HomeMy WebLinkAbout469 Bloomfield Road - Staff ReportItem # I
Regular Action Calendar
PROJECT LOCATION
469 Bloomfield Road
City of Burlingame Item #
Design Review and Special Permit for Height for a First and Second Story Regular Action
Addition
Address: 469 Bloomfield Road Meeting Date: 1/9/06
Request: Design review and a special permit for height for a first and second story addition to an existing
single-story house.
Owners and Applicants: Gary and Stacy O'Grady APN: 029-164-070
Architect: Katrina Kuhl Lot Area: 5,750 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing
structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the
structures before the addition.
Summary: The existing house is single-story with an attached garage. There is also a 318 SF detached shed
at the rear of the lot. The applicant is proposing to demolish the shed, to add to the existing first floor and to
add a new second story. The applicant is requesting a special permit for a height of 31'-0" where 30'-0" is the
maximum proposed. With the proposed additions, the floor area on the site will be 2,933 SF (0.51 FAR)
where 2,940 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposal is 7 SF less than the maximum allowed.
With the proposed additions, the house will be increased from 3 to 4 bedrooms (as designed the office on the
first floor and the den on the second floor do not meet the definition of a'bedroom'). The existing attached
garage provides one covered parking space (10' x 20') and the driveway provides one uncovered parking
space (9' x 20') to meet the requirements for a 4-bedroom house.
All other zoning code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following:
• Design review for first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010); and
• Special permit for height (31'-0" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.28.060, a, 1).
(This space intentionally left blank.)
Design Review and Special Permit
Table 469 Bloom�eld
Lot Area: 5,750 SF
469 Bloomfield Road
Plans date stam ed 12.13.05
,
Existing Study Proposal ; Revised ; Allowed/Required
�
SETBACKS '
i
_ .................................................................................................................................. .. ,
Front (1 S` flr): 15'-0" No change � No change � 15'-0"
�2nd�j'�: --- 22'-6" � � 20'-0��
,
carport/ 28'-9" to attached garage ; No change I � 25'-0" to attached garage
garage ;
� i
....................................................................................................................................:.............................................................................................................................................................................................. .....................................................................................................................................
� t
Side (left): 4'-4" No change � No change � 4'-0"
(right): 3'-2" 2 No change ' 4'-0"
........................................ ..... .. ........ �.... ................................ :...................................................................................;............ ............ ............ .......................................................
Rear (lst flr): 66'-0" 48'-6" No change � 15'-0"
(2nd flr): --- 51'-6" � 20'-0"
_. .............. ............. ..... ...................... .............................................................................................................. ...
Lot Coverage: 2013 SF ; 1904 SF No change ; 2300 SF
35% 33 % j 40%
�
_ ..........................
� ......................................................................... . ................ ............. ..... .. ........ ..................................................................................
FAR: 1907 2933 SF j No change � 2940 SF'
0.33 FAR 0.51 FAR ` � 0.51 FAR
_ .... ..... ........................................................... ......................................... .
'
�
�
.% ,. .......................................................................... . i
# 0 3 4 ; No change ___
�
bedrooms:
�
I
_ ........... _ _ ........
_. ...................................................................................................._..........................................................................._.........._.............................................__................._........__.................. . .
Parking: 1 covered No change i No change j 1 covered
�
(10' x 20') i (10' x 20')
1 uncovered No change 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') ! (9' x 20')
� �
..... ......................................................................................:.....................................................................................................,.
, .........................................................................................................................._........
�
Height: --- ; 30'-0" ; 31'-0" 3 ; 30'-0"
�
. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
DHEnvelope: --- complies i No change � see code
' (0.32 x 5750 SF) + 1100 SF = 2940 SF (0.51 FAR).
z Existing, non-conforming right side setback that will not be extended.
3 Special permit for height (31'-0" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed).
Staff Comments: See attached.
2
Design Review and Special Permit
469 Bloomfield Road
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on November
28, 2005, the Commission noted that this was a good project that needed some minor changes. The
Commission requested the applicant address several concerns and placed the project on the regular action
calendar (11.28.05, PC Minutes). The applicant submitted revised plans dated December 13, 2005. Below
are the Commissions' concerns with a summary of responses from the applicant.
1. Indicate the actual size of each window on the plans, indicate egress windows in bedrooms;
• The size of each window is shown on the floor plans on sheet A3 and egress windows are shown
on sheet A3 and on the elevations on sheet A4. To meet egress requirements, the size of the
bedroom windows has been increased from what was shown on the original plans.
2. Change elevations to the '/4 inch scale size;
• The elevations on sheet A4 have been changed to a'/4 inch scale.
3. Revise the trellis over the garage, needs support or redesign so it looks as if it is supported, could be
narrow; and there should be vines planted along the trellis area, identify what you will plant;
The trellis has been removed. The architect has added 8 x 8 profiled block supports under the
projecting bay on the second floor.
4. All eaves should be stepped back and should be the same size; the gutter needs to stick out on the
west elevation roof line; the roof is engulfing the gutter; all gutters should be shown on the plans at
this stage of the process; gutters not consistent on plans; gutter should show that it wraps around;
the relationship between the eaves, roof and gutters needs to be shown;
The architect has revised the plans to show the following:
• The eave at the front of the house now steps along with the bay projection (see 4/sheetA4);
• All gable ends have been changed from 2'-0" to 1'-0" extensions;
• All side overhangs are still 2'-0";
• All gutter locations are shown;
• Eave trim and gutter detail is shown on 3/sheet A4.
S. Clarify the location of the uppermost window shown at the rear;
See 1 and 3/sheet A4 for notes and location of front and back attic window.
6. On elevation number 2, the pocket in the soffit windows will look like a mistake, revise, may mean
increasing the plate height and thus the height of the house; roof height of 30' is ok, show the plate
heights on the plans (7'-9'); could go over 30' in height with a special permit application for
architectural purposes and to frame the windows better;
3
Design Review and Special Permit
469 Bloomfield Road
The architect has redesigned the soffit windows by increasing the plate height 3 inches, from 7'-9" to
8'-0", and by increasing the overall height by 1'-0" from 30'-0" to 31'-0". The maximum allowable
height is 30'-0" and the architect has applied for a special permit to exceed the maximum by 1'-0" (see
attached special permit form date stamped 12.8.05)
7. Chimney shown on elevation 1 and 2 is different;
The plans are revised so that the chimney is consistent on both elevations.
8. Front elevation entry door seems cramped, do something so that it does not look like a back dooY;
In a letter date stamped 12.8.05, pg. 2, the architect points out that the 3/16-inch scale of the original
elevations added to the impression that the entry is cramped. The scale on the elevations has been
changed to '/4-inch. The architect notes that the porch is open on one side and that a skylight is
proposed over the porch so that it will not appear dark. The architect states that the location of the
existing garage makes it difiicult to widen the porch without affecting the living room, and therefore
no revisions were made to the porch design.
9. Take one of the three proposed new 24 " box size landscape trees in the rear and plant it in the front
of the property on the right hand side of the driveway to reduce the visual scale of the house;
The site plan on sheet A shows that the Gingko Biloba tree shown in the back yard on the previous
plans has been moved to the front yard and placed in the 4'-0" wide landscaping strip to the right of
the driveway, within the property lines.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height, the Planning
Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition
are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
�
Design Review anci Special Permit 469 Bloomfield Road
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure
or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is
proposed is appropriate.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and a special permit for height. The
reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped December 13, 2005, sheets A1 through A4, and that any changes to building materials,
exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty
of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall
be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 18, 2005 memo, the City Engineer's
October 21, 2005 memo, and the Fire Marshal's, the NPDES Coordinator's, and the Recycling
Specialist's October 24, 2005, memos shall be met;
5
Design Review and Special Permit
469 Bloomfield Road
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
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; and
10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
Erika Lewit
Planner
c. Katrina Kuhl, architect
�
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 28, 2005
�„""'"�
• Needs a final decision on the proposed roofing material, real�te.ei�other material.
This motion was seconded by C. Keighr
Chair Auran called e on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been
revised a ' cted. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). The Planning
Co ission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m.
8. 469 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GARY AND STACY
O'GRADY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND KATRINA KUHL, ARCHITECT) (72
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Katrina Kuhl, architect, represented the proj ect. Commissioners
made the following comments:
• Basically a good project, just minor changes to the plans to bring it to next step;
• Indicate the actual size of each window on the plans, indicate egress windows in bedrooms;
• Change elevations to the '/4 inch scale size;
• Revise the trellis over the garage, needs support or redesign so it looks as if it is supported, could be
narrow;
• All eaves should be stepped back and should be the same size; correct this in a number of places
throughout the plans;
• Clarify the location of the uppermost window shown at the rear;
• The gutter needs to stick out on the west elevation roof line; the roof is enguliing the gutter; all
gutters should be shown on the plans at this stage of the process;
• On elevation number 2, the pocket in the soffit windows will look like a mistake, revise, may mean
increasing the plate height and thus the height of the house;
• Roof height of 30' is ok; what is the second story plate height? Show the plate heights on the plans
(7'-9"); could go over 30' in height with a special permit application for architectural purposes and
to frame the windows better;
• The chimney shown on elevations 1 and 2 is different, make consistent;
• Rear elevation 9" continuous overhang should show on side elevations;
• Gutters not consistent on plans; gutter should show that it wraps around;
• A lot of detail work is needed on the plans; the relationship between the eaves, roof and gutters needs
to be shown;
• Front elevation entry door seems cramped, do something so that it does not look like a back door;
• Site plan showing existing neighboring houses is great and helpful;
• Take one of the three proposed new 24" box size landscape trees in the rear and plant it in the front
of the property on the right hand side of the driveway to reduce the visual scale of the house; and
• There should be vines planted along the trellis area, identify what you will plant.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
:
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
November 28, 2005
C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the directed revisions
have been made to the plans and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of November 21, 2005.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of November 21, 2005, noting that the application
period for the Commission seat vacated because C. Keighran was elected to the City Council will close
Friday, December 9, 2005, applications are available in the City Manager's office. The Counci �1 appoint
the interview committee at their meeting on December 5, 2005. CP Monroe also noted PW has just
completed an Urban Water Management Plan for the city which evaluates the curre ater availability for
the City and discusses how water shortages can be handled. She noted that t ity Council would hold
their regular meeting on December 19, 2005. There was a letter from a' bor regarding 1453 Cypress.
Commissioners expressed concern that inclusionary zoning was b' misused, the purpose of relaxing
requirements was so that applicants for multiple family develo nts could increase their densities, instead
they are building bigger units, replacing fewer than they are oving, including affordable units. CA noted
that the city's has hired an expert to give us some ice on local inclusionary regulations, because
Burlingame is not big enough to have the vehicles retention of these units that other communities have.
A report will be made in the Spring
- FYI — review of requested ch es to an approved design review project at 1149 Drake Avenue.
The Planning Commission appro the proposed changes to the project at 1149 Drake Avenue.
- FYI — review of re t%sted changes to an approved design review project at 1506 Alturas Drive.
Commissioner noted t the proposal to change the side of this building will make it look odd and would be
visible from the str . Suggested that the width of the chimney be changed from 2'-2" to 2'-6", that the right
side of the chi ey be extended straight to the ground (the angled projection removed) and that the lower
roof on the ' t side be doubled in length to meet the flattened right side of the chimney. If appropriate the
revised ns should be returned on the FYI calendar.
ecognition that this was C. Keighran's last meeting as a Planning Commissioner, the Planning
ommission thanked her for her service and teamwork and wished Commissioner Keighran well in her new
endeavor as a member of the City Council.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
19
December 08, 2005
City of Burlingame Planning Department
501 Primrose Rd., Burlingame CA 94010
Attention : Erika Lewit
re: Planning Commission comments Item #8 / 11.28.05 meeting / 469 Bloomfield Road
Revision 1 submittal — Revised drawings dated 12.08.05 — Architectural sheets only. These
changes are being submitted by the Architect in response to comments made during the 11.28.05
Planning Commission Meeting and minutes received by the Planner dated 11.30.05.
Comments :
Indreate the actual size of ea. Window on fhe plans, indicafe egress windows in bedrooms
Response : Please see sheet A3, the window sizes and door sizes are indicated on the floor
plans. The window sizes are given in inches W x H. Egress windows are shown with a diamond on
the Floor Plans ( Sheet A3 ) and on the Elevations ( Sheet A4 ).
Change elevafions fo the '/." scale size
Response : Sheet A4 , elevations were changed'/4' =1'-0" - the same scale as the plans on
Sheet A3
Revise the trellis over the garage, needs support or redesign so it looks as if it is supported, could
be narrow
Response :.The trellis over the garage door was removed. Instead there are 8x8 profiled block
supports under the 1'-6" extended bay @ L2. These Blocks do not extend past the projecting bay
and will be painted to match the trim work.
All eaves should be stepped back and should be fhe same size: correcf fhis in a number of places
throughout the plans
Response : The eave at the front of the house now steps along with the extended L2 bay
projection ( seen best at 4/A4 ). All gable ends are now a 1' typical extension instead of 2'
extensions. All side end overhangs are still 2'-0", typical. Typical dimensions for the eave trim and
side overhangs are shown on detail 3/A4. Shown on 1/A4 & 2IA4, the side eave (@ the front south
side ), does not step back. Because the typical underside of the overhangs are a flat T&G soffit, it
would not have looked good to step this portion back ... it would have ended up a different height.
Clarify fhe location of the uppermost window shown at rear
Response : Notes were added for front and back attic window 1/A4 & 3/A4
The gutter needs to sfick out on fhe wesf elevation roof line: fhe roof is engulfing the gutter.• all
gutters should be shown on fhe plans af this sfage of fhe process
Response : The elevations were updated to show all gutters in the proper locations, Sheet A4.
This relationship is blown-up at 3/A4. Also shown on Floor Plans A3 and Roof Plan A1.
��������
DEC 0 8 2005
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING LIEPT.
On elevafions number 2, fhe pocket in the soff'�t windows will Iook like a mistake, revise, may mean
increasing fhe plafe heighf and fhus the height of the house
Response : There is no longer a pocket at this window, the roof/plate height has been raised.
Roof height of 30'-0" is ok; what is the second sfory plafe height ? Show the plate heighfs in the
plans (7'-9'); could go over 30' in height with a special permit application for architectural purposes
and to frame fhe windows better.
Response : We are applying for a special permit to allow a 31'-0" max. roof peak. This should
allow for easier construction and a clean 8'-0" ceiling height @ L2. The existing plate height @ L1
is shown on 2/A4 ... new plate height for L2 is shown on 1/A4 ( right hand side ).
The Chimney shown on elevation 1 and 2 is different, make consistenf
Response : This has been revised, Sheet A4. The existing brick chimney will need to be extended
for the new roof height.
Rear elevafion 9" confinuous overhang should show on side elevations
Response : This is shown and called out on 2/A4 and 4/A4. The end gables have a typical 1'-0"
overhang, so at this rear projection (on the top) there will only be a 3" overhang.
Gutters nof consistent on plans; gutter should show that it wraps around
Response : This was revised and shown best on Floor Plan 2/A3 and Roof Plan 2/A1.
A lot of detail work is needed on plans; the relationshrp between the eaves, roof and gutters needs
to be done
Response :. Please see revised drawing Sheets A1, A3 and A4
Front entry door seems cramped, so something so that it does not look like a back door
Response : I think the drawings make it look more cramped than it will be. This porch is open on
the side. Because of the existing garage location, there is no way to really widen this area without
really affecting the front Living Room. We have added a 3'-0" x 3'-0" skylight over this porch so that
it does not appear dark at all — we think this will help it to appear more light and airy.
Take one of the three proposed new 24" box size landscape frees in the rear and plant it in fhe
front of the property on the right hand side of the driveway to reduce fhe visual scale of the house
Response : The Gingko Biloba tree was relocated to this location.
There should be vines planted along the trellis area, identify what you will planf
Response : These were already indicated on Sheet A3 detail 1. They are called out on this Isheet
instead of A1 so that the relationship between the house windows and the trellis can be seen.
Please call with any additional questions or concerns.
Katrina Kuhl, Architect � C27814
p 415.823.5016 � f 415.366.1556
. �,
�
DEC 0 8 2005
�ITY OF BURLINGAIvqk
!'lANNING DEPT:
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin a�me_org
�6, CITY ��
BURIJNGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
�„m....•�.'� .
Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance
Special Permit Other Parcel Number:
Project address• ''7�� � ��--'�'�'"�r ��� 'e�
APPLICANT
Name: ��r� � � � 2 .,4 n �
Address: '7��`� �lG �
City/State/Zip: c,�,- �c`. �
Phone (w): �SO � � `t / e29�
(h): �Y� o c� c7 �
(�� .��-� Sf'Qy
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: ��i�-t�
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
(h):
�fl�
�'�` Name: �'�Gi,/ i'/h �j ,� 1�1� L
Address: �32� �� `���
City/State/Zip: �%�I/'�''{��' ����'� Please indicate with an asterisk *
Phone (w): �'/� �Z �.��/� •
(h):
(�� �/s. ��'�.�'ss.�,
the contact pe,�-��e��roject.
-1� C
OCT 1 8 2005
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
i/�p. .� P .r,�� -� E? �.
`�`�' �J�c,�•-y �4����� t �s���� - '��E�
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: �� �� � �- �.l
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
o ��v --r � -�-
Property owner's signature: f�'��� Date:
Date submitted: � � "�� � �' �r
PCAPP.FRM
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin am, e oz� IUC �
EC� � �
E C 0 8 2005
��Tr °� CITY OFBURLINGAME Gi OF BURLINGAME
�'!°!!�E SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION �,Nrvirvu �EPT.
�•
�°�..,o.,�..
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 neighborhood , '
�%ZG P/�/S /�iG/ ��O/" �%v �`�j��j-� q�� G����/—%`I
. ✓ GI' / � c� %� � ' 7' i/ ; %ii�
h7` �iv�lo � dh/,� �
�e � ��,` �� ?� �,o�-s��' �`''�' ��o�� . /� �
l' O'' a1GYG�'�f 7dyl / � �O (ilG�' /O� �rR� �
�� �/lo w��I' /�ss
� i� �i �/�G . �jjp/ ��t L- � �� S�C'��'7 � �"�OD� GI'hG� j
C,���Gi /oa%r �� ��C�hq s�f� �y �'i�'��s ,
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, eacterior finish materials and elevations of
the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street
and neighborhood. �
�h%s ff -�tG1'i%��ij ��. �' � „ �h �iJ`'� ��/�' tio�`- �'�''
-�� � � G� �li l/�' J`� 7� J ��'�J� ��S/�� `��'� �a�''� 9�
�i'�� .��i �� 7G� 3�� � ��ltiiGl'� � f'� �C�� �%� �
� • /Q�O%� • ���� �'O U�Gi � �l0 � f 9C ��
��o /i�, ���-,�' �� �'�/c � �-c�J`
�I/ l� � %�%e ,� �.� � h�ar�a�
]�� �il� COGi�'/����� f - � � .� �' 9'.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)?
� ��c�iG�/h �J`. G�i ri� �� l,.s s�7�/ �//o�q. .
�� 70 �z�f� h���� ��%/ � �'l!�h�� ���' �
�/ � �' G�/� . s%G�' G�'�' 9�
�S ��/ �' �� � . !�� e ���� �
����h � ������ .
4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or
addition is necessary and is consistent with the ciry's reforestation requirements. What
mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is
appropriate. ��- .
SPECPERM.FRM
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
www.burlin me.org
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 neighborhood.
How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? 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, sunlighdshade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include
those to the rig6t, left, rear and across the street.
� How does the proposed shucture compare to neighboring stcuctures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say
so. If a new structure is proposed, compaze 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 co�tsistent with the existing structure, street
and neighborhood.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood7 If it does not affect
aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing azchitecture and/or pattern of development on adj acent properties in
the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood.
How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by
size, densit}r 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
guidelines?
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing chazacter 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 the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure
or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements.
What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation
is appropriate
Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? 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.
SPECPERMFRM
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review
10/19/2005
❑ City Engineer
X Chief Building Official
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
❑ NPDES Coordinator
Request for design review for a 1 st and 2nd story addition at 469
Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-164-070
10/24/2005
1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC),
the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal
requirements.
2) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
3) Provide existing and proposed elevations.
4) Provide a legend that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, and
new walls.
5) 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."
Therefore, this building must comply with the 2001 California Building Code
for new structures.
6) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window
or door that complies with the egress requirements.
7) Provide guardrails at all landings.
8) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are more than four risers.
9) Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
10)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface
within ten feet.
Reviewed�=--- ,�( �� , Date: � ��/B�o�
Project Comments
Date:
10/19/2005
To: d City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From:
Subject:
Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ NPDES Coordinator
Request for design review for a 1 st and 2nd story addition at 469
Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-164-070
Staff Review: 10/24/2005
1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage.
2. Replace all displaced/damaged sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter.
3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 10/21/2005
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review
10/19/2005
❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
X Recycling Specialist
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ NPDES Coordinator
Request for design review for a 1 st and 2nd story addition at 469
Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-164-070
10/24/2005
Applicant shall submit a Recycling and Waste Reduction Plan for
approval, and pay a recycling deposit for this and all covered projects
prior to construction or permitting.
Reviewed by. .
Date: � �/�-�/0 S
Project Comments
Date:
10/19/2005
To: ❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From:
Subject:
Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
d Fire Marshal
❑ NPDES Coordinator
�
Request for design review for a 1 st and 2nd story addition at 469 ,
Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-164-070 /
Staff Review: 10/24/2005
Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence.
1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter.
2. Provide double backflow prevention.
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: �— � ��
Date: <.-T ��-�, �.—
� l--
Project Comments
Dait�:
T'o�:
Fc��amn:
�aaitrje�ct:
��,�f�� Review:
10/19/2005
� City Engineer
� Chief Building Official
� City Arborist
� City Attorney
� Recycling Specialist
� Fire Marshal
� NPDES Coordinator
Planning Staff
Request for design review for a 1 st and 2nd story addition at 469
Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-164-070
10/24/2005
,4r�y construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
IVP[�ES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited
i:a ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices
i;BdvlPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the
�;anstruction project (including demolition).
1=r���ure that sufficient amount of erosion and sediment control measures are
,�vailable on site at all times. Please refer to attached brochure Protecting Your
��r�,pe►ty From Erosion.
�rh� public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or
:>tr�rage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times.
I3rochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available
i�or your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project
��roponents.
l=�r additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727.
I��diewed by:
� � � � _. ��
Date: 10/24/05
"' " . — l
I ' �' M �. � � � i
�'� � kuhl.architecture
' l�� ' _ ��`
�, � �_
•��_„_ ,� .
> ! ;. I
. . ,l aW s �- _ � ;y ` __ '_"� { '..{4" 1�n
. , -., , i " .,
� x ^ .
�
y ��, ' _:' ! ' ' , �` . . —_' :' �. L
r '� `.I - ' .. , . � � �\ "... �,.. < .. �„a. �� ���'. °a�i�:•1+�... .
j :, e
.
+ ` Y
l ` ' ii
f ki a i. �. �.: . , ' I '�� �_. . ._. � H,.. `t''�kl: �::
i
� o�h. ��
� i �:, ` � � q� � ��r� -+r ';� � i > ' ��.
x � ��' � � . s � _ , �� � ph 415.623.5016 / fx 415.366.1556
� h f' .� . < ,�,.� �, , ����i ..;� � :: _ kuhlarch�Yahoo.com
_� .6! � , - " � :
� � . . ..' ' i.� ... ' � I I�f,� .. ..� �� _ �.
� . -,. 1. . •:'�.nY' . ._ i. . ...,�\-e � �r.'1� f+..�
; .. � �_ � •:. . _ •
��
�. ♦ _ . �.' .. ��� -... _
� •. � � ♦ _
..r. \ —
�. _ _
' �.�—...., __ '_ '
��?�iTN
_�
Y �
.. _.. _ .�_ ,: ��5
'f �, ^ __.r-. , . _._ __.._a-- fA �QY/i.
-. n ,. ti - ..,.-. '- __.,, r .� � � _ _ �v� .c.
, -r .,,_. . � � ''� - O�,
w�. -.' � �_. . �.. . . � ;� ._ .:� �u'nlNNadL
,,- '..� -� .
' .,F
� � �
. . s �...-.. _ �. -. .. ���'..��._+A Y�li� � . , . � ... �. ' �
_�u,. ..� � . .._ . _ '. ._.—_ ..—. ____ .. . . .
P1 O � P4 P * NoXcz�a�a *
--- - — - _ �� � __ _ --�.�--.---- — ��acou�
� _ - -- -- _ _-- _ - --
----- M�
F �' 'S
y . . , �, .. . _ ., .. .
�' `-r�t ��[ '. � _ , ..
•
� �. . }, ,p �7 � , 3 ; 1 � . . , . . .
.
' � +� `
s,` _.__
� �� " .. � ' _ ;
.` � , . . . . �,
� , r _ -` �� �*fa S _. .. ' : .� 75. "�(k.;��_ e _,�i - -' - -..-_. � t a ..,'TMq�
` . �_..i. _�- � � y..�, , '� �� ..� '� � '.yy ..b ' i i' �z�' . +�, ..
; , 1 .4
_ - -
_...... ' � ff'�Y� ���. � . ,� , .x�
.
y '
. ,` � �„�, ,� ..�. � 'ke. � 1Y _� �..� � � `' •�i, ;F� .'� � ,� ' n, ,.� ts , .-���. �
�
f�l A� _
, ' ... � ..: �' y w - .
.. „. -._. _.L_ F . :'. l,u.�`.�k.�: +.., ' � ��'�
:�.� .._ , • _
�, • � . yy,�'�, G'.r ::�r� �
i ! f r'' . :
. � .
�... , + � .. : . �o•� � +`� .
� ti
�� � �' !�'` �
, ' °� , . � '� S
. ,
. �i�lll `���l� I'����'��I ■� - -� -_._. �°
� , � i� _ �.�.
� � � �` : � S? � �t . �
,�� . :. «.F. .. .
a .!; -, '....: :. � � _ �' i � ^K -i �a, —
y p;�
�'' '� !i �hl' i i�l �i � ,
+,. r.�"'. " �� � t � ">�°�- a � �
µ . � ' .. .. �-r ,� �
�
_ . . ' � ':. �,.,µ Yn'� J .. '_',.���� -- y. , {r•.- �. • •;°'�,,+�k' f Q
. • , � �-�;� . r 'y
,, , . -
,
,
.
' ti; , �..� -""a'�`k . . - ,,, ' _...� O
. .. �---- :.,... y. ` ' d'
. . _ __ _ . -
ca
/O�� P P ___ O �1� � �-
�, y�' �' � �: "'';&-� " - _ � ` r "`� N
5�,� � �r r a '�'s� * S � `�` , "� �, �.- F , �},�,� � � Q �
.w� 4 e.�, � � � a'� I I � I
FY1�� a l� � - �� � b�, 7i'r I I I � � Z
;
�"� ,k, �i.
! . ._-� �.. . . � � �
n ��K�1�:�0 �y F �' ?k �' i w � n'
'` ro � ,_ � r i i , � i � Q
` s ,� _ ��'� 1y . ' r� � ��c.. r,:. � I- - --------� �;-� a -. � O \ -�•-• - -- - - - - - - - - � � y� —
� t ' '� I I �
. _ �'�'�.. _ ' pa � . �- �.��_� } � �J.� Qi �
r� /
�i ���" ��. . � � � � � •,��:��. -�� � I C P� � - - I � V �
r. . '�'r' r�. a�. �. — (. ��, ' � S \ Y Z
.� _ __ ... it�-.. . ,�� _r � �.� I \� O� I Q O W Q �
. + w:� -� r-r;;�"�� I � I Q O tQ V �
i P8 0
�+ i i J
,�, � �
. �
�� ` ; N M W � �
i �;_ ; � ,
_ : i � � ; i
_ �
_. . �� 3 .,.: . P9 � ti. i i 0 LLJ i- C.a'�
� i -�O p�> = 0 z �
:� � .�: � , ' � a � � _� U
, � . ��, � ,_ � ��� I �
' � ' W (� � � O
I
:� . . . i I— � � J
--"-r— '�""4�'�: i i ----- -- -------- i
� (� � m m
i � i -----f I i
��� � � �- i i � I
,. , . -- --__-- _ ____ _—_ ---- � I � JOB MBE 12
� +e� . ( ,�, s . '�*. . �Y � � I i
� F : ' : ,u .r I � � i j I
�- �` v ,'s c .. _a' � i I ! I '; i DRAWN BY: KK
�--� � `, , • ; . � „ --- ---� . ,
�Y � _ - � . . / � I i ----- ' ' . I i
.•' ,I
` [ I �� � �, � � SCALE: NTS
J : ��. ' i , '' I I I I ' BASE DATE: 10.15.05
r� F ;" y� ------ ----- '
" I I
, , � . --� ,. �� _ _ ' � � � i P5 �� � ;
.. . �. �, � „ �
` .. - ,,, � �-�-� I �-�-
. �� � i
.
��4 �. ' . ��..
`�� "^ " " ' ., � i ' _1 ' PLANNING 10.15.05
,
P12
I � . , ; �, L �_. I . .-- - ' - - _-_-- �__ -- I�,
. _ _ ___
'* �, I , -
--
. : --
: ,.- ---- 1 � ,
� �' � � _
� �
:�.�,
y.
..sl�e '.- _
�. � , _ , o 0 0
R _ _
. � .,... - � � � - - --
_. r P16
, � „ :. ... .. _ _ _— _ __ ---.. _
� �P�
� �
,= �r, "' _ � � _ � �
, , �. -. ;.. .:
: � , -
. . - � ,
�i: ; • �. .. , _ \
;_ �.
� � �
_
� � � p3 P4
; �_ ..
. ��
�tia�. , �' � �P15� �'.;' ------------ P15 ------------- EVE� �7 ED
,:¢ t, �� � ,: w� PHOTO KEY �
' � a�'�:,.' �� _ ;;�
;��, �" } �� 469 BLOOMFIELD ROAD N.T.s. OCT 1 8 2005
�P14` �P1� cirr oF suA�u�c�.��
pLANNING DF�''i.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
DESIGN REVIEW 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 and a special permit for hei�for first and second story additions to a single
family dwellin� at 469 Bloomfield Road zoned R-1 Gary O'Grad�propertv owner, APN: 029-
164-070;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
January 9, 2006, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
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, 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 and special permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permit are as
set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
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 Cominission 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 9`h day of Januarv, 2006 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT `�A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permit.
469 Bloom�eld Road
Effective January 19, 2006
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped December 13, 2005, sheets A1 through A4, and that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an
amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review;
3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the proj ect architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no
licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide
the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building
Department;
4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been
built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building
permit is issued;
7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 18, 2005 memo, the City
Engineer's October 21, 2005 memo, and the Fire Marshal's, the NPDES Coordinator's, and
the Recycling Specialist's October 24, 2005, memos shall be met;
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
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; and
10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
-2-
Design Review and Special Permit
469 Bloomfield Road
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; and
10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
Erika Lewit
Planner
c. Katrina Kuhl, architect
C�
��. c�TY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
� PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURIJNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
„� . TEL:(650)558-7250 • FAX:(650�696-3790
�,qw�,�.'°� www.burlingame.org
Site:469 BLOOMFIELD ROAD
Application for design review for a first and
second story addition to a single family
dwelling at: 469 BLOOMFIELD ROAD ,
zoned R-1. (APN: 029-164-070).
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, November 28, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.
in the City Hall Council Chambers located at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed: November 18, 2005 ,
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
A copy of the a�
to the meeting
Burlingame, C
If you challe e
raising only � .
described in he
at or prior to hE
Property ow r
their tenants b
(650) 558-7 0
�
Margaret Mo
City Planner
CITY OF BURLINGAME
�� s��� �.w��
�lic �� and pla� �ar�tli���projecf �": y be reviewed prior
a �� . � ann,n�,� D�enartment �1� � � �,Primrose Road,
be limited to
�blic hearing,
�d to the city
.. �. �
t ����,�
informing
please call
PU Bl�
(Please refer to other side)
�
�. � �
� ����
� ,���
�� �
��CE
0
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
�;. :
�
�
r �� _
I ' �' -
� .;=T _
�-
.;
t " :�_
I . F %�
I� _ _ -
CITY OF BURLINGAME
I �� CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
'� PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURIJNOAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� � � � BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250 �FAX: (650) 696-3790
�''y,,,,m,,,,,�.•'��� www.burlingame.org
' Site:469 BLOOMFIELD ROAD
I
�� Application for design review and special
'� permit for height for a�rst and second story
� addition to a single family dwelling at:
�'', 469 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, zoned R-1.
, (APN:029-164-070).
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
� announces the following public hearing
on Monday, January 9, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.
� in the City Hall Council Chambers located at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
', Mailed: December 30, 2005
�
� (Please refer to other side)
� _
�
�
A copy of the a�
to the meeting
Burlingame, C�
.�
If you challe ���� e
raising only � �'�
described in �he�
at or prior to he
.��
Property ow r�
their tenants bc
(650) 558-7 0�
�
,�.:�<- �. ��.���� ;�,�,��� ` rs.,
�„ r. ,.,.. .....�.,... ....... .«,c��'wR
`s `",�; r '"''��i '*'�,� i'
�lic�tio� and;�larfs fcsr this�" pro�ect'�ay be reviewed prior
�t����,�����ning D�p�rtrpent ���SO�1�Primrose Road,
be limited to
blic hearing,
�d to the city
� � �� � ��
>r informing
, please call
t� ��,,� ., � , ;
Margaret Moni��i � �",� �r `�
City Planner ���„��,�� �'"
'=�,^a �'�.
PUBI���
�.�
(Please refer to other side)
�
�� � �
����,�
.�< . ;����
�'Ly �' �,'
�.�'�CE
�
65 � n y- ., n. �.'" 1 � s�-,�•-..r"- t
2a
� t��� � k� `s � � .� 4� � �.� �� f P �m ' �::�., .� ' �� fi�
� � " . � �w , ;,�-
��
� � "�� �'� � � � L (= ' .�� � �
�i� ;� �60. � � � .� w�,�. � s. • � , .
���� ��'�^� � ��;�;�'::2 ��'� `;J��%N � ,�' � � `� � ,� �
���n��' �� ��'f , ��� � � I
.'� �� a' M `�,. ` � a�""r* �*���' .t' = R� �. ;'i:t
, 4 `� A � . a�'a w i �`�s�t * * s Y �� �*�' �' ���� ' i� � a �
�=F�t` R
�e= t# e a�, � Ii� �'."�`.��' �' ,9�.: � �
�'` ,�"� ,� � � � 3,� ' � ���"�,; � ' �
, ,
,. ,
, „
;
. }
� � � � � �� � �4� � � �,� �
,�,. � x
� �.� . r r•. � �,, � s:x c ��;
+ . a � 1�_ ..b, F �
♦- _
. �
3
`
�
�� � • } �
��
�1 i- . � � . ♦ 1.. • "' 3 . �/
� .�
k;
i
,�,� � . . . • �.
a
_ �v:
�
.
P':t� >�"`� - . '�y� . �, ���, � . . .
�� �� � � � � _ `� ��` ... . � � � A .
� '
.� -.
.�,:;:� ,.j �� � y�pa� "� � h { 'fi�'�/F"� 't� 4 .,i
� � � �
� M y �• �Z ' r.� , � q �.': �,� ro� Z� �� � '�3 .'"g @ ` . �"�
. �� � ��iM � �A � �� �� � � � �a
br:. � ��;„ �6 �, � a�J � : '� .
"F���. , J � d`"�� • � } �, ' �, � � ; . � , `.e tY *�``.
, "'P
�� �� -/ r � p +, s ��� s � , ,�� t� ;�r�
..:� �' � ' e %� � � - :�� . .�" v� v t .�3A' �`. �,. .�f' . .f�t� � x �� �,Nq �. +� r
eLL ,
n �'A �+ ,
�.,
.p . �i 1 � , ' � , � �' ` a� y x ?I�L, �:� � 4� r � {��t,i � �' . � tk r `� { � ,
...,� � 4'�" . '7
>e �a � E� � w � 6 • y <
, �+
. .` '- . �e � . � �:� �c� . 2 . . � ' �' '�'
g � �� �� �"�.;� �'�t� �. .� � ; �. t ` ' .� ��� , � -, � p� m
� �
� iyJ,`� � ��.'.. . � "; �l ,. �, '� w �� r L � ` 4 x��. �.�, .
yr.,� � ��3z� �✓'�t7..�'� ` p��.`. p�4 � �� ,� .
� .,§� .. `�L", .. 3.?�.a.� �" ,¢ �' �' �A+r,. " i`� ;4 �y
=
� � � � � ��.. -y'
� 1
``'i Y y��� `%' �y
1n .
�
.�
yt .
'� 3 ,�, .i .' ' '.
;�r c� � � :' ��. �.�: y A � ` � .
�.ry . � . -..�� � .. 4� `� ` ��1t �. � .
` % v� � "
f� � . # � k � '.: � � �R i , 1{ •*t� � .
� . .. dab. . � � � . ��� ��iz'4xR � . �� w .
. W � �� � � � ` _ � � � ��A e � 8 �uf
. v �a o "
+ � ti
.. € n: . � � � � 4 �� � �
� w
t' „ �r€_ . ' �,- � �' .^ 'M'a'
°��
� �d�ya�= _ , v "t�,�'' � � y ,}�'�,r,y�'�, +.\.t � ��. ,%
� � �'.�� •r &� � \ x. . Y � . n % � � � :1 !� � � `,�A 2 ,4, � ��x
g�,, .
� � . i �� }� �, � ,�'» '` d � �"t , . � 1 1 � . � . R.�. � � . ,,.: �1 .
-��� -- +�s� �
(�rlt.... . ��J � ' ` � � Y � � r� $,
�'^' R a Y' t +�` �
iY�i� ^ .�rF �♦. o .' � �, y �' � � �° „�,W�e�s. ,\ `..,� y y' ` .
. � � ; �s�� � '�'� � � � . � � � � �_.
;� � ,�;�, �:""a < '':;''"� �� , �„� � � `/ a� t. ,g+..
'�' , x,� � " "? � ' � ti, �e 3 � � § n�� '�` � � �,
�"�:! ��` ��:, ° e�: � la "`�, y.,� '� � .¢E� ' x� �� . ��I } ...ill �
�i,t'. w �.:�� �� �°.�+`��` � k ����y;�� '.� ��� ai
� � � .. � �� � � '. � �
. ��� ���y �.. ��k� �� ' ..� } � ���� F�, �'� ,\.
�i�r, r,�„��'��n,./ �„,' . � �� .!z � ; �' � y� ���,. ���jt3+;'.. rl ,l ���' '+�,�.
. �`.O \Ilf rV� \ ..
�� � � �. � . '�i. �.� 1 � � � �� . .^S" �`•
n . . .
4
,.
Y� , f+ � r , � ��,. �a-' � �, � � 'a +'' ���� � �
y �•�
„ i� � -
u , � .� �
� � � , � � � � �
� �� ,�� a' ' � ,� ��� '.�r . '� ` s^�t � `�` � i� ' « .
�� � � �
, _ °' .r '.1` :� 4k. �." ��� � � ��� r w`'. e ,
, �� Q�:�� *� � ��� ; ' �� ,.♦ � ����,�9 �%.,.' �� ���.
� �� �
y; �'' p6 V'� '' R.,. � � �a � ��+� +��,N\ ,� `+iy �� r;�, a� ;?r n
�,Y. ,f s � .� '�
.
,�,� '� � � `� � :y. �»' • . �: , 57� a �.
�
� p � .
, + , `� :°` � �+Yr� ` � : :�'� � , � s" � �4 . �r �� � �• � `�� , �_ tP(�,
.,
. .Q
i . \ � � � y � � y�' � ! a '�� * � . ^ti ( .✓� ,`� v M i �� .�+�s. :
� � � , . �� i .. '�' i%%�_'�. �.
,., �„„� :�:. �,.�F. � � ��w.'�� a �, , . � �� � f �;E 3*" r� .r �,�,'i,W,�,y;"h�. �°Y �, r �',�'*� �t� e;r' /' ��"".�• #,� �
��' t � 3� 'r. r .w:'"������." �^: ���i��� � ��� � R���� � ��":�. � �
� ' �.�` �j�, p� �"� �`� x�"l� ,;'�. ��+� ���.�� �� �4 �� : �'. F T ,� ; ��
,
� . n ^.
.�- �•
� � �, � � M � i
�.w' 9,
� � ` " r
41� .. / � 5 �' , �y I.JI r .Y�+1.�N � cw, F � .�� '��- � .�n
t� 7 x � i - 6 y�J • �, ` }Y..� 'iv �i4 �:r ��`'�.. 4+..� . �
� � �A ` i"> O� r,� � � . .. " ' �.`it
� r �+��.. �d' � , � *� ` � , �y' k . ,1� w M � . �� � '�y �
� � � � � � �' ,� .' a �� i��,� '+ti' � +��tS ' .�¢ s. �`+,�:^' . �`� • „{�v�ja' %""�'� �� : �,
.a �. ,'.:.: ���.J tl ._kA� .g �.g� �, A �' �t ffir ° ` fr4 � � �. .
`
,a ..
��,y� �
+ � $y q� -:,� i' YR *� � � ��� . ' :. � - � �� �fi'� � ' b
.
�
-, � * , " ` q _ ., �,�'r
.
�� i S '��. .�.x� $ ` .�g�" a ". ..2`' i+'S- Y¢:,� 6 �r'-; (;
r_ ` .'
. �y'
. y*,� / . . `. � . � �` � � `/ �,. w'
��� . ° e'S�l . '' . • � ,R � � �� 9 �' F �p � �K *
,� � } �'", � �,, " � ' � �' � _` � �� �� � i � � �� a � �
� „ - r , � �v f. - J�� r w ��.� � .v��
,.� � - �Mr'" � .. � � �� �� ��. ���.��z � �„ � ��,�•.� '�r � �
. , �, . , ... ///
.
� y '�
� � `�� � � �
• ' � ..� .� i'
� p , � � ��i .
� . +s Q ;�
_.,,
�, - �z .
� �`
s,- �.s � �
Q"r . �" 4 ''�. : '�, =`�» y��* R �a , � *� � ; -�
, v5',`�q, �� w ,� ,y•'�►" r, ;; '�`",a` �� � � ��' �
. :
, „ ,
� �.� � ,�� . °. ,p1�a.,\ � �' �5�` 2 ,r �,�"`^� _ `�,y , : . � � .�_ :� .
� .,�,/ r .A'. �� ��� ��� .. �' �� .Y���,� � � �°
�'" '� �•.. � •� i � � � � � � �'� ' �"1ti't., ` �,�,,c.
� 't�.'�� � � � E,° >"`
� ' r` �' .t � „�' � '.J �.: .
' ` ri ' � � i .x�
" n � , ��
�`
� - �"s.. ..� s'� . � �-�" `�. � ,... � > _ . :. .. ;� �y,¢ ��� „s, ��g�+�' � •
. �� „ �� � '.,.. : � , ' � ,� . . ,
�.� �"' � ,� �, ", � � . . , � '� . ` .
, .. � .,� � . . �I
� 4�. , ° E . •• . �.� � �`r �. �� �. �,r�`"� �M�� � a�,,,�,�..a •" ,�+„�.,•
�;. .. . « ..,
, `
, � � � � �
.� � � •
,� � ^,:�i�; •��, � , ',�,y�,. ,. � 4a.s:;'A�.. , •.�;\ %�,�..:,1�«,.r M���.`�.;, . +�'� �' .
��
Check Request
Vendor No.
U New Vendor
Payee:
Gary O' Grady
Address:
469 Bloomfield
City
Burlinaame
Charge to•
ACCOUNT NUMBER
Fund Department
101 22525
State
CA
Object
# 67
UForm 1099
Date:
O1/25/2006
Zip Code
94010
Project
TOTAL
Invoice umber__
69 Bloomfield
Description: Refund of design review deposit (paid 10/18/Z005)
Requested By: Kristina Krow
Department Approval:
� `'�''
Ma garet Monroe
Finance Approval:
S:\ACCOUNTS\Design Review Refunds\bloomfield469.ref.doc
Finance Use Only
Check Number.
Check Date:
Wired ro Payee:
Date
Mail Date:
Transaction Number.
uired
Amount
$ 1,020.00
$ 1,020.00
PLANNIl�TG DEPARTMENT FEES RECEIPT
Subject Address _� b q � �py�/��t� � ,
Received for application ta the Pfanning Department for:
Date: 1� �' 1$ - p Sr'
ACCT.101-36630 (#63)
�. Application to the Planning Cornmission
� Title 25 Zoning Cpae {postage add $3.00)
_ Title 22- Sign Code
_ General Plan and Specific Area Plan (postage add $6.00)
_ Specific Area Plan Only (postage add $4.00)
_ Zoning Map
._ Photocopies ($0.15 x �)
_ Environmental Handling Fee (35% af Contract)
_ Tape copies ($S ea w/ tape provided; $8 ea w/o)
_ Other
ACCT.101-22525 (#6'n
$ B�S. �
S i 0.00
� 2.00
� 45.00
S 10.00
$ 1.50
$
$
$
$
� Res. and Com. Design Review Consuttant Deposit $ 750.00
_ Res. and Com. Design Review Handling Fee $ 70.00
ACCT.101-36640 (#5'n
� Engineering Fee '
$ ��•
ACCT.101-36342 (#58)
�„ Parks City Arborist Review - $ . 30.00
ACCT.101-36620 (#64)
_. Second Unit AmneSty Building Inspection Deposit $ 390.00
ACCT.101-22590 (#83) -
_ Environmental Consultant Fee $
���
ACCT. '739-22591 (#93) �Cr � 8
_ Bayfront Development Fee $ �
. t1RL��E
TUTAL FEES PAID; $ Z 1 l(���
EffectIve 07/02/2005 S:�ORMS AND TEMPLATESIFEES RCPT 2005.FRM.doc
' City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Chair Auran returned to the dais and took his seat and the gavel.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
January 9, 2006
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are
acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the
applicant, a member of the public or a commissioneY prior to the time the commission votes
on the motion to adopt.
3A. 270 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A— APPLICATION FOR
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (NECTAR WINE LOUNGE, LLC,
APPLICANT, TRI TERRA REALTY, PROPERTY OWNER, AND WINGES
ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (34 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
3B. 2533 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW
AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION
TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DAVID AND KELLY TILLMAN, APPLICANTS
AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND GEORGE SKINNER, ARCHITECT) (27 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item
off the consent calendar. There were no requests. CP Monroe noted that given input from the
Police Department and with the concurrence of the applicant she would like to amend
condition 4 of the application for Item 3a, 270 Lorton, with the following language: that the
sale of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to beer and wine; that all alcohol service shall stop
or shall be closed within one hour of stopping food service; that no DJ's or live music shall
occur at the proposed facility. C. Vistica noted that when he visited 2533 Hayward Ct. the
story poles were blown over, C. Auran noted that there were back in place today and there did
not appear to be a view blockage problem. There were no other comments on the consent
calendar.
C. Brownrigg moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,
commissioners' comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions
and amendments to conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was
seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-
0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
VIIL REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4. 469 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN
REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GARY AND STACY O'GRADY,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND KATRINA KUHL, ARCHITECT) (69
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
-3-
' City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 2006
Reference staff report January 9, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for
consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Katrina Khul, architect, represented the project.
Commissioners noted the following:
§ On the south side elevation the eave is shown at 3'-6", while the other eaves are 2', this
will look odd;
§ Gable end should be reduced from 2 feet to 1 foot, the arch is too heavy looking, 1 foot
is more expected;
§ At the rear the code requires a railing of a certain height based on the height off the
ground, this rail should be taller;
§ The entry at the front could be dressed up more;
§ Plate height could be raised to 8'-1" which is standard for construction; and
§ Removal of trellis and addition of corbels on the garage was good.
There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Deal moved that if the items identified are corrected this item could come back on consent
with corrections noted, think that it is important to get the overhang on the south side
corrected, may be stuck with entrance porch, the special permit for height is existing, agree
that a lower 6/12 pitch is possible, but would look bad. The motion was seconded by C.
Vistica.
Comment on the motion: it is the designers' prerogative to make the changes, not a reason to
hold up the action on the project, reasonable to ask for changes and put the item on consent,
house looks awkward as it stands; not support think architect has made a lot of changes to this
point, this is the best solution, the 3'-6" eave is on the rear and not visible from the street
given the setback of the second floor, to expedite would prefer to act tonight.
Chair Auran called for a roll call vote on the motion to direct changes to the project and return
the revised project to the consent calendar. The motion failed on a 3-3 (Cers. Cauchi,
Brownrigg and Osterling dissenting) roll call vote.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application as submitted by resolution and including a
condition which would allow the applicant to raise the plate height to the construction
standard 8'-1" accepting a minor increase in the overall height of the structure and including
the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 13, 2005, sheets A1 through
A4, with the plate height raised to the construction standard 8'-1" accepting the resulting
minor increase in height, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes,
footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any
changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission
�
` City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
January 9, 2006
review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or
other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural
details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect
and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify
that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that
prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 6) that all air
ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building pertnit is
issued; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 18, 2005 memo, the
City Engineer's October 21, 2005 memo, and the Fire Marshal's, the NPDES Coordinator's,
and the Recycling Specialist's October 24, 2005, memos shall be met; 8) that the project shall
meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame; 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; and 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of
Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Auran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with amended condition for
plate height and acceptance of the additional height that would add to the structure. The
motion passed on a 5-1 (C. Deal dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 7:40 p.m.
5. 2412 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT,
ALVIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA
LEWIT
Reference staff report January 9, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. James Wong, architect, represented the project.
Commissioners noted that there were some additional things which could be done to improve
the proj ect:
§ Use stucco mold window trim to match the rest of the house;
-5-