The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1532 Cypress Avenue - Staff ReportItem # Action Calendar City of Burlingame Amendment to an appYoved Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a Second Story Addition Address: 1532 Cypress Avenue Meeting Date: 10/28/02 Request: Amendment to an approved design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a second story addition at 1555 Cypress Avenue, zoncd R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040 and C.S. 25.51.010) Property Owner: Anne Harrington Applicant: John Richardson Designer: Swanberg Associates, Krisjon Swanberg, Principal APN: 028-294-120 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 5,000 SF Date Submitted: July 16, 2001 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per 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. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. History: At the February 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 5-0-2(Cmrs. Keele and Osterling absent) to approve a design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a second-story addition at 1532 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant has been issued a building permit for this project, but would like to make changes to the design that was approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting the followin� changes to the approved design: Front Elevation �rst floor) 1) replace existing picture windows located on each side of the front entry with bay windows that will match the new windows on the second floor; 2) reconfigure the front entry porch by moving the entrance from the side to the front, install new front door. Sheet A.1 shows the revised site plan, floor plan and elevations proposed. Attached behind this sheet is the full set of approved plans, with the approved front elevation shown on sheet A.S. The changes proposed on the first floor front elevations meet all code requirements. The revisions to the approved plans would increase the floor area of the remodeled house from the approved square footage of 2,725 SF to 2,743 SF (0.54 FAR), where 2,989 SF (0.59 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The lot coverage would not increase as a result of these changes because Code Section 25.28.073(1)(b) exempts bays windows from lot coverage and front setbacks provided they project no more than 1'6" into the front setback and have a footprint not exceeding 20 SF. The revisions are within the required front setback of 17'2", which is the block average. Listed below is a revised project summary table. PROPOSED APPROVED EXISTING ALLWEDJ REVISION PROJECT REQ'D 10/17/02 2/11/02 SETBACKS Front: 17'2" 20'-0" 20'-0" 15'-0" or Ist flr No change 40'-0" 40'-0" 2nd flr block average 17'2" 20'-0" Desi �n Review Amendment /532 Cv ress Avenue PROPOSED APPROVED EXISTING ALLWED/ REVISION PROJECT REQ'D 10/17/02 2/11/02 Side (left): lsr�r No change 11'.33" 11.33' 4'-0" 2„d�r 9.83' N/A Side(right): Isr flY No change 2.57'* 2•5�'* 4'-0" 2,:a�r 4. S T N/A Rear: Ist flr No change 36'-0" 36'-0" 15'-0" 2nd flr 36'-0" N/A 20'-0" LOT No change 35.1% 37.6% 40% COVERAGE: (1,759 SF) (1,884 SF) (2,000 SF) FAR: 2,523 SF/ 2,505 SF/ 1,839 SF/ 2,989 SF/ 0.50 FAR 0.50 FAR 0.36 FAR 0.59 FAR PARKING: 1 covered 1 covered 1 covered No change (10'-0" X 20'-0") (10'-0" X 20'-0") (10'-0" x 20'-0") + 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered HEIGHT: No change 27'-3" 1 g,_�„ 2'/Zstories/ 30' whichever is less DH No change Special Permit N/A See code ENVELOPE: Required� * Existing non-conforming 1 Spccial Permit for Declining Height Envelope Approved 2/11/02 - 77 SF (22' x 3'6"= 77 SF) along the right side extends beyond the declining height envelope. Staff Comments: See attached. Planning Staff would like to note that this project did go through design review, but none of the changes proposed are contradictory to the design reviewer's recommendation. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Design Review Amendmen� 1532 Cypress Avenue Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. 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 Department date stamped January 28, 2002, sheets A.1 through A.6, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; with the changes that the trellis over the driveway shall be removed, the two support members at the front of the trellis which support the gate may be retained but these posts and any portion of the gate shall be lowered to a maximum height of 7 feet on or within 2 feet of the property line; and amended plans sheet A.1, dated stamped October 17, 2002 showing the addition of two bay windows at the front and the reconfiguration of the front porch; 2. that the inside window on the left side of the second floor of the east (front) elevation shall be shifter to the left, away from the door and closer to the outside windows, so that the left side of the elevations is more symmetrical with the right side of that floor's elevation; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the proj ect, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, and changes to window/door placement or size, shall be subject to design review. 4. that the conditions of City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Recycling Specialist's July 16, 2001 memos shall be met; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requircmcnts of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Catherine Barber Planner John Richardson, applicant ROUTING FORM DATE: TO: M�3�]T� October 21, 2002 City Engineer t�Chief Building O�cial Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for amenclment to an approved design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a second story addition at 1532 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-294-120. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, October 21, 2002 �,��1 Reviewed By: � � �.rT�( ��i �a�'�� '�7 ��, � � -�," �_ . Date of Comments: ROUTING FORM DATE: February 4, 2002 TO: _City Engineer ✓Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition at 1532 Cypress Road, zoned R-1, APN: 028-294-120. ROUTING FORM DATE: July 16, 2001 TO: _City Engineer ✓Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a second story addition at 1532 Cypress Road, zoned R-1, APN: 028-294-120. ROUTING FORM DATE: July 16, 2001 TO: _City Engineer Chief Building Official � Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a second story addition at 1532 Cypress Road, zoned R-1, APN: 028-294-120. ROUTING FORM DATE: October 21, 2002 � TO: ✓ City Engineer _Chief Building Off'icial Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff �UBJECT: Request for amendment to an approved design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a second story addition at 1532 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-294-120. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, October 21, 2002 ROUTING FORM DATE: February 4, 2002 TO: ✓ City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition at 1532 Cypress Road, zoned R-1, APN: 028-294-120. f1T A TT TTZ1TT�tT 1! 1 T 1 A '1/�/1'1 � i c�i i i�u v ii: ry . ivivLivay� i c�i ua� y 7� cvvc. � �l V� C=��t�'�� '��`�t� , Reviewed By: �� Date of Comments: 2l` �� v I ROUTING FORM DATE: July 16, 2001 TO: � City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request far design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a second story addition at 1532 Cypress Road, zoned R-1, APN: 028-294-120. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS The following requirements apply to the project 1 2 5 L� �,�,� Project Name• �� -c..o�,2 � �'� ti� ProjectAddress:_jS3"L c:-�/j?�(-�,3 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.) ,/ 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 shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. ✓ 5 A sanitary sewer lateral test 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 COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel 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 shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of thc Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall, 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 shall 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-year 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 com 1 with the Cit 's NPDES ermit re uireme P Y y p q nt 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 proposin� 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 gazbage 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 COMMENTS.doc ROUTING FORM DATE: February 4, 2002 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal ,/ Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story acidition at 1532 Cypress Road, zoned R-1, APN: 028-294-120. ROUTING FORM DATE: July 16, 2001 TO: _Ciry Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal ✓ Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a second story addition at 1532 Cypress Road, zoned R-1, APN: 028-294-120. Citv of Burlingum�� Plunnin� C'ornmission Minz�les February 11, 2002 5. 1532 CYPRE`�S AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT I;OR DECLINING ��EIGHT ENVELUPE FnR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (KRISJON SWANBERG, SWANBERG ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ANNE HARRINGTON, PROPERTY (�WNER) (60 NOZ'ICED) PROJECT YLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report 02.11.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. She noted that since the staff report �ad been prepared the Chief Building Inspector had returned to the office and noted ti�ai tile trellis e:�cr �he ciriveway extends the house to property line which is uot allowed today under the CBC. Since the fa�ade of the house on that side is proposed to be changed (added windo�� on wall under the trellis and some sections of cantilever over the trellis) the nonconforming trellis must be removed as a part of this project. CP Monroe suggested an amendment to condition one to require removal of the trcllis anci to reduce the support post for the gate along the side property line to 7 feet. The four conditions in the staff report also were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Anne Harrington, property owner, noted that she had tried to address all the concerns of the Planning Commission and tlie neighbors in the project. Commission noted there is a little design tension at the front fa�ade on the second floor because the window and door at the left side are so close together; can the window be shifted further froin the door so that the left side appears more symmetrical with the right side of the tront elevation; did the applicant consider changing out the windows which are original on the first floor. The applicant responded that she can agree to shifting the window on the left side to increase symmetry and that the windows on the iirst floor were not going to be changed because they were part of the original house. Dianne Condon-Wirgler, 1536 Cypress Avenu�, noted that this is her third visit to the Planning Commission to discuss this proposed proiect; she feels as if her concerns and the Commission's concerns still have not been address by the proposed project; the design of the addition is boxy and the style of the house does not fit in the neighborhood; there are only a total of 13 houses in all of Burlingame with similar style architecture and they are primari.y located near California Drive; there are no other cantilever designs in the immediate neighborhood; the proposed addition is bulky and will be visible from three blocks away. There were no further commeiits from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: understand the neighbor's concerns; this house certainly doesn't match any others in the neighborhood; however, the desi�n of the addition is consistent with the existing house and the Commission has no authority to ask the applicant to redesign the architectural style of the existing house when only a second story is proposed; the applicant has been thro�gh the design review process and rnade changes requested by the Commission, consultant, and neighbors; have toured the neighborhood and agree that the existing home is distinctive, however the addition is well-designed and fits the existing architectt�re; would like to see a condition added to ensure that the proposed gate across the driveway is electric so the covered parking w�ill be more accessible; the applicant has removed one cantilever in the redesign, removing the second cantilever would result in a boxy and'ess-articulated addition; design would be enhanced if the first floor windows were replaced; applicant has extra fl�or area from the removal of the trellis and might consider going bacic to the drawing board with this design. C. Keiglu-an noted she is familiar with this neighborhood, and this house is different from the norm, but the existing house is different and the applicant is not remodeling the first floor, if the applicant was altering the first floor, the commission wou?d �:w�.�� ,nore opti��r� tc; •,�ork with; the existing house is square, the applicant has done a relatively good job blending the addition into the original style of the house; it is too �nuch to ask the applicant to redo the first story in order to add a second story, so the applicant must blend the second 4 :y of Burlin�ame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2002 story into the first; the applicant needs the remaining cantilever on the second floor to break up the mass of the house; would like to amend the conditions to include the addition regarding removal of the trellis, to move the widow on the left side of the door on the front farade to increase the symmetry on that fa�ade, and to require that the gate across the drive way be made electric so that it can be opened and closed from inside a car and inside the house; she also noted that changing out the original window on the front of the house so that they matched the new windows would improve the entire appearance of the project; she then moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department datc stamped January 28, 2002, sheets A.1 through A.6, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; with the change that the trellis over the driveway shall be removed, the two support members at the front of the trellis which support the gate may be retained but these posts and any portion of the gate shall be lowered to a maximum height of 7 feet on or within 2 feet of property line; 2) that the inside window on the left side of the second floor of the east (front) elevation shall be shifted to the left, away from the door and closer to the outside window, so that the left side of the elevations is more symmetrical with the right side of that floor's elevation; 3) that any gate or closure extending across the driveway between the front property line and the face of the garage shall have an electronic opener designed to be operable from inside a car and from inside the house; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the project, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, and changes to window/door placement or size, shall be subject to design review; 5) that the conditions of City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Recycling Specialist's July 16, 2001 memos shall be met; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as ainended by the City of Burlingame. C. Auran seconded the motion. Comment on the inotion: does the maker of the motion want to include a condition that original first story windows be replaced; the maker of the motion noted that replacement ofthese windows is a suggestion only and not a condition of approval. If the applicant decides to replace first story windows during the course of the project, sl�e can return to the Commission far a design review amendment. C1lairman Vistica called for voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 voic� vote (Cers. Keele and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:54 p.m. 6. 1369 BERNAL AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — AI�'PLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND HEIUHT VARIANCES FOR A FIRST �i�iL SECOND STORY ADDITION (GARY R. DIEBEL, DIEBEL & COMPANY, APPLICANT, �RCHITECT, AND PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report 02.11.02, with attachinents. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff coininents. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. It was noted that a letter opposing the project was before the Commission as a desk item. Commission asked: there was a project proposed at this location approximately tw�o years ago, what height was pr�posed thcn? CP Monroe responded that information for past proposals is not included in the current staff report because if the projects are not built, they are considered terminated. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, representing the owner, and Gary Diebel, applicant, owner, and architect for the project, were present to answer questions. Mr. Hudak noted that the applicant has complied with the requests of the �'ommission by submitting a landscape plan, erecting story poles, and submitting the front elevation outlines of the neighboring houses. He feels the severe slope on the lot justities the height variance. � �`' "�`_�' City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org �r` ciTr o� BURLINGAlAE �"'�,..m....•'� Type of application: Project address:� APPLICATION�Tp,�THE PLANNING COMMISSION �� r` � Design Review` � Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit � _ Other Parcel Number: � ,✓i, f' APPLICANT � ame: �,;;hn /��lcicr�l✓:� ,, � Address: �.��% � ��r�_ �,�+r/��,�-r'� City/State/Zip: �; /�� /.; /j ��; : r�� Phone (w): i- � j_:'.i " z- �� i 5'��"r ��1�: /. + � I �i'�,f / �` � "--/ta' �fl: 2�� .; ,��% � iS'� �' ARCHITECT/DE5IGNER �� Name: %�% :. ��;� ,�- ,�, �, Address: �:� :� � � i � "� ;� City/State/Zip: ��,is ��,-, ;; <.1.�� i<< i'�'/'�j � Phone (w): �i'�� :; /.} �-' X/�?/ (h): %/�" � �'t; �"� �% %/ �� RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, �PROPERTY OWNER Name: !�. r� �� f`r%��:; %c-�. Address: �' i "'? �' �,, ,� ''P_ fi � � �'�t' City/State/Zip:�; ��, r•/;%�- � i t�' �: �. Phone (w):,� -� �S �1'1 �"' % % �� , (h); h'�` �� ; -7 % - � a"�; �. ��• Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. DESCRIPTION: ��ti �� y• t- �'�7•� � �' -�, s-'r , =-l�' 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: -� ;> - Date:_�v- � i • �%-� I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. � - Property owner's signature: � , �-- Date: � c�, �, `;. - ; �, --L � - • Date submitted: /b'- �� ' ~- PCAPP.FRM Design Review Comments City of Burlingame Revisions Properly Owner: Applicant Name: Designer: Project Address: Planne�: Date of Review: Anne Harrington Krisjon Swanberg Krisjon Swanberg 1532 Cypress Avenue :��;�lVED Catherine Keylon 4 February 2002 Revisions are in bold italics Design Guidelines 2. - -_ � - 5 2002 I' � ?i- BURLINGAME ;��Ii!�dG DEPT COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The existing residence is located in a quaint neighborhood with a lot of thought to design in their residences. There are a variety of styles and materials used in the neighborhood. Adjacent is a beautifully remodeled 2 story shingled home, across the street there are wood siding homes and stucco structures throughout the street. This existing home is a flat roofed stucco home with a parapet. There is an attractive trellis over the driveway, front picture windows and double hung windows on the side elevations. The front porch was converted to an interior space circa 1970 with yellow opaque glass. The street has a couple of badly remodeled homes, but as a rule, the neighborhood has not lost its charm. RESPECT FOR THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. In keeping with the character of the existing house and neighborhood, the garage will remain detached at the rear of the yard. 3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CONSISTENCY AND MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. The designer has taken a small bungalow with a parapet, and added a second floor set back so as to reduce the impact from the street. He has incorporated the existing detail of the parapet, the terra cotta vents, the wood windows, and the wooden trellis into the proposed addition. In the revisions proposed, the south elevation of the second floor is cantilevering over the first floor, supported by wooden corbels The lowest portion ove� the driveway is minimum 8'-0'; which is higher than the existing trellis, therejore, it will not be an obstacle for Hanington Residence 1532 Cypress Avenue Page 2 of 3 parking cars in the driveway. The north elevation has been revised, setting back the second floor to stay within the setback prescribed Also, the proposed Laundry Room window on the first floor has been eliminated due to code restrictions. 4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. The residences to either side of this proposed addition have a driveway between the houses, leaving a separation at least 10 feet between residences. Each of the neighbor's residences is two stories. The designer has added interest to the elevations by placing each elevation in different planes. The proposed second floor has a minimum of windows, retaining privacy for each of the neighbors. 5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. There are existing hedges on each side of the residence acting as separation from the neighboring houses. There is a single magnolia as a street tree. There is an e�usting wooden trellis at the left side of the house which will probably be filled with flowers in the spring and summer months. Also, there are proposed trellis' at the second floor balconies which will have the capability to drape plants, thus softening the addition. 6. 1N THE CASE OF AN ADDITION, COMPATABILTY WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS REMODELED. As previously noted, the proposed addition incorporates many elements from the existing residence, as well as adding new details typical of this type home. The origina[ character of the house is quite boxy. The designer has worked with the original lines and elements of the residence to comply with that origina! intent. CONCERNS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION & NEIGHBORHOOD: The Declining Height Envelope Special Permit requested: The designer has brought back the second Jloor from the north to fall within the setbacks required This brings the second floor back a few feet, but not enough to eli»unate the need fo� the special permit for D.H.E. If this roof slope were changed to accommodate the D.H.E., it would not be in conjunction with the bozier look the house has currently. It would change the entire flavor of the residence. The designer has worked c[osely to achieve a balance in retaining the original design by incorporating the lines and elements of the original house. North side Setback: The designer has brought the second jloo� plane at the north elevation back to S'-0"from the property line. This is no longer an issue. Second Floor Cantilever @ Driveway: The lowest part of the cantilever over the driveway is 8'-0': It is also higher than the existing trellis, under which the�y��, �� E D currently parks her large S. U. V. ( � E B - 5 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANfJING DEPT. Harrington Residence 1532 Cypress Avenue Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATIONS: I feel the Design Review issues raised at the P.C. meeting of January 14, 2002, have been addressed In order to fall within the D.H.E., the house would take on a completely different design, which would not be compatible to the original design of the residence. The designer has brought the second floor plane in from the previous[y proposed scheme. This revision also eliminates the concern of not confor»ting to the restricted setback on the north side of the property. �.��r��I � Catherine . Nil eyer RLI.r��U FEB - 5 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DFPT ,ir� cir w BURUN�AMi CITY OF BURLINGAME �� APPLICATION TO Tf� PLANNING CONIlVIISSION ��, ..� Type of Application:�Special Permit Variance Other Project Address:_ �3 � �.I Y��.f! Assessor's Parcel Number(s): �%�� 2�1 �� /2� APPLICANT � Name: �1.�'JG'�'� �f'i.✓�a�i�� Address: _ (� �A ��C %?6 � �� City/State/Zip: ��- � �] �'1 l 4 �% Phone (w): � � � ` � DG � 0� � �h�: �S�G ��,1' �l 0 7 PROPERTY OWNER Name: VY1, .r' (�-Yt�1� I � �-: �g �� Address: I��- CL1 P►'� sJ' � City/State/Zip:_� � YC-!� ✓7 Phone (w): c��: �'� �-� � . �-�? fax: .(� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name:_ �G+'�is'JO^ .�'�,�r�-r,Rc� Address:_ l�. �� d� ��w �� / �.ir City/State/Zip: ►�U�2v1 n�yo-�, �1 . Phone (w): �l l.t�' C �� (G� �h�: ��- 3�S'�' �2 D � fax: Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. fax: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: n�..� 2hf� J'� �p��%► AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I �� certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to t est pf my knowledge and belief. 1.�� Signature'" � Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. , i'' / _ , ._ �� Property Owner's Signature Date ----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ------------------R E C E I V E Q Date Filed: 7 I�� I�' i Fee: �� G� `1 S. L�:> JUL 1 6 2001 Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. a . ��, cirr �� BURLINOAME ��,i.e A The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neiglzborhood. �� ►�SS s Sc•�-� � G� -1-C�- �J£�� S'Tizv c-r ��,�. @ T� S��✓J �°� �—�vEt" �S' G"� ,'�,»'�-rGt� S' �-T"L� ldnGl��"�G-tvr�J� p� �� f YLS`T �-�p�-Z, . Tld'L. ►�IF.t,.J �riYC.13-P�—]- l�./ll.t. �.w7q�T'ri1B 'ik�'�. E,�C1 S'C'/,'LC� ��t,/a /�� . 4tti� ►�t l��,.J LJ► n�OW J �Jl �,�., H'r+�'t� �� 1 S`C i rz L✓l ►�✓.> OL1 S= —`f l�-F�rt,+� �pr2 p�� r, � G8 �1S-.' f"1-r�. 'C �Vl �t�.. � ✓J�ij �3o�T.!!� � . 2. Explain how tlze variety of roof line, facade, ext,eriorfinish materials and elevations of the proposed neiv structure or additiort a�e consistent fvith the existing structure, street and neighborhood. Tid� n� �� +►� �-� -na-�+E n.1��.,� s�co� �oorc, ,�,rr��„ �2 c.ra'�, �..✓� vt, �.✓N�-t-C�J T►d� �'� 5—L � n � , ��'� (�'� � • �� r1 Et..� �ar�n�T w t c.� �� !� S�'C U cr.o .� j�vj ,S1a. ra�,� ryvtn��e-- �-yd�. �x`�►►'�� ; ►-Z.�s►�- 3. Hoiv will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C. S. 25. 57) ? �j�(� �'LOt1�G�C V,/1.l-t, .1� G'Of'�5��•�-�-T L✓�'t'1� 'rk3'� G1�'rLS L,-su�l"�%�J' l ri ��q-C �-� r�� S�CC'�-v'J SrC0�2+� �J✓» i Ul Q✓1. • 1 S' � ��C� ��-c�ot`�� S?� cr�-�Jl�-r� Ua �C'C�2 � 6 S�[ �L,. e � I S � LJ' a J'�"[, � CK- �Yt-I2,�, '�� ) �i tzd`[ Fr�ov� 3�.cl.t� 6.-L. � L�LtR, . 4. Explain hoiv the removal of any trees located wuhin the footpri�t of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent wilh the city's reforestation requirements. Whal mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. no �z.� �✓ � �-e.+�-► � RECEIVED JUL 1 6 2001 sp.frm/11/98 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characterislics of tlze new construction or addition are consistent with ilae existing striccture's design and with ihe existing street a�ad neighborhood. How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those propertiesl If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties. Neigboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new .structure or addition are consistent with the existing- structure, street and neighborhood. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhoodl If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl Explain why your proposal "fits" in the neighborhood. How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of "character" as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential� design guidelines adopted by the city? . Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet these guidelines7 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 4. Explain how ihe removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure :nr,addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explczin why this mitigation is appropriate. Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposall If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are "protected" under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so. sp.fim/11/98 _._ ..... . ,�r�' "T" o�, CITY OF BURLINGAME eu�uN �►t�E PLANNING DEPARTMENT _ • � • ��• � • ''501'PRIMROSE ROAD BURLWGAME; CA 94010 ;�„�,,,,,,,, �'`� ' TEL (650) 55&7250 �».1532 CYPR$SS AVENU$ :_'App3ication`for amendment to an approved de"sign review and :special permit for a`. i� �' second ,story�.additiori at`:-1532 Cypress PUBL�C nEAR'NG� : Auenue, zoned R-1. .(APN: �028-294-120) � NOTICE :< The .�.City� of Burlingame Planning. ' �� i� � . . , _ _ __ �.C�mmission.announces the-following.-._ .� :public hearing on"Monday, October 28, I �' 2002 at•7:00 P.M. in the City.Hall. Council Chainbers located:at 501 Primrosq ; Road, Burlingame, California.' j _ _ i ;- Mailed -October. 18;� ;2002 '. ; (Please refer to other side) , , _ , , .� : ,a._— - . — - � , � - -- - _� - <<-- - - - - - CITY OF��IIRLINGAME �: :; � A copy of the applica '.-an ��s��'� � rcr� � ay be reviewed pnor , ��to �ttie'f ineeting ;a �� la tu�g�D�a�ntv 1.-Primrose Road; _ - � Burlingame, Cal' rt� � � �� , � �� '� t�� . . ` ��' ��a�^^� ��w� � � � � . � If xou. "chall ge .�� »��t��at�� n�€f�t�, Qu ma be limited to 1 - z,� � � '� raising+onl hos ,"ssues .c� ��ri�e i�� j:�aisecl a�'�he tilic hearing, - `c�esc�ibed i° �a c, t� n�a ". d c: �ue' d to the city,_ �at or pnor t t � ' ,�� 4 : _ C Ai '�. 1 `�' : , <i, fi. ?� . f A : - `Property o, ers 4 r i,�� , o� `:� responsi ar-i orining their -tenants �ab t thi no i ;�� a"l.�informatio ple e� call _(65Q); ' �'S58 7'250 :� f ank ,gu. ' � � � ` � : - � ��z� , '� t � ,_. f� _ � � � ;`�� _ 'Mazgaret o�� .�� ;� � . � � � � .`City Planner ..�, ` ��t ,� !� ` ;�.. ,.�,�:;;�� , = � �:.PUB �� . � ,�� • } ICE . � _ � ' ; (Please refer to other side) R ��, RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has bcen proposed and application has been made for desi�n review amendment to an approved design review and special permit for declinin� height envelope for a second floor addition at 1532 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, Anne F. Harrin tg on, property owners, APN: 028- 294-120; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 28, 2002, 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. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review amendment is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review amendment are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Ralph Osterlin�, 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 28th day of October, 2002 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and special permit. 1532 Cypress Avenue effective November 4, 2002 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 28, 2002, sheets A.1 through A.6, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; with the changes that the trellis over the driveway shall be removed, the two support members at the front of the trellis which support the gate may be retained but these posts and any portion of the gate shall be lowered to a maximum height of 7 feet on or within 2 feet of the property line; and amended plans sheet A.1, dated starnped October 17, 2001 showing the addition of two bay windows at the front and the reconfiguration of the front porch; 2. that the inside window on the left side of the second floor of the east (front) elevation shall bc shifter to the left, away from the door and closer to the outside windows, so that the left side of the elevations is more symmetrical with the right side of that floor's elevation; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the project, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, and changes to window/door placement or size, shall be subject to design review. 4. that the conditions of City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Recycling Specialist's July 16, 2001 memos shall be met; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. � � ' /±, � � _* -:,��: .: .r��,� � ,t " � ^' � �� , . ��'V��'' �. � � Ij '. %'J �_>; .• � ` � ` �c,�� c!` � • � �� . ,ti f. r �� _ � � �' ' �, S ♦ �" �� : � '. �!' ;r�l .: � �,; � , tti ' �'1 i.l�-' � � ' y`�.r �' ;s��" . t: �. 1 � � � R • I ' ' � . r `9,. �- 7„c t r� � .`j r f, � ' �. �� .11. - ^� •1 �7� � . (' { j � . ` • �'� . . j. :h /�,!_l. , �, • � -�',� • > ` � � ,• � \ � ar" . "rt i:..},k'' ' ' ( p�µ �L- i . �'�.t fr � ` , y .. . , � J � � 1 :� � �• .�� `� �. �+ �� '' N.� / / • � �: � • a \ .y . �, t'� � . � ..��; _ ./ •Y �* � . i / Q � �� t , t r ' : � • ��. . . 'h ��t .�f �'��'"` � .. � i. �,/�." ' � �r �. . �1� * `ty t _"`s , �� 7� � M� � \ r� �. �. Y �.�.e�.; �i �'ar' ;,y . �� . �' ��.. r'+,e;;�-` _ '\ �, 4 ;. �s: � �" � � ,.- �. '�T'; �.a��. .' 1 � , , . � �:• ��7« �. }� �� J . �-,.i. I., . t vr ` � � '�c ��y..;? r ' .: 1' y� '}� .r � �.r., � ,. ' . � t ��. � - � �` », • 'A .f � �� . �yj� -�' • ��S � �,.y , . • � y-i' .l. �' � �.: � �t �., ; �.;-� � .,,,�. �.`':� r��-6 � ��2 � - � �.: ' � � ,r ` .� , �.:. � . 9 ,,, i := . � ��. ,_� l , ; / s :, ";. ' ' :+ t4. � ;f . � ,.�' ;� , ' � /"' -".J , .�. ,` ' . ''• � ,a' Y� � -�'.- ,� ,. ��' ��'r •~ .:;'� � '; , � ,-�. �,1� 4 : ;, �: � - j. ; ' j,�.. � A��. � �"j .T� �; , ? _ - � � . L y u!- � � �}.' / : � ;. .�',�� , J � � . �S 'r �r - � � �;; . � s 32� '?4 + '• , . � . , �� r � ,` . ' ' ' " �i �;: '�'� �,, . �.°�ae'J . r � .f:,., ��; ' t t , 1�4�. '. - y ',� . . _ , t^' .� , ' t' � »I � ` �( 7 � "n" �i' . �' �i*�- '� .� . 4 -^ 7: � �. ;►+ •i n�L' �: �'� �� . '� � .3� ` '? � ` I / ! � . 1 ` ' '�/� ��{]/'` .. �� \\�� + "� • � � ' 1 .. . . ; , ,� r� � � �� . � > j� ''�. � s Y1 � .a' r ,y •t •� ��{ ' � 'T '^ � i ��`"Tir' b, " t x'Nr !, l. , j_. � ;IR "�,� ` � '�.� :r ' ' . �i ,� �,� � �. ��. �. ~r. . • �' � �Yr � � � i � ; ♦ � `. . 'ri" '�� . , � ' . R . , C �' � ., f �:G. "., r :; . .�+ , � �::�'��; ;,�.. � � , _ ; _ y ! s.� , !i t,� �, . ' +J� _ . t. . . - �. � . . � �� r `� ; � �� .. , �i r�°`�-' f . � � . . �"''•r ��' . •� °�� "1 �« � ,.� .'y �` �� '� ,. R� � � �A i t~ o � �'. -v. y p, . ��. d i � '.� ,,; e��T ,� � ��7 ��' ' • fi � � �� /� F � � �°` �; • ,, ',,� . �%�► . < < �. �. b - . '�,��-�. ,� J�. •,�F''�: •� � 's -;� �" � • I � . ,: ' � ��. �� / '. �-� ". ,''a '� � • ► ..�. � '�t� �+ � •'�j � � . � '' b' ` }, �' � ' ' , � � � `M � ^ � �•, � ►�,� • . t � � � �► . . � . _� ' .�.. ,. .� � r ',- ° "J1a# '� , . � �' I � /"' ,��• ` � . �� ' s° r : ��` ' �f;_;,s„ � , ,�yt s i �� - , � .. � I f ` 1 y�i L _ � �_ / � � V v' � i"��..r �� I � . - �' � . _ ` . � 1 � �''.� �'_ i �� ' � � �_ � ��j '� �i �,' ' l� � � 1 � + � l ��/^�� ,- � , � � _ -� ��_; � 1 � 1-� � � t.�. � �� , , �r "/ � ��,� �� . � �� v�, � � � �, _ ., r �� , L-�-- - � ' � - � _ � � , , ^, ��: � ; ��, �,;�_.�__.,;�. �r� � �: - -� , � L �,,� �� ( ��" � d�� , �,, ,-� , 1 �� ; , � ` h I/ � U G'�-� • , � ✓� � � ( _ � �� ,�,�f� � � � City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minules October 28, 2002 Engineer before any building permits are issued; if any part of the partly completed structure is found to be across the property line it shall be removed; 5) that the accessory structure shall have three walls with the opening facing the rear yard; an amendment to this pernut shall be required if the accessory structure is to be enclosed on all four sides; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 9, 2002 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 10, 2002 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's September 9, 2002, memo shall be met; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. 9. 1532 CYPRESS AVENUE — ZONED — R-1- APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN RICHARDSON, APPLICANT; KRISJON SWANBERG, ARCHITECT; ANN HARRINGTON, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CA"THERINE BARBER Reference staff report October 28, 2002, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the reporE, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff by the Commission. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Anne Harrington, property owner, noted that the Commission at their meeting in February, 2002, suggested that the windows on the front elevation be modified but didn't modify them at that time. Now that construction has commenced she realizes that the windows should have be changed. Commission noted that this is a visual improvement from the sidewalk and that the changes are appreciated. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 28, 2002, sheets A.1 through A.6, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; with the changes that the trellis over the driveway shall be removed, the two support members at the front of the trellis which support the gate may be retained but these posts and any portion of the gate shall be lowered to a maximum height of 7 feet on or within 2 feet of the property line; and amended plans sheet A. l, dated stampe� n�tober 17, 2002 showing the addition of two bay windows at the front and the reconfiguration of the front porch; 2) that the inside window on the left side of the second floor of the east (front) elevation shall be shifter to the left, away from the door and closer to the outside windows, so that the left side of the elevations is more symmetrical with the right side of that floor's elevation; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the project, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, and changes to window/door placement or size, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Recycling Specialist's July 16, 2001 memos shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:11 p.m. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal 7 City oJBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes Oc�ober 28, 2002 10. 1655 SEBASTIAN DRIVE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMII' AMCNDMENT, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING SYNAGOGUE, AND TEMPORARY PERMIT FOR MODULAR BUILDINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION (MITCH REITMAN, PENINSULA TEMPLE SHOLOM, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ALEX SEEFELDT, HERMAN & COLIVER ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECTZ(63 NOTICED) PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report October 28, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staffcomments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that the staff report indicates that construction may extend three months beyond October of 2003, it would be safer to change the date in condition #3 for the removal of the temporary structures to January 1, 2004; can discuss with the applicant. Commission asked if there were any comments from the Recycling Specialist; CP noted that the size of the proposed project is not large to require compliance with the recycling ordinance. Commissioner visited the site and noted that traffic can get hectic and that construction traffic will not help, asked if the applicant had a plan to address construction employee parking and deliveries to the site. CP noted that the applicant could address thi- : �ncern. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Robert Herman and Alex Seefeldt, architects and applicants, were present to answer questions. Commission asked the applicant if he expected construction to finish by October 1, 2003. The applicant noted that he hopes to finish by that date but unforeseen circumstances my delay construction until January l, 2004. Commission expressed a concern with construction traffic and delivery of materials to the site and asked the applicant if there was a plan to mitigate the impact on parking. The applicant noted that the construction access will be off Arguello Drive into a second parking area behind the main building, this area is separate from the school and other areas used by children and adults, the second parking area is underutilized and is currently being used as a service area and for overflow parking. The applicant noted that construction staging will occur in the courtyard and second parking area. Commission asked if a construction trailer will be required for construction. The applicant noted that the contractor may use a container as an office and storage and that the subcontractor may also need a container, they would be located in the second parking lot. Commission encouraged the applicant to recycle as much as possible and to follow the NPDES requirements regarding runoff and sediment control. The applicant noted recycling requirements are already included in the specification for the project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. - C. Vistica notcd that the project is well designed, that the impact on neighbors is minimal, and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) thattheproject,including the temporary portable buildings, shall be built and installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 11, 2002, sheets A1.0 and A1.1 and sheets AO through A5, and that the increase in roof height above the existing social hall shall not exceed elevation 129.45' (32'- 8" above average top of curb) as shown on sheet A4; 2) that all construction employee parking shall occur on-site only in the second parking lot offArguello Drive and that no parking spaces in the main lot shall be used for construction employee parking or staging, and that during construction the project site shall conform to the applicable NPDES and STOPPP requirements; 3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 16, 2002, memo and the Recycling Specialist's September 17, 2002, memo shall be met; 4) that the two portable buildings shall not be installed before November 1, 2002 and shall be removed one month after completion of construction or January 1, 2004, whichever comes first; an amendment to this permit shall be required if the temporary buildings are not removed by January 1, 2004; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. ,�