The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1261 Vancouver Avenue - Staff Report„ , Item # 2— Consent Calendar PROJECT LOCATION 1261 Vancouver Avenue Item # Consent Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review for a New, Two-Story Dwelling With Detached Garage Address: 1261 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: 08/25/03 Request: Design review for a new two-story dwelling with a detached garage. Applicant and Owner: Craig Suhl APN: 027-332-020 Designer: James Chu Lot Area: 7,005 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. History: The Planning Commission reviewed this project as a design review study item at their May 12, 2003 meeting (see May 12, 2003 Planning Commission minutes). The May 12, 2003 application showed that the existing, protected size oak tree at the left, front corner of the property would remain and the driveway would be routed around the tree. During the meeting, the applicant submitted a report from a certified arborist (dated May 12, 2003) to show that further investigation revealed that tree stability and health were compromised. The City Arborist subsequently reviewed the recent certified arborist information and concurred with the findings. The applicant applied for and received a tree removal permit. The oak at the left front of the property has been removed and the driveway re- routed on the site plan for the project. No changes have been made to the design of the dwelling. The application returned to the Planning Commission as a design review study item on July 28, 2003 and the Commission placed the project on the next available consent calendar. Summary: The subject property is level at the front of the lot and has a cross slope towards the rear of the lot, gaining 12.45 feet in elevation from the right rear property corner to the left rear property corner. There is an existing retaining wall that runs parallel to the left side property line. There is a difference in elevation of approximately 13 feet from grade at the existing house on the subject property to grade on the property immediately to the left. There is a driveway leading to a flag lot that runs along the right side of the subject property. There is a 5'-0" PG&E easement that runs along the right side of the property and makes up 5 feet of the 6'-6" side setback shown. Easton Creek runs through a culvert under the northwest corner of the property, opposite of the existing and proposed driveway. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 2,313 SF, single-story house with carport and to grade the site, removing 340 cubic yards of soil along the left side of the property, reducing the cross slope and making the lot nearly level. The applicant proposes to build a two-story, single-family home with a 427 SF detached two-car garage at the left rear corner of the property. The proposed dwelling contains 3,708 SF of floor area (0.53 FAR) where 3,742 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The left rear corner of the property will be supported by two retaining walls adjacent to the left side and rear wall of the detached garage (see Sheets A.4 and A.6 of the proposed plans). All other zoning code requirements have been met. c Design Review for a New, Two-story Residence with Detachecl Garage 1261 vancouver Avenue The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for a new two-story, single-family residence with a detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010). PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (lst flr): 30'-0" 15'-6" 27'-5" is block average (2nd flr): 33'-0" --- 20'-0" Side (right): 6'-6" 5'-0" to carport 6'-0" (left): 13'-5" 9'-0" 6'-0" Rear (Ist,flr): 30'-6" 30'-0" 15'-0" (2nd flr): 30'-6" n/a 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,335 SF 2,313 SF 2,802 SF 33 % 33 % 40% FAR: 3,708 SF 2,313 SF 3,741 SF 0.53 FAR 0.33 FAR 0.53 FAR # of Bedrooms: 5 n/a n/a Parking: 2 covered 2 covered in carport 2 covered (20' x 20') (20' x 20') (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Height: 27'-0" single story 30'-0" DHEnvelope: complies n/a see code Staff Comments: See attached. The Public Works Department does not recommend a driveway located along the right side of the property because it would require a curb cut and that the driveway be placed over the creek box culvert. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on July 28, 2003, the Commission noted the following concerns and moved to place this item on the consent calendar (July 28, 2003, Planning Commission Minutes): • Commission's comment ➢ Applicant's response � Design Review for a New, Two-story Residence with Detached Garage 1261 Vancouver Avenue • visibility and site lines from the driveway on the subject property and the neighbor's driveway on the other side could be a potential safety hazard, landscape plan should be reviewed to confirm that new fence and vines do not compromise visibility; and the proposed multi-trunk olive trees have low crowns and should be moved further away from the street so that site lines are preserved; ➢ the revised Landscape plan (date stamped August 5, 2003) shows that the proposed olive trees on either side of the property will be planted approximately 10 feet back from the front property line; the Magnolia at the front of the house may encroach on the foundation once it is larger, should be moved closer to the street; ➢ the Magnolia tree will be planted approximately 10 feet from the house (where 8 feet was shown before); new fence proposed at the left property line should be shown on the plans and corrections made to show the property line on the correct side of the retaining wall; ➢ Sheet A.4 shows a 4-foot high fence that will sit on top of a 2-foot cement curb that will run the length of the upper retaining wall along the left side of the property (approximately 86-feet starting at the back, left property corner); and the property line location has been corrected on Sheets A.4, A.5 and A.6. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's July 28, 2003, design review study meeting, that the new dwelling is consistent in architectural style, that the proposed detached garage is typical for the neighborhood, and that the proposed evergreen landscaping on the site will screen the mass and bulk of the two story dwelling from the street and neighboring properties, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: Design Review for a New, Two-story Residence with Detached Carage 1261 Vancouver Avenue that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 30, sheets A.l through A.3 and G1 and date stamped August 5, 2003, sheets A.4 through A.6 and L.l, with a new 4-foot high fence atop a 2-foot curb running the length of the of the upper retaining wall along the left side of the property (approximately 86-feet starting at the back, left property corner); 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 any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 4. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the conditions of the City Engineer's May 22, 2002 and July 21, 2003 memos, the Chief Building Inspector's and the Recycling Specialist's May 20, 2003 memos, and the City Arborist's June 4, 2002 and May 14, 2003 memos shall be met; 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 11. that the construction for the new residence, including retaining walls and detached garage, shall take place entirely on the subject property and that at no time shall construction materials or activities extend onto neighboring properties; and that prior to a Building permit being issued, �! Design Review for a New, Two-story Residence with Detached Garage 1261 Vancouver Avenue the applicant shall submit for the approval of the Public Works Department a construction plan to show how the property will be developed within these guideline; 12. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 13. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 14. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 15. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Erika Lewit Planner c: Craig Suhl City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin a�g ` �Tr o � ��E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION �'�,.�.,.. P Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project C� � �.Ci'�, � f i ��- , APPLICANT Name: (� � �1 S � �`-' � Address: � i.P PGL�� dd�-- City/State/Zip: �Ur < i � d.��- � Phone (w): � � 2 ' � G � 1 � �h�: g e�,�� i�1 - � � � � ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: ��-l',S �� Address: City/State/Zip:_�� Phone (w): (h): �fl� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY OWNER Name: Address: � City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): �fl � 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 signature: I know about the proposed ap� application to the Planning Co Property owner's n It Date: above applicant to submit this Date Date submitted: � -2�-03 PCAPP.FRM Ciry of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapprovecl Minutes July 28, 2003 The motion passed on a 3-2-2 (Cers ojues and Osterling dissenting, Cers. Brownrig�g �nd Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised his item concluded at 9:50 p.m. ��` 9. 1715 QUESADA WA ZONED - R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE RMIT FOR A PRIVATE NON-PROFIT SCH L ON AN EXISTING SCHOOL SITE (ERUDITE-Hf�lPE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICAN�'i; BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY L DISTR�CT, PROPERTY OWNI ER: ERIKA LEWIr Reference st f report 07.28.03, with attachments. Plr Lew�,t presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comment . Six conditions were suggested for considera�ion. There were no questions of staff. a � Chai ojues opened the public hearing. Michael�!C%Iount, applicant, was present to answer questions. He br� fly reviewed the information submitted for t�ae Commissioner's review, noting that the Hope Technology rincipal and the BIS principal were present ��respond to any questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. � Commission discussion: feel the a�plicant has responded to all of the concerns raised. Commis ' n appreciates their willingness to wa�k with the neighbors to resolve concerns. ��v �. ty ,: C. Osterling moved to appro�e the application, by resolution, with the following conditio,�. 1) that the Hope Technology School shall be limited to the 2,105 SF portion of Building #4 as sh • fvn on the plans submitted to the Planni�� Department and date stamped May 9, 2003 Sheets A, nd 1 and shall be permitted to operate at�t�is location until the start of the regular Burlingame Interm iate School session in the Fall of 200, at w,�'ich time this conditional use permit expires, and provided�tliat the applicant shall use this time to resolu the concerns raised by the planning commission includin e employee, volunteer and parent parkin�student drop off and pick up, and other neighborhood and -site school issues, failure to obtain a sec d conditional use permit before the start of the regular Burh game Intermediate School session shall vo' this permit; 2) that the operation of the school classes shall ollow a schedule to be approved by Burlingame Intermediate School (BIS) and that the schedule will be�'staggered so that no Hope Technology classes start or end at the same time as BIS classes start and end,�``either during the standard school year or during summer sessions; 3) that the total number of persons�bn site at any time, including school staff, students, and volunteers, will be limited to 49 persons; 4) that`�this conditional use permit shall be reviewed upon complaint; 5) that the conditions of the Fire Mars 1's memo of Apri130, 2003, shall be met; and 6) that any improvements for the use shall meet all Cal' ornia Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion w seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the r�i"otion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:59 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1261 VANCOUVER AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. 1NC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CRAIG SUHL, PROPERTY OWNER�44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Plr Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 28, 2003 Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Craig Suhl, owner, and James Chu, designer, Brian Anderson, 1249 Vancouver. The owner submitted to the Commission a revised landscape plan and a letter from the neighbor behind the subj ect property to show support for the decorative balcony on the rear elevation of the dwelling. The owner commented that he had met several times with the neighbor at 1249 Vancouver and agreed to make several changes to the plans to accommodate concerns about the grading on the site, the new retaining walls, and the landscaping. He noted that it is his intention to hire a professional engineer to erect the retaining wall and to monitor its construction on the site and has submitted a hydrology report, retaining wall calculations, and a drainage plan that were all reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department. Brian Anderson, neighbor, had four concerns about the project: that the construction process may encroach onto his property and possibly damage the integrity of his driveway, he would like to see the plans corrected so that the retaining wall is shown entirely on the subject property, he does not want the grading on site or new construction to impact his property by altering the drainage patterns, and he would like to reserve the right to review the new landscape plan and comment on it at the action hearing. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission asked the Senior Engineer: can you identify possible water drainage issues for the neighboring property at 1249 Vancouver as a result of the proposed grading and retaining wall. SE Monaghan responded that a drainage plan and engineering calculations for the project had been reviewed and approved; and with the existing slope at 1249 Vancouver, he does not see any potential for water ponding between the wall and driveway on that property. Commission had the following concerns about the project: • visibility and site lines from the driveway on the subj ect property and the neighbor's driveway on the other side could be a potential safety hazard, landscape plan should be reviewed to confirm that new fence and vines do not compromise visibility; • the proposed multi-trunk olive trees have low crowns and should be moved further away from the street so that site lines are preserved; • the Magnolia at the front of the house may encroach on the foundation once it is larger, should be moved closer to the street; and • new fence proposed at the left property line should be shown on the plans and correction made to show the property line on the correct side of the retaining wall. Further Commission discussion: this project is a good example of nice architectural design, the evergreen landscaping selections are appropriate for the site, and the applicant has responded to all of the Commission's concerns about drainage and grading on the site. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions had been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojues called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:24 p.m. 12 Ciry of Bu��lingame Planning Commission Minutes X. Discharge Control � Building Code and ( was seconded by C. May 12, 2003 ;�and 11) that the project shall meet the requirements of the California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amen by the City of Burlingame. The motion Comment on the otion: feel that this proj ect is a t imony to the design review process; suggested that the Japanese ma e be replaced with a larger tree, e plum suggested is not much bigger, woul ike to add a condition at an evergreen tree selected fro the city's street tree list be placed in the fro yard to enhance the ho e and increase the visual setba and that the two skylights on the roof fac' g the public street be mad of a colored material which w' greatly reduce possible night glow whic can affect the neighbors. The maker of the motion and se nd agreed to the additions to the motion. Chair Bojues called for a v ice vote on the motion to approve the pro� t with amended conditions for tree replacement in the fro ard and tinted skylights on the roof facing e street. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal rocedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m.. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1261 VANCOUVER AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (41 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Planner Barber briefly presented the project description, noting that the owner for this project has changed and is now Craig Suhl. Two letters were received addressing this project and put at Commissioners desks. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Craig Suhl, 365 El Portal, San Mateo, property owner and James Chu, project designer, were present to answer questions; noted that in response to the two letters of concern received, that the rear fence will be replaced with a 6 foot tall wood fence as part of the project and that there will be a soils report for the retaining wall and the wall will be constructed per Code; they will also look at the run-off surcharge and will work with the neighbors on landscaping issues. Just received a revised arborist's report at 4:00 p.m. this afternoon. Re-evaluation of the oak tree from last year, notes disease in the tree and the arborist is now suggesting removal of the tree. Would like to retain the tree, asset to property, but looks like tree will have to be removed. Pole is currently supporting the tree, without the pole the tree would have died a while ago. Neighbor comments: Brian Anderson, 1249 Vancouver Avenue, recommend that Planning Commission rej ect the plan, concern with project. His concerns were: 1) safety hazard, will crate at 13 foot drop off from his driveway, drop-off is 11 inches from edge of his driveway and will look unappealing and pose a safety hazard; 2) damage to driveway at 1249; 3) removal of soil in left corner for new garage will have negative impact on the structural integrity of the foundation for the driveway at 1249 as well as the house; 4) removing landscaping at retaining wall and no replacement proposed; 5) loss in properiy value for 1249 Vancouver. There will be a lot of soil removed from rear left corner that is the foundation for his home and driveway, driveway wall will create a 13 foot drop off from his property. CA Anderson noted that all construction must occur on the subject property. The Planning Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project: 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003 • The proposed driveway is next to the oak tree, there seems to be a conflict with the arborist report which says a fence needs to be 10 feet from the base of the tree; • If oak comes out would like to see replacement trees be evergreen to provide a better screen; • If oak removed might consider widening driveway, or modify the corner of the house if oak stays; • How will drainage next to retaining wall be addressed; • Need City Arborist to review revised arborist report on the oak trees and tree removal; • Tree is too close to driveway, either the tree is removed or the driveway needs to be changed; • Need to study retaining wall, provide proper engineering for retaining walls, need information on hydrology and soil conditions; • Nice design and nice articulation; • Look at rear elevation, balcony should be eliminated, looks into neighbor's house; • What is the driveway surface and how will it work with the tree; and • Install 2 foot curb rather than 6 inch curb at property line to prevent cars on adjacent driveway from rolling over the retaining wall. 10. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. Commission asked staff include minutes from any previous project hearings for this site in the next staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojues called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 1550 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FA ILY DWELLING (DENISE AUGESON BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNE , JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN A�dD ENGINEERING INC., DESIGNER) (55 NOTICED) Cers. Keighra and Brownrigg noted they live ithin 500 feet of the subject prope y and recused themselves from this ite . They stepped down from the ais and left the room. Plnr Barbe rieflypresented the project descriptio . There were no questions of aff. Chai ojues opened the public com ent. Denise Balestrieri, 414 Cos Rica Avenue, San Mateo roperty ow er, and James Chu, designer, ere present to answer questions. oted that the previous oposal was ithdrawn so that they could w k with the neighbors and resolv . Issue with side setbac and utility line easement that affected a nei bor on Devereaux; resolution i she will undergroun e utility line and easement on her property. ommission asked how far the f ndation is from the p of bank; it is 5 feet. Commenting on the p � ect: Lucciano Deglinnocenti, 1 6 Bernal Avenue, ted that is concerned that the removal of landsca 'ng will allow people to look int is backyard, woul ike to see large, tall trees added to screen his yard• oak tree has 3— 4 feet of dirt at se that was placed there after excavation; limbs of oak over creek need to be trimmed; should add fenc at drop from top of bank to the creek, dangerous for kids walking by; could make house smaller. There ere no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following concerns: 13 �� . � � . :� , .�� ;�,�--� -� fi ��Y �� f,�� DATE: May 15, 2003 TO: _Ciry Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Rec cling Specialist �City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling with detached garage at 1261 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:027-332-020. STAFF REVIEW: Thursday, May 15, 2003 � L,l,6�dE' i2�A� 7`kE- Sv��d'P`�`6�� L�3o�z-��' 26�oGi-�" 1�2a� /"!�y/��E. `d�.�� Go .��d�� S�i y�o 3 ws,�� cy j� ¢ c ar,� �r.e �u � s iZ� .�o �/J � m f �8 1. ii� G� �i1-k Y7zE�E i'1�- 7`�Gc S �G�oP�/�'�j . / `�' � o '8 G/L�E'E Gus' %L-/ Th�c S !L� car�, nt � tic �D � 1� �a�-, ��(.d'ko-v G�� f'�2�j mcu k�-2 /''1u SY' o�3'v� � M ��r�2o"Y",� c.� � %�(L(��. lL�� L ln- ��c� ,_ Reviewed B : �'/ S � a y Date of Comments: Y � � � Mayne Tree Expert Company _ �rt . , ESTABLISHED 1931 ��924' _,..._ 535 BRAGATO ROAD, SUITE A SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 . TEL: (650) 593-4400 FAX: (650) 593-4443 MEMBER NATIONAL , ,, � � E-MAIL: infoC�3maynetree.com ARBORIST ASSOCIATION COMPLETE TREE CARE: Pruning Pest Control Cabling Consultations RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON STATE LICENSED: KEVIN R. KEILTY PRESIDENT Contractor's License #276793 Certified Arborist WC 0476 Certified Arborist WC 0119 Pest Control Advisor #06894 KENNETH D. MEYER Pest Control Bus. Lic. #01061-00000 Certified Arborist WC 0162 CLIENT � TEL JOB SITE � CONTACT— PROJECT TEL BILLING ADDRESS f CITY ZIP— DATE �` d� 0 3 CONS LTANT: R H, K K, K M r� `v Consultation Fee $ HOURS AMOUNT � J -F �� s� � k I � �� G'( �� --�� c �1 )✓lO !°i ;l` �" ��' 1"� s� �-2�Q K O l I-> - - � � � ,. J ,i � r ► vt--�`��`'1 �.P � �; >>��'l/� Cd� � ��` �� Y CG� �.c��1 �S ►'�� (� �;�..�� . � J' �r` C� 7`�1. � h. � � �1.�i2 (..l � � � � • Q1J� {�� // JSLt �� l � � � c�a � . b '�� 1�'t� , v� �, �,� �,� �-� �� „�� - ,��q�a.� s �B � �� ,�u�- .s � � `�1�e. `f"i�.�� c�,,�,. / 4� c� � � � 0 �� .� ; �� ''�i (7� D.;� �u. �i �,y �S��c� v��; _ ' C � r v v�-i Gvt � vt ,�,�r, , '/ , �. �� , 02 [ 1 �'i I �- ,�` V1 S'� , Any changes or addition to the above ork may change the cost of the estimate. It is the responsibility of the property owner to clearly mark all underground utilities including irrigation systems, and to advise the Mayne Tree Expert Company of such locations. The Mayne Tree Expert Company will not be responsible for damage to utilities unless the above conditions have been satisfied. TERMS: Payable in full n receip f' voice. Se ce rge of 1-i1.�% per mo th on all a ounts over 30 days. Minimum monthly service charge $2.00. � i '� R6CEFSED��F (�!l/ ' � G�� DATE �� f I� � U � ROUTING FORM DA'TE: May 20, 2002 TO: Ciry Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist ✓Ciry Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Plam �r ,; Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1261 Vancouver Ave., zoned R-1, APN: 027-332-020. OS/18/02 THL' 08:39 FAX 850393444J �IAYNE TREE EXPERTS CO �002 Mayne Tree Expert �ompany, Inc. f;S'I�ADLISHED 1931 . STATE (;pNTItACTOR':S f,10ENSE NO. 276793 GRAD(fA"fE FOR�JTER • CERrir•ir.•.n na[�pRlsrs � PF.S'l CONTROL • nuv�soiu auD oPr.•.RnroRS RtGlAl:l) L I�IIlN'fINGTON �RbSIUENr 53t DRAG�TO ROAD, STE. A May 14, 2002 SAN CAH1.0S. CA 9407U-Fi'jZB KCVIN R KICL:fY ' 1'[:I,f:pFlUNF.: (650) 593-44pp OPEknI'IONS MwNnGLR F'ACSIMiI.[� (f�50) S�)3-1443 GMAp_: inf'on,maynctrCc,com OltO MIIIAf Miller Development P.O. Box 121 6urlingame, CA 94111 Re: 1261 Vancouver, Burlingame Dear Mr. Miller: On May 2, 2002, I inspected 24.4 inch diameter, pips supported coast live oak at the above site. The purpose oi this inspection was to determine general tree health and structure. The tree grows along, the existing driveway and overhangs this driveway and the neighbor's. The root zone is covered by ivy and excess soil. Both conditions can impact root heafth and suppprt. 1 could not inspect the actual root crown without removing the ivy and soil around the tree. The upper trunk has decay which will eventuaUy reduce support. In addition, the foliage is thin, which is an indicator ot root stress. The existing supporting pipe has been there for many years. I do not know when the pipe was installed or how stable it is. However, 1 think the tree is stressed and at risk o{ 4wisting. Replacing the d�iveway and, more importantly, the retaining wall, could result in more impacts. A more thorough root crown inspection could reveaf problems that would lead to a recommendation af removal. ! I believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. SincereJy, � � �p�� -� Richard L. Huntington Certified Arborist VVC #0119 RLH:dcr REGEIVED MAY 1 6 2002 �OCIETY pf� ,`�0��0�,. li�4yr�� . � �i" i�'J' �G �..� ca O C. � 4 No. wc-oiis x � � * C1TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Je�n 20 02 12:41p Chu Design Engr. [6501 345-9287 p.l Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESl�AHL[SHED 1931 STATF. CON'TRACTOR"S LICENSE N0. 276793 GRADUATG FORCSTC:R • CGP.TIf IED ARBORISTS • Pi;ST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OPEItA'fORS KICHAK� L HUN'1'INGTON 535 13RAGATO ROAD. STE. A PRI:Siut:N f SAN CARI.OS, CA 94070-6228 KCVIN R. KICL'fY TGLLPHONE: (650) 593-4400 OPGRATIpNS MANAGER June 14, 2002 FACSIMILG: (650) 593-4443 EMAiL: infoLmayne[ree.com Mr. Mi�hael Keindl Chu Design and Engineering 39 West 43rd Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Re: 1261 Vancouver, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Keindl: Post-itW Fax Note To co.ipePc. � PhoflB �: R 76�� Date From� co. Phone r. Fax � 0 This letter is in regard to your Fax of the proposed design for tree work above the referenced site. The proposed driveway will come closer to the trunk than the existing drive and walkway. I feel the work could encounter tree roots. If excavation can stay at the existing driveway and walkway footprint and excavation to the degree that exists, the tree should be fine. This appears to be difficult due to lack of room. Can the drive and house flip with the drive on the other side? Can the front southeast corner be pushed in for more driveway room? If the proposed house is to remain as it is, it would be prudent to dig along the proposed route, cut roots as needed and then make mitigating recommendations. This would not be my first choice, but probably will accomplish the �and result. If you have any questions, please call. Removal is not an option according to the City Arborist, Steve Porter. _---;�. �'��c�ili.i�_ f Y p� `� � .. ��e� Sincerely, �� v�,.HU�rt,\•�, �^� �� / �� O G � � � �� No. WC-0119 Richard L. Huntington # * Certiiied Arborist WC #0119 RLH:dcr �� c�'9T/FjEO AR�� RECEIVED JUN 2 0 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. MITIGATING MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ON E3CISTIlVG TREES ' SECT'ION I INTRODUCI'IOI�I It is an es�ablished facc that construction around existing trees will impact t h e trees to some degree. The degree of impact is largely predicated on the condition of"the-tree(s) before the construction activity begins. lt is therefore i.mportant to inspect all trees prior to any construct"ton activity to develop a "tree pcotection program" based on the specie.s, size, condition and expected impact. A Ce�tified Arborist (International Society of Arboriculture) i s � suggcsted for this work. The local Universicy of California Extension. or County Farm Advisors Office has the na�es of loca! eertified arborists. S�ON I..1 S1TE PREPARATION All existing trces sliali be CGflced within, at, or outside ihe dripline (foliar spread) of the tree using the fol.lowing formuIa: Five inches in discance from the trunk for every inch in trunk diameter, measured 4.5 feet abo�e t h e average ground level. Example: a 24 inch diameter tree would have a f e n c e erected 10 feet from the base of the tree (24 x 5= l20/ 12 = 10). The f e n c i n g should not interfere with aatuai construction, but is intended to redirect unnecessary traffic, and to protect iimbs ai�d roots. Nu �torage of materials, unnecessary trenching, grading or compaction shall be aliowed within the dripline of the trees. .� The fence should be a minimum of four feet high, made of pig wire, snow fence, or cyclone, with steel stakes or pipes as posts. If the fence is within the dripline of the trees, the foliar fringe ontside t h e fenee shall be raised to offset the chance of limb breakage from construction equipment encroaching within the dripline. Atl contractors, subcontractors and other personnel shal! be warned th.at eneroachment within the fenced. r,ren is forbidden without the consont .of thc certified arborist on the job. This inctudes, but is not limited to, storage ot lumber and other materials, disposed-of paints, solvent$ or other noxious J materials, parked cars, grading equipment and other_ heAvy equipmcnt. The temporary fence shall be mainrained until the landscape contraetor enters the . job and commences landscape construction. S�CI7� LLI •RADTN ./FXCAVAT N = All gradiag plans that specify grading within the dripline of any trcc, o r within the distance from Ehe trunk as outlined in �SECITON II when said. distance is outside the driptine, shail first be �eviewed by the certified arborist. Provisions for aecation, drainage, pruning, tunneleng beneath roots, root pruning, or other necessary actions to protect the trees, shal! be outlined by the arborist. If trenching is necessary w;thin the area as described above, said trenching shall bc undcrtaken by hand labor. All roots 2 inches ar larger shall b e , tunnelled and srr►aller roots shall be cut smoothly to the side of the- trench. The side of the tbe crench should be draped immediately with two layers o f untreated burlap to a depth of 3 feet from tf�e surface. The barlap shall b e soaked nightly and left in place until the trench ic hackfilled to the original level. 'The arborist shall examine ' the trench prior to backfilling to ascertain thc numbcr and size of routs cut, and to suggest further remedial repairs_ .. �� . �CTIUN I V BEMEDIAL REPAIRS. PErJALTIES The arborist on the job shall have the responsibility of observing all ongoing activit;es that may affec� cEre trees, and prescribing necessary remediai work to insure the health and stability of said trees. This inciudes, buc is not limiced to, all arborist activities specified in SECIIONS I, II and III. In addition, pruning, with cypes and teciinigues as outtined in the "Pruning Guidelines" (1995) of the International $ociety oE Arboriculture, shall be prescribed as necessary. Fertitizing, mulching, aeration, irrigation, drainage, pest control and other activities shall be prescribed aceording to the tree needs, loeal .site requirements and State Agriculturai Pest Concrol laws. All speci�cations shall b., in writing. For a fist af licenscd pest control apera[ors or ativisors, consuit the local County AgricultttraI Commissioners Office. Penalties, 'based on the cost of remedial repairs and the appraised values provided in the Evaluation Guide publishcd by tho Internatiunal Society o f Arboriculture, shall be assessed for damages to the trees. SECIION V FINAL INSPECT[ON Upon complet;on of thc project, the arborist shall review all work undertaken ' that impacted the existing trees. 5pecial attention shall be given to cuts and fills, compactioa, drainage, pruning and future remedial work. The arborist should sobmit ,� fxnal report in writing outlining the ongoing rcmedial, care � following the final inspection. ,� MAYIVE TRE� EXPERT COMPANY ROUTING FORM DATE: June 30, 2003 TO: X City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for new single-family dwelling with detached garage at 1261 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 027-332-020 . STAFF REVIEW: second comments routing �i �1�, `� � ��co��,c-�..�..0 /ly-�L�y� /t.:�-�.o `C w �-�-1-;; �� (' � �� u..: �`--iY � 3 /i�.'�`iw ` 4 ' `-� u - ` �-,,._ -�-�--� a � � C , ��.,.5�-� �� C�G" �� .. o�� ,x i Z � :��,►�- • �i�-c�-�, �t,�.vr�.� �i��"t'`� , �.�- � `�v-d-C,x � � , � �� ti� C1�1��'�� - � �%ti`ti�� ,_ ,�.� �� . �- ,d�.�„�- ��'�'.�' r.....� - ".� _�y ��. �� y � �``r�`� �. ��,�..4�u,v�-tsN ��-�� h-�- ,�-��- c�-�-, �"�`� ,�'C�`� G�ti � "� � I 22 7�, C�Q,Q� � �,,,._,-,�..� ,�� `� �� , � .�� l C`�� , � � .�.�.�..�% �,;� � °, ��-��° �' �`"""� �`� �,,e, � �� Reviewed By: �V •� Date of Comments: %f �G �3 ROUTING FORM DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: �City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _Ciry Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1261 Vancouver Ave., zoned R-1, APN: 027-332-020. STAFF REVIEW: '� � `,� .. U % ��,"'" ' _ ' 20, 2002 �,� ��C�V /L�i��-�. V�z�X� (�Tl�t. (J-cXP� � < �, �-- �L ' �,�,. �/ � �� u � /�� ,� .� � ,��'��a"`i` ^ C -��'`-�y C� � J G�"-T-i , �(/li`-L/� � � � �/�� ' � _ ,� `�r� � �� ,..�n� l - � c `�'i''� , �� ' � / """ � � �� ; . //�/ � � �� .�W� �� . �" � � � j��! � .��'�� i/�f /� C , /�/ � C/�i� ,, / R�vlewed Ey: V�- Date of Comm�nts: � Z�/ v� , • � PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS The following requirements apply to the project Project Name: �,�r�,l Tly�.- S��_SYw�C� � �'Z��`'`,s� - Project Address: t 2(oj �c�,� j.� 1 _� A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 2 �� The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project sha11 comply with the City's flood zone requirements. 5 `� A sanitary sewer lateral �is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. 8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Page 1 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW CONIlVIENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject pazcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project sha11 submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project sha11, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project sha11, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles, trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project sha11 identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-yeax flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 19 _� No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 �� The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re- submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject to City Engineer's approval. 22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMNIENTS.doc ROUTING FORM DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: ity Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _Ciry Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planni �+� Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1261 Vancouver Ave., zoned R-1, APN: 027-332-020. ROUTING FORM DATE: May 20, 2002 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal � ecycling Specialist _Ciry Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1261 Vancouver Ave., zoned R-1, APN: 027-332-020. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, May 20, 2002 �j� %i.G ct�v� � cx� � C ( �� '� d �- �vu:�7'� �z�o c,.� �e_ �, .� .. �� ) c� � � �� -�-- �e.�--�.�, � �- ��S �� . S�-�'�a� � a.v�-eQ- avt-� �n �-�- C�'►��^u.-�� J � f„�,,� � � o r �'c., u�c-ca�� -e� c,✓i �i �-C-- v�-�.,c-�-�'�-�--�9' < � �� 0 � Q� -�-� v�- v�e��-c�w,,'��.�zw` �� (�� t `�. �� y,� P �l� .�.G � . � Reviewed By: ! �� Date of Comments: ��7.��, � �r� c�ry o� CITY OF BURLINGAME euRur�AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD � $URLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 1261 Vancouver Avenue :� ;, �.: Application for design review for a new two-story :': single familydwelling and detached garage at: 1261 ,PUBLIC �,,,�EAR�,NG Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 027-332-020). _ . NnTI[_� The City of Burlingame Planning Commission i announces the following public hearing on Monday, ';"�; May 12, 2003 at 7:00 P,M. in the City Hall Council ' Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, `! : California. :i Mailed: May 2, 2003 � �' � Please refer to other side) CITY OF B URLINGAME ` � �- � � .��.�� A copy of the applica��n�arrc� ��a �s �� is�pro�e�k�rnay be reviewed prior to the meefing a�� , la g� D�p ent ��Q�l Frimrose Road, Burlingame, Cal� � �' �� ,� �� ' � °,� �,�` �s � �� r �� If you chal �ige�t�i '��"`+�� , �i " o�'�,r u��: be limited to raising onl hos ;Mssues �� r� �e ec�a �x;the � blic hearing, � �..:� �,��,. .�,�.�u . � �. ��.r�.�, . � described i: t 'c �, �� . yered to the city at or rior t x t ��'�a�� * `': � p •� g �� , �;,�� ', � �� _ r � - �� .�; ��fl Property o ers , o re�r ��;d�i��'k � ons�ib"� e� or �orming their ' �� ; _ �� : tenants abo t`thi `no�ti �'o� �� '" informatio� ple e call (650) , - 558-7250, ank ou. � �,�: '� �` , �.� � � � a. �� A , �, ' f �, �,. � ' � � ��. �:. �� D �' � Margaret c��roe"�� ° . � ��,�..�� .�;.v,��_�� .�' ��' - City Planner �, � � ,� ,� � �,. �"�; � � ��t� '�` r�-�� .��.� � ,8+'a^-� _ Y �.v-,n S;'* �/.� . . . _ PU�L��L�,.F��..�ATICE � � ° : � �� ,� � � ,_ � ,;(Please refer to other side) - �� cirr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLJN �E PLANNING DEPARTMENT "' ��' ' • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �''b,.,�,,,,�.''� TEL: (650) 558-7250 � Site: 1261 Vancouver° Avenue . �� x Application for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at: 1261 Vancouver Avenue. zoned R-1.(APN: 027-332-020). T'he City of Surlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday July 28, 2003 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California Mailed: July 18, 2003 �ase refer to other side) i ;i r�. : 'A copy of the applic to the meeting at� Burlingame, Cal' ''rr � � If you chal " ge��it '��. raising onl , hos ss described i t '� " ' at or prior t� t �: Property o � ers ' o tenants ab t thi -nc 558-7250. ank u �: - . . . _ - � . � r,.. Margaret 8 0��,�. � City Planner �`� � `�, �E�'`� : �� PUE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINGAME .Ak � �_ �' f' s�l - , (Please refer to other side) t i,,� 5°S� � � be reviewed prior Primrose Road, ma be limited to ie blic hearing, i�ae d to the city � � ��,tic��r��ponsibl or i orming their �1�C�o�a� 'informatio 4 ple e call (650) g� � � ;� � �— ,. � �'� �� _ �� 1.�1 ' ICE � �, ��b. cirr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME RLJNGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT � � � � - �" "�" " 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �'�,,.,,�,,,,,•''� TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 1261 Vancouver Avenue � , Application for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at: 1261 PUBL�C HEAR�NG VancouverAvenue. Zoned R-1.(APN: 027-332-020). N�.f�CE ' The City of Burlingame Planning Commission '' announces the following public hearing on Monday � August 25, 2003 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council ;; Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, �; California. _f:' Mailed: Augusf 15, 2003 (Please referto otherside) 'Ii ` � " CITY OF B URLINGAME Y� � ' A copy of the applica�is�n and �ians for ��iis projec��may be reviewed priar <, : � f-.' to �� the � meeting a��t�ie . Planning � Departinent �t`°�� 1 Primrose Road, � �' Burlingarne, Ca1��lrnia � �� ' �; � � '� � �� m� � .:�� A �, If you chall�ng �t��e sub�ect app�ication(s} in court ��ou may;be limited to raising only_�ho��rssues you or` sQineoiie else raised a�the�public hearing, ��described ir� tl��o�ica or �n wirtten coi7espond�.nce del��ered to Che city � � at or prior t th,�;�p�.t`b��.� l�ea�ii�g � r ��"� ' 4 p��.� � 4aY�;. si �i � ..R .. . .. Y � . :�'.. .. r i • vsr� ;F, � . . .. . F .: ,. �,0. . � Property o�ers'W�o recei��this notice are responsi�le�%r in'forming their tenants aba t thi��',�noti�� br additional, �information„ ple�se call (650) � 558-7250. > ank �jou. ' ��` �`°� �= �d � �� :.. : �„ , � � �� p � � ,�. �� _ �i 0..d s.... �. e,��D �" {r�'. 3'`"'�J r � F`,h.y� ,l�' �§ .. � \ � �'� . 3 u tfyk�.�t � F 4� � �i � � F�s k � i "le� � � �? �.� Margaret Mo �o� �'� �E . �- .-� �, � °_ ! s� � ,./� .y City Planner �'�� ^� ' �� O �� ., _ �._ _ f; ' $, h r � ��1i��►�1N��N��'�CE �s PUBL � � � a _... �.��:N� ��.�.�� ._ �_ (Please refer to other side) RE50LUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a desi review for a new, two-story dwelling with detached garage at 1261 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, Craig Suhl, property owner, APN: 027-332-020; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 25, 2003, 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 15303, Class 3, construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units is hereby approved. 2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. ;�:/:�1:7�%VI 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 25th day of Au ust, 2003 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: CONIMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review 1261 Vancouver Avenue effective September 3, 2003 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 30, sheets A.1 through A.3 and C-1 and date stamped August S, 2003, sheets A.4 through A.6 and L.1, with a new 4-foot high fence atop a 2-foot curb running the length of the of the upper retaining wall along the left side of the property (approximately 86-feet starting at the back, left property corner); 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 any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property comers and set the building footprint; 4. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the conditions of the City Engineer's May 22, 2002 and July 21, 2003 memos, the Chief Building Inspector's and the Recycling Specialist's May 20, 2003 memos, and the City Arborist's June 4, 2002 and May 14, 2003 memos shall be met; 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; page-2 Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review 1261 Vancouver Avenue effective September 3, 2003 11. that the construction for the new residence, including retaining walls and detached garage, shall take place entirely on the subject property and that at no time shall construction materials or activities extend onto neighboring properties; and that prior to a Building permit being issued, the applicant shall submit for the approval of the Public Works Department a construction plan to show how the property will be developed within these guideline; 12. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 13. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 14. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 15. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. 3 �'��,�� y� � � 4 � �#��"'' �„ ��F `� �� 'H '�' .R� . ,� . �,. ��, �,." � . - � � = A ¢.� � ` ��, � r'� � � . .�; , .. , , :� � ;� «��s � ,a " �' a *sG .: yw z ., ti� 4 � r.x. - r � k ,� ' � � � �:, � ��` _ _ .� &�� ° ��:� �.,. �� ° , � � � , � �f � d 'J � fl • w1 � iq 3 � �,'� . . v' � �•. " � '� �� f �� y,L}a � ` � ��! � � -w '��`'� � "�"t�� e �? �. , .� . � , , � qi �. -i1,� � _ '[. � 's1�9xa � '. y�L .� � �� . l7 �. - � �� y .i r} a. - 1 �'•'" . :. , � �. „ � . � � , -s k .,.. � ; a ,a � - * � . . �� ,. ` . �. s + ,r� r � � � b � .: �� ' �� o t �n � � _y 1� ,� . ' r_� � � y@ :.��' � � l .� '� i • . 8^b _ �n,. � �� . ' .��'. .. �^ � � � Ir � , .�Y , � . � R ,� tl � a � � i � � �� } � �. � . � . ¢�. r, �: �°6' y� `r y�' `i� � ' 1 . �: i'� �, � - ., i� . . , ' � ' . , �., `j� t .. "...,? � � � �� : � . ` . �," � ` � � � , `�'' � �� '� � '�' � f • 5 ..JM.� � . . �t 4 ' {�.�., ., ��; � , . �� , /�� ` `�� a4 �' � . tl �� e ��,�� x ��. �. � :.` a�� ,F. �,. ~�� /��%_ �R' w, ` +��+Y �3�',�,.. �� y :1� ` ... +�� ; '�� .� � ' .� �� << x `l.� wt '?P + ? � �ap,�..d.. � %' � t � �� 1� , ,A+ . �`" h ` �9� �� ,z F�r _ � �� ^ , » . x f . � .. ,. � - �� a - � ��r, �� .�� ' � � � �'' -.� ,� ..�,,: �, � �` . . . . , ,- . , ., .� , , , . • � ` � � � .,. � �' ti J � i ��: ��" �� '�` � �o, � ,. - ., . � . , . - . , , � �. �y , � �. i i $ .r i � � � � t` r'�� 't� . •. -df. �A '� � ° � �€_ � 3� :� �,,�F� � �� —, �� fr �� . � ; � '� _ �:r" � ,� ': ,;� k , ,,� ,. , . .. � ;. , , .� � ,p.� ,�� , � �;� �i[ � F � � . �✓ .� ' r .: � � : �� . , ..� ,� `! #��?��L�E:: . .. � � � . . , .� ��,4 , . ;� ., , . � ! .. �, � ' 'y � ''� "� ,� -�� R� � � �.��'� .� '��, -,� � , �� " 'u� � 4 .,� � ;� �'� � �v,>- �% � � � ,� �;.. � � � .� ..,, � � � . �,�A . � �� r `� � $' �'�� / °': ' � .,,� ¢. ^ ;'�; '�� J((''�� . � �� 3 T �� .� tv�: c � � � \ ��I� N . y,n � � � � ± A`� , � . , . :� . i � q ,. � y 3 � •- - . . � a r � o� .- . . .:.. � ; �,. r �, � , , r . ,- ., ; . . , � � . , , . � . 3y�, ,�i � ,.., � � � � y� � � � .�T i.�:h � atl.� � � v'e£ �� p , �,�;��.' � � �` � eN' � £ 1 � ,� �' `Pi � x�1 � � t� i !. � _._ �.� � . � � .� �=�' ,.t� ,� �=e} � �'�.' . I „ � ,. '� > , , r::, .� �`, �. � � r ti � � ' : � .� .. .. � �, , � � �� `r.. ., I� , S : "" c �"�► ' � •,, , �'r ' � `�' � � . � ` ��'= � � .� -��., ,, ,. � . � `� " � �� ' .;. °.'� � ' i� '� � '�, t �, `�` � -i �t. ` � � ��. � #'r� " . ��. k� ` j`� � i �" � 3' � iT �1 ��} • '� M1'• � � � . '� �Y. § � a� � . d � . ;� _ ��. rN'� �. � �, , �.' , J k ' �,�r i. � I � ', �'P ' � $ .y� � . ,� � � '. `S �Z'� � � y'�' ,N _ 1 ,�� f � 4 �' �� n l gf (-� . . ' � . � � AY'JL� @ j r. �' � �� :4c• 2 j ,�p � �'� �� 4 1 1�� '4. Mr k � �Jr ! � �-�Ft��.. ��. ^ � �Y �� - � . M, j � s� �f., �µ.,�� -.: .a',�S�x .��z ,. � J, �. x .� � .� , . - x��.- {� a"`� .P-�t ,� ,� a�fe..' :.e� , ""1 � F �l i. -'' .. � t � x .v J � �� . � . a .�. � � ' , ' 4 m�`�r ,�b �.. . . � Y *y : � -� 4 _ � � � H �. � + -, } , �, ,r . l7 �/,j . , ��. '.v � `, ' ` ' : r., ; � 5r k /�.� k� * ' y � ��"� ' �' - ��. �� ` ROc�Ev�ELT '�`�, '�.4~ ,�`,�{ �, � , y S' '+ l�t� � r � ,�Y r �� {�' . ��`5 � � }%t � "y� , , ��'..�,+ra ..;." � Y T 5j +�, �"+�'��, ` � � � � b� � . k. k . � � +. � � Ax' �l � � } :,s �i��,��r, � � � � � ' °i, . . /(/ - �' :'«Q. ?4 4 �.� �.� �-f �� i �� e r i- i �} , � a � ri. � �'�� j+ � � � � ;��3 -�° %..� L � � .f�j'' , '.t '� $..'`� ��' . � � r r ` �r , eg,`` .. �` . '�a h � �, � �pf � � � t � : tb ¢ f^ 4 s *TM (� �s `4 -� _ , � �� ; , a � ;r, r", �,� � � 1�,,��-�� ' �'�! " �d ��.� ' ; ;' j; .y Y Y �'�h�� #^� Y9 . � _ �. yj Aq . � �. . ( . 7 � �.ti R 6r� ^' T' _ � :.. �" T. .� C :� � . . . � F/� ,ri. !S' M, � �'::� �� - :�� . �` �-�j � .. ��..' ) ' , � ' �.�i. y. , ;t:.�'.;; �:�i,� - . �� Paul and Theresa Webb �� V� 1265 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 ��c,� j 2��3 (650)344-5437 �� /v�, �- � • REC IVED Erika Lewit City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94Q10 RE: APN: 027-332-020 (1261 Vancouver Avenue Design Review) May 7, 2003 Erika, MAY - 7 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEP7. We Iive at 1265 Vanco�ver Avenue. Our house is located on a flag lot where the front of our house faces the back of the house on 1261 Vancouver and our long driveway is aIong the north side of the house on 1261 Vancouver. We are very interested in the proposed two-story dwelling on 1261 Vancou�er. Our main concern is in regard to the fencing surrounding that property. The existing fences are dilapidated and insufficient. Since a new house is being proposed we feel new fencing should be required. There are both cosmetic and privacy concerns. The existing S' high back wood fence is falling over. The existing chain link and wood fence on the north of the property aze in very bad condition. The wood fence has completely collapsed. Firstly, chain link fences are not appropriate for the quality of dwellings in Burlingame. The image of existing homes in the Burlingame community i9 not consistent with chain link fences. Also, a chain link fence does not give tatal privacy. We suggest a 5' high "good neighbor" wood fence surrounding the north and back of 1261 Vancouver, Thank yau for considering these concerns. VVe will see you at the public hearing on May 12. Theresa Webb Brian Anderson 1249 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 (415)531-3261 (dayphone) May 7, 2003 Planning Commission c/o Erica Lewitt City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Ref: 1261 Vancouver Avenue � �, � �� I�,lc� ! �,�u..��Lc r�,c_�i��,r � �'� : �'j;, � �_� "=� ��C. �-�%}� . _ ''J I am the owner of record of 1249 Vancouver Avenue and Pm writing to express my views and pose my questions about the proposed design of the retaining wall of the property at 1261 Vancouver. I have provided a background paper with questions and photos to illustrate the points raised. In summary there is signifcant potential in the proposed design for: t. The creation of a significant safety hazard at 1249. The proposal would create a vertical `drop-off of 13 feet at the top of the 1249 driveway. This drop-off, or precipice, would be just 11 inches from the edge of the driveway and is located where an important turn is required. This would create a dangerous situation as well as create an unappealing feature to 1249. 2. Damage to the 1249 driveway. 3. A negative impact on the structural integrity of the foundation for the 1249 driveway and home. a. A lack of a definitive landscaping plan to replace or improve the aesthetics of the retaining wall and the existing landscape for all owners and the community-at-large This impacts all neighbors and visitors to this section of Vancouver. s. Given the above, a significant negative impact in the property value of 1249. Please note that I am not opposed to redeveloping the property at 1261. Indeed, I believe that the correct design and construction process for this site will be a good investment for the City of Burlingame and the residents of Vancouver Avenue. Given my significant concerns as pointed out above and in the enclosed that negatively impact my home and the community, I ask the Planning Commission to vote against this design. Sincerel , Brian Anderson Encls. RECEIVED MAY - 7 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. � Comments on the Proposed Plan for 1261 Vancouver Brian Anderson 1249 Vancouver, Burlingame, CA 94010 May 6, 2003 Presented to the City of Burlingame, Planning Commission Back�round RECEIVED MAY - 7 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1249 Vancouver is adjacent to the property, sitting on the left side of 1261 and is parallel to the proposed driveway and retaining wall. The proposal calls for a two-tier wall, designed in a stair- step fashion, to be build directly on the property line and will run approximately 90 feet parallel to both homes. The area in question separates the homes between 1249 and 1261. The plan calls for a large area of an existing hill of about 90 feet in length by 8 to 10 feet in width by 13 feet in height to be removed. This is a very large area to be removed and restructure without causing damage to the integrity of the driveway and foundation that are established on the hill where 1249 is located. Please note, there has been a history of concerns expressed about the restructuring of the retaining wall at 1261 & 1249. The previous owners of my home expressed similar views and concerns to the City when earlier versions of the redevelopment of 1261 were discussed in 2000. A. EnEineering Design 1. The plan as described by the Planning Department does not define any specifications to ensure the structural integrity of the retaining wall that will ensure stability of the hill, driveway and the home at 1249 (which is 10.5 feet from the proposed wall). 2. In fact, the proposed retaining wall will be just 11 inches from the driveway of 1249. There is a signi�cant possibility that the design of the wall and the construction process will damage the driveway if not compromise the integrity of the hill and therefore threaten the integrity and structure of the driveway and the foundation of the home at 1249. See Exhibits #1 and #2 View #2. 3. The end result of this design will be the creation of a precipice, that is, a sheer vertical drop-off of about 13 feet. The drop-off will be at the top of the driveway, 11 inches from the edge of the driveway and 10.5 feet from the home. This will result in a dan e� driving condition. See Exhibit #1. At the top of the driveway, the path takes about a 20 degree turn to the left (coming from the street). Currently this is not a problem but with the creation of a significant precipice located at the right of the_ juncture where an important turn is required, a slight miscalculation could turn into disaster, for any vehicle driving up or down. In addition, any reasonable person looking at this potential hazard will be `taken back' when walking up and down the driveway. The creation of the precipice will introduce a`fear factor' or at least a`state of unease' for any pedestrian. This condition doesn't exist today. While the proposal does call for a replacement of the existing wire fence to be installed on top of the retaining wall, the creation of a precipice at a critical juncture in the driveway is a significant change. The fence will not provide adequate protection for a vehicle. Increasing the size, scope or design of the retaining wall or the fence to address this issue will decrease the aesthetics and a result in a loss of economic value to 1249 Vancouver. 4. What is the protection for the owner of 1249 in case of that an inadequate design and/or construction process results in damage to the driveway or threatens the foundation of the home at 1249? 5. Given the proposal requires that the retaining wall be built on the property line. I request an independent survey be completed to verify the property line as defned by the proposal is where it is stated. ECEIVED City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 2 MAY - 7 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. B. Construction Process The proposal calls for the walls to be built on the properiy line. At the closest point and according to the proposal, the driveway is 11 inches from the property line. The driveway is in excellent shape, with no cracking or `alligatoring' (pock marks). The City will certainly understand that the design or the construction process should not degrade or damage the driveway in any way. What is the proposed construction process to safeguard the driveway? Does the developer expect to build the wall from the 1261 property or is there an expectation about needing access to bring equipment, materials and labor onto 1249 V ancouver? Going forward, written permission obtained from the owner of 1249 obtained in advance will be required for any persons to gain access to 1249 for any purpose. C. Aesthetics The proposal provides no information about the design and aesthetics of the retaining wall. The wall will be clearly visible from the street and sidewalks and will require that about 900 square feet of established vines to be removed. This lush area is aesthetically appealing, is completely self sustaining (no water requirements), requires little or no upkeep and is visible to pedestrian and vehicle traffic on Vancouver as well as to other neighbors. See Exhibit #2, Views #1 and #2. In addition, removal of the landscaping to build the retaining wall will result in an awkwardly landscaped area between the end of the 1261 property and the far wall at the back of 1249. This area is about 30 feet in length and is defined as the `backyard area of 1249'. See Exhibit #3. As explained by the Planning Department is there is no plan to replace or improve upon the landscaping. The proposal simply calls for a two-tier wall to be made out of an undefined material. 1. In addition to the adequacy of the design, mentioned above, what finishing materials will be used? 2. What will be the appearance of the wall? 3. What is the proposal for landscaping to be seen from the street, that is, the community-at- large? 4. What is the proposal to deal with the `backyard area of 1249'? Summary and Conclusions: In summary there is significant potential in the proposed design that will negatively impact 1249 Vancouver: 1. The creation of a significant safety hazard at 1249. The proposal would create a vertical `drop-off' of 13 feet at the top of the 1249 driveway. This drop off, or precipice, would be just 11 inches from the edge of the driveway and is located where an important tum is required. This would create a dangerous situation as well as create an unappealing feature to ]249. 2. Damage to the 1249 driveway. 3. A negative impact on the structural integrity of the foundation for the 1249 driveway and home. 4. A lack of a definitive landscaping plan to replace or improve the aesthetics of the retaining wall and the existing landscape for all owners and the community-at-large? This impacts all neighbors and visitors to this section of Vancouver. 5. Given the above, a significant negative impact on the value of 1249. Please note that I am not opposed to redeveloping the property at 1261. Indeed, I believe that the right design and construction process for this site will be a good investment for the City of Burlingame and the residents of Vancouver. Given my significant concerns as pointed out above and in the enclosed that negatively impact my home and the community, I ask the Planning Commission to vote against this design. The proposal would create a significant safety hazard. As proposed, the retaining wall would create a 13' vertical drop-off that would be located 11 inches from the 1249 driveway. The drop-off would be about 25 feet in length, the remainder of the 90 feet of the retaining wall would presumably slope downward, parallel to the current slope, although this is not clear. Also note the excellent condition of the driveway surface and foundation of the driveway and home of 1249. View from 1249 backyard/driveway looking out and across to 1261. May 6, 2003 Exhibit #1 RECEIVED MAY - 7 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PIANNING DEPT. What is the proposal to replace or improve the existing landscape along the property between 1261 and 1249, visible from both sidewalks and street on Vancouver Avenue? View #1 �xy,;b,t �kZ� Vikv #1 RECEIVE� MAY - 7 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. What is the proposal to replace or improve the existing landscape along the properly between 1261 and 1249, visible from both sidewalks and street on Vancouver Avenue? View #2 View from Tfancouver, looking up 1249 driveway, note excellent condition of driveway and foundation. May 6, 2003 Exhibit #2, View #2 RECEIVEC� MAY - 7 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. , A The proposal will remove all vines right of the marker. This would result in an awkwardly landscaped backyard for 1249. What is the proposal to address the `backyard area of 1249'? View of 1249 backyard, adjacent to backyard of 1261. Exhibit #3 May 6, 2003 RECEIVEl� MAY - 7 2003 CITY OF BURLIIVGAME PLANNING DEPT.