The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2721 Easton Drive - Staff Report11.14.16 pc meeti ng Agenda Item 9a 2721 Easton Drive City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 November 11, 2016 Dear Planning Commission, ��L�.� ie �� NOV � � 2016 CITY OF BURLtNGAME CDD-PL�NNlNG DIV. CU.�l:ll U�l%'1 C� T[1�.�' IlL�CL-1 {'LU AFTER PREPARATI(�N OF STAFF REPORT Mark and Sandy Moore 2723 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: 650-343-2552 We live next door to 2721 Easton Drive, and appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns about the proposed demolition of the existing home and construction of a new one. As you know from our prior letter (attached), we are saddened at the prospect of the destruction of this historic home. We also respect the desire of Mr. and Mrs. Tikhman to build a modern home, and understand that renovating the existing home might not be practical. This revised plan, however, seems little chan�ed from the one submitted in June. We appreciate the fact that the plan no longer proposes landscaping on our driveway. We also appreciate the attempt to modify the Spanish-style architecture to a more "bungalow" style. Other concerns, however, remain. Chief among them is the attached double �ara�e which takes up such a large part of the fa�ade of the house. This is not in keeping with the other houses in the neighborhood, especially those on the south side of Easton Drive. If you start at our house and walk east, you will go two blocks and nine houses until there is another house with a double garage abetting the street. We recognize that there are likely "attached garages" in a technical senses in this stretch, but in none is the garage so prominent a feature of the look of the house. This departure from the "Easton style" is especially prominent in the immediate vicinity of 2721 Easton. The two car attached garage is a radical departure from our "twin" house to its west, and the three houses to its east, and looks strikingly out of place on the street. As such, we respectfully encourage The Commission to not approve the variance for an attached garage. Our second concern is the bulk of this house and its covera�e of the lot. We understand that the proposed house has the required setbacks and coverage ratios, but it is significantly larger than the current house. It is much closer to our property and extends well beyond the current back deck, and well beyond the other houses on the street. One of the charms of these creek-abetting properties is the extended gardens that slope nicely down the hill. The current clear view of gardens stretching east along the creek will now be obstructed by this house. Again, this is not in keeping with the style and traditions of these historic homes on Easton Drive. If the original beautiful house can't be renovated, we ask that it be replaced bv a house in keeain� with the other houses on the street, and the spirit of historic Burlingame. As proposed, both the front and back of the house seem a radical departure from the neighborhood's distinct characteristics. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Mark and Sandy Moore �(paainbaa uanuaiuiva ay� si „p-,� aaaynn pasodoad �{�eq�as apis „p-, �) paainbaa si a6eae6 pay�e�ap ay} ao� a�ueiaen �{�eq�ag apig e ao� uoi}e�i�dde ue `}o� ay} �o aeaa ay} 6uo�e �{aaa� uo�se3 0� anp �o� ay} uo paenn..io� �ay}an� pa�e�o� si a6eae6 pay�e}ap ay� asne�aq `aanannoH •pa}euivai�a senn a6eae6 pay�e��e ue ao� �ivaaad �ei�adg ay� `uoisinaa siy� y�iM �a6eae6 pay�e�ap 6ui�sixa ay� uey� ��eq aay}�n� „p-, � � I(�a}ewixoadde pa�e�o� si �� ( �� y �aays `ue�d a�ig pasinaa aas) �(}�adoad ay� �o apis }}a� ay} 6uo�e a6eae6 �e�-onn� pay�e�ap e apn��ui nnou o� ��afoad ay} pasina� �ue�i�dde ayl ��afoad ay� o� apew sa6uey� �o �si� pa�ie�ap e ao� aa��a� s,�ue�i�dde ay� o� aa�aa asea�d �suoi�sa66ns pue s}uawuao� s,uoissiwuao� 6uiuue�d ay� o� asuodsaa ui 'L �OZ `L 6 tienue� paduae�s a�ep sue�d pasinaa pue `� �pZ 'g� iGenu�� pa�ep asuodsaa ua��iann e pa��ivaqns �ue�i�dde ayl �sa6eae6 pay�e}}e }�eduai-nno� ao� uoi��aaip sapinoad saui�apin� u6isad ay} �o ZZ a��d �paaano� aq o� sa�eds ay� ao� �(�uo si �uawaainbaa ay} pue 'snon6i�uo� aq o� paau �ou op sa�eds ayl �pay�e�ap auo pue pay�e��e auo ao 'sa6eae6 ae� a�6uis onn� aapisuo� p�no� ��{�o�q ay� �o uaa�}ed ay} �ou si a6eae6 pay�e�}e �uoa� ayl �s��afoad aay�o se ��ann se `asnoy ay� �o �uoa� ay� uo �ou senn �ey� a6eae6 pay�e��e ae�-onn� e y�inn aaddad uo asnoy e senn aaayl �y�inn �{aonn o} uaooa y�inn �o� 6iq e si �� •�o� ay� �o }uoa� a�oynn ay� saano� �i - ui }i� �ou saop �uoa� ay� �e a6eae6 ay� �nq '�ey} spaenno� spou u6isap ayl �aa��eaey� pue aaua6 auaes ay� ��e a�e �{�o�q siy� uo sasnoy ay� pue 'uaa��ed ay� s�as �{�o�q ayl ��e�id�(} �ou aa� }ey} suoi�ipuo� /Geuipaoea}xa pue anbiun sey a�is ayl �pay�e}ap ao pay�e�}e aay�aynn 'a6eae6 ay� �o uoi�e�o� �uaaa}�ip e ao� a�ueiaen ao �ivaaad �ei�ads e ao} uoi}e�i�i�snf aq p�no� aaay� sa6ua��ey� ay� uani� ��uoa� ui �no �y6ia 6uiaq a6eae6 ae�-onn� ay� y�inn anssi ue ��i�s si aaay� �nq awospuey si aan��a}iy�ae ayl �pooyaoqy6iau ay� y�inn aziuouaaey aa}}aq o� y�eoadde �ean}�a�iy�ae ay� ui a6uey� ay� sa�ei�a�ddy •��eq paysnd a6e�e6 ae� onn� ao a6eae6 ae�-a�6uis e aq p�nonn asivaoaduao� e aq�(eW �pa6e�no�ua aae sa6eae6 �{�eq�as '�as}}o `pa6eano�sip aae �uoa� ay� ui sa6eae6 pay��e ae�-onn� �uauivaoad �sa6eae6 pay�e}ap a6eano�ua saui�apin6 u6isap ay} aanannoy 'sa��(}s �i��a��a auaos sey pooy�oqy6iaN •nno�aq pa�si� aae a6eae6 ay� o� spae6aa y�inn 6ui�aaw ay� �e passaadxa suaa�uo� s,uoissivawo� ayl �(pay�e��e sa�nuiW uoissivauao� 6uiuueld 960Z `�� aaquaanoN) a6�ae6 pay�e�ap e asodad ao ��eq a6eae6 pay�e��e ay� ysnd o� uoi��aaip aiay� aapisuo� aay}�n� �ue�i�dde ay� �ey� pa�sanbaa uoissiwwo� ay� `(sa�nuiva 6ui�aaua pay�e��e aas 'g�OZ `LZ aun� uo p�ay senn 6ui�aaua �(pn�s nnainaa u6isap }sai�) g�0z `�,� aaquaanoN uo 6ui�aaua �(pn�s nnainaa u6isap puo�as s,uoissivauao� 6uiuue�d ay� �y :Bui;aaw uoissivawo� 6uiuue�d 9�OZ `�6 �aqwanoN �uoi�duaaxa siy� aapun pa}�anuo� ao pa��na�suo� aq�(eua sa�uapisa� �(�iu�e�-a�6uis aaay� o� dn 'seaae paziueqan u� �nnainaa �e�uauauoainua uaoa� �duaaxa si auoz �ei�uapisaa e ui �iun 6ui��annp puo�as e ao a�uapisaa �(�ivae� a�Buis auo 6uipn��ui saan}�na�s ao sai}i�i�e� ��ews `nnau �o aaquanu pa�iwi� e�o uoi��na�suo� �ey� sa�e�s y�iynn `(e) £0£5 � uoi��ag aad `(y��) ��y �(�i�en� �e�uauauo�inu� eivao�i�e� ay� o� }uensand nnainaa uaoa� �duaax3 ��e�uo6a�e� si ��afoad ayl :sn�e;g nnainab �e;uawuoainu3 �-�{ :fuiuoZ �S Z6S`6 ��aay;o� 06 �-S6 �-LZO �Ndt/ �ei�uapisa� /(�isuap nno� :ueld I�aaua� �l ueu.iy�{il �(�o�euy :s�aunnp �S}aadoad s��a�iu�ay ��l `a6uea� �tpue� :;�a;iy�ad pue;ue�i�ddd •a6ea�6 pay�e�ap pue 6ui��annp /(�ivae� a�6uis �Go�s ��ey-auo pue onn� `nnau e ao� a6eae6 pay�e�ap e ao� a�ueiaen ��eq�ag apig pue 'ado�anua }y6iay 6uiui��ap ao� �i�uaad �ei�adg `nnaina� u6isaa ao� uoi�e�i�ddy :;sanbab L�OZ `£Z ti�nue� :a�ea 6ui�aaw wa�� uoi;�y q8 'oN wa�l aniaa uo�se� �ZLZ :ssaappd a�ueuen pue `�iw�ad �e��ads `Maina�/ u6�saQ aua��ui�ans �o /C�i� Design Review, Special Permit, and Variance 2721 Easton Drive Furthermore, the previously proposed terrace along the left side of the house has been eliminated and replaced with a small covered porch, landing, and stairs; a new terrace is now proposed at the rear of the house (see revised Site Plan, Proposed First Floor Plan, and Landscape Plan. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing two-story house and detached garage to build a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage. The lower level is defined as a lower level half-story, and not a third floor, since it does not exceed finro-thirds of the area above it. The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 4,563 SF (0.47 FAR) where 4,569 SF (0.47 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 6 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The new single family dwelling will contain seven bedrooms (the guest room and library on the first floor and office on the lower level qualify as bedrooms). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required and provided on site. One uncovered space is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have also been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Design Review for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010); Special Permit for declining height envelope (85 SF, 3'-4" x 25'-6" along the left side of the house extends beyond the declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.075 (a)); and Side Setback Variance required for a detached garage located forward of the rear 40% of the lot (1'-0" proposed where 7'-0" is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (c) (1). As noted above, the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for declining height envelope along the left side of the house. The point of departure for the declining height envelope is based on the 15-foot front and rear setback lines because the difference between these two points is not more than 2'-0") (Code Section 25.26.075 (b) (4)). Due to the downward slope towards the rear of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height envelope along the left side of the house is approximately 10'-6" below the finished floor of the house. As a result, the left side of the house extends 85 SF (3'-4" x 25'-6") beyond the declining height envelope. 2721 Easton Drive Lot Area: 9,592 SF Plans date stam ed: Janua 17, 2017 Previous Proposal Revised Proposal ' ALLOWED/REQUIRED (11/2/16 plans) (1/17/17 plans) SETBACKS ................ :..................... ..................... ..................... ................ . ..............:.......... ................................... Fronf (1st flr): 24'-0" 24'-0" 23'-11" (block average) (2nd flr): 31'-4" 29'-10" 23'-11" (block average) (attached garage): 30'-0" n/a 25'-0" (two single doors) : ....................................................................................................................................;............................................................................................................................................... Side (left): 7'-0" to house and terrace 14'-0" to house/ 7'-0" 10'-6" to landing (right): 7'-0" 7'-0" 7,_�„ _...... :......... Rear (Lower flr): 42'-0" 46'-4" 15'-0" (1st flr): 42'-0" 46'-4" 15'-0" (2nd flr): 50'-8" 55'-1" 20'-0" Table continued on next page. 2 £ �eiaa�ia� nnainaa u6isap ani� s,�(�i� ay� }o s�uauaaainbaa ay� y�inn a�qi�edu�o� aq o� puno� aq �(eua ��afoad ay} a�o�aaay� 'sai}aadoad �ua�efpe uo sa�n��na�s ay� y�inn a�e}aa�ui ay� s��adsaa aan��na�s ay� �ey� os pa�e�d aae aan��na�s pasodoad ay� �o s�uawa�a �ean��a�iy�ae pue snnopuinn ay� �ey} pue pooyaoqy6iau ay� �o aa��eaeu� ay} y}inn a�qi�ed�.uo� si y�aod �uoa� a6ae� e pue `U.lIJ} p00M I��IM SMOpUIM poonn pe�� uanuivan�e `6uipis poonn �e�uoziaoy `s�y6iay a�e�d �euoi�aodoad `6ui�ooa a�6uiys uoi�isoduao� `s�ooa diy 6uian�ea�) uoi}ippe ay� �o ��nq pue sseua `a��(�s �ean}�a�iy�ae ay} }eyl :nnainaa u6isaa ao� s6uipui� pa;sa66ng �s�uauoduao� �ean��n��s �o ��nq pue sseua o} uoi�odoad s�i pue 6uide�spue� �5 pue `sai}aadoad �ua�efpe uo saan��na�s ay� y�inn aan��na�s pasodad ay� �o a�e}�a�u� �{, `aan��n��s �o �{�nq pue sseua pue a��(�s �ean��a�iy�ay �£ `pooyaoqy6iau ay} ui suaa��ed a6eae6 pue 6ui�aed ay� ao� ��adsa�{ �z °pooyaoqy6iau ay� �o aa��eaey� 6ugsixa ay� �o �ey� y�inn a��(�s �ean��a�iy�ae ay� �o �t�i�iqi}edwo� :snno��o� se paui��no aae g66 �`OZ I!ady uo �i�uno� ay� �(q pa�dope �g� ��oN a�ueuipap ui paysi�qe�sa se nnainaa u6isap ao� eiaa�u� ayl :eiaa�ia� nnainaa u6isaa �suoisinia aa�ennuaao�g pue 6uiaaaui6u3 `aai� `s�aed `6uip�ing ay� uaoa� sowaua pay�e��e aag ��{ueq �o do} ay� puo�(aq pasodoad s�uauaanoaduai ou aae aaayl ��(�adoad ay��o aeaa ay� 6uo�e suna �{aaa� uo�se� �ey} a�ou p�nonn}}e}s 6uiuue�d :s�uauauao� }}e;s �(ado�anua �y6iay 6uiui��ap ay� puo�(aq spua�xa asnoy ay� �o apis }}a� ay� 6uo�e „g-,gZ x„�,-,£ `�g 58) ado�anua �y6iay 6uiui��ap ao� �iwaad �ei�adS £ �(ado�anua }y6iay 6uiui��ap ay} puo�(aq spua}xa asnoy ay} �o apis }}a� ay� 6uol� „�-,SZ X,�9-,Z `�S £'£9) ado�anua �y6iay 6uiui��ap ao� }ivaaad �ei�adg pasodoad �(�snoinaad Z �?�b'� Lb'0) �S 695t� _�S 00� +�S 006 �+ i�S Z6S6 X Z£'0) � £ apis Z apis 5L0'9Z'SZ S� �}a� 6uo�e �i�.uaad �ei�adg }}a� 6uo�e �i�.uaad �ei�adg :ado�anu3 HO :............... ,�0-,0£ „8-,SZ „� �-,bZ ��4b�aH �6u�p��n8 ,. ��OZ X �6) i3OZ X �6) ��OZ X �6) paaano�un � paaano�un � pa�ano�un � (�oiaa�ui aeal� �OZ X OZ) (aoua}ui aeal� ,OZ X�OZ) iaoiaa�ui aeal� �OZ X,OZ) :6u��.red paaano� z paaano� Z paaano� Z ;aaa;S-�O e .............;.. --- L g :swooaPa9�o # _ .......... ..................... _ . ...... ............ ......... ........................ . ... ...... _....................................................... ?�b'� Lt�'0 2�t1� Lb'0 2�b�� £t�'0 � �S 695� �S £9S� �S 680� �Zlb'� %0� %6'0£ � %8'Z£ �S L£8£ �S 996Z �S 6b�E :a�eaano�;o� (sueld L6/L�/4) (sueld 96/Z/66) a3211f1D321/a3M011`d ��sodoad pasinaa �esodoad snoinaad L�OZ'L� �nue� :pa uae;s a;ep sueld �S Z6S`6 ��aad�o� an�aQ uo;se3 �ZLZ anuQ uo�se3 dZLZ a�uei�e� pue `�ivaaad �ei�ads `Maina� u6►sao Design Review, Special Permit, and Variance 2721 Easton Drive Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for declining height envelope, 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 for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Special Permit Findings (Declining Height Envelope): That because of the abrupt downward slope caused by an existing creek running along the rear of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height envelope along the left side of the house is 10.5 feet below the finished floor of the house which causes the declining height envelope to extend into the house at a lower elevation, that the encroachment is consistent with the design, and that the second floor wall which extends into the declining height envelope is broken up by articulated walls at various setbacks and windows distributed along the wall, the project may be found to be compatible with the special permit criteria. 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 and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings (Side Setback to Detached Garage): That the existing Easton Creek, which runs along the rear of the lot with the top of bank extending approximately 14 to 45 feet in from the rear property line is an extraordinary condition that limits the placement of structures on the property; that granting the Variance is necessary to provide the required off-street parking in a detached garage, which is consistent with the parking pattern in the neighborhood; that granting the Variance will not be detrimental to property in the vicinity nor the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience since it is located in approximately the same area on the lot as the existing detached garage and will comply with Building and Fire Code requirements; and that the detached garage will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity since it is designed to match the architecture of the house and is consistent with the parking pattern in the neighborhood, the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the required Variance criteria. 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: 4 Design Review, Special Permit, and Variance 2721 Easton Drive that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 17, 2017, sheets A1.1 through A4.1, L1.0, and L2.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the lower, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that to protect the long-term habitat of Easton Creek, the Applicant shall ensure that the creek is not obstructed and that protective fencing along the creek shall be installed prior to any construction activities on-site; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division's May 20, 2016 and April 7, 2016 memos, the Parks Division's June 16, 2016, May 27, 2016, and April 8, 2016 memos, the Engineering Division's May 20, 2016 and April 7, 2016 memos, the Fire Division's April 12, 2016 memo and the Stormwater Division's May 25, 2016 and April 11, 2016 memos shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall 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; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 5 Design Review, Special Permi% and Variance 2721 Easton Drive 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect Attachments: Response letter submitted by the applicant, dated January 16, 2017 November 14, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Response letter and attachments submitted by the applicant, dated November 8, 2016 June 27, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Letter submitted by Phil Koblis, dated November 9, 2016 Letter submitted by Mark and Sandy Moore, dated June 27, 2016 Email submitted by Phil Koblis, dated June 27, 2016 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Variance Application Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed January 23, 2017 Aerial Photo 0 January 16, 2017 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 2721 Easton Dr. Dear Commissioner, You previously reviewed this project in November. At that meeting, it became evident that the proposed attached garage would not be acceptable. We have revised the design to include a detached garage. Following is a listing of the revisions to the plans. We will be providing more detail at the meeting. Garage The attached garage has been replaced with a detached garage. As previously noted, one cannot construct a garage, of any kind, on this site without at least a special permit or a variance. Our garage requires a setback variance, but given the tiny encroachment needed, this is the best option for meeting the intent of the design guidelines while providing the most usable garage. Please see variance application for additional information. Porch The broad porch has been retained, but flipped to span across the other side of the house. This in turn, allows the house to pull forward on the site, reducing the length along the right side (in response to neighbor concern about house length). Side Terrace The left side terrace previously proposed has been removed. We have retained a side door and stairs so that one can park in the driveway and bring groceries etc... Rear Terrace A rear terrace has been added with the flow from the family room going out the back and then down a set of stairs to the back yard. While a necessary change to accommodate the detached garage, this also addresses the left neighbor's concern. Floor Area The floor area in the main 2 levels of the house has been decreased, with additional square footage being moved underneath to the lower level where it does not contribute mass and bulk. In general, numerous other adjustments were made throughout the plans and elevations to accommodate the revised design; too many to list here. We look forward to the meeting. And the opportunity to present more detail and answer questions. Sinc y, Randy Grange, AIA 1014 Howard Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 • 650.579.5762 voice i 650.579.0115 fax � admin a;trgarcl�.com BURLINGAME CITY HALL ��La• City of Burlingame 501 PRIMROSEROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 rt = �" Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Monday, November 14, 2016 7:00 PM Council Chambers a. 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Anatoly Tikhman Tr, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 24, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: > Why does the attached garage have to be at the front? How about the back or side as shown in the design guidelines? (Grange: Looked at a hammer-head in the back, but it would pave the back yard. There is no other way to have an attached garage unless it is in the fronf.) > Could the a(tached garage be pushed further back on the site? (Grange: Would work betfer with a one-car garage, otherwise there is a lot of pavement going back. The house would end up being a split leve/ since there is no way to drop down far enough to get it to the next /ower level. The garage would then take up a significant portion of the back of the house.) > Why did the owner buy a house with a detached garage if they wanted a house with an attached garage? (Grange: Does not know.) > How will the revisions fo the terrace on the side of the house be handled? (Grange: May move the bedroom and bathroom accordingly.) The revisions have the potential to have a bit less impact, particularly if the dimensions are reduced to where it is just providing access. As it is now, there is room for tables and activities thaf could become more intrusive on the neighbors than what was shown before. Public comments: Nicole Koblis, 2711 Easton Drive (house to the leff): Main concern is the garage. Prefers a detached garage - all of the garages on the block are detached, with driveways providing room between houses. It there has to be an attached garage would prefer it be pushed back, particularly in relation to the neighboring house since when they come out of their house they would face a large garage. Sandy Moore, 2723 Easton Drive (house to the right): Appreciates the change to the architectural sty/e so it /ooks more like the traditional old houses on the block. Main prob/em is fhe garage in the front - changes the character of the six houses in the row. The detached garages on the other houses are functional and the driveways provide space and privacy between houses. Does not understand why ihere could not be a garage where the one-car garage of the existing house is currently located; it was CityoiBurlingame Page 1 Printed on 1/18/2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 14, 2016 not shown as an option in the presentation. Likes the existing house and would like to keep as much of the character as possrble with the neighborhood. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: > Empathizes with the issues and concerns raised. Neighborhood has some eclectic sfy/es, however the design guidelines encourage detached garages. Prominent two-car attached garages in the front are discouraged; offset, setback garages are encouraged. Maybe a compromise would be a single -car garage or two car garage pushed back. > The standard location for a detached garage in the rear yard is difficult for this site. > Appreciates the change in the architectural approach to better harmonize with fhe neighborhood . The architecture is handsome but there is still an issue with the two-car garage being right out in front. > Given the challenges there could be justification for a specia/ permit or variance for a differenf location of the garage, whether attached or detached. The site has unique and extraordinary conditions that are not typical. > Lots with slopes require more work to come up with a solution. > The block sets the pattern, and the houses on this block are al/ the same genre and character. The design nods towards that, but the garage at front does not fit in - it covers the whole front of the lot. It is a big lot with room to work with. > There was a house on Pepper with a two-car attached garage that was not on the front of the house, as well as other projects. > The front attached garage is not the pattern of the block. > There are grounds for the Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope because of the sloping lot. Almost any second floor no matter how stepped back will intrude on the Declining Height Enve/ope. > House does not fit in, but fhe architecYs analysis of the challenges is compelling. Having the garage at a lower elevation at the rear could discourage its use. > Massing and presentation is like a suburban country club house. > Direction is to go back and look at it again. There is not support for the current design. > Could consider two single car garages, or one attached and one detached. The spaces do not need to be configuous, and the requirement is only for the spaces to be covered. > Page 22 of design guidelines provide direction for low-impact attached garages. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Gaul Absent: 2- Bandrapalli, and Sargent City of Burlingame Page 2 Piinted on 1/18/2017 November 8, 2016 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 2721 Easton Dr. Dear Commissioner, �■ C `a I V �� _ NOV - g 2016 C�TY OF BURLI`NGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. You previously reviewed the proposed residence for 2721 Easton Dr. as a study item. There were numerous comments about the project from both Planning Commissioners and adjacent neighbors, ranging from loss of the existing house on site (and its porch), to the proposed style, to the attached garage. Following is a brief outline of the changes made since then. We will be providing more detail at the meeting. Style The style of the proposal has been changed. Rather than the originally proposed Mediterranean, the new design is along bungalow lines. While not attempting to mimic the existing house on site, the new proposal does recall it with the use of the narrow horizontal siding and wide trim. The proposed design actually incorporates much more trim and detail, as compared to the existing house, which adds articulation and further breaks down the massing. Porch We have incorporated a broad new porch into the design, and agree that this is a much more welcoming and neighborly element. This porch is just under 200 SF, the new Burlingame front porch allocation. Addition of the porch and reconfiguration of the floor plan means that the garage is set back nearly twice as far from the front of the house as it was previously. Side Terrace * The left side neighbor (Koblis) expressed concern about the side terrace off of the family room being a large gathering space. The reason for this area is simply to provide access to the rear yard from the main level, without creating an unsightly raised deck off the back of the house. We have narrowed the terrace into a wide walkway, and provided a raised planter (guardrail height) along the side to add more privacy and provide a second layer of landscape screening. *Please note that we were not able to meet with the Koblis's until after these plans were submitted. To further respond to their concerns, we have included an attachment that illustrates a proposed terrace off the back of the famify room, and moves the main exterior doors to the rear of the house. A fireplace and small flanking fenestration replaces the large area of side facing glass. 1014 Ho��ard Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 f 650.579.5762 voice � 650.579.01 ] 5 fax F admin@trgarch.com Driveway Issues The wider curb cut previously proposed was a point of discussion at the last meeting, and with the neighbors. This revised proposal retains the existing curb cut, which in turn preserves all street trees, and provides additional on-site planting area to include new trees screening the view from the street. Also of note, when the City built the new crosswalk in front of this property, a street parking space was lost. The wider curb cut previously proposed would actually have taken away another space, so this plan preserves all street conditions as they currently exist. The right side neighbor's (Moore) driveway partially resides on this property. The plans have been revised to show these conditions to remain, as this was a primary concern of the Moore's. Garage There was discussion about the attached garage, which is central to the owners needs for the house. They want to actually park in the garage; with infants, groceries, etc..., hiking up the driveway from a detached unit, and then up a full flight of stairs to reach the door to the house does not work. These down sloping lots offer unique challenges in the parking department that more conventional lots do not. Additionally, the lots along this stretch of Easton are extra deep, which further impacts the direct application of all aspects of the design guidelines. This can be seen consistently throughout the other older homes, where for the most part, garages were built to work. On our specific site, there cannot be a garage option proposed that does not require either a special permit ar a variance. One cannot have a detached garage in the back 30% of the lot because that puts it over the top of the creek bank where construction is not allowed. Pulling it forward to the back 40% still requires a special permit, but is further back than the existing garage. A new garage in the same location as the existing would require a variance. Attached garages occur in the majority of homes in this general vicinity, but more importantly, the parking pattern is unique, site specific, and nonconforming due to the steeply down-sloping lots. We wilf provide a more detailed overview in our presentation, but summarize here. In reviewing the first 14 houses after the Hillsborough town line, on our side of the street, we found 9 attached garages, 1 attached carport, and 4 detached garages. This includes the widest variety of configurations that one can find in Burlingame; 1 attached in back, 1 detached in front, several attached but way in front of the house, 1 recently approved attached 2 car, and a couple that look unusable. By my estimation, 3 or more would require special permits, and as many as 9 would require variances by today's rules. Attached garages are allowed with setback and square footage implications (as noted, one was recently approved along this stretch), and in this case, provide actual parking that gets cars off the street and out of the driveway. We look forward to the meeting. And the opportunity to present more detail and answer questions. icrely �� _ - andy Grange, AIA ]014 Howard Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 r 650.579.5762 voice • 650.579.0115 fax s admirn'-,i�trgarcli.com �� TO RBMIN � �I�I � � � � �� ,��; � •i� , , � • ��1��j�� 0 _ !�� _ _..��; I� � ��ih. i�i °--- -- �Q� ;� 1�1. . � �� i� �� i►li � i � .� -- — ---- � ; �:-.�': � • „ ... _ . �%I I� ii •- • � I%I�C,;; ��I ==- •�- �" I�l `�, ' ,� .�. . iMl �� -- �.� a � � �i� � - �.� �� .�, . �� -- � �E�� „ .. .�� ,. �� 'I, �,, - � -- i111, � „.�.. I�rl I � -_ � iii :o �� .... . � , . I�! - '�yl , ' ' �' �!1 � � � -„ .�._ 6� - _ _ ��-� _ ; -� �� !1 � , � • � ;�� . ^_'� `\�I■J � II � �� 1� �:1/�� -w \� - �'�� - ,.: �,; �e� -� `(�,,yy;; � n �. `j . � � ��.�_�'� �' _ ] � .,z,, �i*a �1 '' �-'� -.� _„�,,. ,r ' �-��;�,,� �� .�. „ -,; 1~ ,� � °�j'' : r � � � � �. . � -- �� -- _ - � � , : � ,. ,. . , - - �� •�� _�. '�- f ,+.'a*�'• �� ` �^ �.�_. :;:,_�. ,..a_ �,-ia;,,-��, ,• � „,� -- - �`��;+�;a,��'�� =„ � _ _ - ��/!• � �►� � �. . , ' ' �' -' `l''a ti��r��'�ij� _ �:�.. v� �. OH15O • (216' BAY I �• � 0 � � � � Z .P N �� ,c LANDS OF MOORE �� I�asnr� MG DRIVEWAY � M iii � i i i — � --- -- 1� i i i �• i i i i i u. �- - i -- iDW � r----- `� FAMILY Wd �� 22-0 x Ib-I i 141 x 24-9 ° � I I � °. I " � ' x5-0 I I L : 13s01i11 � LP I I o I � f � � I � ; '" � �`L � � �: � � r , II-5 x 14-9 _ i I II � II I I �I II �,�. ea+c++ win� rioors -�eevE — ' i II � I II 6-0 x �-"I I I I II II I Au �r�rr � � EUILT-M � I I �� . �y� � I I 143 x I5-0 I � II I �BBA� O � � ii i n � 6 x II ----------- � —� f — ---� 7aIT9l � I I I I py� I I I I I --- _ i I I I yi,• I I I II I I I I 10 x i I I I I I i i 5w5 FIf�LAGE I I I I I I I � II � � Qi I I I p � II � � LMN6 RM � ------------------- --- 14-I x Ib-0 n I I I ' n I I I I I I I - -__ I � � ' - _ I I I I ��. . - _ I I S� I I 4 � g _`_ I I � I I � $ -' '-_ , I I 10-5 x l-0 I � - ---- — ----------- --------------- $ � _ w�' �so' � " 0 � �o��• a'-a• I � , � � i � PROPOSED F/RST FLOOR PLAN , _ s�a�: „�-- ��-� 1 �� C I TY �� ; �i ;<� �� r`i'1 '? R� �9O ..��VH�R4TFG �.�� City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 PM Council Chambers d. 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Anatoly Tikhman Tr, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones had a discussion with the neighbor at 2701 Easton. Chair Loftis had a discussion with the neighbor at 2711 Easton. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff.� > Asked who the author of the letter that was received? (Commissioner - Koblis) > With respect to the driveway on the right-hand side, it appears that the driveway crosses the property line - the neighbor has requested that the driveway be permitted to stay at its presenf location . Is there a prescriptive easement that exists? (Kane - hasn't reviewed the letter, but generally speaking that issue is between ihe private property owners. Would be handled through a legal process. Consider fhe application as it is before fhe Commission. Can encourage the neighbors to discuss the issue. Not something the Commission can weigh-in on.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Alex and Marcia Tikhman represented the applicant. Commission questions: > Is there a reason why the exisfing residence can't be renovated? (A. Tikhman - have considered. There is significant sloping in the floors. There is nothing that can be done without a significant renovatron. They wish to have an attached garage; there is no way to do so with the existing home. The architect could speak more directly to the issues.) > Is there a reason why the particular style was se/ected as opposed to something that is closer to the existing home. (M. Tikhman - there are other similar homes in the neighborhood. A. Tikhman - made a conscious decision to /ook at other designs.) How committed is the applicant to the proposed style? (M. Tikhman - could consider another sty/e, but the proposed style is represented in fhe neighborhood .) There is a pattern in the neighborhood with similar styles grouped together. Asked fhat the applicant consider the pattern that exists in the neighborhood. (A. Tikhman - really like the proposed style; is a preference.) Public comments: Nicole Koblis, neighbor to the left - excited to have a young family move into the area. Are concerned about the neighborhood character. Concerned about the entertainment patio on the left side of the property at the rear. Fee/s it is a bit awkward. Chair Loftis c/osed fhe public hearing. City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 10/14/201 B Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 27, 2016 Commission discussion: > Agrees with Commissione�s' comments regarding the neighborhood character and the compatibility of the design with the homes next to it. The front facing garage is not consistent with the neighborhood; where they do exist they are typically only one space wide. > The doub/e wide parking area in front is inconsistent with the neighborhood as well. > Has no problem with the proposed plate heights given the topography of the lot and the presence of larger homes in the area. > Primary concern is the compatibility of the sty/e with the neighborhood. The existing home is an architectura/ gem, the proposed home is less than that. There are other means of attaching the garage in a manner that can minimize the appearance of the garage from the front. > The existing home has a gracious porch that presents itse/f to the neighborhood; the proposed design has what appears fo be a simple stoop. Knows the architect has the ability to address these points. > Have an obligation to residents in the area to ensure that the new home reflects the charac%r of the neighborhood. > There is a real opportunity in this instance to develop a design that is of a similar caliber fo the existing home. Could benefit from the new FAR exemption for fronf porches. > Can't make the case for an attached garage; the majority of the houses have detached garages. > The plate heights could impact neighborhood compatibility, but are less of a concern in this instance. > Disappointed by the design thaf was presented by the project architect. > Feels it is the wrong p/ace for this design. Feels decidedly suburban. > Would hesitate to dictate a style, but more concerned about fit. This design doesn't fit. > Can't support the attached garage; there is a strong pattern of detached garages. > Has a problem with the gathering area to fhe side of the house, as opposed to the rear. A motion was made by Commissioner DeMartini, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when ready for action. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent Absent: 2- Bandrapalli, and Gaul City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 10H4/2018 11.14.16 PC Meeting Item # 9a 2721 Easton Drive Page 1 of 1 November 9, 2016 Dear Planning Commission, COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED NOV 10 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. My name is Phil Koblis. I live with my wife, Nicole, and three young children at 2711 Easton which is next door to the Tikhman's property. I've reviewed their latest revised plans. I appreciate the effort made to partially incorporate the Commission's recommended changes. However, I'm still saddened nothing could be done to save/remodel the existing craftsman style home. It's such an architectural treasure and really helps define our block of Easton Drive. Really sad to think it couldn't be saved. I do feel the revised plan fails to address two key design recommendations made by the Commission at the previous review meeting on June 27. I would like to see these two recommendations incorporated. 1) Maintaining a detached garage design - as referenced a couple times in the Meeting Minutes on June 27 and in particular "can't support an attached garage; there is a strong pattern of detached garages" 2) Problem with the side gathering area, as opposed to the rear— Each of the existing homes of the block have rear facing patios and/or decks. There is a beautiful greenbelt created by the creek at the rear that creates additional distance (40 ft to 50 ft) and privacy for the neighbors. A side-facing gathering area only 7 to 10 ft from our property would be intrusive to us and not befitting for the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Phil Koblis City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrase Road 6urlingame, California 94010 June 27, 2016 bear Planning Commission, Mark and Sandy Maore 2723 Easton Qrive Burlingame, California 94014 7'el: 650-343-2552 We are writing with comments and questions concerning the proposed demolitian af 2721 Easton Drive, and the construction af a new house on the property. We own the house next door at 2723 Eastan Drive, where we have lived for over ten years and are raising our three children. We look forward to welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Tikham to the neighborhood. �ur house was built in 1915 and 2721 Easton was built a few years later. We understand these two houses were built as summer cottages for city-dwellers to escape the fog. Residents would ride the new train service down the peninsula, jump the trolley up Hillside, and enjoy sunny Burlingame and the nearby waods from these simple but elegant homes. Craftsman in character and distinct in their shingled wood, wrap-around porches, and square structures, these two houses together very much represent "Historic Burlingame" (See attached photo). Our first comment, therefore, is that we are disappointed to see this bit of "Old Burlingame" torn down. These two hauses go together, and we would much prefer that the new owners remodel and refurbish the existing beautifu! and historic home on the property. When we remodeled our house in 2011, the Commission commended us for maintaining the sty{e �f the originai house, and "appreciated that the design warks with the existing structure's architecture" (Approved Minutes, April 25, 2011j. We entourage Mr. and Mrs. Tikhman to consider a similar approach, and hope the Commission wil! encaurage the same. If a teardown/rebuild is the only option, we hope that the new house will be in the same distintt and historic style as the existing house and of the other hauses on the south side of Easton Drive. For example, the fve houses on the street all have dri�eways down the east side of the property, including the current house on 2721. A short driveway to a garage at the front and middle of the property, as currently proposed, will look strange next to these histaric hauses. We alsa wonder the effect of this driveway on the spaci�g an the sidewalk and street in front of the house, and how this wider car egress, the new pedestrian crosswalk, and room for street parking will all flt. We are also concerned that the rear of the house extends much fanher back than other houses on the rew. Much of the charm of these old houses is in the back, and how they lead onto slopping gardens toward the creek. The new house as praposed will take up a much larger pvrtion of the property than its neighbors, and create an imposing presence over adjacent yards. We also question the iencing planned adjacent to aur property, particularly the "black steel fencing". We would like to consult with Mr. and Mrs. 7ikhman ahead of any construction of fences that directly separates aur properties. We are sure we can come to a mutually agreeable material and design. Importantly, we also want our neighbors and the Commission to be aware that the plan proposes building right over our driveway and our property in the northwest corner. We ask for a revision of design so that fencing and landscaping are on the other side �f our driveway, which we have been using openly and continuously for many years. A final request is that we �espectfully ask you to please delay the next hearing until after July 11. We are on a long-planned out af state family vacation that week, and would like the opportunity to express our questions and cancerns to the Cammission in person, es�ecially considering the plan as proposed will extend onto our property. We are good neighbors, lo�g-time Burlingame residents, and value what makes our neighborhood special. We were great friends of Mr, and Mrs. Daniel Barry, who lived at 2721 Eastan for nearly 60 years, a�d are genuinely excited for new neighbors to move next door. Thantc you for your consideration of our concerns and questions. 1 Regards, � L • �i �'w,� ��'�-- Mark and San Moors i - ' '� � -� _ � _ � . , ;,;. ti , � •��i�,r- r •`6A -� � �� . rf� f f! �J" 1, .� � �`, • ri � r � .��`r � aa' .�� •.� . ,��n � `� � w. ;.e`• � - � �y�^'�`a,- yf' ,�. ��" , � 4 : � x, g�}= k it,.: #�T '� � � �r._ I Tq :�L � . � _�� +'M .{� �� '�� ,�� . • ��} A� ��•' Y •.•�` ._ ::��.:��_ �. . , � ��, ,� F� «.k � * ��^�.� y � � H �� • �'��'��.. �- � R � t ' �T ��i ��. � �" _ �,� i �,.�.T, ,� � 1 +� vY � k� r � � r' r_- � ..� �. _ _ �."e}�� qx �`y �5Y°'��.��\ ,�i"� �. ' �� —.u�,. .� . _ ;:,� �._ �:.-:.,. _�r ; . . � �� '�,�._ _ ' ,;,' . .t ,` e• -§ �' f .•,�.= � � Y ��' 44� p�� -. � i�� . � y�.. � ,[r.... rr � �. w � k � t��'�,., �' � � ' "`'„ _ �+s�� i i�� .' . '� � # �� r r , �. b'��u . , . �y M ��+ .� �+� � r�',Y �� - ' r / • \+� � ��" ��rq' w ,1� �.. � r, =`" ,, � � t- - i+ �i�t� P � ^r �'s r ,_� �a % �i � `�'r�s�� Y-• `�,��•� C. �-rn �/f�. _ . `4 . �''� �, �/ fM� � � �.�-- '`� � �: � w.xr � _ .�' ��A ...i A, ��' . a ' 4'�•`�t I. + � �„'t"'/ �i� t y ii��rr . � . ..� 3. .• f �f , y�. % �;�'rT� r �'� ct;` ` �,� � ` * 1E� -�:: �1 w _:,� ' -; � � .t "�� , �^i� �, '� ��`�,. ��w �" �. . • '.,M. _7'.�, M"0'• �s �"�"' ��. � r'.. - � � �2��f � j';r �'°� v � �� '� ` � .�� ! � � �• . r , �. � � �� f �' _ ' .=...- �� r" II, � �� .� �- _ - � � -i J '�:�!' t' : � .w � � � i� sw{� n'�` r' - k �`�« . � } 4 � f �"� "�' i 41: � ±Y T � T . �� \ . ' l,: f Y S � � � _ � 7` .� � � • t1 L�`' � , � y !' f� ` ;' . ��.. � j 'F � ,� �tl :� S � � � 3�'i .- . �_ • . � • � • .ar �.- � � �'�': �'_ . � . . � ' • � _ . � 8 . � ` _ , r` '� � � � f �� . �}��;i�� , ' �+- , �� {�� ,��,� � �f�'� �� f F f ,� �•� ��9 1�:� � � �� N� , . � �� `�� , '.,' �� ;, � {�.. !�� ..f � �� r ' � �� t 1 t y �f i � t �: � i1 . !' ; �+ •.� . � („� �+ +�. � i � I ��; .��, � '"� til �„� w. � � � ,< � r .� "R'S!� , i.wl � �,� 4 �r e M i � i ! J � � � a �� , � \ 06.27.16 PC Meeting COMMUNICATI(�N RECEIVED Item # 9c AFTER PREPARATION" 2721 Easton Drive C�F STAFF REP�RT Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED JUN 27 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. From: Mendoza, Elizabeth T[mailto:etmendoza@comerica.com] On Behalf Of Koblis, Philip Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 3:13 PM To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin Cc: nicole koblis Subject: Planning Committee Comments My name is Phil Koblis and I live at 2711 Easton Drive with my wife, Nicole, and our three children Riley (6), Chase (3) and Harper (2). Our home is directly next door to 2721 Easton Drive on the left hand side when viewing from the street. I first wanted to welcome the Tikhman family to the neighborhood and Easton Drive, the same way we were welcomed by our neighbors when we moved here a little over 2 years ago. There is such a strong sense of community on our street and in Burlingame as a whole. We truly feel blessed to live here and I have no doubts they'll feel the same. I am traveling for work on Monday and unfortunately won't be able to attend the formal planning department meeting. I've had a chance to review the plans and I wanted to provide the following comments /questions /concerns for the planning committee members to consider. I anticipate my wife having additional comments. 1) Size and scope of project- after reviewing the plans it's fairly apparent the home was designed to maximize the allowable square footage of the home to the lot size. In addition, there are special permit requests to include an attached garage and for a declining variance exception. I reviewed the city's special permit requirements and the architect's explanation for exception. I have a few observations/concerns. A) The Spanish style and design of the home is not similar to the existing home or to the immediate set of neighbors (pictured in plans) on the south side/creek side of Easton. B) The mass of the home is not similar to the existing home or to the immediate set of neighbors or the creek side Easton homes in general. I've reviewed the home and property measurements for 10 homes on the creek side of Easton nearest to the proposed home from Montero to Easton Circle. 7 of 10 have detached single car garages, 8 of 10 are craftsman/non- Spanish style, and all but one have home square footage to lot ratio of less than 33%. 06.27.16 PC Meeting Item 2721 Easton ive Page 2 of 2 Ultimately, our thought s that instead of approving the special permits that al ws for the biggest possible home t be built that a slightly smaller home is built that co forms with current building code, t e neighboring homes, and neighborhood at large. 2) Landscaping - we ar happy to see several of the existing old growth rees in the backyard designed to stay. The rees offer beauty, shade, and privacy to both r properties. I would recommend those to e clearly marked prior to any demolition a construction on the property, if it's not al eady planned. Also, there is a large tree h dge on our property in the front that is adjacent to their property line. We'd also like to ake sure those are clearly marked and unharm d during the demolition and constr tion. Finally, there is a plan to add new privacy trees bet een our home and the propos new home. They're currently listed as evergreen trees. We a eciate the efforts to buil privacy between the two homes, and hope to have a discussion with the i ' he pe of tree/bushes they plant. Evergreen's grow quickly, but have a track record of roo an le issues, and will eventually block light into our deck and backyard. One currentl exists on the perty, and has required a lot of pruning on both sides to control growt . 3) Demolition and construction - as tated above, we have thr e young children. They enjoy playing in the front and back yards. It is extremely important f r us that all safety precautions available and necessary are taken y the Tikhman's general co tractor and subs to insure the construction zone is secure at all t'mes. The current plan is to demolish the detached garage which currently straddles our pro erty line and build a new f nce. I'd like to make sure there is a clear and detailed plan of how nd when that is done, and hat it is acceptable to our family. We'd also like to be informed o the plan post demolition. I nderstand the Tikhman's have a young family too, so I'm sure ey can appreciate our conc rn here. Thank you for your tim�iand consideration. Please be are that if you reply directly to this particular mess , your reply may not be secur . o not use email to send us communications that contain une pted confidential in rmation such as passwords, account numbers or Social Security numbe If you must rovide this type of information, please visit comerica.com to submit a secure rm using any of the "Contact Us" forms. In addition, you should not send via email any inquiry or equest that may be time sensitive. The information in this e-mail is confidential. It is intended r the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error, please destroy or delete the message and advise the sender of the error by return email. 06.27.16 PC Meeting Item # 9c 2721 Easton Drive Page 2 of 2 Ultimately, our thought is that instead of approving the special permits that allows for the biggest possible home to be built that a slightly smaller home is built that conforms with current building code, the neighboring homes, and neighborhood at large. 2) Landscaping - we are happy to see several of the existing old growth trees in the backyard designed to stay. The trees offer beauty, shade, and privacy to both our properties. I would recommend those to be clearly marked prior to any demolition and construction on the property, if it's not already planned. Also, there is a large tree hedge on our property in the front that is adjacent to their property line. We'd also like to make sure those are clearly marked and unharmed during the demolition and construction. Finally, there is a plan to add new privacy trees between our home and the proposed new home. They're currently listed as evergreen trees. We appreciate the efforts to build privacy between the two homes, and hope to have a discussion with the Tikhman's on the type of tree/bushes they plant. Evergreen's grow quickly, but have a track record of root and beetle issues, and will eventually block light into our deck and backyard. One currently exists on the property, and has required a lot of pruning on both sides to control growth. 3) Demolition and construction - as stated above, we have three young children. They enjoy playing in the front and back yards. It is extremely important for us that all safety precautions available and necessary are taken by the Tikhman's general contractor and subs to insure the construction zone is secure at all times. The current plan is to demolish the detached garage which currently straddles our property line and build a new fence. I'd like to make sure there is a clear and detailed plan of how and when that is done, and that it is acceptable to our family. We'd also like to be informed of the plan post demolition. I understand the Tikhman's have a young family too, so I'm sure they can appreciate our concern here. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please be aware that if you reply directly to this particular message, your reply may not be secure. Do not use email to send us communications that contain unencrypted confidential information such as passwords, account numbers or Social Security numbers. If you must provide this type of information, please visit comerica.com to submit a secure form using any of the "Contact Us" forms. In addition, you should not send via email any inquiry or request that may be time sensitive. The information in this e-mail is confidential. It is intended for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error, please destroy or delete the message and advise the sender of the error by return email. -� OVpLINGAME `''"�'=". _� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 q: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: �Design Review Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance Parcel #: O2� —��S — l �'t0 [� Special Permit g Other: � PROJECTADDRESS:� �-7Z / �/�ST'�:n/ �,�. �v��i.v �.qn'I� � � Please indicate the contact person for this project APPLtCANT , project contact person,� OK to send electronic copies of documents � Name� �� _'� , Address: � �� O1�`�✓�{ �� City/State/Zip: �� 1` �--� � �ZL� �� Phone: 6��-��' � I��- Fax: �`��- `S`� r � � � vt.�t �-V'G t� c:� in� E-mail: �- �'t-� G G�.v'G�n • G�� ARCHITECTIDESIGNER pro�ect contact person8 OK to send electronic copies of docu�ents Name: � Address: �� PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents� Name: �n'�J �Ly �TiKitri� !�•'� Address: Z � �� LAN �- City/State/Zip: yr �� 5 i3 ��`= �+ 4-�� ' �� Phone: � S� 75-`I -'i� i c; c� Fax: ��. --7/i •-7/ E �7 E-mail: f��v/�t��y�'T/fG��'�I�n/, c.c,� � y, cl�.� -F-�G---i-s Ciry/State/Zip: �- ✓� i�-'�a �� -� � � � � Phone: �� "` � �� b� Fax: ��- `�~`_]��' — � �( � E-maiL• ��ti""�i � , CC * Burlingame Business License #: � �� - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: � e, � ��v� °1��- _ �'�'-,,,,,,,^-1 Y v� i� e � AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certi under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ApplicanYs signature: Date: `� `3� �< <'' I am aware of the proposed appl' ation and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. % � �- Property owner's signature: `v' J. �"�'�`r�` Date: 3.�3 '�,�E= Date submitted: 3�3 I� I(9 * Verification that the project architecUdesigner has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. D Please mark one box abQve with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. S:�Handouts�PC Appiication 2008-B.handout �� .�1 br � �c.S i' r-� lec�►'e� a►. �I S�c �'o�. (�ev�,`�-S . � �,� olecl��,�P �a.� �.�i- envelo�e, aro� ��-ac�e�J Gra�- J � � U� -�i� r �t. r� e�r --�-w o A. h� o�n e-�A I-� �}o r s i,� ��►� � I I � � � w e � �� Ul G. � c� Gt�p� Gf�eCi �a rGt.�t� � � U bGsi r Rav�`P.uJ �OS �� Gt i d �b� . � i�G��V � G�•. c� �O�Y' � n GL �� W►Ol�/1 Y Z�O �Gt,Y►� ��e. !�; {� s bo�o� ti c� � 4a� � � Attachment B SPECIAL PERMIT FOR Declining Height 2721 Easton Note: There is an extreme downslope on the lot between the curb elevation and the bottom of the creek. The declining height ordinance was written for flat or nearly flat lots, and does not work in situations such as this. In fact, not allowing the special permit would force an extreme offset for the second floor and a lopsided house design; seemingly at odds with the design guidelines. The proposed design includes offsets for the second floor that far exceed what one typically sees on a typical lot. If the declining height were measured at the corners of the house rather than the corners of the lot (which is more logical), one will see that the design far exceeds the standard requirement; and that's what counts since this is all about interface with the neighboring house. The mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction are consistent with the existing street and neighborhood. There are a wide variety of houses on the street (in terms of style, mass, scale etc...) and the proposed house will fit in. In fact, there are other newer homes that appear to surely have needed relief from declining height. The site characteristics (down sloping lot) create a situation where the declining height ordinance no longer makes sense. 2. The rooflines, fa�ade, materials, and elevations of the proposed house and garage are consistent with, the neighborhood and street. The proposed materials and detailing form a rich combination, with stained wood siding, integral colored plaster, stained wood headers and rafter tails, and natural stone accents. The elevations all include a significant amount of articulation with wall offsets and varied roof forms. 3. 1. The architectural style is compatible with that of the existing house and character of the neighborhood. 2. The attached garage being proposed is consistent with the neighborhood. More than half of the houses on this side of the street have attached garages. 3. See items 1 and 2 above for comments about style, mass and bulk. 4. There will be minimal impact on neighboring properties as the 2"d story offsets are significant. 5. A full landscaping plan is being provided, which will be a significant improvement for the site. 4. No trees within the footprint are proposed for removal. REC�� "�� MAY 19 2016 C�TY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. CITY ��i�lll � �+`� i.ii� �o� 9rowwtc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org p � � � CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION .;�:��; �� 2017 � o � L!NGAME �'►��-�'�_&�:NING DfV. 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 fhe exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. S� e a-�'a.� �.e c� . 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 might result from ihe denial of the applicaiion. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in ihe general vicinify? Handouts\Variance Application.2008 a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area, Do any conditions exist on the site which make other alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood? b. Explain why the variance requestis necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of fhe application, W ould you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property? c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in ihe vicinify or io public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlighUshade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare? Public healfh includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public heaith (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safefv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a sociai benefit? Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the exisfing and poiential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. How does the proposed structure or use compare aestheticaily with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. Now does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation, etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How wili the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. W ill there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. Handouts\Variance Application.2008 �� January 13, 2017 J",�� 1 3 2017 Attachment A � `'�� '- �u��GAME LD�-PL,;�NlNG DfU VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR GARAGE SETBACK 2721 Easton Dr. a. There are exceptional physical conditions surrounding this downsloping creek side lot that the zoning code does not cover, and that make strict conformance to it impossible (for a detached garage). • Driveway patterns and a new school crosswalk dictate that the curb cut must remain on the same side as the existing. • The deep dimension of the lot means that adherence to either the rear 30% or 40% setbacks for a garage would place the garage much further back than necessary to meet the intent of the code. • Adherence to the rear 30% or 40% setbacks for a garage cannot be realistically achieved because one cannot build over the "top of creek" line. With either of these setbacks, at least a portion of the garage would need to be over the top of the creek. • Pushing the garage further towards the center of the lot such that it conforms to the 40% setback (special permit required) renders the garage unusable and not in compliance with the required backup space. b. The variance request is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. • The existing detached garage on site is already in violation of the required setback, but to a significantly greater degree; preservation of this condition is key to making the property work. • Nearly all of the neighboring properties with detached garages would also need the same setback variance for their existing garages. Denial of the application would create unnecessary hardship because the limited development options for the site would then force poor site planning and an undesirable result for no reason; the proposed layout creates ample setback from the street to the garage to meet the intent of the zoning code and Design Guidelines. In fact, the proposed setback exceeds many that meet the code for a standard lot, and would meet the code on a standard 50' x 120' lot. c. 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. There are no proposed changes that would impact public health, safety, or convenience. The proposed setback is greater than that of the existing garage and therefore improves the condition. d. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. The proposed garage setback is an improvement to the existing garage setback. Most neighbors have a similar condition and would need a similar application, so this proposal is compatible with the neighborhood. Project Comments Date: To: From: April 4, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: May 20, 2016 1) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit �vill not be issued until � Building Permit is issued for the project. �% �, � Revie�ved by: .GC.,( l,�L�� Date: Mav 20. 2016 J Rick Caro III, CBO 650-S�S-7270 �,�,.,�.n.�.-.,..�.�,.,..�,..,��,.--n. �.�.,�,..��.... . � � Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: April 4, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � Parks Division � City Attorney (650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Aprii 4, 2016 1) Specify on the plans that this project �vill comply �vith the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://��v.eneray.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/ for publications and details. 2) Provide two completed copies of the attached Illandator-y 1�Iecrsures �vith the submi�tal of your plans for BuildinQ Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on �vhich each Measure can be found. 3) t�lyone tivho is doinQ business in the City must have a current City of Burlin�ame business license. � 4) This project will be considered a Ne�v Buildin� because, accordinQ to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, "�vhen additions, alterations or repairs �vithin any twelve- month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an eYistina buildin� or stnicture, as determined by the buildin� official, such buildinj or strticture sh�ll be made in its entirety to conform �vith the requirements for ne�v buildings or structures." This buildin� must comply w-ith the 2013 California Buildina Code for new stnictures. BVIC 18.07.020 Note: Any revisions to the plans approved by the Building Division must be submitted to, and approved bY, the Buildina Division p��ioj� to the ir��ple»ientatiofi of crny lvor-k not specificc�lly� shotii�n orz the plcrns. Sianificant delays can occtir if chan�es inade in the field, �vithout City approval, necessitate fitrther revie�� by City depai-tments or tlle Plannina Commission. Inspections cannot be scheduled and �vill not be performed for ��•ork that is not shown on the Approved plans. �) Due to the ettensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy� will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued aftei• the project has been final. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a ne�v Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. NOTE: A condition of this project approval is that the Demolition Permit �vill not be issued �nd, �nd no worl: can begin (including the removal of anv building components), until a Building Permit has been issued for the project. The property osrner is responsible for assuring th�t no worl{ is authorized or performed. 6) `Vhen you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit �vill not be issued until � Builcling Pei•mit is issued for the project. 7) On the plans show that all openings in exterior ��alls, both protected and unprotected, �vill comply with 2013 CBC, Table 70�.8. Provide a table or chart that specifies 1) the openings allo�ved and; 2) the size and percentage of the openings proposed. 8) Provide section details that show the finished headroom heiQht for each room in the basement. Per the 2013 CRC the minimum ceiling height in a basement is 7'0". Portions of the basement that do not include habitable space, hall�vays, bathrooms, toilet rooms and latmdry rooms shall have a ceilinQ height of not less than 6"8". NOTE: Areas ��ith a headroom height greater than 5' 11" are considered to be floor area by the Planning Division. 9) NOTE: All landings more than 30" in hei�ht at any point are considered in calculating the allo�vable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landinas more than 30" in height. 10) Specify on the plans �vhether the fireplace is a gas or solid �vood-bu�-ni�la device. If the fireplace is a solid wood-burning device clearly state on the plans that the fireplace will meet all requirements as a U.S.EPA Phase II certified wood-burning device. 11) If the fireplace is a solid �vood-burnin� device then specify on the plans that the fireplace chiiruiey �vill terminate at least t�vo feet higher than any portion of the buildin� within ten feet or �vill be retrofit �vith a fireplace insert (not a lo� lighter.) 2013 CRC � 1003.9. 12)18.10.100 Appendix C, Figure C amended—Exit terminals of inechanical draft and direct-vent venting systems. The Figure in AppendiY C of the 2013 California Residential Code is atnended by adding the following note: Note: �Vhere the property line is less than ten (10) feet from the e�it terminal of any newly installed or replacement high efficiency ►nechanical equipment the pipe size of the final ten (10) feet of any terminal must be increased to three inches (3") or, as an alternative, manufacturer-approved bafflzs must be installed. NOTE: A written response to the items noted he►-e and plans that speci�call}� address items l, 2, 3, 4, �, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 �nd 12 must be re-submitted before this project can move foi�vard for Planning Commission action. The �`�ritten response must include clear direction reaat�clina �vhere the requested information c�n be found on the plans. � � Revie�`�ecl by: (vIL�(•� '..fl � Date: April 7. 2016 Rick Caro III, CBO 6�0-558-7270 Projec� Comments Date: To: From: April 4, 2016 � Engineering Division (S50) 55�7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 �Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 55&7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attomey (650) 558-7204 Planning Staf� Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining heijght envelop2 and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family d�rielling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: Q27-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 1. Water efficiency cnecklisi needs to be redone using the nzw Residential Outdaor Water Use Efneci2ncy Checklist form for (attached). 5.�� 2. Lancscape ok; noi protect�d sizz trees proposed for removal. �` �`�c� �. � �� R�viev�� by: BQ Date: 5/27/16 l.�'�h�� `� �/rc�� r� OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY �H C LI� T I certify tha 1 Signat - meets ,�ec'�' zquirements of the 4Vater Conservati � Lz dscaping��e. �.. , _i� Date �� Construction J Rchabilitated ❑ other: CITY OF BURLINGAME gle Family U Muiti-Famil "ommerciai U Institutional U Irri a ion only ❑ Industrial u other. CDD-PLANNING D{'V. Applicant Name (print): ('on ct Phone lt: � � 6d Project Site Address: l � ;�Age�cy _Fteview' Project Area (sq.ft. or acre): # of Units: st of Meters: r{Pass) :_ (Fail),: ° : � 1. .t � �.I '.'..= i : Piant Material Turf Hydrozones Compost Mulch Irrigation System Metering Tota �andsc pe Area (sq.ft. • � � ❑ � Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft.�: ' ❑ Non-Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft.): J Irrigatzd Special Landscape Area (SLA) (sq.ft.): v j C1 f. Water FPature Surface Area (sq.ft.►: `� v.� t . �"�= �*e.-z�� _ . g -i�� "i �,s"e � -Y-�r,�-� ��'� - 1�', � t .�f'�i��Z��`_��.y ��, .�,� �r �.�(7 n �` �(i ri�� r� 3� t` �._ _�l. _ . �-e - - - - -- - - - _.;y�'< Low �vater using plants are installed for at least 75 � of plant area 'J No, See Special Landscape Area and/or Recyded 4Vater Area " s =<-rd < 254-� of the landscape area is turf Ll No, See Water E3udget Yes ''� There is no turf in parkways < 30 ieet ��:ide ' Ll No, ii adjacent to a parking strio Ail turf is planted on slopes < 25% es `'-^� Plants are grouped by Hydrozones �s f`�1 At least 4 cubic yards p2r 1,000 sq ft to a Yes '--�-1 Identh of 6 inches _.1 No, See Soil Tes: 'At least 3-inches of mulch on exposed soil � Yes surfaces Use of automatic irrigation controllers that '� use evapotranspiration or soil moisture ' ns sensor data and utilize a rain sensor Irrigation controllers do not lose 'J programming data v�hen power sourc2 is �Les interrupted -= Irrigation system includes pressure �es � � re�ulators ' ��1anual shut•oE( vah�es are installed near the "� connecticn to the a�ater suppiy 5 All sprinkler heads installed in the landscape -�l must document a distribution uni(ormity low es quarter of 0.65 or higher Areas < 10 feet shail be irrigated with Yes -7 subsurface irrigation !J No, but there is no runoff or ovarspray 5eparate irrigation meter � Yes ` � �o, not required if < 5,000 sq ft _ J _- U . OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST , _ _ � Swimming Pools / Spas �over required for new pools and spas J Yes v— L] o, no ne�v poo� or spa Nlater Features Recirculating � Yes ,`�— T� 3 Project Information � � �. -`O `i_CI '' _ _ _ _— __ ;. � : _ ..-.: ..:... --,...._,._._ s Water Ef(icient Landscape Worksheet � '-V -+ �C:epared by profess�onal _ � � (optional if < 2,500 sq ft of landscape �rea} � r Soil Management Report (optional if <?,500 '�— :0 � sq it of landscape area) J�'�epared by pro(essional * Documentation � � � Landscape Desi�n Plan (optional i( < 2,500 sq _ :� '-�1 3 (per section 49?.3) �repared by professional _ i ft of landscape area) ' °� Irrigation Design Plan (optionai if < z,500 sq _ � f-� 4 {t of landscape area) � P�epared by prof�;,sional = � ` � Grading Design Plan (optional if < 2,500 sq ft �- '�1 x =1 repared 6� professional - of landscape area) - -� � ;u ,� Audit Post-installation audit complet�d Completed by protessional - - �, . - _ Auditor. `�I��s��..i;��1�i,k� �� , �r �� __ . _ �- - __ _ - - - Materials Received and Reviewed: :�i�e�ionai Water Efiicien: Landscape Ordinance " �,.1-f�roject Informaiion '� Residential Outdoor 4vat2r Use Efficiency Checklist { �l-�`Jater Efficient Landscape 4Vorksheet �1.`1Vater Efficient Landscap? UJor4shee[ � ' esid�ntial Outdoor �vater Use Efficiency Checklist �'lant List J Post•installation Audit U pther: � andscape Design Plan fi °_1 'I Mtanaoement Report � ❑ gation Design Plan � rading Design Plan a Date Reviewed: �, Lr,+�.r- `+ } �a -'�.-� rr`_ . »�' �- ��''7i �-�i � Follo�v up required (explain): ,;�� L.r��,�� G��.�rl�as��f_.�� .:.._., � -_ ,�=.-�� - =' r-- ``�� -- ->_�.,�' _.x � Drip irriga[ion Date Resubmitted: J Plant pala,e Date Approved: :J Grading Dedicated Irrigation Meter Required: 'J Pool and/or spa cover Meter sizing: J Dedicated irrigation meter -1 Other: Comments: Project Comments Date: Aprii 4, 2016 To: 0 Engineering Division � Fire Division (fi50) 55&-7230 (650) 55&7600 � Building Division � Stormwater Division (650) 558-7260 (650) 342-3727 � Parks Division � City Attorney (650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining heijght envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-'195-190 Staff Review: Aprii 4, 2016 � 1. Water efficiency ci�ecklist needs to be redone using the new Residential Outdoor Water Use Ef�eciency Checklist form for (attached). 2. Lancscape ok; not protect�d sizz trees proposed for removal. Revie:ve� by: BD Dat�: 5/27/16 - Project Comments Date: To: From: April 4, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (sso) ss8-72so X Parks Division (s5o) �s-�� Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attomey (650) 558-7204 Planning Staf� Subject: Request fior Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-ha{f story single family d+�elfing and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APM: 027-'f 93-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 1�.� No existing tree over 48 inches in circumference at 54 inches form base of tree may be r�moved without a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Division_ (558-7330) 2. If Public Works requires sidev�ialk replacement, Policy for Expanding Width of Planter Strip needs to be implemented. 3. Existing City Street Tree may not i� cut, trimmed or removed without permit from Parks Division (558-7330) '� Landscape plan is required to meet `Vl/ater Conservation in Landscape Regulations' (attached)_ Imgation Plan required for Building permit. Audit due for Final. 5. If construction is tivithin drip line of eacisting trees, a Tree Protection Plan must be in place to protect trees during all phases of construction. Reviewed by: BD Date: 4/8/16 Project Comments Date: To: From: June 14, 2016 X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 Planning Staff � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027- 195-190 Staff Review: No comments at this time. Reviewed by: M. Quan Date: 6/16116 Project Comments Date: May 19, 2016 To: X Engineering Division 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7600 � Building Division � Stormwater Division (650) 558-7260 (650) 342-3727 � Parks Division � City Attorney (650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: May 19, 2016 �Please revise site plan (A1.0) to match revised landscape plan to show no work will be conducted within Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction without permit. Reviewed by: M. Quan Date: 5120/16 Project Comments Date: To: From: Aprii 4, 2016 X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 %1�No work can take place without a Fish & Wildlife permit from the top of bank to the creek. Please �� revise landscape drawings or state if such permit will be obtained. Please be aware that there is a long permit lead time with California Fish & Wildlife. 2. A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit is required to (1) replace all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site, (2) plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and install a new 4" lateral, (3) all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city's right- of-way. /3� Show the location of down spouts for the entire roof and that there is enough finish grade elevation L% around the perimeter of the property to demonstrate the direction of storm water runoff for the property. If the grade is not sufficient to prevent storm water runoff onto adjacent properties, show a drainage system design. �4� Please show how the post-construction will address the additional stormoff due to the new dwelling. v Please be aware that no additional storm runoff is allowed from post-construction project site. 5. A survey by a licensed surveyor or engineer is required. The survey shall show how the property lines were determined and that the property corners were set with surveyors license numbers on durable monuments. This survey shall be attached to the construction plans. All corners need to be maintained or reinstalled before the building final. All property corners shall be maintained during construction or reestablished at the end of the project. 6. An erosion control plan will be required at the building permit stage. This plan shall include, but not lirnited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. 7. For the construction of the basement, please provide information on groundwater levels during wet and dry seasons. A geotech report to back up assumptions for design criteria for foundation and shoring structural calculations is required. Design of backup generator for the groundwater pumps is required. Reviewed by: M. Quan Date: 4/7/16 ProjAct Comments Date: To: From April 4, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 o Parks Division (650) 558-7334 i Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April �, 2016 Additional fire sprinkler system comment: 1. Provide a minimum 1-inch water meter. � ,; Reviewed by: Christine Reed `' Date: 4-12-16 Project Comments Date: To: From May 19, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 X Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: May 19, 2016 *Resubmittal* BMPs not provided yet. �Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger), plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobaV.orq/Construction For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 18, or carol�m.critz veolia.ca�n / ; / . � 2 Reviewed by: �c�--� � ��._. %�' � Date: 05/25/2016 Carolyn Critz - Project Comments Date: To: From: April 4, 2016 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining heijght envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 1. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger), plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://w�vw�.flo�vstobay.orq/Construction 2. Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing architectural copper. Please read "Requirements for architectural Copper." A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://ww��.flowstobay.orq/files/ne�vd2velonmeni/flversfactsheets/Architecturalcopper BN1Ps.pdf � All exterior surface paving materials, including, but not limited to those used on driveways, sidewalks, walkways and patios, must be identified as pervious or impervious. Please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, for assistance ai (650) 342 3727, ext. 18. Reviewed by: Carolyn Critz CCL Date: 04/11 /2016 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Pianning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desiqn Review Special Permit for declining heiqht enveiope, and Side Setback Variance for a detached ag raqe for a new two and one-half story sinqle familv dwellinq and detached qaraqe at 2721 Easton Drive Zoned R-1 Anatolv Tikhman TR 26 Farm Lane Hillsborou4h, CA, 94010, propertv owner, APN: 027-195-190; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Janua 23. 2017, 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 Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review, Special Permit, and Variance are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Special Permit, and Variance are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman 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 23rd dav of January, 2017, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Special Permit, and Variance. 2721 Easton Drive Effective February 2, 2017 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the pians submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 17, 2017, sheets A1.1 through A4.1, L1.0, and L2.0; 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 staf�; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the lower, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that to protect the long-term habitat of Easton Creek, the Applicant shall ensure that the creek is not obstructed and that protective fencing along the creek shall be installed prior to any construction activities on-site; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division's May 20, 2016 and April 7, 2016 memos, the Parks Division's June 16, 2016, May 27, 2016, and April 8, 2016 memos, the Engineering Division's May 20, 2016 and April 7, 2016 memos, the Fire Division's April 12, 2016 memo and the Stormwater Division's May 25, 2016 and April 11, 2016 memos shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Special Permit, and Variance. 2721 Easton Drive Effective February 2, 2017 Page 2 10. that the project shall compiy 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; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. �CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD 1�BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 2721 EASTON DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review, Spetial Permit for declining height envelope, and Side Setback Variance for a detached garage for a new, two and ane-half stary single family dwelling at 2721 EASTON DRIVE zoned R-1. APN 027-195-190 Mailed: January 13 2017 (Please refer fo ofher sid�e) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Deveiopment Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 55$-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer fo ofher sideJ Item No. 9a Design Review Study PROJECT LOCATION 2721 Easton Drive City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permits Address: 2721 Easton Drive Item No. 9a Design Review Study Meeting Date: November 14, 2016 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage. Applicant and Architect: Randy Grange, TRG Architects Property Owners: Anatoly Tikhman Tr General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-195-190 Lot Area: 9,592 SF Zoning: R-1 June 27, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on June 27, 2016, the Commission requested that the applicant consider making changes to the proposed project based on their comments/suggestions (June 27, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes attached). The Commission's concerns are listed below and were primarily focused on the design of the house, compatibility with the neighborhood, and the attached two-car garage. The Commission also noted a concern with the proposed large gathering area along the left side of the house. The applicant submitted a written response dated November 8, 2016, and revised plans date stamped November 2, 2016, in response to the Planning Commission's comments and suggestions. The overall design of the proposed house changed from Mediterranean to a more traditional architectural approach. The floor plan remained relatively unchanged, with the exception of a larger front porch (increased from 73 SF to 199 SF) and setting back the attached garage an additional 4'-0" (from 26'-0" to 30'-0"). A raised planter (guardrail height) was added along the perimeter of the terrace along the left side of the house, which narrows the terrace and provides additional privacy to the adjacent neighbor. Planning staff determined that since there was a significant change to the design style of the house, the application should be brought back for Planning Commission review as a design review study item. After reviewing the proposed design, the Commission may place this application on a consent calendar or action calendar, or may refer it to a design review consultant with direction to the applicant. At the request of the applicant, this item was continued from the October 24, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. Design and Compatibility • Primary concern is the compatibility of the style with the neighborhood. The existing home is an architectural gem, the proposed home is less than that. There are other means of attaching the garage in a manner that can minimize the appearance of the garage from the front. ■ The existing home has a gracious porch that presents itself to the neighborhood; the proposed design has what appears to be a simple stoop. Knows the architect has the ability to address these points. ■ Have an obligation to residents in the area to ensure that the new home reflects the character of the neighborhood. ■ There is a real opportunity in this instance to develop a design that is of a similar caliber to the existing home. Could benefit from the new FAR exemption for front porches. ■ The plate heights could impact neighborhood compatibility, but are less of a concern in this instance. ■ Feels it is the wrong place for this design. Feels decidedly suburban. ■ Would hesitate to dictate a style, but more concerned about fit. This design doesn't fit. Design Review and Special Permits Attached Garape 2721 Easton Drive ■ The front facing garage is not consistent with the neighborhood; where they do exist they are typically only one space wide. ■ The double wide parking area in front is inconsistent with the neighborhood as well. • Can't make the case for an attached garage; the majority of the houses have detached garages. ■ Can't support the attached garage; there is a strong pattern of detached garages. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing two-story house and detached garage to build a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached two-car garage. The lower level is defined as a lower level half-story, and not a third floor, since it does not exceed two-thirds of the area above it. The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 4,081 SF (0.43 FAR) where 4,169 SF (0.43 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 88 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The new single family dwelling will contain six bedrooms (the office and guest rooms qualify as bedrooms). Three parking spaces, two ofwhich must be covered, are required and provided on site. One uncovered space is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have also been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Design Review for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010); Special Permit for an attached two-car garage (C.S. 25.26.035, (a)); and Special Permit for declining height envelope (63.3 SF, 2'-6" x 25'-4" along the left side of the house extends beyond the declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.075 (a)). As noted above, the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for declining height envelope along the left side of the house. The point of departure for the declining height envelope is based on the 15-foot front and rear setback lines because the difference between these two points is not more than 2'-0") (Code Section 25.26.075 (b) (4)). Due to the downward slope towards the rear of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height envelope along the left side of the house is approximately 9'-6" below the finished floor of the house. As a result, the left side of the house extends 63.3 SF (2'-6" x 25'-4") beyond the declining height envelope. This space intentionally left blank. � Design Review and Special Permits 2721 Easton Drive 2721 Easton Driv'e Lot Area: 9,592 SF Plans date stam ed: November 2, 2016 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 24'-0" 23'-11" (block average) (2nd flr): 31'-4" I 23'-11" (block average) (atiached garage): 30'-0" 25'-0" (two single doors) _._ ...... ... .. .... _ ............... .... _. ......_.._...._..._.... ............................_........................_................._..................................__............................._........................_...._............................_..................................................................._........................_................_......... .. --- ................................................................................_......_...... Side (left): 7'-10" to house/7'-0" to terrace 7'-0" (right): 7'-0" 7'_0" _ ............ .. ...... _.. .... � _.. . _......__..._._.._ .............._.__...._..................._........._.................................................._............................._..............._....-----.............................._.......................................................----............................................................ ...._.... _....................._..........................................................._........_.. Rear (Lower flr): 42'-0" 15'-0" (1st flr): 42'-0" 15'-0" (2nd flr): 50'-8" 20'-0" _...._ ................................._._.__....._..----................----.................__........................ ..._........... ... . .... .. .. _............................................................ ...................._._....................._.._...................._........_.............. _..._.._ ................ _......................... . . _......._.... _................._................................_......... Lot Coverage: 3149 SF 3837 SF 32.8% 40% FAR: 4081 SF 4169 SF' 0.43 FAR 0.43 FAR # of bedrooms: 6 --- Off-Sfreet Parking: 2 covered 2 covered (20'-0" x 20'-1" clear interior) (20'-0" x 20'-0" clear interior) 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Height: 24'-11 " 30'-0" DH Envelope: Special Permit along left side z CS 25.26.075 ' (0.32 x 9592 SF) + 1100 SF = 4169 SF (0.43 FAR) Z Special Permit for declining height envelope (63.3 SF, 2'-6" x 25'-4" along the left side of the house extends beyond the declining height envelope). Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that Easton Creek runs along the rear of the property. There are no improvements proposed beyond the top of bank. See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. 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: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 3 Design Review and Special Permits 2721 Easton Drive Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for declining height envelope and an attached garage, 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 for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect Attachments: Response letter and attachments submitted by the applicant, dated November 8, 2016 June 27, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Letter submitted by Mark and Sandy Moore, dated June 27, 2016 Email submitted by Phil Koblis, dated June 27, 2016 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Applications Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 4, 2016 Aerial Photo 4 November 8, 2016 Planning Commission City of Buriingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 2721 Easton Dr. Dear Commissioner, ��I�� NOV - g 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PI.ANNING DtV. You previously reviewed the proposed residence for 2721 Easton Dr. as a study item. There were numerous comments about the project from both Planning Commissioners and adjacent neighbors, ranging from loss of the existing house on site (and its porch), to the proposed style, to the attached garage. Following is a brief outline of the changes made since then. We will be providing more detail at the meeting. Style The style of the proposal has been changed. Rather than the originally proposed Mediterranean, the new design is along bungalow lines. While not attempting to mimic the existing house on site, the new proposal does recall it with the use of the narrow horizontal siding and wide trim. The proposed design actually incorporates much more trim and detail, as compared to the existing house, which adds articulation and further breaks down the massing. Porch We have incorporated a broad new porch into the design, and agree that this is a much more welcoming and neighborly element. This porch is just under 200 SF, the new Burlingame front porch allocation. Addition of the porch and reconfiguration of the floor plan means that the garage is set back nearly twice as far from the front of the house as it was previously. Side Terrace � The left side neighbor (Koblis) expressed concern about the side terrace off of the family room being a large gathering space. The reason for this area is simply to provide access to the rear yard from the main level, without creating an unsightly raised deck off the back of the house. We have narrowed the terrace into a wide walkway, and provided a raised planter (guardrail height) along the side to add more privacy and provide a second layer of landscape screening. *Please note that we were not able to meet with the Koblis's until after these plans were submitted. To further respond to their concerns, we have included an attachment that illustrates a proposed terrace off the back of the family room, and moves the main exterior doors to the rear of the house. A fireplace and small flanking fenestration replaces the large area of side facing glass. 1014 Ho�vard Ave., San Mateo, CA 94401 � 650.574.5762 voice � 650.579.01 15 fax � admin(aitr�arch.com Driveway Issues The wider curb cut previously proposed was a point of discussion at the last meeting, and with the neighbors. This revised proposal retains the existing curb cut, which in turn preserves all street trees, and provides additional on-site planting area to include new trees screening the view from the street. Also of note, when the City built the new crosswalk in front of this property, a street parking space was lost. The wider curb cut previously proposed would actually have taken away another space, so this plan preserves all street conditions as they currentfy exist. The right side neighbor's (Moore) driveway partially resides on this property. The plans have been revised to show these conditions to remain, as this was a primary concern of the Moore's. Garage There was discussion about the attached garage, which is central to the owners needs for the house. They want to actually park in the garage; with infants, groceries, etc..., hiking up the driveway from a detached unit, and then up a full flight of stairs to reach the door to the house does not work. These down sloping lots offer unique challenges in the parking department that more conventional lots do not. Additionally, the lots along this stretch of Easton are extra deep, which further impacts the direct application of all aspects of the design guidelines. This can be seen consistently throughout the other older homes, where for the most part, garages were built to work. On our specific site, there cannot be a garage option proposed that does not require either a special permit or a variance. One cannot have a detached garage in the back 30% of the lot because that puts it over the top of the creek bank where construction is not allowed. Pulling it forward to the back 40% still requires a special permit, but is further back than the existing garage. A new garage in the same location as the existing would require a variance. Attached garages occur in the majority of homes in this general vicinity, but more importantly, the parking pattern is unique, site specific, and nonconforming due to the steeply down-sloping lots. We will provide a more detailed overview in our presentation, but summarize here. In reviewing the first 14 houses after the Hillsborough town line, on our side of the street, we found 9 attached garages, 1 attached carport, and 4 detached garages. This includes the widest variety of configurations that one can find in Burlingame; 1 attached in back, 1 detached in front, several attached but way in front of the house, 1 recently approved attached 2 car, and a couple that look unusable. By my estimation, 3 or more would require special permits, and as many as 9 would require variances by today's rules. Attached garages are allowed with setback and square footage imptications (as noted, one was recently approved along this stretch), and in this case, provide actual parking that gets cars off the street and out of the driveway. We look forward to the meeting. And the opportunity to present more detail and answer questions. i rely ��,,. --- — - _ _ _. _. andy Grange, AIA 1014 Ho��ard Ave, San �-9ateo, CA 94401 • 6�0.579.5762 voice •(,SO.S79.01 15 fax • admin.�utrgarch.com � P� 6 e000 ;,� 68S (�J rn�s � 70 fiBMIN � � �k � � ^ Qw I rtU rng `� �U Tr� . • � � � \ • / I M) L.MtX�LAFE I 14' � 4' 1 j 7Rff ��`�_�o! LANDS OF JACOBSON `+ x "'-'-'�''r �+_ �ax arru� oF �o.Ncrxr r�i�reofe o�l�'� � `Ji L— '� �L'`�� --'; i M) TF� � fE) 6ARK�'c TO �.`I�� p . � � OERBOVEU--- li �uu��;�OL—�-- �I� ��i�'�i�=�C ,�-0• ��i�� c � �w,� �� i� - i >�� ;� 'n - -- ---- _- -----� � rt� rn� i i i � , i i r� ' n� � � ' C i � I � L � � � i � i RU rn� i i � q1TLl1� OF IFJ � � � HOV5E TO BE I � �� L � i � � � J � I I I I rJ (NJ TRff I I � 2721 EASTON DRIVE I � � i APN: 075-195-190 � i � � LOT AREA: t 9,592 SF � i i I i i I i � w rnff � i amn� oF (� � i , � •. . �. -- - ■ I�1 � • — _ _ .► � �,�� _ - �� i, a: u=.. — — u : ��'�'� - T , u �� .� � �v��; MI\ , �\l�}\I! �'l� I\\Tf\' l� � Ji5 M O+ J•� r � -�� . ,�. . � - F� -- ,� , � , . �� ,. .y :�, ,�`+ ��,�# • . ,� - -+_�ri� f+.��'r,�,'�� • 4= ,+��r� j:�� , • ;. � _:��t,i� .� � � � - j � . • (7J 6' BAY � �. � 0 v � � u'i Z e�r+ax. a._.,_ _. no.locart �ie+�oR �_ , i, � � L � � ii. .P Ni � ti� � � �e LANDS OF MOORE , ^'f I�asnws NG DRIVBVAY I 'p h � i �: � I I � � I ' � — — � � � I pN � a� r;��ss` I I I � i I I :� � 3 '.`=r-.��. L , ��' � - iDW � i c , � r'__"_"_'________ �___ .�'-' � o ; FAMILY RM � KITCk�1 � 22-0 x I6-I 141 x 24-9 °� � �'�: ��, r ' i i � i �;� .3:� ;r . _. .f... . :..�, .. .. ..... .. ... ... - - - - - - - - — : — - i i � i a x s-o i} i � i _ I uP � ��x � I c i � J ! � 61�5T RM � � I � � � ° II-5 x 14-9 °N � r :� _ 'I I � .._. ,_..,e i _ I I I I I -- ',� '� p II �I II o :{ i � I'-0' � . eo�r+ wn+ Faars ' ras- - �HB�/E- — I � � ' _ II � I II b-0 x"1-'7 I I I II VI �� I - Fu1IEI5Hi � � .,, BIALT-IN .' � I I DMIN6 RM , �py� r.,,,r_. .; � I I 143 x IS-0 I �� .O. � I I � II � � b-0 x I I ' `� ------------ I � , . �--- � �------ ---1 : ------ : 7aiPR1 � �. I I I I - p�� ,, I I I I -- I I I I I �,3: I I I I I I -- —� I I I I 10 x"I I I I I I �� pi�E ' I I i I II � ? I I I I � �� 4 4 I I I � � I I � A � � � � - ---------------- --- _ �� 14-I x Ib-0 � I I � I I , I I i I I � � _ I � � I I `` - , I I � I I : i `-` ` I I PORG� I I 4 i � -,_ ___ I I I I � I I 10-5 x R-0 � � a - -_ '��----------- ---------------��. I - � �� - ' � 1� _ _ a,�. �,-0• io - --- _ � »�.�. ' �,�._ � ' - _ , � �I _' _ - �' PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN - � � i_ � S�a�: „�-_,�.� � BURLINGAME CITY HALL • City of Burlingame 501 PRIMROSEROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 cF L r'' n Meeting Minutes �=;, .� Planning Commission Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 PM Council Chambers d. 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Anatoly Tikhman Tr, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones had a discussion with the neighbor at 2701 Easton. Chair Loftis had a discussion with the neighbor at 2711 Easton. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff.� > Asked who the author of the letter that was received? (Commissioner - Koblis) > With respect to the driveway on the right-hand side, it appears that the driveway crosses ihe property line - the neighbor has requested fhat the driveway be permitted to stay at its present location . Is there a prescriptive easement that exists? (Kane - hasn't reviewed the letter, buf generally speaking that issue is befween the private property owners. Would be handled through a lega/ process. Consider the application as it is before the Commission. Can encourage the neighbors to discuss the issue. Not something the Commission can weigh-in on.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Alex and Marcia Tikhman represented fhe applicant. Commission questions: > Is there a reason why the existing residence can't be renovated? (A. Tikhman - have considered. There is significant sloping in the floors. There is nothing that can be done without a significant �enovation. They wish to have an attached garage; there is no way to do so with the existing home . The architect could speak more directly to the issues.J > Is there a reason why the particular style was selected as opposed to something that is closer to the existing home. (M. Tikhman - fhere are other similar homes in fhe neighborhood. A. Tikhman - made a conscious decision to look at other designs.) How committed is the applicant to the proposed style? (M. Tikhman - could consider another style, but the proposed style is represented in the neighborhood.) There is a pattern in the neighborhood with similar styles grouped together. Asked that the applicant consider the pattern that exists in the neighborhood. (A. Tikhman - really like the proposed style; is a preference.) Public comments: Nicole Koblis, neighbor to the left - excited to have a young family move into the area. Are concerned abouf the neighborhood character. Concerned about the entertarnment patio on the left side of the property at the rear. Feels it is a bit awkward. Chair Loftis closed the publrc hearing. City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 10/14/2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 27, 2016 Commission discussion: > Agrees with Commissioners' comments regarding the neighborhood character and the compatibilrty of the design with the homes next to it. The front facing garage is not consistent with the neighborhood; where they do exist they are typically only one space wide. > The double wide parking area in front is inconsistent with the neighborhood as well. > Has no problem with the proposed plate heights given the topography of the lot and fhe presence of larger homes in the area. > Primary concern is the compatibility of the style with the neighborhood. The existing home is an architectural gem, the proposed home is /ess than that. There are other means of attaching the garage in a manner that can minimize the appearance of the garage from the front. > The existing home has a gracious porch that p�esents itself to the neighborhood; the proposed design has what appears to be a simple stoop. Knows the architect has the ability to address these points. > Have an obligation to residents in the area to ensure that the new home reflects the character of the neighborhood. > There is a real opportunity in this instance to develop a design that is of a similar caliber to the existing home. Could benefit from the new FAR exemption for front porches. > Can't make the case for an attached garage; the majority of the houses have detached garages. > The plate heights could impact neighborhood compatibility, but are less of a concern in this instance. > Disappointed by the design that was presented by the project architect. > Fee/s it is the wrong place for this design. Feels decidedly suburban. > Would hesitate to dictate a style, but more concerned about fit. This design doesn't fit. > Can't support the attached garage; there is a strong pattern of detached garages. > Has a p�oblem with the gathering area to the side of the house, as opposed to the rear. A motion was made by Commissioner DeMartini, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when ready for action. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent Absent: 2- Bandrapalli, and Gaul City of Burlingame Page 2 Piinted on 10H4/2016 06.27.16 PC Meeting COMMUNICATIONRECEIVED Item # 9c AFTER PREPARATION 2721 Easton Drive OFSTAFFREPORT Page 1 of 4 RECEIVED JUN 24 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. -----Original Message----- From: Sandy Moore �mailto:sandvCc�noadmin.com] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 8:39 AM To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin Cc: Mark Moore Subject: 2721 Easton Drive Hi Ruben- Attached is the letter we have written about our thoughts on the proposed project to be built next door to us- 2721 Easton. My husband, Mark, has emailed the letter directly to each of the planning commissioners. We apologize for not being able to attend the meeting Monday night. The neighbors on the other side of 2721, Nicole and Phil Koblis, are planning to attend. They share many of the same concerns that we do. If you have any questions for us, please let me know. Thank you! City of Burlingame Planning CommiSsion Sd1 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 lune 27, 2016 Dear Planning Commission, Mark and Sandy Moore 2723 Easton Qrive Burlingame, California 9401d Tel: 650-343-2552 We are writing with comments and questions conceming the propased demolitian of 2721 Easton Drive, and the construction of a new house on the property. We own the house next doar at 2723 Easton Drive, where we have lived for over ten years and are raising our three children. We look forward to welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Tikham to the neighborhood. Our house was built in 1915 and 2721 Easton was built a few years later. We understand these two hauses were built as summer cattages for city-dwellers to escape the fog. Residents would ride the new train service down the peninsula, jump the trolley up Hillside, and enjoy sunny Burlingame and the nearby woods from these simple but elegant homes. Craftsman in character and distinct in their shingled wood, wrap-around porches, and square structures, these two houses together very much represent "Nistoric eurlingame" (See attached photo). Our first comment, therefore, is that we are disappointed to see this bit of "Old Burlingame" torn down. These two hauses go together, and we wauld much prefer that the new owners remadel and refurbish the existing beautifu! and historic home on the praperty. When we remodeled our house in 2011, the Commissian commended us f�r maintaining the style of the original house, and "appreciated that the design works with the existing structure's architecture" (Approved Minutes, April 25, 2011}. We encourage Mr. and Mrs. Tikhman to consider a similar approach, and hope the Commission wil! encourage the same. If a teardown/rebuild is the only option, we hope that the new house wilf be in the same distinct and historic style as the existing hause and of the other hauses on the south side of Eastan Drive. For example, the five houses on the street all have driveways down the east side af the property, including the current house on 2721. A short driveway to a garage at the front and middle of the property, as currently praposed, will look strange next to these historic hduses. We also wonder the efFect of this driveway on the spacing on the sidewalk and street in front af the house, and how this wider car egress, the new pedestrian crosswalk, and room for street parking will all fit. We are also concerned that the rear of the house extends much farther back than other houses on the row. Much of the charm of these old houses is in the back, and how they lead onto slopping gardens toward the creek. The new house as pr�posed will take up a much larger partion of the property than its neighbors, and c�eate an imposing presence over adjacent yards. We also question the fencing planned adjacent to our property, particularly the "black steel fencing". We would like to consult with Mr. and Mrs. Tikhman ahead of any construction of fences that directly separates aur properties. We are sure we can come to a mutually agreeahle material and design. Importantly, we also want our neighbors and the Commission to be aware that the plan proposes building right over our driveway and our property in the northwest corner. We ask for a revision of design so that fencing and landscaping are on the ather side of our driveway, which we have been using openly and continuously for many years. A�na1 reques# is that we respectfully ask you to please delay the next hearing until after July 11. We are on a I�ng-planned out of state family vacation that week, and would like the opportunity to express our questions and concerns to the Commission in person, especially considering the plan as proposed will extend o�to our property. We a�e good neighbors, long-time Burlingame residents, and value what makes our neighborhood special. We were great friends of Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Barry, who lived at 2721 Easton for nearly 60 years, and are genuinely excited for aew neighbors to move next door. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and questions. � Regards, �, � . tl �,� j' (�� Mark and San Moore 1! .� 1��,�� , �. 4;�p� � �.'R�� .9-L��T � *� iE.r.�: . y � � � �� , . ,� ,".� t � �`°� =�r � �` �._,�, �ii''K� ' . �`'A � ! } ! °, '� �� • _�* �G'+' a, :�" ,� 't � � '� ! +' � .�� . }.� _1� d, .7!� �� ` �� tt ♦Ia.:�4 .• �,� � ��'..` � 3� � ,�'` � � � ^� .� � . � fi .`, � ✓ I�i . `�� . � � .�� 3f� ��. �,. s�. � yy�� y f : .. �' �� ' �.:, � � ,. � . � .�� *�"` �'�`�!�„�:,� r� � ". .;� , � � ,..�+� � � . ; � ,� , � 11 ' � � d�, �. � .p , •` , f � I �� , � . `�`�►�'F + � ►l .�+ ��. � �" Y a r' �� y �i�.',�j�,r;�.i:�' T � 't#"' ._+"• �, """. � r �+ ; � f � ��' .� •`. .� , �' ' '� y � y{ �' 1 � .. �i � •`4 �_. . 't '��`� � �) � i � � ` � t��1�... 9:.. r �`�3 �. I':� 1�� * �� ,•� � E;�w��`a� ♦ �♦', � � • . t � � ��'�� J+�~• 4 '1� '� �i` �..' �� • r ^'rfr• c.,rF,. . � �;� : 4`�;! :! !.. .`w,i �:� '� . (s�rw!" ..rl.-_ � � /•�� F r ' � h- �� ` 4 � �~ � � � . ' � ,• �� r �'�� +� � �`" �► � '� ��y � � � ^��.� `• , � �e� � �w3., � f " �� . � � ` `, r � �' � 1� i� � � � - ��r�. �''r �: +��. � . s • ," t"'��.��. � •.,�. � �. • :, ,"� K ,.� � ,<' t r ' 1 f� � � _ � � �- r�'�' _ r 31: �i '� . 4 t '` � t 4 +� {, Y a� � �' 1. � tf .� .. J ..�� # _Y�_f"..� �� " '�.. 'T �' ~i''�:,i , ` , ,i�}' � ' ,u� j� ��F �, ., ,� -. � � � t . R ? Ly J : 1'.� y,)� � J,.� .. � °r�' �,�� i T� � • ` k �.�� •r + ' . _ . �`t ..:.-�i s. � -:• �i'. � '� .� `�r: ,�.� � d� '�� ' � =�R e� T i. '} -:A'� �.R'� � ::.y � �. r, ! �� r., ,.:,.r ��"�`..',. �� `.1. -�� _ ' � ii�' a �,..� I ^ �". � 1 �rj� a: �'��' �-,it;r , = '• , "�: ' i �; : . t � - '.s � , . k , i �'r�� ;� 5��,. 'i. ,�' l ��{ .� �' y y �;�. �` �� ,f j�. Y �1' �� ♦, '-,.�°4. ��a �"''� � �•, � , }� ri �J..:; �.s �:#�.t �r r. '�. �.,v' Y� • . ' �. :..�' .!_ . .� Y �,� t �.�`4f ..� ��.. ti _ � % . . . ..s...-.rr..- - � c�.� �; ~ ; ---� — f►� ` "� ' - ' _�'� .� � �..:. a _ � `" `�:'� � - - � . :�. y'�� + r �!!. 1 f • . * � ��' .� ,��'. � �' P � F; , , �� __ ; �,�:f R'�: � , �� , r :,,,��'.: . tt � � �, . � jr. f„ , � ::;/(}' , ` ; , _ I k �,I • � :l��w �-ii) e '` '�� '��T �•a�t � 4 � r• y� I =�j "y;��;. f . � �'� „` ,, " ,��4:'�. 't�t- �' i .< <, '� . "'r+� � t . e �4, • � . , � • � ++t ��1:. . ;j�� :�I�' .. • � Y.t � R�• 1 ` .'i Y . ' � • • . . . . .:rsaa�...,... _ . : I � �� .r � i�; � �, � � � � • � . . ��. 06.27.16 PC Meeting COMMUNICATIONRECEIVED Item # 9c AFTER PREPARATION 2721 Easton Drive OF STAFF REPORT Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED JUN 27 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. From: Mendoza, Elizabeth T[mailto:etmendozaCa�comerica.com] On Behalf Of Koblis, Philip Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 3:13 PM To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin Cc: nicole koblis Subject: Planning Committee Comments My name is Phil Koblis and I live at 2711 Easton Drive with my wife, Nicole, and our three children Riley (6), Chase (3) and Harper (2). Our home is directly next door to 2721 Easton Drive on the left hand side when viewing from the street. I first wanted to welcome the Tikhman family to the neighborhood and Easton Drive, the same way we were welcomed by our neighbors when we moved here a little over 2 years ago. There is such a strong sense of community on our street and in Burlingame as a whole. We truly feel blessed to live here and I have no doubts they'll feel the same. I am traveling for work on Monday and unfortunately won't be able to attend the formal planning department meeting. I've had a chance to review the plans and I wanted to provide the following comments /questions /concerns for the planning committee members to consider. I anticipate my wife having additional comments. 1) Size and scope of project- after reviewing the plans it's fairly apparent the home was designed to maximize the allowable square footage of the home to the lot size. In addition, there are special permit requests to include an attached garage and for a declining variance exception. I reviewed the city's special permit requirements and the architect's explanation for exception. I have a few observations/concerns. A) The Spanish style and design of the home is not similar to the existing home or to the immediate set of neighbors (pictured in plans) on the south side/creek side of Easton. B) The mass of the home is not similar to the existing home or to the immediate set of neighbors or the creek side Easton homes in general. I've reviewed the home and property measurements for 10 homes on the creek side of Easton nearest to the proposed home from Montero to Easton Circle. 7 of 10 have detached single car garages, 8 of 10 are craftsman/non- Spanish style, and all but one have home square footage to lot ratio of less than 33%. 06.27.16 PC Meeting Item # 9c 2721 Easton Drive Page 2 of 2 Ultimately, our thought is that instead of approving the special permits that allows for the biggest possible home to be built that a slightly smaller home is built that conforms with current building code, the neighboring homes, and neighborhood at large. 2) Landscaping - we are happy to see several of the existing old growth trees in the backyard designed to stay. The trees offer beauty, shade, and privacy to both our properties. I would recommend those to be clearly marked prior to any demolition and construction on the property, if it's not already planned. Also, there is a large tree hedge on our property in the front that is adjacent to their property line. We'd also like to make sure those are clearly marked and unharmed during the demolition and construction. Finally, there is a plan to add new privacy trees between our home and the proposed new home. They're currently listed as evergreen trees. We appreciate the efforts to build privacy between the two homes, and hope to have a discussion with the Tikhman's on the type of tree/bushes they plant. Evergreen's grow quickly, but have a track record of root and beetle issues, and will eventually block light into our deck and backyard. One currently exists on the property, and has required a lot of pruning on both sides to control growth. 3) Demolition and construction - as stated above, we have three young children. They enjoy playing in the front and back yards. It is extremely important for us that all safety precautions available and necessary are taken by the Tikhman's general contractor and subs to insure the construction zone is secure at all times. The current plan is to demolish the detached garage which currently straddles our property line and build a new fence. I'd like to make sure there is a clear and detailed plan of how and when that is done, and that it is acceptable to our family. We'd also like to be informed of the plan post demolition. I understand the Tikhman's have a young family too, so I'm sure they can appreciate our concern here. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please be aware that if you reply directly to this particular message, your reply may not be secure. Do not use email to send us communications that contain unencrypted confidential information such as passwords, account numbers or Social Security numbers. If you must provide this type of information, please visit comerica.com to submit a secure form using any of the "Contact Us" forms. In addition, you should not send via email any inquiry or request that may be time sensitive. The information in this e-mail is confidential. It is intended for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error, please destroy or delete the message and advise the sender of the error by return email. .� DUp��NGAME �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 50'I PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TD THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: �Design Review : Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: O2?' ��S - t �'l0 [� Special Permit � � ' Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: ��-7Z / " � �`�S7'C�n/ -�,�. � v/'-,� <i.v CrA yI C` � Please indicate the contact person for this project p�{ APPLICANT , projectcontactperson,L�J „ OK to send electronic coples of documents � Name� 1 �-� � �� c� � 1 � ,. Address: � �� ' TTO�`�� T�"� City/State2ip: �� 1- '�-� ��l'C� �`i"`� � � Phone: ��-�� `� ��- Fax: �'`�� ( � Wl,�y , ' -VC ,C�i�t� E-mail: �-�� -�G�n � GO�M ARCHITECT/DESIGNER pro�ectcontactpersonq OK to send electronic copies of docusnents � � Name Address: � � � � PROPERTY OWNER pro)ect contact person ❑ � OK to send electronic copies of'doCuments� Name: AN,�}T�LY TiKit�i,�#n1 Address: Z4-= ��1�� L/�N � City/State/Zip: �� S /3 y � `� �+ �i� Q � � � �' Phone Fax: �So. 7S`i_ ,��c�c: �'��: -7// •-7� F, i E-maiL f��rG�yO77k��'IA•�/. cc•� ,4 v-cl�. i -�e�-�-s City/state/zip: �- ✓t ��.-%�o Gt� ��o f � ' . . � "''; Phone: �� "` � �j� � � � 6� Fax: - co`-JO�- `�7�' — � �( � � � E-mail G�.� 6�� I , C � Vv� * Burlingame Business License #: ( 4�� 2- PROJECT DESCRIPTION; �ye� ��1�— AFFADAVITISIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. % Applicant's signature: Date: `j�3� ( � � I am aware of the proposed appl'cation and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. � Property owner's signature: �. � �� Date: 3,�3 'v / � � Date submitted: 3•3 I• I(q �� * Verification that the project architectJdesigner 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 to indicate the contact person for this project. S:�Handouts�PC Appiication 2008-B.handout City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • www.burlinqame.orq � c�Tr �� ..�I� : .�� v _ ;it �,:, ,,;'� I �co�, o, 4wow�+E CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION 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 strucfural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. See a-l�-a. che c�- . 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the exisiing structure, street and neighborhood. 3. Q How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? Explain how the removal of any trees /ocafed within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistenf 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 � See over for explanation of above questions. SPECIAL.PERMIT.APP.FORM Attachment A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR Attached Garage 2721 Easton. This is a proposal to have a two car attached garage. Two features of the site yield a detached garage less practical for parking. 1) the property is very deep along the driveway side. To conform to required locations for a detached structure, one would have to put the garage way back on top of the creek bank (not allowed). To pull it forward, within the rear 40%, will also require a special permit. 2) The downward slope of the lot makes for an awkward garage. Even pulling it forward to the rear 40% places it 12' below sidewalk level, and backing out is tricky. More than '/2 of the houses that share the down sloping side of this street also have attached garages. And most of the detached garages along this side of the street would not be allowed to be constructed today because they are well forward of the rear 40%, to accommodate the difficulties of the long down sloping driveway; some are detached but actually at the front or in front of the house. Additionally, the owners have very small children (infants), plan to actually park in the garage, and trudging up the hill and stairs to get into the house is not practical. The attached garage also minimizes on-site pavement and storm water run-off. The mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction are consistent with the existing street and neighborhood. There are a wide variety of houses on the street (in terms of style, mass, scale etc... ) and the proposed house will fit in. In fact, there are other newer homes on the block with a similar style and attached garages. The site characteristics (down sloping lot) create a situation where the attached garage is the more logical parking solution. 2. The rooflines, fa�ade, materials, and elevations of the proposed house and garage are consistent with, the neighborhood and street. The proposed materials and detailing form a rich combination, with stained wood siding, integral colored plaster, stained wood headers and rafter tails, and natural stone accents. The elevations all include a significant amount of articulation with wall offsets and varied roof forms. The attached garage is consistent with the neighborhood. There are a variety of garage configurations in the neighborhood, and, due to the down sloping lots, an attached garage is most usable. 3. 1. The architectural style is compatible with that of the existing house and character of the neighborhood. 2. The attached garage being proposed is consistent with the neighborhood. More than half of the houses on this side of the street have attached garages. �� C �"� � 3. See items 1 and 2 above for comments about style, mass and C V MAY 1 9 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. 4. There will be minimal impact on neighboring properties as the garage is set well back. 5. A full landscaping plan is being provided, which will be a significant improvement for the site. 2. No trees within the footprint are being proposed for removal. A few trees along the property line are proposed to be removed and are being replaced. Attachment B SPECIAL PERMIT FOR Declining Height 2721 Easton Note: There is an extreme downslope on the lot between the curb elevation and the bottom of the creek. The declining height ordinance was written for flat or nearly flat lots, and does not work in situations such as this. In fact, not allowing the special permit would force an extreme offset for the second floor and a lopsided house design; seemingly at odds with the design guidelines. The proposed design includes offsets for the second floor that far exceed what one typically sees on a typical lot. If the declining height were measured at the corners of the house rather than the corners of the lot (which is more logical), one will see that the design far exceeds the standard requirement; and that's what counts since this is all about interface with the neighboring house. The mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction are consistent with the existing street and neighborhood. There are a wide variety of houses on the street (in terms of style, mass, scale etc... ) and the proposed house will fit in. In fact, there are other newer homes that appear to surely have needed relief from declining height. The site characteristics (down sloping lot) create a situation where the declining height ordinance no longer makes sense. 2. The rooflines, fa�ade, materials, and elevations of the proposed house and garage are consistent with, the neighborhood and street. The proposed materials and detailing form a rich combination, with stained wood siding, integral colored plaster, stained wood headers and rafter tails, and natural stone accents. The elevations all include a significant amount of articulation with wall offsets and varied roof forms. 3. 1. The architectural style is compatible wifh that of the existing house and character of the neighborhood. 2. The attached garage being proposed is consistent with the neighborhood. More than half of the houses on this side of the street have attached garages. 3. See items 1 and 2 above for comments about style, mass and bulk. 4. There will be minimal impact on neighboring properties as the 2"d story offsets are significant. 5. A full landscaping plan is being provided, which will be a significant improvement for the site. 4. No trees within the footprint are proposed for removal. �E�j�� fi �� MAY 1 9 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Project Comments Date: To: From: April 4, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: May 20, 2016 1) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. �' � Reviewed by: C� (,�� Date: May 20, 2016 Rick Caro III, CBO 650-558-7270 Project Comments Date: To: April 4, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558- 7230 � Fire Division (650J 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 1) Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://www.ener�v.ca.�ov/title24/2013standards/ for publications and details. 2) Provide two completed copies of the attached Manclatory Measa�res with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. 3) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 4) This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs �vithin any twelve- month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2013 California Building Code for new structures. BMC 18.07.020 Note: Any revisions to the plans approved by the Building Division must be submitted to, and approved by, the Building Division pr•ioY to the implementation of any wo��k not specifically shoN�n on the plans. Significant delays can occur if changes made in the field, without City approval, necessitate further review by City departments or the Planning Commission. Inspections cannot be scheduled and will not be performed for work that is not shown on the Approved plans. 5) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certi�cate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been final. No occupancy of the builcling is to occur until � new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. NOTE: A condition of this project approval is that the Demolition Permit will not be issued and, and no work can begin (including the removal of a� building components), until a Building Permit has been issued for the project. The property owner is responsible for assuring that no worlc is �uthorized or performed. 6) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until � Building Permit is issued for the project. 7) On the plans show that all openings in exterior walls, both protected and unprotected, will comply with 2013 CBC, Table 705.8. Provide a table or chart that specifies 1) the openings allowed and; 2) the size and percentage of the openings proposed. 8) Provide section details that show the finished headroom height for each room in the basement. Per the 2013 CRC the minimum ceiling height in a basement is 7'0". Portions of the basement that do not include habitable space, hallways, bathrooms, toilet rooms and laundry rooms shall have a ceiling height of not less than 6"8". NOTE: Areas with a headroom height greater than 5' 11" are considered to be floor area by the Planning Division. 9) NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 10) Specify on the plans whether the fireplace is a gas or solid wood-burning device. If the fireplace is a solid wood-burning device clearly state on the plans that the fireplace will meet all requirements as a U.S.EPA Phase II certified wood-burning device. 11) If the fireplace is a solid wood-burning device then specify on the plans that the fireplace chimney will terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet or will be retrofit with a fireplace insert (not a log lighter.) 2013 CRC § 1003.9. 12)18.10.100 Appendix C, Figure C amended—Exit terminals of inechanical draft and direct-vent venting systems. The Figure in AppendiY C of the 2013 California Residential Code is amended by adding the following note: Note: Where the property line is less than ten (10) feet from the exit terminal of any newly installed or replacement high efficiency mecl�anical ec�uipment the pipe size of the final ten (10) feet of any terminal must be increased to three inches (3") or, as an alternative, manufacturer-approved baffles must be installed. NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that speci�cally address items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. The �vritten response must include clear direction reQardin� �vhere the requested information can be found on the nlans. � Reviewed by:� t� Date: A�ril 7, 2016 Rick Caro III, CBO 650-558-7270 Project Comments Date: To: From: April 4, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558-723Q � Building Division (s5o) 5ss-72so �Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attomey (650) 558-7204 Planning Staffi Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining heijgt�t enveiope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dvyelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2�16 / 1. Water efficiency checklist needs to be redone using the new Residential Outdoor Water Use Effier,iency Checklist form for (attached). S�ee 2. Lancscape ok; noi protectzd size trees proposed for removal. �� "� "" `� «f(� � Reviewe� bf: BQ Date: 5/27/16 2 � �� OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CH C LIST � � i o ��e• � . . � �� I certify that . ci�i�tT �oje meets ec' equirernents of the Water Conservati L dscaping e. - i . j,•" �.!' ' / Signat - -- ' Date I t i i 3 F D t u@! I"' E'i �� I ;t _ .� f, "'�� Y v` e w �:'� -tdt ,: . - ',. ,. -' . _ . - _ __ �. _ t �:._ _ __.,.-�.. .; .. . F., . __ , , _ .0 ...�. - _ _. _�_. ._ . , _. .. ...,«s..,..._. «.,...,. ..__..�.._,... .. . _... ...«_ _ ,. ., � . . _... � "' �w Construction U Rehabilitated J Other: µ CITY OF BURLINGAME gle Family U Multi-Famil ommercial U Institutional U Irri a ion only i_] Industrial J Other. CDD-PLANNING D{'V. Applicant Name (print): Con ct Phone tt: • � Project Site Address: ` � Agency Review ' Project Area (sq.ft. or acre): q of Units: tt of Meters: �Pass) (Fail) � ; �, ° , Tota Landsc pe Area (sq.ft. � � � ':--1 U ; .� �'� i , � { : �;� " F.��" `.''`''�: Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft.): � C! i:J � ':j , r - i� • , ,� .� , Non-Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft.): U U , , � , Irrigated Special Landscape Area (SLA) (sq.ft.): • :.] 'J Water Feature Surface Area {sq.ft.): "'r .., � . . . _ . , _ _ ��iSitt ' 31':rt' �?s„fi s ,F "�Js.�� t£��_13.3.��K—ilt fi — i/' � . Low water using plants are installed for at �� Plant Material 'J No, See Special Landscape Area and/or � least 75% of plant area Retycled Water Area �' _- s 's � U : < 25% of the landscape area is turf U No, See Water Budget $ Yes U � Turf There is no turf in parkv�ays < 10 ieet wide - �J No, if adjacent to a parking strip All turf is planted on slopes < 25% es �_ ^%I Hydrozones Plants are grouped by Hydrozones �1'Es �L! �_.i . At least 4 cubic yards per 1,000 sq ft to a Yes �J �l Compost depth of 6 inches U No, See Soil 7est � � Mulch At least 3-inches of mulch on exposed soil Yes � >�� surfaces Use of automatic irrigation controllers that '� '=� use evapotranspiration or soil moisture s = sensor data and utilize a rain sensor '` � Irrigation controllers do not lose '~J U pro�ramming data when power source is �Yes � � interrupted � Irri�ation system includes pressure M ; Irrigation System re�ulators :�`�es �� U �F Manual shut-off valves are installed near the � '-� - s � connection to thc water supply All sprinkler heads installed in the landscape '� ` u 3 must document a distribution uni(ormity low es " quarter of 0.65 or higher Areas < 10 feet shall be irrigated with Yes <1� : J � subsurface irrigation U No, but there is no runoff or overspray Separate irrigation meter U Yes U Metering o, not required if < 5,000 sq ft OUTDOOR WATER USE EF�ICIENCY CHECKLIST Swimmin� Pools / Spas Cover required for new pools and spas U Yes ��J Y L1 o, no ne�v pool or spa Water Features Recirculating 71 Yes �-- '� Project Information '_] LI Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet '� U �repared by professional (optional if < 2,500 sq ft of landscape area) Soil Management Report (optional if < 2,500 �� V sq ft of landscape area) =� Prepared by professional Documentation �� Landscape Design Plan (optional if < 2,500 sq _ .r�" =� (per section 4923) repared by pro(essional � ft of landscape area) Irrigation Design Plan (optional if < 2,500 sq � '-� ft ot landscape area) ' P�"�pared by pro�sional Gradin� Design Plan (optional if < 2,500 sq ft � J oi landscape area) J repared b professional ,�' u Audit Post-installation audit completed Completed by professional r Auditor: Materials Received and Reviewed: :�S2egional Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (N�roject Information r Residential Outdoor Water Use Efiiciency Checklist �ater Efficient Landscape Worksheet �1Nater Efficient Landscape Worksheet esidential Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist �r'lant List _1 Post•Instaliation Audit U Otlier: andscape Design Pian 'I Management Report !J gation Design Plan ' rading Design Plan Date Reviewed: ❑ Fo�lo�v up required (explain): ��"��'�( z'�yx�^�{ r`1�s,��ai�"F,�� 7'�� iu5 '`s� �'� 1� ��. �_�� _ �._ _.�.� .� �:�..,�.�: _ -- _�_-� ❑ Drip irrigation Date Resubmitted: J Plant palate Date Approved: -.1 Grading Dedicated Irrigation Meter Required: U Pool and/or spa covcr Meter sizing: U Dedicated irrigation meter -] Other: Comments: Project Comments Date: Aprii 4, 2016 To: � Engineering Division � Fire Division (650) 55�7230 (650) 55&7600 � Building Division � Stormwater Division (650) 558-7260 (650) 342-3727 � Parks Division � City Attorney (650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204 From: Planning Staf� Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining heijght envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, AP�I: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 1. Water efficiency checklist needs to be redone using the new Residential Outdoor Water Use Effieciency Ghecklist form for (attached). 2. Lancscape ok; not protected size trees proposed for removal. Reviewed by: BD Date: 5I27/16 Project Comments Date: To: From: April 4, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (sso) s5s-72so X Parks Division (sso) sssa� � Fire Division (650) 55�7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attomey (650) 558-72U4 Planning Staf� Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, finro and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zone�i R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2015 1�. No existing tree over 48 inches in circumference at 54 inches form base of tree may be removed without a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Division. (558-7330) 2. If Public Works requires sidewalk replacement, Policy for Expanding Width of Planter Strip needs to be implemented. 3. E�asting City Street Tree may not be cut, trimmed or removed without permit from Parks Division (558-7330) � Landscape plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape RegulationsID (attached). Irrigation Plan required for Building permit_ Audit due for Final. 5. If construction is within drip line of e�asting trees, a Tree Protection Plan must be in place to protect tr�ees during all phases of construction. Reviewed by: BD Date: 4/8/16 Project Comments Date: June 14, 2016 To: X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027- 195-190 Staff Review: Project Comments Date: May 19, 2016 To: X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: May 19, 2016 1�. Please revise site plan (A1.0) to match revised landscape plan to show no work will be conducted within Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction without permit. Reviewed by: M. Quan � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Date: 5/20/16 Project Comments Date: To: From: April 4, 2016 X Engineering Division (650) 558- 7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558- 7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 r1�No work can take place without a Fish & Wildlife permit from the top of bank to the creek. Please �� revise landscape drawings or state if such permit will be obtained. Please be aware that there is a long permit lead time with California Fish & Wildlife. 2. A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit is required to (1) replace all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site, (2) plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and install a new 4" lateral, (3) all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city's right- of-way. /3l Show the location of down spouts for the entire roof and that there is enough finish grade elevation L% around the perimeter of the property to demonstrate the direction of storm water runoff for the property. If the grade is not suf�cient to prevent storm water runoff onto adjacent properties, show a drainage system design. � Please show how the post-construction will address the additional stormoff due to the new dwelling. Please be aware that no additional storm runoff is allowed from post-construction project site. 5. A survey by a licensed surveyor or engineer is required. The survey shall show how the property lines were determined and that the property corners were set with surveyors license numbers on durable monuments. This survey shall be attached to the construction plans. All corners need to be maintained or reinstalled before the building final. All property corners shall be maintained during construction or reestablished at the end of the project. 6. An erosion control plan will be required at the building permit stage. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. 7. For the construction of the basement, please provide information on groundwater levels during wet and dry seasons. A geotech report to back up assumptions for design criteria for foundation and shoring structural calculations is required. Design of backup generator for the groundwater pumps is required. Reviewed by: M. Quan Date: 4/7116 Project Comments Date: May 19, 2016 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 X Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: May 19, 2016 *Resubmittal* BMPs not provided yet. �Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger), plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.orq/Construction For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 18, or carol�m.critz veolia.c � ,�j � , �' � " Reviewed by: �. Date: 05/25/2016 Carolyn Critz Project Comments Date: To: From April 4, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 X Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining heijght envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 1. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger), plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction 2. Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing architectural copper. Please read "Requirements for architectural Copper." A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.orq/files/newdevelopment/flversfactsheets/Architecturalcopper BMPs.pdf � All exterior surface paving materials, including, but not limited to those used on driveways, sidewalks, walkways and patios, must be identified as pervious or impervious. Please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, for assistance at (650) 342 3727, ext. 18. Reviewed by: Carolyn Critz Date: 04/11/2016 CCL Date: Project Comments April 4, 2016 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff X Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 Additional fire sprinkler system comment: 1. Provide a minimum 1-inch water meter. S Reviewed by: Christine Reed Date: 4-12-16 . CITY OF BURLINGAME � ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLIN�AME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 . � -- PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 2721 EASTON DRIVE The City af Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for n new, two and one-half story single family dweliing and attached garage at 2721 EASTON DRIVE zoned R-l. APN 021-195-190 Mailed: November 4, 2016 (Please re%r to ofher side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. if you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other sideJ 0 c Item No. 9b Design Review Study . . � i{ , . , - ,_:' � t -�:t �w ' '- �y�,. S;_ 7' �s/�1 ��.' ":. �� -.�� w�v �e..+ . 1 _� ` '� �' ��4dF�,,M�; �i `�`f� . �. a t � �} � -''� € 1,...� -a� r,,�' J S - f / 1aV �.�x 1 � .. � e,.. l ifyt � Y. �T � . � .. �ti r2+ . y �� , � 4 �s � � ' �' � . �i.. : _ ! �r 6� c7� � � � y s _. � 4 � i� v �' %�� 3 , r.-' �`� � �X�� ." � " �' �� ,�`� �i � ,� �� , � a `�'�r �:• � �y, w " - �'�" �dr�: '" .'�, � i '�� `�i 1 . .�'k/ f . � �� ''> . t � k.' 3'� ,j�, ,�'si�1 �` r l ��'t .^r 1 4,� � . i�F'�� r + . � r � ,'�st"d . � J.,:6 � � ,� �Ig "� . � h r.f�� ' ' - �p ! � J*v � , '. � f +°5�` � '��"w sj � e d �l � j. '3 y .S � i��^ F ^1 / � ,My'ffl'. wq � � ^j'� -.� s �y? ��' "�. / �t�� 4. ._ q 'd � 3 'rs�, � > z a '� * •.'s -, r .t- , . - ?t r ; � ' an ie a' �.-,! � a� W� ;+' z ai � ',� �p"' „r . �- � S�is .. �i .. �� .�`r� ++ f � � „� L.'+;?s`7% -�' ' .. �' � � � � • � a ` ��`� �. �f td�-�r f� ~ i -s ,.p� it7b a�..oL� �: � t 4' y 1 �.X`�{ra^ d s '41 �a p t •'< t ��- �' �'' '�`' � < •�j y ....,. z3'�f � >,�.�_ `�- y �' -.CJ � t _ x^ .� fr i . ./ Y� t� i . } . '7" � '.� r r t -� �r,t.�:�r( .:*+� �.:.. r �+-�:. ' ,y� - �+' � �. y =_� �s. -S, .:.��i� . r l ��. , .,�u'� "G'�F . Sr,_� ..: '.; i � � �g� .'f.+�'• w �' �� ?' , ; ,�.� i :�ud � � ,� . 'k{��k k� ir�'� F -� 'J .. x--.:.��v. r� ` r". 1 •k ` , ,. �' .. � _ � �, i�-Ck F:Cs' S,�p�' �. -: ,, - � . 3, _ •.�:w: �L .:� � .. . -' �' . 0 ; � !� : T °' �' -: �:�'� Z fi ` "� y".�i '.t'a' fF,� '4.,- ��. �'�'* � �, .. : ��/J ' . �3� i�@ Y 1 � R + t } � �` �� -�. y r .: * �3;.,� � .. 1,�`.�� .. „�, � _ r�, •:� J n Y,l,A y. �� ..'. � r." �t 1 .. j�.— ...- � , � .: i � s , i � $ . 4+ . , � y, r .a � , ,-•s� • � '•--'.,,j � � � , �� i �, w,�� .: t fTn� , ' '4-.f -�. 1 k�Y' d . � A f�• � . - ,� p ,. _ :� ' . yFud�p., � 's � , : S �' `�S E . L'': i 4 9, C S � y.��n��+L�,_� �r_A i} . . �.. .- }AJE �;��K .V� 'Q�C4t'�� .Mc � � s � � � P � "� .r � � � � �. 'x� � � > � � ,}-� � � : � n'`'.:3'.cc�l'. � �. y Y ` �f F � ,. ,� { b P . ... . . { .s` "� .:C� ➢ �`.� ��. � :..� i,e�' ._si 'Tla ^� x ! Zi,. � � � a a t �.n � *}. G4 ..) f Y � � � �� §� � _ j � � � � �; s..'f�t -� . rRi S� - 'F'i u " cs. �'' �." k.�,i? �} `q r� `'�' I � : k � ` �N�, fYx `: "�.... . ,� ,M; k '_;S e �� s x.� r . '? t9�fi s�£' � � #,i �' .�' i ys.n ,...i , � � �. � k � � �*� ,�,. : .'�•- � �,c„ � :f � ,�la _ t i{��"�`� ' � § ;� �y v ,,�t e � ...l�l i � (� � - " jq� � s � "i��} y � .:'_1 FtiL`fi n�r Y: �._�. a � � � � �a ,�, r � +. f� .�t � -�,�•t . �.� `�r�f.. j[.�i F 'l��:�i ..': _ - .�j �S t f 3 :. r � ..i+` �K.?� F� { Y � sa �'�_ ,:3 ...4` : ! .: , dt�: � i a . , k. J .,;.' "t k °iFUP �a ';Y �r' N" = i.�' Y'. ,tl A 1}1.GV'.d i ...5{...Av �r.-.-<it� �_.��-.0 �_�'sw+J'.. .. ... . ,. .-. � .��` . ku..N. �' � . � c.,. �"�Y�ii� a, . �� - i t } x--b �ri . Y��-��. - y. �: � � �'� � . -. � t.,l � J. 3 '. i .�. c C t+�� c . x t f" �� . - 4 1 � � S � � " ''� i 3. '�..� t r ' �.i' i . . t y -. r } r e � $ i �r- , r" .ei" '�n r'. y M.;�.�. k Ft wFa �� .f.,, �t,'� ' �`��? � � s "i.��`^� y 3 ,$ ,a� ti: AM1 .:� �u. > �. �rs` „ ,�,�� .. ,. . _ . � �'-. ., �� iti - . , . � �� ' : .�z � .. PROJECT LOCATION 2721 Easton Drive City of Burlingame Design Review and Specia/ Permits Address: 2721 Easton Drive Item No. 9b Design Review Study Meeting Date: October 24, 2016 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage. Applicant and Architect: Randy Grange, TRG Architects Property Owners: Anatoly Tikhman Tr General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-195-190 Lot Area: 9,592 SF Zoning: R-1 June 27, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on June 27, 2016, the Commission requested that the applicant consider making changes to the proposed project based on their comments/suggestions (June 27, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes attached). The Commission's concerns are listed below and were primarily focused on the design of the house, compatibility with the neighborhood, and the attached two-car garage. The Commission also noted a concern with the proposed large gathering area along the left side of the house. The applicant submitted a written response dated October 14, 2016, and revised plans date stamped October 12, 2016, in response to the Planning Commission's comments and suggestions. The overall design of the proposed house changed from Mediterranean to a more traditional architectural approach. The floor plan remained relatively unchanged, with the exception of a larger front porch (increased from 73 SF to 199 SF) and setting back the attached garage an additional 4'-0" (from 26'-0" to 30'-0"). A raised planter (guardrail height) was added along the perimeter of the terrace along the left side of the house, which narrows the terrace and provides additional privacy to the adjacent neighbor. Planning staff determined that since there was a significant change to the design style of the house, the application should be brought back for Planning Commission review as a design review study item. After reviewing the proposed design, the Commission may place this application on a consent calendar or action calendar, or may refer it to a design review consultant with direction to the applicant. Desiqn and Compatibilitv ■ Primary concern is the compatibility of the style with the neighborhood. The existing home is an architectural gem, the proposed home is less than that. There are other means of attaching the garage in a manner that can minimize the appearance of the garage from the front. ■ The existing home has a gracious porch that presents itself to the neighborhood; the proposed design has what appears to be a simple stoop. Knows the architect has the ability to address these points. ■ Have an obligation to residents in the area to ensure that the new home reflects the character of the neighborhood. ■ There is a real opportunity in this instance to develop a design that is of a similar caliber to the existing home. Could benefit from the new FAR exemption for front porches. ■ The plate heights could impact neighborhood compatibility, but are less of a concern in this instance. ■ Feels it is the wrong place for this design. Feels decidedly suburban. ■ Would hesitate to dictate a style, but more concerned about fit. This design doesn't fit. Design Review and Special Permits Attached Garape 2721 Easton Drive ■ The front facing garage is not consistent with the neighborhood; where they do exist they are typically only one space wide. ■ The double wide parking area in front is inconsistent with the neighborhood as well. ■ Can't make the case for an attached garage; the majority of the houses have detached garages. ■ Can't support the attached garage; there is a strong pattern of detached garages. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing two-story house and detached garage to build a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached two-car garage. The lower level is defined as a lower level half-story, and not a third floor, since it does not exceed two-thirds of the area above it. The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 4,081 SF (0.43 FAR) where 4,169 SF (0.43 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 88 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The new single family dwelling will contain six bedrooms (the office and guest rooms qualify as bedrooms). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required and provided on site. One uncovered space is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have also been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Design Review for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010); Special Permit for an attached two-car garage (C.S. 25.26.035, (a)); and Special Permit for declining height envelope (63.3 SF, 2'-6" x 25'-4" along the left side of the house extends beyond the declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.075 (a)). As noted above, the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for declining height envelope along the left side of the house. The point of departure for the declining height envelope is based on the 15-foot front and rear setback lines because the difference between these two points is not more than 2'-0") (Code Section 25.26.075 (b) (4)). Due to the downward slope towards the rear of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height envelope along the left side of the house is approximately 9'-6" below the finished floor of the house. As a result, the left side of the house extends 63.3 SF (2'-6" x 25'-4") beyond the declining height envelope. This space intentionally left blank. 2 Design Review and Special Permits 2721 Easton Drive 2721 Easton Drive Lot Area: 9,592 SF Plans date stam ed: October 12, 2016 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 24'-0" 23'-11" (block average) (2nd flr): 31'-4" 23'-11" (block average) (atfached garage): 30'-0" 25'-0" (two single doors) Side (/eff): 7'-10" to house/7'-0" to terrace 7'-0" (right): 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (Lower flr): 42'-0" 15'-0" (9sf flr): 42'-0" 15'-0" (2nd flr): 50'-8" 20'-0" Lof Coverage: 3149 SF 3837 SF 32.8% 40% FAR: 4081 SF : 4169 SF' 0.43 FAR 0.43 FAR # of bedrooms: 6 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered 2 covered (20'-0" x 20'-1" clear interior) (20'-0" x 20'-0" clear interior) 1 uncovered : 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Height: 24'-11 " ' 30'-0" DH Envelope: Special Permit along left side Z CS 25.26.075 ' (0.32 x 9592 SF) + 1100 SF = 4169 SF (0.43 FAR) Z Special Permit for declining height envelope (63.3 SF, 2'-6" x 25'-4" along the left side of the house extends beyond the declining height envelope). Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that Easton Creek runs along the rear of the property. There are no improvements proposed beyond the top of bank. See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. 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: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 3 Design Review and Special Permits 2721 Easton Drive Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for declining height envelope and an attached garage, 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 for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect Attachments: Written response submitted by the applicant, dated October 14, 2016 June 27, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Letter submitted by Mark and Sandy Moore, dated June 27, 2016 Email submitted by Phil Koblis, dated June 27, 2016 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Applications Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed October 14, 2016 Aerial Photo 4 October 14, 2016 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 �C��.J OCT i 7 2016 Re: 2721 Easton Dr. Dear Commissioner, CITY OF BURLrNGAME CDD-PU+NNING DIV. You previously reviewed the proposed residence for 2721 Easton Dr. as a study item. There were numerous comments about the project from both Planning Commissioners and adjacent neighbors, ranging from loss of the existing house on site (and its porch), to the proposed style, to the attached garage. Following is a brief outline of the changes made since then. We will be providing more detail at the meeting. Style The style of the proposal has been changed. Rather than the originally proposed Mediterranean, the new design is along bungalow lines. While not attempting to mimic the existing house on site, the new proposal does recall it with the use of the narrow horizontal siding and wide trim. The proposed design actually incorporates much more trim and detail, as compared to the existing house, which adds articulation and further breaks down the massing. Porch We have incorporated a broad new porch into the design, and agree that this is a much more welcoming and neighborly element. This porch is just under 200 SF, the new Burlingame front porch allocation. Addition of the porch and reconfiguration of the floor plan means that the garage is set back nearly twice as far from the front of the house as it was previously. Side Terrace The left side neighbor expressed concern about the side terrace off of the family room being a large gathering space. The reason for this area is simply to provide access to the rear yard from the main level, without creating an unsightly raised deck off the back of the house. We have narrowed the terrace into a wide walkway, and provided a raised planter (guardrail height) along the side to add more privacy and provide a second layer of landscape screening. Garage There was discussion about the attached garage, which is central to the owners needs for the house. They want to actually park in the garage; with infants, groceries, etc..., hiking up the driveway from a detached unit, and then up a full flight of stairs to reach the door to the house does not work. These down sloping lots offer unique challenges in the parking department that more conventional lots do not. Additionally, the lots along this stretch of Easton are extra deep, which further impacts the direct application of all aspects of the design guidelines. This can be seen consistently throughout the other older homes, where for the most part, garages were built to work. On our specific site, there cannot be a garage option proposed that does not require either a special permit or a variance. One cannot have a detached garage in the back 30% of the lot because that puts it over the top of the creek bank where construction is not allowed. Pulling it forward to the back 40% still requires a special permit, but is further back than the existing garage. A new garage in the same location as the existing would require a variance. Attached garages occur in the majority of homes in this general vicinity, but more importantly, the parking pattern is unique, site specific, and nonconforming due to the steeply down-sloping lots. We will provide a more detailed overview in our presentation, but summarize here. In reviewing the first 14 houses after the Hillsborough town line, on our side of the street, we found 9 attached garages, 1 attached carport, and 4 detached garages. This includes the widest variety of configurations that I can find in Burlingame; 1 attached in back, 1 detached in front, several attached but way in front of the house, 1 recently approved attached 2 car, and a couple that look unusable. By my estimation, 3 or more would require special permits, and as many as 9 would require variances by today's rules. Let's not forget that attached garages are allowed with setback and square footage implications (as noted, one was recently approved along this stretch), and in this case, provide actual parking that gets cars off the street and out of the driveway. We look forward to the meeting. And the opportunity to present more detail and answer questions. Sincerely, Randy Grange AIA .' {TY ,, . �►,��.�: � _ v� �j� ' � �� e r �c4 -. 90 IWA�T[0 Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers d. 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Anatoly Tikhman Tr, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones had a discussion with the neighbor at 2701 Easton. Chair Loftis had a discussion with the neighbor at 2711 Easton. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff.� > Asked who the author of the letter that was received? (Commissioner - Koblis) > �th respect to the driveway on the right-hand side, it appears that the driveway crosses the property line - the neighbor has requesfed that the driveway be permitted to stay at its present location . Is there a prescriptive easement that exists? (Kane - hasn't reviewed the letter, but generally speaking that issue is between the private property owners. Would be handled through a lega! process. Consider the application as it is before the Commission. Can encourage the neighbors to discuss the issue. Not something the Commission can weigh-in on.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Alex and Marcia Tikhman represented the applicant. Commission questions: > Is there a reason why the existing residence can't be renovated? (A. Tikhman - have considered. There is significant sloping in the floors. There is nothing that can be done without a significant renovation. They wish to have an attached garage; there is no way to do so wifh the existing home. The architect could speak more directly to the issues.) > Is there a reason why the particular style was selected as opposed to something that is closer to the existing home. (M. Tikhman - there are other similar homes in the neighborhood. A. Tikhman - made a conscious decision to look at other designs.) How committed is the applicant to the proposed style? (M. Tikhman - could consider another sfyle, but the proposed style is represented in the neighborhood.) There is a paitern in the neighborhood with similar styles grouped together. Asked that the applicant conside� the pattern that exists in the neighborhood. (A. Tikhman - really like the proposed style; is a preference.) Public comments: Nicole Koblis, neighbor to the left - excited to have a young family move into the area. Are concerned about the neighborhood character. Concerned about the entertainment patio on the left side of the property at the rear. Fee/s it is a bit awkward. Chair Loftis closed the publrc hearing. City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Cityof8urlingame Page 1 Printed on 10/f4/2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 27, 2016 Commission discussion: > Agrees with Commissioners' comments regarding the neighborhood character and the compatibility of the design with the homes next to it. The front facing garage is not consistent with the neighborhood,� where they do exist they are typically on/y one space wide. > The doub/e wide parking area in front is inconsistent with the neighborhood as well. > Has no problem with the proposed plate heighfs given the topography of the lot and the presence of larger homes in the area. > Primary concern is the compatibility of the style with the neighborhood. The existing home is an architectura! gem, the proposed home is /ess than that. There are other means of attaching the ga�age in a manner that can minimize the appearance of the garage from the front. > The existing home has a gracious porch that presents itse/f to the neighborhood; the proposed design has what appears to be a simple stoop. Knows fhe architect has the ability to address these points. > Have an obligation to residents in the area to ensure that the new home reflects the character of the neighborhood. > There is a real opportunity in this instance to develop a design that is of a similar caliber to the existing home. Could benefit from the new FAR exemption for front porches. > Can't make the case for an attached garage; the majority of the houses have detached garages. > The p/ate heights could impact neighborhood compatibility, but are less of a concern in this instance. > Disappointed by the design that was presented by the project architect. > Fee/s it is the wrong place for this design. Fee/s decidedly suburban. > Would hesitate to dictate a sty/e, but more concerned about fit. This design doesn't fit. > Can't support the attached garage; there is a strong pattern of detached garages. > Has a problem with the gathering area to the side of the house, as opposed to the rear. A motion was made by Commissioner DeMartini, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when ready for action. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent Absent: 2- Bandrapalli, and Gaul City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 10H4/2018 06.27.16 PC Meeting ('O:t-�:�1�;:1;'IC.�TI��;' RECEIL �D Item # 9c .-1FTER PREPARATIO:I' 2721 Easton Drive OF ST,4FF REP(�RT Page 1 of 4 RECEIVED JUN 24 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAM� CDD - PLANNING DlV. -----Original Message----- From: Sandy Moore jmaiito:sandvCc�noadmin.com] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 8:39 AM To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin Cc: Mark Moore Subject: 2721 Easton Drive Hi Ruben- Attached is the letter we have written about our thoughts on the proposed project to be built next door to us- 2721 Easton. My husband, Mark, has emailed the letter directly to each of the planning commissioners. We apologize for not being able to attend the meeting Monday night. The neighbors on the other side of 2721, Nicole and Phil Koblis, are planning to attend. They share many of the same concerns that we do. If you have any questions for us, please let me know. Thank you! City of Burlingame Planning Commissian SQ1 Primrose Road 8urlingame, Califamia 94010 June 27, 2016 bear Planning Commission, Mark and Sandy Moore 2723 Easton Drive Burlingame, California 9401Q Tel: 650-343-2552 We are writing with comments and questions concerning the propased demolition of 2721 Easton Drive, and the construction of a new house on the property. We awn the house next dear at 2723 Easton Drive, where we have lived for over ten years and are raising our three chi(dren. We look forward to welcorning Mr. and M�s. Tikham to the neighborhood. Dur hvuse was built in 1915 and 2721 Easton was built a few yea�s later. We understand these two houses were built as summer cottages for city-dwellers to escape the fog. Residents would ride the new train service down the peninsula, jump the trolley up Hillside, and enjoy sunny Bu�lingame and the nea�by woods from these simple but elegant hames. Craftsman in character and distinct in their shingled wood, wrap-around porches, and square structures, these two houses together very much represent "Historic Burlingame" (See attached photo). Our first comment, therefore, is that we are disappointed to see this bit of "Old Burlingame" torn down. These two hauses go together, and we would much prefer that the new owne� remodel and refurbish the existing beautiful and historic home on the property. When we remodeled our house in 2011, the Commission commended us for maintaining the style of the originat house, and "appreciated that the design works with the existing structure's architecture" (App�oved Minutes, April 25, 2Q11). We encourage Mr. and Mrs. Tikhman to consider a similar approach, and hope the Commission wil! eneourage the same. If a teardownJrebuild is the only option, we hope that the new house will be in the same distinct and historic style as the existing hause and of the other houses on the south side of Easton Drive. For example, the #ive houses on the street all have driveways down the east side of the property, including the current house on 2721. A short driveway to a garage at the front and middle of the property, as currently proposed, will look strange next to these historic houses. We alsa wonder the effect of this driveway on the spacing on the sidewalk and street in front af the house, and how this wider car egress, the new pedestrian crosswalk, and room for street parking will all flt. We are also concerned that the rear of the house extends much farther back than other houses on the row. Much of the charm of these old houses is in the back, and how they lead onto slopping gardens towarci the creek. The new house as pr�posed will take up a much larger portion of the property than its neighbors, and create an imposing presence over adjacent yards. We also question the fencing planned adjatent to our property, particularly the "black steel fencing". We would like to consult with Mr. and Mrs. Tikhman ahead of any construction of fences that directly separates our properties. We are sure we can come to a mutually agreeable material and design. Importantly, we also want our neighbors and the Commission to be aware that the plan proposes building right over our driveway and our property in the northwest corner. We ask for a revision of design so that fencing and landscaping are on the other side af ourdriveway, which we have been using openly and continuously for many years. A fina! reques# is that we respectfully ask you ta please delay the eext hearing until after July 11. We are on a lang-planned out af state family vacation that week, and would like the opportunity ta express our questions and cancerns to the Commission in person, especially considering the plan as proposed will extend onto our property. We are good neighbors, lang-time Burlingame residents, and value what makes our neighborhood special. We were great friends of Mr. and Mrs. Danfel Barry, who lived at 2721 Easton for nearly 60 years, and are genuinely excited for new neighbor5 to mo�e next door. Thank you for your consideratian of our concerns and questions. � Rega�ds, Q1,� �• dd�'�� ., Mark and San Moore � ,: . � .�� - , --,,, , � _ �� .. . �-�. 1 � � � � o �� x ��.� , , �� z :. � x� , � r i°y� � � y � � � ( � ;�,'t _•r ii L `�. � i M �'. �� . .. �,Y�i "!' ♦ � t . �.r� � � . . � �� . � � � � `�•�. � �� y � .. ' 1�.��.� � �. 7 � a;�� • r�: T "+'"' '��`�`� - ,�y ^ _ r � - r � . 1' • : �4 V` * �, . � !� j {lt' t r ti�'�'�' �� .� ,3�0 '! i � (� l '; �; ��s '� w'- .f 1 1w �:(.�� I �.. j:�,y � ! ��( �.��^; . � . t ,� . wp��R� l � "�'� .�� ,,i� • i�� :4" �iJ- �'. � .�' �-d�'i`��` *�+�',� y *�+ ,,hz .•`77 jy1 � '�.{. �•�. t/� �f ,.r� ,9► , �j�j�+�;Ya�.\��„� s� •. �. �C rv� �. �r'S�'�,. �� . �`�y `f �o �� r , , ' �' 0. 1 s � . } . . ' ' � +.`�la• . _. �, + F r � ; �j �.. 'f'T j � �� u��'�'' h�� t i � s .� f , "t'`y�' �.�' ' ,, �. �-� t � �� ; ° �. ' �, �.�.,3. � r., � {`'� . � ie��+��';�� • . - ! �� \ _ : . Yi �a s� � �` �{ �-.; � � � ..:-:..*' � .� .,�c ,'�� .:- ``'� ' � r� ; .•ri._ _� ; r � ' t � `: � A.:: x : � ':��`�:' ��'��J� �..y,� ' � �-� �,. t b f .� . �. • ' � •� l A .' • � �� qA'.. �M � �� . Y � ��.; _ � t . 'i.�'� '��,� � I' % �' � y �: I r ) �r � [ � • ''. •.'�./ / � � �'r'� ��Rr+�� ,�_ � �- . . _ ' � a•K' � ' �.. . x. ..:fi ,�.5 �' • �. f _ ,l; .�'�` �*ii':' ' .� �_�, ' = 1 I.rn . . �: �rj t ,�� , ,� � 4 hy � . h' ` � i� _ ;. } :. � ��. �� ^ �� ' t �'• `'"�s". . :�' �� ,I',.� �:� "�" `� `� ��t �� ` g��' � 4 +'�-PL+ ♦ J,. ' ,r d � .!t r� ��r�,{ � .:%f s� j � - j'S� , 'a T •:(•� . �.��. '`� �� A `��3�� { � �:d�� R iiF.. � 7► . � . 71��t�� ' �` ��,' � ,, w�' � � ; L � � �` ' " �: � � �, ! '+� y � � rt � .. ' Sf . � C'} � � . i:. p- . �' - . q'.� ._c•: ",�.� � �� - � . . � �t T � x j y *� 1 � �� k' �� t� � � �1. � ' .y� � �e .-. 4� ..: � I �' "� S ,� � �. Y . �` �.'1i'� 5 �"' �(�_ ,�.; ' ``�'�.�a--��` `.�.-"re•'",.�y^xs....:.;.' � C. "' # i 4 - �:.. , x ,-x: � y;: �� \,_ ' I � �, . 1 � 2 . 3 . ii�,�� . ♦�y �!1`+I '�� _ �. �� • . i r i i � e� ,�- � - ;. ,��.�,, ��' ; _ �. * ,�,,,.a,,.,�.,.: . , � ,' r 1.! � � �+�,� � -wc . .t��7n�� ':r �b�', ' r�..1 �r �.�.�q� ..,�-� �c . . .. � \ f-.. -.. t!-; tc r er"�--.�....ns, 'ti- . � * �:�:.� '��."' I . .n-•�:o,.. TC�,t �l� ��`L^ f • �'�% . � s �' � T � � � � ��. � �,�-tr �-, � 1..... _�� , "�-. .�:� �' � a'.� � �y, � '��, .� � � l - .�... � �.sy � �, �� ',� • . s ' � '., r� ^� -..i 'il�i . e� �� '� � 3 . i � �" i ` . � .`�`� ��' ,� _ .� ;� �.-*� Y , _ < .. , � n _ � 06.27.16 PC Meeting CO.vI_IIU,�'1�'� i'll��:�,` .RECEI� "Fl Item # 9c AFTER PREPAR.�TIO,I�' 2721 Easton Drive C)F STAFF REPORT Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED JUN 27 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. From: Mendoza, Elizabeth T fmailto:etmendozaC�comerica.com] On Behalf Of Koblis, Philip Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 3:13 PM To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin Cc: nicole koblis Subject: Planning Committee Comments My name is Phil Koblis and I live at 2711 Easton Drive with my wife, Nicole, and our three children Riley (6), Chase (3) and Harper (2). Our home is directly next door to 2721 Easton Drive on the left hand side when viewing from the street. I first wanted to welcome the Tikhman family to the neighborhood and Easton Drive, the same way we were welcomed by our neighbors when we moved here a little over 2 years ago. There is such a strong sense of community on our street and in Burlingame as a whole. We truly feel blessed to live here and I have no doubts they'll feel the same. I am traveling for work on Monday and unfortunately won't be able to attend the formal planning department meeting. I've had a chance to review the plans and I wanted to provide the following comments /questions /concerns for the planning committee members to consider. I anticipate my wife having additional comments. 1) Size and scope of project- after reviewing the plans it's fairly apparent the home was designed to maximize the allowable square footage of the home to the lot size. In addition, there are special permit requests to include an attached garage and for a declining variance exception. I reviewed the city's special permit requirements and the architect's explanation for exception. I have a few observations/concerns. A) The Spanish style and design of the home is not similar to the existing home or to the immediate set of neighbors (pictured in plans) on the south side/creek side of Easton. B) The mass of the home is not similar to the existing home or to the immediate set of neighbors or the creek side Easton homes in general. I've reviewed the home and property measurements for 10 homes on the creek side of Easton nearest to the proposed home from Montero to Easton Circle. 7 of 10 have detached single car garages, 8 of 10 are craftsman/non- Spanish style, and all but one have home square footage to lot ratio of less than 33%. 06.27.16 PC Meeting Item # 9c 2721 Easton Drive Page 2 of 2 Ultimately, our thought is that instead of approving the special permits that allows for the biggest possible home to be built that a slightly smaller home is built that conforms with current building code, the neighboring homes, and neighborhood at large. 2) Landscaping - we are happy to see several of the existing old growth trees in the backyard designed to stay. The trees offer beauty, shade, and privacy to both our properties. I would recommend those to be clearly marked prior to any demolition and construction on the property, if it's not already planned. Also, there is a large tree hedge on our property in the front that is adjacent to their property line. We'd also like to make sure those are clearly marked and unharmed during the demolition and construction. Finally, there is a plan to add new privacy trees between our home and the proposed new home. They're currently listed as evergreen trees. We appreciate the efforts to build privacy between the two homes, and hope to have a discussion with the Tikhman's on the type of tree/bushes they plant. Evergreen's grow quickly, but have a track record of root and beetle issues, and will eventually block light into our deck and backyard. One currently exists on the property, and has required a lot of pruning on both sides to control growth. 3) Demofition and construction - as stated above, we have three young children. They enjoy playing in the front and back yards. It is extremely important for us that all safety precautions available and necessary are taken by the Tikhman's general contractor and subs to insure the construction zone is secure at all times. The current plan is to demolish the detached garage which currently straddles our property line and build a new fence. I'd like to make sure there is a clear and detailed plan of how and when that is done, and that it is acceptable to our family. We'd also like to be informed of the plan post demolition. I understand the Tikhman's have a young family too, so I'm sure they can appreciate our concern here. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please be aware that if you reply directly to this particular message, your reply may not be secure. Do not use email to send us communications that contain unencrypted confidential information such as passwords, account numbers or Social Security numbers. If you must provide this type of information, please visit comerica.com to submit a secure form using any of the "Contact Us" forms. In addition, you should not send via email any inquiry or request that may be time sensitive. The information in this e-mail is confidential. It is intended forthe individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error, please destroy or delete the message and advise the sender of the error by return email. �� r �`�1I � ��_ � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 50'I PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 9401 O p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: �Design Review Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: O2? f 1�15 — l �'l0 [� Special Permit [] Other. � PROJECT ADDRESS: �-7'�. � C.`�y 7`�,'� �t.. S v,-r,' �s,�: �=�' "-7 � C�l Please indicate the contact person for this projeci APPLICANT , project contact person,� , � OK to send electronic copies of documents � Name: I ��t �! � �� < Address: l ��{' �irt"OV`K�-� �� CitylState2ip: �� a--� � �2�� I Phone: �� —� � � ' `� �'��' Fax: �oc�o � c�% •— � 1 � Wl,�� . � •-V'C ��c:v'�✓� E-mail: �-�1.� � G�Y'G� • ��`�l� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER projcctcontactperson8 OK to send electronic copies of docu�ents Name: � Address: � � l PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies oE documents � Name: �i��i T=' � Y lrfC�tr�, ,,��i Address: � � �/ ✓t �'� �/� � � City/State/Zip: �; L� � i� 1- �`- c:� 4-�.� �'� '� i c:� Phone: �� c; . 7',�,-��r _� �� c.r Fax: �'�>�. —%/i •-%f �. �7 E-maiL f��' �''�t �- c.. 7�' � K�� .'✓. c c; .-�-t ,� t�-c�. � -��-I-s City/State2ip: �- ✓� �✓�OC.�o . �� -D ( „-. Phone: �5�-- �'?� �- � � �`Z- Fax: co�� - � 70�' — � � ( � E-mail: ��ti�< <'`� � , C� * Burlingame Business License #: �� 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1� e+� ��°��- ��e�� AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certi under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. /._. ��3r �C, � Appticant's signature: Date: I am aware of the proposed appl'cation and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. ; �-- � Property owner's signature: �i�v'��r,' Iti- � �. ! `�`� ` Date:_�� '' Date submitted: 3�3 I. I(p * Verification that the project architecUdesigner 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 to indicate the contact person for this project. S:�Handoucs�C Appiication 2o0&B.handout Ciry of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • www.burlinaame.orp CITY �� 7 � � ��,° ,,,-� -,��_� �4aoA..F CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION 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, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new consfruction or addition are consistent with the existing sfructure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. 5ee a�i�"a-chec�-. 2. Explain how 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. 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 sfrucfure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestatior� requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why fhis mitigation is appropriate. Rev. 07.2008 � See over for explanation of above questions. SPECIAL.PERMIT.APP.FORM Attachment A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR Attached Garage 2721 Easton. This is a proposal to have a two car attached garage. Two features of the site yield a detached garage less practical for parking. 1) the property is very deep along the driveway side. To conform to required locations for a detached structure, one would have to put the garage way back on top of the creek bank (not allowed). To pull it forward, within the rear 40%, will also require a special permit. 2) The downward slope of the lot makes for an awkward garage. Even pulling it forward to the rear 40% places it 12' below sidewalk level, and backing out is tricky. More than '/2 of the houses that share the down sloping side of this street also have attached garages. And most of the detached garages along this side of the street would not be allowed to be constructed today because they are well forward of the rear 40%, to accommodate the difficulties of the long down sloping driveway; some are detached but actually at the front or in front of the house. Additionally, the owners have very small children (infants), plan to actually park in the garage, and trudging up the hill and stairs to get into the house is not practical. The attached garage also minimizes on-site pavement and storm water ru n-off. The mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction are consistent with the existing street and neighborhood. There are a wide variety of houses on the street (in terms of style, mass, scale etc... ) and the proposed house will fit in. In fact, there are other newer homes on the block with a similar style and attached garages. The site characteristics (down sloping lot) create a situation where the attached garage is the more logical parking solution. 2. The rooflines, fa�ade, materials, and elevations of the proposed house and garage are consistent with, the neighborhood and street. The proposed materials and detailing form a rich combination, with stained wood siding, integral colored plaster, stained wood headers and rafter tails, and natural stone accents. The elevations all include a significant amount of articulation with wall offsets and varied roof forms. The attached garage is consistent with the neighborhood. There are a variety of garage configurations in the neighborhood, and, due to the down sloping lots, an attached garage is most usable. 3. 1. The architectural style is compatible with that of the existing house and character of the neighborhood. 2. The attached garage being proposed is consistent with the neighborhood. More than half of the houses on this side of the street have attached garages. ^ �� C �"� � 3. See items 1 and 2 above for comments about style, mass andfb� C V MAY 1 9 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. 4. There will be minimal impact on neighboring properties as the garage is set well back. 5. A full landscaping plan is being provided, which will be a significant improvement for the site. 2. No trees within the footprint are being proposed for removal. A few trees along the property line are proposed to be removed and are being replaced. Attachment B SPECIAL PERMIT FOR Declining Height 2721 Easton Note: There is an extreme downslope on the lot between the curb elevation and the bottom of the creek. The declining height ordinance was written for flat or nearly flat lots, and does not work in situations such as this. In fact, not allowing the special permit would force an extreme offset for the second floor and a lopsided house design; seemingly at odds with the design guidelines. The proposed design includes offsets for the second floor that far exceed what one typically sees on a typical lot. If the declining height were measured at the corners of the house rather than the corners of the lot (which is more logical), one will see that the design far exceeds the standard requirement; and that's what counts since this is all about interface with the neighboring house. 1. The mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction are consistent with the existing street and neighborhood. There are a wide variety of houses on the street (in terms of style, mass, scale etc...) and the proposed house will fit in. In fact, there are other newer homes that appear to surely have needed relief from declining height. The site characteristics (down sloping lot) create a situation where the declining height ordinance no longer makes sense. 2. The rooflines, fa�ade, materials, and elevations of the proposed house and garage are consistent with, the neighborhood and street. The proposed materials and detailing form a rich combination, with stained wood siding, integral colored plaster, stained wood headers and rafter tails, and natural stone accents. The elevations all include a significant amount of articulation with wall offsets and varied roof forms. 3. 1. The architectural style is compatible wifh that of the existing house and character of the neighborhood. 2. The attached garage being proposed is consistent with the neighborhood. More than half of the houses on this side of the street have attached garages. 3. See items 1 and 2 above for comments about style, mass and bulk. 4. There will be minimal impact on neighboring properties as the 2"d story offsets are significant. 5. A full landscaping plan is being provided, which will be a significant improvement for the site. 4. No trees within the footprint are proposed for removal. RE�jE�� MAY 1 9 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Project Comments Date: To: From: April 4, 2016 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: May 20, 2016 1) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. �% �' �� Reviewed by:��, .,t;(.�C I:LL'� Date: Mav 20, 2016 Rick Caro III, CBO 650-558-7270 ,. _. __ _. __....__ _ .. _ _. . _, ._..._ , _ . __ - . _ ._ _ _ ___ .__ ., G � Project Comments k Date: To: From: April 4, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 1) Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://www.energv.ca.�ov/title24/2013standards/ for publications and details. 2) Provide two completed copies of the attached Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. 3) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 4) This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve- month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2013 California Building Code for new structures. BMC 18.07.020 Note: Any revisions to the plans approved by the Building Division must be submitted to, and approved by, the Building Division prior to the implementation of any work not specifically shown on the plans. Significant delays can occur if changes made in the field, without City approval, necessitate further review by City departments or the Planning Commission. Inspections cannot be scheduled and will not be performed for work that is not shown on the Approved plans. 5) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certi�cate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been �nal. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certi�cate of Occupancy has been issued. NOTE: A condition of this project approval is that the Demolition Permit will not be issued and, and no work can begin (including the removal of a� building components), until a Building Permit has been issued for the project. The property owner is responsible for assuring that no work is authorized or performed. 6) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 7) On the plans show that all openings in exterior walls, both protected and unprotected, will comply with 2013 CBC, Table 705.8. Provide a table or chart that specifies 1) the openings allowed and; 2) the size and percentage of the openings proposed. 8) Provide section details that show the finished headroom height for each room in the basement. Per the 2013 CRC the minimum ceiling height in a basement is 7'0". Portions of the basement that do not include habitable space, hallways, bathrooms, toilet rooms and laundry rooms shall have a ceiling height of not less than 6"8". NOTE: Areas with a headroom height greater than 5' 11" are considered to be floor area by the Planning Division. 9) NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 10) Specify on the plans whether the fireplace is a gas or solid wood-burning device. If the fireplace is a solid wood-burning device clearly state on the plans that the fireplace will meet all requirements as a U.S.EPA Phase II certified wood-burning device. 11) If the fireplace is a solid wood-burning device then specify on the plans that the fireplace chimney will terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet or will be retrofit with a fireplace insert (not a log lighter.) 2013 CRC § 1003.9. 12)18.10.100 Appendix C, Figure C amended—Exit terminals of inechanical draft and direct-vent venting systems. The Figure in Appendix C of the 2013 California Residential Code is amended by adding the following note: Note: Where the property line is less than ten (10) feet from the exit terminal of any newly installed or replacement high efficiency mechanical equipment the pipe size of the final ten (10) feet of any terminal must be increased to three inches (3") or, as an alternative, manufacturer-approved baffles must be installed. NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. The written resnonse must include clear direction re�ardin� where the requested information can be found on the plans. � Reviewed by:�� 2�?.�� Date: April 7, 2016 � Rick Caro III, CBO 650-558-7270 Project Comments Date: To: From: April 4, 2016 � Engineering Division (s5o� ��a-723o � Building Division (650) 558-7260 �Par�cs Division (sso) s�a-7� � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attomey (650) 558-7204 Planning Sta�f Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining heijght envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dv�ielling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 ��. 1. Waier efficiency checklist needs to be redone using the new Residential Outdoor Water Use Effieciency Checklist form for (attached). �� e 2.� Lancsca �"'�'� � � '� � " pe oic; not protected size trees proposed for removal. � 'yt-� �r �' � l� �� Reviewed by: BD Date: 5/27/16 OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY �H C LIST ��1� { s-, , .: � .. � , . ,— tI � - �� L �e �� el��,�_ � t �� j�� I{�r ��.� �t f'"I �a; ��'� , I ,, ' � �;. � � a .: s F�'e,<a . . b; �. �r�^s.'? ' .vt ,� -� �. y 4 � ', '-i� ` t /�;.. .1,�1 �. � s a .��, ; � �l� � `��s� f' t � �I � � ^ S C -. .. ' � :�. M1 5 1 ,._:, Y, _ � �. .. . _ . � � � , r..�._.�_.�� "�"" � ' _.,_..�.�_... ..�� _..:_._.�....... . _��:.i.. � .�._ '�' '� ' . �. E� I[�rtif�; that ' tr{itetz �roje �neets �e[ ��r?��quirement� cf the ��ater �oroservat�� r3 le .f<,canin, i � �-'' �= �� -�� i� ��.�.. , , si; n��tt � �ate � _:•. Consts�:ciie�s :.] r,eha'tidi;a;Ea J�ti��r: CITY OF BURLVNGAME E , zic Famoly LJ Multi-Famil 'ornmercial U Institutional U irri a ion only C.1 Industrial � Other. CDD-PLANNING DIV. �, Applicant Name jprint): ('nn �ct Phon�t N: • .. �` rrt�jECt .Site Ad��ass' t � Agenty Review Praje�cE Area jsq.ft. or acrej: # of Units: tt �f Mete��, {Pass) (Fail) Total Landsc pe Area (sq.ft. �� , J ` t � Zurf Irrigated i�rea (s�.ft.j: ' J -� � Non-Turf Irrigattd Area (sq.(t.): J -1 Irngated 5pecial Lands�ape Are� (SLAj (sq.ft..): �' � J \Vater Feature';urfacz Area �sc�.i,.'i: � E T J Low water usin� plants are installe�+ for at Plant Material J No, See Speca�l Lands��pF Area an�Jo; least 75`._ of plar�6 as'ea Rr�yc;ec: �'��at�r Area " 5 d" J < 25;� of the landscape a�ea is turf J No, See Water Budgei Turf There;s �o turf iri p�rkways <!0 t�e[ �fid� Yes � J .] CJo, if adjacent to• a pa��yin;,� strEp AII turf is planted on slopes <?5';, es � J �� Hydrozones Plants are grouped by Hydrozones io rz:s � J ; Compost At least 4 cub'ic yards per 1,O�J0 sG h t� a Yes � -� depth of 6 inches J No, See Sc�it Test Mulch At least 3-inches of mulch on exposed soil �J -� � Yes surfaces � �! Usa of automacic irrfgation controllers that '=� J use e�apotranspiration or soil m�isture ' S sensor data and utilize a rain sensor Irrigation controllers do not lose '�-� -� programmin� data when pow�r source is �ies interrupted Irrigation systern includes p�essure �es Q J Irrigation System re�ulators titanual shut-off valves are installed near the -'-1 J s Connection to ttu r:ater supply All sprinkler heads installed in tf�e landscape �-� -� must d�cument a d'estributivn uniformity !ow es quarter of 0.65 or higher Areas < 10 feet shall be irrigated �vith Yes -� J subsurface irrigation J No, but there is no runoff or overspray Separate irri�ati�n meter J Yes S -� ' Metering o, not required if < S,OOQ sq ft OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIEtJCY CHECKLIST , . _ _ - - -.. _ .. --- ___. - r x�,�c r �, sx ,5'�' �'a v� �'£,,. �x�ti L� �+f'r r *.>�2 ... . - �.. ";,t.�. , � a� X�, k .;�� T �. Swlmming Poois / Spas Cover required for ne�v pools and spas J Ycs J J u, nc new pool ar spa � Water Features Recirculaiing �1 Yes �-- J Projec4lnformation � J Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet �" J (optional if < 2,500 sy ft of landscape area) ��`�red by prvfessioroa6 Soil t�7anagement kcport (cptionai if < 2,SL�0 � J sq ft ni landscape area) J Prepared by profes�,ional Documentation (per section 49231 Landscape Design Plan (optional if < 2,50�0 sq p�.epared by prr��essnonal �� ft of la�dscape area) lrri�,ation Gesign Plan (optional if < 2,500 sq �J J Prepared by prof�;,�.:onai ft of �andscape area) � Grading Design Plan �optional if < 2.500 sq ft J,repared b profe;,��nal � � �f tandsc3�e area) � --i e. Audit Post-installa�ion audit completed Completed by professional �, �.. - .••- ,.� ..� -_�.L •-. __ .__.,_ .�_ _,. � ..__.._ .�.,.,.,� - ,,.�..:.�.-...<-�.�,,,....�..,�....�,�.,. Auditor: Materials Received and Reviewed: �2e�icnal L'Jater Effi�ient E.arads•cape �rdira.�ce `,Nrroject Information Residential Outdoor Water Use Efficiency ChecP:list �L1fVater Efficient Landscape Worksheet �Nater Efficient Landscape Worksheet esi�e�tial Outd�or t�'ater Use Efliciency� Checklis. �lart �ist J Post-Ir�stallation Audit J pther: andscape Design Plan 'I h,tanagement fteport J �ation Design f�lan �mg Design Plan Date Reviewed: .] Follow up required (explain): U Drip'irrigation Date Resubmitted: _I Plant �palate Date Approved: U Gradin� Dedicated Irrigation Meter Required: i:J Pool and/or spa cover Meter sizing: J Dedicated irri�ation m2ter > Gther: Comments: Project Comments Date: Aprii 4, 2016 To: � Engineering Division � Fire Division (650� 5.5�7230 (650) 558-7600 � Building Division � Stormwater Division (6.54) 5.58-7260 (650) 342-3727 � Parks Division � City Attomey (650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for D�esign Review and Special Permits for declining heijght envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 ,�-,'�. �4. Water efficiency checktist needs to be redone using the new Residential ; Outdoor Water Use Effieciency Checklist form for (attached). 2. Lancscape ok; nat protected size trees proposed for removal. Reviewed by: BD Date: 5/27/16 �rojec�t C�,rnments Date: To: From: April 4A 2016 � Engineering Division (s5o) �s-723o � Building Division (65d) 5�8-726� X Parlcs Div�si�n (65U) 55$-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3i27 � City Attomey (650) 558-72(?4 Pianning Sta�F Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits far dedining height envelope and attad�ed garage for a new, two and one-hatf stcxy single farnily dwelfing and attached garage at 2721 Easton Dr�vg, zoned R-1, AP'N: 027-19�-190 Staff Review: Apri14, 2�16 � 1.; No existing tree over 48 irtc�ie.,s in arcumference at 54 inches form base of ` tree may be removed without a Protected Tree Removal Permit from t�e Parks Division. (558-7330) 2. If Public Worics r�equir�es sidewalic neplacement, Poliey for Expanding Width of Planter Strip neecis to be implemented. 3. E�dsting City Str�eet Tr�e ma�r not be cut, trimmed or removed without permit fr+om Parks Division (��8-7330) ,ra. �� 4� Landscape plan is requir+ed t� m�et "Water Conservation in Landscape -' Regulatio�s� (atiac�ed�. Irrigatior� Plan required for Building permi#. Audit due for Final. 5. I# oons�ac�o� is wi3hi�a drip lirie o'f ex�sting trees, a Tree Protection Plan musi be in piace t� prflt�c# �es d�rinr� a!! phases of construction. Review�d by: BD Date: 4/8116 Project Comments Date: June 14, 2016 To: X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027- 195-190 Staff Review: No comments at this time. Reviewed by: M. Quan Date: 6/16/16 Project Comments Date: May 19, 2016 To: X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: May 19, 2016 �1. Please revise site plan (A1.0) to match revised landscape plan to show no work will be conducted within Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction without permit. Reviewed by: M. Quan Date: 5/20/16 Project Comments Date: To: April 4, 2016 X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 %1�No work can take place without a Fish & Wildlife permit from the top of bank to the creek. Please �-� revise landscape drawings or state if such permit will be obtained. Please be aware that there is a long permit lead time with California Fish & Wildlife. 2. A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit is required to (1) replace all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site, (2) plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and install a new 4" lateral, (3) all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city's right- of-way. �3. Show the location of down spouts for the entire roof and that there is enough finish grade elevation around the perimeter of the property to demonstrate the direction of storm water runoff for the property. If the grade is not sufficient to prevent storm water runoff onto adjacent properties, show a drainage system design. � Please show how the post-construction will address the additional stormoff due to the new dwelling. Please be aware that no additional storm runoff is allowed from post-construction project site. 5. A survey by a licensed surveyor or engineer is required. The survey shall show how the property lines were determined and that the property corners were set with surveyors license numbers on durable monuments. This survey shall be attached to the construction plans. All corners need to be maintained or reinstalled before the building final. All property corners shall be maintained during construction or reestablished at the end of the project. 6. An erosion control plan will be required at the building permit stage. This p�an shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. 7. For the construction of the basement, please provide information on groundwater levels during wet and dry seasons. A geotech report to back up assumptions for design criteria for foundation and shoring structural calculations is required. Design of backup generator for the groundwater pumps is required. Reviewed by: M. Quan Date: 4/7/16 � Project Comments � Date: To: From: May 19, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 X Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: May 19, 2016 *Resubmittal* BMPs not provided yet. ��4ny construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater poflution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger), plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay. orq/Construction For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 18, or carol n.critz veolia.c Kn ; �� , �4f . � Reviewed by: ��- C..� -� Date: 05/25/2016 Carolyn Critz Project Comments Date: April 4, 2016 To: � Engineering Division � Fire Division (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7600 0 Building Division X Stormwater Division (650) 558-7260 (650) 342-3727 � Parks Division 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining heijght envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 1. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger), plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.orq/Construction 2. Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing architectural copper. Please read "Requirements for architectural Copper." A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.orq/files/newdevelopment/flyersfactsheets/Architecturalcopper BM!'s. pdf � All exterior surface paving materials, including, but not limited to those used on driveways, sidewalks, walkways and patios, must be identified as pervious or impervious. Please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, for assistance at (650) 342 3727, ext. 18. Reviewed by: Carolyn Critz Date: 04/11/2016 CCL Project Comments Date: April 4, 2016 To: � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 o City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-190 Staff Review: April 4, 2016 Additional fire sprinkler system comment: 1. Provide a minimum 1-inch water meter. , f� , Reviewed by: Christine Reed `� . Date: 4-12-16