The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1510 Drake Avenue - Staff Report` S Item No. � Regular Action PROJECT LOCATION 1510 Drake Avenue � City of Burlingame Design Review, Special Permit and Variances Address: 1510 Drake Avenue Item No. � Regular Action Meeting Date: January 11, 2010 Request: Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage and Variances for side setback and floor area ratio for a lower floor, first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Mark Robertson APN: 026-032-090 Property Owner: Robert Bear Lot Area: 6,000 General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Article 19 Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The existing single-story house with detached garage contains 2,070 SF (0.34 FAR) of floor area and has three potential bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached garage and to build a new attached garage, a first floor addition, a new 836.2 SF second story and to expand the existing lower level utility room by 750.3 SF. With the proposed additions on the lower level, first floor and second floor, there will be an increase in the floor area ratio from 2,070 SF (0.34 FAR) to 3,708.5 SF (0.62 FAR) where 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed (proposed FAR calculation includes an exemption for the 100 SF lower level utility area). Therefore, a Floor Area Ratio Variance is required because with the proposed addition, the floor area exceeds the maximum allowed FAR by 688.5 SF. W ith the proposed addition and renovation, the number of bedrooms will increase from three (3) to four (4). Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detach garage and to build a new one-car, attached garage (10' x 20', clear interior dimensions) which meets the covered parking requirement. One uncovered space is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have also been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: ■ Design Review for a first and second story addition (CS 25.57.010 a, 1); ■ Special Permit for an attached garage (CS 25.28.035 a); ■ Variance for side setback to proposed attached garage along the right side properiy line (2'-6" proposed, where 4'-0" is the minimum requirement) (CS 25.28.072 c); and ■ Floor Area Ratio Variance for a lower level, first and second story addition (3,708.5 SF, 0.62 FAR proposed; where 3,020 SF, 0.50 FAR is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.070, a). 1510 Drake Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stam ed: November 13, 2009 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 18'-2" (to porch) no change 15'-0" (2nd flr): : none 51'-5" 20'-0" ; _.. � Side (left): : 6'-6" (to bay) 6'-6" (to new bay) 4'-0" (right): ; 11'-0" (to bay) 2'-6" (to garage)' 4'-0" Rear (1sf flr): ; 32'-3" (to deck) 28'-7" 15'-0" (2nd flr): ; none 34'-1" 20'-0" � Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 1510 Drake Avenue EXISTING PROPOSED i ALLOWED/REQUIRED Lof Coverage: ; 2,228.35 SF 2,183.2 SF 2,400 SF 37% 36% 40% . ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. ............................,.............................................................. ....................................................................... FAR: 2,069.85 SF 3,708.5 SF 3,020 SF 0.34 FAR ; 0.62 FAR 2 0.50 FAR 3 _ __ .. _........... : _..... � _ _....... _ # of bedrooms: 3 4 --- Parking: '; 1 covered 1 covered 1 covered (10' x 20') (10' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Height: ; 21'-6" 29'-9" 30'-0" DH Envelope: ; complies dormer exemption — CS 25.28.075 right side ' Variance for side setback to proposed attached garage along the right side property line (2'-6" proposed, where 4'-0" is the minimum requirement) (CS 25.28.072 c). Z Variance for floor area ratio for a lower level, first and second story addition (3,708.5 SF, 0.62 FAR proposed; where 3,020 SF, 0.50 FAR is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.070, a). ' (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1100 SF = 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR) Staff Comments: Staff would note that the proposed lower level utility area (918.3 SF) is included in the FAR calculation, and only receives the 100 SF lowerfloorexemption, because it has a ceiling height greaterthan 6'-0" (CS 25.08.265). However, because the ceiling height of this space is less than 7'-6", the Building Division does not consider this area to be "Habitable Space" (as defined by the California Building Code) and therefore, the property owners can not use this space for any use other than utility area or storage. See attached memos from the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, City Arborist, Fire Marshal and NPDES Coordinator. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on November 23, 2009, the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding this project (November 23, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes). The designer submitted a response letter and revised plans on December 28, 2009 to address the Commissions questions and concerns. Listed below are the Commissions' comments and responses by the applicant. 1. The crawl space adds to fhe existing mass and bulk of the house; fhe 700 SF over the maximum FAR is puzzling; the real impact of the mass and bulk is from the addition of the second sfory; the lowering of the driveway makes the crawl space and fhe entire house appear even taller. The applicant states in his response letter (date stamped December 28, 2009) that if the crawl space area were not counted towards the FAR requirement, then the proposed FAR of the house would comply with the City's requirements. He also notes that the proposed crawl space shall be unconditioned, unfinished and non-habitable space that only has access from the garage and that the City's Building Division considers this space to be non-habitable because it has a ceiling height less than 7'-6" (6'-11" ceiling height proposed). 2. The addition to the house is somewhaf disjointed from the resf of fhe house; needs to be tied together better; particularly the rooflines; the massing and fhe forms for the additions are not cohesive; the transition from the front of the house to the rear of the house is abrupf; fhe design -2- Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 1510 Drake Avenue needs work; need to better articulafe how the addition is being attached to the exisfing structure; better articulate the rooflines; perhaps the roofline on the rear could be flaftened. • The applicant revised the roof plan by adding a 6/12 pitched roof over the originally flat roofed area to better connect the first and second floors (see revised roof plan, building elevations and response letter from applicant, date stamped December 28, 2009). The additional roof area doe not create an increase to the Floor Area calculation and is within the maximum building height allowed. 3. The west elevation appears overly articulated; fhe original house possesses "graciousness"; the addition fee/s /arge and not well balanced. • The applicant notes in his response letter (dated December 28, 2009) that he disagrees that the west elevation is too articulated. He states that he feels that the articulations blend well together and integrate the rear elevation with an interesting play on roofs. Lastly, he states that the sense of mass will be vanquished by the busyness and playfulness of the rooflines. 4. The profile of fhe addition is going to 6e visible since the adjacent home is lower. The applicant provided two "Mass Study Diagrams" to show the proposed project in context to the houses on either side of the proposed property, as seen from the rear elevation (see revised plans, sheets MS-1 and MS-2, date stamped December 28, 2009). 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: 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 struc�:ures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 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 requirerr�ents, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. t Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved -3- Design Review, Special Permit and Variances that do not apply generally to property in the same district; 1510 Drake Avenue (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing an potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 28, 2009, sheets 1 through 10, MS-1 and MS-2; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special Permit and Variances, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 17 and October 14, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's November 12, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's October 21, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 15, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 19, 2009 memo shall be met; 6. 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; 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; -4- Design Review, Special Permit and Variances 1510 Drake Avenue 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. 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; 12. 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 13. 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. Erica Strohmeier Associate Planner c. Mark Robertson, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, CA 94402, applicant and designer. Attachments:' Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, date stamped December 28, 2009 Minutes from the November 23, 2009, Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Form Variance Forms Photographs of streetscape, date stamped October 9, 2009 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed December 30, 2009 Aerial Photo -5- MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o 12/20/2009 ATTN: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: BEAR RESIDENCE 1510 DRAKE AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 RE: RESPONSES TO COMMISSION COMMENTS FROM OUR NOV. Z3RD STUDY HEARING. Dear Commission Members, I would like to respond to your comments that we received at our 11 /23/09 hearing. It was noted that the addition seemed disjointed due to the flat roof area at the front of the new second floor. I whole-heartedly agree with this opinion. My client requested that I leave this area flat for his photo cell insta.11ations. It looked okay from the street (it wouldn't be visible), but I knew I was in trouble after l drew it up! Roof has been added over the flat roof area to connect the first and second floors. I used� the 6/ 12 pitch on this added roof to ensure that the additional roof bisects the new second floor roof. By doing this, the second floor addition will appear much smaller - as only half will be visible from any angle. I use a hipped roof at the front elevation tie —in to blend everything together. I think this solution works well. Sorry if I seemed bewildered at the hearing, but I was taken aback a little when I heard that you felt that the design at the rear was too massive. The notion had never occurred to me and i felt confused; and subsequently did a crappy job of describing my project to you! The addition at the rear of the house is not that massive, and we all feel that it has a lot of aesthetic charm! There was a comment that the Rea.r and West side Elevations were perhaps too articulated as we1L If I may, I would like to disagree. The numerous articulations blend well together and integrate the rear elevation with an interesting play of roofs. The sense of mass will be completely vanquished by the busyness and playfulness of a11 the roof lines. We think the reaz elevation is going to look fantastic and will blend in perfectly with its surroundings! To demonstrate this, I have provided additional drawings attached at the back of the plans. Please refer to the last two pages: Mass Study Diagrams, #MS-1 and #MS-2. Study Diagram MS-1 shows the Rear Elevations of our project including our adjacent neighbors at the top, and our Street / Driveway Elevations at the bottom. Study Diagram, MS-2 is the same drawing with existing and proposed landscaping added to the drawing to provide the landscaping context. ��o�t� 918 E. GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399 MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o Please note that our proposal tucks in quite nicely with its flanking neighbors on the Rear Elevations. I have omitted the roof over the front portion of the second floor addition on this study diagram since it is in the middle of the house and not part of the Rear. It changes the look of the Rear Elevation a lot, and I think better describes the feel of the rear house massing. The Street and Driveway side Elevations show that the recessed driveway and Garage will greatly subdue the sense of mass and bulk of the proposed addition. The drawing of the East Elevation on page #9 that was originaliy submitted to you grossly exaggerates the feel of mass and bulk that will result from this design! I have added plants to the Pg. #9 Elevation to help identify the proposed planter and the subdued massing that results. The Landscaping Context Diagrams on Pg. #MS-2 are for additional context info. and speak for themselves. Please note that the trees shown at the rear of the lot are existing, or existing /to be replaced. Refer to Landscaping Plan on Pg. #2 for overview. The final point discussed was concerning the FAR Variance and the large house size. It was noted tha.t the 700 s.f. over M�. FAR was puzzling and that the real impact of the mass and bulk of the project resulted from the proposed 2°d Story. And I think there was a misunderstanding that I never properly cleared up. If we ignored our crawl space request, our project would not require a variance at all. It has an FAR of 2,929 s.f. (based on existing adjacent grade). Our Variance request is only for additional headroom in our Crawl Space. It has no bearing on the FAR of the house. Please refer to the Building Sections on Pg. # 10 of the plans. I have hi-lited in yellow our FAR request. This yellow band requires us to add 918 s.f. to our house area. If we have a 5'-11" craw� space our FAR meets city standards. If we have a 6'-11" crawl space we are 700 s.f. over. Please note that the entire volume of our FAR request (shown by the yellow band) is located well below adjacent grade and existing crawl space grade. Our FAR request is only to allow us to dig out our crawl space a little deeper than allowed. It has no bearing on the house above which would be the same either way! The crawl space proposed shall be unconditioned, unfmished, non-habitable space that has no access from the house. The Building Dept. (and all Building Codes) consider it non-habitable space. Our request is that we not be required to count this space as FAR since it is within the footprint of the house and all occurs underground. Our hazdship is a bad back. All Mr. Bear is askin:g is that he be allowed to walk around his crawl space without having to permanently stoop over! It would totally suck. Thank you for your kind attention, Sincerely, 2__. a-`'v`"�'�" 918 E. GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes November 23, 2009 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1510 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACKAND FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT BEAR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 23, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; and Meg and Robert Bear, 1510 Drake Avenue: represented the applicant. ■ Site constraints necessitate the requested Variances. ■ The applicant wants the garage attached to the residence for security purposes. ■ Lowering the garage and the driveway to reduce visibility from the street. ■ Integration between the garage and house result in a homogenous whole. ■ The owner desires a crawl-space under the structure for storage; this necessitates the FAR Variance. ■ The size of the storage space is dictated by the shearwalis needed for the second-story; this space is not accessible from within the residence and not conditioned space; but is considered habitable by the Zoning regulations since it has a floor-to-ceiling height of greater than six-feet. ■ Hoping the design solution is not a square box for an addition at the rear. ■ The house will be the largest at the rear; there is a lot of landscaping at the rear of the lot. ■ The smaller homes adjacent to the property will ultimately be re-done. • Want additional storage space that will allow easy access. Commission comments: ■ Noted that the crawl space adds to the existing mass and bulk of the house. ■ The 700 square feet over the maximum FAR is puzzling; the real impact of the mass and bulk is from the addition of the second story. ■ The addition to the house is somewhat disjointed from the rest of the house; needs to be tied together better; particularly the rooflines. (Robertson — owner is interested in photovoltaic systems, and requested flat roof area for this purpose.) ■ The massing and the forms for the additions are not cohesive. ■ The attached garage is done well. ■ The west elevation appears overly articulated; the original house possesses "graciousness"; the addition feels large and not well balanced. ■ The profile of the addition is going to be visible since the adjacent home is lower. ■ The transition from the front of the house to the rear is abrupt; the design needs work. ■ The lowering of the driveway makes the crawi-space and the entire house appear even taller. ■ Need to better articulate how the addition is being attached to the existing structure. ■ The massing needs some additional work; particularly in order to approve the FAR Variance. ■ Feels there is justification for the Variance to permit the attached garage. ■ Better integrate the rooflines; perhaps the roofline on the rear could be flattened. ■ The house is going to be large, so the massing needs to be resolved. ■ There is a rationale for the Variance for the crawl-space, given the terrain of the lot. : CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes November 23, 2009 Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to p/ace the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None. ChairTerrones called fora vote on the motion to p/ace this item on the RegularAction Calendarwhen plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:04 p.m. 0 � BURLINGAME gJ. ��'.��'�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 9401 O p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: � Design Review � Variance ❑ Parcel #: �� " d,��. �" �� ❑ Conditional Use Permit �' Speciai Permit ❑ Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: � O Please indicate the contact person for this project APPLICANT project contact person� OK to send electronic copies of documents Name: fM ,l4-R,1�_��v��-�'�1� � Address: �� 1�� L �. PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: �OP�C62,CT �C—/-� 2 Address: � r'.�' ( � ��i� I"�V� � City/State/Zip: �� . �._ //.�� ty/State/Zip: �Ud�L1 Ne� I'4 M� � ��. 111�i%��% 7 Phone: �.7� ' "J`�%r "' �� Fax: L�s.iv ' J �� '� l�� "/ Phone: �o�Ja -' �� `J �� Fax: E-mai1: i� (�IvD M t�DB�.�"�r�l L. 6i mW I L�� E-mail: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER pro�ect contact person� OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ �� Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax: E-mail: �k Burlingame Business License #: 22�0�� `�� x;.,.,� �� ;..�C! � � 200� GlTY L�F BURLfNGAMF: PLANi�I!';�;G G�P'��. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: I�� Z� �O�-iI I�IiDIiIO/� L'�. �7qiZ. ��C7(�� /�l� f4b�i4cc �� l�.ra Gc �n� ��! �/cr%Jr4 y�iv��N� FR��°G' `/!�9-�.r� �i � R.�2.�� n L�/VfiSri�l�/NC� � AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: �� I am aware of the proposed application and her by authorize the above applicant to submit this appfication to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: � Date: �� Date submitted: 10 (� d / � Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. ❑ Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. S:�Handouts�PC Application 20o8-B.handout This Space for CDD Staff Use Only Project Description: I'� (� ��: c a"Tl`v �` -�a ✓ �e S �� r� I�.V • f t�J U A� t,�n.(, d D�. r A, G� a -tDr GL, � e� w t r -Y%o�c , -�i r �%ar�a 0 �; �,1 �-�.r,r i �- S �- d s� bG� �. -- - ' Cr ad �l � �`o� . Key • CUP DHE DSR E N SFD SP Conditional Use Permit Declining Height Envelo Design Review Existing New Single Family Dwelling Special Permit [ 5 ( D DP.�� J�V�' City of Burlingame • Community Development Department � 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • www.burlinqame.orp � c�Tv �� :'��I � �., , �.�� -,, o �Z'.� �Q.ow..E CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION ..r., �' � g ` u �k„�-0 +��I� �� ,��}�: v.� �, , ,; � �.�. � r ��Cll� 1.�1��Fi�� ' . , The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. PRaP05cb C�ftR�4h� i5 l.�cwi �.D � 1ZEF�R Dr HGL�e E.�U� i rN rROn�i O� (�i bCr�ct-4-�.1� C14R�C,E , No ►2�AL � t� P��T' `ff �%> si�ZE�T P�r L�NS .(1� 6iA�Acc s�+ta u� P�� c�G�� i� ��l �t'�i v�wFty trlW FR�:.� ;� Rc r�t�� N, r��Ss iBvL �, CaY'rR.�E,� ��v��D rN7o r�,l l�DUSE AlVO f��h! 2N° ��fZ, U Nrc��y h/% f�!_.I_ F1N1Sj�S � �'IUt� M1�7L, � �7C � �� MAl"�N (�� l-IaUSc . �/tSv�tL IMP�i' �RL'Il�l � i�� i Ni r NCJ2 , 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, sfreet and neighborhood. t�r OS�T� � f��t,(� �� W LL� I N`7"G �i�TC'_f� 1 NT� <E.i I°-�OU� � W/, Nf C� RG�� L14� (�ND ' i i� - I�:+� .�'��7rorvs F� CZYJ� �ir-t1� � Wo�,Kr D W i�-I L�s or ��Y�cvug i�o�t, �R��;� NAs 8�� c�vv�.D ro rn�N�M��c Nl C�� -(' �(1 LK. (aN 17 (� LL �i N I Sfi M►`�� f F�t. � i� LS .S7�iALL M ATC N(�� 4U5E fN E.v�RY VVAY. A�r��tn�'r" N�r�M�c�►►�.. ts � PLc�Fs�� W% l-�GS?N�TIGS � SK�Z"tS�I�f) fN/`� �IUi� f�PC151�L > 3. Ncw will th.e RrapQs�d �ro;e�t be con�istent weth the rQ�ba►pntial des6g�r guidelfnP� adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? -- ARG�'idz'TP_c_G�i'URl9L �'i''3'L� YV1�YCf�cS I-IUUS� � C.�P�'f�� vV�. STR�T. — NO GN�tN6� fiv i't4�Z.►:.1NG� �C,�f}�� Wi �E�R.,1�(S W/ P��'Jt'�/�� . -- M�S � �Vu�. �'►r i � ��li'c,� W/� �4Fti l�Ut.raT(�N �� l,U�,��fzl��i � 6�t�A��- _ —�r�1"ER.FAc� w/� (�1D3'. N�.� r H�., wo��5 WF�. CNl ��AR a F, �: A�P6�v)C, � ;�. � i=? �,?��1�:71�1 Nc I G; NF� S{�� i� , — -�TE.. r-ULL'f (�N bSGfa� vVl� (�� C-�'•,�INiN�j �, � i� , 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. Whaf mitigafion is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why rhis mitigation is appropriaie. -- ��PcaSc� �(��,H�� oV�- (�.� cc7NG" � D��U�,w��Y aV� 1P�� t�cT ��G�.E�i .� CNl Dl�t1/"�+vK1� ��rll TEret�c�D L.R�hSG�Q(I�G� � rk'11J1�T �r J�fC�L9�� W�. C3i N�v�J t�d2��S ti�L�41�?�1� i�C7(Z ifU� D�sf�n! � , ��_� Rev. 07.2008 � � See over for explanation of above questions. SPECIAL.PERMIT.APP.FORM City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • www.burlinqame.orq 1. Explain why the blend of mass, sca/e and dominant structural characterisfics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition fo the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. 2. Explain how fhe variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materiats and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the exisfing structure, street and neighborhood. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood. How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city? Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet these guidelines? 1. Compatibiiity of the architectural styie with that of t�ie existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addifion is necessary and is consistent wifh the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of �ny trees? �x�lair� why ti�is mitigration is appronriate. Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are protected under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so. � crrr �� :��' � _�`��:;19> !j��,�� .h o��.!4-•-T ,y 9row• = �v�. � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION ...i'...... }'�'IICi �i}`+f.: ,,: �, �� ,��1v�F�. ;ni�� - , The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). 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. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area, t�Lt�NNINro► REQu��tS o r��nl, c�t.,R, ��i� �-1cCc55 r`�.R c:vDE, %.� f-fOt1Sc IS I � 3 F(�UM S�Dc I� L, d o Ta �r�71Sr i 8"��k��c .P'"cQMT. S�DEY�D 5�3, Gtg �I e�t� �: � 3 E 2�-C� "(� c►9�ra�c WAC_,C_ r�r� �.� .(E� rft1V5E L.C�� i eG�l�l �l V�S V°S 1V lJ L��'l� i Q�l 1q N Li W� (-1 R� �i l�r Lyl i��1 W l i�i � PY1 V N1 i'f�51 �LC GF�D E ' C�t�nPU�1NGE . b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. �T I� i Mr �5 �113LE '"i`�? (�tl�V�, 7itE CF1R�1�,�. GOMi'L`� VW/�� GLcI`�Ff�1N'�G 'R�2�! (�!�/1 �.�5 DV `�, it� `�"H�. �I 5 i I N G� F�u �C ��i U�vJ A`� L��/0/�1; wE. N�v c N v� �i"� 0'IVS D LI� i D r I� !� t��E. -�v i � r� C� �r� D r�Da1S , c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvernents in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. L�rr� TD rc� �rv►-PY�c.�' �o vrcr�►7Y. ND n�E,ai.7N��uc��Ery/c�rv', WF.�I�r�A�R� /�t�l�lF.r.n(� C�CC, I��UES r�f�R.�SE ��Ci'M �7dIS �'�UP�I4L.., _ d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general d�e�en;ty? [�A��ic Sf�f-��.(_ �,� Ll>h1��1� � �U��v�� f�c�s�c� � �DI�Cc h'�►�S5/PL1uL ��A6�►� �LEN1Y�1� (Nu0 h�� W/, M�iC71 P�� R�7r= Lt4i� `1�1�, -1N� �(�i� laR,�"IC(1Lf� i 16l� , 6Vc1N �i19'�f�Fn� �` f�DDlT"lOf�.1 SIfA[.L Ml�'C3�( (�> >�us E� N �1�y �YA� �lrv� s Nral� ; l�f'f�.� S� nn c�55 + P 5. � m P�Ub Q� Ti'i'� ��d�i� •-, l T L �K �I' '�—f9ah�cfuts\Variance Application2007 ,. y'V �� a. Describe the exceptiona! or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your properfy which do not app/y to other properties in this area, Do any conditions exist on the site which make other alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood? b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property? c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of mainte�ance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare? Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit? Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience {such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general �ricinity. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation, etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. W ill there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. Handouts\Variance Application.2007 � CITY �� ' � � ' ;�� ,uJ� �o��T� I' CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION ��r�c5� r�rZ 7� N�r C�iru Tr ��s��c�.� i; The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). 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. a. � Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable io your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. �i<l �� 1LC �f�"J�>>� r � .�J" FJ; ._ � c�� o ' 15 y- a��.�Vc c� r�c � �.13�4�c�'l�'�%� �(,C.Ziv�/4� ��-�"� rV� �=C.� i ii LJ� ?�f/'S �,�scc� CU Grv� tai5��5 Y�i �f�1VC 7 Nlc;Kt l�7"lLl7�Y ��i', i r�12 sit�/9�,c �'�9C� ,f N i.>�S�i4Cc I`a �3c` v/�GvrV � j ��ivL� r1.�tri�� N� � r�l r3�c ur�vFirv,3- �� s ti�% �1,�N7��i� . P4 �//aG�' .��,q . � / �Ic� � Explain why the var�a�e i'eque�'t �s nece�ssary for ihe preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. �� u rr �� o��y e �„ �� . � �v�- �� ; �vN�l �- r��i � 7rg �,t� I�Cii2 ��,�cc /�/ ��Lr ; i d 11� ci�i�,'�� c� b'� (�� (�5G � �1 l✓1 YVC� �f'• � o :�IYO(,r� N�Y"' �C ��'��1� �IV l� �.�. �� e GVU KiC��j �1QZ�iti'1 LlVIIVY �t'1�G� �l� ��i��w►�f�% CC� �`-� �R�1j'�'1 �j l4Rf� � c G�f�iLy, c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. l�t� F-ifi"t"�C�i-' 7v �'�''�Sc� ��%l 3�1�1/�' --� l'�1J� '�'/f�J� ��j�}1�1�L._ ��`iC� Dcc�Nir�,�l o� Ly, ►vd ��► P�l �' �1, r� � L, d. How will fhe proposed project be compatible wifh the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general �ecin►i�y? L�I'Q� v�JL. �� ni� r�� n��y -- rvD ri��C E�c7C_R/C�RS r��~SUL � , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 5O'I PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 9401 O p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org I 5%O ��1�1 Kc- /a�/�v �✓�- ��t�} NC E �C> Handouts\Variance Application.2007 a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. Do any conditions exist on the site which make other alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood? b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable properfy /oss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property? c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties wili not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare? Public health inciudes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safety. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit? Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? d. How will fhe proposed project be compatible with the aesthefics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vi�irtity. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation, etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. Handouts\Variance Application.2007 � � _. ;...�� . I��., � �� `°� � �. �� , �� , �. � � : �w � �� ,: � ,��: � ' , � " ` � � �� ,8 =. ,� . � � � � s . �� ; � , � �� .� � � �,, �.�+��',�� k=- ° , '' ;�s � a�. � .' +�� ,� �- �-� y , . . . . . ._ . . . . �. � - - � g...n� �s..�:��.�K�.. , , ..�m�s..�;.��. . . �.,,... .�, .�-,�.,..��.. . �� Project Comments Date: To: From: October 14, 2009 d City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage and Variance for side setback for a lower floor, first and second story addition at 1510 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-032-090 Staff Review: October 19, 2009 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. In addition, the proposed basement may require drainage to be connected to the nearest storm drain catch basin. Contact Doug Bell at (650) 558-7230 for more information for basement drainage requirements. 2. The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway and other necessary appurtenant work. 3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 11 /12/2009 �.,,, .. ,....�..�_ ,3, .. .�...,, , � � Project Comments Date: To: From: Revised plans submitted November 13, 2009 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Variances for side setback and floor area ratio for a lower floor, first and second story addition at 1510 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-032-090 Staff Review: N/A All conditions as stated in the Conditions of Approval dated 10-14-09 apply to this project. PLEASE NOTE ! In addition, include the following on your plans when you submit a building permit application: 1. Grading plans including section details and calculations for cut and fill (Contact the Engineering Division for more details) 2. Complete shoring plans including structural calculations 3. Complete plans for waterproofing the basement 4. Complete drainage pians 3. A valid permit from Cal OSHA for the excavation Reviewed b � —` �— Date: �� /� � �.- Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: October 14, 2009 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Buiiding Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Request for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage and Variance for side setback for a lower floor, first and second story addition at 1510 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-032-090 October 19, 2009 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC). 2) Per the City of Burlingame's adopted Resolution, applications received after January 1, 2009 must complete a"GreenPoint Rated Checklist". The GreenPoint Rated Checklist, and other information regarding the City's Green Building requirements, can be found on the City website at the following URL: http:/lwww.burli�qame.orq/Index.aspx?page=1219 or Contact Joe McCluskey at 650-558-7273. 3) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 4) All work shall be conducted within the limits of the City's Noise Ordinance. *** Owner to acknowledge this condition. (Initial here!) 5) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 6) Provide existing and proposed elevat�ons. 7) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 8) Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Note: All projects for which a building permit application is received on or after January 1, 2010 must comply with the 2008 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://www.energy.ca.qov/title24 for publications and details. 9) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 10)Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. �n the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the property line. ��Provide details on the plans which show that all roof projections which project beyond the point where fire-resistive construction would be required will be constructed of one-hour fire-resistance-rated construction per CBC 704.2. /�ndicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the v roperty line will be built of one-hour fire-rated construction. (Table 602) �'he structure, from the new foundation, to and through the new second floor roof, must comply with the 2007 California Building Code, structural provisions. *** �chitect to acknowledge this condition. (Initial here!) ooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required eqress windows on the elevation drawinqs. Note: The area labeled "- Rumpus Room" is a room that can be used for sleeping purposes and, as such, must comply with this requirement. 16)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 17)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 18)Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 19)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet. Sec. 2113.9 NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Reviewed by: ��-� � Date: Project Comments Date: To: From: October 14, 2009 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 x City Arborist „�,� (650) 558-7254 � � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 � Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 0 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage and Variance for side setback for a lower floor, first and second story addition at 1510 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-032-090 Staff Review: October 19, 2009 1. Landscape looks good. Plenty of trees are included in plan and exceed reforestation plan. 2 new birch trees, 4 Aristocrat pear, and 1 dogwood added to landscape plan. 2. Under "Tree Protection Notes" #5 eliminate ....'except as authorized by owner.' All landscape trees to remain need tree protection during construction. 3. Any tree over 48" in circumference 54" in from base of tree will require a protected tree permit from Parks Division at 650-558- 7330. Bob Disco Oct. 21. 2009 Project Comments Date� To: From October 14, 2009 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 0 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 0 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 �ire Marshal (650) 558-7600 � NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage and Variance for side setback for a lower floor, first and second story addition at 1510 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-032-090 Staff Review: October 19, 2009 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: �� Dateo /�'��c�. Project Comments Date: To: From: October 14, 2009 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 � City Arborist (650) 558-7254 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7273 0 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 X NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage and Variance for side setback for a lower floor, first and second story addition at 1510 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-032-090 Staff Review: October 19, 2009 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best Management Practices during construction. Please include a list of construction stormwater pollution prevention best management practices (BMPs), as project notes, when submitting plans for a building permit. Please see attached brochure for guidance. The attached brochure may also be downloaded directly from flowstobay.org. It is recommended that construction BMP's be placed on a separate full size plan sheet (2' x 3') for readability. For additional assistance, contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, at (650) 342-3727. ,� r-- `� �� Reviewed by: �� i Date: /� �� G' / ��, �,, o:�j�-:%'Y ',i. //. ,. /.' $WiID�v2let y z Polluno� Prevwno� Pmg�nm �'k �� ,:-_ ,- ,,,,,,.: � .. >a� ` $ s .'4_;.. General ��''`" Construction & Site Supervision � � m �s� � � � � ti Jlam nbw�zor01 Ew Qw �N��ib lfnartol' e �o�) 6.�vn�*eomi'a� emw. rery�noeucnRyua.weEl�e. oN.cn�.vcrllcw Aes��e. edieenmmvvn�woR.elaei4nb> m p�enmomyGatpam�or6em��wMe lTnin Yau` cmolaym auE rohootrastan. Nat� M.�.M1u. �n�Wblc� wMw m�h� �. � �m a about� . wucrrtqulrment:awl Nn�rrtTn¢:i�ilitic� � c�oa mu.�+Kn�ns w+�<* JDui�+R ooa cmo0laeh wmuneE utt !m aro poh:vg, .etiele refoelv6 md eeuEve equipmmt - n�aa�RdKa�.:mwan.w�u..,.y hmn sm�ams or �wm Min �ekK. wJ },�� i(um- avy.St�Yeuni yva�R.�l lRccy ma�enLs out ol ��c nw - prt�xn� `uaoQ ��anrt,or:�:� .cr �.ma�i�, JRuo Po W�.n o�apo.mm.,diie m`<ei IY.m p�...cava JDn vrM�� y.M aw( tliw.4uin w�u.�.0 Jeai�u. ca�iu. o�rdvu�la If ry.'vumi Iluah�i��s �� a<ewrv. � � ��Lei �uiyua +1� ��IiWuem w� �Ja,u ��.. w v �a�.,,,v im.. e.y..m om.,:cm. �ee�,xy,o esiiducw`a..MiwfacullsMycicm wcWoih v9eoc.vMa31e Ifl'�mu�u<.nu,we}aw uayL w kap ilu �uw Juwa �cm« .,ne m.;ou;n e�ose�R. a� u�mxo�r �� h:Ju. Macc eumoF�m w�Mr mofa o. co.z� wiih i-op� u� ylx.v� ahmw5 ¢vvred vu�n�l Ws euidJe uf iiw �h��pser. A Claa�ic �m is�cwmm<uM1 ia Om'ai IWca6<of �yuiM. Ncvm ckan wl a Aanpam by Gwing d Mw'o w`ih< <v¢�uualon u1e. JMate swe parcaW il>y aa mtinuimd w¢nod wwklna urde� by �Le I.mivg oompony md ihai..�un�y W �f pevputy. meek niku traTr.a�y (a kak�. Ma�malrhvu�� evy4y lRacna um.�e.edatvm minimi�i vua vh.�e wmd� tavL.0.Ja+wlvWowmuuiYaneed lo finup Jol. lUas i`cytlaLle mnaial� wlvi�e.o ry�vl�le. Mu�e� ' Wof.mrLkkvumN4w3at.wnc.Yq iWMt�sQup mevL rolveuq Eepru.v�s, cimrM veg- ' rvck.Yvtive6i<lewin�wrc.ematmils w�L� avl o�l ^e�nu. W�mL"n. �edtvn. JDlrywe af a0 vuua uG Cemoptlee EeN4 pmpmly. . �ro=owmxr,oemnwu.m.um�mn�,w��ma mrL�Eiepm�vmq..�mm-DaW yim�,.�d��e 8uih, e`akm+9�� oG coocrt�e. wma. uC clweE vepeu- ad Eebri� uYn� uimm pe rsyx1N m�u be �a4m w u�aryeoyrian IadGll m NryxN ul.e ��u.,.na o� � m� m m.. m. ��t e�� xn�..� Starmwater Pollution Prevention Program Pollution Prevention — It's Part of the Plan It is your responsibility to da the job right! RunoR�from streets and otlier paved areas is a major source of pollution in local creeks. Sau Fraucisco Bay and the Pacific Oceau. , Construction activities can directly aftect tlie health of our waters u�Less contractors and crews plan aheadto keep dirt, debris, and other construcrion waste away from stoim drauis and creeks. Fol lowing these guidelines wil] ensure your compliance with local stomiwater ordinance requirzments. Remember, ongoing monitoring a�d maintenance of installed controls is crucial to proper implementation. H'eavy Earth-Moving Roadwork & Paving F resh Concrete Painting & Applicarion Equipment Ac�vitia� � Mortar Application of Salvents & Adhesives Operation � �=a��,�� - ":a a i �� . r<.. . :- �..:�,=�. J H.eIMmE mp �on,.cJim. caurcolptw�frn '� emdwaysvdunkmmu!� -\ JSehdulce�emtiwmEpWin (mErywm sla plam8r6 xQ pn.vtlr� wdicla mdvumnu Ju�vw�• mm'�n.h� �e�r.o�.ini r 6mo :ecw� ar a��um d�vo �Ncit for�u.�omdaqwpmmlpvki�g�e(velie�.aMmu��c �rc:n�,�a wwv�� rc�«. J ).(unwwallr�L�cW mEMa•).pYiP��ln��- y �IyfntuNrtPa�rleLLS. JrVWwx.utaas�u�p ua.'�cI�+1W�.avJ.eGvlcaci !I(�w �.uyaw mow.oa��o wlm ., nwm ��,��en� p„o, oF. ,:mm, w � 1<. C..IIa� ull q,em Mi.tx.;�nrcc m Nspou of MnOt� a h.va��lous »'urc v ' � no no� �,.n y.ui eu m we�om«aa, wwcv�� o, D� 1 Roe�cl. iicd reAvAe brtmiaa Ctmv up apIDs ImmW4roy wLm Nsy dappn I Nntt Msc�xn ..Mry"yav�uy� mvppemrabk .uri �� WE:haK�Py�[I�<dry'cl<em�omc�b M+(e6jvrtMs�m milYm�li« u� A8i)whm�.t ��ei.N�r�o�m�a�.�, ,u�i�a�+W�,�t� ��veepupsyitlea tlr�'nutmulz imme�W�elY. ry Uss.+hnlca upoe.ibl.finlu.�wcnW�'�� J Cluu u� sn � m�lin vdby G�ivp up �od p.ysly d�+v�e olwni�m�vmd wll J R�vnn ��eNfiuru� anJl. �n ils.nv�e�ue will TMspmrc ,u . .emy. roo,re.ea>a.e ey uw m,�porc .; W n�. rc�.uo am.,�aan �nex. muw�� W.To myon a spill. rali M<folbviu¢.¢ames: Il av xai ameyaocy rc+i�+<.umEa. ]J G�� he Goa�mx i Omw o(Pmer-�e.vcy Semcey Wuyue caw. (b W) asz.]ssa (30 6mvq. AmveCrmwm'en !(b<kall�yuip�mf IwYSWnP"UkakN%Wwqmnt JRevurvecxuwgveyW�i�uuNywErnWwlu�elY��+' �`^�n�0y. ry�. JP«!am fio.e��uaw�e.nT��.�+od'.'rotiagNaqup JSa �ory.wry.eyRutionfo� J\Wrnrc(u.laRa� Nek/a�wptlm�m ,mmo�..n.n�,�:m,�.noov��.au��ni�Me aa� r.as�n>wmoi.�r�w�a:�... » ' Gvm �ss Aelu� v� cr lP�oka ibwmlupe dramy� mwvo, sawns. aN vo(m J �O 0O� ��la�l W lubrimk m cLsn ttuipmem n �. ... x� oe.M�.�� <,...,m�.zn� � rt.x.�io �,..a oa e.e�c �o�m. e.a.n.mm�, x vprneve( 31e lVlx.fi.ckdam,adikMamEi.enewot[voualeaco��a. Jinweoqloyemmusivg�hmebm�maysemuupramiva iiim++vd paAAv<v N Bwmea Praoe'm ! 6wh ai y(uu yu0 anE W<ansmu.�lani'vS �ys nve CoN Ary uA wnma�n'vL unGn cover, po�avtl tiom .,mc,e aa �oa r.o�� a,��,w�.0 wm ��a !4 <bvy::ufo.wco[Wuthcyue Bcwrtbko-:p wmd-blmw fmrntpmvticmvY hcm S��n, aMw , inn4mEmwH. J Xeep all lie�od yaiw pndun� a� wv,ne� aw�y { m We e��^s �„aef� ad .w.m Goia. l iquk.es�Juo So.o I�b. Ni��i aul'm4 ��, wW rlmwg 11u:Nm lurardutu nazkE and muA tc tirymM OS at a EaniM . on �Iry(cowa<�yaukulno�m.,nn � v,o� �l� Pvieting demvp J Never eWn Urar4cs ot rww paim wnwlucxr inw a aMel, �wlq no�m dniq m shom Landscaping, Gardening, and Pool Maintenance ttl la � ! Ruuc� a¢tpJn autl �mJwyivy muwh f.mv wi�M avtl .eiv M sioeio5�6vm uwk� u� m �auced VWIs Wximg JS�wc V��tr'a fwWm. mM aGccLuwcaLr m�bufe w J Sclwdul� gnJiup:�od uuvo�rve projc:6 (m N�y wn W a. Ju'�mo.�wttrc�emRmawyiudmiyaiw.�.mro�n..ess Jtissienpo. ceen.�Aman,ti�ctu�Md�en`uv�Xao�ry Poymvywqwpe�eWewatuwiLL�oviomc000�umm JY�vwuta-boWpYiuU,Y�luutMuMnmtheeumi Gwuswtmy-.w. � �e r�,�eo urN �, o�m am. c.�� ur wm��n n�v+� �r,� m�,.. rtw� ro m� �;mr � �., N.. �;,xa JC�v srncAp�esaMe�nvuet�nlrith.wcur r n, voalco.wn wnm�i �"b'� �"O'�rc"bk.m�c .. ppuvpin 1e W od o�uv�enm�a M1arty. 1oFTe� Ernwukaa�ADavpNa.tcrmi,filieru�is <�umso n[R[p.cfrtxL g�nwYlM1a�<tlucwivrc� �"' •�.NevuEl�µwo! nboutwo . vn$an Ju�v dw. vlam. sh..iw u.mtt� pavcmcm t6e s+rtct �.mrd�wc dnu+¢s di�chn. w Mam. Iwa uuwa,�,m. ! Cv.�c` a�E ual c�ch basms md mmMla wim .�nlyin� �w��m.,madm�ma�"�oni�rosw,�,�wsca;mwi �i• ,•a�w,".�.�„�..w�u,�n.�,�.�rt.w�a °i�°ecoem��uw n .. JiM�i �fru <uruv�cmcuucut�hauY xill J fio�.vryrt�c IailurtsolaosievmCudim<N«aeols l�e.aer+v.he.marmaaial6omcyox�d.�sye,�,s.con ��C1n �y ro�F.lrc_.Irm�m.�uaai��hr�nH eaauE�e�.iva'dWo�wdin4a`e wrwy-.iu.Cul- JSnuraeAM�yesmallm�xersoonT�oeMaryvla.mc �co.K.:�o�um,edatk.�.m,moe��.;o mwAvihs. GemnlBvnttvAssu�es v�r+��WM�P��w�dlmJV�crea�iumRviw` ��ocleeoivgiqoMMvsxvymudeuzRcooroumon �s.��n�wa....n�.�avame.�.nb.eo�,,...m�_ �cmoo��r�aremotcuics�ueoae�.m.. .,�nr.ce��a�n+.�.emm�wa�m;.�,ro.e� lC�iehCnD�vumPavttM�bE.NPv�aw�bmr4mmauul W:ruenuitmmMii�. lPnnmmm..i�wqui�nemrepainaWaY(��IoFv�e. (��+aKr.ne) L�al��mki�m�vucw4meo�ivuxa JCkanuonllsoiLLsmdleatsusmR"dry"meLON(wm JAe.ewa�oen�en�.e6anan..+.�ar/wtioroom�e�ion lN�Lma6uhvRmtvhasrL�eb�W��mainuame<miu �Mwben��.>rriil.aha6vl,orG6upaud�wo.ecwtami. tmmtNen ' .o3wuWn. mplc�cMb.rsmW o.iNx�LL s� o6sbrmQnim.HoxaEprcgakwxrhavqOh � md i de wio tlin. �uw�wrwl�Laius. � �•••. lCul4d.nC.u]'clem VW V elyJi.apo.�ea(exme . ad:uiv.grawlmuodj J%aulunbalaorahu<�bnwu¢oM4 JP��.uede�loilwlubrs.uuvl quPm M'y /.1�nido� r-appli�iJaabyn�awetr[ermtAeavrtol. aRrm�iv0.m orcem h.�fym�elt�rncM1e� Wu� a'nn�uiv. iu�e �. w,ea�em vo�a., R m.� m.r x�- �and✓co�. x�ow x ' rM. 6�nceesE�mwlmble.tin9++Wv�o�cw JR'henMeakv�@u0penu&.heswem�ekW+�1�M��i¢c .. n�uNerv�ymv(�urcwuw no � n�"t . v�emmi.be• °°"a°V�V�PaH� mEcovuu.i�FeReQinnalWarQuW�'Cn IAwrd:fn wM�i��Pwn w+m:..mow�� lMake �.bmkeupawmemdoesaaccmeivconunwiW JRecytleiagerduvkyo(b`vkevcoocrNea�almEGL ' «.�M ' illmrvmK ..w.waoaaumua�vo�.n 4 � ��ros�arwwi.�w�ora.�.�.�nu�•wM.n.�.qo�t ab.M.�.�.ells JProraa�RvbysermJrvmivkoEwvNrnv�oittioe.51io�4 mdmMsmWehasi . tWn`dW.iadeena«vail. �mr�wcwiliurydm%�eW�wu�eh�Ae JN.:.��LmeJowon�aet�mduu�pva.:kadNn.Lx.4y JNevuWnw4Jv�NuvJwxweweuw�ciW. . . meC mn4adi. i.«o;�e.�ar�o.w�«,�nwn.,mwt��<,,,n,w �a>-.a��=m,o..miro�m�orao.m�wwira: +i41.�Jei�ui�ri�4�iwm�veyulv.u�w:�prvpawuviva. evy nite. h'Jir. moeJ�pmven wE xh�yts. Duyoss of e¢ess Ivhud:�aoErni ue +b,ne�s�o e. [ioLuPmB�+�drn Maiatmane.� �u,� w�;a�:mamua w..�a��:.��,�e � «.o�. �>.;�remo� ��a��.��a,�a�x o:�ww�:�u;.w..�oirw,a �nyn,�nm.iwa.�-em.e�.ey,,.;cnms . . . �vd rsd blwtin6 m+Y x+�'�q uP ae uillaa<0 �n pla��ie �V �� d Nspox4 o(u tuA. J uispwc ot wusW pemci0a as nnm�wn rau. J@�ic+l pao� miCPu6•cudvc mk cIYN av6 �Rv J Gll�ct h.a..od&vdu cimFmb'+. a�muR wd�c. mJ vo. Iiwimanwyainlra�pvo6cwtsvmyleMorinbvtyl imnmingx.CNpif�m�.s»n�.vWwm�os�. ne m�v M A�.M n( u buaryw.: d�ars. � ro�w �vu rw.�,� ��e w�a,. ��v�. o;�n JWtm�InPow4orcicaum&bulldin¢<atcrio�ewitLitid�- �uEVQCY�x�ntleraycLnB.Iavc�lipP�.mOP+�mf u�r.blocksromAams.VtiuhwLuma.JiW ane(oryielupwa4W��bagsormnWners.O�.ule euawlN�cinrowJ.(h.vAccYaiWlFCNrelwasxaiet b�lsndl110umuryiva.Y�dv.�.Kc vuiLoriry m fivda�ifypu un wllza (mop tt . wm)`M1u�IJ�n Ucl<anink .k� tl�ub��ha emi� � JDo mt bbw a N leava, etc. vb de sad. un�trralmen'Lev.am¢urybem{-•JI vs6 xuawuer v�moevY�omaLiv4iuCcitia¢ PooLFaunGiLYD�Maiurep�aee J Mcm diuheec:��o^s�.n.._ol;. m�x•.•�e� b a 3vc.� ar t4vjclWuurlvOo�mpa1c�vlvewL�� wwJnu. � ��Y�< GSW x� �bucdWutiia M1amM1oMFaaarEousaa�ierollettimfve�hp.o:�u�y. JWbevempryiuga�nolorspa k .I ' "s•qute.k.Sin WLe�J�ry.ieWauieLtY�Y.eW+vPuweeua.�.x.J ]daya.Tb�re�ek.a�vbyMwogrtgrMwl7wron b+ush<Sn%s.aodQ`WCIaAs�mybeEiWes�EOCam� �B�aC��iaA-vn�hededlm�naMwawineam� n.µe in a uniury L.Mfill Aain. �Neuseklwvwoil-EaelpalvtUieporcvYu�ceatiqmG, J(]rlor'owNwWsmryleiaJiscLugedwWe�miury incl�dmg �kN�e�. u Muedo-n wa rte. ..e.e� (if dMwul M1y d< Niui ysy62 nam�en� autMn ry) by ��.mc. mx m o � nwy .w� a...a mw �m� �s�un�nsm...rorsmowa�.�mwesmpli�o e� ' fm�ay Pnvrtmvnmry Halp Pmsion .e�kivg rtc�elio{ m tw+mlauy waa�c �upoes�. J Do mt ux �oppc-bad dgaRiy. Cnntrul Jpu� ��i0 Storm drain polluters may be liable for fines of up to $25,000 per da}�l 'o�`°,.�`�°'��`�r'��4aM��'�� 'm�°°�°`°�m�� °�°° . croue wn5 w..zmo,,,w�*'ae, wr- m s�h �.mowa M w. ww.eo traawax Wm�. b�cl�potiry. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review, Special Permits for attached qaraqe and Variances for side setback and floor area ratio for a lower floor, first and second story addition to an existinq single family dwellinq at 1510 Drake Avenue, Zoned R-1, Robert Bear, property owner APN: 026-032-090; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 25, 2010, 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 per Article 19 Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. 2. Said Design Review, Special Permit and Variances are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances 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 25th dav of January 2010 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Special Permit and Variances. 1510 Drake Avenue Effective February 4, 2010 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 28, 2009, sheets 1 through 10, MS-1 and MS-2; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special Permit and Variances, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 17 memos, the City Engineer's November 12, 2009 memo, the City 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 15, 2009 memo, and the October 19, 2009 memo shall be met; and October 14, 2009 Arborist's October 21, NPDES Coordinator's 6. 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; 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 shalt meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Special Permit and Variances. 1510 Drake Avenue Effective February 4, 2010 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 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; 12. 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 13. 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. . , � R � . CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �>��- �" �; BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �� • � � �, PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) ��6�_. _� �°` - - www.burlingame.org �``� � k �..� r' � ' � �, � s ''°' �S" 8 .�p=�� .+L°��€�� a _ _'_ �3�.y �� ' 3m. . `�J��L�—_� __ma'�_.,." Site: 1510 DRAKE AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2010 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review, Specipl Permit for attached garage and Variances for side setback and ffoor area ratio for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1510 DRAKE AVENUE zoned R-l. 026-032-090 Mailed: December 30, 2009 (Please refer to ofher sideJ 0 ,�i�v,�-�3%� � ��.��3� ; f4'l� ��a�fi YGGt;1 .�i=��.i�L7 . i..';a ��i�T�.�'.�� PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Cit�, of Burlinaame A copy of the app�ication and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Departmenf 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 HEARONG NOi10E (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 VII. ITEMS CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 11, 2010 MEETING Re_qular Action Items 2. 1510 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT BEAR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 25, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Noted that the FAR increase is only requested as it relates to the excavation within the lower levet. Provided additional drawings that show the massing of the project. Commission comments: ■ The roofline concerns have been addressed; there is now a much better connection between the front and rear roof sections. ■ Believe that there is too much hardscape, particularly within the front; within the back there is a lot of flagstone; proportionally, there is a lot of hardscape. Is there a way to increase planting areas in the front, or otherwise soften it? (Robertson — feels that the landscaping will fill-in; the retaining walls are low. The hardscape in the rear already exists. The courtyard is partially tiled currently.) ■ Clarified that yard space is being added in the location of the former garage. • The long, narrow window at the rear of the house may look better as an arched window, similar to the front window. (Robertson — that window is in front of a fairly significant tree; introducing a single- arched window in the rear will not add much architecturally.) ■ Noted that the laundry floor plan is difficult with respect to the cabinet locations and washer/dryer locations. ■ On the west elevation; the floor plan shows a certain style of window, but the windows on the elevation do not match the floor plan. (Robertson — there is a drawing error, the window should be taller, as shown on the plans presented to the Commission; windows will not match, in order to preserve neighbor's privacy; taller window needed to comply with egress requirements.) ■ Is the existing setback for the existing garage being reduced? (Robertson —the existing condition is being improved upon.) • On the second-floor roof, the hipped roof has a notch; what is the purpose? (Robertson — intended for photo cells.) ■ Clarified that the area that is being excavated will not be used for anything other than storage. (Robertson — the owner wishes to have a storage area that does not require stooping to access storage.) Public comments: None 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 25, 2010 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CommissionerAuran noted that the FloorArea Ratio Variance is created by the s/ope of the lot, if it did not have a downslope, it would not affect the floor area ratio and that the garage construction improves the existing setback condition, and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 28, 2009, sheets 1 through 10, MS-1 and MS-2; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special Permit and Variances, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 17 and October 14, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's November 12, 2009 memo, the City ArborisYs October 21, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 15, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 19, 2009 memo shall be met; 6. 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; 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 complywith 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 orfull demolition of a structure, interiororexterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 4 �CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minufes January 25, 2010 11. 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; 12. 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 13. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: The garage that is proposed is the bare minimum that it can be. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:56 p.m. 5