The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1629 Howard Avenue - Staff ReportItem No. 8c Regular Action Item PROJECT LOCATION 1629 Howard Avenue City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1629 Howard Avenue Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Meeting Date: February 15, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Architect: Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure Property Owners: Peter and Judith Cittadini TR General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 028-316-280 Lot Area: 5,011 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exception. Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated April 9, 2018. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. Therefore, the proposed project may be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including one-single family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of the project. Prdject Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story single family dwelling and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached one-car garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 2,944 SF (0.58 FAR) where 2,944 SF (0.58 FAR) is the maximum allowed. A total of two off-street parking spaces, one of which must covered, are required for the proposed four-bedroom house. The new detached garage will provide one code-compliant covered parking space (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: ■ Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)). This space intentionally left blank. Design Review 1629 Howard Avenue 1629 Howard Avenue Lot Area: 5,011 SF Plans date stam ed: Februa 12, 2019 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED S�TBA CKS Front (1sf flr): 16'-8%z" � 5,_0�, (2nd flr): 20'-7" 20'-0" Side (left): 13'-73/4' 4'-0" (righf): 4'-7%4" 4'-0" _ ............................................................................................................................................. Rear (1sf f/r): 29'-0" 15'-0" (2nd flr): 29'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1846 SF 2004 SF 36.8% 40% ............................................................... FAR: 2944 S F 2944 S F' 0.58 FAR 0.58 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered ......... .................................. 1 covered (10' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') _ ........... .......................................... ........................................................................................................... ...................................................... Building Height: 28'-6" 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 ' (0.32 x 5,011 SF) + 1,100 SF + 240 SF = 2,944 SF (0.58 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on January 28, 2019, the Commission had several suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached January 28, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, date stamped February 12, 2019, to address the Commission's comments and suggestions. The applicant's letter provides a detailed summary of changes made to the project since the design review study meeting. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. E Design Review 1629 Howard Avenue Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure, featuring wood shingle siding, articulated first and second floor walls, proportional plate heights, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, wood trim, wood corbels and brackets, composition shingle roofing, stone cladding, and sloping roofs with gable ends is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood; that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants, hedges and trees at locations so that they help to provide privacy and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 12, 2019, sheets A1 through A7, SU-1, and L-1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. 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; 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 project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 3 Design Review 1629 Howard Avenue THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Planning Manager c. Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect Peter and Judith Cittadini TR, property owners Attachments: January 28, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes ApplicanYs Response Letter, dated February 12, 2019 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed February 15, 2019 Aerial Map Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated April 9, 2018 4 � CITY '` ; �' I '� 1'0 .� �� so° 49no City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, January 28, 2019 7:00 PM Council Chambers b. 1629 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and designer; Peter and Judith Cittadini TR, property owners) (119 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an oveiview of the staff report. Questions of staff.� > There is a new parking area shown on the site plan where the driveway is being widened in froni of the house. Is that allowed? (Keylon: If is allowed for accessory dwelling units. If project does not contain an ADU, it is not allowed un/ess iYs leading to a garage. Would not be allowed in fhis case since an ADU is not proposed.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Commenfs: > Have you talked fo neighbor on the right on the corner of Howard Avenue and Occidental Avenue? Their back yard backs up against your right side of the property. (Bittle: Their side yard where the garage is really their yard, so we tried to open up also in flipping the garage to the opposite corner,• creafes an open space that the two properties can share. Have nof talked to this neighbor.) > Have you decided on the type of stone cladding? Encourage you to choose something in the vernacular that fits the neighborhood, should not choose river rock. (Bittle: Thinking to use a natural stone, but don'f have fhat detail yet.) > Plans call out aluminum clad windows and doors. Are you familiar with the simulated true divided life muntins that we look for? Please add note to plans specifying type of muntins. (Bittle: Yes.) > Undersfand explanation of massing and frying to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. Think there is support for it in looking at the massing of the houses on either side. Plate heights are 10 feet on the first floor and 9 feet on the second floor. House is within the limit allowed. Second floor windows are tall, and there is a lot of freeboard of shingles that makes the second floor feel heavy. �l! the second floor ceilings be vaulied and have volume? (Bittle: Yes, there will be sloped ceilings. Did look at lower plate heights on both floors, but it looked out of scale compared to the house on Occidenfal Avenue. Also used trim on the gable ends to break down the face of the house.) Should revisit reducing the second floor plate height, perhaps bringing it down to 8'-6'; would help wifh scale as you work from freeboard below window sills to the tall windows. (Bittle: �ll take a look ai it.) > Like sfy/e of existing bungalow with low s/ung roof and wood brackets. > Existing house has tapered front columns, new house has simp/e square columns that look light for this design. Could you consider fapered columns with a solid base? Would make the front of the house Pop• > Are trim boards on gab/e ends flat against the wall with shingle in between them or pulled out under City of Burlingame pege � Printed on Z/15/2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 28, 2019 the barge rafter? (Bittle: They are flaf against the wall. Probably should transition to a clapboard between something different material.) Could look really nice if the trim was pulled out, would he/p the design, should consider it to make things jump out more. (Bittle: We're nof too deep on the rake as shown, not enough to gef ihe emphasis you're looking for.) > Agree that plate height should be reduced, wou/d he/p bring back the Craftsman design we are losing in the exisfing house. � > There doesn't appear to be an weather protection over the rear patio doors. Should consider an eave overhang or other detail to protect those doors from weather. (Bittle: �th current waterproofing methods, it should work. Looked at adding a trellis, but decided against it because the yard is so small and want to bring light into the house. Can look at recessing it a bit, but not looking to do a full covered roof.) Public Comments: Neighbor on Occidenta/ Avenue (name not provided): Did not review proposed plans until today. Concerned about window placement and privacy on side of house facing my home. Appreciate thoughtfulness of the size of windows and them not being located directly from my office. Would like owner fo consider adding privacy hedges between houses. Less worried about first floor windows except at the rear of the house, where my kitchen sink window is /ocated. Concerned with second floor facing daughter's bedroom. More than likely lines up with the stainvell window, which will always produce light at nighftime. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion.� > Landscape plan should be developed further. Suggestion to add landscape screening along the driveway would be he/pful. > Delineate size of pafio in back yard on the site plan, floor plan and landscape plan. > Should check with staff if pull-ouf area in driveway is allowed by code. > Revrsit plate heights, particularly on second floor. Would help with overall scale; adjusting by six inches or so would help with the overall context of this house fitting in with fhe neighbors. > Revisit front porch columns as discussed. > Indicate size of wood trims, brackets, and corbels on building elevations. > Indicate simulated true divided lite windows on building e/evations. > Encourage applicant to meet with ihe neighbors to discuss details of ihe projecf, including adding landscape screening along both side yards of fhe house. > Encourage applicant to meet with neighbor on right to review alignment of the wrndows. Could consider making stainvell window frosted glass to reduce light impact. > Wou/d be he/pful to see alignment of windows with neighboring house to right on plans. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5- Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse Absent: 2- Sargent, and Loftis City of Burlingame peye p Printed on 2H5/2019 February 12, 2019 City of Burlingame Plannin� Commission Review Response Letter Re: Cittadini Residence — Planning Commission Discussion Items Project Address: 1629 Howard Avenue APN/Lot No. — 028-316-280 Commission Discussion ARCHITECTURE ALLURE ti � �_ � _.. . _ _,:� , _ ? i.;;� , !,� �. ,r 1. Landscape plan should be developed further. Suggestion to add landscape screening along the driveway would be helpful. Response: Landscape screening along driveway has been added, see sheet Li. Landscape includes 3 gallon Ceanothus Americanus, Cornus Stolonifera, and Lonicera Nitida. 2. Delineate size of patio in back yard on the site plan, floor plan and landscape plan. Response: Outline of possible patio has been added to the site plan, floor plan, and the landscape plan. Pavers or paved area would not exceed 250 SF. For patio delineation see sheets A2, A3, and LS. 3. Should check with staff if pull-out area in driveway is allowed by code. Response: Pull out area has been omitted, but an area with pavers has been included for easier access to front door, see sheet L1. 4. Revisit plate heights, particularly on second floor. Would help with overall scale; adjusting by six inches or so would help with the overall context of this house fitting in with the neighbors. Response: Second floor plate heights have been lowered by 6" to reduce second floor mass, see sheets A5 & A6. 5. Revisit front porch columns as discussed. Response: The front porch columns have been detailed thicker with a taper and a more solid base, see sheet A5. 6. Indicate size of wood trims, brackets, and corbels on building elevations. Response: Elevations have been revisited, adding a deeper barge rafter and large corbels. Trim sizes have also been added to the elevations, see sheets A5 & A6. 7. Indicate simulated true divided lite windows on building elevations. Response: The window notes have been updated to show simulated true divided lights, see sheet A5. 8. Encourage applicant to meet with the neighbors to discuss details of the project, including adding landscape screening along both side yards of the house. Response: Screening has been added/called out along both sides of house, including specific screening at the driveway and windows, see sheet Li. Privacy hedges include 5 gallon Rhamnus Alaturnus, Forsythia lntermedia, Pittosporum Tenuifolium, and Berberis Thunbergii. Architedure Allure, Inc. 1501 Mariposa Street, Suite 308 San Francisco, CA 94107 (650) 208-1204 (415) 876-8779 www.archallure.com 9. Encourage applicant to meet with neighbor on right to review alignment of the windows. Could consider making stairwell window frosted glass to reduce light impact. Response: Following previous hearing, we spoke with neighbor and coordinated. Second floor window locations have been added to the site plan per item #10 below. Stair window is off center. While the windows are close in horizontal alignment, and increased setback of almost 15' was provided to mitigate. Frosted glass is not a desired solution. Window treatments will likely be used. In combination of landscape screening and the use of the stair (not a bedroom and will have a lower intensity decorative pendant) being low use "space", the issue should be resolved. 10. Would be helpful to see alignment of windows with neighboring house to right on plans. Response: Second floor window locations of the neighbor on Occidental have been added to the site plans, see sheet A2. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Adam Bittle Architecture Allure, Inc. (650)208-1204 adam@archallure.com Architecture Allure, Inc. 1501 Mariposa Street, Suite 308 San Francisco, CA 94�07 (650) 208-1204 (415) 876-8779 www.archallure.com �'. BUR4ING/�ME � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • SO1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: 0 Design Review ❑ Variance � Parcel #: 028-316-280 ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit � Zoning / Other: R-1 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1629 Howard Avenue APPLICANT Name: Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure Address: 1501 Mariposa St., Ste. 308 City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 650-208-1204 E-mail: adam�archallure.com ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Adam Bittle PROPERTY OWNER Name: Pete Cittadini Address: 1629 Howard Avenue City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94103 Phone: - I�� Address: 1501 Mariposa St., Ste. 308 City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94017 Phone: 650-208-1204 E-mail: adam@archallure.com Burlingame Business License #: 29891 ��8�i�� OCI� -2 ?.018 C11Y OF BURLlIVGAMr CG�D-F:_��!R�1��r f��. Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. AB (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Removal of existing sin Iq e story residence w/ detached �ge. Proposed construction of a new two story residence w/ detached qaraye. AFFIDAVITISIGNATURE: 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: 10/02/18 I am aware of the proposed application and herebv authorize the above aqplicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: _ Date: 10/02/18 �d�Z��s Date submitted: 5: � HANDOUTS� PC Application. doc 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 Desian Review for a new, two-story sinale familv dwellinq and detached garaqe at 1629 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, Peter and Judith Cittadini TR, propertv owners, APN: 028-316-280; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 25, 2019, 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, 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 set forth in the staff report, 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 25th dav of Februarv, 2019 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1629 Howard Avenue Effective March 7, 2019 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 12, 2019, sheets A1 through A7, SU-1, and L-1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff�; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this perrriit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. 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; 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 project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT "A" Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1629 Howard Avenue Effective March 7, 2019 Page 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or . residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. �CITY OF BURLINGAME � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLIN,GAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �� ; BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 1629 HOWARD AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following pu6lic hearing on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2019 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall (ouncil (hambers, i01 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1629 HOWARD AVENUE zoned R-l. APN 028-316-280 Mailed: Februory 15, 2019 (Please refer fo other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. Kevin Gardiner, AICP Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) .-. � � „� ,�_ �, w - ca �t� � ,� �� +DQ , . c� , _ � a � � a c� : R � �a � � �,�' � + a �'� �, : � � � � ��' a �''� - a�a � � c� a � i� `a Q �� _ � � � � " ta O � O C] ♦ f� P ca �?Q�j - ��3� �; � �q �W � O� O p c.� � VU � Ca C�� dQ�s �a � y�G'�' : �� ` C� t� p � � �, � ��aQ � �� ; � Q � � ► q �'� c7 p� -w� C'�� ♦ 9� p � � � � , � � � Q � u . 4��, �� A � �, p �a c,4 `�c� qO�Q ',� q`,�a � G' ca � `: � ; �13�G � �� `��'%� `:� ->: �, f•;� � c� c ^�3 �� - � --_ ta � w � d 9f �";. ta a � - Cv� �C� � -(,.�51� � ;� � �� ytt, �� yFi � � � ��Q �c� �%' dP 0� � �9� 'r�� C�� `1 ; � qd4y �� Q � �� Q �; �, �q4 :� ``�S- �' �d �� p43 tJ�'� �� ' �C� „`�`�f � ' � Jr} � ` � �,L�'� pG `'�� Q�'rt �, �'� ` G ` x' Q � Qa� � k1`l3 � + e.} 4� Cy ,^, 4 ,�` "�"�' .. t �'Q Q � ��' �,c�'' ��'�� °�� '° "�_ ,� �,�.�,�.,�� S� � a;��.t� � 4� � a � - I �4,� pQ �vQ ��f� �� d��<, t p : R� �G� �, p`a ,�p `�'�'" +� `�d "`' 9 �� a C'� �� c3 3��'� � � ' # � 9r' � � rti- �,,� Y� n �� , � � 7 � ��"�q" ; '� ��°�� Q ' ' � ',,, ��, � ;�� Q a'� � � rt/�, �j� ,.t�q �"j� ��l� f Y~ l% �9��y. � L3" yMEF '� �'Y U r� �3 ulY Y,�C�- lC�t � k ��' Q d �, Q,�G+��; � "`1 '>��6�� Yw �;: � �p s ��Q ;� cr y ,s Lp �, ' f�� 1 � k �� 4?�` q p .d' Q y U ,- � �'C� � ?' L� `;. � • ,�, ��Q O s°��t�j •,.v`" ,� Q ;..,�»� �Gi� �,4 �,� Q�,,� + , _ y�, QaG�� .w..�.a � � a � �. p � � ,� � W � � 43�� °�,,.��' � �, Q � � �,: �� n � a ' ��° '' �� " � � c� � ,� , � � �.,,.... �,�,....� � � � _' a � �� t F . '..� �� 4 Ct� 7Y �� .i�- � 4I �t' � � � �L'•� (� � a,,,�• � � ' S� • l'� i G� w �� Q 9� �yC3'py1 ��`?�, '- `? _ � � } `� �� "� � 'c'� �' ..� ^��p � c �� 'r3 � � G' (3;��, g��49 ��Q r,. �"��.` � d ` � �, �,u.rv��.,� � �' . �"�„ `� � c^� � y�70� rt}u4��__ _s,:: -� � � r,� Q J�LI G'Q � �' �� 4 qan� � � �� qC� �,� • p c� �' 4 � � ''�� `a�% d;�t� `c?{T � � � � � � � ��, '�p �3fy� �^.��,u � �bQ n'c,� i`�" � C� 3 �� . c3 �G� � p :14 � Cur�C�� Cj �G� Gf� i t� a N � o `� / �1�� d � � �� 'p � �'Q � q c� � N c'� a�' qttl`� a,? �Q 3 � N �� f; �,�, � p� � �;,� y�� 51� '� aCi 4 2 � � �� p� I �. c� N o a '� a�7a� �,.�' � �, � ° �: rM Q �� „ C-�. ��Fa� _ i'� �•. � �4 -, �''� �