HomeMy WebLinkAbout725 Crossway Road - Staff ReportItem No.
Regular Action
PROJECT LOCATION
725 Crossway Road
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 725 Crossway Road
Item No.
Regular Action
Meeting Date: March 26, 2012
Request: Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling with a detached garage.
Applicant and Property Owner: Tim Reeth
Designer: Waldemar Stachniuk
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 029-045-080
Lot Area: 5,855 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions
to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase
of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
Action Meeting (February 27, 2012): At the Planning Commission Regular Action meeting on February 27,
2012, the Commission voted to deny the project without prejudice noting several concerns with the proposed
project (February 27, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes attached). Please refer to the attached meeting
minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission.
In response to the Planning Commission's concerns, the applicant submitted a response letter, dated March 12,
2012 and revised plans, date stamped March 6, 2012. Substantial changes were made to the project, which
was denied without prejudice, and therefore the project is being brought back to the Planning Commission for
review under the original application. Please refer to the revised plans (date stamped March 6, 2012) and
applicanYs letter (date stamped March 12, 2012) for a detailed list of changes made to the project.
Since the Planning Commission has had several reviews of this project, it was determined that the project as
currently revised could be brought back as an action item. If the Commission feels there is a need for more
study or changes to the project, this item may be placed on an action or consent calendar for a second review or
referred to a design review consultant.
Design Review Study Meeting (February 13, 2012): At the Planning Commission Design Review Study
meeting on February 13, 2012, the Commission had several questions and comments regarding the Special
Permit for declining height envelope, the existing second story addition to the house, the need for more details
on the plans and the visibility of the addition along the west elevation and voted to place the item on the Regular
Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed (February 13, 2012, Planning Commission
Minutes). The applicant submitted revised plans on February 15, 2012 and a response letter on February 21,
2012, to address the Planning Commission's questions and comments.
Project Description: The existing two-story house with a detached garage contains 2,723 SF (0.47 FAR) of
floor area and has four potential bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to remove a large trellis area from the
first floor and to build a 721 SF addition to the existing second floor. With the proposed project, there will be an
increase in the floor area ratio from 2,723 SF (0.47 FAR) to 3,256 SF (0.56 FAR) where 3,343 SF (0.57 FAR) is
the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 93 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within
2% of the maximum allowed FAR. A Special Permit is required for declining height envelope along the right side
property line (40 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope).
With the proposed addition, there is no change to the number of potential bedrooms on-site (4 existing and
proposed). Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing detached
oversized one-car garage (10' x 20', clear interior dimensions) meets the covered parking requirement. One
uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have also been met.
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
• Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 a, 1); and
Design Review and Special Permit
725 Crossway Road
■ Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side
property line (14.1 SF of the addition extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.035, c).
725 Crossway Road
Lot Area: 5,855 SF Plans date stam ed: March 6, 2012
EXISTING ' ORIGINAL : REVISED ' ALLOWED/REQ'D
� PROPOSAL ` PROPOSAL
SETBA CKS
;
....................�................................... .,_.�.............�........................._....-----..................... . . . '
. ..............�._....................................................................................�............_.��....._...._.. _._,......................_........................................................................._......................._...._..................._......_....._....__...._._...................
Front (1st flr): 16'-5" (to eave) � no change no change 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 23'-0" j no change � no change 20'-0"
_ ........................._.._.._.......................................................... .........�.................._._.._.............__......---...._...._..._._...................:.................................................................................................._..._.............._.._..__.._................_....................................................._..._._.__._..;...._....__.......................---- --......_..........._....._....._._.......
Side (left): 4'-6" 4'-6" (to 2"d floor) : 4'-6" (to 2"d floor) ; 4'-0"
(right): 15'-8" ; 15'-8" (to 2"d floor) ; 15'-1" (to 2"d floor) � 4'-0"
........................................................_.�.�......................................,..._...._.....----.................__....__.._........._.._._.. ,
... ........r ............................................_..........................................................................,................................................................................................._.......,._......._....................-- --..�_.._...................................__.._...........
Rear (1si flr): 31'-0" no change no change 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 63'-10" ; 31'-0" 31'-0" � 20'-0"
__..�._.._ ......................_..............................................._._... ............................................................._...............................................�........._........................................_....._...-----......._. _ .
_ .....................__:.........................................................�.�.............._.._._...................;....:...................._._....................._...........---._...._.._.............._..
Lot Coverage: 2,171 SF 1,983.95 SF 1,989.75 SF 2,342 SF
:
:
0 0
0 0
37 /0 4
3 /0 34 /0 40 /o
; : :
:
.................... _................. _..... _.......................................... ...................... _.......................... _ _ _..........,................ _......................:........................................................................... :
.........................__._._.._.._.,._.._..---- ---..............................................�.........................a.............__....----.............._....- - ---- --......_..........
FAR: 2,722.7 SF 3,250.65 SF 3,256.45 SF � 3,343.4 SF �
0.47 FAR ' 0.56 FAR 0.56 FAR ; 0.57 FAR
, �
_._ ............................�._................._......._...__..,.,...�........ ...................._...._.._.._......................_...............�..�._...........---........p....................................................................................................._............._..;.........._._....._........_..._..............................................._..........._.....................:._................_._..._.._..�._...__........................_....._.__.
# of bedrooms: 4 4 4 � ---
__ ...............------........................�..�---._._............._..�...�......_-----...._..........-- -------......:......................................................................................_.._......_....__.�._...:_...._�._.�......._�_.........�.... �.......----
..................................._..----�-------_....._..-------...._.
Parking: 1 covered ; j 1 covered
� � ; ! � �
1(un�co e�red j no change no change I 1(unoco e�red
� �
(9' x 20') ; ' (9' x 20')
, ,...�.__. ...�..._...._.......__.._....... _..---.........._....__.....-----___...__._........._ ..............................................................................................------�-----_...................._.................................._..�..__,.._------__...____ ---
Height: 24'-1" ; 22'-4" (to addition) ' 24'-11" ; 30'-0"
....._.. ...�... � _.__.. ..... _ _�....
_._... ........ ........ ..... i - .-.--... ........
. ......._ _._._._ _....--- -......._..__.._
DH Envelope. ; Special Permit Special Perrnit I
extends beyand Required Required
��� declining heiglit ; � � � ��� � ��� � �S 25.�$.075:
envelope (right side) i (40 SF extend2 :(14.1 SF extentls ;
beyond DHE) beyond DHE)
' (0.32 x 5,855 SF) + 1100 SF + 369.8 SF = 3,343.4 SF (0.57 FAR)
2 Special Permit required along right side (14.1 SF of the addition extends beyond the declining height envelope).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, City Arborist, Fire
Marshal and NPDES Coordinator.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the
-2-
-£-
y�iynn a�ueuipap 6ui���(�a� si�qaa uoi�i�ouaaa pue uoi��na�suo� ay} y}inn �(�dwo� ��eys ��afoad ay� �ey� •g
`panssi si �ivaaad 6uip�in8 e a.ao�aq sue�d uoi��na�suo� ay� ui panoadde pue papn��ui
aq ��eys s�ie�ap 6ui�uan asau� �ey� pue `�aaa�s ay� uao�� a�qisin �ou �ooa ay� �o suoi�od ay� uo pa��e�sui pue
uoi�euiwaa� a�6uis e o� `a�qissod a.aaynn `pauiquao� aq ��eys san�� pue `s}uan 6uiquan�d `s}�np aie II� ��4� '8
:�eadde uo �i�uno� �f�i� ao `uoissivauao�
6uiuue�d ay� �o ��no.adde ay� �noy�inn pa6uey� ao pai�ipow aq �ou ��eys �enoadde �o suoi�ipuo�
ay} `paainbaa si �enoadde �.o suoi�ipuo� ��e y�inn a�uei�dwo� �ssa�oad uoi}�n.a�suo� ay� �noy6noay�
sue�d panoadde �o s}as ��e �o �ed e uiewaa ��eys y�iynn :�eadde uo �i�uno� �t�i� ao `uoissiwwo�
6uiuue�d ay� /(q pa}dope ��noadde �o suoi�ipuo� ��e 6ui�si� �aays aano� e apn��ui o� pai�ipow aq ��eys
sue�d uoi��na�suo� ��afo.ad au� `��afo.ad ay� �o uoi}�na�suo� ao� �ivaaad 6uip�inq e�o a�uenssi o� .aoiad }ey� •L
:��ia�sia �uauaa6eueW �(}i�en� aiy eaay �(e8 ay} �o suoi}e�n6a.a
au� Ile u�!M �(Iduao� o� pa.ainbaa aq Ileys �.aonn a�is y�ns pue panssi uaaq sey �iwaad 6uip�inq e �i�un .an��o
�ou ��eys a�is ay� uo 6ui�ou.i y�ea ao 6uipea6 �fue pue saan��na�s 6ui�sixa ay� �o �enowaa �o uoi�i�ouaap �ey� •g
:ao��aaip �uawdo�anaa �iunuawo� ay� �(q pauiu.�aa�ap se `a�qis�a� �i `�.aadoad a�eniad ay� uodn
pa�e�d aq ��eys ��afoad uoi��na�suo� ay� �o� saa�sduanp ao saxoq siaqap `saauie�uo� 6ui���(�aa �(ue �ey� �g
:�aw aq Ileys ouaaua 6 60Z ` �Z
aaqi.uanoN s,.ao�euipaoo� S3adN au� pue `ouaaua � �OZ `�Z aaquaanoN s,�eysaeW aai� ay� `souaaw � �OZ
`gZ.aaquaanoN pu� Z60Z `16 ti�nue� s,aosinaadng s�{aed ay� `ouaaua � �OZ `6 aaqwa�aa s,aaaui6u3 �i�
ay} `soi.uai.0 � �OZ `L 6 aaqi.uanoN pu� Z �OZ `E 6��nue� s,�ei�i}}p 6uip�in8 �aiy� ay} �o suoi�ipuo� ay� }ey� '�
:�iu.�aad siy� o� �uawpuawe ue aainbaa ��eys `(s)aawaop e 6ui6ae�ua ao 6uippe apn��ui
p�nonn y�iynn `a6eae6 ao `saoo�� puo�as ao �sai� `�uawaseq ay� �o ado�anua ao azis ay� o� sa6uey� �fue �ey� �g
:(�e�s 6uiuueld �(Q pauiva�a�ap aq o� �uauapuauae ao ���) nnainaa uoissivauao�
6uiuue�d .ao uoisinia 6uiuue�d o� ��afqns aq ��eys s�eiaa�eua ade�sp.aeu �o ad�(� .ao �unowe pue `y��id
.ao �y6iay �ooa `sa.an}ea� �ean}�a}iy�ae `snnopuinn `saysiui�..aoiaa}xa `s�eiaa}eua 6uip�inq o� sa6uey� �Cue �ey� •z
`dew �iydea6odol pue g y6noy� � s�aays `Z�OZ `9 4�a�W
padwe}s a�ep uoisinia 6uiuue�d ay� o� pa��ivaqns sue�d ay� uo unnoys se ��inq aq ��eys ��afad ay� �ey�
:paaapisuo� aq p�noys suoi�ipuo� 6uinno��o�
ay� 6uiaeay �i�qnd ay� �y •p.ao�a� ay} �o� �(�.aea�� pa�e�s aq p�noys uoi��e �(ue .ao� suoseaa ayl •uoissivauao�
6uiuue�d ay��o uoi�n�osaa �(q pawai}}e aq p�noys pue `uoisi�ap s,uoissivawo� 6uiuue�d ay� 6ui�aoddns s6uipui�
��}i�ads apn��ui p�noys uoi��y ��oda� }}e�s ay� uiy�inn pauie�uo� sis�(�eue ay� pue �fuouai�sa� �i�qnd aapisuo� pue
`uoi�e�i�dde ay� uo 6uiaeay �i�qnd e��npuo� p�noys uoissivauao� 6uiuue�d ayl :uoi��d uoissiwwo� 6uiuue�d
•a�ei.adoadde
si pasodoad si }ey� �enowaa ay} ao� uoi��6i�iw ay} pue `s�uawaainbaa uoi�e�saao�aa s,�(}i� ay� y�inn �ua�sisuo�
si pue �Gessa�au si uoi�ippe ao aan��na�s nnau �(ue �o �uiad�oo� ay� uiy�inn pa�e�o� saaa} �(ue �o �enowaa (p)
pue '�f�i� ay� �fq pa}dope saui�apin6 u6isap �ei�uapisaa ay� y�inn �ua�sisuo� si ��afo�d pasodoad ay} (�)
:pooyaoqy6iau pue �aa.a}s `aan��na�s 6ui�sixa ay� y�inn �ua�sisuo� aae uoi�ippe
ao aan}�na}s nnau pasodoad ay� �o suoi�ena�a pue s�ei.aa}eua ysiui� aoiaa�xa `ape�e� `aui� �ooa �.o �aiaen ay� (q)
:pooyaoqyfiau pue �aaa�s 6ui�sixa ay� y�inn pue u6isap s,aan��na�s fui�sixa ay� y�inn �ua�sisuo�
aae uoi�ippe �o uoi��n��suo� nnau ay� �.o s�i�siaa��eaey� �ean��na�s }ueuiwop pue a�e�s `sseua �o pua�q ayl (e)
ip-� OZO' �5'SZ uoi��aS apo�) /(�aado.ad ay� uo �sixa suoi�ipuo� 6uinno��o�
peo� �ennssoa� gzL ;►w�ad �e��ads pue Maina� u6►sap
Design Review and Special Permit
725 Crossway Road
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;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010
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:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
12. that prior to 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;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Erica Strohmeier
Associate Planner
Cc. Waldemar Stachniuk, 500 Airport Blvd. #100, Burlingame, CA 94010, designer.
Tim Reeth, 725 Crossway Road, Burlingame, CA 94010, applicant and property owner.
Attachments:
Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, date stamped March 12, 2012
Minutes from the February 27, 2012, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting
Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, date stamped February 21, 2012
Minutes from the February 13, 2012, Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Form
Copy of survey, date stamped January 11, 2012
Photographs of Neighborhood, date stamped November 14, 2011
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed March 16, 2012
Aerial Photo
-4-
Response Letter to:
C/TY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON
3. 725 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZOfVED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TIM AND LINA REETH,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND WALDEMAR STACHNIUK,
DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated February 27, 2012
Fourteen (14) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Commission comments:
1) Had similar concerns regarding the declining height envelope request; made more
difficult by the design of the prior addition; but must deal with the design of that addition.
Response/Correction -(N) design as noted on: Page 5a of 8, Page 6 of 8, and Page 7 of 8:
(new design integrates the new addition with the existing home
that does not encroach into the declining height envelope.)
2) Because of the angle of the street, the west elevation is more visible.
Resaonse/Correcfion - noted on: Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (new west elevation design
as visible from the street side has the new articulated appearance)
3) On the west elevation; in the area where there are windows into the closet and the
second-floor bathroom — the area could be gabled to break up the long, continuous line
of the elevation; but this could add more mass to the area.
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (the new west elevation layout
incorporates new gabled roofs into design, the design is also in
compliance with the declining height envelope requirements and does
not require the application for the special permit)
4) Have made some effort to break up the mass on the west side.
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (The new west elevation
design breaks up the mass of the wall; two dormers are placed — one
over the existing declining height envelope roof cut-out, and second over
the new addition, the second floor wall height is decreased by complying
with declining height envelope, second floor window sizes are increased,
new trellis are placed, four planter boxes w/Ogee Corbels are placed,
four kitchen/dining room windows are added, and three 24"x48" skylights
are added)
5) While we could insist that the new mass be addressed, it could also make the
addition look less compatible with the existing structure — for this reason, can accept the
declining height envelope request.
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (new addition is compatible
with the existing structure and it is in compliance with the declining
height envelope)
RE�IEI�/ED
MAR 12 zo`2
CITY OF BURLINGAM�
CDD-PIANNING DIV.
6) Disagrees; doesn't feel that the design of the original structure should drive the
design of the addition.
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (the existing west elevation
design is customized by adding the new dormer with two small windows,
and integrating it with the new alike dormer over the new addition)
7) Can accept the request for a special permit for the declining height envelope.
Response/Correcfion - noted on: Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (the new design is in
compliance with the declining height envelope, the special permit for
the declining height envelope is not required)
8) Doesn't feel that the design of the prior addition should drive the design of this
addition.
Resaonse/Correction - noted on: Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (the existing west elevation
design is modified to allow flawless transition with the new addition)
9) The bedrooms are quite large; there are ways to reduce the mass - there should be a
way to alter the mass; perhaps with a cantilever over the driveway and still be within the
declining height envelope.
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (the west wall is altered,
the mass is eliminated, and the declining height envelope requirement
is in compliance)
10) All of the bedrooms are upstairs and there is a study downstairs, plus another room
that is not identified - there is a lot of space that could be developed internally in a
manner that could avoid the request for a deviation from the declining height envelope.
There are solutions that could be used to eliminate the need for the special permit.
(Stachniuk/Reeth — desire to have all of the bedrooms upstairs so that the entire family is
upstairs. Made changes to the lower floor to move all of the bedrooms upstairs. The
room off of the kitchen was originally a family room, is currently used as a
sunroom. Had to redefine the ground floor space to eliminate a bedroom so that
additional parking is not required.)
Resaonse/Correction - noted on: Page 4 of 8, Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (floor
layout allows having all bedrooms upstairs and be in compliance
with the declining height envelope, the need for the special
permit has been eliminated)
11) The upstairs bedrooms could possibly be reduced in order to avoid the need for a
special permit for declining height envelope. The bedroom on the driveway side of the
home could be reduced in size, breaking up the mass. The addition could be
cantilevered over the driveway to reduce mass on the west elevation. (Reeth — the home
is wider on the side where it doesn't encroach into the declining height envelope. Is
concerned about cutting in on the west side would result in narrow
bedrooms.)
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 4 of 8, Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (the upstairs
(N) bedroom #3 has been customized to comply with the declining
height envelope requirement, the mass is reduced, and the wall
does not encroach into the declining height envelope)
RECEIVED
MAR 12 20t2
CITY OF BURLINGAME
�:►?�-pt_Ah1NlNG �Il/,
12) If the area near the children's bathroom were narrowed, that would allow the rooms
to be cantilevered over the deck below while preserving the square footage of the
bedrooms. (Stachniuk — are attempting to remain consistent with the existing design;
compliance with the declining height envelope would deviate from the existing home
design — is consistent with the front elevation.)
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 4 of 8, Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (the west
elevation — the children's bathroom side, is customized to be consistent
with overall existing design as well as with overall new second floor
design)
13) Have not typically accepted a two-story flat-walled design for a home — knows the
design is consistent with the existing residence, but doesn't think that the request is
supportable. Doesn't comply with the design guidelines. There is not enough of a reason
for granting the special permit.
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (new design in compliance
with the declining height envelope, the need for the special
permit has been eliminated)
Public comments:
John Root, 728 Crossway Road; spoke:
1) Supports the request for a special permit and urges approval of the requests.
2) A number of the neighbors have submitted letters of support of the design.
3) The proximity of the neighborhood to the Downtown area makes the area very
desirable — permitting this addition will allow the family to remain in the area and partake
of the benefits of being close to downtown. Granting the requests will enhance the
neighborhood.
Additional Commission comments:
1) Asked for clarity regarding the projections. (Stachniuk — clarified; will be a three-inch
stucco buildout with a one-inch stucco recess. A trellis is provided below that is
consistent with the front elevation.)
Resaonse/Correcfion - noted on: Page 5a of 8: (new design does not call for stucco buildout,
trellis design is consistent with existing trellis made of 2x6 Pine
primed/white paint)
2) Asked for a description of the landscaping along the west side of the home.
(Stachniuk/Reeth — may be a Japanese Maple; the tree blocks the side of the house
when it has leaves. Have had conversations with the neighbors — they have been
involved every step of the way. Didn't want to build something that did not have neighbor
support.)
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 6 of 8, Page 7 of 8, and Page 8 of 8: (Existing Maple
tree to remain. The design has the neighbors support)
3) It is good that the neighbors support the project.
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 6 of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (The design has the neighbors
support, neighbors supporting letters on file)
RECEIVED
MAR 12 2012
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV.
4) The minor change suggested in the early discussion regarding the addition could
reduce the size of the deviation from the declining height envelope, and may cause the
project to be supportable.
Response/Correcfion - noted on: Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (new design in compliance
with the declining height envelope, the need for the special
permit has been eliminated)
5) The initial addition was built prior to the declining height envelope provisions. The
proposed addition is designed to be conforming to the original design. Cantilevering the
addition over the rear would not be attractive.
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (new design is consistent
with modified existing west elevation, the new design is in
compliance with the declining height envelope, the special permit for
the declining height envelope is not required)
6) Feels that the findings in support of the special permit can be met - the design is
consistent with the existing structure.
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (special permit not required,
new design is consistent with existing structure)
7) Is concerned that the sides and the rear of the structure are simply sheer two-story
walls — there is a simple solution.
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 1 of 8, Page 5a of 8, Page 6 of 8, and Page 7 of 8:
(the new west/side elevation is customized; two dormers are placed — one
over the existing declining height envelope roof cut-out, and second over
the new addition, the second floor wall height is decreased by complying
with declining height envelope, second floor window sizes are increased,
new trellis are placed, four planter boxes w/Ogee Corbels are placed, four
kitchen/dining room windows are added, and three 24"x48" skylights are
added,
on east/side elevation new gabled roof and three 24"x48" skylights are
added,
on south/rear elevation two iron balconies w/black powder coated finish
are added, new 2x6 pine trellis w/white paint are added, and new stucco
decorative window treatment is added to match the existing front window
treatment)
8) Does see how there is consistency with the design; though thought there would be
more significant changes to the design.
Resaonse/Correction - noted on: Page 5a of 8, Page 6 of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (significant
changes to the west, east, and south elevations have been
implemented)
F�ECEIVED
MAR 12 2012
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
1) The design is not perfect but it looks like something that was always there — the
materials and design are consistent.
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 5a of 8, Page 6 of 7, and Page 7 of 8: (new design is
consistent with existing design and its material/finish selection)
2) Have done a good job with the design, applicant is respectFul of the neighborhood;
is approvable.
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 6 of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (The new customized design
has the neighbors support)
3) The design is consistent with the design guidelines and with the neighborhood
standard, but could use a bit more articulation.
Response/Correction - noted on: Page 1 of 8, Page 5a of 8, Page 6 of 8, and Page 7 of 8:
(The new design has been improved with significant changes
implemented to west, east, and south elevations)
RECEIVED
MAR 12 20t2
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV.
C/TY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON — Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2012
3. 725 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE .
FAMILY DWELLING (TIM AND LINA REETH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND
WALDEMAR STACHNIUK. DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated February 27, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Yie opened the public hearing.
Waldemar Stachniuk, 500 Airport Boulevard and Tim Reeth, 725 Crossway Road; represented the
applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Had similar concerns regarding the declining height envelope request; made more difficult by tfie
design of the prior addition; but must deal with the design of that addition.
■ Because of the angle of the street, the west elevation is more visible.
■ On the west elevation; in the area where there are windows into the closet and the second-floor
bathroom — the area could be gabled to break up the long, continuous line of the elevation; but this
could add more mass to the area.
■ Have made some effort to break up the mass on the west side.
■ While we could insist that the new mass be addressed, it could also make the addition look less
compatible with the existing structure — for this reason, can accept the declining height envelope
request.
■ Disagrees; doesn't feel that the design of the original structure should drive the design of the
addition.
■ Can accept the request for a special permit for the declining height envelope.
■ Doesn't feel that the design of the prior addition should drive the design of this addition.
■ The bedrooms are quite large; there are ways to reduce the mass - there should be a way to alter
the mass; perhaps with a cantilever over the driveway and still be within the declining height
envelope.
■ All of the bedrooms are upstairs and there is a study downstairs, plus another room that is not
identified - there is a lot of space that could be developed internally in a mannerthat could avoid the
request for a deviation from the declining height envelope. There are solutions that could be used
to eliminate the need for the special permit. (Stachniuk/Reeth — desire to have all of the bedrooms
upstairs so that the entire family is upstairs. Made changes to the lower floor to move all of the
bedrooms upstairs. The room off of the kitchen was originally a family room, is currently used as a
sunroom. Had to redefine the ground floor space to eliminate a bedroom so that additional parking
is not required.)
■ The upstairs bedrooms could possibly be reduced in orderto avoid the need fora special permitfor
declining height envelope. The bedroom on the driveway side of the home could be reduced in
size, breaking up the mass. The addition could be cantilevered over the driveway to reduce mass
on the west elevation. (Reeth — the home is wider on the side where it doesn't encroach into the
6
C/TY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SSION — Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2012
declining height envelope. Is concerned about cutting in on the west side would result in narrow
bedrooms.)
If the area near the children's bathroom were narrowed, that would allow the rooms to be
cantilevered over the deck below while preserving the square footage of the bedrooms. (Stachniuk
— are attempting to remain consistent with the existing design; compliance with the declining height
envelope would deviate from the existing home design — is consistent with the front elevation.)
Have not typically accepted a two-story flat-walled design for a home — knows the design is
consistent with the existing residence, but doesn't think that the request is supportable. Doesn't
comply with the design guidelines. There is not enough of a reason for granting the special permit.
Public comments:
John Root, 728 Crossway Road; spoke:
Supports the request for a special permit and urges approval of the requests.
A number of the neighbors have submitted letters of support of the design.
The proximity of the neighborhood to the Downtown area makes the area very desirable —
permitting this addition will allow the family to remain in the area and partake of the benefits of
being close to downtown. Granting the requests will enhance the neighborhood.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Asked for clarity regarding the projections. (Stachniuk — clarified; will be a three-inch stucco build-
out with a one-inch stucco recess. A trellis is provided below that is consistent with the front
elevation.)
■ Asked for a description of the landscaping along the west side of the home. (Stachniuk/Reeth —
may be a Japanese Maple; the tree blocks the side of the house when it has leaves. Have had
conversations with the neighbors — they have been involved every step of the way. Didn't want to
build something that did not have neighbor support.)
■ It is good that the neighbors support the project.
■ The minor change suggested in the early discussion regarding the addition could reduce the size of
the deviation from the declining height envelope, and may cause the project to be supportable.
■ The initial addition was built prior to the declining height envelope provisions. The proposed
addition is designed to be conforming to the original design. Cantilevering the addition overthe rear
would not be attractive.
■ Feels that the findings in support of the special permit can be met - the design is consistent with the
existing structure.
■ Is concerned that the sides and the rear of the structure are simply sheer two-story walls — there is
a simple solution.
• Roes see how there is consistency with the design; though thought there would be more significant
changes to the design.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
The design is not perfect but it looks like something that was always there — the materials and
design are consistent.
Have done a good job with the design, applicant is respectful of the neighborhood; is approvable.
7
CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SSION — Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2012
The design is consistent with the design guidelines and with the neighborhood standard, but could
use a bit more articulation.
Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped February 15, 2012, sheets 1 though 8 and Topographic Map;
2. that any changes to building materials, exteriorfinishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or
Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staf�;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 13, 2012 and November 17, 2011
memos, the City Engineer's December 9, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's January 17, 2012
and November 28, 2011 memos, the Fire Marshal's November 21, 2011 memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's November 21, 2011 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. 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;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. 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;
9. 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;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2010 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
C/TY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON — Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2012
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the
property;
12. that prior to 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;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
Fee/s that there could be more work done on fhe articulation.
Any articulation that is suggested is simply on paper currently; fhough there may be some economic
impact in the construction — the slight changes could make the project supportable.
Can't recall ever approving a project without articulation of the side elevations.
Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed 3-3-1-0 (Commissioners Yie,
Gaul and Terrones dissenting, Commissioner Lindstrom absent).
Additional Commission comments:
Discussed options for alternafive actions. (Meeker— could deny with or without prejudice, continue
with direction to the applicant, or refer to a design reviewer.)
Continuing the project keeps the project at the Planning Commission level — doesn't provide the
applicant the opportunity to appeal.
Feels the design work is incomplete — there could have been more work to break up the rear wall as
well.
Commissioner Cauchi moved to deny the application without prejudice.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Would like to have more discussion regarding specific direction to the applicant.
There is an opportunity to provide bay windows or other features such as balconies to provide more
articulation to break up the two-story walls; could use cantilevers along the left and rear elevations.
The front elevation provides guidance to the type of design features that could be incorporated fo
reduce the massing on the side.
9
CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANNING COMM/SSION — Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2012
■ There will likely be a lot of work required on the first floor to support the second story.
■ Primary concern is with respect to the west elevation. The articulation provided is nof enough to
break up the mass.
■ Straight walls have been allowed along driveways, but because those elevations are adjacent to a
driveway.
■ Need to address west elevation, fhis is a broad, flat wall; one and three-inch articulation is not
enough.
■ The bedrooms are quite large; there is the opportunity to provide better articulation by not stacking
everything.
Chair Yie called for a voice vofe on the motion to deny without prejudice. The mofion carried 6-0-1-0
(Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
10
Received After: Agenda Item #3
725 Crossway Road
02.27.12 P� Meeting
Page 1 of fi
February 23, 2012
COMMUh'ICATION REC��VED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF ST,4FF REPORT
City of Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: 725 Crossway Road Application
To: Commission Chair Yie and Conunissioners
I��' : � ,
�EB � � � "
�•�.�
cmr o� gu��.�v��n�
CDD-I'1ANNlNC diU
My wife Carolyn and I live at 728 Crossway Road, directly across the street
from the home of Tim and Lina Reeth and their children. We strongly
support their special permit application for their second story addition,
which is currently before you .for your consideration. We have lived in
Burlingame for many years and moved to Crossway Road seven years ago to
be close to downtown.
This sort of addition encourages young families to sta.y near our downtown
core and promotes the walkability of our community, which we all support.
I urge you to approve their application for a second story addition to their
home.
Thank you for your attention.
� ,�� _.._.
�- ;:_
. -��" , -
� �
� John S. Root
728 Crossway Road
Burlingaxne, CA 94010
��������
COMMUNICATION REGEIVED �
AFTER PREPARATION FEg 2 3 2� �? I
OF STAFF REPORT
CDD-PL.ANNING D V� �
February 23, 2012
City of Burlingame planning commisision
501 Prunrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
To whom it may concern:
I Deborah Loudon live at 729 Crossway Road. My house is located right next door on
the north side of the Reeth's family house /home. I have reviewed the blue prints for
their proposed construction and do not have any reason not to support the plans as
purposed.
As their next door neighbor I am in total support of the new construction / addition to the
Reeth's family house /home.
Sincerely, "
��, n �
, �t,��C�',� �-/'� �
Deborah A. Loudon
729 Crossway Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-274-1203
COIvIri�URrICATION RECEI yED � � � �� � D
AOF S AFF R POR�N �EB 2��0��'!'
i
February 23, 2012 CITY O� BURLI�IGAME '
CDD-PI-ANNING DN �
City of Burlingame
Planning Division
Burlingame, CA 94010
To Whom It Ma.y Concern:
My name is Leslie Macchia and I reside at 730 Crossway Road, Burlingame aeross the
street from the Reeth residence at 725 Crossway Road.
It is my understanding that they would like to build a 2nd story addition to their home, and
that their plans are currently being reviewed by the city for a special permit.
I have seen the revised architecture plans (dated 2/13/12) for the addition, have discussed
the changes with Tim Reeth, and do not have any issues with the current design.
Please do not hesita.te to contact me if there are any questions or concerns.
Warm regazds,
Gr�',%t%'" l'�''
Leslie Macchia
����iv��
FEs 2 3 ��o I�v
February 23, 2012
City of Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Att: Erica Strohmeier
Planning Commission and Commission Chair,
�C!-�( p� BURLfNGAM� I
�GD-PtANNING D1V
I Jerry Keohane residing at 733 Crossway Rd., Burlingame (two doors down from the Reeths) have
reviewed the extension to the second story as well as the new changes to the west facing side of the
building. I really like the proposed stucco pop-outs and the roof line, which is consistent the existing
second story addition. This gives the appearance that the new addition was part of the original house
design and not an afterthought. I have met with the Reeths and am in support of their request for a
special permit for the declining envelope design currently being reviewed by the committee.
It's comforting to see family willing to invest in their homes and our local ecanomy. This keeps our
schools, small businesses and neighborhoods in high demand and regard.
Resp ully sub itted,
/
Jerry Ke hane
733 Crossway Rd.
Burlingame, CA 94010
2/23/2012
City of Burlingame
Community Development Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Attn: William Meeker
Community Development Director
We are next-door neighbors to the Reeth residence on Crossway Road.
FEB 2 3 �j �v
Gi7Y L?� �3�RLiftlGAME
w:.���-P��T�!lt�GG D!V
We have reviewed the Reeth plans for a new addition, in particular the "declining
height envelope diagram", and have no concerns with the project as planned.
As neighbors, we fully support the improvements being planned for 725
Crossway Road.
Sincerely,
f � �
����,G��:��/ _.
k "�
Peter and Sarah Tucker
723 Crossway Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-347-3788
COILIMUMCATION RECEIYED � � � � � �� �
AF"I'LR PREPARATION
OF ST.4FF RE'PORT
CO�i11l�IU1�TICATIDN RECEIYED
AFTER PREPARA'lION
OF STAFF REPORT
_�A+
5'�.:,
} .
(! 2
�
9
m
W
i
oW
3
�
�C
G
�
���_�
�
�� ' " :
-�.��� �
, �� � . �. ;�
,�,
� . ��4� ` � t �'c
}�.ti, �
��C�� Y ��,J
FEB 2 3 �ni�
CITY OF BURL�i�;��I��j�
CDD-PIAfV�ll�t(� �ii�
Response Letter to:
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes (Draft) — February 13, 2012
Excerpt — 725 Crossway Road
5. 725 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TIM AND LINA REETH,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND WALDEMAR STACHNIUK,
DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Commission comments:
1) Are solid wood windows are wood-clad being proposed? (Stachniuk — will match
existing woodclad windows.) Need to note this on the plans.
Response/Correction - noted on Page 7 of 8: (NEW WINDOWS Marvin WD/AL CLAD WHITEj
2) Need more detail specifications — matching existing, but provide details and
dimensions of all elements of the design.
Response/Correction - noted on Page 4 of 8: (Deck dimensions added)
- noted on Page 7 of 8: (Fascia-WOOD TRIM TYP. 2x8 PRIMED PINE
w/WHITE PAINT TO MATCH (E))
- noted on Page 7 of 8: (Deck dimensions added)
- noted on Page 5a of 8: ((E)White Wooden Trellis,
and (N) Primed/White Paint 2x6 Pine Trellis)
3) On the west elevation, the two windows — the windows do not appear to be the same
size; would be preferable to have them be the same scale. (Reeth — the new window is
to be a bit larger than the existing window that is located in a bathroom. Can review this
detail.)
Response/Correction - noted on Page 4 of 8: (Two Windows listed w/same dimension 3014)
4) Clarify details of the existing deck.
Response/Correction - noted on Page 4 of 8, and Page 7 of $: (Deck dimensions added)
5) The west elevation is more visible given the orientation of the home to the street — is
there anything that can be done to relieve the mass and bulk of the area of the addition.
Response/Correction - noted on Page 5a of 8 and Page 7 of 8: (The WesUside elevation is
redesign to eliminate the bulk appearance of its visible portion from the street.
Two Kitchen/Family Room windows are being added on w/size 3616. Two Build-outs
and Trellis are added on under the (E) and (N) roof cut-outs.)
6) The continuation of the addition will add to the stark appearance of the west
elevation — consider treating this side similar to the front of the house. Can't support the
special permit because it will not comply with the City's design criteria. There could be
changes that could be needed to this area necessitated by the addition of the second
floor addition. Should create a design that treats the side elevation like a front elevation
given its visibility from the street.
Response/Correction - noted on Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (The West/side elevation's
appearance is revised and treated with details as the (E) North/front elevati�.����v��
The (N) three inch wall Build-outs are added with one inch stucco edge,
FEB 21 2012
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV.
giving the matching finish as (E) North/front second floor's window treatment.
In addition, the (N) trellis are being placed under the wall Build-outs matching
the (E) North/front elevation's trellis.
7) Show where the furnace and water heater will be located — also show the stacks for
this equipment. (Stachniuk — the utilities are to remain in the same location as currently.)
Response/Correction - noted on Page 3 of 8, and Page 4 of 8: (Utility Room in the same
location, Water Heater and Furnace to remain in the same location.)
8) The declining height envelope request is likely not acceptable, there may be
a means of designing the addition without the request.
Response/Correction - noted on Page 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (The revised West/side
elevation design suites and keeps in balance the declining height envelope condition as
well as integrates the (N) and (E) West/side elevation with (E) North/front elevation.
9) There are means to design the interior of the space creatively to ensure usability
while still complying with the declining height envelope restriction.
Response/Correction - noted on Page 4 of 8, 5a of 8, and Page 7 of 8: (The revised
design utilizes the declining height envelope restriction with the interior floor layout,
the design permits for the walk-in closet space to be functional, and creates the alcove
in the bedroom.
RECEIVED
FEB 21� 2012
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes (Draft) — February 13, 2012
Excerpt — 725 Crossway Road
5. 725 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TIM AND LINA REETH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS• AND WALDEMAR STACHNIUK, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated February 13, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier
briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Questions of staff:
Does the existing condition violate the declining height envelope? Was the existing condition an
"add-on" at some point? (Strohmeier — the existing condition violates the declining height
envelope, as does the proposed addition. A special permit may have been approved
previously, but it would have depended upon when the former addition was approved.)
If the City approved a special permit for declining height envelope for the original addition, would
the new proposal fall under that approval? (Strohmeier/Meeker — the original approval was for
that specific project; the current proposal requires consideration of a new request for a special
permit.)
Believes that there was an exemption for window enclosures that encroach into the declining
height envelope — appears that one portion of the addition may have complied with this
exemption. (Strohmeier — noted that one portion of the addition does comply with the
exemption, but the applicant chose to seek a special permit for other portions of the addition.)
Chair Yee opened the public comment period.
Waldemar Stachniuk, 500 Airport Boulevard and Tim Reeth, 725 Crossway Road; represented the
applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Are solid wood windows are wood-clad being proposed? (Stachniuk — will match existing wood-
clad windows.) Need to note this on the plans.
■ Need more detail specifications — matching existing, but provide details and dimensions of all
elements of the design.
■ On the west elevation, the two windows — the windows do not appear to be the same size;
would be preferable to have them be the same scale. (Reeth — the new window is to be a bit
larger than the existing window that is located in a bathroom. Can review this detail.)
■ Clarify details of the existing deck.
■ The west elevation is more visible given the orientation of the home to the street — is there
anything that can be done to relieve the mass and bulk of the area of the addition.
■ The continuation of the addition will add to the stark appearance of the west elevation —
consider treating this side similar to the front of the house. Can't support the special permit
because it will not comply with the City's design criteria. There could be changes that could be
needed to this area necessitated by the addition of the second floor addition. Should create a
design that treats the side elevation like a front elevation given its visibility from the street.
■ Show where the furnace and water heater will be located — also show the stacks for this
equipment. (Stachniuk — the utilities are to remain in the same location as currently.)
■ The declining height envelope request is likely not acceptable, there may be a means of
designing the addition without the request.
■ There are means to design the interior of the space creatively to ensure usability while still
complying with the declining height envelope restriction.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes (Draft) — February 13, 2012
Excerpt — 725 Crossway Road
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was ciosed.
Commissioner Yie made a motion to p/ace the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Yee called for a vote on fhe mofion to p/ace this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi,
Terrones and Auran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This
item concluded at 8:27 p.m.
� �,t�
` i dl �l�
_ ���
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 9401 O
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application: /� ,r�
�Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: �i� J^ ��S— V��
Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
72.5 CROSSwA-�/ KG� . ,Bv�2�in.
O Please indicate the contact person for this project "
APPLICANT project contact person�
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Nam �e � ��'���t- �
Add ress: 7� S� t7.� sS w A�u k�� •
City/State/Zip: . cNz.l ���6 G�. `�a � O
Phone: �.�5'0 - Q � a-� �rg �i�
Fa�c: %s� , 34' 3 �c_f£s� 1
PRQPER�( �WNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name �i (kt�� �-��►�' RE�f
Address: 7� G�SS�'� �'
City/State/Zip: �vR��i vl�� C�- �}�{ o ia
Phone: (��o . 9�a. g8 �i
� • ` �
�
E-mail: �� E�"f � 4,�n �� c. ��► ✓ti E-mail: ��= E� i� 9►'� �� �• Cb�
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER pro�ect contact Person
OK to send electronic copies of documents
Name: kI�La7��1�� ���{ I� l U,�
Address; J��(7 �irp�r�' ���'� � ��b
City/State/Zip: � �'�' a' �' `` �' ��' i �� � � � I �
Phone:
,�0 5�� _
��
F�: �� 0 5�-�9 -� 6 3�-
E-mai1: 1� ���.JS U, u��i ��T� fi�N�LoG, Y CpM
�c Burlingame Business License #: � � ✓�3 �
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
N�
r
RECE�VED
NOU 14 2011
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV.
D 1/�
6
AFFADAVITISIGNATURE: I her ce i under pe Ity perju th t the inf rmation given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief. , Q
Applicant's signature:
�w Date: I� ' (
I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this ap ication to the Plar�ning
Commission.
Propertyowner'ssignature: � Date: �v� ��/
. Date submitted: ��T�y � ��
�* Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the
Finance Department at the time application fees are paid.
❑ Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project S:�MANDOUTS�PCAPplication 2008.handoutdoc
This Space for CDD
Staff Use Only
�
Project Description:
�i ���� � � C � � �� � o �- �p �1 �
��Dcr�o�% W� I oi�-� �'� �3� �i
�
, , ,
• q I , ��; �,�, --�,� �,S � � I�. � P ►� -� � s�� �w � s--�;,�
r-, �� v, ,,
rL�:�;�h. .
Key:
Abbrev.iation - ::Term= _
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DHE Declining Hei ht EnvelopE
DSR Design Review
E Existing
N New
SFD Single Family Dwelling
SP Special Permit
Ciiy nf Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • www.burlinaame.orn
BURL.�� �� CITY OF BURLINGAME � �
(�� � ;; � ` ` SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION �
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions. .
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the
new construction or addition are consistent wifh the existing structure's design and
with the existing streef and neighborhood.
� g ����
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations
of the proposed new structure or addition are consisient with the existing structure,
street and neighborhood.
�e2 c+t�'�'��.. o�
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted b�r the city (C,S. 25.57)?
�e ���
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 mitigafion is appropriate. ��C C'` �ED
C V
� � ��'�ac ""�
Rev. 07.2008 � See over for explanation o# above questions.
JAN 11 2012
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV.
SPECIAL.PERMIT.APP.FORM
City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • www.burlin4ame.orq
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.
How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring
properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of
neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shacie, views from neighboring properties.
Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, {ear 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 new 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 fhe proposed new structure or addifion are consistent with the
existing structure, street and neighborhood.
How does the proposed sfructure or use compare aestheticallywith structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? ff it
does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattem 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, density of development and general pattem of tand 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 residentia{ design review. How does your project meet
these guidelines?
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with thaf of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect f� the parking and garage pattems in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style an.d 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 camponents.
4. Explain how the removal of an jr trees �ocated within the footprint of any new
structure or addition rs necessary_ and . is consistent with the ci#y's
reforestation requirements� What mitigafion is prcrposed for the removal of
any trees? Explain why this mitiga�on i� appropriate.
Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If sa, explain what type of trees will be rernoved and if any are
protected under city ordinance (�.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.
ANSWERS FOR DHE PERMIT APPLICATION
1)
Proposed structure is designed to match existing architecture. The new second floor
addition is to be built on the back side of the existing home, over the existing first floor
perimeter walls. The scale of proposed addition is consistent with existing home design.
The purpose of the special permit in regards to Declining Height Envelope is to maintain
the integrity of the current design.
2)
New addition aesthetically blends in with the neighborhood, and it is design to match all
existing finishes, such as; roof lines, smooth stucco finish, windows, and the trim work.
Completed second floor addition will fit in and be consistent with the neighborhood.
3)
1. New addition will match existing architectural style.
2. Parking and garage patterns will not be changed.
3. The new second floor design brings the integrity to over all structure appearance.
4. The proposed addition is located on the back of the existing home, hence the front
interFace is sustained with the rear and side exterior naturally blending with adjacent
properties.
5. Landscaping is proportional to proposed structure and meets the city guidelines.
4)
None of the trees will be removed.
(below is the DHE permit application and city reference for four questions)
RECEIVED
JAN 11 20i2
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV.
KAVANAGH ENGINEERING
708 CAROLAN AVENUE • BURLINGAME, CA 94010-2711
1170 reeth U1. TEL: (650) 579-1944 • FAX: (650) 579-1960
12.0106
Timothy Reeth
725 Crossway Rd.
Burlingame, Ca. 94010
RE: 725 Crossway Rd.
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP AND SPOT ELEVATIONS FOR ADDITION
Deaz Timothy:
Attached are 2 copies of our Sht. T-1 "Topographic Map" dated this day. It is based on our
previous map done in 1991 for a previous owner. This has spot elevations as required by the city
summarized as follows:
�
4 Property Corners:
Front le$
Front right
Back left
Back right
15' Setbacks:
Front left
Front right
Back left
Back right
Z Front Curbs Opposite the front corners:
Front left
Front right
Average top of curb
4 House Corners:
Front left
Front right
Back left
Back right
$ouse Finish Floor
Very truly yours,
KAVANAGH ENGINEERING
l__— . .
Charl s L. Kavanagh
�. �
ELEVATION (F1�
City Datum
20.51
20.52
22.3
22.5
20.63
20.85
21.1
21.5
20.32
20.28
20.30
20.68
20.83
21.04
21.0
22.43
���`'¢�,4.`' L� K�l�y,y Fy�
�
� ��- vy y�
� No. 20858 z
,� Exp. 9-30-13 *
���E� V G�
JAN 11 2012
CAU
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV.
CIVIL DESIGN • SURVEYIIVG • UTILITIES EMAIL: kavenq(c�mvastound.net
SINCE 1983 WEB: www.kav-enq.com
�
114 �;
�I�v � 4 2�ai
c�rr a� au�ura����
c€�t�-������� t���
��������$�� ���,� '���`��� ��i`��
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
November 17, 2011
[� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a second story addition at
725 Crossway Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-045-080
November 21, 2011
1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the
City storm drain system.
2. Replace all displaced/damaged sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter.
3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 12/09/2011
Date:
To:
Revised Plans Submitted January 11, 2011
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ Parks Supervisor
(650) 558-7334
From:
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Deisgn Review and Special Permit for declining height
envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single
family dwelling at 725 Crossway Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-045-
080
Staff Review: N/A
On the first page of the plans under "Project Data" remove references to the
2006 IBC, 2005 NEC, 2006 UPC and 2006 UMC as these are outdated
references and do not apply to this project.
Item #9 has been removed as a condition of this project.
All other conditions of approval as stated in the review dated 11-17-2011 will
apply to this project. .
Date: 1-13-2012
Date
To:
From: `.
Subject:
Staff Review:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
D�
7)
8)
9)
November 17, 2011
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-727�
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a second story addition at
725 Crossway Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-045-080
November 21, 2011
On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2010 California Building Code, 2010
California Residential Code (where applicable), 2010 California Mechanical Code, 2010 California
Electrical Code, and 2010 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in
Ordinance 1856-2010. Note: If the Planning Commission has approved the project prior to 5:00
p.m. on December 31, 2010 then the building permit application for that project may use the
provisions found in the 2007 California Building Codes including all amendments as adopted in
Ordinance 1813.
On the plans provide a copy of the GreenPoints checklist for this project at full scale.
Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2008 California Energy Efficiency
Standards.
Go to http://www.energy.ca.qov/title24/2008standards/ for publications and details.
Place the following information on the first page of the plans:
"Construction Hours"
Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m.
Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
(See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.)
On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to
be perFormed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further
City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project
designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically
illustrated in these plans prior to performing this work.
Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business
license.
Provide fully dimensioned plans.
Provide existing and proposed elevations.
This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame
Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed
fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined
by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the
.
requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2010 California
Building Code for new structures. BMC 18.07.020
Note: Any revisions to the plans approved by the Building Division must be submitted to, and
approved by, the Building Division prior to the implementation of any work not specifically shown
on the plans. Significant delays can occur if changes made in the field, without City approval,
necessitate further review by City departments or the Planning Commission. Inspections cannot
be scheduled and will not be pertormed for work that is not shown on the Approved plans.
10) 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 and, and no work can
begin, until a Building Permit has been issued for the project.
11) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed
Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued
until a Building Permit is issued for the project.
12) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that
complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress
windows on the elevation drawings.
13) Define the Use for the room that is immediately adjacent to the Family Room and specify the size
and location of all required egress windows for this room on the elevation drawings.
14) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are
considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details
if your project entails landings more than 30" in height.
15) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers.
16) Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
17) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building
within ten feet. 2010 CBC §2113.9
NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 13 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning
Commission action, . . __._� �
Reviewe`�c "by: _.:���---- �l/ �-- Date: 11-17-2011
Project Comments
Date:
To:
Revised Plans Submitted January 11, 2011
� City Engineer
(fi50) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
X Parks Supervisor
(650) 558-7334
From:
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Deisgn Review and Special Permit for declining height
envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single
family dwelling a# 725 Crossway Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-045-
080
Staff Review: N/A
1. No i`urther comments.
Reviewed by: B Disco
Date: 1 /17/12
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
November 17, 2011
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building OfFcial
(650) 558-7260
X City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
0 Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-727?
0 Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a second story addition at
725 Crossway Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-045-080
November 21, 2011
1. Site plan needs to include all major trees and shrubs including City street
trees.
2. No tree may be removed without permit from Parks Division (558-7330)
3. Minimum of 3 landscape tree (existing or new) are required for final.
Reviewed by: B Disco
Date: 11/28/11
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
November 17, 2011
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
� City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑X Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
0 NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a second story addition at
725 Crossway Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-045-080
November 21, 2011
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.
Reviewed by: �<� � Date: Z� ;Y1N.,l/
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
November 17, 2011
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
0 Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
� City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
Planning Staff
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
0 Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
Q NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Request for Design Review for a second story addition at
725 Crossway Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-045-080
November 21, 2011
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
NPDES permit to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. Project
proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best Management Practices
(BMPs) during all phases of construction (including demolition).
When submitting plans for a building permit include a list of construction stormwater
pollution prevention BMPs as project notes and include them as a separate full size
plan sheet, preferably 2' x 3' or larger. Project proponent may use the attached
Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) plan sheet to comply with this
requirement. Electronic file is available for download at
http://www.flowstobay.org/bs_construction.php
(Scroll about half-way down the page and click on Construction BMP Plan
Sheet).
For assistance please contact Eva J. at 650-342-3727.
Reviewed by:
Date: 11-21-2011
�
.--•✓
SAN }fA'e'L� :.OUNTYYdIDE
Water Pollution
Prevention Program
Ciean Water. Healt?:y Cn�?e:xiuEz�ty.
Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs)
DOWNLOAD e file at http://www.flowstobay.org/bs construction.php
Construction projects are required to implement the stormwater best management practices (BMP) on this page,
as they apply to your project. Please note: the wet season begins on October 1 and continues throughApri130.
Materials & Waste Management
Non-Hazardous Materials
❑ Belm and cover slackpiles of sand, dirt or other wnshuction maleriat
with 4ups when min is forecut or iFnot actively being used wilhin
I4 dAys.
❑ Usc (bul don't ovcrosc) rociaimcd watcr for dust control.
Hazarduus Mafcrials
❑ Label all fiazardm�s macerials and hazartlous �vanes (such as
peslicides, paiMs, thim�ea, solcents, Cuel, oil, and antifreca) in
accordance with city, comty, state and federal regula[ions.
❑ Smro hn»rdous matcrials md roastes in watcr lig6[ eonLainers, sto�c
in approptiatc secondary cuntainmcnt, and covcr Ihcm a[ thc end of
every �vork day or during wet �veather or when rain is forccast.
1� Follow manufaclwer's application insWctions for ha�ardous
materials m�d be camCid mt to use mom fFian newssary. Do not
apply chemicals outdoors w�hen min is faacast within 24 hours.
❑?.mnge for appropriatc disposal of all luv�rdous n�nstcs.
Waste Managemen[
O Cover waste disposal containers secumly with tarps at the end of
every worl day end dunng wc[ wcathcr.
❑ Check wnsfe disposal conLtiners frequenllp For leaf:s and [o make
sure they are not a��erfilled. Never hose down a dumpsle� on the
conshvction site.
❑ Clenn or rcpince poquble [oiiets, and inspoct ihem ftequentty Cor
Ieaks and spills.
❑ Dispose of all ��astes and debris properly. itecycle malerials and
aasles that can be mcycled (such as asphal[. concrcle, aggmgate base
materials, wood, gyp hoard P�Pe, e[c.)
� Dispose of liquid residues from paints, thinners. solvents, g(ues, and
cicaning Nuids as ha ardous wastc.
Cunstruction Entrances and Perimerer
❑ Es4�blish and maintain effective perimeter controls and 54�bitiu all
consWction entrances end exits m suf6cientiv control erosion md
scdimcnt dischargcs from sitc and tracking off si4.
❑ Sweep or vuunm any street tracking immediakly and secure
sediment source to precen[ f mher tracking. Never hose dmvn sueets
to clwn up Vul:ing.
Equipment Management &
5pi11 Control
Mainhnance and Parking
O Designate an arca, fit[ed wi[h appropriate BMPs, for
vehicle and cquipmen[ parAing and sto�age.
t7 Pedarm mnjor maintenance, cepeir jobs, nnd vehicle
and equipmen[ washing off sile.
C7 ff refueling or vehicle mainlena�e must 6e done
onsite. wock in a bermed arca away from storni dmfns
and ovcr a drip pan big cnougfi to collcc[ ftuids.
Rccyelc or dispose of fluids az hazardaus icnste.
❑ If vehicle or equipment cieaning must be done onsite.
clean wilh waler anly in n 6etmed area lhat will no[
allow riase wffier to mn inlo 6ulters, strcels, stoim
draias, or surfaa waten.
❑ t• v hi I or e' ment onsite nsin soa s
Du not c e�n e c e qwp g p.
wlennts, degreasers, skazn eleaning equipment, e[c.
Spill Prc�rontim and Control
0 Keep spill cleanup ma[erials (rags, absarbents. cic.)
availabic nt thc consWction sitc at all 6mes.
❑ Inspatvehiclesandequipme�lCcequen[lyforand
ropav leaks pmmp[ly. L'se dcip pans to cutch leuks
until repa'vs are mude.
❑ Clcan up spilis or Icaks immedia4ly and disposc af
cicanup matcrials properly.
❑ llo no[ hore down suefaces where fluids have spilled.
Use dry cleanup mcWods (ubsorbenl maurials, cat
litler. nnNor rngs).
O S�veep up spilled drc materials immediately. Do not
ke b �eash [hem an•ay with wate; or 6uq' Ihem.
❑ Cican up apills on dirt arcas by digging up and
properly disposing of contamina[ed soii.
❑ Report significan[ spills immediakly. You aro rcyuired
by la�v to repot[ ali significan� retenscs of he'rardous
mate�ials. induding oil. 7'o reporl a spill: 1) Dial 911
ot yrow locat eme�gency rcsponse number, 2) Call the
- Crovcmor's Office ofEmergcncy Scrviccs ll�aming
Ccotcr, (800) ffi2J550 (24 hours).
Earthwork &
Contaminated
Soils
*�'�".�==,,��;
i
�' .
�-.
f�� �..� � - . .,.
�•yr�y�y� : -`"�
tn,.;,+.✓� �,e+-` — _.,s.s
Erosion Control
❑ Schedule �ading and excava6on wock f'ot
dry weoNer onty.
❑ Siabilia ail denuded areas, insfatl and
maintain �empornq• erosion coutrols (such
as erosiun control fabric or bunded Lbei
maVixJ mtil vegetalion is eslablished.
❑ Sced or plant vegea[ion for crosion
controi on slopes or where conatruction is
no[ immcdiately planmd.
Sediment Contmi
❑ Protect sromi drei¢ inkts, gutters, ditches,
and dreinagc couraes with appropciah
BMPs, such as gravcl bags, fibet rolls,
Ixlms, cic.
❑ Prevent sediment fmm migmUng oBsite
by iasWlling aad maintaining sediman[
controls, snc6 as fibcr rolls, sii[ fcnccs, or
scdimcnt 6asins.
❑ Kecp ezcavazed soil on the siu; where it
will not collec[ into the street.
O Trnnsfec euavated materials ta dump
Uucla on �he site, no[ in �ie slreet.
❑ Conlamina[cd Soils
❑ If nny oC lhe tol(owing conditions ue
o6served test forconlaminu�ion and
cortLict �he Regional Wate� Quality
Conirol Board:
■ Unusuai soil condi[ions, discoloration,
or odor.
■ Abandoned underground tanlcs.
■ Abandoned wells
■ Buricd bniccls, dcbris, or truh.
Paving/Asphalt Work
� 1 ' 4
. r �l<.+. . . ,. �
❑ Avoid paving and seat coating in �vet
weather, or when rain is fo�ecast beforc
hesh pavement will Aavc timc ro cure.
❑ Covcr stomi drain inic[s and manhoics
w6en appiying seal coaL lack coaL sluny
sesl, Fog scal, elc.
❑ Collect md recycle or appropriateip
dispou of excess abtasive graeel or smd.
Do NOT swccp or wash it into gutters.
O Do no[ use wahr to �vash doam fresh
nsphalt cmamte pavcmenc
Sae�cutting & AsphaldCuncrctc Remoral
❑ Camplelely cover or bnrticade sm�m�
dmin inle�s when saw cul�ing. Use 51ter
tabric, calch bazin inlet 511ers, or grnvel
bass ro l-eep slurty oul of ihe storm drnin
system.
❑ Shovel, abosorb, or vawum sawtut
slutry and dispose oFali ivas[c as soon
as you azc 5nishcd in onc tocation or a[
thc cnd of cach work day (whichever is
sooned).
❑ If sawcul slwry ente�s a catch basin, clean
ic up unmediateiy.
Concrete, Grout & Mortar
Application
❑ Store conctete, grout and mortar under
eoeny on paliets and nway Gom drninege
areas. These materials mucl never reach u
storm cl�ain.
❑ Wash out cancrctc equipmcnVhucks
offsite o� in a wntained area, so therc
is no diseharge into Nc underlying soil
or onto sucrounding azeas. Let concmte
harden and dispose of az gurbage.
❑ Collecl the wash water from wazhing
esposed agseegate concrek and eemove it
For approprinh disposat oRsite.
Dewatering
T d
:� �:, � . ,�
��
1
�S;o
.. •>.�`.�. .�a
❑ CfFeclive(y manage ail runoq all
tunoff wilhin tLe sile, and all �unoff thal
discharges from the site. Divert runon
tva[er From ollsile away fwm ali distucbed
arexs or ot6ernise ensure compliance.
❑ V✓hen de�catering, notil'y and obtain
�pproval from Ihc local municipaliry
befofe diScLarging water to a strce[ gutter
or s[orm drain. FilVation or diversion
tluaugh a basin, Nnk, or sediment trap
may bc rcquired.
❑ In aeeu of known contaminatioq testiag
is rnqu'ved pcior to reuse ur discharge of
gnundwate�, Consul[ with the Engineer to
dctciminc whe[hcr tcs[ing is rcquircd md
how [o interyret results. Contaminated
groundwaur musc bc trcated or hauicd
off-sitc for proper disposal.
Storm drain polluters may be liable for fines of up to $10,000 per day!
Painfing & Paint Removal
� F $y,;
�.
�: =
;, ���` �
,,,� ��..,�
Paintiog cleauup
❑ Ncvcr clean beushes or rinsc paint
containera into a streeL gutter, srocm
atJln, Of Su(f31tc lV8tC�5.
❑ For watu-bazcd pninls, pnin[ ou[ bmshcs
ro the extent pnssible. Rinu tu if�e
sanitaq• se�ver once you lu�ce gained
permission from the local aaslew�ter
heatrncnt autkiority. Ncrcr pour paiu[
down a drain.
❑ For oil-bnsed pairtts, paint out brus6es to
lfie ertent possible and cica¢ with Ihim�er
or soh�enl in a pmper wntainer. Filler and
reum d�inners and solvents. Uispose aC
residue and musable Wianedsolvents as
F,>,.dous wazte.
Paint.removal
❑ Chemicol pnint s[ripping residue md
chips and dusl Crom marine painls or
paints conlainiog leud or tribul,vltin must
be dispused uf as hazardous waste.
O Pain[ chips and dust from non-haisrdous
dry� stripping and sand blasting may be
swept up or eollected in plsstic drop
cloths and disposed of as trash.
Landseape Materia(s
..,�,.
� ����.,
r
,�
_
'"��'s�� „�z
4: � ��� �;�`�
f. .
:s'�".. .' �
..s- .,
❑ ConLvn atockpiled landscaping materials
by storing them under �arys when �ey are
not aclirety beinb useel.
❑ Stack erodiblc landstapc ma[crizl on
pallets. Coveror srore lM1ese ma[crials
whcn Ihcy arc not aztiecly bcing used or
applied.
❑ Discontinue application of any erodible
landscnpe material rvithin 2 days before a
farecas[ fain ecent ar during wet �vealher.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW
AND SPECIAL PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
Desiqn Review and Special Permit for declinin�qht envelope for a second story addition to
an existinq sinqle familv dwelling with a detached qaraqe at 725 Crosswav Road, zoned R-1,
Tim and Linda Reeth, propertv owners, APN: 029-045-080;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
March 26, 2012, 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 (e)(1)
of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt
from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more
than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
2. Said Design Review and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permit are
set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26t" dav of March, 2012 by the
following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit.
725 Crossway Road
Effective April 5, 2012
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped March 6, 2012, sheets 1 though 8 and Topographic Map;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size
garage, which would includ
amendment to this permit;
or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or
e adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 13, 2012 and November 17,
2011 memos, the City Engineer's December 9, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's
January 17, 2012 and November 28, 2011 memos, the Fire Marshal's November 21,
2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 21, 2011 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director;
6. 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;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
8. 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;
9. 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;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit.
725 Crossway Road
Effective April 5, 2012
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification
by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved
floor area ratio for the property;
12. that prior to 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;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
. CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSEROAD �'�'�;�°�,���.�'.`:
BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �,�"' � �i� _
PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) �_ :, _��,=+�� _
www.buriingame.org �, �•: .,�"��*- �
���4��� �
�`�-�` -�`�' : �,�
Site: �25 CROSSWAY ROAD -
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on MONDAY, MARCH 26,
2012 at 7:00 P,IVI, in 4he City Hall Council Chambers, 501
Pr-imrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
dedining height envelope for a se�ond story addition to
an existing single family dwelling at 725 CROSSWAY
ROAD zoned R-1: APN 029-045-OEO (this-app/ication
was previous/y denied without prejudi�eJ
Mailed: March 16, 2012
(Please refer fo other side�
-�, .��•� �^- _
s '�'
� � i..- .4..� _
� ,� t"� —
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
Citv of Burlinaame
A copy of ti�e application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meetirr� at the Community Development Depa!�ment at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, Califiornia.
If you challenge the subject appiication(s) in court, yo;� 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 fcr informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLtC HEARI_�IG NOTICE
(Please refer fo ofher side)
� � '\ � � � ��� � � >,r .x, � , r��, �� . � �.
� � '� �� � � � "� �� �- "� �� ��� ��`�`�. 6S� .. -� � ` � S� �
��'`� � �„ � � �. =� t�ti� �' � ' �"r � � � `„� ���� ' � � ;
'� 8c� ;; � , � , `� t r _ i'` �
•` � �$� � � ! �8�y �`� ``;� � �' � �'�S " ��� � `� �`�
.
��, ) ��'� � �� 7� �j ' � �n � �
��� �T � � �� �` �� �� �� ��� ^ ,` � �� .�
' �,, , �j� � '`�, ��
, �' � k \� '�'�R �+ � _ � � R�
� d } � £ � � .t � . .. ,� � b j m � � � _ � � � . l / �� � �' " J1
7 Y
, Y � '� � �"' � � J�.P`,- :n,�>- ,� � `�' F j ,
� � ,N � f �'�' r1 `a4r � '�. ,.. � . `�.,,��� "a. "�s` � r
� ' � �' �e' � fj' �- �"^, `.�,� �-
0. �J� YzVy 4y� w �, � w,� ��'4V4 ' �6r '< � ���'�`�
� ` : � 3 P � 4{ � � .
s
�' •�� �. � �'` �� : � �a � ='�
� �� � : �� r, � � � �: � �� � � ���. � - _ � . ; ��,� � _
F,r � � � � � � ,z�"�� ��T� 4. � . . , Y^ � ... -�, �3" k^` � ' '�`
� `�- v $Z 'u, 'i'�� "^ �^ r �� � ��,.,�,. � ��" � `�y„� (/�?
� � � 4`� ,¢� '. s� � � � � � � �3� � 5� `��
� ,
��` __,� �. ���
� � ,
� �
� _ � , � � � ��� %
��� � ,� `� � � �
� �
�
� . � � � �x
� � �� � . .
� .w
r� �
a
� '%� � - � � �
,�
�/�� � �'� �`"'�, �' �� �? ��
� J;'"*�� 'G �'"f � m ��� �✓ 3 � ��j�'� ' ' �`A -' , �a � f r� �� ; x ,��
i � �'t,� � � , � � . � ��,��: � �'` ' � . . �g' � �
� . . �.. �;:! � .
�? �' ,�; � n . _ .
>
, 7 .- .
�. � � ^< , � �3�� � � � � ��+
u-
' . � � �. �? � � .. � , � �a; '�a
t. - � ' ` �,� �
„ . ,. ;�. , � � , . , - �r�� _ �.. _ ..
� ��= �� �
� � � • �
�
� � n � .r ;� n,' ' '�'`�2 � *-
�
,� � -
., _ . �.' . �, ��. � - �
, . , .,�� �t�.�. = ,�?�� �, � �
� � �
� � � _ , �°"- td� - �
.: .. � ,� . . . �e
�
t, r
,� e ,
.
° �'O � .,- � �, j33 ��� � > �� �
,
v
��> �A �• � �
�
� �. �
<
, -.
.' , w. � �
_ , 4y ,.
7 � �'" -4 � - � , �2 � ,
��:� x� �� � `� ~ ` _ � �
. .•_
� ;� �; � �29 �.�►� ' ;� � � � � �,
, �tSt : '�.� v ' r � `` �.� � � �° `" �� �I� ,� �api � � �� r ,� �8 ; �
�' � �� � ': << � � � ���� �. � � �
' � � �� �, �g ✓ - - ��•. .�, ?2,s. .a ��•� � ,�.; ' �y2
� � .
, - '�� � � �� � �; � � �i►•� �� � � ` �I , � , � �7
; n�
� � � � � ` ,I ?� � �� D
w � ",� p _,
� � � ��� �. � �� ��. 23 = , � ��8
..-� � � �" �� �,;'i� �I�� , ] � � !�� .
� m� . � �
,
� � � � .� �, 2r � � �
`��' ,� �E`� �� ,�� '� � , � ,
� "� ��a�' r► �
e' ��, � 'e .�cA �''�+ ?>>
�
�` ��"�` a.. ` �; ;' . `";°�,
�
. ; t,, � ,,/ , u^� ' �, �_ � !'y� �,
� �� ,
c��. � � -/f _ � ,�
a
� � � � ��,,�, � � �,..a �,�. �� ��,Q�
� , , � `� _
�
�, _
�
� ,,a � ;� � � . . , �v • ��'
� d
t
.,
�� 3 v
i Y
� �r �� ��y� �_a ��� .��� �� y
� �� � ��� � ��a.�
�� � � ��. o ��� .��� ��� �� �
�
� r ��� �: .� � � � « � ���
�
�_ � � � � , , ..
� � r,
,.�, �
� ;� :����,, � � � �- �
� �,, / � ��;: :'a�� ,��� l � � �'�� •��• `
�
a � �,,�.
� ,f � -
, �_ . , � �. � � � � �
e .
,-, ��:. ,� ��'
- r�� - ' _ `�`�°R . � � "�, �;;� .� �� �: ,� � � s r,.',�'`f _ � ".
`+ �'- �' �' 'g i � � '�`' �,�` �' ' �.'� ����^ � � � �
, ,{ f. `�^ r`�� � �� '` �� - .. `*� ' ' �, �, w�' xs�q�`� �; � � � ;
� � - �� ��= n � .� o - %.-� �' ��. ,�',� . .� � � � � . ��� � � � . �/��
r ,�ti a � ti �� * ' � `�� `" � J\
�� � r<r '; �'�- �, ''- � � �.`; � . � � ,� �
�F� � ` " �. � � � ,
�
� � M , � _ a - ��
�, , f�� ` � � �� �
�
f r
`� � P_ � .;� Q �� �
� x � x "-
� ,��> r � .� �� , ;� �� 1�' ��
�. �
,. > a �,� � �� �` cb�J
,. , �
�' � � ' � � � � �
O _ '��' .i��l
a>
�3
:
r V
�' �°�„ � �_��. � � � �� � <_
�, � �
� y. �` � � � � s : �p�Ik � � �,
� � � �, � � � � �
� -,
; � s
`'°� ' �j � � , � ��� � �� � �
r -x �, � �, � �, � � .�5
,
r -
� �,� ,'• � ` J�^;.i ,, �
� �
� � � � . n ,;� =4 �t:
t � � c9 � ' �
,
2 :n r ,
� r .� � Q / � ��
� `�,� ;� F r - _ ,`� r � p� Cj�
,� ; o � - � ��
�� �
# �
�¥
l� g; t '`s� >�, � � � • � j ���,
�
, ,� . � ,
� ,�
� x � � �, .,
�
_ � , r� � `€ � x � w� � ��- �,. � � �NtTS
� : � � . �. � �> �. � m ` �� y_�� � � � '