HomeMy WebLinkAbout1244 Jackling Drive - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1244 Jackling Drive
Item No.
Regular Action
Meeting Date: October 14, 2008
Request: Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: James Skelton, EDIT APN: 027-332-030
Property Owner: Colaine and Bob Roepke Lot Area: 7,501 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions
to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase
of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
August 25, 2008, Regular Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission RegularAction meeting on August 25,
2008, the next door neighbor at 1250 Jackling Drive expressed concern regarding the proposed second story
addition and its impact on sunlight and privacy in his rearyard and suggested rotating the proposed second story
roofline 90 degrees to reduce impacts on his property (August 25, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes). The
Commission voted to continue the item with direction to the applicant to consider rotating the gable and to
reevaluate the rest of the north facade to minimize neighbor impacts. Please refer to the attached August 25,
2008, Planning Commission minutes for the list of Planning Commission concerns.
On September 17tn 22"d and 26tn, the property owner and architect submitted response letters, front and right
side elevation drawings of the proposed addition with the gable roof rotated 90 degrees, and a shadow study to
to address the neighbors and the Planning Commission's concerns with the proposed roofline. The response
letters indicate that after looking into a 90 degree rotation of the proposed second story roofline, both the
architect and the property owners felt that the original design of the second story has less of an impact from the
street and on the neighborhood, and that it fit in better with the original design of the house. Also, the shadow
study, prepared by a consulting architect, indicates that the originally proposed addition would have little to no
impact on the sunlight into the yard of the neighbors at 1250 Jackling Drive (see response letters and shadow
study in staff report).
Project Description: The existing single -story house with attached garage contains 2,487 SF (0.33 FAR) of
floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to build a new 557 SF second story (master suite
addition). With the proposed second story addition, the floor area will increase from 2,487 SF (0.33 FAR) to
3,044 SF (0.41 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 3,500 SF (0.47 FAR) (project is 456 SF below
the maximum allowed FAR).
With the addition, the number of bedrooms will increase from three to four. Two parking spaces, one of which
must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached one -car garage (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions)
meets the covered parking requirement. One uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other
Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Design Review for a second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010).
1244 Jackling Drive
Lot Area: 7,501 SF Plans date stamped: July 28 and August 13, 2008
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Front (1st fir): 15'-0" no change 15'-0"
(2nd fir): none 20'-011' 20'-0"
Design Review 1244 Jackling Drive
EXISTING
i
PROPOSED
ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Side (left):
6'-10"
7'-0" to 2"d floor)7'-0"
(
(right):
45'-0"
j no change
7'-0"
Rear (1st fir):
5'-8"
no change
15'-0"
(2nd fir):
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
none
23'-0-1
20'-011
.
Lot Coverage:
2,549.2 SF
no change3,000
SF
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
34%
40%
FAR:
2,487.3 SF
3,044.1 SF
3,500 SF
..
0.33 FAR
0.41 FAR
0.47 FAR 2
....................................................................................................
# of bedrooms:
3
4
---
Parking:
1 covered
...................................................................
1 covered
(20' x 20')
no change
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
1 uncovered
............... .....................................................................................
(9' x 20')
.................................................................................... ........... ..................
.. .
(9' x 20')
............................................................
Height:
.................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
13'-5"
21'-1 "
......................................................................................................................__..........
30'-0"
_.............................................................................................................................
DH Envelope:
complies
complies
CS 25.28.075
' The proposed second story balcony at the front of the house is exempt from setback requirements per C.S. 25.28.073 2, f.
2 (0.32 x 7,501 SF) + 1100 SF = 3,500.32 SF (0.47 FAR).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer and NPDES
Coordinator.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on August 11,
2008, the Commission had comments and suggestions regarding the balcony railing and the design of the north
elevation (August 11, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes). The designer submitted revised plans, date
stamped August 13, 2008, that included a revised wrought iron railing that complies with building code
requirements and a change in the material of the proposed second story addition along the north elevation from
stucco to slat board to help break up the elevation. Please refer to the copy of the August 11, 2008, Planning
Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of Planning Commission concerns.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
-2-
Design Review
1244 Jackling Drive
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July
28, 2008, sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1 and L1.1, and date stamped August 13, 2008, sheets A3.2 and
A3.3;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 18, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's June 25,
2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 23, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 22, 2008
memo shall be met;
5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
-3-
Design Review 1244 Jackling Drive
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; and
12. 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.
Erica Strohmeier
Associate Planner
c. James Skelton, 3564 17th St. #3, San Francisco, CA, 94110, applicant.
Attachments:
Response letter from architect, date stamped September 26, 2008
Front and right side elevation drawings of the proposed addition with the gable roof rotated 90 degrees, date
stamped September 17, 2008
Response letter/letter of explanation from property owners, date stamped September 17, 2008
Shadow study of proposed addition and its impact on neighboring properties, date stamped September 22, 2008
Minutes from the August 25, 2008 Regular Action Meeting
Minutes from the August 11, 2008 Design Review Study Meeting
Application to the Planning Commission
Photographs of existing streetscape
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed October 3, 2008
Aerial Photo
-4-
September 22, 2008
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: 1244 Jackling Drive
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
The original design intent for the Roepke residence was to create a second story
addition above their garage that incorporates well with the existing roof line and
minimizes front street impact. Second story additions above a ranch style home
can often have an unbalanced geometry with the surprise "jack —in-the-box" look.
The owners wanted to avoid this and create a more integrated design.
During the design process Edit had looked at the cross gable approach and
decided to pass on it due to the impact on the overall balance of the home.
Instead we settled on the current design which appeared to offer the best
solution for their desires. The sloping roof line over the first floor garage matches
the existing and acts as a transition from first to second story. It steps the
addition away from the street thus lessoning the visual impact. The second story
roof slopes in the same manner continuing to push it from the street and then
meets the existing ridge line at the rear, which allows for a gentle transition and
visual continuity for the backyard neighbors.
For the North side neighbors at 1250 Jackling, the Cockcrofts, the new addition is
visually more abrupt but this is mitigated in two ways. First, the peak of the
second story occurs past the area of the Cockcrofts yard and is in line with their
home. This minimizes the view of the addition when looking south from their
yard. The addition will be seen when looking southwest and west but the
Cockcrofts' own roof will be along the line of site. Second, the side yard is
heavily planted with tall shrubs offering some visual relief.
At the August 25th Planning Commission meeting John Cockcroft expressed
concern regarding the north wall of the structure, and the potential for it to impact
sunlight to his rear yard and impact privacy. He suggested rotating the roofline
90 degrees to reduce shade impacts and lower height near his property. The
Planning Commission gave direction to rotate the gable 90 degrees and provide
a study.
ECcn
F P 2 :) 2008
CITY OF BURUNGAME EC3iT -,7 0
120 Manor �rlva s��v Fcxi.tic�aco. c� 94127 I TL_ 41 5.867.21 8'1 FX. 4'1 5.587.8025 FiN41V1sl-io_coM
_L :: a :t"
After the meeting we revisited the cross gable approach and provided a study
sketch for the Roepkes'. We both found it to be undesirable. Issues that we
found to be of concern were:
1. Increased visual impact on Cockcrofts' rear yard.
2. Does not incorporate well with the existing roof line, creating an
unbalanced look.
3. The visual impact at the front street side.
4. Creates additional visual impact for the backyard neighbors.
In order to cross the 2 gables and bring harmony to the design, the second story
roof line needs to extend past the existing roof ridge. The peak of the gable now
goes from the front of the home, past the Cockcrofts rear roof line and well into
their backyard, creating greater visual impact. Shadows may not be cast onto
their yard, but the Cockcrofts will be seeing the addition while looking south.
Also, the existing garage extends out from the home which pushes the addition
outward towards the street. The transition from street to home becomes abrupt
with a 2 story wall and gable roof, which appears to create the unwanted "jack-in-
the-box" look the Roepkes wanted to avoid. Neighbors at the rear yard will no
longer have a sloping transition from first to second story, and the wall of the
second story addition will now be visible from the alley.
In addition to the concerns of the proposed cross gable design, the Roepkes
looked to address the issues the Cockcrofts raised regarding shade and privacy.
They had Nilmeyer/Nilmeyer perform a shadow study which revealed that the
addition will have little to no impact on the sunlight hours for the Cockcrofts rear
yard. To address the issue of privacy the Roepkes are willing to screen the
bathroom window.
Second story additions are a common occurrence to the ranch style homes that
populate this area. They present a design challenge to the overall harmony of a
site. I believe the original design presented to the Planning Commission on
August 11t" meets this challenge and represents the best design for all parties
involved.
Sincerely, 7
RECEIVE.,
James Skelton S(;P 701)
Edit
CITY of eup,�:vu�.,�,
PLANNING DEPT.
l20 Manor C>rlva sari Ffz�Hc�sc o, cA 94127 1 -FL__ 41 5_867_L 1 89 FX_ 41 5.587.8025 I RN4M �YAH 00_COM cO� L`c
IAaNNOR-
g4
4
4
Q
t
---------------------
----------
-
WEST EL��ATWPROP SED
�
w
L
z
LU
u)
LLJ
ni
:o
W<
0 davinmw
�:
ioi1
SOUTH ELEVATION -PROPOSED
RECEIVEC
M
11A3.2
Vl-
—IT; OF BURLINGAME
`CANNING DEPT
September 17, 2008
Re: 1244 Jackling Drive
Second Story Addition
Dear City of Burlingame Planning Commission,
Thank you very much for taking the time to read our comments. Our property at 1244
Jackling Drive went before the Commission as a Regular Action Item Application for
Design Review on August 25, 2008. At the conclusion of that meeting the Commission
asked that we look into several items to address concerns voiced by our neighbor (John
Cockcroft) at 1250 Jackling Drive. The neighbor:
• Expressed concern regarding the north wall of the structure, and the potential for
it to impact sunlight to his rear yard and impact privacy.
• Suggested rotating the roofline 90 degrees to reduce shade impacts and lower
height near his property line.
The Commission gave direction to:
• Consider rotating the gable and re -study the rest of the north facade to minimize
neighbor impacts.
This letter is in response to the above items.
Brief Background:
We had been thinking about a room above our garage ever since our neighbor, Pat
Cockroft (1250 Jackling Drive) shared the idea of "going up" after we had shown her our
newly remodeled great room in July 2007. We started working with our architect in early
2008. As soon as we received our first draft of the plans, Colaine Roepke spent time
going over the plans with our north side neighbors at 1250 Jackling Drive. We are
always respectful of input from our neighbors and wanted to consider any thoughts or
concerns they might have on our proposed project. At the time of that meeting, both
north side residents were very positive toward our plans and thanked Colaine for sharing
the plans. We moved forward with and ultimately submitted for approval, largely the
same plans we showed the north side at this time.
Planning Commission Meetings:
At our initial August 11 Design Review meeting, which Bob Roepke attended, we were
asked to look into a couple of items:
• Look into breaking up design of plane of north elevation;
• Provide details of balcony railing, specifically meeting code.
We took all of the feedback from the commission and gathered all necessary information
to be able to move forward positively in the design review process.
Bob and Colaine were advised that we did not need to attend the August 25 meeting,
despite our interest and availability. Following that meeting, we were, unfortunately,
shocked and saddened to hear how displeased our north side neighbors were reg✓
!_ P L ' 2008
CITY of BUfiLINGAME
!DI_ANNiNG DE=� r
our addition, especially in light of the fact that we had specifically reviewed the plans
with them.
Response to Issues Raised at the August 25 Meeting:
Alternative gable design
We had our architect come up with a sketch that would rotate the roof angle as suggested.
Upon review of the revised design, we found that it was not as aesthetically pleasing as
the original design and our architect voiced concern that it could force us to change other
parts of the overall design. Having spent several months and significant funds on the
original design, we thought we would look into a shade analysis of the proposed plans as
an alternative way of addressing the neighbors concerns.
Shade anal
Later in the week, following the August 25 Commission meeting, Colaine met with John
and Pat Cockroft to go over all concerns in person. At that point, we informed them that
we would perform a shade study.
Cathy Nilmeyer, architect at Nilmeyer Associates Architects, performed the shade
analysis. The analysis looked at the shade impact (at multiple times of the day and times
of the year) to the neighbors' property based upon two designs: 1) existing home and 2)
original addition design as submitted to the Commission.
The conclusion from the shade analysis is that the original addition design has minimal
impact on the sunlight hitting the north side neighbors' garden. Please refer to the shade
analysis for results and read Cathy Nilmeyer's summary.
Cathy and Colaine met with Pat and John Cockroft on September 15 to review in person
the results of the shade analysis.
Privacy
As originally submitted on August 11, the plans call for one small bathroom window on
the north side of the addition facing the neighbors' property. We were very concerned
about any potential impact to the neighbors' privacy and therefore limited the design to
just the one window. We are more than happy to coat this window with an appropriate
material such that we cannot see through the window, but do think it is important to allow
for ventilation.
Conclusion:
We have gone to great lengths to minimize the impact of our proposed addition on all our
neighbors, while at the same time keeping the design within all Burlingame design codes.
We believe that the originally submitted design accomplishes these goals and we
therefore would like to re -present this design for approval by the Commission.
This design best meets our collective desires and matches the flow of the existing
rooflines. This design also minimizes the privacy and shade impact on all of our
neighbors' homes and properties. EC °;
S E P 1 17 2008
CITY OF BURLING;yiML
PIANNING DF_PT
We have been very communicative in our approach to this design and respectfully ask
that you approve the design. As always we are open to any input you may have to offer.
Sincerely,
Colaine Zoepke
Homeowner
1244 Jackling Drive
ZMWILI MA.M.LM:=_'�:..-..f�
Homeowner
1244 Jackling Drive
RECEIVED
.-;:F � '/ 2008
OF BU�t__I!
RECEIVED
1p\ilmoyer
'�ilmcyor
ASSOCIATES ®'ARCHITECTS
15 September 2008
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: 1244 Jackling Drive
Shadow Studies
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
SE u 2 2008
,ITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
At the Planning Commission meeting of 25 August 2008, the above referenced
residence had been originally placed on the consent calendar, but was removed
at the request of the next door neighbor, John Cockcroft. It seems he was
concerned about the potential impact of the sunlight to his rear yard. The
commission recommended the owners look into changing the roofline 90 degrees
to reduce impact of the shadows.
The owners of 1244 Jackling Drive, Colaine & Bob Roepke have been working
over the past 5 months, reviewing the design with the neighbors throughout the
process. The Roepkes were very pleased with the proposed design, which they
submitted to the City.
The Roepkes wish to minimize the impact on their neighbors of 10 years.
Colaine requested Nilmeyer / Nilmeyer Associates to prepare a shadow study of
the impact of the proposed addition on their neighbors' backyard. A copy of the
study is included in this letter. We found no impact in the summer months, which
was the neighbors' concern. In December, when the sun is low in the sky, there
is some shade cast from the existing residence. However, the new addition
would only impact the street, but there would be no additional impact on the
neighbor's yard. Colaine and I met with their north side neighbors, the
Cockcrofts, to review the results of the study, and answer any questions they
may have.
Turning the roofline 90 degrees as proposed by the Cockcrofts will have little to
128 Pepper Avenue so Burlingame, California 94010-5235 ? (650) 347-0757
no impact on the shadows cast on the neighbors (causing only minimal additional
shadowing in the December timeframe). It is my opinion that the Roepkes
proposed West Elevation design, facing the street, is much more interesting and
unique than the usual gable roof over the garage as seen in many additions on
the homes of this era, i.e. Ray Park. I feel the existing proposed design
submitted by the Roepkes had been placed on the consent calendar because the
Planning Commission was pleased with this design, as are the Roepkes.
Sincerely,
Catherine J. . Nilm yer, IA
Nilmeyer / Nilmeyer Associates
attachment
ECE-11D
" :I T `( OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT
Z o
-�
n
n
z W
to
m
rTl Z
IV
m
�
rf i
0
Ll
0
Z
o
z c
M Z
N�
ro 0
>
o
CD
71
m
� 00�
�7
m
z-n
c
z
r
A
' rn
x
m
0
m
r
m
07
9/21
3/21
,�-> pm
m
m
qo
v
' T
Z C
�v
m
r
"
Ci
o
;,]
o
rT,?
K
m
oo
0-
VJ
rrj
5.O
Z T
Z C
��
7
r_
N
Z
coH
1 1
Ova
u
C)
T1
M
O
�'
0
z W
zc
m
r
1
o
$
00
c.Pl/751 -� pm
--A LNI-14-
�
'00 ;00
IX
CZ)
CZD
3 am
DO
zc
r
Jr)
OCD
I! 3
00
cz:)
, �1�
3 pin
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes August 25, 2008
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2b. 1244 JACKLING DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES SKELTON, EDIT, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; AND COLAINE AND BOB ROEPKE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA
STROHMEIER/RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated August 25, 2008, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier
presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
James Skelton, 3564 17'h Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant.
Public comments:
John Cockcroft, 1250 Jackling Drive; resides on the immediately adjacent property; expressed concern
regarding the north wall of the structure, and the potential for it to impact sunlight to his rear yard and
impact privacy. Suggested rotating the roofline 90-degrees to reduce shade impacts and lower height
near his property line.
Commission comments:
It appears that the window placement would still work with the change suggested by the
neighbor.
Specify the type of windows prior to bringing the item back.
Change in gable is a good idea; may require re -study of the rest of the facade as well.
Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the application with direction to the applicant to consider
rotating the gable and re -study the rest of the north facade to minimize neighbor impacts.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. This item
concluded at 7:27 p.m.
3. 2015 RAY D VE, ZONED R-1 —APP CATION FOR DESIGN REVIE LOT COVERAGE
VARIANCE, A SPECIAL PERMITS F ATTACHED GARAGE AND LINING HEIGHT
ENVELOPE FOR IRST AND SECONDS Y ADDITION TO A SINGL MILY DWELLING
(DAVID HIRZEL, AP CANT AND DESIGNER; D SUSAN AND DAVID TUD I PROPERTY
_OWNERS) STAFF CO CT: ERICA STROHMEI
Re ence staff report dated A st 25, 2008, with attachm s. Associate Planner Strohm
prese d the report, reviewed cri a and staff comments. Th en (13) conditions were sug
for consi tion.
Chair Cauchi op d the public hearing.
4
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Unapproved Minutes August 11, 2008
9. 1244 JACKLING DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES SKELTON, EDIT, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
AND COLAINE AND BOB ROEPKE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated August 11, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the
project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Bob Roepke, 1244 Jackling Drive and James Skelton, 3564 17th Street, San Francisco; represented the
applicant.
Family expansion created need for more space.
Have spoken to neighbors; particularly the neighbor to the north; no issues with window placement.
Commission comments:
■ Discussed design of deck.
■ Asked about assumed property line.
■ Like design.
■ Figure out how the roofline meets the balcony.
■ Balcony railing will need to meet code; tighter spacing may be required; show the detailed design.
■ Clarified that finish of addition will match existing house.
■ Look at the area where the rooflines come together at vertical wall with regards to drainage.
■ Clarified design of deck; parallel to the face of the garage.
■ Can something be done to break up the plane on north elevation.
■ Clarified window types (Skelton - intend to match existing windows on house).
■ Did applicant consider extending the addition further back, instead of up (Skelton and Roepke -
wanted to maintain size of property).
Public comments:
Theresa Webb, 1265 Vancouver Avenue; lives on a flag lot that borders the applicant's home;
doesn't oppose the addition, but wants the Commission to consider the uniqueness of the design of
homes in the area.
Additional Commission comments:
Concern about impact upon Webb's property; though there is enough separation that there will not
likely be an impact.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
Show design of railing.
Look at design of north elevation and attempt to reduce mass of the wall.
17
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes August 11, 2008
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m.
18
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 a f: 660.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application: n
,. Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: ;/ G
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Other:
PROJECTADDRESS:_ 19" T'c+-ktin4 Uri.re. CA 4Oo10
M Please indicate the contact person for this project
APPLICANT project contact person PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents OK to send electronic copies of documents fr
Name: .1 R- SK CL�-u t4 Name: Co(ot;ne, oval bob Roe Ake_
Address:
City/State/Zip: 2/] nl�,q
Phone: //J 1 - 3 �_ j
Fax: `�JS� 5���-�`'��25
E-mail:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person
OK to send electronic copies of documeMs)k
Name: F—D"IT
Address: 110 MM()rL Dal
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
Fax: u I r J 1- 10
E-mail: \ I1q M (�_, t NHW Vvfl
Address: 121f4 T_a_k (; hq be- 've;
City/State/Zip: 131u-1+n4taM?=I CA Wolo
Phone: &6'0 . 9 - 4433
Fax:
E-mail: l'aL1r-oe_FiCe_cs-) cornca_&• ✓ e_f"
* Burlingame Business License #:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: V e4i ceJ e_Ac[; t-.'on a-6 oye_ q o va_q e. .
AFFADAVIT/SIONATURE: I hereby cejWkunder penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature: Date: ! v
I am aware of the proposed `cation and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit thi application to the flanning
Commission.
Property owner's signature: Date: (;�3 d g
x zooz
Date submitted:
* Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required li4M ',.
Finance Department at the time application fees are paid.
* Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. S:tHandouts\PC Application 200".handout
�5� �2 2 , s rv� rtmnf
1 +y^„�.. v1. �� •x � r�.' `"•:.i�'� � r"�' 1j•l• �r�` .'f9. ,, r� Yy,>I �' . �l'`r.�
r
4'
. 1 i•
_�F' �"•1i v+.., .y'Y'KwA>n �1' 4 �. •' Y - _ 19.E I f _. _, .. _— y i
Ir
r
•
r._
Date:
To:
From
Subject:
Staff Review:
Project Comments
June 17, 2008
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Request for Design Review for second story addition at 1244
Jackling, zoned R-1, APN: 027-332-030
June 23, 2008
1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC).
2) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business
license.
3) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
4) Provide existing and proposed elevations.
5) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines
6) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new
walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit
is issued for the project.
7) Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential / non-
residential buildings. Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details.
8) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that
complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress
windows on the elevation drawings.
9) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are
considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if
your project entails landings more than 30" in height.
10) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers.
11) Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
12) Fireplace chimneys, if any, must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building
within ten feet. Sec. 2113.9
Reviewed by: Date: /oa
Project Comments
Date: June 17, 2008
To: d City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271
❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600
❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review for second story addition at 1244
Jackling, zoned R-1, APN: 027-332-030
Staff Review: June 23, 2008
1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the
City storm drain system.
2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 6/25/2008
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
Project Comments
June 17, 2008
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
Planning Staff
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Request for Design Review for second story addition at 1244
Jackling, zoned R-1, APN: 027-332-030
June 23, 2008
While the project appears to not require sprinklers based upon proposed addition
and remodel, the project is close. Be advised where more than one (1) addition
and/or alteration for which building permits are required are made within a two (2)
year period and said alterations are made to the premises of the same occupant. In
such circumstances, the sum of these additions and/or alterations construction costs
during this two (2) year period shall be aggregated for the purpose of calculating the
replacement cost value formula. Final determination will be made and the plan
review phase of the project.
It is very important that you understand the threshold indicated by BMC §17.04.030.
Designer, contractor, and owner should communicate specifically the extent of
demolition and remodel. Keeping in mind any change orders and addendums
which increase the total amount of square footage added or remodeled after
plan review would be applied to the sprinkler ordinance.
Reviewed by: _;,----- ��� Date: -2-
r`�
Date:
To:
From:
Subject
Staff Review:
Project Comments
June 17, 2008
City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
Planning Staff
Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
✓ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
City Attorney
Request for Design Review for second story addition at 1244
Jackling, zoned R-1, APN: 027-332-030
June 23, 2008
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction
activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) during construction.
Include a list of BMPs and erosion and sediment control measure plan as project
notes when submitting plans for a building permit. Please see attached brochure for
guidance.
For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727.
Reviewed by: Date: 06/22/2008
Remember:
San Matto Countywidt Sturtri—ter
Pollution P—anion Program
l'^ h•
General
Construction
& Site Supervision
AMasce plannlnR parenm ps11asan
✓S.beduk ese—tim, and grdng.mMHm rem dry
Zpcdds. T. am - nil maion plan- lamp grwian err place dhr umalm enewh bmin.
nmba,; m
✓Leine and prated eures drains in Ili dddry d the
,he id, hennas err titans mina Iwl Weadavperiad,.
✓Central the .sees.( of ruaeef e..Wg yeur sa
(,ci.11y dung ex —ion) Elysian bees afar'.
any., it., draiaape dirche, an di— Wac It—
lmundearrim.Rades, m amen'vdaeisah
-mtruming mnlmvy chalk dams ar brans ohm,
gv."ndc
.,
Tab y.. saldeym sea sehadr.dan Mae
It.. banchaa.vslsbk m ewryo«svlmworh an sh
c _il a sire let—srLcdmr-un ahem lbe hen,
nnsv napamener- and tad, revaansAttb„
r-d deasedre al, Pnmke
✓Dnlgnv.... mptddy amtelned and br .ram
parkhg, vehicle ragedls, and ra,Hnc WulMem
maatnud. Thedagrddaaa maid headl arvay
fament=aramam drain ides and banned it aece,.
sery. sae sjrr spin olt'sta
✓t(san materials ad of the rsv—Issuer rmeR
endsmNawv.t lie asvrce Corer Initialed pill. at
cal ureara-mbn matawaneub rdani. demean or
tmrymraryrmA
✓Keep t dtuhvb err emni d a n-laen. Place nina as ,
and n eyeang,=lesensud dr.0 ..i i nse
litter.
✓Dry areas pave sarbm the drain is stoma drain,
..ease «ekuuab.lflsvmau tlahi g is nanxi
. sih ro h —thc admit'-e to tap sedimmt and
...
man.
✓Ckaa ea, lack, dip and allies- silk Ina edlatdy n
any do am eanssu us ail sir grmdwner «k.w
rdidvil en paved sue6eea. Use dry cteang, nmthe&
whims—peembis Ifym, mat aaw.er,nni t
eanto a kr«a der deal dim. '
JGeaar and a si dus.pan Oaek tn"i 1'or
Wallis. It- it.,,— mad, er mxr sib says
-plastic shealing mated smud the amide air me
dunpsse.. A plane Inver is n x maadndan pesvan
lesbge orlimlu . Never slue rat. desepler by
held" D daxra n As ese.hudbv in,
✓ht.ke lure pan.bk takes sic oal.laad Iv gad
,,saki. ardor by the leasin mnyany aW,Wa wamn
are
di,poeed afpmpay. Cheek adka fix sandy for
Wall.
.MandalrAvaaa ha utz"
"Pruden saeren "..We — dsbMa -1. nrhea
)nu sr&r smtarbb. Oder my me atmud yea need
,a liana, me jab
/Ua rentebWa mdneb wb,rawr prosAle, Anonge
rer piaeat raryrlabk macbh tad, se -saes,
sapadt nags arcsk ales. daw—rig, &madivag-
nation, paw,sod,and -hide maidmrree eamll
Buda as mad eat. ansfreda, hunk, and area
JDapac er.a Wales as demal tla dead, praMdy.
Murry caawmau awerids and —ex can be nryeed
t rebating aWenm weer -based par,gvvhicle Md,
bmkm ayaheh ad eacae, avnoQ ad meard vegea-
on Msciab and debris the raa,ror be rtrydd ,cease
beamtn.n p"pruselandnll reduaWore,
hvsdeas souk. Never bun xula anue lei, at Inns
teen b ras nren err near . eaek er mraem and.
The property owner and the contractor share ultimate responsibility for the activities that occur on a construction
site. You will be held responsible for any environmental damages and associated clean-up costs.
San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
Program Pankipmis: Atherlon, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, Gad Palo Alto, Fmler City, Half Mmn Bay, Hill,lW uugh, Menlo Perk Millbrae, P..if aq P.,16. Valley,
Redwood City, San B.mo, San Carlos, San Met., South San Fra.idm, Woodside, County of San Mateo.
Pollution Prevention It's Part of the Plan
It is your responsibility to do the job right!
Runoff from streets and otherpaved areas is a major source of pollutionin local creeks, San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
Construction activities can directly affect the health of our waters unless contractors and crews plan ahead to keep dirt, debris, and other
construction waste away from storm drains and creeks. Following these guidelines will ensure your compliance with local stormwater
ordinance requirements. Remember, ongoing monitoring and maintenance of installed controls is crucial to proper implementation.
Heavy Earth -Moving Roadwork & Paving
Equipment Activities
Operation
0 _ ..,—e /pce6p rrd irrydaramtemeioNsedirrrnt mntrd pluuu for
mdmYevbntn,sma
I Sddvk grdmMai aramtinandlbr leaskse. Morkr«dry Washer.
Dar/ng Cenwradan J �aeetsl ad apebakiig agsNoma
J Remoue,mmill, w9distine Pnyabea sbsobayneces- pmapply.
J P=. aujornrcneeeance, retain, am Washing deaulp.
rant mry fmm me mm.mio. du.
Site pI—.* ad prnrn/vr aehid, suWeninre JSeed a pleet re yamry vegmuim br emana nammlm J ohm lending orvealeNaquiMam nutmmen.,—be
JDeeignme.-mplmdy-maird andof mehore-sexamine is rat immediately planed. mrc an vas desigou, s nampltdy mateind ram away
ram Wm, dram .d media
V. he, n,aIlawayream a—arnam, drain ism, JD. tea as dinel it In hArinte d clean eaepnma
ter .1..Mep, iluaem larking, ataetma, and -mire ✓Pmam&m,%M drainage neann; simulate, and amn
vehideadrquilmnamsiuxuuea. deabswhh hey balm tnwrany drdruga smdea dh Mw'
le— benm «smnn drab sale, pliers. J Rai ad ail assumes, ceneme. Woken amba, etc.
J Maintain Alvdeieln ad heavy nduparcnt Impax fa- aMnevc I�
qumtly foram repair ash. ✓ Use steak durc or dtahes m divan mmR amend auvs- JTesbeeptaredinntang Hr«ebctuaraumem NSUda
sans and groded teem. Dadng Caminalk.
J Partner, autim maid -ere, nepairjabs and vahkk and
egnilmmo�hing dYua. .1C.—rtnclpile, and ae—ed .it aith samadueru or J�voidpvagad sat cdsrg ieostwndmr,rasbm rain
pkrsc Annals fat Yoras,b0esaibsins and
Rnhlavanlihawtine to are
J Ifdrain am agates mom. oil, eadismr rmnlaJ Cawrlad
ysa rant manbks Mom ygaying
r macr fluids anae we drip pus a drop dnths in �/Pmn«ymana«mdmvkuivs0emu-amadtmam 'sat es44ary al bg sat' ea,
—adrjnandspills.Gila a.11silent tlaid-..in eonvpb, JUse eleatdarn,dishd,orbe— usdMnmsay ermd
lumarm mrrehlen.md acyck Whercva Mmbk, ter JNawrwmh aces masrid mom d-
dislcsefll,id.mhmrdean— ✓ pmpcyralnn rsihasorerdanandsdimammmuak salsa .6nPemn-
anmebalnonnwawaMMry. oats a,hnilvtaenmann ism .seeala,mme drain Cal -
Ina and aneyxte,ra dirpox main
p of ✓cannrml ilandaN .o auctbminauneb Wier
Gennd Ba4m lndka rdauictrga Pretmtrmmrdddl Wed rxeaeN m.dTwim
JRaayad.amdwhkkb_r.. JSehmlCemrnim and raise wart Ynrtry ssuber amroeay, n reps mldmlk,hmn tad ham.
J coda drips fmm pnvwhh drip ram «.hwabmtmaarbl
J Perbrm insjra equipmem rq,sin.rvay rasa mejob she. (c6d,.4, der) peesd undmmadune whan rot in net.
Lynn aP ap/Rr lmeadiety when dal kIppes J Cleanup erg vnilb a,d leaks using'dryrarcmoda (aim
✓Necarhvsdom,"dua'pvmnanorimla—able ✓Wass aflalirg ern&.0kW leguyamnnstanamennm °h0rbaelm.add✓r.gshardi apadlemvemnWni-
curfsaswhrttlddslwev,ilkd Us dry dearoPneem- bemrcmdx, Wart Waahammpkalybmadeaa scary rcldaR
odaar
(AmeatimandRTda ant ma,, We, rags) wbmever Mom mmndda. JCaar¢ye n.pptgriady divms,tenons
passible Wyeamusame—lc,majuaaemghmkeals aa.ains ive Pavel ter and ,he is. d—, ✓D. mtusdiaellila Wbakatearckan equipment es'— JAxid—pldtessan by—r-13 lb dust anneal
JS}v«p upsolled dyalinerids immediately. N Wed, fir say uafprdedpauseur— After «., be ear 'kepAJSC--Reared
anta mbuh dean n, buydcm to MemdL JAwidcrmingacceaduswhmbm9imgWAaama-
U-111de vnta to pmAk f.r dot control. Italy prthm mdhima are olau—d. tat taream emanue.
amcrusmme Regions Wur Quality Conud Brand: J Aderbrakng up aid panmm, be sureto rx—all
✓ Clean ay, pill an did gem by digging W and pmraedy dads anal pit al yam me sae.
dbsleasingef-dwri mud seal. a Unund aimdi,iom, Ascdmson, or oat« JMake anne brakes p.vcnem dodnot race, in esum—all
a Abardasd mdergsvmd asks rakddlorm M
J Reron aignif am spilb,e meq,nmaks aria avame a Abadmedwdk Jpmm nearby an" drain Ilia, dart., awcaMg Sl,ewl
.gmdnimmediately Yea mr.vuLund by law 1.-an a Ban eat bond, debri, a sash ae dory deresa and -rove from the
all signifeux mlmuadhmanMa arusrsk udutiag sae
ail. Tv reMdexPllesllthe lbllmving.gads,: I)Did - JN«erh«e Mwn Mr«u-clean up narked dirt lte dry
9l1 or your bdl emenmryrelp— numb.,, 2) Call teem attitude.
me Govarar , of.. dEmea'mrySadcex waning
Ceram (Seal) 952-13511(3s has).
Fresh Concrete
& Mortar Application
r�•
General &I wars Piardrea
✓ &N, in ya ryIrd ad the caaba� . site, vhnys ram
bath dryd war naariab amc , rear sd frem
einbgam;an PeaemdrymaurinUfemaiod.
✓ Semre bap a iannet.Mc mry art rise. Be rate m teal,
w,eo-dam-,r,m, rowda.waY ream poste, ,mate
dins, ninratl, am reamm
Painting & Application
of Solvents & Adhesives
manOing Palter PradMa
J Kam .a Bgald Pdat pleated, sd nuke, any reel
it. geM«, street, sad tiara do W. L"gua residuo f
little, thisa x, selvaas, glue, and deani%Mena are
hesadda w.Ma and tam M depend If. . bamdam
ins-lkcdon Scilly (caaac't yeur 1-1 nsm—ar
p anaN,
Questions?
Call the Office of
Environmental Compliance
(650) 342-3727
Landscaping.
Gardening,
and Pool Maintenance
ui
J Protect mepoles sad Wedsespea metelids fawn Wind sand
rain by smrorg then rode, temps or samurai plant lei
✓ sere pesdcme>, fad hen and dlc.hml«Is Wdmn at
rip. dad o, smnge esN—
Pa/uMg el—,
✓N«« skan brushes err due p.bteadalver, bha ✓Schedul, Fading and advmbn pojrets f«drymama.
s
tr-to , gaffer, am dodeam le, ar r
✓ \tie -traverse -hers any in designated wsuhau — ✓ U—serms a,, flea dame air ditdm, m divert ran s1*..y
in yearyard. sheathe wncvnll Hmvfvm mesimm, ✓Far rxer-bmd palms part out Muds, to 11, Went (.a .—a deaeas
pnh err one din, I -It au leWeylemd diymse d as Maaabk. Russ: slh hryswcmayanhawpined
pAace. Whemv«Pdubeemyekwefbmtbypurping pnnimlon time dtelminaamvmtrmlrcadmdusiry. ✓prim,Mann dim inks stye he, bah, berm, lih«nmta
batter is. -sera br Muse Never dbpme ar—b", ba Nevapmrpsmdeanaddn at vswr inlet prntesimmrnsuas
the anal, Mar« dale, drdv.ge dimh4 err straons.
✓Far ,,brad pint, psi- an bru+hn a ire anent parr- ✓ Mal;daKen b .n cnduvt bra of rao W v mistral far
Dadra, Cactrarlbn vUeaadckan sitb thnrcrer,at— in.prvlermmerer. say ale.
✓Da,'t mix an mart Iksh-name a carcm Ilia, yea all Fite, and aces thmene, and shams Dias fassess
su in a day, h,.idsW reeldueahaeadsnwme fasdeewsgXardca •dfaltvs_,,e
✓Fs,upam ape"e mnsl miserstenrant,o,hmvyplaty,
drga dabs
✓ When daanng ap sac drivenn -sides-@ na—vart
—,has am. dint trail dons b. drivewryoriaa
the,— «mean drain
J Prevmt.ngngauwaA fain driveway/ptb....-W e
fmm .arm'
I— drains Hasa vgFegae wash rate din
aria and,l d. in. dart.
✓ Rne tiny Wine ramhc erosion coneds mwndoM m
mptae anany,n yie,unme—emndl Etna, h mach.
th sear - drain.
J Whm bee king y, par W. be sea m ptd up all Its linen
and divine Pal,.dy.
✓ Recyeb et ,. dank, ter Wa.n -rcrea at a hadrill
J Dime of veal aneuds err exec. dry comae Fail,
and mask in Its trash
Pala nani
✓ Pelat ebtp, and dent boa sea-Nxaaw dry sidwin,
and seed bluMeg nuy he ssgstup a-lknd in plaadc
hap cWd. and dupased of m Irah
✓ Measles[ plat stdlplew residue and amps and dun
gran anamsee plants «pain. dvtsbbg lead at Ir®ulyl
Ma,m. be disimseel are. hseamus sums,
✓ When mail,pingorckani�bsdidlagedvMnwiahhip}-
raaatra east, bbeksnnn drana. Wash Was ram a din
sea and quite taoal. on rick with der best auaamer
amearn. s abdryta sd rat Ifym area mean (ma, or
ran)Is ridbg deauagaZand diK—W,he anbay,
sewer Sanpling sfehe marmay be insured in must der
watmnaNeanneatemberiry b,mkng as dent lam
R-yddre.ee kfnwv pders Waste—psaIDk
✓ R«yck or divans of eras xu«bass Mlnt u a
lm¢Imld laxsmd tees maenion fairy, onus tale
\Veramry ere racerd peldry,maybedimeuni used
Maas, rag, and drop dohs eery h dipmd of n Dar"
bags in esuircry hudHlL
✓ the ula pwada am foaow kbcl deecuaa Rarae -n-
ad aces dnwmar esprdem lamer of rims
-.Weer: in the ash.
J Dignse of uased paU.ida is lumi Ware.
J Coast Imvn and gads, dipper , paining ^'ems, and tree
tmmnana Chip if —ex ay,, and comMst
J Do natpkce Fed waacln pav, In commmhieawim
m�absiMysd uaaermyclirg, lerved'rypiegsam Pmnieg
e for Piektp b ypravd O.gs acmmnaers. Dc rake
ta.landfill thin -,rya-a ymd wsac
✓ Da pal blase yr rake Isar, ate ate flu-1
Pod/po.adai Malmausanee
✓ Neva dis ianyu dnbri,utd prat err sp. m,c as a aaeetor
cant a.m.
J sYhv emptying a pant or Nam kl dubr en dissipae ear 5 to
T days. Tan reryckwac by dnini.g a grnmdy onto a
landsue, dare, a drain the deddohated nvarn, a same
drain
✓ Nev«buryalid ter baraAws rvanc mmcivl.
J Rinse lenwc., asadpalnL Dlzpdedacaslquid, JO,brimled seas, snot' Elea di,eh9. mar s.0nu
ioddbgxuageaahvandam Wmx. nun, mix
ollmvd by,heln*.k.r gee p pe,lnumju)
by
erg ahra,o a miliry snknrawv pipeekanamjune
✓Small auemiry geaeraana mrldd ehaeka9a me Sea Mum ,ran
Canty Environmental Hadd, Dkiaim raprdi na arydbg
a, hmedaa smu dipad.
Storm drain polluters may be liable for fines of up to $25,000 per day! JDm dad .race arMbt an.y be.bkabe rawmdame
prat wnmr. sheet m;da tie vedmagaaa,a ere •buy-
pad'rdiry.
J De net use r,,pard sLglexidl. Cavol dam will
calann, tar rat,« dsmuiva to cryvar-0asd Mot deeeni-
eda care: a n.,mrd r. a9eanr w and rannel le
c.eaPlddr remevd by khc snaps 1rcnMend plank.
WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT SOIL EROSION?
U
Water and wind carry soil from our Bay Area land down into our
streams, lakes and the Bay. This soil carries with it pollu-
tants such as oil and grease, chemicals, fertilizers, animal
wastes and bacteria, which threaten our water quality.
Such erosion also costs the home construction industry, local
government, and the homeowner untold millions of dollars
a year.
Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as
construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2, 000 times
that amount. When we remove vegetation or other objects that
hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water
and increase its chances of eroding.
The loss of soil from a construction site results in loss of topsoil,
minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies in the
landscape. Surface runoff and the materials it carries with it clog
our culverts, flood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroys
wildlife and damages recreational areas such as lakes and re-
servoirs.
As an example, road and home building in the Oakland hills
above Lake Temescal filled the lake to such an extent that it had
to be dredged in 1979 at a public cost of $750,000.
NEED MORE INFORMA?ION?
ABAG has produced a slide/tape show on soil erosion
called "Money Down the Drain." It is available for showing
to any interested group. Call ABAG Public Affairs at (415)
841-9730.
ABAG has also published a "Manual of Standards for Sur-
face Runoff Control Measures" which deals extensively
with designs and practices for erosion prevention, sedi-
ment control, and control of urban runoff. The manual
addresses problems and solutions as they apply to
California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from
ABAG and is available on reference at many local libraries
and in city and county public works and planning depart-
ments.
USDA Soil Conservation Service personnel are willing to
provide more information on specific erosion problems.
This brochure is a cooperative project of the Association of
Bay Area Governments and the East Bay Regional Park
District.
j� //��1� //�� ASSOCIATION EAST BAY REGIONAL
�a .A _ GOVERNMENTSBAY PARK DISTRICT
,"@! 818remsnt 14 i 5M
B Oal�te�9
Iq
PROTEC?ING
YOUR
PROPERTY
FROM
EROSION
EROSION CONTROL CAN PROTECT
YOUR PROPERTY AND PREVENT
FUTURE HEADACHES
Vegetation- stabilized Bare Slope: Headaches
Slope: Security and Liability
1% (�" ; �� • soil in place • mudslide danger
• minimum of loss of topsoil
erosion • clogged storm
�� �� • fewer winter clean- drains. flooding
• up problems problems r�
• protection for expensive
house foun- cleanup
dations • eroded or
buried house
foundations �!
� .%%�'�''ri::i;. ter, Yi •!•
TIPS FOR THE HOMEOWNEI
"Winterize" your property by mid -September. Don't
wait until spring to put in landscaping. You need
winter protection. Final landscaping can be done
later.
Inexpensive measures installed by fall will give you
protection quickly that will last all during the wet
season.
In one afternoon you can:
• Dig trenches to drain surface runoff water away
from problem areas such as steep, bare slopes.
• Prepare bare areas on slopes for seeding by raking
the surface to loosen and roughen soil so it will
hold seeds.
Seeding of bare slopes
• Hand broadcast or use a "breast seeder." A typical
yard can be done in less than an hour.
• Give seeds a boost with fertilizer.
• Mulch if you can, with grass clippings and leaves,
bark chips or straw.
• Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes.
• Check with your local nursery for advice.
Winter alert
• Check before storms to see that drains and ditches
are not clogged by leaves and rubble.
• Check after major storms to be sure drains are clear
and vegetation is holding on slopes. Repair as
necessary.
• Spot seed any bare areas.
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO
CONTROL EROSION
AND PROTECT
YOUR PROPERTY
Soil erosion costs Bay Area homeowners millions of dol-
lars a year. We lose valuable topsoil. We have to pay for
damage to roads and property. And our tax money has to
be spent on cleaning out sediment from storm drains,
channels, lakes and the Bay.
You can protect your prop-
erty and prevent future
headaches by following
these guidelines: \__
r�
BEFORE AND
DURING
CONSTRUCTION
• Plan construction activities during spring and summer,
so that erosion control measures can be in place when
the rain comes.
• Examine your site carefully before building. Be aware of
the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site
design will help you avoid expensive stabilization work.
Preserve existing vegeta-
tion as much as possible.
Limit grading and plant
removal to the areas
under current construc-
tion. (Vegetation will
naturally curb erosion,
improve the appearance
and the value of your
property, and reduce the
cost of landscaping later.)
• Use fencing to protect plants from fill material and traffic.
If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable as-
phalt or porous paving blocks.
• Preserve the natural contours of the land and disturb the
earth as little as possible. Limit the time in which graded
areas are exposed.
• Minimize the length and
steepness of slopes by
benching, terracing, or
constructing diversion
structures. Landscape
~ ' benched areas to stabilize
the slope and improve its
appearance.
• As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation
on all areas that are not to be paved or otherwise
covered.
• Control dust on graded areas by sprinkling with water,
restricting traffic to certain routes, and paving or graveI-
ing access roads and driveways.
TEMPORARY MEASURES TO
STABILIZE THE SOIL
Grass provides the
cheapest and most ef-
fective short-term ero-
sion control. It grows
quickly and covers the
ground completely. To
find the best seed mix-
tures and plants for
your area, check with
your local nursery, the
U.S. Department of Ag-
riculture Soil Conserva-
tion Service, or the
University of California
Cooperative Extension.
Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection
from rain damage. They also provide a favorable envi-
ronment for starting and growing plants. Easy -to -obtain
mulches are grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips
and straw
Straw mulch is nearly IGC% effective when held in place by
spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber (tackifiers), by
punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tack-
ing a netting over it.
Commercial applications of
wood fibers combined with\
various seeds and fertilizers
(hydraulic mulching) are effec-
tive in stabilizing sloped areas.
Hydraulic mulching with a
tackifier should 5.
be done in two
separate appli-
cations: the first - —�
composed of seed fertilizer and half the mulch, the second
composed of the remaining mulch and tackifier. Commer-
cial hydraulic mulch applicators —who also provide other
erosion control services — are listed under "landscaping" in
the phone book.
Mats of excelsior, Jute netting and plastic sheets can be ef-
fective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with
the soil and fastened securely to work effectively.
Roof drainage can be collected in barrels or storage con-
tainers or routed into lawns, planter boxes and gardens.
Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mos-
quitos, too. Excessive runoff should be directed away from
your house, Too much water can damage trees and make
foundations unstable.
STRUCTURAL RUNOFF CONTROLS
Even with proper timing and planting, you may need to
protect disturbed areas from rainfall until the plants have
time to establish themselves. Or you may need permanent
ways to transport water across your property so that it
doesn't cause erosion.
To keep water from carrying soil from your site and dump-
ing it into nearby lots, streets, streams and channels, you
need ways to reduce its volume and speed. Some exam-
ples of what you might use are:
perimeter dike
Z'
straw mulch
• Riprap (rock lining) —to
protect channel banks
from erosive 'v e water flow
• Sediment trap —to
stop runoff carrying
sediment and trap the
sediment
• Storm drain outlet
protection —to reduce
the speed of water flow-
ing from a pipe onto
open ground or into a
natural channel
• Diversion dike or perimeter dike —to divert excess
water to places where it can be disposed of properly
��...,:.v.'1���1�..:isjC.�..'�i:iFi`:��:lii`wZ:S:*ir.•'::iv � ��_
• Straw bale dike —to stop and detain sediment from
small unprotected areas
I-)
(a s ort-term measure
• Perimeter swale — to divert
runoff from a disturbed area
^��: z4.
or to contain runoff within
<#'%>::w: ' > ` ": #• :
a disturbed area
• Grade stabilization structure — to carry concentrated
runoff down a slope
sediment trap
jute netting
K
outlet protection
diversion ditch
bench
co �; �
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 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 for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1244 Jackling
Drive, zoned R-1, Colaine and Bob Roepke, property owners, APN: 027-332-030;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
October 14, 2008, 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 15301 (e)(1) -
which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review,
provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of
the structures before the addition.
2. Said Design Review is approved subject
attached hereto. Findings for such Desig
n
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 14th day of September, 2008 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review.
1244 Jackling Drive
Effective October 24, 2008
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped July 28, 2008, sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1 and L1.1, and date stamped
August 13, 2008, sheets A3.2 and A3.3;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or
garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an
amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 18, 2008 memo, the City
Engineer's June 25, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 23, 2008 memo, and the
NPDES Coordinator's June 22, 2008 memo shall be met;
5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential
designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review.
1244 Jackling Drive
Effective October 24, 2008
architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design
which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as
shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing
compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the
final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
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; and
12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance
of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD 016H16504325
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
PH: (650) 558-7250 0 FAX: (650) . 00.270 _
www.burlingame.org _ =;
r—
maned From 94010
LIS POS T Ac-=
Site: 1244 JACKLING DRIVE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008
at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review for a second story addition to
a single family dwelling at 1244 JACKLING DRIVE zoned
R-1. APN 027-332-030
Mailed: October 3, 2008
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
City of Burlingame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)