HomeMy WebLinkAbout2517 Easton Drive - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit
Address: 2517 Easton Drive
Item No.
Action Item
Meeting Date: December 14, 2009
Request: Design Review, Variance for front setback to an attached garage and Special Permit for an attached
garage for a first floor addition and remodel.
Applicant: Dennis Liu
Property Owners: Chiayun Alan Wang and Lan-Fang Nei Wang
Designer: MArch Design
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 027-195-070
Zoning: R-1
Lot Area: 13,410 SF
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions
to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of
more than 50°/o of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
History: The properties at 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive consist of two legally subdivided lots. The properties
were recently purchased by the current property owners listed above. Previously, both properties were used by
one family, which contained the main house and an accessory structure at 2517 Easton Drive and a detached
three-car garage w/storage room and cottage at 2509 Easton Drive. The new owners would now like to renovate
and add onto the existing house at 2517 Easton Drive. Previously, this application included a lot line adjustment
which included shifting the rear portion of the side lot line beiv✓een 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive 12 feet to the
west, which would create a jog approximately half way down the lot, reducing the lot size at 2517 Easton Drive
(from 13,410 SF to 12,182 SF) and increasing the lot size at 2509 Easton Drive (from 8,847 SF to 10,075 SF)
(difference of 1,228 SF). However, since the October 13, 2009 Study Meeting, the owners have decided notto
apply for a lot line adjustment at this time.
Project Description: The property at 2517 Easton Drive contains an existing two-story house and has a total
floor area of 3,047 SF (0.23 FAR) (5,391 SF, 0.40 FAR maximum allowed). The existing house has four
bedrooms (the family room qualifies as a bedroom for parking purposes). The existing house contains a
nonconforming second kitchen which will be removed as part of the project. The property at 2509 Easton Drive
contains an existing three-car garage and storage room (720 SF), which in the past has been used for parking by
the residents at 2517 Easton Drive, and an 860 SF cottage.
With this application, the applicant is proposing to convert the existing living room/second kitchen on the main
level of the house at 2517 Easton Drive to an attached one-car garage. The San Mateo County Assessor's
Appraisal Report indicates that in 1950 this part of the house originally contained an attached garage and that it
was converted to a service room; at that time the three-car garage was constructed at 2509 Easton Drive.
Converting living space to an attached garage requires applications for Design Review, Special Permit and
Variance for front setback to a garage (21'-3" proposed where 25'-0" is required for a single-car garage). The
project also includes enlarging the existing main kitchen on the first floor by 60 SF. An existing 195 SF
accessory structure (Japanese tea house) previously located at the rear of the lot at 2517 Easton Drive has been
removed.
As previously noted, the existing detached three-car garage used by previous residents of this house is located
on the adjacent lot at 2509 Easton Drive. Therefore, the site at 2517 Easton Drive is nonconforming in parking
because no parking is provided on-site. The proposed attached garage would provide one covered parking
space (10'-3" x 20'-0" clear interior dimensions) for the existing four-bedroom house and one uncovered parking
space (9' x 20') would be provided in the driveway. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are
required for a four-bedroom house and the proposed project would comply with the on-site parking requirement.
A new curb cut will need to be installed to provide access to the attached garage.
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2517 Easton Drive
With the proposed renovation and addition on the first floor, there will be a slight decrease in floor area from
3,047 SF (0.23 FAR) to 2,994 SF (0.22 FAR) where 5,391 SF (0.40 FAR) is the maximum allowed (proposed
floor area includes exemptions for lower floor and porches). The proposed project is 2,397 SF below the
maximum allowed FAR). The applicant is requesting the following applications:
• Design Review for conversion of living space to an attached garage in a single family dwelling (CS
25.57.010, a, 4);
• Variance for front setback to an attached garage (21'-3" proposed where 25'-0" is required for a single-
car garage) (CS 25.28.072, b, 2, A); and
■ Special Permit for conversion of living space to an attached garage in a single family dwelling (CS
25.28.035, a).
2517 Easton Drive
Lot Area: 13,410 SF Plans date stamped: November 30, 2009
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS �
_ ....................................................... .......... . . .............. ... _.. . . . . .
.__......- ---........._---.....__.........---......._..____...--- .................................._.........................._...._.......__............................................................_.._.......................,........................................................._............................................_.......................................
Front (1st flr): : 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-4" (block average)
(2nd flr): ; 16'-0"' no change 20'-0"
'(Garage): n/a. 21'-3" 2 " 25'-0" to single car garage
_ ._...._--._. _._.. . .. . _. __.....
Side (left): : 3'-3" 3 15'-0" to addition 6'-0"
(righf): ; 5'-0" 3 no change 6'-0"
..................................................................................................... .:
Rear (1st flr): ; 178'-4" no change 15'-0"
(2nd flr): ; 180'-2" no change 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: ; 1976 SF 2036 SF 5364 SF
14.7 % 15.1 % 40%
FAR:. .............---...-----..........3047 SF_......._............._._..._.._ _ .._...........__.............__...2994 SF.._...._......_..............._.... _ .................__..._......_.........5391.....S.F..4..............................__........
0.23 FAR 0.22 FAR 0.40 FAR
.._._.___........._....._....._..____._._ ......................_..................................................---.......g............._...............................:
# of bedrooms: ; 4 no chan e ---
_.. ;_....._..._..._.._...-----_.....__..__ ...........................................................................................................................__....._....__.._............._............._....._......-------.,.._..---.....--------._._......_.._........_....................._...................................._..................
Parking: ; 0 covered 5 1 covered 1 covered
0 uncovered (10' x 20') (10' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
................... ........_.........._............_........................................._.............,....................._...................._..........._......._......_.........__...._......._...............................,..................._.......__.._...........---........._........._..............................---...........__......._._._...
Height: ; 22'-0" 12'-6" 30'-0"
, _ ........_.._........._.........._......._. .............._........................_...................,......................................_..........----------.........._.............__...............................,..................._................_......._...._......._..........._..................._........._.._.........__............._........
DH Envelope: ; n/a n/a — single story addn CS 25.28.075
' txisting nonconforming front setback to second floor (16'-0" existing where 20'-0" is required).
2 Variance for front setback to an attached garage (21'-3" proposed where 25'-0" is required for a single-car
garage).
3 Existing nonconforming side setbacks (3'-3" and 5'-0" existing where 6'-0" is required).
4 (0.32 x 13,410 SF) + 1100 SF = 5391 SF (0.40 FAR)
5 Existing nonconforming on-site parking (no parking spaces provide on-site where two parking spaces are
required, one of which must be covered).
-2-
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2517 Easton Drive
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, City
Arborist and NPDES Coordinator.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer (dated November 19, 2009): The design reviewer
visited the site and surrounding area and met with the designer and applicant to discuss the Planning
Commission's concerns with the project. In his letter dated November 19, 2009, the reviewerdiscusses how the
revised project addresses the five elements of the design guidelines (see attached). The review notes that "the
design has improved substantially from the initial submittal and will largely retain the calm simple historic
appearance of the existing house" and that "the applicant has responded well to many suggestions."
The design reviewer is in support of this project subject to one suggestion, which is to recess the garage door
and add a large exposed wood beam header similar to the header above the kitchen and upper level windows on
the front elevation. The revised plans date stamped November 30, 2009, incorporate the design reviewer's
suggestion.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on October 13, 2009,
the Commission had several concerns with this project and referred the project to a design reviewer (October 13,
2009 Planning Commission Minutes attached). Afterworking with the designer reviewer, the designer submitted
revised plans, date stamped November 30, 2009 to address the Commissions' concerns. Please refer to the
attached meeting minutes for a list of concerns and the applicant's letter for a response to each concern.
1. Could the addifion be done and the garage accessed without removing the Oak tree? (Liu — the tree
is not affected by the proposal, it is on the adjacenf property.) Have the City Arborist investigate
whether the tree will be impacted by the driveway, the Coastal Live Oak does appear on the survey
for the sife, and the driveway may need io be altered to protecf the tree. (Ma — will verify the
informa tion,)
• In his memo dated October 22, 2009, the City Arborist notes that the existing street tree is in good
condition and that the new driveway apron must be at least 6'-0" away from the base of the tree to
prevent damage to roots. The revised plans, date stamped November 30, 2009, show that the proposed
driveway will curve around the street trees in order to comply with the required 6'-0" clearance.
2. Cannot see why the lot line adjustment is requested? The adjustment will not creafe a perceived
ba/ance between the lots from fhe street. (Liu — would equalize the /of areas; 2517 Easton is one of
the /argesf /ots in the neighborhood, the ofher lot is one of the smallest lots.). Tbe lot split seems
very unnatural; could sef up a problem if the neighborchooses to,build an accessorystructure to the
property line in the area of the adjustment. No compelling reason for the lot line adjustment; exisfing
non-conforming condition is best leff a/one. (Ma — lot line adjustment is the owner's decision; could
the two applications be separated fordiscussion? Meeker— yes, the two discussions can be handled
separately.) Given the Commissions' comments regarding the lot line adjustment, would fhe
applicant like to withdraw that reguest? (Liu — withdrew the lot line adjustment application.)
• The applicant has withdrawn the application for a lot line adjustment.
3. The design proposal does not enhance what is existing on the lot; the garage could have a more
interesting doorshape and design. Garage doors should perhaps be carriage doors with an arched
top; would fit nicely with the resf of the architecture, the doors should be wood.
• Previously, a rectangular aluminum sectional garage doorwas proposed. A partial arch-shaped opening
was considered during the discussions with the design review consultant, however it looked awkward
and due to low headroom, a full 180-degree arch to math the existing architecture on the house is not
possible. Therefore, the design reviewersuggested a simple rectangularwood carriage style door, fully
-3-
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit
2517 Easton Drive
recessed with a large exposed wood beam headerto match the wood headers above the otherwindows
on the front elevation (see revised Front Elevation, sheet A-4). The wood pattern on the garage door
matches that of the front entry door.
4. Vinyl windows are proposed; this is a complete mismatch for the neighborhood and with the exisfing
architecfure. The existing windows are sfee/ and add to fhe character of the home. Smaller, narrower
windows could be placed on the sink wall of the kitchen. Consider adding a window to the front to
add interest. Try to use steel windows; look info "Hope's" or "Coast to CoasY' steel window
manufacfurers. Referred the applicant to the "Stee/ Institute ofAmerica".
Vinyl windows are no longer proposed. The existing detached garage, which will be demolished,
contains several steel windows which match the existing windows on the main house. The applicant is
proposing to relocate two of the steel windows to the kitchen and living room (see revised Front
Elevation, sheet A-4). The relocated steel window in the kitchen would contain an exposed wood beam
header, consistent with the upper floor window and garage door. The Chief Building Official reviewed
and accepted relocating the windows from the garage to the kitchen and living room.
5. Whateveris done with the roofmustmatch exisfing tile. Addition needs to have a tile roof. Doesn'f
like fhe sloped roof off of the garage, consider a design to break up the mass, perhaps a fa/se gable.
• There were no changes made to the design of the roof above the garage door. However, the plans were
revised to include a tile roof over the proposed addition. The applicant notes that existing tiles on the
detached garage to be demolished will be reused for the addition (see revised Front and Left Side
Elevation, sheet A-4).
6. What is happening at the entry door? (Ma — aftempted to match the entry door to the shape of the
garage door; buf could be beneficial to the design to keep the existing arched door, and arch the
garage door. Can attempt to find a wood or steel window that can be painted to match the existing
windows.)
� There are no changes proposed to the existing front entry door.
7. Each window is special in shape and style; consider adding the header feature present on the
second floor window to the new windows. Pay special affention fo how the windows have been
designed in the existing condition. (Ma — regarding the header, the downstairs window does not
have a header.)
• An exposed wood beam header was added above the kitchen window and garage door (see revised
Front Elevation, sheet A-4).
8. Drawings are incorrect in that they do not show the tile roof on the addition.
� The revised plans show a tile roof on the addition (see revised Front and Left Side Elevation, sheet A-4).
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
Gompatibility 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;
�
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2517 Easton Drive
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and buik of structural components.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation forthe removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing an
potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
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:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
November 30, 2009, sheets A-1 through A-5;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
-5-
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit 2517 Easton Drive
4. that the conditions of the City Arborist's October 22 and September 30, 2009 mema, the Chief Building
Official's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's September 24, 2009 memos and the City Engineer's
October 5, 2009 memo shall be met;
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 complywith all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to inciude 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;
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 the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submita Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
9. 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:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architecturai 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; architecturai certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled; and
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Dennis Liu, applicant
MArch Design, designer
Attachments:
October 13, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
Design Reviewer°s Recommendation, dated November 19, 2009
Letter of Concern submitted by Briant Chun-Hoon, dated October 13, 2009
�
Design Review, Variance and Specia/ Permif
2517 Easton Drive
Application to the Planning Commission
Variance and Special Permit Forms
Arborist Report for 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive, prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated May 19, 2009
Staff Comments
Photographs of Neighboring Houses
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed December 4, 2009
Aerial Photo
-7-
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009
5. 2509 AND 2517 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1— (DENNIS LIU, APPLICANT; CHIAYUN ALAN WANG AND
LAN-FANG NEI WANG, PROPERTYOWNERS; MARCH DESIGN, DESIGNER;AND WECASSOCIATES,
CIVIL ENGINEER) (51 NOTICES)
A. 2517 EASTON DRIVE: APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE FOR FRONT
SETBACK TO AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE
FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND REMODEL — STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
B. 2509 AND 2517 EASTON DRIVE: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR LOTS 22 AND 23, BLOCK 57,
MAP OF EASTON ADDITION NO. 6 SUBDIVISION, PM 09-03 — STAFF CONTACT: VICTOR
VOONG, PUBLIC WORKS. ENGINEERING
Reference staff report dated October 13, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented
the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
Dennis Liu, 2517 Easton Drive, and Mike Ma, 20660 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino; represented the
applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Could the addition be done and the garage accessed without removing the Oak tree? (Liu —the tree
is not affected by the proposal, it is on the adjacent property.)
■ Explanation for the garage setback makes sense.
■ Cannot see why the lot line adjustment is requested? The adjustment will nat create a perceived
balance between the lots from the street. (Liu —would equalize the lot areas; 2517 Easton is one of
the largest lots in the neighborhood, the other lot is one of the smallest lots.)
■ Would still be able to build a much larger home without the lot line adjustment; could end up with a
home that is much larger. (Liu — thought it would provide personal benefit to him and the
neighborhood.)
■ Is there a threshold that is crossed with the adjustment to the lot line, due to an increase in lot area
on one lot? (Hurin — a variance is not required for lot area or other standards since the conditions
are non-conforming currently. The percentage of lot coverage will remain the same, though the size
of a home will increase due to the increase in lot area; the maximum home size permitted in
Burlingame is 8,000 square feet.)
■ The design proposal does not enhance what is existing on the lot; the garage could have a more
interesting door shape and design.
• Vinyl windows are proposed; this is a complete mismatch for the neighborhood and with the existing
architecture. The existing windows are steel and add to the character of the home.
■ Whatever is done with the roof must match existing tile.
■ Will benefit the neighborhood to have the garage associated with the house.
■ Garage doors should perhaps be carriage doors with an arched top; would fit nicely with the rest of
the architecture, the doors should be wood.
■ Smaller, narrower windows could be placed on the sink wall of the kitchen.
■ Addition needs to have a tile roof.
■ What is happening at the entry door? (Ma — attempted to match the entry door to the shape of the
garage door; but could be beneficial to the design to keep the existing arched door, and arch the
garage door. Can attempt to find a wood or steel window that can be painted to match the existing
windows.)
■ Using the wrong details could ruin the house; please don't install vinyl windows.
14
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009
■ The lot split seems very unnatural; could set up a problem if the neighbor chooses to build an
accessory structure to the property line in the area of the adjustment.
• The property has much more space for additions to the existing home.
■ No compelling reason for the lot line adjustment; existing non-conforming condition is best left alone.
(Ma — lot line adjustment is the owner's decision; could the two applications be separated for
discussion? Meeker—yes, the two discussions can be handled separately.)
• Consider adding a window to the front to add interest.
■ Doesn't like the sloped roof off of the garage, consider a design to break up the mass, perhaps a
false gable.
■ Try to use steel windows; look into "Hope's" or "Coast to Coast" steel window manufacturers.
■ Referred the applicant to the "Steel Institute of America".
■ Each window is special in shape and style; consider adding the header feature present on the
second floor window to the new windows. Pay special attention to how the windows have been
designed in the existing condition. (Ma — regarding the header, the downstairs window does not
have a header.)
■ Drawings are incorrect in that they do not show the tile roof on the addition.
■ Have the City Arborist investigate whether the tree will be impacted by the driveway, the Coastal
Live Oak does appear on the survey forthe site, and the driveway may need to be altered to protect
the tree. (Ma — will verify the information.)
■ Given the Commissions' comments regarding the lot line adjustment, would the applicant like to
withdraw that request? (Liu — withdrew the lot line adjustment application.)
Public comments:
■ None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
CommissionerAuran made a motion to send the application to a design review consultant.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
■ The Commission's direction was specific enough; referring the matter to a design review consultant
is unnecessary.
Chair Terrones called fora vote on the motion to the application to a design review consultant. The motion
passed on a voice vote 6-1 (Commissioner8rownrigg dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:01 p.m.
15
��d/ � 1 � � � �
ARCHITECTS
MEMO:
Date: 11-19-2009
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: 2517 Easton — Design Review
� _ �__ . . __ r . . .
I�'�J �! °u :� L��i;�
��-r� c,=� v. ;,! �r�!�.�,�r;=
I have visited the site, the street and have reviewed the initial plans. I have had one meeting
with the designer and applicant at the site to review the Planning Commission comments. I have
reviewed the latest revised design plans date stamped Nov. 9, 2009, and have the foilowing
comments.
1. Compatibilitv of the architectural stvle with that of the existinp neiqhborhood:
This neighborhood is one of charming homes, of many various styles. Lots on this side of
the street are quite large, back up to the creek and are narrow and deep with Iush
landscape and significant down-slope.
The style proposed for this house is not changing, and is compatible with the existing
neighborhood pattern. On the revised plans, care has been taken to preserve the charm
and be consistent with the style of the rest of the house with minimal changes in front.
2. Respect the Parkinq and Garaqe Patterns in the Neiqhborhood:
• There is no predominant pattern of garage in this area, with some houses having
attached and some with detached garages.
• This particular house is unusual. It is a double lot with the house on one lot and a 3 car
garage on the adjacent lot. This plan will move the parking to the same lot as an
attached one car garage. This is similar to the original location of the garage, and in
effect is recreating the original parking condition.
• In the revised plans, the driveway has been curved to avoid an existing tree in the
sidewalk strip. This will preserve the tree and the driveway edge paving has been
relocated 6' from the tree as recommended by the City arborist.
• The new plan meets the intent of the design guidelines and the suggestions of the
Commission. No other placement of the garage is feasible on this steep lot without
substantially changing the house and gardens.
3. Architectural Stvle Mass and Bulk of the Structure and Internal Consistencv of the Desiqn.
• This is a fine looking home with simple wall planes and small openings in a tra�ditional
revival style. It lends charm and history to this part of Burlingame.
• The revised plans have been re-drawn as suggested to clarify levels and the interior
layout. Elevations have been corrected to show the existing conditions more accurately.
• Original steel casement windows from the existing garage structure (to be removed) will
be re-used on the house to exactly match the rest of the windows. The previously
indicated vinyl windows have been eliminated.
• Window details have not been included, but the header and installation should match the
existing deeply recessed window at the upper level.
• As suggested, the rectangular stucco mold door trim around the entry door has been
eliminated and the entry door will remain as existing.
WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE 311, BURLINGAME, CA 99010 / FAX.� (650J 3434297 / info@wingesaia.com / TELr (650) 343-1101
FlRCHITECTURE / A.fASTER PLANIViNG / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING
�m�!!1l�r� 2
ARCHITECTS
• The garage door has been changed as suggested to be a"carriage door" with similar
dark wood and pattern as the entry door. However, the door has been placed in a partial
arch shape opening and it is unclear what is above the door—this looks awkward. Due to
the low headroom, it appears a full 180 degree arch matching the rest of the architecture
is not possible. I suggest that this partial arch be eliminated and the carriage door simply
be the rectangular "carriage door" as shown, fully recessed with a large wood beam
exposed header similar to the kitchen and upper level windows. This will be a more
elegant and simple solution. The use of black wrought iron hinges and handles similar to
other metal work on the house would also enhance the appearance.
• The new addition to the kitchen, since it is in the same plane as the existing front wall,
should be carefully done to avoid a different stucco texture. Stucco texture and color
should match and blend into the existing wall texture to avoid a patched appearance.
• It is understood that the existing clay tiles on the existing garage to be demolished will be
used on the extension of the roof, thus matching the other existing tile.
4. Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adiacent Structures to Each Side:
• There is no house on the left, and the existing garage is to be removed. Care in
developing a future new house on the adjacent lot is very important to retain the
character of this older neighborhood.
• There is no change proposed to the right side of the home and the minor changes to the
front wall will have no effect on the house to the right.
5. Landscapinq and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components:
• No new landscape plan has been submitted as part of this application.
• Existing trees are to remain and the driveway has been modified to save the street tree in
front.
• The rear of the lot needs extensive new landscaping in the future to enhance this lovely
property and take full advantage of the site—however this is not part of this proposal.
Summarv:
1. The design has improved substantially from the initial submittal and will largely retain the calm
simple historic appearance of the existing house. The applicant has responded well to many
suggestions.
2. The arch above the proposed garage door should be eliminated and the door recessed with a
wood beam header, as noted in the above comments
3. I recommend approval of the resubmitted plans assuming the garage door elevation is
changed as noted.
Jerry L. Winges, AIA
Principal
WINGES ARCHITECTS, iNC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE311, BURLINGAME, CA 94070 / FAX: (650) 343-1291 / info@wingesaia.com / TEL: (650) 343-1f07
ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANNING / INTERlOn ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNWG / DESIGN COUNSELING
r,
' '�,,,.
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATION
�F STAFF REPORT
October 13, 2009 �' � � �� � �
Burlingame Planning Commissioners Q� I� � 2009
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 940i0 CITY OF �URLINGAME
PtANNING DEPT.
RE: 2509 & 2517 Easton Drive — Application for Lot Line Adjustment for Lots 22 and
23, Block 57, Map of Easton Addition No.6 Subdivision, PM 09-03, zoned R-1.
Dear Planning Commissioners:
After reviewing plans and documents provided by the Burlingame Plauning and
Engineering Departments as subject to the above application for Lot Line Adjustment for
2509 and 2517 Easton Drive. I ha�e determined that I am opposed to tlus Lot Line
Adjustment application.
Backgour_d on 2509 Easton Drive:
Fact #1 — Letter dated July 10, 2009 from Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department
denying removal of Oak trees #7  on 2509 Easton Drive.
I'act #2 — Listing sheet dated July 8, 2009 from MLS showing that 2509 Easton Drive
was for sale ( without Lot Line Adjustment), and on October 8, 2009 it was taken off the
market.
Fact #3 — Application to the Planning Commission dated September 14, 2009 showed
that the property owner was Alan and Lan Fang Wang on 2517 Easton Drive, Burlingame
where as ul fact the Wangs are at 20847 Dunbar Drive, Sacramento, CA 95814.
I recommend that the Bi�rlingame Planning Commission deny the Application for the Lot
Line Adjustment for 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive.
I believe that the Planning Cornrriission action to deny the Lot Line Adjustment
application will not be an unreasonable properiy loss/gain or an unnecessary hardship for
the property owners. In May 2009, the property owners were well aware of the property
disclosures of 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive when they purchased the properry. In July
2009, the property owners tried to sell 2509 �aston Drive without any Lot L'u1e
Adjustment, and they took it off the market recently.
The existing Lot Line should be preserved because it does conform to the local general
plan, tree ardinance, local zoning, and building ordinances. To make it anything else
would bring it out of line with other properties in the area.
On a final note, I wanted to take exception to a memo dated October 6, 2009 to the
Planning Commission from Victor Voong, associate engineer/ Engineering Division.
N
(J1
o �
cfl �
S?o
�D�
y � rt
� � cn
� �
O c�p �
� � w
v�o
� w cD
�ag� 1 of 2
/ �
�
1
Mr. Voong recommended the approval of the Lot Line Adjustment application at 2509 —
2517 Easton Drive. After reading the memo, I was not impressed with the specious
remarks in the memo, and I sensed a push or urgency to rush this application through the
process whereby there was no urgency.
Sincerely, �
��,
�-�
riant Chtm-Hoon
2512 Easton Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
�a�ge 2 of 2
r,�;'Sfl< -
\.•e•:-.e. �
COMMl1NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ° 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLiCAiION T'O THE PLANNINC� CONIMLSSION
Type of application:
❑ Design Review �) Variance ❑ Parcel #:�,�2.� —�:�� /
❑ Conditional Use Permit � Special Permit ❑ Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: � ��
7 ���.�, � . -�'�.`�;
0 Please indicate the contact person for this project
APPLICANT project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: �P � �i�S � � �
Address: /� � �� /'� ����'^�- GC •
, , . .�_
City/State/Zip: ��-YL �'�c'•�2� ��i ��� � �
�
Phone: 7�J r� �� � 7-- % �t ��
Fax: �'�,� � � � � � � �
E-maiL ��A�i'7i�' ����' �S'�c�1�4�t��, hC�
_ �
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Pro�ect contact person o
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: ' � qr G�n �es �'�v�
Address: Zd� � � �'��"S
PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: � L��Z �. ��''� �ti�'l�. V 1l��x'
Address: ? � I � LC� , �12 �
,��� �.,
City/State/zip: �Z� ��� �� � 7� � �
i
Phone: �"'J x� � �� �3 � �
Fax:
E-mail: G- (�C����� � � %GLSvG-�-.. ��'li
�
Cv-e.�, �— � ( ��1. � l
City/State/Zip: �v�'fi�-o � �501�--
Phone: �L-��� 1 .� �2— �9 $ 7 _ _ ._
, _ - .-) Y `. J tiP �.
Fax: � �50� ��'� ' Z� 2' _ _ _
.;, � �,,�c
E-mail: '�? 1?� t� Ci i Gl �� `�'�G� ��1
e
� Burlinqame Business License
PROJECT DESGRIPTION: ���� �t,��
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty o�perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief�. �
Applicant's signature: _ � � a� Date: �/1 _�f� �
I am aware of the proposed application and her" y authorize the abovs applicant to submii this appiication fo the Planning
Commission. / ,�
��.� w� ,�,L ,ra,,� .�-���� � ` � �r � 1 J �
Property owner's signature: � " tir. �1 G�f� G�., �1— �'�'Date:
` W �Z� D"ate submitted: G%// � �(% �
_ � � r
� Verification that the project architectldesigner has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the
Finance Department at the time application fees are paid.
❑ Please mark one box above with an X fo indicate the contact person for ihis project. S:\Handouts\PC Application 2008-B.handout
This Space for CDD
Staff Use Only
Project Description:
�@�/:
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DHE Declining Height Envelc
DSR Desiqn Review
E Existing
N New
SFD Single Family Dwelling
SF Speciai Permit
� CITV
�� �"��' ��
����
,� �
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 9401 O
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
CITI( OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
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.
See attached responses.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship mighf 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 compati6le with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of ihe existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
Citv of Burlingame �� F F��;� ��(;q
Variance Application
CITY OF C���nL1tG,4M�
PI�.P�li�lfi�!G D-PT.
The following are the response to questions for the Variance Application.
1. The exceptional or extraordinary circumstance is that this existing house does
have a garage. It is believed that there had been a detached garage years
ago. The garage was converted by one of the previous owners into a living
area. The interior room size is about 20 feet x 10 feet, which is justified for a
car parking space.
Special consideration shall be given for restoring the original detached garage
without having to meet current setback requirements.
2. The request is beneficial to the current properly owner, the neighbors, and the
City for the following reasons. First, one less car on the street. Second, the
property owner does not have to demolish existing non-conforming use and
buifd a new garage. For environmental reasons, there is less construction
and more preservation. Lastly, it will meet the current zoning on parking
requirements for residential house.
3. Besides the benefits listed above, the non-conforming 2�d dwelling unit can be
eliminated. This is beneficial to the public health, safety and general welfare
for the neighborhood.
4. This variance request shall not be just considered as an addition or remodel
for a new garage. Instead, the request is to "restore" a garage which was
unfortunately remodeled into a living room. The restoration of the garage will
help this house to gain its original design, as well as become compatible with
the adjoining houses (where there are garages).
City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 � www.burlinpame.orq
� c�Tv
�� ;���, �
- - � �
` � ■ � � r: � � �� ■ � �
��'!�-�- � nii� �
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.50). 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.
1. Explain why the blend of mass, sca/e and dominant sfructural characteristics of the
new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and
with the existing street and neighborhood.
See attached responses.
2, Explain how the varieiy of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations
of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure,
street and neighborhood.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city (C,S. 25.57)?
4, Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new
structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation
requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain
why this mitigation is appropriate.
Rev. 07.2008 v See over for explanation of above questions. SPECIAL.PERMIT.APP.FORM
...� ,. . �_-. - .1:.
Citv of Burlinqame
Special Permit Application
> F. � `'_ = 2� ��:'.'
i-;�{ I�'� �URLi:•{GP,I'VlE
�L�.l�i[�liP!i�.'�= -.
The follovr+ing are the response to the questions for the Special Permit Application.
1. Thus project consists of an addition of 58 s.f. and a garage conversion. The
58 s.f. addition is almost an infill with extension of the existing roof. The
ga�age conversion does not increase any additional area. Therefore, this
project is very much consistent with the existing house style and design as
well as with the existing street and neighborhood.
2. All the existing roof lines, farade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of
the house are preserved. The small addition will utilize existing roof line with
exgension.
3. C�urrently, this house has no garage. It is believed that there was a garage
years ago. One of the previous owners converted it into a living room, and
tumed the side portion of the house into a separate living unit. To be
consistent with the residential design guidelines, and as part of this project
scope, the non-conforming living room will be turned back to a garage.
4. Th�s property is covered with many mature and protected trees. Virtually all
these trees are located in the rear yard. All the protected mature trees are to
remain except one unhealthy oak which lean hazardously to the neighbor's
property. This project also proposes to remove a small palm tree and a small
eu�.alyptus at the front yard. This palm tree is too close to the building. Such
location is neither suitable for the tree to grow or beneficial for the structure.
�
Kielty Arborist Services
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
P.O. Box 6187
San Mateo, CA 9440�
650- 525-1464
May 19, 2009
Mr. Denriis Liu
10377 Amistad Court
Cupertino, CA 95014
Site: 2507 Easton Drive, Burlingame, CA
Deaz Mr. Liu,
c _ � y � �."�
JUi�� �' � 2009
cm� o� �����e,�,c,-1�rc
:��ar�n�i��i� i�����,
As requested on Tuesday, May 19, 2009, I visited the above site for the purpose of
inspecting and commenting on the trees. A new home is planned for this site and as
required by the City of Burlingame a survey of the trees and a tree protection plan will be
included.
Method:
The significant trees on this site were located on a map provided by you. Each tree was
given an identification number. This number was inscribed on a metal foil tag and nailed
to the trees at eye level. The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above
ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). Each tree was assigned a condition
rating from 1 to 100 for form and vitality using the following scale:
1 - 29 Very Poor
30 - 49 Poor
50 - 69 Fair
70 - 89 Good
90 - 100 Excellent
The height of each tree was estimated and the spread was paced off: Lastly, a comments
section is provided.
0
P 2507 Easton, Burlingame/5/19/09 (2)
Survey:
Tree# Species DBH Con HT/SP Comments
1 Magnolia 17.9 60
(Magnolia grand�ora)
2 Magnolia 3.7 60
(Magnolia grand�ora)
3 Magnolia 2.9 65
(Magnolia grandiflora)
�
5
0
7
�
0
10
11
12
13
14
Coast live oak 13.9 60
(Quercus agrifolia)
Dracaena Palm 15.1 30
(Cordyline austrailis)
Red flowering 15.3 45
Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus ficifolia)
Coast live oak 223/ 45
(Quercus agrifolia) 26.8/30
Coast live oak 21.3 50
(Quercus agrifolia)
Coast live oak 22.1 50
(Quercus agrifolia)
Coast live oak 15.9 45
(Quercus agrifolia)
Black Acacia 26.3 55
(Acacia melanoxylon)
Coast live oak 16.4 55
(Quercus agrifolia)
Coast live oak 36est 45
(Quercus agrifolia)
Coast live oak 36.1 60 45/50 Codominant leans south
(Quercus agrifolia)
30/30 In 4foot wide planting strip vigor
fair, height reduced for utilities.
10/5 Vigor fair, water stressed.
15/10 Vigor fair, water
stressed.
25/20 In planting strip,
decline in canopy.
35/15 More than 50% of
truiik decayed. Hazard.
30/25 In cutout of wall
suppressed by #7.
45/65 Decay at several locations, poor
crotch formations, possible hazard.
50/40 Trunk leans south,
codominant at 20 feet.
50/40 Trunk leans west at 4 feet.
40/50 Tri.mk bends west over neighbors.
Cable connecting it to #1 l.
65/45 Top in decline.
40/40 Trunk bends south west over
neighbors.
40/40 Trunk forks over neighbors, large
leader
,
c
2507 Easton, Burlingame/5/19/09
15 Douglas fir 27.6 60
(Pseudotsuga menziesii)
16 Black Acacia 28.7 50
(Acacia melanoxylon)
17 Coast live oak 13.8 50
(Quercus agrifolia)
18 Hedge maple 12.2 60
(Acer campestre)
19 Coast live oak 28est 65
(Quercus agrifolia)
20 Coast live oak 40est 55
(Quercus agrifolia)
21 Coast live oak 24est 45
(Quercus agrifolia)
22 Coast live oak 19.6 40
(Quercus agrifolia)
23 Canary Island date 26est 60
palm (Phoenix canariensis)
24 Hedge maple 18.2 55
(Acer campestre)
25 Coast live oak 14.2 0
(Quercus agrifolia)
26 Privet 8.7/4.9 35
(Lingustrum vulgara)
27 Coast live oak 30est 55
(Quercus agrifolia)
28 Coast live oak 22.9 60
(Quercus agrifolia)
(3)
110/40 Topped in past codominant from
that point.
55/45 Codominant at 30 feet
heavy lateral limbs.
35/35 Suppressed, leans south.
45/35 Good vigor, codominant at 15ft
55/60 On creek bank, south corner.
50/70 On creek bank, decay at several
locations, supported by 3" steel
prop.
20/60 Trunk is horizontal to the south west,
in creek bank.
45/50 Leans against existing building.
Care should be taken when
removing building.
15/20 4 feet of standing tnink.
45/30 Decline in canopy water stressed.
25/35 Dead.
30/25 Foliage thin, tall for DBH,
water stressed.
40/35 Multi at 4 ft. heavy to west.
50/45 lfoot from existing building, trunk
bends south, good vigor.
2507 Easton, Burlingame/5/19/09 (4)
29 Stone pine 15est 65 40/40 Limbs touch garage.
(Pinus pinea)
Summary:
The trees on site are a mix of native oaks and various imported trees. The new home will
requ�re the removal of several of the oaks. The oaks to be removed are in poor to fair
condition. Often oaks grown in a grove will have poor form, as the trees grow to the light
they become quite lop sided. The imported trees are a result of overplanting by the
previous owners. Removed trees will be replaced as required by the City of Burlingame.
Trees to remain with proper tree protection will continue to thrive on this site.
Tree Protection Plan:
Tree Protection Zones
Tree protection zones should be installed and maintained throughout the entire length of
the project. Fencing for tree protection should be 4' tall, Orange plastic material
supported by metal poles or stakes, pounded into the ground. The location for the
protective fencing should be as close to the dripline of desired trees as possible, still
allowing room for construction to safely continue. No equipment or materials shall be
stored or cleaned inside the protection zones. Areas outside protection fence, but still
beneath the tree's driplines, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched
with 4-6" of chipper chips covered with plywood. The spreading of chips will help to
reduce compaction and improve soil structure. The installation of the landscape buffer of
chips will be criticat for the root zone of the oaks on this site. The chip buffer should
extend over the entire tree protections zone.
Demolition and Staging
Prior to the start of the demolition process, all tree protection measures must be in place.
An inspection prior to the start of the demolition is required. A pre-demolition meeting
with the site arborist will be required. All vehicles must remain on paved surfaces if
possible. E�sting pavement should remain and should be used for staging. If vehicles
are to stray from paved surfaces, 4 to 6 inches of chips sha11 be spread and plywood laid
over the mulch layer. This type of landscape buffer will help reduce compaction of
desired trees. Parking will not be allowed off the paved surfaces. The removal of
foundation materials, when inside the driplines of protected trees, should be carried out
with care. Hand excavation may be required in areas of heavy rooting. Exposed or
damaged roots should be repaired and covered with native soil. Tree protection fencing
may need to be moved after the demolition. The site arborist should be notified and the
relocated fence should be inspected.
Root Cutting
Any roots to be cut shall be monitored and documented. Large roots (over 2" diameter) or
large masses of roots to be cut must be inspected by the site arborist. The site arborist, at
this time, may recommend irrigation or fertilization of the root zone. All roots needing to
be cut should be cut clean with a saw or lopper. Roots to be left exposed for a period
2507 Easton, Burlingame/5/19/09 (5)
of time should be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist. The over dig for the
foundation should be reduced a much as possible when roots are encountered. The site
arborist will be on site for all excavation when within the dripline of the trees listed
above.
Trenching
Trenching for irrigation, drainage, electrical or any other reason shall be done by hand
when inside the dripline of a protected tree. Hand digging and the careful placement of
pipes below or besides protected roots will significantly reduce root loss, thus reducing
trauma to the tree. All trenches shall be backfilled with native materials and compacted
to near its original level, as soon as possible. Trenches to be left open for a period of
time (24 hours), will require the covering of all exposed roots with burlap and be kept
moist. The trenches will also need to be covered with plywood to help protect the
exposed roots.
Irrigation
Normal irrigation shall be maintained on this site at all times. During the warm season,
April — November, I typically recommend some additional heavy irrigation, 2 times per
month. During the winter months, it may be necessary to irrigate 1 additional time per
month. Seasonal rainfall may reduce the need for additional irrigation. The oaks under
normal conditions should not require irrigation. Imported trees need to be irrigated 2
times a month for the duration of the project. This type of irrigation should be started
prior to any excavation. The irrigation will improve the vigor of the tree and the water
content of the tree. The on-site arborist may make adjusrinents to the irrigation
recommendations as needed. The foliage of the trees many need cleaning if dust levels
are extreme. Removing dust from the foliage will help to reduce mite and insect
infestation.
The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound
arboricultural principles and practices.
Sincerely, i /
. . ��
Kevm R. Kielty
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
rz
��
w
Z
Sp�IETY OF q
;�'J,N K'�(T}' 09�0
�
� �"�7� m
� *
\FqTlFIED APg��\��
i
�_._
NEW
RESIDENCL
xsuv ensmN oarvr,
11URI.IT'OAMI!, CA
Ai`N:03).195-060
W E C
te�uuoununu�wu
Ph1AALT0. CAWHk
�FTE1: 6f0�131b154
FA%: �dlO�Atl)-0))I
��inu�a �
• ��
�—
�FIF
�—
�—
TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY
C.Q
m R
J
Project Comments
Date: October 21, 2009
To: � City Engineer o Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271
0 Chief Building Official � Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600
X City Arborist � NPDES Coordinator
(650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Re�uest for Design Review, Special Permit for �n att�ched garage
and Variance for front setback to an attached garage for a first floor
addition and remodel at 2517 Easton Driye, zoned R-1, APN: 027-
195-070.
Staff Review:
• A City owned Coast Live Oak in located near the proposed
driveway apron. The tree was rated fair to good on a recent
independent arborist report.
s The tree is in good condition and will remain in the planning strip
as a street tree. �
• The new driveway apron must be at least 6 ft from base of tree in
order to prevent damage to roots.
• Any root over 2 inches in diameter will need to be inspected by City
Arborist before cutting.
• A simple Tree Protection Plan will need to be in place around both
Coast Live Oak and Magnolia during time of driveway construction.
�ob Disco 10/22/09
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
September 23, 2009
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
50) 558-7260
City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
0 Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning StafF
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage
and reducing the number of on-site parking spaces and Variance for
front setback to an attached garage for a first floor addition and
remodel at 2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-070.
Staff Review: September 28, 2009
1. No protected trees are to be removed with out permit from Park
Division (558-7330)
2. Tree Protection Plan needs to be installed and maintained throughout
entire project for protected sized trees near and around immediate work
site as per Arborist Report.
�o�p �� 5t-c�
�1I3•b/D %
1
m.� �, �,�� �„
� Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
September 23, 2009
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7279
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage
and reducing the number of on-site parking spaces and Variance for
front setback to an attached garage for a first floor addition and
remodel at 2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-070.
Staff Review: September 28, 2009
Project Comments
Date:
�o:
From
September 23, 2009
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
� City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
�'Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage
and reducing the number of on-site parking spaces and Variance for
front setback to an attached garage for a first floor addition and
remodel at 2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-070.
Staff Review: September 28, 2009
No additional comments. Please note, reduction of scope — fire sprinklers are no
longer required.
Reviewed bye �. `�'` "� Date: �.���Q��
Project Comments
Date
To:
From:
September 23, 2009
[� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage
and reducing the number of on-site parking spaces and Variance for
front setback to an attached garage for a first floor addition and
remodel at 2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-070.
Staff Review: September 28, 2009
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.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 10/05/2009
.' _ ,•x
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
September 23, 2009
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
� City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
X NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
Pianning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage
and reducing the number of on-site parking spaces and Variance for
front setback to an attached garage for a first floor addition and
remodel at 2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-070.
Staff Review: September 28, 2009
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 Best
Management Practices during consfruction.
Please include a list of construction stormwater pollution prevention best
management practices (BMPs), as project notes, when submitting plans for a
building permit. Please see attached brochure for guidance. The attached brochure
may also be downloaded directly from flowstobay.org. It is recommended that
construction BMP's be placed on a separate full size plan sheet (2' x 3') for
readability.
For additional assistance, contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, at (650)
342-3727.
Reviewed by: �(,� �,�(�
� � t
Date: �� � �� 2Dc7�
a" „"+�m
i;�Ol,:.
i%/r,t Swrm.va�er
- aE�: - roimao�rR���eo�r��
_� . oa*
�r.� °��
��:::;
'"��' ..' , � .
> _...,
�`_ ,s
General .,_ :-�'"�--� `
Consiruction
& Site 5upetvision
.s �" a �'�°�.`..,00 �a �� n;.;od �o� en
a:,,.p
�n1e Mw.M1u�vn+i�661 �iecvmvne vM �n.A�in it�
W wlG�+�aµ M �2IIIxa
Jpeiiypn� we wmhnery mnuineA vea Cor ow
perWn� v
odMmeJilaru
e, F7�.i..��a��..,�.�m�Na�.
�ury
�au � " a � �..o>,.w�� .�a
��an.��. ��w�m
��W <..�...�w
.rcw�r ,o °�ci, a�o u�. a�w �w�ouv m�
I�+ks. Ma «aumpei�.. wiJermof. a. eo.<r wi�M1 up�
v� y W Jv x4atiuy m.vN am iuin Wr wu1J� u( n�.
rq noui�sd�my.aby
eo�ln¢�ItrMywv vnN��muuwCon Jte. �
JMatr �u�e partille �oJeu ve mawuueE u
wo��oNan� 1 ��kn�eu4.quvv�lY(a
lPncri w.e1b[
ncryoem•1..o�. rWo�minu��e
�u�� ec e�un`�a�e
.in;�:.���:..� �`' �o a aen.0 PA��,r.
k+�bawtlylme,�.
bc�JNmnu
••�wGryaau
�bemWW �tRnarv�acrthocmeuube'tl"
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
Pollution Prevention — It's Part of the Plan
It is your responsibility to do the job righ.t!
Runoff from s[reets and other paved azeas is a major source ofpollufion in Iocal creeks. Sau Fraucisco Bay azid the Pacific Ocean.
� Construction activities can direclly at}ect tlie health ofour waters�unless conhactors and crews plan aheadto keep dirt, debris, and other
construcrion waste away from storm dravis and�creeks. Following these guidelines will ensure your compliance with ]oeal stomiwater
. ordinauce requirements. Remember, ongoing monitoring and maintenance of installed controls is erucial to pLoper implementation.
Heavy Earth-Moving Roadwork & Paving Fresh Concrete Painting & Application
Equ'spment �c�vities � Mortar Apglication af S�lveuts & Adhesives
Operation ,��: =- •-�
,:� `Y` h; ,
��
�:� , ,
_�. � o
�a��,a�
vl+m(¢aeQ re �olem �um=u zeo
J}kqnarlwbu<�nozm..noouem ��.tlunp olmnK
aWelcauaWwvecmlm�im�cum<c ••vNrow,ac ye.s�l�
Jx1.Wnu�wv�tirJmamWnNwp�ne�^Y*ttfie � ��•��emm.ebk���..�
vw�u�a p �ne ��o�•�•��1•�� Rsirc60esame'ervssmmllwSNuc.re�wryor
"��`dmwo.°o "� ��.,���,�R��oo�mamvo�,�.�.�,�%�,�w�.�o� ,
a�+wYar� ,u� v m�,w w��mF
i�.qllU Immefiorcy wda m.r dVPoa
.,�"m�m,�s'rvm� v,..��Rmc�m�
l�edycleoou�pmn6
at+(eh..m6fniwm�'il� �oiMnuNorny)w
un . , 1 �+W�� o
uaww��.at�� �^'��,�"i�
msaim.ra�r'oc,�� um;�
miw � �w.vWnG�
c.�`�.�t�is °nssaaaem�n.'s
��vu��_,�i.m.,w,�a,�����n. mauem<m�em:
�,��w���,�„���, P ��.
,��,��s� �� �.� omr��
��y�
rmmycrm+u wrhwBWwdP
rt(u�lioanveti<k �m+�vm�m�winievueemwbe
u�c diaet�o�b ub n�eo«lmn muiommrcor Y
ane xGv46a��eieimunete.EmtevuP��ct
�vhrncvaprcvbl�
� - �.
!�cc9 aLL Iia�E D+�1 p�o0uvp md xa.�ne vwcy from
Cme.l n�a Pnm'ur �rt so-..4�ee ne� e..e.. ua�d.ea:duu bo�
��usx wWdmbsnu:acarc
mNNyaMw�xt�m�rialvwWcorcSpmiu+.N�6om EirywNo£aab�z�Nmu
ruulaLavd�umHPn� .m+�matsEmawL m.lac'vIb(uouermvlrcalsam«.�v
JS.ew.Mxnafava� PUW ^ P knn).� �
Landscaping,
Gardening,
and Pool Maintenance
i1� m
�� �Q�
mw b s��J'b.m wJa mpa m puwn�E VlesticwW �cliv tl
Y s� ,ap�w aaebgolnvu➢ wasacdm t bmn. aa¢wewulemJamew
, nra4+oarvnaB�� mmwa JS�L.au�cgrutiuY:wluuw�bop�ai��RyYwnW¢
JN'.sno��emoun��o:..nodvwaWw�wwssnw�..v e1•"Leu�s.�amMw.mrtmm. .mvnimi�n�.i�m.mw�e� ry
vu4�.exw.vn�crvw W..Nm wou�m�m f�..w.w.w m.�..
�a�.i«�Qa�w��nn�,mF.�r., i���w �' w".,,..��vwM..�.�,�.a
"�'New�wpmot.� n. bSa w vJu�vn��udu. o•�m�••,��� tl o�uW..� ui.wauauwmiw. ",��m+.N euns
sa�laicM16�smsmAma.Mleewlmoiniwna �6e�rcatsb�mMmckam+e�dikha,orseeem�e � Y
�,.ared�.�,,� ��,��,�nNmn�o�«�m���.. +n�..e�vuoo;,.��an.o�re�or,,,.,;oa�oow�.o�
,.���nv.�. �:���m.��w.,nww�a �Rr.an����.nN�,<„�� or��,.,n �����'rv��.�i,o«.or�. �mrnm.
� M �n,•�mK�r��. wo � tu�.�e
..m�om �,. �.�er �m�a.,oe..; , ,.0 t,ae.�nesre„ea ar,;a�.n�.�
s�s�.� , �iy��aa�w.a��wera N.i.e. a;.. ��� n;,,.�.o�.
. .. _.,.... .. _._. _.
U�a���,i„�y:�....n. �ww�:.u�w�.e��e
is.�M�evR w���ewa�.o.�b.nn.,..w...
�rm„��� w mM m��o,.yrr�eekn�a.. lt•wy.a+w,n�7
in..i,u.w,�.,u.���. o�a��m.�.r«ee
nvc�3Frcgaic a6waEm
..e.suJ.W�iwoNrtu.li
J Flace WyW.s or o0u vasloa wn¢o4 Ewwlope �o
J Reryee la¢� eLw6 0! bmtro �waue a� a Ise6ll.
�� n.��m.m,i��ar�.«mur�....w�
�wnmrcr�ww�� m,�a �w�o�e����w� �^ si. �.,00.«��-
LuwaW�m�iLa4n. • • .�m mu IY Wuo[uav
/o..so��..euemeiluwMv.u.o.n 5�em<�ir.rs .��vbav PGll�J¢EY�aurwrls6mA�arm�ml.
RsrcdlormJ�edpooddpounAm�errb.tm�r��. '"y�°�OeenaAmoval
J p�a la crz.Mg e.aes dm� nCeo he�kN: uµw w e�.
meeoe �ww�urpwl:i�cneeoiAaw. .��..mxmw�yi
�}I�R �o��y J`�WYe` bPmNuys ma�aaesootcomeivmn�nwiih
�wvWo�v �cp�owdJvots "'0O
. u.n.aa.�.e,.emnad�,h �bys��ie�w� �veva�v.a�ss�a.a
�e� �,,,,.� � u.a�w�„p,�,�
Storm drain polluters may be liable for fines of up to $25,000 per day!
maim. . . W�pi.vC�ov Il.nh.nuJs�uc4veaiav�z•wcmEu:
epun��p�vn�s<��vwvyinaarmburyi �N� v : ��ns� �
nv.�.�n M d:m+� nt.. e..a�emiid..��.
✓0000��e«rwm,i�ms��ie,. m�,�wauo;�n
atuiPpiuRor��nvinsbWid'w6�hnortwiNWgIJ �ubnEcyuEe�ub�x>xwaglavc�lippmuudpiwvE
-.++.O..u[�
wJu n�a��oJ.Or.cLc�uiwm� uwx-.s.niu w��LuetWP V.o�� rv�a•.�.�.icm�
WoribmfiMw�ilyw
51Fu�41iva�InninF••=4rvdairyobWeOrmty' Ibmtbbaar�ukelnw.ne.lwapeveQ�
a+r em ;,"w�eu��� �
.,�.awvr,nu����aoare � a��aa
�Wn��s nrP+�utrrlm�xP'-�bic
J'Wj'qca WY�Y'ea
aWNwHOWsmnY�d+v uEnfu�v-
�m:�s',��,men.
�MI� R ..uMmevsna�ol�c qmq
G�ny�amm�uunmulnelt�Fnm �eyMeercry�tio�
nhuvJemw.a�etuP�l
p.uNaw �� inim�ie.bk m A<�cn�mN �n�k
wnu� uivam�cW�tiwivtiu�.
b ck'potiry.�
hm'Ib�aej� vy'dmi'wGnu^Mwlp�wmn�n
auaqdam�o[Min Wetluhlanvaan waivmarm�
Uilo' u6mvgNwweav:ury
:mm( t.�oxedly�Mlrc.lttw¢enao.en��iAnriryJby
� .�m. y m.. � .
./Do vea�.w mppo.�M ilpwCa Gni��l d�.�
,��o�ue�e���.ma�,�,
wmyls¢IY��d by LL� rox co veatmmt Plw.
� �m. ��m�im�:<�oa m�o�n��yoi.� � ��mr,a,
�wseo�i�c,m.n�.a�.�,rmeuMm:a�w.�aa aw��w.,wa��mo+�e isse.+i•"ni9� r ,�
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE
AND SPECIAL 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
Desiqn Review, Variance for front setback to an attached garage and Special P'ermit for an
attached garage for a first floor addition and remodel to a sinqle familv dwellinq at 2517 Easton
Drive, zoned R-1, Chiayun Alan Wanq and Lan-Fanq Nei Wanq, property owners. APN: 027-
195-070;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
December 14, 2009, 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 Class
1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an
increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is
hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review,
conditions set forth in
Variance and Special
said meeting.
Variance and Special Permit are approved subject to the
Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review,
Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of
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 14`h dav of December. 2009 by the
following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Variance and Special Permit.
2517 Easton Drive
Effective December 28, 2009
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped November 30, 2009, sheets A-1 through A-5;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning stafF);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or
garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an
amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the City ArborisYs October 22 and September 30, 2009 memo, the
Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's September 24, 2009
memos and the City Engineer's October 5, 2009 memo shall be met;
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 sifie work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shail 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
Councii on appeal;
7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and instalied 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 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;
9. 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;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Variance and Special Permit.
2517 Easton Drive
Effective December 28, 2009
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 documenti�ng framing
compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the
final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building pians.
a CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
� �;�'�� �;� � a ��
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD .� 5-
� � � BURLI,NGAMc, CA 94010 ��-� ��" * � � �
f�, : `'; . ... PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: (650) 698 �,7�9�� � ,�. �
Eq y � �
www.burlingame.org � : -
� � �
� 4F "`��-��.�,� s �
�„,��.__�.�.,�._�
Site: 2517 EASTON DRIVE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on MOtdDAY, DECENtBER 14,
2009 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chamhers, 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review far a first floor addition to
a single family dwelling, Variance for front setback to an
attached garage and Special Permit for an attached
garage at 2517 EASTOtd DRIVE zoned R-1.
APN 027-271-110
Mailed: Decemher 4, 2009
(Please refer to other side)
�i6r'n�0-^r32�
� �� 3 ���➢
,� L.�..�
r:':ait�� �rom 9-� ac�
Lba a'���9 r"�.�"a�
_ ;; -
=i =
'�
�
�d�� �o �U�lli7�
A copy of the application and plans for ihis project may b
the meeting at the Community Development Department'
Road, Burlingame, California. :-
If you challenge the subjecf application(s) in court, you rr
raising only those issues you .or someone else raised at 1
described in the;notice or in written correspo,ndence tleli�
prior to the public hearing. „
Property owners who receive this nofice are'responsible
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. TI
William Meeker
Community Developmeni Director �
reviewed prior to
� 501 Primrose
limited to
�lic hearing,
� the city at or
rming their
: � r= z, -` �- � ��
(Please refer to other side)
�,
�
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Variance and Specia/ Permit
Address: 2517 Easton Drive
Item No. 5a
Design Review Study
Meeting Date: October 13, 2009
Request: Design Review, Variance forfront setback to an attached garage and Special Permit foran attached
garage for a first floor addition and remodel.
Applicant: Dennis Liu APN: 027-195-070
Property Owners: Chiayun Alan Wang and Lan-Fang Nei Wang Zoning: R-1
Designer: MArch Design Existing Lot Area: 13,410 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Proposed Lot Area (w/lot line adjustment): 12,182 SF
Project Description: The properties at 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive consist of two legally subdivided lots. The
properties were recently purchased by the current property owners listed above. Previously, both properties
were used by one family, which contained the main house and an accessory structure at 2517 Easton Drive and
a detached three-car garage w/storage room and cottage at 2509 Easton Drive. The new owners would now like
to renovate and add onto the existing house at 2517 Easton Drive and adjust the lot line between the two
properties.
An application for a lot line adjustment is concurrently being reviewed with this application (refer to Item 5b).
The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to adjust the square footage for both parcels for development purposes.
The applicant notes that in the future he would like to proposed development of a new house at 2509 Easton
Drive and that the lot line adjustment would provide more equal-sized lots. The lot line adjustment includes
shifting the rear portion of the side lot line between 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive 12 feet to the west, which would
create a jog approximately half way down the lot, reducing the lot size at 2517 Easton Drive (from 13,410 SF to
12,182 SF) and increasing the lot size at 2509 Easton Drive (from 8,847 SF to 10,075 SF) (difference of 1,228
SF). Lots along this side of Easton Drive (from Vancouver to Alvarado Avenue) are required to be at Ieast 7,000
SF in area, must have an average width of 50'-0" and a minimum street frontage of 55'-0". The proposed lot
configurations comply with fhe minimum required lot size and average lot width. The street frontage for the
property at 2509 Easton Drive is existing nonconforming (50'-0" existing where 55'-0" is required). However,
because there is no change proposed to the street frontage widths on either lot, a Variance for street frontage is
not required. An existing 195 SF accessory structure (Japanese tea house) previously located at the rear of the
lot at 2517 Easton Drive has been removed as part of the lot line adjustment. The proposed lot line adjustment
does not cause any exceptions to the code for the property at 2509 or 2517 Easton Drive.
The property at 2517 Eastan Drive contains an existing two-story house and has a total floor area of 3047 �F
(0.23 FAR) (5391 SF, 0.40 FAR maximum allowed based on the existing 13,410 SF lot size). The existing
house has four bedrooms (the family room qualifies as a bedroom for parking purposes). The existing lower
level contains a nonconforming second kitchen which wili be removed as part or the projeci, i he proper"ty at
2509 Easton Drive contains an existing three-car garage and storage room (720 SF), which in the past has been
used for parking by the residents at 2517 Easton Drive, and an 860 SF cottage.
With this application, the applicant is proposing to convert the existing living room and kitchen on the lower level
of the house at 2517 Easton Drive to an attached one-car garage. The San Mateo CountyAssessor's Appraisal
Report indicates that in 1950 this part of the house originally contained an attached garaae and that it �as
converted to a service room; at that time the three-car garage was constructed at 2509 Easton Drive.
Cor.verting livir.g srace to an attached gara�e re�uires app!ications for Design Revie��, Srecial Permit an�
Variance for front setback to a garage (21'-3" proposed where 25'-0" is required for a single-car garage). The
project also includes enlarging the existing main kitchen on the first floor by 60 SF.
As previously noted, the existing detached three-car garage used by previous residents of this house is located
on the adjacent !ot at 25Q9 Easton Drive. Therefore, the site at 251? Easton Drive is nonconforming in parking
because no parking is provided on-site. The proposed attached garage would provide one covered parking
,
Design Review, Variance and Specia! Permit 2517 Easton Drive
•�
space (10'-3" x 20'-0" clear interior dimensions) for the existing four-bedroom house and one uncovered parking
space (9' x 20') would be provided in the driveway. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are
required for a four-bedroom house and the proposed project would complywith the on-site parking requirement.
A new curb cut will need to be installed to provide access to the attached garage.
With the proposed renovation and addition on the first floor, there will be a slight decrease in floor area from
3,047 SF (0.23 FAR) (based on existing 13,410 SF lot size) to 2,994 SF (0.25 FAR) (based on proposed 12,182
SF lot size) where 4,999 SF (0.41 FAR) (based on proposed 12,182 SF lot size) is the maximum allowed
(proposed floor area includes exemptions for lower floor and porches). The proposed project is 2005 SF below
the maximum allowed FAR). The applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Design Review for conversion of living space to an attached garage in a single family dwelling (CS
25.57.010, a, 4);
■ Variance for front setback to an attached garage (21'-3" proposed where 25'-0" is required for a single-
car garage) (CS 25.28.072, b, 2, A); and
■ Special Permit for conversion of living space to an attached garage in a single family dwelling (CS
25.28.035, a).
2517 Easton Drive
Lot Area: 13,410 SF (existing)
12,182 SF ro osed with lot line ad'ustment Plans date stam ed: Se tember 14, 2009
i
EXISTING ' PROPOSED � ALLOWED/REQUIRED
i
SETBACKS !
Front (1st flr): ' 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-4" (block average)
(2nd flr) i 16'-0"' ; no change 20'-0"
(GarageJ: !, "- n/a 21'-�`' z 25'-Q'' to.sing1e car garage '
Side (left): � 3'-3" 3 15'-0" to addition 6'-0"
(righf): ; 5'-0" 3 ; no change � 6'-0"
Rear (1st flr): 178'-4" no change � 15'-0"
(2nd flr): i 180'-2" ! no change 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: ; 1976 SF 2036 SF 4873 SF
' 14.7% 16.5% ' 40%
(basP�1 on existing (hage�i nn r��nr�nga�i \!„�a�g�l nn �rnrn,ncgrl
13,410 SF lot size) ; 12,182 SF lot size) 12,182 SF lot size)
;
; , ;
------._...----.._..---.__.____......._._.._..----.._..._.�-------------�--------------------._.._..--�--------------------------- --
FAR: � 3047 SF 2994 SF 4999 SF 4
0.23 FAR 0.25 FAR 0.41 FAR
(based on existing (based on existing (based on proposed
� 13,410 SF lot size) i 12,182 SF lot size) 12,182 SF lot size)
� ;
� txisting noncontorming tront setbacK to second tioor (� t��-u�� existing wnere Lu'-u" is requtred).
2 Variance for front setback to an attach�d gar�ge �21'-3" aroposed �!here 25'-0" �s re��ired for a single-c�r
garage).
3 Existing nonconforming side setbacks (3'-3" and 5'-0" existing where 6'-0" is required).
4 (0.32 x�2,181 SF} + 1100 SF = 4999 Sr (0.4'i rAR)
Ta�le continued or, t,",e next page.
6��
Design Review, Variance and Special Permit
2597 Easton Drive
Lot Area: 13,410 SF (existing)
2517 Easton Drive
12,182 SF ro osed with lot line ad'ustment Plans date stam ed: Se tember 14, 2009
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
# ofbedrooms: ; 4 no change ---
-------------------...__.._...------�----...----------._..... _..._._ ..............__._.;....._....__......._...._.._....------- —�--------.__..-------------._...__...-----------
Parking: � 0 covered 5 1 covered 1 covered
0 uncovered (10' x 20') (10' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
_..._.._...---....----- ----..__._.._---- -- -�-- ----------..__..._..----:.__.._...._.__........------------ -�----------------...----------------
Height: 22'-0" 12'-6" 30'-0"
----------------------- ' ---.._..--,---...---...------...._—.._..------------------�-----------...-----._�...--------------
DH Envelope:rt n/a ' n/a — single story addn ' CS 25.28.075
5 Existing nonconforming on-site parking (no parking spaces provide on-site where two parking spaces are
required, one of which must be covered).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, City
Arborist and NPDES Coordinator.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Dennis Liu, applicant
MArch Design, designer
Attachmenfs:
Application to the Planning Commission
Variance and Special Permit Forms
Arborist Report for 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive, completed by Kielty Arborist Services, dafed May 19, 2009
Sfaff Comments
Photographs of Neighboring Houses
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed October 2, 2009
aerial Photo
-3-
�_ ,-
,�;�d�,: -
�.,� '--
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ° 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ° BURLWGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 e f: 650.696.3790 � www.burlingame.org
�`E���������9� �� �6�� ����f���V ����������
Type of applicaiion:
❑ Design Review �1 Variance ❑ Parcel #:�_�.� —�� �
❑ Conditional Use Permit � Special Permit ❑ Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: � S �
_ �7` � 1
� ���G��`�t, �- �
� Please indicate the contact person for this project
APPLICANT project confact person ❑
OK to send elecironic copies of documenfs ❑
Name: �{� � a'�j �' _l� I �
Address: %� � �� ��t'''��— Cs� •
City/State/Zip: � � �"�`f� � �� ��� f �
a
� � f�"
Phone: � � � ��� � �
Fax: 7�%,� �'� � �-' � � � �
E-maiL �����i 5' �f s'�- �,fa �s �i �' /
�=,e .S'�C `"
U
�RCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person ❑
OK to send elecfronic copies of documents ❑
Name: � �1r G� IJeS �'�dt
Address: � °�� � ��G"S
PROPERTY OWiVER project contact person ❑
OK io send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: , L� r��. l�'�. `��"iYa`t V 4.�'���
,� v �
�
.�
Address: � � I / � �°b�1 , �
City/State/Zip: ��e%�' f��� ��� � i �'`� �
Phone: �.'} � �� �.,� % �
Fax:
E-mail: � �C?�� � �� 7 � "G�'G ��'�,'L�
� f
G+re.� � � ( �d . � !
City/State/Zip: �v�r'h^-n % ��D[�-
Phone
.� _. .
�'��i ��2- %� � % ..
Fax: � �5�� ��� J' Z�Z 2
E-mail
r
� �uui ili iu2ii71� �l.'�SI^�SS � IC�nco �f.
PROJE�T DESCRIPTION:
� �
� ; r�r,.
_ ����
f.FFA[3f�i/iTiSiGti%�TURE: I hereuy cerfify under penalt�perjury that the infcrmation given herein is true and correct to the
best cf my knowledge and belief
� �� _ �:I� ��r
Applicant's signature: cv��f' `t"'' `'" ��� Date: //L���/ °�i
I am aware of the proposed application and heC�hy authorize the above appficanf to submi't this application fo the Planning
Commission. ��,,,.�� f�v^�_'�-, ���`�` °s' � 7 �ff � � (�
?s'
�- r P �-/' �✓
� a /' f. eU . � tc �'�ia �'`?�^a.n (JLi �'?'�'fl�fig; -( l 7
�rf5�3@fiif vi+vr�i S Siyi'ia�i.ii 8: ��ix�.ni�>��yi F-vc- =� v f�
� n n— o f
/� ,�� C3ate submitted: �� � ��'% �
�• _ � � r
� Verification that the project architecfiJdesigner has a va{id Burlingame business license will be required by the
Finance Department at the time application fees are paid.
❑ Flease mark one box above with an X fo indicaie the contact person for this project. S:\Handouts\PC Application 2o08-B.handout
..CITY,�-O
�� 1 �..�;"� �'.
'';?,d[+• , i���:._
o���^
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ° 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
C
VA
E
�N
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 neatiy 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.
See attached responses.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substaniial property right and whaf unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the application.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed locafion will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
ger.er�l w:e!f�re or �or,�ren6ence.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aestheiics, mass, bu/k and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
�i�ir�lt;�?
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
.:C� _ %F
Citv of Burlinqame
Variance Application
�,� i' :. _ ����;
�;! .' C.'i= L''iR._ I;`C-.4�f;;=
^�� a,''?��1'�...,, ���_o-
The following are the response to questions for the Variance Application.
1. The exceptional or extraordinary circumstance is that this existing house does
have a garage. It is believed that there had been a detached garage years
ago. The garage was converted by one of the previous owners into a living
area. The interior room size is about 20 feet x 10 feet, which is justified for a
car parking space.
Special consideration shall be given for restoring the original detached garage
without having to meet current setback requirements.
2. The request is beneficial to the current property owner, the neighbors, and the
City for the following reasons. First, one less car on the street. Second, the
property owner does not have to demolish existing non-conforming use and
build a new garage. For environmental reasons, there is less construction
and more preservation. Lastly, it will meet the current zoning on parking
requirements for residential house.
3. Besides the benefits listed above, the non-conforming 2"d dwelling unit can be
eliminated. This is beneficial to the public health, safety and general welfare
for the neighborhood.
4. This variance request shall not be just considered as an addition or remodel
for a new garage. Instead, the request is to "restore" a garage which was
unfortunately remodeled into a living room. The restoration of the garage will
help this house to gain its original design, as well as become compatible with
the adjoining houses (where ihere are garag�s).
City of Burlingame • Community Development Department � 501 Primrose Road � P(650) 558-7250 � F(650) 696-3790 � www.burlinaame.orq
� CITY
'�� �•�'' � � : �
�`` � i � 1 • ' ♦ • • � � -
?. � I�I��rt f� �
ac
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for yaur request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
1, Explain why fhe blend ofmass, sca/e and dominantstructural characterisiics of the
new construction or addition are consistent with the existing strucfure's design and
wiih the existing street and neighborhood,
See attached responses.
2, Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exteriorfinish materials and elevations
of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with fhe existing structure,
sfreet and neighborhood.
3. How will the proposed proiect be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopfed by the city (C.S, 25.57)?
4, Explain how the removal of any trees /ocafed within the footprint of any new
strucfure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation
requirements. Vi/hat mific�ation is �nroposecl for the removal of an�r trees? Explain
why this mitigation is appropriate.
Rev. 07.2008 � See over for explanation of above questions. SPECIAL.PERMIT.APP.FORM
_ - , ��
< <. .�. a ..�
City of Burlingame
Special Permit Application
;i-'� _ '. L'�i�i:^
,..._ ,f.� ;�,, ,._
,.�.
. �,. _, �. _, ... ..
The following are the response to the questions for the Special Permit Application.
1. This project consists of an addition of 58 s.f. and a garage conversion. The
58 s.f. addition is almost an infill with extension of the existing roof. The
garage conversion does not increase any additional area. Therefore, this
project is very much consistent with the existing house style and design as
well as with the existing street and neighborhood.
2. All the existing roof lines, farade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of
the house are preserved. The small addition will utilize existing roof line with
extension.
3. Currently, this house has no garage. It is believed that there was a garage
years ago. One of the previous owners converted it into a living room, and
turned the side portion of the house into a separate living unit. To be
consistent with the residential design guidelines, and as part of this project
scope, the non-conforming living room will be turned back to a garage.
4. This properly is covered with many mature and protected trees. Virtually all
these trees are located in the rear yard. All the protected mature trees are to
remain except one unhealthy oak which lean hazardously to the neighbor's
property. This project also proposes to remove a small palm tree and a small
eucalyptus at the front yard. This palm tree is too close to the building. Such
location is neither suitable for the tree to grow or beneficial for the structure.
Kielty Arborist Services
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
P.O. Box 6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650-525-1464
May 19, 2009
Mr. Dennis Liu
10377 Amista.d Court
Cupertino, CA 95014
Site: 2507 Easton Drive, Burlingame, CA
Dear Mr. Liu,
. �.e.._- - � �7
..� �� 1i _ ? (? li5
� �i Yit_t i��! i-: ^ �`7`Vi
=1;Y Qr �
�Lp;`iJ;`�.I.� �:3 E�: �';.
As requested on Tuesday, May 19, 2009, I visited the above site for the purpose of
inspecting and commenting on the trees. A new home is planned for this site and as
required by the City of Burlingame a survey of the trees and a tree protection plan will be
included.
Method:
The significant trees on this site were located on a map provided by you. Each tree was
given an identification number. This number was inscribed on a metal foil tag and nailed
to the trees at eye level. The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above
ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). Each tree was assigned a conditian
rating from 1 to 100 for form and vitality using the following scale:
1 - 29 Very Poor
30 - 49 Poor
50 - 69 Fair
%u - 89 Good
90 - 100 Excellent
The height of each tree was estimated and the spread was paced off. Lastly, a comments
section is provided.
2507 Easton, Burlingame/5/19/09 (2)
Survey:
Tree# Species DBH Con HT/SP Comments
1 Magnolia 17.9 60 30/30 In 4foot wide planting strip vigor
(Magnolia grandzflora) fair, hei�t reduced for utilities.
2 Magnolia 3.7 60 10/5 Vigor fair, water stressed.
(Magnolia grandiflora)
3 Magnolia 2.9 65 15110 Vigor fair, water
(Magnolia grandiflora) stressed.
4 Coast live oak 13.9 60 25/20 In planting strip,
(Quercus agrifolia) decline in canopy.
5 Dracaena Pa1m 15.1 30 35/15 More than 50% of
(Cordyline austrailis) trunk decayed. Hazard.
6 Red flowering 15.3 45 30/25 In cutout of wall
Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus ficifolia) suppressed by #7.
7 Coast live oak 22.3/ 45 45/65 Decay at several locations, poor
(Quercus agrifolia) 26.8/30 crotch formations, possible hazard.
8 Coast live oak 21.3 50 50/40 Trunk leans south,
(Quercus agrifolia) codominant at 20 feet.
9 Coast live oak 22.1 50 50/40 Trunk leans west at 4 feet.
(Quercus agrifolia)
10 Coast live oak 15.9 45 40/50 Trunk bends west over neighbors.
(Querc�,s ao ifolia) Cable connecting it to #1 l.
11 Black Acacia 26.3 55 65/45 Top in decline.
(Acacia mel'anoxylon)
12 Coast live oak 16.4 55 40/40 Trunk bends south west over
(Quercus agrifolia) neighbors.
13 Coast live oak 36est 45 40/40 Trunk forks over neighbors, large
(Quercus agrifolia) Ieader
14 Coast live oak 36.1 60 45/50 Codominant leans south
(Quercus agrifolia)
�
2507 Easton, Burlingame/5/19/09
15 Douglas fir 27.6 60
(Pseudotsuga menziesii)
16 Black Acacia 28.7 50
(Acacia melanoa.ylon)
17 Coast live oak 13.8 50
(Quercus agrifolia)
18 Hedge maple 12.2 60
(Acer campestre)
19 Coast live oak 28est 65
(Quercus agrifolia)
20 Coast Iive oak 40est 55
(Quercus agrifolia)
21 �oast live oak 24est 45
(Quercus agrifolia)
22 Coast live oak 19.6 40
(Quercus agrifolia)
23 Canary Island date 26est 60
palm (Phoenix canariensis)
24 Hedge maple 18.2 SS
(Acer ca.rnpestre)
25 Coast live oak 14.2 0
(Quercus agrifolia)
26 Privet 8.7/4.9 35
(Lingustrum vulgara)
27 Coast live oak 30est 55
(Quercus agrifolia)
28 Coast live oak 22.9 60
(�uercus agrifolia)
(3)
110/40 Topped in past codominant from
that point.
55/45 Codominant at 30 feet
heavy lateral limbs.
35/35 Suppressed, leans south.
45/35 Good vigor, codominant at 15ft
55/60 On creek bank, south corner.
50/70 On creek bank, decay at several
locations, supported by 3" steel
prop.
20/60 Tnuik is horizontal to the south west,
in creek bank.
45/50 Leans against existing building.
Care should be taken when
removing building.
15/20 4 feet of standing trunk.
45/30 Decline in canopy water stressed.
25/35 Dead.
30/25 Foliage thin, tall for DBH,
water stressed.
40/35 Multi at 4 ft. heavy to west.
50/45 lfoot from existing building, t�2�.nk
bends south; good vigor.
2507 �aston, Burlingame/5/19/09 (4)
29 Stone pine 15est 65 40/40 Limbs touch garage.
(Pinus pinea)
Summary:
The trees on site are a mix of native oaks and various imported trees. The new home will
require the removal of several of the oaks. The oaks to be removed are in poor to fair
condition. Often oaks grown in a grove will have poor form, as the trees grow to the light
they become quite lop sided. The imported trees are a result of overplanting by the
previous owners. Removed trees will be replaced as required by the City of Burlingame.
Trees to remain with proper tree protection will continue to thrive on this site.
Tree Protection Plan:
Tree Protection Zones
Tree protection zones should be installed and maintained throughout the entire length of
the project. Fencing for tree protection should be 4' tall, Orange plastic material
supported by metal poles or stakes, pounded into the ground. The location for the
protective fencing should be as close to the dripline of desired trees as possible, still
allowing room for construction to safely continue. No equipment or materials shall be
stored or cleaned inside the protection zones. Areas outside protection fence, but still
beneath the tree's driplines, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched
with 4-6" of chipper chips covered with plywood. The spreading of chips will help to
reduce compaction and improve soil structure. The installation of the landscape buffer of
chips will be critical for the root zone of the oaks on this site. The chip buffer should
extend over the entire tree protections zone.
Demolition and Staging
Prior to the start of the demolition process, all tree protection measures must be in place.
An inspection prior to the start of the demolition is required. A pre-demolition meeting
with the site arborist will be required. All vehicles must remain on paved surfaces if
possible. E�sting pavement should remain and should be used for staging. If vehicles
are to stray from paved surfaces; 4 to 6 inches of chips shall be spread and plywc�od l�id
over the mulch layer. Tlus type of Iandscape buffer will help reduce compaction of
desired trees. Parking will not be allowed off the paved surfaces. The removal of
roundaiion materials, wnen inside ihe dripiines of proiecied aees, shouid be carried out
with care. Hand excavation may be required in areas of heavy rooting. Exposed or
damaged roots should be repaired and covered with native soil. Tree protection fencing
may need to be moved after the demolition. The site arborist should be notified and the
relocated fence should be inspected.
Root Cutting
Any roots to be cut shall be monitored and documented. Large roots (over 2" diameter) or
large masses of roots to be cut must be inspected by the site arborist. The site arborist, at
this time, may recommend irriga�ion or fertilization of the root zone. All roots needing to
be cut shoutd be cut clean with a saw or lopper. Roots to be left exposed for a period
2507 Easton, Burlingame/5/19/09 (5)
of time should be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist. The over dig for the
foundation should be reduced a much as possible when roots are encountered. The site
arborist will be on site for all excavation when within the dripline of the trees listed
above.
Trenching
Trenching far irrigation, drainage, electrical or any other reason shall be done by hand
when inside the dripline of a protected h-ee. Hand digging and the careful placement of
pipes below or besides protected roots will significantly reduce root loss, thus reducing
trauma to the tree. AIl trenches shall be backfilled with native materials and compacted
to near its original level, as soon as possible. Trenches to be left open for a period of
time (24 hours), will require the covering of all exposed roots with burlap and be kept
moist. The trenches will also need to be covered with ply wood to help protect the
exposed roots.
Irrigation
Normal irrigation shall be maintained on this site at all times. During the warm season,
April — November, I typically recommend some additional heavy irrigation, 2 times per
month. During the winter months, it may be necessary to irrigate 1 additional time per
month. Seasonal rainfall may reduce the need for additional irrigation. The oaks under
normal conditions should not require urigation. Imported trees need to be irrigated 2
times a month for the duration of the project. This type of imgation should be started
prior to any excavation. The irrigation will improve the vigor of the tree and the water
content of the tree. The on-site arborist may make adjusiments to the irrigation
recommendations as needed. The foliage of the trees many need cleaning if dust levels
are extreme. Removing dust from the foliage will help to reduce mite and insect
infestation.
The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound
arboricultural principles and practices.
i
Sincerely, ,� /
Kevin R. Kielty
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
S��IE I Y Of q
��',��N ��F�T� �9�na .
�
�'i0. �"�7� m
*
C�
J �
ED AR�O�
i.
�__
--i
NEW
RESIDENCL
ISUY eASNN DRNP,
6 V0.LI1.'OAMY.. CA
AI'N:031�195Lt0
W E C
�uvu�wnu�wu
enwuto, cnwwa
��TEL `�1�1NF6
FAl: (6f0�Ap1YJ11
��wu�n�
� ri m� �
NM1�
�F' 1�109'
�+
h�A
� ff011
TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY
C.0
mR
Project Comments
Date:
�C•�
From:
September 23, 2009
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7279
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Speciai Permit for an attached garage
and reducing the number of on-site parking spaces and Variance for
front setback to an attached garage for a first floor addition and
remodel at 2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-070.
Staff Review: September 28, 2009
Project Comments
Date:
To:
�:f "i:Ti ��
September 23, 2009
o City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
o City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
0 Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage
and reducing the number of on-site parking spaces and Variance for
front setback to an attached garage for a first floor addition and
remodei at 2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-070.
Staff Review: September 28, 2009
No additional comments. Please note, reduction of scope — fire sprinklers are no
longer required.
Reviewed by: Date: �.,-�
Project Comments
Date
To:
From:
September 23, 2009
r� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage
and reducing the number of on-site parking spaces and Variance for
front setback to an attached garage for a first floor addition and
remodel at 2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-070.
Staff Review: September 28, 2009
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.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 10/05/2009
�
Project Comments
Date
To:
From
September 23, 2009
0 City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
50) 558-7260
City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650J 558-7271
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
o City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage
and reducing the number of on-site parking spaces and Variance for
front setback to an attached garage for a first floor addition and
remodel at 2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-070.
Staff Review: September 28, 2009
1. No protected trees are to be removed with out permit from Park
Division (558-7330)
2. Tree Protection Plan needs to be installed and maintained throughout
gntira r�rn�g�t fnr rrntPrtP�l �i�erl trPP� ne�r ancJ �r�und immediate work
site as per Arborist Report.
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
September 23, 2009
Q City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
o City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7279
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
X NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage
and reducing the number of on-site parking spaces and Variance for
front setback to an attached garage for a first floor addition and
remodel at 2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-070.
Staff Review: September 28, 2009
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shali comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction
activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best
Management Practices during construction.
Please include a list of construction stormwater pollution prevention best
management practices (BMPs), as project notes, when submitting plans for a
building permit. Piease see attached brochure for guidance. The attached brochure
may also be downloaded directly from flowstobay.org. It is recommended that
,_....i:,.., nn t„-. I.,.. rl aY, r��o fu�ll S�Z@ �.".�a!l SI'1PP'F `7' x.'�'� fnC
Gt�i ��u u�uvi i grvi�'S uc N�a��u O� �� �"N��
readability.
For additional assistance, contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, at (650)
342-3727.
Reviewed by: �� �,, ���,_,
I �
Date: �� � �� � 2�U�
�
o�;; �� Storm�vater Pollution Preven�ion Progra�
,,;;<,,
.,.�. �;: SW�m,m�� . �
' �"�c'• zPollurionPm'wtianPmg�w
'?Fsf o
�:�__
P�� PollU�tion Prevention — It's I'art of the Plan
�%�'_ �� It is yr�ur responsibility to do the job right! __
, . ,; _.
'" ,y RunofffromstreetsaudoUiecpavedazeasisamajorsourceofpollutioniulocalcreeks,SauFrauciscoBayandthePacificOcean.
LL`=�ii^,�, „ Construction ar,tiviries can directly affect Uie healih of our waters�unless contractors and crews plan aheadto keep dirt, debris, and otlier
��''�S_,�'_a �:. ��`� construcrion waste away from stoim drains and�creelc:c. Following these guidelines will ensure your compliance with local stomiwater
General �'"�-`' • ordinance requerements. Remember, ongoing mo�titoring and maiutenance of installed controls is crucial to proper unplementation
Construction
& Site Su�ervision
ls.n�rwmoe a...a,�u ronwm
�e�m �sa.e;o� �n mu�e .n;.�ao ra� M
��:e�a� �� a�. �.� ���m,�,w� ��o��
�,i�wm e� a����a.�.«,:h;,�;m�;��.
��,w� :F�.�„� o�.we„�m.�,.>oo. �e
�.a.m.a�;.�,�;�°��: °�
�'xkamema�vd w�rym�R�i�aes �
Gsinoevle wm�leery wnminM un fm mro
v��•� o.mdnwlJnwi.wELe�m�etlilocv-
.n..0 . Cr•a cqarof p��� nf
JDr;' xmin prry�..�Rucrtlw Jr.ln w w�m� Jnix.
�edd�.o n�� feeu.Uxd�yolcawm�Nuib'
e „�,.rH.���
�av�mi n�w.�:�m,.��
t Ie.+Wri�h � dump � aw dn mo4� [o nm �1M1 �V�
u� yluvl�� xLMuy m.wm w�mn ipe o��.nue ufnie
a�•�qia.Aelue"c mn6�ewmmmEM�oprt�rn�
I b.Nerer�Is.ewindmn0•�ey
LorlvB IirEo`ry m� pie mvwuloe �i�e.
�ta..r. �w. eomei. �omu m.,o,mmo.n m .�n
.,,auve o,e� sr a..i..,en�mpmr.m �w�.e,�.,
. n�w,ry. axmu.�owwanrror
�•.a.la r h Ywue�n ve�e
n��o'om,oi.n� ����ec
piebmbimv� wieAilrei
noaa��e4mtilmess.4.nenv+.md n
�Wom onu w.na.m eemcmav eeen. pmpm�y�.
wwim���v1
� wJup+�eJul.� �
�� ,a �. ,�R., ono � �t a..�., ,.e.
I-Teavq Earth-Moving Roadwork & Paving Fresh Concrete Painting & Application Landscaping,
Equipment .?.ctivities &. Mortaz Application of Salvenis & Adhesives Gazdening,
Operation �- .-� _ andPoolMaintenance
.�i `M� ". r~-
�e.� _ � �'� � ,6 ��� '�'
�" �
o �-^ l . . _ .:
— =_� �_�;;�.�N�Na,�.;�.x�,.�,P�..«, � — ,�, '� QECA
..�w���<w�,as,�;�s..w.�ma�.m�R �, ,�,�,e �
��,�o,�w��,� �bt���wo��� ;����am,�,�,��,�,.�,.,�.,�m —.
K�;.���o,�,.�.�,�,�,oap. ,�K.�..�,�,.,��,v..,;,�,R���H�p
, . ,�rmae.�.�,.��.�..�,.,�.a���� , ��.°„,em°��m���o.,s�. � ��.�,�.�.w,.�aj,�,�w���s�;�,H �.;,aM��.����,�����,��..,,,a��
p�+�xmtlyrc.wtlre.W.lem.mk+.ese Taxnmuom^*�'•�yu��oara...o��ao�owla f�U^e��eticw•mwmntmA.i.e.nromune. ba. Y�.d.rand e�im�.ri.eMd..mver.poiuuL3tiv nm�dau�.aKK�mWmuvEeGNatlot�iadrvtlmu �.bblv�orosihmwJoum�miaueMyluucaheeiw6
mEryw�maL6amMM � I m� Nlry(noue�ymvlwlsmm.�.�v
erty�mnulv ,�iwemvtvemumn'nwuw�i�re�mel)'olmnM S Mhoeaw�e�dYaWmdwc�ecaY 'aed 6Pm� p'^` 0).6� ' sio�c ud.J�.fetillm�.mtlahaeLuv4WFJx.�u�
u`eNesslob���Am¢or<Imnequlpmemor JSmue6oN��a.nrn�vllumeyue�oµv.Besuvmksp �b�an�Eumn�emh�e�
�eWe�aoaww�o��Ipvt���y�Jwl�Fuamrwi�ne an�<mlat�ll�� w°^'''' �I�FaLLmervwH, v e��.a�orm auNnectmbwuna�iwav�lum ummua lSrLNWc[�saouuw Poi�fmmlwn�¢
uae o4laum.i •ouertrc.Etoten emDilt ne �rtet e�a rtmm Enu. m�humnW
oY.tielmmex.y'.9dGuev.W+P'��6v. t. oe�io�m�iwn� �dbY�vmM�11e dWwvee.ssnw�.w ,� .,ww�u�<ae��ei��rv..Re
4� xf� n9 Ie�. wdilctamNrenrueortuo-vateuare. lhile vqqa h� ebv� E P�'+� •er. YTM�9d4whae�hemt�MLLOaalemfunvuwm adO��xYvet Wiu.w�wJUW.
� i+w.�d<a�d ��""•'odvd�d.ay. . Pse[Gvom<oo� m.Ce�mnma<LWenmh�uM���l�� rouT1��RNwmWevwM'.•w¢wc�elwM<wuxtl Jrtam ama embW<u��im6.YEaio,t.�..SYerm�iry
wwxeiv �.e �e o-siWPOesaM¢¢avatM�allniiM1ucurtM1mTsar mtrmm�muNemNryveo(waf6�o�n�ivw NrrtPmrWi�Ju�m�Jmle. eeaenm�auonH. o�aY�u
hoYrveaie ,t+arves4.uc IuwMaminn. W..ttmt.w�m,tlnins1A�in�eed�khe.ornn�m. mme alM'avea.elln� oferniwea000lf
a�oemdmuv�iloNl<n�Iau.wl�Mimeu� � n �u�a�i�nm.�'�u..nw..�rt..�u. A"�°c�bvevovon ��v� m� e •
s.iain. . JI���.�mIRW�n.�nha��una<¢nrmuoiihevvi.iw�n YO avY���rzuve11�A1mmwtlmNmu�00va�f,.—•. Ja.b�
v le.er ��,m ssein my. 4mude.mm�Jv�ssdmNou��.ss�a P��+�Mafe�m.�ve
Aupottaliiu�Ee.s6vaMw.u�e J Aava�'eew�lulurz�afem�rnmEudimmlmowls ����`���wuluv��u��drwesw0w�.�Cn1. lSmupao�on�e�mJlmkmoouRuo�Aa.Yot�Me .
m.u�oJmwn�a�am�imWwva.ma. ro. _.mm.�...ean�.nY. la�udrcp*'atm'd'uw.•iod�nv.� q iN. .m�n�.��Ev��6omnw-em ei ive m.m�o�.i�o��n.M1 4�� N" ofwW
p * lCe.er.�� amdoiLnemvun�Hww�erv�4.iG m�a� �dued61w�v6mnYM1e..ry�upermll,�inp�+�ne wsm�v�ee� m! � Ui K
p�.F�u+OawnlufWl�nJynrea�waQM�W !\Ybeotlaow[i4Nadriv<w.�YafldnM:eooNumm. lNoptloWavtlNrymWo(utrvh. � J �p Mw.xWpntivlONntm+Wmnxa�e
� o i �..a.a,a.o-.�... ism�n�������� �d.a..<�k�, u�cow�aoanwa ���soee�,.
ao.wse. caina� s� .� cm amr,.��>wm.,..��a�a.m;.,...ra;.e
�eor��;7w:�Ko�,m�n„nru�m.mnr�� Jmiow.,r,..�yvy.m„w��°�..ti�ooi���� m�.�>�.w�ani�. �.��vvwu�es.�aae<�mema.b m� '°°s„��wr��.r�e �..ma�a
�cw.nuoou I� om���.mc•en'�.ww@;m ,..xMa,.aw�+�oo .e�rmnuw�e un.,wa....4�. �m �nu Nt,•cwpv��ssu.�,mmm m�•u
�Ne.vlweJoxu"�Wry�pi mlmp�m�pia JN3m¢NAioymMarcNCWeQurymw�win�a.aumis�� � B•).���evp.ud..ee..�ao�. p�y nuagyegnews•hwaain ✓Oom� eyvJm in nv�InuwmuweuonM1
vemrn�h.M'deoweme�b ��uv wiotlin.�m Ix2m�uiv4wNm�low��WIdWC���ortwiON"eL� �a��lave�WO�+mP�mF �
�r�.Ni,Ku��A.�,�.�iM,o�vo.�s). u�m,wwm.� �me.�m��wre�,m�w., r a r wuaru�� �.�uw:a� { .�,.,�..um<e� m,w � e.,�eww�aN ra �Nmmc� e.e�e. �,.n..�.,i� �
c�rw�m����,ie.u<'ryv pimm � �"�s�.��'�m�P°p �e�x�mrwaoeomaw,iaomouooawanop�m .rca.�e.wu�mmwu.o,.'xn.twm��o�..ua.,,,a �muma.o,iir++�.wa,.�nGm� '
m�d"nm.""^ lo�oa�vaNuelailulubweo.�Iw�aqWnA<n � I.�`aWanr.appllaJonqm�evuclzhr�WRwo�ml. malfumioqmomrmmmm�bfinei�mcla� mxv�.o oribmfiodwt�Ywmwllm�moper I
�a»�om���...�u.�.irM1rv..�Ra. �uaer mu��a�emiw�n.,�.�w�m.rxwo.� ���.x�,w �""° "` m<.,°aa. • .rweo�c��,,.�.e��,�.�.mmu�.��.
w., m �u, g n� � �
m ! . �n�sa�..,a�.�.on�m..uo�wem�m�w. �ci� M ,,.�.-.h.nm ����e:����
� .� n r r � �si�i.wmkre�c�aa�rtaa Poovea�, �n,.vaa�a,na
u.wuNe... w,e.N�ewimow� om�v.+l��.�rormoaminn�o ���a�°o;..�t. rem irku win� _c,_u R�eFvve.eao�m�ns
mO�rsCnoaolAw.a: �m�bh,�p,l�w tm�.epo.�a�e
.wqa¢+o¢ omtlwm�lr me<vem�iM1 am�nNwn .M^�b�Mi�e¢owmurc�i��e.t<.�..xrcmo..+�� Jaerydetveaedud, areeakev�wrniea�.lmtllll. Hec�x�lear .wwJr...
o.nm2of.venmunNw y y J}Adesurcp�yenpawma�Eae�uoimmeloummrl5
ao�... �Q wFmem a Ix re4..5
. . �dq.e�www.aa�.....vawss�e..i J� x�r oro...�.an'm�r�.w�� wu..�uer�� �W� ���Fw�ww°. ��amy�.n���ieh'x.�Em,�a.eib'oeb�m
��.�cdr�� n8w.rwemyian pe.a�+w��a�tvw� om=no�w�mea«n�oa..in�..o-.w..m�
�.e.ex�N'.vmve.w�'w�eNU mnNrt . W,,.eb.ne.,a nao evh �v.ai�imY4Toav ewa.edvm�4e mtlumvt �.,I�aem �
ul ��naro moem<�aavwv�W..wcwmw !x. wyw,��.uu.xw.�.w<m.ei.�. ' u�ele�omal4baeavalvtUu0�olv+watlpN4 ✓Gilorvi.�NvaYmeY�eioJlrrbvBNa�hessvinry
4dliAelolbmu¢aa9�+¢11U,-0 Jow w�lo.l wveeVMNrtUxJry
.]�Go awnVu�i4M�. � �ndidne� 0 aMmiu��nn� ' bulrrn�rs�.uurKnlxuin
yw.iael �me�Y�m�+• . (v.n�+weaM�M nribJM
cm...(�)snassouamwsl.rs � ' . u uoo "'"°�°s•d°"'m y °' mw a�Vw=
Cnmyi'mv'vnmmmWHalNnrv'u'mm.eNbopnaFue� .
ms.aW�na wn� ei.w�w•t ea G��u�l Jvn'.�4m
Storm drai� p��lluters may be liable for fines of up to $25,000 per da,y! 'n'°°�, e;�°`��`m�'��`p^°����°�^� ��'m�°�°`� b�� °�°�°°^�°°�°°
•Yl"e..Ruk.,mm...oae.nwy'a�u �r- vlemhr.moweMu..meotr<�mmivlmi.
WWry.
0
o CITY OF BURLINGAME
l - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �:�'�''F'a'�"��°�m',�
�' BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �-�-�.��-��_ �'�'
� q" ', s �';�;°� �;-� �
PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: (650) �i9Ei��3�`��� �
- www.burlingame.org �m="���� '=£
q-^- tx =b
�4a's— ��A � j ��� �
Site: 2509 & 2517 EASTON DRIVE `���
The City of Burlingame Planning Commissian annaunces the following pu6lic
hearing on TUESDAY, October i3, 2009 at 7:00 P,M. in the City Holl
Cauncil Cham6ers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
2517 EASTON DRIVE
Application for �esign Review, Varionce for frant setbuck to nn attached
garoge, and Speciol Permit for on atfoched garnge for a first floor nddifion
ond remodel, zoned R-1. APN 027-195-070
2509 & 2517 EASTON DRIVE
Applicntion for lof Line Adjustment far Lots 22 ond 23, Block 57, Mop af
Eastan Addifian No. 6 Su6divizion, PM 09-03, zoned R-1.
APNs 027-195-060 � 027-195-070
Mailed: October 2, 2009
(Please refer to other.srde)
A copy of the application
the meeting at the Comrr
Road, Burlingame, Galifo
C�151�i6504325
� �_� o�� �
?ilHiici7 =iC� 1 ;�-�r� i�
�� :��7 �,���
����0� �������
������
reviewed prior to
� 501 Primrose
Ifi you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may
raisina only those issues you or someone else raised at the
described in the notice or in;writfen correspondence deliver�
prior to the public hearing. �
Property owners who receiVe this notice are responsibie for
tenants about this notice.
For additional inforrnation,. pJ.ease call.(650) 558-7250. Thar
William Meeker
,
Communiiy Developr�ent Director `
(Piease refer to other side)
limited to
�lic hearing,
� the city at or
rming their
_ � _� ; � -