway
surFaces are not clear at all. T�e site plan and pfantings shovld echo the quality level of
the building design and graphics. I recommend #ha# this pian be re-studied and
er�hanced graphically.
���������
JUN 1 � 2�GS
�ITY OF BiJRL!i4C�,ivPE
�IANNING DEPi".
WINGES ARCHI7ECTS, lNC, i290 NOWAR� AVE SU/TE3?l, BURllNGAME, CA 99070 ! FAX: (fi50) 3-03-i29f / ir,/p@w��esaia.rom f TEL� (65D) 343-i9pt
ARCH17EC7URE , AAAS7ER PLAMNIN6 / .INTERlOk ARCH/iECTURE / SPACEPLpNNlNG / DEStGNCOU.VSE17IdG
Jun 13 06 12:09a Jerry Winges 6503431291 p.4
1NINGES
ARCH ITECTS
Summarv:
3
I recommend appravaf of the house plan and garage plan, with the stipulation that the landscape
plan be re-designed and re-drawn in a more exact and professional manner per the comments
a6ove.
�
Jerry L. Winges, AIA
Principal
���������
JUN 1 3 2006
�ITY bF BURLINGAc.RE
�'lANN1NG i3�PT.
WINGES ARCNtTFCTS lNC. 729C NpWARD AVE. SUI7E377, 8URG7NGAME, CA 9d010 ! FAY.: I650J 3a3i291 i rnfo@wirrgesaia.mm. i'F�(.: (650) 343-9lOS
ARCy1TECrURE i MASTER PLANMNG ! ;MERIOR ARCHfTECNRE / SpqCEPLANN/NG / DESIGTICO7JNSELING'
Mayne 'I'ree Expert Corripany, Inc.
ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR"S LICENSE NO. 276793
GRADUATE FORESTER • CEPTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OPERATORS
RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON
PRESIDENT
KEVIN R. KIELTY
OPERATIONS MANAGER
Mr. Jerry Deai
JD & Associates
1228 Paloma Ave.
Burlingame CA 94010
Dear Mr. Deal,
May 18, 2006
SITE: 110 CLARENDON ROAD, BURLINGAME
535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A
SAN CARLOS, CA 94070-6228
TELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400
FACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443
EMAIL: info@maynetree.com
On May 12, 2005, we met to discuss the health and structure of two trees a 37.0-inch
diameter deodar cedar, Cedrus deodara, and a 24.5-inch diameter Monterey pine, Pinus
radiata. The cedar is in the middle of the lot and the pine is in the back.
The existing house is proposed for removal and a new house is to be constructed that
will be about 20 feet away from the cedar on the westerly side. This two-story house
wifl require some clearance pruning. The new garage will be in the back corner near
the Monterey pine.
The trees were inspected and evaluated for construction impacts. The cedar has a 30
percent southerly lean, with a canopy extending from side to side. The tree was topped
and the entire canopy consists of the resulting sprouts. The tree is structurally weak,
which is exacerbated by the many tops and limbs. Cedars have inherently brittle wood
and breakage is common. However, I do not observe any at this time.
The proposed house will not significantly impact the roots or the canopy of the cedar.
The proposed driveway along the south side could impact roots, so I recommend using
a geogrid, which can generally reduce the amount of excavation needed for a standard
driveway.
The proposed garage would have some impact, as it would be about 8 feet away from
the pine. The tree has pine pitch canker as seen from the east. This disease is slow
moving but difficult to control and trees generally continue to decline. Roots are
uplifting the neighbor's garage, which is about a foot away. I recommend removal of
this tree due to disease, construction impacts and e�cisting damage to neighbor's garage.
� � '2�h ..__. , � [ __. :��
MAY � 6 200G
CITY OF 8URL9f1�G�iP,1c
PLANNI�G DEPT.
110 Clarendon Road, Burlingame — 2— May 19, 2006
As proposed and recommended, the cedar can remain and will not be significantly
impacted. I recommend installing protective fencing at 15 feet from the trunk. This
area must not be encroached by construction activity, other than the removal of the
small shack, construction materials or after construction landscaping. I do recommend
deep root fertilizing now.
I think this report is accurate and is based on sound arboricultural principies and
practices.
Sincerely,
_!� �� �� ,�,��=- ��
Y �.1L- ��� ° ' '% y SpG1ETY
aQ'�"�
Richard L. Huntington
Certified Arborist WE #0119A
Certified Forester #1925
(y0. WE-0119A ! m
RLH: pmd
�\ / *
_
r r=��l !1�: _
� � =_
i�AY � � 2006
c;iY o� �UFi�t�.:��„::'�
r��.ti��;=tsc� �_,- � .
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
May 8, 2006
10. 110 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GAR.AGE (TINA CHENG,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (65
NOTICEDI PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Deal noted that he would recuse himself from the item because of a business relationship with the
applicant. He stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. .
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the proj ect description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Tina Cheng, project applicant, 110 Clarendon Road,
represented the project. The Commission made the following comments:
■ thinks the project is off on the wrong foot, it is a huge house and has no consistency with the
adjacent houses in the neighborhood;
■ what's the need for a three car garage; too big;
■ problem with removing the huge pine tree without the effort to design the house to keep it; large
trees in the rear yard have a very large privacy effect for owners and neighbors; there's no
comparison in size between the two pine trees on the property; should get an arborist report and
install tree protection measures during construction to protect the tree;
■ like the house, like a Spanish style home in this area; likes the design; as you'go north you see more
Spanish style homes in this neighborhood;
■ front entry area inside 36" wall could have French doors opening into it;
■ proposed house makes a major statement with concern to mass and bulk and to take the large pine
tree out and build this house would be counterproductive;
■ landscape plan should be provided to incorporate larger scale and more landscaping in the front yard,
and an arborist report should be prepared for the protected trees on site;
■ plans call for a concrete deck in the rear, seems a little out of place; and
■ at the rear elevation next to/below the balcony, there. is a narrow piece of roof tile caused by the
balcony on the second floor above; balcony should be revised so roof can be better addressed.
The applicant responded that they have three cars and would like to be able to park all of their cars in the
garage; they are still thinking about keeping the pine tree and just trimming it back; there is another pine iree
in the rear yard; the tree in the middle of the yard has large branches and the neighbors have complained
about the pine needles.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, commented and presented a letter from Susan Schmidt, ll2 Clarendon
Road, Carl Burtus, 516 Bayswater Avenue: not concerned about shape and size of house, concerned about
noise and obstruction of sidewalk during construction, hoping noise could be kept to a minimum during
construction; could owners erect as high a fence as possible; house does not seem to fit into the
neighborhood and is maa�ed out; doorway is similar to 2112 Easton Drive, which is a depariure.from what's
in the neighborhood; an arborist report should be provided for the removal of the tree; feels house is much
too big and is out of character for the neighborhood; do not like it; concerned about asbestos, debris and dust
flying off the house during demolition, construction workers have no consideration for the neighborhood; do
not like the tree, wants it removed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission had further comment:
■ this particular neighborhood does not have a lot of full sized houses;
25
City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
May 8, 2006
■ along Bloomfield there are Spanish style houses; how do we usher in the transition of the
neighborhood?
■ project does not work with adjacent properties because of its mass;
■ applicant does not understand what we're trying to do with our design guidelines; there is too much
detail on this house, more than the houses in the neighborhood;
■ this is a very deep lot, the house goes back further; concerned with right elevation;
■ could drop or reduce bedroom number two and pull back the second story element from the street;
would reduce scale visible from the street;
■ second floor plate line could be broken up, varied or lowered somehow so that it is integrated better
and the first floor plate height could be lowered in some locations;
■ is it the right design for the right place7
■ surprised about comments of style of homes in this area; Spanish style and heritage is dominant in
this area; find Spanish to work in this neighborhood; and
■ does not think there's enough comment to merit design review; designer could wark with applicant
to come up with a solution.
C. Osterling made a motion to send this proj ect to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on motion: this is a difficult situation, the house is just not integrated into the immediate
neighborhood very well, maybe some other architectural style would be more appropriate. There are
problems with the lack of a landscape plan and an arborist report must be provided for protection ofthe pine
tree. The three car garage is too much. Look at the house on Bloomfield, just north of Bayswater that's
under construction and see its impact on a similar neighborhood.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the comments
made. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal recused and C. Cauchi absent). The Plamiing
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m.
r�1.7
: _ .:._
_ _ _
_.
� .
':�
�� �
��
� � "P�ct�- � �-' � � �"'" `
Y - S 2006
�fA " ��
, :::,
, �,.. �
� ,,�� _,.
� CITY OF BURL.. . . . E
' `�'�r� - G J/�
� , ��'' ,�� ' �� ,�-
� �. �
: i ���� �' �. ��� �� : '
; �: � � � J
; � C�u��
, � � ��o 0
�- _ �
, �
1 a=� �, � �� n
� ._�'_� > `� ��._z� � ,�
_ � =�t'r"P�a`'c;- c3�v�� ; �:: - r —
� �� �� �.. �� /��� ��� �- —/'�
: G�C3'� ' ���_ : -- I , / - ' \
: :. :e.��., r "_ '__ �X � '
� ,��" �
n-,� . � .,.�-�-e-- �
�
�—� — ��Q
� .
� �� � �
.��_ -��— ��
�- v ��
�- �
,
�-e-
� � �
�
.�--�- �
��`-�- ��� ��`� ` a
o �_ �� U �-- ��
0
� ��� ��
v�� �
�,,� �'-
�
_ �-- �
f�v
��
—� �`\�� ,
m( �
, ,
-- _ _
_._ ,_
9oa
,
City of Burlingame Plauning Departrnent 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinQame.orQ
��; c,rr o
R �
�� APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
��
Type of application: Design Review �/', Conditional Use Permit Variance
Special Permit Other Parcel Number: c�z,�'-i --2��-(�r�
Project address:
APPLICANT
li G-�---�-l���l- �o � Ra,� i�
Name: (`f �l� G�j-�"'��
Address: � � � �t-�'�� Pc��.j. R t�
City/State/Zip: ��-�-�����-ry�,:`E , �}
Phone (w): � � ���Z - �g i �
�) �
�fl�
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: .�� �i, ��So �..,�� t�� '�"
Address: r2-2� ����t�l�- /�'�
I' t �' : 1.1�'/►1 DL�7
Address:
Phone (w):
(h):
�fl �-
City/State/Zip:`�.C��'��li�, �- �� �� Please indicate with an asterisk *
Phone (w): �Sf'� 3�-��-- ��'i�" the contact person for this ro'
�h�_ _ �EC�Ii%
c�: �� — ���— ��
MAR 3 0 2006
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PIANNING DEPT.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: t���i S[ � � �'"'"'v"�--?` `r'�� � �^� �'
�� � �"�r-�=Ff�.� �D"'�r�22�-� �
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATiJRE: I hereby certify under penalty of per�ury that the information
g.iven herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
.-___
Applicant's signature: ���G'� Date: �� �'� � � � �
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to tke Planning Commission.
�—"
Property owner's signature: `�'`� � `" Date: 3 ��
e
Date submitted:
PCAPP.FRM
�i�I� CA-{� �n
+W�_ ��
��� �
'�f
S;��c�
�;�.�
�`�' �Y
Y'e v i'2 Kl �tt�r
�wcl�`p��
Lt- YI.Q�t.J
� �� �� ��
110 CLARENDON, BURLINGAME, CA
(E) FRONT ELEVATION
i 10 CLAR�II�IDC?N, �IIRLINGAME, CA
(E) RIGHT ELEVATION
110 CLARENDON, BURLINGAME, CA
(E) LEFT ELEVATION
110 CLARENbON, BURLINCAME, CA
(E) RE�IR ELEVATION
. ;�
MAR. 3 0 2006
CITY OF BURLI��qME
PLANNING DEPT.
REVISIONS BY
�g' � 8 �
�y�°�>�;a9
�8bv°w""
;�e:�p°ay
a��waa�� °
���y&,5�:m�59
`�2���"g4��
'�S"98.,3�Do8
"4 J"na
"��y�8���w�
a�,yasb^ a A
a�°'a"sa^a°�a
m�aep;,�9aa�
�w.�$����.^
o���a�;a5�w
aaaog .���o
��°o�9�y�ma
��osa;s�owb
0
0
�
�
U�
zW
� U��
W��
�' Q�N
� �
�
�o
� ���
U �
a
U
0
ov
���
� U M
[W d O
� � �
� "� F
p
�
W � y�
� W ��
Q;�
� �,
U c� � M
z oa
°?3 � Q a �
� �
� � ��w
Date ; 1-13-06
Scale
Drawn: FAB
rob :r�izao�
Sheet
Of Sheets
112 CLARENDON, BURLINGAME, CA
518 BAYSWATER AVE, BURLINGAME, CA
118 CLARENDON, BURLINGAME, CA
�����
MAR 3 0 2006
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
REVISIONS BY
����wY��sa
�«2u'.";°'8
q.B�g�3ea�
��
��Ax��$y��a
��.�:a��>���
�s^:e.`s��.p
��&�5�a=��a
���o$�>�a�a
"s��°��^a°"s�
,��°swao� ��
aaz^8^aas>?
� 8.s.�"m��e
0�82�4°2�w"
092o�°W��vw
a�^ama�
��oA55eaova
��;af�aa�n,
�,os9se&o'��
0
0
�
U�
� "��
W��
� Q��
Uj N
�] o�
�-`� P] o
� W Z a
� z°��
U �
a
U
0
o v
���
��
U M
[WS] ?� O
�
� ��
G pj
� � H
`S1
Vl �
WN �
� W ��
q;�
��
U c� � �
p �o
�� Qa�
i/� °°
�����
Date : 1-13-06
Scale
Drawn: FAB
Job :#12005
Slieet
Of Sheets
Project Comments
Date:
03/31 /2006
To: [� City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ NPDES Coordinator
Subject: Request for Design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling
and detached garage at 110 Clarendon Road, zoned R-1, APN:
029-274-160
�'i�fi�: - -Z�Rt���I![�I��f���I�I:i
1. See attached.
2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
��
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 4/03/2006
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS �J --�u -S'7�
Project Name: �irJ�;s: ��'Y 9�,./l�u.,,�t
Project Address: 1 � ���+�i r
Th� following requirements apply to the project
1 � A properly boundary survey sha11 be preformed by a licensed land
surveyar. The survey sha11 show all property lines, property corners,
easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the
building permit issuance.)
2 Z( 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 pernut
issuance.)
3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for
approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
5 � A sanitary sewer lateral i� is required for the project in accordance with
the City's standards. ( .)
6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
7. 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.
8 Submit tr�c trip generation analysis for the project.
9. Submit a traffic impact study far 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.
10. 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.
Page 1 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COn�IIvIENTS.doc
���,��,IC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
: g. „_ _ 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.
_ _,.� Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel
map.
�� F,� The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
i4 a% The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
appurtenant work.
15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan.
16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the proj ect may cause
adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic
and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic
calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year
flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements.
1� r_ Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State
Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
1 g No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek.
20 �� The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to
prevent storm water pollution.
21 „� The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re-
submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is
proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject
to City Engineer's approval.
�2 ___.� The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans
showing the driveway profile with elevations
Page 2 of 3
[J:\�r� ��ate development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
��'''��LIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
2? -- � The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm
water from the sireet into private property.
2�. �._.�..��e�s For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The
� sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the
property.
2` .__� For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
sha11 be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
t::`p=ivuie �evelopment�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
�,.. �.�_ .-m..�n.-.t-._.-�---�. .�:�.� �. ....- _ t���_� ���
€.
� Project Comments
Date:
To:
From
Subject: Request for Design review fior a new, two-story single family dwelling
and detached garage at 110 Glarendon Road, zoned R-1, APN:
029-274-'( 60
Staff Revievv; fl4/03/2006
03131 i2406
❑ City Engineer
X Chief Suildi�g Cfficial
❑ Racycling Specialist
� Fi� e Marshal
❑ City Arborlst
C� City Attorney
Planning Staff
❑ NPDES Coordinator
1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC),
the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federai
requirements.
2) Provide fuily dimensioned plans.
3) Comply with the new, 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise
residential buildings. Go to htt�:/lwvvrnr.enerqy.ca.qov/title24 for publications
and details.
4) Roof eaves must nat project within two feet of the praperty line.
5) Exterior bearing walls less than three feet from the property line must be
constructed of one-hour fire-rated construction and no openings are allowed.
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 mare than 30" in height
at any point are considered in calculating the ailowable 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 more than four risers.
9} rroviUe li�ti�ir�g a# aii �x��ric�r iandi�gs.
10)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface
within ten feet.
Rev
�
Date: ����� �
Project Comments
Date
03/31 /2006
To: ❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
X Recycling Specialist
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ NPDES Coordinator
Subject: Request for Design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling
and detached garage at 110 Clarendon Road, zoned R-1, APN:
029-274-160
Staff Review: 04/03/2006
Applicant shall submit a Recycling and Waste Reduction Plan for
approval, and pay a recycling deposit for this and all covered projects
prior to construction or permitting.
Reviewed by: v..�
Date: /�U�v
./
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From
03/31 /2006
❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
❑ Recycling Specialist
[� Fire Marshal
❑ NPDES Coordinator
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling
and detached garage at 110 Clarendon Road, zoned R-1, APN:
Q29-274-160
Staff Review: 04/03/2006
Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence.
1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter.
2. Provide double backflow prevention.
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: 3 �-��
�
Project Comments
Date: 03/31 /2006
To: � City Engineer � Recycling Specialist
� Chief Building Official � Fire Marshal
� City Arborist Q NPDES Coordinator
� City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling
and detached garage at 110 Clarendon Road, zoned R-1, APN:
029-274-160
Staff Review: 04/03/2006
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
1
Project Comments — Con't- 110 Clarendon Rd.-NFSD, 2-story with detached
garage
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.
3) implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls (if necessary):
a. Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls
continuously untii permanent erosion control have been established;
b. Address method(s) for diverting on-site runoff around exposed areas and
diverting off-site runoff arount 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 650/342-3727.
Reviewed by: .� ,�(„��µ�,�-� Date: 04/03/O6
2 of 2
' �' � � � � �
��l,i4.s: • ' • ' � •
�ipsra�n,,, � . �
� ,'I��1' • , , •
'��:r•..
�� d I:'�'
Soil erosion costs Bay Area homeowners miilions of dol-
Iars a year. We Iose valuable topsoil. We have #o pay for
damage to roads and property. And our tax money fias to
be spent on cleaning out sediment from storm drains,
channels, Iakes and tfie Bay.
You can protect your prop-
erty and prevent future
headaches by following
these guidelines:
BEFORB A11TD `
DURING
CONSTRUCTION
Plan construction activities during spring and suminer,
so that erosion control measures can be in place when
the rain comes.
• E�camine your site carefully before building. Be aware of
the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site
design witl help you avoid expensive stabilization work.
Preserve existing vegeta-
tion as much as poss4ble.
Limit grading and plant
removal to the areas
under current construc-
tion. (Vegetation will
naturally curb erosion,
improve the appearance
and #he value of..your
property, and reduce the
cost of Iandscaping Iafer.)
• Use fencing to protect plants from $II materiat and traffrc.
If you fiave to pave near trees, do so with permeable as-
phalf or porous paving blocks.
• Pteserve the natura[ concours of tfie Iand and disturb tfie
earth as Iittle as possible. Limit the time in whicfi graded
areas are exposed.
• Minimize tfie Iengtfi and
steepness of slopes by
benching; terracing, or
= constructing diversion
� '���'ti, "' �_�..;;,- strc�ctures. Landscape
benched areas to stabilize
. the slope and improve its
appearance.
As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation
on aIl areas that are not to be paved or otherwise
covered.
• Control dust on graded areas by sprinkling with water,
restricting traffc to certain roc�tes, and paving or gravel-
ing access roads and driveways.
STABILIZE THE SOIL
TEMPORARY MEASURES TO
Grass provides the
cfieapest and most ef-
fective sfiort-term ero-
sion control. It grows
qc�ickly and covers the
ground completely. To
find the best seed rni�c-
tures and plants for
your area, check with
your Iocal narsery, the
U.S. Department of Ag-
riculture Soil Conserva-
tion Service, or the
University of California
Cooperative Extension.
Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection
from rain damage. They aiso provide a favorable envi-
ronment for starting and growing plants. Easy-to-obtain
muiches are grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark cfups
and straw
Straw muIch is nearly 100% effective when heId in place by
spraying witfi an organic glue or wood fber (tackifers), by
punclung it into the soit with a shovei or rotler, or by tack-
ing a netting over it.
• ... . .
• � • • ' • • ' • 1�.
...� � s
; - . • �'���e'r�'"s����
. • • .f� �>4r��l,'3���ea`'a"�'s�K� _ ♦
• � ' • -;;a 0�� �O • 'b'=�. �s, . 88
�� � " ere m-s"��: �'�g 'i�
�:!�'a,y'C° ��p� CQ.g£p=k"23 m�f.
' • ;r�mrf;,��m,y.,t��:,��;r��•;�$
tt;'•o;s cs$,r
• . %'f,al i'%�• n?=;<€b: ros p�
• - � � ' e. f ,�e �
• j� �Ai�✓,�Ty}s°�:wP4'��"�ir�+.�em�`�?ds�
,� f�,g3�,,� ,_,.>„=m. . �+�
'•• ..•
. .
. .. -. . -. . . .
. .. -. . . .
.. . .,.. . . . .,. .- .
. . . . .. .. . ..
- . . - ...
<... ::�:�'�'�.
;=; �:��:i� � :�
��;.' =;�. ��✓:
����
-_-_- ��:�„d
Mats of excelsior, jute netting and.piast"re sheets can be ef-
fective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with
the soil and fastened secureiy to work effectively.
Roof drainage can be collected in barrels or storage con-
tainers or routed into Iawns, planter boxes and gardens.
Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mos-
quitos, too. F�ccessive runoff shouId be d"uected away from
your fiouse. Too much water can damage trees and make
foundations unstable.
S?RUC?URAL RUNOFF CONTROLS
Even witfi proper timing and planting, you may need to
ptotect disturbed azeas from rainfatl until tfie plants have
time to establish themselves. Or you may need permanent
ways to transport water across your property so tfiat it
doesn't cause erosion.
To keep water from carrying soil from your site and dump-
ing it into nearby Iots, streets, streams and channels, you
need ways to reduce its vo(ume and speed. Some exam-
ples of what you might use are:
jute netting
� �
��i�itrliii�rl.\ �c.r.;�
diversion ditcf
bench
/
straw muIch
Riprap frock tining)—to
protect channel banits
from erosive water fiow
• Sedimeat trap—to
stop runoff carrying
sediment and trap the
sediment
� �
� �����'��
..�
'��R�' �'� "
• Storm draia outtet
protectioa—to reduce
the speed of water fIow-
ing from a pipe onto
open ground or into a
natural channel
• Diversioa dike or perimeter dike—to divert excess
water to places where it can be disposed of properly
�
, ! �/^ �'..� - ,. rf
�.��- ,� �i.-�. �_.,., '.,.
t� � 49' ,�� %�i.w`W�;Z
�-+•�-• :
� �.-�'"c�.; i�e�.�ai-s-�'�.
� i j�"�"� -` —''� _ -_-__
- J ���;'��� �
_ �.,�;:,�-�� .
--
• Straw baie dike—to stop and detain sediment from
small unprotected areas
(a short-term measure)
• Perimeter swale—to divert
runoff from a disturbed area ;�� . -
�r;�F:s-��::.
or to cont y� ^�� �""'� "'�=`�
ain runoff within t:-���'"�`y`�' := �` "
:.l'�-i�;;:
A;t�j �i?Yr�'yy � �:6F_���:.
a disfurbed area , :��:<����={fwo�-�= •.
• Grade stabilization structure—to cazry concentrated
ncnoff down a slope
sediment trap
. ......,._ o.
.... -
... ..b .. � - �
..._o_....� �v...
ouHet protectio�
�' Coruervatree
EROSION CON?ROL CAN PRO7EC?
YOUR PROPERTY AND PREVENT
FUTURE HEADACHES
� Vegetatioa-stabilized Bare Slope: Headacfies
�(�) 1,/ Slope: Security and Liabilitq
f � (T { �� : /J • soIl in place • mudstide danger
• minim�m of • Ioss of topso�
��(� erosion • clogged storm `•' �
�� �/ • fewer winter clean- drains, ftooding �;�'k�
� �/ up problems problems ' r�.
• protection for • expensive
� house foun- cleanup . rr' �,�
� • � dations • eroded or '
/
�� buried house `��•�
1j! ��/ foundations � � �r
� I��l� �.:��,.��', ,t.��� Y: -
���/I � s : �---.�..��.`i. .�
`���, ; ``; -:�: � � ;:
�j �� ; . �. �,..¢.; .: :j ��.
� � � :: � �.
s�:. � .
O.,r•. t. :� �...'.> "a
� . .. ...
TIPS FOR THE IiOMEOWNE�
���°1
�
,\\ � =-=:
./
"Winterize" your property by inid-September. Don't
wait until spring to put in Iandscaping. You need.
wiater protectioa. Final Iandscaping can be done
Iater.
Inexpensive measures instalted by fa1l wilt give you
protection quickly that wi1l Iast a1I during the wet
season:
Ia one afternoon you caa:
• Dig trenches to drain surface runoff water away
from problem areas
Prepare bare areas
the surface to Ioos
hold seeds.
such as steep, bare slopes.
�n stopes for seeding by raking
:n and roughen soiI so it will
/ �� -
,'!�' �i
, ,,
Seediag of bare.slopes
• Hand broadcast or use a"breast seeder." A typicai
yard can be done in Iess than an hour:
• Give seeds a boost with fertilizer.
• Mu1ch if you can, witfi grass ctippings and Ieaves,
bark chips or straw.
• Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes.
• Check with your Iocal nursery for advice.
V �
Winter alert
• Check before storms to see that drains and ditches
are-not elogged by Ieaves and rubble.
• Check after major stortns #o be sure drains are clear
and vegetation is holding on slopes. Repair as
necessary.
Spot seed any bare areas.
WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT SOIL EROSION?
Water and wind carry soil from our Bay Area Iand down into our
streams; Iakes and the Bay. This soil carries with it polIu-
iants such as oil and grease, chemicaTs, fertilizers, animal
wastes and bac[eria, which threaten our water quality.
Such erosion also costs ihe home construction industry, Iocal
government, and the homeowner untold millions of dollars
a year.
Nature slowly wears away Iand, but human activities such as
construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2,000 times
that amount. Wfien we remove vegetation or other objects that
hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water
and inaease its chances of eroding.
The Ioss of soil from a construction site resutts in Ioss of topsofl,
minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies in the
landscape. Surface runoff and the materials it carries with it dog
our culverts, fIood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroys
wildtife and damages reaeational areas such as Iakes and re-
servoirs.
As an example; road and home building in the Oakland hi11s
above Lake Temescal frlled the lake to such an extent that it had
to be dredged in 1979 at a public cost of $750,000.
NEED MORE INFORMA?ION?
ABAG has produced a slide/tape show on soit erosion
called "Money Down the Drain." It is available for showing
to any interested group. CaII ABAG Public Affairs at (415)
841-9730.
ABAG has also published a"Manual of Standards for Sur-
face Runoff Control Measures" which deals extensively
with desigris and practices for erosion prevention, sedi-
ment control, and control of urban runoff. The manual
addresses -problems and soIutions as they apply to
California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from
ABAG and is available on reference at many Iocal Iibraries
and in city and county public works and planning depart-
ments:
USDA Soi1 Conservation Service personnel are willing to
provide more information on specifc erosion problems.
This brochure is a cooperative project of tfie Association of
Bay Area Governrnents and the East Bay Regional Park
Districf.
nssocuno�+
OF Bnr aRE4
GOVERrvUErv�S
Hotel Ciaremont
Berkeley, California 94705
(415) 841-9730
PRO�EC�ING
EAST BAY REGIONAL
PARK DISTRICT
11500 Skyline Bivd_
Oakiand, CA 94619
531-9300
YOUR
PROPERrY
�ROM
EROSION
� . . . � -
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
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 for a new two-stor�gle familv dwelling and detached two-car arage at 110
Clarendon Road, zoned R-1, Tina Cheng, propertv owner APN: 029-274-160;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
June 26, 2006, 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 Article 19. Categorically Exempt per
Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or
structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a
residential zane. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe
constructed or converted under this exemption.
2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for such design review are as set forth in the 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 26th day of June, 2006 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review.
110 Clarendon Road.
Effective July 6, 2006
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped June 13, 2006, sheets 1 through 5, G-1, F-1 and Ll and dated April 25,
2006, Boundary and Topographic Survey; and that any changes to the footprint or floor
area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 31,
Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's April 3,
Recycling Specialist's April 5, 2006 memo shall be met;
2006 memo, the City
2006 memos and the
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 first or second floors, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features
or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
5. 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; certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department;
6. 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; all windows shall
be simulated true divided light windows with three dimensional wood mullions and shall
contain a stucco-mould trim;
7. 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;
�
�
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;
that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners and set the building footprint;
-2-
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review.
110 Clarendon Road
Effective July 6, 2006
10. 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;
11. 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;
12. that the proj ect is subj ect 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;
13. 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;
14. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 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.
-3-
� -A copy of the a�
to the meeting
Burlingame,,Ca
If you challenge
. raising only ttio
. 'described in �he
at or prior to th�
, - �F",
Property ownei
;their tenants�a�
CITY OF B URLINGAME
,ry:. �:
�lication and'plans fQr thts��project`rnay be reviewed prior
at'�ie Plannrng D�p�a�trt�ent �f z=502 �Primrose Road,
�, > � F
for�ia , ,� � � �' ��, �, '-
� �, � .�: ��: ,
he;siib�ect applicatron{s} �� court you ma� be limited to
�ssue� ��o�x"or someone else raised af fhepublic hearing�
iof�ce o� ln wnttez� corres�ondence delivered to the city ,'
, ' " x �:�? -_ -
pub�;ic hearing : � � ; `. � � ` :
res
� �„° � _� . .�
; . l,ity,Ylan
i - --
� -,
�
;
;
(Please i��
. Y 1�`: k� §: . .
her side) .
BURLINGAME � -
IG DEPARTMENT/
1ROSE ROAD
3AME, CA 94010 ,- - ' ;�i�n
1) 558 7250 � FAX: (650) 696-3 ��� _ '� . ���
ngame.org � � ' '�
� �
��� �
� - sr�
➢ - ° :�;
DON ROAD `
e Planning Commission announces ;:the �: PU B L
on Monday, June 26, Z006 at Z:00 ';�
Cauncil_Chamhers, 501 Primrose Road �
side j
;, _-
J
Item # � �
Design Review Study
PROJECT LOCAT�ON
ll0 Clarendon RQad
Item # � D
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 110 Clarendon Road Meeting Date: OS/8/06
Request: Design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage.
Applicant and Property Owner: Tina Chen APN: 029-274-160
Designer: JD & Associates Lot Area: 7,900 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Summary: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 1,685 SF (.21 FAR) single-storyhouse to build a
new two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage. The proposed house and detached garage
will have a total floor area of 3,993 SF (0.50 FAR) where 4,028 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The
proposed floor area is 35 SF below the maximum allowed FAR.
The project includes a new 579 SF detached garage (20'-8" x 28'-0") which will provide two covered parking
spaces far the proposed four-bedroom house, where only once covered space is required. One uncovered space
(9' x 20') is 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 two-car garage (CS 25.57.010).
Table 1 —110 Clarendon Road
Lot Area: 7,900 SF
EXISTINGi PROPOSED �,LOWED/REQ'D
(04/29/06)
SETBACKS ;
Front (I st flr): ' 15'-0" 21'-4" 21'-4" (block average)
(2nd flr): none 21'-4" 21'-4" (block aeerage)
Side (left): 3'-8" 4'-2" 4'-0"
(riglzt): : 19'-10" 8'-0" (to trellis) 4'-0"
Rear (Ist flr): ; 97'-0" (to house) 67'-5" 15'-0"
(2�ad flr): ; none 67'-5" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1,685 SF 2,679 SF 3,160 SF
21% 34% 40%
, _:
_........_.....-- ----- -------..__...----_----.........---.....__..._. __.._.......__..._...-----._......._ ....................._. _..._..----- - -----------: -------._..__..._......_.....- -
------- ...................._ _
1,685 SF 3,993 SF 4,028 SF
FAR: 0.21 FAR 0.50 FAR 0.51 FARZ
_..---........---._....------- -- -- ---....__..._.:...._..._....-----.._..----....-----..__...__...---.._.........----...._.....__.....-=------.........._ ......................................__.._...----.._..._....._..:..........................................----------.._.....---..._.._....--- ---._._.._.__.._.._..._.
# o bedrooms: ' n/a 4 ---
_ Design Review 110 Clarendon Road
Table 1 —110 Clarendon Road (Cont'd.)
Lot Area: 7,900 SF
EXISTINGI PROPOnED �,LOWED/REQ'D
Parking: ; 1 covered 2 covered 1 covered
(io� X 20') (2�'-4�� X Zo') (lo� X 20�)
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20')
_...___..--------------._ ____,__ ___.._ ...............................................__.._....__._._.._......._....................:.............................................._.......-------_.___._.._..__.._----.._---------.._....._......._..------.._----
_ . _. _.___....- -------_._Heiglat:.......i___...-------....------ �a ---_____ ..........................:. 25'-11" : 30'-0��
_.... ..... ... ... . ................................_..........___.....___p..__..._...__._..._....._.......----.-_,............._..__.........._.....---------._.._..------...-----------_.._...___._
DHEnvelo e: : n/a com lies CS 25.28.075
' Information on existing house was obtained from the San Mateo County Assessor's appraisal report and from
data shown on the boundary and topographic survey.
2(0.32 x 7,900 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 4,028 SF (0.51 FAR)
Staff Comments: See attached.
Erica Strohmeier
Zoning Technician
c. Tina Chen, Property Owner and JD & Associates, Designer
2
. . ' � ::� i CITY �
. . . ` ' ��,6 0,� qTY OF BURLINGAME ' .:
i PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� . . - .. . . . BURLINGAME, CA94010 "':�' � ••A•s - g���5��3�,��� - -
� � ,a � TEL:(650)558-7250 • FAX:(650)696-379 � �°'� � '-
o www.burlingame.org � � � ��I���y
�� �`� � � t,J :
,�� �a� � k€a'stad �ram 94�i1v
Site: 110 CLARENDAN ROA�
����4� �5 �'��eAa'..�`�
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the PUBLIC HEARIN(a
follawing public hearing on Monday, May 8, 2006 at 7:00 NOTICE
P.M. in the [ity Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Raad, _ __ _
Burlingame, (A: -
Application for design review for a new, two-stary single family I`
dwelling and detached garoge at I10 [LARENDON ROAD zoned R- j
l.{APN 029-274-160) i .
Mailed: Apri128, 2006 � ` - 1
I_�
I — —. -- a .
: . , I —
� (Please refer to other side)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
�� �� � �"� ���
A copy of the apphcai�'on andplans for this pro�ect may
to the meeting at the Pl;
Burlingame, California
��'�^� a �
� If you challenge th� sub�ee
raising only ttio"se issues �Xc
described rn the;notzce;or<i
at or prior toithe public he
��,= � :_�
Property owners ��o .ree€
their tenants�about�hrs�tic
;�;
(650) 558 72�50 Thaiil���
'� ��� ;
Margaret Moriroe�`� � � r
. "E;,��- '�-�
. Ciry Planner L� �-^> �'
"}��-,� ���;
' PUBLI(
(Please refer to other side)
be reviewed prior
,sPrimrose Road,
be limited to
iblic hearing,
�d to the city
: t ,, �u
infarming
please call
�
� s f� �
� �
d� ���:�
:�
�� °�
� ��'
OTICE