The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About312 Howard Avenue - Staff Report,. City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 312 Howard Avenue Request: Design review for a second story addition. Applicant and Architect: Robert Medan General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Item # � 3 Design Review Study Meeting Date: 3/29/04 APN: 029-262-150 Lot Area: 4738 SF (46' x 103') Summary: The existing two-story house, with an attached one-car garage, contains 2,204 SF (0.47 FAR) of floor area and has four potential bedrooms (family room and study qualify as bedrooms). The applicant is proposing to add a bedroom and bathroom (401 SF) on the existing second floor, increasing the floor area to 2,605 SF (0.55 FAR) where 2,616 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The second floor addition is centered over the single-story portion of the house. The proposed exterior materials will match existing materials. With this project, the number of potential bedrooms will remain at four (the wall in the existing study will be 50% open). The existing attached one-car garage provides one covered parking space which meets the parking requirement for a four-bedroom house. One uncovered 9' x 20' space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The following application is required: � Design review for a second story addition (CS 25.57.010). Table 1— 312 Howard Avenue � EXISTING � PROPOSED i ALLOWED/REQ'D � ; � Setbacks: � ' 1 I .........................................................._...................................................................................................................................................._.................i..................._....................................................._..............................._.........._...._q......................................................................_................................................................................. nd � � n ' i n i n Front (2 f7r): 44 -6 � 25 -0 � 20 -0 ........................................................................................................ ...........................................................................................................................y.................................................................................................................................,......................................................................................................................................................... Side (right): 4'-6" i 6'-0" ; 4'-0" � (left): 4'-6" �I 17'-0" j 4'-0" ......................... ...............................................................................................................................................................................................1..................................................................... ..................................................... ... ............................................................................................. .................................... ............ , j Rear 2"d r: 36'-6" ' S4'-0" 20'-0" _ .. . ............__.... .....----._......_................----.... .................._...............__.......�............._�...�..........�.........._......................................................_...................................._................!......................... _................__.............._..._..._.._....................._...__............._.._._._. Lot Coverage: 1515 SF ' no change to existing � 1895 SF ' 31.9% � ' 40% ................. ........ ..................................... .. . . . ...........................�................... . ................ ................................................ .............................. ................. ... .. ..... .. ...................._. . . .............................................. . .. . ..._......... FAR: i 2204 SF 2605 SF ! 2616 SF i 0.47 FAR 0.55 FAR � 0.55 FAR' (0.32 x 4738 SF) + 1100 SF = 2616 SF (0.55 FAR) Table 1 continued on next page. Design Review Table 1— 312 Howard Avenue (cont'd) 312 Howard Avenue � EXISTING � PROPOSED I ALLOWED/REQ�D i ; # of bedrooms: ' 4 � 4 --- a. . ............................................... . ........................................................;........................................................................_._..................................................:.................................................................................................._.............................................. Parkin � 1 covered � 1 covered ! 1 covered g: : I ; 1 uncovered � 1 uncovered � 1 uncovered ; � , ................................................................................................................................r.................................................................................................................................�......................................................................................................................................................... I , � �� , �� i Hei ht: 25 -4 , 30 -0 30 -0 g , ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................:.................................................................................................................__........�.... . ....................................................._.......................................... ....................................... , DHEnvelope: i complies � dormer enclosure CS 25.28.075 i� exception Staff Comments: See attached. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Robert Medan, applicant and architect 2 Item # 2a- Consent Calendar PROJECT LOCATION 312 Howard Avenue City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 312 Howard Avenue Request: Design review for a second story addition. Item # 2a Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/12/04 Applicant and Architect: Robert Medan APN: 029-262-150 Property Owners: Thomas and Trish Nichol Lot Area: 4738 SF (46' x 103') 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 befare the addition. Summary: The existing two-story house, with an attached one-car garage, contains 2,204 SF (0.47 FAR) of floor area and has four potential bedrooms (family room and study qualify as bedrooms). The applicant is proposing to add a bedroom and bathroom (401 SF) on the existing second floor, increasing the floor area to 2,605 SF (0.55 FAR) where 2,616 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The second floor addition is centered over the single-story portion of the house. The proposed exterior materials will match existing materials. With this project, the number of potential bedrooms will remain at four (the wall in the existing study will be 50% open). The existing attached one-car garage provides one covered parking space which meets the parking requirement for a four-bedroom house. One uncovered 9' x 20' space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The following application is required: • Design review for a second story addition (CS 25.57.010). Table 1— 312 Howard Avenue EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D Setbacks: � Front (2"d itr): : 44'-6" 25'-0" 20'-0" :............................ . . . . . .. .... ................................ . . . , Side (right): � 4'-6" 6'-0" 4'-0" (left): ' 4'-6" 17'-0" 4'-0" Rear (2"d flr): ; 36'-6" 54'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: ; 1515 SF no change to existing ; 1895 SF 31.9% 40% ................................................................................. . . . . . _ ................................................ .......................... FAR: ; 2204 SF 2605 SF ' 2616 SF 0.47 FAR 0.55 FAR 0.55 FAR' (0.32 x 4738 SF) + 1100 SF = 2616 SF (0.55 FAR) Table 1 continued on next page. Design Review Table 1— 312 Howard Avenue (cont'd) 312 Howarcl Avenue EXISTING PROPOSED � ALLOWED/REQ'D # of bedrooms: 4 4 --- _ ............................................................................................................................:......................................................................................................................................................... � Parking: ; 1 covered 1 covered 1 covered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered ..... . .. ...... . . , Height: ; 25'-4" 30'-0" 30'-0" ...................................................... . . .. . DHEnvelope: ; complies dormer enclosure CS 25.28.075 exception Staff Comments: See attached. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on March 29, 2004, the Commission suggested that the applicant consider revising the roof configuration at the second floor addition so that roof terminates at a point rather than having a flat roof and moved to place this item on the consent calendar (March 29, 2004, Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission also requested that the architect provide information on how the chimney will be stabilized. The architect submitted a letter dated April 2, 2004, in response to the Commission's suggestions and concerns. The architect considered the suggestion to have the roof terminate at a point, but decided not to make any changes to the roof configuration. He notes that the property owners are pleased with the proposed roof configuration and feel that it accomplishes everything they desire aesthetically and functionally. The flat roof will be built so that it appears to be a conventional roof. In regards to the chimney, the architect notes that it was rebuilt and retrofitted several years ago when the property was purchased. The existing chimney will be used in its current configuration during the remodel. 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; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 2 Design Review 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 312 Howard Avenue Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's March 29, 2004, design review study meeting, that the addition is compatible with the existing design of the house, and that the proposed addition is below the maximum allowable floor area ratio, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 11, 2004, sheets A1 — A3; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors or basement, 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 design 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; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 5. 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; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7. that the conditions of the City Engineer's February 17, 2004, memo, the Fire Marshal's February 19, 2004, memo and the Recycling Specialist's February 11, 2004, memo shall be met; 3 Design Review 312 Howarcl Avenue 8. 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; 9. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Robert Medan, applicant and architect 0 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes L,Ot 1 � d. that sho the city be caus to issue three stop in this rborist inspectio account, the property c am nt determined b he City Arborist to cov r t'rd stop work or r shall be removed; an March 29, 2004 � that failure maintain the amount of money in t�s account by the 15"' o each month shall result in stop work order o e project which all remain in place unt� the appropriate funds have een deposited with e City; and c. at should the mon y billing during y single period excee 7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until a rtional funds to r lenish the account h e been deposited with e city so inspection can ontinue; and wo orders for failure to ner shall be required to� the remainder of the ir�Spc itain the funding sit two times the i work before the � that the unex nded portion of the i ection deposit shall b returned to the property owner upon inspe ion of the installation the landscaping and fe ces, irrigation system and approval of the fiv year maintenance pla program for the portio of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and f. t t this same account be used for the City orist's selected licensed arboris �nspector on ots 9, 10 and 11. efent on the motion conditions add req� ; for the time of� are these conditio more stringent than the c ts to both Lots 9 and 10 for maintenance and on on Lot 11 nd through the completion of � cletermined on Lot and 10. CP also ted that more investigation w' foundations of st ctures and driveways o these lots, depending on the d ign arborist report ' evolving and will co inue to be worked on since n ounda have been de yet. Whatever the oposal is made it will be brou t back to arborist r ort. Feel that this is a ad policy at this time, howev the conditic will no e harmful, but this is t a good habit for processin �rigin . CP responded yes, pr ection of the Redwood atever construction to be need to take place for the and location propos so the tion or driveway bmittals the commiss' n with a full �ns are mo restrictive, and / permit by separ mg the tenance of t Redwood , C. Keele a sent). C ir Bojues called for a v ice vote on the motion to a nd the conditional us conditions of approval f Lots 9 and 10 and amendin them for additional r� Tree Grove. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0- -1 (C. Keighran abst�nir, IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 13. 312 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TOM AND TRISH NICHOL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS• ROBERT MEDAN ARCHITECT�(69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Robert Medan, architect, noted that the applicant's family has three children and that they need more space, proposing to add a third bedroom. Commission asked if the top of the roof was cut to stay within the 30' height limit? Yes, tried to stay within the height limit and did not want to change the roof pitch to lower the height, changing the roof pitch would have altered the overall 41 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 design envelope. Commission noted that a special permit to exceed the height limit would be appropriate in the case of this architectural style in order to have the roof terminate at a point. Architect noted that he would make the suggested changes to the roof as long as it would not delay the review process. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions to the roof have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on motion: Commission requested that the architect provide information on how the chimney will be stabilized with the next submittal. Chair Bojues called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised for the roof and chimney stabilization as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:15 a.m. 14. 1125 J KLING PE IT FOR AN AURISSA HE 32 NOTICED RO Plr. Hur� briefly presented th project description. C mission asked if the 10 -year flood flow limit is show on the plan. Plr. Hu ' noted that the 100-ye ood flow limit is indic d by the thick, black line on t Site Plan and that e it was determined b ydraulic calculations a equired by the City Engineer. ommission asked � he proposed "L" found ion footing near the exis � g 48-inch oak tree, as proposed in the arborist repo , was reviewed and app ved by the City Arborist. lr. Hurin noted that the City orist reviewed and ccepted the recommen d mitigations in the arbo ' t report. There were no furt r questions of staff. Ch ' Bojues opened the pu ic comment. Dion Heffr , part owner and designe and Maurissa Heffran, operty owner, were av able to answer questio . Submitted three letters support from neighbors, noted that the propos design is not bulky, pri rily single story with a h' pitched roof, will be using a stone slate roof, de gn is French Normandy ill have little impact on e existing landscaping which will be retained. C mission noted that thi is a great design and t two of the existing nonconforming conditions e been eliminated wit e new project. The mmission asked the applicant if he as positive t t a slate roof is going to sed, asked if this is a rea ate product and not a simulated m rial, do not w t to see it changed durin construction. Applican erified that a real slate product ro ill be used for e roofing, feels that th' is an important aspec f the structure, the roof structur as designed to ndle 13 lbs/SF, propose slate roof weighs 11 lb F, and therefore the roof structu as been designed to handle the loads of the oposed slate roof. Co ission expressed a concern wit e proposed constructio near the existing 48 'nch oak tree and aske if the house and roof will encro into the canopy of th ak tree, have seen o er projects get too clo e to tree canopies, do not want t see major tree limbs for the addition. Ap icant noted that the o tree is located on an upward s pe and several feet h' er than the finished fl r of the house. In add' 'on, the house is single-story at at point and the roof ' ches away fro the tree, e house and roof wil ot encroach into the canopy a no tree limbs will h e to be cut, rec tly tri d the tree to remove ad limbs. The area adjacent to e existing oak tree i urrentlypave so there w� be no additional imp t to the tree roots from const tion. Commission commented that e designer has done a great job, appreciates that the applicant als approached the neighbors on Easton Drive who will DRI , ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL TACHED GARA FOR A FIRST A ECOND STORY ITION N, APPLICANT PROPERTY O ; MICHAEL MOYER, CHITECT) JECT PLANNE : RUBEN HURIN 42 FROM : ROBERT MEDAN ARCHITECT FAX N0. : 650 697-3475 R0�3ER"�' M��,I�N �►RCHITE�'T' 1936 LOS ALTOS bRIVE sa,N �TEa, cA �aoa 65� / 5'7�-8477 FAK �'77-$313 Apri! �, 20Q4 City of Burlingame Planning D�partmerrt 501 F�rimrose Road �urlingame� CA 94010 Re: Nichol F�esidenr,� 312 Howard Avenue Burlingame, CA Dear Ruben: Apr. 02 2004 02:42PM P1 R��E� � ED APR 2 2004 crrr oF P�AN� N� �fPT Mf We are pleas�d that #he Planning Cammissi�n approved our project and would like ta �ddress th� two outstanding �tems from that m�eting. First, the dients are quite happy with th� raof configuration as it is designed �nd feel it �t�omp(ishes everything that they desire both aesth�tically and functionalty. They will have a v�ulted ceiling and do n�t require the addition�l height Tf�e flat roof wilf be built sa that it appears to be a canven�onal roof. The fireplace was rebuilt and seisrnically retrofitt�d when the awners purchased the prqperry a few years aga. We will be �ble to utilize the chimney in its current canfiguration during the remodel. Respectfully submitted, aobert Med�tn Architect Project Comments Date: 02/11 /2004 To: �City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Subject: Staff Review: Planning Staff Request for design review for a first and second story addition at 312 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 , APN:029-262-150 02/17/2004 `-+�- ---�A�s�'—�L-nrr''`� ��0.__.4�?...___�2��c� --s-�u�l�-; � G--•4�__A�n--.- (��-- � ° _ . , _ _ ! -� �-?��?_� �---'� �-z�%�-f3�4-"�'��__ _ _ -- _� - �-1�� — `�� —.��±-�_ � _. _ �F.�ro- _ .r - - � � —�"--__Y-1�2�,1-- . ��_7"�_--- � y'�-`?� f�w„�rw�.a_�- - ---- __-_ �� '� ��_�..�� -!?�/' L�'�•-.. "-=--�--- �%�="' �YN�-.�t-F3 J..�'„• -�� `-'_- -----`�'-,.,-`'-n`zr -.-F-�:�L - _��_�f._s_-_- �-ct,.�'�-�� Q�_..._�.r� __.F��_.__ -------`X►�K�=.�4Z17,� -�"��._---� -�� 7 2 �� . --._---- -- Reviewed by: �J. Date: �� `�`'� t� Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: 02/11 /2004 ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official �Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Request for design review for a first and second story addition at 312 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 , APN:029-262-150 02/17/2004 �— - - �� ''S�� ;.�-� ,,I.�.��X�=��. :�L,...a��.. � �� r-�`� ,�,�� c:J � � c�,.� '!- e_-� ..� �. � � . S— �. '"� c� �'...��6-� ��.� � � -t'.✓t�'- "��;��.�+�-n:�� J �_ Reviewed by: � �'�� Date: �� 3 �.�� Project Comments Date: 02/11 /2004 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal �j Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review for a first and second story addition at 312 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 , APN:029-262-150 Staff Review: 02/17/2004 Applicant shall submit a Waste Reduction Plan and Recycling Deposit for this and all covered projects and sections of projects prior to any demolition, construction or permitting. by: Date: � iii iiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiii i ii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii i i i ii iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i � i ii i ii iiiii iiiiiii i i iiii iiii �ii�iiiiiiii��i��iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii��i��i��i�iiiiiii�iiii��iiiiiiii��u��iiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiuiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiii.iiiiuiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiuii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuuiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiii iii i CITY OF BURL[NGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 CITY OF BURL[NGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 �`, ciTr a� - • BURLNOAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION �.,m,.,.��a Type of application: Design Review � Conditional Use Pernut Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project I 2 �+iol�1/Gt �� 1!'e vt,9.o-Q,, � ✓ �� APPLICANT Name: �O6'�1 � � r�s �v N 1 C�1�� Address: 'J � 2 i'�" "a r� �� City/State/Zip: ✓�— � � Phone (w): � � ' S� `f (h): lo� ��I 3 - � Z � (fl: (v5� �5�3 � � I I b ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: {� �✓� 1`�1�(l� l� � Address: 2?J � �� City/State/Zip: 6�� vG� � �E � �� % Phone (w): ��b�1� - �%-��`�� (h): �� RECEIVED F E B 1 1 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: � e� �t � I � u1y �, c ��- /a t f- c. `.� u �� ^ �-� � �eS�`'� ►� (�t �i e� r a-F� r S-{- G,•�o� Scco nd si AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. oc�d i �"l�o r►, the information Applicant's signature. Date: =// �/ u c� I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signatu � Date: Z/i u f v c.� PCAPP.FRM PROPERTY OWNER Name:� ��i'i 3� l�o C' � � Address: �J � 2 t�Q �G� 7�"ViY11J� City/State/Zip: �i' ��C� � �" � �i17� � Phone (w): tQ,�� "Z�g�' �n�: 1�5��3 �� (�: (051�� Dl Ib Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desi�n review for a second story addition at 312 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, Thomas and Trish Nichol, property owners, APN: 029-262-150; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on April 12, 2004, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 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, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12�h day of April, 2004 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review. 312 Howard Avenue Effective Apri122, 2004 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 11, 2004, sheets A1 — A3; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors or basement, 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 design 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; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 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; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7. that the conditions of the City Engineer's February 17, 2004, memo, the Fire Marshal's February 19, 2004, memo and the Recycling Specialist's February 11, 2004, memo shall be met; 8. 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; 9. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review. 312 Howard Avenue Effective Apri122, 2004 Page 2 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. ,� V ,. CITY OF BURLINGAME BUrtu,n�/1ME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �''b,..,,,,,„.•''�� TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 312 HOWARD AVENUE Appiication for design review for a first and second story addition at: 312 HOWARD AVENUE, zoned R-1. (APN: 029-262-150). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, April 12, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: April 2, 2004 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the applic ' '""' r�P'�' ay be reviewed prior to the meeting a lai ' g� D pa �nent at 1 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Cal' rr� �� ' '} �� - t, If you chal ge raising onl hos ssues � t� described i t 'c at or prior t C a z e F c� Property o ers o r i tenants ab t thi no i 558-7250. ank u. � �� • � � Margaret �o�� City Planner •�� PU (Please refer to other side) � � *� t a ► •� be limited to iblic hearing, ;d to the city ming their call (650) a p ,� r F n � � ` � I�l;v�i �, .....y� `+�� a� _�_ �� r�,«sa., `� r ` "�;a., � QE .s,� ,�• .��ii�f�'1 4 �@ �#'�� `" � ,�.�'�� x�'. f \ / . n �` yq ^..�` \_, � . � ^ '�$..M�3.' � +� �eb i�°� .� �` ,�e� �� . ,. . . . yq, , �'v+A. �3i i,+�� k� S . „� . � ' *4"'�£ � �. _ �- `�^�' .�.a `:• � w,. 5'� � +�� 4L �r"i � . � �" :' � � . � � b ✓ �• �+� q�- •'� ,y w } !' � � � b '$ �'�'t� d`'. � �.�r ��' ��"uA f " � . . � 3 �; 7 '�.� � ��4� � � ..� � ��t�� '� ' �� f.�., t � � . •� � p �` p ' 7 , `'�, � � F F '' �r 4 � � �' � � ��'� � �'� �, -:t�' � m ., � � � ;� �yT�-�, " �✓ �,�{ �`�w� %�n� � �> � ,��' +�' s a ��,y �x � ��,'�t-�, �`� ''e� � � � �� ' : . � , .�� % #' �� + �' :�m� ''//�a'�"+� '" `�"� � s �A, �,�°'�. � , ,� - y. , ,fr . ,! 'v� �fsf. ,rel,� � tb �" � � h` '�.� �� 'a� '� . . ��r-. ,�u'�' s.: � r ��" � R � w �" .�. , � � ��,3� �. - +� r --� -� 3�;. �� . . _ , ,,a�« � � - � a , �� I° � '�', . � ,�` w � . � .��, �:'w. c°. � g frs � t e .� � � p � . .� , c"�. � Y _ 3, �:.3 i � q".{N. �� *� .��` � y � � i ,�"� ... '�, * y y A '�i..�' � � �.� � { ' . ��y "'�'��4 � .. . # . \.. 1 . e4i� � �.�P' ."° P � ; _? ��.f �'� , . � � � ° # � ry,�, �3s�",� .r' t''.• � �' �� -f � � ;.�. _./ aa r� . �� +r . ✓ � t �,, �, � � . �" �,. k � Y+s ,�� ,�� w R � ��'- ` '� n ,��t ! ,✓'��.a, �_ � ' � � �y � �� V '� �, � y � d � ,� �, , ��, fi � � � �� - � � � h� yp�, y�! . �} A ��;'� � �� t � ��._��:. ��£ . _: d �,"/ � f�'��".�g� i .'�'t{, '¢��; yx " �!�r `3` . Sts le' � . eY r � �n �� 't R� �°+y.'9@'"z� �� a�" . C�' � � � O� �"�'�f � "�5-.. , r , -,p �, . , .r � � � � _ ; i . , y_z . , y . . ,.. � ,,i7 � ,, ,gs � � f . , s : � � .. d � p, R � .- 3 t� ` ,. . ' .. a ' :�� a� . , s , w .4.ws ��C *`i .�� "�j .� " A'� '��`� -�'k�.� �, � �� ,.` '� " �r 'o, »M� s a f� �• �� f � ;�_• �✓ �� i ! '�`�� ;" .� • ♦ � }!'��'"�T''`� µ# x.• +�.,r�,: p�.W �� . . ;.. z � . �, .'� � '� . . �,,.t . d �„ � ;W � �� { � � � � b , ! � 5��,';� " +l�� . t �k ;7� � �� $," .�"S ,� � a.t.� �✓�w`��d.. f �. ��t.. +„ 3 Y , � s� 1� � i , ,,4 "va `. . � �,A,' R F ' �, � r,: �;g"� �a ,� ...yF� � ' 1 . ! �`. A � - �+ � r `"' k � � � . ".� a� �� y"� . �" �- ' S{ ��` i : °'''�A`�`' ° '' . � �, �", r � ��: � �,yt�y �° � �'� � � �a' � i'"`?- = / "5p � j �rg .. ' V � � � � .. � � � ,� � � ,�„t �� $ �� 6 �. 1�y �� tq ,�° � �k��s.� � :� � � y�� • '` � "' „+*�°,1 t�'� 'k' �s �h r, r''�' / ''� ,� �� _� � �. . � ..." � . F � . �� : . , � � _ > � °. � ;� � � � #�; � ` � t �� t �'",�`� z,�� - i � ;�' �a , � _ �..� �� ` � �� ..,�v i`� �y�+ _�A`��I 4 � �' � ... a"�` i �" � � g�, - �y�. � z � �\ � �,.P 4'v � a r �` � �: � i '=, i > �S . � a� � � <. , .t� ,,.;,'"'�y � ", sp�� .. �,�� \ � �� r°� �t" u�. � ' b � F� ` � r , s +y� •s : �, . . 1 '�y jt£� � . `. � . 1 .. ; a . . . ..� �" � �5 •�fiJA` � � j �Y . •, �1A r n ( � �' �:..- '* - �'�� . �' n. . �' � a. � . �:. �. k �n `"� " 9 "`- „�` e�, : � � . �'' ,,� . � �s • � �� `., 3 � � � k e�' , � � � ,� .�, � �4y �a"' �1�, y e� z� .�'� �� -�* �� + ` °� ,w.� � r � � � � � fi . � � � _> � , ,� �� , .�. � � �,. , � , �. �� . �� . " . . �. r' , z � �+ ��. � '. -n 4 4� �`� , � � + '�". 'i- '� ah,�, � ��'�y4. �' �'i � � »; '� -� ,�L."�,,� ��"� � �^p"n. �o;� � �.� � �.� � , �'"� i�`(�, �, °�; '� ` '��d'�. ;�,�'`� ` _ � � ,nJ , �,� � � ,!`�: 8 � ;. . , . _ �f,,,�� ,«�, . � �, ° � '"�' , ,M �.� � �56 �'. � �, � ' " �1► `. . „�. ,y '' �. �'�y,� 'T�dr , '�,. , ,7' '' � , �� . . n ., f m . . .„ ,� 's , �� , ' �'�u � � � ,,, Y �•(� `,r � �� '�� , �� ~� � '�`° � � � �"��, ' "� � � � '` �'am �� . ��` ^� '� °�'F° � , � � , � . � �. �, _ .. _ , � � a , ��` '� : 1 > � , y' �. ,��. ,a �;a �' 'w. '� .r.'�'�_..�1 ,t-. 4 � `, . � �e* . . .. � - . .Y �;.. � *'�ar �-�., J't a. � �., � . . � � , ;_ , . . s A�.� , w .n, � . � . k � K � \ � �y < � . � � ' -,aR � � . f � �� \ %d, � ._ t � �' ,r h.� * l \ � � /�. � � k { �a .. �, . � , �9,.,. � � �€ � y�.�> �I�.. � � � x«.'�� )1 . "a.�f � �."• .! � - � , a. ��.,.. w � �� „ � .. r • +�. � � � .�� .? ' r � .4,�. � _ + �" .f e '�"�� . � a�'� k ,;� ,€�z� .. «. �� - �:. .�;` � � � ,� � � �`-� �� n.s , . . � ° +� ytie �` �� r�°h � � �; �� a ��.� °�"t" _. , . + t„t� "�" \ � � i��. , �'�,,�"� � � . , . `� ,d�'�, ��3 , �"" a��$ � ��Ay�� ,�• �J' � µ r "y � � �.a ' � ` 4 � t Y �rR • •...p.1� i .` ' ��,^i;p1'+�i� � 4 � � . .+ . E a � �� U � P � � � . i'� � F � � '�f �.+ ffi '� ' � ` �'�B � � ;� MF.. �� ry `+ M' � e il' . � # � . , ,+IY ;�,. '� � iF ,; , ;. ...� . - .' 'M ��. , .� q+ i - � � �� : . � ,� s � , �f, �'' r'� � ��.�� . ^' �'� � �� : � . � � ... , qk � � �o-, r � �;g� �:a , . , »� � `"� `�� _ ��g��a ,�� „�..�- �� ,r �.;� , i� : ,.r �I 'ys' /�� ''� � � ��` , '''��' � � � � � � ' ♦ . , �� c"y„ � s�`� �� , �. * �z . �j, �i ,� ��;. '- � "'�. . � , a � ti �, � � �"° � �,� � .� 'x �•� _ . �' , `�, . � ,� . � "_� � ° �.�*� .n' � �t � 7_ � � , � . . �. � ` � � � � � �� ^ �� r. , � , � ' "�d ��,k�'+�, �`��"� �� • .a� �,��'� � � � � � . ,�. `', t a„� � �� e�' ..,;,'� ,�;f � �' ` ,a � - ; � � `� � �,. , � - �, , , , �" .� �, ��H4� ,, �t w,w,. � �� ...�n� �„r�aort..cr..,_.� , i � �� ' : , � ,� � ..a. �, a�` i E ,�'�` ' ��. ,�,,. ' z I ��. � c A, � �. � . 4;, � .. . � �s."` � . � �� `�� .� �,��; � �� a. , _ ^ � ^ � . . y�,i'a� _ � .1°�,�'✓� �,�" �''� . �-.=� ' s� � � �u ��=�' . rA[.,� . � ` , ' „ =i � f,r � '.7 � � '� � hA �� 7 „4T a ' ` . a . � ,l � u �. �r � i . �., yk „4r '�y> « §� - _. . � �A ;..t g.. . . . E�.1� � ,�. . . � ��i