The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About16 Davis Court - Staff ReportItem # � G Consent Calendar �e� �c,�-a ��. 1l�- T� U-�; s Co � r-� qa�� dr `�a,�.j c�c�,-�1- � r o��t y PROJECT LOCATION 16 Davis Court City of Burlingame Design Review and a Special Permit for an Attached Garage Item # 3 G Consent Calendar Address: 16 Davis Court Meeting Date: 2/13/06 Request: Design review and a special permit for a single-story attached garage addition to an existing two-story residence. Applicant and Architect: Dale Meyer APN: 025-181-010 Property Owners: Andrew Jurow and Barbie Barrett Lot Area: 30,896 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Site History: In 2000 there was code enforcement activity on the property concerning an illegal second unit. Inspections of the site revealed that a second unit had been created over the existing attached garage. Enforcement proceedings were concluded when the owner at that time complied with code requirements to eliminate the second kitchen by removing the stove and capping off the gas line. The current plans still show the former "kitchen" (it is adjacent to the second story den). Although the use of this room is not labeled, it is not being used as a kitchen, the gas line is capped, and it does not include a cooking unit. In addition, the area above the existing attached garage (a bedroom, bath, den and former kitchen axea) does not meet the definition of a second unit because it does not have a kitchen and it can be accessed from the rest of the single family dwelling (through a doorway leading to stairs in the hall between the kitchen and dining room on the first floor). In February of 2005 the current owners were granted a conditional use permit to remodel the existing detached pool house on the site. The existing pool house was non-conforming because it contained a kitchen. The remodel included eliminating the non-conforming kitchen in the accessory structure. Summary: There is an existing two-story residence with an attached garage and a pool house accessory structure on the site. The applicant is proposing to add a second attached garage to the first story of the existing house. The proposed 961 SF 3-car garage requires a special permit and design review because it will be attached to the existing house. With the proposed application, the floor area on the site will be 7,239 SF (0.23 FAR) where 8,000 SF (0.25 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposal is 761 SF less than the maximum allowed. The existing house has 6 bedrooms and 2 covered parking spaces in the attached garage (18' x 20'). The applicant is proposing to keep the existing attached garage and add a second attached garage that will provide 3 additional covered parking spaces (10' x 20' each), though only 2 of these spaces meet the exiting requirements; there will be a total of 4 covered parking spaces on site that meet code requirements. There is one uncovered parking space in front of the existing attached garage and three uncovered parking spaces in front of the proposed attached garage (9' x 20' each), though only 2 of these spaces meet the existing requirements; there will be a total of 3 uncovered parking spaces on site that meet code requirements. All other zoning code requirements have been met. Design Review and Special Permit The applicant is requesting the following: • Design review for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010); and • Special permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.28.035,a). Table 16 Davis Court Lot Area: 30,896 SF 16 Davis Court Plans date stam ed 1. .06 Existing i Proposed � Allowed/Required SETBACKS TO ' i PROPOSED � � , ATTACHED GARAGE � � I __... .............................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................. ................. .............. .....................................�.............. _..... ...... .._....._..........................__............... , ISetbacks to proposed I attached garage j Front: --- ! 66'-0" 35'-0" Side: --- j 8'-0'� ��_�� ................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................................................;............................................................. ........................................................ ,. . . ..............._............_......................................................................_....... , 6,496 SF � 7,457 SF � 12,358 SF Lot Coverage: a ; o 0 40 0 1 24 /o / 8 /o .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................�....................... .........................................................................................................................................................................................................._.......................... � 6,278 i 7,239 SF 8,000 SF' FAR: 0.24 FAR � 0.25 FAR 0.20 FAR ' � � ........................................................................................ ... ......... ............................................................. _ ................... .. ..... . ............................................................................... i # of bedrooms: 6 i No change I --- _ ..........................................._........._................................._......................................................__..........__............. ,.... , � 4 covered, 2 existing 2 covered, attached j 2 covered (18' x 20') ' and 2 proposed, (20' x 20') ; attached � � Parking: � 1 uncovered 1 uncovered drivewa � 3 uncovered, 1 in ; (9' x 20') (9' x 20') I existing driveway, 2 in j � .... Proposed...drivewaY ..............._; .. .................. _. ........................................... _ _................................. .................. ... . . ........ ..........................................................................,....... . . .... . . ' 8,000 SF is the maximum allowable floor area on any parcel. Staff Comments: See attached. Staff would note that the existing garage and driveway meet the code requirement for covered and uncovered parking for the 6-bedroom house (existing garages that are at least 18'-0" wide are considered to provide 2 covered parking spaces). The proposed attached garage will be accessed by a 10'-6" driveway where 9'-6" in the required minimum driveway width. Though the proposed � Design Review and Special Permit 16 Davis Court attached garage will provide an additional 3 covered parking spaces and the area in front of the proposed garage will provide and additional 3 uncovered parking spaces, the driveway access to the proposed garage is such that only 2 proposed covered spaces and 2 proposed uncovered spaces can be exited in the required minimum number of maneuvers. Design Review Study Meeting: On January 23, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed attached garage. The Planning Commission made several comments and placed the project on the consent calendar when the applicant returned with revised plans. The applicant submitted revised sheets P3 and P5, dated January 30, 2006, to address the Commission's comments. Below are the Commissions' concerns with a summary of responses from the applicant. 1. There is no human scale on the garage; it can be broken down to two or three doors so that the massing is not so large; could go with a double door and a single door, or a single roll-up door that looks like three separate doors. Sheet PS has been revised to show that the new garage door will be a single door that appears to be divided into three separate doors. 2. A dormer would be good for the massing of the garage; • The applicant has revised sheet P3 to include a dormer at the front of the proposed garage. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's January 23, 2006, design review study meeting, that the size of the garage is appropriate for the lot and a partitioned garage door and a dormer break up the massing, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. 3 Design Review and Special Permit 16 Davis Court Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for an attached garage, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roofline, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Special Permit Findings for a Special Permit: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commissions January 23, 2006, design review study meeting, that the proposed garage visually matches the existing attached garage, the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and a special permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 10, 2006, sheets P1, P2 and P4 and date stamped January 30, 2006, sheets P3 and P5, with a single garage door that has the appearance of 3 separate doors and a dormer in the new attached garage, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first floor, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4 Design Review and Special Permit 16 Davis Court 4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and the City Engineer's November 29, 2005 memos, and the Fire Marshal's, the NPDES Coordinator's, and the Recycling Specialist's December 5, 2005 memos shall be met; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 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; and 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Erika Lewit Planner c. Dale Meyer, Architect 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 23, 2006 • Second floor addition is broad across the front elevation, could mass be broken up or floor in another way?; • Bay window does not seem to fit design. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: these are hard houses to add on to; believes in pre ing back yaxds; needs more definition on the second floor; have a preference for front porches, how er Rosedale is a fairly busy street and there is less of a need for a front porch, would be in support a bay window in this circumstance; massing is an issue and would hope that the architect could c e up with a different approach; a design reviewer could help; it would be sad to take away this fron orch that is consistent with the neighborhood and supports the character of the area; fireplace in the re is coming down so can add a small4'-5' space at the back in order to retain the front porch eleme , front porch should be embraced, could enlarge the covered porch here like other ranch houses in t neighborhood; C. Deal made a motion to send this pro' to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on motion: desi reviewer needs to listen to the tapes; front porch needs to be retained; the second floor should be r esigned to fit better with the first floor and reduce mass; elements can be designed in to fit in better wit e neighborhood; many people that go through the design review process appreciate the outcome of t ir project; all windows should come back as simulated true divided light windows. Chair A n called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with direction give . The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Vistica and C. Osterling absent). The Planning C ission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 7. 16 DAVIS COURT, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND ANDREW JUROW AND BARBIE BARRETT, PROPERTY OWNERS) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway Rd, architect, code enforcement was with former owners; family has 6 children, all of driving age, and 11 cars and wants to get as many vehicles off the street as possible. Commission commented: Is it the intention to have a single door? Yes, the door will never be seen driving up the street; a steel beam will be put across the header to support the oversized door. There is no human scale on the garage, it is big; can be broken down to two or three doors; ok with size but want to see a change to the exterior; the building could look more like a car barn, massing needs to be broken up; could go with a double door and a single door to break front up, and try to visually mirror what is existing in the front of the house; could install a single roll up door that looks like it's three separate doors; a dormer would be good for the massing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, wants to congratulate people in Burlingame who are trying to get their cars off the street. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. G� City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes X. XI. January 23, 2006 C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the discussed revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Vistica and C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of January 17, 2006. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of Jan of Richard Terrones, the new Planning Commissioner who to ; 2006. She noted the appointment seat at this meeting. FYI — Review of Window Guide for Design Review ndout. Commission complimented staff on presenting suc a clear description and endorsed the idea of giving this to applicants at the counter early in the des' review process. They felt having the window sample at the counter was also a good idea. / ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned submitted, Deal, Secretary S:�IvIINUTESUvlinutes Template.doc at 9:25 p.m. 1� City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.orQ a`; CITY � .t' � BURLINC3AME �.,m...�••,J'' Type of application: APPLiCATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Design Review� Conditional Use Pertnit Variance Special Permit_�� Other Parcel Number: Project address: �� ?�Ot,�l�S �' � '7+��V� APPLICANT Name: 'DaQ o 1�¢�•)e�' Address: 851 �rlwd�v fZc� ..��+�'� �Gt� City/State/Zip: $vrlirv�rn�. G� q'l�o/t� _ Phone (w): �SiD _ 3 i} B � �� (h): — ( fl: (.�SD _ 3J.�.S- ;Zt I al ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: T�iG. Nl��te.r Address:8_Sl R�tlW�v Rel.. 5�,�'� �a� City/State/Zip: gor�i,�w �rr�t,�'A q1TnI D Phone (w): �_ 3L,.R_�SL,�. (h): � (fl:� 1tR.. -� i1a PROPERTY OWNER Name: �krlol�w ��ro�w .� �r/a� E�trr�ti— Address: ! G� `�aV;s �_'7" City/State/Zip: �►►ii �,��, GA af L.�� Phone (w): (h): �fl� Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. �� NOV 2 2 2005 CIIY OF BURLlNGAME PLANNING DEPT. �� . � � . � � . � �r�a1 �.I t / • �I a . � � � 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: ti � — ( � `� � � I know about the proposed application and application to the Planning Comm�sior� Property owner's signature: authorize the above applicant to submit this Date: , � /%� � � I / — /� —�,-�" Date submitted: II%�o5 PCAPP.FRM ,`, � ,:. � � �. ; : ., . � � � GL�o�O)��ca"�o� 't�� s��n feu� ew �tvf G�n a"'�"aL �n.� CI QA rA�j,(, I /� �/ V � � , , . CITY OF BIJKL.INGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 d�� ; ` � . x�., '-,� i -,�� ,�„�„�, � �.a_ CTTY OF �URLII�T�AME R�C�I�IEL� SPECIAL PERMIT APT'LICATIOIV OV 2 2 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 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. l. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and doh:inant structural characteristics of the new construction or adciition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighhorhood. � �I�f� �-.o�- o,R ,}� ��- fS �o�,On ��- pn ��" �� 'o .�{�2_ c'1�i5�� ho��... `-T� ,�er,� c�`"rz�e �s �- �tc� P-.e.r, � ��' l� .r►o+k� ;F-le�s v;sb� ��'y' � S�1'��• On �! e1 SyI7o111 �r�r"�tan o d-- I 1 (�y� � St�P.�i �mm � S�". .I � A�� M�Git�S � P-K�S�i /� � hou� in c;o%r"� A�l inR'�ro��3 . 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish r�rtaterials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street a�d neighborhood. �+� n�w �3l-�o�Fur�- is low�,. ¢�an � ,rbv,�n hou5� . `�� e,c�1 ►-cc��- �n�t�te:� � rnc� � o�r �h� e�c � sh'n� ha�s� �,� s I d� G+nd m,oEe,-i a l �,��, g. 7�e ne� �,,� �rs ar�� H`e �2•�c;s�-in� w a i�s /n C�%r Ai7e� maker.A� r.x o{-�� ,�u� `. i7e'� � s c.orrl�ti'r� W� N1 `�. Es�„� �� h6a-h�. 3. 4. How will t.he proposed project be consiste�tt with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25 57)? '`�1�. 'F'��fx'�� rs c,n»3isT"� w'rf�1 }� �,�-�-urn� � s�'e o� i� �=xis�r � h�-,� , 7�e ��n � J� � F- �. �lh��O� �{�N.�- U✓! fY�2. ��..-._ L,� ti � �� a � �'it�' r�q � L f 1� U � •cn t72i�1 �I y %.� ir hrotelP�n �-row� �.. .��-Girlct il` vn%V d-6+c6..S � �J �"Y � nY'4 Te-. I C� ��' C�Jr�Sht,a� �elrla�SG�i� au�i� �ana�n Un'r'oUc�� . Cl Explain how the removal of any trees located within e footprint of any new structure or addr.tion is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What �nitigation is proposed for the re`noval of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. ��p ��.� �,►�I1 l� �,r►��r�l. Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: 11 /29/2005 ❑ City Engineer X Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist a Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Request for design review and special permit for an attached garage at 16 Davis Court, zoned R-1, APN: 025-181-010 12/5/2005 1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC}, the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Provide a legend that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, and new walls. 4) The garage cannot have any openings into a room used for sleeping purposes. 5) Provide guardrails at all landings. 6) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are more than four risers. 7) Pravide lighting at all exterior landings. Reviewed b, • " _.' . . 1��.�..��:. . � ��= _ _._. Y - �� Date: l � /��' � �� Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: 11 /29/2005 nf City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff ❑ NPDES Coordinator Request for design review and special permit for an attached garage at 16 Davis Court, zoned R-1, APN: 025-181-010 12/5/2005 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. 2. Replace all displaced/damaged sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter. Reviewed by: V V Date: 11/29/2005 Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: 11 /29/2005 ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney ❑ Recycling Specialist d Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Planning Staff Request for design review and special permit for an attached garage at 16 Davis Court, zoned R-1, APN: 025-181-010 12/5/2005 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide double backflow prevention. 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. Given the scope of work separate from the dwelling unit, please contact the Fire Marshal if you would like to consider an alternate means of protection for the sprinkler system. Reviewed by: �� Date: ��_„�,�� J Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: 11 /29/2005 � City Engineer � Chief Building Official � City Arborist � City Attorney � Recycling Specialist � Fire Marshal � NPDES Coordinator Planning Staff Request for design review and special permit for an attached garage at 16 Davis Court, zoned R-1, APN: 025-181-010 12/5/2005 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the construction project (inctuding demolition). Include appropriate stormwater BMPs in the Project Plan Set. The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: � C� � �� . � �.��h-� f Date: 12/05/05 Project Comments Date: 11 /29/2005 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Subject: Planning Staff X Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Request for design review and special permit for an attached garage at 16 Davis Court, zoned R-1, APN: 025-181-010 Staff Review: 12/5/2005 , Applicant shall submit a Recycling and Waste Reduction Plan for approval, and pay a recycling deposit for this and all covered projects prior to construction or permitting. Reviewed by: r Date: / � - s- Q 5 � � i ��, cirr o,� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 . , ' o ' m TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 ''v,,.r ,,,r6>�� www.burlingame.org ! Site: 16 DAVIS COURT ; Application for design review and special j permit for an attached garage for a first floor pUBLIC HEARING � addition to an existing single family dwelling ' at: 16 DAVIS COURT, zoned R-1. NOTICE ; (APN:025-181-010). ; The City of Burlingame Planning Commission �- , - � j announces the following public hearing on �! Monday, January 23, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. in the �I City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 �- - Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. � Mailed: January 13, 2006 � - ��n��n��i�n��iin��u�u�in��n�i��i��i��ii� _ � i (Please refer to other side) I A copy of the a� to the meeting Burlingame, C �*� If you challe e raising only �� described in h� at or prior to hE Property ow r� their tenants b� (650) 558-7 0 CITY OF B URLINGAME .��.ry� �� ``" � � .d. ;��xt°�x �lic � andk��ans for this`pro�ec�� y be reviewed prior � �,a��ning Departmen;t �yt��5�� Primrose Road � �a �. s _ , � ., �� :� � _ .. . � ��,_ � +'�� ' ..� Margaret Mon�� `� ��' .� � 4�,�> '` City Planner '�� >� PU B�LI.� (Please refer to other side) �� '�� ,�� x ,+ i'�;)'� ~ ��,a,y'_,,, ' „`. � xs,r,'� ,�t' �:�'ICE be limited to blic hearing, ;d to the city informing please call �� P � �:.�.........�. _. � � �i �i m � �' � � -. - f'HOTO '2' � � :: �' F . ,. _ :. CC'C� �—i �; C C-i�CC L__ �i �; C_ � PHOTO '3' � PHOTO 'I' PHOTO '4' � � � � .� �., �� !�- � ,�� N0� 2 2 2005 cmr oF eus��c��rti�� RI ANNINu nF4�T �m 6� 6° �$ �O � � � m= � N- Q � m L� � � 8 �F �� (�< �� O O v v Q u w w f Q 0� z �� O u �O N 7 Q � � �a� ,� .,�ro.�,� �, P� o. a RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and a special permit for an attached gara�e at 16 Davis Court, zoned R-1, Andrew Jurow and Barbie Barrett, pro,perty owners, APN: 025-181-010; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 13, 2006, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1- (e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review and special permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of Februarv, 2006 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review and special permit. 16 Davis Court Effective February 23, 2006 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 10, 2006, sheets P1, P2 and P4 and date stamped January 30, 2006, sheets P3 and P5, with a single garage door that has the appearance of 3 separate doors and a dormer in the new attached garage, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first floor, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and the City Engineer's November 29, 2005 memos, and the Fire Marshal's, the NPDES Coordinator's, and the Recycling Specialist's December 5, 2005 memos shall be met; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 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; and -2- EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review and special permit. 16 Davis Court Effective February 23, 2006 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. -3- .� �� CITY O •c .,� CITY OF BURLINGAME �URLING P�ANNING DEPqqTMENT . �. �E S01 pR�MROSE ROqp , BURLINGq►NE, Cq 94010 o Tww.bus�� 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 ,.,m,,,,,E„�' �, game.org Site: 16 DAVIS COURT Application for design review and special permit for an attached addition to an existin garage for a first floor at: 16 DAVIS g S�ngle family dwe11ing �APN. COUR7, zoned R-1. 025-181-010). The City of Burlin announces the fol�low n P�anning �ommission Monday, Februa g pub�� hearing on in the Cit ry 13� 2006 at 7;pp p_M Y Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Bur�ingame� �alifornia. Mailed: February3, 20006 ��iu�u��n��u��i��u��i�i��i�� (Please refer to other side) PUB��C HEARING NOTICE � � � �I E - � ��. - r' - ; -- _ — -- r CITY OF B URLINGAME � A copy of the applic�t�� at to the meeting �� r ' � . }�� Burlingame, C��a= � �,�.� �� ,�� If you challe e th -��uli�� raising only " "W'� described in �h e ' at or prior to�the pu c e� �� Property ow ' _ rs c��:r.�; their tenants bou . �i�=�� (650) 558-7 � 0 � �'� � � �_, i �; � ��,� �= �� Margaret Mo ec�.� � ,� � City Planner �� PU�T'� � (Please refer to othe�- side) �; �� inf be reviewed prior Primrose Road, � m be limited to � blic hearing, ��ve :ed to the city � ble or informing �ati , please call � x � ,�,��.;- � �� ' � � � �� - �, ��1:��!�CE c ,, � � � � ,, ' i � �„ ; � �`� � fw a i a �.i � � S*`.', e�. ^�, � � �,y,`.•y� i �' -: j ��. ,�„n-_. ,A � < . s�� '- , �Mi' � . �. ,y �" \� � >�'l`�"t 4.�� «� �Pr `. . � � � � � �a � ' �� . � . � .� ,} �. � � t � ;d' 1' '1.,� `-�`�z�3 �4� .,�e�.�:. , • �. e e � �� ', x'+�t' ��' � �a` � � � , � r � . . • . r s, � � � . ry;. , .. �l b y�1,` '�'?' �.� ,1 # � �"i `�hj � k % �� . �+ ��, �' �� .�' ,� �� " �, ,� �', '`{;, • '�`��^�,``�� ; ;�� , . � � , A �`� "4a� .�' y . . �- -'; � � �. ,� s��. ' ��°.. � � . +. .�.� �c +.r!�;/� . Y _�.`�^. � "" � .. ,,1 %� '�r � �r ,, � . r.,.�► '-`sa. •�a/`.'� . �r^h,,� , � ��,as `�� k:�"� . . .1� s.�� a� �Q. �"`� ; � � P..n �(�y > �• � _ �. `g''., '�W. . y'� % � � /��y / y � � . _ �l i .k.f. _ .F F s %�-a�' 3Q�` }�r'/ .1 , � . �':!' �f�. ,,(�� n . . � ��# �V � � ¢�U . f� �,;�' � .. 'i Y � °�„ {.,%. � • C :�;.. . �B� `�'y' �f^.�� ` � t' �' y� � ��J~� k�� ' . . �� 7 � �� , r b �rr (� t. � t p��" �S�r��y+'��:"a',7��7J � �, � . .. .a4� t1 �I � r�,� �r �`�. a :( q ' µ M�; Y � � � � , �. � y .. �..,1 y' y E 3'�" x ` � s��t ' N �'C' 9Y �& � � i � } Y %M�Xi '� " * �,� o' �� .t � f �' „ �A °„y � i F' � �;, ,,'�' �' �'�.a ' ' �� 1 � �¢�, ' ,>-$, °,�c, ! � .� . � � � � .A'; "+" ``: • T .Y e`` '. � >* � t �4j��, �� ,� r .�.+J . �`: r�� ,� l � '^'f ' �rZ • ` �� :+l� • �,•T R a ¢ : � r�...A� ..i�' • ,. :� _ .�. r �,��1 *� +c �'. �: L � �� ,a .� � �[:' � : ; �� .�� ;"��Y'' �� /� � .� f � � y� � � � y. �� y ' � � c �� a�, " •� � '� , � � ��" . ' .ZY .. r o . � � � '� P � � . ¢ � 1��t `: ,�, e � ` y�7.. .. � � . . � �. � � � � � � � � .� . ,�µ� �� , � •.,.-� ' ' 3�� "� 23"�,� ;, ��''�a � � I �" `�.r�' � � � ��: � � ,, �� , .� f.''tt t�� U�� v' �� i,� �' � �I,Id�' � � .. iy` y ' + � � r � ��: _ � .�� ..� !C•�: t t •��;y, �, '� �;� 'S . � �k;. • ' a � .�• -� � ��+ ' i� �_ , � f� +� '� tia� w`,« , , :� �;'�, `+� �;�' ni �, '.', ` :�°�` � ;, °.• "'}+ �; a� ,,,�.�ti � W , a ' � �,� r � � ,.�e`�� »`;:,, f^ � 4. w�. " tr w.�''g.,, p ,:Q ,�`� ' �'� �tr, � t;rY. - , . - � � r � � y �. . . ,�� ' � ,� t � �'� ��5'�, �° �4 .;i� ° . � � �' ". � j t � .A �� ; �. �:•�� y �ei, �� s.; . r * . n �4'�-�� &�� ,�;" � � � � �� >' ty�,��'•, �i' ��,p � .�`, . .� •�r ' �� " �`i` t-�`� �" ,� •v� � � . W E �_yr ,?�%1t:4 a , x ., __ . , '"'►�r.' :0 . r,�n [`�3 . '" ef,¢,� w � � } - {� x a� � , r y'� x � Fy~SK }is' � � . • 3- ,. . ... , . a, , °� .., • '� t �� p � _ _. � ' , �. �� . � #p 1 . . . . n .. . . �.. � . . . , . "� ,,y < b ".� ; �.R, ti � � A ' � �, � . . , � f , �. ,., • , � � n 4�� , i� � .�'� a.,.� � - ` . � � � iy. N " x � � . � . . '� � �,�. -,s�a _ -.,, . � �q , � ,,�,r� .,�r�� a > .� `� , ti �.�y<��,�, . n*� �, � � � c �- ♦ t` �" ' f � .--` � t ' � ` - .:N a .��a `�• � tY�- � . i� �� ;� ,� -.�.. . t � o-=. � ' �'� � � r,`„� ��a J ' + lw`� . � �� y r9F.S A Y ..� e �: �t � ( .... "A� � -�i,.�F"' � � Yn � � i#'�°,"�.� n,.� . '.` o .r F�• 4'.. �� rr P i � s . . �,1, . � . *��`�� 1 t�' y g ' './ V � , . . , � 5 �.` � k`8�p -` � ,-�' 3 �§ �i � 4� ri? L 1 '` . . . � `�� -�,.� ' a� ' ; `^ _ , w ��,, . P M r� f 1�,�.�.,»-- � _ '�,�,'�*+,,p, �n` � � � ` A 4 Y•-ibr� �� t � _'' � ,. a� � � , x � � f. � .z. ;�,y ' � � .. , .,yj• . . � � � t r �- � � �� ' � ,y � 4 � ��•yA�, . � � "� y/ii a� � y � � � �� '�'3T.' < T` „� � ♦ }* � v+�!" � :�a=� � �^��' i *� �a f w�'' ' � ' � '� a . �, �� n a. , a r y •' ° �,. A � �-�a �v� : . .i �i , ' ,y�, .�,3T i 4 � �� 33 � �' �~ . �1 �" � h� /'4 } '^'� �l ` ` � A f �+ s`� 9^�F��,,,'F �. .. ..` .,.:. � w .,: � t _ d ., ', 4 �,� _ ,r . `t . � ��, - ,p. • 2 g , � ' ,2 � � �� , , . . , � . �- . • . � , � „ �� , � . . �, _. ,, , : >� ,� ; � E � _ > �. � � 3 � � ,�.' � � � �� y 4 f� ' � . .: ,. �. s% � . . Y' ' � h . � = i. �v .� � � . � �x � � w�u tm�� , . w � �al � _ •,: � .r, '*..� ; . .. � e�.s�►' _ ...+. � ' � ,� ..�,- -� ,� .�.,�. . �` .g*,. R �.`. , . . r . . " . � � P� '� , �,�� ti�:� � � �, .. � � �,. ,� � �4 ;, '" � 4� ' �� fi " � .�. , ��, �,,, �� ' �'� `' �,, � {; s�� . , � � � � . _ . �; 'f� �r ��,. .r�.»�+i � : '� , ��t"a� . 4 i , .��y G- �.� O .R .. ' G� l ��-y� � F� }.. � �(7Q t � ,� , � �r; � � «. - .'".'t"'�'' �"",+• � "' � • � � � � � �i'' • �� , .� , � - �,� � • � d'" � , r r� �yr� ".`�t i 3- ��A, �,� �` � . � .� � "`i � �:��'� � e'r,�� :�p � �,�,,.,;�b i �.�.,.u,� ,��;�� ' � . w , r) � ' ' A ^�,�� . , � v . � „!T � 't • ..; �w+�� ',; Or r �. � � `-��1�� , "t' � ""+ � � �� 4 * �,��' x � � �� + ,� �. 1 ,�+t . �:' y !'� y�^� ` . \ � • � �+'�`. 4 .�' 1�., �,. w` .��. �r i ��i� ,�° �� '�`. y ', � ` �.'� ;� , r ' � � - -.s . � � "� , � , _ `��, �,� � x�. . �' s; �'� "^i �' . �� Y, �y . '� °. � �`' �. '� � ° �` �.i',:: �� w �• . � �� .�, �� , G � , , , .. - , , ..;. . ' � a � � City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes VII. ACTION ITEMS February 13, 2006 COnSerit Calendal' - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 3A. 1199 BROADWAY, SUITE 2, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (TOMMY NGAI AND DANNY KUAN, APPLICANTS, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT, AND GARBIS AND MAIDA BEZDJIAN, TRS., PROPERTY OWNERS) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 3B. 821 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINIlVG HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JD ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND DANIEL MCAULIFFE, PROPERTY OWNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT 3C. 16 DAVIS COURT, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND ANDREW JUROW ANID BARBIE BARRETT, PROPERTY OWNERS) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Deal noted that he would abstain from the vote on 821 Paloma because he has a business relationship with the applicant and he would abstain from the vote on 1199 Broadway because he lives within 500 feet on the project site. C. Terrones moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners' comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed for 3a, 1199 Broadway, and 3b, 821 Paloma Avenue, on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) voice vote and for 3c, 16 Davis Court, on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:52 pm. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 2412 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, ALVIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report February 13, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. James Wong, 207 Northwood Avenue, San Francisco, project architect, Susan May, 2408 Hale Drive, and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke regarding the project. 4 Design Review Checklist Project Address: 16 Davis Court APN: 025-181-010 Project Description: Request for design review and special permit for an attached garage at 16 Davis Court, zoned R-1. ❑ Application to the Planning Commission ❑ Supplemental Forms � Project Plans Date Stamped: I �'�Z "�� Revised: �� '� tU ❑ Staff Report for Design Review Study Meeting ❑ Copy of Public Notice ❑ Public Notice Mailing List ❑ Staff Report for Action Meeting Was Project Referred to a Design Review Consultant? Yes No Consultant Name: Date to Design Reviewer: Meeting Held: Revised Plans Submitted: Analysis Received: ply Refu � �