The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1444 Vancouver Avenue - Staff ReportItem No. Regular Action PROJECT LOCATION 1444 VancouverAvenue City of Burlingame Design Review, Variances and Special Permit Address: 1444 Vancouver Avenue Item No. Regular Action Meeting Date: April 12, 2010 Request: Design Review, Variances for Floor Area Ratio and Front Setback and Special Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Property Owner: Jim and Barbara Millett APN: 026-044-140 Architect: Johnny Go, NII Architects Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The existing single-story house with a detached garage contains 2,280 SF (0.38 FAR) of floor area and has three (3) potential bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached garage and to build a new one-car attached garage, which changes the floor area ratio calculation. The applicant is also proposing a first floor addition at the back of the proposed attached garage and a new 1,242 SF second story. With the proposed addition, the floor area will increase to 3,346 SF (0.56 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR). The project is 326 SF above the maximum allowable FAR, and therefore the applicant has applied for a Floor Area Ratio Variance. Planning Staff would note that the total square footage of the new attached garage and storage area is 273 SF. If the proposed attached garage and storage area were considered exempt from the floor area ratio calculation, then the project would exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 53 SF. The existing front setback to the covered porch area has a nonconforming setback of 19'-10", where 20'-2" (block average) is the minimum required. The applicant is proposing to expand the area of the existing front porch that is covered and therefore has applied for a Front Setback Variance (19'-10" proposed, where 20'-2", block average, is the minimum required). With the addition, the number of existing bedrooms will increase from three (3) to four (4). Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing detached one-car garage will be demolished and a new, attached one-car garage will be constructed (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions proposed). One uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: ■ Design Review for a first and second story addition (CS 25.57.010, a, 1); ■ Floor Area Ratio Variance for a first and second story addition (3,346 SF, 0.56 FAR proposed; where 3,020 SF, 0.50 FAR is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.070, a); ■ Front Setback Variance to the covered front porch addition (19'-10" proposed, where 20'-2", block average, is the minimum requirement) (CS 25.28.072 b, 1); and ■ Special Permit for an attached garage (CS 25.28.035 a). * Report continues on next page " Design Review, Variances and Special Permif 1444 Vancouver Avenue 1444 Vancouver Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stam ed: Februa 25, 2010 j EXISTING PROPOSED � ALLOWED/REQUIRED � SETBACKS � ............:..........................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................................................� � .............20'-2��...(block...average) .............. Front (1st flr): ; 19'-10" ' 19'-10" (to porch) � ; (2nd flr): ; none ; 34'-7" 20'-2" (block average) i... .......................................................................... ................................ ................... ........... , ..............................................�...............��......................................... . Side (left): � 4-11 ; 7'-7" (to 2"d floor) � 4'-0" r� ht � ( �9 )� ` g,_�„ 4,_�„ 4,_�„ � ..................................................�................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . . Rear (1st flr): ; 25'-0" (to deck) ; 36'-6" (to deck) � 15'-0" (2nd flr): ` none 39'-10" ; 20'-0" .. .................................................................................................................................................................................................. . Lot Coverage: ; 2,515.5 SF 2,297 SF ' 2,400 SF ' 41.9% 38% 40% ' ....... ................................................................................................................................................................... . . i FAR: 2,279.5 SF � 3,346.4 SF 3,020 SF 0.38 FAR I 0.56 FAR 2 0.50 FAR 3 , j (3,406 SF previously proposed) ; ......................................................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................................................:............................................................................................................................................... � # of bedrooms: j 3 ; 4 � --- ! ..................................................................................................................................................................' . : .............................................................................. , � Parking: I 1 covered � 1 covered � 1 covered � (10' x 17') ; (10' x 20') � (10' x 20') j 1 uncovered i 1 uncovered � 1 uncovered ; (9' x 20') j (9' x 20') � (9' x 20') ; .......................................................................................................... � i ......................................................................�..........,�............................................. .......... Height: ' 19'-7" ; 27'-2" � 30 -0 ,! .......................................................................................................... � :..................................................................................................................................................................�............................................................................................................................................... DH Envelope: ; complies ' CS 25.28.075 b, 4 and 5 4 � CS 25.28.075 ; ' Front Setback Variance to the covered front porch addition (19'-10" proposed, where 20'-2", block average, is the minimum requirement) (CS 25.28.072 b, 1). 2 Floor Area Ratio Variance for a first and second story addition (3,346.4 SF, 0.56 FAR proposed; where 3,020 SF, 0.50 FAR is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.070, a). 3 (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR) 4 Declining height envelope exemptions were applied along the right side property line for the slope on the lot and for the height of the finished floor above adjacent grade (CS 25.28.075 b, 4 and 5). Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, City Arborist and NPDES Coordinator. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on March 8, 2010, the Commission was supportive of the design of the project, but had concerns with the Variance requestforfloor area ratio and voted to place the item on the RegularAction Calendarwhen complete. The Commission noted that the applicant should review any possible reductions in floor area that could make the Variance more palatable (March 8, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes). The propertyownersubmitted revised plans on March 26, 2010, and a response letter on April 6, 2010, to further address the Variance request for floor area ratio and to respond to the Commissions concerns. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; -2- Design Review, Variances and Special Permit 1444 Vancouver Avenue 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing an potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, 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 consistentwith the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation forthe removal that is proposed is appropriate. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 26, 2010, sheets A-1 through A-8, L1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; -3- Design Review, Variances and Special Permit 1444 VancouverAvenue 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 6, 2009 and January 21, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's November 18, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 9, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's November4, 2009 and December22, 2009 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 4, 2009 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio Variance and Front Setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Erica Strohmeier Associate Planner c. Jim and Barbara Millett, 1444 VancouverAvenue, Burlingame, CA 94010, applicant and property owner. Johnny Go, NII Architects, 1080 23�d Avenue #105, Oakland, CA 94606, Architect. -4- Design Review, Variances and Special Permit Attachments: Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, date stamped April 6, 2010 Minutes from the March 8, 2010, Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting Received After letter from Commissioner Lindstrom, date stamped March 8, 2010 Letters from Neighbors in support of project Application to the Planning Commission Variance Applications Special Permit Application Letter of explanation from property owner Photographs of streetscape, date stamped November 2, 2009 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed April 2, 2010 Aerial Photo 1444 Vancouver Avenue -5- TO: Burlingame Planning Commission Erica Strohmeier- Associate Planner for the City of Burlingame FROM: Jim and Barbara Millett RE: 1444 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame SUBJECT: FAR Variance ��'@�� ;� � ,: � ;� 20iC i-�':' "� z�.!�� Ir�,�;•,nn.= -�, ,,�, Per the Planning Commission meeting on March 8, 2010, the general consensus was an agreement with the project design and a justification of exceeding the FAR by the amount of the garage and storage area. The total FAR of this area is 273'; however the variance application was for 386.45', which left 113.5' in question. We have since reviewed the drawings with our Architect in an attempt to make the variance "more palatable". While maintaining the needs of our family and working with the limitations presented in utilizing the existing footprint of the house, we have succeeded in a FAR reduction of 60.5'. This total FAR reduction leaves 53' that is not considered as part of the garage. We have implemented the Planning Commission suggestion of reworking the front porch. The column in the center has been removed so it doesn't block the view of the door and the stairs have been relocated so they now face the street with a walkway to the sidewalk, as opposed to thru the driveway. The relocation of the entry closet allows moving the front door and the related wall into the house by 2' which increases the porch size and reduces the FAR. We feel this has provided a great improvement to the overall aesthetics of the front of the house as well as increasing our ability to use the front porch. We have also reduced the size of the second story addition by moving both the south and north exterior walls in 6". This compromise is in respect to the need to make every reasonable effort in reducing our FAR overage. In addition to the previously submitted variance reasons which were part of the staff report, I would like to add the following information. The property has special circumstances that make a detached garage prohibitive. The project is a remodel that utilizes three sides of the existing footprint. We have implemented a design conducive to the desires indicated in the Burlingame Design Review Guidelines as well as ideas from the Planning Commission and our neighbors. Compromises have been made to the new areas while working with the limitations of the existing footprint. The denial of this variance based on the 53' of FAR that is not part of the garage would put an unnecessary expense and impact to the environment by requiring demolition of an existing area just to make it part of the garage as opposed to part of the house. This change would have no benefit to the exterior design or massing of the project and would be an exercise of semantics resulting in an inferior product. The project has the support of the neighboring houses and the design will positively impact the neighborhood. The design actually reduces the existing lot coverage, therefore providing increased greenscape. The acceptance of this variance will allow us to enjoy similar privileges of those who are able to utilize a detached garage. ; �> . �P� � EW 'l_[i1G C►TY O� ��Ll��;�r��:�a9�= �'l�PJ�IiIVr i�EPT C/TY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON — Unapproved Minutes March 8, 2010 6. 1444 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FORAN ATTACHED GARAGE FORA FIRSTAND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JIM AND BARBARA MILLET, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHNNY GO, NII ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (79 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 8, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Clarified that the design minus the attached garage and storage area is over the maximum FAR by around 113 square feet. Jim Millett, 1444 Vancouver; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Likes the design. ■ Regarding the entry to the front porch; the only way to the front door is from the driveway; consider providing a path from the sidewalk to the front door. ■ Ok with the attached garage. ■ Design fits well within the neighborhood. ■ Design is massed correctly; has broad neighborhood support. ■ Concerned about the massing on the right-hand side. ■ Concerned about the Variance request and the precedent that it could set; the overage in floor area is blamed on the garage since it is attached, but it is only contributing 273 square feet to the floor area. ■ Placing the garage at the rear of the house would reduce the mass of the house. ■ If the overage were only related to the garage area; could support the Variance. (Millett — has struggled with the floor area.) ■ Consider removing some of the floor area to reduce the Variance to only that area attributable to the garage. ■ Is there a way to open up the front entry? (Millett — sure something can be done.) ■ Clarify that windows will be aluminum-clad wood windows. ■ The design of the house could meet the criteria discussed by the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for attached garage; could then be considered as a Special Permit if the increase above maximum FAR doesn't exceed the area of the garage. (Meeker — noted that the applicant has heard the Commission's concerns regarding the excess floor area; it is up to him to strengthen his arguments for the Variance findings.) ■ The reading alcove also adds to the floor area; a reduction could be achieved in this area. ■ Consider opening up the front entry a bit more. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Bruce Detweiler; 1448 Vancouver Avenue; spoke: Understands not creating a precedent, but the neighbors are supportive of the project. Make an executive decision that finds that the design is a remodel; the family is being allowed to take the design to a level that meets their needs. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON — Unapproved Minutes March 8, 2010 The design is beautiful. There has been a lot of construction that has occurred in the neighborhood; feels the design works and meets the need of the family. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Likes that it is a remodel; believes the design is well done. ■ Would be inclined to approve the Variance. ■ There is a problem with the slope of the lot that prevents placing the garage on the downhill slope; can support the Variance. ■ Inclined to agree that the lot slope and impracticality of placing the garage in the rear of the property, combined with the presence of the wall of the neighbor's house contributes to the need for a Variance. ■ The home is nicely designed and massed. ■ If the rear of the house were pulled in, the design would become unaesthetic. ■ Struggles with the potential precedent for approval of the Variance. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: The applicanf should review any possible reductions in floor area that could make the Variance more palafable. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the mofion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and nof appealable. This item concluded at 9:21 p.m. 13 Communication Received After Preparation of Staff Report From: Jeff Lindstrom [mailto:jeff@jplinc.net] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:10 AM To: CD/PLG-Meeker, William Subject: 3/8 Meeting : Received After PC Mtg. 03.08.10 Agenda Item #6 -1444 Vancouver Ave. Agenda Item # 4- 117 Costa Rica Ave. My mother in law passed away unexpectedly yesterday. This afternoon and tonight I will be busy with taking care of some of the details of the funeral. So I will not be able to be at tonight's meeting. The only project that I object to is 117 Costa Rica, the upper dormer does not look proportional to the building, I don't see a purpose for it, the west elevation needs detail, the south elevation does not flow, project need work, too massive for the site. 1444 Vancouver needs more detail, front-south elevation needs to embellish the stair case to tie it into the house , right now it just sticks up in the air, there is no west or north elevation to show those elevation details, plans state vinyl or aluminum windows, states exterior trim to be fiber cement, prefer wood for both windows and trim. Jeff . . , . . . . ., .. ._ i.� i V � . ... r ..,_ �' I - Communication Received After Page 1 of 1 Pr�eparation of Staff Report pC Mtg. 03.08.10 - Agenda Item #6 1444 VancouverAvenue CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica From: Jim Millett jjmillett@rosendin.com] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 7:05 AM To: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica Subject: 1444 Vancouver Window Clarification Erica To clarify the window types called out in the drawings; The windows will be wood cladd with the simulated divided light on the top % of the windows. The manufacturers under consideration are; Anderson Marvin Jeld Wenn This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto. 3/8/2010 C�mmunication Received After Preparation of Staff Report Page 1 of 1 PC Mtg. 03.08.10 - Agenda Item #6 1444 VancouverAvenue CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica From: Burke, Melissa [maburke@stanford.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:54 PM To: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica Subject: 1444 Vancouver Plans Hi Ms. Strohmeier We are neighbors behind Jim and Barbara Millet at 1441 Bernal (behind and one house down). We have reviewed their remodel plans and support their project without reservation. The finished home will be very attractive and blend nicely with other adjacent homes. We hope their project is approved without delay. Regards, Melissa and Rudy Buntic IY�Y`�11 � J ZLl IU _ i � �' . �� _ _._ .i.'';1A�' f'� i . . ., .�.. ._. -i-. 3/5/2010 Communication Received After Preparation of Staff Report Ms. Erica Strohmeier City of Burlingame Dear Ms. Strohmeier: PC Mtg. 03.08.10 - Agenda Item #6 1444 Vancouver Avenue 1433 Vancouver Ave. Burlingame, Ca 94010 March 3, 2010 This letter is in reference to the Millett property located at 1444 Vancouver Avenue in Burlingame. I live across the street at 1433 Vancouver Avenue and my front door looks at the front of this property. I support the renovation. I have reviewed the plans that they have designed in order to renovate the house. I believe that according to the plans, this will be an improvement for them but will also be an improvement for our neighborhood. It appears to have the same structural lines as the original dwelling. The new design compliments the existing property. Another improvement is that the garage is recessed and accessible. This will take the many cars off the street. It will be safer to have the cars off the street and reduce the possibility of theft. I know that when the weather is rainy, I am grateful to enter my home without having to get wet. I moved to my property in 2003. I have known Barbara and Jim Millett since I moved in. They are respected, friendly, and helpful neighbors. They are in good standings within the neighborhood. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. My day time phone number is (415) 835-7540. Thank you for your time. P,`.P.i� �� !�� 0i0 i; l r`r '_ �� Communication Received After Preparation of Staff Report PC Mtg. 03.08.10 - Agenda Item #6 1444 VancouverAvenue CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica From: Sent: To: Subject: Barbara Moore [moore.barbara@comcast.net] Thursday, March 04, 2010 5:56 PM CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica Support of 1444 Vancouver Dear Ms. Estrohmeier, We have lived at 2112 Hale Dr. for almost nine years and have had the pleasure of being neighbors with Barbara and Jim Millet. We are writing this letter to support their building project. We have seen their building plans and we feel that their new home will fit in beautifully with the other houses in the neighborhood. Our daughters frequently play with their daughters, and they have become good friends. Vancouver is such a busy street, I was pleased to see that they will have a good sized yard for the girls to play. So many cars are always parked on Vancouver, it's a challenge to see clearly enough to cross the street safely. Visibility is very difficult, and we even worry when we see teenage children trying to cross the street at Vancouver and Hale. The Millets' attached garage might give more room for the other parked cars that are always on the street. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Thank You, Barbara and George Moore 348-7255 Page 1 of 1 CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica From: SoozeQ55@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:58 AM To: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica Cc: blmillett@mac.com; BDBoon@yahoo.com Subject: 1444 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame ....� .._. _._ _, . ..�.._�..-...._s.�..��.- i _._.. _ _ �_:�7��'i'�r-f•��-�-L�.,ti1L-(..1.1.i-l.i.`' � AFTER P�tFP9R�1 fUN nt� ST.�1 FF RL'�POIiT �. ._ _ _ _ ._ . ___ __ .. _ ----__ _.. PC Mtg. 03.08.10 - Agenda Item #6 1444 Vancouver Avenue March 4, 2010 To Erica Strohmeier, City of Burlingame Re: 1444 Vancouver Avenue Dear Erica, We have been neighbors with the Millets for the past 18 years. We are writing this letter to you to give our full approval of the design ptans for the addition that Jim and Barbara Millet are proposing for their home on 1444 Vancouver Avenue. This project would be a beautiful addition to our neighborhood. Their plan fits right in with the designs of the surrounding homes on Vancouver Avenue and will not compromise the neighborhood in any way. We are excited that they have the opportunity to build the home of their dreams. The City of Burlingame should give their full approval to this pro ject. Euch new pro ject submitted to the city should be looked at as a case by case situation and this design proposal would be the best one for the Millets and the surrounding neighborhood. We will be attending the public hearing on Monday evening the 8th of March. Sincerely, Bruce and Susan Detweiler 1448 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650-344-5970 3/4/2010 March 3, 2010 Ms. Erica Strohmeier Burlingame City Hall Planning Dept. Dear Ms. Strohmeier, Joseph & Franca Marchetti 1440 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 _ � ` C��:.� � :�'ic '':U.`, 1:i�:L1Y�s1.).. AI I'F_R PKF_P92ATlOI�I (?!,,��7,rr. I� ` - �; - '+' �C Mtg. 03.08.10 - Agenda Item #6 1444 VancouverAvenue This letter is with reference to our neighbor's remodeling plans, the Millett Residence located at 1444 Vancouver Avenue. We have had an opportunity to view their remodeling plans and find them to be aesthetically pleasing with an attached garage to give somewhat of a variation on that side to both our homes. Truly, we feel they have done a wonderful job of the entire project. On a personal level, we have known the Milletts for a very long time. Mrs. Millet's father has suffered a stroke and has diffculty getting around. It would be a great convenience for her father to be able to enter the house in a more accessible manner, as well as their many other older relatives. We are so very fortunate to have the Millett Family as neighbors, with their sense of family. Our eighteen year relationship has just about made us both feel like we are "farnily." We wish them luck with the entire remodeling project and hope you will consider their plans and pass them as they now stand. Thank you, Joseph Marchetti Franca Marchetti ;: , Page 1 of 1 CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica From: osimonetti@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 4:52 PM To: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica Subject: Additon at 1444 Vancouver Avenue A� l r K('e'�/ i��ifi.-il li1lV J� � , _�.,�, f�c��T ___ _ __. __. ,....__.. _ k.._ �_�.c__d RE.1444 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 PC Mtg. 03.08.10 - Agenda Item #6 1444 Vancouver Avenue Dear Ms. Strohmeier: I have viewed the plans for the outstanding upgrade on this property. It fits right into the lifestyle of the neighborhood community. It looks to be a warm comfortable addition. The attached garage willbe so helpful in loading and unloading children, grandparents etc. without going outside facing differing weather conditions. I thought the downstairs handicap bathroom assures them of many, many happy years of living close to us. THEY ARE SUCH GOOD NEIGHBERS. Sincerely, Patricia Simonetti 1452 VancouverAvenue Burlingame 3/4/2010 i , `� �:rT�t.�+°:aii� �,�_�� _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: � Design Review � Variance ❑ Parcei #: i� 2 (O � (7 � �' � � � d' ❑ Conditional Use Permit � Special Permit ❑ Other: PROJECTADDRESS: I �'��-� �(�V1C0�4�`�P I� �r ,V1�4,�� — � Please indicate the contact person for this project APPLICANT Pro)ect contact person QY' PROPERTY OWNER proJect corrtact pe�son �' OK to send electroMc coples of documertts F]�`� OK to seod electronlc coples of documeMs ��'�� Name: �j I'� J �G9�►' �JG4.f'� �/� � �P,�--�- Address: � `f"� `� 1/l� �C��4� �%�i City/State/Zip: �%� ��i1�� I U Phone: � '�3 ' � � � 3 � �H�S�Bso -z�Z Fax: Name: �G e'YL `y V�a 4��C�� ' l�� Address: d�"� � �.P /7 C d� V�i City/State/Zip: �G�i'� f'L��ii�� Phone: � `� 3 � "� � J? � Fax: E-maiL�� 0�/�e7� °, r'�S�l��l� a LOl'1� E-mail: � f'Y� 4�� T'�� Y��S ��? �a�i�5d�'� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER proJect coMact person 0 , OK to send electroNc coples of dxumeMs IeY�� '`" � Name: �_ D �'1 y1 i'1 � �(7 � � � �-. �Y�G �'1 a �"eG�S � �YJL - i,!;:l �' _. �; 7_00° � U�D 2 3�-r� ��' n,c.�� e D s ,F Address: , �-.t r, , _ . _ - ^��,��, _- City/State/Zip: � �f �� l2 �j � � � � (D l� �o Phone: 5 0�— 5 3 3—% Z�� Fax: � � d "" � �� Z �� E-mai�: �'� � r` G �O �P � �r Burlingame Business License #: � `� � � 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Y9D �Pe ��P iY� d�P�� - AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of peryury that the information given herein is true and coRect to the best of my knowledge and belief. � _� � Applicant's signature: Date: �� I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Oa ' 2 5 _� Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted:_�2 0 � * Verification that the project architectldesigner has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. O Pleaae mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project S:\HandoutslPC Appticatlon 2008-B,handout t..l.iTV i � �I , I�`\� �I �'� �L `t_-%::� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PwMRose Ro�►n • BURUNGAINE, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org � leo�' � Q-�-h� The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraorolinary cir�cumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. . �. �r. . ' " ..., .. . � . SEE A-rr�-L�� r�;"' , 1 �,�;,, �,009 :;�,- b. Explain why the variance r�equest is necessary for the pr�eservation and enjoyment of a substantial properly right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denia/ of the application. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, genera/ welfare or convenience. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? Handouts\Variance Application.2008 _�.M'<m.s %.-,,: �. . ,.- �,�� Variance Application- answers to questions `,,_,,, ; � � - � ;�� A. There do exist site conditions, which make a detached garage impractical and inconsistent with the intent of the Burlingame Design Review guidelines. The two-story wall of the home neighboring the driveway side is built very close to the property line with the minimal side setback and no declining height, producing a"tennis wall" appearance. The fence dividing the two properties leaves 9' 8" of limited space to get a car down the driveway. The combined result is a tunnel effect that makes the actual use of the detached garage for parking a car very impractical. The existing neighboring home negates the desired appearance of space that usually results from a detached garage. B. The existing neighboring structure makes a detached garage very undesirable as well as aesthetically displeasing. The proposed addition that incorporates an attached garage and addresses the aesthetic issues is actually 25% below what would be allowed if we were able to utilize a detached garage. C. The proposed addition will help mask the neighboring "tennis wall". The attached garage will help with off street parking, as it will be practical to use. The overall appearance of the surrounding area will improve as the proposed design incorporates what is desired in Burlingame homes to an existing structure that is in need of repair. �. The proposed addition will result in a mass/bulk that is consistent with the surrounding area. The attached garage is consistent with the neighborhood and the proposed setbacks and design will achieve the intent of the Design Review guidelines. The second story is set back to minimize the perceived mass from the curbside view. The existing footprint is being maintained with exception of the garage side and attention has been given to make things symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing. We believe the design meets all the intentions of design review and produces a structure that fits the neighborhood. � CITY �C� �' � J I �' ''�` H a ��.;,� 't�o'� . 9ao COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org CITY OF'BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type orwrite neatly in ink. Referto the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply fo other properties in this area. The Front Setback Variance is required for a section of the existing porch due to the proposed addition covering the entire porch as opposed to the existing partial coverage. As the porch is existing, and the existing and proposed structures do not allow for much variation in porch location, it seems allowing the existing to remain, as it is only 4" closer than the block average, is a reasonable request. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservaiion and enjoymenf of a substantia! property right and what unreasonable properfy /oss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. The variance request is necessary to allow the preservation of the current size porch currently enjoyed by the homeowner. ' c. Explain why ihe proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public healih, safefy, general welfare or convenience. The proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity as the only change is covering the entire porch as opposed to the existing partial coverage. G� How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The proposal of keeping the existing porch and adding cover over the section that that is currently open will improve the aesthetics of the house. The covered porch adds character to an area currently seen as a plain flat stucco wall. The mass and bulk are similar to surrounding properties and are proportional to the proposed addition. ! r p •��w It�..+� C i�'!,%� l..e. L�� I �-. � �i:��iG Handout$1u�ari��ge ��ica�iqr�t?y008 ; r�.i �!Vli�d(i! jl ;:f City of Burlingame • Communiry Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • www.buriinaame.orq � ciTr o �� _ �` � ��y �n�i... <.'L f � The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 9. Explain why fhe blend ofmass, sca/e and dominantstructural characteristics ofthe new construction or addition are consistenf with fhe existing sirucfure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. �.,=:. �. .�. _ . _ .. 5,�� A�t"A Gi�%� n J9 � 2, Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent wifh the exisfing structure, street and neighborhood. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? 4, Explain how fhe removal of any trees located within the foofprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistenf with the city's reforesfation requirements. Whaf mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigafion is appropriate. Rev. 07.2008 � See over for explanation of above questions. SPECIAL.PERMIT.APP.FORM Special Permit Application - answers to questions #1 The proposed addition will fit in the neighborhood as the adjacent homes as well as the home across the street are all two stories homes with attached garages. The adjacent home on the North side of the garage is set back from the house similar to proposed addition. The surrounding structures are all similar in height to the proposed addition. The attachment of the garage will allow us to enjoy more outdoor living space and playing area for the children. The existing garage has a number of problems that require the entire structure to be relocated with all new material; nothing is salvageable. An addition built by the previous owner is too close to the garage and blocks access. The garage is very old, has no foundation, extensive termite damage, leaks and the entire structure has a visible lean to the South. #2 The proposed structure is designed to maintain the character of the neighborhood. As stated above, surrounding houses are two stories with attached garages. We had a previous design that incorporated a two-car garage, which we would prefer, however we changed to a single car with a substantial set back to improve the aesthetics and support the intent of the Design Review guidelines. The two houses on the Sough side of our home have 2 car garages. The rooflines are similar to the surrounding homes and varying setbacks and a variety of finish material make the design consistent with the design reviews guidelines. The added space in the backyard will allow us to enjoy the same privileges as the neighbors who have been able use their backyards as outdoor living space. #3 The architectural style is consistent with that of the neighborhood and also has the individual character we expect in Burlingame. The attachment of the garage will allow us to actually park a car in it; as stated above, the existing garage has access issues from being too close to the house. There are other existing conditions that prohibit having a detached garage that are explained in the hardship letter submitted with this application. The set back will achieve the intent of a detached garage, satisfy the problems listed in the hardship letter and provide a safe area in the backyard, as our section of Vancouver Avenue is a very busy street. In the time we have lived here our cars have been involved in accidents five times. The addition will interface well with the exiting home to the South as it will help mask the large, flat, plane wall the makes up the North side of the house. *Please see pictures #4 No trees will be removed within the footprint of the proposed addition. � , To Whom It May Concern, �,��',' j %_(i0� RE: Hardship issues at 1444 Vancouver Avenue ,;�, �,,_ ;;�,; ��_,, :� �,�.�,�;F With full respect and consideration for the Burlingame Residential Design Review process the preliminary design for our home remodel has run into an issue with the allowable floor area ratio, specific to homes with attached garages. Ideally, we would be adding the second story addition and not touching the garage. However there are several existing problems that make the demolition of the existing garage and its relocation a requirement rather than an option. The original garage was poorly constructed having no foundation it has been overcome with termite and dry rot damage. The entire structure actually has a lean to the South that is visible from the street. During the time of a previous owner, an addition was allowed on the back of the house that resulted in the house being too close to the garage and making access a problem. The first area of hardship is in regards to an elderly parent handicapped from a stroke. The parent can navigate a small number of steps with the proper railings in place. The attached garage entry will provide this for the parent. Our design will allow covered access into the house as well as a handicapped bedroom and bath on the first level of the home. The use of stairs to a second story bedroom would be a problem. In order to do this and maintain similar room sizes to our existing home, we are 307' over the FAR allowed when an attached garage is utilized. The second area of hardship relates to the neighboring home on the South side, adjacent to our existing driveway. The two story home is built with minimal side set back and no declining height. This gives it a tennis wall appearance, having a long, high flat plane with only one lower window. (Please see pictures) This neighboring structure and the 9' 8" width of driveway from the side of our home to the fence line creates a narrow tunnel like appearance and makes using the driveway to access a detached garage a hardship. The desired aesthetics usually associated with a detached garage will not exist here. We have been working with our architect, consulted the advice of locals and revised our plans several times to produce a design we feel meets everyone's ,, � » intentions. Although we are over the FAR allowed for homes with attached garages, we are almost 25% under the 400 sq. ft. allowed had our existing conditions been conducive to utilize a detached garage. The 36' set back we have for the attached garage provides the desired curbside appearance and helps mask the neighboring "tennis wall". We have used the Neighborhood Design Guide Book and Rl-District Regulations, implementing Burlingame's desired design criteria and observed the remaining District scope regulations. As long time Burlingame residents, we enjoy and appreciate the neighborhood Design Review helps to maintain. The review for consideration of this issue is greatly appreciated. Thank You Jim & Barbara Millett 1444 Vancouver Ave. 650-343-4333 415-850-2293 jbmillett(a�yahoo.com I452 � 1448 � _ __ 14�4 � I�i-4p L 14310 5 u e�,��.G7 PP-�P � ��I�Y vA�co��E�. �v��u� Nll �4RGHITECTS, Inc. 1080 23`� Ave�ue Suite 1 Q5 flakland. Califarnia 94606 t ei. {51 �, 533-727t� Fax (51 Q) 533-4214 �a-i-� PRt�PC�SED NEW SECOND STt}RY AND EXISTING FfiFtST FLQOR ALTERA170NS ANQ AdD(T1�N5 T0: MR. & MRS. �11LLEiT RES#D�NCE 1444 VANCOUVER AVE, BURLINGAME, C� �401 a-5�36 Tei. (�50} 343-4333 A,P.N 026-444-140 �','�` I �� I l C'� � � �-' 1 �� l..�'��L`�� '�� '"��"` ` � ,�' �=' �� € �--�`� 1 ' �r I �°.�`�° �'�='� �G�C.� ��'�� '�``'�/'b%, t ��-.� ��rP I'�` �=,�.� G � C,,�- � �j�-� �� ; 4:;,=;� t�ll ARCHITECTS� Inc. 1�84 23`Q Avenue Suite 10� Qakiand, Cali�c�rnia 9�606 _.� el. (51�) 533-7270 Fax (51�J) 533-�t214 �t?-I-�� PROPOSED NEW SECOND STC}RY AND EXISi1N FtRST FLOLIR ALTERAl10�iS AND ADDtT10N5 T MR. 8� MRS. MltLETT RESIDENCE i444 VA�ICOUVER AVE., BURLINGA�,1E, CA 94Q10-� Te€. �fi50} 343-�333 A.P.N 026-Q�-140 �' t =�� %�� f - �j �� € t� � !.-�t%-4`.� j I C' �_ � I � � ! � � �.'" �,,,` .' �,,.'"��. "/� � �" ✓ � v � I I i/�41 t ��=� �- " !`� �' �`' i (� �% �--�-f-L''� l � G P"�i � � j � � s.� #� - I��; ��'� `�`j �` �' Vt'� � ! �' �i � . Project Comments Date: �� From: November 3, 2009 d City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 O City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-140 Staff Review: November 9, 2009 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. 2. The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway and other necessary appurtenant work. 3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 11 /18/2009 Project Comments Date: Revised Plans submitted December 21, 2009 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7273 X Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-140 Staff Review: N/A � M Project Comments Date: To: From: November 3, 2009 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Reviaw, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-140 Staff Review: November 9, 2009 l ) n the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC). ) Per the City of Burlingame's adopted Resolution, applications received after January 1, 2009 must complete a"GreenPoint Rated Checklist". The GreenPoint Rated Checklist, and other information regarding the City's Green Building requirements, can be found on the City website at the following URL: http://www.burlingame.orq/Index.aspx?page=1219 or Contact Joe McCluskey at 650-558-7273. 3) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 4) Provide fully dimensioned plans. C�rovide existing and proposed elevations. C�II work shall be conducted within the limits of the City's Noise Ordinance. *"* Owner to acknowledge this condition. (Initial here!) 7) This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2007 California Building Code for new structures. 8) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has bee� finaled. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 9) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 10) All projects for which a building permit application is received on or after January 1, 2010 must comply with the 2008 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://www.energy.ca.qov/ti#1e24 for publications and details. r 11) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 12) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. n the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the property line. ��) Provide details on the plans which show that all roof projections which project beyond the point where fire-resistive construction would be required will be constructed of one-hour fire-resistance- ated construction per CBC 704.2. 5) dicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the property line will be �� ilt of one-hour fire-rated construction. (Table 602) �1"6) Jt'ooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that ��complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. 17) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All �andings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 18) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 19) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 20) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet. Sec. 2113.9 NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 1, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, and 16 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Reviewed by. Date: ( ( � / /0 9 Project Comments Date: To: From: November 3, 2009 0 City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 17 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 � Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 � NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-140 Staff Review: November 9, 2009 �- L-1 needs to show major trees and shrubs on site. � New trees and existing trees meet requirements for reforestation. �New trees must be 24" box size and noted on plan. , ,� ��-� �� .�� S� � �� ./��-�''v' ,�� , V c� �,� � ��`'l' j2: Z z�c; � C I Bob Disco 11 /4/09 Project Comments Date: To: From: November 3, 2009 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 l7 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 � Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 0 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-140 Staff Review: November 9, 2009 ❑ L-1 needs to show major trees and shrubs on site. ❑ New trees and existing trees meet requirements for reforestation. ❑ New trees must be 24" box size and noted on plan. Bob Disco 11 /4/09 Project Comments Date: To: From: November 3, 2009 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 0 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 0 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 S� Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 � NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-140 Staff Review: November 9, 2009 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: �� L�� Date: 9`�� Project Comments Date: To: From: November 3, 2009 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 � City Arborist (650) 558-7254 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 � Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 X NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Floor Area Ratio Variance and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-140 Staff Review: November 9, 2009 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best Management Practices during construction. Please include a list of construction stormwater pollution prevention best management practices, as project notes, when submitting plans for a building permit. Please see attached brochure for guidance. The attached brochure may also be downloaded directly from flowstobay.org. It is also recommended that the construction stormwater pollution prevention best management practices be placed on a full size (2' x 3') separate plan sheet for readability. For additional assistance, contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, at (650) 342-3727. Reviewed by: �� , �,,�,�� Date: //'/�� 1�� , , °,i�c .. .� i%.�i. s��,�.w ys Po Wrton Itc�mco� Pmgem � �._ �� % �.: ,,�..: .�,�i- < c, � � ;..._ - ;:_.�., ` '.� ''^�_ � .. :. General �"„�� , , Construction & Site Supervision uxx f4mN� Pr�.vus PoflWm JSehdule ew.uiw ua �eWiq �qi.iie Cm dry .v��°�"�P�� .`��,� nwh�w�. �ameo. Eclm /Loea�e mE pmue� .�an Maa u iY Hou:ry of�b �m e� a mK,s mme..R Woa.. w+m� �cmea :c. a,o,w, or �ammn � am n•m�..,ur �..o.,ro.,i e. w.c e�. e.��,,. �Ya� Enicycti�tffi4MN�acrlk+ ramE �Le uc Reduc<Mmvuer �oRvelacil�v py ^P ��^�YOa'k 0�� m bmn� vM1m W�'� lT�aie Yout wPblee� md ,ub[oemam�v '�� Eeetnebun �niYbk�ncmercrbach�m@c We Iefo�m.�.nu.�u�. aEau� ih� oe. ve�mwm Nktmeau�vEtlerm�vm��Wl�u[i GaW bo�Y Px� JOeaiID�h me cemD��Y mvoim! uu Cv mo palun{. rehitle nl�d'sL ad raiex eqvipm� � mazlLeda[mbluaahwNDeveYn�Y 6mm mumsm�wm N+iv mku. �vd Mmd if ma- �u'. Hi4� mjm vp'vanQ ule �p m.,wm w� or o. nv - pR.�i �oa at:�cm¢. fe.cc�Plnn/ ��ah� mafx � - JRcp peWi.np aC omwed �facu Aa<s n+sh av ,m �'am....m.� i.....,m,e m. � r m�ri"""" ��+wnr•a�r �w.trW�e>u,mm�.. caiu. mNvsLL I(�.vu�n LLMivEu vttucvy. � wu� w.i. w wm .mw.e W o.v,�w�� .w wnawu.�. �c�� y ieaa db• �a omer.nw �ee�.sh e �h'Juux vmW�e W ie Im+uV^��vl�a.e fes8<m w.e1 u4cv. Us M' ckm mciboi4 wTmc.aFmLc IfJsme�u4e�M.weNu .+wµ w�ro u� mw �wd Jcma ane naonla aomp�uas. �¢t 6m�oor fw kdu. Axx dumP��o. wMmof a m.xf wiR uvp. � V�+++�+�• %�i vmuW W� aWtle ufae �hu�nw. A pintic tipav ¢wmmmtloE w pmal �•�•gsalliqo:tc Ncrm tJm w� a�patc by nwu� �i mwu m we emswxoe au. JMaYs we puWle bJeY aa ma�w�ioed'u ymd w�+Y o�du M We kvu6 wmpmy u6 tdt.ven A�po.'a1 olpmpnly Ost wJee 6.qu'u�Y lor� kakz m+G/na'tr LVE4vj IRr�ix wares.Mxebn - m:n�nnn .v�� .�M Yw md �m�m:.4 0.Jvm11' �ba �muW YT+ond wfim0 jeR Jl4e � JaAk �viJ� vlvme I+��e Am.�e 6vpC�-w Mrzc.�cLbie mvW� vb m eo-siW u➢Lel4 ��W �vl ml+eu0. d�IIevai. tleuedvep <Yuuu VA�[ mek �ed ve6i�bmiorcn�oeemleeia4 asLuiWal.mtif .hnvin.altlre. �w� er.n .ou m mo�me. e.trw �y. !e� �me.�ri�, mu�w..m .e.. w x �m�a aO�tli�Rmlveoqvaur.lsW VW^S �Mle O�Jh, bmkm+phW avE [dosRwwt. W CItmN �c}na. w. W�w4mEE�Eri�mwomn4i¢Y�4dmW be qYm b uypopiw hvdfiyee y�woy e[u ,.a.b.....k,��... �.., .�. �.o,. Q bK 0 ' m.nmaarmraeWo�artmha. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Prograrri Pollution Preventio� — It's Part of the Plan It is your responsibility to do the job right! Runoff from s[reets and other paved azeas is a major source of pollution in local creeks, Sau Fraucisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. , Construction activities can directty affect tlte health of out wa[ers unless coutractors and crews plan aheadto keep dirt, debris, and other construcrion waste away from stoTm drains and creeks_ Fol lowing these guidelines will ensure your compliance with local stormwater ordinance requirements. Remember, ongoing monitoring and maintenance of installed controls is crucial to proper implementation. ITeavy Earth-Moving Roadwork & Paving F resh Concrete Painting & Application Equipment A.,�vi��s 8z Mortar Application of Solvents & Adhesives Operation � - - � a a � � . ._.,<_ . : �.'�., rix.i�,ma�e��.�om��.mmpm.�� mdwayamWKmmn lSadWoam�+e"mmdP�� ..vhfmM+�mOn. W'mi CmaeaV� J 6tmae c W m� vR��w mN .Dm abulutll msr H. Shepl+m6ymGP«.stlrerlldanaG�aum /SvJwpW�knpuvyv�ywimfineme�mr�muolav Jtkvyuuammp4uhmnuivmuoatiecraem�e .Iwnnwueuawv�Taouea�r4iattWd�oe. .eA�.+)'6reuM.ms»vmdnmir�ki - fm�Womde9�Wmm�'"6eefi�eti�i�odmw�x lPmmJo�wlop�dr�Fmvu,muma.�Wa�ofm �e0iekaoOM�mwauxe. Na�niONYba14�W+�Ydrat^ei�mle�.aL JMwoieaLr�b'vJmadm «�*tbumaa�a�emtrinWnfilmc +YWWC��mW �. Nimiryfm.vtlrtpurlal¢ JlbcchsYdawrcdi�chumGwnnuolfuvuoduura. i�u md Patl.d mu. J Nfnu m.l�* mam�mxa. rzPVF�aW �rd'dc ad qiqimcpvuM1vpaHtiv � u �.., m�a�w,m �wm., mo�>a w;do, �,w.a 1M* IM1tiN Mr vq uu EX� pv or �ap tbmf v In�eaWaplN.0 Uaet.11pm`Poi�L.st�xe�n �.w.oai�. m tiSpoR oi IIub3 at 6vartb16l�eaye J Ilom� u,e tiesel d m Wbriaea Am pWpcm�m W� ! ¢ec�ck�aad.dvL6mmv� CEm Y 4�� Y w'8m MY kWOm ! N�m hneGa.u'Evry'q.emrm ¢�V�Lr wf vMs11W�MCW14dll�eM"��YmcA �I�bwmumal�,mA�s..uWunp)a4 v �ek. rz�w mm �..k., �x�� vw¢e W tKp A� �n bwv. �4��4sFbMM'm�wlsmok�Wtl1'. Nn'aa1- m�+mtit4lMn m�4 wvE �.Nv.n MnY tFem. Ur .� 5iJe:av u pm�ble h.am mmoL J C4r� anmiw u� Au� vmM di�oe W imJ mw�r m+paioR olw�imd n1 JRRmn.Ru�( _ TiWbih9F�4��tl�qvue 4a imm.d.wy. Ywve ravp:r.dhq ho m repwt a� tl� W 9�m Nms Klmnf wv m¢+1a4. ivvum3 al To rtpm � p1L o0 0 c folbviv� a�cia: I l 0i� 911 mwa loul mu�ery repev��hu. ]) GII m. co..�s ommarem.y�� a�wa, w� cmw. [em� an.vssa 6a m,,,q. 8 J �illep��4vlokaandrtpUp\p�ypdppeu f�Y. l Pa(� m+lo nmwnet �e➢u+. avd+ubii N YP aw.y 6m iamwmu�Jm�it. J�vem(ef 'ma«vetick�wwPamm�i.�aarcemon0e dau.00 uie,diguts. eamplmiY��x.ua�ay 4am aaw tlIYW ml ccslv �no ew�a:,doumu�a�w�m�« J R¢Ytle �4 wL b+umeR �. bmtm upAl4de v�ttqLLubie ! r� .�,m... m„ea �. e.Q �.e.�m a,.au„ Urtml Cmmvma JU.avoeknOamEmvvsem�nt6ueumlm�na ln.alw•m5aaclemuo{mwralv.wwim�vv d..� y..�uF u:oR.,�<cteu�r�npa.�a�.w mK am. o�. ! G.�n and wlavb hssas md manholn wFm e�l_.ine J P�aeclymmor�muvhivallaas-puautl�eEwen� 'd �+4rl�orYraL[ae�+4eie .an�mla. I l:,�cn'ck Enm. Jiidiu, w bcrm u� �li�m imRuwM � rtaoaK�mmmmmoioas�saue�mmimoeas �•�w••�,"sseQ.>,maum�emaro.�d-.ava�«ee rom..m.,i�„�..vad��n„ay �m„�«a�mum�nma,aw�r.w.a..�o.[ai� Icl �nd «c�dc wdiryoc b din �rc�. ! G.er:wc�rlv ma asn ammuctioe maaial..im CmnalBvierPae4'm V�-Iicwp.RuaaGau�aiuLLlaoJVnrttl�umQviW /A4WLnuneaeadfvWUF.ohMhy.�de. �OuuY�aa6a01a4kfha¢�nJb�v � o�aanw �n.,..,nm edn am a.� m.n:� Jvufnmm�.i,rww��.�win�.�.rGmvm�id�ane. (�4.aw�•k)eluea�wcm tim.ueavamum J Clmuo 00 w� md Wl: �R"NS'"meNmsf.im JN1mrtb[ANmrEa�eL4b'yp�tmtinl�xmtll ��0°��'"�'h+e��'^��SWmd'mo.emo4ni- bdooemuw.w3.i0in.mm�L:Wh�mofx�a.ry mualu�il Gomsui�uhain JCull udrsF1<n+PPW��YdWxofmm ��gr,.derme. JOnm��ea0iuslaJmlubrinxwclmnuquipmm�vO�TM IA�atlo�tt-applinwnpymw¢ueLSfe�A�Gmppo�. Lsndscaping, Gazdeiung, and Pool Maintenance � � HmN1u2 ribr 1YedWs :� � = Cmmle�Ruem �� 'Q�ldEmmV��m6wuu�awq5am . JBdCnYmY�ao6Wemswcflm�hSaMyam2 .Pma+.ml�a43d4wWdmIn6lloihae� JflwnaxkpJm�nd bWAmYmGMmaloi+Yvdacora.P� 16am h�d�uvvkamL�mlGeJepmNa(�IahfmEwv ' b �"P�°m.�wLsf �i�avd -.•RmdnmHPmxndr,rvmakuai�fiamwiod vmccdlcemi6clNY<mwciyoubulawm.�av � �Wmwdv�nPunvetyWpcY¢Img Pia(+xn} � JS�wcO�ilnfvi:Yan.mdahc�'LminYOJoa�w ! Senus bo'+olemmtJb �.y ue opo-He vut b ka9 in a ihM w on4� o�'viel vmlbbwvrmm�%�dcaTY6m�mv�.sbim �+ivfayeleuvy Nm�,nivfa4avE�mqC. JNw¢tlemb'mL�aa�u�apaiumulxnmm• JSdxdWe�vdevawtenpiyKy(mpyvy�¢ JN'n�bas�maacrm�asmhiv �ashw�arm '�•e�[normdnis.m�trt�m JU.e 1eY�1m4wEvaLLevuaMLLO�mi�mo�mme JYuiw+lrt2od �^^VaN'eEUYdm+aNVAnaEivenrenRarry qwlsanvndin.LeemmmeWNmudApmedu v�RioemPoem'mvz.c�evu�N.e��p 4wwuuyaim. t��K0.'hme�eaW+�4�a�+.'k..ubAbyPmW^t P+m�fnmNelml�Wnw�uvovvmt��ehenH lPmnzP�dwioks+ip6�ryw,te(m.0mc+ai . . �e.Na�vGNe�e�wuEaaIDm \ ourl�in�iww�e.�wiv. mumuiwan�vwuo,�ue We mmC na�m�MaS �es dacbe. a�tre�m. �raoau.�ev+��av��n�mww.�.�re- +w.�.�ee;,..�ima�er..om,�o„oiro, DWoy Coamoolon aibl�.W cku� �riN �L�,m v aulvm a apoµxuw.ic. .q 1¢. ��Mm��.w•.��n�,.��o,rooniiwvr�.�.ai t�ra�a�rn�mehs�aaos.ot�s +u�n�AaY. �Tud�amm'vluessl�dw�[�aay. GadvymyLa�doYi�lmvi¢ • - ��'xwo�dd.oemie.twd�,�,.a�<oo- is.,�o.ma�•m,m�i�.�000mamrci..� r.mi�w m..mt�,w�.,�...�� u�w�or�d Gop �u�. ! Ptin cbip uul Em� 5vm non-EaaNeo� dry ffiPPuB rmmn� InM �nah. iwbaerl��w.rm�.e.+rvsa�..¢��,wmm u,map�am� �rk+-w�wamummmp.va. ElrymedMutrai JUWm•RwnelV=�iOonemNweroe � .uhGz�mmtirtnvf.adAwn�hemmnYQuu us.w.aa:..ma,.m. JArm 'aypey�a'wvY4mdrivcvqlWtioamvmve �a0. ie�smmGvxNm�a�y�aew+m�oEn ud qah mb E'vt J nxs wymw or aeu ayspo umo-as mwnop. �o cy�twe nuoff��myivRm�ura ¢meqL:Rwe i[ratlwl WhL /a W W Omdd O�+�v r!tl m1 h� mv- �"�°hK' Ym°rJ �bc�mnu,h.'_ y�y. Jn��MantlqusmAmvEmbrtakioL+RmUemo. !R"benM1ioloot�oM�+0.6emem1�WJ1�Mnca I[nYafO�snai4iiwveodmMavtforamwmw�iou " �ddifpmepu0>lY. me�wmxm.n.�aarc.o�.tin�co,00iv,ma: �.v.ae��;e;wwem��te..,�.m,.�..m cAmka+WWeaGamlhul� lRevYuelapv�LUNtalbmtm[aonebu�LmEfill. • ku.u.1.W md'nim4J�aab.+��ov.a�Jw lMakeiuhbmtraW�emm�EmmcmemmnunriW •.16.wAioN �lc0ucd Imis vm6Yw�umE J Dbpms olmll vrom¢ ofmav mY mcra'. Nw�. sbo�nw+.eW 'P��mmrm hvmwkvAmvNawaEo�.SM.a odmmamOetraS • IlmmWvdwdel�..avaA 14M"d�Va�aud[mP.ebm➢M JTk��u�Lo�aJo�uwwbmdm JNwv4una+GJ��lu�unbuwwewbaL � �q vwicEdin Uee Jry s�aw � lClmielPmtmippu6��ec�eeNN�pauEAm JCbIleaYevadB�'+wYPab+.P��6wv�e.oivo� lim� Oun6a�Paivbc�mvmLkaEoraihWY1 mmminSzCtipifnv.ssy.�odmmpns� v . niq.u.W ofn 6�nNm �ny, ✓ UO m pl�ctyad wale iv�vm Ivcmvmieo J WEmYUYPOFeetlmni�Lukriwwi0hYlf twEtihYml�atleteqTJmB.Imc�bpOmFa1{twmF p�muewer.bixkmnAaas.G+AaYa�.ilin vapefirpid�upiv49�mdffivmnuloas.Or.nh �.�d�Wei�rosai.ctr.ra��.swo.amw�.�.m m.wanum.i.o�.„i,rw+m� v�a.o �wiH o 6ed wt V w+ m mika (�v at acual�^6clm�w.rme^upx�mmemiM' JDom�bbsmNebRee.imodeseu. x ��.Ssmp4�y�'I�vmmrybempuWa�mmC +�Yamkviil[dmvan Peal/Famuil9plMaivfmmte J N� 6mc�-+�c�-_^.'-= = S'i �..�erb e�vm ar RarychNmclAlo�apWtwGmcecPmL1� . �_. J MKy[IC m Euye¢ ofays� x�lu}o d qut n t M1amhoWhavNusvatemllevm4c�Lb.m�uR JWbmaq�i5�pol:qqltldhoetlinip�efm5m �LmJSY.Ie'LuvRUYM'.�PrPWms.uwl >dry�Tb�Fk•vM�m6�O+��7mro. bmOe;vP.mEdlWcbmt�Yb[NUaudo[aW� �m4a6vn14hd1aivtt�wMn��mm M¢eieam�wyL��NI. �. I0.eisekro.vafl.qaWV�tWpesaYacnsLLpy J(AlwuwWn+�umr�'LcmdivmpN�o�h�iury ;�oama.�m¢d...mti�..� ,...eCa.u�dMa.��.s��a�idw.�n)M e�.�m.�maya.ea. - �smua�na�+m.mwa..oa:.�mwesmww em� rvK fn✓MFaYvmm�mWPelthlli�isarcYNi^Yrt�F�et ' erhm�dov xaae diryeel Jlb en uc mppv-b�wE d6� Conuul J! xi�L Storm drain polluters ma.y be liable for fines of up to $25 Q00 per da}�! ��"� ��`XSe �"°�'�` ,��.��.�e,�,a,�e� �.�e,v.�e��.�� o��.�.��x.axne.eae>�,m,��v'eor .wn�r�o.adbm.....a.wmrpo�. P�Y RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Desiqn Review, Variances for floor area ratio and front setback and Special Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existinq single familv dwellinq at 1444 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, Jim and Barbara Millett, propertv owners, APN: 026-044- 140; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on April 12, 2010, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15301 (e)(1), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said Design Review, conditions set forth in Variances and Special said meeting. Variances and Special Permit are approved subject to the Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of 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 12th dav of April, 2010 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Variances and Special Permit. 1444 VancouverAvenue Effective April 22, 2010 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 26, 2010, sheets A-1 through A-8, L1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 6, 2009 and January 21, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's November 18, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 9, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's November 4, 2009 and December 22, 2009 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 4, 2009 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio Variance and Front Setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Variances and Special Permit. 1444 VancouverAvenue Effective April 22, 2010 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. . CITY OF BURLINGAME i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �;��:��."e� BURLINGAME, CA 94010 " � a�-��'�' �"" - �,; �'��`�. �� '� PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) ��,,��'�� ;f - www.burlingame.org � ;�a' '.�-�-°�" °� ��,�� --By.i -^ �� •. - d F� Site: 1444 VANCOUVER AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2010 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chamhers, 501 Primrase Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review, floor Area Ratio Variance, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1444 VANCOUVER AVENUE zoned R-1. APN 026-044-140 Mailed: April 2, 2010 (Please refer to other side) 0�6H��60432� � ��.�� m��,�ed F��m �a01v �� PC1�! �i�� PU�LIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of ��erlina� A copy of the application and pl'ans for�this pro�ect may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Commun�ity Developmenfi Depa'rtmenf'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 noti;ce or,;i'n written corresponden'ce delivered,;to the city at or :. prior to the public hearing. , ' ' Property owmers who rece�ve this nc�tice are responsible„for informing their tenants about this notice. , For additional information,; please calL (650)'558 7250 Thank'you. , William Meeker Community Development Director ` "' �UBL1C HEARING NOTICE (please refer to e!her side) � ,�P I 4�� '�'"'"� �,�`� �`�,`".� ` ��''�''`�"" � K `, �*� ��,. � � ;� � �° � � �Ye S�Y' � i � �,� ,� .� � _� � � µ�` � � �`"� � ��`" � � � � ° M',� . �i��'` ' x ��; � �. � ��,.� �. � •�."� `�� ,�� ','' • ��, �+ ',� � , , � ' " �� ;>�r . % • �'.� ,%� . , � � ` �` i a -. ! � 'kJ6 � "��x�^'`. �„"i� ,�� J�m. '� � �� y�'� ��,�� °�`� / •'�'�^`�� .^v'� '� ° . , � a �. � <d". 1►� ' ��'� � s ;� � : , • , . ., f . . .F�. ' � .y � r • , `�,. . ": - . �p K� �'. •; qy �. � ��j '� ,�� i Y . .. .. ..' ,.. ✓ � ':°` � � • �`� r„�� A� ,� f` u� � ,�� ,r � �. � �' r,� �� :,, , i w+�i� � ` . ��`'q,,. w . � , . ..� �. . ° � ,trq,�� . � . .� �A � ,„.� � i a�'..,t`�,yi' t� o ' ��,,,,, q. J�y� �j i , � `� 3� �' '.(, . �;� � . c�J .�t. ^�:.' 4�� ,,�. � �*�`f.; �> �"..�,M . ��>.�' � �>., \ � � 's� �'�' � : ' � ',j�i'y . s7 o ' � , i T '�r,� . T � y � �'t' � �� : f� z � . �.. � ' � :1� � r� � � 1ib� 9 �. 1 � :*, �' �,-,tt� . � ,t ? - ..L ! � } •�y �ry � � i �'� � , a>. f ° �,� � ��!' ' 4 � °� � � � P ^ �-g�.y � �• ^,. ' � "� $Jl1y y•d� ��` � d"g .�:'t� �k� , �..�.. � � � Ps ,* �y �`�:. � ��,f� `- i. �:" � ..�''R� � �✓: '� ,�y t. � e�.�' _ � '�'�, • , r�' � .�� •%� r ' � � � �� :�r „� �, , �d�� s � i '�. . ,� . � �,p t � , r( � �' c.� '� � � . e ' �i �e�' �„ �' �r � � �.{� � . "! �_� ��. � �n.�',�;; .. �� , 4,.. % � �'h�a a� . r°,� , tt � r" � ;� ` � ....: �,� . � � � � i 's �� "i " jit'$^g T,f . � � *f� d d � -�• � .' , �* •. t � � , ."�"�' � �,;�„�, �.t �> ,,,'� ':sc ,r{�'� d�,R tt''� ` Sl � ��.' e ,� " .� �> a; _,+� � � �. s , � � �� ° z� �' � • �� , . a�.r � .;. p � y� ��j t��e� _�" � . � : � � �p�., �- "` , et7 ti� ` � a.t4� � � '��'�e, ��t $" � z � i � _ „�_ ,� s,�. z � �^�,,�'� ��,� � �W 7�� _ «� �;.. t�'�'��Y r� - �� BC "'�� J'� _ , . % , 6� ,. {�q f � p � ,� �, A' d � . �� a. � F +A � Kjc�'a�,�r� d x . • h . , �r - � � � x v, »s ~ � � TR'} � A � � � � 'i�� 'A�" g� i4� � s�- � �ay�' „� �. ^ . ..�` ,, 1 t� � � r '7 . � �:t^ � `� ...�,. y`, ��°`� � � � i� �'r �;:�'��" .r �' � � i r�� .,. � #^ ,� r � �,. � � � �.� . a%" jr° � �•� �� M«� *�. �� } � r t �. � _ r . � �v�� F �`.�.. �+ � � ,.. Y E R�� . .� �. "i. ,.y : i.��^Q� ' � `a�� i� �. .`d *• �,�l.. �� f� i^" � `^d � c.� I" �i � 'w . '�/ `'� I e ,,,: i: �� '. IX E 'iy; ��aT «w�. ,S, �a �.�ti�. �': ,�t � �� ,r�:a�� ;�,. � WY °' d f y` ri�' �'M, � �.r I'� . a , �� e;,.:l� ' � • .1� f � -, � . b _�. !' � y ., � �r. Yr '� � '�s,' �("� '.� ?`�r'v. w {� ��.i %' ,.,� � .� � � � , � �,� �+' � � z�� # �� ♦� #.:� ,'A� ��e�� , � i'� � �� , � '�� 9.; . � 1 � � , yry , . '. I, J�`'��a, , f � 4 P ". �, . � .r *,fi'� �� `� �� P I .• �� ` �� ,� �'1 � �� .�� `° � �$ :.,+- ..s�,�►/ � � a k .i . I�� "`t� �'`� �' � ` � ._Ty' .. '�.c,`nz�'�'1 r �b r. � � � #�,', �° , �. s�l��a < < �• �! _'�, �, .r l� �.Pft � ��. eC'� ''�� f . _ ��v� �� +Y� �a,� ��: .'�� ,;:'tNsv�� *,� .. x: �� i '�,..y e : � f '�+t�`p„ �nJ � �` f, � '� "r �� s�� .' S� � `g-'n�"�,��> ,� �y� � �" % � �r . :. � ^�y�5� � w ' i ��. �, . , � �, v� , . '�, � s `+t - ' � i .. � . :/� � i �� yM �� '.I ,�� + ,� .- `� �� x '' '� . , , , ,�� : ,. , �J ,� , � � � � �`��.. �,. � <r ;. ,�. � , . .,.. • . .,- ,�.�..t � �'".• '�k � � � . �� , '�� ,, �.� / ' �f� %�' , .� . . .��'� ';� �, ,,� . ,n .!�;; � f � I. ,'` /~� ' . �'Kd` �' . �� "� �� "_ . �,✓ . .. + c , �, �;, ` � .'� + �k�'.�. � � ,;` 4J � r`�" �, � �' �� n .: 3� q.� , , e , �� . � .• � ,� :e r � � r� � �► ��' .�C ��"� .s �.s� � � "'�"� �'�,'.P4'�,�t� �. �� J fl� � '8," � ,. `� �, ,. . '�'k\� � , s ar�l`'�.. /� � � � � d' x � ! �.t . . ; � ' �� { .�� '" ' � �`3. � ` ' � �' �,' � ` s \ � '�.� xb.h , A �`.�,?�� y � t s��'ar ` �`�i� '� �+i `a�`'� � .,�� C m '� .�� , -A � \\ �' a �A � � 'r s� . � '1� .e + i `.i:,: µ� t � ��. .' f�� ,"� 4 iy+i.'k� �°' � , , � , .r ., � � . �.. i , � ! � f * � . _ , , ` � p� . \� �q � 1 } . i� . �, rJ � ! . Y '+ a � � w/ , ,r , . . rh. F z,i} .. '� C �- I i� �'� ' qr � : i , � � � �� ,'. _ ` . : � ¢ '� . , . Mk- .ay�: 'A" # �J. . . ,� � . . i a, A * � � . �, % " �' �'i,` 1, yir' '' � h, '"i:� ��Y� �'�' y� . , � "� � ,a ' . . � � , � s �. " � �'r'�� `�� "�1" �'' � ,.�' � ��, � .�" s �it y�5 . ! . ' � '� ,� . =.g ='� � ,„.y �' ti , ,!•' t� . •� �� .;�4. ��u � if ��'�• +�� .4 � .Y � �r; �,�`�'�i '� -«A► 4 � - � �", � �,� �;�� , � �{ ' � . . � �� . `�'�. �'y 'ti1` � �� ,�' ' . . . r � , \ � F. , i �� '✓ ��. '" "� R1 '�'�'��i �:� °r"i.} 'f ., L' r. � �' �A� { ' W w'�". '�,` � � � rw � • g reg P� •,k.. '> � '�'� a $f� ','@"'R-* ��t y � � ,. ^ A � . .. �. � � . � 1,. > �4 t �°�. t�� : #� �,� .. � .�' f F. w,r.' „/,� � r. � . .:; � �c+ � �. ��:^ ��;J��`��' � Mj��'� � ��.F� / ` . �.§ j � �' . �r ` � � .�{ ,�' � � �'' � � x. 6'� s � �x, 'R �'r r : �- 4 �.. i ��i M�. �r� �, ;�.^�. � l�5'� �, �`i � �li � � � , � � � . � . �,,e '� .� � � . � �� %�j � • �R . .. r- - . �} :.,, . .,,, � ��.�� '� .nd,.� �a y ,..,,, ~ !� 't ',�/ �A�"'' �:^� �`" ,�mi .�. " �,,�� < � a�;. .v � . . �� "�1 �� .. �". xa" . ' � �C ' � � ,�1 � � '� t � �,,. ,*4� . � � �� - �, '�. ` �j � f"' y r ��l` . '. 4�� . . , '« � t+� ?t..� � �... « q�:r� �ly. � . ', . � � �" � � a s+a � t r �,`�' �.� ,1�= �� ' ,�� ,Y .t � �a, ��. y � y�� 1x� � '� 'r ;'��`. . �, �a'� ��J r *�� - ��"�;� � . �� a � » > � ,� �' ..�'r�'• �'' ' �"^,� tS 4r , � : ' S! , ` �. F " X �. . _ " � , � �: f �: �� s �., . , � ' w.er .t� t . ..A' _\ ,.yMy� ..µ h - ' . �:"' } � Y,F S �, +� � � �Vs � � ��,r� � fii ��f �� ' � ., • y �' � � / I I � � � � �► k a;� rg < . • , ,:� �,�� w �,r� � 3� ,,,� ,fi„ ,�� d� �. �s , � �e � _ � ., ,�"`, �;:.r �.'.'"�,�. ";:. �� .. "r - - . �? . -r��<'� � . C��: �` - Y"'� �' �` � ''.