The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2019.01.14 ! " ##$%%&'(& "&%## ## )"&%*#%+,-.$(/ !" #$#%&''(')!!(**(' (') ('+ *" !" #$#%&''(')!!(**(' (') ('+ *,-. "&%*#%+0(-' 1".#, %(-$/-%-20(-' ! " ! #$ # % & % ! ' ( 3"/$.'4,$(/ " %-/(-$ #(-'& ) * $ % & 5"&(0.#& $,%-,$(/ '*(. (' ' .(''/ .-(') *(. '(& !-/ 0 * 1 *(. '(& &-! ' 2 3(* ( ! 3* " ' /'('+ . 3 4'+5 #% #&''(') !!(**(' ('), " ! * .& '+ 6' . 22 --&(/(' 7(') 8('/ & )&(6 ' +'/ . -7(') *-/ 1(3(' 3 ' * "/7 3 . * '& . )) /-, 3(* -9 / (* )(/&&5 : !- ! ( 1 -+*+' 3 &('( '('! '& ;+&(5 / < ;= - /(' ><= 3 ; +(. &(' *, < (' (&& --&(/' -- 5 1' '. . *()' = <#'(/ .= '/? @! &( A&7(37+(*( " * .& 2 - * .& 2/3! '* * .& 2&'* %B('/3 * ( 6' . 22 --&(/(' *()' ( 1 '. - /(& !( /3 ' 1 )) ' :(*(') *(')& !(&5 .1 &&('), 3(* -9 / (* )(/&&5 : !- ! ( 1 -+*+' 3 &('( '('! '& ;+&(5 / < ;= - /(' >< =<#= 3 ; +(. &(' *, < (7 !('( *! '@* +(&. --&(/' '. . *()' C & '. .( '' & -- 5 1' *= <>'(/ .= '/? @! &(A&7(37+(*( " %B('/3 * 2 - %B('/3 * 2/3! '* %B('/3 * 2&'* #$%>+!!( ( 6' . 22 --&(/(' *()' ( 1 ! '.! ' /3') 3 (') ! (& - (+*&5 -- . *()' ( 1 -9 / (* '. * /'. *5 ..((' ' :(*(') *(')& !(&5 .1 &&('), 3 -9 / (* )(/&&5 : !- ! ( 1 -+*+' 3 &('( '('! '& ;+&(5 / < ;= - /(' >><= 3 ; +(. &(' *, < /3( /* D' ( *()' !' 3 (&( --&(/' '. . *()' C +'(& '. A3 (' A*3( -- 5 1' *= <EE'(/ .= '/?'&))1& " #$%>+!!(2 - #$%>+!!(2/3! '* #$%>+!!(2&'* #$% 6 '+ 6' . 22 --&(/(' *()' ( 1 -9 / 3 1* - (+*&5 '( . B(3+ 9+.(/ ' 1 12*5 *(')& !(&5 .1 &&(') '. - /(& !( ' /3 . )) , 3 -9 / (* )(/&&5 : !- ! ( 1 -+*+' 3 &('( '('! '& ;+&(5 / < ;= - /(' >><= 3 ; +(. &(' *, < (/ 53+* --&(/' '. /3( /C +* -- 5 1' = <>'(/ .='/? (7 1( " #$% 6 2 - #$% 6 2/3! '* #$% 6 2&'* ! #"(&& '+ 6' . 22 --&(/(' ! '.! ' *()' ( 1 /3') * - (+*&5 -- . (* '. * /'. *5 ..((' ' :(*(') *(')& !(&5 .1 &&(') '. ' 1 . /3 . )) , 3 -9 / (* )(/&&5 : !- ! ( 1 -+*+' 3 &('( '('! '& ;+&(5 / < ;= - /(' >> <= 3 ; +(. &(' *, < (/ '. 4 ''( ( --&(/'* '. -- 5 1' *C 3+ *()'**/( *'/,. *()' =<>'(/ .='/?+" '+(' " #"(&& 2 - #"(&& 2/3! '* #"(&& 2&'* # 5' ( 6' . 22 --&(/(' *()' ( 1 ' 1 12*5 *(')& !(&5 .1 &&(') '. . /3 . )) , 3(* -9 / (* )(/&&5 : !- ! ( 1 -+*+' 3 &('( '('! '& ;+&(5 / < ;= - /(' >><= 3 ; +(. &(' *, < ' *(* A(') 1 --&(/' '. -- 51' C 3(*(' +. *()' =<E'(/ .='/? (/3 && 7( 1(/6 " # 5'2 - # 5'2/3! '* # 5'2&'* $#%** ' B5 6' . 22 --&(/(' *()' ( 1 '. 8('/ ) (* '. * /'. *5 ..((' ' :(*(') *(')& 2!(&5 .1 &&('), 3 -9 / (* )(/&&5 : !- ! ( 1 -+*+' 3 &('( '('! '& ;+&(5 / < ;= - /(' >< = <#= 3 ; +(. &(' *, < * B **/( * B+ --&(/' '. . *()' C 4 +') -- 5 1' = <>'(/ .= /'/?'&))1& " $#%** 'B52 - $#%** 'B52/3! '* $#%** 'B52&'* !"'(/,0-&(*,(6/$.'4 EF#&&('* . 6' . 22 --&(/(' *()' ( 1'.0' "/7 8('/ ' 1 12*5 *(')& !(&5 .1 &&(') 1(3 . /3 . )) <. +'7 & +'7 & /3( /+ /3( /C !5 3+') '. 0'/(* A(! -- 5 1' *= < '(/ .='/? (7 1( " EF#&&('*.2 - EF#&&('*.2/3! '* EF#&&('*.2&'* " %,//,%-(&7/&(%&$/ ! "',&( $%&&(%&$/ + + ,-%./01 >> */ ' '+ 2 0 /3') * G+ * . "5 3 &''(') !!(**(' - (+*&5-- . *()' ( 1-9 /, " >> */ ' 2 !'.+!'./3! '* E8 '' B5 2 0 /3') * - (+*&5 -- . --&(/(' *()' ( 1(*'.* /'.*5..((', " E8 ''B52 !'.+!'./3! '* "'%.&-(-$ 2 3 0/ , 04% ./01 ) & 53// , .4% ./01% ) &% 6550% & ( & 7& * %8%5/0 %% ! "#$$%&&'()' ! "# "'&$$#$$ !"# $ %& #' # () *&&+# ) *"#'&+#$&,-.%)/ # 0 / $ 11 0 "% 0 # !"# $ %& #' #() # *&&+) "! ,$-./0&" $$"##" " "%# ! ,$-./0 " "%# 2"#'&+#$&,#3)(# $ % & ' ()*+ ! ,- . 4". $-&)%/&5#3)(# "/%.(6-%)/ #% "&/)%#$)(#' "0./"' ,% 1 ' )) 2%# ! 33 ,& ! 3," %#&+ 33 ,' #" ,"4 ' 35"& $" ! 56' ! !"# ' #5 ' # + ''"" 7"#" #"& !$"&+ '4&&" 833 ,& 73"' ) 56#3 3 #' 3," %#&+ 33 ,' 3 95:; 6"# 3 95 "# "5&&+ 7$3 ! $ 6 &"! " ," $& <%&"+ 5 8 <: 3%#% < %"'&"# 5" .8:8/:; ! 8 "5 ' "% = 33&"5# ' 3 3+ 4#: 8.> "5': !! 5? %-%" 0./"',)!!3 0./"',)56$# 0./"',)&# % 3 11 11 "% 0 # !"# $ %& #' #() # *&&+) ""6&' ,% 1 ' ) 33&"5" ! '"" & # $" ! % $ -& & -%#"##; 6 3 95 "# "5&&+ 7$3 ! $ ,"4 3%#% 6 &"! " ," $& <%&"+ 5 8 <: 3 5" . ! 6 < %"'&"#; 8* %$ 33&"5@ &"! " ", 3 3+ 4@ 5;56"5:8. "5':!! 5?%-%" "6&',)!!3 "6&',)56$# "6&',)&# % 11 11 "% 0 # $ %& #' #) # *&&+) ' !"#) !"')3.$#'#%-&-%)/ "033 ,% 1 ' )) 33&"5" ! #" ,"4 ' = -5A B"5 ! !"# ' #5 ' # + ''"" 7"#" #"& !$"&+ '4&&"; 6"# 3 95 "# 5 "5&&+ 7$3 ! $ 6 &"! " ," $& <%&"+ 5 8 <: 3%#% < %"'&"# 5" .8: 8/:; 81" *+6 *6'", 33&"5@ %4" ' + 6 #+ 3 3+ 4#: 80. "5': !! 5? & 4& 033,)!!3 033,)56$# 033,)"# "5# %5 ,&%" 033,)&# ,! - / 0' - -- ! . ! 1 #2 - 3 ! 4 5! $ - # - # 6 -# -7 - . ! - 8 2# 9 7 - % # - 3 $ # 7 - # 6 2# :7 - #3 $ ; - # #6 # - # ; 8 #<8 2#:7 3 $ 0 8# ; # 0 # 8# 8# 62#:78# 7 3 $ 0 # 87 8 (= ; # # 8 #6 7 >23 2#:7 88 3 $ , # ! ! 1 ! 9 $ < 8 7/ # $ ; 8 7 8?:% $ / 11 11 00 7 1 1 11 0 ,6-0 " 11 11 189 " 0 0 1 9 " :1 1 ;<=01 9 " 1 0 : > 10 0>" % 0 # !"# $ %& #' #() # *&&+) ! "/-"&& ,% 1 ' )) 33&"5" ! $'$ #" ,"4 ! 56# 3," %#&+ 33 ,' !"# ' #5 ' # + ''"" 7"#" #"& !$"&+ '4&&" ' 4 '56' ; 6"# 3 95 "# "5&&+ 7$3 ! $ 6 &"! " ," $& <%&"+ 5 8 <: 3%#% < %"'&"# 5" ..8:; 8 "5 ' C"! " 33&"5# ' 3 3+ 4#@ 6% #" ## 5"#5;'#":8. "5':!! 5?%-%" /-"&& ,)!!3 /-"&& ,)56$# /-"&& ,)&# $ % & ' ()*+ ! ,- . "/+#4 ,% 8"5&%'# 0+#4 ,; 0 +&'; / +& '; ( +& '; / +& '; / +& ';: 1 ' ' ).) #" ,"4 $'$ ! ,"4 ! 4"' 4 $"&# ! 3," %#&+ 33 ,' 33&"5" ! 4 /0)" 3$ ,& 3$; 8= 3+ $3+ 33&"5@ C 6 ; ' D; 4 %#C%&""' "5;6&%' & "#C; # ;) 3 3+ 4#@ D"6 &5 &$ 56"5# 56"5#: 8./ "5': !! 5? 6"*+& /+#4,)!!3 /+#4,) ! 73&" ) "&'35"!"5" # /+#4,)56$# , ! - / ! # / "#- -- . ! 1 8 >#87 ! 4 5! $ $ ; - 7 - 7 . 7 # . #7 - 8 - # 7 7 - - # 7 # # - # - # # % # - 7 . # - # % 7 - - # #- 0 - # # @ - - % 7 7 / - ! $ 1 ; # 7 # - 7 0 - > A # - # - $ , # $ ! 8 # $ 9 8 - - # 8 5 ? 0 - 6 2 >#8 - !B4, . 8 . ! ? - # 7 # - - $ 9 # 8 % # % # # - 6 7 . # 7 8 2 >#8 C - # - # - / 7 # - # - 7 3 $ / -# ! 8 7 8 - / ; . # - $ - # # - . # - # 6 ; / 8 . # $ % / # # 6 2 >#8:7 # - / 3 $ 9 # 8 7 7 - - - / 7 8 $ - - / # !B4, . % 7 8 2"# % !B4, / 7 - 0 # 8 / - . - / # - - # 3 $ ; / - 7 / !B4, . - 8 # - # 7 6 2 >#8 ! 7 - # - # / - # # - ! / 7 !B4, 3 ! ! 1 ! 9 $ ! # # - % - / 7 # 9 8 # ! 8 8 8 8 9 8 # $ % 7 # # $ , 7 -- ! $ ? - # - / 7 #7 D # ! ,% @ 8 $ 9 # 8 8 7 8 # - 8 $ ; 8 - - # - # - / # # . # # $ ? / 7 . # ; 7 - # - / 7 # @ / $ !B4, - . ! - -8 $ - / $ 11 0 0" 7 1 8 0 0 1 " ? > @ 0 0 )A#@ " 7 % 0 > > 0 0 1 111801 0 @ " 7 - 1 11 > 0 0 1 1B 7 ? 0 11" -C 1 11 > 11 0@ " % 0 # !"# $ %& #' #() # *&&+) D"()/-3')+-)?/%.(6 "(. ' D+ 1 ' )) 33&"5" ! #" ,"4 ! #5 ' # + ''"" 7"#" #"& !$"&+ '4&&"; 8C & ## 5"# C+ & 33&"5 ' '#"@ + % 3 3+ 4: 8/ "5': !! 5? & 4& (. ' D+)!!3 (. ' D+)56$ (. ' D+)&# ! 0 / ,! - / 0' - -- ! ! 1 A#97 7 1#D 7 # ! 4 5! $ 7 - - 8 7 - % - - # - 6 ! - - - - 29 ! 8 ; - 3 $ # - $ - # 8 6 2D - 8 7 - # -# 8 # # - # 3 $ ! # 8 5 7 - # - - $ % ? 7 ; # - A #6 % 7 8# # . 29 E - 7 , ; 8 . -#0# 3 $ ; - 8 6 ! -# 2D ; 8 - - 8 # ; 7 - % 8 - - -# 0 - 0 8 # , 7 - #- / # 3 $ - # 8 - 6 E 0 # # 8 8 - $ , 87 - # ! 87 # ; 2D % # 8 8 7 @ 8 ? 8 # 8 -#3 7 -# $ - # 8 6 2D :7 - # / ; 3 $ 1 , #7 / 7 29 ! - 3 $ B - 7 # $ 8 0 # (+ ?@ # # - 8 ( ? -7 - / - 0 8 8@ - 2D < 8 7 - 83 $ - 8 ! ! ! ! 1 ! 9 $ ? - 7 # $ / 1 ' # "% 0 # !"# $ %&' #) # *&&+) ' #) "/>.&- ,% 1 ' )) 33&"5" ! #" ,"4 ! !"# ' #5 ' !& ''"" ' 4 '56' ; 8 % ="!656 56"5@ *," 33&"5'3 3+ 4:8. "5':!! 5? "A4" />.&- ,)!!3 />.&- ,)56$# />.&- ,)&# ,! - / 0' "#- -- $ C - # # 2,9C3 7 - - ,9C6 2"# F7 ,9C / - -7 . ,9C # 7 -- 3 $ 9 - # ,9C6 2"#:3 ! 1 7 "- <7 # ! 4 5! $ 9 # 8 - # 6 2< 9 8 #7 # # D - 0 # () # " B 9 - 3 2 , #7 # 7 0 % - 8 3 $ ; 6 % # - # 6 2 B0 7 > - ? > 0 0# 0 3 $ D0 % " ! 6 2 ; 3 $ - # 0 # 6 # # # 0 % # 8 6 - & ( 7 2 ? &+ 0 # F 3 $ ,G( &'+H7 -7 ='(H 0 9 # 8 # 0 6 2 ; 7 8 0 ? 3 $ 9 # 0 - -6 ; - - 2 ; 7 88 3 $ - - - 9 # - 6 2< A - 87 8 # 7 3 $ - ; # 6 2 0 - 7 # 3 - - $ , 6 2 0 - # - # 3 - 0 , - $ C # / - ; - 7 8 ! # 6 - - 7 % 7 . 7 # - # 6 2 - # 0 ; > > 7 7 8 # -7 7 # ! # 7 8 7 8 # # 7 # ! # 7 . 3 $ ; 6 % 6 2 :7 3 ; # $ 9 # - 6 ! - 0 - 0 0 8 B0 7 - 2 ; - % #7 0 8 3 - @ 7 8 0 ; # $ # 8 0 7 8 ! ! ! 1 ! 9 $ B0 -# - B0 $ / 11 0 " ( 7 - 1 : 1 " 1 1 0 1 1" 7 > 1 C0>" 7 # 0 1 0 " 7 , C : "E0 18 0 : 0 " % 1 : 0 0 BE0 B 7 ): 0 " - 11 00 " 7 F 1 0 1 1 0 " > 0 : 0 0 00 0 " 7 / 1 : > C " 7 0 18 C > : : " / 11 000> " 7 $>> :0 1 " 7 # 1 0 " 7 , C110> " 7 > C 0> " % 0 # !"# $ %& #' #() # *&&+) "(&- ,% 1 ' )) 33&"5" ! #" ,"4 ! 4 4 )# + #"& !$"&+ '4&&" ' '56' ; 86% #" E ## 5"# 33&"5 ' '#"@ 9#$"56 3 3+ 4: 8. "5': !! 5? "56&& A"4"51 (&- ,)!!3 E56$# (&- ,)&# ,! - / 0' ! - -- $ % # G9 - 6 2 ; 8 - 3 ! 1 F/ 7 # 7 7 A!7 ! 4 5! $ % # # / 6 B0 - 7 0 # & ! - 2! :7 3 $ -# 62!; 8 3 $ E - 7 - =I'JK7 5 % 62!; 8 #3 $ , # - 8 1LB 5 - 0 8#62F/ :7-8 1LB 3 $ -8 - ! ! 1 ! 9 $ -# 7 I # # # @ 7 # $ 0 # 07 F $ - # $ ,8 0 - 7 $ # / % 1 ' # "% 0 # !"# $ %& #' #() # *&&+) ". ,% 1 ' )) 33&"5" ! #" ,"4! 4 4 )# + #"& !$"&+ '4&&" ' '"" & # $" ! 6&!)-6 " 6 '56' ; 8 "$ '%1 = $ F #" 33&"5 ' '#"@ C!! " 3 3+ 4: 8/. "5':!! 5?G$&"* & A"6A%!"#" ! . ,)!!3 . ,)56$# . ,)&# ,! - / 0' "#- -- . ! 1 >7 7 A9 7 # ! 4 5! $ ; 6 2> > - - 0 7 % - 3 $ ; - 6 2> - ; 3 $ 7 M 8 % # # 6 2> 7 # 8 3 $ ; 6 2> ; 8 - # 2,9C3 3 $ % - ,9C 7 # - . - 8 62>; 3 $ % #' - -62>:7 3 $ % - $ ; # - 6 2> ; -# 7 ?3 $ 7# - ,9C 2 F - ,9C 3 $ , #6 9 - - # 6 2> E - - 7 8 - 3 $ ( 7 6 2> :7 # #3 $ 6 ! 7-- 2>! (& 3 $ , 8 ; 8 - 6 2> ! #7 8 7 @ #3 $ # # ,9C 7 7 0 - 29 - 0 # - - ,9C -3 $ % 6 2> :7 7 I '/ (0()(0(3 $ # > - $ E - 7 8 - # ! # 6 ; - # 6 2> :7 ! )9 @- G9 8 #3 $ 9#- 6 =I'JK &I'*K 8 @I ! ! 1 ! 9 $ < 8 7 # < 8 0 $ ! 7 8 # 0 $ 0 7 I 8 # 0 F $ < 8 78 7I -# $ % $ 1 ' # " ( 7 ? 8 0> 1 > 1" &0 > 1 0 1 1 1" - 1> " 7 # > 1 > 1 1" 7 - 11 1 0 1 11 " % 0 # !"# $ %& #' #() # *&&+) "&-//-&)'G/')&'%/ ! ! < - # F ! # ! ; - "(-')%&'')&'%/ ! # ! - 1 7 19( ! #! F-(+ "#(H&.')% ! F , # ! ! #! (# ! F-)J7)(&% ! - # ! #+9J7)(&7 % -7 ! #!8 #N++(7 ,# - / # ! # - ! #9- 5 7! # 7+( 7D 7! City of Burlingame Parking Variance Address: 1101 Rosedale Avenue Meeting Date: January 14, 2019 Request: Application for Parking Variance to legalize an uncovered parking space within the front setback that does not lead to a garage or carport. Applicant and Designer: Martin Miller APN: 025-241-010 Property Owners: Martin Miller and Jennifer McNally Lot Area: 5,610 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 (a) which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveniences are exempt from environmental review. Project Description: The subject property is a corner lot with frontages on California Drive (rear), Rosedale Avenue (exterior side), and Eastmoor Road (front). The driveway entrance on Rosedale Avenue leads to two attached single-car garages. The current application proposes a primarily interior remodel to the existing house that will eliminate the interior garage adjacent to the living space. This will reduce the amount of covered and required parking on-site. The footprint, setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area of the existing house will not be altered. The proposed interior remodel will increase the number of bedrooms from two to three. The existing driveway has a nonconforming depth of 10’-6” (to inner edge of sidewalk) and therefore does not provide enough area for a code compliant uncovered parking space on-site. The zoning code requires that single family dwellings with four or fewer bedrooms have a total of two off-street parking spaces (one of which must be covered). In this case, the existing house complies with the parking requirements by providing two covered parking spaces. With the proposed project, one covered space will be removed. The applicant is requesting a Variance to legalize an existing uncovered parking space within the front setback that does not lead to a garage or carport. Legalizing this space would fulfill the amount of required parking on-site for the proposed project. The exterior-side single-car garage has a clear interior dimension of 10’ x 21’-11” and the interior single-car garage has a clear interior dimension of 10’-6” x 22’-2”. With the proposed remodel, the interior garage will be converted into a bedroom and a bathroom with a hall that leads into the kitchen. There are no proposed improvements to the exterior-side garage. The applicant is requesting the following application: Parking Variance to legalize an uncovered parking space within the front setback that does not lead to a garage or carport (C.S. 25.70.030 (c)(1)). Staff Comments: None Study Meeting: At the Study meeting on December 10, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed requests for a Special Permit for reduction of on-site parking and Variance for not meeting the minimum amount of required parking on-site. Though the Commission could support the Special Permit, they could not find support for the Variance request. Because there is an existing uncovered paved area within the front setback that has been historically used for parking, the Commission directed the applicant to revise their Variance application to legalize this uncovered parking area instead (see attached December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped December 18, 2018. Item No. 8b Regular Action Item Parking Variance 1101 Rosedale Avenue -2- Required Findings for Parking Variance: In order to grant a Parking Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Findings for a Variance: That granting the Parking Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience because the uncovered space is existing, has been used in this manner for many years, and no additional alterations are being proposed to the paved area. That there are no changes to the aesthetics or mass of the building and though it is within the front setback, the uncovered space is compatible with the parking patterns of other residences on the same block (Eastmoor Road). For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the variance criteria listed above. 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 Division date stamped December 18, 2018, sheets A1 through A5; 2. that if any changes are made to the unpaved area that reduces the required parking dimensions (9’ x 20’), then the Parking Variance associated with 1101 Rosedale Avenue shall be void and/or an amendment to the permit may be required; 3. 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; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Parking Variance 1101 Rosedale Avenue -3- ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Martin Miller, applicant and property owner Attachments: December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Variance Application Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 4, 2019 Area Map MLMNTSA6License # 833237Phone (415) 570-10051101 ROSEDALE AVE, Ca 94010MARTIN MILLERAPN# 025-241-01012/17/2018 35.00'R = 20.00'61.37'105.22'37.34'R = 20.00'NCALIFORNIA DRIVEROSEDALE AVEEASTMOOR ROADDRIVEWAYCO13'-4"27'-6"8'-9"12'-11"AREA OF WORK.12'-334"21'-1112"ALL EXISTINGLANDSCAPINGTO REMAIN.AREA OF UNCOVERED PARKING TOBE APPROVED FOR LEGAL USE.License # 833237Phone (415) 570-10051101 ROSEDALE AVE, Ca 94010MARTIN MILLERMLMVARIESA112/17/2018APN# 025-241-010 35.00'R = 20.00'61.37'105.22'37.34'R = 20.00'NCALIFORNIA DRIVEROSEDALE AVEEASTMOOR ROADDRIVEWAYCO13'-4"27'-6"8'-9"12'-11"AREA OF WORK.12'-334"21'-1112"ALL EXISTINGLANDSCAPINGTO REMAIN.AREA OF UNCOVERED PARKING TOBE APPROVED FOR LEGAL USE.MLM1/4" = 1'A5`License # 833237Phone (415) 570-10051101 ROSEDALE AVE, Ca 94010MARTIN MILLERAPN# 025-241-01012/17/2018 PROJECT LOCATION 800 Winchester Drive Item No. 8b Regular Action Items City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 800 Winchester Drive Meeting Date: February 11, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit to attach a new garage to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Property Owners: Neel and Adrienne Patel APN: 029-074-340 Architect: 0LNH$PLQL&UDIWVPHQ¶V*XLOG Lot Area: 6,750 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 existing one-story house with a detached one-car garage contains 2,196 SF (0.33 FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The existing detached garage is located along the right side property line, 28 feet from the rear property line and 78 feet from the front property line. The detached garage is within the rear 41% of the lot. The applicant is proposing a first story addition at the rear of the house, which will include the demolition of the existing detached garage and construction of a new attached one-car garage. The total proposed floor area is 2,621 SF (0.39 FAR), where 3,260 SF (0.48 FAR) is the maximum allowed. Also being proposed is demolition of an existing 150 SF arbor located along the left side property line. The proposed project is 639 SF below the maximum allowed floor area. The proposed project includes increasing the number of bedrooms from three to four. The code requires one covered and one uncovered parking spaces for a four-bedroom house. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for an attached garage, which will provide one covered parking space (10'-´ wide x 20' deep clear interior dimensions). The new attached garage will be setback ¶-5´IURm the front property line, where a minimum RI¶LVUHTXired for an attached one-car garage. One uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway leading to the garage. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Design Review for an attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(6)); and Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035(a)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 8b Regular Action Item Design Review and Special Permit 800 Winchester Drive 2 800 Winchester Drive Lot Area: 6,750 SF Plans date stamped: January 30, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front: ¶-0" No change ¶-5´WRQHZJDUDJH 15'-0" or block average ¶WRDWWDFKHGJDUDJH Side (left): (right): ¶-´ ¶-´ ¶-´WRDGGLWLRQ ¶-´WRDGGLWLRQ 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear: ¶-´¶-´15'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,256 SF 33.4% 2,635 SF 39% 2,700 SF 40% FAR:2,196 SF 0.33 FAR 2,621 SF 0.39 FAR 3,260 SF¹ 0.48 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (15' wide x 27' deep) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10'-´ [¶ 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered [¶ 1 uncovered (9' x 20') ¹ (0.32 x 6,750 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,260 SF (0.48 FAR) 2 Special Permit required for an attached garage (CS 25.26.035(a)) Staff Comments: The revised changes on the plans date stamped January 30, 2019 were to the roof plan and UHDUVHWEDFN¶-´SUHYLRXVO\SURSRVHG¶-´FXUUHQWO\SURSRVHG. The currently proposed rear stairs have a landing that does not exceed 30 inches above grade and therefore do not count in lot coverage. There is no change to the previously proposed FAR. Design Review Action Hearing: The proposed project was brought forth straight to an Action hearing on January 14, 2019. The Planning Commission supported the Special Permit application for an attached garage but had some concerns with the design of the proposed roof and addition at the rear of the house. They decided to continue the project and referred the applicant to meet with a Design Review Consultant (see attached January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes). /LVWHGEHORZZHUHWKH&RPPLVVLRQV¶PDLQFRQFHUQV Attached garage is not well integrated into the existing structure; Lack of a unified roof; and Current roof plan for proposed design may create drainage issues. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped January 30, 2019 to address the Planning CommissiRQ¶V comments and concerns. 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 applicant and property owner met with the design review consultant to address the Planning Commission's main concerns. Please refer to the attached design UHYLHZHU¶VDQDO\VLVDQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQGDWHGFebruary 5, 2019, for a detailed review of the project. The GHVLJQUHYLHZHUQRWHVWKDWWKH³revisions made to the initial proposal have improved the architectural style and Design Review and Special Permit 800 Winchester Drive 3 massing of the project.´ Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer supports the proposed changes. 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, 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 FRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHH[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUH¶VGHVLJQDQGZLWKWKHH[LVWLQJVWUHHWDQGQHLJKERUKRRG (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is FRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHFLW\¶VUHIRUHVWDWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWVDQGWKHPLWLJDWLRQIRUWKHUHPRYDOWKDWLVSURSRVHGLV appropriate. Design Review and Special Permit Findings (Attached Garage): That the proposed attached garage is consistent with the garage pattern in the neighborhood that has a mix of both detached and attached garages. That the proposed front setback to the attached garage is significantly pushed towards the rear of the house which maintains the attributes of a detached garage. That the proposed garage is set back from the face of the main dwelling by 41'-5" and is single story so that the garage form is secondary to the primary street presence of the main dwelling. That the proposed design of the garage is integrated well into the existing structure and that no landscape trees are proposed to be removed for construction of the attached garage. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the design review and special permit criteria listed above. 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 ILQGLQJVVXSSRUWLQJWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ¶VGHFLVLRQDQGVKRXOGEHDIILUPHGE\UHVROXWL on 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 Division date stamped January 30, 2019, sheets A1 through A5; 2. that any changes to the garage door material, garage façade, or to the front setback of the attached garage shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); Design Review and Special Permit 800 Winchester Drive 4 3. 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; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in affect at 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: 9. 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 certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (garage façade, garage door material) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. µ$PHOLD.RORNLKDNDXILVL Associate Planner c. 0LNH$PLQL&UDIWVPHQ¶V*XLOGDSSOLFDQWDQGGHVLJQHU Neel and Adrienne Patel, property owners Design Review and Special Permit 800 Winchester Drive 5 Attachments: January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Analysis, dated February 5, 2019 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Neighborhood examples of houses with attached garages, date stamped December 6, 2018 Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing ± Mailed February 1, 2019 Area Map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ummit Drive Item No. 8d Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Amendment Address: 2683 Summit Drive Meeting Date: January 14, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review Amendment to change the roofing material of a previously approved Design Review project for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Samaneh Nili, TRG Architects+ Interior Design APN: 029-182-140 Property Owners: Sunil and Katherine Koshie Lot Area: 10,164 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 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project. History and Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for height, and Variance for front setback for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2683 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2018 (see attached February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in July 2018, and construction is underway. With this application, the applicant is requesting to change the roofing material from composite shingle to standing seam metal. There are no other changes requested at this time. Please refer to attached explanation letter, dated December 18, 2018, for an explanation of the proposed change. This project was also reviewed by the Commission on May 14, 2018, as an FYI for removing the chimney, adding new windows, adding skylight, changing the design of the garage door and reframing the roof structure. The Commission accepted these changes. With this application, the applicant submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped December 18, 2018, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project. Project Description: The approved project is located in the Hillside Area on Summit Drive and measures 3,711 SF (0.36 FAR), where 4,352 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The house is 641 SF below the maximum allowed floor area. The single family dwelling contains four (4) bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. The house has an existing two (2) car attached garage with (clear interior dimensions 19’-4 ½” X 19’-5”) and therefore meets the current parkin g code requirements. A new driveway is also proposed and accommodates an uncovered space. Therefore, the project is in conformance with off-street parking requirements. The following applications were approved by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2018. Design Review for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)); Variance for front setback for the second story (24’-6” proposed/approved where 46’-0” is the block average) (C.S. 25.26.072 (3)); Special Permit for building height between thirty (30) and thirty-six (36) feet (35’-5” proposed/approved) (C.S. 25.26.060 (a) (1)); and Hillside Area Construction Permit (C.S. 25.61). Item No. 8d Regular Action Item Design Review Amendment 2683 Summit Drive -2- 2683 Summit Drive Lot Area: 10,164 SF Plans date stamped: December 18, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 24'-6" --- 24'-6" 24'-6" 1 15'-0" or block average 46'-0" (block average) Side (left): (right): 10'-0" 10’-0” 7’ 2 3/8” 10’-0” 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 35’-1 ½” --- 35’- 1 ½” 35’-1 ½” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,430 SF 23.9% 2,444 SF 24% 4,070 SF 2 40% FAR: 2,250 SF 0.22 FAR 3,711 SF 0.36 FAR 4,352 SF 3 0.42 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 4 --- Parking: 2 covered (19-4 ½” x 19'-5”) 1 uncovered No change 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 26'- 5 7/8” 35'-11" 4 30'-0" DH Envelope: --- complies CS 25.26.075 1 Variance approved for second story front setback less than the block average of 46’. 2 (0.40 X 10,164 SF) = 4,070 SF (40%) 3 (0.32 x 10,164 SF) + 1100 SF = 4,352 SF (0.42 FAR). 4 Special Permit approved for height greater than 30’-0”. 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. Suggested Findings for Design Review: The proposed change in roofing material, from composition shingle to standing seam metal, on the addition would maintain the existing style of the neighborhood, which contains predominantly split-level ranch style homes. The location of the garage is not changed and is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. The design is well articulated by adding the new second-story on one side and Design Review Amendment 2683 Summit Drive -3- retaining the remainder of the house same. To break-up the massing and bulk of the house there will be a new front porch and hanging metal roof with beams. Added details such as window grids and wood bellyband provide scale and visual interest to the home. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 18, 2018, sheets A2.3a through A3.4; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that 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 shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 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; 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 Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: Design Review Amendment 2683 Summit Drive -4- 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential desig n professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Samaneh Nilli, applicant and architect Sunil and Katherien Koshie, property owners Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by architect, dated December 21, 2018 February 12, 2018, Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission (from original application) Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 04, 2019 Area Map +RZDUG$YH6DQ0DWHR&$ƔYRLFHƔID[ƔDGPLQ#WUJDUFKFRP 'HFHPEHU 3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ &LW\RI%XUOLQJDPH 3ULPURVH5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$ 5H6XPPLW'U 'HDU&RPPLVVLRQHU 7KHSURMHFWDW6XPPLWZDVSUHYLRXVO\DSSURYHGDQGLVXQGHUFRQVWUXFWLRQ$VLVW\SLFDOO\ WKHFDVHGXULQJWKHFRXUVHRIFRQVWUXFWLRQQHZLGHDVVXUIDFHDQGFKDQJHVDUHFRQWHPSODWHG,Q WKLVFDVHWKHRZQHUZRXOGOLNHWRXSJUDGHWKHURRILQJPDWHULDOIURPFRPSRVLWLRQVKLQJOHVWR PHWDOGHVSLWHWKHIDFWWKDWLWZLOOEHVXEVWDQWLDOO\PRUHH[SHQVLYH7KHURRIDOVRKDVOLPLWHG YLVLELOLW\IURPWKHVWUHHW)ROORZLQJDUHDIHZUHDVRQVIRUWKHVZLWFK x7KLVPDWHULDOZLOOKDYHDFULVSFOHDQORRNDQGLVVXLWDEOHWRERWKWKHVW\OHRIWKHKRXVH DQGWKHVXUURXQGLQJDUHD x7KLVPDWHULDOLVHFRIULHQGO\LQWKDWLWLVFRPSRVHGRIUHF\FOHGSURGXFWDQGLV UHF\FODEOH x7KLVPDWHULDOLVHFRIULHQGO\LQWKDWLWLVFORVHUWRD\HDUURRIWKDQD\HDUURRI x7KLVPDWHULDOLVHFRIULHQGO\LQWKDWLWLVD³FRROURRI´UHIOHFWLQJKHDWDZD\IURPWKH VWUXFWXUHLQKRWPRQWKVDQGEDFNLQWRWKHVWUXFWXUHLQFRROHUPRQWKV x6RODUDSSOLFDWLRQVDUHPRUHFRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKLVPDWHULDODVW\SLFDOSDQHOVFDQVLPSO\ FOLSWRWKHVWDQGLQJVHDPVRURQHFDQXVHDSURGXFWVXFKDV³8QLVRODU´ZKLFKUROOVRXW DQGVWLFNVWRWKHPHWDOUHQGHULQJLWYHU\GLVFUHWH 7KHSURSRVHGVSHFLILFDWLRQIRUWKLVPDWHULDOLV&XVWRP%LOW0HWDOV:HDWKHUHG&RSSHUFRORU ZLWK´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ecretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review Amendment to change the roofing material of a previously approved Design Review project for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2683 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, Sunil and Katherine Koshie, property owners, APN: 027-224-020; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 14, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one- single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of the project, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment is set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of January, 2019 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment 2683 Summit Drive Effective January 24, 2019 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 18, 2018, sheets A2.3a through A3.4; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that 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 shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 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; 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 Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. City of Burlingame Design Review Amendment Address:1245 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date:January 14, 2019 Request:Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Chu Design Associates APN:026-171-050 Property Owners:Eric and Jennifer Lai Lot Area: 6,119 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 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. History and Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage at 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2018 (see attached February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). An FYI for clarifications to the left side dormer was reviewed and accepted by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2018. A building permit was issued in July 2018 and construction began shortly thereafter. During the demolition phase, most of the first floor walls and entire second floor was demolished, which exceeded the amount of walls shown to be removed on the previously approved plans. Several existing nonconforming walls on the first and second floors which were shown to remain were removed, including the nonconforming first floor walls along the left side of the house (2’-3½”, 1’-6” and 2’-8” existing side setbacks to the porch and main dwelling,where 4’-0” is required) and the second floor wall at the front of the house (19’-7” existing front setback where 20”-0’ is required). With this application, the applicant is proposing to build the first floor foundation and walls 4’-0” from the left side property to comply with minimum side setback requirement of 4’-0”. In addition, the second floor wall at the front of the house has been set back 20”-0’ to comply with minimum second floor setback requirement of 20’-0”. Therefore, variances are not required. In addition, because the entire existing second floor was demolished, the existing nonconforming building height of 30’-2” became void. However, with the revised project the second floor addition complies with building height requirements (29’-2” building height proposed where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed). The revised project eliminates the previously required Special Permit for building height for the addition. Additional changes include reducing the size of the windows in the kitchen and dining room along the Left Elevation, reducing the plate height from 9’-10” to 9’-0”, increasing the size of the dining room and increasing the size of the deck at the rear of the house. The applicant submitted the originally approved andproposed plans, date stamped December 18, 2018, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project. A stop work notice was issued by the Building Division on October 24, 2018, and was applicable to the areas affected by the nonconforming walls in question (along left side of property). The notice allows construction to proceed on other areas of the project at the property owner’s own risk. Item No. 8f Regular Action Item Design Review Amendment 1245 Cabrillo Avenue 2 December 10, 2018 Regular Action Meeting:At the Planning Commission Regular Action meeting on December 10, 2018, the Commission had several suggestions and requests for additional information and therefore voted to continue the application (see attached December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, date stamped December 18, 2018, to address the Commission’s comments. Please refer to the copy of the December 10, 2018, Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of Planning Commission comments. Listed below are the suggestions and requests for information from the Commission and a summary of responses by the applicant or staff. 1. Request that staff investigate the front wall and determine whether a variance or change is required. In his response letter dated December 18, 2018, the applicant notes that the contractor confirmed that only three cripple studs on the living room wall have been replaced. The applicant further clarified that a portion of the plate, between the cripple wall and floor beam along the left side if the living room wall, has also been replaced, but was done by a previous owner to address dry rot issues. Based on the work completed on this wall to date and factoring in a new header for the living room window, Building and Planning Division staff reviewed the wall and determined that it would consider it to be an existing wall. Therefore, a Front Setback Variance is not required to retain the existing nonconforming wall, nor is the wall required to be relocated to comply with current code setback requirements. 2. Reduce plate height to 9 feet. The plate height on the ground floor has been reduced from 9’-10” to 9’-0” (see revised building elevations, sheets A.4 through A.7, date stamped December 18, 2018). As a result, the overall building height reduced from 30’-0” to 29’-2”. 3. Provide additional details on the plans as requested during the discussion. The applicant has submitted revised the plans to address the comments and suggestions made by the Commission (see revised plans date stamped December 19, 2018). 4. Provide building section through the dormers to provide a clear understanding of the massing in this area. Two building sections were provided through the gable and shed dormers along the left side of the house (see revised sheet A.5, date stamped December 18, 2018). 5. Would like to reiterate concern of apparent height of the dormer wall due to the window wells. It might be fine to cut a section through there, but would like applicant to really consider refining the dormers. In his response letter dated December 18, 2018, the applicant notes that the “overall roof pitch has been redesigned to accommodate a more consistent plate height at the 2 nd floor”. The height of the dormer wall along the left side of the house was reduced by increasing the roof pitch from 2½:12 to 3:12, reducing the size of the windows in the master bedroom, and eliminating the window well under these windows (see revised Proposed Left Elevation on sheet A.5, date stamped December 19, 2018). This also allowed more of the lower roof to slope up into the side of the dormer. The Commission also noted that it would be helpful to have the contractor frame an 8 foot section of wall with a 9 foot plate height to give the Commission and neighbors a visual of what is being proposed. The applicant indicated that a mock-up of the wall will be installed by the Friday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Design Review Amendment 1245 Cabrillo Avenue 3 Lastly, during its discussion the Commission asked about the stabilization of the creek at the rear of the lot. The Engineering Division notes that it is their understanding that the embankments have been stabilized since the demolition of the existing garage. The inspector for this project will assure that the required measures are implemented accordingly to prevent embankment erosion into the creek. The Engineering Division will continue to work with the applicant if there is any deterioration of the embankment during the construction of the project. Project Description:The existing two-story house and two-story detached accessory structure contained 2,793 SF (0.46 FAR) of floor area. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing accessory structure, build a new detached garage, replace and add onto the first floor of the house and build a new second floor. The proposed project will increase the total floor area to 3,336 SF (0.54 FAR), where 3,378 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project is 42 SF below the maximum allowable floor area and is therefore within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR. The existing house had four bedrooms and there is no change in the number of bedrooms with this project. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the new detached garage (10’ x 20’ clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue Lot Area: 6,119 SF Plans date stamped:December 18, 2018 EXISTING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CURRENTLY PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 17'-1" ¹ 19’-7” ¹ no change no change no change 20’-0” 18'-9" (block average) 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 2’-3½” to porch ¹ 1'-6", 2’-8” to house ¹ 10'-6" no change 11’-3” to addition 4’-0” to porch 4’-0” to house no change 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 39'-0" 65’-0” 40’-7” 49'-7" 38’-1” no change 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage:2498 SF 40.8% 2426 SF 39.6% 2442 SF 39.9% 2447 SF 40% FAR:2793 SF 0.46 FAR 3368 SF 0.55 FAR 3336 SF 0.54 FAR 3378 SF 0.54 FAR # of bedrooms:4 4 no change --- Off-Street Parking:1 covered 1 uncovered 1 covered (10’ x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') no change 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height:30'-2" 30'-2" ² 29'-2" 30'-0" DH Envelope:complies complies complies C.S. 25.26.075 ¹ Existing nonconforming front setback (1 st and 2nd floors) and left side setback. ² Special Permit previously approved for overall building height (30’-2” existing and proposed where between 30’-0” and 36'-0" is allowed with a Special Permit). Design Review Amendment 1245 Cabrillo Avenue 4 Staff Comments:Frank Knifsend, the adjacent neighbor at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, submitted letters and exhibits dated January 8, 2019 and December 4, 2018 expressing concerns with the proposed project. Emails concerning the project were also received from Gene Bordegaray(emails dated January 4, 2019 and December 9, 2018), Sally Brown and Philip Ross (dated November 30, 2018), Peter Gum (dated November 21, 2018), and Julie Carlson (dated November 26, 2018). Design Review Criteria:The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring a combination of gable and shed roofs, composition shingle roofing, reduced and proportional plate heights, horizontal siding on the house and board and batten siding on the gable ends, adhered stone veneer base, and aluminum clad wood windows (with simulated true divided lites and wood trim) is compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed 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 submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 18, 2018, sheets A.1 through A.7; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Parks Division’s May 2 and December 27, 2017 memos and the Engineering Division’s January 12, 2018 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition 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; Design Review Amendment 1245 Cabrillo Avenue 5 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint of the addition per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Planning Manager c. Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer Eric and Jennifer Lai, property owners Design Review Amendment 1245 Cabrillo Avenue 6 Attachments: December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated December 18, 2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission (from original application) Applicant’s Explanation Letter, dated November 30, 2018 Letters and exhibits submitted by Frank Knifsend, dated January 8, 2019 and December 4, 2018 Emails submitted by Gene Bordegaray, dated January 4, 2019 and December 9, 2018 Email submitted by Sally Brown and Philip Ross, dated November 30, 2018 Email submitted by Peter Gum, dated November 21, 2918 Email submitted by Julie Carlson, dated November 26, 2018 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 4, 2019 Area Map !"#$" % #"& '' (()* # + ,"#&,"#* * "-.# "!"/ + )0#."- * ("! $-1 (( !"& +-* #& -") #& -* 1 &&* # * # "2-*#. -#." +,1 &/"#. #& #"/ &"*)0"& .."3 0- ( 4")* - *". )1 2",(* + , *0" + # #! #,"#* 5$*1 )* 6 57 ($-$#* * 5 $&"#"- ")* # 88673 6 ) #& 9"##+" (()#*- #& ( ("*1 /#"-: 0$ "-.# -- )*"-#)3&"-.#"768# *)"&7*++ #*)*;$"#$# ! " # $ % & % ' (" ) * + , % - % %. # / 0 1 %2 % 1 ' (" ) * %- 0 . # 3 2 1 ' (" ) + , . 4 2 2 5 62 78) # 9 1 % 0 2 ' () . # * * 3 () * 0 0 %- % . # & % ' () * % , . 3 ' () :. # & % 1 2 # 2 1 2 % 0 () / 2 % ;< 3 2 2 1 . # ! 2 ' : () + + " 2 0 8 2 1 0 . # 3 ' () 9. (6) % 2 . # & 2 1 * =0 2 % >= " % ? ' () 92 . # / 6 52 < 52 2 + ! % 2 % 2 () 92 . # , + < @ % ' () 92 2 * . # & ' & @ %' (6) " 5 . (" ) * 5 , 1 . ) ; % < 2 >ABC ) 2 % ; 0 / 2 * % % 2 2 % 0 DE 0 2 % % * = 0 2 % DE 0 2 2 / 2 *% 2 0 2 0 : 2 2 1 2 , 0 F + 2 ) <@ % " 2 % 2 2 A B % + "2 >BAB + ) & 2 % * 2 2 0 - & 2 F ,) # F % # & " 2 2 % # ! 2 # " 0 " ? # & % 0 % 2 D=>G G0 G2 0 : - % # : 2 % 1 # 2 - % 3 2 2 % 2 0 , # " 2 1 # # 2 ?=G ?=>G # : 1 % % # 6 2 % # - + , - H # & D ? # , ! " ##$$ % &' ( $ $ ( ' % & # ) % (# ' % ( # ( % * + ## $ $$ $ , $ + ## " $ ( -."#* +*- , * $ " #"-#& -"<' & ="1' !"#$" % #"& '' (()* # + ",-# "!". #& (") "/* + $&#- 0"-0* + +,* #& ,") #& ,* 1 &&* # * # "2,*#- ,#-" +/1 &."#- #& #". &"*)0"& --"3 0" ( 4")* , *"- )1 2"/(* + / "!". ($,$#* * *0" + # #! #/"#* 5$*1 )* 6 57 (" ")* # 86"767 + *0" 5 $&"#",3 60$ ",-# ,, )*", #)3 (()#* #& &",-#"9 ) #& :"##+" ( ("*1 .#",76;# *)"&7*++ #*)*<$"#$# ! " # $ % & ' ( ) # * % + , - - .% ( / + 0 + 0 1 % ' ( % + 2 3 ( ( ( + 0 452 6 - + , 3 ! " ## $ ## % $ # &' ( $$ % $ )$/$/$$ " #",-"#* +*,#& / * ;' * ="1' Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage at 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, Zoned R-1, Eric and Jennifer Lai, property owners, APN: 026-171-050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 14, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1.On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review,is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of January, 2019 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue Effective January 24, 2019 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 18, 2018, sheets A.1 through A.7; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Parks Division’s May 2 and December 27, 2017 memos and the Engineering Division’s January 12, 2018 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue Effective January 24, 2019 Page 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint of the addition per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 1245 Cabrillo Ave.300’ Radius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esign Review Memo City of Burlingame Date: December 21, 2018 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1020 Toyon Rd. Designer: Christian Ruffat (Residential Design Solutions) Planner: Michelle Markiewicz I have received and reviewed the original plans submitted to the Planning Commission for 1020 Toyon Rd. I listened to the Planning Commission’s comments in the meeting video. I met with the owner, Architect, and Planner at City Hall to discuss the Planning Commission’s comments. Per our suggestions, the designer made revisions. Following is a comparison between the original design, and the current plan. Revisions to original design: Floor Plans: x Front porch has been reconfigured to eliminate really shallow section and provide for a front facing door within the porch. x Second floor has been modified to create an actual offset between bedroom 2 and 3. Front elevation: x The stone has been removed x The porch has been reconfigured and has wood columns x The first floor plate and building height has been lowered. x The framing has been altered such that the first floor wall heights reduce an additional foot in addition to the plate reduction. x A bay window has been added to the living room. x The upstairs bedroom now includes an actual wall offset rather than just the old gutter line. x Garage doors have been revised. x The rake trim has been revised. Right elevation: x The first floor plate and building height has been lowered. x The framing has been altered such that the first floor wall heights reduce an additional foot in addition to the plate reduction. Rear elevation: x The first floor plate and building height has been lowered. x The framing has been altered such that the first floor wall heights reduce an additional foot in addition to the plate reduction. x The lower door widths have been revised to match the second floor doors. x The rake trim has been updated. Left elevation: x The first floor plate and building height has been lowered. x The framing has been altered such that the first floor wall heights reduce an additional foot in addition to the plate reduction. x The stone has been removed. DESIGN GUIDELINES: 1. Compatibility of the Architectural Style with that of the Existing Neighborhood. There are a variety of houses on this block. The style of this house is along “Modern Craftsman” lines, and the proposed design should be compatible. The massing has been cleaned up and improved. 2. Respect for Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood The proposed detached garage provides for more space between houses, and meets the parking requirements. 3. Architectural Style, Mass & Bulk of the Structure: The revisions made to the initial proposal have improved the architectural style and massing of the project. The architectural style is more consistent. Proposed changes, such as the refined front porch softens the mass. 4. Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side: The proposed house will interface reasonably well with its neighbors. 5. Landscaping and its proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components: The proposed landscape plan seems reasonable and will be consistent with the neighborhood context. SUMMARY The project has been improved since we first saw it. The main concerns were with the plate heights, tallness of the first floor, materials mix, trims, and the porch design. The applicant has redesigned the front porch such that it is larger, more useful, and incorporates a front facing door. The building height has been brought down by lowering the first floor plate height, and also but not over framing the second floor, floor structure, out to the perimeter wall (this drops all lower roofs down by an additional foot).The stone has been removed which simplifies the composition. The fascia boards have an added layer of detail, which brings the scale down to where it wants to be. And an actual offset between the upstairs bedrooms adds authenticity to the front elevation. Perhaps they might want to take a look at making the beam across the front porch out of wood rather than stucco. We did not see a roofing sample, but I would recommend using the shortest seams possible (1” tall due to the hip roof components which will get bulky with taller seams), along with a non-reflective surface. With these changes/clarifications, I am comfortable with this project and would support it. Sincerely Randy Grange, AIA LEED AP Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 1020 Toyon Drive, Zoned R-1, Genesis King Hwa LLC, property owner, APN: 026-240-160; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 14, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of January, 2019, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1020 Toyon Drive Effective January 24, 2019 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 21, 2018, sheets A1 through A8, SU-1, and L-1 through L-6; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit, a Tree Removal Permit and arborist report shall be submitted to the City Arborist for removal of the existing 32-inch diameter oak tree along the right side property line. If a Tree Removal Permit is not approved and the City Arborist determines that the design is to accommodate the existing oak tree, the revised project will be subject to review by the Planning Commission (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. 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; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 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 shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flies 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; 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 Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1020 Toyon Drive Effective January 24, 2019 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 the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. 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 certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. 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 build according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 'UDZLQJ1XPEHU'$7(6FDOH3URMHFW1XPEHU5(9,6,216'$7(%<'(6&5,37,211(:5(6,'(1&(72<21'5%85/,1*$0(&$$*(16&$/(/()7)5217,620(75,&6&$/(5,*+75($5,620(75,&35(/,0,1$5<6&$/()5217(175<9,(: 833(5522)/2:(5522)/2:(5522)$$/2:(5522) 647*/6/9(/8;(5)/$77*//2:(6/5,'*(0$,1/(9(/833(5/(9(/833(5/(9(/&/*0$,1/(9(/&/* ',1,1*%('5220$77,&&5$:/63$&(0$;,0805,'*($//2:$%/(0$;,080 352326('0$;5,'*( )) $9(5$*(72&85%6((6,7(3/$16+7$ 3523(57</,1('(&/,1,1*+(,*+7(19(/23( (*5$'($73/ (*5$'($73/ 3523(57</,1( 'UDZLQJ1XPEHU'$7(6FDOH3URMHFW1XPEHU5(9,6,216'$7(%<'(6&5,37,21 1(:5(6,'(1&(72<21'5%85/,1*$0(&$$*(16&$/( 522)3/$135(/,0,1$5<6&$/( 6(&7,21 0$,1/(9(/0$,1/(9(/833(5/(9(/833(5/(9(/&/*0$,1/(9(/&/* 7<3,&$/(;7(5,250$7(5,$/63$,17(')$&,$ 5$.(75,0$1'(56216(5,(6$/80(;7:22',17:,1'2:61$,/),17<3(75,0/(66$66(/(&7('%<2:1(535(),1,6+('0(7$/522),1*0(7$/522)$:,1*:,7+0(7$/683325763$,17('7+,6/2&$7,211203$,17(':22'&2/ 66855281'6 3523(57</,1('(&/,1,1*+(,*+7(19(/23(67$,1('6,',1*)) $9(5$*(72&85%6((6,7(3/$16+7$ (*5$'($73/ (*5$'($73/ 3523(57</,1( $5,'*( 0$; (*5(66:'2(*5(66:'252&.6$/7),1,6+('(175<325&+(;7&(0(173/$67(5),1,6+3$,17('&85%02817('$12',=('$/80)/$7*/$66/2:(7*/6.</,*+73$,17('5$,6('3$1(/(':22'9(1((5)$&(75,0$7%$<;;&('$5&25%(/6$7*$%/(667$,1('$/80*/$=('*/$66'225720$7&+*$5$*('225 0 $;0 ,1 0$;$1'(56216(5,(6$/80:22',17'28%/(*/$=(':,1'2:6 '22563/$67(5::((36&5((' =)/$6+,1*7<30)56,//(/(0(1735(),1),1,6+3(53/$160$,1/(9(/833(5/(9(/833(5/(9(/&/*0$,1/(9(/&/* 3$,17(')$&,$ 5$.(75,0$1'(56216(5,(6$/80:22',17:,1'2:6 '22561$,/),17<3(75,0/(66$66(/(&7('%<2:1(535(),1,6+('0(7$/522),1*67$,1('6,',1*77: $9(5$*(72&85%6((6,7(3/$16+7$5,'*( 0$;3$,17(':,,1),//5$,/,1*3$,17(':22'&$36,1*/(3/<0(0%5$1('(&.52&.6$/7),1,6+('5($57(55$&(60227+),1,6+('(;7&(0(173/$67(5),1,6+3$,17(''UDZLQJ1XPEHU'$7(6FDOH3URMHFW1XPEHU5(9,6,216'$7(%<'(6&5,37,21$VLQGLFDWHG1(:5(6,'(1&(72<21'5%85/,1*$0(&$$*(16&$/( 352326(')5217(/(9$7,2135(/,0,1$5<6&$/( :,1'2:08//,21'(7$/6&$/( :'26&+(0$7,&6&$/( 352326('5($5(/(9$7,213/$11,1*&5 0$,1/(9(/833(5/(9(/833(5/(9(/&/*0$,1/(9(/&/* $$*$5$*(/(9(/ (*5(66:'20$;,080 $9(5$*(72&85%6((6,7(3/$16+7$ 3$,17(')$&,$ 5$.(75,035(),1,6+('0(7$/522),1*67$,1('6,',1*77:52&.6$/7),1,6+('(175<325&+52&.6$/7),1,6+('(175<325&+60227+),1,6+('(;7&(0(173/$67(5),1,6+3$,17('0$,1/(9(/833(5/(9(/833(5/(9(/&/*0$,1/(9(/&/* $$ 0$;,080 $9(5$*(72&85%6((6,7(3/$16+7$ 3$,17(')$&,$ 5$.(75,035(),1,6+('0(7$/522),1*67$,1('6,',1*77:52&.6$/7),1,6+('(175<325&+60227+),1,6+('(;7&(0(173/$67(5),1,6+3$,17(''UDZLQJ1XPEHU'$7(6FDOH3URMHFW1XPEHU5(9,6,216'$7(%<'(6&5,37,21 1(:5(6,'(1&(72<21'5%85/,1*$0(&$$*(16&$/( 352326('/()7(/(9$7,216&$/( 352326('5,*+7(/(9$7,2135(/,0,1$5<3/$11,1*5(9,6,2163/$11,1*&5 x252 SF12' - 7"20' - 0"&$5*$5$*(&$5&29(5('38( 0,1 '5,9(:$< 127((;7(5,25%($5,1*:$//6/(667+$1 )5203523/,1(6+$//%(+5&216758&7,217<33/3/'67<3 *877(56'2:16328766(((/(9$7,216$*$5$*(/(9(/*$5$*(&/* 72& 522)720$7&++286(+25,=217$/6,',1*720$7&++286(52//83$/80*/$=('*/$663$1(/('&86720*$5$*('2253$,17('*,*877(56 '6&25%(/6720$7&++286(*$5$*(/(9(/*$5$*(&/**$5$*(/(9(/*$5$*(&/*$/80*/$=('*/$66'225720$7&+*$5$*('225*$5$*(/(9(/*$5$*(&/*)5$0,1*$63(56758&785$/'5$:,1*6522),1*720$7&++286(6(((/(9$7,21:22')$6&,$%2$5'3$,17(':6$:.(5)7+,6/2&$7,210$;3$,17('*,*877(5 '66,',1*212)(/77<3(;*<3%':+(5(2&&8561(;7723523(57</,1(&2177281'(56,'(2)522)3/<6+7*+5,&&(6586((;7*5$'($7$1<(;326('/2&$7,2167<335,0( 3$,17'UDZLQJ1XPEHU'$7(6FDOH3URMHFW1XPEHU5(9,6,216'$7(%<'(6&5,37,21$VLQGLFDWHG1(:5(6,'(1&(72<21'5%85/,1*$0(&$$*(16&$/( *$5$*(/(9(/6&$/( *$5$*(522)6&$/( *$5$*()52176&$/( *$5$*(5($56&$/( *$5$*(/()76&$/( *$5$*(5,*+73/$11,1*&56&$/( +5($9($73523/,1( > :,'(@))*$5$*( ))&21&5(7( /27 /27 %/2&. %85/,1*$0(*$5'(16 %22.0$360$366 : 1 : 6 ( 1 ( 1 (0$&+,1('&52666(7 21:$/.(/(9 6,7(%(1&+0$5. /$:1 /$:1 /$:1 $**5(*$7( $**5(*$7( &21&5(7('5,9(:$<&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.&21&5(7(:$/. (;,67,1*5(6,'(1&( (;,67,1*5(6,'(1&( 67$1'$5' &21&5(7( &85% *877(5 '5,9(:$< 3,//$5 7<3,&$/72<21'5,9(%5,&. 38%/,&87,/,7<($6(0(173(5 0$36 :,'(*8<:,5(3267 ($6(0(173(50$36 (17,5(3$5&(/%(,1*(;&$9$7(' )251(:&216758&7,21 )+:9 :9 :0 5,'*(5,'*(5,'*(*5$9(/ *0 -3*8<2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2 + 2 + 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+2+2+ 2+ 2+ &2 2$. 35,9(7 2$. 08/7,7581. 75(( 75((6 75(( 75,3/( %,5&+ '(16(+('*( ;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;; :22':($9()(1&( %2$5')(1&( ,521)(1&( :22'/$77,&()(1&( 3,&.(7)(1&( 7(0325$5<&216758&7,21 &+$,1/,1.)(1&( 0$361 (1 ()281'23(1,5213,3($6)281'3(50$36 38%/,&87,/,7<($6(0(173(5 0$36(17,5(3$5&(/%(,1*(;&$9$7(')251(:&216758&7,21 &22$.; ;7(0325$5<&216758&7,21 &+$,1/,1.)(1&( %:)&2 &/)&/)(/ (/11'5,9(:$<352326('6725<5(6,'(1&(:$//%(/2:522)(+286(72%(5(029('(6,7()($785(6$5(72%(5(029('1 5:')(1&(6((/$1'6&$3(':*6(6,7()($785(6$5(72%(5(029('6((/$1'6&$3(':*6)25,03529(0(176:$//6%(/2:522)(;,67,1*'5,9(:$<&8772%(5(86('5(3$,5255(3/$&(&85%*877(56,'(:$/.(7&$63(5&,7<67$1'$5'61'5,9(:$<$1'$3352$&+$63(5/$1'6&$3(3/$16$1<'5,9(:$<$3352$&+(672%(5(3$,5('25&216758&7('3(53:'(3$570(17'(7$,/6 352326(' $9(5$*(6(7%$&.352326(' &29(5('325&+)52176%0,1 833(56(&21')/225 0,1 &$5*$5$*(&$5&29(5('&$581&29(5(' ; 72& 72& $9*72& (*5$'( (*5$'(87,/,7<($6(0(17 833(5'(&. (75((72%(5(029(' 127(522)($9(66+$//127352-(&772:,7+,1 2)3523/,1(*0(06666&2:%$&.)/2:35(9(17(56666$//:$7(5&211(&7,21672&,7<:$7(50$,16)256(59,&(25),5(/,1($5(72%(,167$//('3(5&,7<67$1'$5'352&('85(6$1'63(&,),&$7,21$1'$1<27+(581'(5*5281'87,/,7<:25.6:,7+,1&,7< 652:*$6$1'(/(&0(7(5/2&$7,216$63(53* (67$1'$5'67<3(75((72%(5(029(''UDZLQJ1XPEHU'$7(6FDOH3URMHFW1XPEHU5(9,6,216'$7(%<'(6&5,37,21$VLQGLFDWHG1(:5(6,'(1&(72<21'5%85/,1*$0(&$$*(13/$11,1*'$7$6&+(0$7,&6,7(3/$135(/,0,1$5</2&$7,210$36,7(6,7(3/$1*(1(5$/127(6ϳ͘Ez,/EKE/d/KE^d,dZYh/ZtKZ<dKWZ&KZDzKEd,^KWK&d,h/>/E'WZD/d&KZd,^W>E^DzZYh/Z&hZd,Z/dzWWZKs>^/E>h/E'Zs/tzd,W>EE/E'KDD/^^/KE͘d,h/>/E'KtEZ͕WZK:d^/'EZEKZKEdZdKZDh^dKd/EZs/^/KEdKd,/dz&KZEztKZ<EKd'ZW,/>>z/>>h^dZdKEd,:KKWzK&d,W>E^WZ/KZdKWZ&KZD/E'd,tKZ<͘ϴ͘EKdͲt,EW>E^Z^hD/dddKd,h/>/E'/s/^/KE&KZW>EZs/t͕KDW>d^hWW>DEd>DK>/d/KEWZD/dWW>/d/KEt/>>WZKs/͘ϵ͘/&'Z/E'WZD/d/^ZYh/Z/d^,>>Kd/E&ZKDd,WZdDEdK&Wh>/tKZ<^͘ϭϬ͘KE^dZhd/KE,KhZ^͗t<z^͗ϴ͗ϬϬDͲϳ͗ϬϬWD^dhZz͗ϵ͗ϬϬDͲϲ͗ϬϬWD^hEz^Θ,K>/z^͗EKtKZ<>>KtKE^dZhd/KE,KhZ^/Ed,/dzWh>/Z/',dK&tzZ>/D/ddKt<z^EEKEͲ/dz,K>/z^dtEϴ͗ϬϬDEϱ͗ϬϬWD3/$11,1*&5 PROJECT LOCATION 1628 Lassen Way Item No. 8h Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review and Variance Address: 1628 Lassen Way Meeting Date: January 14, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review and Variance for Lot Coverage for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling Applicant and Designer: Steve Wu, Master SWU Associates APN: 025-203-220 Property Owner: Jeff Leung Lot Area: 6,000 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 existing single-story house with an attached one-car garage contains 2,259 SF (0.37 FAR) of floor area. The proposed project includes adding a new front porch, increasing the first floor living space, and adding a new second story. The floor area of the house would increase to 3,014 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3,020 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed as per the zoning code. The house would be 6 SF below the maximum allowed floor area. This application also includes a request for a Variance for lot coverage (2,524 SF, 42 % proposed where 2,400 SF, 40% is the maximum allowed). The proposed project exceeds the maximum allowed lot coverage by 124 SF. The existing house has four bedrooms and with this project the number of bedrooms would not change. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The existing garage (16’- 5” x 20’-3” clear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space. One uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 20’-0”) is provided in the driveway, where the required 20’-0” is measured up to the inner edge of the sidewalk. 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 first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2) (4)); and Variance for lot coverage (2,524 SF, 42 % proposed where 2,400 SF, 40% is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.54.020). 1628 Lassen Way Lot Size: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: January 4, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 15’-0” 18’-6” 15’-6” (block average) (2nd flr): Attached garage NA 15’-0” 20’-0” 15’-0” 20'-0" or block average 25’-0” (for one-car garage) Side (left): (right): 5’-1” 5’-8” no change 6’-0” 6’-0" 6’-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 25’-7” NA no Change 56’-4” 15'-0" 20’-0” Item No. 8h Regular Action Item Design Review and Variance 1628 Lassen Way 2 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Lot Coverage: 2,259 SF 37.6% 2,524 SF1 42% 2,400 SF 40% FAR: 2,259 SF 0.37 FAR 3,014 SF 0.50 FAR 3,020 SF2 0.51 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 no change --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (16’-5” x 20’-3”) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) no change 1 covered (10’ x 20’) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 17’-4” 22’-5” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 1 Variance requested for lot coverage. 2 (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1100 SF = 3,020 SF (0.51 FAR) Staff Comments: None Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on December 10, 2018, the Commission expressed several concerns with the project design and with the various Variances requested (see attached December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). The Commission referred the project to a design review consultant. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped January 4, 2019, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and concerns. 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 project designer and homeowner to discuss the Planning Commission’s concerns and reviewed the revised plans. Based on the feedback from the review, the applicant made major changes to address Commission’s concerns. The applicant has revised the drawings to maintain an 8’-0” plate height throughout the house, except at family/dining room where the plate height would be 10’-0”. Since the house is not increasing the height of the non-conforming walls and is now complying with the setback requirements, it no longer requires the previously requested Variances. However, the applicant is now requesting a Variance for lot coverage. Some other changes made to the design include changing the roof design on second floor from gable to hip roofs, refining the landscape plan, interchanging the location of the closet with the bedroom on second floor, reducing the overall height from 23’-7” to 22’-5”, and increasing the area of the front bedroom on first floor and master bedroom on the second floor. With these proposed changes the floor area of the house would increase by 60 SF. The design reviewer has provided a detailed analysis in his letter and recommends approval of the project as proposed (see attached Design Review Analysis, dated December 26, 2018). Design Review and Variance 1628 Lassen Way 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 adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: The proposed project would maintain the existing one-car garage and respects the garage pattern in the neighborhood. The new house would be craftsman style and would use high-quality materials such as aluminum clad wood windows, stucco siding, composite shingle roof, and a stacked stone base. The new front porch would help in better interfacing with the rest of the properties in the neighborhood. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Findings for Variance: The proposed addition on the ground floor, which includes a new front porch, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience and would increase the aesthetic appeal of the house. The proposed addition will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity, and since the use on the site is a single-family dwelling and its design has been reviewed through the design review process, the project may have found to be compatible with the Variance criteria listed above. 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 of approval should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 4, 2019, sheets A00 through A06 and L01; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Design Review and Variance 1628 Lassen Way 4 Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that 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 shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 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; 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 Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Design Review and Variance 1628 Lassen Way 5 Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Steve Wu, applicant and designer Jeff Leung, property owner Attachments: December 10, 2018, Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Consultant’s Analysis, dated December 26, 2018 Application to the Planning Commission Variance Application Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 4, 2019 Area Map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equest for a new Variance for Lot Coverage for the new front porch. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. The Lot Coverage is maxed out at 40% as-is so any improvements/additions to the property would be difficult to achieve. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. The proposed plan shows an open floor plan that combines three spaces that enhance the quality of life, the kitchen, family room and dining rooms, typical in a modern home. It was recommended by the Commission and the design consultant to include a front porch as part of the improvements. Therefore, a variance is proposed to allow a front porch that would increase the lot coverage to 42%. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The proposed use is the same as existing, a Single-Family Dwelling which is not detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The proposed structure is within the City’s height and declining height envelope, matches the existing roof slopes, has standard height windows and doors and has materials that are common in the neighborhood such as stucco, wood trim and asphalt roof shingles. Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling at 1628 Lassen Way, zoned R-1, Jeff Leung, property owner, APN: 025- 203-220; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 14, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per 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, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January 2019 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance 1628 Lassen Way Effective January 24, 2019 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 4, 2019, sheets A00 through A06 and L01; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that 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 shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 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; 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 Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.