The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1530 Drake Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Lot Coverage Variance Address: 1530 Drake Avenue ... Request: Lot Coverage Variance for first and lower level addition to a single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Dii Lewis, Azulworks Inc. Property Owners: Daniel and Harriet Dower General Plan: Low Density Residential 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that 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. Project Description: The existing single-story residence with a detached garage contains 2,428 SF (0.40 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The lot coverage for the site is nonconforming with 44% covered where 40% is the maximum allowed. Included in existing lot coverage calculations is a 329 SF rear deck that is 4'-8" above grade. The applicant is proposing a lower level addition that will expand the existing basement/laundry area and create a 574 SF rumpus room. With the addition, the floor area will increase from 2,428 SF to 2,765 SF (0.46 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57FAR) is the maximum allowed. Since the addition will be located within the existing footprint of the building, there will be no net increase in lot coverage. However, in order to construct the rumpus room, the existing rear deck will need to be removed. Because the deck is being removed, the lot coverage is no longer a nonconforming condition. A Variance to exceed 40% lot coverage is required to replace that deck. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for the increase to three bedrooms. The existing detached garage provides one (1) covered space (10' x 16'-10") and the driveway provides the uncovered space (9' x 20'). Although the covered parking space does not comply with current code requirements, it does not need to be brought up to code since the proposed addition does not intensify the parking requirement. Aside from the removal and replacement of rear deck, no changes are proposed to the main level of the structure. No changes are proposed to the accessory structure. The applicant is requesting: Item No. Action Calendar Meeting Date: March 8, 2008 APN: 026-032-140 Lot Area: 6000 SF Zoning: R-1 ■ Variance for lot coverage (44% existing and proposed where 40% is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.065). Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: March 12, 2008 EXISTING REVISED PROPOSAL ALLOWED/ REQUIRED SETBACKS ........................................................... Side (left, upper): (left, lower): _ ................. _........................................................... Lot Coverage: FAR: # of bedrooms: 4'-0" (to deck) n/a 2651 S F 44% 2428 SF 0.40 FAR .............................................................. 2 4'-0" (to deck) 4'-0" (to rumpus room) _ ........ .......... . ..... .................... _...................... _..... _.............. .. .. 2651 SF' 44% . ................................................................ 2765 SF 0.46 FAR _ ..........................._................_...................... 3 4'-0" 4'-0" 2400 SF 40% ............................ 3420 S F 0.57 FAR 2 Lot Coverage Variance 1530 Drake Avenue i........................................................................................................................................................................_....................................................._............................................................................................................................................................................................. Parking: � 1 covered � � 1 covered (10' x 16'-10") 3 � (10' x 20') ' 1 uncovered no change � 1 uncovered (9' x 20') I (9' x 20') ' Lot Coverage Variance is required to remove and replace the rear deck (44% existing and proposed where 40% is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.065) z (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) 3 Existing nonconforming condition Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer and NPDES Coordinator. Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission study meeting on February 25, 2008, the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding this project (February 25, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes). To address the Commission's comments, the designer submitted a response letter and a revised Variance application form, date stamped March 10, 2008, as well as revised plans date stamped March 12, 2008. Listed below are the Commissions' comments and responses by the applicant. 1. On the Variance application form, the applicant should re-address the matter of exceptional circumstances in support of the Variance. One exceptional circumstance that may support the Variance requesf could be the existing heighf of fhe finished floor above adjacent grade; if /ess fhan 2'-0'; the floor area of the proposed addition would be exempt. • The applicant has revised the Variance application form (response letter from applicant and revised Variance Application form, date stamped March 10, 2008). The height of the finished floor above adjacent grade is 4'-0" (response letter from the applicant date stamped March 10, 2008). Staff notes that the height of the finished floor above adjacent grade is a consideration in determining floor area but not lot coverage. 2. How tall is the existing unfinished basement; there may be some opportunity for developmenf in that area. • The existing basement has a ceiling height of 6'-5". This has been noted on Sheet A-5.0, Detail 4 (response letter from applicant dated March 10, 2008, and revised sheet A-5.0, date stamped March 12, 2008). Staff notes that this ceiling height may not apply to the crawl space adjacent to the existing basement area. 3. Confused by latfice finish over exterior walls below deck; revise plans to identify how lattice will interface with exterior finish. Wall types are detailed on Sheet A-5.0, Detail 3(response letter from applicant dated March 10, 2008, and revised sheet A-5.0, Detail 3, date stamped March 12, 2008). 4. Provide the manufacturer of the proposed vinyl windows. � New windows will be Milguard fiberglass clad wood with 2.5" wood trim (response letter from applicant dated March 12, 2008, and revised sheet A-3.0, Detail 2, Note 10). -2- Lot Coverage Variance 1530 Drake Avenue 5. On fhe north side elevation, specify the materials to be used, particularly where the materials appear fo change. � The apparent change of materials was due to a discrepancy on the previously submitted plans. No changes are proposed to that area of the north side elevation (response letter from applicant dated March 12, 2008, and revised existing north side elevation, sheet A-3.0, Detail 3). Required Findings for 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 that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (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 March 12, 2008, sheets A-0.0, A-1.0, A-2.0, A-2.1, A-3.0, A-3.1, ME-4.0, and A-5.0, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 17, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's January 2, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 17, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's December 17, 2007 memo shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the lot coverage variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 4. 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; 5. 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; 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; -3- Lot Coverage Variance 1530 Drake Avenue 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8. 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; Lisa Whitman Zoning Technician c. Dii Lewis Azulworks, Inc. 205 13`h Street, Suite 3138 San Francisco, CA 94103 Daniel and Harriet Dower 1530 Drake Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Attachments: Applicant's Response to Commission's comments Minutes from Study Meeting Application to the Planning Commission Revised Variance Application Form Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed March 14, 2008 Aerial Photo -4- ��l4.f i�rc. Monday, March 10 2008 ��l�/�� To: City Of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Burlingame, CA 94001 Re: 25 February 2008 Planning Coininission Meeting Project #: 1530 Drake Avenue Dear Planning Coiiunission Members, h�A(? � � 200� �.�ITY OF E�!ALINGAMF_ PI.ANNI�IG DEPl� Thank you for taking the time to review 1530 Drake, and for making your recommendations. We are submitting this letter, along with a copy of the plans indicating the changes, vis-a-vis, Revision 3, and the response change to letter a: of the variance application. 1) In response to the first comment, we have attached a revised response to item a: of the variance application. 2) The height of the existing unfinished basement is shown in detail4, Sheet A5.0. 3) The lattice finish detail is shown on detail�, Sheet AS.� 4) The owners have selected Milguard as the manufacturer of the windows used in the project. The window selected is a fiberglass unit on the exterior, wood clad on the interior. This is called out in note 10 of detail2 Sheet A3.0. 5) There was a discrepancy between what was shown as existing and what was proposed. The portion of the wall in question has vertical wood siding as the e�sting condition. All elevations have been corrected to reflect accurately the e�sting conditions. 6) The height from finished floor to adjacent grade is 4'. Thank you. Sincerely, Dii Lewis AzulWorks, Inc. 205 13�' Street, Suite 3138 San Francisco, CA 94103 tel (415) 558-1507 fax (415) 558-1558 e � 205 13"' St, Suite 3138, 5an Francisco, CA 94'103 • Tel: (415) 558-1507 • Fax: (415) 558-1556 -1- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California February 25, 2008 - 7:00 p.m. \CALL TO ORDER Cha Cauchi called the February 25, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissio rs Auran, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), Cauchi sterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: None Staff Present: Community III. MINUTES Director William CommissionerAuran moved, seconded by C "ssione 91, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning mmis ' Mofion passed 5-0-9 (Commission rownrigg absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no ch V. FROM THE to the agenda. `� and Zoning Technician Lisa Whitman Terrones, to approve the minutes of the February ■ t Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; commented thaf she regrets the loss of a co red parking space at 1417 Bernal Avenue (Agenda Item 2) and suggested that the Commission co ider prohibiting the installation of a 220v electrical circuit in the rumpus room. She indicated that she ported the proposal for 1530 Drake Avenue (Agenda Item 1). VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1530 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR LOWER LEVEL ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DII LEWIS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND DANIEL AND HARRIET DOWER PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Zoning Technician Lisa Whitman presented a summary of the staff report, dated February 25, 2008. Commission comments: ■ On Variance application form, applicant should re-address matter of exceptional circumstances as support of Variance; pretty typical size lot. ■ How tall is existing unfinished basement; there may be some opportunityfor development in that area. ■ Confused by lattice finish over exterior walls below deck; revise plans to identify how lattice will interFace with exterior finish. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISS/ON - Unapproved Minutes February 25, 2008 ■ Provide the manufacturer for the proposed vinyl windows. ■ On the north side elevation, specify the materials to be used, particularly where the materials appear to change. ■ An exceptional circumstance on the lot that may support the Variance request could be the existing height of finished floor above adjacent grade. If it was less than 2'-0", the floor area of the proposed addition would be exempt. This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submiited and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:90 p.m. 2. 1417 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS D ECIAL PERMIT TO USE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE FOR RECR TION P POSES (TRENT AND ANNE WRIGHT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND INGES ARC TECTS_ INC__ ARCHITECTI PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN _ Communi Development Director, William Meeker presented a summaryof the staff repo , dated February 25, 2008. Commission com ents: ■ Clarify why the r pus room is not considered to be a bedroom. ■ Clarify type and s of windows and doors. ■ Identify type of siding ize, shape, material) on garage. This item was set for the regular ction Calendar when al! the infor tion has ,been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. Thi ' em concluded af 7.•13 p,m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent lendar e considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion an or tion is requesfed by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time fhe C mission votes on fhe motion to adopt. There were no items on the Consent Cale VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 3066 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED 1— APPLICATION FOR A NDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSL APPROVED FIRST AND SEC D STORY ADDITION (MIMI SIEN, APPLICANT AND PROPER WNER; AND MICHAEL MA, ARCHI CT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA �TR(�HMFIFR lC�NT/NU FROM FEBRUARY 11. 2008 PLANNI COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report ated February 25, 2008, with attachments. Com nity Development Director, William Meeker pres ted the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fo een (14) conditions were suggested for con 'tleration. � Commission mments: ■ C missioner Brownrigg indicated he would abstain from conversation sinc he had not articipated in the last discussion of this item before the Commission. ■ Noted that the Commission had clearly requested approved plans from 2006 approva the item should be continued. 2 � aiTr o a� ;'' �,� ' � �.�,\. � .�,�� ,,��,� �� o� �•� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING C�,._�� ,t��l Type of application: ❑ Design Review ❑ Conditional Use Permit PROJECT ADDRESS '� Variance ❑ ❑ Special Permit ❑ � S� c:� � C� 1�i � C, `�' '� 2UDi Other: � `� `' Y Parcel Nu er: � , _ :� - atANNII�IG DEPT n�1�-- �� - I �-�; APPLICANT project contact persone OK to send electronic copies of documents.P1 Name: � z�1 �,w c�� •� NC.' Address: �2�5 - t ��` � �� TE � i 3� City/State/Zip: �� w � � '�`�iv � Phone (w): `�! J- 5 S�� 7 (Home) (Fax): �� - S S� ��- e S S� (E-mail): ARCHITECT/DESIGNER pro�ect contact person,� OK to send electronic copies of documents � Name: ��-- � � ��` � J Address: �Z.e� 5 - i3� ��f S�,-t-c 3 i�� City/State/Zip: � A � i -+�.''t--`,' `�t 5 cv , �� `i"t ��.� Phone (w): •f�J �� S S� ` 1'�J'J (Home): (Fax) (E-mail): ��s - 55 �' - ! 55c� d ic� c:: � Z � �,�,�;�,zks � c.�•� Please mark one box Wlth ❑x to indicate the contact person for this project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: L�� r�-cc� ,— /tT�O � n��.i ��J f?'C.=�-��.Z- 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. . _ ApplicanYs signai I am aware of the Commission. Property owner's sign �" �— Date: �'a �= L' �u'�7 and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: T� A�NI�t� � � �R � �"i �Qi�v'� Add ress: I S 3 b �Tt�c�Q-v� City/State/Zip: $t,tlZL[�J('�� q�i)ID Phone (w): (�50�2.55-5$� (Home): L? S?� � 3�� -1l,� n 9 (Fax): (E-mail): d �hc,� � � �-' C,Bn1 l'1,t�". n�et Date: /�'� �� Date submitted: S:\Handouts\PC Application 2007.handout This Space for CDD Staff Use Only Project Description: ►� ��°� ��,;�.�- -�� s�'►�s�- s��y ��Zo,� � (�>S�J Key: Abbreviation Term ` CUP Conditional Use Permit DHE Declinin Hei ht Envelo e DSR Desi n Review E Existin N New SFD Sin le Famil Dwellin SP S ecial Permit � CITY O �� I � _�`1 '-.`ii 1�i i-iru:� �o�Y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org � ,;- � � �`�;...,�. �i""�ti E �:, �...� �m;: � � CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APP`LICATION �:t�_Clli 4 2007 �(;1'O [ U�±1.i'vC'�AME 7%I �i� iN:.: iJi�"T. 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 apply to other properties in this area. �,� f1 �-��f u i2-�: 5��...�� b, Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservafion and enjoyment of a substanfial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. ��t r1 �ul�=�� i�5��..,s�=5 c. Explain why the proposed use af the proposed location will nof be detrimenfal or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. SE� �'1 tt��-� . ��-�= Sr-� _:-`�---� � d. How will the proposed projecf be compatible with the aesfhetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? .:�1�� /'E- l"rA c%( tL i�' Iz� �= J•.�s..=S Handouts\Variance Application.2007 a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicabrfe to your property which do not apply 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 enjoymenf 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 improvemenfs in the vicinity or fo 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 maintenance. 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 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 the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. 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 ��.a�9�� CITY OF BURLINGAME MAR 1� 2008 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF Bl!RLWGAME 1530 Drake Ave. P,�,NNiniG a��,-. A') The owners of 1530 Drake inherited a pre-existing condition where the existing lot coverage is in excess of what is allowed. However, the proposed work does not change that condition. The removal of the deck in part or whole, triggers the need for the variance, and the work cannot proceed efficiently without removing the deck in part or whole. This may be a set of circumstances or condition that is applicable to a select few properties in the neighborhood. A granting of the variance, we believe would be consistent with the code under these circumstances. A financial penalty imposed on the owners would be an unintended outcome of the application. (Revision 3) A) The home at 1 S30 Drake Ave is among one of the smaller cottages on Drake Ave. situated on a rypical 6, 000 sqft. interior lot in the City of Burlingame. The house and its accessory garage structure have undergone minor physical changes in its 25 plus year history. The addition proposed respects that history and will result in minimal visual impact to the current property and neighborhood. B) The original single family home, accessory garage structure and elevated deck at the rear of the house located at 1530 Drake Ave. exceed the allowable lot coverage. The family would like to add additional square footage by, expanding a pre-existing partial basement, (utility pit) to encompass the area under the existing elevated deck. The deck already counts toward lot coverage and the addition would be confined below the deck. Denying this variance would impose a financial hardship on the owner. The cost for a 630 sqft addition might be ten fold by trying to do the work with the deck in place. A financially feasible project would require dismantling the deck and reconstructing it to its current limits. C) The existing single family home use will remain unchanged. No sign of the addition will be visible from the street. The pre-existing lot coverage of 44% will remain in effect. The neighbors on either side and to the rear will continue to see a deck as they always have, with the addition of windows below the deck line. These improvements will have minimal impact and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, or to public health, safety and general welfare or convenience. D) This proposed project will not materially change the look of the house, and does not add any mass or bulk to the building. All new work will be confined to the area under the existing deck and partial basement area under the house. All existing landscape elements will remain and unchanged. The harmony that now exists will continue with the other homes in the neighborhood. Project Comments Date: To: From: December 17, 2007 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558- 7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for lot coverage variance for single story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1530 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-032-140 Staff Review: December 17, 2007 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: 01/02/2008 Project Comments Date: To: From: December 17, 2007 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for lot coverage variance for single story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1530 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-032-140 Staff Review: December 17, 2007 � � � 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC). 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 4) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 5) 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. 6) Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential buildings. Go to http://www.enerqv.ca.qov/title24 for publications and details. 7) Provide an emergency escape and egress from the basement area. On the plans show provide details for the required ladder access from this area. Sec. 1026.5 Provide complete details for the guardrail around this opening at grade level. 8) Revise the plans to indicate removal of the interior doors to the mechanical room. Because this area can have uses other than "for the exclusive use of the water heater" this area must be accessible from the exterior of the building only. 2007 CPC Sec. 505.1 (1). 9) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 10) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 11) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 12) NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 1, 7, and 8 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. _.._._... �_ _._ _..._ . _.- --�--� —_.....___� / Reviewed�y':"�".-�._ � � , , Date: Z�-�/o� G Project Comments Date: i� From: December 17, 2007 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 [i�Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650} 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal {650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for lot coverage variance for single story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1530 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-032-140 Staff Review: Revl December 17, 2007 C 9 Project Comments Date: December 17, 2007 To: O City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 � City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff O Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 d Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 0 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Subject: Request for lot coverage variance for single story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1530 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-032-140 Staff Review: December 17, 2007 No comment at this time. Reviewed by: � Date: i 7��p7 Project Comments Date: To: From: December 17, 2007 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 � City Arborist (650) 558- 7254 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 � Fire Marshal (650) 558- 7600 ✓ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for lot coverage variance for single story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1530 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-032-140 Staff Review: December 17, 2007 1) 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 (including demolition). Include appropriate stormwater BMPs as Project Notes. These BMPs include but are not limited to the following: • Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly to prevent contact and contamination of stormwater; • Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; • Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering site and obtain all necessary permits; • Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site except in a designated area where wash water is contained and treated; • Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate; • Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather; • Limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted ru n off; • Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; • Avoid tracking dirt or other materials off-site; clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping method; • The Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and subcontractors regarding the construction BMPs. 1 of 2 Request for lot coverage variance for single story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1530 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-032-140. 2) 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. 3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls: a. Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls continuously until permanent erosion control have been established; b. Address method(s) for diverting on-site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off-site runoff arount the site; c. Address methods for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on-site. 4) Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following: a. Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; b. Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for your review at the Community Development and Engineering departments. Distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. � Reviewed by: Date: 12/17/2007 2of2 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a Lot Coveraqe Variance for a sinqle story addition to an existing sinqle familv dwellinq and detached garaqe at 1530 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, Daniel and Harriet Dower, property owners, APN: 026-032-140; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 24, 2008, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, Section 15301(e)(1) of the CEQA guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than fifty percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2500 square feet, whichever is less. 2. Said Lot Coverage Variance is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Variance 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 24th dav of March. 2008 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Lot Coverage Variance 1530 Drake Avenue Effective April 4, 2008 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 12, 2008, sheets A-0.0, A-1.0, A-2.0, A-2.1, A-3.0, A-3.1, ME-4.0, and A-5.0, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 17, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's January 2, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 17, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's December 17, 2007 memo shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the lot coverage variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 4. 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; 5. that prior to issuance of construction plans shall approval adopted by the remain a part of all se Compliance with all con not be modified or chang Council on appeal; a building permit for construction of the project, the project be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall ts of approved plans throughout the construction process. ditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall ed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8. 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; . CITY OF BURLINGAME r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUR�INGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ••.� E"• •L =_ ,,, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �� ,r*-�� - • PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650 , �; - - www.burlingame.org ;�, aS'4• '�� ' : �}•� ,,� � Site: 1530 DRAKE AVEIVUE The fity of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2008 at 7:00 P.M, in the Bu�/ingame Library Lane Room 480 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application far lot coverage Voriance for lower level addition to single family dwelling at 1530 DRAKE AVENUE zoned R-l. APN 026-162-240 Mailed: March 14, 2008 (Please refer to other sideJ � �� 305�?�325 � � � ��;a�d =tom �� a 9�S ��5�'Ar�� PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlinpame � A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please �efer to othe� side)