The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About137 Crescent Avenue - Staff Report� Item # � Action Item PROJECT LOCATION 137 Crescent Avenue (existing house to be demolished) City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permits Address: 137 Crescent Avenue Item # 8 Action Item Meeting Date: 3/29/04 Request: Design review, special permit for declining height envelope and special permit for a basement for constntction of a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Property Owner: Clement Hung APN: 028-293-050 Designer: JD & Associates Lot Area: 6313 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. February 23, 2004 Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission action meeting on February 23, 2004, a member of the public requested that this item be taken off the consent calendar and that a public hearing be held (February 23, 2004 P.C. Minutes). After hearing concerns from several neighbors, the Commission directed the applicant to install story poles so everyone is aware of the location of the proposed project. The item was continued until the story poles are installed and reviewed. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped March 17, 2004 (sheets 5 and 6) to address the Mr. O'Brien's (adjacent neighbor at 133 Crescent Avenue) concern regarding the gable ends on the second floor. The revised plans show the previously proposed gable ends, on the left and right sides of the house, now clipped and changed to hip roofs (see roof plan and building elevations). The applicant notes that rather than installing story poles for the entire house, he chose to install story poles showing only the revised roof areas on the left and right sides of the house, since this was Mr. O'Brien's concern (see Mr. O'Brien's letter dated March 17, 2004). No other changes were made to the project since the February 23, 2004 action meeting. Summary: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing single-story house and detached garage to build a new two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage. The applicant is also proposing a 664 SF basement at the rear of the house. Because the finished floor above the basement is less than two feet above existing grade, the entire basement area is exempt from the floor area calculation (CS 25.08.265, b, 2 and b, 3, E). A special permit is required for a basement with a ceiling height greater than 6'-6" (CS 25.28.035, fl. With the basement and covered porch exemptions, the proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,511 SF (0.55 FAR) where 3,520 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project includes a detached two-car garage (427 SF, 20'-8" x 20'-8") which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house. A special permit is required for declining height envelope along the right side property line (2'-3" x 16'-0", 36 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope). All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage (CS 25.57.010); • Special permit for declining height envelope along the right side properly line (2'-3" x 16'-0", 36 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.075, a); and Design Review and Special Permits 13 7 Crescent Avenue • Special permit for a new basement with an interior ceiling height greater than 6'-6" (9'-0" proposed) (CS 25.28.035, �. Table 1-137 Crescent Avenue ; EXISTINGI PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS � � _._ ......................._......................�.....�.___.._..�..................}._..�..................................................................................__.._..._....._...._.__...�_�_._.................................................... Front (Istflr): ! 19'-2" to porch � 25'-10" 25'-10" (block average) � (2nd flr): � none ; 32'-0" � 25'-10" _ .............._.........._..........................._._._..----.............__..__..._.._.............._.........................'..........��.........._.._____.........__-.-.i --.........................._._......._._...._. � �� __—.__�__-� �� _. _.._......_..._ Side (left): � 8-0 I 10 -7 i 4-0 __ ..................................................�right).'.......:..._. 3'-5"2 ! 4'-0�� 4�_�� _ ................................................................................................ _......... _ _ ... ..... . .. . ..... ._.. -- ; 1...._ ...........................................�._. �. __. _.. _ Rear (Ist flr): i 38'-10" i 49'-3" � 15'-0" (2nd flr): ! none ; 49'-3" 20'-0" ...__._ ..............._�.........................................._....................;......................._..._..................................................................................................�....f......__..._.__.-__----....__........_..._�.___-_____--_ _ -_____-- Lot Coverage: ' 2833 SF � 2252 SF 2525 SF � : 44.803 j 35.6% 40% : . _. __.,._. _ _ ........................ . . .. :............................._................... . . _._. �.�._...............................................fi..... .....-�-�---.._�..��.�� .- �__.. ...... .. . ... _ ......................... ............... .. . � FAR: � 2742 SF � 3511 SF � 3520 SF ` 0.43 FAR � 0.55 FAR � 0.55 FAR4 ......................_._................_-___._.,..............�..-.___......................_.........................................................._.......�...�..........................._......._ -------u.� __._..�_ _.�..�._.. � _ ! # of bedrooms: i not available j 5 --- ........................_...................�..�__._...............___.._:_...............................................................................................__........................... ............_._.............�..........�...�.._. _._.Y ._._..�.�.� ....!..... � � Parking: � 2 covered � 2 covered � 2 covered ` 1 uncovered j (20' x 20') � (20' x 20') � � 1 uncovered ` 1 uncovered ' � (9' x 20') � (9' x 20') ......................_............�.....�_._._.�..................._._�.._e......................................................................................................................................�........................................................._ �...__ .__-_ _._ ._.— ....___�_ Height. ; single-story � 29'-9" ; 30'-0" ' ......., ....,., . ....... .....__,.,. __ ..___—` , , _. � � w. � ---� DHEnvelope `� not available° special�pern�t requireds ,'� CS 25.28.075 ' Information on existing house was obtained from the San Mateo County Assessor's appraisal report and from data shown on the plans. 2 Existing nonconforming side setback (3'-5" existing where 4'-0" is required). 3 Existing nonconforming lot coverage (44.8% existing where 40% is the maximum allowed). 4(0.32 x 6313 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3520 SF (0.55 FAR) S Special permit for declining height envelope along the right side property line (2'-3" x 16'-0", 36 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28A75, a). Staff Comments: See attached. 2 Design Review and Special Permits 13 7 Crescent Avenue Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on Apri120, 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. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special pernut for basement ceiling height and 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and special permits, and 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 February 17, 2004, sheet 1, date stamped January 8, 2004, sheets 2 through 4, G-1 and L-1, and date stamped March 17, 2004, sheets 5 and 6; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height, pitch or design, shall be subject to design review; 3 Design Review and Special Permits 137 Crescent Avenue 3. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall set the properiy corners, set the building corners and certify the first floor finished elevation of the new structure(s) and have the datum accepted by the City Engineer; 4. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the proj ect has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's January 12, 2004, memos shall be met; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new constnxction and alteration proj ects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11. that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Planner c. JD & Associates, designer 4 '�.'., � ' Tim O'Brien 133 Crescent Burlingame, CA 940 i 0 To: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Re: 137 Crescent �E�EIVED MAR 1 7 2004 CI PLANN�ING DEPTME At the meeting of February 23, I requested that "story poles" be placed so the commission would understand the ma,ss that would be created by the proposed second floor gable. The extent of the "story poles" should be relegated to only that portion of the roof and not the entire new dwelling. I have enclosed a drawing showing where I had anticipated the "story poles". Tim O'Brien , .. , % � , - . . . � � • . . . ' + ! i �% ��. r / . �� % � 1 ' .�...� � w� � '�"'3'a� '^'T*�..��. .�� I- -�-. �.... .,r._,..,,. ..-�.....q. .� . . _ ' _�... ' . . ` �— ' . r �_ �� , .. _. ( 1 �I '~..:• •� / '' . .w ' , . . I�' � �,y li� . fy'7��r .y�� . '�„ � . . � J+ Y t7:Y + � O'�, ,� ��_ . .y.i�T�J � iTl� .... � 1 � I , _..; , 1�r��xy , , � .s�+ds �S _. : . . :. . � � `� x ° ' �'.�'j"°? �+�� ' , . = = =' �� , �o� , , , � . : 1. � I . N n ..d•U, , � � � � � ;• cJ I '` ' _� {I. . ..�, ... I � --- - . , ' � � ... �� ,. _ � , � _ , , . _ - -� . . . . . � � . __... --- - -.. . . + ' . � � I - . , . ._ -- 1 ... I . . ,. � _ . 1 �, .;� ... I� � ,, . . � .� 1 I .. I . . � . . � � -s � .��... � . . ,l. � f . .. �� ►. �, . �� ' ��` ' ' ' 1.. '. '{.r'FsY•:.w. � •��, a r.<. �..':'� ... ;' �...... � � ., � • . .. 1 . " �.I, � . • i . . . • � ' • I i �1 . ' M' ,. . __. , L �� : . , ... _.. � -� ; � I�, _�;�_� , ; ...,_. _ •�'� � - . �i; . ...: . - �.�...�. ., :�;. : . , . . � ( r r , . j . - •'� _ - ` i'f / - •' -' -': t . � � 1 .�.• . ,_ . . - - _ -, . '. _ _ ..._._.... . .I _ -- � :. . ; , . -----�. ,� � . � � ; 2 .... . ....�, ' � {--� �-. �I .. ' , ' �� : . � � , . �I .�:,I�... . , �~ I -r _� ..��. ��r+► .�.. . .�� - ._ � ' � ` _ , .. .. ..... . ' . .... � t -� . � � , �� City of Burdingame Planning Commissaon Minutes February 23, 2004 There were no er comments m the Commissioa. Chair B'ues set this item r public hearing at the ne lanning Commission eeting. Staffnote at they wou bring the creek gulations forward at the xt meeting with the p posed regulations r emerging 1 al lots which the ommission discussed pr iously. This item con uded at 7:25 p.m VII. ACTION ITEMS �Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. A member of the public requested that item 2B,137 Crescent Avenue be taken off the consent calendar and a public hearing held. Commissioners did not request any other items be removed from the consent calendar. 2A. 1216 CAB LLO AVENUE ONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND S OND STORY DITION (JD & A OCIATES, JERRY DEAL, APPLICANT AND DES R; JONATH AND JENNIFER V , PROPERTY OWNE�S) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT 9 MILLS C ON COURT, ZO D R-1 - APPLICATION R DESIGN REVIEW HILLSIDE A CONSTRUCT N PERMIT FOR A FIRS AND SECOND STO ADDITION (MARK TOKLOSA ARCHI CTS, APPLICANT A �ARCHITECT; JOHN CAROLINE LEE OPERTY OWNE 26 NOTICED PROJ T PLANNER: CATH BARBER . Brownrigg noted he would abstain from v9 ing on the consent cale ar because he w ot present at the last meeting. � C. Keighran oved approval of items and 2C on the conse calendar based n the facts in the st reports, co issioners' comments the findings in the staff orts with reco ended conditions i ach staff re rt and by resolution. The otion was seconded b . Auran. Chair alled for a voice vo on the moti to approve the projects 1216 Cabrillo Avenu and 9 Mills Court. The motion passe 6-0-1(C. Bro 'gg abstaining). App procedures were advi ed. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS �E 2B. 137 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CLEMENT HUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNERL51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks presented the staff report, noting the corrections including the addition of fencing and plant material along the property line between the two driveways. There were no questions of staff from the Planning Commissioners. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes DESIGN REVIEW Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, designer,1228 Paloma Avenue, represented the project. Neighbors Timothy O'Brien, 133 Crescent; Jim Lundi, 128 Costa Rica; Sandy Ladd, 141 Crescent spoke. The applicant noted talked to neighbor O'Brien and submitted a letter to address the concerns expressed; he noted that willing to install the fence and greenery between the driveways, given the orientation of the house did not think that it was possible to block the sunlight to O'Brien's house so changing the roof line not necessary, do not feel that it is reasonable to ask for story poles, did not include a cut to the gable roof feel that clipping it would not support the design of the house. Neighbor noted he has a 10,150 SF lot, it is worth $1.7 million but not matter bought the house 19 years ago for the quality of life in Burlingame, that will be taken away by the construction of this house next door; project does not comply with the design guidelines, it does not interface well with the adjacent property, it does not respect its neighbors, spoke about the driveway at last meeting, but what about the 30 foot tall roofline, want story poles with netting put up so he can see impact and Commission can as well, want the roof lowered and pulled back; not opposed to the project, just want the roof redesigned. Want story poles, this house will look into three back yards, house next door to his hurt worst because will lose morning sun; was shocked by new house on my block recently built, too big. Would like story poles to show where gable will be located, need to respect existing neighborhood conditions, part of the design review charge. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: Neighbor eloquent about his concern about compatibility with the neighborhood character, did not support the application with the previous action, reasons are in the record; nice design, would ask for story poles to support that design, help neighbors understand; feel story poles are not out of line, would support, should note that lots are small in Burlingame and houses frequently look into one another's yards, feel meets design guidelines; neighbor is not opposed just wants story poles, should install; like design, feel follows guidelines, respect concerns ofneighbor, support storypoles so everyone is aware of impact, we all live close to one another there will be over views. People in audience should listen to concerns expressed by public tonight, issues such as the impact on water supply of so many new bathrooms, concern about the size of houses, and make wishes known about the direction which community should take for future development. Chair Bojues moved to continue this item until the story poles could be installed and looked at by the neighbors and commissioners. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until the story poles have been installed and looked at. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. IX. DESIGN 3. 318 STUDY ITEMS JNING ROAD, ►I�D R-1— APPLICATION SE ND STORY ADDITI�T (BARRY RAFTER, APP ANT AND OPERTY OWNER NOTICED PROJECT P- R: RUBEr SP Brooks briefl resented the project desc ' ion. There were no que; Chair Bo' s opened the public comm t. Danielle Ryan, 318 Ch. ing remo so that the bedrooms can b�on the same floar. Co ` ssioners � The front elevation is v vertical, especially at • West and rear eleva ' ns need articulation, too � February 23, 2004 FIRST AND �GE RYAN, of staff. representedthe noted: .�'' Want to ; needs to blend more i�fo the existing house; stucco; 3 .� : ` City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 9, 2004 Chair Bojues alled for a vote on th otion to place this item on the on the regular action calendar when plans had en revised as directe checked by staff and there is ace on the agenda. The motion passed on a v'ce vote 6-0-1 (C. Br 'gg absent). The Plannin Commission's action is advi�ary and not le. This item concl 8. 16 CABRILLO A at 10:05 p.m. ZONED R-1 — CATION FOR DESIGN �CIATES, JERRY DE. PROPERTY OWNERS�i %�EW FOR A FIRST APPLICANT AND AND SECOND S�'�bRY ADDITION (JD & DESIGNER; JOI�THAN AND JENNIFER U/� Plr Hurin riefly presented the projec description. Chair Bojues no d that all the commissioners have visited t e site. There were no quest' ns of staff. Ch ' Bojues opened the public omment. Jon and Jennifer Va ', property owners, represent the proj ect. S e this project as an oppo 'ty to invest in Burlingame, ave 3 children need to exp ; want to stay. There were no other co ents from the floor. The publ' comment was closed. C. Keighran noted th this was a good j ob of integr�.'ing the addition into the exi�g building and�ade a motion to bring th' project back on the consent �lendar. The motion was sec ded by C. Oste ing. � Chair Bojues lled for a voice vote on the otion to place this item on th consent calend when there is space on t agenda. The motion passe�n a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. B�ownrigg absent . The Planning Commis 'on's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 9. 137 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELL]NG (CLEMENT HUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIl�T Plr Hurin briefly presented the proj ect description. Chair Bojues noted that all the commissioners have made a site visit. Commissioners clarified that this project is 137 Crescent not 1521 Drake. Staff noted the typo and, yes, this project is located at 137 Crescent Avenue. How big is the basement on this project. Plr Hurin noted that the basement is 664 SF, the maximum basement area exempt from inclusion in the floor area ratio is 700 SF. Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Jerry Deal, designer,1228 Paloma, represented the project. Tim O'Brien,133 Crescent spoke. Applicant submitted one change to the plans, moving the chimney stack from the left side of the fire box to the right side. Commissioners asked about the declining height exception. Applicant noted the exception was at the very front right side, at the hip roof. Concerned with the south side of the project because live there, this will be the third new house adjacent to his house, this project will affect his daylight access, is a big, new two story house next to his one story bungalow, uses the entire 30 foot height; plans show garage one foot off the property line, if it goes closer he will not be able to get access to the side and rear of his garage, would like the 12 inches insured; the landscaping plan at the driveway does not address whether a fence will be installed on property line between the driveways of the two properties, if a fence is placed between the driveways it will squeeze his driveway, do not want a fence. If they build the garage where they show it they will have a water problem, because of the slope in the area when the neighbor built his house it drained into this yard, there is a 4 foot difference; concerned that there is asbestos 12 , r • ' City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 9, 2004 in the house, how will this be addressed when the house is demolished because his property is down wind. Who will address this? There were no more comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioners comments: How would asbestos on this property be addressed? Sr. Eng. noted that when a building is demolished they are required to get a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, this would require a survey for asbestos and removal before demolition. 10. C. Osterling noted that this project is consistent with the design guidelines and the design is appropriate to the site and should go forward with a fence down the driveway, he then made a motion to place this proj ect on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: this is a big house but it is well done, concerned about star jasmine on the drive way, a small plant, need something to soften the edge; star j asmine will trail on the fence; not much yard left with two covered parking spaces; should note that the application is conditioned to "build to plan" which means that the garage will be placed one foot from property line at the reax and side as shown on these plans if approved; concerned about the size, mass, bulk and height of this house, it is not consistent with the neighborhood, its all maxed out, cannot support. CA noted that he thought that the neighbor did not want a fence between his driveway and the one on this property, could something lower, shrubs or a hedge be placed along this property line? The numbers look close to the maximuxn, but the variety of the design balances this, it is well articulated, on the front and south elevations the roof comes down to break the second story and the mass and bulk of the structure, it is possible to reduce the fence to 3 or 4 feet and put jasmine on it or install a low hedge to define the edge between the two properties, it would break up the expanse of hard scape now present between the properties. Applicant clipped the gable ends to reduce the mass and worked in with the hip roofs; articulated the mass well, it is tight on the site, not much yard left but within bounds; nice design but would like to see smaller. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar with some attention to landscaping. The motion passed 5-1-0-1 (C. Keele dissenting, C. Brownrigg absent) The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:28 p.m. 9 MILLS�CANYON COURT,,(ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND COND STORY �DITION (MARK AR ITECT; JOHN A,A�D CAROLINE LEE, P APPLICANT AND PROJECT KLOSA PERTY OWNERS) (25 Plr Hurin briefly esented the proj ect desc ' tion. Chair Bojues noted th all commissioners had v'�ted the site. There we no questions of staff. Chair Bo' es opened the public co ent. Mark Stoklosa, archi ct, represented the proj t. He noted that this ho e was built 10 years ag . There were no other co ents from the floor and e public comm� was �losed. Qr Vistica noted that thi as a modest addition to t' house and made a m on to place this it on the consent calendar for tion when there is space a� ilable. The motion w seconded by C. eele. Chair Bojues cal d for a voice vote on the m ion to place this proj t on the consent lendar for action when there is pace. The motion passed n a 6-0-1 (C. Bro 'gg absent) voice ote. The Plarming Commissio s action is advisory. This i m concluded at 10:31 .m. 13 =a =s . � �- ..;� .�:n::<..,� -�,._ .,_:j��, Project Comments Date: To: From: 1 /9/04 �City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling at 137 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:028-293-050 Staff Review: 1 /12/04 ��_-��% .� t� ' I�i��/..��i� ! . r j lZL �iY�.fa . 1 :..i. � "� iL�1rlL1�s �� ti 1` �/f /�� - � Reviewed by: ,�� V �- Date: ��2�� ' � PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION i PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS �i�+ �a-- 5�� , Project Name:�1,.[�ic.� ::�,�,vy��,,,E� , _.� - Project Address: �.�� G��ar�,r -�.. �--*- The following requirements apply to the project 1 °� A property. boundary survey sha11 be preformed by a Iicensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 2 ''r The site and roof dra.inage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approvai prior to the issuance of a Building pernut. 4 The projecf site is in a flood zone, the project sha11 comply with the City's fiood zone requirements. 5 ..�_ A sanitary sewer lateral �t is required for the project in accordance with the City's standazds. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and I�evelopment Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis sha11 identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. -. 8. Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. 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. 10. The project shall file a pazcel map with the Public Warks Engineering Division. The pazcel map shall show a11 existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Page 1 of 3 U:\private deveIopmentlPLANNING REVIEW CONIlvIENTS.doc �J � .> '' . . . � . � ' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION . 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land sha11 be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure . calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. � 13 The project sha11 submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Aet. 14 � The. project shall, at its own cost, design and conshuct frontage gublic improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary ; appurtenan# work. 15 � The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles, trees, and streetlights iri accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to velucular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project sha11 identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure accepta.ble to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure, The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creel� enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the azea of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Any work within the drainage azea; creek; or creek banks requires a Sta.te ---- , Depariment of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits: 19 No construction debris sha11 be allowed into the creek. 20 �_ The project shalt comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pallution. 21 � The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re- submit plans with driveway,, dimensions. Also clarify if the project is proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject to City Engineer's approval. 22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-snbmit plans showing the.driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 U:\private development�ELANNING REVIEW CONIlvIENTS.doc ( J ). 1 � � � .' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION � 23 � 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 overIlow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacie� shall be placed in front. The ` sidewalk fronting the store shalZ be kept clean 20' from each side of the ProPert3'- 25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area sha11 be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is requireii. Page 3 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc Date: �, _ Projec# Comments 1 /9/04 To: ❑ ity Engineer 0 Chi f 6 i i i e u Id ng Offic al ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Subject: Staff Review: Planning Staff Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling at 137 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:028-293-050 1 /12/04 � � - • � / v v �', ��'C�v�n I`rc�/p r SSv� Gv t O�i �,s,� ....�v�- �J�tir ✓o o� II '� ► �!I S v� �'!!9'2 "� .SkGJ�r �-t r'�i . [�! �/�% «-�l �12 �- ,, ; � c� 1 S/ H L e K�•-e -P r , r ' / L� S� `�fii� si 5 _/ lr��..�, i� v.y/J,o�.S�-tf �ti� ' Review by: - - �� Date: � ... _ ,., ,, : �..,_ . . r .: _. -, �. . _ ,. � ��-� Project Comments Date: 1 /9/04 To: O City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official Q�Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist � City Arborist O City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling at 137 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:028-293-050 Staff Review: 1 /12/04 �� Reviewed by: �� " �J Date: � � i�. ` � Project Comments Date: 1 /9/04 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official 0 Fire Marshal �Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope fo� a new two-story single family dwelling at 137 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:028-293-050 Staff Review: 1 /12/04 . Applicant shall submit a Waste Reduction Plan and Recycling Deposit for this and all covered projects and sections of projects prior to any demolition, construction or permitting. � 7/ �� / � . CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTIvfBN'�' S01 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 55&7250 F(650) 696-3790 � CITY � ,�,i' .t, _.... _ . BURLNGAME APPLICATIO�N TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ��;.,� ---- . Type of application: Design Review � Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: f 3 7 G�� C� ^� T/��'� � APPLICANT rr��: C L z-,�-rz.�,� /.�,�.�� _ Address: � v. ��)C // %�/ 3 City/State/Zip: �u�'L��c! �n/�� ,. G'/�. p��/� _ , Phone (w): �3 6 - � �.�-- Z� � .� (h): ��- . ARCHITECT/DESIGNER _ ___ Name: � � � P'�"S'Sa Gf�-TL-.� ��. .. (h): �� Address: � 2-Z`� �'`��—�rn� �� -- Please indicate with an asterisk * Q, R�h�� C C� cl�othe contact person for this project. City/State/Zip:J.� � R E C E I V E D Phone (w): � `��"" � 6 �`� �h)� . _ . �� - � �� . ,�AN - 8 2004 . CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: � � T�`-�Ta2 pt"��t�l'e `t- �r �,.► C°��-n�- �� — n s 2-� S �P�� AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. �_.�----� - - (� Applicant's signature: � Date: t�- �" _ �° I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. - Property owner's signa � Date: �/�• �, �'� � • PCAPP.FRM PROPERTY� OWNER City of Burlingame Planning Department SO1 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame•or¢ �� CITY O� BUl�.INGAME �.,m....•��oe CITY OF BURLINGAME s , � = 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 construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood � S�e� GZ,`�%aG %-�c� 2. Explai� how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior fcnish 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 residehtial design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)7 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. SPECPERM.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-379� +� www.burlin�g 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominantstructural characteristics of the new construdion or addition a�-e consistent with the existingstructure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not Ue affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. � How 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 c►ew structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. 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 siructure, street and neighborhoo� How does the proposed structure or use compaze aestherically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood. How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, densYty of development and general pattem of land use. If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city? Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for r�idential design review. FIow does your project meet these guidelines? 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage pattems in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed shucture with the structures on adjacent properties; and S. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure o�� addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. T��iat mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are protected under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so. sr�ExNcr� RECEIVED SPE�lAI, PERMIT APPIfICATION - CTTY OF BURLINGAME Hung Residence 137 Crescent Burlingame, CA. Special permit for encroachment into the Declining Height Envelope Area equals 16' x 3'-3" J AN 2 3 2004 C` pL.qNNBNG DEpTME Facplain why the blend of mass, scale und dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. The craftsman style is prevalent in the neighborhood. The proposed des�ign incorporates massing and detailing which is architecturally positive to the proposed structure and to the neighborhood 2 Explain how the variety o, f roof line, facade, ezterior finish m4xterials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing struciure, street artd neighborhood. The varied roof pitches of 4/12 and 10/12, the egterior finishe of shi�pgles, the varied massing and detailing of the elevations is consistent with the Craftsman style �nd the neighborhood. The neighborhood consists of an eclectic mig. 3 How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C. S. 25. S7)? The Craftsman design is compatible in the eclect�c neighborhood miz and in fact there are good ezamples of Craftsman architecture in the neighborhood, The driveway runs along the south side and leads to a detached tvvo car garage. This breaks up the front fa�ade massing. A porch is a prominent element of the design. 4 Explain how the removal of any trees located within ihe footprint of any new structure or addition is necessaty and is cansistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of arry trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. No irees are planned to be removed at this time. RECEIVED SPECIAL PERNIIT APPLICATION - CTTY OF BURLINGAME J A N 2 3 2004 Hung Residence 137 Crescerrt CITY OF BURLINGAME Burlingame, CA. PLANNtNG DEPT. Special permit for a basement 1 Explain why the blend o, f'mcrss, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction ot- addition are consistent with the exis#ng structure's design and with the ea:isting street and neigl�bar�iooai The basement is below grade ( the floo� above is no more than 2 feet above the ezisting grade). Therefore its mass is no more than a typical fonndation. 2 Explain how the variety o. f'roo, f'line, . f'acade, exterior finish materiads and elevations of the proposed new structure ot- addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. There is no roof line associated with the basemen� The exterior finish is shingles as is the remainder of the proposed Cra�tsman dwelling. The �raftsman style is consistent with the neighborhood. 3 How widd the proposed project be consistent with the residential �%sagn guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The basement conforms to the .zoning code requirements and will not contrzbute to mass which is out of character with the neighborhood 4 Explain how the removal of atzy trees located withtn the footptznt o, f any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. NThat mitigation is proposed. f'or �he removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. No trees are plamned to be remaved �t this time. �` c�Tr o� CRy OF BURLINGAME - '� PLANNING DEPARTMENT �!�.�r!''ME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD � BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �. ��•'•°� TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 137 CRESCENi AI/ENUE qpplication for design review and specia! BLIC HEARING permits for construction of a basement and- PV side setback variance for a first and second NO-��CE, �' � i.: .. : - story addition at:137 CRESCENT AVENUE, ' zoned R 1. tAPN: 028�293-050). -------- —= =--- __---_ The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announees the following public hearing on Monday, March 29, 2004 at 7:00 P.M.' in the � City HaII Council Chambers located at 501 . Primrose Road, Burlingame; California. ; Mailed: March 19, 2004 : (Please refer to other side) : A copy of the a to the meeting Burlingame, Ca] If you chal ge ; raising onl o� described i at or prior t Property o ers tenants ab t th 558-7250. ank � Margazet � ' City Planner CITY OF BURLINGANIE � � �� ay be reviewed prior �1 �;g� D ai ent 1 Primrose Road, PU � (Please refer to other side) CE limited to ic hearing, to the city ming their call (650) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desi�n review special permit for a basement and s�ecial pemut for declining height envelope for construction of a new two-storY S1n�le family dwelling and detached gara�e at 137 Crescent Avenue zoned R-1 Clement Hung P.O. Box 117513, Burlin�ame, CA, 9401 l, properiv owner, APN: 028-293-050; WI�REAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 29, 2004, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and a11 other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this comxnission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section: 15303, Class 3— (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review and special pernuts are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permit 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 29�' day of March , 2004 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval fo� categorical exemption, design review and special permits. 137 Crescent Avenue I Effective Apri18, 2004 j 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department da.te stamped Feb�uary 17, 2004, sheet 1, da.te stamped January 8, 2004, sheets 2 through 4, G-1 and L-1, and date stamped March 17, 2004, sheets 5 and 6; and that any changes to the footprint orifloor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes �o the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlargi �ng a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height, pitch or design, shall be subject to design review; 3. that prior to scl�eduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall set the property corners, I set the building corners and certify the first floor finished elevation of the new structure(s) and have the datum accepted by the City Engineer; 4. that prior to sch�duling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professiQnal shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certi�cation under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5.- that prior to fmal inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectu�ral details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existirig trim as close as possible; 6. that all air ducts,! plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and �installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit i�is issued;' 7. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Depart�nent; I 8. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Buiiding Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recyciing Specialist's January 12, 2004, memos shall be met; 9. that the projecti 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 istructure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; •bi ` N � I EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permits. 137 Crescent Avenue Effective Apri18, 2004 I Page 2 � � 10. that the applicant�� shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11. that the proj ect s'hall meet all the requirements of #he California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. . . , �+ � x+.-. ,x � �' £� � �, �t ' � � � �. � b � �: � `� t �'`" z ` * � ' r , � �. �,. � �� : � � ' '# �. ,,« , �m ,�. ' `+' xti ;�'' � b4� � � "�� , i � � � �` ,,. � a � � . � � �. ♦ �;. � � � ��' �� nt� �I�� i. ��. 4��" � � Y �-q ^�i � �`n'M1 � "'ti�. .q� � %2F�1 �6�� }' � t '(�� ♦ i, j � i , . ' \? ' n I `'" a Y e ` y � �'t�:: ��.+' � �. i , �,,* � � �� ,,; & �`a k pys�, V< �' § • � `� ��. .;,..� �� . `� t � t+' .. � �T� � ,�.a �3 M ,� v �. s� ,�^.6h �,,` ";�': :r '. � �r'.-�'" . +� �, �°';. � v` 1 {� � .� � �> ,Y+ }, �.: r°�, '� �'*� " � � 11 5 f �. °k ' .€` , � � 4�.,_ '._ �f ' ,` 'V'..9.� j� �',,. d .� �. , �" �£ ..�,. . � bs � F , RF �.} �� t� � �r„ , ,, s � � �'� +` �, � ''�,�;r�� , �""� � ..,.�«°�a� ��, �� ..� � �,�� .� �.�-� �,�� .A S � ,� � �� .� ��' �,, ��..C1 � �"�',;�,�� '{'i ��i�� i� ` `�. �'` �.�r' '�r� ;y,°"i. e w tJ` � �,� �:., . '� + � , ��"�+`"� ,�: � F � �' �� e,�,� ,,�" �o� G �� a3,.. `�� , .i �� . � ��j p . ,f � ' : �; ,�% !s"�' ., � P' .. . '. . . , i . 'p.'+'�; � .�`' �.i ,�' `:e '^r o- X kn h�`*a g�`3';bI $y !v %;�"'s�' `f �S"€ , �'P . . �:': �� . �t S � ,�i,�` � . , �� / ''s,' f�. '` :� � �� eS , „ k� � �j+� a a� �a �l� �, ;, r` `�a�, � . :" �' Cr {. xi�"R � � � s . �.. :�' �.. � , . , � ,.. > t �n. '�:. , � � r '. .,� .. ,'U �� ; � �"y ,, r'; r "` '�; ��/�j a��. ""� '� ",'� ` +afl � �, �,: '°�- �,�r �.��. �y �� J �'�''°�4��j '�� , �,n��,aV �� '�:�` �� ► ; , { .as4'{i- �!, �rz� �� \�` �?' �� r,� , ��.'�� V� � $ 1_ � ��/ �`�/ ° -� .+Nf" �' �. � ;�� : ' ° ti ,. -,. , k _�. . ,,�m '',. � � � " e„ � N �, ;' � a1 s �� ., A.� � 1n ` .. J" 1� � `� �: �°�' '4i'� � , '� a`�' : ; " ro , i . � ""' - :: :, � � �� .�'�, l. �,. : , .,�,n � � „ ��. � y � � +�"�� . ;� • . - � , � ' "� ` `�'.; _ , �� r�a . �1. ,�� , ..ya. �r�'"� ,�'.i: '�m�,,��.... .- .,: r,ti� �,aa �� '�� r" � ^` �� n 4 , r R �^�� ► � � � � ';"'� _ ,� . -< y �,. �� _ '�-� h°�.�, � �� ' � � .� " ,� � �� & �� r � � '�`� -%�� „ ' � {� � ;. ,�` �,� � . . ; ' � � , . v� . � � � ,�` _�u .�/� � '� � `�� '�l -" � X'`. .r` �a�� ,` �y d a�g-�s :' � � l �� 7^; �-�„ � � � yA � � �, �...-^""� i�� , �' ,+i"� ; � . � �� , � � ./"� � � �! � .i , .; � �� . . -� -�"�"y.�` ,�"' � . ��' � � � � � „ r e - _ a:. . �.. �\ � �� "� � � , s.� �� . � � ; � � e �� .� , . � , � .. � , �� *s.z.;� "° �^ � • � � � �T,� � ' �,; � t ' ��: t � x , v�� p- dd�"�/ ,.�„ ..� , iw' ' . � ..�. 1 i+�" �`* ER .. �� / . � � .€ i � �%5;2 ;.� M -� . <a .�,�.,., t � r, � +a*v.,. : : . . �� q �, .. g#, ��. � �.. .�"a�'' �` :.�. .s„ - r. . � „ , _ � n mr � � 'R=„� � � a y+�' ,,: w � s't: � `� �'.°a: r * , , �� ` , �� t ' �.,,;�� , � a .�•. �� . y . 0 � W � �' �. � , � ,� �'�'' �. - �^;,� �` �'g � � '� � �,, y� �'� e ' �� ' . .. ` t � �� , . . , �: , �r�,�? • �� w- �„ � , :3 ""' q �k . . -�" 'a�� i . r � . � � � w k . r., ,, , � ... .. < . a.-a% � , �., - , . . >�� %�� -' � , vc r ' 4,'� " -�^� � . f ' .^f .a�. ��do '� � � . � : . .r� . ..�. S �• � �„1C' � .. � . �r�:. � a . , „ •� y� ��`� � 9i 7 ry �'� M � � E� v x '� ,, `� � ��;? � +"� � p st �� d a�� r � � �` �� ' °�„ �a " . a ,d;� ' . dr�' a. � ;y; <. ,,°r. 'ti�i. . . � _ . `^--�. .' y ,.: " �, � . , , ° . . � _� ��.� � � �� . . . _ _ _ .r � � � f �"�.,� �. � .. �. �a� .� � . �� ` :- � � �°` :`r� . , ° r :.. 4, . , i'��' ; &�. s ��i"� a�rt ��'k. s. "*^,^.�.. �� . " a a �' !� � o- x 7 t .� r� � €� �'�' , �� ;� �� -� �� °s�� ,-�--.,.-.-' �'�;x �,.,, � �1sa ;��k.�, � � � � �� . � � � �� _ , � _ �;, d � �►� � ��' � �rt r ,�; .�_ � w; ` � r �±,�,,� ,,. . : � . .� �� > � �� ¢ d°� , '4 9k '�r� • �` 7 * 4 � . � . /� �` t e' �z�'$��r��i - � �? pR'«3' � r � s*;" '": .. _ a ��,,.m� .. i�r �� 'y�. �` 'y . 1� t� � , �'�' P � .. 4 �'' �t }#��y 2: � �4 R• y w ��'� � � � +&b' � � �� r 9�... ��,w� ,.� '`,=, :;� fi 'a � �� `4. .,�- t "" / . k "�� . `�. ' �-"� � 2, A �'c a � tN ��' T�'y,�.- � � a' � � t �i. ; � � �.; Y 4- Rsi'r° � `�„ . ' � P,' � �.f Mh�r ;�s z� 'a$... �cs ,4�� . ,� ,�' '� � �`�- ^� ,,,''�/ " �, � v [ � � � "�f g�� c `y� j�� , � t�� ,"�'��tk" ...� ` :;_.�' �.�/ +�� .� � � � - � � �» 4 � r �x . I P"��. �' ' �Y+� r�� ' �i��,. ", ��. ^' �� }�'�y ia�� ",r �� "� " ' �+ � o- : ,,w � � .. � .^ . '�' � '..' , �.p�;,�4 �" . �a�� "" � � �" +,�, ��'^b �� "'' ^ry^ : F �. � ;�. , � � � � � � � �� , � � �� ,a " .., � - ,� a � , �-, �, ,ti.��-.. �, „�" � y. ,i`� � � � - � � � ,� . //�� ' � ' . ,. ",. � , �'M1:,,,� :� � : �r� �,'.. r " �� '� �J■' ,^ �`l� �� ',t . . �x i +'�+�, -,. �y� 1...� .,��; ' f{ , ; � � R� �Y #�h! � �,^,,.: „� �:� �� *�' � �, r� � a � e. � f ,y / r ,� "�" � � ' d�,"'S`., �}, � .,..... . .. ' � �:dx .�y � �i�% ��, , , c�:. . �p . �r�7 •`'p� "` � � 4�°�4� `�.. : ,y 3' k'� ^�,. .A* ' 3 �" � `�" -. b"�. � � . . � '°'�' yY'. t . :�i.�.�,d �.�, `a.w. ` ` �' . �-:: d ry .�� ", ""'".;.,, 4 r.4r� t�rf �'��;-'"; ` �*t�.� � � � � x-� � . � � .� +�s �" '�„�. � � � 5 s� 'fi" ��: � � � .ed` �;' � r� � +„ e � � � � 4 �t �'�` ,-� �%�' �� ww� � �` ��.,f` �`� � ``- � ' � �" � � ` z 4' � � � �� r �u � r x � � � ,4 ��F,� :� ^� . '�� , , , ; . � � ,��'�� ; r , � �� : :�" � �, . ..�.� � � �,. � �` . ; � � . �� ..a., �,�.., _ .., � . , _. . . , r� Item # 2b Consent Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permits Address: 137 Crescent Avenixe Meeting Date: 2/23/04 Request: Design review, spa,�cial permit for declining height envelope and special pernut for a basement for construction of a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Property Owner: Clement Hung APN: 028-293-050 Designer: JD & Associates i Lot Area: 6313 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilitie5 or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. i Summary: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing single-story house and detached garage to build a new two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage. The applicant is also proposing a 664 SF basement at the rear of the house. Because the finished floor above the basement is less than two feet above existing grade, the entire basement area is exempt from the floor axea calculation (CS 25.08.265, b, 2 and b, 3, E). A special permit is required �or a basement with a ceiling height greater than 6'-6" (CS 25.28.035, fl. With the basement and cover�d porch exemptions, the proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,511 SF (0.55 FAR� where 3,520 SF (0.55 FAR) is the m�imum allowed. The project includes a detached two-car garage (427 SF, 20'-8" x 20'-8") which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house. A special permit is required for declining height envelope along the right side property line (2'-3" x 16'-0", 36 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope). All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design review for a�iew two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage (CS 25.57.010); and • Special permit for extends beyond the cleclining height declining height envelope along the right side property line (2'-3" x 16'-0", 36 SF envelope) (CS 25.28.075, a); and • Special permit for � new basement with an interior ceiling height greater than 6'-6" (9'-0" proposed) (CS 25.28.035, fl. ; r Design Review and Special Permits Table 1-137 Crescent Avenue 137 Crescent Avenue EXISTINGI ' PROPOSED i ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS i � ' I i ....._ ......................_......_..................._....._..---..._....._:..........._...........��.....�...................................................._...........................................:........_..._._._...._.__........------..._...._.._._.._........._...._...................._...._.........�.._....;.........................................._......_......................----._.._._�._._._..�_...�..__.._...___. _ i ! I Front (Ist flr): ; 19'-2" to porch j 25'-10" ' 25'-10" (block average) (2nd flr): � none i 32'-0" ' 25'-10" .........................................�.._.-----._. .. .............._........................._.............�.;..................................._..-----._,....._............_.._.._...._......._,..................................;............._........................................................_......................_._........._._.._...__..............__..__. . __,_ .................�.._.__............ . _. . . Side (left): � 8'-0" 10'-7" ; 4'-0" (right): ; 3'-5"z � 4�_�� 4�_�� .---..—_ ..........................................................�...................................................................................._. � : Rear (Ist flr): � 38'-10" i 49'-3" 15'-0" (2nd flr): � none ; 49'-3" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: ! 2833 SF 2252 SF � 2525 SF : ° 3 ' 35.6% � 40% 44.8 /o F ......, .............�..._..-- - --..._._......._...................................�.,.................................................................._ __-- ---- _._ _ ._ _._-------- ..............___.........�...._..................__._._...i....................................................................................._............_........_.._.........__'__t'........................_. FAR: � 2742 SF ; 3511 SF � 3520 SF � 0.43 FAR � 0.55 FAR � 0.55 FAR4 � � --�_..._._._._�...._........_.__ .�_�...._..�...,_____.._..__ .................._...._._.._............ . �. . . . . ; .. ......................�............._.........T_.._..__.._..--------........_._........._.�........................_.......................................�......................._...._._....�...._..._..__.........._..._..._....�._...__._._.._...._.......__.._......�........ # of bedrooms: ; not available { --- 5 I ,.`___.__._ ........................................................._;................................................................._..__. �. � . ..............................._..._.._..... _._.._.__.._._.._........._........................................._................................................' , �.� ............................�....�......�..__ _._�_._....__......................................... Parking: ; 2 covered I 2 covered i 2 covered � 1 uncovered i (20' x 20') ; (20' x 20') i 1 uncovered f 1 uncovered I i i (9' x 20') t (9' x 20') ; ; _—....-----...._....�...........---............_...........�,i........._.._.._ ....................__............................�......................................._................; _----.......�.�........................................._.,..�.__...._. _............ _ ....................................................._._...--� -- -- -- _.........._._..._.__.._......._.. Height: ; single-story j 29'-9" 30'-0" � � ...�.._�__.........._.,....�....�.� ........................._.._.............�......:.............._..�_._.__......._.__._.,.__-__.-___._....��._.......�._....�....�....�......._.:....�.�.�._....................................._._..__.,.___�_.,_....�._._._._.__._�.��...._�.._..��._._._.._.._.._..__..._..........�__._.._.........................................__ _---- �<� , � �� , . : DHEnvelope: 4 not a�ailable ' ;' special permit require`d5 CS 25.28.075 ' Information on existing house was obtained from the San Mateo County Assessor's appraisal report and from data shown on the plans. 2 Existing nonconforming side setback (3'-5" existing where 4'-0" is required). 3 Existing nonconforming lot coverage (44.8% existing where 40% is the maximum allowed). 4(0.32 x 6313 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3520 SF (0.55 FAR) 5 Special permit for declining height envelope along the right side property line (2'-3" x 16'-0", 36 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.075, a). Staff Comments: See attached. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on February 9, 2004, the Commission had several comments regarding this project (February 9, 2004 P.C. Minutes). At the meeting, the designer submitted a revised chimney design (8%2" x 11") which has been included in the conditions of approval. The Commission asked the designer to consider adding a three or four foot tall fence usually softened with a vine such as j asmine growing on it to define the edge between the driveway of this properiy and the one to 2 Design Review and Special Permits 137 Crescent Avenue the left. This would help to break up the expanse of concrete now present between the properties. The applicant submitted a revised site plan, date stamped February 17, 2004, showing a new four foot tall wood fence between the properties. The landscape plan indicates that Spanish Jasmine will be planted along side the fence. The Commission also asked the designer to consider clipping the gable ends to reduce the mass of the building. The designer noted that after much consideration, he decided not to clip the gable ends because it would not be consistent with the overall design of the house. No further changes were made to the project. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on Apri120, 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 Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's February 9, 2004, design review study meeting, that the design is appropriate to the site and well articulated, and that that the second story roof extends to the first floor to break up the second story and mass and bulk of the structure, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. Findings for a 5pecial Permit: In order to grant a special permit for basement ceiling height and 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. Design Review and Special Permits 137 Crescent Avenue Special Permit Findings for Basement Ceiling Height and Declining Height Envelope: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission February 9, 2004, design review study meeting, that the proposed basement is less than 2'-0" above adj acent grade and is not visible from the street, that the proposed second story encroachment into the declining height envelope is minimal (36 SF), adds articulation to the side of the house and is consistent with the architectural character of the building; for these reasons the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and special permits, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 17, 2004, sheet 1, date stamped January 8, 2004, sheets 2 through 6, G-1 and L-1, and date stamped February 9, 2004 (81/2" x 11" sheet showing revised chimney design); and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height, pitch or design, shall be subject to design review; 3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Deparhnent staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the proj ect has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 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 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; 7. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's January 12, 2004, memos shall be met; 4 Design Review and Special Permits 137 Crescent Avenue 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration proj ects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10. that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Planner c. JD & Associates, designer 5 �� City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permits Item # �1 Design Review Study z�9 �c��' Address: 137 Crescent Avenue Meeting Date: 6� Request: Design review, special permit for declining height envelope and special permit for a basement for construction of a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Property Owner: Clement Hung APN: 028-293-050 Designer: JD & Associates Lot Area: 6313 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Summary: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing single-story house and detached garage to build a new two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage. The applicant is also proposing a 664 SF basement at the rear of the house. Because the finished floor above the basement is less than two feet above existing grade, the entire basement area is exempt from the floor area calculation (CS 25.08.265, b, 2 and b, 3, E). A special permit is required for a basement with a ceiling height greater than 6'-6" (CS 25.28.035, fl. With the basement and covered porch exemptions, the proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,511 SF (0.55 FAR) where 3,520 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project includes a detached two-car garage (427 SF, 20'-8" x 20'-8") which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house. A special permit is required for declining height envelope along the right side property line (2'-3" x 16'-0", 36 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope). All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage (CS 25.57.010); and Special permit for declining height envelope along the right side property line (2'-3" x 16'-0", 36 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.075, a); and Special permit for a new basement with an interior ceiling height greater than 6'-6" (9'-0" proposed) (CS 25.28.035, fl. Table 1-137 Crescent Avenue EXISTINGI PROPOSED j ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS ; ; , ..............................-----._.............___._.........._........................_....................................................................................................._.._.....................................................__._..__..__.._.._......._........_....................................................................._......._.�_._._._....._........._._................................_._.............._................................ ! � Front (Ist ftr): � 19'-2" to porch � 25'-10" 25'-10" (block average) (2nd itr): ; none 32'-0" � 25'-10" , ...........�..._ .................._._...__......,._......_. ___.......;_......._.....................................................................................................................................:..............._. Side (left): ; 8'-0" � 10'-7" ` 4'-0" (right): ' 3'-5"2 ; 4'-0" 4'-0" ; ........_ ..............................................................._.._...;---._.............---..._,�................................._....................................................................:................... .................................................................................�......................._......_...........:........................................................................................_.......__..__..............._............_..._......_........ Rear (lst.flr): ; 38'-10" ; 49'-3" 15'-0" (2nd flr): ; none � 49'-3" 20'-0" lnformation on existing house was obtained from the San Mateo County Assessor's appraisal report and from data shown on the plans. Existing nonconforming side setback (3'-5" existing where 4'-0" is required). + :a Design Review and Special Permits 137 Crescent Avenue Table 1-1521 Drake Avenue (cont'd) i ; EXISTING ; PROPOSED ; ALLOWED/REQ'D .................................................................................._....._;.................._..........�. ..........................__. .._�._.._. _._..._ ....................................................t..................._............_.._._..--- - , .........._ ..................................._.....................................................rt..............................................._. _. Lot Coverage: ; 2833 SF � 2252 SF ' 2525 SF ; 44.803 35.6% � 40% FAR: ; 2742 SF ; 3511 SF 3520 SF ; 0.43 FAR 0.55 FAR 0.55 FAR4 # of bedrooms: ` not available 5 --- ; : i . . ......__ .............................................................................._...._..�....................................................._........._.._..................�_........�. ..........................................................a............................................._...--- - --....._......_....................._.......�................... ; Parking: ; 2 covered 2 covered � 2 covered 1 uncovered � (20' x 20') i (20' x 20') � 1 uncovered � 1 uncovered ; ; f ; (9' x 20') ' (9' x 20') .........................................�...................................._..........;..........................._..................�..............._....__...._..._..._............................................................a..............._.._...._.___.__. ; _......_ ...............�..........'�.....................................................................................................................��......�_..._................................._..._...__.._.._.....�...... Height: : single-story � 29 -9 � 30'-0" ; ..,......._..._..�.�...._._..�.,_._.__........,......�._._ ......:...................................................................................._....._.............�.......�.......�..........�.�.......� �_..._.�..��.�_.�.�....�.�.�.�.......................,................,..........._._...._.�....................................._.�.��.............................................�...................................................._......_......�_�...�---- �- DHEnvelope : not available . ` special perrriit:r`equireds CS 25.28.075 3 Existing nonconforming lot coverage (44.8% existing where 40% is the maximum allowed). 4(0.32 x 6313 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3520 SF (0.55 FAR) 5 Special permit for declining height envelope along the right side property line (2'-3" x 16'-0", 36 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.075, a). Staff Comments: See attached. Ruben Hurin Planner c. JD & Associates, designer 2