The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1461 Bernal Avenue - Staff Report0 r PROJECT LOCATION 1461 Bernal Avenue Item # 1 b Consent Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permits for An Attached Garage Item # 16 and for Height for a New Single Family Dwelling Consent Calendar Address: 1461 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: 10/11/05 Request: Design review and special permits for an attached garage and for height for a new two-story single family dwelling. Applicant/Architect: Jerry Winges AIA, Winges Architect APN: 026-044-050 Property Owner: Mark and Ilka Hosking Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3 — (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. Summary: The proposal is to demolish the existing one-story single family dwelling and detached garage and construct a new two-story single family dwelling with an attached two -car garage at 1461 Bernal Avenue, zoned R- 1. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 2,984 SF (0.49 FAR), where the maximum floor area allowed is 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR). The proposal is 36 SF under the maximum floor area allowed on this lot. The lot coverage will be 30.9% (1,857 SF) where 40% (2,400 SF) is the maximum allowed. The proposal includes an attached garage. The proposed four bedroom house requires one covered (10' x 20') parking space and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20'). The attached garage proposed is wide enough for two covered parking spaces; however, only one of the spaces, the one on the right, provides the required 10' wide by 20' deep dimension. The parking space proposed on the left has stairs that encroach into the 20' depth, and therefore is only 10' wide by 16' deep and is not considered a code complying covered parking space. If at some point there were a fifth bedroom proposed in this house a parking variance would be required for the second parking space. The proposed height is 32'-9" where 30' is the maximum height allowed without a special permit, therefore the proposal will also require a special permit for height. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design review for anew two-story single family dwelling (CS 25.57010(a)(4)(5)); • Special permit for an attached garage (CS 25.28.035(a); and • Special permit for height (32'-9" proposed where 30' is the maximum height allowed without a special permit) (CS 25.28.060). Table 1 —1461 Bernal Avenue Plans date stamped 8/31/05 Lot Area: 6,000 SF + Revised Sheet A-6 date stamped 9/28/05 Existing Proposed Allowed/Required SETBACKS�. _.... _.... _.._... _..................... ............................ .._................_................ _..... Front (1st flr): � 24 -8 ( g) 22'-6" ! 15' 22'-6" block av (2nd flr): N/A 22'-6" 20' ............ _.......... __.............. _..... __... _.._............................... __._._.... ................... _................................ ........................................................ _.... ........ ......:........................... _........ _..................................................... ........... ........... .......... .._................................... ......... .............. ....._. Side (left): 11'-6" 4'-2" j 4' (right): 4' 4' 4' Design Review and Special Permits for an Attached Garage and for Height 1461 Bernal Avenue Existing Proposed Allowed/Required Rear (I st flr): 48' 49' 15' (2nd flr): N/A 49� .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1...................................................... 1,732 SF ............................................................................................................20............................................................ 1,857 SF 1 2,400 SF Lot Coverage: 28 8% o � 30.9 /o 40% ..................................---.._.........................._..._.__..........................................._. 1,636 SF 2,984 SF ........... 3,020 SF FAR: 0.27 FAR 0.49 FAR 0.50 FAR # of bedrooms: .......................................... ................................................... .................................................................................... N/A ...............................................................,................................................................................................................................. i i 4 --- .................................................................................................................................. 1 covered f i 1 covered I 1 covered Parking: (10' x 20') j (10' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') ' (9' x 20) Height: N/A 32'-9" a ........ 30 ........... .. ........_. _. _._.__. .................................. __._............................. _............................ _........... DHEnvelope: ........._.............................. ......._..... ................................... _............................... ........... N/A .... _.................................. _.... ---.... _............................... ................................ Meets Requirement j See code ' Special Permit for height (32'-9" proposed where 30' is the maximum height allowed without a special permit). 2 Special Permit for an attached garage. Staff Comments: See attached. September 26, 2005, Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on September 26, 2005, the Commission noted that the although we do not usually like to see attached garage, in this design the garage doors are staggered and traditional carriage style doors are proposed, the zoning allows for staggered garage doors and landscaping is incorporated well (September 26, 2005, Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission placed this item on the consent calendar and asked the architect to articulate the front entry opening, add more detail and show the front door on the building elevation. The applicant has submitted a revised Sheet A-6 date stamped September 28, 2005 which shows the detail of the front door entry and the front door, which is proposed to be a wood door to which will match the garage doors. 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. Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's September 26, 2005, design review study meeting, that the architect has done a good job with the design, the attached garage has been -2- Design Review and Special Permits for an Attached Garage and for Height 1461 Bernal Avenue designed to fit in with the house and works really well and the house is well articulated, varying the plate height makes it look less massive, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height and for an attached garage, 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. Special Permit Findings for Building Height: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's September 26, 2005, public meeting, that the area exceeding 30'-0" in height measures is minimal and is at the center of the roof, that the lot slopes and the grade adjacent to the new house is approximately 3 feet above the top of curb elevation, and that the proposed 32'-9" height enhances the architectural style of the building, the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. Special Permit Findings for attached garage: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's July 25, 2005, public meeting, that the proposed attached garage has been designed to fit in with the house and works well; it will preserve trees and backyard space; the staggered garage doors and each door being a different style makes the garage fit in well; like the use of the traditional carriage style doors, the driveway is single wide at the entrance and widens to double wide nearing the garage, allowing for more landscaping in the front yard, the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and special permits. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated 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 Department date stamped August 31, 2005, sheets A-1 through A-5, L-1 and C-1, and date stamped September 28, 2005, Sheet A-6, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property -3- ,Design Review and Special Permits for an Attached Garage and for Height 1461 Bernal Avenue and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshal's August 19, 2005, memos, the City Engineer's and NPDES Coordinator's August 22, 2005, memos, the City Arborist's August 24, 2005, memo, and the Recycling Specialist's August 29, 2005, memo shall be met; 8. 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; 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; and 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Maureen Brooks Senior Planner c: Jerry Winges, AIA, Winges Architecture, applicant and architect -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 26, 2005 5. 1461 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JERRY WINGES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, MARK & ILKA HOSKING, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mark Hosking, property owner, and Jerry Winges, architect, were available to answer questions, property owner noted that he has been a Burlingame resident since 1962, would like to build a new house and maintain large rear yard for his children, would also like to preserve trees on site, a detached garage would reduce the rear yard space and would eliminate several trees. Architect provided a handout with neighborhood information, summarized how the project complies with the five aspects of the residential design guidelines, feels design is compatible with the neighborhood and fits in well, footprint is smaller than other houses on the block, proposing smaller footprint to preserve greenery on site, giving up 400 SF with this project because a detached garage is not proposed, using steep roofs with dormers to get more light and air, this is an eclectic neighborhood, using varying plate heights to keep the scale and mass down, using true divided light windows throughout; requesting a special permit to preserve the steep roof design, feel that the proposed landscape design enhances the property, the rear yard landscaping was designed around the existing oak tree; property owner would like to have an attached garage, attached garage will have two separate carriage style wooden doors, each door is slightly different in style and are offset by 3'-6", plate height at the garage is brought down to reduce impact of the attached garage, left side of house is set back further to reduce impact on that neighbor, driveway on the adjacent property to the right provides separation between the houses, noted that there is a neighborhood pattern of 8 foot separation between houses. Commission comment: architect has done a good job with the design, handout references several newer houses built with attached garages, these houses with attached garages caused design review to come about, concerned that this proposal is still a two story house with an attached two -car garage facing the street and that it sets a precedent for future development, the massing is the same whether an attached or detached garage is proposed, also noted that several of these houses in the handout are smaller houses with attached single car garages; feel that the attached garage has been designed to fit in with the house and works really well, rationale for using an attached garage is strong, will preserve trees and backyard space, impact of this house is much less than the previous house reviewed tonight. Commission asked the architect if he found anything in the zoning code which was troublesome to work with? Architect noted that he feels a nice house was designed within the zoning code, it was a challenge but ended up with good results. Commission asked why two different style door are being proposed for the garage? Architect noted that he looked at many options, this seemed to work best. Commission noted that the staggered garage doors and each door being a different style makes the garage fit in well, not usually a proponent of attached garages but this design works really well, house is articulated well, varying plate heights makes the house appear less massive, appreciate the large amount of landscaping proposed and that the driveway is single -wide at the entrance and widens to double -wide near the garage; use of two different style garage doors looks odd. Commission asked if garage doors will be natural wood? Yes. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: VA City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 26, 2005 • Concerned with plain front entry opening, needs to be articulated better, add more detail and show front door on building elevation. This motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: attached two -car garage dominates the front fagade, concerned that houses with attached garages change the neighborhood, do not want to set a precedent, what do we say to the next applicant with a similar proposal, in the past many project with attached garages were denied and they were steered in a different direction; do not usually like to see attached garages, but in this design the garage doors are staggered, traditional carriage style doors are proposed and landscaping is incorporated well, zoning allows for staggered garage doors, the design is well executed and a substantial front setback is provided. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-1-0-2 (C. Deal dissenting; Cers. Brownrigg and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:41 p.m. M Project Comments Date: 08/16/2005 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff X Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with attached two -car garage at 1461 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-050 Staff Review: 08/22/2005 Applicant shall submit a Waste Reduction Plan and recycling deposit for this and all covered projects prior to demolition, construction or permitting. r Reviewed by: '�- a� Date: 6/i p S' Project Comments Date: 08/16/2005 To: W City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with attached two -car garage at 1461 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-050 Staff Review: 08/22/2005 1. See attached. 2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V . Date: 8/22/2005 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS t4oJil-vvu- vpay Project Name: ftu,y l Vur4 - Project Address:_ "46 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.) •%5� 9&�o& 06 wW ` `•-V*u4*V Ay-tV s"Wal0 F'y 2 X The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. tab k �-1 5 sanitary sewer lateral his required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. 8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Pagel of 3 UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the 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 _>L 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 —Y' 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 Wprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW CONiMENTS.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 development\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc Project Comments Date: 08/16/2005 To: City Engineer Chief Building Official City Arborist City Attorney From: Planning Staff 001 Recycling Specialist Fire Marshal RI NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with attached two -car garage at 1461 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-050 Staff Review: 08/22/2005 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the construction project (including demolition). Ensure that sufficient amount of erosion and sediment control measures are available on site at all times. The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: _ -- t Date: 08/22/05 Project Comments Date: 08/16/2005 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with attached two -car garage at 1461 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-044-050 Staff Review: 08/22/2005 - 4. w.. o '7?zc'toC> S.-2 99 10t*i S c- •-�'. i4Fo .t. 05Q7Ly s cs"" /2 f Q v , 2 I 4s i •� T-S' 11[/� v 3 E AW Reviewed by: Date: �' � ce r Project Comments Date: 08/16/2005 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist ® Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with attached two -car garage at 1461 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-050 Staff Review: 08/22/2005 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide double backflow prevention. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: ��%�� Date: Project Comments Date: 08/16/2005 To: ❑ City Engineer X Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with attached two -car garage at 1461 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-050 Staff Review: 08/22/2005 1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Roof eaves must not project within two feet of the property line. 4) Exterior bearing walls less than three feet from the property line must be constructed of one -hour fire -rated construction and no openings are allowed. 5) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. 6) Provide guardrails at all landings. 7) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are more than four risers. 8) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 9) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface within ten feet. Reviewed by=- Date: ��/�f AUG-15-05 MON 04:29 PM FAX NO. P. 01 CITY OF I3uRLYNcAIME P] ANN1NG DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE. ROAD P (650) 559,W50 r (650) L95•Ji')0 4 a►, u�,��,F APPLICATION TO TIRE PLANNING COMMISSION TYPO of application: Dcsig�1 Review Ko-'_ Conditional Use Pcrniit Variance _ Spccial Permit Otller Parcc1 Number: Project address•___�� APPLICANT )PROPERTY OWNER Name: M,<z �' 4-1<A WPsr- t-)c, Address:11—&I-- CitylstatelZip: P�-c.-► cq6� a Phone (w). (6566 r'�-llo�ixt�— Phone (w): ___ ARCIIITECI WESIGNER Name:---- r+�M � Please indicate with an asteri4k city/statc/zil):.—_ the contact person for this project. _.— RECEIVED AUG 1 5 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. PRIG JECT DESCRIPTION. _�_�� (5i�j�`(_r-�-i►�Gt� �AMII��IG (✓C(�i AFFADA'VIT/.SIGNATUPW: I hereby certify u»der penaltyofperjuiy that the infomiatiori given herein is inle an correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signatur •:.,`_ _ Dale: �A')_ _ I know about the proposed ap n a b au iae the above applicant to submit this applit:aliou to tl�e,l'lanning ormni ' _ ag �s. Pro icI ow-ner's signature:llatC: �,,,,�` PCAPP.FRM on rw I" • arvn AT atiminnc r,AN �o.:w,. n•...• �.• y.1 • eua•ae env14c. nsne.W C4. rein. 0 nJ inATin u A--, An A The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend ofmass, scale and dominant structural characteristics ofthe new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood hr m?, ff 4 m -rw, 0WWI L— - 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? 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 cty's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. SPECPERM.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ame.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. SPECPERM.FRM RECEIVED Special Permit Application for an Attached Garage SEP _ 6 2005 1461 Bernal — new home CITY OF BURLINGAME Answers to questions on the application: PLANNING DEPT. 1. The proposed new garage will be built into the front facade of the home with staggered garage doors, per Burlingame Design Guidelines. There is no consistent pattern of garage locations in this block, with over 41 percent of the homes having attached front garages. Neighboring properties will not be affected since the garage is set down slightly from the house floor level, respects and exceeds the existing average setbacks along the street and does not interfere with sunlight or views. This preserves the important existing trees at the rear of the yard and at the street, enhancing the greenery of the neighborhood and minimizing massing along the property line at the rear. The Owner has given up the potential additional 400 square feet of house mass bonus to preserve these trees and provide a larger back yard for his children. This has resulted in a smaller house than is possible on this site. 2. The proposed house is similar in scale to neighboring homes and homes throughout the block. The house will replace an existing eyesore structure with one of quality and traditional design appeal. The use of steep roofs, set back from the neighbors and an interesting broken - up roof plan will enhance the neighborhood and bring back a traditional quality feel. The proposed house is not for a developer but for a long time Burlingame couple seeking more space for a growing family. The character is in harmony with the traditional character of other houses in the neighborhood. 3. The proposal is compatible with the Guidelines. It proposes 2 garage doors offset. It allows an interesting front facade with set back roof lines on the left side and a understated but elegant front yard, entry and landscaping. Planting hides the driveway and separates the pedestrian walk to the front door. Beautiful pre -cast paving stones are used for the driveway and walks. This garage will have 2 different garage door types, one arched and one square, to relate the doors more to the rest of the house massing, and to minimize the effect of one large door facing the street. The doors are high quality wood carriage house doors with exposed ornate iron hardware. The massing of the whole structure is minimized by the use of dormers, low plate heights at the sides, and sloping roofs away from the neighbors. 4. The proposal has been designed to preserve trees, not remove them. The only tree to be removed is an existing dead tree in the rear yard. The proposal preserves the established oak and birch trees in the rear yard, and the existing street trees. It also proposes 5 new trees. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED LETTER FROM THE OWNER REGARDING THIS CRITICAL ISSUE. City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin aQ me.org ITY By CITY OF BURLINGAME 1 SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION 14-e� 5 vrt RECEIVED SEP - 6 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, 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. 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. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? 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. SPECPERMERM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinizame.oriz I. 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. SPECPERMFRM RECEIVE® SEP - 6 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME Special Permit Application for Height Exceeding 30' PLANNING DEPT. 1461 Bernal —new home Answers to questions on the application: 1. The proposed structure will replace an outdated eyesore existing house. The use of steep roofs are important to allow for an interesting roof form, dormers, a traditional feel, and a way to integrate a second floor sensitively into the overall massing while minimizing mass and bulk. In order to avoid a truncated look with steep roofs, it is important to allow the roofs to reach their peaks naturally. It is especially hard to solve this on an upsloping site where height is measured from the average curb height. We have kept the height of the uppermost roof to 33 feet, by truncating only this uppermost roof peak to a flat portion with hidden skylight. To truncate this roof any further would provide a large flat portion which is out of harmony with the style of the house. Other houses in the neighborhood have similar height and steep roofs, and have successfully integrated second floor areas accordingly. 2. The proposed house is similar in scale to neighboring homes and homes throughout the block and neighborhood. The character is in harmony with the traditional character of other houses in the neighborhood. See 1 above. 3. The proposal is compatible with the Guidelines. It allows an interesting front fagade with set back roof lines on the left side and a understated but elegant front yard, entry and landscaping. Upper roofs are brought down and integrated with lower roofs. The garage will have 2 different offset garage door types, one arched and one square, to relate the doors more to the rest of the house massing and windows, and to minimize the effect of one large door facing the street. The massing of the whole structure is minimized by the use of dormers, low plate heights at the sides, and sloping roofs away from the neighbors, with the highest portions of the roof right in the middle of the site. Dormers are small. This minimizes negative effects on the neighboring structures. 4. The proposal has been designed to preserve trees, not remove them. The only tree to be removed is an existing dead tree in the rear yard. The proposal preserves the established oak and birch trees in the rear yard, and the existing street trees. It also proposes 5 new trees. Planting hides the driveway and separates the pedestrian walk to the front door. Beautiful pre- cast paving stones are used for the driveway and walks. Our Proposal for a New Construction Home on 1461 Bernal Ave, Burlingame, CA 94010. My name is Mark Hosking and I have been a Resident of Burlingame since 1962 when my Parents moved my older sister and myself here from San Francisco. Four years ago my wife Ilka and I decided to rebuild and expand our home at 1461 Bernal Ave, Burlingame. This was with the intensions of raising our family there and for she and I to grow old in. In the last few years we had time to plan out what would be the perfect home for all of our needs. To eliminate all the flaws and imperfections of our existing home. With that in mind there was 2 crucial things that we wanted for our home. The first is that we are looking to maintain all of the existing trees on our property and also to plant new trees and landscaping. The second was that we wanted to maximize the Backyard area for our children to play in and for our family to enjoy and live in. RECEIV SEP - 6 200 CITY OF BURLIN PLANNING DEPT. In planning our home we have heard through word of mouth that the Burlingame City Planning Department's prejudice against having homes with an Attached Garage. That they Favor New Homes with "Rear Detached Garages". However, I as a Homeowner do not want a 2 Car "Rear Detached Garage" that would chew up most of my backyard and "All" of the existing trees with it. On our property we have 2 existing Oak Trees, I Yellow Buckeye Chestnut Tree and 1 Birch Tree that would "All" have to be removed if a New Construction Home with a "Rear Detached 2 Car Garage" was built. (Please review photos on pages 4 and 5). On my street on the Northern half of 1400 Block Bernal half the homes have Attached Garages and the other half have Rear Detached Garages. There are no Set "Parking or Garage Patterns". Not one home follows the Design Pattern of the other. The styles are Tudor, Spanish, Colonial, French, California Bungalow or Eichler. (Please review the Satellite Photo of the Northern Half of 1400 Block of Bernal on page 6). This will show that there is No Consistent "Parking and Garage Patterns". Also, in regards to "Mass, Bulk and Scale", the Proposed Design for 1461 Bernal will be much smaller in it's footprint than all of the surrounding houses. This will lessen the "Impacts on Neighbors". "Parking and Garage Patterns", "Mass, Bulk and Scale" and "Impacts on Neighbors" are 3 key Components from the City of Burlingame's "Neighborhood Design Guidebook", draft edition 0211912000. With that in mind and also upon reviewing the City of Burlingame's Planning Dept's Current "R-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS" from their website under Setbacks on Chapter 25.28.072 under (b) Front Setbacks (2) (B): Thirty-five (35) feet for a two -car garage. However, if the garage doors for a two -car garage are provided by two single doors, the front setback may be staggered at 20) feet for one door and twenty-five (25) feet for the second door or side -by -side at twenty-five (25) feet. This Two "Single Door" staggered setback with the first door at 20 feet and the second door at 25 feet is exactly what we want in our home. This configuration breaks up what would otherwise be a "2 Car Garage Door" house that would take up half the front facade. A perfect example of the Two "Single Door" staggered setback is a Newly Constructed home on "1 S50 Bernal Ave, Burlingame". That house not only breaks up what would otherwise be a large front facade but visually makes the house look much smaller than it's 3,663 Square Feet really is. Our Proposed home at 1461 Bernal would be nearly 700 square feet less at just around 2,900 total square feet. (Please review Attached Photos on Page 3 of 1550 Bernal and a 2 Car Garage house built in the mid 1990's). You can see how much larger the 2 Car Garage house looks in comparison to 1550 Bernal. Our Architect, Jerry Winges of Winges Architects, Inc. has designed what we feel is the perfect balance of both design and function. The design that Jerry has developed conforms within the City's regulations on Setbacks, Height Limitations, Declining Height Envelope, "Mass, Bulk and Scale" and under the square footage limitations to avoid any variances. With Carriage House Doors, Boxed Bay Windows, a Cobblestone Driveway and Sharp Angled rooflines. The Design accentuates the look of an English Tudor/French Country style home common in the Easton Tract Area. Also the Gabled Roof Design is also similar to both homes on either side of 1461 Bernal and the height does not tower over either home. Our Proposed Design addresses all 9 Components of the City of Burlingame "Neighborhood Design Guidelines", draft edition 2119100. Below is a Summarization of benefits and advantages of the proposed design of 1461 Bernal from the standpoint of the Burlingame Planning Department and the Neighbors of 1461 Bernal. • Proposed home is "Under" Square footage, Height, Declining Height Envelope and "Mass, Bulk & Scale" Limitations. • Proposed Home Retains all Trees on Property including 2 Oaks, 1 Yellow Buckeye Chestnut and 1 Birch that would be removed with Rear Detached 2 Car Garage. • Also, Planting New Trees both in front and rear of house with expanded lot area. • Proposed home is within Front, Side and Rear Setbacks. • Proposed home Removes Additional Cars from the Street with it's 2, 1 car garages. • Staggered setback House Appears much smaller than it really is. • Proposed home does not encroach into backyard area of either Neighbor's home. • Proposed home design does not Tower over either neighbor's home. • New Trees and Bushes in Rear of home for Privacy. • Proposed home design's Gabled Roof is similar to both neighbor's homes. • English Tudor/French Country style home common in the Easton Tract Area. • Carriage House Doors, Boxed Bay Windows & Cobblestone Driveway ad charm. My wife and I have spent last several years planning out what would be the perfect home for both us and our daughters to live and grow in. For all of these reasons we would like you to approve the Architectural Plans on 1461 Bernal Ave, Burlingame, CA 94010. Thank you for your time on this matter. Sincerely, RECEIVED Mark and Ilka Hosking. 1461 Bernal Ave. SEP - 6 2005 Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 348-8394 C PL.ANNINGITY OF LDEPTME Please review photos on following pages. Existing Buckeye Existina Oak Tree built in 1923 RE: 1461 BERNAL Both Existing Oak & Yellow Buckeye Chestnut Trees are up against Existing 1 Car Garage. Both Trees would have to be removed if a new rear detached rear garage was to be put in. Also a 2nd Existing Side Oak 1 aj Tree would also have to be , Removed to prevent obstuction 't of new side driveway.. ;S Page 4 RECEIVE SEP - 6 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAMF PLANNING DEPT, RE: 1461 BERNAL Existing Birch Tree would also have to be removed if a Rear Detached Garage was built. This would be to compensate for new home to be pushed back from existing footprint. Proposed Plan would keep same rear Setback and be able to retain the Existing Birch Tree. Page 5 RECEJWE-- T;. SEP-G200.S CRY OF BURLINGAW PLANNING DEPT, 464 ACHED 1472 i:. a t460 � ATTACHED 1458 40 TAG;lE ATTACHU,'. ♦ P 1915 I ! f MH oL ATTHED IA D ETAC HE$P DETDET _ ACF4 ORTHERN HALF OF 1400 BLOCK BERNAL AVE r Jlw 1 . !!! R M o 5 � HED v 8 T A ACHED E 1473 1 7457 y:1, r ATTACHED DEf'AC _� DOUBLE A/1ACHED 1441 DET CHED y„ LOT 1153 DETACHED' t ATTACHED 1464 BERNAL ACROSS STREET 1460 BE NAL - AGR055 ISTREET RECEIVE® AUG 1 5 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 145-1 BERNAL - R16HT-SIDE 1461 BERNAL - APPLICANT 1465 BERNAL - LEFT -SIDE 44 CITY , CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD wjwwwBURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 .burlingame.org IZ Site: 1461 BERNAL AVENUE Application for design review and special permits for height and for an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at: 1461 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-044-050). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: September 30, 2005 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF BURLINGAME �%SY K4"S iL��GIYF R'.R .L' fyTMM�.�R A copy of the aPPlic tf'' an fcr thtprojec �y be reviewed prior I to the meeting tt b e ,a Primrose Road, Burlin C fJu If you challe x e h",subs e raising only thiose is'gs" described in 'he pat or prior tothe pu t Property ow rs o,x their tenants iboufiY (650) 558-7 0 t Margaret MS City Planner PUB kt( (Please refer to other side) 0 4 rt, you ma be limited to �o s� e3tli , blic hearing des eve ed to the city Q e respon ble =or informing io al info ati , please call 6ACE RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SPECIAL PERMITS AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and special permits for height and attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling at 1461 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, Mark and Ilka Hosking, property owners, APN: 026-044-050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 11, 2005, 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 3 — 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 hereby approved. 2. Said design review and special permits are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special 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 of the Planning Commission held on the IIth day of October, 2005 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, special permits and design review. 1461 Bernal Avenue Effective October 21, 2005 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 31, 2005, sheets A-1 through A-5, L-1 and C-1, and date stamped September 28, 2005, Sheet A-6, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4. 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; 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; 6. 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; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshal's August 19, 2005, memos, the City Engineer's and NPDES Coordinator's August 22, 2005, memos, the City Arborist's August 24, 2005, memo, and the Recycling Specialist's August 29, 2005, memo shall be met; 8. 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; 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; and -2- EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, special permits and design review. 1461 Bernal Avenue Effective October 21, 2005 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. -3- ,Y * Y �F 40, IY jW 1711 , it `..�. ., d, a` to � � " 'Y . "„��`'< �'y�"'�f" .. .I► CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA October 11, 2005 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the October 11, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the September 26, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There are no study items. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar -Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 1A. 110 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR ANEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CESAR LOZADA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RUDOLFO PADA, DESIGNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT 1B. 1461 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JERRY WINGES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, MARK & ILKA HOSKING, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS 1 C. 1604 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GARAGE WIDTH AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SIZE OF GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED THREE -CAR GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, GORDON & RANDI MURRAY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ER.IKA LEWIT ` .City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 1D. 1123 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, MARK & CAROLYN QUILICI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT 1E. 1718 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAVID LUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PAUL NII, PAUL NII ARCHITECTS,ARCHITECT) (37NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. CP Monroe noted that she did not want to call anything off the calendar but wished to make some corrections. She noted that there were corrections to the conditions of 110 Stanley, condition 1 should reference landscape plans date stamped October 3, 2005; 1604 Chapin Avenue condition 1 should reference plans date stamped September 2, 2005, not August 19, 2005; and the story poles installed at 1718 Escalante Way were installed two feet lower than the roof line proposed in the plans. C. Deal noted some comments for the record on 1461 Bernal and the approval of a new house at this location, noting that the architect has done a skillful job of design: he commented that he voted no because of the attached garage on a new house where the garage and the automobile dominate the front fagade in an area where the majority of the houses have detached garages; the few and only houses with attached two car garages at the front, which were used as examples to justify the project, belong to the group of houses which were built just prior to design review and were the type of the projects that were changing the character of the neighborhood and design review came about to stop that dramatic change; the reasons for continuing the detached garage in this neighborhood was to provide the following : increased setbacks (caused by the driveway along the side); reduction of the mass at the front fagade; to decrease the effects of the automobile which was overly dominating the front fagade and drastically changing the character of these neighborhoods; the proposed design at 1461 Bernal satisfies none of these objectives; additionally the concept of having staggered doors on a two car attached garaged located at the front of the property as used here was never intended to be a "check the box" alternative, it was intended as a means to address garages in neighborhoods where the attached garage was the character of the neighborhood. C. Vistica noted that 110 Stanley should have a condition added to require stucco mold window trim. C. Vistica moved to continue action on the item at 1718 Escalante two weeks to October 24, 2005, and story poles shall be installed which show the outline of the entire roof and addition and shall be surveyed to document that they are accurately installed. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the meeting of October 24, 2005, and the story poles outlining the entire addition shall be installed accurately and can be seen by the Commission. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. C. Osterling moved approval of 1461 Bernal Avenue, 1604 Chapin Avenue, and 1123 Eastmoor Road as amended. C. Vistica seconded the motion. Chair Auran noted that there would be a separate vote on 110 Stanley Road and called for a voice vote on the motion to approve 1461 Bernal Avenue, 1604 Chapin Avenue, and 1123 Eastmoor Road. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. OA A ,City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 C. Brownrigg made a motion to approve 110 Stanley Road. C. Keighran seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: will vote no on the project because the porch is not integrated into the front of the house and correction is a simple thing to fix. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve 110 Stanley Road with an added condition requiring stucco mold window trim to be installed. The motion passed on a 6-1 vote (C. Deal dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised for all of the consent calendar items. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 900 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VM ARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN MARCH, APPLICANT AND DESIG R; R. AND MRS. KRIS REDDY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNE ERICA ROHMEIER Refer ce staff report dated October 11, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier esented the report, reviewed teria and staff comments. Commission asked about the uncovered pave area next to the garage. Staff stated tInt an uncovered driveway parking space is defined as that space bdtween the sidewalk and the entrance into the arage area, this additional paved area does not count. Te conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the p lic hearing. John Marsh, 11 Airport B��ci. # 209, South San Francisco, designer, represented the project. Co Mission comment: • no problem with parking vaii nce; j • chimney is too close to secondry prcjecti p lier would go away; \\� • very difficult house to put addition ori; • windows in some bedrooms do not m e • front elevation bump out looks od with n projected facade; • big improvement from origin design; CBC, if it were a gas (replace this requirement 'egress requirements; windows in it, needs fenestration to address blank • could use a little more wor on the windows, particu ly on the bump out at the front; • more info needed about dscaping and how it will be reened from the street; and • proposed 24"-box siz olden Rain tree should be replaced ith three 15-gallon size trees from the city street tree list, es that will grow between 20 and 25 feett tall. Peter Fairclo/pto zalea Ave, thought project had been postponed and ould not happen; concerned with the sharear yard and the moisture issue brought on by the shade, roposed second story will block the sueir backyard; concerned with proposed trees also creating ditional shade. There were no furtnts and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: second story addition meets the rear yard setback requirements, so the is no need to change the placement of the addition; to address shade in neighbors rear yard, suggest the propo 24"-box size Golden Rain tree should be replaced by three 15-gallon sized trees from the City approved street tree list that will grow between 20'-25' in height maximum. 3