The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1517 Howard Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit Address: 1517 Howard Avenue Item No. Action Calendar Meeting Date: January 12, 2009 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling, Special Permit for side setback to new accessory structure, and Conditional Use Permit fora bathroom in the new accessory structure. Applicants and Designer: Mark Robertson APN: 028-292-240 Property Owners: Gerard and Orla Gallagher Lot Area: 8,736 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential 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) of the CEQA Guidelines, 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, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing house and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling. The applicant is also proposing a new accessory structure that will contain two covered parking spaces, a bathroom, pool equipment, and covered patio area. The proposed project will cover 2,800 SF (32%) of the lot where 3,494 SF (40%) is the maximum allowed, and contain 4,126 SF (0.47 FAR) of floor area where 4,296 SF (0.49 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 170 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. Along the right side property line, the proposed accessory structure will be 2'-0" from the property line and 26'-0" deep. A Special Permit is required for an accessory structure exempt from setback requirements and located in the rear 40% of the lot. The 572 SF accessory structure (including covered patio area) also requires a Conditional Use Permit because it contains a bathroom. The accessory structure will contain two covered parking spaces that meet current code dimensions (20'x 20') and the required uncovered space is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: ■ Design Review for anew, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (CS 25.57.010). ■ Conditional Use Permit for accessory structure that contains a bath, shower, or toilet (CS 25.60.010, j). ■ Special Permit for detached garage exempt from setback restrictions located within the rear 40% of the lot (CS 25.28.035, d). Lot Are a: 8,736 SF Plans date stamped: Decemb PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS! ........... ................... _.......... _.................................. .............................................. ............................ .................................................... ..................................... ........................ ....._............................................................................................................. . Front (Is'fir): I 24'-6" (to living room) 24'-2'/2' (block average) (2"d fir): 37'-9" (to BR4) �. 24'..-2%2".._...... _ ........... __...__............. ................................. _.......................................................................... ......................... ......................................................................................................... .... .._......................................................._........_..--- Side (left, 1st fir): 5'-3" (to kitchen) 4'-0" (left, 2"d fir): 8'-11" (to BR3) 4'-0" (right, 15t fir): 12'-6" (to BR5) 4'-0" (right, 2"d fir): 10'-2" (to laundry) I 4'-0" er 11, 2008 Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit 1517 Howard Avenue PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Rear (1 t fir): i 76' 9"1(to nook) 151-011 (2" fir): ........ .............................................. 74 -6 (to MB) .................. ........................................................................................... 20 -0 _............................ _........................................................................... _...... ............................... ............................ _... _........................................................................ ................................ Lot Coverage: 2,800 SF 3,494 SF 32% 40% FAR: ( 4,126 SF i 4,296 SF' 0.47 FAR { 0.49 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 i --- Parkin 2 covered 2 covered (20' x 20') (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered ............................................ ..._................. .... _................... ........................... _.:._..._..............................._.........._..._............... (9' x 20') _................... _................................................ ............................ (9' x 20') _._._..._._......................................... __......... _....... _._......... Height: ..................................................................................................................................................... 29'-7" ................................................................._.................................................................._...__.......... 30'-0" ............................................._............................................................................................ DH Envelope: complies I CS 25.28.075 (0.32 x 8,736 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 4,296 SF (0.49 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, City Arborist, and NPDES Coordinator. Please note that the tree removal permit mentioned in the City Arborist's memo was approved on December 17, 2008. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on December 8, 2008, the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding this project (December 10, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission voted to place the item on the Action Calendar when its comments had been incorporated into the proposed project. The designer submitted a response letter, date stamped January 6, 2008, and revised plans, date stamped December 11, 2008. Please refer to the copy of the December 8, 2008, Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of Planning Commission concerns. At the December 8, 2008 meeting, the Planning Commission asked if there was adequate mass to the landscaping at the front of the structure and asked staff to confirm the species of street tree in front of 1517 Howard. The Commission requested that, if the existing street tree was not a large-scale tree, that an additional large-scale tree be planted in the front yard. Staff confirmed with the Parks Department that the existing street tree is a young Magnolia "little gem" that will top out at approximately 15' and is not considered a large-scale tree. The Parks Department noted that the scale of any street tree at that location is limited by the primary utility lines overhead. The applicant has revised the landscape plan (Sheet 3) to include an evergreen pear in the front yard, which will grow to a maximum of 25 feet high. 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. -2- Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit 1517 Howard Avenue Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should 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: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 11, 2008, Sheets 1 through 8; 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 if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 4. 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), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 10, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's October 16, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 13, 2008 memo, the City Arborist's October 29, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 17, 2008 memo shall be met; 6. 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; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans -3- Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit 1517 Howard Avenue 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; 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 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; 10. 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; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. 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; and 15. 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. Lisa Whitman Associate Planner Mark Robertson 918 E. Grant Place San Mateo, CA 94402 Attachments: Designer's Response to Commission's comments, date -stamped January 6, 2009 Minutes from December 8, 2008 Design Review Study Meeting Letter from Sean Pitonak, date -stamped December 8, 2008 -4- Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit 1517 Howard Avenue Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Application Form Special Permit Application Form Photos of Adjacent Properties Tree Removal Permit, approved December 17, 2008 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed December 30, 2008 Aerial Photo -5- I MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o 1 12/12/2008 ATTN: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVED JAN 0 6 2009 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT: NEW GALLAGHER RESIDENCE 1517 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 RE: RESPONSES TO 12/8/08 COMMISSION MTG. AND NEIGHBOR COMMENTS - REVISED PLAN SUBMITTAL. Dear Commission Members, I have revised Jerry & Orla's plans in response to the concerns that were raised during our hearing. I have met with Mr. Pitonak (1521 neighbor) and have revised the plans to accommodate him the best I can. Neither the Gallaghers' or the Pitonaks' are 100% pleased with this solution. I took both their concerns and tried to meet everyone half- way....... ACCESSORY STRUCTURE —POOL We have reduced the Garage wall length from 39 ft. to 26ft. and applied the plan that our neighbor recommended / preferred,, and have designed the Bathroom and its door to be as bad as possible for any In -Law Unit considerations. The common wall between the Bath and Garage has been filled with plumbing to prevent any possible "retro."door access to prevent the creation of a future livable suite. We have set the Garage 3'-6" deeper into the lot to more closely align with our neighbors garage — Mr. Pitonak would like more but I have pushed the pool as far back as I can — and I have "maxed-out" the Gallaghers' comfort level. In addition, we have inset the Garage an additional foot (2'-0" off C.L. fence) to address our neighbors "maintenance" issue brought up in the meeting. The Gallagher's consider this a colossal waste of their yard space, but I have convinced them to accommodate. Note that the revised accessory structure is a net reduction in lot coverage from our original submittal and that our proposed structure is much smaller than our neighbors Garage. Mr. Pitonaks Garage is larger than ours will be. It is 22'-3" wide (verses our 20'-9"). It has a 9ft. Top Plate (verses our 8ft. T.P.). And it has a Ridge height elevation of 60.70 ft. ( 16'- 3" building height) verses our 15ft. max. height proposal with a ridge elevation of 59.50ft. — our Garage will be over a foot lower than our neighbors, based on data provided by the surveyor. 918 E. GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF. 94402 U.S.A -TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399 I MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o I JAN ® 6 2009 CIPOF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. SOLAR PANELS I have wrapped the panels around the new rear roof of the proposed Garage to reduce the visual impact for our neighbor. I have also noted the panels as "OPTIONAL" and will investigate the radiant slab idea and will use it if we can — I think it's a great idea! Note that we also offer to provide our neighbor with shrubs that he may plant in front of our proposed Garage to screen it from his view. CONC. SLAB V. PAVER DRIVEWAY The driveway has been changed to sand -set unit pavers to facilitate drainage as requested. STONE VENEER The stone veneer has been raised as suggested and has been extended into the front porch. We fully agree that this will improve the look, raise the stone above the landscaping, and reduce the uniformity of all shingle walls. I actually began to wonder what the "h" I was thinking in the first place! Thanks. NO "HEAVENLY BAMBOO" The `Heavenly Bamboo' hedging has been replaced with `Black Bark Pittosporum' and `Oriental Arborvitea' hedging as requested. Both are non-invasive plants. ADD FRONT YARD TREE We have added an Evergreen Pear to the front yard median to create more bulk as requested — see Landscaping Plan, pg# 3. This tree is large and full, and is on the City's approved Street Tree List. This concludes the comments that we received, and I thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Mark Robertson. c.c. Jerry & Orla Gallagher Sean Pitonak file 918 E. GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes December 8, 2008 6. 1517 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND GERARD AND ORLA GALLAGHER, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated December 8, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Has met with neighbor to right; he has particular issues with the structure in the rear. Commission comments: ■ Asked if the two adjacent properties are owned by the same owner (Robertson — originally sold as a combined site, but exist as two lots). ■ Clarified that the pool is part of the application (Robertson — yes). ■ Suggested installing a passive heating system for the pool. ■ Assumes that the design is a stamped concrete driveway; encouraged a pervious driveway. ■ Asked if shower in bathroom near pool is necessary since there is an outdoor shower (Robertson — not necessary). ■ Bedroom 3, the occupant would need to travel quite some distance to a bathroom, consider a Jack - and -Jill bathroom (Robertson — the current design is what the applicant desires). ■ The island in the kitchen seems too small to accommodate a family. Public comments: Sean Pitonak, 1521 Howard Avenue: Concerned about the impact of the design upon his rear yard. Noted that two Special Permits being requested. Concern about the overall ridge height of the garage; the scale of the garages needs to be the same. The location of the garage as an accessory structure is a concern; will see the garage from his pool area. The solar panels will impact his view. The size of the pool equipment enclosure area is too large; could be made much smaller. Concern regarding the setback for the garage from his property line; proximity, construction and maintenance are concerns. The height of the structure will be an impact. The accessory building shouldn't become an accessory unit; need to be certain this doesn't occur. There are trees that will be removed along the rear fence; want to be certain that something will replace these plant materials. The end of the proposed home extends beyond his home; this is a concern due to the impact upon his yard and access to light. Additional applicant comments: Mark Robertson; provided revised plans based upon neighbor comments. Will do everything in his power to address the issues raised. Will be meeting with owner to review the revised design for the project. The property owner doesn't want the garage inset into the yard. 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes December 8, 2008 Additional Commission comments: ■ Clarified location of neighbor's fence. ■ Consider changing the shingle style on the house (Robertson — the owner likes the shingle style; will ensure that the design is quite different from adjacent houses). ■ Asked about species of the street trees; a bit concerned that the only real landscaping buffer is the proposed Japanese Maple; will there be enough mass in the landscaping; review before the item returns. Request staff to verify species of existing street tree(s); if not large scale trees, then an addition large scale tree should be planted in the front yard. • Can the Commission comment on the solar panels (Meeker — precluded by State law from regulating the solar panels). ■ Make the stone veneer a bit more prevalent on the front fagade. Additional public comments: Elaine ?, 1516 Howard Avenue: Expressed concern about air and noise pollution impacts during construction. Minimize the time of construction and address dust control. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:01 p.m. 7. UO,9 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND alaE SETBACK AND RKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO— SINGLE FAMILY D LLIN GUGHUZ CHEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JOE HALL, DESIGNER) STAFF COT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dalordQecember 8, 2008, with the project description. There re no questions of Chair Cauchi opened the public commen nod. i Michael ?, 2463 Montry Court; repr-�nted the app i� Commission comments/ Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented ■ Clarified fhat there will be a Variance required for lot coverag7,heproject will still exceed the m mum FAR following project construction. ■ sked for clarification of hardship for the setback Variance; affepla m and the bedroom; these areas could be adjusted to eliminate the Variance. Mon, Dec 8, 2008 6:35 PM Subject: 1517 Howard Avenue " IV EL Friday, December 5, 200812:35 PM - EC IVEL' From: Sean Pitonak <sean.pitonak@comcast.net> UL X 0 ZOO8 To: <gallagher14@gmail.com> Cc: Debbie Way <deb1way@yahoo.com> c,rr'( OF BURLINGAME Conversation: 1517 Howard Avenue PLANNING DEPT, Dear Gerry - Welcome to the neighborhood! I am certain that you and your family will enjoy living on Howard as much as my family has. We have been living in 1521 Howard for almost 5 years now and thoroughly enjoy the neighborhood and location. We are looking forward to having a family with young children joining the neighborhood (our girls are 8 years old). I am looking forward to meeting you and Orla - I had hoped to have had the opportunity to do so before you got this far in the planning stages for your new home. Thank you for dropping off the preliminary plans for your new home - Debbie and I appreciate the opportunity to review them prior to the first Planning Commission Meeting. As I attempted to outline for you when we spoke over the phone earlier this week, we have a number of questions/issues/concems about the project. As I promised, here is a summary: 1. Proposed Garage and Accessory Structure As you can imagine (since you have applied for several special use and conditional use permits), there are multiple issues that we have with the proposed garage and accessory structure. We have spent a significant amount of time and money on our yard and pool area and spend a lot of time in our back yard. Since you are planning on putting in an extensive pool/entertainment area, we assume that you also value the ability to enjoy your backyard. Your proposed garage and accessory structure would have a profoundly negative impact on our ability to enjoy our backyard and substantially diminish our large investment. You are asking us to accept a nearly 40 foot long structure within 1 foot of our fence that dwarfs our existing garage - on top of that, our pool area would have a view of a nearly twelve foot high structure topped with solar panels. Here are our specific issues: a. Overall ridge height of garage - at 15', your garage would be significantly taller than ours (our garage peak height is 13' 9") b. Location of garagelaccessory structure - your currently proposed location in the rear 40% of the lot impacts our entire yard c. Location of solar panels on garagelaccessory structure roof - While we appreciate your choice of a green alternative to heating your pool, we hope you agree that solar panels are an eyesore - we think you are asking a lot of us to impact our pool area with that kind of view. d. Size of pool utility area - your proposed pool utility area is much larger than is required for the equipment that you are installing. The major impact on us is the mass of the structure and the view of it of it from our pool area. e. Setback - We understand the setback codes and the need for a special use permit to place your garage in the rear 40% of the lot with a 1 foot setback. Our garage is within the rear 30% of the lot 1 of 4 RECEIVED Dec x s 2008 and was built 3 feet from the property line - this amount of space has allowed us to have access for AME maintenance and minimizes our impact on your yard. Besides the overall impact on our,�v PT logistics of building and (especially) maintaining a structure that has 1 foot of clearance seem quite impractical to us. f. Length and location of accessory structure - one of your special use permits is due to the length of the garage/accessory structure. We are opposed to having such a large structure in that location. We would like to discuss ways to minimize the impact of a -40 foot structure (nearly twice as long as our existing garage) g. Height of accessory structure - with the removed landscaping cover (per your plan), the nearly 12 foot high wall/roof would tower over our fence and severely impact the ambiance and view in our pool area. The solar panels, in particular, would be an eyesore and would significantly diminish the investment we have made in our yard h. Bathroom - we understand that a Conditional Use Permit is required to install a bathroom in an accessory structure because of the concern of creating an in-law unit or otherwise habitable space in the garage. As you know, we also have a pool and believe that the convenience afforded by having a nearby restroom would be a great addition to the space. We are hopeful that you are granted a Conditional Use Permit for the bathroom and abide by the conditions set forth and that future potential owners of the property are required to do so. i. Privacy and landscaping - There are currently multiple mature trees in your rear yard area, including a large mature oak at the rear corner. The landscaping plan would eliminate existing cover provided currently by very mature trees. Additionally, the plan indicates planting Heavenly Bamboo along the fence - Heavenly Bamboo is a highly invasive plant species that also requires proper berry management. 2. Proposed Finish of the House In general, we quite appreciate the fact that you have decided to choose a Craftsman -style home. We think it will add a great deal to the charm of the street. Our biggest concern is your choice for the finish. As you know, the homes on both sides of your property are shingled Craftsman -style homes with stone veneer. We are concerned that your choice of shingles and stone veneer will make all of our houses appear very uniform. So uniform, in fact, that we worry that our part of the block will have the look of a housing development that one typically sees in Livermore or Vacaville where all of the house are the same (except they are painted different colors). There are many different types of finishes for Craftsman homes - since you are going to paint the shingles, we would ask that you consider a different siding material (lapboard siding, a commonly used material in Craftsman homes, would be one alternative). Also, based on the drawing and description of the stone veneer material from your plans, it seems like you are choosing a material that is the same as what is currently on our house. If this is the case, there are multiple other materials that could be used (river rock, brick, etc.) that are commonly used in Craftsman homes. You are, of course, free to finish your home any way that you choose - our primary concern is protecting and enhancing the value of our home and believe that would be diminished if your home looks too much like ours (and vice -versa). 2 of 4 RECEIVED DEC X 8 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME 3. Location of Rear of Home 01-ANNING DEPT. The drawings do not indicate the location of the rear of our home relative to yours. We would ask that this be added to the drawings and any impact of that be discussed. To summarize, we would ask you to consider the following specific changes to the design that would lessen the impact on us: 1. Proposed Garage and Accessory Structure: a. Overall height of garage - limit ridge height to 13' 9" max (the same height as our garage) b. Location of garage/accessory structure - start garage at same location as our does (see attached drawing - Figure 1) c. Location of solar panels on garage/accessory structure roof - mitigate by putting on roof section that is parallel to our garage (so that the view from our yard is blocked by our garage roof. See attached drawing - Figure 1) d. Size of pool utility area - consider minimizing dimensions of the overall structure (the equipment to be covered requires far less than the 6' x 9' 9" x 11' 8" structure proposed) (see attached drawings - Figure 2 and 3) e. Setback - 3 feet from fence (i.e. a practical distance is from a construction and maintenance standpoint) f. Length and location of accessory structure - reorient pool equipment and bathroom so that are adjacent to rear of garage (see attached drawing - Figure 2) g. Height of accessory structure - reorientation (per item f) would allow a lower roof height to be implemented (see attached drawing - Figure 3) h. Bathroom - require future owners of property to contractually guarantee that they will not use the garage as an in-law (or otherwise occupiable) unit i. Privacy and landscaping - Consider preserving the oak tree nearest to the fence corner. Consider an alternative to the Heavenly Bamboo or install with a rhizome barrier 3 feet deep on each side and commit to required maintenance. 2. Proposed Finish of the House Would like to discuss our concerns with you. 3. Location of Rear of Home Indicate the location of the rear of our home relative to your proposal. Any impact to be discussed. Thanks for taking the time to consider our concerns - we believe that the best way to resolve these is to get together in person prior to the Planning Commission Meeting on Monday, December 8th. The best times for us this weekend are: Friday, December 5: Anytime after 4 PM Saturday, December 6: 12-4 PM Sunday, December 7: 12-2 PM Best Regards, Sean Pitonak 650-678-0881 3of4 0 J J- F � � E4 r- G 3 der R CEIVED s. Wr X 8 2008 CITY qF BURLINGAME PLANING DEPT. 'not 41 2-ca- 11 4 of 4 BURIrINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: 02,5 — Zc12 Conditional Use Permit X Special Permit ❑ Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: 1517 f-�Wtat �( Ill V. O Please indicate the contact person for this project APPLICANT project contact person)< PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Name: _ __ CGRj2,y D�ZC.� �aViLLf4�'I�F_fZ Address: Cf qAddress: /rj I % 1 Wffn C City/State/Zip: �!4/1J � -� , � QZCity/State/Zip: >t/ f%rvl�, / 7Li Phone:j�� 7� — /�� Phone: Fax: �5 / / — %/ 77 Fax: t E-mail: E-mail: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Address: 10C-, City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax: E-mail: * Burlingame Business License #1',- 2 26 8,<y PROJECT DESCRIPTION: s ME 2 OCT -- 9 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME p,Rw imn nFPT, ► 2 iNG� � 7 -5�i2Y f(005e �� G- ��Z Tr �� 1_ -GKI BJ412, COOL (fs� , 5l�/r�n�INE Pcsx f EOLL ! 4MN) AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify un er penalt of pe jury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: 105 lvsr I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this applic ion to the Planning Commission. j Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted: * Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. 0 Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. S:\Handouts\PC Application 2008-B.handout This Space for CDD Staff Use Only Project Description: °(M35Cn,� stye",� \-Ct Key: Abbreviation Termx w. CUP Conditional Use Permit DHE Declining Height Envelope DSR Design Review E Existing N New SFD Single Family Dwelling SP Special Permit -r(7f Heq wz� r,-- City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P (650) 558-7250 • F (650) 696-3790 • www.burlingame.org 5 I-fa�v�4� r�v�, RE BU RR LI CITY OF BURLINGAMEa CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION OCT - b 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. rr FADP06ED (I �LvL %15E W , mz-'tf Pori Pt-5 «iwtb f~t5 5gtGN5WN To Nf-:-uv 2-GwP- .DETAC/NGb AQZcSS 15 rPOM PAL f)VA lND OND ADEPEAM T FW rn rV XA E- . WE FED GIs 15 TAt MOB SOLLMON FOK dUK t-aac.T�i Et POOL ApzA , 17 IfPfS N/0 Di i R1rAE1w--a4( Prff� 00 77t 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? PLAAi N 1 N rh Phi • Af;P0F�i5 NO -W&EM W/, ealR- iY6k65J ' A.5 1! 15 ftN fiP9fZO1Pi.164V C-- b�51 CnN I,arU W./ hn c N Et N H beRt-000 un -P AC 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? FOOL roosE W(N �i 'c_2Ta� ftH (Ntb rQ&A f,)6C e5 Rev 06.2007 CUP.2007.FRM City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P (650) 558-7250 • F (650) 696-3790 • www.burlingame.org 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare? Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and thing which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safety. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit? Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? Ask the Planning Department for the general plan designation and zoning district for the proposed project site. Also, ask for an explanation of each. Once you have this information, you can compare your proposal with the stated designated use and zoning, then explain why this proposal would fit accordingly. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation, etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. Rev 06.2007 CUP.2007.FRM DexPE=D rE I N RFAR. S op L or CE,%06F-D5 30 a RULE) City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P 650 558-7250 • F 650) 5 I -7 HDhIAR.D P VE , BURLBURLrE CITY OF BURLINGAME. SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION 696-3790 • www.burlinciame.org I-'z l The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's O�.giFGEjVED (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your regges4 3 2008 Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. NEW DEr. GAPAQE 15 c RED ON (El AD3ACEN S Ei i NEIV669AAR9iE W rAINtIAGU'►rt Mpl`�/WLIK V(SVAL iMPAOT. (N)GP,9A9,E SffAU- IbF- Lo�wYr 13 -b `� DEEPS ►N L� }aN (�> giA9,4taE CTo M 9&V) jbD)? AND 6M14i5it1Tl/7=--5 AN CVEEAALL. IAFFAIE ✓I EN7' 7D C" -ISTI NC-ii COND [Tl OiVS . 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. ,, DEmcACE0 H'As fttN E PfYNDED 77D INCW DE /-i KVL 14obsE. /r G46n N N A Tffg-I -n Es I m IN ITH A MGK. Meb rnmL . YtfE (lQ) i4rR 1cv /Ri-:: rs ca i E p E-cp onz ci-Wt Nc(,GiN fv� va . GARPGc iop- rAw. . V'(SURL rMPAOT. AL50 Ours (Ml STR✓a✓RL I S 13 ��' Dt--?-LK 1N'TO 1 r L.,!�;F7" AND qi K-F-4L'/ w r nrLr s (6) COND MON . 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? ALL GUIDELINES ME-1- a 1 WD WE b 1 EV!_ I 5 PP 0A)r;KL. IS A VLEA�(Mc- e�Nlb arc, s�LUilDr�l. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. MAW �UBsi?�NI�4hLD. CN> G�A�1h� l'wc7l 1pn6T-=,:S k-L C.�Iv Ns Rev. 07.2008 See over for explanation of above questions. of (N� GARwr c . �YdO' S1�'a 9, A PPAt9X s�4wi [�z�nir (N) (AlvbsCAPi/Irr, CLAN SPECIAL.PERMIT.APP.FORM City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P (650) 558-7250 • F (650) 696-3790 • www.burlingame.org 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood. How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city? Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet these guidelines? 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are protected under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so. PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 B URLINGAME AVENUE B URLINGAME, CA 94010 (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: I'V1 G hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the crown or roots of the following protected tree(s): SPECIES 2 Bt IRCUMFERENCE 2// ) LOCATION ON PROPERTY �ti)19C�1GIGS Ft91F ND/�ZTN P�� GISI WORK TO BE PERFORMED _ L 1 _ REASON WORK IS NECESSARY TO7"r� 5 t 7-E 0EJc1GPN"t :N' ►�� (_ N) �V sly ' (Please use back ofform for additional comments.) NOTE: A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TREE(S) OWNER (Print) c(--_ax1 (7► i�l l i r1c�(L MUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH A S75.00 CHECK TO: CITY OF BURLINGAME ADDRESS (5(7 aV A-90 6116' Attach any supporting documentation you may have (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist). PHONE `d Zjg -------------- ��--_ --- PERMIT This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNERS CAR J2Y OG��Q Ake SIGN ` CITY ARBORIST PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR `t--00""Y -"`^`- Fo vA CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(sj will be required and may be l Cn� planted anywhere on tie property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Section 11.06.080, payment of $400 PtZOP0j�E. b 6;q, %115 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. P�� • NO replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) completed DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE / PERMIT EXPIRES This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed w CITY o CITY OF BURLINGAME 6URLIN6AME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 M Telephone (650) 558-7300 - Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330 Fax (650).696-7216 - E-mail: recreation@burlingame.org December 3, 2008 Gerry Gallagher 1517 Howard Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010/�'czrN-eJ RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SIX BLACK ACACIA TREES & TWO ELM TREES @ 151511517 HOWARD AVENUE - BURLINGAME I reviewed your request for the removal of the above six trees in the rear, north property line and two elms mid.lot of the property at 1517 Howard Avenue and have made the following determination: 1) Of the six Black Acacia trees, only two are of protected size. These two trees have very poor overall structure, having multiple co -dominant limbs. 2) The two Elm trees on the property appear to be diseased with Dutch Elm Disease (DED) and are structurally unsound, having multiple co -dominant trunks. 3) Replacement with four (4) 24-inch box size trees will be required as defined in Section 11.06.090. Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of the trees subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code. Ifyou agree with the conditions, please sign the enclosed permit and return in the self addressed envelope BEFORE December 17, 2008. Adjacent property owners listed below are also receiving notification of this decision. Appeals to this decision or any of its conditions or findings, must be filed in writing to our office by December 17, 2008 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued on December 17, 2008, if no appeal has been received by that date. Our office may be contacted at (650) 558-7330 if you should have.any questions. Sincerely, Steven Porter City Arborist - (ISA #WC-3073) SP/kh CC: Craig Andersen Florine Walden Linda Holden 1308 Bernal Avenue 1516 Newlands Avenue 1520 Newlands Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Steven Schmidt KCC Management Shouman Shouman Sean Pitonak & 1512 Howard Avenue P.O. Box 11745 1 Madrone Deborah Way Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Discovery Bay, CA 94505 1521 Howard Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 ELCAM I NO lZeAL„ ADDRF55 PLANS PROVIDED BY: PH.(650) 571-1125 FAX.(650) 571-1399 SUB.AE.CT HOu5E -W1517 r o � r ry r J O w H O A Al RECEIVE® 11CT - 9 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Rrrrr.nTNn nFRTGNER 918 EAST GRANT PLACE _SAN MATFO CA 94402 # t 5 21 4#'152.5 4F/52 Project Comments Date: October 9, 2008 To: d City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for garage length and Conditional Use Permits for an accessory structure for a new two- story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1517 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-292-240 Staff Review: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1. See attached. 2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. 3. This project is subject to the City policy to maximize the planter strip. The new sidewalk is required to be constructed to the property line and transition to the existing sidewalks on both adjacent properties. Both the site and landscape plans need to be revised to meet this requirement. Reviewed by: V V Date: 10/16/2008 r k PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS I kN ` c S"►ryt^( stAuvils Project Name: Project Address: [&I I t ` 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.) 5U"tr-( L�, ^use; 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.) fZf 3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. 5 unitary sewer lateral Ok is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. ( ) 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 all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Pagel of 3 UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMBfNTS.doc 9 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 parcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles, trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 19 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 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 UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW CONMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 UAprivate developmentTLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc ...... ........ .. Project Comments Date: October 9, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for garage length and Conditional Use Permits for an accessory structure for a new two- story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1517 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-292-240 Staff Review: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC). 2) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 3) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 4) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 5) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 6) Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential / non- residential buildings. Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details. 7) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. 8) On the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the property line. 9) Provide details on the plans which show that all roof projections which project beyond the point where fire -resistive construction would be required will be constructed of one -hour fire -resistance - rated construction per CBC 704.2. 10) Indicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the property line will be built of one -hour fire -rated construction. (Table 602) 11) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. 12) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 13) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 14) Provide lighting at all exterior landings Reviewe Date: Project Comments Date: October 9, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 I (City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for garage length and Conditional Use Permits for an accessory structure for a new two- story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1517 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-292-240 Staff Review: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 m. 1 1 fE� 2E ..._ 2E�[odilC. �E2•'t�` �RocrEtS /� �vc2E� F �? 7kIgML4 . /Z.6e-Ld -4 C B/'C 7i16_ T-;Vo 29!5 7-If f /SA chi del" 7f Reviewed by: Date: Project Comments Date: October 9, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 of Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for garage length and Conditional Use Permits for an accessory structure for a new two- story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1517 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-292-240 Staff Review: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 Designer should utilized current IBC/IFC code language — Group U-1 and Type VN no longer exist in the code. Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 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:,; - Q, Project Comments Date: October 9, 2008 To: City Engineer Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 Chief Building Official 01 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 City Arborist ✓ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for garage length and Conditional Use Permits for an accessory structure for a new two- story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1517 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-292-240 Staff Review: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. Include a list of BMPs and erosion and sediment control measure plan as project notes when submitting plans for a building permit. Please see attached brochures for guidance. Reviewed by:� Date: 10/17/2008 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1517 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, Gerard and Orla Gallagher, Property owners, APN: 028-292-240; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 12, 2009, 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 (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 maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, are exempt from environmental review. 2. Said Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit 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 12th day of January, 2009 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit. 1517 Howard Avenue Effective January 23, 2009 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped_December 11, 2008, Sheets 1 through 8; 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 if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 4. 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), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 10, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's October 16, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 13, 2008 memo, the City Arborist's October 29, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 17, 2008 memo shall be met; 6. 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; 7. 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; 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 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; 10. 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; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. 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; and 15. 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. CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT&� BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD� BURLINGAME, CA 94010`a ` PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) www.burlingame.org r3a Site: 1517 HOWARD AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review, Conditional Use Permits, and Special Permits for an accessory structure for a new single family dwelling and detached garage at 1517 HOWARD AVENUE zoned R-1. 028-292-240 Mailed: December 30, 2008 (Please refer to other side) 016H1650a325, ,�: 7t- Maned �-TCP" us POS 3 AGF- PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City 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. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side)