HomeMy WebLinkAbout1320 Skyview Drive - Staff Report1320 SlWew Dr., Burlingame -2- January 11, 2008
Tree Survey
Tree Species Species DBH Condition Height Spread Comments
# (Common) (Scientific) (inches) (percent) (feet) (feet)
1
Black Pine Pinus nigra
10.3
55
18 21 Previously topped; multi -
stem top has formed;
;a`
y�
several long heavy
branches.
2
Monterey Pinus
29 6
L. 45
•`O•
ed gcowth'rdue to
#br
Pine rail
on
Many long heavy Ii
with poor branch tap
rg e deadwood.
3
Monterey Pinus
25.7
40
45 30 Slig toward
Pine radix
`
house, ` ' growth
due to competition for
light Some large
ari►r deadwood; growing
m9_-
4
Morey Pinus _
=_.
35
4 `'30SIng hng
Pi►adiahV
v
r
. -gtowmg
Blvd.-
sided -
9 9
trunk
5
Monterey Pinus
28.0
55
45 45 Some large deadwood;
Pine radiata
good forth. Several
large roots running
parallel with pavement;
ivy growing on trunk
Tree Protection Plan
The proposed construction project
will be affecting
only one large tree on the property,
tree ##5.
Tree protective fencing should be established around this tree to prevent damage during
construction. This fencing shall consist of 4-foot tall orange plastic fencing ore better
material. This should be established at, or as near as possible to, the dripline of the tree
while still allowing construction tion activities to continue safely. No construction equipment
or materials shall be cleaned or stored inside this tree protection area -
At this time, the area between the house and the tree is covered by a layer of concrete.
This concrete will need to be removed before the construction can begin. Care should
be taken to not damage any roots during the demolition and removal process- Trenching
inside the dripline of the tree for any reason should be dug by hand. Any roots that need
to be cut should be done cleanly with a pair of toppers, hand pnurers, or a saw. Roots
greater than 2 inches in diameter shall be left uncut until the site arborist can inspect,
document and make a final decision as to the fate of the root
CLCity of Burlingame Item #
Design Review Action Calendar
Address: 1320 Skyview Drive Meeting Date: 10/22/07
Request: Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling.
Applicants and Property Owners: Samuel and Elaine Wong APN: 027-201-260
Architect: T. Peter Lam, AIA Architects Lot Area: 7264 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing
structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the
structures before the addition.
Summary: This parcel is located at the corner of Skyview Drive and Kip Lane, and backs up to a 12'
easement that runs adjacent to Skyline Boulevard. The existing one-story house with an attached two -
car garage contains 2,360 SF (0.32 FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is
proposing to add a first story addition behind the existing garage along the left property line, and add a
second -story addition to the rear. With the proposed remodel and addition, the floor area would
increase to 3,119 SF (0.43 FAR) where 3,224 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed
project is 105 SF below the maximum allowed FAR.
With the addition, the number of bedrooms will increase from three to five. Three parking spaces, two
of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached two -car garage (18'-8" x 20'
clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') in the driveway comply with the
on -site parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is
requesting the following:
• Design Review for a first and second story addition (CS 25.57.010, a, 5).
1320 Skyview Drive
Lot Area: 7,264 SF
Plans date -stamped: October 12, 2007
Existing
Proposed (to
Allowed/Required
Addition)
SETBACKS
Front (1st fir):
14'-0"' (to right corner
no change
15-0" (or block
of garage)
average)
Side (right):
6-10" (to front steps)'
(no change)
7'-6"
(left):
4'-0" (to garage)
7'-3" (to kitchen)
6'-0"
Rear (1sf tlr):
44'4"
30'-3" (to study)
15-0"
(2nd 17r):
n/a
30'-3" (to master BR)
20'-0"
Lot Coverage:
2387 SF
2905 SF
2906 SF
33%
40%
40%
FAR:
2360 SF
3119 SF
3224 SF 2
0.32 FAR
0.43 FAR
0.44 FAR
' Existing nonconforming side setback (6'-10" existing where 7'-6" is the minimum required).
2 (0.32 x 7264 SF) + 900 SF = 3224 SF (0.44 FAR)
Design Review
1320 Skyview Drive
Lot Area: 7.264 SF
1320 Skyview Drive
Plans date -stamped: October 12, 2007
Existing
Proposed
Allowed/Required
# of bedrooms:
3
5
—
Parking:
2 covered
(18-8 x20)
1 uncovered
9' x 20'
(no change)
2 covered
(10'x20')
1 uncovered
9' x 20'
Height.
17'-8"
19'-1"
30'-0"
DH Envelope:
n/a
complies
see code
Staff Comments: See attached comments.
Regular Action Meeting (October 9, 2007): At the Planning Commission's action hearing on
October 9, 2007, the Commission's comments focused on the proposed vinyl windows. The Planning
Commission continued the item to a time when the applicant could produce a sample of the proposed
vinyl window for review. Listed below are the Commission's suggestions and responses by the
applicant.
It is important for the quality of the window to match the quality of the residence; cannot
approve proposed vinyl windows without first seeing a sample.
• The applicant has submitted revised plans that propose new wood casement windows with 3"
wood trim, therefore will not be bringing a sample vinyl window to the Planning Commission for
review (Revised elevations, sheets A2.1 and A2.2, and response letter from the architect date -
stamped October 12, 2007).
2. Show pitch of roof accurately; 4 to 12 pitch is probably more appropriate.
The applicant has submitted revised plans that show a 4'/: to 12 (not 7 to 12) roof pitch over
the proposed master bedroom (Revised elevations, sheets A2.1 and A2.2, and response letter
from the architect date -stamped October 12, 2007).
3. Show water table detail at bottom of wood siding.
The water table trim has been labeled on the front and interior side elevations (Revised
elevations, sheets A2.1 and A2.2, and response letter from the architect date -stamped October
12, 2007).
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on August
13, 2007, the Commission expressed concerns regarding building materials, the consistency of the
plans, the mass and bulk of the structure, and design details. The Commission voted to refer the
project to a design review consultant and to place the project on the regular action calendar when the
design review process is complete and the plans have been revised and plan checked as directed
Design Review 1320 Skyview Drive
(August 13, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted revised plans and a
response letter to the Planning Commission, addressing the Commission's concerns, date stamped
September 21, 2007. Please refer to the copy of the August 13, 2007, Planning Commission minutes
included in the staff report for the list of Planning Commission concerns.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer (date -stamped September 19, 2007): The
design reviewer met with the architect and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's
concerns with the project. In a report dated September 19, 2007, the reviewer notes that the
neighborhood consists predominantly of single -story homes with low-pitched roofs, aluminum
windows, stucco siding (with wood siding on the front elevation), and two -car garages at the front. The
applicant is proposing no work to the front of the structure, although they are proposing to install a new
wood garage door with glass lites.
The design reviewer comments that, with the siting of the house, it will be difficult to notice the
addition. The addition will be located at the rear of the house where there will be no visual access from
the neighbors on the street. The house to the north will not be impacted due to the tall, mature
landscaping between it and the subject property. The mature trees and retaining wall at the rear of the
property will shield it from Skyline Boulevard and Kip Lane.
The reviewer also comments that the applicant has worked to break up the bulk of the project by
adding horizontal wood siding to a portion of the addition. They have also added windows to break up
the mass of the new walls, and are proposing a higher quality window than the aluminum style
predominant in the neighborhood. The plate height of the second story has been dropped to 8'-6",
which is only a few feet above the existing upper level. Overall, the reviewer notes that the applicant
has worked with the comments brought forth by the Planning Commission and have improved upon
the existing 1960's style home.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1591
adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review. The reasons for any
action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped October 12, 2007, sheets A1.1 through A1.3, A2.1 through A2.2, and A3.1 through
A3.3, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the
building shall require an amendment to this permit;
Design Review 1320 Skyview Drive
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's, and NPDES Coordinator's
May 14, 2007 memos, and the City Engineer's May 17, 2007 memo shall be met;
3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the
site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required
to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review;
5. that 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;
6. 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;
7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
8. 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;
9. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and
10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
Lisa Whitman
Zoning Technician
c. Peter Lam, Architect
848 Folsom Street #102
San Francisco, CA 94107
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
Public comments:
October 9, 2007
An Mabardy, 1781 Escalante Way, Burlingame; his parents own the home next door In the
neighb ood, second floor additions typically do not have windows facing ranch homes n door. The
window sil aven't been raised enough to reduce privacy impacts. The plans srepresent the
relationship of applicant's house to his parent's home; his parent's property p ects out at the rear
another 21-feet be d applicant's home. Referenced photos he provided Commission showing
relationship between pr erties. The privacy screen is ineffective given t his parent's home projects
beyond the applicant's prop in rear.
Additional Commission comments:
• Install 18-inch high windows, and oti
• Addition handled well from the front;
• Concern regarding preservation of n
s In bathroom.
with neighborhood.
ivacy and adequacy of privacy screen.
• Move wall of bedroom back possi two feet relocate deck to the left to reduce neighbor
impacts; deck is more of an imp Privacy glass on ck is not a good solution, relocate the deck
so that it is oriented and accdssed from the office.
Commissioner Terrones ed to continue the matter with direction to applicant to simplify the front
elevation; address the.06ation of and access to the deck, if itis at the level of1hkmaster bedroom it should
be focused off of t office area; reduce depth of addition by at least2-feet. The should be placed on
the Consent C ndar when ready.
The min was seconded by Commissioner Osterling.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissi(
Brownrigg and Auran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7.42 p.m.
4. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SAMUEL AND ELAINE
WONG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND T. PETER LAM, AIA ARCHITECTS,
ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated October 9, 2007, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Deal opened the public hearing.
Peter Lam, 848 Folsom Street, Suite 102, San Francisco; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
• Addition will be fairly obscured by mature vegetation.
• Wouldn't be comfortable approving vinyl windows without a sample.
• The two section plans are at different scales.
• Show pitch of roof accurately; 4 to 12 pitch is probably more appropriate.
• Important that windows match the quality of the residence.
• Show water table detail at bottom of wood siding.
57
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
Public comments:
October 9, 2007
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; expressed concerned about the vinyl windows. She would
like to see a sample.
Additional Commission comments:
• Would like to see item continued to permit the applicant to produce a sample of the windows to be
installed.
Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to produce a sample of
the proposed windows, resolve the pitch of roof, and add the water table to drawings.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners
Brownrigg and Auran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:57 p.m.
5. 13J 05 MARGARITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE A A
C STRUCTION PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR UPPER AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITIONS O A
SINGh,EFAMILYDWELLING(MIKEANDAMYKERWIN,APPLICANTSANDPROPERTYOWN STAND
JOHN MANISCALCO, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference sta %he
d October 9, 2007, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whi an presented the
report, reviewedd staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggeste for consideration.
Chair Deal openlic hearing.
Mike Kerwin andAmy Pentico 3105 Margarita Avenue, Burlingame anolohn Maniscalco, 1501 Waller
Street, San Francisco; represen the applicant.
• Story poles are completed and s eyed; stumps of remo/dtreeshave been ground; and they are
in the process of communicating ' neighbor regar�in`g replacement offence.
Commission comments:
Six-inch change of plane on dining room
possible to pull that comer in by an ad/dM
Public comments:
not clearly reflected in story poles. Would it be
Joyce and Frank Sulgit, 1560 Lo ontes Drive, Burlingame; Hel ' e Darling, 3100 Margarita Drive,
Burlingame; Brian and Linda Mu y, 3101 Margarita Drive, Burlingame; at Giorni,1445 Balboa Avenue,
Burlingame; commented on t project. Sulgits are now having a difficult ti giving up the view since the
trees are now gone, and st poles are now up. They are losing the views of pra
es landing and the Mount
Diablo range view. En uraged a reduction in the height and depth of the ad n to further preserve
views. The design esn't fit in with the neighborhood. The Variance doesn't et the findings for
approval. Repair fence adjacent to downhill neighbor should be a condition of approv .Has the Parks
and Recreatio epartment been involved in the tree removal. The three required rep ement trees
should not i act views. Commented on the applicant's contractor's license.
no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments:
0
T. P. Lam AIA, Architects Ltd.
848 Folsom Street, Ste 102, San Francisco, Ca 94107. (415) 777-1816, (415) 948-2019 fax,
archtplam@yahoo.com
Oct 12, 2007
Ms. Lisa Whitman
Planning Dept.
Burlingame, Ca
Re: Wong Reisdence Addition
1320 Skyview Dr.
Dear Ms Whitman,
Please find response to Commissioners comments at last hearing below:
• Vinyl windows are changed to wood windows.
• New roof slope is changed to 4-1/2 to 12. ko WfOO L PJ�is{w�
• Water table trims are added.
• Garage door is noted to be new.
Since all the Commissioners' comments are met, we hope to be put on consent
calendar, if possible.
Thank you for you assistance,
T. Peter Lam, AIA
RECEIIVIED
OCT 1 2 2007
CITY OF BURUINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 13, 2007
=were
the public hearing at 9:15 p.m.
mments and the public hearing was closed at 9:16 p.m.
CommissionerAuran move ommend to the City Council, adoption of an "ORD AAiG`€OF THE CITY
OFBURLINGAMEAMENDINGCHA S25.08,25.40,AND25,41TO CTHEIGHTLIMITATION
STANDARDS TO MAKE CONSISTENT WI RTH BURLI /ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
AND REVISE PARKING STANDARDS TO INCLU TALL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITION".
The motion was seconded b �Issioner Cauchi. \
Chair De ed for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed
BroWn�dgg absent). This item concluded at 9:16 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
12. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SAMUEL AND ELAINE
WONG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND T. PETER LAM, AIA ARCHITECTS,
ARCHITECT) (31 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Zoning Technician Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Deal opened the public comment period at 9:18 p.m.
Peter Lam, 848 Folsom Street, San Francisco, represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
• Will the entire house be re -stuccoed?
• Will trim around windows be foam with stucco? Prefer wood trim.
• Vinyl windows do not holdup overtime and give the structure a tract house aesthetic. Preferwood
or wood clad windows.
• More detail and delineation of balcony railings is needed (for example, add wood base or wood
trim).
• Interior side elevation has a lot of blank stucco space. Breakdown massing in this area of addition
to help the design.
• Rear elevation is not as much of a problem; use similar treatment as that proposed to interior side
and Kip Lane elevation. Add windows to liven up the rear elevation and break up massing.
• A lot of houses in the area are ranch style with a horizontal elevation. The proposed addition on this
structure therefore looks somewhat tall. Address this, in part, by reducing the plate height on
second floor to 8'-0".
• Will the existing garage door remain, or will there be a new one? If proposing new door,
recommend not using the same style that is there now.
■ Add more "celebration of detail" to the proposed design. More enhancement is required.
■ There is a general lack of detail and accuracy on the plans (for example, front railing and siding).
• Concern about the floor area and lot coverage. Would like to see a square footage reduced in
anticipation of future modifications. Given proposed lot coverage and floor area, it would be difficult
to add any additional space, like a rear deck, in the future.
Public comments:
17
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
13.
August 13, 2007
Paul Grech, 1315 Skyview Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame. Horizontal wood siding is
existing finish and the predominant finish material on homes in the neighborhood and it would be out of
character to replace the siding with stucco; replace the siding with similar siding on the sides facing the
streets; the Monterey Pine trees at the comer naturally soften the affect of the proposed addition; the
Commission should require protection of the trees during construction; recognize that people are often
reluctant to speak publicly about a neighbor's project and they quietly rely on the Planning Commission; the
public can rely on the Planning Commission to maintain the character and consistency of neighborhoods.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed at 9:34 p.m.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Project should be sent to a design reviewer.
• If there is existing wood siding present on the home, it should be shown on the plans. It is an
important component that should be preserved for compatibility with the neighborhood.
• Foam and stucco trim should not be used.
• Preserve the Monterey Pine trees; be careful during pruning; an arbodst report may be needed.
• Revise drawings to accurately represent the existing conditions and the proposed revisions.
• Provide more articulation of the addition.
• Consider adding shutters.
■ Reduce the second -floor plate height to 8'-1". If the 9'-0" plate height was proposed to achieve high
ceiling height in addition, ceiling could be vaulted instead.
■ Include landscape plan; existing landscaping needs to be replaced with fresh materials; landscaping
could soften the structure.
• Perhaps install ricking on front porch to match the existing chimney.
• Perhaps put family room below grade to eliminate stairway and reduce height of addition.
Commissioner Auran moved to refer the project to a design reviewer.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion
passed 6-0- 1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 9:41 p.m.
709 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND'CONDg4@NAL USE
PERMITFORACCESSORY STRUCTURE WINDOW WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROP5RV LINE FOR A
FIRST SECOND STORY ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE (TERRY MARTIN, AIA, APPLICANT
AND ARCHI AND BRAD KLAAS, PROPERTY OWNER) (51 NO D) PROJECT PLANNER:
Community Development Dire cto eker brietly press
clarify a note on Sheet A.6 referencing a e per i
Chair Deal opened the public comme edod at 9A
Terry Martin, 45 East Mai reet, Suite 13, Los Gatos
Commission
the project description. Staff was asked to
exception".
The application is fairly sound.
Add window type (wood interior/clad exterior) to plans.
Show detail of the base of the rear deck on the plans.
im
H
T. P. Lam A/A, Architects Ltd.
848 Folsom Street Ste 102, San Francisco, Ca 94107, (415) 777-1818, (415) 948-2019 fax,
archtplam@yahoo.com
Sept 20, 2007
Ms. Lisa Whitman
Planning Dept.
Burlingame, Ca
Re: Wong Reisdence Addition
1320 Skyview Dr.
Dear Ms Whitman,
Please find response to Commissioners comments below:
• The horizontal siding of existing house will be preserved. The new addition will
also have horizontal siding complimenting the existing.
• Wood trim will be used.
• . Enclosed are two details of windows, one wood, one vinyl. The frame of the
vinyl window is actually wider than the wood window and looks as substantial.
The warrantee of the vinyl is almost as good. We are proposing the Milgard
Classical casement. The owners think the vinyl windows are good value.
• Balcony details are further delineated on A2-2.
• Interior and Rear elevations are revised adding windows and horizontal siding.
• The plate height is reduced to 8'-6". The slope of the roof is made steeper so
that the eave is lower. The ridge height remains the same. The owners cannot
live with a sloped ceiling in the bedroom so that the ceiling cannot be raised
following the rafters.
Existing garage door will be replaced with a wood garage door designed to look
like double doors.
• More details are added. Living room balcony is extended. Railing detail is
revised..
The addition is pulled back 12" to allow widening of the living room deck.
Respectfully submitted,
T. Peter Lam, AIA
RECEIVED
_P 4 1 2007
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
'jamO*nal Andown' T
'j'' ertenddnpmbe
_L Inwkfinggap
Hold e
�i^ OgbnelAadHeat : �P .; ,i —}—
J:i"�6.�; . �nwotecroen 8
t
i?a-JL y"
MILGARD VINYL
WINDOW COMPARISEON '
rn
t s,
�IOOSLy �PRfit— �.
ij t,i
N
p
�^n
j
Knyr
Property Owner:
Applicant Name:
Designer:
Project Address:
Planner:
Date of Review:
Design Guidelines:
Design Review Comments
City of Burlingame
Elaine Wong
Elaine Wong
T.P. Tam, AIA
1320 Skyview Dr.
Lisa Whitman
18 September 2007
COMPATABILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT
OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
The neighborhood was built as a development in approximately the 1960's. Most
of the houses are single story, low pitched roofs with asphalt shingles, aluminum
slider windows, stucco with wood siding on the front elevation, and a double car
garage door at the front of the houses.
2. RESPECT FOR THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
All the houses have attached garages at the front. Although there is no work
being done at the garage area, the owners are proposing a new wood garage door
with glass lites.
3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CONSISTENCY AND MASS AND
BULK OF STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
The proposed addition is not a full floor above the first floor. The rear of the
house is quite a bit lower than the front of the house, and as such, there is space to
add a Study below with a new Master Bedroom above. One comment from a
Planning Commissioner, was why add the height, when there is room to keep the
addition at the same level as the house. The property owner explained when they
moved in the house 10 years ago, they had a beautiful view of the bay. Over the
past few years, houses were built behind them, taking that view. By adding 3'-0"
to the addition, they will reclaim that view. The addition is located in the rear of
the house where there is no visual access from the neighbors or the street.
S [7
,'Y p ,. is 1:1F_
4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE
STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
The house to the north, which is the only residence adjacent to this house, should
not be impacted, as all the landscaping between the two homes is very dense and
high. As previously mentioned, the proposed addition is only a few feet higher
than the existing house.
The location of the house is very prominent, as it backs to Skyline Boulevard, and
Kip Lane. However, there is so much foliage, i.e. Monterey pine trees, maple
trees, 10' high bushes, that you can not view the rear of the house from these
streets. Also there is a retaining wall and fence that place the house 20'+ off the
street, so you can not see over these barriers to view the addition. It will be
difficult to notice the addition with the siting of the house.
5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF THE
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS.
Currently, there are trees and bushes which are very mature. The rear yard is very
overgrown, covering up much of the rear elevation of the house. The adjacent
neighbor is hidden behind tall bushes. There are some mature pine trees and
maples on the street sides of the property. It was noted by a Planning
Commissioner to preserve the Monterey pines on the property, they are definitely
an asset to the landscaping.
6. IN THE CASE OF AN ADDITION, COMPATABILITY WITH THE
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING
STRUCTURE AS REMODELED.
Although the proposed style matches the original house, they are proposing
improvements to the house by changing the garage door to wood, replacing the
aluminum slider windows to vinyl clad (Milgard, which look like wood)
casements and adding 3"wood trim around the windows.
COMMENTS:
The owners will continue the elevations with the stucco below, and the horizontal
wood siding above. This treatment does help break up the bulk at the two story
addition portion The architect has added windows to the new elevations which
also breaks up the space. The aluminum windows will be replaced with vinyl
clad casements with wood trim. Most of the other homes in the area still have
aluminum windows. There are few, if any wood windows in the area, it just
wasn't done with this style home.
The owners wanted the higher ceiling in their bedroom, and don't care for an
angled ceiling in the MBR, so they compromised at an 8'-6" ceiling. As; the. - `s
second floor is only a few feet above the existing top floor, this does not seem
unreasonable to me.
More enhancement has been added to the elevations with the window trim,
horizontal siding, metal railing at he decks, and a new wood garage door.
The architect and owner have worked with the comments brought forth by the
Planning Commission. They have taken a 1960's style home, and improved upon
many of the elements from the original developer style by changing the windows,
trim and replacing the garage door which is so prominent from the street
elevation.
Catheri J.M. ilm er
SF_P ! > 2007
09-10-07;07:OOPM;Samuel H. Wong L Co., LLP ;14153979028 # 1/ 1
'11/4/a7
a U-Walr� it /�igy GoN�Erz.N
�iui2L iu✓G'�rlc�i d'cuwc.v �j)ry�r.�
All - /3 a y
fi�vfr/ .+moo CJE3Jc�.'d.c1g jo
y,LftN i9s
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinoame.ora
��"TT °� APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
gtIpLQIGAME
,q
Type of application: Design Review ✓ Conditional Use Permit Variance
Special Permit Other Parcel Number: 02�a�6•, j
Project address: !J "Zo S
APPLICANTJ;WU,L:j, project contact person?❑
Name: WONGr-
Address:_/3 m Sk /✓/ElJ JD R.
City/State/zip: BAR Lt 16G 6 i! (O
Phone (w):
(h):
(fax): 'f/S- 39. — 7a 2eP
(e-mail): <SWOge_pg_# QV/ . L'om
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person?❑
PROPERTY OWNER project contact person?❑
(e-mail
Name: C C S
- Address: P 1 t4a 4 Sf /oL
COda eA %4 Please mark one box with 0
City/state/zip: ,TA 7F/07t1 � to indicate the contact person
Phone (w): !'.! - T77-AR0 for this project.
(fax): ±f S_ 777! - Z
(e-mail): Gt YY-kvTp d N11 c/ O.4rel,
PROJECT DESCRIPTI
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date: S / � 7
Applicant's
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to
submit this application to the Plannin Commission.
Property owner's signature: G�J Date: ®
Date submitted: MAX t tl 2007
PUMING DEPT.
Project Comments
Date: May 11, 2007
To: ❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design
existing single family
APN: 027-201-260
Staff Review: May 14, 2007
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
review for first and second story addition to
dwelling at 1320 Skyview Drive, zoned R-1,
1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame
Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements.
2) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
3) Provide existing and proposed elevations.
4) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished,
new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building
Permit is issued for the project.
5) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy
will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be
issued after the project has been finaled. No occupancy of the building is to occur until
a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
6) Comply with the new, 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential
buildings. Go to htto'//www enerov ca.gov/title24 for publications and details.
Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that
complies with the egress requirements.
8) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are
considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details
if your project entails landings more than 30" in height.
9) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers.
10) Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
11) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface within ten feet.
12) NOTE: Plans that specifically address item #7 must be re -submitted before this project
can move forward for Planning Commission action.
Date:
Project Comments
Date: May 11, 2007
To: 0 City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
0 Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
0 City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design
existing single family
APN: 027-201-260
Staff Review: May 14, 2007
0 Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
,Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
0 NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
review for first and second story addition to
dwelling at 1320 Skyview Drive, zoned R-1,
*Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence.
1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter.
2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly —
Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building
Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split
between domestic and fire protection lines.
3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall
clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings
shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
Ensure the fire flow from the closest fire hydrant is capable of delivering a minimum
of 1000 gallons per minute. You may disregard this requirement for single family
dwellings equipped with a minimum NFPA 13D compliant fire sprinkler system
throughout.
RE
MAY F 4 (0'1U.
Reviewed by:
CITY C•? BUS i�i!;..a:4i�ic
Date: PLANNING DEPT.
Project Comments
Date: May 11, 2007
To: City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
10, Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design
existing single family
APN: 027-201-260
Staff Review: May 14, 2007
Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
00,
Fire Marshal
650) 558-7600
::�
NPDES Coordinator
0 342-3727
00
City Attorney
review for first and second story addition to
dwelling at 1320 Skyview Drive, zoned R-1,
1) Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not
limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases
of the construction project (including demolition). Include appropriate stormwater
BMPs as Project Notes. These BMPs include but are not limited to the following:
• Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly
to prevent contact and contamination of stormwater;
• Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including
pavement cutting wastes, paints,. concrete, petroleum products, chemicals,
wash water or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains
and watercourses;
• Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering
site and obtain all necessary permits;
• Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on -site except in a
designated area where wash water is contained and treated;
• Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction
impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes,
mulching, or other measures as appropriate;
• Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather;
• Limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted
runoff;
Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points;
• Avoid tracking dirt or other materials off -site; clean off -site paved areas
and sidewalks using dry sweeping method;
• The Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and
subcontractors regarding the construction BMPs.
1 of 2
Project Comments Con't —1320 Skyview Dr., 1st and 2"d story
addition to existing single family dwelling.
2) The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging
and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. The
easement shall be protected from any site runoff.
3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls (if necessary):
a. Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls
continuously until permanent erosion control have been established;
b. Address method(s) for diverting on -site runoff around exposed areas and
diverting off -site runoff around the site;
c. Address methods for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on -site.
4) Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following:
a. Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control
measures, including inspection frequency;
b. Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of
vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material.
Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for
your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project
proponents.
For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727.
Reviewed by: � Date: 05/14/07
2of2
Project Comments
Date: May 11, 2007
To: *City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271
❑ Chief Building Official O Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600
❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review for first and second story addition to
existing single family dwelling at 1320 Skyview Drive, zoned R-1,
APN: 027-201-260
Staff Review: May 14, 2007
The following items are noted as requirements. Please review and indicate your method of compliance for
each item:
1 property boundary survey,
2 stormwater drainage plan,
4 sewer lateral test and sewer backwater protection certificate
12 replace damaged sidewalk, curb, gutters, and other necessary appurtenant work, etc.,
18 NPDES permit requirements,
19, 20, 21 driveway information,
Other concerns to be addressed at time of building permit application:
a debris box
b encroachment permit
c conform to Plan Commission and City Council actions
d pedestrian protection
r �.
lAlk 1 "s 7_007
CITY OF B! !RI.NGNd:E
PLANNING DEPT.
Reviewed by: Date:/�/®
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS
Project Name: Z-X?
Project Address:
�Pi✓ Pg7- 4,0
The following requirements apply to the project
1 e A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land
surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners,
easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the
building permit issuance.)
2 The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to
drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit
issuance.)
3 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
4 A sanitary sewer lateral test is required for the project in accordance with
the City's starfdards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.)
5 A sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis
shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any
sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures.
6 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project.
7 Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should
identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City
Engineer.
8 The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements,
monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map.
9 A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map
for reviews.
10 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel
map.
11 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
Pagel of 3
CADocuments and Settings\dbell\A4y DocumentsTLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
12 X_ The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
appurtenant work.
13 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan.
14 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause
adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic
and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
15 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic
calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100 year
flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements.
16 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State
Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
17 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek.
18 X The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to
prevent storm water pollution.
19 _ The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re-
submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is
proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject
to City Engineer's approval.
20 X The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re -submit plans
showing the driveway profile with elevations
21 X The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm
water from the street into private property.
22 For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The
sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the
property.
Page 2 of 3
CADocuments and Settings\dbeIRMy Documents\PLANNING REVIEW COMIvIENTS.doc
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
23 For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
CADocuments and Settings\dbell\My Documents\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
design review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwellinq at 1320 Skyview
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
October 22, 2007, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and
comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is
no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on
the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section: 15301 Class
1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an
increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is
hereby approved.
2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for such design review are as set forth in the minutes and recording of
said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting
of the Planning Commission held on the 22"d day of October. 2007 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review.
1320 Skyview Drive
Effective November 1, 2007
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped October 12, 2007, sheets A1.1 through A1.3, A2.1 through A2.2, and AV through
A3.3, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the
building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's, and NPDES Coordinator's
May 14, 2007 memos, and the City Engineer's May 17, 2007 memo shall be met;
that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review;
5. that 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;
6. 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;
7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
8. 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;
9. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and
10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
-2-
CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
a
501 PRIMROSE ROAD 016H16504325
BURLINGAME, CA 94010 y
PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650 d OD.26o
www.burlingame.org m -
a
x
Mailed From 94010
Site: 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE US POSTAGE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on MONDAY OCTOBER 22, 2007
at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review for a first and second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling at
1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE zoned R-1. APN 027-201-260
Mailed: October 12, 2007
(Please refar to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
City of Burlingame
A copy of the application and plans forthis project maybe reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Developme
a.nt Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, 'Californi`'
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 side)