Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2019.06.24Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, June 24, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft May 13, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft May 13, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Draft May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesb. Draft May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak " card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN – Update of a previously approved office /life science development ("Burlingame Point"). (Facebook, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE JULY 8, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING a. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 June 24, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 400 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits for an existing detached accessory structure to be used as accessory living space. (Dan Nelson, architect; Austin Nelson, applicant; Susan Piveronas, property owner) (118 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit b. 400 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 400 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 400 Burlingame Ave - Plans Attachments: 7. CONSENT CALENDAR 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. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 217 Channing Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Rob Wehmeyer, RC Wehmeyer, applicant and designer; Somrat and Sarah Niyogi, property owners) (140 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 217 Channing Rd - Staff Report 217 Channing Rd - Attachments 217 Channing Rd - Plans Attachments: 830 Paloma Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Jennifer and Matt Kulin, applicants and property owners; Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., designer) (146 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi b. 830 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 830 Paloma Ave - Attachments 830 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: 851 Burlway Road, zoned IB - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a new incidental food establishment in an existing multi -use commercial building. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. (Koichi Paul Nii, Nii Architects, applicant and architect; Elie Mehrdad, property owner) (30 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi c. 851 Burlway Rd, Suite 900 - Staff Report 851 Burlway Rd, Suite 900 - Attachments 851 Burlway Rd, Suite 900 - Plans Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 June 24, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 1345 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage . (Joseph Ho, applicant and architect; Xiaochuang Lin, property owner) (121 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal a. 1345 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1345 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1345 Vancouver Ave - Plans Attachments: 812 Linden Avenue (vacant lot adjacent to 816 Linden Avenue), zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for re -emerging lots, Design Review and Special Permit for one new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 812 Linden Avenue (vacant parcel next to 816 Linden Ave). (Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, applicant and designer; 812 Linden LLC and 816 Linden LLC, property owners) (148 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE JULY 8, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING b. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting June 17, 2019 1350 Columbus Avenue, zoned R -1 - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. a. 1350 Columbus Ave - Memorandum and AttachmentsAttachments: 1628 Lassen Way - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. b. 1628 Lassen Way - Memorandum and Attachments 1628 Lassen Way - Proposed Plans 1628 Lassen Way - Previously Approved Plans Attachments: 1629 Howard Avenue - FYI for review of changes requested by the Planning Commission to a previously approved Design Review project. c. 1629 Howard Ave - Memorandum and Attachments 1629 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: 12. ADJOURNMENT Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 June 24, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on June 24, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on July 5, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $1,045 which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/18/2019 Page 1 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, May 13, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 PM Council Chambers The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Present 7 - Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis a. Draft April 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes b. Draft April 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Terrones was recused from Item 7a - 2208 Summit Drive, as he has a business relationship with the Burlingame School District which owns the adjacent property, and from Item 7c - 1244 Laguna Avenue, as he owns a business within 500 feet of the subject property. a. 2208 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved permit for a Hillside Area Construction Permit and Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and Special Permits for height, an attached garage, and basement. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a).(Warren Donald, property City of Burlingame Printed on 6/18/2019 Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019 owner and applicant; Kevin O'Brien, architect) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit b. 860 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits for window location and rear yard coverage for a new detached accessory structure approved for use as an accessory dwelling unit. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Daniel and Jonna Dollosso, property owners ) (152 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz c. 1244 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling (existing detached garage to remain). The project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; James and Lisa Hong, property owners ) (144 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon d. 2305 Poppy Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Elizabeth Watson and Alex Para, property owners) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve Items 7a and 7c on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis Recused: 1 - Terrones Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve Items 7b and 7d on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. 475 1/2 Rollins Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a). (Brad Gunkel, Gunkel Architecture, Architect; Amy Chung and Francis Kim, property owners) (98 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the neighbor at 475 Rollins Road. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Brad Gunkel, represented the applicant. City of Burlingame Printed on 6/18/2019 Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019 Public Comments: David Zigal, manager of property at 477 Rollins Road: Have had no discussions with the developer regarding the property at rear. Don't know how an easement can be created that only exists on 473 Rollins Road, when driveway serves both 473 and 477 Rollins Road. Will need to work with the architect and property owner to clarify easement. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: > Like changes made to project in terms of material. Feels warmer and more residential than it did before. > Don't quite fully understand the front entry atrium area with sloped roof, but get that architect was trying to decrease its' large profile and bring down height and massing. > Given the complications of the lot configuration, am in support of front setback variance; solution for determining setbacks on this irregular shaped lot helps mitigate the issue because it gives them yard space and space for extensive landscaping. > Architecture is contemporary in a neighborhood that doesn't have a lot of that, but there are a number of apartment buildings and other types of eclectic styles. > Revised design is less bulky, especially at front of house. > Like softness of wood paneling. > Helps to have renderings with the Cypress trees and trees to be planted. > Easement is for access and can be used for staging and parking during construction, but residents of buildings on either side rely on this area to get in and out of their living spaces; encourage applicant to speak with tenants in all buildings prior to construction. > The design has improved and like material palette better, but still doesn't feel like it doesn't reach the bar in terms of residential massing we see in this neighborhood. Architecture should stand on its own and not rely on landscape screening so that it is hidden from everything around it. > In support of front setback variance based on uniqueness of lot. > Modern style is good solution for an odd-shaped lot, but doesn't meet the threshold in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood. > Addition of natural wood material helps a lot. > Doesn't hang together very well, but it may be due to the shape of the building. Worry about some of the detailing, not sure how some of it works. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis Nay: 2 - Sargent, and Kelly b. 251 California Drive, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review Amendment to a previously approved project for facade changes to a storefront and Conditional Use Permit for a new food establishment. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Fated Brands, LLC, applicant; TRG Architects, architect; Anne -Marie Mausser White, property owner) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. City of Burlingame Printed on 6/18/2019 Page 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019 There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak and Randy Grange, architect, represented the applicant. Public Comments: Ron Karp, owner of building at 1100 Howard Avenue: In support of application; love hearing about the applicant's vision for Hatch Lane; there have been some good projects built and improvements made to the buildings that have improved Hatch Lane. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: > Consider reducing width of window to right of larger bay to match the width of the three -paneled window in the larger bay; looks like it's out of rhythm. > Like revisions proposed, they are relatively minor. > Solution is appropriate. > New added pier should be pushed back from facade to let the original architecture of the building read through. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following condition: > That the project shall return to the Planning Commission for review of an FYI prior to building permit issuance for revisions to address the treatment of the right side of the front facade. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 1316 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; 1316 Capuchino Avenue, LLC, property owner) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he has a financial interest in the subject property. Commissioner Comaroto was recused because she owns a property within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he had a discussion with the neighbors at 1312 and 1315 Capuchino Avenue, as well as with the previous owner of the subject property. Commission Tse noted that she also had a discussion with the previous owner and with the neighbor to the right of the subject property. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. City of Burlingame Printed on 6/18/2019 Page 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019 James Chu, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: > Proposed style of house seems out of place for neighborhood of bungalow and craftsman style homes. Struggling with this house fitting in with the houses on this block. > Site plan shows new fence along right side property line. Encourage builder and property owner coordinate with neighbor to work out details of fence, whether fence will turn into front corner of garage or continue past garage to rear property line. > Reduce size of clay tube gable vents from six to three or four inches in diameter. > Neighborhood is eclectic, design could fit in nicely and be a nice change for neighborhood. Project is nicely scaled, details are important. > Second floor balcony is off a master bedroom and is less than 100 square feet, therefore see no issue. > Project is so well articulated that the scale will broken down and fit in with neighborhood. > Appreciate consideration of the neighbor to the right regarding alighnment of windows as it they relate to maintaining privacy. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 4 - Kelly, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis Nay: 1 - Gaul Recused: 2 - Sargent, and Comaroto b. 853 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Van Voorhis Architecture Inc, Andrea Van Voorhis, applicant and architect; William and Tara Cilmartin, property owners) ( 133 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Andrea Van Voorhis, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: City of Burlingame Printed on 6/18/2019 Page 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019 > Lot is narrow, so the house appears tall and skinny; consider lowering the ridge. Concerned with height of the structure. Applicant noted that house is in a flood plain, finished floor is one foot above the minimum required, so starting higher because of the floor plain. Finished first floor elevation could come down six inches, would need to discuss with homeowner. > Concerned with blank wall on north elevation, almost void of windows altogether except for two awning windows. Consider adding more windows or other articulation along north elevation. This side of the house is very sheer and so unlike the rest of the house, turns its back on the neighborhood. The north elevation needs work. > Reconsider floor plan layout to be able add windows or articulate the north facade better. For example, along right side of house leading to kitchen there is a lot of storage space, including a very large pantry, mud room and coat room. Could narrow width of pantry and provide another return of countertop on right side of kitchen, creating a u-shaped arrangement. This would allow additional cabinetry so that you could give up some cabinet space for additional kitchen windows. > Might be an opportunity to add some windows in the stairwell, could bring in additional light to the foyer area. > Provide sample of proposed Hardie siding and address of house where this siding has been used. > Encourage you to revisit saving as much of the existing front yard landscaping as possible. > On South Elevation, look at extending shed roofs on left and right of second floor bay projection so that it hugs the bay. > Concerned with height at rear of house, seems tall due to absence of a first floor roof line. Could consider adding an awning roof or trellis over the French doors at rear of house to help break up the massing. > This is a charming design and like the direction that it's headed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. Discussion of Motion: > Height of house is still troubling, stems from houses across the street that we've approved. Concerned about ending up with a lot of tall, skinny houses on the block. Don't think it's good development for the neighborhood. Applicant should look reducing the height in some way. Could reduce plate heights and coffer ceilings. > Dropping the spring point down to the second floor might work to reduce the height. > One of the drawbacks of front facing gable design is that to get a second floor, you end up with some kind of dormer on the side the house that is hard to mass properly. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis c. 2711 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance and Special Permits for building height and declining height envelope for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Robert Wehmeyer, Weymeyer Design, applicant and designer; Charles and Diana Williams, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Comaroto, Sargent, Terrones, and Tse noted that they individually had met with the applicants and neighbors at 2717 Burlingview Drive. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer and Mark Haesloop, represented the applicant. City of Burlingame Printed on 6/18/2019 Page 7 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019 Public Comments: Mark Hudak, representing Peter and Ferial Zaarour, 2717 Burlingview Drive: Unlike some cities along the Peninsula, Burlingame has a Hillside Ordinance that protects distant views and every view is unique . Some years ago the Commission denied a second story addition because it had determined that a row of Eucalyptus trees in the distance was worthy of protection. View enjoyed from the Zaarour residence is spectacular, have views of the airport, San Bruno Mountain, Bay Bridge and top of San Francisco skyline; is particularly beautiful at night. These are the views the Zaarours' are trying to protect. Don't agree that the Hillside Ordinance is one that is based on compromise, balancing and mitigation. When you're going to lose views, that it what the Hillside Ordinance is designed to protect. Had an architect use the plans and superimpose two of the designs over the view from the windows in the Zaarour residence, which shows that the view will be completely blocked, they'll lose it all together. Even in the roof height is dropped by a foot or two or the addition slightly reconfigured, it won't make a difference because that view will be lost . Requested Variance will have a signifcant impact on downhill neighbor because second floor addition would be looming over them. This is a challenging lot, but don't think the proposed project could be possible approved under the Hilllside Ordinance and there just may not be a right project for this lot, but certainly not a second story addition. Vera Zaarour, daughter of Peter and Ferial Zaarour: Live part time in California only to visit family and in Oregon; member of an architectural review committee in Oregon where we oversee 784 hillside homes, so am aware of these situations. Provided photographs and described views from house. All options that were shown on the plans would block views from the house, their roofline in any of the options would line up with the bottom of our roof eave and therefore block our views. Parents spend all of their time in the living areas, have three panoramic windows that provide long distant views. Houses are actually 12 feet apart, not 16 feet as shown on the building elevations. Hired architect to superimpose all three addition options onto photographs, all show 100% view blockage. Second story addition just doesn't work here . Parents have owned house for over 40 years. Jeannie Zaarour, daughter of Peter and Ferial Zaarour: Grew up in house at 2717 Burlingview Drive, along with parents, three sisters and brother; moved to Burlingame from San Francisco over 41 years ago. Parents chose Burlingame because they wanted a better life for their family and a wonderful community to raise their children in. Chose this house because it was situated on a hill with breathtaking views . Windows along east side of house bring in natural light and picturesque backdrop of nature and life into kitchen, dining area and family room, rooms that we spend all of our time as a family. Views are part of the home, parents enjoy views, spend most of their time in the family and living rooms and kitchen . Anyone who visits house immediately compliments beautiflul views. View never get old, still enjoy views everyime I visit my parents. Provide family with peace, happiness and gratitude. Views bring serenity and satisfaction to parents, would be a detriment to there health and well -being if views are blocked. Parents are concerned that the home and atmosphere they've created for their family and generations to come will disappear along with their view. Richard Murphy, 2625 Summit Drive: Moved into house 26 years ago, moved to area for views and privacy . Concerned with integrity of hillsides based on slides that have occured in the past in the area; concerned that project has grown from an additional bedroom to a game room, second family room, office, bar and bathroom on the second floor; hillside is very fragile, any construction could result in a major problem. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: > Not seeing excxeptional or extraordinary circumstances being asked to consider in the Variance application. Justification in revised Variance application could include the fact that this lot, versus other standard lots that the zoning code regulates, is subject to the Hillside Area Construction Permit City of Burlingame Printed on 6/18/2019 Page 8 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019 ordinance. Have at times considered, because of the view issue, some variances in order to find an achievable project that doesn't violate the Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance. If moving forward with this design, should revisit Variance application to include proper findings for what the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances are for this project. Should also revisit findings in Special Permit application for declining height envelope to include excxeptional or extraordinary circumstances based on lot slope and design that doesn't violate the Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance. > Consider a single story floor plan to meet the program requirements. There may be an opportunity at the front of the property to expand the garage and first floor forward and also incorporating the courtyard into the house. Consider expanding on the lower levels to achieve space without adding a new upper floor. > Single story addition could be proposed in large level are in rear yard; useable yard could then be moved to the front of the building above a depressed garage. > Need to have story poles installed to analyze the project. Hard to imagine that there wouldn't be a significant view blockage. Can't remember of an application where we approved a project that resulted in the kind of view blockage that I would imagine story poles would show us; can't see application moving forward under the current program. > Aside from miscommunications that may have ocurred and letter writing from neighbors, real story will be told by the story poles. Clear that story poles are required for this project to move forward. > Based on past interpretations by this Commission for projects of this sort, it's not a question of whether or not the view is blocked to a minor degree, if there is view blockage we've typically denied the application and have required revisions. Applicant will need to decide once going through the story pole process if they want to move foward with this particular application. They have the opportunity to revise the project and return for additional study and inpute. > Encourage applicant to coordinate with neighbors. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar and to require installation of story poles for the proposed design. Discussion of Motion: > If applicant returns with same program, then story poles would be required. But if significant changes are made, not sure if story poles should be installed prior the meeting. > If significant changes are made, project would likely need to come back to the Commission for additional study because it would then be a different project. > Find it hard to believe they can't determine without story poles that as currently proposed there will be view impacts. City Attorney Kane noted that the applicant can withdraw the current plans and submit revised plans; applicant can then assess the question of installing story poles if the plans are substantially different; project may return as a design review study item without having to install story poles at that time. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis d. 1 & 45 Adrian Court, zoned RRMU - Application for Environmental Review, Design Review, Density Bonus and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for a new 265-unit mixed use residential development. (SummerHill Apartment Communities, applicant; Seidel Architects, architect; Helf Investments and Nicolet Family Partners, property owners) ( 65 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Comaroto, Gaul, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Tse noted that they individually had met with the applicant to preview the proposed plans. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. City of Burlingame Printed on 6/18/2019 Page 9 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019 Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Elaine Breeze and Alex Seidel, represented the applicant. Public Comments: Raymond Pistalozia, 305 Adrian Road, Millbrae and representing neighbor at 365 Adrian Road, Millbrae: Concerned with congestion at corner of Adrian Road and Rollins Road, there have been many accidents at this location, in some cases included fatalities. Also concerned about the projects' proximity to high power voltage lines. Feel this type of project should be located closer to the train and BART station, not in the middle of an industrial area. Project would be feasible if it included townhomes and live/work units. James Kendle, representing Carpenters Union Local 217: Developer should be held to a higher standard in serving the needs of the community. SummerHill has no commitment to labor; carpenters seek to earn a fair wage with medical and retirement benefits that allows workers and families a chance to live in the communities they work in. Wages can be reinvested back into the local economic community; out of town workers take their earning back home with them. Please consider potential impact to community that is a direct result of choices made after project is entitled. Also stress importance of apprenticeship programs. Hope responsible labor practices will be considered before the project is approved. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: > Very excited for this project; to see the evolution of the General Plan and the creation of specific plan for this area start to come to fruition is exciting; having SummerHill engaged on the project is a great opportunity to move forward in this area. > Project is a pioneer in an area we are trying to get developed as one of the first projects; it's a transitional area. Based on the General Plan Update, this is a good project to start as that pioneer. > This a mixed use project, proposed architecture works in an area that is transitioning; fits in with the existing context but also paves the way for future potential residential developments in this area. > Like transition from commercial corner to the public residential spaces, then to the residential walk -in units, and then to the paseo and park area. > Public entry plaza will evolve over time, and because it fronts on Adrian Court provides SummerHill an opportunity to work with the residents to create events in the plaza and cul -de-sac, perhaps close the street for some periods and start to develop some sense of community. > Nice to see tiered development process working. > Have chosen a good palette of materials. > Good public spaces provided in project. > Did you consider any other commercial space along Adrian Court? Wondering if there could be an opportunity for more mixed use, is an attractive building and you may get a lot of interest. > When project returns, provide solution for blank concrete wall at the rear of the building facing the dog park. > Bridge looks out of place, but not a deal-breaker. There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental review has been completed. e. 250 Anza Boulevard, zoned unclassified - Application for Environmental Review, Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new commercial recreation use (Topgolf) with associated restaurant and bar uses. (Topgolf, applicant; Aria Group /Arco Murray, architects- engineers; City of Burlingame, owner) (430 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon City of Burlingame Printed on 6/18/2019 Page 10 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019 All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Tanner Micheli, Topgolf, and Eric Uebelhor, Arco Murrary, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: > With regard to design of the facility, recommend taking into consideration the prevailing winds in this area, winds get up to 20-30 miles per hour, especially in the afternoons. > Confirmed that the environmental document will analyze impacts from lighting from the outdoor screens. > Provide details of park patio area when project comes back for action meeting. > Confirmed that secondary access road leading to Airport Boulevard is still under consideration, trying to get geometry correct with Public Works Division given the challenges with the topography. > Confirmed that target pods will be built above the refuse layers by using a foam fill in the outfield, would not add a lot of weight to the landfill itself. > Concerned with lighting impacts on neighboring hotel. > Great opportunity to improve area of site along second access road by adding trees for screening as viewed from Bayside Park. > Great partnership to revitalize the facility and area and to bring some additional opportunities for Burlingame residents to enjoy Bayfront area. > Important for environmental review to study lighting pollution to make sure we have a good analysis of that. > Good symbiotic relationship in terms of parking and traffic with the office buildings and hotels in area. There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental review has been completed. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a. 1433 Floribunda Avenue - FYI for requested changes by the Planning Commisison to a previously approved Design Review project for a new 8-unit residential condominium. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:54 p.m. City of Burlingame Printed on 6/18/2019 Page 11 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019 Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on May 13, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on May 23, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, May 28, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and Associate Planner, 'Amelia Kolokihkaufisi. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and GaulPresent5 - Kelly, and LoftisAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 8b (1316 Capuchino Avenue) was continued to the June 10, 2019 meeting because of lack of quorom. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.133 Clarendon Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, Geuse Conceptual Design, Inc ., applicant and designer; Matt Rossen, property owner) (118 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Existing stone veneer is just applied to the front of the house. Suggest turning the stone veneer one foot around the corner of the house on both sides. >Applicant clarified that standing seam metal roof will be a dark bronze color. >Window is really close to the chimney, will be hard to flash, may want to consider moving window over more to the left. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the application with the following amended condition: >that the standing seam metal roof shall be of a dark bronze or general earth tone color. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul5 - Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 - b.1316 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; 1316 Capuchino Avenue, LLC, property owner) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit >Item 8b (1316 Capuchino Avenue) was continued to the June 10, 2019 meeting because of lack of quorom. c.25 Arundel Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing split-level house. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1). (Channing and Carrie Chen, applicants and property owners) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he a financial interest in a property located within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Channing Chen, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Don't see justification for the changes being proposed. Remember going through the details on this specific project. Many of the details were there to make the house fit in with the neighborhood and make the design cohesive. Think the panels above and below the front bay window really add to the design, not in agreement with the applicant that it improves the design. >Don't see the smaller changes as a cost issue, including the removal of the belly band, corbels and shutters. Think the corbels add a lot and belly band helps on the larger expanses of the walls, so am not in favor of removing those elements. >Don't think Hardi siding is a material that works in Burlingame, looks cheap, feel that it doesn't fit in with neighborhood. When visited site, of the houses that have shingle and horizontal siding, very few of them had corner caps, most had mitered corners. Not seeing Hardi siding as a viable option for this type of a house. >Steel doors for garage won't hold up as well as wood, so not if favor of changing the garage door material. >Design is fairly bulky, one of the reasons it was approvable before because the details that were additive were helping to give some scale, break down the massing and add charm. >Would consider eliminating the belly band above the garage door since there is a trellis feature above it already. >Removing the panels on the front bay window ends up making it look like a bay that was retrofitted with siding. >Wouldn't have approved this if project was initially proposed this way, would have asked for some additional detail and articulation to bring charm to the proposed solution. >Not so worried about the belly band, however am concerned with removal of the details at the front bay window. >Not opposed to removing shutters at rear of house, but think the other details should be retained. >Added details, especially at the front of the house, do add charm to the home where there are a number of elements that are protruding. >Okay with removing the belly band above the garage and some of the details at the rear of the house since they will be less visible from the street and neighbors. >Details at front of house and corbels that are visible from the side are nice additives. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto to approve the application to only include removal of the belly band above the garage door and at the rear of the house and removal of the shutters at the rear of the house, as amended in condition of approval No. 1: >that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 11,2017, sheets A0.0 through L1.1, with revised elevations date stamped May 2, 2019; and to only include removal of the belly band above the garage door and at the rear of the house and removal of the shutters at the rear of the house; Discussion of Motion: >Does the motion include retaining the belly band at the rear of the house? Maker of the motion clarified that the motion also includes removal of the belly band at the rear of the house. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul4 - Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 - Recused:Sargent1 - d.834 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved project for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (John Nguyen, Dulon, Inc., applicant and designer; Tony Leung, property owner) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. John Nguyen, represented the applicant. Public Comments: John Nuttman, 830 Crossway Road: Live on a hill, concerned with water runoff from property. Previous house had a concrete curb that ran along driveway from the front of the site to the garage at the rear, curb was also part of the foundation for the old garage. Contractor graded the lot and the curb, which acted as a water deterrent, has been removed. Water runoff from his property will affect other lots that are located downhill. Have not seen anything being done regarding controlling the water on the site. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Appears that plate height on front porch is more than 8'-0", perhaps 8'-6" or 9'-0". Would like to see plate height at front porch come down to 8'-0", would have better scale with the neighborhood. >Encourage applicant to meet with neighbor regarding fencing and closure of the two properties. >Have concerns that house was getting too tall and bulky for the neighborhood, but see that entire first floor of house was brought down by 1 foot. However, have concerns regarding the height of the front porch, which are encouraged in the design guidelines. There is a sense of scale with porches, lose scale when porches get 8 to 9 feet or taller, and doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. Increasing height of windows and porch is not acceptable. >Increase in window and door heights is acceptable, but have concerns with increasing plate height on front porch. >Adding eyebrow roof above French doors is a good revision, adds scale to that elevation. >Could consider approving the application with lowering the front porch plate height to 8 feet or lower, with no change to the slope of the porch roof. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the application with the following amended condition: >that the front porch plate height shall be reduced to 8 feet or lower above finished floor, with no change to the slope of the porch roof. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul5 - Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.217 Channing Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Rob Wehmeyer, RC Wehmeyer, applicant and designer; Somrat and Sarah Niyogi, property owners) (140 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer, represented the applicant. Public Comments: David Harris, Howard Avenue: Seems to be a pattern of building houses to maximum footprint and FAR and not taking into account adjacent houses, which are typically single story. Looks like an acceptable design, can't read architectural plans but would hope that it fits in with character of neighborhood and not another house on steroids. Overtime what's happening on the east side is that there are more large houses that are eroding the neighborhood character. It's an ongoing concern. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >There is a large hedge along right side which fills in the area between the neighbors driveway and the wall of this house. Will that hedge remain? (Wehmeyer: Don't know at this point. Client's concern is the daylight coming into this side of the house, but also would like to protect her privacy. Because the house was considered new construction, this side of the house was set back an additional 1'-6" to comply with current code regulations. Client will discuss this with the neighbor.) Try to resolve prior to coming back to Planning Commission. >If hedge is removed along right side of house, consider bringing fence forward and extend stone veneer to front of fence. Along left side of house, consider extending stone veneer to inside corner where the houses changes planes. >Concerned that 10-inch fascias with box ends add bulk to the house. Many of the houses in the neighborhood contain simple rake barge rafters or fascias with simple terminations. Consider reducing fascias and turn down eaves from 2x10 to 2x8. Look at other houses in neighborhood. >Is there a reason you need to have corner boards on the shingles and siding? Can those be mitered? (Wehmeyer: They can be mitered if we switch to wood. Originally, this project was supposed to be a remodel, but turned into a different project now that it's being considered new construction, so had to factor in cost and budget. Hardi material is difficult to miter, it just falls apart. Tried to work out a detail with the boards that would work well the rest of the exterior siding and materials.) >Consider widening the entry door to at least 36 inches, would be a more comfortable entry door if it was wider. >Concerned that stone veneer looks stuck on without any depth. Provide specifications and /or sample of proposed stone veneer. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Concerned with what mechanical equipment will be visible on outside of house; show on building elevations. >Consider adding chimney in between windows along right side or show cap on wall for gas fireplace. >Concernedd with use of Hardi siding and corner boards. >Consider adding a window or windows in the kitchen to break up blank wall along right side of house at rear. (Wehmeyer: >Important to look at the scale and relative delicacy of the details in the context of the neighborhood. >Existing house has certain amount of charm and character that is contributing to the neighborhood. >Project is well crafted, but revisiting the details will bring the proposed project back to be in keeping with the character with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of scale, charm and detail. >Revisit siding and cornerboards, mitered corners are softer. >Proposed siding doesn't make house fit into neighborhood anymore. Blending in with the existing neighborhood is a key consideration of the design guidelines. >For single story houses of this era, the trend was to have raised floors, typically three feet above grade. Adding a second floor raises the overall height to the maximum allowed. Creates a much larger house than if the floor height were closer to the existing grade. Would encourage applicant to lower the finished floor closer to grade. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul5 - Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 - b.1543 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an existing detached garage . (Christian Ruffat, applicant and architect; Alicia Sanguinetti, property owner) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he spoke to the adjacent neighbor's mother. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Christian Ruffat, represented the applicant. Public Comments: Sherrie Petersen, 1541 Cypress Avenue: Applicant has not contacted any of the neighbors about the proposed project. Being able to see the drawings before the meeting was very helpful. Concerned with three windows looking directly into our backyard, this is not acceptable, already had to grow trees to block the second story behind us. The side of the house now is not well take care of. Last renter turned garage into a drum studio, so it's not currently functioning as a garage. If garage will be used for parking, will need to widen the opening. One side of garage is adjacent to yard and acts like a fence, want to make sure yard is useable if garage is being replaced. Would like to see fence repaired or replaced. Competed small addition on our house, did not need Planning Commission review, but were very careful to keep the historic nature of the house. An Italian family lived in this house and they built our house for their Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes daughter, which was one of the first women who graduated from Stanford and first female superintendent of Mills High School. Unidentified speaker: House at corner of Barroilhet Avenue and Cypress Avenue used frosted windows to provide privacy and still let in natural light, could be a consideration here rather than eliminating windows. Acting Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Carport added something to the original character of the house. Will need to see what Page & Turnbull says in terms of the historical evaluation and how much you're proposing affects the historic resource. One potential mitigation might be to keep the carport, in which case you might ask that we consider some variances for lot coverage and FAR because the extraordinary or unique situation that you'll be facing is this house being a historic resource. >It appears that some of the details on the detached garage have been removed from the drawings, including existing braces at the ridgeline and at the eaves. Are you proposing to remove those or are they just not shown on the drawings? (Ruffat: Didn't think to add them on the drawings.) Think it's important that you shown them on the drawings if these features will be retained, because it's one more indication to the historic resource evaluator that you're not altering this existing resource. >Is there any reason why the proposed new garage door couldn't be of the same character as the existing half crossbuck door that is on the garage now? May help with the historic resource evaluation and what you need to do in order to mitigate potential impacts. Crossbuck design translates to the crossbuck design that is in the carport and side gate. (Ruffat: Don't see any reason why it could not.) >Proposal includes replacing the shutters and front window, which has a lot of character. Is it critical to the design? (Ruffat: It's a fixed glass window, had to make a decision to maintain that pattern of glass or have a one-off element. Chose to have new operable windows instead of a pane of glass.) Would encourage you to consider retaining the window, suspect that historic evaluator will look at the large picture window with the details and muntins and deem that that element is one of the contributors the house being a potential historic resource. >What is slope of existing roof? (Ruffat: Think it is 7:12). Please confirm on plans. >Consider reducing the size of some of the rooms to reduce lot coverage, would make it easier to justify a variance. >Retaining the carport would really add to the design. >Clearly show all architectural details at front of house on existing and proposed front elevations . Specifically show elements cited in the historic resource evaluation on front elevation. >Front window combines with other architectural elements on the front of the building that helps to hold the design together. >Carport is strong element of design of existing house and think there is a way to retain it by reducing other areas of the house. >Consider mimicking the existing chimney cap on the new extended chimney. >Front elevation notes that existing roof is to remain. However, it's not reading similarly on the right elevation; please revise accordingly. >Design if fairly well crafted, massing generally follows what we encourage in the design review guidelines. Plate heights at 9 feet and 8 feet are not grandiose and fall within the limits of what we encourage. >Since the main roof is proposed to remain at the front of the house, strongly encourage retaining the carport and length of existing house. Would be willing to consider a variance for lot coverage, perhaps for floor area, in order to keep the existing carport. The stretch of roof, front facade, front window and perhaps keeping the existing dormer would go a long way towards maintaining the existing historic resource that may allow them to better convince the historic evaluator that the historic resource is not being impacted to the level of significance that would require further mitigation. >Encourage applicant to re -evaluate and closely look at the details before review by the historic resource evaluator. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Can consider variance for lot coverage and/or floor area ratio for maintaining historic resource. >Work with neighbor on issues that affect the property in terms of fences and plantings. >See justification for variance for lot coverage since it is significantly being reduced. However, may be more hard pressed to make findings for floor area ratio since there is a significant increase in floor area with this project, would have a negative impact on the surrounding houses. >Strongly encourage retaining the existing carport and long expanse of roof at front of house, cited in historic resource report as contributors. >Would like to see existing architectural details shown on existing building elevations and those to be retained on the proposed building elevations. >Encourage compliance with lot coverage and floor area ratio regulations. Floor plan is quite generous, some area can be trimmed down to comply with lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. Comment on Motion: >There are many ways that could allow the project to move forward with the historic resource evaluation without coming back with negative findings that say the resource is being impacted too significantly. >Encourage applicant to closely look at the guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior, because one of the things we're often asked to consider as mitigation for projects like this when we have a historic resource is that the addition sets itself off from the existing house, so they could look at the materials that are used on the addition and that often times is what allows the historic resource evaluator to determine that the original architecture is clearly delineated. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul4 - Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 - Recused:Comaroto1 - c.2617 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope, and Front Setback Variance for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Alicia Ader, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and architect; Tricia and Darren Tayama, property owners) (89 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item as his office is the applicant. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Tricia Tamaya and Alicia Ader, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Comments/Direction: >Clarify if there will be an increase or decrease in declining height envelope encroachment with revision to the project. >Include list of existing front setbacks of neighboring houses. Generally accept argument that this is a unique situation and that average is based on a large number of houses. In reviewing neighborhood it appears that many houses have similar setbacks to this house, but would be helpful to see numbers. >Overall this is a nice design and it fits in with the scale of houses in neighborhood. >See justification for Front Setback Variance for rebuilding the porch in its place. >This is a unique situation with the sloping lot, see justification for Special Permit for declining height envelope; house on right is located very close to this property and house on left will not be impacted to a great extent. >Regarding central window on second floor in master bathroom facing the street, would like to see privacy protected in master bathroom. Consider repeating same size window on either side and adding a transom window above it; would help to break up the pattern and create opportunity for window treatment or some other type of window operation to provide privacy in master bathroom. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. Discussion of Motion: >Calculation of declining height envelope is difficult on steep lots like this one, consistently consider this type of special permit on this type of lot. Although this is a special request, it's one that we typically give favorable consideration to. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Tse, and Gaul4 - Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 - Recused:Terrones1 - d.12 Valdivia Court, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Audrey Tse, applicant and designer; Douglas Solomon & Lauri Pasch, property owners) (54 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz Commissioner Tse was recused from this item as her office is the applicant. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had a discussion with the property owner at 12 Valdivia Court and the housekeeper at 16 Valdivia Court. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Lauren Le, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Confirmed that the proposed project was shared with the neighbors. >Massing is handled nicely and fits in with the neighborhood; second floor integrates well with the first floor. >Confirmed that all windows will be replaced. >Need to determine whether or not story poles should be installed. Hard time seeing where there are distant views that could be impacted; was not able to access the second floor at 16 Valdivia Court, but what would be in the distance would be trees. Would like to know what other Commissioners think. >Don't see the need to install story poles, given that it is surrounded by existing trees at the rear and the site is in a flat area within the Hillside. >Sign was posted on the site and public hearing notices were sent; public hearing notices will also be sent for action meeting. If neighbors have concerns with the potential view blockage, they will make sure their concerns are heard. >See no issues with proposed deck at rear of house since it is located within two projecting rooms and backs up to the creek and Mercy High School. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place this item on the Consent Calendar as proposed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, and Gaul4 - Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 - Recused:Tse1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Hurin reported that at the May 20th City Council meeting, the Council continued adoption of the zoning code amendment to allow commercial recreation as a conditional use in the BAC District for further discussion and refinement. The ordinance will be re -introduced at the June 3rd City Council meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on May 28, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on June 7, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 (E) Accessory Living Quarters 196 Sf(E) Outdoor Kitchen(E) Water Heaters, enclosed(E) 6'-0" Fence(E) Adjacent Residence(E) Adjacent Residence(E) Main House 2410 SF(E) Trash Enclosure(E) 6'-0" Fence(E) 24"C Loquat Tree(E) 65"C Oak Tree(E) Gas Meters(E) 6'-4" Fence(E) AC Unit(E) Hot TubFinal Relocated Structure Location Shown Gray4' - 0"4' - 0"15' - 4"43' - 0"NBurlingame Ave(E) Paver DriveRear 30% of Lot50.00'100.00'100.00'50.00'(E) Asphalt Shingle Roof(E) Power Meter(E) Electrical Subpanel for Hot Tub and Accessory Structure. Underground Conduit to Accessory Structure Sub Panel Shown Dashed.(E) Sewer Cleanout(E) Underground S.S. From the (E) Accessory Structure to the Main House Crawl Space Shown Dashed. Tied Into S.S. System Under Main House.(E) Accessory Structure Sub Panel(E) Skylight2' - 3"16' - 7"5' - 4"(E) Conc. Pavers(E) Brick Pavers(E) Brick Pavers(E) Turf(E) Turf(E) Conc. S.O.GPlanting StripPlanting StripPlanting StripPlanting StripPlanting Strip(E) Brick PaversBuilding3' - 6"Building Setback4' - 0"(E) Sub Panel Location, Provide in Ground J-Box and Extend Feeds to New LocationExtend (E) Sewer to New Location4' - 0"10' - 2 3/4"1.5"/12"Slope1.5"/12"SlopeSetback10' - 0"Setback10' - 0"Location of 36"x36" WindowLocation of 36" Wide 1/2 Glazed Door1Eave Setback3' - 6"Eave3' - 0"New Downspout to Splash Blocks(E) Water Meter(N) Sewer CleanoutApproximate Drip Line of the Oak Tree(E) 36"x80" Door(E) 28"x80" Door 4' - 0 3/8"3' - 0 3/8"1' - 0"Existing 1/2 Glass Panel Door To Remain(E) Sink And Countertop To Be Removed (E) Shower Wall To Remain(E) Shower To Remain(E) Toilet to Remain(E) Sink To Remain(E) Electrical Panel To Remain18' - 2"11' - 0"3' - 1"Remove/Relocate Wall as Shown Demo'd to Allow for Required Front Toilet Clearance(E) 36" x 36" WindowVinyl Slider Double PaneRelocate (E) Door and Wall To Allow for Required Toilet Front ClearanceGuest BedroomN11' - 0"18' - 2"(E) Sink To Remain(E) Electrical Panel To RemainA2004A2005A2006A200715" Min2' - 0" Min+/- 4' - 7 1/2"New Recessed Electric Wall Heater,Cadet COM-PAK model CSC101TW with thermostat. 1000 watts, 120 volts(E) Shower Head and Controls(E) Fiberglass Shower Pan and Stall(E) 36"x80" DoorFiberglass w/ 1/2 Lite Double Pane(E) 36" x 36" WindowVinyl Slider Double Pane(E) 28"x80" DoorRelocated Guest BedroomGuest BathroomNew Wood Step, 6" Riser with 11" Tread. P.T. Base with Redwood Tread2A3002A300Downspout to Splash Blocks. Grade to Slope Away from Structure 1/4"/12" Min for 10' to Landscaping Area.N1NNorth ArrowDimensionsFace of StructureFace of FinishCenter Line and/or Column Line+8.0New Grade / ElevationPlan and Section SymbolsEarthPorous FillConcrete WallConcrete Block/MasonryRemove / Demo Wallor ElementPlywoodWood - Rough(Continuous/ Blocking)Wood - Finish (Millwork)Metal (Steel)Gypsum WallboardInsulation -Loose Fill or BattInsulation - RigidPlanSymbolsSection/DetailSymbolsNew WallExisting Wall to Remain1 Hr Fire Rated AssemblySee Detail 2/A300LICENSEDARCHIT EC T DANIELA.BARKE R S T ATEOFCALIFORNIAR EN.01-31-2019C-33480ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIALS APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED, OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHTED. REVISIONDATESCALEPROJECT #b a r k e rw a g o n e ra r c h i t e c t sLEGENDGENERAL NOTESDEMO NOTESAs indicatedA100Site Plan AndFloor PlansAccessoryStructureEntitlement400 Burlingame Ave.,Burlingame, CA 9401011/21/2018214-00011/8" = 1'-0"1Site Plan1/2" = 1'-0"2Existing Accessory Structure Floor Plan1/2" = 1'-0"3Proposed Accessory Structure Floor Plan1. All electrical outlets, existing or new, are to be GFCI, AFCI protected and Tamper Resistant Receptacle (TRR).2. All permanently installed existing or new lighting is to be high-efficacy.3. Glazing in existing to remain windows, doors and skylights is to have a minimum U-Factor of 0.58.1 Delta 1 CUP Plan Check 4/10/19 Grade0"First Floor1' -0"Top Of Roof10' -1 1/8"1 1/2" / 12"(E) 3'-0"x3'-0" Vinyl Window to Remain(E) 9'-0" Top Plate(E) 20"x24" Double Pane, Fixed Skylight To Remain(E) T1-11 Wood Siding Painted to Remain, Typ.(E) Electrical To Remain(E) Asphalt Shingle Roof to RemainNew Downspout to Splash Block11 1/2" / 12"(E) Electrical Sub Panel To RemainNew Downspouts to Splash Blocks1(E) Fiberglass w/ 1/2 Lite Door to Remain(E) Electrical Sub Panel To RemainNew Wood Step, 6" Riser with 11" Tread. P.T. Base with Redwood Tread(E) 20"x24" Double Pane, Fixed Skylight To RemainNew Downspout to Splash Block1NNorth ArrowDimensionsFace of StructureFace of FinishCenter Line and/or Column Line+8.0New Grade / ElevationPlan and Section SymbolsEarthPorous FillConcrete WallConcrete Block/MasonryRemove / Demo Wallor ElementPlywoodWood - Rough(Continuous/ Blocking)Wood - Finish (Millwork)Metal (Steel)Gypsum WallboardInsulation -Loose Fill or BattInsulation - RigidPlanSymbolsSection/DetailSymbolsNew WallExisting Wall to Remain1 Hr Fire Rated AssemblySee Detail 2/A300(E) 2X12 Floor Joists @ 24" O.C.Pressure Treated D.F.New 12"x12X Concrete Footing. Shown DashedUnder Floor VentilationJoist Bay = 2'x11' = 22SFRequired Ventilation = 1/150Required Ventilation per Bay = 0.154 SF or 22.176 SI 3" Dia Hole = 7 SIProvide Two 3" Dia Holes Each side of Joist Bay = 28 SI1A3001A3003/4" Pressure Treated Ply Wd. Subfloor, Typ.2x6 D.F. Roof Joists@ 24" O.C. Typ.2x8 D.F. Ridge Beam4A3003A300(E) Ceiling Bath Fan, 50 CFM Min, >1 Sone, and Energy Star Rated with a 6" Duct to the Exterior(E) 20"x24" Fixed Skylight, Double Pane1 1/2" / 12" :121 1/2" / 12" :128'-0" Gyp Bd. Ceiling in BathroomVaulted Gyp Bd Ceiling. 8'-0" at WallRecessed 6" CFL Light Fixture, Typ. Recessed 6" CFL Light Fixture, Typ. Exterior Surface Mounted Light, High Efficacy with PhotocellDownspout to Splash Blocks. Grade to Slope Away from Structure 1/4"/12" Min for 10' to Landscaping Area.1LICENSEDARCHIT EC T DANIELA.BARKE R S T ATEOFCALIFORNIAR EN.01-31-2019C-33480ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIALS APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED, OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHTED. REVISIONDATESCALEPROJECT #b a r k e rw a g o n e ra r c h i t e c t sLEGENDGENERAL NOTESDEMO NOTESAs indicatedA200ExteriorElevations,RCP andFraming PlansAccessoryStructureEntitlement400 Burlingame Ave.,Burlingame, CA 9401011/21/2018214-00011/4" = 1'-0"4New East Exterior Elevation1/4" = 1'-0"5New North Exterior Elevation1/4" = 1'-0"6New West Exterior Elevation1/4" = 1'-0"7New South Exterior Elevation1/2" = 1'-0"2Foundation & Floor Framing Plan1/2" = 1'-0"3Roof Framing Plan1/2" = 1'-0"1Reflected Ceiling Plan1. All electrical outlets, existing or new, are to be GFCI, AFCI protected and Tamper Resistant Receptacle (TRR).2. All permanently installed existing or new lighting is to be high-efficacy.3. Glazing in existing to remain windows, doors and skylights is to have a minimum U-Factor of 0.58.1 Delta 1 CUP Plan Check 4/10/19 AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1804_Niyogi_217_Channing\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Niyogi_217_Channing.rvtA0.2 EXTERIOR 3-D VIEWS 217 Channing Road Somrat & Sarah Niyogi 217 Channing Road 029-262-090 (415) 318-9718 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 NIYOGI 6/7/2019 Issue Date Description 12/19/2018 Planning Department Submittal 4/19/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 5/28/2019 6/7/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 6/24/2019 TOS GARAGE +101.60 SECOND FLOOR F.F. +113.99 SECOND FL. T.O. PLATE +121.99 AVG. TOC CHANNING +99.65 T.O. RIDGE +128.82 29'-2"(N) FIRST FLOOR T.O.PLATE +112.826'-9 3/4"8'-0"1'-2"9'-0"2'-3"1'-11 1/4"2'-8 3/4"BASEMENT +96.912'-8 3/4" 4'-2 1/4"10'-2"14'-9 3/4"(N) FIRST FL. F.F. +103.827'-6"7'-6"11'-5"9'-11" D24 W47 W46W48 W68W69 W45 W43W44 W40W41W42 W67 W66 W65 AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE +100.74 +101.1112'-0"12'-0"4'-6" 6" 12" 6" 12" 10'-2" 9'-8" TOS GARAGE +101.60 (E) FIRST FL. F.F. +104.99 (E) FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +113.32 (E) T.O. RIDGE +120.36 AVG. TOC CHANNING +99.6520'-8 1/2"2'-8 3/4" 1'-11 1/4" 3'-5" 3'-7"4'-9"7'-0 1/2"(E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +108.57 BASEMENT +96.912'-8 3/4" 5'-4 1/4"8'-4"7'-0 1/2"AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE +100.74 +101.1112'-0"12'-0"2'-11 1/2" 20'-2" 3" 12" 3" 12" +/- +/- W9W10 D14 W11W12 D15 3 AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1804_Niyogi_217_Channing\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Niyogi_217_Channing.rvtA3.2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED NORTH (REAR) ELEVATIONS 217 Channing Road Somrat & Sarah Niyogi 217 Channing Road 029-262-090 (415) 318-9718 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 NIYOGI 6/7/2019 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH (REAR) ELEVATION PROPOSED 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH (REAR) ELEVATION EXISTINGRIGHT PROPERTY LINELEFT PROPERTY LINE (E) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (E) PAINTED WOOD DOOR FOR BASEMENT ACCESS TO BE DEMOLISHED (N) PAINTED WOOD AND GLASS DOOR. SEE A5.0 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE. (E) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK FIRST FLOOR (E) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (N) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (E) WOOD AND GLASS EXTERIOR DOOR TO BE DEMOLISHED 1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS IN PROPOSED ELEVATION ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE DENOTED AS EXISTING (E) 2. ALL NEW WINDOWS ARE FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS WITH SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS 3. SEE SHEET A5.0 FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE 4. SEE SHEET A9.0 FOR TYPICAL WINDOW DETAIL SHEET NOTES RIGHT SIDE SETBACK LINELEFT SIDE SETBACK LINE(E) STUCCO EXTERIOR TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (E) CARPORT AND STUCCO COLUMNS TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) CHIMNEY AND FIREPLACE TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) STUCCO COLUMNS AND (E) BEDROOM ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE(N) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TYP. (N) VERTICAL CEMENTOUS SIDING W/ 6" EXP. TYP. (N) TRIANGULAR RIDGE VENT ON GABLE ENDS OF ROOF TYP.DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE(N) FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOW TYP. SEE A5.0 FOR WINDOW SCHEDULE AND A9.0 FOR WINDOW DETAIL (N) WOOD REAR DECK AND STAIRS W/ WOOD RAILING (N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR (N) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR RIGHT PROPERTY LINELEFT PROPERTY LINE RIGHT SIDE SETBACK LINELEFT SIDE SETBACK LINE(E) VINYL WINDOW TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (E) PAINTED WOOD CORBEL TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. Issue Date Description 12/19/2018 Planning Department Submittal 4/19/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 5/28/2019 6/7/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 6/24/2019 (N) BAY WINDOW AT DINING ROOM W/ PAINTED WOOD PANELING (N) 6" PAINTED WOOD FASCIA TYP. (N) WOOD SHINGLE W/ 6" EXP. TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD 6" BELLY BAND AND WOOD CORBELS TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD LAP SIDING W/ 8" EXP. AND MITRED CORNERS TYP. (N) STONE VENEER W/ 4" STONE WATER TABLE TO WRAP AROUND LIVING ROOM (N) STONE CLAD CHIMNEY VENT FOR LIVING ROOM FIREPLACE (N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK FIREPLACE (N) VERTICAL WOOD BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING 12" O.C. TYP. TOS GARAGE +101.60 SECOND FLOOR F.F. +113.99 SECOND FL. T.O. PLATE +121.99 AVG. TOC CHANNING +99.65 T.O. RIDGE +128.82 29'-2"(N) FIRST FLOOR T.O.PLATE +112.826'-9 3/4"8'-0"1'-2"9'-0"2'-3"1'-11 1/4"2'-8 3/4"14'-9 3/4"10'-2"4'-2 1/4"2'-8 3/4"BASEMENT +96.91 (N) FIRST FL. F.F. +103.82 W34 W33W36W37W38W35 W60W61W62 6" 12" W64 W63 W39 27 1/2"42 1/2"W59 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +100.50 6" 12" TOS GARAGE +101.60 (E) FIRST FL. F.F. +104.99 (E) FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +113.32 (E) T.O. RIDGE +120.36 AVG. TOC CHANNING +99.65 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +100.50 (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +108.57 BASEMENT +96.9120'-8 1/2"7'-0 1/2"4'-9"3'-7"3'-5"1'-11 1/4"2'-8 3/4"7'-0 1/2"8'-4"8'-1"W3W4W5W6W7W8 W28 W26 AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1804_Niyogi_217_Channing\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Niyogi_217_Channing.rvtA3.3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONS 217 Channing Road Somrat & Sarah Niyogi 217 Channing Road 029-262-090 (415) 318-9718 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 NIYOGI 6/7/2019 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION EXISTING FRONT PROPERTY LINEFRONT PROPERTY LINE(E) COVERED FRONT PORCH AND STAIRS TO BE DEMOLISHED 1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS IN PROPOSED ELEVATION ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE DENOTED AS EXISTING (E) 2. ALL NEW WINDOWS ARE FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS WITH SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS 3. SEE SHEET A5.0 FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE 4. SEE SHEET A9.0 FOR TYPICAL WINDOW DETAIL SHEET NOTES (E) VINYL WINDOW TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (E) PAINTED WOOD CORBEL TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (E) STUCCO EXTERIOR TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (E) FRAMING AND COMPOSITION ROOFING TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) CHIMNEY AND FIREPLACE TO BE DEMOLISHED (N) BAY WINDOW IN DINING ROOM W/ PAINTED WOOD PANELING AND DECORATIVE WOOD CORBELS BELOW (E) STUCCO COLUMNS AND (E) BEDROOM ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) CARPORT AND STUCCO COLUMNS TO BE DEMOLISHED (N) WOOD REAR DECK AND STAIRS W/ WOOD RAILING (N) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TYP. (N) WOOD FRONT PORCH W/ STONE VENEER AND (N) COLUMN W/ WOOD TOP AND WOOD BASE TYP. (N) FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOW TYP. SEE A5.0 FOR WINDOW SCHEDULE AND A9.0 FOR WINDOW DETAIL (N) STONE VENEER W/ 4" STONE WATER TABLE ON FRONT OF HOUSE TYP. (N) EGRESS WINDOW MASTER BEDROOM W/ CLEARANCE OF 27 1/2" X 42 1/2" AND SILL AT 32" Issue Date Description 12/19/2018 Planning Department Submittal 4/19/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 5/28/2019 6/7/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 6/24/2019 (N) 6" PAINTED WOOD FASCIA TYP. (N) WOOD SHINGLE W/ 6" EXP. TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD 6" BELLY BAND AND WOOD CORBELS TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD LAP SIDING W/ 8" EXP. AND MITRED CORNERS TYP. (N) STONE VENEER CHIMNEY FOR LIVING ROOM FIREPLACE TOS GARAGE +101.60 (E) FIRST FL. F.F. +104.99 (E) FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +113.32 (E) T.O. RIDGE +120.36 AVG. TOC CHANNING +99.65 AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION T.O.C. ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE T.O.C. ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE +100.45 +100.74 +99.50 +101.11 +100.50 +99.79 12'-0"12'-0"(E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +108.57 BASEMENT +96.917'-0 1/2"4'-9"3'-7"3'-5"1'-11 1/4"2'-8 3/4"7'-0 1/2"8'-4"5'-4 1/4"2'-8 3/4"20'-8 1/2"2'-11 1/2" 20'-2" 3" 12" 3" 12"+/- +/- D1 W25 W24 W23 W1W2 D18 TOS GARAGE +101.60 (E) FIRST FL. F.F. +104.99 SECOND FLOOR F.F. +113.99 SECOND FL. T.O. PLATE +121.99 AVG. TOC CHANNING +99.65 T.O. RIDGE +128.82 6'-9 3/4"8'-0"1'-2"9'-0"2'-3"1'-11 1/4"2'-8 3/4"14'-9 3/4"9'-0"5'-4 1/4"29'-2"(N) FIRST FLOOR T.O.PLATE +112.82 BASEMENT +96.917'-6"7'-6"(N) FIRST FL. F.F. +103.82 11'-5" 10'-2" 9'-11"5'-9"1'-2"1'-2"6" 12" D21D20D22 W54 W53W55 W78 W77W79W57W56W58 27 1/2"39 1/2"27 1/2"39 1/2"217 D23 AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION T.O.C. ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE T.O.C. ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE +100.45 +100.74 +99.50 +101.11 +100.50 +99.79 12'-0"12'-0"6" 12" 6" 12" 4'-6" 9'-8" AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1804_Niyogi_217_Channing\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Niyogi_217_Channing.rvtA3.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATIONS 217 Channing Road Somrat & Sarah Niyogi 217 Channing Road 029-262-090 (415) 318-9718 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 NIYOGI 6/7/2019 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATION EXISTING 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATION PROPOSEDLEFT PROPERTY LINERIGHT PROPERTY LINE(N) 6" PAINTED WOOD FASCIA TYP. (N) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TYP. (N) WOOD SHINGLE W/ 6" EXP. TYP. (E) PAINTED WOOD AND GLASS FRONT DOOR TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) DETACHED SINGLE CAR GARAGE WITH PAINTED WOOD AND GLASS GARAGE DOOR TO BE DEMOLISHED 1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS IN PROPOSED ELEVATION ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE DENOTED AS EXISTING (E) 2. ALL NEW WINDOWS ARE FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS WITH SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS 3. SEE SHEET A5.0 FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE 4. SEE SHEET A9.0 FOR TYPICAL WINDOW DETAIL 5. (N) BUILDING ADDRESS LOCATION SHOW IN PROPOSED ELEVATION. THE TYPE WILL BE SUCH THAT NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL NEW AND EXISTING BUILDING IN SUCH A POSITION AS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FRON THE FRONT OF THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. SAID NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND, SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF ONE-HALF INCH STROKE BY FOUR INCHES HIGH, AND SHALL BE EITHER INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED IN ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS OR REPAIR OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION. THE POWER OF SUCH ILLUMINATION SHALL NOT BE NORMALLY SWITCHABLE. SHEET NOTES (E) COVERED FRONT PORCH AND STAIRS TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) CARPORTAND STUCCO COLUMNS TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (E) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (E) STUCCO EXTERIOR TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (N) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR LEFT SIDE SETBACK LINE(E) CHIMNEY AND FIREPLACE TO BE DEMOLISHED (N) VERTICAL WOOD BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING 12" O.C. TYP.RIGHT SIDE SETBACK LINE(E) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (N) WOOD FRONT PORCH W/ STONE VENEER AND (N) WOOD RAILING AND COLUMN W/ WOOD TOP AND BASE TYP. (N) LOWERED BY 1'-2" FIRST FLOOR FINISHED FLOOR LEVEL EGRESS WINDOW BEDROOM 2 W/ CLEARANCE OF 27 1/2" X 39 1/2" AND SILL AT 38" (N) TRIANGULAR RIDGE VENT ON GABLE ENDS OF ROOF TYP.LEFT PROPERTY LINERIGHT PROPERTY LINELEFT SIDE SETBACK LINERIGHT SIDE SETBACK LINEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE(N) DETACHED SINGLE-CAR CAR GARAGE WITH EXTERIOR DETAILING TO MATCH MAIN RESIDENCE (N) FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOW TYP. SEE A5.0 FOR WINDOW SCHEDULE AND A9.0 FOR WINDOW DETAIL (N) WOOD AND GLASS FRONT DOOR AND SIDELITES. SEE A5.0 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE. (N) BASEMENT CLEAR CEILING HEIGHT LESS THAN 6'-0" (N) STONE VENEER W/ 4" STONE WATER TABLE ON FRONT OF HOUSE TYP. (N) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR(N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR (N) PAINTED WOOD 6" BELLY BAND AND WOOD CORBELS TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD LAP SIDING W/ 8" EXP. AND MITRED CORNERS TYP. EGRESS WINDOW BEDROOM 1 W/ CLEARANCE OF 27 1/2" X 39 1/2" AND SILL AT 38" (N) MANUAL WOOD GATE AT SIDE YARD (E) SINGLE PANE WOOD WINDOW TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (E) PAINTED WOOD CORBEL TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. Issue Date Description 12/19/2018 Planning Department Submittal 4/19/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 5/28/2019 6/7/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 6/24/2019 (N) STONE CLAD CHIMNEY VENT FOR LIVING ROOM FIREPLACE (N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIREPLACE TOS GARAGE +101.60 (E) FIRST FL. F.F. +104.99 (E) FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +113.32 (E) T.O. RIDGE +120.36 AVG. TOC CHANNING +99.65 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +100.45 20'-8 1/2"(E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +108.57 BASEMENT +96.917'-0 1/2"4'-9"3'-7"3'-5"1'-11 1/4"2'-8 3/4"7'-0 1/2"8'-4"5'-4 1/4"2'-8 3/4"3" 12"+/- W22 W20 W19 W18 W17 W16 W15 W14 W13 W27 W26 W21 TOS GARAGE +101.60 SECOND FLOOR F.F. +113.99 SECOND FL. T.O. PLATE +121.99 AVG. TOC CHANNING +99.65 T.O. RIDGE +128.82 (N) FIRST FLOOR T.O.PLATE +112.82 BASEMENT +96.916'-9 3/4"8'-0"1'-2"9'-0"2'-3"1'-11 1/4"2'-8 3/4"14'-9 3/4"10'-2"4'-2 1/4"2'-8 3/4"29'-2"(N) FIRST FL. F.F. +103.82 W52 W50W51 W49 W76 W74 W73 W72 W70W75 6" 12" 33 1/2"45 1/2"D45 W71 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +100.45 6" 12" AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1804_Niyogi_217_Channing\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Niyogi_217_Channing.rvtA3.1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONS 217 Channing Road Somrat & Sarah Niyogi 217 Channing Road 029-262-090 (415) 318-9718 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 NIYOGI 6/7/2019 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION EXISTING 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED (N) WOOD AND GLASS BASEMENT ACCESS DOOR AT GRADE. SEE A5.0 FOR DOOR SCHEDULEFRONT PROPERTY LINEFRONT PROPERTY LINE(E) STUCCO EXTERIOR TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. EGRESS WINDOW GUEST BEDROOM W/ CLEARANCE OF 33 1/2" X 45 1/2" AND SILL AT 36" (E) FRAMING AND COMPOSITION ROOFING TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. 1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS IN PROPOSED ELEVATION ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE DENOTED AS EXISTING (E) 2. ALL NEW WINDOWS FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS WITH SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS 3. SEE SHEET A5.0 FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE 4. SEE SHEET A9.0 FOR TYPICAL WINDOW DETAIL SHEET NOTES (E) CHIMNEY AND FIREPLACE TO BE DEMOLISHED (N) WOOD REAR DECK AND STAIRS W/ WOOD RAILING (E) COVERED FRONT PORCH AND STAIRS TO BE DEMOLISHED (N) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TYP. (N) STONE VENEER W/ 4" STONE WATER TABLE TO WRAP AROUND TO (N) GATE (N) FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOW TYP. SEE A5.0 FOR WINDOW SCHEDULE AND A9.0 FOR WINDOW DETAIL (E) WOOD WINDOW TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (E) PAINTED WOOD CORBEL TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. Issue Date Description 12/19/2018 Planning Department Submittal 4/19/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 5/28/2019 6/7/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 6/24/2019 (N) WOOD FRONT PORCH W/ STONE VENEER AND (N) WOOD RAILING AND COLUMN W/ WOOD TOP BASE TYP. (N) 6" PAINTED WOOD FASCIA TYP. (N) WOOD SHINGLE W/ 6" EXP. TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD 6" BELLY BAND AND WOOD CORBELS TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD LAP SIDING W/ 8" EXP. AND MITRED CORNERS TYP. (N) MANUAL WOOD GATE AT SIDE YARD APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF (N) VENTS FOR (N) WATER HEATER AND FAU LOCATED IN BASEMENT S SS G GG W WW E EE D DD O OO X XX DN EEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUTILITY LEGEND G S W E WATER METER SEWER CLEAN OUT GAS METER ELECTRICAL METER BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE DOWNSPOUT DIRECTION INDICATOR WATER LINE SEWER LINE GAS LINE OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL SERVICE DRAINAGE LINE FENCE TEMPORARY FENCE W/ WINDSCREEN B (E) TREE (E) SHADE BUSH W/ DIAMETER LESS THAN 6" SHRUBBERY ANNUALS (N) TREE SOFTSCAPE CONCRETE LANDSCAPING LEGEND 50'-0" N 83' - 10 19/32"E -10' - 10 31/ 32" N 58' - 10 3/ 32"E -54' - 0 15/ 32" N -40' - 10 3/4"E 3' - 4 13/32" N -15' - 9 15/ 32"E 46' - 7 5/32" N -24' - 6 17/32"E 51' - 7"15'-0"15'-0"115'-0"20'-0"20'-0"4'-0"4'-0" N -49' - 6 29/32"E 8' - 4 17/32"3'-0" 5'-0" 2'-0"10'-0"S 10'-2"20'-1 1/2"24'-4 1/2"4'-6"42'-9 1/2"11'-5"18'-1 1/2"6" / 12"6" / 12" 6" / 12" 6'-8 1/2" 14'-6"20'-3 1/2"6" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12" W +101.72 REAR PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +100.50 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +99.79 T.O.C. ELEVATION +99.50 T.O.C. ELEVATION +101.02 REAR PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +100.45 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION 6" / 12"6" / 12"43'-5 1/2"6" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12" 9'-11" E G 9'-8" AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1804_Niyogi_217_Channing\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Niyogi_217_Channing.rvtA1.1 PROPOSED SITE/ ROOF PLAN 217 Channing Road Somrat & Sarah Niyogi 217 Channing Road 029-262-090 (415) 318-9718 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 NIYOGI 6/7/2019 0'8'16'4'1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE/ ROOF PLAN PROPOSED (N) UNCOVERED WOOD REAR PORCH AND STEPS SHEET NOTES 1. FOR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING INFORMATION SEE L1.1 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN. 2. THE ROOF EAVES WILL NOT PROJECT WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE PROPETY LINE. 3. ALL ROOF PROJECTIONS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THE POINT WHERE FIRE-RESISTAVE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED WILL BE CONSTRCTED OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RATED CONSTRUCTION PER 2016 CBC 705.2. 4. THE EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS WITHIN 5'-0" OF THE PROPERTY LINE WILL BE BUILT OF ONE- HOUR FIRE RATED CONSTRUCTION PER 2016 CBC TABLE 602. 5. ALL OPENINGS IN EXTERIOR WALL, BOTH PROTECTED AND UNPROTECTED WILL COMPLY WITH 2016 CBC, TABLE 705.8. 6. REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY, AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE, PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL, ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION, AND ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THESE ITEMS. (N) 24" BOX JAPANESE MAPLE TREE SPECIES PROJECT NORTHTR UE N O RTH (E) FRONT SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR(N) FRONT SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR(N) REAR SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR(N) COVERED FRONT WOOD PORCH AND STEPS (N) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (N) SINGLE-CAR GARAGE PROVIDING COVERED PARKING WITH INTERIOR CLEAR DIMENSIONS 10'-0" x 20'-0" (E) LAWN (N) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TYP. (N) FIRST FLOOR WALL OUTLINE (N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (N) 24" BOX JAPANESE MAPLE TREE SPECIES (E) LAWN (N) MANUAL WOOD GATE (N) DIMENSION TO NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE (N) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR REAR SETBACK LINE FIRST FLOOR FRONT SETBACK LINE FRONT PROPERTY LINE REAR PROPERTY LINE SECOND FLOOR FRONT SETBACK LINE SECOND FLOOR REAR SETBACK LINE CITY RIGHT OF WAYLEFT PROPERTY LINERIGHT PROPERTY LINELEFT SIDE SETBACK LINERIGHT SIDE SETBACK LINE221 CHANNING ROAD EXISTING 1-STORY RESIDENCE 215 CHANNING ROAD EXISTING 1-STORY RESIDENCE CHANNING ROAD 217 CHANNING ROAD EXISTING 1-1/2 STORY RESIDENCE (E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SERVING AS UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE WITH APPROX DIM. 10'-2" X 16'-0" (E) OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO REMAIN (E) SHADE PLANTING ON PROPERTY LINE (N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR (N) FRONT SETBACK TO COVERED PORCH(N) DIMENSION TO NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE(N) DIMENSION BETWEEN HOUSE AND GARAGE(N) MANUAL WOOD GATE (E) POWER POLE TO REMAIN Issue Date Description 12/19/2018 Planning Department Submittal 4/19/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 5/28/2019 6/7/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 6/24/2019 (N) CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE (E) CITY STREET TREE TO REMAIN TYP. (E) 30"+/- DEODAR CEDAR TREE ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY W/ OVERHANG ONTO SUBJECT PROPERTY TO REMAIN. SEE L1.1 FOR TREE PROTECTION PLAN (E) 8 1/2" PITTOSPORUM TREE TO REMAIN (N) REAR SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR(N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIREPLACE (E) WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN TYP. UP UP 20'-0"21'-0" 22'-0"21'-0"11'-0"11'-0" A2.33 A2.36 A2.35 A2.34 1'-6"1'-6"11'-6"9'-6"GARAGE D46 D47 W81 10'-6"10'-0"9'-6"11'-0" INTERIOR CLEAR DIMENSIONS 10'-0" X 20'-0" PROVIDING SINGLE COVERED PARKING SPACE STORAGE TOS GARAGE +101.608'-6"11'-5 1/2"+11.46 (N) GARAGE RIDGE HEIGHT +8.50 (N) GARAGE PLATE HEIGHT D46 W81 6" 12"6" 12" TOS GARAGE +101.60 D47 6" 12" TOS GARAGE +101.60 6" 12" 6" 12" TOS GARAGE +101.60 6" 12" WALL LEGEND EXISTING WALL WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED PROPOSED WALL 1-HR FIRE RATED WALL CONSTRUCTION AT (E) EXTERIOR FRAMING NEW WALL W/ 1-HR FIRE RATED CONSTRUCTION OVERHEAD ROOF LINE OUTLINE OF WALLS BELOW A3.31 A3.01 A3.21 A3.11 1A3.4 1A3.5 4 4 2A3.5 AA 6 6 GG CC 1 1 EE 10 10 11 11 BB 2A3.4 DD FF 7 7 2 2 5 5 8 8 9 9 HH WH FURNACE CRAWL SPACE (CLG HT 5'-9") UTILITY AREA TO GRADE TO FIRST FLOOR 52'-1"4'-3"16'-2"31'-8"19'-6"15'-10" 35'-4" 1'-3"11'-3 1/2"11'-6"11'-3 1/2" D4547'-10"E BASEMENT 3 3 34'-1" AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1804_Niyogi_217_Channing\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Niyogi_217_Channing.rvtA2.3 PROPOSED BASEMENT AND GARAGE FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATIONS 217 Channing Road Somrat & Sarah Niyogi 217 Channing Road 029-262-090 (415) 318-9718 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 NIYOGI 6/7/2019 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"2 GARAGE PROPOSED 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"3 GARAGE SOUTH (FRONT) PROPOSED ELEVATION 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"4 GARAGE EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"5 GARAGE NORTH (REAR) ELEVATION PROPOSED 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"6 GARAGE WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED 1. ALL (N) EXTERIOR WALLS ARE DRAWN AS 6" WIDE FROM FINISHED FACE TO FINISHED FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. ALL (N) INTERIOR WALLS ARE DRAWN AS 5" WIDE FROM FINISHED FACE TO FINISHED FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. ALL (N) DOOR ROUGH OPENINGS ARE LOCATED 4" FROM INTERIOR FINISHED WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4. EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WILL BE BUILT OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RATED CONSTRUCTION PER 2016 CBC 705.2. 5. ALL ROOF PROJECTIONS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THE POINT WHERE FIRE- RESISTAVE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED WILL BE CONSTRCTED OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RATED CONSTRUCTION PER 2016 CBC 705.2 6. GUARDRAILS WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL LANDINGS. 7. HANDRAILS WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL STAIRS WHERE THERE ARE FOUR OR MORE RISERS. SHEET NOTES PROJECT NORTHTR UE N O RTH 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"1 BASEMENT PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN (N) WOOD AND GLASS GARAGE DOOR SEE A5.0 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE (N) FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOW TYP. SEE A5.0 FOR WINDOW SCHEDULE AND A9.0 FOR WINDOW DETAIL (N) WOOD SHINGLE 6" EXPOSURE TYP. (N) WOOD SIDING 8" EXPOSURE W/ MITRED CORNERS TYP. (N) 6" PAINTED WOOD FASCIA TYP. (N) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD 6" BELLY BAND AND WOOD CORBELS TYP. (N) TRIANGULAR RIDGE VENT ON GABLE ENDS OF ROOF TYP. (N) WOOD AND GLASS ENTRY DOOR SEE A5.0 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE (N) EXTERIOR BASEMENT ACCESS DOOR AT GRADE Issue Date Description 12/19/2018 Planning Department Submittal 4/19/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 5/28/2019 6/7/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 6/24/2019 (E) CONCRETE SLAB FLOOR TO REMAIN (N) CRAWL SPACE AREA W/ DIRT FLOOR AT GRADE AND FOUNDATION PER STRUCTURAL PLANS TYP. (E) CONCRETE SLAB FLOOR TO REMAIN (N) CRAWL SPACE BELOW FRONT PORCH W/ DIRT FLOOR AT GRADE AND FOUNDATION PER STRUCTURAL PLANS TYP. (N) CRAWL SPACE BELOW REAR PORCH W/ DIRT FLOOR AT GRADE AND FOUNDATION PER STRUCTURAL PLANS TYP. (N) ELECTRICAL PANEL (N) FOUNDATION PER STRUCTURAL PLANS TYP. APPROXIMATE LOCATION FOR (N) WATER HEATER, FAU AND VENTS UP DN DN DN OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO50'-0" N 83' - 11 11/32"E -10' - 9 21/32" N 58' - 10 27/32"E -53' - 11 5/ 32" N -40' - 10"E 3' - 5 3/4" N -15' - 8 23/32"E 46' - 8 15/ 32"15'-0"15'-0"115'-0"20'-0"20'-0"4'-0"4'-0"3'-0"5'-0"2'-0"10'-0"S N -24' - 5 25/32"E 51' - 8 5/16" N -49' - 6 5/32"E 8' - 5 7/8" FRONT PORCH REAR DECK GARAGE W +101.72 REAR PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +100.50 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +99.79 T.O.C. ELEVATION +99.50 T.O.C. ELEVATION +101.02 REAR PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +100.45 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATIONCLOSETDINING AREA FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN BUTLER PANTRY LIVING ROOM FOYER GUEST BEDROOM POWDER GUEST BATH COATS STAIRS E G (E) TREE (E) SHADE BUSH W/ DIAMETER LESS THAN 6" SHRUBBERY ANNUALS (N) TREE SOFTSCAPE CONCRETE LANDSCAPING LEGEND AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1804_Niyogi_217_Channing\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Niyogi_217_Channing.rvtL1.1 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN 217 Channing Road Somrat & Sarah Niyogi 217 Channing Road 029-262-090 (415) 318-9718 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 NIYOGI 6/7/2019 0'8'16'4'1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN 1. WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE- THESE PLANS COMPLY WITH THE CITERIA OF THE WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN. SHEET NOTES (E) SOFTSCAPE SIDE YARD TO REMAIN TYP. (N) SEMI- PERMEABLE HARDSCAPE SCAPE AREA TO BE EXPANDED TO MATCH (E)PROJECT NORTHTR UE N O RTH (N) SOFTSCAPE/ PLANTER AREA (N) BASEMENT ACCESS DOOR AT GRADE (N) SEMI-PERMEABLE HARDSCAPE APPROACH TO FRONT PORCH (E) WOOD FENCE (E) SHURBBERY TO BE REHABILITATED CHANNING ROAD 217 CHANNING ROAD EXISTING 1-STORY RESIDENCE FIRST FLOOR REAR SETBACK LINE FIRST FLOOR FRONT SETBACK LINE FRONT PROPERTY LINE REAR PROPERTY LINE SECOND FLOOR FRONT SETBACK LINE SECOND FLOOR REAR SETBACK LINE CITY RIGHT OF WAYLEFT PROPERTY LINERIGHT PROPERTY LINELEFT SIDE SETBACK LINERIGHT SIDE SETBACK LINE(N) 24" BOX JAPANESE MAPLE TREE SPECIES (N) SINGLE-CAR GARAGE PROVIDING COVERED PARKING WITH INTERIOR CLEAR DIMENSIONS 10'-0" x 20'-0" (E) LAWN (N) 24" BOX JAPANESE MAPLE TREE SPECIES (E) LAWN (N) MANUAL WOOD GATE (E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SERVING AS UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE WITH APPROX DIM. 10'-2" X 21'-6" +/-TO REMAIN (E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND DRIVE APPROCH TO REMAIN (E) SHADE PLANTING ON PROPERTY LINE TO REMAIN OR BE REPLACED TYP. (N) MANUAL WOOD GATE (E) POWER POLE TO REMAIN Issue Date Description 12/19/2018 Planning Department Submittal 4/19/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 5/28/2019 6/7/2019 Planning Commission Mtg 6/24/2019 (E) 30"+/- DEODAR CEDAR TREE ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY W/ OVERHANG ONTO SUBJECT PROPERTY TO REMAIN. SEE TREE PROTECTION PLAN (E) 17" SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA CITY STREET TREE TO REMAIN TYP. SEE TREE PROTECTION PLAN (E) 8 1/2" PITTOSPORUM TREE TO REMAIN (E) 16 1/2" SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA CITY STREET TREE TO REMAIN. SEE TREE PROTECTION PLAN. (E) 21 1/2" SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA CITY STREET TREE TO REMAIN TYP. SEE L1.1 FOR TREE PROTECTION PLAN (E) WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN TYP. PROJECT LOCATION 830 Paloma Avenue Item No. 8b Regular Action Items City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 830 Paloma Avenue Meeting Date: June 24, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling. Applicants and Property Owners: Jennifer and Matt Kulin APN: 029-015-270 Designer: Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. Lot Area: 5,240 SF 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 Section 15301 (e)(1) 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 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The subject property is located on an interior lot and contains 2,151 SF (0.41 FAR) of floor area. The existing lot coverage is at 2,158 SF (41%) where 2,096 SF (40%) is the maximum allowed; a Minor Modification for a first floor addition (113 SF) to increase the lot coverage to 41% was approved on April 27, 2012. Only interior improvements are proposed on the first floor; there would be no expansion to the existing building footprint. The applicant is also proposing to construct a new second story (616 SF). With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,767 SF (0.53 FAR) where 2,777 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 10 SF under the maximum allowed FAR. The number of potential bedrooms is increasing from three to five. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached garage provides two covered parking spaces (19’-3” wide x 19’-0” deep clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following:  Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(2)). 830 Paloma Avenue Lot Size: 5,240 SF Plans date stamped: June 12, 2019 EXISTING ORIGINAL 02/08/19 plans REVISED 06/12/19 plans ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 17’-0” no change no change 15’-0” or block average (2nd flr): n/a 62’-5” 45’-7” 20'-0" or block average Side (left): (right): 3’-4” 4’-6” no change no change no change no change 3'-0" 3'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 29’-8” n/a no change 34’-5” no change 44’-3½” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,158 SF 41% no change no change 2,096 SF 40% FAR: 2,151 SF 0.41 FAR 2,765 SF 0.53 FAR 2,767 SF 0.53 FAR 2,777 SF 1 0.53 FAR 1 (0.32 x 5,240 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,777 SF (0.53 FAR) Item No. 8b Regular Action Item Design Review 830 Paloma Avenue 2 830 Paloma Avenue Lot Size: 5,240 SF Plans date stamped: June 12, 2019 EXISTING ORIGINAL 02/08/19 plans REVISED 06/12/19 plans ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: 3 6 5 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (19’-3” wide x 19’ deep) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’)* no change no change 2 covered (18’ x 18’ for existing) 1 uncovered (9' x 18' for existing) Height: 16’-4” 25’-3¾” 25’-1” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies complies CS 25.26.075 Staff Comments: A letter of concern about the proposed project was submitted by the adjacent neighb or at 834 Paloma Avenue (see attachments). Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on March 11, 2019, the Commission made recommendations to improve the project and referred the application to a design review consultant (see attached March 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below is a summary of the Commission’s recommendations:  Move second story addition forward so that there is less emphasis on the garage becoming the main feature;  Reduce taller plate height on the second floor;  Window fenestration on the first and second floors should be compatible; and  Would like to see additional design detailing. During public comments, the adjacent neighbor to the left of the subject property expressed concerns regarding loss of privacy and shading of her fruit trees from the second floor addition. A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next section. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the original project architect (Scott Kuehne, Suarez-Keuhne Architecture) and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed proposed revisions to the plans. The design review consultant also communicated with the homeowners and the original architect via email. Ultimately, the homeowners decided to hire a new designer for the project. The new project designer (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc.) worked with the design review consultant to address the Commission’s comments and submitted revised plans date stamped June 12, 2019 . Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated June 12, 2019, for a detailed review of the project. The design reviewer notes that “the new massing improves the relationship to and minimizes impacts to the neighboring houses.” Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design r eviewer recommends approval of the project as proposed. Design Review 830 Paloma Avenue 3 Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjace nt properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring smooth cement plaster siding, hip and gable roofs, clay tile roofing, proportional plate heights, and aluminum clad simulated true divided lite windows) is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are p laced so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans subm itted to the Planning Division date stamped June 12, 2019, sheets T.0, SP.1, DM.1, and sheets A.1 through A.8; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, wind ows, 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 first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that 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 sh all 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; 7. 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; Design Review 830 Paloma Avenue 4 8. 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Buil ding and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at the time of building permit submittal, 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: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for t he property; 11. 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 appro ved 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 t he 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 Buildi ng 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 . ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Jennifer and Matt Kulin, applicants and property owners Jesse Geurse, designer Attachments: March 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Analysis, dated June 12, 2019 Letter of Concern Submitted by Neighbor, received June 19, 2019 Application to the Planning Commission Photos of Neighboring Properties (submitted by applicant) Letter of Concern Submitted by Neighbor, received March 5, 2019 Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 14, 2019 Area Map 1 City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit for an Incidental Food Establishment Address: 851 Burlway Road, Suite 900 Meeting Date: June 24, 2019 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit for a new incidental food establishment in an existing multi- use commercial building. Applicant and Architect: Koichi Paul Nii, Nii Architects APN: 026-112-130 Property Owner: Elie Mehrdad Lot Area: 81,763 SF General Plan: Bayfront Commercial Zoning: IB Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review. Previous Use: Storage/Warehouse Proposed Use: Incidental food establishment (Mr. Teriyaki) Allowable Use: Incidental food establishment with approval of a Conditional Use P ermit Background: There are two commercial buildings on the subject property, including the main office building (Kahala Tower) and accessory building being utilized as storage/warehouse. The main office building was built in 1964 and the storage building was added in 1984. There was a proposed addition to the main office building in 1999 which included a request for a Parking Variance and C onditional Use Permit; the project application was approved but was never built since the approval expired and became invalid. The applicant is proposing to convert a portion of the first floor of the storage bu ilding into an incidental food establishment. Mr. Teriyaki is an existing restaurant in Burlingame currently located in the same zoning district at 801 Mahler Road. They are seeking a larger restaurant space and to relocate to the subject property, if approved. Summary: The applicant, Koichi Paul Nii, representing Mr. Teriyaki, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate an incidental food establishment at 851 Burlway Road, Suite 900, zoned IB. A Conditional Use Permit is required because the proposed incidental food establishment varies from the criteria established in Code Section 25.43.020 (e) (see discussion further in staff report). The food establishment will contain customer seating, a kitchen, storage area and restrooms. The proposed food establishment will have approximately 500 SF of indoor customer seating. The proposed tenant space measures approximately 1,500 SF in area. The proposed restaurant will be open for lunch and dinner during the weekdays and dinner on Saturdays. In his letter date stamped February 8, 2019 (see attached), the applicant notes that “the new restaurant shall continue to serve the area as the current restaurant’s location is nearby.” An incidental food establishment in the IB zoning district is permitted by-right if they meet all of the following criteria, per Code Section 25.43.020 (e): is not the primary use within a multi-use building, limited to 1,500 SF in floor area (at least 15 feet in length and 15 feet in width), has operation hours between 6 AM to 5 PM (weekdays only, no weekends), does not sell alcoholic beverages, and provides required parking. A Conditional Use Permit is required in this case because 1) the incidental food establishment is proposed to be open later than 5 PM and Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Conditional Use Permits 851 Burlway Road, Suite 900 2 on Saturdays and 2) the operator would like to sell alcoholic beverages. The proposed food establishment would operate on weekdays Monday through Friday from 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM for lunch and 5:00 PM to 8:30 PM for dinner. They would also be open on Saturdays for dinner only during the hours of 5:00 PM to 8:30 PM. The restaurant will have five full-time employees on the weekdays and on Saturdays. There is no expected increase to the number of employees in the next five years. At opening, the applicant projects up to 75 customers per day on weekdays and 25 customers on Saturday evenings. In the future, the applicant expects that the number of customers will increase to 85 customers per day on the weekdays and remain the same of amount of customers on Saturday evenings. A maximum of 15 people are expected on site at any one time, including the owner, employees and customers. The following application is required:  Conditional Use Permit for a new incidental food establishment in an existing multi-use commercial building that varies from the following criteria (C.S. 25.43.020 (f): - is open later than 5 PM and open on Saturdays; and - sells alcoholic beverages. With this application, there are no changes proposed to the front façade of the existing building, therefore this project is not subject to Commercial Design Review. Off-Street Parking: There are a total of 154 on-site parking spaces with an existing parking demand of 218 spaces for both the main office building and accessory storage building. Therefore, the existing parking on-site is nonconforming. With the proposed application, there is an intensification of use resulting in an overall proposed parking demand of 224 spaces. Specifically for the proposed tenant space , the existing parking demand (storage/warehouse use) is 5 parking spaces and the proposed parking demand with the incidental food establishment use is 11 parking spaces, for a difference of 6 additional parking spaces . The applicant is proposing to restripe the front portion of the existing parking lot in order to add s even additional code compliant parking spaces and bring the overall number of parking spaces on -site to 161 spaces. Please refer to the table below for a breakdown of the uses and parking required on -site. 851 Burlway Road, Suite 900 Lot Area: 81,763 SF Plans date stamped: June 13, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Use : Office Building 63,895 SF /(1:300 SF) = 212.98 Storage Building 5,000 SF/(1:1,000 SF) = 5 Office Building 63,895 SF /(1:300 SF) = 212.98 Storage Building Storage 3,500 SF/(1:1,000 SF) = 3.5 Restaurant 1,500 SF/(1:200 SF) = 7.5 nonconforming Conditional Use Permits 851 Burlway Road, Suite 900 3 Parking: 218 spaces required for entire site; 5 spaces required for storage building 224 spaces required for entire site; 11 spaces required for storage building 6 additional spaces required for intensification of use Total On-Site Parking: 154 spaces 161 spaces 224 spaces (for entire site, including proposed use) Staff Comments: The Planning Division would note that this application was brought directly to the Planning Commission as a Regular Action Item since the applicant is proposing to add additional parking spaces to comply with their parking requirement due to intensification of use , and there are no changes proposed to the building façade that requires Commercial Design Revie w. However, if the Commission feels there is a need for more discussion, this item may be placed on a future action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a full service food establishment, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be de trimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame ge neral plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable condi tions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: That the proposed business is an incidental use relative to the other uses on the site; that the use is compatible with the surrounding office and industrial uses in the zoning district and with the General Plan; that the required off-street parking for the change in uses will be provided on site; and that there are no proposed exterior changes to the building that will impact the streetscape or surrounding businesses. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s Conditional Use Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning D ivision date stamped June 13, 2019, sheets C1 through P4.1; 2. that this business location to be occupied by an incidental food establishment, with 500 SF of on-site (indoor) customer seating area, may not expand its tenant space beyond 1,500 SF in gross floor area ; Conditional Use Permits 851 Burlway Road, Suite 900 4 3. that the 500 SF area of on-site (indoor) seating of the incidental food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space or outdoors by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 5. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 6. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; and 7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Cod e and California Fire Code, in effect at the time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit . ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Koichi Paul Nii, Nii Architects, applicant and architect Elie Mehrdad, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Applicant’s Letters of Explanation, date stamped February 8, 2019 Conditional Use Permit Application Commercial Application Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 14, 2019 Area Map City of Burlingame Planning Department (650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 (fax) Plan Review Comments 2 2. Off-Street Parking (Chapter 25.70) Existing Use: ƒ Thank you for providing the list of existing tenants and square footage for each tenant space. The total amount of parking required was based on the total floor area of the entire building, not just the occupi ed tenant spaces. The square footages for the main office building and storage building was taken from Planning records for the subject property (address file). Square Footage Parking Ratio Spaces Required Office building (Kahala Tower) Ground/1st Floor: 2nd Floor: 3rd Floor: 4th Floor: 5th Floor: 6th Floor: 7th Floor: Mechanical Penthouse: TOTAL: -- 8,869 SF 9,171 SF 9,171 SF 9,171 SF 9,171 SF 9,171 SF 9,171 SF 1,300 SF 65,195 SF 1:300 SF for office uses (includes health services uses per C.S. 25.43.080 (d)); Mechanical Penthouse not counted towards parking requirement 65,195 SF – 1,300 SF = 63,895 SF/300 SF = 212.98 spaces Storage Building Ground/1st Floor: 2nd Floor: TOTAL: -- 2,500 SF 2,500 SF 5,000 SF 1:1,000 SF 5,000 SF/1,000 SF = 5 spaces Total Spaces Required: 217.98 or 218 spaces Proposed: Square Footage Parking Ratio Spaces Required Office building (Kahala Tower) 63,895 SF 1:300 SF 212.98 spaces Storage Building Ground/1st Floor (storage): (food establishment): 2nd Floor: -- 1,001 SF 1,499 SF 2,500 SF -- 1:1,000 SF 1:200 SF 1:1,000 SF -- 1 space 7.5 spaces 2.5 spaces Total Spaces Required: 223.98 or 224 spaces With the parking credit from the previous use, the conversion of storage use to a food establishment is an intensification of six (6) parking spaces. With 154 existing parking spaces on the property, the existing parking deficiency is 64 spaces and 70 spaces with your proposed use. Comments continued on next page. DATE REVISIONS BY OF SCALE SHEET CONTENTS SHEET SHEETS 2/8/'19 T: (510) 533-7270 E: PAUL@NIIARCHITECTS.COM F: (510) 533-4214N I I A R C H I T E C T S1 3 7 6 E A S T 2 7TH S T R E E T O A K L A N D C A 94606TENANT IMPROVEMENT/NEW RESTAURANT FORMR TERIYAKIAT 851 BURLWAY ROAD #900BURLINGAME, CA, 940105/15/'19 6/11/'19 EXISITNG SITE PLAN/PARKING DIAGRAM SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" PROJECT AREA (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE AREA TO BE CONFIRMED WITH RECOLOGY PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF BUILDING PERMIT. 9'-0"+/-TYP18'-0"+/- TYP.24 SPACES11 SPACES5 SPACES6 SPACES9 SPACES9 SPACES11 SPACES11 SPACES11 SPACES11 SPACES18 SPACES15 SPACES6 SPACES2 DISABLED SPACES2 DISABLED SPACES1 DISABLED SPACE2 SPACES 24'-0" TYP.24'-0" 19'-0" +/- EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING (E) OPEN COVERED EMERGENCY STAIRCASE 11'-0"18'-0" TYP. 11'-0"TYP. TYP. OF DISABLED PARKING SPACE. 5 (E) DISABLED SPACES TO REMAIN B14B13 38'-1 1/2"+/-1"+/-22'-0"+/- B1 B6 B6F1 (E) MIN. 5'-0" WIDE MARKED AISLE TO REMAIN B13 B2 (E) ELEC. METER TO REMAIN (E) WATER METER TO REMAIN 4 (E) WATER METER TO REMAIN (E) SEWER CLEAN OUT TO REMAIN (E) SEWER CLEAN OUT TO REMAIN (E) PG&E UTILITY (E) GAS UTILITY B6 2ND B1 2ND B1 2ND PARKING SPACE CALCULATION: EXISTING ELEVATION OF PROJECT AREA NO SCALE INDEX SHEET #CONTENTS C1 SCOPE OF WORK, INDEX, PARKING DIAGRAM AND SUMMARY, ELEVATION (PHOTO) C2 PROPOSED PARKING DIAGRAM 1 PROJECT DATA, NOTES, LEGEND, GENERAL NOTES, VICINITY MAP, PARTIAL SITE PLAN, EXISTING FLOOR AND DEMO PLAN 2 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN AND EQUIPMENT LIST 3 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN P0.1 PLUMBING PLANS P0.2 PLUMBING PLANS P2.1 PLUMBING PLANS P3.1 PLUMBING PLANS P4.1 PLUMBING PLANS SCOPE OF WORK/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TENANT IMPROVEMENT CONVERT EXISTING OFFICE/STORAGE SPACE INTO RESTAURANT. THE EXISTING NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES DOES NOT MEET PROPOSED DEMAND. 6 ADDITIONAL SPACES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED VIA ONLY RE-LINING OF AREAS OF PARKING LOT WHILE MEETING REQUIRED PARKING DIMENSIONS. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO OPERATE RESTAURANT BEYOND 5PM AND TO SERVE ALCOHOL.. “Construction Hours” Weekdays: 8:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. Sundays and Holidays: No Work Allowed (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 18.07.110 for details.) (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.) Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non-City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right of way must now be included on the plans. 1 BUILDING NOTES: NOTE: A condition of this project approval is that the Demolition Permit will not be issued and, and no work can begin (including the removal of any building components), until a Building Permit has been issued for the project. The property owner is responsible for assuring that no work is authorized or performed. 18.07.065 Section 303.1 amended—Issuance. FIRE NOTE: Where the kitchen exhaust hood traverses to the exterior, the ducting shall be encased within a one-hour minimum fire rated shaft if it traverses through the second floor. C1 RESULTS IN ADDITIONAL 6 SPACES REQUIRED. SEE SHEET C2 FOR PROPOSED RE-LINING OF SPACES GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2016 EDITIONS OF THE “CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE”, “CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE”, “CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE”, “CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE”, “CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE”, "GREEN BUILDING CODE", “TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE” AND THE LATEST EDTION OF LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES WHICH APPLY. 2. PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW ALL DRAWINGS SUPPLIED BY THE ARCHITECT, VERIFY ALL SITE CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS AND NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ALL TEMPORARY MEANS NECESSARY TO ENSURE SAFETY OF PERSON AND PROPERTY. 4. ALL WORK SHALL BE PLUMB, LEVEL, AND SQUARE. DATE REVISIONS BY OF SCALE SHEET CONTENTS SHEET SHEETS 2/8/'19 T: (510) 533-7270 E: PAUL@NIIARCHITECTS.COM F: (510) 533-4214N I I A R C H I T E C T S1 3 7 6 E A S T 2 7TH S T R E E T O A K L A N D C A 94606TENANT IMPROVEMENT/NEW RESTAURANT FORMR TERIYAKIAT 851 BURLWAY ROAD #900BURLINGAME, CA, 940105/15/'19 6/11/'19 PROPOSED SITE PLAN/PARKING DIAGRAM SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" PROJECT AREA (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE AREA 9'-0"+/-TYP18'-0"+/- TYP.24 SPACES12 SPACES5 SPACES6 SPACES9 SPACES9 SPACES11 SPACES12 SPACES12 SPACES12 SPACES18 SPACES16 SPACES6 SPACES2 DISABLED SPACES2 DISABLED SPACES2 SPACES 24'-0" TYP.24'-0" 19'-0" +/- EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING (E) OPEN COVERED EMERGENCY STAIRCASE AREA OF CHANGE IN PARKING STRIPING AND NUMBER OF SPACES. ONLY STRIPING TO CHANGE. AISLES, LANDSCAPE AND OTHERS TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY AND NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCEY FOUND.8'-11"+/-(8'-6" MIN)18'-1"+/- (18'-0" MIN) TYP. OF EACH SPACE FOR EVERY 12 SPACE PARKING BAY TYP. OF EACH SPACE FOR EVERY SPACE IN 16 SPACE BAY 8'-10"+/- 8'-6" MIN 18'-0"MIN.(N) PATH OF TRAVEL LINE WIDTH TO BE 2" THICK. SPACE DIAGONAL LINES AT 4'-0"5'-0"MIN. TYP.1 DISABLED SPACEB11 B12 B15B10 18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"27'-0"18'-0" 1 C2 WATER METER LOCATION FLOOR PLAN - WATER & GAS LAYOUT GENERAL NOTES FLOOR PLANPLUMBING LAYOUTP2.1 WATER & GAS KEYNOTES 39210 State St. Ste. 106Fremont, CA 94538phone: (510) 449-4862fax: (510) 509-2362engineers@mrengcon.comwww.mrengcon.comCOMMERCIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENTFOR RESTAURANTMR TERIYAKIAT 851 BULRWAY ROADBURLINGAME, CA 9401020309 FLOOR PLAN - SEWER & VENT LAYOUT SEWER & VENT KEYNOTES KEY PLAN GAS METER LOCATION SCOPEOF WORKLIST OF EQUIPMENT PROJECT LOCATION 1345 Vancouver Avenue Item No. 9a Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 1345 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: June 24, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Josephn Ho APN: 027-151-110 Property Owner: Xiaochuang Lin Lot Area: 6,012 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The proposed project includes a major first floor renovation, adding a new second story, and building a new detached garage. Given that most of the existing walls will be removed, this project is being reviewed as a new house and therefore must comply with current code regulations. The proposed new house would contain a total floor area of 3,411 SF (0.56 FAR), where 3,412 SF (0.56 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including a 96 SF covered front porch exemption). The proposed project is 1 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for building height (35’-10⅛” proposed where 30’ is the maximum allowed without approval of a Special Permit ). Planning staff would note that the lot slopes upward and that the finished floor is 12 feet above average top of curb level (proposed project includes maintaining the existing first floor level). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required. The new detached garage provides one covered parking space (17’-6”x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered space (9’-0”x 20’-0”) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)); and  Special Permit for building height (35’-10⅛” proposed where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.26.060 (a) (1)). 1345 Vancouver Avenue Lot Size: 6,012 SF Plans date stamped: June 14, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 21’-5 ½” 22’-5” 22’-5” (block average) (2nd flr): n/a 22’-5 ½” Side (left): (right): 13’-11” 6’-4⅛” no change no change 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 21’-1⅝” n/a 28’-5⅛” 28’-7⅛” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,343 SF 38.9% 2,329 SF 38% 2,405 SF 40% Item No. 9a Design Review Study Design Review and Special Permit 1345 Vancouver Avenue 2 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D FAR: 2,232 SF 0.37 FAR 3,411 SF 0.56 FAR 3,412 SF ¹ 0.56 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (16’-3” x 19’-1”) 1 uncovered (9 x 20’) 1 covered (17’-6” x 20’) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (10’ x 20’) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 29’-0” 35’-10⅛” 2 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 6,012 SF) + 1100 SF + 389 SF= 3,412 SF (0.56 FAR) 2 Special Permit for building height (35’-10⅛” proposed where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed). Staff Comments: None Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for building height, 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 stru cture 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. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Joseph Ho, applicant and designer Xiaochuang Lin, property owner Design Review and Special Permit 1345 Vancouver Avenue 3 Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 14, 2019 Area Map LIN'S RESIDENCE SECOND STORY ADDITION 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 APN# 027-151-110 OWNER - XIAOCHUANG LIN 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PHONE: (415) 797-8277 DESIGN- JOSEPH HO PHONE: (415) 513-8234 COVER SHEETCS-1ADDRESS :PROJECT DATA:1345 VANCOUVER AVE.BURLINGAME CA 94010027-151-110APN :ZONING :R1R3/UOCCUPANCY :CONSTRUCTION TYPE :TYPE V-BBUILDING CODES :2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODECURRENT BURLINGAME AMENDMENTSDEFERRED SUBMITTALPROJECT SCOPE2ND FLOOR ADDITION AND COMPLETE RENOVATION TO AN EXISTINGONE STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO INCLUDE 4BEDROOMS AND 4.5 BATH. RELOCATE DETACHED GARAGE.THIS HOUSE SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A NFPA 13D FIRE SPRINKLERSYSTEM THROUGHOUT.NEW WALLLEVEL CHANGESYMBOLDESCRIPTIONLEGEND :NOTE 1_ROOFINGROOFING (TYPICAL)·METAL ROOF OVER 2 LAYERS #15 ASPHALT FELT OVER W.P. PLYWOOD SHEATHING. INSTALL R-30INSULATION WITH VAPOR BARRIER BETWEEN ROOF JOISTS.·ROOFING INSTALLATION SHALL BE AS PER APPROVED PRACTICE AND MFR'S SPEC. ANDRECOMMENDATIONS. ROOFING CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OFINSTALLATION TO BUILDING INSPECTOR.·ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS, SUCH AS ROOF DRAINS, SKYLINE, CHIMNEYS, EXHAUST FANS, VENTSTACKS, ETC.. SHALL BE PROPERLY FLASHED TO ASSURE WATER TIGHTNESS.·PROVIDE ROOF OVERFLOW DRAINAGE AS PER SECT. 3207C OF UBC. ROOFING MATERIAL TO BECLASS "B" FIRE RATED ROOF ASSEMBLY OR BETTER·RADIANT BARRIER IS REQUIRED FOR ALL ROOF.GENERAL NOTESVERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS OF THE LOT, EASEMENT, AND SOIL CONDITIONS INCLUDING EXCAVATION, UNDERPINNING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY LINES AT THIS PROPERTY, AS WELL AS, AT ADJACENTPROPERTIES. ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL CONFORM TO LOCAL BUILDING CODE.THE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO DESCRIBE AND PROVIDE FOR A FINISHED PIECE OF WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNDERSTAND THAT THE WORK HEREIN DESCRIBED SHALL BE COMPLETED IN EVERYDETAIL ALTHOUGH EVERY NECESSARY ITEM INVOLVED IS NOT PARTICULARLY MENTIONED. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE ALL THE MATERIALS AND LABOR NECESSARY FOR THEENTIRE COMPLETION OF THE WORK INTENDED TO BE DESCRIBED AND SHALL NOT AVAIL HIMSELF MANIFESTLY OF ANY UNINTENTIONAL ERROR OR OMISSION SHOULD SUCH EXISTS.SHOULD ANY ERROR OR INCONSISTENCY APPEARS OR OCCURS IN THE DRAWING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT/ENGINEER FOR PROPER ADJUSTMENT BEFORE PROCEEDINGWITH THE WORK, AND IN NO CASE, SHALL PROCEED WITH THE WORK IN UNCERTAINTY.WORK INCLUDED:EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY STATED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND PAY ALL MATERIALS, LABOR, TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND BUILDING PERMITS INCLUDING ENCROACHMENT AND HAULINGPERMITS.ALTERATIONS:IF ALTERATIONS OF DESIGN OR PLAN ARE MADE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER, THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH ALTERATIONS MADE BYOR AGREED UPON BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR.INFORMATION CONFIDENTIALALL PLANS, DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR INFORMATION FURNISHED HEREWITH ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER & BE HELD CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT BE USEDFOR ANY PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED AND PREPARED. THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE ARCHITECT'S/ENGINEER'SWRITTEN PERMISSION.SHEET NO.ELEVATIONSHEET NO.DETAIL1REVISIONNET LOT AREA:6,012.2 SQFTScale: NTSVICINITY MAP1ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE (40%):2,405 SQFTPROPOSED LOT COVERAGE:2,329 SQFTFRONT SETBACK (1ST FLOOR):15'SIDE SETBACK:4'REAR SETBACK (1ST FLOOR):15'1345 VANCOUVER AVE. BURLINGAME, CA.THE RESIDENCE SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A NFPA 13D FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM THROUGHOUT. ASEPARATE PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATIONNOTE 2- FIRE SPRINKLERABV.ABOVEADJ.ADJACENTAFF.ABOVE FINISHED FLOORAWN.AWNINGBD.BOARDBF.BI-FOLDBW.BOTTOM OF WALLBLW.BELOWBLDG.BUILDINGBSMT.BASEMENTCLG.CEILINGCSMT.CASEMENTCONC.CONCRETEDH.DOUBLE HUNGDNDOWN(E)EXISTINGELEC.ELECTRICALELEV.ELEVATIONFLR.FLOORF.D.FLOOR DRAING.M.GAS METERGLS.GLASSGYPM.GYPSUMHC.HOLLOW COREJLUS.JALOUSIELAM.LAMINATEMATL.MATERIAL(N)NEW(R)RELOCATE/ REVISEDSC.SOLID CORESH.SINGLE HUNGSL.SLIDINGSL. DR.SLIDING DOORSKYLT.SKYLIGHTSD.SMOKE DETECTORT.GTEMPER GLASST.WTOP OF WALLT.O.RTOP OF ROOFT.O.PTOP OF PLATEW.H.WATER HEATERW.M.WATER METERV.I.FVERIFY IN FIELDABBREVIATIONSYMBOLDESCRIPTION1.FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO BE AS DEFERRED SUBMITTALS2.ROOF TRUSSES TO BE AS DEFERRED SUBMITTALSNOTE 4 - CALGREEN NOTESUBJECT PROPERTY1345 VANCOUVER AVE.BURLINGAME, CADETAIL. NO.DWG. NO.SHEET INDEXCS-1COVER SHEETBPMCONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICEGB-1GAL GREEN CHECKLISTSV-1TOPOGRAPHIC SITE SURVEY MAPA0.1PERSPECTIVE RENDERING AND MATERIALA1.0EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE PLANA1.1LANDSCAPE/ GRADING PLANA2.0EXISTING/ DEMO & PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLANSA2.1PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR & ROOF PLANA3.0PROPOSED FRONT (NORTHEAST) & REAR (SOUTHWEST) ELEVATIONSA3.1PROPOSED LEFT (SOUTHEAST) ELEVATIONSA3.2PROPOSED RIGHT (NORTHWEST) ELEVATIONSA3.3PROPOSED SECTIONSA4.0PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR, ROOF PLAN AND ELEVATIONSALLOWABLE FAR:PROPOSED FAR:3,411 SQFTFLOOR AREA PER FLOOREXISTING PROPOSEDTOTAL1ST FLOOR1886 GSF-172.5 GSF 1713.5 GSF2ND FLOOR0 GSF+1309 GSF1309 GSFTOTAL LIVING AREA1886 GSF+1136.5 GSF3022.5 GSFGARAGE346 GSF+42.5 GSF 388.5 GSFBLDG.TOTAL 2,232 GSF1,185 GSF3,411 GSF(GROSS FLOOR AREA(GSF) IS MEASURED AT FACE OF EXTERIOR WALL)FACADE ON VANCOUVER AVE.INTERIORFIRE RATED WALLEXTERIOR WALLREQUIRED:21'-5 1/2"6'-4" & 13'-11"28'-1 1/8"PROPOSED:·CONTRACTOR/ OWNER SHALL HIRE SURVEYOR TO DETERMINE THE NEW BUILDING CORNERSAND BUILDING SETBACK AT THE VACANT LOT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.·ALL EXISTING SEWER LATERALS FACING THE PROPERTY & ALL EXISTING WATER SERVICES TOTHE PROPERTY SHALL BE LOCATED AND ABANDONED AT THE MAIN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.NOTE 3 - SITE CONDITION3,412 SQFTREAR SETBACK (2ND FLOOR):20'41'-10"FRONT SETBACK (2ND FLOOR):20'22'-5 1/2"BLOCK AVG:22'-5"N/AN/AN/A22'-5"THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED A “TYPE I” PROJECT THAT REQUIRES A STORM WATERCONSTRUCTION POLLUTION PREVENTION PERMIT. THIS PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THEISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. IN ADDITION, AN INITIAL FIELD INSPECTION BY THE PUBLICWORKS INSPECTOR IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION WORKON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THEBUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALSINCLUDING REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.” THE BUILDING OWNER, PROJECTDESIGNER, AND/OR CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT A REVISION TO THE CITY FOR ANY WORK NOTGRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED ON THE JOB COPY OF THE PLANS PRIOR TO PERFORMING THE WORK.ANY WORK IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SUCH AS PLACEMENT OF DEBRIS BIN IN STREET,WORK IN SIDEWALK AREA, PUBLIC EASEMENTS, AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, IS REQUIREDTO OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. PORTA POTTY'SARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE PLACED IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY.ALL WATER LINES CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINEPROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MATERIALSPECIFICATIONS. CONTACT THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT FOR CONNECTION FEES. IFREQUIRED, ALL FIRE SERVICES AND SERVICES 2" AND OVER WILL BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER. ALLUNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SEPARATEUNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE PERMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANYNEW SEWER FIXTURE PER ORDINANCE NO. 1710. THE SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTIONCERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT.CONSTRUCTION HOURSWEEKDAYS: 8:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M.SATURDAYS: 9:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION18.07.110 FOR DETAILS.)(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.)CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS ANDNON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M.NOTE: CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR WORK IN THE PUBLICRIGHT OF WAY MUST NOW BE INCLUDED ON THE PLANS.NOTE 5 - PERMIT NOTE1.WALLS WITH 2 X 6 AND LARGER FRAMING REQUIRE R-19 INSULATION. 2016 CEC §150.0 (C) 22.HOT WATER PIPING INSULATION REQUIRED: PIPING 3/4 INCH OR LARGER. 2016 CEC §150.0(J)2AII3.ALL LUMINAIRES SHALL BE HIGH EFFICACY. COMPLY WITH ALL PARTS. 2016 CEC§150.0(K)4.DUCT INSULATION: MINIMUM (R-6) REQUIRED. 2016 CEC §150.0 (M) 1.5.DUCT LEAKAGE TESTING: 6% WITH AIR HANDLER, 4% W/O AIR HANDLER. 2016CEC§150.0(M)116.RETURN DUCT DESIGN/FAN POWER, AIRFLOW TESTING, AND GRILL SIZING REQUIREMENTS§150.0(M)13WATER HEATING: 120 VOLT RECEPTACLE < 3 FT., CAT III OR IV VENT, AND GASSUPPLY LINE CAPACITY OF AT LEAST 200,000 BTU / HOUR. 2016 CEC §150.0 (N)7.THIRD-PARTY HERS VERIFICATION FOR VENTILATION AND INDOOR AIR QUALITY. 2016CEC§150.0(O)8.MAXIMUM U-FACTOR (0.58) FOR FENESTRATION AND SKYLIGHTS. 2016 CEC §150.0 (Q). ORFOLLOW TITLE 24 REPORT FOR U-FACTOR.9.CLASSIFICATION OF HIGH & LOW EFFICACY LIGHT SOURCES. 2016 CEC TABLE 150.0-A10.THE EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME OF WATER CLOSETS WILL NOT EXCEED 1.28 GAL / FLUSH. 2016CGC §4.303.1.1. THE EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME OF URINALS WILL NOT EXCEED 0.125 GAL /FLUSH.2016 CGC §4.303.1.2. MAXIMUM FLOW RATE FOR SHOWERS SHALL BE 2.0 GPM, AT 80PSI.2016 CGC §4.303.1.3. MAXIMUM FLOW RATE FOR LAVATORY FAUCETS SHALL BE 1.2 GPM,AT 60 PSI.2016 CGC §4.303.1.4.1.11.NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH AN AGGREGATE LANDSCAPE AREA OF MORE THAN499 SQUARE FEET SHALL SUBMIT A RESIDENTIAL OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCYCHECKLIST. 2016 CGC §4.304.112.ANNULAR SPACES AROUND PIPES, ELECTRIC CABLES, CONDUITS OR OTHER OPENINGS INSOLE/BOTTOM PLATES AT EXTERIOR WALLS WILL BE RODENT-PROOFED BY CLOSING SUCHOPENINGS WITH CEMENT MORTAR, CONCRETE MASONRY, OR SIMILAR METHOD ACCEPTABLETO THE ENFORCING AGENCY. 2016 CGC §4.406.113.RECYCLE AND/OR SALVAGE A MINIMUM 65% OF THE NON-HAZARDOUS CONSTRUCTION ANDDEMOLITION WASTE. THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SOIL AND LAND CLEARING DEBRIS. 2016 CGC§4.40814.AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL WILL BE PROVIDED AT FINAL INSPECTION. 2016CGC §4.410.115.AT THE TIME OF ROUGH INSTALLATION, DURING STORAGE ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, ANDUNTIL FINAL STARTUP OF THE HVAC EQUIPMENT, ALL DUCT AND OTHER RELATED AIRDISTRIBUTION COMPONENTS OPENINGS WILL BE COVERED WITH TAPE, PLASTIC, SHEETMETALS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY TO REDUCE THEAMOUNT OF WATER, DUST, OR DEBRIS THAT MAY ENTER THE SYSTEM. 2016 CGC §4.504.116.ADHESIVES, SEALANTS, AND CAULKS USED ON THE PROJECT SHALL FOLLOW LOCAL ANDREGIONAL AIR POLLUTION OR AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT STANDARDS. 2016 CGC§4.504.2.117.PAINTS AND COATINGS WILL COMPLY WITH VOC LIMITS. 2016 CGC §4.504.2.218.AEROSOL PAINTS AND COATINGS WILL MEET THE PRODUCT-WEIGHTED MIR LIMITS FOR ROC,AND COMPLY WITH PERCENT VOC BY WEIGHT OF PRODUCT LIMITS, REGULATION 8, RULE 49.2016 CGC §4.504.2.319.DOCUMENTATION SHALL VERIFY COMPLIANCE FOR VOC FINISH MATERIALS. 2016 CGC§4.504.2.420.CARPET SYSTEMS WILL MEET CALGREEN TESTING AND PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS. 2016 CGC§4.504.321.WHERE RESILIENT FLOORING IS INSTALLED, AT LEAST 80% OF THE FLOOR AREA RECEIVINGRESILIENT FLOORING WILL COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODEREQUIREMENTS. 2016 CGC §4.504.422.HARDWOOD PLYWOOD, PARTICLEBOARD, AND MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARD COMPOSITEWOOD PRODUCTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LOW FORMALDEHYDE EMISSION STANDARDS.2016 CGC §4.504.523.A CAPILLARY BREAK WILL BE INSTALLED IF A SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATION SYSTEM IS USED.2016 CGC §4.505.224.BUILDING MATERIALS WITH VISIBLE SIGNS OF WATER DAMAGE WILL NOT BE INSTALLED. WALLAND FLOOR FRAMING WILL NOT BE ENCLOSED WHEN THE FRAMING MEMBERS EXCEED 19%MOISTURE CONTENT. MOISTURE CONTENT WILL BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO FINISH MATERIALBEING APPLIED. REPLACE WET INSULATION PRODUCTS, OR ALLOW TO DRY BEFOREENCLOSURE. 2016 CGC §4.505.325.EXHAUST FANS THAT ARE ENERGY STAR COMPLIANT, DUCTED AND THAT TERMINATE OUTSIDETHE BUILDING WILL BE PROVIDED IN EVERY BATHROOM (BATHTUB, SHOWER, ORSHOWER/TUB COMBO).2016 CGC §4.506.126.UNLESS FUNCTIONING AS A COMPONENT OF A WHOLE-HOUSE VENTILATION SYSTEM, FANSMUST BE CONTROLLED BY A HUMIDITY CONTROL. 2016 CGC §4.506.127.THE HEATING AND AIR-CONDITIONING SYSTEM WILL BE SIZED, DESIGNED AND HAVE THEIREQUIPMENT SELECTED USING THE FOLLOWING METHODS: HEAT LOSS/HEAT GAIN VALUES INACCORDANCE WITH ANSI/ACCA 2 MANUAL J-2011 OR EQUAL; DUCT SYSTEMS ARE SIZEDACCORDING TO ANSI/ACCA 1, MANUAL D-2014 OR EQUIVALENT; SELECT HEATING ANDCOOLING EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI/ACCA 3, MANUAL S-2014 OR EQUIVALENT.2016 CGC §4.50728.HVAC SYSTEM INSTALLERS WILL BE TRAINED AND CERTIFIED IN THEPROPER INSTALLATION OFHVAC SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT BY A RECOGNIZED TRAINING/CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.2016 CGC §702.129.UPON REQUEST, VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CODE MAY INCLUDECONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, BUILDER OR INSTALLERCERTIFICATION, INSPECTION REPORTS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THE BUILDINGDIVISION THAT WILL SHOW SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE 2016 CODEREQUIREMENTS. 2016 CGC §703.1EXISTING LOT COVERAGE:2,343 SQFTLOT COVERAGEEXISTING PROPOSEDTOTALBLDG. AREA1886 SF-172.5 SF 1713.5 SFPROJECTIONSN/A+130.7 SF130.7 SFDETACHED GARAGE346 SF+42.5 SF 388.5 SFPORCH + STAIR51.5 SF+44.4 SF95.9ATTACHED TRELLIS 59.5 SF-59.5 SF0TOTAL LOT COVERAGE2343 SF-14.4 SF2328.6 SFOFF STREET PARKING: 4 BEDROOM PROPOSEDPROPOSED:1 COVERED PARKIING (10'X20') + 1 UNCOVERED (9'X 20')REQUIRED SETBACK LIN'S RESIDENCE SECOND STORY ADDITION 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 APN# 027-151-110 OWNER - XIAOCHUANG LIN 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PHONE: (415) 797-8277 DESIGN- JOSEPH HO PHONE: (415) 513-8234 PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGA-0.1Scale: NTSFRONT ANGLE PRESPECTIVE RENDERING1Scale: NTSREAR ANGLE PRESPECTIVE RENDERING2 6"120.22' PL120.22' PL50.01' PL50.01' PL VANCOUVER AVEVANCOUVER AVE50.01' PL 120.22' PL50.01' PL 120.22' PL1A3.22A3.21A3.12A3.12A3.01A3.03A3.04A3.06A4.04A4.05A4.03A4.0LIN'S RESIDENCE SECOND STORY ADDITION 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 APN# 027-151-110 OWNER - XIAOCHUANG LIN 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PHONE: (415) 797-8277 DESIGN- JOSEPH HO PHONE: (415) 513-8234 EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE PLANA-1.0Scale: 1/8"=1'-0"EXISTING SITE PLAN1Scale: 1/8"=1'-0"PROPOSED SITE PLAN2NN″ 120.22' PL50.01' PL VANCOUVER AVE50.01' PL 120.22' PLLIN'S RESIDENCE SECOND STORY ADDITION 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 APN# 027-151-110 OWNER - XIAOCHUANG LIN 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PHONE: (415) 797-8277 DESIGN- JOSEPH HO PHONE: (415) 513-8234 LANDSCAPE PLANA-1.1Scale: 1/8"=1'-0"LANDSCAPE PLAN1N LIN'S RESIDENCE SECOND STORY ADDITION 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 APN# 027-151-110 OWNER - XIAOCHUANG LIN 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PHONE: (415) 797-8277 DESIGN- JOSEPH HO PHONE: (415) 513-8234 EXISTING & PROPOSED FRONT(NORTHEAST) ELEVATIONS EXISTING & PROPOSED REAR (SOUTHWEST) ELEVATIONSA-3.0Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"EXISTING (NORTHEAST) FRONT ELEVATION1Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED (NORTHEAST) FRONT ELEVATION2Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"EXISTING (SOUTHWEST) REAR ELEVATION3Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED (SOUTHWEST) REAR ELEVATION4 LIN'S RESIDENCE SECOND STORY ADDITION 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 APN# 027-151-110 OWNER - XIAOCHUANG LIN 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PHONE: (415) 797-8277 DESIGN- JOSEPH HO PHONE: (415) 513-8234 EXISTING & PROPOSED LEFT (SOUTHEAST) ELEVATIONSA-3.1Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED LEFT (SOUTHEAST) ELEVATION 2Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"EXISTING LEFT (SOUTHEAST) ELEVATION 1 LIN'S RESIDENCE SECOND STORY ADDITION 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 APN# 027-151-110 OWNER - XIAOCHUANG LIN 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PHONE: (415) 797-8277 DESIGN- JOSEPH HO PHONE: (415) 513-8234 EXISTING & PROPOSED RIGHT (NORTHWEST) ELEVATIONSA-3.2Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED RIGHT (NORTHWEST) ELEVATION2Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"EXISTING RIGHT (NORTHWEST) ELEVATION1 TEMPERED GLAZING TEMPERED GLAZING 8-7-LIN'S RESIDENCE SECOND STORY ADDITION 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 APN# 027-151-110 OWNER - XIAOCHUANG LIN 1345 VANCOUVER AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PHONE: (415) 797-8277 DESIGN- JOSEPH HO PHONE: (415) 513-8234 PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR & ROOF PLANS & ELEVATIONSA-4.0Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR PLAN1NScale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED GARAGE ROOF PLAN2NScale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED FRONT (NE) ELEVATION3Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED REAR (SW) ELEVATION4Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED LEFT (SE) ELEVATION5Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED RIGHT (NW) ELEVATION6Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"SECTION8Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"SECTION7 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 20, 2019 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 24, 2019 FROM: ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, Associate Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1350 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1350 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2019 (see attached February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). An application for a building permit has not yet been submitted. With this application, the applicant is requesting approval to add two kitchen windows on the first floor along the left side of the house. Please refer to the attached explanation letter, date stamped June 10, 2019 for an explanation of the proposed changes to the approved plans. The applicant submitted plans showing the proposed changes, date stamped June 10, 2019, to the previously approved design review project. Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, date stamped June 10, 2019 February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Plans date stamped June 10, 2019 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 20, 2019 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 24, 2019 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1628 LASSEN WAY, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1628 Lassen Way, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on February 25, 2019 (see attached February 25, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit for the project has not yet been issued. In their letter date stamped June 13, 2019, the applicants note that “…we have been spending more and more time walking through the neighborhood and visiting open houses to get a better sense of the details we would like in our home. Through this process, we have noticed more and more of the “contemporary modern” homes being built/remodeled around Burlingame, and we have grown to really like and prefer the style.” With this application, the applicants are requesting approval of the following changes to reflect their desire make the home more contemporary/modern:  Remove exterior stone detail at the front of the house.  Remove grid-lines from all windows.  Revise tapered pillar to a straight pillar at front of the house.  Revise garage door to a modern style with horizontal panels with glass at top.  Revise front door to a modern style with horizontal glass panels throughout.  Revise exterior paint color to off-white stucco with dark brown fascia, gutters and trim.  Reconfigure window and patio door at rear of family room. The applicants submitted the originally approved and proposed building elevations, floor plans and landscape plan, date stamped June 13, 2019, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project. Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by the architect, date stamped June 13, 2019 February 25, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Originally approved and proposed building elevations, floor plans and landscape plan, date stamped June 13, 2019 To the Planning Committee: Thank you for your previous approval of the plan for 1628 Lassen Way. We are eager to start the renovation and excited about the prospect of settling down and raising our family here in Burlingame. Since the approval, we have been spending more and more time walking through the neighborhood and visiting open houses to get a better sense of the details we would like in our home. Through this process, we have noticed more and more of the “contemporary modern” homes being built/remodeled around Burlingame, and we have grown to really like and prefer the style. For these reasons we are submitting a change to our plan and appreciate your consideration. Here are some examples of modern style homes we have seen being build around Ray Park/Easton Addition in Burlingame that are consistent with the look we would like to design. 1529 Bernal Ave, Burlingame 1625 Marco Polo Way, Burlingame 1604 Balboa Way, Burlingame 2209 Ray Dr, Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 25, 2019 d.1628 Lassen Way, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Master SWU Associates, Steve Wu, applicant and designer; Jeff Park, property owner) (139 noticed) Staff contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Steve Wu, project designer, and Jeff Park, property owner, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions for the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Project has come a long way to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. >Project suffers from graphics, makes it difficult to tell what we're going to get. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 20, 2019 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 24, 2019 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF CHANGES REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSOIN TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1629 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1629 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on February 25, 2019 (see attached February 25, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit for the project has not yet been issued. At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project based upon the following revision being reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit:  that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall submit an FYI to the Planning Commission that shows a revised landscape plan; that the revised landscape plan shall show a 7-foot tall fence that complies with Chapter 25.78 of the Burlingame Municipal Code along the rear property line and additional landscape screening along the rear property line; and that the applicant shall provide documentation to show that the property owner to the rear the subject property (at 144 Occidental Avenue) has reviewed and agrees to the revised landscape changes. Please refer to the attached letter submitted by the project architect, dated June 12, 2019, in response to the Commission’s direction as it pertains to the condition of approval above. The landscape plan, date stamped June 13, 2019, has been revised to show a new 7-foot tall fence along the rear property line (will be limited to 6-foot solid + 1-foot of lattice), two new landscape trees in the right, rear corner of the lot (Raywood Ash and Chinese Tallow), and a privacy hedge along the rear property line. Staff would note that the new trees will be required to be 24-inch box size. Other than the clarifications detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised landscape plan, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by the architect, date stamped June 12, 2019 February 25, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Revised landscape plan, date stamped June 13, 2019 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 25, 2019 c.1629 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and designer; Peter and Judith Cittadini TR, property owners) (99 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Adam Bittle, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >In response letter, you mention a 15-foot increased setback. Trying to understand where the extra setback was provided, can you explain? (Bittle: There is 15 feet between the stairway window and the neighbors' window, and horizontal alignment with the neighbors' window is off five feet.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >This is a good looking project. Like changes made and it blends in well with fabric of this neighborhood. >Lowering plate height settles second floor down more. >Like bolstered porch columns. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application. Commission Discussion: >Suggest that downspout not be taken down the porch column, should find another solution, such as a hanging chain. Chair Gaul reopened the public hearing to allow a member of the public to speak. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Property owner, 144 Occidental Avenue: Their existing garage abuts our driveway, proposed plans show garage to be removed and relocated to other corner of lot, which will leave a big gap. Existing garage is approximately 20 feet long and 15 feet tall, provides privacy in backyard. Concerned that they are not taking this into account. Would like to know how they plan to address that. >Landscape plan shows a new 6-foot tall wooden fence in the backyard and a Chinese tallow trees in the rear corner where the garage is currently located. >Suggest meeting with the applicant to discuss possible planting solutions to provide privacy. >Code allows a six-foot tall solid fence with one additional foot of lattice, for a total of seven feet. Can't suggest a taller fence since it would require a Fence Exception. However, landscaping can be taller. Bittle: New fence and tree will be installed along the rear property line. Could consider incorporating additional screening along the rear fence. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commissioner Terrones amended the motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application with the following condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall submit an FYI to the Planning Commission that shows a revised landscape plan; that the revised landscape plan shall show a 7-foot tall fence that complies with Chapter 25.78 of the Burlingame Municipal Code along the rear property line and additional landscape screening along the rear property line; and that the applicant shall provide documentation to show that the property owner to the rear the subject property (at 144 Occidental Avenue) has reviewed and agrees to the revised landscape changes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2019 NEW 2"-3" CHINESEPISTACHENEW WOODEN FENCE, 5'TALL MAX. WITHINFRONT SETBACK(E) CONCRETE SIDEWALKPROPOSEDCOVERED PORCHNEW GATE TO MATCHNEW FENCENEW 2"-3" CHINESETALLOW TREEPAVERS FROM SIDEWALKTO ENTRY PORCHPROPOSED RESIDENCEPROPOSEDDETACHEDGARAGENEW 2"-3" RAYWOOD ASHTREEPAVED AREAAT DOORLANDINGSLAWN AREAPAVERS AT PATHTO UTILITIESGROUNDCOVER, TBDEXISTING EVERGREENSHRUB TO BE REMOVEDSHOWN DASHEDPROPOSEDPAVEDDRIVEWAYGROUND COVERAND SMALLPERENNIALSAROUND EDGESPERENNIALS ATHOUSE EDGE PERENNIALS (TBD) ATHOUSE EDGELARGER PERENNIALS FOR FOCALPOINT - 10-GALLON OLEA EUROPEA.PERENNIALS ATHOUSE EDGE(E) 6" MAYTEN TREETO BE REMOVEDPAVERS FROMDRIVEWAY TOFRONT ENTRYPORCHPRIVACY HEDGES,5-GALLON PITTOSPORUMTENUIFOLIUM ANDBERBERIS THUNBERGIIPRIVACY HEDGES, 5-GALLONRHAMNUS ALATURNUS ANDFORSYTHIA INTERMEDIAPAVERS ATPATIO AREASMALL EXISTING SHRUBSAT NEIGHBORINGDRIVEWAYLANDSCAPE TO PROVIDESCREENING AT DRIVEWAY EDGE.INCLUDING 3 GALLONCEANOTHUS AMERICANUS,CORNUS STOLONIFERA, ANDLONICERA NITIDAPRIVACY HEDGES, 5-GALLONRHAMNUS ALATURNUS ANDFORSYTHIA INTERMEDIA6' TALL WOODEN FENCE,AT SIDE PROPERTYLINES7' TALL WOODEN FENCE ATREAR PROPERTY LINE6' TALL WOODENFENCE0'2'4'8'16'LANDSCAPE PLANLANDSCAPE PLAN1L1.0SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"LANDSCAPE PLANL1.0CITTADINI RESIDENCE 1629 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 028-316-280IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate PLAN CHECK05-30-19PERMIT04-19-1918-10 NORTHTRUENORTHBLDG