The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1255 Bernal Avenue - Staff ReportItem #7 Action Item ,,: � �� ; . � ' . ' !�r .,�- . ' s�,:.. � �� '�.�'�' k� . � � ti -� �p:� � �.� �, � r�:,' � �. y .;�a ��,+� ,, �.;� S e c •�' �.`'� ' e � � �, ..�11' ; ;�� ,"" - �,w - ..'`� . ',�' ' 3' ' � ' e , �� y � � _ ` ... �i�b.�.�' � a y''� ��' ° .ir;`'� �l+'�r.,►. + .' `� .. �, -k.'�`�► ��3,V , ��1 : fi; r. � ^ " �(�^J' � i,�. � R� � rt ', �l� �j ; � q .y `�" +�,o r y�J> j�t,+ � g� °# � t``i�'i� , 4 �. � � � i' � ' . � r ,' � „L�. �� ° � a „,� � �t ,j(, ,� �. �L.�C � ..� . �� . ,� �� w a .�' 3 � . -.� ` E �r "' y �{ �.,,�} , �ai"t� XF ��{ � ti µ[ y {{{`� ��fy'•. �..ol" ,y..F . �t /.A M jl.� ,�'y '4'�.� .�� f �N � �� •f i� ii �9 i �i'{ .,.�t � { i � • � r .. ��, �.��' . �� }:�. , ��w;q�;: A ;��, �,�` .�F:'�:�, �� " ,.� -��4� ;,.-i . i��,,1;. ,,,- �.� c;�. 1�. L r7 T�' �r�.i ' � ,i a� � � �i .� l' i9� .. . +, t..� ��.RG� 6 { -t � � / � e �.. i ,.. #��r.. . r.r`"� '3,,_'��+' � a.'a�,g 4a�1'�.�� r� � . � �C.� Cf °`� ..�� .., �±{ �yy� r�c �� v � (L , Y ,t A V '�`. 'r �,J' ��+,�� y,'�,-�� a?�i � ,'";;. y„� _ti ' �t � , t- � �r} � r (� i� � 1� . _� �� -: . � ,}�: �� J� ' µ : "e � � �t r 1 �h' � �� y�,'Ss � 1 t C � "JIl. �,, w i' ' T 3.. � ' � � r ` t 4ry � ��g±?� � " 4e.� �M y k 4'��. � � � � ; t t �.� �' +; � t . . �+�^ � P � � #N�`C �s�r s r ��t ��,� � d�k��a,�« .�� „��' �,�a. � % F � .��. f }� � �h t �� _ '�'� � . �� : ,�,,��+.t ,n�.�A ,�,� � „F}y�• � , � ,�{ �.�"�� .� � `� ,� ,'". ri�'ti�R�' , �� er�', } f',� x' .+�,y 9" t,�f.w..'..�� .PI � � .;�t .�i �}�,. � 1�:`� .,�:��{a� _ �, �. �(y �,,,�k,#t y.��,y�s � 4� •.,r� � 4i � ' �� Y . ..�._�t6 s.. t f .7`" r� lr�� y��y�'+' tC i d Y � -.4 / ( t�� • � t � i ! i t`r�:f r j� �k�i °{�, jf f t,:� 7h<�\ `,�' �' S.. ' ,�' , � 4�y,4t,.,_*� � �,.'e�,' '.4+"�=' � '�fr j � ��, �� r 4� `!`i � '� �'` � � r .t•. � ��,�. � ' �i '�ti, �° 'L � .. �,. - ,� . � ��:, f� � � �.,,. , __ �..,�„��-_ : � .� _. _ _. _ _ �... .. . -- —_--_.__. _ W _ __ _�-- � , ��; :.p. �C . . ��.,,�; . _�:.�� i� . � . ,-� , 4` � y.. +A�, � ��, � �. _ . .�� ,�� ,�� . ` s..... - PROJECT LOCATION 1255 Bernal Avenue City of Burlingame Desigrt Review Item #7 Action Item Address: 1255 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: 5/8/06 Request: Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicants and Property Owners: Christopher and Anita Kennon APN: 026-173-280 Designer: James Chu, Chu Design & Engr., Inc. Lot Area: 7804.5 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. History: On January 9, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1255 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, and denied the application without prejudice (January 9, 2006 P.C. Minutes). The Commission noted that the proposed mass and bulk is not in keeping with the neighborhood and listed several suggestions for the applicant to consider for a revised project (see 'January 9, 2006 Action Meeting' section on pages 2- 4). Shortly thereafter, the applicant resubmitted revised plans to address the Commission's concerns with the project. The City Planner determined that the revised project did not represent a substantial change from the January 9, 2006, project denied without prejudice. Subsequently, on March 13, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed a request for determination if the resubmitted project represents a substantial change from the previous project (March 13, 2006 P.C. Minutes). The Planning Commission upheld the City Planners' determination that the project as submitted did not represent a substantial change. Since then, the applicant revised the project further and submitted the current plans, date stamped April 27, 2006. The City Planner reviewed the revised plans and determined that the project represents a substantial change to the project which was denied without prejudice. Please refer to the 'January 9, 2006 Action Meeting' section on pages 2-4 for a list of changes made to the project. Since the Planning Commission has had several reviews of this project, it was determined that the project as currently revised could be brought back as an action item. If the Commission feels there is a need for inore study or changes to the project, this item may be placed on an action or consent calendar for a second review or referred to a design review consultant. Summary: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing single-story house, detached garage and detached second unit (special permit approved in 2004 to legalize the existing second unit built before 1954) (2,358 SF, 0.30 FAR) to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,930 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3,997 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed (project is 67 SF below the maximum allowed FAR). The project includes a detached two-car garage (442 SF) which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house. There is one uncovered parking space in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: ■ Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (CS 25.57.010, a, 1). Design Review 1255 Bernal Avenue Lot Area: 7804.5 SF Existing Previous ; (12/22/OS plans) SETBA CKS _ _ __... . Fro�:t (1 st flr): 19'-11 " 21'-8" (2�zd flr): none 22'-8" _ __ _ Side (left): 20'-G' 16'-2" (right): 10'-0" ' 7'-0" _ _ _. _ _. Rear (Ist flr): 12'-6" 28'-10" (2�:d flr): none 32'-6" __. _ _........ _ _. Lot Coverage: 2358 SF 2366 SF 30.2% 30.3% _........ _...._.. _ __ _........ FAR: 2358 SF 3891 SF 0.30 FAR 0.50 FAR __ _ _ _ _ # of bedroon:s: n/a 5 ___ _ Parking: 1 covcred 2 covered ', (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered _ _ _.... (9� x 20�) Height: 28'-6" DH Envelope: complies Plans date � Proposed (4/27/06 plans) 21'-8" 21'-8" 14'-7" 7'-0" _ 24'-6" 24'-6" 2567 SF 32.8% 3930 SF 0.50 FAR _....._ .... S 2 covered (20' x 20') 1 uncovered (9� x _2,��)....... 29'-4" complies 1255 Bernal Avenue iped: Apri127, 2006 Allowed/Required _ ..... 21'-8" average 21'-8" _ _ __ 7'-0" 7'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 3122 SF 40% _...... 3997 SF 0.51 FAR __ 2 covered (20' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') .. 30'-0" see code Staff Comments: See attached. Staff would note that a tree removal permit to remove a 20-inch diameter Fir tree and an 18-inch diameter Pepper tree at the front of the lot was approved by the City Arborist on December 7, 2005 (included in staff report for reference). In his memo dated October 19, 2005, the City Arborist notes that the exposed aggregate in the City's planter strip shall be removed and a minimum of two 15-gallon trees chosen from the City's street tree list shall be installed at the property owner's expense. January 9, 2006 Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission action meeting on January 9, 2006, the Commission expressed concerns with the project and suggested several revisions (January 9, 2006, P.C. Minutes). Listed below are the concerns and comments expressed by the Commission. Following that list is a summary of the changes made by the applicant based on the plans date stamped April 27, 2006. 2 single story _ _ _._. n/a Desigri Review 1255 Bernal Avenue Commission's suggestio�z/concer�zs wit/z the January 9, 2006, project denied without prejcrdice. Staff would note tl:at some of tlzese comments may not be applicable since the project has been substantially cl:anged: � Corbels below second floor cantilever on the Left Elevation conflict with the windows on the first floor, looks awkward, need to change; • Driveway gate should be automatic and should be located at least 20'-0" back from the front property line to leave enough room for a vehicle to park and not extend onto the sidewalk, plans need to be revised; � Have serious concerns with mass and bulk, proposed house will have a huge impact on the block, replacing a one-story cottage with a two-story box, house is twice as wide and long as the original, house is 65' wide; � Lot is wider and shallower than most other lots on block, therefore detached garage will be 35' closer to the street than typically seen; the garage with a double-wide door will be very visible from the street; � Two-story house with a consistent plate height on the second floor is not in keeping with the neighborhood; • 4000 SF houses are not common in Burlingame, house is too massive and bulky, this is not the way to locate this house on the lot, there are better ways to make it less imposing, for example could have a narrower house with an attached garage; • Loss of the Pepper tree in the front yard does not help with reducing the mass and bulk, it's unfortunate that it has to be removed; proposed Birch and Strawberry tree at left and right sides at the front of the lot are not the same scale as the existing trees being removed, suggest planting two large scale (36 or 48-inch box) evergreen trees in similar location of trees being removed, large scale trees will be in keeping with the proposed mass and bulk; � Porch along the left side of the house is not drawn correctly on the Front Elevation, plans need to be corrected; • Conflict between the entry roof eaves and stairway window needs to be corrected; • Small oval window over front entry is diminimis, should be revised to allow more light into the house; � Gable at the front of the detached garage is too small, suggest eliminating the gable on the front and adding a gable along the right side of the garage, would look better; • Concerned that the detached garage is only setback 1' from property line, need more room to facilitate maintenance, suggest garage be setback at least 2' from side and rear property lines; • Ok to have a 3,800 SF house if the mass and bulk is handled well and is in keeping with the neighborhood, feel that as proposed the project is not in keeping; design guidelines are written so that as project increases in size more design character is needed to make the house look smaller, in this case could have a narrow element come out towards the front on the first floor and the rest of the house step back, differentiation in plate heights would also help to reduce the mass and bulk; • Suggest the designer consider reducing the plate heights at scveral locations on the second floor, varying plate heights as low as 6'-0", incorporate dormers at steep roof locations, this is one solution that, if it is well done, would help to reduce the mass and bulk; 3 Design Review L255 Bernal Avenue • Designer needs to come up with a solution to minimize the impact of a 65' wide two-story stucco wall at the front; feel that the design can work with what he has; could also consider a distinctive one-story element at the front of the house with a taller plate height to set it apart; and • Suggest setting the second floor wall in bedroom #2 back further along the right side of the house, w�ould help to break up the vertical wall. Chaitges made to t/ze project (revised plans date stamped Apri127, 2006): � The revised design contains roof elements that extend down to the first floor. The previous design contained two story vertical walls on all elevations; � Two, single story elements were incorporated on the left and right sides of the house at the front. These elements have different plate heights (9' and 11'); � With the new single story elements, the overall massing of the house is not as wide as the previous design. The revised design reduces the visual width of the second floor by extending it lengthwise towards the rear of the lot; • The second floor was reduced in size by approximately 137 SF; • The revised design breaks up the massing by incorporating first floor roof elements, a second floor balcony at the rear, shutters and floor plan variations throughout the house; • Driveway gate is located 20'-0" back from the front property line to leave enough room for a vehicle to park and not extend onto the sidewalk; � The garage has been revised so that it contains two staggered single wide doors rather than one double wide door; • Two-story house with a consistent plate height on the second floor is not in keeping with the neighborhood; • Two large scale Pink Crapemyrtle trees (36-inch box) were added in the front yard; • Detached garage is set back 2' from side and rear property lines; • Floor area increased by 93 SF from 3,837 SF (0.49 FAR) to 3,930 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3,997 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed). Covered porch areas were increased from 175 SF to 263 SF throughout the house. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. L� Design Revietiv 1255 Be��nal Avenue 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. 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 April 27, 2006, sheets A.1 through A.7 and L1.0, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or chaiiging the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 4. 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; 5. that prior lo 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; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the hcight of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim inaterials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single ternlination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the strect; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the conditions of the City Arborist's October 19, 2005 memo, the Chief Building Official's October 13, 2005 memo, the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's October 17, 2005 memos, the Fire Marshal's October 18, 2005 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's October 21, 2005 memo shall be met; 5 Design Review /255 Bernal Avenue 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 14. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 15. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. Ruben Hurin Planner c. James Chu, Chu Design & Engr., Inc. 0 Cit�� of Burlingame Plrmning Commis�sion Minutes March 13, 2006 built accordi to the approved Planning and Building pla ; 21) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall e combined, where ssible, to a single termi tion and installed on the p rtions of the roof not visible om the street; and t these venting details sh be included and approve ' the construction plans befo a Building permit ' issued; 22) that the a icant shall comply with dinance 1503, the City of B lingame Storm Wa r Management and Disc rge Control Ordinance; a that during demolition of the xisting residencc, te preparation and con ruction of the new resid ce, the applicant shall us all applicable "best anagement practices" as 'dentified in Burlingame's orm Water Ordinance, to event erosion and of ite sedimentation of sto water runoff; 23) that th project shall meet all the re irements of the Califo ia Building and Fire Co es, 2001 edition, as amend by the City of Burlingam , 24) that the shutters s all be consistent with th�size and shape of the wind s; and 25) that all wind s shall be true divide ight windows. The mot�bn was seconded by C. Os rling. Auran called for a vi� ce vote on the motion to a prove. The motion pass�d"on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi :). Appeal procedu�es were advised. This ite concluded at 8:40 p.m. � 7. 1255 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION IF A RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE REPRESENTS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE FROM THE PROJECT DENIED FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (CHRISTOPHER & AlvITA KENNON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., DESIGNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran noted that he would recuse himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the project. He passed the gavel to Vice Chair Brownrigg and stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. Reference staff report March 13, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. She noted that the action requested is a determination if the resubmitted project represents a"substantial change" from the project denied without prejudice; if it does represent a substantial change then the item should be set for action at another meeting. If the resubmittal does not represent a substantial change, the applicant should be directed regarding the changes required. Commission asked the CA for clarification of this request. CA noted that this request was unusual in the sense that the denial was without prejudice, where the more common determination action follows a denial; but the issue is the same, this project as resubmitted did not comply with the directions given by the Planning Commission, the changes did not represent a'significant change'. Vice Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. James Chu, 39 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, designer and Chirs Kennon, applicant and property owner, represented the proj ect. Noted the things they had done to respond to the Commission comments, reduced the plate height at the front from 8'1" to 6', redesigned the roof so that it looks better than before, added arch elements and two new trees at the front and 5 street trees; noted that the neighbors support these changes even though they did not come tonight. Commissioner asked applicant to respond to the itemized staff comments on page 4, added variation at the rear, pushed out the master bath tub and added a gable, changed the trellis to a patio and reduced the mass by added roof element which affected the side as well; made no change to the footprint, did not understand the denial without prejudice to mean a complete redesign of the house; FAR is still under the maximum, the increase proposed in the revision is minor, square footage not the issue, it is mass and bulk; disagree that it is good to put a design feature out toward the front of the lot, if the majority of the commission had directed the redesign of 10 City of Burlingame Plarini�ig Commission Minutes March 13, 2006 the house we would not be here; roof pitch was never mentioned, the ovcrall height is 28'6", if we change the roof the height would be 6" to 8" less. Commission questions to applicant: asked about suggestion of bringing part of the first floor forward to reduce the mass or rotate the house 90 degrees? Lot is an odd shape, if bring part forward would move house back and reduce the back yard, already removed the swimming pool to increase the use of the back yard. Where was the plate height changed? Reduced the bulk at front. Commissioner noted FAR is not the issue, problem is how the square footage is handled, notice increasingly applicants see allowances as maximums and more are pushing over the line and the Commission is accepting this, now we have a two story house with a second floor the same size as the first floor; not opposed to the front, issue is mass, this is a big building, 575 SF larger than what is typical on a 6,000 SF lot. Applicant commented to a commissioner that his comments were not fair because they were not made before. Commissioner noted that he speaks only for himself, what is important is what the whole commission says, the aggregate. Public hearing continued: Seen a number of projects prepared by this designer, on those have a rather steep roof pitch which pushes the roof form down and addresses the first floor better than this design, there are also features in the craftsman designs he prepares which address the mass and bulk issues better; should add a first floor element at the front such as a large porch which would provide more presence at the front, reduce the stair window and move the porch out to the front of the house, lot is pie shaped but this designer has a lot of successful designs which would work on this lot. Public Comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa. Note that at last meeting when discussed this project there was a Crepe Myrtle tree proposed, this tree does not do well in this climate; could reduce the mass and bulk with a couple of trees, increasing the square footage in this revised design is thumbing their nose at the Commission; past advice is good, if want this house can appeal to the City Council. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comments: Is this revision a'substantial change'? If commission makes suggestions they can come back; feel should back the City Planners determination, issue less about context, know a house like this will have a big impact on the neighborhood, twice a wide, two full stories will look like a big box, FAR can be handled, but the design is wrong to handle it, for example, there is an consistent second story plate on most of the house; the changes are'tweaks' but was denied without prejudice, maybe should have denied to get our point across before. Agree with City Planner recommendation, know that this is a wider lot than others in the neighborhood, but could do things to reduce the bulk of this house, allowed to have a big house but need to show how it fits in the neighborhood, have shown in redesign a couple of elements at the front, these need to be carried throughout; other ways to orient house, could be 'L' shaped, maybe an attached garage would work better, reduces FAR but better solution for rear yard, garage is so close now will almost look attached. C. Vistica noted that the design needs to be rethought approach is not right: attach garage,'L' shaped house, spec house looks like a big box is proposed because it is easy, not merited, all change should be generated by the neighborhood, house that is there now is hardly visible and moved to uphold the City Planner's determination that this submittal does not represent a'substantial change' and cannot be accepted for further review by the Planning Commission. The motion was clarified to note that the direction given was not included. 11 City of Burlingarne Plar:ning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006 C. Vistica rephrased the motion to uphold the City Planner's determination that this submittal does not represent a'substantial change' and cannot be accepted for further review by the Planning Commission. The clarified motion was seconded by C. Deal. Vice Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to uphold the City Planners determination that the project as submitted does not represent a'substantial change' and cannot be submitted to the Planning Commission for action. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Auran abstain; C. Cauchi absent). Commission comment on the action: number of things could do: on the right side could attach the garage; could create a side yard and push the square footage to the rear yard (reduce the street impact); odd shaped lot, hard to meet the setbacks it is possible that a variance is in order; not about FAR need a smaller appearing design, include things to reduce the mass like dormers; some room on the site for reorientation, 16 feet on the driveway side; could reduce second floor by reducing plate height; sitting of the building could be key, current structure is off kilter to the street, to follow this and work on the massing would better address the pie shaped lot particularly on the north side. Given a lot of differing guidance, applicant need to weigh in total and address. Appeal right were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. 8. 1764 MA O POLO WAY, ZONED TW — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKI VARIANCES FOR/AN EARLY INTERVE ON PROGRAM AND PRESCHOOL FACI TY (WINGES ARCHI,T'�ECTS, APPLICANT A ARCHITECT, COMMUNITY GATEPATH, � / �Chair Auran noted tha e would abstain from thi project because he owns a property� thin 500 feet. He remained out of the ambers. Vice Chair Br nrigg continued as chair. : / �� Reference staff�feport March 13, 2006, � attachments. CP Monroe presen� the report, reviewed criteria and staff cor�ments. Fourteen condit�ons were suggested for consideratio,r� CP suggested amendment to condition 4, 6, and 7 for the purpq�e of clarifying the operation of the }�reschool program and its evening meetin chedule, making it clear�that a change to the hours of operation as approved would require review by th lanning Commission,�nd requiring a sign-in program whi�Ti does not require a parent to park for the 80°/ of the preschool progr,€tm participants who are typically de�reloping children. C. Osterling note that he s absent at the last rr��eting where this item was consider,�d, however he has reviewed the t es of that meeting and the mate�ials presented. Commissioners ask�d how the notice was given of thi eeting to the apartments across�kie street. CP commented that notic�it was mailed to all property own within 300 feet. �� f Vice Chair,�rownrigg opened the public heari�. Jerry Winges, architect, and�C'athy Costello represented Commur�'ty Gatepath. Feel that the Burlin,game parking requirements fo�chools are not correct for a presch�ol, where the students don't drive/� nd the classes are small; rev�d tables on trip generatio�d par ' g prepared show the maximum p�xlcing between 11:30 a.m. and �2:00 p.m. is 51 and there w��1 be 53 p ing spaces on site; that is a half h r span, the maximum parkin emand will not be excee d, even in t e worse case that all of the peopl come within the same 10 mi tes; 16 cars entering ove�'a half hour is not a problem. Commission aske when heard this item before ed for it to be continue ; did you have any concerns about the conditions en and the amendments pr osed by staff tonight? o. Commissioner expressed concern about the signage at the entrance, did not want it to be large and incompatible with the 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 7. 1255 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (CHRISTOPHER & ANITA KENNON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., DESIGNER) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the project site, he stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Vice-Chair Brownrigg took over the gavel. Vice- Chair Brownrigg noted that one reason the previous project was so difficult was because the site is adjacent to the City's right-of-way which contained a water line and therefore there were inflexible solutions. Reference staff report January 9, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice-Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, and Christopher Kennon, property owner, represented the project, noted that the plans were revised to address the Commissions' concerns, reduced the mass and bulk, made changes to the gables and revised the Front Elevation; designer noted that the floor area calculated by staff is higher. Plr Hurin noted that trellises and other covered areas may not have been included in the building data on the plans. Commission noted that the changes work well, however there are additional concerns with the project that need to be addressed. Commissioncrs noted the following: ■ Corbels below second floor cantilever on the Left Elevation conflict with the windows on the first floor, looks awkward, need to change; ■ Driveway gate should be automatic; gate should be located at least 20'-0" back from the front property line to leave enough room for a vehicle to park and not extend onto the sidewalk, plans need to be revised; ■ Have serious concerns with mass and bulk, proposed house will have a huge impact on the block, replacing a one-story cottage with a two-story box, house is twice as wide and long as the original, house is 65' wide; ■ Lot is wider and shallower than most other lots on block, therefore detached garage will be 35' closer to the street than typically seen; the garage with a double-wide door will be very visible from the street; ■ Two-story house with a consistent plate height on the second floor is not in keeping with the neighborhood; ■ 4000 SF houses are not common in Burlingame, house is too massive and bulky, this is not the way to locate this house on the lot, there are better ways to make it less imposing, for example could have a narrower house with an attached garage; ■ Loss of the Pepper tree in the front yard does not help with reducing the mass and bulk, it's unfortunate that it has to be removed; proposed Birch and Strawberry tree at left and right sides at the front of the lot are not the same scale as the existing trees being removed, suggest planting two large scale (36 or 48-inch box) evergreen trces iii similar location of trees being removed, large scale trees will be in keeping with the proposed mass and bulk; -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 ■ Porch along the left side of the house is not drawn correctly on the Front Elevation, plans need to be conected; ■ Conflict between the entry roof eaves and stairway window needs to be corrected; ■ Small oval window over front entry is diminimis, should be revised to allow more light into the house; ■ Gable at the front of the detached garage is too small, suggest eliminating the gable on the front and adding a gable along the right side of the garage, would look better; and ■ Concerned that the detached garage is only setback 1' from property line, need more room to facilitate maintenance, suggest garage be setback at least 2' from side and rear property lines. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Ok to have a 3,800 SF house if the mass and bulk is handled well and is in keeping with the neighborhood, feel that as proposed the project is not in keeping; design guidelines are written so that as project increases in size more design character is needed to make the house look smaller, in this case could have a narrow element come out towards the front on the first floor and the rest of the house step back, differentiation in plate heights would also help to reduce the mass and bulk; the challenge with a narrow house configuration on this trapezoid-shaped lot is that the useable rear yard will be reduced. C. Vistica noted that the proposed mass and bulk is not in keeping with the neighborhood and moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: suggest the designer consider reducing the plate heights at several locations on the second floor, varying plate heights as low as 6'-0", incorporate dormers at steep roof locations, this is one solution that, if it is well done, would help to reduce the mass and bulk, designer needs to come up with a solution to minimize the impact of a 65' wide two- story stucco wall at the front; feel that the design can work with what he has; could also consider a distinctive one-story element at the front of the house with a taller plate height to set it apart; also suggest setting the second floor wall in bedroom #2 back further along the right side of the house, would help to break up the vertical wall. Vice-Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 3-2-1 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling dissenting; Chair Auran abstain). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. Chair Auran returned to the dais and took his seat and the gavel. 8. 1529 M DOW LANE, ZONED -1 — APPLICATION FO ESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE TBACK VARIANCE F A FIRST AND SECO TORY ADDITIO TO A S LE FAMILY DWELLI (ARKADY ZLOBINS , APPLICANT AN PROP TY OWNER; AND M BRAND, ARCHITEC (CONTINUED FR DE EMBER 12, 2005 ME ING) (67 NOTICED) PR CT PLANNER: E CA ROHMEIER -11- Ciry of �Burling�anae Planning Cornrnission Unapprovect Mi�iutes Decen:ber 12, 2005 revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 7. 1255 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (CHRISTOPHER & ANITA KENNON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., DESIGNER) (54 NOTICED� PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked about the tree removal permit, how many trees are proposed to be removed? SP Brooks noted that there were two trees at the front of the house, a Fir tree and a Pepper tree, which are to be removed with a permit because they are diseased. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. James Chu, Chu Design and Engineering, 39 W. 43"� Avenue, San Mateo, project designer, and Chris Kennon, 1255 Bernal Avenue, were available for questions. The applicant noted that the plans have been reviewed with the neighbors, and there is no opposition, it is a straightforward application with no exceptions requested. Commissioners commented on the proposed design, noting that it is very massive and there are some inconsistencies in the style, needs a little work before it comes back for review. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. • Look at a different type of street trees than Crepe Myrtle, look at the street tree list, there are other species that are larger in scale and will do better in this location; • Consider a different species than Maple adjacent to the patio along the right side in the rear yard, something taller and evergreen, and consider some small trees or larger shrubs to provide greater privacy; • The massing of the gable end on the right front elevation does not look right, similar element on the right side rear elevation looks better; • Left hand portion of front elevation needs a little more work; • Style is not consistent throughout, the heavy timbers at the entry portico with open truss does not go with the solid stucco around it, it is too big and massive; • Double knee braces seem out of proportion with the weight of the gutters that are being supported, should be supporting the roof structure; • Concern with the impact of the mass and bulk on the neighborhood, 4000 SF house is bigger than what we usually see, the execution of this particular design does not do much to reduce the mass; • Not necessarily too big, but if it is to remain this large, the mass and bulk will have to be handled sensitively, now has a second story plate line that is the same all around, some portions could be lowered; and • Having double pillars on the porch element increases the sense of mass. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this itein on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 �� CITY o� 6URLINGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ��...o Type of application: Design Review� Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address• I %��. APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: . � Name: Address:l-�" �'J 1`"�/�-�� • Address: City/State/Zip: W ��I "� �c-City/State/Zip:� %�� Phone (w): Phone (w): �� 1� (h) �` �Q �2'{� ch): c�: c�: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER�t Name.�—+I � l.J� ��LL��I'� I�F 1-�dvl� j I I`I►� • Address� �• �� Please indicate with an asterisk * �.�[ the contact person for this project. City/State/Zip�. . � [�f"C _ RECEI�'��,��:F Phone (w): �t `��• �iP f � � 0� �>: '' �• Applicant's si��ture:� � I know abou��he proposed application to the �l,�nr��g OCT 1 2 20Qa CiN OF BURUNGA4Y;k PLANNING DEPT, AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and dprr�e�lto the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: D and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this Property owner's signature: Date: J " J PCAPP.FRM - � I.-4 , - . .. .. . . ...�r, yk. . . . . ' . . . - � . . �,V=l.. _ � ,.- `t:. � ,4�': S � PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL . PERMIT APPLICATION � �� `��,�� .; � �. : PARgS 8� RECREATION DEPARTMENT , _ ' � 850 BURLINGAMEAVENUE NOV 2 8 Z005 .�° ; , !'- i .i . -�� . . . . : f „��` - � • . . BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CITY OF BURL,INGAME (650) 558-7330 � � , Pt,A�r�tivG QE�s. _ 1r'. - , , � •. ,y 'The undersigned owner of the property at: ' � � ADDRESS: 1 Z c_� �-' "p,�' i�.i,,�[�t..- ;f4�� U�:L6 rJ l�t� I�t � t'� IAe- €?'�A ��7 .. � !` i�. ,Y� 1 : (print or type) �, , hereby .applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 113 of the crown or roQts of the following protected °'` f .:. � . ,tree(s): ""��}�_�_�� . � �/A� �#�"� • � . . . r � �, � SPECIES �-� ��'�,;4,zv:1� 1 (7� ' �� o� CIRCUMFERENCE bZ:r+c:Lv —F.�� -7t{me�[..o=�� ,ac : � � " "' LOCATION ON PROPERTY � � .�2 t� t � �� .'� �'`� �S WORK TO BE PERFORMED �-�E�� ►�t z-- _ ° ` ' 'REASON WORK IS NECESSARY � 1�--'t� � � F� z-� �h F ; z � t/ M � . . � . _ � .�ti+ �f 1.. (i ', � y �(please use baek ofform for additional comments) +� �OTE: � A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE,TREE(S) OWNER (Print) �� S ��J h/0!� MUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH A �' ` `$SO.00 CHECK TO: CITY OF BURLINGAME ADDRESS 7 2.�5"S ��t}t ►'�,�E �t/I�'U�6'�"� ` " Attach any suppo�•ting documentation you may have �+'�� `�'�� .� . (Example: ReportfromanlndependentArborist). PHONE ((tJ.�) �'��r�� ' - _ ��o /c_�k�+_ `1'Zo� 11_�1-'�� ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � _, A �, : PERIVIIT � �. ; This .perniit:allows the applicant to remove.or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the A.' ' . �,.. . � Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection'Ordmance (Miuucipal Code Chapter 11.06). -By signing.this perniit, the ' �3 :applicant aelrnowledges receipt of a copy of Ghapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its ,provisions and all ' �?, ` :conditions listed below; and that all appeals bave expued or been resolved. �"� �JJ� l � �� : � . _ _ �. �COWNER �,'VUt.�1T '�►'1�1 L:� G`��f..�— �" GITY ARBORIST - , _ : . g_: � ` PARKS & RECREATION DIlZECTOR x ,� - , ,;,; + s .. 1 - � . . . . - . . . . �' CONDITION5: 24 - inC1Z box siZe:landscape tree(s) will be required and may be �`'' " plaizted a�zywhere oiz the property. If conditions are.nol met ivitl:in �f : . � - � � .. � the allotted time as specified in Section 11.06.080, payment of $400 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will 'be required. ��, `� '__��!� NO replacentent(s) required Contact 1he Parks Division a1 „7 ' � , „ �:? � � . :. � �' ` (650) 558-7330 whei: removal(s) completed ` ' 13� " - �, :; - :* : �y � � `�: . DATE PERMIT �FFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIltES � ;� 5} . . . . . . '- � � { 4R F. � . . � . � � � �s This wor�r should be done by qualified tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be ,:. fi;�=x ..; available at the job site at all times when work is being performed � :�� -. , .: , s _, . , -. - - . � �:: . _ ,_ . �: i _ . . _ _ ,. . _ . � ��II Project Comments Date: �� From: October 13, 2005 ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official �J City Arborist ❑ City Attorney ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1255 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026- 173-280 Staff Review: October 17, 2005 Q__.� ��L�_i9�1� �uro G��aac'ED Si2�_.__7arE�E� %�r l�l,�4)�4-.. �/!�/L Y,? j _� �Q��-- ��7 �it /� �.sD _ �� /�',Z��rEPAG/� � T ��1�" _� ��_ _..Ss� � _�e it_ �?-�•�te va L _ ____�/!��£.� .__ r�v � 7itE6S !v%�l 2�F �a�2nGr � _..f�.�a�t��__.�/ZEE �ov✓!L _Il��w! , b`_ �'srsLa:. cs-1 _�O�.sz S .__ l��'Y =� 5��-7_3 � � . _ _ T6 � ___��rz� cit�-�_l�_ _. C' � �/ _ _ __ S�P LS _�b _ .{3E___ ��'�[ � u i 4� A �c1U �� k_ Q-rt 2 _ �GCJ U __/,S�G�O G c ar. _.7'_Lt�� __ /12� �'-O a3 � l�tc � c c.6 4j�_ --- %HE _� � �.__ _._�? �. __ � a i�E �� ! Ffioyn__ _��F�, �� c _ ,� - - -- -_ _ .�v`�c,-�_�� E ___ 1-� 5 �'-�_ �<< s _ i' � __ _ �e �3 �- _— -__ -- 5 s�Ge-cu �r � �` � •w 5 _ Reviewed by: "-- � ___�� r�� Date: / Q/ g / S.� C OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST TRECS TO QE USCD IN PLANTING STRIPS 3' WIDE AND UNDER AND IN ALL PLANTIN SI'ACCS IN PAVED AREA� m TREE C1TY USA . ■30TANICAL NAN1E Site Ileigl�t �t Mini�t�um �Common Name) Loc�►lions Matw•ity Spacing Description �A�klr�t�tkRAfFARRRRrt*ARRAtk�t*Af��IF*�tftfkAftftAA�IrfFA*fkAlkAk7tit�ftfkfk�kRfl+kAftit*itR1t*Rflc***fkRftAfkfkR*tt�k**�tfkttRikRftRltfkltRA*fk�IrARIt**fkAAtR**ik*R*ltfkRR7F*Rftfk*A _:Ultl)YI.INIi AU5'I'ItnIJS 2U-3U' 25' I:VGRGRGI:N: MoJcrate growth; upper swordlike Ic�ves erect �iocaena (120U I3/ock Cvr�ezAve.) nnd I�wer leeves arcl� and droop; fragrant tiny flo��ers in late Spring. �RAETAEGUS LA�VIGATA �nglish Naiv�lio�ne 3EIJERA PARVIFLORA firslrnlia�t !1 illoiv �OELREUTGRIA BIPINNATA 'hi�iese Flarne Tree —AGIiRS'I'ItUMI/1 INI)lCA 'rape �Ilyr�le �1AYTENUS I30ARlA lay�en 7ree �LALCUCA LINARIITOL(A 'In.�leajPaperbark (�OTINIA FI2AZI:RI �uzer's Plrotinia (IZSI Capucl►ino D�t) (1245 PalomaAve.--Ft�2) (137 Cha►u�ing Rd) �i �uub��- ��«��:��s.�sc�l�l v,•. Orr�sicle jence on Calif. D�:) 20-25' 25-30' 20-35' 20-3O' 25' 30' 35' as�� 25' 20' � 5� I 5' DGCIDUOUS: Moderate growtl�; clusters of double rose to red Ilo�vers; leaves toothed; fetv berries. EV�RGREEN: Moclerate growth; graceful branclies; fine lextured leaves; pest Gee. DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderele 6ro�vth; clusters of yellow i]owers; leaves yellow in I�ali, drop late. D(iCIDUUUS: Mcxlcrutc growth; Spring loliugc light grccn lingcd bronze red; reJ Ootvers July-Seplember; yell�w fAll color. EVGRGREEN: Slow to moderate �rowth; penJulous grncefiil brunches. CITY OF 13URLINCAA�E PARKS' DIVISIUN 558-7330 (ll lS, I301, & 1�162 Qir�•lii�ga�ue Ave.) (Ci1y Ha!(�'En�ployee Parki»g !o! exi� app�•oacl� on !he rig/i1J (Sl G 13a}�sirate�• cYc S2S Culifui•��iu Di•.J 20-40' I 5-25' I 5' RUIVIIS CIiRA,SIPI:IZA 20' �n��le I,enf Phnn (1 d 00 /.inc.�uh� .� ve.) EVERGREEN: Moderate grotvth; (lullj� ��hite [lo��ers May nnd June; thick tivl�ite burk. T'sVLRGItLC:N: Mcxlcrute growlh; IICW 61'01�'lIl !S �I'Ulll}' reJ in Spring; leuvcs large glossy grect� DECIDUOUS: Muderale growtl�; co��pery lea��es; li�ht piuk to wliilc Ilowcrs. f30TANICAL NANIC Sitc Ifcight :il 1�linimum (Common N�me) Loc�ti�►ns M�tin•ity S��cing Dcscri��tion �*�*********************************************************************************************************************** I'IZUNUS YLf)OfiNSIS I �o.chirrn Flrnrering Clier•ry P. YEDOENSIS :-1 kehono ' (lVa ,Sile /,ocnfinn) (ff'nsh. Pnrki85013urinignrne-- f['es�.ride chi(dren's pinygr•ot�nd) �1O' 25' 30' 20' I)I;CIDUOUS: I��sl gr�>�vth; curving, gr�cefi�l, o�en bronching ��altern; light ��ink t�� nc<u ly white fragr�nt flo��crs in early S��ring. DEC1UUVUS: Fast grcnvth. Vt�riety is smaller than spccies nnd Ilo�vers are pinker th�n P. yedoensis. I /')9 OFFICIAL STR�ET TREE LIST TRCCS TO I3C USFD IN PLANTINC STRIPS 3' WIDE AND UNDCR AND IN ALL PLANTINC SPA�LS IN PAVEU AREAS m TREE CI'I'Y USA 30TANICAL NAN1C Site Ueiglit at Minimum Common Nnme) Loc�tions Matu��ity Spacing Descriptiou �**�***��*�**�*****�****�******�*�*****�**«�**��******�**************�**************************�*****************,,****�* ;Ultl)YI.INI: nus�rizni.lti 20-30' 25' EV�RGRI:IiN: Mc�dcrate growth; upper swordlike le�ves erecl )�ucnenn (l20U 6/ockCu�7ezAve.) nnd lower leaves nroh and droop; fi�agrunt liny flo��ers in lete Spring. :ItAE1'A�GUS LA�VIGA"I'A =nglislr tla�vlho�nc ;EIJERA PARVII�LORA ■rrslralia�t 11 �lloiv _OELR�UTGRIA L�IPINNA7'A —'lii�iese Flame Ti•ee AGIiRS'I'IZOMIA INI)ICI� —� �pe �Ilyrlle —7AYTENUS 130ARIA �(ay�en 7ree —iELALGUCA LINARIIFOLIA �laxleaf Ynperbark ■ 107'INIA l�lU1"Ll:lZl ruzer's l'lio�inia �tUNUS CI�Rf1SII�I:RA —r��le l.er jPlum (12S! Capuchino Dn) (l2dS Palonin Ave.--F#2) (137 Chu►u�ing Rrl.) (I illuge !'urk'1 S3SCnlif. U�•. Outside fence on Calif. D�:) (ll1S, 1301, �C 1d62 13u�•li�rgume Ave.) (Crtylfu/G'Eniployee Porki»g !ot exi► app►•oacll on �he riglil) (SlG l3a}sirnlci• cl� SlS Culifw•»iu ll�•.) (1 d 011 l.i»cul�i :1 vr.) 20-25' 25-30' 20-35' 20-31)' 20-40' I.5-25' I 5' 20� 25' 30' 35' 25'� 25' 20' I 5' I 5' DGCIDUOUS: Moclerale growth; clusters of double rose to red flowers; leaves toothed; fetv berries. EVCRGREEN: Moderate gro�vtli; grnceful branches; fine textured leaves; pest free. DGCIDUOUS: Slow to mo�erale growtl�; clusters of ycllotv flo�vers; leaves yello�v in I�nll, drop lute. DIiCIDUOUS: Mcxlcrulc grc�wth; 5pring I'oliagc light grccn tingcJ bronze red; reJ [lo�vers July-Seplentber, yellow Fal) color. EVI:RGREf:N: Slow to moclerate growth; pendulous gracefiil brunches. GVERGft�EN: Mcxlerate gro�vth; Ilully ��hite (lo��ers May an� June; lhick wl�ite bark. IiV�ItGIZ1�liN: MocJcrute gruwlh; uc�� gro��•lh is brunzy reJ in Sprin6; leavcs t�irge blossy greci�. DECIDUOIJS: Mcxlerate 6rowtl�; co��ery Ica��es; II�!Ill �)IfII: lU �vhitc Ilo�vcrs. CITY OF 1�URLIN(:A/11E PARKS UIVl.SIUN 558-733(I Project Comments Date: To: From: October 13, 2005 ❑ City Engineer X Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1255 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-173-280 Staff Review: October 17, 2005 1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. 4) Roof eaves must not project within two feet of the property line. 5) Exterior bearing walls less than three feet from the property line must be constructed of one-hour fire-rated construction and no openings are allowed. 6) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. 7) Provide guardrails at all landings. 8) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are more than four risers. 9) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 10)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface within ten feet. Revi � Date: ��JJ � Project Comments Date: October 13, 2005 To: d City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1255 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-173-280 Staff Review: October 17, 2005 1 2 See attached. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. �� Reviewed by: V V Date: 10/17/2005 _, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS � � J �� Project Name: •''"�'�'� ��1�� Itw�-u,ti, : Project Address: 1'�7S ��-r"°� � 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.) �u,%� �}�. p� 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 �'ermit. 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 il9t is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. 8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show a11 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 sha11, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project sha11, 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 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 sha11 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 Project Comments Date: October 13, 2005 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff X Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1255 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-173-280 Staff Review: October 17, 2005 Applicant shall submit a Recycling and Waste Reduction P/an for approval, and pay a recycling deposit for this and a/l covered projects prior to construcfion or permitting. Reviewed by: � , Date: � v/j �/p f� Project Comments Date: October 13, 2005 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist [� Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1255 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-173-280 Staff Review: October 17, 2005 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide double backflow prevention. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: � :_�_ � • Date: ; �; � �_!'�}-�, -- �% -/��= ; t ._ Project Comments Date: Ta: Fr��m: October 13, 2005 _ City Engineer _ Chief Building Official _ City Arborist _ City Attorney _ Recycling Specialist _ Fire Marshal Q NPDES Coordinator Planning Staff S�bject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1255 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-173-280 St;�ff Review: October 17, 2005 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the construction project (including demolition). Cnsure that sufficient amount of erosion and sediment control measures are available on site at all times. Please refer to attached brochure Protecting Your ��roperty From Erosion. The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for your review at the Planning and Building departments. Project proponent/owner is encouraged to incorporate landscape design and maintenance techniques to protect water quality (see attached landscaping fact sheet). Distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. �---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �3efore draining the p00% the project proponent and/or the property owner shall rall the Burlingame Waste Water Treatment Plant (650/342-3727) for instructions on discharge requirements/prohibitions on pool water. �eviewed by: �� ' �— Date: 10/21/05 WHA? YOU CAN DO ?O CON?ROL EROSION AND PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY Soil erosion costs Bay Area homeowners millions of doI- lars a year. We lose valuable topsoil. We have to pay for damage to roads and property. And our tax money has to be spent on cleaning out sediment from storm drains, channeis, lakes and the Bay. You can protect your prop- erty and prevent future headaches by following these guidelines: G BEFORE AND DURING CONS?RUCrION • Plan construction activities during spring and summer, so that erosion control measures can be in place when the rain comes. • Examine your site carefully before building. Be aware of the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site design wi1l help you avoid expensive stabilization work. Preserve existing vegeta- tion as much as possible. Limit grading and plant removal to the areas under current construc- tion. (Vegetation will naturally curb erosion, improve the appearance and the value of your property, and reduce the cost of landscaping Iater.) • Use fencing to protect plants from fIl material and traffic. If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable as- phalt or porous paving blocks. • Preserve the natural contours of the Iand and disturb the earth as Iittle as possible. Limit the time in which graded areas are exposed. • Minimize the Iength and steepness of slopes by � benching, terracing, or constructing diversion � - structures. Landscape ' \`~�' benched areas to stabilize . the siope and improve its appearance. • As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation on all areas that are not to be paved or otherwise covered. • Control dust on graded areas by sprinkling with water, restricting traffic to certain routes, and paving or gravel- ing access roads and driveways. ?EMPORARY MEASURBS TO STABILIZE ?HE SOIL � Grass provides the cheapest and most ef- fective short-term ero- sion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground completely. To find the best seed mix- tures and plants for your area, check with your Ioca1 nursery, the U.S. Department of Ag- riculture Soil Conserva- tion Service, or the University of California Cooperative Extension. Mnlches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage. They also provide a favorable envi- ronment for starting and growing plants. Easy-to-obtain mulches are grass clippings, Ieaves, sawdust, bark chips and straw Straw mulch is nearly 100% effective when held in place by spraying with an organic glue or wood fber (tackifiers), by punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tack- ing a netting over it. Commercial applications of wood fbers combined with various seeds and fertilizers , (hydraulic mulching) are effec- � '�`r ��' tive in stabilizing sloped areas. Hydraulic mulching with a tackif er should ' be done in two , "�'�� ' �r . . _:_._.. ; . separate appli- • ' cations: the frst " ` ` composed of seed fertilizer and half the mulch, the second composed of the remaining mulch and tackifier. Commer- cial hydraulic mulch applicators — who also provide other erosion control services — are Iisted under "Iandscaping" in the phone book. �� - a`_ .. :�-� �c�< - , ?,,,;,_�•w"a`"� Mats of excelsior, jute netting and plastic sheets can be ef- fective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with the soil and fastened securely to work effectively. Roof draiaage can be collected in barrels or storage con- tainers or routed into lawns, planter boxes and gardens. Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mos- quitos, too. Excessive runoff should be directed away from your house. Too much water can damage trees and make foundations unstable. STRUCTURAL RUNOFF CONTROLS Even with proper timing and planting, you may need to protect disturbed areas from rainfall until the plants have time to establish themselves. Or you may need permanent ways to transport water across your property so that it doesn't cause erosion. To keep water from carrying soif from your site and dump- ing it into nearby lots, streets, streams and channels, you need ways to reduce its volume and speed. Some exam- ples of what you might use are: perimeter dike jute netting � \ �li._ �. �::, � ,f; diversion ditch �,> �� bench F, '; : . , _ : . . ,, , � ' � _ - � .. � '�'I:' � o . . / straw mulch • Riprap (rock lining)—to protect channel banks from erosive water flow • Sedimeat trap—to stop runoff carrying sediment and trap the sediment � r � f��R� ��w ' R. � � • Storm draia outlet protect£oa—to reduce the speed of water flow- ing from a pipe onto open ground or into a natural channel • Dinersioa dike or perimeter dike—to divert excess water to places where it can be disposed of properly . r;.�,.',� .� �- �"� "' .� ""''� .� �v.�;,.� � �-., �,.._, .. ,� _� , r�5 i+�.�.,_ T _ i"/'1 k� ` � � __ _'. � _ � .� ,z _�.� ..� � � ''.____ • Straw bale dike—to stop and detain sediment from small unprotected areas (a short-term measure) • Perimeter swale — to divert runoff from a disturbed area or to contain runoff within ` � "�' . , ., a disturbed area „ •- • Grade stabilization structure — to carry concentrated runoff down a slope sediment trap 'o... \ .. Q O �., _� , v . _ r' . ''' �_ ,� � u � � outlet protectio� rj'iJi��'�Ifl/f�'�i1. �n�r.�... � l, Y: ' �'' Conservahee I EROSION CONTROL CAN PROTECr YOUR PROPER?Y AND PREVEN2 FUTURE HEADACHBS � Vegetatioa-stabifized Bare Slope: Headaches 1(� J r,��f Slope: Security aad Liability � cr � � /� • soil in place • muds]ide danger � • minimum of • loss of topsoil �(�� erosion • cIogged storm ` '• �� • fewer winter clean- drains, fIooding -��(y J�' // . up prob(ems problems r�: � • protection for • expensive /� house foun- cleanup �r�' �� " � ,� dations • eroded or • 1 � buried house '� •� ��/ foundations � �� (/�~' 'I"f�, �� I 1 � �/[ / `.'jt.� '�,ty .� �t��:��r• `. � r/�n - lf; . . �. / ��/ ! �� '� ��: \= // l ' �r.� �i ��' "( •�� i�l•,• � :: � .�•.Ti,� ' . ,,,' � . . ... /� �� a �� \ ` .;;: / "Wiaterize" your property by mid-September. Don't wait until spring to put in Iandscaping. You need wiater protection. Fina1 Iandscaping can be done Iater. Inexpensive measures installed by fall wi1l give you protection quickly that will Iast a11 during the wet season. In one afternoon you can: • Dig trenches to drain surface runoff water �way froin problem areas such as steep, bare slopes. • Prepare bare areas on slopes for seeding by raking the surface to Ioosen and roughen soil so it will hold seeds. TIPS FOR ?HB HOMEOWNEF ,;,� : �. :�, ` .; � . ''�r�7.•� , :9 _ �\< Seeding of bare slopes • Hand broadcast or use a"breast seeder." A typical yard can be done in Iess than an hour. • Give seeds a boost with fertilizer. • Mulch if you can, with grass ciippings and Ieaves, bark chips or straw. • Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes. • Cfieck with your Iocal nursery for advice. , ► Winter alert • Check before storms to see that drains and ditches are not clogged by leaves and rubble. � Check after major storms to be sure drains are clear and vegetation is holding on slopes. Repair as necessary. � Spot seed any bare areas. WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOU? SOIL EROSION? v • � � U Water and wind carry soiI from our Bay Area Iand down into our streams, Iakes and the Bay. 7his soil carries with it pollu- tants such as oiI and grease, chemicals, fertilizers, animal wastes and bacteria, which threaten our water quality. Such erosion also costs the home construction industry, Iocal government, and the homeowner untold millions of dollars a year. Nature slowly wears away Iand, but human activities such as construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2,000 times that amount. When we remove vegetation or other objects that hold soil in pIace, we expose it to the action of wind and water and increase its chances of eroding. The Ioss of soil from a construction site results in Ioss of topsoil, minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies in the landscape. Surface runoff and the materials it carries with it clog our culverts, fIood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroys wiIdlife and damages recreational areas such as lakes and re- servoirs. As an example, road and home building in the Oakland hills above Lake Temescal fi]Ied the lake to such an extent [hat it had to be dredged in 1979 at a publlc cost of $750,000. NEED MORE INFORMATION? ABAG has produced a slide/tape show on soil erosion called "Money Down the Drain." It is available for showing to any interested group. CaII ABAG Public Affairs at (415) 841-9730. ABAG has also published a"Manual of Standards for Sur- face Runoff Control Measures" which deals extensively with designs and practices for erosion prevention, sedi- ment control, and control of urban runoff. The manual addresses problems and solutions as they apply to California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from ABAG and is available on reference at many Ioca1 Iibraries and in city and county public works and planning depart- ments. USDA Soil Conservation Service personnel are willing to provide more information on specifc erosion problems. This brochure is a cooperative project of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the East Bay Regional Park District. �Y�./�p/�/'� Assnun,�c:, EAST BAY REGIONAL 'sa`N�"�7GOVEPN�aEviS PARK DISTRICT l�ale+-6leren+snt 4#�66~31�y}Trre-Bfad. Ba Oaf��ettd-E{t-9�6#9 .�A-�b}�84�-9430 �� i ��-l�� —�i �C..`� 7 i c� �G�Z— �2'�.� PROrEC�ING YOUR PROPERrY �RO1V� EROSION NEw DEVLOPMENT/RIDVEIAPMENT LAI�IDSICAPING FACT SI�ET °"`"""'N Bay and Ocean Friendly �, %: ;;;�i';'; San Mateo Countywide �� Stormwater Pollution ' Prevention Program Landscape Design and �ti ��_flo��_stc�Uay-_ c�r6 Maintenance Techniques '�sroare - - --- Who should use this Fact Sheet? + Development Project Applicants � City/County Planners + Landscape Maintenance Personnel � Landscape Architects • Homeowners _ __ '' Why is SaylOcean Frieadly Landscaping _ : important? : �hen it rains, pestic�des used inlmaintaining la�zdscapes and gardens axe �vashed off of t�eated plants and svils. 'I'his stormw-ater nzns off the landscape and flaws to tha nearest storm drain, whieh ultimatelv carries the w�ater withoux treatment to a ' local ereek, the,San Francisco Bay, and Ocean. Pesticides carried with 5tOrm��ater into Creeks, ihe Bay, and OCean m�y be harmful xo fzsh a�nc� otlzer organisrns t�at live theice. Miaizmizing use of pesticides in maintaining landscaping he�ps to protect:water quality> ;aquat�c life, anti human health:. : What are Bay/Ocean Friendly Landscape Design and Maintenance Techniques? Bay/Ocean Friendly landscaping relies on alternative design, plant selection, and maintenance practices that c�ecrease the need for pesticide applications as well as the amount of water runoff from landscaping. The qi�:antity of pesricides entering our creeks, the Bay, and Ocean can be reduced by using techniques that: • Decrease the need for landscape maintenance by designing landscapes that muumize pest infestarion and create low maintenance environments; • Select plants that are appropriate for local soil, climate, and other conditions; • Incorporate elements that reduce the potenrial for the pesticides to run off the lai • Minimize the amount of iinpervious surfaces; • Use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to minimize pesticide usage; Refer to the back of this fact sheet for more design and maintenance tips. `� J� .�� .. fl� ,�,�.• � , :.,a>;� �; r; j; �� . ;,;<a; .� �;;� i � „ �: � .'i �.. What is Integrated Pest Management? Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a decision-making process for managing pests. IPM relies upon monitoring to determine pest-caused injury levels and the use of a variety of less toxic methods of pest control. To minimize pesricide usage, IPM uses a combinarion of: • biological controls (e.g., natural enemies or predators); • physical or mechanical controls (e.g., hand labor or mowing); • cultural controls (e.g., mulching, discing, or alternarive plant type selection); and • reduced risk chemical controls (e.g., soaps or oils) T'he IPM method uses the least hazardous pesticides only as a last resort for controlling pests. There are three steps to Bay/Ocean Friendly Landscaping. They include: Landscape Design and Drainage, Plant Selection, and Maintenance. Landscape Design and Drainage • Design the landscape for efi"icienl irrigation and to slow runoff by grading landscape surfaces to have concave slope instead of convex slope. • Design the landscape to conform to natural drainage patterns. • Slow stormwater runof�' from landscape areas by: o Incorporating vegetated buffer strips or swales next to impervious areas. o Including micro detenrion areas in the runoff path. • Avoid mosquito breeding by assuring water is ponded for less than 72 hours. � Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces by: o Designing landscape areas that support maximum permeability and infiltration capacity. o Choosing porous (permeable) pavements Situate plants to facilitate maintenance. Install mowing strips, tree wells, and pathway� edging to reduce problems associated with maintaining an interface beriveen different design elements. Incorporate groundcover (mulch, geotextiles, groundcover plants) in open areas to reduce weeds and erosion. Plant Selection Choose and retain existing native, pest- resistant trees, shrubs, and plants. Select pest-resistant plants adapted to your spec�c area. Consider site-specific characteristics such as soil, topography, climate (amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, and air movements), patterns of land use, and plant interaction. • Group plants with similar irrigation needs and other site-spec�c requirements together. • Select plants that can improve the infiltration of water such as deep-rooted plants. • Provide plants that have larger canopy areas to minimize impact of raindrops on soil; thus, reducing erosion. • Eliminate the need for routine pruning by selecting plants based on their size and shape when maturc. • Minimize turf areas to conserve water. Maintenance • Maintain healthy soils by incorporating organic matter, making regular pH adjustments, and aerating regularly. • Prune to increase air circularion but do not over prune. • Regularly repair eroded or damaged surface areas and replace problem plants with locall}� adapted, pest-resistant plants. • Employ non-toxic IPM methods (biological, physical, and cultural controls) before using pesricides to treat a pest problem. • If pesticides are necessary, use the least toxic pesricide available: o Do not over apply pesticides. Follow� the manufacturer's instrucrion for mixing and applying materials. o Avoid application of any pesticide if rain is forecasted. • Properly dispose of pesticides by recycling, reusing, or disposing as hazardous waste. For additional information call Household Hazardous Waste at (650) 303-4718. `. .�. x�::: • .�.� . .. .�. � �� Additional Resources IPM Access, �vrv�ti•.ef.i�.or�pmpa, IPMLandscape Design Alameda County Waste Management Authority wrtitiv,stapwaste.or�/, Bay-Friendly Gardening and Landscnping Techniques San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District ��w.smcmad.or� START AT THE SOURCE; BASMAA's Design Manual for Stormwater Protection http: i /`��. basmaa. org/documents;' Central Conua Costa County Sanitary District v��ww.centralsan.ar�, Our Water Our Wor1dIPM Fact Sheets RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHERFAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desi�n review for a new two-stor�gle familv dwellin� and detached Qara� at 1255 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, Christopher and Anita Kennon, property owners, APN: 026-173-280; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on May 8, 2006, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3— (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, 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 8`" day of May, 2006 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review. 1255 Bernal Avenue Effective May 18, 2006 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 27, 2006, sheets A.1 through A.7 and L1.0, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 4. 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; 5. 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; 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 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; 8. 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; 9. that the conditions of the City Arborist's October 19, 2005 memo, the Chief Building Official's October 13, 2005 memo, the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's October 17, 2005 memos, the Fire Marshal's October 18, 2005 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's October 21, 2005 memo shall be met; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review. 1255 Bernal Avenue Effective May 18, 2006 Page 2 10. that the project shall mect all the requiremeiits of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water ninoff; 14. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 15. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. ��, c�rr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BU_RLJNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 0• TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-379 a• ••'�• �$+•,��,,., www.burlingame.org i a, , � �` �� x Site: 1255 BERNAL AVENUE ` � • � The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following pu6lic hearing on Monday, May 8, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Cauncil Chambers, SOl Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application design review for a aew single family dwelling with detached gorage at )155 BERNAL AVENUE zoned R-l. (APN 016- 173-280) Mailed: April 28, 2006 (Please r-efer ta other side) o�sH�ssoa32s � 0�.240 f�l.iiled From 94010 US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE `;: - �_fi..-' � .. . , `� .a� �A . � �i �I CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this projecf may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 50� Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the ��subject application(s) in court, you may` be limited to raising only those issues y�u or soineone clse raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delive.r.ed to the city at or prior to;the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible `�or informing their tenants �about this notice. For additional information, please call 3; (650) 558-7250, Thank you. �:' ,� � • � ,� � � "Y * �� Margaret Monroe �� '��¢ ��r�!,�� City Planner , PUBLIC HEA�ING��IOTICE (Pleasc refer to other side) �. * a -i � j,; l . • .��,��w: � �� ,�'�. a� . r � � 1, � t� 1' .'.� � �.� 'q . , . � ��w. �a ` � ��a �� t: •', F� �a; � � s .f � �y� y ,.�M► �k � .+� �' , �* � + �� +� .. .� � J! ,y�� Rw� :� � ='� �' 'V,� �t �' ��r�� , � 4 i� �� .� � � -~, � ` ' i � ' „ «r u. 1'. �6 ,l �� ` ,� � �+��... �1,� . � : �"'-9 �, . j�� . _ �� 4 � ' �; , , � �. � ' ,�`.. `.� ', � {.:�' •'L , �, ��,• _ .� � �� .A. '�'`' ,Hg r � . ,� ,y s ��"' ,:' 3 'y .;� � �; . � , J �4 �� 'f �x * f�.. . .� . � ��, + 4 �. . �,� �{ ( i� ��M , � 7N' � �z. ;. 'K� •� y � , a .�'° 1 k ' ;' �,' ;`., . . ��;� '�, ;� � .t�`v � f ' � � �f �»�� > � �I � �1 h }� <. .�9 T _.�� .1 t { '€�:�-' , 4,' � '� •� �'; ��,,' rf � f . • �� .•• * •„_.��-. f d� !?"� �, 'ya `.,,' � . 1 y 1 • . /�� r " �' yy � � � � rii.� S� 'a � f. �" �w.W� lylyi 1� 1�„ ', � �, , ��_a � i. , .. !'_� 4� ` -' �� t � � �� r�. � � � , . ,. r� ..,� �'�� . ! ,.,�f � �,., a '" . �� e h ��:♦ • '�.��' .. �j. rWr� ��-':.�� LI � M ,4 � �r �: ♦ �� ,t� ,R . „ Y ��' * � � � •� M � � �y �°, .+ � ,��, _ . . � � ', , 1 �.� �� , � �., . jv '"• `� 4 ', : � �' � �> °S; � a � '. �� f t � � y -f y� �4�+ �. �*' 4 <"� � �� V►' • � � ��` � � �i � r , � � �� f -N .'�" , ;, t'� ,�� _, ' �. �,.� �s' c.�� : { �, ,� }.�� .�, » ~'' ` � ' � ` � _� `",a�,�t � � ��!� w_',��,; •SJ�• �'' , '',t; . � :t �6�� . • " �1�..i 1 ��!.� �r�. ��`��t��p ,�� ti,� � "'' : � � � _ ' " ��" ..' � �*�ti � �,�V � '.��'sl,► '. . � '• , � . . ��*. �,��t. , � •� ./�;�'�. ;�'� �. �� "' \ } � ��, ��t � ' . � s �- �� h �1;'� . `�,� • � `�'4��. • • �'•� A � �' . - ..`- '� . , .." � .,t..:n,��,'M �- .` ��1 `� ��`�i�� M �Sy' - • � I f . `Sj '' \ �� r' '•'� t • . ' �w `s I ry � .� J C i ^•�+,� w l . . 1 � � , . i ii �r - -' j �i/.. "' � �� :',�' • � n 4 .- . . . a .': ♦ . •> ,�� . � '�.� .� � V e * t�: � � �•� �• Ff��"y e �� • �� `" -�. 1 �; A�i .�. .r ,,�.' , � 4 t�; .. 1 � . � � � �� ' 1�:j : . �.�w9 � �.8 " .� + ' � n ,� ... '�r� 'r� xi} �: i • 4 . '` '� � y �Y�:L } `r,. �••�� \ .�� A, , ' �� r ��+��' � . *.�� r� ' �� . � � �1 ' Y 1 r � � � �� ♦ ��, 4� � . � _ �' " +r ► •'' ' � . . '�`. . w � !�, �I nti. h� � t � � � � �� ✓�' � � Y �� • �.��^�. - �� , . . ! � . - /. .. .. �� r � •, i I�� ' �' . +�� •�{�s � � f �.v - ��./� '�it� � ��,,� �"�� t�t.r¢'� .,' ' �� • q� �.f� ��'7.�Ri•"A' '.+��•A, � ^ .- d / '; ' � �j++ ��,�,�iy1� �, , `�'f�� N • ` ;� �� "�'�� .; �.c: � �� `,� �� •, . � .� r ��s•� �'-*'.., . ., _ f, . . � ••r i �� Q `K • �, �e A+i � . - � . , . • '"� : � ,� �� f , - • '� � v .; .: ,�� " � �: �.k. , , �;�_� � `'} � ;d c . . .�,,,, I� ', � , • •'�, a: r,. ; ` •,. ;`, � ~ , � 4 r+,L,,,.- {� t� + '� ; .�;,5�� ' � • • ,� j�� ` I�r / •,i � , � • �'«. , ��, j r 't =S � �c fs '�; r �`\' j� r . � � ►nC�ai- �� ' � �'�Y �� '�� , e�ai�w�nA � �� 'i ; � , r. ��. . K, � � y � E:.� . 4� � . ♦ ,r� �I'� �' • ' ., '3l� +*�+' `�. , ,, �Ab � �f � �f�•.l�. .ti „ 1r. � �. `;` \ � w �" �'�� _.�,,.y '�� , �t, ` ,�ir ,.,.;"�� • �: � �"'�` . ";• . ': �` � i� ... � � � ''T y , � � y.� � ��. .. r ��'� « + a'�''�''� - �� \ �;�,Y• •t "••• . • + � . • ��• �* ��'+ �'y. �`T ��, ,�,'�� .r. ^� � �,� �, r' ' , r- � �.� �� . � � l» . �• � i. ,• • �. �.,'� _`�• �, � ; � �, _ ` ?h,� ��• . ' � �+ J, '�.{%r�' ::� '�fa�• �, •'� . . ='�W �'" i�. 4.°'�'_�� ,�k'4Ii ` ,Mi � ' �� ,�' '�. � .x� ' + . � ��. +�t v�� r �'.�, ,� i' '� ii' i. " /, � •'►` i • .,. �� . �. ' n t �t�► , � ,t•, � , .P�a . , � City of Burlingame Planning Department (650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 (fax) Plan Review Comments Job Address: Job Description Date of Plans: Lot Area: Zoning: 1. Setbacks 1255 Bernal Avenue (N) SFD & Detached Garage April 27, 2006 7804.5 SF R-1 _ ... _ _ Front (1st flr): ; (2nd flr): ; Side (left): ; (right): ; : _ ...... _ _. _ Rear (1st flr): ; (2nd flr): Existing 19'-11" none 20'-6" 10'-0" 12'-6" none _ _ _ __ � Proposed 21 '-8„ 21'-8" 14'-7" 7'-0" _ ;_ _ __ ... __. ... 24'-6" ;_.. 24'-6" • Project complies with setback requirements. _ __ _ __ . Allowed/Required __ _. _ .... ; 21'-8" average 21'-8" _. .. .... ; 7'-0" 7'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 2. Lot Coverage 40% x 7804.5 SF = 3121.8 SF inaximum allowed _ ._..... _......__ _. __ . _ _ _ _ __.._._._, ; Existing Proposed AllowedlRequired � _ _ . _ _..... _ : __ ._ _ ..._.... _ _ _ . __ . __. ........., ' Lot Coverage: : 2358 SF 2567SF 3121.8 SF 302% 32.8% 40% . _ _ : __ _ __. . _ .. . ! • Project complies with lot coverage requirements (calculations attached). 3. Floor Area Ratio .�0.32 x 7804 5 SF + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3997 SF inaximum allowed 0.51 FAR .. _._ � _...... � ........ __ .. _ _ , Existing Proposed Allowed/Required : _ _ __ _ _ _ ;..... _.. .. . __ _ _ : Floor Area Ratio: ' 2358 SF 3930 SF 3997 SF ' 0.30 FAR 0.50 FAR 0.51 FAR . ....... .__ _ _ _ _:.... _ _ _ _ ; • Project complies with floor area ratio requirements (calculations attached). 1 City of Burlingame Planning Department (650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 (fax) Plan Review Comments Job Address: 1255 Bernal Avenue 4. Building Height Average top of curb: (52.70' + 53.06')/2 = 52.88' Existing: single story Proposed: 52.88' + 29.29' = 82.17' Allowed: 52.88' + 30' = 82.88' . _ Existing Proposed Building Height: : single story _ _ _ __.. _ .. _......_ _ ... • Project complies with building height requirements. 29'-4" _ ...... . .... ..... 5. Declining Height Envelope (DHE) Points of Departure - Left Side: (53.50' + 55.0')/2 = 54.25' - Right Side: (53.35' + 55.0')/2 = 54.17' • Project complies with declining height envelope requirements. 6. Parking 5 bedrooms proposed. Proposed: 2 covered (20' x 20') + 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Required: 2 covered (20' x 20') + 1 uncovered (9' x 20') • Project complies with on-site parking requirements. 7. Accessory Structure (New Detached Garage) • New detached garage complies with accessory structure requirements. . _ Allowed/Required _ _ _.. __ . �� a �; City of Burlingame Planning Department (650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 (fax) Job Address: Page: z i p m `� , L�.' Cf�'J�' Y!� r� C"-C ` ` ? � �' J � � - � Z �� U � "O�X _ �� +�� _ � '� �y� � r � p `� 4 ' r ` � � 6 �0 � i � � j i � -'�, � ITJ � ��. _ ,� � 'i �� I, r^ ', �,, �l . `�. I / �. � �� . '� � � , � , �� i , , �� / � , \\ -- f �j l � _ i- �1� � � I �. � �` _ , � �� ? . . �.) %`� � .�,,• I � ,� �z �. a ,. � r . � , z�,��-� � �:� < �''� , ��, � r, . �. F 'n��. C� r �� r' , ' _ , ... - _ � �(> �l1 )2 _ '+ - � _ � r � /�, � a l' �, � ^- � 'n � 4� � - -- � . � i . . . . . . \', ;.,,, � , . 45-�:� �� 3 ��.� b � �� `U � >' �� ) �, r. s c� ;-� � � ` J )Z � ��C �Y (1�,�> —_ ! . ... � .� F � �. � n � _ . _ , � , , ti� �_' �- } — '� = �� ' � 'al � _ z-�-- �.�� r� � � - (� . .� c� � —, _ �- - �� ; � � .� � r� _ �� i� ��, ;�'� - �, � , �('� , ,- � _ — � w � � y , , , �� , � -- .� � , �, ,. � � " C � � ��X=��' i��3�A