The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1217 Bernal Avenue - Staff ReportItem # Action Meeting � PROJECT LOCATION 1217 Bernal Avenue Item # Action Meettng City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a New Single Family Dwelling Address: 1217 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: 07/08/02 Request: Design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1217 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040 and C.S. 25.28.075) Property Owner: Stella Hung Applicant/Designer: JD & Associates APN: 026-173-070 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 6,000 SF Date Submitted: May 24, 2001 Zoning: R 1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. Summary: The proposal is to demolish the existing one-story single family dwelling with detached garage and construct a new two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 1217 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house would have a total floor area of 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) , the maximum floor area allowed. There would be two covered parking spaces provided for this four bedroom house in the detached garage (20'-8" X 20'-8") located at the rear of the lot. The top of the finished floor above the 730 SF basement is less than 2 feet above the existing grade and therefore qualifies as a basement and is not counted toward the overall floor area. The basement contains a recreation room, a laundry room and a bathroom. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling; and • Special permit for declining height envelope (48 SF encroaches along the right side). CURRENT ORIGINAL ALLOWED/REQ'D PROPOSAL PROPOSAL 6/28/02 5/24/02 SETBACKS , Front: Ist flr No c ange 15'-0" or block average 2nd flr No change 2g' (20'11") 20'-0" Side (left): IS`flr No change 12' 4'-0" 2nd��, 12' � Side(right):IS`flr No change 4'-0" 2"d flr 4� Rear: lst flr No change 37'3" 15'-0" 2nd flr 37�3" 20'-0" LOT COVERAGE: No change 37.2% (2,236 SF) 40% (2,400 SF) Desi n Review and S ecial Permit or Declinin Hei ht Envelo e 1217 Bernal Avenue CURRENT ORIGINAL ALLOWED/REQ'D PROPOSAL PROPOSAL 6/28/02 5/24/02 FAR: 3,420 SF/0.57 FAR 3,413 SF/0.56 FAR 3,420 SF/ 0.57 FAR PARKING: No change 2 covered (20' x 20') + 1 covered (10' x 20') + 1 1 uncovered uncovered HEIGHT: No change 29'8" 2�/2 stories 30' whichever is less DHENVELOPE: Special permit required1 Special permit required1 See code No change ' Special Permit for declining height envelope on right side (48 SF, (8' x 1'9" + 9'3" x 3'8"), along the right side extends beyond the declining height envelope). Staff Comments: See attached. June 24, 2002 Design Review Study Meeting: On June 24, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed this project for design review (see attached 6/24/02 Planning Commission minutes). The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns to be addressed by the applicant and placed the project on the action calendar for the next meeting: • Concerned that layer cake effect starting to show on the side elevations, design should be adjusted; • Concerned with second floor plate height, suggest that applicant consider raising or lowering second floor plate height to address mass, bulk and side articulation; • Garage door needs more detail, can it be broken up, double doors to reflect the style and detail of the house; • Shutters don't fit in with design, consider removing. The applicant responded to the Planning Commission's concerns in the attached memo and revised plans date stamped June 28, 2002. The following changes were made to the plans: • Shutters have been removed from all elevations; • Garage door detailing has been added; • Chimney has been eliminated along the second floor north elevation, round window added on second floor (in bathroom) in place of chimney; � Basement re-configured and slightly enlarged from 705 SF to 730 SF, lightwell exit move to north elevation instead of rear; • Second set of French doors added in family room at rear elevation where lightwell was previously proposed; and • Second floor notched along south elevation (6.33 SF taken out of bedroom number 1). Please see attached memo from designer regarding suggested plate height reduction and second floor articulation. 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: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 2 Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope 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. 1117 Bernal Avenue Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for garage length the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is 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 made by resolution and should include findings. 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 June 28, 2002, Sheets 1-6, and G-1, site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan; 2. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, and Chief Building Official's memos dated May 28, 2002 shall be met; 4. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 5. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 7. that prior to 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; Design Review and Specia! Permit for Declining Height Envelope 1217 Bernal Avenue 8. 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Catherine Keylon Planner c: JD & Associates, applicant/designer � . ROUTING FORM �"�...4 �� . a � � .� � _� �: �. x . DATE: May 28, 2002 TO: _City Engineer ✓Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _Ciry Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a new two- story single family dwelling at 1217 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-173-070. •� �• � � � ,. �, �;, r �-� DATE: May 28, 2002 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal �Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a new two- story single family dwelling at 1217 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-173-070. STAFF REVIEW: Monday. Mav 28. 2002 �� G�`�� .r�� -� . z �� =��-�� - � �� UL�� -- �� - �- C� �--� N� s�� /� � �' �'{--�„-v i �- Y�-- ��-�.�-7�✓v, f j �-- � � � _ _ - � � ,, -,�,� --w�n � G� vr�-� � � V� �J � � c� �— �� (-�.,� C�w�'�'�`�-�%� �- �'�,�`'�� ? �� w � � � � �� fi w� w��-�-�� 2- Reviewed By: Date of Comments: j�7��0 2_ �; . ROUTING FORM �x � x�E �_: _ k��;. �. DATE: May 28, 2002 TO: �City Engineer _Chief Building Of�cial Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _Ciry Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a new two- story single family dwelling at 1217 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-173-070. � PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLAI�INING REVIEW COMMENTS p,f�.r �vw-sl-o✓u, Project Name:� ,��/Q�„� Project Address: ?-f ��'. The following requirements apply to the project 1 �_ A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 2 _� The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. 5 �_ A sanitary sewer lateral� is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. 8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The pazcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Page 1 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the pazcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles, trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 19 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 ,�_ The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 _ f The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re- submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject to City Engineer's approval. 22 _� The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 � The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the gazbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2002 11. 1217 BERNAL AVENUE — ZONED — R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STELLA P. HUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked for clarification on the square footage extension in the basement ordinance. CP Monroe noted 600 SF is exempt if walls are less than 2 feet above grade, also 100 SF is exempted for mechanical area. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Jerry Deal, designer, was present to answer questions. He stated that the code allows 600 SF of basement to be exempted from FAR in addition a 100 SF is exempted for mechanical pits for a total of 700 SF. So, 5 SF of this basement is counted towards FAR. He noted that the special permit for declining height envelope was 48 SF because the window was less than 25% of window enclosure. He did this so the window would better fit the design on the house, otherwise it would be too big. Commissioners comments: that the front and back of the house are nice, but at the sides are starting to look like a layer cake, this is starting to show on north elevation; the addition can be improved; the house has been designed to meet the code numbers and not for style evidenced by the fact that designer got caught on the declining height envelope and by the window enclosure; the second floor plate height can be altered; designer should consider raising or lowering plate height to get more variety on the side elevations; the details on the garage door should be improved; what purpose do the shutters provide, do they fit in with the design; the side elevations are overbearing and need to be toned down; also noted that the garage door needs to be broken up. Applicant noted that the next door neighbor has requested that construction not be started until November, and stated that this could be a condition of approval. Sophie Lo, 1215 Bernal Avenue, the next door neighbor spoke. Stated that she is due to have her baby on October 8, 2002 andrequested that construction not begin ti116 weeks after delivery, late November. Commission had the following concerns about the proposed project and asked the applicant to address them: • Concerned that layer cake effect is starting to show on the side elevations, design should be adjusted; • Concerned with second floor plate height, suggest that applicant consider raising or lowering second floor plate height to address mass, bulk and side articulation; • Garage door needs more detail, can it be broken up into double doors to reflect the style and detail of the house; � Shutters don't fit in with design, consider removing. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the project had been revised and reviewed by staff. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1(C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:46 p.m. 12 JD & ASSOCIATES BUILDING DESIGN & 1228 paloma avenue fax (650) 375-8448 email 6-25-2002 RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2002 ENGINEERING burlingame, ca. 94010 tele. (650) 343-6014 jerrydeal l @attbi.net Re: New Single Family Residence 1217 Bernal Burlingame, CA 94010 To: Burlingame Planning Commission CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I would like to address the following comments from the Design Review Study Session of Monday June 24th 2002. • The north elevation seents to be dictated by tlre quantitative elements of the code. • Appears to be a second floor layer cake effect. The north elevation does have a first floor which follows the 4 foot setback line. This is very typical and especially very necessary since there is a 12 foot wide strip for a driveway and some landscaping on a already narrow (50 feet wide) lot. The detached garage in effect has reduced the allowable width of a dwelling from 42 feet to 34 feet. The second floor north elevation setbacks are as follows: Setback % of wall 4'-0" setback 19.6% This is for the 9'-3" wide dormer 6'-0" setback 16.9% This is for the 8'-0" wide dormer 7'-9" setback 36.4% This is second floor setback for the DHE 9'-4" setback 27.1% This is for second floor setback in excess of the DHE The available second floor width is further reduced by second floor setbacks needed for aesthetic effect and for the DHE. It is clear from the above statistics and viewing the roof plan that the south and north elevation have a great amount of articulation. The suggestion to lower the plate heights at the second floor creates some severe interior ceiling height prablems. In order to provide a visually effective elevation change at least 2'-0" of vertical difference in plate heights is needed therefore reducing the plate height to 6'-1". The pitch on the roof is only 5/12 and therefore it takes almost 5 feet for the ceiling to rise to a height of a standard ceiling of 8'-1". This is a very problematic soiution and the reason that great amounts of articuiation was used. � South and nortl: elevc�tions could have less mr�ss. The south and north elevations have a great amount of articulation. Merely looking at a flat plane elevation as drawn for the submittal cannot adequately show this fact. When this elevation is coupled with the roof plan, however, it is evident that the great amount of articulation along with the substantial shadow lines created will not create a massive second floor. • 7'he garage door could have more detnil. A good suggestion and more detail has been added. It was the intent of the Owner to have a more detailed garage door. • Tlre sliutters appear to be placed without reason and are not on all windows. I disagree with the notion that the shutters did not fit into the design. Much field study was done that justified the method of choosing only certain windows to have shutters. For expediency they have however been removed. I feel that the comments of the Planning Commission have been addressed and would like to thank the Commission for their positive input. Sinc ly, Je De Pri cipal JD & Associates RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. �_ CTTY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 � CITY 0 �� BURLJNGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION � `M� w[d`•oe Type of application: Design Review � Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit�� Other Parcel Number: Project address: � f � ��L.+/�V`D--� � ;rP APPLICANT Name:�� _ ��? Address: f �- � 7 �f,A-� /�� City/State/Zip: Phone (w): �v� -.� Q � v�,� (� (h)�� .�� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER t Name: �p � %��Gr�- j (�� Address: r2-2''4' �''�-�'''Yl,�- �u�' City/State/Zip: $��-� �"�"� � q`�"°�° Phone (w): � `�'' � �° f'`� ��.j: 3�75- ��#'�'� C�► �(�: PROPERTY OWNER Name: �/�M � Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w):_ �h� �— ��— Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ��'� �� —" ��' �` � �`�� '`�� -s� ��( �4— �c�. �`"�� €��-� �' � � � � ;� ;--} ,�. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and corre�Ct to the b st of my wledge and belief. l: ^ Q� Applicant's signature: Date: ; % f I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. e: Date: � %' a � Property owner's signatur PCAPP.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ag me.org �a�; CITY O� BURLNOAME �.,m ,... •��• ` CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION 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, sca[e 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 c�_ �W _ L� � 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. _�� f? RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the ciry (C.S. 25.57)? � - ��--l�.s? _ -�°'%; 4. Ezplain 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 appro riate. G`- � SPECPERMFRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burling,ame.orQ 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the �zew 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 &om neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the p�oposert' new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood. How will the shucture or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by eize, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city? Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet these guidelines? 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the pur�Yng 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 footprintof 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. SPECPERM.FRM SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION - CITY OF BURLINGAME 1217 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. • ... j .Special permit for a 12 sguare feet encroachment of a dormer into the DH� where 35 square feet is allowed without a speeial permit. The eneroachment permit will enhance the architectural style by creating. a c�ormer which will add complexity to this side of the dwelling., The proposed dwelling sits between two larger homes which were built prior to � enactment of design review. , 1 Explain why the blend of massr scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the ezisting street and neighborhood. 2 3 The proposed dormer is consistent with the architectural style of the "Spanish" architecture. This is a style visible in this and the surrounding neighborhood. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. , The ronf line, dormers.facade, exterior finish materials and elevations are consistent with the "Spanish" style. The neigh6orhood consists of an eclectic mix. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design ' guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? �� .- The design guidelines ask that new homes match the character of the neighborhood. The new "Spanish" home has been designed with neighborhood consistency as a major factor. Careful attention to details and complexity of the exterior facade help to create a dwelling that will be in character with and an�asset to the neighborhood. The 12 SF dormer adds greatly, to this and is in keeping with the architectural style chosen. A detached two car garage with a south driveway adds , � 'to neighb�orhood consistency. � 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. � � No trees aTe to be removed with this new home � :� RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. �r�, c�Tr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLJHCpAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �,,�. w �,��•�'`� TEL: (650) 558-7250 1217 BERNAL AVSNiTE Application for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a new single-family dwelling at 1217 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-173- 070) The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, July 8, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located .�t 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed June 28, 2002 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING Mary,�He��+E CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the a to the meeting Burlingame, Cal If you chal raising onl; described i at or prior I Property o� tenants abc 558-7250. ' Margaret Mi City Planner �� C � �. a � ca ,e prcrJe�t�may be reviewed prior ent �� J1 Primrose Road, �� ourt, vu ma�be limited to � ��ed a� ihe �iblic hearing, � _� .�� c��denc��eliver d to the city � A�� '<��,,� � �t � r � �� . �. w.,;,_ �sponsi��,for itiforming their iformatio �� ple�� e call (650) „�•�, � �"''*�� °� � �� i��t..OTICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desi�n review and special permit for declining hei�ht envelope for a new two-story house with a detached ara� at 1217 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, Stella Hung;properly owner, APN: 026-173-070; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on J� 8, 2002, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review and special permit for declining height envelope are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permit for declining height envelope are set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Ralph Osterlin�, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of Julv, 2002 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permit for declining height envelope. 1217 Bernal Avenue effective August 5, 2002 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 28, 2002, Sheets 1-6, and G-1, site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan; 2. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, and Chief Building Official's memos dated May 28, 2002 shall be met; 4. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 5. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 7. that prior to 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; 8. 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 proj ect has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 2 .}... « ^ . . .f. "+¢ ar: .:",/`y 'tt �z'. ,�''"� � - � � . p ,� � , �<, „�' � j s .; �. ��,� `l � �� . \ _ , , � ` �^. .: � .� �L� � a>; �,", �m � �. . � � ; ,. ., . ,, �'� � ,, ._ �y . � , � y � ;��,� , , � : '" ��c. . < ti , ...g,� ,r�..�. . . � �.a i ,� � �! � ��„ , r ' � . • � � � . ,`a. .. � , � � . . �' p' . � '� , . �, -� , m � ' - `� c„� . . .. � , .\ . > : � ` �� _ .� -�sc' xa R� `4,} ♦ �`$� E ��\i+, �' ��.� _��: � � �: � � �.� �c' �r � ' '^.., 5 � F.'^`,p" � �: ��'� '� � ` . ` � „ , v � a A . �� , , w �4� �' a � i � ..�'f �' f �� '44 �^ � � `f � �r• . ✓ . ^+ w . o> s „, <,. ,. . '� . � ��e.:'..� y��. �� .4.., �� .�" �,. If 'L � s,` „��\�� .'� � ' d. ,at '�..`. _„p S• t j � ;��¢r'C' �y� e A �`:r .\� � i�,, + �..•� fi '�, �� `� ,�"� +r t„�+„ Y �/k ` ? � �%' Y m . � '+Y, � ��.�, w�„ � �'py`''�'�,�.f � ' ''' .w:�.7' � t � ,. � � .�'�. .f r�t� � x 3* fi . �, � � _�". �•-� �qw`e. A 'r ^5�$ .+M° � �� -:. � y��& �°i'hi� �• � `l' ..�. , � �� d�!`P ..p +%� �� ' � �, g'��V, ,� , .t' -ry� , � ' _ ` �?��` �, .a ,`� ^ °,. � '�'t .� �� .�►- ^ ' A, p� f � s � :�a�� <_ . uSG. , ��°. � < w �� '`a ti: `�E., ,,.� *� ''�. '`*, ,� <,: .t�, ,;� � �� ` ''�. �° � �r ` ��►, � ��y «�t�.� �''�° � r y :'a � � ;: �a� �:. 1 �i` � 4'� �,�,-� � ; �� . . , �. ' . � ' � .. s'� \i� L��, � i .�` • �, e�. , �1� � � , . }�� ? v. ' `� . � � ..:`� .�p,� a'€`�.,-'`_'°r � "'� `\ ♦ � . _ � aF ♦ �'�. ;� �S-i'a,. �l.3.' . �::.,` S'� ' '� �% �'n 'X�"� ��' ,�! � : « ,i+�. �.;. 4� 'vy��^`g�'�� , - � �PN�. i i'PS,�, . � .�, ' •q � �� . . �� tls.� y .� � „ - � � � ' ; �y �{�� , � � �� rt`` .a -s .r ��.� . �� a � _ . . +� �. . . �� . e � _ � _ .�, . '�,;��,,. // ,� � .. . . y ��/ . . ��." '°,�'.;. �� ,.,�, y^:,T."'4a. �}.f"d' ,,� ti"`,�y..,;� � ^�• `�r� � �'Z !�!. �� `�� , � e ,� �� ,, �., Y � • , � �. . � � ��;. ,1� ', ; �. ,x1 �� r. +� t.. �:.� �� , ,. � ,�,� a. d#„. � z.�' �� , ' i a't�'� ��'y � t�.� , ��• � a��. tfi' �� '� . ��,A y . K,� ;�� '' � �* �. A .- '�'�,�� ; � , ... � r �.�..,�Y 4�� . �` `� �� v � > �z:' �� 1 �:..:� ., �`��. �. .� � � �1. ` °� � '� `�,'� �.. � �� "T�. , � � .�,� ^� �, .,.� , _ _, � , ` �. � � , .. i,, '�3,� ... . ;� �: :,k �jr �"�, Ci?�`., � �"�'� �r�_� �°� �. x� 7• ��``;. . . ' � �s R,�..�� t �I ..8 "�Y�i'�+�. � . � � El�� i ,�, '' � Yr ,�� ) �. - �. � . ..�r . • . . . - � .. < ,�,, .« s x r , , � � . , � , _ » � ; ' ��'� . �",�'. ,,{� � ��,, � . � �MT . • w � �r i{�,Sc,�,.�-�. � '�' '�. ' � ..�r �: .�%.+t� ..��. ��y'��.s�,. �. �� ,; ,.t i � � ., > . �. Z . � � ;Y �.`� . � ,�... �'�. � � � �� *� � �'� ?` .$ � ��.�e � +��' `,� � �� Y � � . ,,6� ro . � � ^ � � ��' `*' � �• � f ..: '�, i 3 � , , s � � • �: " + �4�k� ' {. . � ,�, ry�', � 8 �% �� a �� ,' " ` 4;r- � . � a • �a . �_fJ � ��r . „�i � 'Xv�+s� � . ' � I� � f � y � ` � � � �t �_: r . y�, �� .E�y, '� l� ... f G d � �y '. \�� -» .. Pi,.- e ` . , .` �� I g�,'+�+.� � � ' .e � q ��• �� 'j '+�i� L��. ♦ l sf . �.'.� �' � �{ ,,, _ ." S� �-;'. ' '�' '� , :t' .J' " � >'e!y ' �� _ . , ,, . � r . , . . , , , � �;�. �,;� .. � �'' � �� '�'1 � �,�` - w s,'. �',, , .. '`� � �%'� , �' r ` , , y � �,� xr� ` _ � •. . i 3 �, yt: _ �t, €.l' �6 � �'�` .,, r �;� y� ��'�n �� e�e � : �' i O !�' � � '� � �'�, ° � • i! '"d� �*,�.' , nC 1�,j'}�.. y�:,,��!�,g,r��. �f :�.�. � "F��%`�.; �.`:i�' 'O:. .%� "fis� .- }r�:•. � . ^ �' ��'„�,', �..j-��$'i ��e"�� .d'�' � '�. t' '� �� i� < .1 C y' .�xy. .'�#t I` w ��+.: w� / . ) � M'e�"�..�y+' ' � Y � „ e ,y,,,� t .. �� c�.,�^ r�� '�{•: _ ,� ' .�4 ! �� \ � � F3 ,� $� . ti ..�� » ... �., . <l� �� p . �� .�#,"'4 '�rr.�/� �`t�� 'r � �r., p ;�Z`� � � . ... .#t ' •�a.. � I / �cJ `�r, .. : q �� .�:'r a � �?�' � w.a��',.,. L ,�.�":. � ,Y�� t "c .,� �gC "�_ F`E.' "�fY.,�v�'"�� , � i i:: `. � 'a' , " , . A`;'\ '"v�� `�i-s. � v'�:i�`� :t��F1`�r °' �� *`�. a �.. ^�� r �.. , ��.. �a»,�`+`;, � � r a .. , �ti � , ' . ,�, t�.2,,/ a ' � - : � � : � .� �.. �-�. , -- �y �y' • � � ^' .�. � .�k-' � Ea`� i „ i t .,�'t.r � . � . • y e� .C�'�_.. , �`� � �a ^F � '�, . F�� . r x�. . �a ,MT •t' �� ` � . �, /� aA� ��' \.> � '� {swf . �, .e�, n '�i; : � ¢ . '. :..yi � # �n'�� « ��e"�� . � �- �. e � � , , � �. '- 3 • qE � �� ?'`,.r c.. � � � Si ,<�; . , ; _ �� .,� 'y'.�. ,� � � -^w�'� �+� �� y � e. � � • .r., . '• � . , � . G; , ,,�� •�►,w.. � �.� � , � .�, � :i' �'s; , . � ' ' �• �` s� �<'� �� . i.� e ;� qw� +` � . .; ,r ',,�'�x �� '�! '�"' , }�� L- - a� .�� '°� \� '��' '�.� _ _ �2 �5�� s- y _p�P •�E^w ;�'°. � ` .-r"�'��r:' . � f .� � � y� . y+ t ` : , � ��'-_�. � a �` .� Tp f '.'3 �,w � � 'a�'..'6��' \`y'�� §• �V„x �"y�,; � A",� �e�. _ '�. d�� .?.. , r � + � ,� � �. �� . . „ y \ . .. i,�, �,j.. ` - � .`t§."'?-' .. "�Y �; °" .'FY � �.:�d'-^�.4a'.f +�T,a� '# ' l � � 7s..�+IR� � �.. �4�. `y , `/ �.� � �. , . a � 63. � � � Y� `"� f Y �`,►�+•;�+ �,,,�,� � . �s �X�i�`� �� g -'t : * , ��; ��'y,• -'�;`� "� .-` �'�"��,'�'� j ' 1�N .� �Y , ; • �i, �' . <� f ,�+ ,, : - �, ; -� ; M.r. r � < '°` A ,', /, /�� { ` S � i�� n a. . ..a w% ; . p , f � ��y� l . � - a,.'- � � -• ,a'�l "� �^ �. � ' , -. � .�a�a• . `� ,c' � � +c��,�,, ; '` `� �, "'�� ,,, '�`� \() �i�� . ..� . � .��' , .�� . . �w,�e � �" � �� .�:'- � � � A�� •�' ' ,'�s�r�: ^ a � • � �. / ''t' . � � � � � � � �� - � � n,; * : . t ; �' 'I �� `� c* -:' � ��++ C � ! � �' �,�"� a�� . �� . , � ' � . s . • . � � � � � � i' ` � � k . -, ,�`r�,, t , �'�"` .� . . �;ga'.�� f � � y" , 4 �. �� t.�+.T,►� .� �� `�` � �'�"" � i , � �� J , . : . .� . , �. � � ; �4 . . _ . 2_ � �. - � �. � � . .,�� _� , � � s�� . ,� �� ,� �� ,�.. _ � . x �R ::� . .�� . � � ,-,, � , �,t�� ,.�� _ � � � ..�_ ��y. � �� . � - ,� � ` �� '� � ...� . � � ` . s ,� ♦ . �� =.:.r9' :. : ;• �iT ' `,.� F Y � e� ` . � ��f ��i ..[. `., t� � ' � - . • - . • �, � a� . . , . _ . � .. . i . . .„. � .w !• �. �,. � '�� <_ '�� . �Ja� i ,x �t . � e . .. . � •� , � � �... :- • •,f �� +� } _ ,. . . .,.• �r4r, ��+��^ .y � RM. . � � r.✓��.4 .� : • rtr� '� fa<".: � F �: f � �� ttw� � es►*i'' "�.„; �'� ..�, � , -�ti � , _ .: .. � . . .w, . � ;, t � . v ....�: „f`�. � �:,as l�' .. ` .� "' q �. . , �. ,_ .. _ . � . �� . , _ .- „ �_ ' � � -'_ •. ,,�y� "4t�` »� �..i ..y� .k ..` �a.�('\K'. �� i � kti,z4, '� .; �. ' ��3 . 4� � i� ��an . j ' � � 7 � �vd �� +�I .. . _ !' ` .�.,�}� .. �y �.,,, .,,}; �¢ �'3+f �R�RJ�',��b! ... . :, ..s �' .�T�\4 ..,. �. �'l Yf«..t {�. .t. J � \�. ,y�,` ."� Yrk�7 l .�� .� - �Y� ` ._ �.�. « . _ • a Y , 4 � _�i,r+!';. �� \ ':�. � su ' . . e. A� r .-` . �i . ✓ �