The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About113 Costa Rica Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Item No. 5 g Action Calendar Special Permit for Height Address: 113 Costa Rica Avenue Meeting Date: 08/14/06 Request: Special permit for height to increase the height of an existing roof (29'-8" existing; 35'-10" height proposed where 30' is the maximum allowed without a special permit) Applicant and Architect: JD & Associates APN: 028-316-100 Property Owner: Tom & Jean Marie Buckley Lot Area: 8,324 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class l(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% ofthe floor area of the structures before the addition. Summary: The applicant is applying for a special permit for height to extend the existing roof of the structure by 6-2" to create a peaked roof. The existing roof height is 29'-8" as measured from the average top of curb along Costa Rica Avenue. The existing roof has a 12/12 pitch, and the proposed extension to the roof will have a 10/ 12 pitch. The height of the new roof will be 35'-10" above average top of curb. A special permit is required for a roof height between 30'-0" and 36'-0" above average top of curb. The existing single -story house contains 3,587 SF of floor area (0.43 FAR). A building permit was issued on January 31, 2006, to enclose a 65 SF area which now consists of a covered porch. This new enclosure increases the floor area of the house to 3,652 SF (0.44 FAR) where 3764 SF is the maximum allowed with an attached garage. The project is not subject to design review because increase to the roof height does not result in an increase in floor area. The applicant is requesting the following: • Special Permit for height to extend the existing roof to a height of 35'-10" (special permit required for building height between 30'-0" and 36-0") (C.S. 25.28.060 (a) (1). Planning staff would note that as proposed, no habitable area is being created in the attic area. The existing flat roof and roof beam will remain, which eliminates the possibility of this area being converted to living space at a later date. In general, attic area which is not accessible is not included in the calculations for floor area. In this case, the retention of the existing roof framing limits the height of the attic area to a maximum of 64" as measured from the second floor top of plate to the bottom of the existing attic beam. A condition of approval has been included which requires retention of the existing roof beam and requires Planning Commission review if any of this area is proposed for conversion to habitable area at a later date. History: The existing house was built in 1992 and complied with all zoning code requirements in effect at that time, and design review was not required. hi 1997, the applicant submitted an application for a variance to extend the roof height to 37'-0". At that time, the zoning code required a variance for any roof height over 30'-0". In addition, the previous application was proposing to continue the roof height using the existing 12/12 pitch, which would have resulted in an overall height of 37'-0". On March 24, 1997, the Planning Commission denied the requested variance (refer to attached March 24, 2006 Planning Commission minutes). The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. On April 27, 2006, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's denial of the request, noting that there was no unnecessary hardship being experienced and that the proposed roof change would not fit the neighborhood (see attached 4/23/97 City Council minutes). Special Permit for Height Staff Comments: See attached. Table 1 —113 Costa Rica Avenue Lot Area: 8,324 SF 113 Costa Rica Avenue Plans date stamped Julv 20.2006 Existing Proposed Allowed/Required SETBACKS - Front (IS`flr) ......... .—.._._.__.Y 24'-0" No change — ; -------- --_....--------___......._...._._._.... j 15' or blk avg (23') (2°d flr): 24'-0" 23'-0" (blk Side (right): 4'-4" j No change 4'-0" (left): 4'-2" No change 4'-01.._ Rear (1 st flr): 28'-0" _ No change _ _ -- - ........ ......... ...._. 15'-0" — (2nd flr): 28'-011- - — No change_______ _ ....-201-0" ._.---- ----- ---.... Lot Coverage: 2,576 No change 3,329 SF — O -- -3 0 _9 /o-- O /o FAR: ---- 3,652 SF — No change ..-._�-_..-.__-_...._.....-__.._40 .._._.._................................ 3,763 SFZ 0.44 FAR 0.45 FAR _ # of bedrooms: 4 _ No change --... _....._............ ..._... Parking: 2 covered No change 1 covered i (10' x 201)3 1 (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered --- ---...-.. (9' x 20)—T — — -- ---- -- 9' x 20) - --- Hei ht: 29'-8" 35'-10"' 30'-0" DHEnvelo e: Meets requirements ? No change _ i CS 25.28.075 Special Permit for height (35'-10" proposed where a special permit is required for height between 30' and 36'). Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. -2- Special Permit for Height 113 Costa Rica Avenue Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for the special permit for height. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 20, 2006, sheets 1, 4 and 8, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 28, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's April 3, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's March 29, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 3, 2006 memo shall be met; 3. that the existing roof beams for the flat roof shall be retained and the new peaked roof shall be installed over the existing roof structure; any changes to the attic configuration which results in habitable floor area shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. 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; 5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that 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; 8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Maureen Brooks Senior Planner C. Jerry Deal, JD & Associates, applicant and designer -3- BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA April 23, 1997 CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor O'Mahony. Led by Fire Chief Malgotin Towns. ROLL CALL COUNC PRESENT: HARRISPN, ZKN, O' AHONY, SPINELLI �INUTES UABZNN The minutes oof Aproved unanimously a r a change to page 5 by Coushow sow much ci s is involved in thi olida o en hChambeext page "cop&ssions discussed out noti jng interested xfties." The minutes of the Jom i y Council/Planning 'ssion meeting of Ap/"commissioners 997 were unanimously approv after a change on page 4 ilman Harrison addinandand n_� cil members should be g' n this as part of their orie PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON A HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 113 COSTA RICA - DENIED City Planner reviewed her memo of April 9 which recommended council hold a public hearing and take action. Tom and Jean Marie Buckley are requesting a height variance in order to build a pitched roof over an existing flat roof on their English Tudor style single family residence. The existing roof has a 1/1 pitch roof ending in a flat roof at 29+ feet above the average top of curb. The request would increase the height of the structure to 37 feet (the maximum height allowed is 30 feet). The skylights in the flat roof would be removed and light wells would be installed connecting them to skylights in the new pitched roof instead. The house was built in 1992 before new FAR regulations were adopted in 1993. The Planning Commission denied this request at its meeting of March 24, 1997. Vice Mayor Spinelli asked about the height of the chimney and whether it would need to be changed for a higher roof. Staff responded the chimney height is part of the fire code and it might need to be made higher or modified. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Jean Marie Buckley, applicant, read a statement about the need for a change to their roof line; they have experienced extensive leaks and the contractor and roofer disagree about cause; all agree that a continuation of the Tudor pitched roof to a peak 7 feet above the present flat roof would solve the problem; most neighbors support the proposal; using attic 142 area as living space is not being considered; she believed they met the circumstances for need of a variance. Council members all agreed the Buckley home is a very pretty house but they failed to see a reason to grant a variance or make findings, a leaky roof is not an exceptional circumstance; sympathized with the leaking roof problems, had experienced the same problem; opposed increasing size and height of houses, mass added to house by new roof would not work with houses in area; this house is probably one of the "big houses" council received complaints about when reviewing FAR; agree with Planning Commission findings, there are no exceptional circumstances or unnecessary hardships to justify granting this variance, it would be detrimental to the neighborhood and no compatible with neighbor- hood; there is another pitched roof house four doors away but it is shorter than this existing house; this new roof would add too much mass. Councilwoman Knight moved to uphold the Planning Commission action denying the request for a height variance, noting there was no unnecessary hardship being experienced and the proposed roof change wold not fit the neighborhood. Seconded by Councilwoman Janney and carried unanimously by roll call vote. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 1567 AMENDING PERS RETIREMENT CONTRACT TO PROVIDE 2 PERCENT AT AGE 55 FORMULA R LOCAL MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYE City Manager revie ed his memo of April which recommended ouncil hold a public he mg and take action to nd our PERS retireme contract. This amen ent will revise our re ' ement benefits for -safety employees fr the current 2 percen t age 60 to 2 percent age 55 formula. The cost o this optional benefit i .836 percent of payr effective July 1, 199 . Four employee barga' g groups have agree o long-term contracts ich have no salary ' ease in 1997-98 and a 1 pe ent reduction in the 98-99 salary increases fund this increased st. The resolution of in tion to make this c nge was adopted at th arch 19, 1997 meet' g. The clerk has published a mmary of the ordi nce before this hearin nd will publish a fi summary after adoption. T s benefit is now pr ided by several other P . sula cities to their mployees. Our public safe employees hav a 2 percent at age 50 formula. Mayor O' /move d the pub /nhe here w no comments and the he ng was closed. Co Gilmanve o ad1567 Amending the PE Retirement Contract. Seconded bn Jannenanimously by roll call voPUBLIC CPhillip Armrundel, desire to see cou it appoint a Bicycle AZ2ryCommitteeise and asd staff on bi 9 issues. He presented an outline f his suggestions. and pr!pfitizing cycling proje bicy projects. He notedJk co ncil desired. such a and with application May 20 is "Bike to N) �d could help staff with grants and finding fund' Day" and he offere cow eptual planning ge sources for assist in any way Burlingame City Council 143 April 23, 1997 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION March 24, 1997 - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on March 24, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissio s Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Key, M' ellford and Ellis Absent: None Staff Present: C. Planner, Margaret Monroe; /yAttorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, rank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, ith Marshall MINUTES - The minute�theMarch 1997 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The or of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. APPLI ATION FOR A FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING ARIANCES AT 1112 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1, ANIEL BIERMANN, APP] ANT AND ROBERT AND ANN Requests: app ' t rovide information on the nu er of houses on both sides of the street for this block which a ree bedrooms and ne ver parking space; what is the hardship on the property which preEtion s ovided a two car g ge to was set for public hearing on April 14, 1997 providing the infor requested is available . im . ITEMS FOR ACTION APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AT 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (JEAN MARIE AND TOM BUCKLEY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 3.24.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1997 consideration at the public hearing. C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant so would abstain from the discussion and vote on this item. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Tom Buckley, 113 Costa Rica, noted that the staff presentation of the project was complete and he would answer questions. Commissioner noted that he did not understand the skylight portion of the application since the light wells do not appear on the plans nor do their dimensions or how they would be implemented; applicant noted that the light well would extend from the existing skylights vertically to the new roof where a skylight would be installed, the existing skylights would be removed and their locations finished off, the light wells would direct light into the existing second floor of the house; understand that this proposal does not meet the standards of new construction because of the sequence of construction; applicant noted that had persuaded wife that cropped roof would look OK, have decided that she was right and not best appearance, now want to correct; if increase height of roof add habitable area which would increase size of house over present FAR without any review although skylights limit useable area some. William Ward, 120 Occidental, spoke in opposition noting that the original design cut off the peak of the roof to comply with the code, now asking to exceed the code; beautiful house as is; his problem is with the process being followed i.e., designed a certain way to avoid review, then come back and ask for exception after built. There were no further comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: asked why the FAR would not apply if area converted to habitable area in future, staff noted that existing attic areas are exempt for FAR calculation, also would not meet new construction criteria. Two reasons given for request the flat roof leaks and want to look like a true Tudor, two different reasoning; roof leak in a new roof can be fixed. If one looks at the site and surrounding properties, this one would not have impact at 7 feet taller; neighbors were notified, neighbors did not oppose. C. Coffey moved to approve height variance. Motion died for lack of a second. Further discussion: ambivalent, know applicant, built a fabulous house, works well with entire block but need to look at Council direction, here benefit from guidelines having flexibility but with a variance need to meet the finding requirements of state law. With a handful of exceptions no one has a house over 30 feet. Popularity with neighbors is not a test for a variance; test of unusual circumstances is not met; need clearer direction about where more flexibility for design is appropriate presently do not have latitude to do; this is a variance request and cannot find exceptional circumstances to justify. C. Galligan moved to deny the application for a height variance for the reasons stated suggesting that the City Council may wish to give more direction; seconded by C. Wellford. On the motion it was noted that the house is well designed and nicely detailed; don't know why property needs this, compatibility is consistency with self, and project works as it is; talked to neighbor Mr. Furesz at 117 Costa Rica Avenue and he said that he would experience loss of light if the roof was raised along their common property side; should consider adding condition that attic area never be used for habitation, its a small street, if add bedrooms will add more parking and traffic, now can't see the streetscape for watching out for the parked cars. Chairman called for the vote. The motion to deny the application was approved on a 5-1-1 (C. Coffey dissenting, C. Deal abstaining) roll call. Applicant was informed that the item could be appealed until the council meeting on April 7, 1997. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Q CITY e .t W B�kRLM6AME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: APPLICANT Name: S' / 0 Address: 13 City/State/Zip: '3u c ,CA ggola Phone (w): Ln SSg aK it (h):Cb\-�) S-79 4g30 �c.)* (bye) 4t3-s493 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: J rrll Address: 14 t City/State/Zip: >{,., C-¢ (?g0lz Phone (w): G!a) 3 3 - to Dl Y7 5- v 61 Lf PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY OWNER Name: Q1�Y,it(/ / Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): -Ainkm We MAR 2 4 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signa re: Date: :4 A0 (G I know about the propose application aJ hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signa re: Date: 3 1)010 Date submitted: PCAPP.FRM SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION -CITY OF BURLINGAME Buckley Residence 113 Costa Rica Burlingame, CA. Special permit for building height which is greater than 30 feet above the average top of curb by 5'-8". 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 The Tudor style with a steep roof pitch is found in the neighborhood and is common in Burlingame. The proposed roof extension will remove the flat roof that was dictated by the zoning code before the special permit for height was allowed. The additional roof height will enhance the architectural character of the building. 2 I'xplainn how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new .structure or addition are consistent with the existing stricture, street and neighborhood. The new roof will have a 10/1.2 roof pitch in order to stay below the height that would require a variance. The existing roof has a 12/12 pitch. Although the pitches are not identical they will nonetheless create an architecturally acceptable solution which will match the existing character of the home. The additional roof will alleviate the aesthetically inferior condition created by the flat roof. Additionally maintenance will be improved as there have been Ieakage problems in the past- 3 How will the proposed project he consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S 25.57)? The Tudor design is compatible in the eclectic neighborhood mix. 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 eity's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal ofany trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. No trees are planned to be removed at this time. RECEIVE® MAR 2 4 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME. PLANNING DEPT. Tom & Gene Marie Buckley 113 Costa Rica Burlingame, CA 94010 7-16-2006 To: Planning Commission City of Burlingame Re: Special permit application for roof height Our application consists of adding additional sloped roof to the top of an existing flat roof to improve the dwelling architecturally and to eliminate the leakage problems associated with the existing flat roof. At the time this project was approved by the Planning Commission there was no avenue other than a variance. We are now applying for a special permit which is approvable for architectural character. The existing skylights are going to be removed and replaced with new skylights. Thank you, Tow- '� c,evLe Mar'be-u.cJ,LeU RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Date: To: From: Subject Staff Review: Project Comments 03/28/2006 ❑ City Engineer X Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Request for special permit for height for a roof addition at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-316-100 04/03/2006 1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Provide a legend that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, and new walls. Reviewed by; � �� Date: ��/� Project Comments Date: 03/28/2006 To: W City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for special permit for height for a roof addition at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-316-100 t, ii d:Z77IVT�)T'11110%I1I 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. The driveway to be abandoned shall be removed and replace with new sidewalk, curb and gutter. Reviewed by: V V R&I Date: 4/03/2006 Project Comments Date: 03/28/2006 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff X Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for special permit for height for a roof addition at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-316-100 Staff Review: 04/03/2006 Applicant shall submit a Recycling and Waste Reduction Plan for approval, and pay a recycling deposit for this and all covered projects prior to construction or permitting. Reviewed by: d— Date: 3 9�( Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: Project Comments 03/28/2006 101 City Engineer Chief Building Official City Arborist City Attorney Planning Staff Recycling Specialist Fire Marshal 10 NPDES Coordinator Request for special permit for height for a roof addition at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-316-100 04/03/2006 1) Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the construction project (including demolition). Include appropriate stormwater BMPs as Project Notes. These BMPs include but are not limited to the following: • Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly to prevent contact and contamination of stormwater; • Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; • Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering site and obtain all necessary permits; • Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on -site except in a designated area where wash water is contained and treated; • Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate; • Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather; • Limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff; • Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; • Avoid tracking dirt or other materials off -site; clean off -site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping method; • The Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and subcontractors regarding the construction BMPs. 1 of 2 Project Comments — Con't- 113 Costa Rica Ave. — special permit for height for a roof addition 2) The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. 3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls (if necessary): a. Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls continuously until permanent erosion control have been established; b. Address method(s) for diverting on -site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off -site runoff arount the site; c. Address methods for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on -site. 4) Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following: a. Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; b. Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: ��5)lui��;� Date: 04/03/06 2 of 2 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a special permit for height for an increase in the height of an existin-g roof at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, Thomas M. and Jean Marie Buckley, property owners, APN: 028-316-100; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 14, 2006, 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: 1. 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 Class l(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said special permit for height is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such special permit for height are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14'' day of August, 2006 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and special permit for height. 113 Costa Rica Avenue Effective August 24, 2006 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 20, 2006, sheets 1, 4 and 8, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 28, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's April 3, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's March 29, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 3, 2006 memo shall be met; 3. that the existing roof beams for the flat roof shall be retained and the new peaked roof shall be installed over the existing roof structure; any changes to the attic configuration which results in habitable floor area shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. 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; 5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that 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; 8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. -2- OUR TY 0CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENTNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROADBURLINGAME, CA94010t` TEL: (650) 558-7250 - FAX: (650) 696-379,0, j-• www.burlingame.org • Site: 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, August 14, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for special permit for height for changes to the roof configuration of an existing two-story house at 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE zoned R-l. (APN 028-316-100) Mailed: August 4, 2006 (Please refer to other side) An L+`_J t.)S �PC3Ci'.AG PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning 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. Margaret Monroe City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) s ry a _ �. jai••`' 1 _, r 14 41 l r�ry. 1 •F ef_ IN- ~ r: 113 Costa Rica Avenue