The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1250 Jackling Drive - Staff ReportCu�il.t,`� �,.'r . ri �v.,' ?;,'.:'Cl:1G L'L� �ll-'Tf�k f'li rP.-UZ,1 Tl Q[V or sT-� F�r r,�F�noi� r Burlingame Planning Committee 501 Primrose Rd Burlingame, CA 94010 March 8, 2016 RE: 1250 Jackling Dr. Special Permit, APN# 027-322040 Dear Burlingame Planning Committee, 03.14.16 PC Meeting Item 8a 1250 Jackling Drive Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2016 CIT`f OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. 1 am writing to support the special permit for 1250 )ackling Dr. We live at �� Vancouver, one block down near Roosevelt school. We understand the Ott family needs another bedroom for their children and are aslang to expand into one garage space. We have seen firsthand that there is plenty of room in their driveway for additional cars and ample parking on Vancouver Ave. We strongly support, and recommend, the change. Thank ,., �r1 Stefanie Egan City of Burlingame Special Permit to Reduce On-site Parking Address: 1250 Jackling Drive Request: Special Permit to reduce on-site parking. Applicant and Designer: Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design Property Owners: Lisa and Gregory Ott General Plan: Low Density Residential Item No. 8a Regular Action Item Meeting Date: March 14, 2016 APN: 027-322-040 Lot Area: 6,970 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing and electrical conveyances, are exempt from environmental review. Project Description: The subject property is a corner lot with frontage on Vancouver Avenue and Jackling Drive. The driveway entrance on Jackling Drive leads to an attached 2-car garage. In 1977, the Planning Commission granted a front setback variance to the property for a workshop area to be built at the left side of the existing attached garage. The variance granted allowed the house to have a 7'-0" front setback where 15'-0" was the minimum required setback. The current application proposes a primarily interior remodel to the existing house that will eliminate the garage workshop and reduce the size of the covered parking area in the attached garage. The footprint, setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area of the existing house will not be altered. The applicant is requesting a special permit to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces. The proposed interior remodel will increase the number of bedrooms from 3 to 4. The municipal code requires that single-family dwellings with 4 or fewer bedrooms have a total of 2 parking spaces (1 covered space plus 1 uncovered space). The existing house exceeds the number of required parking spaces because it has 3 parking spaces (2 covered spaces plus 1 uncovered space). With the proposed remodel, the wall of the workshop area in the garage will be removed and the covered parking will be shifted within the confines of the existing walls. A new bedroom, bathroom, and laundry room are proposed in a portion of the former attached garage. The net result is that the covered on-site parking will be reduced from 2 non-conforming covered parking spaces (17'-6" x 20', where 18' x 18' is required for 2 existing covered parking spaces) to 1 code-compliant parking space (10' x 20'). The single uncovered parking space in the driveway leading to the garage (9' x 20') will remain, though some existing ground cover landscaping will be paved to allow a vehicle approach to the new garage door. Planning staff would note that if an application was made in the future to increase the number of bedrooms from 4 to 5, current code regulations would require that the applicant provide a total of 3 parking spaces on site, 2 covered and 1 uncovered. From the exterior, the proposed changes will result in the existing two-car garage door that faces the side property line being shifted and reduced to a single-car door. Few of the exterior changes will be visible from the street because of the existing landscaping on the property and because of the side-facing orientation of the attached garage. The project includes several additional minor exterior changes, however these changes do not raise existing plate heights and do not require design review or any other Planning Commission applications. The applicant is requesting the following application: ■ Special Permit to reduce on-site parking (C.S. 25.26.035)(b)). Special Permit 1250 Jackling Drive Project History: The project was originally scheduled as an action item for the February 22, 2016 Planning Commission hearing. On the day of the hearing, Planning Staff received an inquiry from a Planning Commissioner requesting determination on the required applications for the proposed project. Because of the proximity of the inquiry to the hearing and because the project was being brought forward straight to action (with no study hearing), Planning Staff determined that the project should be pulled from the agenda to allow staff time to research the inquiry. The issue in question is whether the front setback for a single-car garage should be applied to the project. C.S. 25.26.072 states: (2) the minimum fronf setback of an atfached garage or attached covered parking shall be as follows: (A) Twenfy-five (25) feet for a sing/e car garage; (8) Thirty-five (35) feet for a two (2) car garage. However, if the garage doors for the two (2) car garage are provided by two (2) single doors, the front setback may be staggered af twenty (20) feet for one door and twenty-five (25) feet for the second door or side-by-side at twenty-five (25) feet. In reviewing the proposed project, staff has determined that the garage front setbacks would not apply to the proposed project for the following reasons: The variance granted in 1977 still applies. No setbacks for existing walls are proposed to be altered. The wall closest to the street (formerly the wall of the workshop) was granted a front setback variance in 1977 for a 7'-0" front setback where 15'-0" was the minimum required setback. This wall will both remain in its existing location with a 7'-0" setback and will remain a solid wall with a single window; though the proposed interior changes to the dwelling will move the interior of the garage closer to the front property line, this change is not visible from the street because of the side orientation of the existing attached garage. No new wall or garage doors facing the street are proposed; 2. Current code requirements are applicable to new construction, not to existing conditions. The existing footprint of the house will not be altered. Although the garage door will shift to the left side of the existing attached garage, this change does not impact the existing front setback to the garage since the new door is in the plane of an existing wall and the door faces the side property line rather than the front property line; 3. There is no visible change to the garage doors from the front of the property for the proposed project. The original intent of the C.S. 25.26.072 was to reduce the impact of attached garage doors on the front elevation of dwellings facing the street. Prevailing design opinions when regulations were adopted held that attached garages could make a dwelling appear more massive from the curb and could dominate the face of a residence. This is supported by the following: a. The City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook describes Low Impact Garages (see attached page 22) — the sketches describe garages facing side streets as low impact (and therefore greater setbacks need not apply), and describes large garage doors as adding to mass, bulk, and scale (see attached page 33 ); b. the code section detailing the setbacks for two-car garages (see C.S. 25.26.072(B) italics at the top of this page) uses the phrase 'garage doors' (as opposed to garage) and makes a distinction for setbacks according to the width of the garage doors; and c. In the past, the required front setback to new garage doors that face the front of a property has been applied, whereas changes to existing garage doors that face a side property line (attached garages with a semicircular driveway) have not been subject to garage front setbacks (reference 1715 Toledo Avenue and 1821 Ashton Avenue). -2- Special Permit 1250 Jackling Drive Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that since this request for a Special Permit does not include any change to the footprint of the existing house, the application was placed directly on the action calendar. If the Commission feels there is a need for more discussion, this item may be placed on a future action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division, Parks Division, and Stormwater Division. Planning Staff would note that all of the circled comments from the other Divisions have already been addressed by the applicant under a separate Building Permit (#615-0476) that has been approved but not issued. Should the Planning Commission approve the application for a Special Permit, the revisions to the plans and the comments from the Divisions will be incorporated as a revision to the existing Building Permit. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Special Permit Findings (Reducing On-site Parking): That the proposed single-car garage complies with the code requirements for the proposed 4- bedroom house, that the landscaping eliminated to retain the uncovered parking space in the driveway is minimal, that the proposed remodel will not substantially alter the envelope of the existing residence, and that the reconfiguration of the garage door will not be visible from the street due to the existing landscaping and the side-facing attached garage, the project may be found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 8, 2016, sheets A1 through A3.1; 2. that if the structure is altered at a later date and the number of bedrooms is increased, then the Special Permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 3. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's January 19, 2016 memo, the Building Division's January 20, 2016 memo, the Parks Division's January 19, 2016 memo, the Fire Division's January 27, 2016 memo, and the Stormwater Division's January 25, 2016 memo shall be met; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; -3- Special Permit 1250 Jackling Drive 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 all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. Tim Raduenz, applicant Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Form Letters from neighbors (date stamped February 19, 2016, February 29, 2016, and March 8, 2016) Pages from City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook (3 pages) Notes from May 13, 1998 Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meeting (2 pages) Photographs of existing front elevation Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed March 4, 2016 Aerial Photo -4- BURUNfiAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: � Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: b�7 ��%i2- � �� Conditional Use Permit � Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: ( Z �O '�� _�/ �� ,, - �./� L� � ��- /y � . . - ✓ � � i - �/' � � � ♦ / - • I l � . _. i� . � _ �� r , s,� �, i / � - � -� ,. , r .i , „ , PROPERTY OWNER Name: �� . f /''� �5. �� Address: ��D �1��'L/�%�� I ✓� City/State/Zip: lfiLL/N � ��`�l6 Phone: E-mail: -i4R£-HH'f�fi/D E S I G N E R Name: ��i� r� � �� Z Address: �S� � ?.�-�' S�. . � � City/State/Zip: �� `( Phone: �Cl,l'l• ��• 1330� E-mail: �rN B �ItilDll��s(l�u •(.��1�{ Burlingame Business License #: � 0 dq � I i , �' I� .�: � . i/ �, i ✓ , �, , Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. �(Initials of#ehitec�IDesigner) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: � AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beli f. � Applicant's signature: Date: /� � � I am aware of the proposed appli tio and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. - Property owner's signature: Date: � Z' � ;� � �, �. � �� F��r � � �, Date submitted: S: I Hi4�IV�7bl�T.v�t•C App6cation`dd� r''I's,,� `�iJ'hi!_.II;�C_ui'ib1i: � � ,_ � n�.!,ylini,• __r,; � City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • www.burlinqame.orq BURLINGAME 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. 9. Exp/ain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction oraddition are consistenf with the existing structure's design and wifh the existing street and neighborhood. �� 2, Exp/ain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consisfent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. �� 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? 1 . � �. 4. Exp/ain how the remova/ 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? Exp/ain why this mitigation is appropriate. ;�� ;� �, -�-� ��=�.. � �► ,� "� �.., �,c � � � � �d� ;�!�.;�; � �� ZU! � ';!1Y C;� l�URLINGt1f�1:� _�..�r. ''!.�-',i��:N � � ':i ;l Rev. 07.2008 � See over for explanation of above questions. SPECIAL.PERMIT.A��RM 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. Neighboring properties will not be affected by 1250 Jackling going from a two car garage to a one car garage. There is no change to the footprint, height or bulk of the house. Externally, it will be only a cosmetic change to the size of the garage door. The property is on a corner lot and the ranch style house is an "L" shape. The current one door garage faces into the lot, so even when the change is made, it will hardly be noticeable from the street or to the neighboring homes. We are very excited to move to Burlingame with our three children. Instead of adding another story to this house as the next door neighbor did, converting one stall of the garage will allow us to add a fourth bedroom and create living space for our family. 2. Explain how the variety of roojline, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. The change we are requesting is to reduce the two car garage to a one car garage. Effectively, it is just changing the size of the garage door. Because we are choosing not to go up or out, the roofline will not change. The exterior changes will remain consistent with the existing style of this mid-century rancher, including the garage door, with the rest of the house and neighborhood. In fact, the current fa�ade is actually a little jumbled. This change will make it look more fluid and integrated. Aesthetically, this update will make the home feel more consistent with the neighboring homes and the updates happening across the Easton Addition. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city? Unlike many homes in the area, 1250 Jackling has a very large and wide driveway. When we reduce to a one stall gararge, we will still have ample room for our two cars in the driveway. This means there will not be additional cars parking on the street or clogging the neighborhood. In fact, the driveway is not only large enough for our cars, but also up to two more. The location of this home is also unique because it is on a corner lot, and the backside of the house on Vancouver creates a relatively long stretch of open street parking on the west side of the stree� Unlike other areas of the neighborhood, the homes in the immediate vicinity are not as c�� W��, i,, ;. l A N�`� �� G I ls� c ;?7Y OF BIIRI_�NGHM� :`;!:,D—�f_RNNING �IV. instance, with the orientation of the home at 1236 Vancouver, along with the set back of 1265 Vancouver means there is really only one home in the first stretch of Vancouver south of Easton Ave, and ample street parking. In searching for our house, we saw many homes in the neighborhood with long narrow driveways that you could not really even pull a single car into, and streets tightly packed with cars. One thing that attracted us to this home was the lower density in this particular area, and the wide driveway. That is what makes it easy to see how having a one car garage instead of a two car garage will have no impact on parking or traffic in the neighborhood. 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. No trees will be removed. We will re-locate the current hedge and move it over to accommodate the side of the new door, but otherwise the current landscaping will not really change at all. The beautiful tree in front and the overall landscaping are things that attracted us to this home and we will not be altering it. F�_, i � �, ;,:.�,� � �� i �T�� .,3. .I /-1 I `! " 6 ✓ �� I ll/ �-� ! �Y l)�' i3Uri_i!`Ji�:ir\I1/��= • %C)D-('! AN�JI�JG r�11/ Marc Korody �Jackling Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 February 17, 2016 Received After 02.22.16 PC Meeting Agenda Item 8c 1250 Jackling Drive CO,ti1�t�fU��7CATIC�:V ItL'C:L:I�"GU � AFTE'R PIZF,P.AR�I l'fUN OF,ST.�FF i�l:'�OILT ' {$Q�� ''� �„ .�r.;� t=„�=.� ] �� y:-::y� �= E B �� "r��Q`�o RE: 1250 Jackling Dr, APN# 027-322040 Special Permit To Whom It May Concern: ,.�i--�.i ;_!'- J�i�! �!��7C,-"+i�;!-". _ `',�,'`i �`�1.:7 ��% Our street is very narrow, there is no street parking available on Jackling. There si plenty of street parking on Vancouver. Any thing that decreases off street parking creates a fire hazard for the entire neighborhood. We request that you deny the application to reduced the number of on-sire parking spaces. Thank you for your time. Erin Frakes 1236 Vancouver Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 February 24, 2016 RE: 1250 Jackling Dr. Special Permit, APN# 027-322040 To Whom it may concern, .. ., . .. . ..., kl .i '��vn_.� .�r�ac � i� 2`1 2o(b ; : -;;._,, !�„�,r,,'�:_ ;Di: ' ��,'-�,�JNif�tG i�iV. We are writing in strong support of the special permit for 1250 Jackling Dr. Our lot is 1+ 3/4 of an additional lot and sits directly across the street where there is plenty of parking available. We are actually thrilled that the new owners want to use the existing footprint of the house instead of trying to build up or out. We understand that the Otts are a family of five and need more bedrooms for their children. Their driveway holds at least two large SUVs and their corner lot offers at least four more additional spaces. One garage space plus the drive way seems ideal to utilize the space. Again, we strongly support the special permi� Thank you for your time, Erin Frakes Moira Geraghty Baum 1252 Drake Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 February 24, 2016 RE: 1250 Jackling Dr. Special Permit, APN# 027-322040 To Whom it may concern, We are writing in strong support of the special permit for 1250 Jackling Dr. Our house is on the corner of Easton and Drake and located close to their corner lot. We appreciate that the new design leaves plenty of green space on the lot and is not changing the existing footprint. We walk by the adjacent five-street intersection often and do not want the visibility of the intersection to change. We understand that the Otts need more bedrooms for their children. Their driveway has parking for two cars, post remodel. This area of Burlingame has plenty of parking and the parkable space on Vancouver allows for at least three additional cars. The proposed design seems to be the best possible design to reduce impact on the neighborhood and the intersection. Again, we strongly support the special permit. Thank you for your time, Moira Geraghty Baum RECEIVED MAR - 8 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook Original Draft Edition - 2/19/00 Updated Edition - August, 2012 The Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Burlingame Planning Commission Burlingame Planning Division �__�,:�,. �n.� r.araae Patterns Component c. �a� ��y � Low Impact Attached Garages There are examples of attached garages which do not dominate the front of a res�d t onal ohpo tunrt es forlside yard and d�riveway/patio the house, addi P development are created. i'ear garage with breeze. way - __. ear g�rags with :,idc facino doorg . 5irtc�le x��clth a":Caclx:d �arag�, pulled to rear — _-}- -t- — � � � � � ' I I� � • ? � �;ai��e Lc�catiiori Gan �I�;t� have an impact on the neighborir�g propertY �Y 9enerating noi5c 2nd Ilght impacts. f�eFer 7v Component 4 for additic�nai con5iderations Low Impact Garages, Criteria Page 22 Design Review Criteria Compatibility will be achieved by respecting the existing pattern of garage � ons'derat ons should be made the neighborhood. The following c Choice of attached versus detached garages should be consistent with the neighborhood pattern. Location of garage with respect to street should be consistent with neighborhood pattern. Location of garage with respect to neighbors should be consistent with neighborhood pattern. Width and style of driveway and curb cut should be consistent with neighborhood pattern. � Impact of automob�min miz ngsdreveway w dbh, avloid doub eYwidth using rear garage, garage doors. • Location °attern of t eaneighbo hood hould consistent with the existing p Width and configuration of driveways should support the pattern of the neighborhood. Driveway materials should be consistent with the pattern of the neighborhood and with the architecture and period of the residence. Zoning Regulations include specific requirements for parking and setbacks. Refer to Section 25.70.030 for parking regulations. Refer to Section 25.26.072 for setbacks to attached garages. The Zoning Regulations allow additional interior space for residence (FAR adjustfm�e addit onal infohmagonages are used. Refer to Section 25.26.070 City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebo� Component 5: Mass, Bulk and Scale Md55, Bulk and Scale: Introduction Each neighborhood will include buildings that "manage" their apparent mass in a number of ways. Those methods should form a pattern that The term Mass represents the overall appearance of the building is identifiable and that pattern should be respected with new designs. and its apparent size and solidity. Mass includes actual and apparent components. It does not necessarily refer to the actual size of a Example houses which can actually be quite large will include building, but to the apparent size. elements which reduce the apparent mass of the building. Actual Mass represents the physical size and configuration of a building. The actual mass of a building is controlled in part by the Zoning Ordinance via height limits, setbacks and floor area limits. It is also the responsibility of the design professional to manipulate forms in such a way as to achieve the desired physical shape of the building. Apparent Mass is a consideration of how large the houses in a neighborhood appear. Buildings in a neighborhood may look big when they are actually quite small. Conversely, buildings may look small when they are really quite large. Some buildings appear to be large and bulky and tend to loom over people on the ground. Others appear lower to the ground and feel more comfortable within the neighborhood. When designing additions to existing houses, it is important to consider apparent mass in order to minimize the effects of increased building size. Further, it is important to consider the effects of building mass from all sides. Buildings that appear to be too large not only impact the neighborho�d in a general way, but also have direct and severe effects on the immediate neighbors. It is the intent of this guidebook to generate houses that appear less massive within the context of their neighborhoods. Larger hou:,es appear mas�Ive, leaving little 5pace irj between. If the 5ame hause� occurred on laryer lat�, tl �y may nat 5eem a5 l4+rge. Mass is also a function of lot size. Large houses look smaller when set against a large yard. The space between the houses in a neighborhood affects the perception of mass as much as the actual size of the building. Older houses in Burlingame, even larger ones, tend to appear less massive and less bulky because of the methods of articulation used in their design and the level of detail occurring on the exterior. Materials and details are used appropriately to the architecture. It is possible to design a large addition that does not appear massive to its neighbors. Observant designers will note methods used in most older Burlingame homes which make them appear to be smaller, friendlier and more human in scale. It should be noted that as a building becomes larger each of the components of this guidebook become more important and will be considered more closely. Note th�t large garac�e. NO C rhl5 da�rs also add to T.he ma5s 4 of a Inillding. _ � � 5rnaller houses are les� mas�ive and appear lee� � mas�ire, leaviny yreaYzr �pace in brtweeo�. Addition� ta smalle.r houses rec�ulre particular care in main}n;n;nn noinhhn«hn�,.� �:,�.�rra. I hl5 City of Burlingame Mass, Bulk and Scale: Introduction Neighborhood Design Guidebook Page 33 �—� NO TE S: Neighborhood Consistency Sub-committee Date: May 13, 1998 Attending: Jerry Deal, Dave Luzuriaga, Meg Monroe Subject: Revisions to the R-1 District Regulations to Make them Work More Effectively with Design Review. The focus of discussion was how to develop a mechanism to increase the flexibility in the regulations and allow the design review process to recommend more lenient interpretations (within maximum parameters) when the design calls for it. The committee spent some time dealing with the problem of variances. They should be given rarely and only when a property has some physical limitation which truly makes it impossible to develop within the R-1 standards. It was suggested that the mechanism that we use in the R-3 zone of establishing a review line at a lower point than the maximum has worked effectively. For example in the R-3 zone the maxi.mum height is 54 feet, but there is a review line at 35 feet. Between 35 feet and 54 feet the applicant must get a conditional/special permit, over 54 feet the applicant must get a variance. As the committee members pointed out the findings for a conditional use permit are far less rigorous than for a variance; Commissioner Deal felt strongly the commission should be issuing fewer variances because of the problems of f indings. The discussion began with a consideration of the concept of New Construction as expressed in the current code. Ultimately the committee concluded that this concept was not needed if we retained design review since the designers would be looking at all second story additions or new houses with second stories and these seem to be the ones that cause the massing impact. The 40� lot coverage limitation seems to keep the one story houses in check. However the committee agreed that if the concept of new construction was written out of the code then FAR should be retained and applied to all R-1 development (see suggestion below). With the idea of applying the review line concept on a broad base through out the R-1 district the following items were identified as appropriate for this approach: - height, have height between 30 feet to 36 feet be reviewed as a conditional use, based on need for architectural design consistency; over 36 feet would be a variance. - FAR would apply to all projects. An exception to FAR would be a conditional use permit rather than a variance. . FAR would be changed the base FAR would be .32 + 1100 SF including attached garage or covered parking. . If the project included a detached garage the allowed FAR would be .32 + 1500 SF provided at least 400 SF was included in a detached garage. - Reduce the maxi.mum house size from 8000 SF to 6000 SF; require conditional use permit from 6000 to 8000 GSF; variance for over 8000 SF. � �, - Double car garage door setback, increase from 23 feet to 35 feet from front property line. If single garage doors, side by side, retain 20 foot and 23 foot setback; if single garage doors side by side can be setback greater than 25 feet. - Single car garage attached should be set back 25 feet rather than the 20 feet now required. � / - Detached garages should be allowed, with a use permit to extend forward to the rear 40�, allowed in the rear 30� (as is now the rule), variance infront of the rear 40�. (CS 25.28.073) . Should add a requirement for the maximum depth of a garage within the rear 40� of 28 feet to address the extent of blank wall facing the 3/4/2016 � • � • Vancouver Ave �. _, � 3. . ---*� Vancouver Ave - Google Maps R '�i.�l. :- _ r�. ;,�,; .�� .� � _ Image capture: Apr 2015 O 2016 Google Burlingame, California `Z� p � �' ��.��,� �v'� • Street View - Apr 2015 � ` .��r' �c -�� ,✓� _,-� �;' �3+^c c ��/e/ %�� °'1 � e-� vi� ��n,^� ��1� 1 �=►L�� '�-� a-ti"-`� � �aS�t��n �� e https://www.google.com /m aps/@37.581232,-122.371806,3a,37.5y,172.63h,80.53Udata=! 3m 6! 1 e1 !3m4! 1 sp9BCwC Es R SD Sta71 OdC e0w!2e0!7i 13312!Si6656!6m 1! 1 e1 1/1 3/4/2016 (�j� ��e �/j�� Armsby Dr wnw^.ww.: am... .. �.. _. ._� _ - "rs Armsby Dr - Google Maps }''� � ri'[: � ' +t,.��.,_ . - Y - � ^� > ! �� _�.�'��.: � Image capture: Apr 2015 O 2016 Google Burlingame, California Street View - Apr 2015 12 � o �2c= t�=� �� `�,.--� Y c� v ��/1�� -irar� ��G�`� �Y�� W� e-t,� �� Y.��L a � �� av�c� } � https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5811052; 122.3718794,3a,75y,104.01h,73.O8Udata=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJt8TsT3Zo0BvBsgwwNWMzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 ��L �" �" 1/1 3/4/2016 ('jp g�� Armsby Dr �� ;� a�•��;�J� .�'�,sr �.+. ,., �. � � 4,, ��:� �:�,. � �� E �� , � .�, ,,� � r�;, .� �,�,,.'� � �' ,(�.��¢ } � ,> <e.�ss��J�`, - C r �. �. d�: r-�3yts^�a �,� a� � M , � -.-��m . - ' " » • . . . . . . .. y _ ., _�. - � • ,ti.� +�.*�� .� 1�, � , . > % `�� . 9, �� _� ��,� �'.a.;,�, 'F�� . �� Y�T:i T�>Y��"�� . . . '. v_ ', _ ' � =�.%'�_ Burlingame, California Street View - Apr 2015 Armsby Dr - Google Maps .�-�- ��-` ; � . � - ;� - � � �,. , , _ . � �w,,. . -'�" �,:�. ` t n . . -,.��'-� ^' . . . . i � ;�� t .. . l �: L. ` `' �'� �m_' �� \ ,� _ � Image capture: Apr 2015 O 2016 Google l 2 5 � ��-�-� � '�- � , �' � ,� �Y � r'1 �j r ,/�2� ��o�� GIL�';.� G -� � ��-� y �,'-� � , https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5809952,-122.3718812,3a,75y,111.06h,66.63Udata=!3m 6! 1 e1 !3m4!1 sQupeih7bo6yaN uXU OxN hTA�2e0!Ti 13312!8i6656!6m 1!1e1 1/1 Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: January 19, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 X Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Special Permit to reduce the number of parking spaces on site at 1250 Jackling Drive, zoned R1, APN: 027322040 January 19, 2016 � There is not enough project data to perform a Stormwater Division Review. Some information needed is site plan, lot size, existing lot coverage and floor area and proposed floor area and lot coverage. Please resubmit with this information. 2. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2'x3 or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at http://www.flowstobay.orq/Construction. Reviewed by: C,�.r�n Cr�� (, �, Date: 1 /25/2016 Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: January 19, 2016 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Special Permit to reduce the number of parking spaces on site at 1250 Jackling Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-322-040 January 19, 2016 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, and 2013 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1889. Note: If the Planning Commission has not approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2016 then this project must comply with the 2016 California Building Codes. 2) As of January 1, 2014, SB 407 (2009) requires non-compliant plumbing fixtures to be replaced by water-conserving plumbing fixtures when a property is undergoing alterations or improvements. This law applies to all residential and commercial property built prior to January 1, 1994. Details can be found at http•//wwwleginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb 0401- 0450/sb 407 bill 20091011 chaptered.html. Revise the plans to show compliance with this requirement. 3) Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://www.energ_y.ca.�ov/title24/2013standards/ for publications and details. 4) Provide two completed copies of the attached Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference - that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. 5) Place the following information on the first page of the plans: "Construction Hours" Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.) Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non- City Holidays behveen 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.rre. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right of way must now be included on the plans. 6) On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work. 7) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 8) Provide existing and proposed elevations. Note: Any revisions to the plans approved by the Building Division must be submitted to, and approved by, the Building Division prior to the implementation of any work not specifically shown on the plans. Significant delays can occur if changes made in the field, without City approval, necessitate further review by City departments or the Planning Commission. Inspections cannot be scheduled and will not be performed for work that is � not shown on the Approved plans. ► 9) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy U will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certi�cate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been final. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. NOTE: A condition of this project approval is that the Demolition Permit will not be issued and, and no work can begin (including the removal of a� building components), until a Building Permit has been issued for the project. The property owner is responsible for assuring that no work is authorized or performed. 10 When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 11) On the plans show that all openings in exterior walls, both protected and unprotected, will comply with 2013 CBC, Table 705.8. Provide a table or chart that specifies 1) the openings allowed and; 2) the size and percentage of the openings proposed. 12 RESIDENTIAL: Rooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Rooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. On the elevation drawin�s specify the location and the net clear opening height and widt/z of all required egress windows. 2013 California Residential Code (CRC) §R310. 13) ndicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. 14) pecify on the plans whether the fireplace is a gas or solid wood-burning device. If the fireplace is a solid wood-burning device clearly state on the plans that the fireplace will meet all requirements as a U.S.EPA Phase II certified wood-burning device. r 15 If the fireplace is a solid wood-burning device then specify on the plans that the fireplace chimney will terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet or will be retrofit with a fireplace insert (not a log lighter.) 2013 CRC § 1003.9. NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 1 through 15 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. The written resnonse must include clear direction re�arding where the reQuested information can be found on the plans. �� Reviewed by: �/LC� Date: % � � � � � �F�' Rick Caro III, CBO 650-558-7270 Project Comments Date: �� From: Subject: Staff Review: January 19, 2016 � Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 X Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Special Permit to reduce the number of parking spaces on site at 1250 Jackling Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-322-040 January 19, 2016 No comments at this time. Reviewed by: Christine Reed �� G�e � Date: 1-27-16 Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: January 19, 2016 � Engineering Division (650j 558-7230 � Building Division (650) 558-7260 X Parks Division (65D) 558-7334 � Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Special Permit to reduce the number of parking spaces on site at 1250 Jackling Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-322-040 January 79, 2016 % 1�. Existing site plan shows only 2 landscape tree. �-' Indude one (1) 24� box landscape tree to proposed site plan. Reviewed by: BD Date: 1/19/16 Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: StafF Review: January 19, 2016 X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 � Parks Division (650) 558-7334 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 � Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Planning Staff Request for Special Permit to reduce the number of parking spaces on site at 1250 Jackling Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-322-040 January 19, 2016 � l/ he existing site plan does not represent what is actually on the property. Please revise and dimension the driveway approach. Please show the location of the existing mailbox adjacent to the electrical pole. Please show the landscape and hardscape as existing. Reviewed by: M. Quan Date: 1/19/16 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for a Special Permit to reduce the number of on-site parkinq spaces at 1250 Jacklinq Drive, Zoned R-1, Lisa and Greqory Ott, propertv owners, APN: 027-322-040; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 14. 2016, 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 Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing and electrical conveyances, is hereby approved. 2. Said Special Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Special Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th dav of March, 2016 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Special Permit 1250 Jackling Drive Effective March 24, 2016 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 8, 2016, sheets A1 through A3.1; 2. that if the structure is altered at a later date and the number of bedrooms is increased, then the Special Permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 3. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's January 19, 2016 memo, the Building Division's January 20, 2016 memo, the Parks Division's January 19, 2016 memo, the Fire Division's January 27, 2016 memo, and the Stormwater Division's January 25, 2016 memo shall be met; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 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 all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. �CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 1250 JACKLING DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Special Permit to reduce the number of on- site parking spaces for an interior remodel at 1250 JACKLING DRIVE zoned R-l. APN 021-322-040 Mailed: March 4, 2016 (Please refer to other side) Citv of Burlinaame PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 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 fo other side) 5� � ,, � � - ,� �.� � / ��L p3 ina�trrmua� �� ' �� _ i' �';fb. �' � �' �>2 . Y_ _ j � l\ x� �' �'' f� : �` . / \ ,. �-�� :�.'€ ,� � ....r ��, ; `, 5�,, � _. . . � ;; �,,,_.� � _ £ ' # .. _ d- „y �•� �/g^..��. � C/6, � 49n.oiCQ4i1�N _ q _ ^ "�+�''� ��. .. �,:_�,,. � ��;� � : � �. � \ � � 3 s' .. '+� �� aweec� 1 ^8 - __ ,i,.,. `� `' , , t. l 's f .b _ > -a� r ti . . ,5: , r�� :' �-. r �a . T T - - ..� �� . _ ' .� � < ' � ,� . . y 1 c�s � .' I , � � �� ti ; ' r! � � � i` �'' ; �, ' � ` , . b , ' , .� � � �'� �� `�i` *�. rT' � ' � _. ;' � , +�,'� s � � � � �� t s , .. "' ` , � �_� �z � .' � « z , �� a , r >" . � � � � £f �€ t , . - � , � , : . . '�i „ . -. � ,- :-- � �+�. i! � . �� • � ;'' �y � �� . . L � i, ' � � �t. � ` ' � 4,' � � " ' � �` � + �} � � ° ` � � �' f i+r� � � �` " ^.e ! � � �� - � �,a ' � ' � �_. � � r ,�. �:� � � � �:, �; � r�� ,� ��, � y � ` "�A � % �'`� p � " �.,y� > � � ` „iA"• -�� ,• d- .. � / � _ � . . 'i' o � r r�'�, �`.` � - � �� ;� � F s� j � j � � � , i � ' � . .. J � � .� � f V �� _� �' � �'! ' 9 �� g � � ' `_ � � � � � � �',� � � �- ��' �� `� � `^` : f,� �ir : , �< � : € ,�'lb. � t �y . /�,� �1 L �r �. , a - r` ` s ;. � � � '�,�,Y`� .'�� '�. . � ��,� �J'��. __ + j,€' � ft� L� I;` 1� _ �._� f � �° f � r `v � r."�,?� � �. � +- '�'� �t � �" / � � - - � . .. . „ . J / �_ . "l''Y�' til�(a ' ,' � _ �- � � � t / N '.. . - � : 1V � __ '- \ � �-0, �% \ � � � . f 'k� _ ^ 3 � �' < � y ^'� : 6 �� ` � �, . ' . � � �> . �� • � � � _� '1 �� f,.�� ,� _ '*°p: �� ,� ��-. � �'�r P�"� € ,1� �+.� R '�� I .i i f � �� _ `�° .� � ., �` r fi � � � / � iex. � v �`- �+Y !. ��x d2 � , _ w � ,a-� - �� , � a ;� , � �� j ; �.� � �b � �� 4" , � � �,- �,0: . ./ �;� .�� .� � � � .� �` 'S� � � � . ,.� � �' � � - � � � � � � j � � �� ,a� � . . ` �p . [ za , _' , . � j s : f . �� . r � � �,t � �, -. ;�' w �" � ,,� � � '� �, � ��y; _ �� . , ..� ti . �, �.' . - � ; � �� y� x .._ ., . .. .. , .. , , 'l �`e E �� ' E = � �>�, �` 'GS' � 3� ��1� ', ♦ � ��- �: � � . � � € . _ � � . . ' � � � , , , / � � : r � .,�_°. / `ti � / � nc�< �� - �� 1�� ti� ,�`� f �. z� 1 � N , , y '� ti� � � ° 1�� "� � �" � y � r� g j� ;r � . � � m - � . . � � ., - : �+��.. * , �'.�.. �. �� - � � � , 4 � �' .� � 3 ,� , i � � ',b , � � � � : i� �`� c� � � v � ,� � , >; � � 6 , � ,� �' � � � � 4, � • � � , _ _ �r : �v�.. �'� >. �=_ , �- u9� . - �-�� _ � � . . � � : . � �;. »Qx _ �. ; � . � < k � 4�4r �, r� - ' ��4,� �.� � '� � �� 's ;� �:s � ° OE _ � +� � � � ._. -. . ,� _ � \" � s . �� a�, _ e �- � , = a:;. - �� 'i , E� - v te ` t " x ; \ � " �:�. -�e''� ��` . k; t - y �� -� ,�� ,_ ,`^ - ':_ _ 0 ay,��, � -� � +�' / � � a� �` � ��' � ., , � �� ; y � v � ,.� � � _; y°�:" : . . ,Y ' :� �...,. . ; �. � _. � ... x ` 4w S�A+ r✓ � :� � , ��_ �, . �� a: S y5 v > ,� n � n� � �' � , �" 5�1 " � s� . �'�., a g � . , . ,. �iYB. +° '�,. _ _ _ , r '`� . � F , ��: y� �`f � � \�'C " ' s I. $ a . . �� `�'., x- ., �'� .s� �"� ., �'•.�� ,� .�'� ,� ` '- . �� _ � �. . . :� : � -� : ,,. F . % ': � . � y ' ' " , ��-s- . " � ...3° `� _ ,�.,��.�.. -� , _ `� $ - _ "� t .� + A ��. � � � � � . �� ,�" �� .. ��4' X ..�,� Q � i ' �.-- ., _ .., :t. , '. �e � ��, : �, � . _ � f � r � t � � ' �-._ L ��'� ...�� 'b. � . " " � � f� V _. ; w�� ti . �' � = � �' - - f � . . � � <. . �� ,u ; � �,•. � � � ,� ,.r� � � � � �� 4 � ��/ �` � � � � � •-. �{ � ; � � ; � "� ti; _ t � � �� , a n , 3 /� ' .-.'�'+R �. '° �� ... f ! f R�fY} �� -._a ,g ��" � .�., � ' � VYy i = � � . Y� _�� ,y� �, ��l � ' � t � 4 �e / 4 S. l �'AB z1�• ` `�_ "�, j � . , - _ , `\ '� 'S�.�R": � i � � i L,- � � �,°��. t .a , _ .. ,_ " � �'�, , n,_.. � ��