The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1125 Jackling Drive - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Design Review and Special PeYmit for Attached Garage Item # 2b Consent Calendar Address: 1125 Jackling Drive Meeting Date: 4/12/04 Request: Design review and special permit for an attached two-car garage for a first floor and lower level addition. Applicant and Property Owner: Maurissa Heffran APN: 027-154-170 Architect: Michael Moyer Lot Area: 10,681 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. Summary: The subject property is located along the city boundary between the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough (see attached aerial) and has no street frontage in Burlingame. However, the property owner also owns the curved parcel immediately adj acent to the subject property, which is located in Hillsborough and provides a vehicle bridge over Easton creek for access to the house from Jackling Drive in Hillsborough. The only access to the subject property is through the property in Hillsborough. As a part of this project, a condition of approval will be added which requires the current property owner to record a permanent cross-access easement on the Hillsborough property prior to the building permit final inspection. By definition, the front of the lot is the narrowest portion of the lot (65.36' length). Easton Creek, a perennial creek, flows along the front and right sides of the lot. There is no construction proposed below the top of bank. The existing house, which contains a ground floor and lower level with an attached single-car carport, contains 2,748 SF (0.26 FAR) of floor area and has one bedroom. The existing attached carport, decking, balconies and large roof overhangs totaling 1,196 SF will be demolished as part of this application. The applicant is proposing to add 1,715 SF of living space and an attached two-car garage on the first floor. An additiona1233 SF will be added on the existing lower level. With the proposed addition, the total floor area will increase from 2,748 SF (0.26 FAR) to 4,056 SF (0.38 FAR) where 4,518 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed. With this project, the number of potential bedrooms will increase from one to four, requiring a minimum of one covered and one uncovered parking spaces. The new 462 SF (22'W x 21'D) attached two-car garage will provide two covered spaces (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions). A special permit is required for the proposed attached two-car garage. The two, single-wide doors are proposed and the face of the garage will be oriented towards the center courtyard. One uncovered 9' x 20' space is provided in the driveway. There are a total of 9 protected-sized trees (16 to 48 inches in diameter) and 4 other smaller trees (6 to 12 inches in diameter) on this lot with the majority of them located along Easton Creek. None of the existing trees are proposed to be removed for the proposed addition. The City Arborist requested that an arborist report be submitted for the existing 48-inch oak tree located four to five feet from the proposed construction along the left side of the property. The arborist's report, dated March 16, 2004, notes that the existing Coast Live Oak has a health rating of 60% and a structure rating of 55%, for an overall condition rating of "Fair". The tree was recently pruned. The arborist notes that a portion of the existing oak rooting area can be preserved if mitigation measures are strictly followed. These mitigation measures include installing tree protection fencing and mulching, irrigation, and fertilization within tree protection fencing. The mitigation measures also include installing a soil buffer during siding installation, painting and other exterior work. In addition, the arborist recommends using an "L" footing facing away from the trunk along the foundation area adjacent to the tree protection zone. Design Review ancl Special Permit for An Attached Garage 1125 Jackling Drive Recommendations for landscaping around the oak tree once construction is complete is also included in the arborist report. The City Arborist reviewed the arborist's report and agrees with the mitigations. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design review and special permit for an attached two-car garage for a first floor and lower level addition (CS 25.28.035, a & CS 25.57.010). Table 1 —1125 Jacklin Drive EXISTING PROPOSED � ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front : 42'-0" to deck 15'-0" i 15'-0" . :.. Side (left): 21'-0" 8'-6" 7'-0" (right): 1'-0" to deck' 8'-0" 7'-0" .. : .......................... ........ ....... .. Rear: 11'-4"z 22'-6" 15'-0" Lot Coverage: 2790 SF 3498 SF 4272 SF 26.1 % 32.7% 40% FAR: 2748 SF 4056 SF 4518 SF3 0.26 FAR 0.38 FAR 0.42 FAR _ . .. . ... . . _ . ..................... # of bedrooms: 1 4 --- Parking: 1 covered 2 covered 4 1 covered �lo� X Zo�) (20� X Zo�) (lo� X Zo�) 1 uncovered � 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') .: .. ...... .. ........ . ... . . ... ...... .............. ............ . ... ............................... Height: 10'-0" from curb level 21'-10" from curb level 30'-0" : . .......................... ... _.. ............................................... ...................... ..... ........... ; DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.28.075 ' Existing nonconforming right side setback. 2 Existing nonconforming rear setback. ' (0.32 x 10,681 SF) + 1100 SF = 4518 SF (0.42 FAR). 4 Special permit far an attached garage (CS 25.28.035, a). Staff Comments: See attached. Since there is no construction proposed below the top of bank, a Streambed Alteration Permit is not required from the California Department of Fish and Game nor is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review required. The proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA. Planning staff would note that four letters were submitted in support of this proj ect from neighbor at 2301 and 2307 Easton Drive in Burlingame, and 1175 and 1225 Jackling Drive in Hillsborough. 2 Design Review and Special Permit for An Attached Garage 1125 Jackling Drive Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on March 29, 2004, the Commission noted that the designer has done a great job with this project and moved to place this item on the consent calendar as the project is proposed with no changes (March 29, 2004, Planning Commission Minutes). Planning Commission noted the importance of the slate roof to this design and required that it be included. 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 March 29, 2004, design review study meeting, that the addition is compatible with the mass and bulk in the neighborhood and is screened from the street and neighboring property by mature landscaping, that a majority of the house is single- story and contains steep-pitched roof lines to reduce the mass and bulk, and that the proposed addition is below the maximum allowable floor area ratio, the proj ect 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 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 an Attached Garage: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's March 29, 2004, design review study meeting, that the proposed attached garage is consistent with the architectural style of the building, that the new attached garage will replace an existing attached carport, and that the garage contains two single-wide doors and is oriented towards the center courtyard , the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. Design Review and Special Permit for An Attached Garage 1125 Jackling Drive 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 permit for an attached garage, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 5, 2004, sheets 1-2, 2A, 3-5, and Topographic and Boundary Survey, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; and that the roofing material shall be slate; 2. that prior to the building permit final inspection, the property owner shall record a permanent cross-access easement on the Hillsborough property to the subject property in Burlingame; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4. that all of the mitigation measures included in the arborist's report, dated March 16, 2004, shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit and shall be complied with during construction; the contractor shall call for the Arborist to inspect the protection measures installed before a building permit shall be issued, and that the property owner shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the arborist's report; 5. that an "L" footing foundation, facing away from the trunk of the existing 48-inch Coast Live Oak tree, shall be used for the foundation area along the left side of the house adjacent to the tree protection zone for the Coast Live Oak tree; 6. that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a Certified Arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; 7. that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 7, 2004, memo, the Fire Marshal's December 24, 2004, memo, the Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's December 24, 2004, memos, and the City Arborist's February 4, 2004, memo shall be met; 8. 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; � Design Review and Special Permit for An Attached Garage 1125 Jackling Drive 9. 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 proj ect has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building envelope; 13. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that during demolition, site preparation and construction of the addition, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 15. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on- site or immediately downstream of a proj ect; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 16. that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation; 17. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 18. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 5 Design Review and Special Permit for An Attached Garage 1125 Jackling Drive 19. that fiber rolls and other erosion prevention products are installed around the construction site as a barrier to prevent erosion and construction runoff into the stream; 20. that oils, fuels, solvents, coolants and other chemicals stored outdoors shall be protected from drainage by structures such as berms and roof covers; bulk materials stored outdoors shall be protected from drainage with berms and covers; equipment stored outdoors shall be stored on impermeable surfaces, shall be covered and shall be inspected for property functioning and leaks; all storage areas shall be regularly cleaned, including sweeping, litter control and a spill cleanup plan; 21. that landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 22. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 23. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 24. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 25. that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Maurissa Heffran, applicant and property owner � City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 design e elope. Commission noted that a specia permit to exceed the height limit would be appropriate in the c of this archit ural style in order to ave the roof terminate at a nt. Architect noted that wo d make the su ested changes to the of as long as it would not del the review process. Ther ere 0 other comm ts from the floor and e public hearing was close . C. Auran ade a motion to pla this item on the consent c ndar at a time when the r isions to the roof have b en made and plan c cked. This motion was se nded by C. Bojues. mment on motion: ommission requested that e architect provide info tion on how the chi will e stabilized with e next submittal. Chair Bojue called for a vote on the ion to place this item on t e consent calendar w plans had be revised i the roof and chimney s ilization as directed. T motion passed on a oice vote 6-0- (C. Keele sent). The Planning C mission's action is advisory and not appealable. his item concluded at 12:15 a.m. 14. 1125 JACKLING DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MAURISSA HEFFRAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL MOYER, ARCHITECT) (32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if the 100-year flood flow limit is shown on the plan. Plr. Hurin noted that the 100-year flood flow limit is indicated by the thick, black line on the Site Plan and that the it was determined by hydraulic calculations as required by the City Engineer. Commission asked if the proposed "L" foundation footing near the existing 48-inch oak tree, as proposed in the arborist report, was reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. Plr. Hurin noted that the City Arborist reviewed and accepted the recommended mitigations in the arborist report. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Dion Heffran, part owner and designer, and Maurissa Heffran, property owner, were available to answer questions. Submitted three letters of support from neighbors, noted that the proposed design is not bulky, primarily single story with a high pitched roof, will be using a stone slate roof, design is French Normandy, will have little impact on the existing landscaping which will be retained. Commission noted that this is a great design and that two of the existing nonconforming conditions have been eliminated with the new project. The Commission asked the applicant if he was positive that a slate roof is going to used, asked if this is a real slate product and not a simulated material, do not want to see it changed during construction. Applicant verified that a real slate product roof will be used for the roofing, feels that this is an important aspect of the structure, the roof structure was designed to handle 13 lbs/SF, proposed slate roof weighs 11 lbs/SF, and therefore the roof structure has been designed to handle the loads of the proposed slate roof. Commission expressed a concern with the proposed construction near the existing 48-inch oak tree and asked if the house and roof will encroach into the canopy of the oak tree, have seen other projects get too close to tree canopies, do not want to see major tree limbs cut for the addition. Applicant noted that the oak tree is located on an upward slope and several feet higher than the finished floor of the house. In addition, the house is single-story at that point and the roof pitches away from the tree, the house and roof will not encroach into the canopy and no tree limbs will have to be cut, recently trimmed the tree to remove dead limbs. The area adj acent to the existing oak tree is currently paved so there will be no additional impact to the tree roots from construction. Commission commented that the designer has done a great job, appreciates that the applicant also approached the neighbors on Easton Drive who will :'� City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 look down on this property, it was a good idea to contact them. Commission noted that it appears that a small portion of the house will remain, why not just make this a new house? Applicant noted that some existing walls and foundation will remain to preserve a nonconforming rear setback, existing house sits awkwardly on an odd-shaped lot and it would negatively affect the floor plan if it had to conform at that section. Denise Balestieri, 414 Costa Rica Avenue, San Mateo, spoke in favor of the proj ect, has seen the applicants' work and they do a very nice j ob. 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 as proposed with no changes. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on motion: Commission discussed if a single pole was necessary near the oak tree to verify that the addition will not encroach into the canopy, because the oak tree is located on an upward slope and the roof pitches away from the tree, it was determined that a story pole would not be necessary. Chair Bojues called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:30 a.m. 15. 1608 NTE C A SECOND VERLY C RUBEN H 2�IN0 WAY, ZONED -1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST �'ORY ADDITION LIZABETH QU1NT0, PLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND S.J. XION , ROPERTY OWNERS) NOTICED) PROJECT PLAl�R: Plr. Hu,rrin briefly presented�t�ie project description. T�e were no questions of staff. C air Bojues opened e public comment. Eliza eth Quinto, architect, 1212 Bea 'e Lane, Sebastopol, and everly Chen, pro rty owner, 167 San Pabl Avenue, San Francisco, were a ilable to answer questions. Noted that the o ners bought the propert ecause they like the neighbor d, the property has a large rear yard, wanted add to the house and a preserve the rear yard space, o would like to change the look of the house. ommission asked if t divided light windows will be ed? Architect indicated that beca of the hig cost, true divided light 'ndows are not proposed, coul ossibly add them to the front of house. Pro rty owner asked if the C mmission would have to revi any changes to the interior of t house after a roval? No, only cha es to the exterior would hav o be reviewed as an amendm t to the design review. Owner asked i converting the existing den i a bedroom, making it a fourt edroom would be a problem? No, sin the existing single-car gar e meets the requirement of four bedroom house. Commission not that access to the laundry ro m and backyard is provided f m the garage, but don't see access directl 'nto the house from the gara , please explain. The architec oted that direct access from garage to t house is provided by a sta' ay located in the left rear rner of the garage. Com 'ssion comme d that the 12' x 15' laund room is very large and rec mmended that this area used for additi nal storage. Architect not that the laundry room is isting and larger becaus it contains a wa er/dryer, storage area, furn e, and water heater all with' one room. There were other comment om the floor and the public earing was closed. C. Osterling made a m ion to place this item on t consent calendar as th roject is propos with no changes. This motio was seconded by C. Keig an. 43 Project Comments Date: To: From: 12/22/03 E�City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and special permit for an attached garage for a��f�e-s#o�y-ad�ition at 1125 Jackling Drive, zoned R-1, APN:027-154-170 �.N 1 -� `��-� � � �� ` � Staff Review: 12/29/03 %;�f'.�' �" _�.' c:, .,- .� -�_ - ,�-.- - � .--. — -- .-��%.��f.c��:.�1�';.".r._ � . ��-�� * __��_�q,.. .� ��_�[.n.u-�., �� - (/ � „ l� .,�� %�%% J� �� l � �G�-w( �T�-!i �.. i� .1�.i.!-�..�1� �TL.v � �T.,., 1.,itlTl._ L� ��+.s�v�.✓ � �3� ,�e LG�z� Reviewed by: 1� � Date: P�ll� �� G ' � � � PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS u,�., ,y�.,; -�� Project Name: •� > �c.�: ��cYo��j The following requirements apply to the project Project Address:_ /( 2�_ �•` _ iyi'�ev�' 1 ,� A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show a11 property ]ines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building pernut issuance.) 2 The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. � The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 5 The project site is in a flood zone, the project sha11 comply with the City's flood zone requirements. _� A sanitary sewer lateral 1�t is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer a.nalysis sha11 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 tr�c 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 pazcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The pazcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Page 1 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc ', , , � � PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION t� 11. A latest preliminary #itle report of the subject pazcel of land sha11 be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12, Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and conshuct 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 shali 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 azea of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Y Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State -, Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 19 ,�_ No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 � 'The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re- submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject to City Engineer's approval. 22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc � � { > • ' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach 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 gazbage 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 U:\private development�I'LAIVWING REVIEW COMIVVISNTS.doc £" '+!t-_ C..i."^ lr • Project Comments Date: 12/22/03 To: � City Engineer a Chief Building Official �Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist � City Arborist � City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and special permit for an attached garage for a single story addition at 1125 Jackling Drive, zoned R-1, APN:027-154-170 Staff Review: 12/29/03 �� x�� s � -(� � � �� _ � �. � �— -5—� � . � . _ r I _�. � Reviewed by: ` �� Date: �� r Project Comments Date: To: From: 12/22/03 ❑ City Engineer �Chief Building Official O Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ City Arborist � City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and special permit for an attached garage for a single story addition at 1125 Jackling Drive, zoned R-1, APN:027-154-170 Staff Review: 12/29/03 Reviewed by: Date: 12�z j/°� >. ... ,n,� ,::, _ _...� , ... .�. ,; ,�, Project Comments Date: To: From: 12/22/03 O City Engineer O Chief Building Official O Fire Marshal �Recycling Specialist O City Arborist ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for design for a single story APN:027-154-170 Staff Review: 12/29/03 review and special permit for an attached garage addition at 1125 Jackling Drive, zoned R-1, Applicant shall submit a Waste Reduction Plan and Recycling Deposit for this and all covered projects and sections of projects prior to any demolition, construction or permitting. Project Comments Date: To: From: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ Recycling Specialist �City Arborist ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and special permit for an attached garage for a new one-story single family dwelling at 1125 Jackling Drive, zoned R-1, APN:027-154-170 Staff Review: ---,�M �iccS�EG��D.E. �`� �/L S� e�-c S Q" i S SZ ��i 2� /G'1I �S OGLO d f�a�—'. 'fk� `��E l�` /�aL�avZ�Sd-k /�?v5�" _� .4.�`� lL�o�A�t'S 't��'t� v �� ^r� � — /- /��GA�FG� /''L��v2�-- il.�(��F,�� 2 ��SSi�R Z�. TiL� cJ�ia� / M G�l1 ---_� �/��rE l'�/Zo � va-�, M b/i S u 2�G�5 �+� �lto �`r6 W �✓ E. �___v._ F��..G�,w�_M.� c. c f� �t C. -- 3. �� o� 1�.�..�s�� P��n.� � l"-�i� /�6 S�' L07i Saflt v�-'�t�a�, _'�lL�� /'3 0�.wPat,�.A�w�G � �� iu Reviewed by: � �� J—� Date: a /� /D � � 1� � Walter Levison CONSULTING AR.BORIST ISA Certified Arborist �MIC-3172 ASCA �` Arborist #401 Assessmer�t of one coast live oak (Qusrcus agrifoliaJ at 7125 Jackling Bu�lingame, CA � E�; �� E d It�� 1 6 �004 Prepared at the Request of: Property owner, Maurissa Heffran Site Visi� Walter Levison 3/15/04 Report: Wafter Levison 3/16/04 CITY OF �URLINGAME PLFlNPJIPJG DEPT. 1 of 8 1125 Jadciing initial Report �� Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Society of ArboricuRure & Registered Member, American Society of Consumng Arborists J1 � Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA �� Arborist #401 1.0 Summary: 1. The subject tree is a coast live oak (Quercus agrrlblJa) Iocated just north of the proposed residence at 1125 Jackling in Burlingame, Califomia. The oak stands on a steep slope covered with ivy. The soii area 2-ft south of the trunk edge appears_ to have been somewhat compacted and aitered by recent machinery or vehicle travel. The subject tree has three codominant mainstems with narrow crotches arising low on the bole from two-feet above grade. These stems measure 25-inches, 24-inches, and 16- inches in diameter at 4&inches above grade. The subJect stand� approximately 4U-ft tall with a total canopy spread of about 70-feet, with 60�6 or more of the crown extending southwest On a scale of 0-100%, the tree rates out with a health rating of 6096 and a structural rating of 55%, for an overall condition rating of'Fair". The crown exhibits moderate new twig extension and foliar density. Timberline of Burlingame recently pruned the specimen in winter to remove lower limbs to clear the propose� residence area, including one very large 29-inch diameter limb. The remaining live foliage is now located high in the crown with the majority of the lower tree now consisting of mainstem wood. 2. The author reviewed the current site plan versbn 3/4/04 for this site. The owner states that she was informed by the architect that the subject tree is actually 4=8 feet in distance from the proposed foundation footing/building footprint. Using the site plan sheets, the author measured off distances from the existing small residence structure, and concurred with this approximate location, even though the location of the tree as noted on sheet 1 of the site plan submittal set shows the trunk edge as only 1 2 feet from the proposed building footprint The author then slightly relocated the subject tree on the attached marked up tree tocation map. Note that the area has nc�t been staked out by a surveyor, so true distances are yet to be determined. Assuming that the subject tree is rooted mainly uphill on this slope, we witl be able to preserve a po�tion of the existing oak rooting area if the mitigation measures are strictly adhered to. But given that Airspade air excavation or other exploratory root detecfion on the south or east sides of the tree has not been performed, the tn�e diameters, locations, and density of the root mass in the proposed building area are not yet known, and may be quite significant. The "footing" map (see attached) shows the proposed footing location and type to be installed on the hillside adjacent to the subject oak. This foofing should be changed bo an "L" footing facing away from the tree, or to a pier system that would have less total fmpact on the root zone of the tree. 2of8 1125 Jadcling Inrtial Report 3/16/04 Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational 3ocfety of Arboricukure � Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists 1� ) Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 ASCA �� Arborist #401 Due to the very close proximities invoived, it may be very difficult or impossible to work on the exterior Siding of the proposed residence in the area between the subject oak and the west wall, especially given the fact that a chain link tree protecqon fence will be erected on the hiliside just above the proposed foundation footing cut {see map). The posed a problem for the construction contractors. Two solutions wouid be to either pull the entire proposed footprint out toward the creek 5-7 feet farther away from the subject tree, or prepare a substantiai °soil buffe�' over exiSting grade to allow construction to occur without having the chain tink tree protection fenceline locat�d immediaUely west of the building footprint. Soil buffers are usually only used on level ground where contractors can stand on them without danger of loosing their balance. 2.0 Assignment: The author was requested to asseas one oak (see map) proposed to be retained at 1125 Jadcling in order to prepare a written report detailing the tr+ees' current condition as well as suggest mitigation (t�ee protection) recommendations as per City of Bu�lingame requirement for site plan submittals. Other site oaks were not assessed, The following mitiga�on recommendabons were prepared with the assumption that the site plan will be built as is with no aReration of the basic foundation footprint size or location. Alteration of the footprint size or {ocatian could have a beneficial effect on the subject oak in terms af retention of a greater percentage of the existing root system. 3.0 Mitigation Recommendatlons: a) CONFIRM TREE LOCATION WITH SURVEY CREW: It is recommended that the location of the proposed foundation ir�otings and the subject oak be confirmed by a survey crew. b) TREE PROTECTION FENCING: Prior to issuing a permit for grubbing, demolfion, tree removal, grading, or construction, the following must occur. Erect fencing as per the dashed line on the attached tree location map. This perimeter will be known as the tree protection zone or °TPZ". IVote that this fence routing locatian Fencing material used for all protective fences must be steel chain-link, at least six-feet in height, mounted on twainch diameter galvartized iron posts 8-feet in length, driven a minimum of 24-inches into the ground. Posts must be mounted no farther than six-feet apart. This fence must be e�cted prior to any heavy machlnery trafl5c or constrvction material amval on sife. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction, unless as noted in this s�ction. No materials, excavated soil, liquids, or substances are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within the perimeter of this fence. Each tree shall have a sign pasted on the fence, minimum 8X11" site, stating: 3of8 1125 Jackllnq Initial Report � 3/16/04 Phonelf�x (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Soclety of Arboricuttur�e 8� Registered Member, American Soaety of ConsuRing Afiorists J � Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA �` Arborist #401 TREE PROTECTION FENCE ' DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE c) MULCH: Lay a four-inch thick layer of well-aged course wood chip mulch over the entire soil surface within the chair� link fenced area (see map). Pult out chips at least 12-inches from the trunk edge to avoid cantact with the tree itself. d) IRRIGATION: Setup a supplemental irrigatlon system of a snaking soaker hose (see map) attached to a garden hose and active �,ose bib throughout the entire demolition, construction, and landscape installation periods within the chain link TPZ. Irrigation must b+� performed at le2ist once every two weeks to increase the probability of long-term tree health. Continue irrigation in summer, fall, and winter untii the first significant rains. Soak ovemight until the upper 24-inches ot soil is thoroughly saturated. e) FERTILIIATION: Fertilize the subject tree before start of construction via soil injection of a balanced fefil'�zer (ex. 20-10-1 U) containing soluble and insolubfe forms of nitrogen. Use a qualified tree care company to perform this service. Fertilize the entire TPZ area to be preserved behind chain link tree protection fencing. fl LANDSCAPING: a. IVY removal: use one or more of the following methads to remove iw bv hand only before planting: cut ivy with a gas-powered hedge trimmer as close as possible to ground level, use hand mattock to selectively pull out clumps of dense ivy roots, use pitch fork to pull qut clumps of rootsffoliage. Do no rip entire root zone area of subject oak. "*Note that oak tree roots are probably most dense in the area between zero and 18-inches below ground level, and will be destroyed if special care is not exercised during the ivy removal process. b. Do not install landscape plantings within 12-feet of the trunk of any oak on site. c. Do not install subsurtace irrigation lines (PVC, etc.) within 20-feet of any oak on site. Within 20-feet, use only over-grade black drip system emitter lines lain over existing grade. d. Do not install sprinklers to spray onto or near the trunk of any oak on site. g) FOUNDATION FOOTING: It is suggested that the proposed T-footing be changed to �n "L" footing facing away from the trunk of the subject oak along the foundation area adj2Ce�t to the TPZ, or that a system of piers and over-grade beams be utilized. It is also suggested that an Airspade contractor (see below) be utilized to perform air excavation of the area adjacent to the oak tree TPZ in order to determine the rooting pattem present along this zone. If oak roots measuring 1-inch diameter or �reater are encountered during this air excavation, then they should be severed cleanly with � reticulating saw or other sharp tool, and irrigated and backfilled, before the foundation installation process begins. h) SIDING CONSTRUCTION / SOIL BUFFER: Work with constructi�n personne� to come up with a tree friendly solution to the problem of siding installation, painting, and other exterior work which will need to b� performed along the area adjacent to the chain link fence TPZ. The tree protection fencing will hinder construction in some areas. 4of8 1125 Jadcling Initial Report 3/16/04 Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Nlember, Intemational Society of Arboriculture 8 Registered Member, American Society of Consufting Arborists 1��) 1 r Levison Wa te CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Certfied Arborist �WG3172 ASCA �� Arborist #401 One solution would be #o install a°soil buffe�' between the oak trunk edge and the proposed consfivction, consisting of 92-inches thickness of wood chlps lain over the soil surface, overlain by 1.25-inch thick full sheets of plywaod affixed togethec with screw plates. �is installation of this soi! buffer woul� require that the chain link tree orotec.tiion fenceline�b moved about 3-feet west from the location shown on the attached map Soil buf�ers are not normallY utilized on sloues and therefore mav not provide an adequatety flat surface for oontractors to woKfc from at this site. 4.0 Bay Area Vendors: Tree Moving Services: Joe Omaz Trees of Califon -trees moved by hand only Mr. John Service @ Valley Crest P.O. Box 13189 I (408) Covote. CA 95013 8501 Calaveras f Sunol, CA 94586 Tree Movers of Mountain View -can transplant, acquire, ship, and install trees -trees moved by mechanical spade only. -trees must normally be <12"DBH Sources of Replacement Trees: (925) 862-2485 A to Z Nursery 3850 Automall Parkway (510) 651-9021 Fremont, CA 94538 Hecker Pass Specimen Trees Hecker Pass Road (408) 842-2121 Mr. Bill Miller Gilroy, CA 95020 Pacific Nurseries-wholesale 2099 Hillside Blvd. (650) 755-2330 only Colma, CA 94014 Va11ey Crest Tree Company 8501 Calaveras Road (925) 862-2485 Sunol, CA 94586 East Bay Nursery 2332 San Pablo Ave. (510) 845-6490 Berkele , CA 94702 Boething Treeland �arms 2923 Alpine Road (650) 851-4770 (Wholesaie to the Trade Only. Portola Valley, CA 94028 Huge selection of common and hard to find tree s ies Tree Movers of Mtn View (650) 968-6117 Peninsula Air S ade Contractors Who Perform Tree-Friend Air Excavatfon Michael Youn , Urban Tree Mana ement 850 321-0202 Bill Patchett, Treesca es 650 574-5354 Matthew Kidd 650 298-8937 Arborwell $88 969-8733 or 5 of 8 1125 Jadclinq Initial Report 3/16/04 Phone/fax {650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Soc+ety of Arboricufture 8 Registered Member, American Soaety of Consulting Arbo�ists n 1� ) Walter Levison �� CONSULTING ARBORIST ��,��.�^^-�-�-.• ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 (The above sources have been known to provide high-quality arboriculture services in the past They are nat guaranteed or endorsed by the author.) 5.0 Consultant's Qualffications o Millbrae Community Preservation Commission and Tree Board 11/01-present ❑ ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ❑ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 ❑ B.A. Environmental Studies/Soil and Water Resources UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, Califomia 1990 o Peace Corps Soil and Water Conservation Extension Agent Chiangmai Province, Thailand 1991-1993 v Associate Cansulting Arborist Barrie D. Coate and Associates 4/99-8/99 ❑ Contract City Arborist to the City of Belmont 6/99-present ❑ American Sxiery of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Consulting Academy Graduate Class of 2000 o Continued education through attendance of arboriculture tectures and fprums sponsored by the Intemational Society of Arboriculture (Westem Chapter) and the American Society of Consulting Arborists (Fu(I curriculum vit�e available upon request) 6of8 1125 Jadcling I�itial Report �1� Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Society of ArboricuRure 8 Registered Member, American Sociery of Consulting Arborists 1� Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA � �� Arborist #401 6.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditfons Any legal description provided to the consuttant/appraiser is assumed to be coirect Any titles and awnership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No respansibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and ati property is appraised and evaluated as through free and ciean, under responsible ownership and competent managemerrt. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any appiicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other govemment regulations. Care has been taken to obtain al1 information from reliable sources. Ali data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neitfier guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provid�d by others. The consultant/appraiser shati not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report uniess subsequent contractuai arrangements are made, inciuding payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement Unless required by law othervvise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof daes not impfy right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent af the consultanUappraiser. Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultanUappraiser, or any reference to �ny professivnal society or institute or to any initiated designatf�n conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. 7his report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultanbappraiser, and the consultanYs/appraiser's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated resu�, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended fior visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproducfion of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or p�otographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or ac;curacy of said information. Unless expressed otherwise: a. information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and b. the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. 7of8 1125 Jadciing Initial Report 3/16/04 Phone/fax (650) 687-0990 Member, Intemational Society of Arboriculture 8� Registered Member, American Society of Consufting Arborists J � Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Certified Arborist �MIC-31T2 ASCA �` Arborist #401 Loss or alteration of any part of this report invaifdates the entire report. Arborist Disclosur� Statemenf: Arborists cannot deteci every condition that could possibly lead to the structurat f�ilure of a tree. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree witl be healthy or safe under ai) circumstances, or for a specific period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments cannot be guaranteed. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees themselves. 7.0 Certification I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are trve, compiete, and correct to the best of my knowiedge and belief, and are made in good iaith. Signature of Consultant Attached: Marked-Up Tree Location Map,1-Page Marked-Up Faoting Map,1-Page Waiter Lsviaon, Consulting Arborist American Society of Consulting Arborists Registered Consulting Arborist #401 International Society of Arboricuiture 'fied Arborist � WC - 3172 �% � ;�%/��/ 8of8 1125 Jackling Initial Report �� Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Society of ArboricuRure & Registered Member, American Society of Consuning Arborists _ _ _----- - — ---- ----- - 11Z'S' � :�'�1CIG�1 t�i►.'% '" 'tR'�E 1..O�G/i1'11�t�1~ sN �Km soc�k� � 1 [L.f �l GA'tlD�1 — (1 story) ; � �� ti ic, o �. � � . � A�11��L wp . l.,oC�►�a►1 D� � — � ��i r� �� • �� I�i�tt� U I� IC r� P20�t�.�1 CY�I � � �6.3 � v � � � � , . ��xisting Carport �✓ - .V - ��..�1�1 16" a � � � . � Proposed Addition � ' _ (E) ,� r • � /� .�� 0 .�..�. � h� ' S j ' � � i ' ;� Proposed Ga5a9e _ �inished siab ' Cou Stamped Concrete , ,�a��` . �� '�°� i ----�.,. � �. ` -15 foot �o�t se b ck �''� ~`-- ---_.� ��fr ��r� �rt� �a�e�au�i�. � w�� v �� .o� " f�ov11 N�.�' � Ridge � Roof Trusses Main Levei �K �x. � �� ic�e�� vs�N� a� "L" �eo�ll�li► � oR PIE�R�S, �*1S'�D o� � � -r'' F0�0111S►i► . �a�. �A t�us��'t'I.M t N► . ` l.�OCA'r1e1�1 � i,1EiE A�SP� �IIR E�M1V��1�1 wN�t.D � Site Section A-A . D�I�R • Scafe: 1/8 inch = '1 foot City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin�ame_org a�, CIT7 p� ��E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION "�,...�..,�.��' Type of apptication: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: <<�J� JAcct�-lIJ6 , �c>i2L1 IJC�,4M � APPLICANT Name: M�U�jSSA �A�() Address: %�i0 City/State/Zip: � Phone (w): � � ( G'( • �� G1� (h): ��.�. � �''1G� (oi �� Name: City/State/Zip:� 1 L L V d(_L��1 Phone (w): � ( S 3 $�I �._7 . (h): ��- PROPERTY OWNER Name: �A(vt � Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): �fl� �'Cou�r-�ac�-:1� �o�U � ¢�c� Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �1�37'�FLtY � A 1�� blv ��GI�GID,1��L. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATU : I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and e t e best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: � � �' � 0 I know about the propo�e,rl,a��plicati application to the Planning Commj,s� Property owner's si authorize the above applicant to submit this _' Date: � Z � z D � Date submitted: �� '� Z D 3 PCAPP.FRM � u��,� City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org �� ; ITY � � ��,E �'�. P CITY OF BURLINGAME _ SPECIAL PERMIT. APPLICATION 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. ` 'f1�� .Fe� � �5��►�! �-c�cl�. �I�ivRM a �vDy, c�(� ih .�' �'� vs � 7 �t '� Cv�� 6h �-�� C�►�� ..�- rc�c-�-- �4�r•, �t covw �4v-� � � �sl� ��j �c �,1�`{� �'��'� ��i �5 �vas w� I �-i �( �D � � 6 (G �or .r��o k �ov �r�P '�'L1 c��cc v� t-�� `� � "� � H � P wt� �-� �Ictio( ivt �,v l`iG� exr�u� ��(��K�' � 2. Explain how the variery of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the exisiing structure, street and neighborhood. �1 s �' (Mia�t� \ t � +1� LOG�.� � � vt`C !� 1 � � (571 � �f�tJ� �rt �t�� l� �G`t �� . �w� `��. �`TM'e�� 7S � �'� � 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? ��r ��- i ��r-� e.s s �►r-�v ►� i k ��S e� `�- ca r� .I��-G�� bc 5 cGv� ��X��►�. ��5 �-� er�o� �e rr� �-E-�c-�-v�c.. ac re �� P �" � un � c� � a -� a. ►--� , 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. �v --}�c c t�ccn,�vwc. ( � � `�'��wl � �'� ��" � s r V I r� � � SPECPERMFRM 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 existingstructure'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, sunlighdshade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, reaz 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� ��:� eacistingstructure, 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 adj acent 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 pattem 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 �/(�s. ��iaz�e�. �. �E�cz� 1DNtYEG"�i�ED 2301 �a�forc �zivE `'PAR�,jT'j�N l�uz�irzgame, �a�i f o�cnia 94070 ``��0�� i��l.��f _' �' � � -��J �7 j � � u �� '�� t� `�� 9 2004 ciry i.�F ��i;;� ��vuarnE_ -. � .�� .��F�� `� -�` -�J�.w -�.� �� i � �}?��--��-�.�..4rJ ��c--r•-1 �-�� , ' �,�� / / � 5 -�C.L -�� _--��_ ,C.> v-�_ cJ � %"""'�.--,v'_' � �'�-> Cl��i..', ��. _:�ti , c�._.�.J �;�_,�� .��,..e,� � ��> . ``�� -�. _(� � � — L(,�-�.-�JZ.i /U-�2.�� Ci� �� •.1C--r�.� /�ey,�,-�'-�,�.,� ,�4: C� �-� ,9�j�—c.�:� _�� _� �� ' �--- /�--�E_Y.�L.-( �i � 1 EA ` / ' - �. �� 3 �-� � 0�- �"("o VJ f�oy,n i-� w�a � c�c��, : — __ �. � i �� a.-�' � 3 0� �c� s-i-ov� D�' i v�. — G� at h av � s�� -E'� e� la �, s �-��. �►`-'�5 �qcki�►., 1.7Y�v�. TI�12 �.e� ��►v,e Ino(cs � -- . . l � IC-� i -E- w � l I f�� -� ; ,,,,� �,� ��w,�,,,.-f- - . -�'� --{�-e �.�� ,(��I�,o� - _ � a � �� f C��-Y-�{ � 3 � -� �s-t-��-, �� . �vr L � ►�� a.�,-�� Cr�- �P�o �b �-2z�J RE��.�� MAR 2 9 2004 CITY OF BURUNGAME PLANNING DEPT. _ _ _ __ 3Iz�'o 4 �.c. wt.c.cii�q l-l-� � l `�- � �� CITY O� BURLINGAME ��oq S e�e q�NATEU JYNE 6• To: From: Subject: Date: CK� City of Burlingame Planning Department (650) 558-7250 ':�` . �71VI�4TIf)NRE!CBIY� �R P.R�PAIR.�TIEi,�i Memorandum I�FS`?'atFFl�'�il�i" 1125 Jacicling Drive Project File Ruben Hurin, Planner Project at 1125 Jackling Drive March 26, 2004 Planning staff received a phone call from Stella and Tom Thompson, property owners at 1175 Jackling Drive, regarding the proposed project at 1125 Jackling Drive. The property owners called to state that they have no objection to the proposed project. sr�vrc,�TroN�c�iv� �'7'ER PREP�.,R�!?70h/ OFST.4FFREPQRT' � � �i � 9��0 - � �/�.�� ___ /`� i �� ' %�`� ('''i. � i��i"� " �� . . . N �i��A / .. _ .Ci�� '- L�%%��%CT �' V � c �;�� ..��2 �'� � . ��%� � �� 5 �� .�� ---- � _- , r // /� �; �� 2- ' �o%�l�� `��/.�� - �� . a��. _ REGEIl��C� ---- i�iAR 2 9 2004 ��—�' �'�G�g�r �,,'� � �� CITY OF BURUNGAME PLANNING DEPT. , � __- _ / � �'�'�� O � � .. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and special permit for an attached �ara�e for a first floor and lower level addition at 1125 Jacklin� Drive, zoned R-1, Maurissa Heffran, 506 Warren Road, San Mateo, CA 94402 propertv owner, APN: 027-154-170; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on April 12, 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: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3— (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review and special permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permit 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 12th day of April, 2004 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permit. 1125 Jackling Drive Effective Apri122, 2004 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 5, 2004, sheets 1-2, 2A, 3-5, and Topographic and Boundary Survey, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; and that the roofing material shall be slate; 2. that prior to the building permit final inspection, the property owner shall record a permanent cross-access easement on the Hillsborough property to the subject property in Burlingame; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4. that all of the mitigation measures included in the arborist's report, dated March 16, 2004, shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit and shall be complied with during construction; the contractor shall call for the Arborist to inspect the protection measures installed before a building permit shall be issued, and that the property owner shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the arborist's report; 5. that an "L" footing foundation, facing away from the trunk of the existing 48-inch Coast Live Oak tree, shall be used for the foundation area along the left side of the house adjacent to the tree protection zone for the Coast Live Oak tree; 6. that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a Certified Arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; 7. that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 7, 2004, memo, the Fire Marshal's December 24, 2004, memo, the Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's December 24, 2004, memos, and the City Arborist's February 4, 2004, memo shall be met; 8. 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; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permit. 1125 Jackling Drive Effective Apri122, 2004 Page 2 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building envelope; 13. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that during demolition, site preparation and construction of the addition, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 15. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on- site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 16. that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation; 17. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permit. 1125 Jackling Drive Effective Apri122, 2004 Page 3 18. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 19. that fiber rolls and other erosion prevention products are installed around the construction site as a barrier to prevent erosion and construction runoff into the stream; 20. that oils, fuels, solvents, coolants and other chemicals stored outdoors shall be protected from drainage by structures such as berms and roof covers; bulk materials stored outdoors shall be protected from drainage with berms and covers; equipment stored outdoors shall be stored on impermeable surfaces, shall be covered and shall be inspected for property functioning and leaks; all storage areas shall be regularly cleaned, including sweeping, litter control and a spill cleanup plan; 21. that landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 22. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 23. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 24. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 25. 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. ��, cirr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME �RLJNC�I►ME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD � BURLINGAME, CA 94010 b,.,,,,,,,,,•''�� TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 1125 Jackling Drive Application for design review and special permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition at: 1125 Jackling Drive, zoned R-1. (APN: 027-154-170). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, April 12� 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: April 2, 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 a� 558-7250. Margaret 1V� City Planner (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINGAME � �y be reviewed prior �lai ' g� D pat ent � 1 Primrose Road, limited to ic hearing, to the city ming their call (650) � �, ' ''? � �` f` "�,. • � ��q n "e '� � ,�,� r .. � \ 1 �/� c �g. '` q�, � f � � `Q,i s . /� �� .� c�r �t �'� titi� ' � a,y � �� ., r 5s•,.w •i`� �p�,�'. ° ` � �, �' , x '. ` `, r r � °� �.� �,% " ,'; ��',. �� ~'� "r ,}P.�,R i fJ, .5�;�,� � � H t. , � � �R,}. � �y; . ' � / *�- � � � � � °` cR�` e¢ � . � � d � � y/ �� • • �'�. �' 'e.A ^ t� � ` �� ; � � A' i ^.� `� � � �..�. �. .�� :r ��'�� µ�� A ��r. ,. `� . '4v . . ._ �, � �, ,� "�� f a � �'',�' +�,�,,� $'.k. �. � r �� F � � & �' �1+t,� ♦ w , . s,a�. :, �` �.��.. .�� -�� \ ° *' . `5 �� , . �'�� ` ^�;... " x�ja � � , , ,.,y s �Y ` , a+ �;. � �. � J�/ \"� J,? �h� q,� 1jX�• � !; ,,.k .. ,� r lr , � �. �'� �; '� ��; , °K'. / ,r� �-'� '�(�. ^ �°T \ �' f , . , � � , , � a �r � '� I x �` �. , � 1/� � ��- �^�.� �� •� K . ,�r � � � . �;; . �, , - � ,�' , 'r! . � .• : � � . r F �f/ �°� rs�`r'.✓ �' �,, ¢ `�;r � ,�� r r � w , : �` q.� 3 � ',�i�z � f,� �� '+� � �`' ,�, ,� °'�, � , .; ,`�'v°�G� � `�� =��y .�, �y��`� ,�,z' � s- �,rv,; /�' H� ��- �� .,�"' �'�'`� �`�`� :� � ,�� . �, � . . � � � � � � \ , M 4 .. \ � � � � . ,r, � � . � �a, � � � y�� . 9.� .., H��;� , � � �_ �� •k . , . 3 � � � .. � � .,.� � : t.. -.r:� ,T, �+`• r�� f � , . . � �� t� �� ^� ` ' � � �4 - F. � � � �Li i � SY�' �..� �y ` %.�� .'j � � ��gs�' � °� � in�.�,�,�,��: �� , � �� ' �. � � ' S .. �'� 7� ��. ^ , .. � # ,� �, �. , � �`+�' � � � + 'r ''S � �'�' »a �"�,t � � .f � �` � . r�� , �� . , : _ � , o : �Sl " �Ia. !" "� {.�'�� . !. .. , e� ... t`.tiiy - .TG-(�� .,t•, i � # • � �� Q�" , . .�'.� �a� �TM� �;q�' `� ,,�� .,,�. �' � �•r ' � :�'n�z' �" �, ��' r� . .�.p` � ..� ra , ��;� �� . ��i '� ��',' �a' ,�R, ��*'�""' ``' ,� � . �� A,ti �� . _ i�j��; � � � r �F' ""�q{" ,. .z. � '��v ,;�� '�;.� ,�`� � t" ► �'� j � `�` � � � �g'p� � ♦. � � �� R,��r �� "� � ,t . � ��.; „ � �� . � :r� ��r i � � r�•, +;- � 4`= i� � �`� � �� '�, �,, ` � ' �_ � �r �� , � � ��: �� .: � ;a`�� . a.�� .: ��`7 � . �� , �V � � F "1� �� '� t C, '1�'�,'i, r '`" • 3a i `S t � :��'A.F A.tq~�'°'� � , � R S�y �f4~'�,"'v,� �` �"�` F. : ,�'• a . �-� w� �"a7.s,��^�, '.'�V� � � ��. r � �* �� r°s �; `,1r,,. : '�'_q""�� . ,a.g �� Q ± °"1 d �"S. �` 1 � �� 1} �� P.'L� � '�� "� �� :�A y. rs�,,.� r. f► �� ❑ . � ��' ?. � -t1' �> f. � ��.^� x" § r N �' . �i ,, y +. *i �, ��y,�... �, .;+ ' � � � o '�:, �.�' - a a; +< - a. . � ��'•' iF ' - v.. �^ � d � N� s^ i �. � y ,4 L x�4 . �_ � '` � w'° I � `�- e .x.:- �S �'L . � �R` /� _ �n 2.�V0 �. �,^�f. � T 0.qi+ ,.,�< G ^ � . • ' � i., �• �w„Suz..,'�::'J1'� �,.. , . " ik 5 }��{`�' t�r�,. _,'� + a '�. � � ,;1 � � � �,�> '� +Z°,� ' ` . $ � .�, ;�� f �, r,r�� `� ', ne� � ^ T , � ., x � � ��, � .y }� `� � �� :. c � +*_ a�u� � � ,r • i {�� , � ;� � � �.� �,i,sa a � - � , . , ' � : o'��5 � . �s s ,.,e �, , $� x�.;g•�,"f�.. . `+�g�y � .�r'i.,v., ,Y �y<s.��,�a�,�w.; t, .}�,.e �. . ` " . 'f*�' . �� r"'�'.��i 3 r � � � ,: _ � ,,� .�y . � `�� ` �� '��r��,. p'�`�' U�i ,�?�' �" � �z ..z° 4,�� ` - . , r%! . . _ ` ' � .�'�1+� -7 3� .a �',k'� � a�, � 2 " ' d _ ��' „�` . � ��, �*>' ` ��` ��;,, � , �,�,� � � � LJ� 7 �„ � f ;�;� � �. �,.� .w� ' � ,. ,�� a � � �+ �"�. � �� x , ��- ��"�+""''�,��31c� � a �w,F �,, s �M � , �``,� � �. � , � �:. y � �.� ,� . � `";�., ., y, ' � r ��.`� � ��' '�i� � � "°�' " :' � �..� y� • .� r��..�'�,��-•y�. � . �y . �. `.$ ,,+, �,v�/ +♦�r�' j "'y ° .�';� .,.��f v .�s3`'(�� .�. �,''�� . . .��„"� . � }� � h i,�� "� T . .�� .. ! ` � i � p`. .� ,,.,��'u ' �� ^'�.�' : \ r �"'� .- § f , �� + - . � . r� *�. . � - :1,:^" ,..' . a. i. �. ' r-3��e ��. �� '`�� .'.. F. S �� r�' ��,� � � `"'�� +,i '�'� i�..'{ t` yi �• �� ¢ �. �'^', �� v� � w. +„�� yr� �.4` � Y'�.''�rl,�� .l� M 'sw�� .'`� .�, '� .'h`' - w zs � �:�?� � ,� � ��p�'� ` �;�1 „�,��* na .,s"� �t`� � € ��'' i� , �, � „�> ��r��" , '� � �y,� ` `� �� ; > � �' � � � "�' ,�- � /�' ,4'"�''� L �^� �rd _.'.'�-� �S v. �� " , _ ;:. `,� � ' , ��<:. �;�: � . �� - . � '� r ,; � ' ��_ � � ' - . �� : � � �t � ✓ "' � � � � �s , , rr .� � �� L . �� k � s x .,, { � '� "".,�, � � � �' � �,,,,�.� � �% F � � �� }� 6 � ��C � �Y � ��"�,.;- ��'��?� � ��,`.. �'�c:. � "� ^� ,i. .. / � � � �� T � �k � r�� .�� e � � �� . � � �'` v `� . .� .• � . � S s. ..e_,�-n,��,� O��y a` y �.f�• 'S ��¢ {��'� �� 7og W -� � � ' - � q T A �, ' � ' ' t . � „ �' • `11 t+� �� r '�.��$ r• ��, n . .-. / • �/ , � y-�, � �, �'� �..� , .. . �, . _ - �V �'- , - � r � �a i%�' tfi, 8n �� '�*'.:, � :'�� t � , ; � •..�� , �. �, oro « , : � , w�> - � �''� � ��:. , �. • J� � � � x .� ' � ,,y� �: �I s� , � . �i A ,�+- ��'i'°�� „ ^.� e il� ` l, � � �.�� .� � � �s �a,� �/�a � � ' t � ,,�` '�� .� �§��.y.i ��k�i'Y"� d ,y� 'y�. i �,: � ` .. �+ . � N'�'f"..�' L/� : � �3 . �. � � .. �.:: � '(�"' F ��,��'�Y�1�,'. A{ �.�,�. '' ^t �;y,' ��\+`,��,: -�,, ��. # 71 � .� ' � N �� t ��t a �. .Y .M; b Y �4.<a�"'{ �c d� ''�� [ � � � .��°" y r � ae �� ;�, � �,._ �;� �� ' � , is ]Y` '•tt }s, ;.,.7 �y. -,�.� i �� , .g;,3. � �� "': k . �s�t � '�r �'�y �� "� �"ti..�. - ��i.,l�„s `T� �r n''��`, ,�_p"� ��" � ; � j�''�" � "'��y M� �. �4 �� '�>"°�" w � �v'' � �. � ; �y r ,��,Y+S�r�n. �� ,�.��e ��. 1��' �i: r``"� r�ktt�� 0��6::� yr�';�� w��,, � �. .;� y,.W"' �� t`��" ��,y . � � �C' •��p.;. 4'; ' } � . �� ,�.x '�, � ` ��t , ��: a r�`� � , �: �,,�: Yr ,�.a ,. <'�",�Y-�fus�: � �. .r ��,, �" �" �':: ` �. �' y S�, � �� ' W�`f .. n��y fir¢a�� }�`��. r , a� 'l L . � �' ' 4 1,�;?�.' ��.: �4�y �t ..�. . a� .. I�