The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About39 Humboldt Road - Staff ReportItem # Action Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for a New Two-Story Detached Garage Address: 39 Humboldt Road Meeting Date: 5/24/04 Request: Design review and conditional use permits for a new two-story detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010(e), C.S. 25.60.010(b), (h3), (i), (j), (m)). Applicant/Property Owner: Robert A. Brown APN: 029-305-050 Architect: John A. Schlenke Lot Area: 5,390 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Summary: The applicant is requesting design review and conditional use permits for a new two-story detached garage at the rear of 39 Humboldt Road, zoned R-1. The subject property is located on the corner of Humboldt Road and Bayswater Avenue. Although the house has a Humboldt Road address the frontage is considered Bayswater Avenue in terms of zoning requirements. There is an existing 336 SF one-car detached garage located at the rear of the property that would be demolished with this proposal. The existing single story house is 1,789 SF and would not be altered as part of this project. The existing lot coverage is 39.4% (2,125 SF) and would decrease to 39.2 %(2,118 SF) where 2,156 SF is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The existing floor area is 2,125 SF, (0.39 FAR) including the garage, and will increase to 2,359 SF (0.43 FAR) with the new garage, where 2,975 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There is a 100 SF wooden trellis over the front entrance along Humboldt Road that meets the exemption for both lot coverage and floor area. The proposed garage will have two stories and will provided one covered parking space for this three bedroom house. The upper floor of the garage is proposed for use as a recreation room and will have a half bath. The side of the garage facing the yard will have a built in grill and fireplace. The total square footage ofthe garage will be 570 SF in area. Design review is required for this project as per code section 25.57.010(e) which states that design review is required for addition to or construction of a second story or higher. Conditional use permits are required for the following: • Conditional use permit for having a recreation room on the upper level; • Conditional use permit for a height greater than 15' (18' height proposed); • Conditional use permit for windows within 10' of property line and more than 10' above grade, (bay window 7' 10" from rear property line and 10' above grade; bathroom room window 10'6" above grade and garage windows 4'4" from rear property line); • Conditional use permit for a bathroom in an accessory structure (half bath proposed in recreation room). 1 Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 39 Humboldt Road REVISED ORIGINAL EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D PROPSOAL PROPOSED Location on No change within rear 30% within rear 30% Accessory structures Lot: exempt from setback requ if located within rear 30% of a lot Lot 39.2% 39.9% 39.4% 40% Coverage: 2,118 SF 2,154 SF 2,125 SF 2,156 SF Floor Area 0.44 FAR 0.44 FAR 0.39 FAR 0.55 FAR Ratio: 2,422 SF 2,422 SF 2,125 SF 2,975 SF 13'S" Width: 13' 11" 18' 28' Height: �'6" to plate 8'S" to plate Not available 9' to plate 18' top of ridgel 18'3" top of flat roof 14' top of flat roof Size of 570 SF accessory 632 SF acceisory 336 SF garage Exceeding 600 SF Accessory structure structure requires conditional Structures: (garage & (garage & use permit recreation room) recreation room) Windows: Bay window within Bay window within Not available Windows less than 10' of property line 10' of property line 10' from property line and more than 10' and more than 10' and higher than 10' above grade/ above grade/ above grade require Recreation room and Recreation room and conditional use permit bathroom window bathroom window on on 2°d floor more 2°a floor more than than 10' above 10' above grade3 ade3 Use: Garage and Garage and Garage only Conditional use Recreation room4 Recreation room4 permit required for recreation use Water or Half bath proposed Half bath proposed on Not available Conditional use sewer on upper level5 upper levels permit required for connection: accessory structure with shower, bath or toilet 1 Conditional use permit for height greater than 15'; 2��t�e��e�e�i-�-€er-�se�Je�Jt�ttEt�t�e-e��e�-�9A-£�Square footage of accessory structure reduced, conditional use permit for size eliminated with revised plans 3 Conditional use permit for accessory structure with windows within 10' of property line and 10' above grade; 4 Conditional use permit for recreation use in an accessory structure; 5 Conditional use permit for a half bath in an accessory structure. 2 Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 39 Humboldt Road Staff Comments: See attached. Apri112, 2004 Design Review Study Meeting: On April 12, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed this project for design review study (see attached 4/12/04 Planning Commission minutes). The Commission had many concerns with the proposal, but decided that maybe with the help of a design reviewer a lot of their concerns could be addressed. They made the following comments and referred this project to a design reviewer: • Concerned with future property owners converting the second story or entire garage area to living space and renting it out as a dwelling unit; • Concerned that if this two story accessory structure is approved and then, at a later date, a second story is added to the house it will be too much for the lot; • Have sympathy for the applicant, this is a corner lot and the garage would look as if it was an attached portion of the house, hard to create space within the house without drastically changing a nice looking bungalow, corner lots are less flexible, would like to see architecture of house preserved; • Concerned with the height of this structure, towering effect, would like to know the height of the house in relation to the proposed structure; • Could half bath be moved to the lower floor of the garage, would there still be the required parking dimensions; • Stands out on the street, doesn't blend with the neighborhood; • Feel that the landscaping between the house and the garage breaks up the mass and creates a soft transition; • The proposed garage speaks to the house next door rather than to the main house on 39 Humboldt Road; • Provide scaled elevation drawing across the property, measured from average top of curb, include garage, main house and adjacent house; • Recreation room will have impact on living space of adjacent neighbors; • Too many conditional use permit requests (5) with the proposal, the number should be reduced a lot ; and • South elevation needs work, needs to be more interesting, windows or articulation. The applicant worked with the design reviewer to address the concerns stated at the April 12, 2004 meeting. Revised plans, date stamped May 5, 2004, were submitted with the following changes: • Width of the proposed structure has been reduced from 13' 11" to 13'S"; • Bay window projection on the second floor has been reduced; • Overall square footage has been reduced from 632 SF to 570 SF, eliminating the request for a conditional use permit for size; • Second floor plate height has been reduced from 8'2" to 5'6", reducing the bulk and mass of the structure; • Roof design changed from a flat to a pitched roof reducing the over height from 18'3" to 18'; • Two windows have been added along the south elevation; • Reduced number of windows on the west elevations from 4 to 1. Design Reviewer's Comments and Conclusion (memo dated May 12, 2004): The design reviewer's May 12, 2004 memo is attached. The design reviewer notes in his memo that he focused on the architecture and conformance to the design guidelines by this accessory structure. He did not address the policy issue raised by Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 39 Humboldt Road the number of conditional use permits requested. The design reviewer feels that the proposed architectural style is consistent with the existing house. He notes that the revised proposal results in a reduced mass and bulk. Although the design review guidelines do not specially discuss how an accessory structure should interface with adjacent structures, the design reviewer treated the structure as a dwelling, using the same criteria. He concluded that the proposed relationship between the proposed free standing accessory structure and adjacent structures is not unreasonable so he supports the project. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 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 convemence; (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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings for design review and special permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 5,2004, site plan, floor plans, and building elevations; 2. that the accessory structure shall only be used as a one-car garage with a recreation room with a half bath above, with a maximum enclosed square footage 570 SF and a maximum height of 18'; shall never be used as a second dwelling unit; and shall not include additional utility services without an amendment to this conditional use permit; G� Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 39 Humboldt Road 3. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer and Chief Building Official's January 12, 2004 memos shall be met; 4. 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; and 5. 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. Catherine Barber Planner c: Robert Brown, applicant and property owner 5 Date: To: From Subject: Staff Review: a - ��_,..�. , �;.; z . ..M, �,, ., .� s,,,.,; , . � Project Comments 1 /12/04 ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal �Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Request for design review and conditional use permit for a new two- story accessory structure at 39 Humboldt Rd., zoned R-1, APN:029-305-050 1 /12/04 / 'l , � f/L G � 5� l��2:1 i � Gl � n � :� d p � � ��s a � oY cU �' OPiY✓�, �fff �z� , ' �� 2�t�L ; �� 0 Date� �e - Project Comments Date: 1 /12/04 To: ❑ City Engineer IJ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal a Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and conditional use permit for a new two- story accessory structure at 39 Humboldt Rd., zoned R-1, APN:029-305-050 Staff Review: 1 /12/04 �Olyd� -s2�1�^w�i � Cc9-�„/'�••,�.. 7� C�i/.�'v�N/a �vl�� --- ��t�[� - Reviewed by: Date: � 1/(��1 �,.. ._ .. . _ . _ . �_. .,. ., . Project Comments Date: To: From: 1 /12/04 �City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and conditional use permit for a new two- story accessory structure at 39 Humboldt Rd., zoned R-1, APN:029-305-050 Staff Review: 1/12/04 � ... e s...�f .2� .R ,.. � . �. f �� '�n<�5 «r�,��-��,�� < � �� _ - ' - ,... I� .. �__ t.�,_ ,...�, i � �,'��4..`�..A.Y'iY'l.�a �� "� ��1�✓L 4�.r.f� Lt.r/!7V}'L i2��[kZ�c.' Reviewed by: ;,.� / Date: ,� j�� 7I li �/ � �.�� City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Apri112, 2004 7. 39 HUMBOLDT ROAD, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW TWO-STORY DETACHED GARAGE WITH RECREATION ROOM (ROBERT BROWN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JOHN SCHLENKE, ARCHITECT) �63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked the height of the existing house? Staff noted that they request that information from the applicant. Commission asked the reasoning behind the code restrictions on the 15' height on accessory structures and also why use permit for bathrooms. Staff responded that the height restriction is in place to limit the mass and bulk of accessory structures and the bathroom regulation is in place because of the concern about converting these areas into living units. Commission asked what the area across the street is zoned. Commission asked if the circular stairs are permitted by code. Staff noted that the circular stairs are strictly regulated under the Building Code and will be reviewed with the building permit. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Robert Brown, property owner, 39 Humboldt Road, was available to answer questions. He noted that across the street is City of San Mateo and that the area is zoned for residential use. When designing this garage looked at using a pitched roof and a flat roof. The neighbors that will be most affected by this project have reviewed it and are o.k. with the flat roofed proposal. The location of the garage will be moved forward from the location of the existing garage so the neighbors will get more light. Need additional space for children. Commission asked how tall the house is? Mr. Brown estimated that is about 15-18 feet tall. Commission asked the applicant if there are other houses in the area that have two story garages and has the applicant considered adding a second story on the house for more living space? Applicant note that there is only one house in the area with a two story garage. He just remodeled this house, this proposal is the second phase of construction, thought it was a good alternative to do a recreation room, if added a second story on the house would have to tear out the new roof and skylights that we just installed. Commission noted that south elevation of the garage is a blank wall, was this done intentionally to preserve the privacy of the neighbor? Mr. Brown stated that the south wall was designed to preserve the privacy of the neighbors as well as to comply with the City code regulations regarding windows close to property line. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: some of the Commissioners decided that they are not quite comfortable with two story accessory structure, but determined that if there are changes made to the project they may be able to deal with the two story garage; CA Anderson noted that if the project is approved the Commission can conditional it so that no more square footage could be added to the site; Commission decide to send the project on to a design reviewer with direction. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Concerned with future property owners converting the second story or entire garage area to living space and renting it out as a dwelling unit; • Concerned that if this two story accessory structure is approved and then, at a later date, a second story is added to the house it will be too much for the lot; • Have sympathy for the applicant, this is a corner lot and the garage would look as if it was an attached portion of the house, hard to create space within the house without drastically changing a nice looking bungalow, corner lots are less flexible, would like to see architecture of house preserved; 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004 • Concerned with the height of this structure, towering effect, would like to know the height of the house in relation to the proposed structure; � Could half bath be moved to the lower floor of the garage, would there still be the required parking dimensions; • Stands out on the street, doesn't blend with the neighborhood; • Feel that the landscaping between the house and the garage breaks up the mass and creates a soft transition; • The proposed garage speaks to the house next door rather than to the main house on 39 Humboldt Road; • Provide scaled elevation drawing across the property, measured from average top of curb, include garage, main house and adjacent house; • Recreation room will have impact on living space of adjacent neighbors; • Too many conditional use permit requests (5) with the proposal, the number should be reduced a lot ; and • South elevation needs work, needs to be more interesting, windows or articulation. C. Osterling made a motion to send this proj ect to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojues called for a vote on the motion to refer this project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 14 May 14 04 10:10a - llrrfiieccr.r Design Review Memo City af Bnrlingame Date= May 12, 2404 Planning Commission City of Burlingatrie 501 Primrose Road, Burlingarne, CA 94010 R E C E I V E D Re: 39 Humboldt Rd. Owner: Robert Brown Architect: John Schtenke AIA MAY 1 4 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Planner: Catherine Barber I have visited the site and surraunding area I reviewed the original submission to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Coznmission's comaments as presented in the meeting minutes. I met with the owner and arctutect about the project to discuss the proposal. As a design reviewer, I focused on the architecture, the impacts, and conformance to the Design Guidelines of the proposed structure rather than fornvng opindons abont the Conditional Use permits required for this project. Current revisions to original design and suggested additional refinements include: Floor plans- The width has been made narrower, the bay window projection has been reduced and it txas been moved a bit further from the property lxne, the doors and deck on the side of the structure have been recessed in. T'he revisions resulted 'va a structure that no longer exceeds 600 SF, thereby eliminating one of the conditional use requests. East elevation- (street front) The pazapet wall at the roof has been removed to lessen the structure's impact on the street. The overall height has been reduced to 18'-0" from 18'-3". South Elevation- (Left side) Two windows have been added. West Etevation- (Rear) The pazapet at the roof has been removed. The number of windows has been reduced to one. North Elevation- (Right side) The parapet at the roof has been removed. The balcony and doors have been recessed into the structure. How revisions respond to the Comm�ission's comments and concerns (the foIlowing bullet points aze taken firozn the April 12�' minutes): • Concemed with future property owners converting the second story or entire gara.ge area to living space and renting it out as a dwelling unit; p.2 305 Nark Roud, Suiic 303. [3urlin�;;intc, (:A 951110 i C50.579.57G? Fax 650.579.0115 www.[r}�xrch.rom I May 14 04 10:1Da This concern arises from the basic cancept of this praject, or perhaps, atry oversized accessory structure that might be constructed. (ratt�er thax� a potential refinement of the design). Whale the 21eve1 nature of the str�cture with exterior stair, door, and plumbing lends itself to the developmemt of a separate unit, azry conversion would have to be constructed �egally. Tite upstairs space, especially with the low headroom, the need to expand the %z bath into a fiill bath, add closet space, aad prpvide cooking fac�ities, wouldn't yield much of au apartrnent. Making the ernire structure into an apartment woutd ereate a better living spa,ce but would require construction of an mterior stair to be practicaL • Concerned that if this two story accessory structure is approved and t}�n, at a latear date, a second story is added to the house it will be too mwch foz the lot; If a second floor were to be proposed in the future, that proposal wauld have to come before the Planning Com�nis.siozi, and its inapacts can be reviewed at that time. Condztions could be imposed that would limut :future construction or impose F.A.R lixmts as thaugh this were an attac� garage (ie. no 350 SF bonus for detached garage since it's attacl�ed to living space) etc.... • Have s3mipathy for the app�iCant, this is a corner lot and the garage would look as if it was an attached portion of the house, vard to create spa�ce within the house without drastically changing a nice looking bungalow, corner lats are less flexible, would Wce to s� architecture of hoase preserved; The proposal does preserve the azchitecture of the house. • Concerned with the heiglnt of this structure, towering effect, woutd l�e to lmow the b�eight of the house in relatian to the proposed structure; The applicant has provided height comparisons showing that the proposed structiue is T' taller than the living room section of the house. • Couid half bath be maved to the lower floor of the garage, wauId there st�l be the required parki�ng dun�ensions; The applicant did not move the half bath to the lower level; if the bath were moved to the lower level there would have to be revision to the footpruat in order to m�aintau� thc required parl� dimension. • Stattds out on the street; doesn't blend with the neighborhood; This is the only two-story garage that I saw on the bloctr, so it does stard out i� that regard. I do feel that it is an urterest�g little sttvcture and does blenci in architecturally wi.th the main house and other houses on the block; it's not unlike other two-story elements such as 149 Humboldt, where there is a large wi�dow or e�+ over a garage door. • Feel that th� landscaping between the house and the gazage bzeaks up the ma.�.s and creates a soft transitioq This is an existing condition, The large trees do cover soften many of the view angles. • The proposed garage speaks to the house �ext door rather thar� to ti�e main house on 39 Heunboldt Road; This is true in terms of proximity, but architecturally there is a cka�r tie to the main house. If the wood fence were a low stucco waU, it would actually create a strong composition and the sense of an interesting liitle compound (not a suggestion to replace the fence). p.3 2 May 14 04 10:10a • Provide scaled elevation drawing across the property, tneas�ued from average top of curb, include garage, main house and adjacent h�ouse; Th�e applicant has pmvided tbas. � Recreation room will have impact on living space of adjacent neighbors; I noted that one feature of this particular corner lat is the f�ct that the house's address and front door aze on Humboldt, and the garage appea�rs to be on the side. However, #he nacrower Bayswater frontage is technicall�+ the front ofthe iot and t� garage is in the reaz. The structure wauld m�et side setback requirements (it's 4'-�"), and the declining height em+elope for an mterior lot l'me, and its ixnpac.�t to the neighbor is similar to an interior lot line condition I noted tt�at it's the neighbor's garage that's next to this st�vcture (rather than fiviag space), w�hich reduces the impact. There shouldn't be sii�ficant solar issues. We are not, however, able to estimate irr�act (sound`� from the proposed use as a `�ec. room". + Too many conditional use pem�it requests (5} with the proposat, the number should be reduced a lot; Tl�e applicant has reduced the conditional vse permit request to four; the structtnre is now 600 SF. Due to the nature of the appfication, the only othex request that could be elicnroated is the half' bath • South elevation needs work, needs to be more interesting, wimdows or articulation. Two windows have beeit added to the lower leveL Tiae plate height at the upper level is too low to realistically add wuidows theze, Some additional articulation (even copper downspouts wiih nice copper coll�ection boxes) may be warranted. DESIGN GUIDELINES: 1. Compstibility of the Arc6itcctnral Style witb t5at of the Ezistixg Ncighborhood. • T� P�Posed architectural style is compatt"bk with the existing neighborhood. 2. R�pect for Parldng and Garage Patterns in the Neighbor600d • The detachea garage parking is compat��ble with tt►e existing situation aad P�'�S P�� in the neighborhood- I'm assu�ng that "BaraSe gatterns" in this cozrtext is meant to relate to parlcing and location; not tl�e garage structure itself. 3. Arc4itectaral Style, Mass & Bulk of the Stractare: • TI� applicable findings for many compo�ents of the Design Guidelines include "Architecttu�l style, consisteucy, �nass and buik of structures, including accessory structures". The proposed architectural style is consisterrt with the elos�ting l�use. While the Guidelines offer many examples of mana�g m�ass and bulk for the main house, it's di�cult to apply a lot of that iunfozmation to an accessory building; and two story accessory bwldimgs are p.4 3 May 14 04 10:10a aot specifically covered (or arrticipated� by the Guidelines. But the design does incorporate some elements discussed in the guicieliaes such as: "clipped,° rooms with much lower plate heights, harrnonizing with existiag architecture, and azriculation with the bay window, halcony, au�d chimney. Additioaally, the revisions made to the initiat proposal have sliglYtly lessened the mass a�d bulk of the project. 4. Interface of the Proposed Stractarc with the Adjacent Structares to Each Side: • The Design Guidelines do not specificalty discuss how an accessory structure should 'mtezface wi#h adjacent stcuctures. I therefore analyzed it similarly to tbe w$y I'd analyze auy other stnicture, including sunlighdst�dowing, declining height emrelope based on an interior lot-line, and privacy or side-by- side uses across the prope�xty line {see above). O� could say that the proposed reiationship is not unreasovable. 5. Landscaping and its proportion to the Mass aad Balk of Stcuctnrnl Compoaents: • As noted in the minutes, tt�e existing laz�scaPing softens the proposal. �►�lu : : The revised desiga manages to reduce the mass somewhat by eliminatimg the parapets and reducmg tlze size of the accessory structure. Tl� size reduction also eliminates one of the Conditional Use Permits. The azclutecture of the proposed structure is attract�ive and consistent wii�tLh th�t of the house. In tenms of a sanaIl bu�ding design, I can support the Prolect• As a design reviewez, i did n�t tackle some of the bigger policy issues before the Plar�iumg Commission. Since there are n,o uses or features in this application that are specificallY prolnbited by the zoning Code, it is theoretiCally allowable; there is no C1ear policy (that I am aware ofj pertaining to the maximn�ra number of Conditional uses or Special permits tba# one may apply for in azry application; on what basis aze multiple Conditionai Use Pernrits approved or denied; would this project set a new precedent im the City, aud if so, is it undesirable or just another way to ga� e�ra space without increasing lot coverage or the buIlc of the main residence? Randy Grange, AIA p.5 4 City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org ab, CIT7 0� ��.��+E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION �,,.�.�•�.�• Type of application: Design Review ✓ Conditional Use Permit � Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project �� APPLICANT Name:�� Q,C �' � , �n Address: '/"/ �I'I ��la� �[{�� l�Lf City/State/Z p /� l/1 �/11 C' �'% /� Phone (w): �t� � 3� (h): 10�� ' �"� - (��3 c�: � i � - qB�F � 7�b � ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: �ID-�l� � . ��'re��E% Address: � �i� Li� City/State/Zip: ' �lCf C � ��`T Phone (w): �� - `�'� ' J'��d (h)� f� v �f/l c�. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: .D 5 �2. e, ✓� �i C c-t t� 'S AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby given herein is true and�o�rect to Applicant's I know about the proposed application to the Planning Property owner's s 1 Date: ' � � � Date submitted: R�(' � I\/ G' fl = —• - -- J A N - 1 ZOO PCAPP.FRM �� Date: � `�l ' � and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this PROPERTY OWNER Name: � iC� Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): c�:- Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. under penalty of perjury that the information .knowled�e and belief. CITY OF BURL�NGAME PLANNING DEPT. City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org ��,Tr o� RECEIVED �,�,,aN,,,E CITY OF BURLINGAME � � � � � CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION '�'�,..�.,��'� JAN - 7 2004 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. i�� fi�L Ioe� v�b ci�kr"�rn�� .,� �-4'I� �r�po��I 9a�a,9� �Prmocf�L , � �► � g� t�o� o►� -w�rz, U�U �,�I� o t�� h � �1� � ay r�r�fvu,�� l�,� -�� -h�rn �f'he �r�� ' . C��i�n� � 9arag�, �rwa��, u��U, ��U� f��x �o�'� .�� re �n �'�n.e., I��2,�,�,,. 'I�I'l�Ye l�� f�D (�l, Vi�rY1�.P�1' Di �LUD �'I'DI'� �I QYl� G�lQ�ot.G.�1i��-�b L�U� � I� �� . �vr ��ig(�� a�yy�i� �r� �. 2 �'� YIDY�,, D�r �/1��,1� �'s �C r��5 � 6�Y.� �n .��h�i,c� �� Uv� L1� Z�r� �w��D� lc1u��. 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? �'�, rP,r�aci�{. ��ef� is pre�,� i v,�i�uu �icr�� hy ►�� 5��ria�d� . -�,e, ��a�� ► U� b.e, ��v [�� fi o�. ea,� � u��d� a,r�a ��.�� -�'Dr��. . I L'�, %�,d .�[oo� tUi (� � U �� G� �. i'�P_CI'�-�I 6Y�, �P�GLyi�Dll� -��r �-�►.e, f��.1� cU��(. f1.t� o� fiil. u�i� �I�a�o d��.a�v�l rl�� 6��-f�,° 0�1,r-�e,�-� �vy� �i1�. h,t, l��c.�f��l �� r��. 1 h�, ��rhe c�, u� ��I� b�.�a� Ca� r�� a�5 �-Iti�, r1� ��c�or..��[�c�) �c[ �t �-� owu� ��( �� .C��d r�c;� u�i��. c� f�1 o�'�i��r�� a�,a re� u.(ct�idn� 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? ��. � r��s� w( I� L��v�, �, f�a,�M� Q��N��i G c� �'� .� i�FiN9 ��D� �f'�. C ��, ��h -��e, i�.�� cco .� �i tih� . � �u i �. 6� �u� �a �i� �i�i n:r� �1 �uhi �� .�k v�e�/�o��l� ��'�) � �'e �e �, ��.�r �-�� r��d �r��.�-h� c�cl��c�� bur ��r-t� � �u� a� �v� �G�, ��o�: T� �� .u�l� I�a�/�e �Sol.u�� V�� a,�►We l��al�ca�v� i�► �1-�`ti �5�� a�►�� or e�'�� -Iz �Y �cLioi►�ii�� r�►� a d��,f �r� n��-�� . �.� City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ag me.org 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or inju�ious 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 sunlighdshade, 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 af�'ect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safetv. 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 ttus site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? 2. How will theproposed use be located and corcducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinanc�? Ask the Planning Department for the general plan designation and zoning district for the proposed proj ect 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 pot�ctial uses on adjoining prope�ties 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 azea 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. CUP.FRM k ,+ December 31, 2003 Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Ca 94010 Regarding: Proposed garage remodel Dear Planning Department Robrrt A: Broww� �9 Nu�bot�t Re�� Burlingame, CA 94010 RECEIVED JAN - 7 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. It has been suggested that I write a letter to you in addition to the applications that will be filed regarding our desire to rebuild and add a second floor to the garage. There are a number of reasons, some short term, some long term, that I think our request should be considered. 1'14 try to list those reasons in the best manner that 4 can. First, the remodel will add personality and value to the property and the neighborhood. One o# #he reascxas #hat we bough# our home in Burlingame was because of #he diversity in #he architecture throughout the neighborhoods. There are Tudors, Spanish style homes, Bungalows, and Ranch homes which all add to the charm of the town. Ou� remode4 wi44 co�tribute to the fu�ther deve4opme�t of that ct�aFm wi4houl bei�g de�Fimental ta a�y of aur neighbors. Our goal is to have a home that friends, family, and acquaintances will feel comfortable visiting. Second, our children (short term) will have a place to play wilh their friends that will be within earshot of the house. Our children (long term) will have a place to bring their friends when they become teenagers. ihey will have a sense of some privacy, and we, the parents of two teenagers, will know where they are and who their friends are. Third, the remodel as we see it, will be used as a gathering place, an extension of our home, a place to barbecue in the spring and spend a warm night of conversation with friends, neighbors, and family �always lots of family) in the fiafl. We can do this project without too much interruption to a rather busy schedule right now. If we were to plan to add on above the F�ouse, we•wbuld F�ave'to "undo" some'of tF�e`great work that has "alre�dy be�Tt completeti and it would be very disruptive. Bottom lir�e, vve-enjoy living in Buriingame; weenjo.y o�ar home, our children wil! mor� than Jikely grow �p ir� #his town and we want to get as much out of our property (within reason) as we can. Thanks for giving this proposal your consideration. ' cerely, �N V 1 ob rt, America, ca 's and Savaun Srown �Vi� L�✓`C /"`e ,�' o.:ti:�5' � {�%Ni J/1 j�c',''_S cj' � 3� /Y�armh��/�7/ �.�� /i� ��.� �,� � s<=��„� ,�ro�,� �4.�yE� a�<l � .�o.� � �z ay��z . � <.�,� // �� f� c `�.� � i�,�� c��,`-z c�� c.n�c�s �,—, ��,r• �l cl'„ .1�T�; o Q �,,<�. �'�f �</ ff, , �' ,��, �� /��t � � ��(�. CITV �� CITY OF BURLINGAME FeuN AME P�NNING DEPARTMENT �" " ��" ' S01 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �''b..,,,�,,,•''�� TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 39 HUMBOLDT ROAD Application for design review and conditional use permits for a new, two-story pUBLIC HEARING detached garage with recreation room at: 39 HUMBOLDT ROAD, zoned R-1. NOTICE (APN:029-305-050). � - The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the fo�lowing public hearing on Monday, May 24, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: May 14, 2004 (Please refer to other side) A copy of the a to the meeting Burlingame, Cal If you ch� raising on described at or prior Property c tenants at 558-7250. Margaret Mi City Planner (Please refer to other side) y be reviewed prior 1 Primrose Road, be limited to blic hearing, d to the city ming their call (650) CITY OF B URLINGAME RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 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 and conditional use permits for a first and second story addition at 39 Humboldt Road, zoned R-1, Robert A. Brown, pro�erty owner, APN: 029-305-050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on May 24, 2004, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Section: 15301 Class 1- (e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said design review and conditional use permits are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for design review and conditional use permits 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 the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of Mav, 2004, by the following vote Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and conditional use permits. 39 Humboldt Road Effective June 3, 2004 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 5,2004, site plan, floor plans, and building elevations; 2. that the accessory structure shall only be used as a one-car garage with a recreation room with a half bath above, with a maximum enclosed square footage 570 SF and a maximum height of 18'; shall never be used as a second dwelling unit; and shall not include additional utility services without an amendment to this conditional use permit; that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer and Chief Building Official's January 12, 2004 memos shall be met; 4. 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; and 5. 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. ��'" ..��%:. a�KF. � � A a , r�� r ;� � �,� � �. � �``t i a � �� h�'�� i�,... � .� � �� ,, e��, � ��'� ��'�, ,� �3 f@s!F ` �� F ��j y s, �5 r . " � � �� . � , _ .%�,r �� i�,'� e �. �� • � , Mti,, � r � � ��;ti a e ui h . �" � • �L1 �.. �. .'4 �� ' • �° y`y�� "_ � r � �. "`� � "� � � ; ��. $ � � � S.. � �. Y . ��:e � � i�, . ... " 1"ri&� � f � � �� &� ' �. .n� y ��@ "' �1� ' -� y a�„ � � . �� u � , -�r�'p`."�, ^�� t �''�t �• A" �j ',F. �, �� ;'rr.y'!pv- . ;r , �'r �a.'... • � ^ a � � �' . � �� f . � ,�` ,+i.' y� i� } �,t.. �;� %," � 1J� �"a4 ��. ♦ �' �' '�: '�� qM ' , � "�'°�` • A,'� x� �� , ,�, .. � .� � � �� , ;�s ,�- . µ l�� 16. . � '� : � �s -�� Y�y.s p �� d � a+` � . y ,��.�d�'"~ , ..�' '��` ��V%`�'sa,Ti j� . �"� `' � ee� 'tr� �� w i ' �, � t�, � ; ��► � i � i�' � � �+mTA� �'a+ � . : k'rP,'" � Tt P / �w ` ''� 4 f •�� f' t ��'M�R'"7 � I � � .r Ar �#u �� } ��` �"� �,. ,�;� �h�.p O �- � a �� ` p'. �� ::� `�,. '�� `v.�� ..: ��. r f.� � � � 5 .,° � � � � � . k �.''� � z� z �� - ` �. �t.� � � �F � ,. � j � ,`. � , 1 n�, '�'> �' 3 /;�a'�,+� '�` �I`��,'$' `�e,',d'�� ,�'' V .' �` . • ,/ i � � o > �. �r" , � �,{ f , � �` - � i. a f, m�� '°- ` ��y � � . . . ..�. � � w . ,� ae�'� :,�+ " +ie.i`�„` �_ � �►c�� . `� . , �'d � � , • . ` � � �^ . � � j� , .`� :�^. . °�y�. `" � �� . � � � �'� `` ` � � , *' ` � r; n !+ �" � � �`*z ,� - �.� 1� " . r� �• _ �� .�-. , , , ,. , . a- .r'�"� K � �... p i.� M ^ ', � i3 �.`� • ' (y a . L � .�� ,� a . x ^ �. v-. !+ . •� %� s�� * . � . �� 0 1' y . +._ � ar ,:: .a .. � ;� ,.r �.. . , .yp � yr , f a ° lk >"t !M� �s � :.v.fi��"� �A:� .. . `,�! � ♦ ' 'P+.. �'�.1rt `N� . ,�+ .,Y" ��. . � �� ( .�•• y'.^]�i��' � .� ,� �;,�: ��##yyyyI�t 1�4 ��1�^ pl �y . . �F�� I1•,}I � : . .� , f:. � �` � �� w . , � . . . �' . .,� , r � �� . � . �a �P' f , � .. ,� "" ., i . � . �� : s • ` , ��.w a . V'��1 � � u" � d�.J '�f , ,. � � " ��rvv � � � t� � �. ��' > '�., ..J � I � � � �' � • , s L"C�� ..4 Y - �K } f , � , . � 'a • • - '�� W" ' � � �� ^#'" , , x �k u � . :y +� F �'.„�'� ,� i k* 4. -�. . A;. t, �/'° d�, ., � .� . �. , '9"` � I/' •' � j � �� ' ''` l� • � - ��., � / �,�g�s.� • . , � ��"�� Vd i �, ••q '��. �.� �fiT '��: r` �� . � . , ti,% »�, �� , �'' w' g �S, ,, w �.,� ' � ,�� ` . ' , �C� . >� �ro � � �� • � �� r . � �� . � � � K � ' � � � � � i � . .,. , ; � , , � . r� , , �r , �:� ,. � � �,�. . , � sA� � k �'�j �w,/ � ; . � � �'�` �` "� �` � ��A`'q� .aw �*, � _ ^ , . � , � t •' , . � � . ,,� ., � <.� �. � �s� h� ". . . � ,'F� �,3 .e � �. �. • a..... �jr _ • . .: � � � � � � � 9 s ..1 *� 5 ��'"�l�'"ir �r.... „_ �~ , , : . �,-' `'%' � �^ � �} a M � � , > .rz'� S'`�� . . � 4: .. +e = /'\ � � �-. ♦ � , .. � K Y. . (� $ l J y� `� q��'�.S Q . . L 9 ," " � ..� "��y� • � �� '�."k> •/�� ,� �� '�� a �*/A � � ° \� ' �. �... � -°^' � � :� � '�. � .. �' �^ /' ... , w �r �� t � � �� , �� a��'�.}� ��' �' ,. / . ', r �4� � i;�� . �1,?� � � � ; W .. � � �'"�;:�n�� ' �'�� p . � r . • ,� � � ,.� � � <, � � i. . �, r ^.. �► � � ' y ,�'' a . . i � ' _, ��`/ � �-..' , ,. � ,,t�, ,�; ,� , r'` � � n� � . �x � . .. � . . �. - ��. � �. ,� ,.� . , . � . � _ � � �. , =-�� - .�. � . � , � .. � � ��F.' � �r * ��yi y � J��` y` � • 5 'i . �t .,��.� ,� .�r w �`f� s� � � . � , � �t � ' � i �i1. � . ° �:�w . � , . . ,. • . _. . � 6�. �' ✓ we• i .. �� ,�. .�+, . � �'; �1 � " � � � ' ��tt�� * p k� �,, �' � q"' ., r '� � � �r �� '� � _,_ � `` � �� s .�� 4 �.:,� s '' � ..,� »� ��.ra �> ��. � z � ,. � .. , �i � � -'` af " . 3i` ',i `� f � .� a t �� r� ;�` ,,✓ � �' �,