The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About833 Alpine Avenue - Staff ReportA a. � q. � , a, ' 1 � � k � 6' .tv�' � ^1�4M .."; �- j k�� 4. �, ,,,� ,,� � :�; t_� � � , ; y, ,',* a .��} �� t `...�Y�'- � �e! -,�'• .�`': , y �� •� • �R� ` +� y� . � '1Y'. : � � �;� o-`� 1 } , '� '��7aRe.i . . ,�c�\'.': .. _ .. . �IR'.ty � L 7GJ! _1A � y t'i"u� ��I".� Y��'+t,�� . �� L ��W�� . �,C� * e{ �M1 '�� '�; �� 4 _ !S� �„�ty�. �.�� .� y `a �� Z -_+�'..e "��J�� $.r f ��%i� u�"''"., �e��. y,�y" ��' `"�y�lW��r..\{� �� _ . x'�,`. .'y ��•:d,Ab �Y�Ty.�.S�;;k $�f'}t 9',.� yri� �"�4+iiii�'.l I ^,� � . ' � � -� .�I�l�� .l��e�� , ,;, y,: i� �� , ��' � �. - �:. ' ��,,',� �,., j� �' , ,t` I V:. b � �'- Y�` �f.�* 4 rm:.::: ., � � � k T :f � � "_ .��'. ..;r.-�.Y.��. _ _ _ ' _ `-?d .� . '�'R� �� f �' ;� �t;`;�M , , ;;�^ :r: .i .,,; +� : .. �'�.e� ; .�. 5 "$.. f City of Burlingame Item No. 8a Action Calendar Design Review, Front and Rear Setback Variances and Fence Exception Address: 833 Alpine Avenue Meeting Date: June 22, 2015 Request: Design Review, Front and Rear Setback Variances and Fence Exception for a second story addition. Applicant and Designer: Waldemar Stachniuk of KWS United Technology APN: 029-025-030 Property Owner: Bryan and Lindsay Morris Lot Area: 6,641 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential 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. Project Description: The subject property is 6,641 SF and is a through lot that fronts on Alpine Avenue, abuts Carolan Avenue at the rear and Alpine Park on the south. The existing house is one-story (plus a lower floor) with a detached garage and contains 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms with 2,763 SF of floor area. The applicant proposes a 859 SF second story addition. The total proposed floor area is 3,618 SF (0.54 FAR), where 3,625 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed addition will increase the number of bedrooms on site from 2 to 4. The parking requirement does not change, with one covered parking space (10' wide by 20' deep) and one uncovered space (9' wide by 20' deep) required. The existing detached garage meets this requirement with interior dimensions of 31 feet wide by 20 feet deep. The applicant is also requesting approval of a fence exception for a 6'-10" fence located along the front property line, where a 5'-0" fence is the maximum height allowed. The fence spans 35'-10" along the front property line and then steps down to a 3 foot gate that allows entry to the driveway leading to the existing detached garage. On the other side of the gate is a 3 foot tall fence than extends north along the remainder of the front property line. The applicant is seeking a retroactive fence exception for the front property line fence. The applicant is requesting the following applications: ■ Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(2)); ■ Front Setback Variance for a second floor addition with a 10'-0" second floor front setback proposed where 20'-0" second floor front setback is required (C.S. 25.26.072(b)(3)); ■ Rear Setback Variance for 10'-0" second floor rear setback where 20'-0" second floor rear setback is required (C.S. 25.26.072 (d)(2)); and ■ Fence Exception for height for a newly constructed 6'-10" tall fence along the front property line where 5'-0" is the maximum height allowed (CS 25.78.020(a). This space left blank intentionally Design Review, Front and Rear Setback Variances and Fence Exception 833 Alpine Avenue 833 Alpine Avenue �ot Area: 6,641 5F Plans date stamped: June 15, 2015 EXISTING PREVIOUS CURRENT ; ALLOWED/REQ'D 4.3.15 6.8.15 SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 5N A* No change No change 15'-0" (2nd flr): 20'-0" 10'-0" ' 20'-0" _ .. _ . .... _ .. .... ....... ... ...... .. _ _ _ _. __... . Side (left- interior): 63'-0" No change 63'-0" 7�_�., (right- corner): 10'-8" No change 10'-8" 7'-0" _ ....................................:............................. . __.__.__... ; ......................No__change ........ . _ Rear (1st flr): 4'-10"* No change 10'-0" 2 15'-0" (2nd flr): N/A 20'-0" 20'-0" . ... .......... . .:.......... ..... ; ....................... _ Lot Coverage: 2,250 SF 2,25�s F 2,657 SF 33.8% No change 33.8 /0 40% , : ............................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................:............................................ . . ... .. ... 3 FAR: 2,763 SF 3,476 SF 3,618 SF 3,625 SF 0.41 FAR 0.52 FAR 0.54 FAR 0.54 FAR , .................................................................................................................... # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- :. . ....... .......... . .... _, _ ... ..... Off-Street Parking: 3 covered (31' x 20"' 1 covered clear interior) ; (10' x 20' clear & No change interior) & 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') :........... . _ �..... . _............. _ ........................... Height: 25'-11" No change 2g°_g�� 30 -0 DH Envelope: N/A Complies Complies C.S. 25.26.075 Fence Height: Front N/A N/A , „ 4 , „ *Existing non-conforming ' Front Setback Variance for 10'-0" second floor front setback proposed where 20'-0" second floor front setback is required (C.S. 25.26.072(b)(3)) 2 Rear Setback Variance for 10'-0" second floor rear setback proposed where 20'-0: second floor rear setback is required (C.S. 25.26.072 (d)(2)) 3 (0.32 x 6,641 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3,625 SF (0.54 FAR) 4 Fence Exception for 7'-0" fence in the front setback where 5'-0" height is maximum allowed in a front setback (C.S. 25.78.020(a)) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division, Parks Division, and Stormwater Division. Staff notes that the zoning code considers a basement that has 2 feet or more of any portion of the height above existing grade next to the basement to be counted as a story. Lower floor and basement spaces between the surface of the ground and the bottom of the first floor joist that are 6 feet in height or more to be countered toward floor area. The plans show a basement; -2- Design Review, Front and Rear Setback Variances and Fence Exception 833 Alpine Avenue however that level is defined as a lower floor, as explained above. The applicant's plans show that the center portion of this level is finished area with a ceiling height greater than 6 feet in height, therefore this portion was counted towards the overall floor area. The front and rear portions are shown as unfinished with a ceiling height of 5 feet and were not counted in the floor area ratio calculation. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on April 13, 2015, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and referred the application to a design review consultant (April 13, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes attached). The following is a summary of the Planning Commission comments: • The roof slopes are different than existing — integrate second floor roofline into the house; • Dormers should be made more subordinate to the main roof; • Massing is too large. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped June 15, 2015 to address the Planning Commission's comments and concerns. Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the designer and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed revised plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer's analysis and recommendation, dated June 1, 2015, for a detailed review of the project. The design review consultant notes that the plan for the re-design was to abandon the existing roof structure and design a new roof that follows the historic classic bungalow examples. The intent being to make it look as though the addition was part of the original house. However, this approach required the project to encroach both into the front and rear setback. In the opinion of the design reviewer the variances requested appear to be merited given the unusual lot configuration on the block and the siting of the existing house. The front elevation revisions include a pent roof across the entry and bay window, giving the house a classic look. The second floor also now has a window facing the street. While the project still proposes shed dormers, it is now consistent with the style of a bungalow. The 5:12 pitch that is proposed for the dormers is below the existing ridge line. In summary, the design reviewer feels that the revised design is a significant improvement over the original plan. The architectural style is clearer and in keeping with the bungalow style, in addition the massing is improved. 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 3 4 5 Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. -3- Design Review, Front and Rear Setback Variances and Fence Exception 833 Alpine Avenue Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings (Front and Rear Setbacks on Second Floor): The subject property is a through lot that fronts on Alpine Avenue, abuts Carolan Avenue at the rear and Alpine Park on the south. The lot is unique at approximately 100 feet wide and an average of 70 feet deep. The existing house was constructed in 1908 and is located on the north side of the property and has a non-conforming front and rear setback and. At some point in the mid-1900's Carolan Avenue was widened, encroaching closer to the existing structures on the east side of the street. This resulted in the existing non-conforming rear setback. The original design respected the required front and rear setbacks; however the addition was forced and was not integrated with the existing house. The revisions to the project focus on a design that fit with the existing architectural style of the house, so that the second floor appears as an original piece of the structure. The proposed addition will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare and the proposed addition complies with lot coverage, floor area ratio and height requirements and therefore is compatible with the aesthetics, mass and character of the property and of adjacent properties. The addition has been revised to complement the existing architectural style and will not alter the character of the neighborhood and will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the adjacent properties; therefore the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the required Variance criteria. Required Findings for a Fence Exception: In order to grant a Fence Exception, the Planning Commission must find the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.78.050 a-d)): (a) that there are exceptional circumstances; (b) that there is no public hazard; (c) that neighboring properties will not be materially damaged; and (d) that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. Suggested Fence Exception Findings (Front Setback): The subject property has an unusual configuration as it is a through lot that fronts on Alpine Avenue, abuts Carolan Avenue at the rear and Alpine Park on the south. The property is turned, with the longer portion (approx. 100 feet) along the front and rear property lines, and the narrower portions (approx. 70 feet) as the sides. With the house located within 5 feet of the rear property line, the property owners have no rear yard space. The detached three-car garage (constructed by the previous owners) is located to the south of the house. The garage is set 14 feet off of the south side property line. This leaves the only open space on the property in the south east corner, along the front property line, adjacent to the park. The front fence provides an enclosure around the open space creating usable yard area, which is separate from the driveway. To the south of the subject property is Alpine Park, which has no on-site parking, therefore there are no line of sight safety issues and the fence will not create a public hazard. The fence is attractive, constructed with quality materials (redwood) and -4- Design Review, Front and Rear Setback Variances and Fence Exception 833 Alpine Avenue would not materially damage neighboring properties. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 15, 2015, sheets 1 through 8; 2. that if the fence is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the fence exception, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; and 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staf�; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division's March 11, 2015 and December 2, 2015 memos, the Parks Division's March 13, 2015 and December 5, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division's December 5, 2014 memo, the Fire Division's December 15, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division's December 9, 2014 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition 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; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; -5- Design Review, Front and Rear Setback Variances and Fence Exception 833 Alpine Avenue THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. 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 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Catherine Barber Senior Planner will inspect and note compliance of the to verify that the project has been built cc: Waldemar Stachnuik, KWS United Technology, applicant and designer Attachments: April 13, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Analysis, dated June 1, 2015 Application to the Planning Commission Fence Exception Application Variance Application Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 12, 2015 Aerial Photo � Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 13, 2015 e. 712 Lexington ay, zoned R-1 - Application f Design Review, Special Permit or declining ght envelope and Side Setba Variance for first and secon story addition o an existing single family elling (Wehmeyer Design, app � nt and desi r; Rahul Verma and Mona � Sheth, property owners) (56 iced) Staff tact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the projec te. There were no ex-parte communications report. Community Development There were no questions Vice-Chair presented an oveiview of the staff the public hearing. Rob Weh�rrepresented the applicant. comments/questions: �> The changes made are great. windows. > Appreciates the applicant makin > Consider revising the 2 x 10� Public comments: None. change makes a difference, as � changes to eliminate the parking perhaps something a bit more del the changes to the Commissio Sargent made a motion, seconde y Commissioner Terrones, to pprove with � the co ions listed in the staff report. V" -Chair DeMartini called for a v e-vote on the moti o approve, and the motion carried by the owing vote: Aye: 5- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, S ent, and Terrones Absent: 2 - Gaul, and 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY �� a. 833 Alpine Avenue, zoned R-1 Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with detached garage (Waldemar Stachnuik, KWS United Technology, Inc., applicant and designer; Bryan and Llndsay Morris, property owners) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber AlI Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Waldemar Stachnuik and Brian Morris represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: > The roof slopes are significantly different than what exists currently. Needs to be much more City of Burlingame Page 7 Printed on BH 5/2015 0 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 13, 2015 delicate in its approach to integrating the second-floor roofline into the house. The design detracts from the character of the house. > The front view of the house is being altered in a negative way. > The mass of the side elevations is increased by the second floor sheer-wall addition. The dormers should be made subordinate to the main roof. > Noticed the tall fence on one side of the driveway; was it done with permits? (Morris - wasn't aware of the code requirement at the time. Was installed because there is no back-yard; the side-yard serves as the yard area.) Try to correct this issue. > Agrees with comments about the shed roof. > Has any thought been given to making the windows consistent? (Stachnuik - is difficult to make them consistent. Intends to use the windows with grids to match the windows on the front of the house . Will install aluminum-clad wood windows.) > The dormers are very prominent from Alpine. Important to do a correct design. Aye: 5- DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, and Terrones Absent: 2- Gaul, and Bandrapalli b. represented the applicant. Public comments: None. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the project to a design reviewer. Vice-Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: 2753 Burlingview Dri , zoned R-1 - Application for esign Review, Parking ananc and Hillside Are Construction Permit for a r renovation of an existing � le family dwellin hich includes a first floor ition and a new second floor reiling Terrones chitecture, Inc., applicant architect; Alvin and Jacqu e Chan, prope wner) (46 noticed) Staff Contac � rika Lewit C�Alnissioner Terrones indicated that would recuse himself from 1�garding this item as his firm has usiness relationship with the apF Chambers. Community Development D' or Meeker provided an oveiview of the st� There were no Vice-Chair Commission questions/comments: > Doesn't find the reconstruction going on > Is troubled By the general.) of staff. opened the public hearing. �M6n for the parking variance project. ig of the house; take a look at this compelling (Hu ,�M�ig in the discussion He left the City Council is already major looked at the massing in > Appears to ossib/e to relocate the stairs into the interior of the se to improve parking. > The ho approved on the adjacent property was massed bett . > Nee o engage with the neighbors regarding view impacts > estion regarding landscape plan at the front,� will her e turf? Clarify on the landscape plan > Believes the plan could be "sculpted" a bit more to e it look less boxy. > Agrees with the comments regarding the garag > A color rendering would be helpful in under ding the design. City of Burlingame Page 8 Printed on 8/15/2015 Design Review Memo City of Burlingame Date: June 1, 2015 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 833 Alpine Ave. Designer: KWS Planner: Catherine Barber I have received and reviewed the initial plans for 833 Alpine. I have visited the site and surrounding area. I listened to the Planning Commission's comments in the meeting video. I met with the owner and Architect about the project on two occasions. We subsequently reviewed one major revision and one smaller one. The plan of attack for the project revision was to rethink the roof (abandon existing roof structure). By designing a new roof that follows historic classic bungalow examples, the house will look as though it's always been this way, and provide the necessary space for the owners. This approach does require the project to need a setback variance for the front second floor, but given the highly unusual lot and siting of the existing house, I believe it's warranted and the findings are there. Revisions to original design: Floor Plans: There are no comments about the floor plans (not reviewed at this time), but regardless of the layout, the windows etc... for the new second floor need to coordinate with the elevations. Front elevation: The new bungalow roof design with a pent roof across the entry and bay window give it a classic look. The second floor now has a window facing the street. Right elevation: The project still proposes a shed dormer, which is consistent with this style of bungalow. However, with the new design, the dormers can have a 5/12 pitch and top out well below the ridge line. Rear elevation: The rear elevation stays with a hip roof, and dormer element. This softens the house along Carolan Ave. Left elevation: Similar changes as noted for the right elevation. DESIGN GUIDELINES: 1. Compatibility of the Architectural Style with that of the Existing Neighborhood. There are a variety of houses on this block. This design, although a change in style from the existing house, still maintains the bungalow character and fits in the neighborhood. 2. Respect for Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood The proposed detached garage is "existing to remain". 3. Architectural Style, Mass & Bulk of the Structure: The revisions made to the initial proposal have improved the architectural style and massing of the project. The architectural style is much more defined and consistent. The mass and bulk of the structure have also been improved. 4. Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side: The proposed house will interface well well with its neighbors. This is not a typical lot where neighbors are in close proximity. There is no neighbor to the left (the park). The neighbor to the right faces towards a different street so its backyard abuts this property. 5. Landscaping and its proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components: We did not review a landscape plan. Since the footprint of the house remains intact, we assume that the existing landscaping will remain as well. SUMMARY The revised design is a significant improvement over the initial proposal. The architectural style is much clearer, and the massing is better. In my view, there is a hardship on this site that warrants the setback variance. The site has streets on two sides. The house is sited with front to back running the short distance of the site with both the front and rear facing streets. The house also sits at an unusual angle to both streets. When this house was constructed, Alpine was likely unpaved, and Carolan was undoubtedly MUCH narrower. Therefore, there used to be a lot more space around this house and the widening and paving of the streets severely impacted this site. With an existing front setback of less than 6', requiring the second floor to be at 20' seems unreasonable and not in line with the intent of the zoning code. I would support this design, and the variance request. Sincerely Randy Grange, AIA LEED AP �s ;'di" � "�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Ty of application: Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: � �,� � U �. � u�- (�i; �.aw� � I APPLICANT project contact person � Payor of DSR deposiUhandling fee ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: �.�'f-�� ti�i,�- Address: � �i � ��1 �o City/State/Zip: � �,it � h fh � �i C�L � � t� f � Phone: � � � �'�� b �� Fax: �n�� J�� C �� E-mail: Ini ��W� j,( � i 3��i�Nn Gt�faY. COM ARCHITECT/DESIGNER pro�ect contact person �'" Payor of DSR deposit/handling fee ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name Address: �J �� nw� . ��C� �� City/State/Zip: ol�o Phone: �; �i a �► G � " Fax: (w. � � � � `'� � n�, � D Z � E-mail: V�T� �.r�JS t,�t�M i��T�GLiA1oL0 C-�`( .(' oM �k Burlingame Business License #: �� e� � 2a�� lil' OF BURLINGAME i:.l )D-PLANNItJG DIV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:__��n �� L�Q �i�'l fi Ljfli I � � ��C1� �� ,1� j "�I t�� D +I � 2 �T�+- � � t �-� � � � �� ?� � R�i � �� L� �� V�- ��'�. "��1� ��1'�C�� '�1�L--� �wG�( �X15+`f�C-� i�i�,�,la�. ��.��ooR.�"a3��u) A-ii�c��1 AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: � re y ertify under best of my knowledge and b I . `� Applicant's signature: i of p�rjury that�e information given he�ein isatrue and correct to�the I am aware of the proposed'applic 'on and her by authorize the above applicant to submit this a�plicat�c Commission. �` � 1 � � )� Property owner's signature: r Date: 1 to fhe Planning Date submitted: PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ Payor of DSR deposit/handling fee ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: � ��t�� l 4-> �j�C`'� �� , �i 5 Address: � � ti � � � � � City/State/Zip: � ��'� � (. �'� � � � Phone: � �pp Fax: � ` � c�J Vl� � t . �O �M E-mail: ' PI�V`f �#� �(�I,�t 6�9,�.tL c� �� s�{ wi"�� f �k Verification that the project architectldesigner has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. S:�HANDOUTS�PCApplication.doc This Space for CDD Staff Use Only � Project Description: ` G1 �/`� Y—.zv � �� -�-� � a � �_ c��v� c� �-�r> Y �� D� t � CUP DHE DSR E N SFD SP Conditional Use Permit Declining Height Envelc Design Review Existing New Single Family Dwelling Special Permit Kev: � City of Buriingame Community Development Department � 501 Primrose Road � P(650) 558-7250 � F(650) 696-3790 � www.burlinqame.orp B�R�� CITY OF BURLINGAME � F'ENCE EXCEPTION APPLICATION In order to approve an application for a fence exception, the Planning Commission is required to make findings (Code Section 25.78.050). Please answer the following questions as they apply to your property and application request to show how the findings can be made. A letter may also be submitted if you need additional space or if you wish to provide additional information for the Planning Commission to consider in their review of your application. Please type or write neatly in ink. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in ihis area. �{�eG�Se Se� �GtC�il�� . � Explain why the application request will not create a public hazard and will not be detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare. �-�' �e S-e-� c�.�G�C�� . c. Explain why the granting of the application will not material►y damage neighboring properfies. ��A� ��e� G�G�C��r� C� Discuss why the regulations cause unnecessary hardship for the property owner. ��ec� s� c�l"�c��c( . �� JUN 11 20i5 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING QIV. Rev 12.09 Handouts\Fences\Fence Exception.form ' . o Citv of Burlingame Fence Variance A�lication: 833 Alpine Avenue a. Our circumstances at 833 Alpine Ave are exceptional for a couple reasons: 1) The city widened Carolan Ave from two lanes to four lanes in the mid 1960s and that reduced the setback on the rear of the property. We have no backyard, so the side yard is our only outdoor living area. 2) Alpine park, which is adjacent to our praperty, attracts a lot af visitors who arrive either by foot or car. Upon arrival or departure from the park, visitors often walk or park directly in front of our property, including the sideyard area (our "outdoor living space"). With two young children, and a third expected soon, having a modest amount of privacy and security is only achieved through a fence such as the one we have. b. The fence is not on a corner where there is any kind of safety concern for driver's line of sight. c. There is no neighboring house on the side of the property with the raised fence (this is where we're adjacent to the park). No views are obstructed. d. The hardship is primarily around privacy and security on a lot that has no proper backyard. There is no other way for us to establish even a minor amount of privacy for our yard. As it stands today, we already have to deal with pedestrian traffic that can look directly into our yard. � CITY O � �l � � �� * iaii.� : �'o� ��: 9pow CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. I�e4� �� aC�i� . b. Explain why the variance request is necessary.for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. E' euS� s�e r�-�c�7�� . c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed locafion will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. ��0� .S-�� O�Ch�cl.. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the exisfing and pofential uses on adjoining properti "�,�, e era/ vicinity? COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PR►nnRose Roao • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org I�I �� -� o��%"l�Ch�. �� JUN I 1 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Handouts\Variance Application2008 ,�- � a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area, Do any conditions exist on the site which make other alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are aiso not common, to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood? b. Explain why the variance requestis necessaryforthe preservation and enjoyment ofa substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship migl�t result form the denial of tf�e application. � Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood withouf the exception? (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unabie to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property? c. Explain wf�y ihe proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in fhe vicinity or to public health, safety, general �elfare or c�n�enience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properEies will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare? Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, sforage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Wili alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentialiy dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-ail phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for.conservation and development? Is there a social benefit? Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the pubiic such as the elderly or handicapped? . d, How will the proposed project be compatible wiff� the aesihetics, mass, bulk and character of t/�e existing and potential uses on adjoining properiies in the general vicinity. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing �neighborhood? If it does-��ot affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use wiil affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airpori parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change fo the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation, etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Wili there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of fhe neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible witf� existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. Handouts\Variance Application.2008 ,._ e � , ' City of Burlingame Variance A�lication: 833 Al�ine Avenue a. Our praperty at 833 Alpine Ave is unique for two primary reasons: 1. Udd, wedge-shaped lot that borders a city park. The northern border of our property is considerably longer than the southern border, which borders the park. Only one side of the property (the north side), borders a neighboring property. 2. The city widened Carolan Ave from two lanes to four lanes in the mid 1960s and that reduced the setback on the rear of the property. This results in the rear of our house, at the nearest point, being less than 5 feet from the property line. b. Without a setback variance, we have a hardship whereby we are unable to create an aesthetically pleasing 2nd floor renovation that has any reasonable square footage. Our first attempt with the planning committee, whereby we did not seek a setback variance, failed, largely do the lack of options around design. We are not asking for a square footage variance -- this is solely a variance based upon the unique property we have. If our lot was situated differently, we would not need this variance. c. With this design, the outline af the house is changing marginally. With only one side of the house that has adjacent neighbors, no views are impeded and the complete updating of the 2nd floor improves the value of the home and contributes to the development of the neighborhood. d. We've taken care to maintain the character of our 100 year old Craftsman with the 2nd story remodel. We believe this project with be a highlight for the adjoining properties in the neighborhood. Our renovation would create a 2nd floor living space, consistent with the only two adjacent neighbors (whose fronts are on Morrell), which are also two story homes. We've spoken with all of our immediate neighbors on our street about our project; they are both aware and supportive of our project. � Project Comments Date: March 11, 2015 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 55�7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 X Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Subject: Staff Review: Planning Staff � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 o Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-72Q4 Request for Design Review for a second story addition at 833 Alpine Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-025-030 March 11, 2015 1. Landscape to remain, Water Conservation in Landscape ordinance or Landscape plan not required. Only necessary for rehabilitated landscapes. 2. No further comments Reviewed by: BD Date: 3/13/15 Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: December 1, 2014 � Engineenng Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7254 X Parks Division (65U) 558-7334 � Fire Division (65t1) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (65�) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Design Review for a second story addition at 833 Alpine Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-025-030 Deceml�er 8, 2014 1. No e�cisting tree over 48 inches in circumference at 54 inches form base of tree may be removed without a Protected Tree Permit from the Parlcs Division. (558-7330) � Completed landscape must include 2 landscape trees (non-fiuit bearing) for final inspection 3. Existing City Street Tree may not be cut, trimmed or removed without permit from Parks Division (558-7330) �4. Please indicate on plans if landscape will remain or be rehabilitated. � Site plan needs to indude all major trees and shrubs. Reviewed by: B Disco Date: 12/5/14 W,..,...r � , . _ �e.,... ,,.,.d..�n� ��,..�r . m� �.».W ,,�w,. . Pro ect Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: March 11, 2015 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Design Review for a second story addition at 833 Alpine Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-025-030 March 11, 2015 No further comments. All conditions of approval as stated in the review dated 12-2-2014 will apply to this project. _.---�- Reviewed by: Date: 3-11-2015 �. ,..., „� . . . . _,..,r. . ,,. , „ :. � ,�,�..,, ,...., , �, .,< .,�.��.,,. ... .��.�,,,. Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: December 1, 2014 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Design Review for a second story addition at 833 Alpine Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-025-030 December 8, 2014 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, and 2013 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1889. Note: If the Planning Commission has not approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2013 then this project must comply with the 2013 California �Building Codes. As of January 1, 2014, SB 407 (2009) requires non-compliant plumbing fixtures to be replaced by water-conserving plumbing fixtures when a property is undergoing alterations or improvements. This law applies to all residential and commercial properry built prior to January 1,1994. Details can be found at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb 0401- 0450Jsb 407 bill 20091011 cha.ptered.html. Revise the plans to show compliance with this requirement. �'� Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://www.energy.ca.qov/title24/2013standards/ for publications and details. 4) Provide two completed copies of the attached Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. 5) 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 on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work. 7) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 8) Provide a fully dimensioned site plan which shows the true property boundaries, the location of all structures on the property, existing driveways, and on-site parking. 9) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 10)Provide a complete demolition plan that includes a leqend and indicates existing walls and features to remain, existing walls and features to be demolished, and new walls and features. NOTE: A condition of this project approval is that the Demolition Permit will not be issued and, and no work can begin (including the removal of a� building components), until a Building Permit has been issued for the project. The property owner is responsible for assuring that no work is authorized or performed. 11)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines �12 Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. ooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the location and the net clear opening height and widfh of all required egress windows on the elevation drawin_qs. 2013 California Residential Code (CRC) §R310. �ndicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 2, 3, 6, 13, and 14 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. The written response must include clear direction reqardinq where the requested information can be found on the plans. Reviewed by ate: 12-2-2014 Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: December 1, 2014 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 X Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Design Review for a second story addition at 833 Alpine Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-025-030 December 8, 2014 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger), plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction For assistance please contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, (650) 342-3727 Reviewed by: KJK Date: 12/09/14 2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE RESIDENTIAL CHECKLIST iVew residential buildinqs must be designed to include the Green Building mandatory measures specified in this checkiist. These Green Bu�lding mandatory measures also apply %o additions or alferations of existinq residential buitdinqs where the addition or alteration increases the buildings conditioned area, volume, or size. These reauirements apply anly to the speeific area of addition or a�teratian. Building Permit Number: Site Address: _ _ ______ _ _ _ __ _ _ _. _ _ ___ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _____ .__ .__ In the column labeled "Plan Reference" specify where each Measure can be found on the plans. Green Building Measure Plan Reference SITE DEVELOPMENT (2013 CGC §4.106) : ' A plan has been developed,and will be implemented, to manage stormwaterdrainage during construction. CGC §4.106.2 & §4.106.3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY (2013 CGC §4.2 and the 2013 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards) 2013 Energy Code performance compliance documentation must be provided in 8-1/2" X 11" format and must be replicated on the plans. Walls with 2 X 6 and larger framing require R-19 insulation §150.0 (c) 2 Hot water piping insulation §150.0 (j) 2 A ii Lighting — new mandatory requirements for indoor rooms. §150.0 (k) Duct insulation (R-6) required §150.0 (m)1 Duct (eakage testing — 6% with air handler and 4% without air handler §150.0 (m)11 Return duct design/fan power, airflow testing, and grill sizing requirements §150.0(m)13 Water heating-120 volt receptacle < 3 ft., Cat III or IV vent, and gas supply line capacity of at least 200,000 Btu / hour §150.0 (n) New third-party HERS verification for ventilation and indoor air quality §150.0 (o) New mandatory U-factor (0.58) for fenestration and skylights §150.0 (q) Luminaire efficiency levels 2013 California Energy Code Table 150.0 B Refrigerant charge verification for ducted package units, mini-splits, and other units §150.1(c) 7 Radiant barrier now required in Climate Zone 3§150.1(c) 2 Reduce U-factor (0.32) and SHGC (0.25) for high performance windows §150.1 (c) 3 A Green Building Measure Plan Reference WATER EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION (2013 CGC §4.3) Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) will comply with the following: 1. The effective flush volume of all water closets will not exceed 1.28 gal / flush. 2013 CGC §4.303.1.1 2. The effective flush volume of urinals will not exceed 0.5 gal / flush. 2013 CGC §4.303.1.2 The fittings for faucets and showerheads will have all required standards listed on the plans; 1.5 GPM for faucets and 2.0 GPM for showers. 2013 CGC §4.303.1.3 and 2013 CGC §4.303.1.4 An automatic irrigation system controller for tandscaping will be provided by the builder and installed at the time of final inspection. 2013 CGC §4.304.1 ENHANCED DURABIUTY AND REDUCED MAINTENANCE (2013 CGC §4.406) Annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits or other openings in sole/bottom plates at exteriorwalls_will_be_rode_nt-proofed_by_closing_such_ope__n_ings with cement mortar,_concrete __ ______ ___,___ masonry, or similar method acceptable to the enforcing agency. 2013 CGC §4.406.1 CONSTRUCTION WASTE REDUCTION, DISPOSAL, AND RECYCLING (2013 CGC §4:408) Aminimum of60% ofthe non-hazardousconstruction and demolitionwastegenerated atthesite will be diverted to an offsite recycle, diversion, or salvage facility per City of Burlingame Ordinance # 1704 and 2013 CGC §4.408 "BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION (2013 CGG§4.410) ' An operation and maintenance manual will be provided to the building occupant or owner. 2013 CGC §4.410.1 ' FIREPLACES (2013 CGC §4:503) ` Any gas fireplaces will be direct-vent, sealed-combustible type. 2013 CGC §4.503.1 Any wood stove or pellet stove will comply with US EPA Phase II emission limits. 2013 CGC §4.503.1 POLLUTANT CONTROL (CGC §4.504) , At the time of rough installation, during storage on the construction site, and until final startup of the heating, coolingandventilatingequipment,allductandotherrelatedairdistribution componentsopeningswillbecovered with tape, plastic, sheet metals, or other methods acceptable to the enforcing agency to reduce the amount of water, dust, or debris that may enter the system. 2013 CGC §4.504.1 Adhesives, sealants, and caulks used on the project shall follow local and regiona� air pollution or air quality management district standards. 2013CGC §4.504.2.1 Paints and coatings will comply with VOC limits per CGC §4.504.2.2 Aerosol paints and coatings will meet the Product-weighted MIR limits for ROC and other requirements.2013CGC §4.504.2.3 Documentation provided verifies compliance with VOC finish materials.2013 CGC §4.504.2.4 Carpet system installed in the building interior will meet the testing and product requirements found in the 2013 California Green Building Code. 2013 CGC §4.504.3 Where resilient flooring is installed, at least 80% of the floor area receiving resilient flooring will comply with the California Green Building Code requirements.2013 CGC §4.504.4 Hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard composite wood products used on the interior and exterior ofthe building will comply with the low formaldehyde emission standards. 2013 CGC §4.504.5 Green Building Measure Plan Reference INTERIOR MOISTURE CONTROL (2013 CGC §4.505) A capillary breakwill be installed if a slab on grade foundation system is used. The use ofa 4" thick base of%z" or larger clean aggregate under a 6 mil vapor retarder with joint lapped not less than 6" will be provided unless an engineered design has been submitted and approved by the Building Division. 2013 CGC §4.505.2 and California Residential Code (CRC) §R506.2.3 Building materials with visible signs of water damage will not be installed. Wall and floor framing will not be enclosed when the framing members exceed 19% moisture content. Moisture content will be verified prior to finish material being applied. 2013 CGC §4.505.3 INDOOR AIR QUALITYAND EXHAUST (2013 CGC §4.506) Exhaust fans that are ENERGY STAR-compliant, ducted and that terminate outside the building _will_beprovided_inevery_bathroom.2013_CGC.§4.506.1_- _—___-_ __ ___.____ _________ ___-._- _____ Unless functioning as a component of a whole-house ventilation system, fans must be controlled by a humidistat. 2013 CGC §4.506.1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT (CGC §4.507) The heating and air-conditioning system will be sized, designed and have their equipment selected using the following methods: 1. Heat Loss/Heat Gain values in accordance with ANSI/ACCA 2 Manual J-2004 or equal; 2. Duct systems are sized according to ANSI/ACCA 1, Manual D-2009 or equivalent; 3. Select heating and cooling equipment in accordance with AN51/ACCA 3, Manual 5-2004 or equivalent. 2013 CGC §4.507 . INSTALLER SPECIAL INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION (2013 CGC §702) ' HVAC system installers will be trained and certified in the proper installation of HVAC systems and equipment by a recognized training/certification program. 2013 CGC §702.1 ' VERIFICATION (2013 CGC §703) Upon request, verification ofcompliance with this code may include construction documents, plans, specifications, builderorinstallercertification, inspection reports,orothermethodsacceptableto the Building Division that will show substantial conformance with the 2013 Code requirements. 2013 CGC §703.1 � Responsible Designer's Declaration Statement . Contractor's Declaration Statement I hereby certify that this project has been designed to I hereby certify, as the builder or installer, under permit meet the requirements of the 2013 Green Building listed herein, that this project will be constructed to Code. meet the requirements of the 2013 Green Building Code. Name: Name: Address: Address: City/State/Zip Code City/State/Zip Code Signature: Signature: Date: Date: Project Comments Date: December 1, 2014 To: X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Subject: Planning Staff � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Request for Design Review for a second story addition at 833 Alpine Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-025-030 Staff Review: December 8, 2014 1. No comments at this time. Date: 12/5/14 Reviewed by: M. Quan Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: December 1, 2014 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 X Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Design Review for a second story addition at 833 Alpine Avenue, zoned R-'I, APN: 029-025-030 December 8, 2014 Provide a residential fire sprinkler system throughout the residence: Provide a minimum 1-inch water meter. 2. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — A 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 under a separate deferred fire permit, approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. �.� -� Reviewed by: Christine Reed Date: 12-15-14 . CITY OF BURLINGAME < COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD = BURLINGAME, CA 94010 - PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 833 ALPINE AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning (ommission anrounces the following pu6lic hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Cauncil Chamhers, 501 Primrose �oad, Burlingame, fA: Application for Design Review, Front and Rear Setback Variance, and Fence Exception for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with detached garage at 833 ALPINE AVENUE zoned R-l. APN 029-025-030 Mailed: June 12, 2015 (Please refer to other side) City of Burlin,qame PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (P'ease refer to other side)