HomeMy WebLinkAbout1566 Cypress Avenue - Staff ReportItem No. 8a
Regular Action
PROJECT LOCATION
1566 Cypress Avenue
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1566 Cypress Avenue
Item No. 8a
Regular Action
Meeting Date: July 10, 2017
Request: Application for Design Review for a new finro-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: James Chu, Chu Design Associates
Properly Owner: Lara E. Heisler Koob Trust and Mission Bay Trust
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 028-295-110
Lot Area: 6,294 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that
construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a
second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this
exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of
a project.
Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Heights subdivision. Based upon
documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was
indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood
Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be
potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any
property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any
significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated April 15, 2016.
The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of
Historical Resources under any criteria.
Project Description: The existing single story house and detached garage with a recreation room will be
demolished. The applicant is proposing a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The
floor area will be 3,330 SF (0.53 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 3,335 SF (0.53 FAR). The
proposed project is 5 feet under the maximum allowed FAR, including front porch exemptions.
With this project, there will be four potential bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are
required on site. There is one covered parking space (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions) in the proposed
detached garage and one uncovered parking space in the driveway leading to the garage. Therefore, the project
complies with off-street parking requirements.
An Arborist Report for the property was competed in November 2016. This report noted a Protected-Size Box
Elder on site that was assessed as having fair to poor vigor and a dead central leader. This tree fell over in a
storm in February 2017. The applicant applied for and was granted a retroactive Tree Removal Permit for this
tree in March 2017. There are two existing landscape trees on site that will remain with the construction and the
applicant proposes to add 4 additional (24-inch box size Japanese maple) landscape trees in the rear yard.
There are 3 required landscape trees for the project where there will be 6 landscape trees (existing and new) on
site. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)).
Design Review 1566 Cypress Avenue
1566 Cypress Avenue
Lot Area: 6,294 SF Plans date stam ed: Ma 24, 2017
� Proposed � Allowed/Req'd
�
SETBACKS � �
� I
Front (1st flr): 20'-8" � 20'-1" (is the block average)
(2nd flr): 26'-8" ; 20'-1"
.
----.. ..__..____.._,.........�._.....__._...._._.._...._..�_...._._�....._._ _� _.---�—
�
Side (left): 4'-0" 4'-0"
(righf): 10'-0" 4'-0"
____. ..� __ ..__.._..__._._�_....��.._
Rear (1st flr): 44'-7" � 15'-0"
f
(2nd flr): 58'-1" j 20'-0"
� —...._....._..�..._--._.�..�__......�....._.._..—._,_�.__�.....--�--.�..___
Lot Coverage: 2038 SF � 2517 SF
: —
33% � 40%
... _ .. ... .....__ ................ �...._..�.�._..---..._.__
FAR: 3330 SF 3335 SF'
0.53 FAR 0.53 FAR
# of bedrooms: ( 4 I ---
Off-Sfreet Parking: 1 covered 1 covered
(10' x 20') (10' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
__. _ ..—�_.__ . .._._.._..---._ �......
Height� 30'-0" 30'-0"
_-____. ___.�...._ ._._....._._....._.._._..._...._......� ....................._..........._..__..._.._.........._..��..........__._.�------____.� __
DH Envelope: i window enclosure exemption CS 25.26.075
applies along left side
' (0.32 x 6,294 SF) + 1100 SF + 200 SF = 3,335 SF (0.53 FAR)
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on May 22, 2017, the
Commission had several suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action
calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached May 22,
2017PIanning Commission Minutes).
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped May 24, 2017, to address the
Planning Commission's questions and comments. Listed below are the Commission's comments and responses
by the applicant.
1. The front elevafion appears rather flat, which makes fora sfark inferface with fhe street. What can be
done to address this?
• The plans have been revised so that the second floor windows at the front elevation have been reduced
in height and a planter box has been added beneath them. The planter box feature is repeated on the
second floor of the right, left, and rear elevations. In addition, the plans now show the details of the
proposed window and door trim.
-2-
Design Review
1566 Cypress Avenue
2. The fronf porch appears too small for a craffsman-style porch and doesn't engage with the rest of the
front fa�ade. The rendering submitted shows a stone base column for fhe porch supports, but thaf is
not reflected on the plans.
• The porch has been extended across the entire front elevation and the plans have been revised to show
the proposed stone base column on the porch supports. The window proposed at the right side of the
first floor has been changed to French doors beneath the extended porch covering.
3. The corbels shown appear a bif insubstanfial for this type of architecture.
• The number of corbels have been reduced and the size of those proposed is noted as 6-inch wood
brackets.
4. Can the exisfing Japanese maple be transplanted and the rose bushes be retained?
� The landscape plan shows the Japanese maple to be transplanted to the left side of the front yard and
that the existing rose bushes on the left side of the front yard will be retained.
5. The neighbor fo the /eft has some privacy concerns about the second story. Can anything be done
to improve the privacy?
• Sheet A.3.1 shows that the second floor bedroom window on the neighboring property will be across
from the proposed stairwell windows on the subject property. The distance befinreen the finro widows is
13'-4" and the stairwell windows are offset from the stair landing.
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.
Suggested Findings for Design Review: At the May 22, 2017 Design Review Study meeting the Planning
Commission noted that the proposed house was well massed, especially given that the lot size is narrower than
typical and that the plan proposes to retain the detached garage pattern that is typical for the neighborhood. The
Commission noted that the proposed Craftsman architecture with a strong single gable design fits into the
existing surrounding neighborhood and that design meets code requirements without requiring any code
exceptions. The extended porch enhances the interFace of the proposed house with the street. The proposed
materials are of high quality and consistent with other houses recently built and remodeled in the neighborhood.
For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design
review criteria.
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:
-3-
Design Review
1566 Cypress Avenue
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
May 24, 2017 sheets A.1 through A.6, L.1, and Boundary and Topographic Survey dated August 10,
2016;
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 staf�;
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 Building Division's February 14 and April 19, 2017 memos, the Parks Division's
February 21 and May 1, 2017 memos, the Engineering Division's February 14 and May 4, 2017 memos,
the Fire Division's February 15, 2017 memo and the Stormwater Division's February 22, 2017 memo
shall be met;
5. 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;
6. that demolition for 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016
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:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners,
set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation
at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
-4-
Design Review
1566 Cypress Avenue
13. 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;
14. 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 Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division 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.
Erika Lewit
Senior Planner
c. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer
Lara E. Heisler Koob Trust and Mission Bay Trust, property owners
Attachments:
Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, email sent May 23, 2017
Minutes from May 22, 2017 Design Review Study Meeting
Application to the Planning Commission
Arborist Report date stamped March 22, 2017
Protected Tree Removal Permit, issued March 30, 2017
Staff Comments
Letters from applicant and neighbors (total of three) date stamped May 22, 2017
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 30, 2017
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachments:
Historical Resource Evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated April 15, 2016
-5-
.
_ ..-
_..�l:�
BURLINGAME �:
�;
I 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
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1566 CYPRESS AVE.
APPLICANT
Name: CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES
Address: 55 W. 43RD AVE.
City/State/Zip: SAN MATEO, CA 94403
Phone: 650-345-9286 x104
E-mail: James@chudesign.com
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: JAMES CHU
Address: 55 W. 43RD AVE.
City/State/Zip: SAN MATEO, CA 94403
Phone: 650-345-9286 x104
E-mait: lames@chudesig n.com
❑ Parcel #: 028-295-110
❑ Zoning / Other:
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: MISSION BAY TRUST
Address: 1566 CYPRESS AVE.
City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME, CA
Phone: 209-652-5570
E-mail: rheis7211 @aol.com
����ti��.���
FEB � 0 2017
22684 CITY OF BURLINGAME
Burlingame Business License #: CDD-PI..AN�fIPJG DIV.
Authorization to Reproduce Project 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 ArchitectlDesigner)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE W/ DETACHED 1-CAR GARAGE
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby
best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature:
I am aware of the proposed appli at
Commission.
Property owner's signature:
Date: � / ��I �7
Date submitted:
d r penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
Date: � I � �" ��
�
hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
.► . _
S: �HANDOUTS�PC Application. doc
CD/PLG-Erika Lewit
From: James Chu <james@chudesign.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 4:26 PM
To: CD/PLG-Erika Lewit
Cc: laraheisler4@yahoo.com; Bob Heisler; 'Ryan Ortiz'
Subject: 1566 Cypress Ave (revised)
Attachments: SET - CYP1566.pdf
Hi Erika,
We are planning to resubmit this project tomorrow to be on next PC meeting.
I believed we have addressed all Planning Commissioners' comments, and these are:
1. Adding the front porch along the front of the house.
2. Reduced the size of the windows at 2"d floor, and added a planter box.
3. Removed some outriggers and added wooden brackets.
4. More trims around the windows/doors.
5. We have kept the existing rose plants.
6. We will transplant existing Japanese maple to different location at front.
We have also provided a window location (2"d floor only) of our left side neighbor.
Please let me know if you have any question.
Regards,
James
James Chu
Email: James�chudesign.com
VVebsite: www.chudesi . n.q com
Chu Design Associates, Inc.
CUSTOM HO�IE DESIGN & ENGINEERING
55 West 43rd Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Tel: (650)345-9286 x104
Fax: (650)345-9287
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft May 22, 2017
> �ll have a prob/em supporting the deck,� has all the earmarks of becoming a party deck. Ne�
neighbors cou/d be disturbed in the future. Disrupts the patterns of most of Burlingame's neighbor ds
where most activity is on the ground f/oor. f ��'�
> Cou/d provide a much smaller deck that is /ess of an impact.
> Deck is too large for the property.
> East facade fireplace needs a different treatment.
> The large deck may have a real impact on the neighbors. °`'� �'
> If the deck were converted to a ridge roof, then cou/d provide a cathedral aig for the firsf floor.
> Is a handsome project.
> Applicant could move fonvard as designed,� if the deck '"'not revised, then shou/d provide story
po/es. Can't mock up potential impacts upon noise.
> Normally accept decks with depths of no gre i than six to eight feet,� would require a major
reduction in the size of the deck. See nothing u' e about this property that warrants such a/arge deck.
Not certain fhat the story poles will be he/pful.
> Doesn't believe story po/es are necess . o address the concerns expressed.
> Reduce the size of the deck.
> Reduce at least by ha/f, but ►v' �ttg to listen to a compelling argument.
> Wou/d like to seek som er ideas about how fo mitigate sound from the deck.
A motion was m by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, place the item
on the Reg Action Calendar when ready for consideration. The motion carried by the
following .
Aye: 6- Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Comaroto
Absent: 1 - Kelly
b. 1566 Cypress Avenue - Environmental Scoping and Design Review for a new,
two-story dwelling with detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design, designer and
applicant; Mission Bay Trust and Lara E. Heisler Koob Trust property owners) (58
noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit
Anachments: 1566 Cvpress Ave - Staff Re�ort
1566 Cvpress Ave - Attachments
1566 Cvpress Ave - Historical Resource Analvsis
1566 Cvpress Ave - Plans
All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum noted that he met with the neighbor to the left of
the site at 1570 Cypress. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she will recuse herself from participating in
the discussion of this matter as she resides within 500-feet of the property,� she left the Council
Chambers.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an ovenriew of the sfaff report.
Questions of Staff.�
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
James Chu and Laura Heisler represented the applicant. Ms. Heisler read a statement into the record.
Commission Questions/Commenfs:
> Requested information regarding projecf details. The project is hand/ed nicely. Is a typical design
City ofBudingame Page 7 Printed on 8/21/2017
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft May 22, 2017
that has been considered previously. Have crafted a design that fits with the narrow dimension of the
property.
> Requested clarification regarding the based for the front columns. (Chu: will be stone, consistent
with the rendering.)
> The windows look real/y large in the rendering, but appear properly dimensioned in the plans.
Requested clarification regarding window details. (Chu: will come back wifh more details. The co/or of
the windows is not accurately represented in the rendering.)
> The window trims look a bit thin. �
> Wth respect ot the corbels a/ong the eave line. Is there a vertical e/ement with the corbels? (Chu:
yes, there will be knee braces.)
> Potential for the project to be richly detail, but the current presentation has caused neighbor
concerns.
> �th respect to the landscaping, noted that the Camelia bushes appear to be rep/acing the Rose
bushes; can this be revisted? (Chu: yes.)
> Requesfed that transplanfation of fhe Japanese Map/e tree in the front yard be considered.
> Cou/d the porch be enlarged in size? Cou/d help with the face-print of the building. This cou/d help
bring down the sca/e of the facade.
> Requested c/arification regarding the finishing materia/s proposed. Appears that the maferials are
the same as used on other projects designed by the architect in the neighborhood. (Chu: confirmed that
this is true. The owner is a deve/oper and is building it for himself. Wou/dn't use lesser quality materials
on the house.)
> Believes that detailing will he/p with the flat facade.
> A front porch is a key component of a Craftsman sty/e; any consideration to making it more
prominent? (Chu: will review. Noted that the house doesn't maximize the f/oor area.)
> Look at interface of stainvell window with neighbor's property. (Chu: can provide a p/an that shows
the relationship).
Public Comments:
Dan March, 1556 New/ands Avenue: will the wood fence be placed against the chain link fence around
his pool?
David McGinn, 1570 Cypress Avenue: Commission has addressed his concems. Wished to defer his
fime to Peter Comaroto.
Peter Comaroto, 1576 Cypress Avenue: noted a modem home in the neighborhood that was approved
that doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. Doesn't be/ieve in approving designs that result in an eclectic
neighborhood in this area. Encouraged fhe Commission fo pay attention to the predominant style in the
neighborhood. His home was insu/ted by fhe developer of this project. Would like the applicant to be a
part of the community.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Likes the design of the house. Looks like if fits with the neighborhood.
> Agrees with others' critique of the defailing.
> The details and the porch design need more attention.
> The rendering doesn't properly represent the defailing shown on the project plans.
> Likes the overall design; a strong single gable is hard to pu/l off on a narrow lot. Shou/d make better
use of fhe 200 square foot exemption for the front porch: perhaps consider a shed roof over the porch .
Look at the porch roof in relationship to the second f/oor window.
> Will �t well in the neighborhood with more detailing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, that the
applicant be placed on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration.
City of Burlingame Page 8 Printed on 8/21/2017
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft May 22, 2017
Commission Discussion:
> Requested that the applicant consider the rear neighbors concerns regarding the fence hear
his swimming pool.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5- Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Gaul
Absent: 1 - Kelly
Recused: 1 - Comaroto
c. 1212 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first d
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and demolition of an isting
detached garage and construction of a new detached one car garage a,� carport
(InSite Design - Audrey Tse, applicant and project architect; Greg rfd Roseate
Wagner, property owners) (51 noticed) Staff Contract: Catherine Keylon ,,�
Anachments: 1212 Vancouver Ave - Staff Reaort and Attachments
1212 Vancouver Ave - Plans
Commissioner Comaroto returned to the dais. Al/ Commissioners had v' fed the property. Chair Gum
met with the neighbor at 1216 Vancouver Avenue.
Community Development Direcfor Meeker provided an overview of the st report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Audrey Tse and Greg and Roseate Wagner represented � applicanf.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> In looking at the upper roof, it looks li the upper roof doesn't extend across the top; why? (Tse: for
cost and massing purposes.) Will look ' e a false front, particularly from the left side. Have any 3D
views been prepared? (Tse: there a� other similar homes in the neighborhood.) Wou/d permit attic
storage if it were extended across. May quire a rendering from the left side.
> On the front, it /ooks like the ch on the first f/oor is being duplicated on the upper gable; is this the
infent? (Tse: yes.) Fee/s a bit f d as it appears to be super-sca/ed,� wou/d look better at a smaller sca/e.
Are there other options. (Ts ,�� could bring the c/osets between the windows closer together.) Perhaps
provide a small, clay-tile / ning over this second f/oor area to provide scale. Perhaps prepare a 3D
massing diagram. /
> Agrees with the co ents regarding the upper f/oor windows on the front.
> The windows lo disorganized,� building feels like it was designed from the inside out,� feels like the
exterior is a bit ' organized. Doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason to the window p/acement. Looking
for something t pulls the design together. With another designer, cou/d have considered referral to a
design revie consu/tant. (Tse: concemed more about the side e/evations?) Yes, the disorganized
windows primarily on the side e/evations; the stair window doesn't appear appropriate. (Tse: the stair
window s provided to address the declining height enve/ope issue.)
> F/s the same as the other Commissioners. Nof certain that the roof pitch works; was looking for
so thing more like a pattem that is present on the first floor. Also concerned about the parapets.
couraged the preparation of perspectives from the left and right. (Tse: felt that having a second story
with the same roofline as the first f/oor made it look more like a civic building; were trying to fit it in with
the neighborhood.) Is an eclectic neighborhood. Looking for a bit more cohesiveness between the first
Clty of Burlingame Page 9 Printed on 8/21/2017
, . ,
Kielty Arborist Services
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
P.O. Box 6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650-515-9783
November 28, 2016, Revised March 9, 2017
Mission Bay Trust
Attn: Lara Heisler
PO Box 117537
Burlingame, CA 94011
Site:1566 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, CA
Dear Lara Heisler,
As requested on Thursday, November 17, 2016, I visited the above site for the purpose of
inspecting and commenting on the trees. A new home is planned for this site and your concern
as to the future health and safety of the trees on site has prompted this visit.
Method:
All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection. The
trees in question were located on a map provided by you. The trees were then measured for
diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The trees were
given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees condition rating is based on 50 percent
vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale.
1 - 29 Very Poor
30 - 49 Poor
50 - 69 Fair
70 - 89 Good
90 - 100 Excellent
The height of the trees was measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was
paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided.
�����n..� :�...
a �4:,�, ,��
Q� � �:� �� �
P,�AR � � 2Gi7
C�7v 0� Qu�! i�vG�r�n�
CDD-F��J�!lNG DIV.
1566 Cypress Ave /3/9/17
Survey:
Tree# Species DBH
1 P Washington hawthorn 3.8
(Crataegus phaenopyrum)
2P Washington hawthorn 3.7
(Crataegus phaenopyrum)
�2)
CON HT/SP Comments
70 12/8 Fair vigor, good form, young street tree.
80 12/8 Good vigor, fair form, young street tree.
3R Birch 4.2 45 10/5 Fair vigor, poor form, topped.
(Betula pendula)
4P Camphor 22.3 55 35/30 Fair vigor, fair to poor form, topped in past,
(Cinnamomum camphora) 1.5 feet from corner of home, shared tree on
property line, abundance of deadwood on
neighbor's side like from past root cutting
for neighbor's driveway.
SPR
0
Box elder
(Acer negundo)
Birch
(Betula pendula)
17.9 45 20/30 Fair to poor vigor, poor form, multi leader at
4 feet, central leader is dead, sunscald on
south east side of all limbs, 30-40% loss of
conducting tissue on most limbs, topped in
past, topping has caused the sun scald.
Failed as of 2/26/17
5.2 65 20/12 Good vigor, fair form, heavy into neighbors
yard.
7R Myoporum 6.2 40 15/10 Poor vigor, fair form, poor species.
(Myoporum laetum)
8 Chinese elm 8.7 80 25/25 Good vigor, good form.
(Ulmus parviflora)
P-Indicates protected tree by ciry ordinance.
R-Indicates trees recommended for removal.
Summary:
The trees on site are a mix of imported trees. Trees #1 and #2 are recently planted street trees.
These trees are in good condition. All street trees are to be protected during construction
regardless of size.
Birch tree #3 has been radically topped in the past. As a result this tree will need the same type
of maintenance often. Topping trees is never recommended as it creates a tree with poor form
that is more prone to failure. Birch tree #3 is not protected and does not need a permit to be
removed.
1566 Cypress Ave /3/9/17 (3)
Camphor tree #4 is in fair condition. This tree is a protected tree because of its size. This tree is
located on the property line on the south side of the property only 1.5 feet from the existing
home. The neighbor has cut roots on his side of the tree in order to facilitate construction of a
new driveway. The tree has experienced a good amount of dieback on the neighbors side of the
tree. This is likely due to the past root cutting on that side of the tree. The proposed new home
will be pushed back farther away from the tree. This will benefit the tree as the tree will have
more area to spread its roots. When demolishing the existing home great care should be taken in
order to not damage the tree. Tree protection fencing must be placed as close as possible to the
existing home and out to the dripline of the tree where possible. Once the home has been
demolished tree protection should be moved farther from the tree and be placed as close to the
proposed home as possible. Impacts to this tree from the proposed construction are expected to
be nonexistent as the area where roots can thrive is to be greater than its current state.
Box elder tree #5 is in decline. This tree has been topped in the past. The past topping has
opened the tree up to sun scald. All exposed limbs have large scared sections on the south east
side of the limbs. Sunscald has caused a loss in conducting tissue affecting the entire tree. It is
recommended to remove this tree as no mitigation measures would be expected to improve the
health of this tree. On February 26th, 2017 I was notified that this tree had failed during the
winter storms.
The remaining trees are not of a protected size. Myoporum tree 7 is recommended to be
removed as this species suffers from thrip attack and grows in a distorted fashion. The following
tree protection plan will help to insure the future health of the retained trees.
Tree Protection Plan:
Tree Protection Zones
Tree protection zones should be installed and maintained throughout the entire length of the
project. Fencing for tree protection zones should be 6' tall, metal chain link material supported
by metal 2" diameter poles, pounded into the ground to a depth of no less than 2'. The location
for the protective fencing should be as close to the dripline of desired trees as possible, still
allowing room for construction to safely continue. No equipment or materials shall be stored or
cleaned inside the protection zones. Areas outside protection zones, but still beneath the tree's
driplines, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched with 4-6" of chipper
chips. The spreading of chips will help to reduce compaction and improve soil structure.
1566 Cypress Ave /3/9/17 (4)
��
C
F
,e
�t
:3
�
,i}!�,
f .�;
;, �r.
M��: �:
.;, � - ,
...
�� � z ' I
. , �,t.E �
. . _.. „ } . 1 � .�.. ,a� ---. .. _.
� t ��.r. .�j,._� �...� �
t �
'��c":�,�,,;�;�;�;ro.. ,a,i`-',1 � s
`�;- � $p �a� �a° � r,�
Showing recommended tree protection zones
Root Cutting and Grading
Any roots to be cut shall be monitored and documented. Large roots (over 2" diameter) or large
masses of roots to be cut must be inspected by the site arborist. The site arborist, at this time,
may recommend irrigation or fertilization of the root zone. All roots needing to be cut should be
cut clean with a saw or lopper. Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered
with layers of burlap and kept moist.
Trenching and Excavation
Trenching for irrigation, drainage, electrical or any other reason shall be done by hand when
inside the dripline of a protected tree. Hand digging and the careful placement of pipes below or
besides protected roots will significantly reduce root loss, thus reducing trauma to the tree. All
trenches shall be backfilled with native materials and compacted to near its original level, as
soon as possible. Trenches to be left open for a period of time, will require the covering of all
exposed roots with burlap and be kept moist. The trenches will also need to be covered with
plywood to help protect the exposed roots.
1566 Cypress Ave /3/9/17 (5)
Irrigution
Nornlal irrigation shall be maintained on this site at all times. "I'he imported trees will require
normal irrigation. On a construction site, I recommend irrigation during winter months, 1 time
per month. Seasonal rainfall may reduce the need for additional irrigation. During the warm
season, April — November, my recommendation is to use heavy irrigation, 2 times per month.
'1'his type of irrigation should be started prior to any excavation. The irrigation will improve the
vigor and water content of the trees. "I'he on-site arborist may make adjustments to the irrigation
recommendations as needed. The foliage of the trees may need cleaning if dust levels are
extreme. Removing dust from the foliage will help to reduce mite and insect infestation. No
irrigation is required for the oak tree on site unless its root zone is traumatized.
"I'he information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural
principles and practices.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Kielty David P. Beckham
Certitied Arborist WE#0476A Certified Arborist WE#10724A
,. : �
°���(
', .�c _
� _: . �--:'
pa�: Q3/22/2017
PROTECTED TREE
PERNIIT .APPLII
Parks � Recreatiun Dep�
8St1 Bur/.i�eganee Avenue, Burlrrc�
(650) SS&7330
The undersigned owner of the property at:
Address:1566 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame
hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3
5�;�: Box Elder
���, on P,.���y Rear Yard
EMOVAL
TIQN
CA 94010
of the canopy of the following protected tree(s):
�ircnmference• 45
Work to be Performed: Removal x Trim More 'I'�an 1/3 of the Crown
tteason woric is Necessary: Tree fell during Pres. day storm ; removed while out vf town on vacation
Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Buildiog Project? YES X� NO
Note: A p6otograph of the tree{s) and a schematic drawing of the lacation of the h�ee(s) on the property muat be
subm�l along with $'75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Addidonal doc{�nrentation n�aybe required to support removoL
Attach any doeu►n�►rlation you �ury hav� (Exampie: Report from an rndeperlderrt drborist, pichrres of damG{ged structures,
leners of concern from neighbors, etc.).
o�,,,,,er ��.;�r� Lara E. Heisler p�;o� 650-515-8866
�
Ada� 1566 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame �a;� laraheisler4@yahoo.com
(if di,�erera than above)
-----------------------______----- ------ :
----�w_� �----------_--_--_.._--------------__
PERMIT — FOR OFFIC� ITSE ONLY
Payn[ent ReG � ; � � � Payment Method �.�� t `-�!}'
'This permit allows the app]icant to remove or prune the above listed tr.ee(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban
Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Mumcipat Code C et 11.06). By signing this pertnit, the applicant
acknowledg es receipt of a copy of C r I 1.06, and agrees to comp�y with its provis�ons and all condrtions listed below;
and thai all appeals have expired or b resolved ,� .
OWNER SIGNATURE , -( '
CITY ARBORIST , .y t -1 � "�- . �r � .' �
CONDITIONS: L� ; s- 24 - utch box si� landscupe tree(s) (�to frrrit or nut trees} wJl be
required ond may be planted anywhere on the property. If con,ditions are not niet within
die allotted Hme as speci, fled in Cliap ter I L 06.090. @)(S), Payment of $ 700 for each ttee
into the trce replacementjund wiU be required.
NO rep lacement(s) required Contact rhe Parks Division at
(650) SS&7330 when rerrwva!(s) are complded
B UILDING PROJECT: Pernrit iit�,�'ective trntil a, jter planiein,g Conunission review
DATE PERMIT EFFEC'CIVE � "' �� ' I � PERM[T EXPIRES_ t � �� ' I � `
DATE COMPLETED
This work should be done by quali�j�ed tree professionals and a copy of this permit rnust be avaitable at t/te job
site at aU tintes when wnrk is being perfor�ned a�aotsreviaed
� CITY
�� �T
� , �' �
�:,`,'�,�
,
t � �_
Project Comments - Planning Application
Project Address: 1566 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-110
Description: Request for for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
single family dwelling.
From: Carolyn Critz
Stormwater
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised
plans with your resubmittal:
Project does not create or replace >2,500 square feet of impervious surface nor have any
architectural copper. Nothing further needed at this time.
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as
they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
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'x 3' or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at:
http://www.flowstobay.orq/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction
BMP Plan Sheet.
For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance
Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolyn.critz(c�veolia.com
Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: February 22, 2017
(650) 342 3727, ext. 118
� CITY O
�i;�l �
_��.; ,.�
��< <���_ �..'
, ., '
�9,.�,,.�.
Project Comments - Planning Application
Project Address: 1566 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-110
Description: Request for for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
single family dwelling.
From: Christine Reed
Fire Dept.
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised
plans with your resubmittal:
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as
they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal:
1. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — A schematic of water
lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building permit plans prior to approval indicating
location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines.
Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 2-15-17
650-558-7617
�� CITY O�
�� � � � �
���:�f�
� � °�_�.
��,.�.,.a,
Project Comments - Planning Application
Project Address: 1566 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-110
Description: Request for for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
single family dwelling.
From
Martin Quan
Public Works Engineering
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised
plans with your resubmittal:
z. No comments at this time.
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they
will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
3. A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit is required to (1) replace all curb, gutter, driveway
and sidewalk fronting site, (2) plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and install a new
4" lateral, (3) all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed
per city standard procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city's
right-of-way.
Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 5/4/17
650-558-7245
� CITY �
�� �
� , � ; �
_``� ,�
�< <`�_�_. �
�-9,.�,�.o,
Project Comments - Planning Application
Project Address: 1566 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-110
Description: Request for Design Review for new, two-story single-family dwelling and new
detached garage.
From
Rick Caro III
Building Division
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised
plans with your resubmittal: No Comment
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as
they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
1) 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.
Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: April 19, 2017
650 558-7270
�� CITY O�
�� : � 1 �
�`�►;���
R' k ' ,
tir- � �� .,
Project Comments - Planning Application
Project Address: 1566 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-110
Description: Request for for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
single family dwelling.
From
Bob Disco
Parks Division
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised
plans with your resubmittal:
1. Permit required for removal of 15" Acer in backyard. This Acer is a protected size tree.
2. Rehabilitated landscape must comply with the Water Conservation in Landscape
Ordinance (attached) Irriqation plan due for Buildinq Permit.
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they
will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
1. Include Kielty Arborist Tree Protection Plan on building plans.
Reviewed By: BD Date: 5/1/17
650.558.7333
Date: May 22, 2017 PC Meeting
Address: 1566 Cypress Avenue
Comments provided by: Lara Heisler (Builder and Applicant)
To: The Building Planning Commission:
Good Evening. My name is Lara Heisler. I am the daughter of Bob and Donna Heisler who are the
applicants and future residents of the proposal for a single family residence located at 1566 Cypress
Avenue, Burlingame, CA. My parents picked this lot because they wanted to be within walking distance
to downtown Burlingame, not only for convenience but for continued independence since they are
entering their golden years. We believe this current proposed design not only meets all the Burlingame
Building requirements, but is also aesthetically beautiful and consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood.
The proposed house was designed by James Chu, a highly-respected architect in the community. He has
also designed 1508, 1510 and 1555 Cypress. All beautiful well thought out home designs, just like this
one.
The materials, as reflected in the rendering, are of high quality and fit not only the neighborhood, but all
of Burlingame. In my opinion, the rendering is gorgeous. I think my parents will be very happy to call this
home. �
I would like to add that we are restricted by the width of this lot. It is only� feet wide, unlike most
neighboring lots which are at least 50 feet wide or greater. Even with this limiting feature, we have
presented a beautiful home that meets all the requirements with no requested variances.
Lastly, we received and read the two submitted emails from Peter Comaroto (1570 Cypress) and David
McNinch & Gisela Paulsen (1576 Cypress). Both neighbors question our choice of materials,
architectural design & details, and impact on resale value. However, we believe we have submitted an
application for a beautiful home that compliments the neighborhood and community and meets the
Burlingame building requirements.
Thank you for your time.
Best,
Lara Heisler
05.22.17 PC Meeting
Item 9b
1566 Cypress Ave
Page 1 of 1
From: peter comaroto [mailto:�comarotoCa�amail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 1:12 PM
To: GRP-Planning Commissioners
Cc: peter comaroto
Subject: 1566 Cypress Avenue Comments
TO: Burlingame Planning Commissioners
RE: 1566 CYPRFSS AVENUE?, [3URL[NGAME, CA 94010
DATE: MONDAY, MAY 22, 2017
RF: COMMf?N'I'S
Good evening Planning Commissioners,
COMMUNICATION RECEI VED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF' STAFF REPORT
�ECEIV��
MAY 2'L 2[1^:�7
CITY OF BURLING.�e�v��-
C�� _ PLANNI�J� �lit.
1555 Cypress Avenue is a good example of'a home that was torn dowm and rebuilt that fits into the neighborhood. 1 believe this
was also a home that James Chu �rorked on. The house on 1566 Cypress does not fit with the style of similaz homes on the street.
7'he [wo large w indows look likc thc back of a house put on the front as an after thought. The windows are huge and the front
porch is very tiny. This house ��ould fit in nicely in S.S.F. It seems that thc designer/architect is designing the house for a
minimum cost build not to include architectural details that �vould othenvise fit into the neighborhood. It seems that the new•
o���ners will be entering and exiting the house from the side and the only use for the front door is for guests. The tront door and
porch seems to be a cut and paste inscrt and that the inside of the house was designed f'or maximum rooms and the only
reasonable spot to patch the door in ��as on the lef4 front side. "I'his does not look to be a design that is ��•orthy nor representativc
of the excellent �vork that .lames Chu has done in [3urlingamc. Perhaps the budget was vcry small and thc o��ner �ras directing
Mr. Chu lo minimize design built cost and maximize sq. footage and sale price. As 1 do not disagree with property o�timers
ma�imizing their potential profit, this should not be done at the expensc of reducing the value of the surrounding neighborhood
and property o��ners caluations.
This home is not a good example of a house that should be built in a$3.2-$4.SM house neighborhood. If the house ��as purchased
for $1342M built for $800K and sold for $3.2M there ���ill be a profit around the $1M mark. It is appropriate to ask the owmer to
properly build a home with the fine materials and architectural design that compliments the neighborhood. Please encourage the
o�mer to do so.
Thank you for taking the time to review my� comme�ts.
Peter Comaroto
650-7871743
1576 Cypress Avenue
BeSi,
Peter G. Comaroto
650-787-1743
05.22.17 PC Meeting
Item # 96
1566 Cypress Avenue
Page 1 of 1
From: David McNinch [mailto:david mcninchCa�msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 5:12 PM
To: CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon
Cc: petergumCc�kwrealty.com; Gisela Paulsen
Subject: 1566 Cypress Ave Comments
Catherine,
C(�tlltllUNIC :4710N RECEI VED
AFTER PREPARATIO��'
OF STAFF REPORT
��E�;�i\l��
�;�aY 22 2o��r
CITY E�F BURLINGFif��:
C{�� PI�.ANNINC� L:l1/.
Thanks for giving me your card. Please pass this email along to members of the planning commission. I
am copying Peter Gum as he was kind enough to stop by and ask if we had comments on the plans.
My wife and 1 are the homeowners at 1570 Cypress Ave. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input
on the proposed design of 1566 Cypress Ave. We have the following comments:
• The proposed design does not seem consistent from a curb appeal standpoint as other newer
houses on Cypress Ave. To the best of my knowledge, 1508, 1510, and 1555 are the only houses
built within the last 5-7 years. The design and materials of these houses should represent the
minimum standard allowable for new construction. I would ask the commission to evaluate the
front design, landscaping, and material proposed to be used against this minimum standard.
• New construction for Burlingame Park is selling for $1300+ per square foot, making the
proposed house a$4 million+ property if at recent peer new construction. If it is not consistent,
it will bring the sq ft pricing down, thus negatively affecting neighbor property values
• The garage appears to be smaller than other peer new construction properties on Cypress
• We would ask that the plans require frosted glass on the master bathroom window on the left
of the house across from our bathroom
• We would ask that consideration be given to window location to ensure windows are not
directly facing windows to our property. This does not seem to be an issue at first look of the
plans, but would ask the architect to consider.
• There is very little room between the current structure and our property line. We would ask
that the builder be sure to maintain minimum setback standards. This setback consideration
should be against the farthermost outside of the house to property line, not just the
foundation.
• We would ask that a new fence between our properties be required as the current fence is
toward the end of its expected lifecycle. Construction will only put further strain on the wear
and tear of the fence.
Thanks again for your attention to these thoughts.
Best regards,
David McNinch and Gisela Paulsen
. 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: 1566 CYPRESS AVENUE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the PUBLIC HEARING
following public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2017 at NOTICE
7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review for a new, two-story dwelling
with detached garage at 1566 CYPRESS AVENUE zoned
R-l. APN 028-295-110
Mailed: June 16, 2017
(Pfease refer to other side)
Citv 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
fPlaa.ca rPfPr f� nthPr .Sidel
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desiqn
Review for a new two story sinqle familv house and a detached qaraqe at 1566 Cvpress Avenue,
Zoned R-1, Lara E. Heisler Koob Trust and Mission Bav Trust propertv owners APN� 028-295-110;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Julv 10,
2017, 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 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that
construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family
residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review,
is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for such Design Review 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 10th dav of Julv, 2017 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review
1566 Cypress Avenue
Effective July 20, 2017
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped May 24, 2017 sheets A.1 through A.6, L.1, and Boundary and Topographic Survey
dated August 10, 2016;
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
staf�;
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 Building Division's February 14 and April 19, 2017 memos, the
Parks Division's February 21 and May 1, 2017 memos, the Engineering Division's February
14 and May 4, 2017 memos, the Fire Division's February 15, 2017 memo and the
Stormwater Division's February 22, 2017 memo shall be met;
5. 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;
6. that demolition for 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review
1566 Cypress Avenue
Effective July 20, 2017
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor
area ratio for the property;
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this
survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
13. 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;
14. 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 Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division 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
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�°"' - '.� — . PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 1566 CYPRESS AVENUE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the PUBLIC HEARING
following public hearing on MONDAY, JULY 10, 2017 at NOTICE
7:00 P.M. in ihe City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review for a new, two-story dwelling
with detached garage at 1566 CYPRESS AVENUE zoned
R-1. APN 028-195-110. (THIS ITfM WAS CONIINUfO FiPOM THf
JUNf 16, ?0I7PLANNING COMMISSIONMffIlN6.J.
Mailed: June 30, 2017
(Please refer to other side)
Citv of Burlinaame
�
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
� ��, µ�; � .�l : — �,� ; -. �„ � -�� ��,�, ,�� „� * � _`'�� �i , . `• *' .���`" �� ,�� �� ` ��' ��i, - r � -�� �r� ���
'�, , �vxF �. � ",��/ _ .�y +'�1M, �� •�`• � �` �` � + `+���� � 1 � ��� 1
n 1' .�. ; . � -1
�,�' � 4 ; r ��• j' l ;.fi � � ' �+ . ,.., �, �-
r • �/' • � � �, ;�„ � �_. -.!+�/� � �: ..�. . � . `�' `,� r�.;
:_•'% , ,' j � � .,,r;�'"• � � ,e � �� �� �r.�•+� . ~+� .�'� �� •; �r ""�
♦ '' ` ���.� � ��`
. :�,.; �• . ��,. � .t, •� .. �►..� ~ ��� `� �. � . 1', ;�"�'�`'''�`r�� � a�.
�. ��� ��f ���Ir, . • � ��� � '� � ,. ,�
. � �' , !�� � .� � � � � _�y � � , � ' � � �
�'!#'� � , � '� ��:'� � � �'� , ,'- -�•�.. � . '�+Y' �� � �' '�n � _
• '�;;� �+ _ � s '.1
� � � ., . s x 1 �► Y'� '�� � �
�� .,� �+ i �� � �` � �. .I� }! � � � �+�,,�
� �R'- � �i! 'Og ���'!a'r'►'� 1i+ • - � a"„� -� �. j � 1f VV -
� t; _ �, ��" � , �, ,`. "�,'�.., - .. /r � �t!.,tr , �
��" �' � 1 r, �' •, '•� "� � .,, 'y4 ' - � . �. � , � �
, - �. . � � �� �-A•�� �.—^--.:� , . `� ,, �9��
� ' ` _�+ t'�'` r ,� ,� , ' � . +li�� + "' �,�� �� „ ' � �'��,[�,�'-�' `
," :� � '-�, ', '(, ,� ��,Z,'1';�, � .� i . ,`�, Y � -�� i �M" + ,y.�`a�c�r �.
`
, ' � . ,: : , �1� �'f'�1�� ' �► ,,� �` ' � � � ,'rt . i� ,t�' �,� �.•.�.
�� �'� � * ^ �. _� � J� �;� �_ r "� „� r �d '' •
� r��" � � ,, _ ' ��'�```� � '. ~�.`„' � ""`� .� I��.� � ' �` ' •
� � 1�► � � � `"�' • �,� � ' ,�+ •'�",��`�� .'iI; } '"� �;'�
�" •• `'" .' ', � . a, T �= : �'" �, ' � � ` � ,
� �, . j � ,�I � ` � �' t' ` � , �, ^A Rr.�
�� � �� � �'f � � � - : 1 �! , + `� �' a° ' � ` �
�a .�.,. � '�'�'+ - x'�'�l.yc� "••��i. �.�1� :�` �- —♦ �' �. y�
�i� �� , y� .. "' S ► � �' �i'� '��� i �. � �
it.. � � �, ' �'"� J '�,... "i� :� �+' � .,�'w
,, r,. ,}�'�. . ,�a �� � , � .. '4 -- - �• ��
�
� y �.. . , �' ` , A t � � . �} '� '! +
� '�" �i', � 1 - ��'i �� �` . .t � M'�i"�,�'.., . -� �
`o ,� � � � •��.`., • ' T' � � � } � ��, ��� � � '�� . _ �" � •
� f ��� �8 �!� . � � , � 7 a,+� � . ..t�'� � 'i''
#� ' �� � s `';� ..�f 1 T ;.�✓_ ' � �� �
�L.� �I ' • ; � ��� • . � ��} •-� . � �.y � ri . " ^ w 'µ'�� , .. �� � � : . + �.. t �� � +� .�� ��
A i...r , �r�+��—
S � ` � � � ' :1�� �� � a . �'
V { s �'�►�� � • ~�" . �� ���^ � b y � '�"'��r� � *+ '`�! � �°t '' �' ���
� ft �� � � �'�. .
ti�,� F /! 1 . �'�� . � �� +!I� ,� �ra.. `,� � �� �� � �� �
�� � , � �1� 4, ��y�,,�� '� � . ,�. .�� ,��`y i � " � ` �
,��{ •i :•� -�i��i��•�� �� � �` . � �� r ��� ` 1,, �:� f . � � /
��r�w �. � ��i�''�p ` � "� � �� � \ r���� . � rtt, , ` p#/ ��yy��,, � ��, � � � � �� �
� e �• "'i `3" r' . `` �� � .1 �a,� \ j, ; � y � r � � � �I� 1�
�' ;i � � � ` • � � � i' � � � ` r `K�h �� � � `�. • � / �1 _ '�' i •
��� �� 1� � • t �` i�i N� \ • f � �
, •. ,,, . � �. . �,,,,, � � � r � "�� , �Ul �� � y�s
� .� ' .. `b �,� s� � `,� . . ��� `�, .� �y � ,� 4R • � ;� � , �.,5 ���
� �yg� � • y •�' ��� �� •�� 4 � . .
� , �.i'r� � � � � � � �� � f �*� � { `,` �"
t�' „ � �'- . �j� / �1�,
, ,A' �,.,1,1�r � . .��- ..��� f� � �»� �`*' .�I ��.e.. p, �` � • �''��
"� Mtl `i� �� .
, N �� �� � t � � 1
� � 4� � � .� � � � �,! ♦' �` '�?tt
�,,..,, , � yj�� r � . � �� ;�� ��''.���, , '' , �, . a
� e f I .. r � .!A .! •.+s s; `..,G " »- .�'' �; , 1r►�'`' , ,, . , ,h,� j�� "�"►' . � + .. . .., . .w. �, �
r s
1566 Cypress Avenue, R-1