Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - PC - 2019.03.11
Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, March 11, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Draft January 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesb. Draft January 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Draft February 25, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesc. Draft February 25, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak " card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 16 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance for parking off-site at 12 Park Road for a personal training studio. (Philip Levi, applicant; Park Road Properties, LLC, property owner) (198 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi a. 16 Park Rd - Staff Report 16 Park Rd - Attachments 16 Park Rd - Plans Attachments: Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 1612 Devereux Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer; Ji Yoon Chung & Austin Choi, property owners) (85 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz a. 1612 Devereux Dr - Staff Report 1612 Devereux Dr - Attachments 1612 Devereux Dr - Plans Attachments: 329 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Joe and Julia McVeigh, property owners; TRG Architects-Carlos Rojas, applicant and architect) (99 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon b. 329 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 329 Occidental Ave - Attachments 329 Occidental Ave - Historic Resource Study 329 Occidental Ave - Plans Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1125 Oxford Road, zoned R-1 - Application for a Special Permit for reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Vishal Jangla, property owner) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon a. 1125 Oxford Rd - Staff Report 1125 Oxford Rd - Attachments 1125 Oxford Rd - Plans Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1425 Bernal Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Raymond Wong, property owner; Chu Design Associates (applicant and designer) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz b. 1425 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1425 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1425 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 2217 Davis Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang, applicants and property owners; MEI Architects, architect) (89 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal a. 2217 Davis Dr - Staff Report 2217 Davis Dr - Attachment 2217 Davis Dr - Plans Attachments: 1369 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Metropolis Architecture, Lawrence Kahle, applicant and architect; Nick and Sara Adler, property owners) (111 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon b. 1369 Drake Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1369 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: 830 Paloma Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Scott Kuehne, Suarez Kuehne Architecture, applicant and architect; Jennifer and Matt Kulin, property owners) (147 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi c. 830 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 830 Paloma Ave - Attachments 830 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: 748 Plymouth Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Mark Pearcy, applicant and architect; Heather & Ekine Akuiyibo, property owners) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz d. 748 Plymouth Way - Staff Report 748 Plymouth Way - Attachments 748 Plymouth Way - Plans Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1660 Rollins Road, zoned RR - Application for Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance for an addition and facade changes to an existing commercial building. (David Mena, Mena Architects, applicant and architect; Symons Consulting International Ltd ., property owner) (35 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi e. 1660 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1660 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1660 Rollins Rd - Plans Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting March 4, 2019 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on March 11, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 21, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 10, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioner Gaul arrived at 7:09 p.m. Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA >Item 8a - Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development has been continued to the January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.1101 Rosedale Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Special Permit and Parking Variance for reduction of off -street parking on site. (Martin Miller, applicant, property owner, and designer) (91 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1101 Rosedale Ave - Staff Report 1101 Rosedale Ave - Attachments 1101 Rosedale Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. >If we were to consider a Variance for parking within the front setback, would that then eliminate the need for the Variance for parking being requested? (Hurin: Yes, it would eliminate the Variance for not providing the number of parking spaces required.) >The applicant is not applying for a Variance to legalize the parking within the front setback, correct? (Hurin: That is correct. The proposed application includes adding a planter strip along the edge of that Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes parking space to prevent someone from parking there.) Acting Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Martin Miller, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions from the Commission. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >See no issues with the Special Permit to reduce the number of parking spaces on -site. This is a unique lot and this is a reasonable way to use the space and provide full enjoyment of the property. >Not meeting the minimum parking requirement is difficult to support. See the downside of using the alternate parking space in the front setback, however think the benefit to the community outweighs that . Therefore, would be in support of having the applicant return with a Variance for parking within the front setback rather than providing just one parking space on-site. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar with the direction to the applicant to change the Variance application from reducing the parking on-site to providing a parking space in the front setback not leading to a garage or carport. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Gaul1 - 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Terrones was recused from Item 7d - 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue, as he lives within 500 feet of the subject properties. a.Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2019 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 2019 Planning Commission Memorandum 2019 Planning Commission Schedule 2019 City Council Calendar - Draft Attachments: b.1304 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Melina Copass, applicant and designer; Matt and Lauren Fleming, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1304 Mills Ave - Staff Report & Attachments 1304 Mills Ave - Plans Attachments: c.1648 Barroilhet Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling (existing detached garage to be retained). This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (TRG Architects, Randy Grange, applicant and designer; Debbie and William Clifford, property owners) (105 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1648 Barroilhet Ave - Staff Report 1648 Barroilhet Ave - Attachments 1648 Barroilhet Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 1648 Barroilhet Ave - Plans Attachments: d.1547 Los Altos Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage, and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new attached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e) (1). (Studio 797, Jared Kuykendall, architect; Flora Lee and Jonathan Wan, applicant and property owners) ( 73 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1547 Los Altos Dr - Staff Report 1547 Los Altos Dr - Attachments 1547 Los Altos Dr - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve Items 7a through 7d on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - e.1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -2 - Application for a One Year Extension for a previously approved application for a Conditional Use Permit for re -emerging lots, Design Review and front setback Variances for two new duplex residential units on two separate lots. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Ed Breur, TRG Architects, applicant and designer; Kurt Steil, property owner) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve Item 7e on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Tse6 - Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Recused:Terrones1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development - This item has been continued to the January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. >Item 8a - Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development has been continued to the January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. b.1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Eric and Jennifer Lai, applicants and property owners; Chu Design Associates Inc., designer) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Kelly was recused from this item as he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto indicated that she had met with the adjacent neighbor to the south. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he had also met with the adjacent neighbor to the south and the applicant. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. >Understand that the applicant was directed to stop work on the nonconforming wall. Was a stop work order issued for the entire project? (Hurin: The Building Division issued a partial stop work order for the nonconforming wall along the left side of the house; applicant was allowed to work on the remaining portion of the house at their own risk.) >On existing walls that are located within the required setback, how much of the wall can be removed before it needs to conform to current code setback requirements? (Hurin: The foundation and framing needs to be kept; the exterior siding and drywall may be removed.) >It appears that the framing between foundation and lower floor on a portion of a nonconforming wall at the front of the house has been replaced, so it that considered to be a wall replacement and therefore subject to current code requirements? (Hurin: Planning and Building Division staff would need to review the details of what has been replaced in order to determine if it is considered to be a new wall.) James Chu, represented the applicant, along with Eric Lai, property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: >Your are proposing to comply with the required side setback of four feet along the left side property line and to maintain the existing plate height by changing the roof pitch to accommodate the narrower house width, correct? (Chu: Correct.) >The cripple wall along the living room at the front of the house has been replaced. The floor framing in this area is rotted as well and the window header will need to be replaced. It appears that most of the living room wall will need to be replaced. (Chu: The original purpose of preserving the existing wall was to Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes retain the existing nonconforming front setback; could reframe the wall to make the house better.) >Who is maintaining responsible control over the work site and its current condition? (Chu: The contractor is the person responsible over the work site. Designer has not been hired to oversee the project during construction.) Is the contractor present tonight? (Chu: No.) >Would like to note that there are several conditions of approval that require milestones to be verified both by the surveyor and architect, so there are multiple people involved. >At various points during construction, certain verifications are required. Concerned that property owners don't do this for a living, so they are at the mercy of the contractor and professionals completing the construction. Concerned that the contractor has made a gaffe like this and still expected that they will maintain control. (Chu: One of the conditions of approval includes that prior to the framing inspection, a professional needs to inspect the construction to make sure that the architectural elements are built according to the approved plan and that the project is in compliance with FAR. In this case, everything happened during the demolition stage, prior to requiring any sort of verification.) >Moving forward, what gives us the confidence that whatever gets approved will be built? Not feeling confident about that right now. (Chu: Contractor is a local developer who has lived in Burlingame for many years and has built several new homes in Burlingame. However, he may not have had experience with a remodel/addition project as detailed as this, requiring existing nonconforming walls to be retained.) >Is contractor licensed? (Chu: Yes.) (Lai: Asked contractor to attend the meeting tonight, but he did not come.) >When originally approved project, quite a bit of the house was going to remain. There were a lot of pre-existing conditions, including the setbacks and plate heights which were in place but not being specifically reviewed. Can't see us approving a nearly 10-foot plate height on a raised floor. Have you looked at lowering the plate height to 9 feet? (Chu: Yes, we can consider doing that if it would help us get an approval.) >On the proposed Left Elevation, there is a window well towards the rear of the house with a shoulder on the Rear Elevation, so it may force the end window in a bit. Shoulder on long, tall gable along left side will be fine because it will help dormers settle into the roof. But will be limited with gabled dormer towards the front of the house along the left side with how much roof you have cutting into just below the sill. May want to think about reducing the height of the windows, making them smaller, so you have enough roof to cut into the bottom dormer and bring up the bottom edge up a bit. (Chu: Yes, will consider doing that.) >Did you see letter from Sally Brown and Philip Ross regarding stabilizing the creek at the rear of the lot for construction of the garage? (Chu: Yes, we made some changes to the foundation of the garage, instead of a spread footing will be using a pier and grade beam foundation to disturb less of the soil in the area. There is also erosion control in place.) >Will there be a soils report submitted? Who would validate the stabilization of the creek? (Lai: Hired Precision Engineering to prepare the soils report.) (Hurin: The Engineering Division is reviewing this issue and will contact the applicant if any additional measures are required.) Public Comments: Frank and Robin Knifsend, 1243 Cabrillo Avenue: Appreciate modifications made, but the changes are small and don't directly address key concerns about the massing and scale of the project. From our view the house is massive and is built to the maximum allowed criteria. One of the biggest issues we have is that we don't trust the plans, there are many inconsistencies. The path they took to get to this point was making misleading statements directly to us, as well as in the planning process, about keeping the existing structure. 85% or more of the existing structure is gone and down to the subfloor, that's a pretty big accident that took place of several weeks. There are a lot of call -outs on the plans and labeled existing on the proposed structure, and would content that not one element on the back 80% of the house is to the original existing floor heights, ceiling heights, and plate heights. On proposed building elevations, indicated plate height lines don't match to what is drawn. Took them at their word, see the proposed plans with many references to existing conditions, used the existing structure as a story board for the plans that they were going to build. Now see what has actually been framed, measured wall myself and determined that it was built one foot taller than approved. Concerned with what the plans do and don't shown, questionable communication from the applicant, and what the contractor has done up to this point. Don't Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes have a lot of confidence going forward that we're not going have this massive structure next to us. Gene Bordegaray, neighbor across the street: Realize there have been some mitigations measures to try to get the project back into conformance. However, in looking at the proposed plan, the massing of the wall adjacent to the left side neighbor is huge, measuring 25 feet tall and 50 feet long and only 4 feet away from the fence. Can't really appreciate how that will look because there is nothing to show us that right now. Suggest installing story poles and netting to show massing along left side property line to give a better sense of how intrusive that wall will be from their side of the property line. Bill Howell, 1424 Benito Avenue: When we remodeled house, our contractor made us to stick to the rules . This is an intimidating process, but there is a fundamental trust that when plans are approved, one expects that the house will be built as shown on the approved plans; most people abide by that rule. Was at neighbor's house and saw the wall near the fence, doesn't feel natural because it's so high relative to the driveway. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Glad to be reviewing these revisions and not the revisions previously proposed. Also glad to see that the intent is to comply with the side setback. >What is before us now is simply an amendment to design review. However, there some revisions that could possible occur, but also additional information needs to be shown and corrected on the plans so that we know what we're approving. >Moving forward, as standard procedure there will need to be certification of the framing provided by a professional confirming that what has been built is consistent with the approved plans. >House is approximately 5 feet above adjacent grade and is similar to other houses nearby. Houses to the right and left are elevated above grade. So project would benefit from reducing the plate height to 9 feet. >Would like to see exactly what plate height we are being asked to consider for the dormers on the second floor, because we have an indication on the drawings that say 8'-1" but it says "existing top plate", however if that top plate no longer exists it doesn't matter. Need to clarify plate of dormers on second floor; needs to be corrected and made accurate so that everyone knows what were are reviewing and approving as the project moves forward. >Not prepared at this point to move forward with an approval, but am accepting of the general intent of the changes proposed along the left side of the house to bring it into compliance with setback requirements. >Concerned with the way the dormers are treated on the second floor along left side in that it creates another tall, flat surface; caused by window wells to make windows taller. Suggest that the roof slope run up to hit the wall and windows be made smaller. It would appear to be a much smaller wall if the vertical surface stopped at a certain point, the roof sloped away, and the windows were in a small wall that was pushed way back on the roof. As proposed, the window wells that are cut out are exposing a tall wall on top of another tall wall. Dormers along left side of house need to be rethought to reduce the apparent height of the wall. >Agree with most comments made. However, not convinced that the design of the dormers need to be rethought if they are in compliance with code requirements. >Provide at least one section to understand what is happening on the second floor. >Correct drafting error for plate height shown at family room, shown at 9'-0" but building elevations still show it at 9'-10". >Nonconforming front wall also needs to be addressed since the required front setback is several feet further back. >Left side elevation is tall and flat, so would like to see some articulation there. >Concerned about front wall; Planning and Building Divisions should review how much has been done to the wall; may need to apply for a Variance to retain it. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >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. >Disappointed that this house got this far away from the original house. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the application with the following direction: >Request that staff investigate the front wall and determine whether a variance or change is required. >Reduce plate height to 9 feet. >Provide additional details on the plans as requested during the discussion. >Provide building section through the dormers to provide a clear understanding of the massing in this area. Commission Discussion: >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. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Recused:Kelly1 - c.1341 De Soto Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for a half -bath in the detached garage . This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, applicant and designer; Jeff Diana, property owner) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1341 De Soto Ave - Staff Report 1341 De Soto Ave - Attachments 1341 De Soto Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto indicated that she had met with the applicant. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >What is the policy for skylights on accessory structures located within 10 feet of property line? (Keylon: A conditional use permit is required for any type of glazing, skylights or windows on an accessory structure within 10 feet of a property line.) >There is no application for a conditional use permit on this project, correct? (Keylon: Correct.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, project designer, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is there a skylight proposed in the detached garage? (Raduenz: No, the plans show a pull -down ladder Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes to provide access to the attic space in the garage.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Really like this project. >Like changes made to the project. >Appreciate applicant speaking to the neighbor regarding providing additional space behind the detached garage. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. Commission Discussion: >Like the project overall, but would still like to see a deeper front porch. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Nay:Sargent1 - d.1464 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Chu Design & Associates, applicant and designer; Matt Nejasmich, property owner) (135 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1464 Balboa Ave - Staff Report 1464 Balboa Ave - Attachments 1464 Balboa Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. James Chu, represented the applicant, along with Matt Nejasmich, property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: >Asked applicant to clarify that rendering submitted are correct. (Chu confirmed rendering is correct.) >Plans show a 9'-6" first floor plate height, but it is drawn below the lowest point of the fascia. Please explain. (Chu: Reason is that when designing a house where the second floor floor wall is set in and not directly above a first floor support wall, a beam is needed to carry the load out to the first floor support wall. In order to avoid too many notches in the beam, the roof rafters are typically set on top of the beam, which explains the extra spacing above the first floor plate.) Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Column bases at front porch look really massive, appear to scale at 24 inches wide. Is that the intended dimension? Plans should be revised if they are intended to be smaller. (Chu: Bases should be 18 inches wide.) >How much exposure will there be on the shingles? Exposure shown on the renderings are much larger than on the building elevations. (Chu: Should be a 4 to 6-inch exposure.) Please clarify the exposure on the plans. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >This is a good looking project and fits in well with the neighborhood. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - e.1838 El Camino Real, Suite 180, zoned ECN - Application for Parking Variance to convert an existing office space into a health service use (medical office). This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Lemi Medical Center, applicant; Nolan Wong, property owner; Jack Tam, Team 7 International, architect) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1838 El Camino Real Suite 180 - Staff Report 1838 El Camino Real Suite 180 - Attachments 1838 El Camino Real Suite 180 - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Dr. Nani Kanen and Ann Strain, represented the applicant. >Understand that the detoxification process is difficult. What is the process for patients to come back for treatment? (Strain: The first day of treatment lasts five to six hours. Patients then come back for three to five days for sessions lasting one -half to one hour, depending on the patient. Patients then continue to do a taper of whatever the detox medications are. Many patients, especially if they are from the local area, will follow up for an in office visit. It's important to have providers that know how to treat this.) (Kanen: With the proposed expansion, not all rooms will be used as exam rooms. Current space is too small, have too many work stations in one room, there is no break room for staff and there is no room to draw blood.) >What is your relationship with Peninsula Hospital? Are you employees of the hospital and is this a separate endeavor? (Kanen: No, none of us are employees of Peninsula Hospital. I am a contracted medical director. This is a private practice.) >How do patients arrive to the facility? Do they drive themselves or use ride -sharing services? (Kanen: Very fortunate to have Caltrain within walking distance of the facility, so many patients use Caltrain. Would Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes point out that patients are not allowed to drive, so patients are also dropped off and picked up by family members.) >Are there often parking spaces that are available? (Kanen: Yes, there are available parking spaces in our parking lot.) >Do you have a sense of the percentage of patients that drive to the facility versus how many use other transportation methods? (Strain: Approximately 30% use alternative means of transportation. Would note that the facility is located on El Camino Real which contains a bus line, Caltrain and BART stations are located nearby, and many patients use ride -sharing services. Staff members walk to the facility if they live close by.) >Ordinance requires that the off -street parking for health services uses be calculated at one space per 250 square feet. However in nearby zoning districts such as the TW District, health service is calculated using the ratio for office, which is one space per 300 square feet. So there wouldn't be a Variance required in this case if the facility was located in the TW District. What is the reason for not including that parking ratio in this area? (Hurin: When TW District was established, it envisioned large buildings that would provide more on-site parking that therefore absorb the difference in parking ratios. In the ECN zone, high density housing was envisioned, however we understand that many of the existing buildings will continued to be used for medical and office uses.) >That allowance to use the office ratio for health services is for applications in buildings that are 20,000 square feet or greater. In this case, the building area is 19,900 square feet, so it's slightly less than 20,000 square feet. See it as another reason to consider that not only are we close to those other zones, but also close to the criteria. Michael Brownrigg: Understand that there is a difficulty with drug addiction in our society. Visited this facility and observed a line stretching out the waiting room door. Am proud that we have a facility like this in Burlingame and that we're helping people that need help. Claudio (last name not provided): Was involved in alcohol and drug addiction, cleaned my life up 25 years ago. Am a productive individual that works, am a general contractor and live in Burlingame. When I became sober, there wasn't a facility around like this one that I could go to. Patients that are serious about cleaning there lives up do turn around and if these facilities aren't available, it makes it difficult for them to do so. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. >This is a necessary facility, whether in Burlingame or in a nearby community. >LIke that it is located across the street from the hospital. >Don't see issue with the Parking Variance, drive by this site quite often and have seen this lot empty . Don't think intensification of use will be detrimental because the manner in which patients will be arriving at the facility. >Sad to hear the drug addiction /detox facility at hospital is closing. There are a lot of people in our community that have used that facility and also know that people in our community need help. >Thanked the applicants for their help and hard work. >This is a good application, really needed in the community. >Can support the Variance request. Facility has unique characteristics that limit the parking need. One of the conditions of approval we're being asked to consider includes that if this medical facility ceases to exist, the Parking Variance becomes void. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. Commission Discussion: >There is a greater abundance of parking in the lot at the rear of the building along California Drive compared to parking on the frontage road along El Camino Real, so would encourage users and their families to use the parking lot at the rear. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - f.920 Bayswater Avenue (includes 908 Bayswater Ave., 108 Myrtle Rd., 112 Myrtle Rd., 116 Myrtle Rd., 120 Myrtle Rd., 124 Myrtle Rd.) zoned MMU and R-3 - Application for Design Review Amendment for review of window materials for a previously approved application for a New 128-Unit Apartment Development. (Fore Property Company, applicant; John C. and Donna W. Hower Trust, Julie Baird, Eric G. Ohlund Et Al, Doris J . Mortensen Tr. - property owners; Withee Malcolm Architects LLP, architects) (325 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 920 Bayswater Ave - Staff Report 920 Bayswater Ave - Attachments - #1 920 Bayswater Ave - Attachments - #2 920 Bayswater Ave - Attachments - #3 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >Staff report notes that the applicant is currently working with an acoustical engineer to provide information requested by the Planning Commission at the November 26th meeting. Has a report been submitted yet? (Keylon: The applicant will address this question during his presentation.) Mark Pilarczyk, represented the applicant. >There are higher noise levels here than at Summerhill site, correct? (Pilarczyk: That is correct.) In reading the documentation from Summerhill's approval, vinyl windows were approved for that project because they couldn't meet the sound transmission class (STC) ratings any other way. Did you also find that you could not meet the required STC ratings without using a vinyl window? (Pilarczyk: Yes, that is correct. We're ultimately limited to this high end line vinyl project because of the STC ratings.) >Which one of the sample windows provided are you proposing to use now? (Pilarczyk: The Milgard Tuscany Series, however did provide an alternative window as was requested by the Commission.) >Do you know what is STC rating is for the Milgard Tuscany Series? (Pilarczyk: Submittal included the STC ratings from the manufacturer which is attached to the staff report. They could vary and produce different STC ratings depending on the window type.) >Are you still waiting for sound information from the noise consultant, Charles Salter? (Pilarczyk: Yes, waiting for final report. Noise consultant reviewed the information and was ready to provide a report, but indicated that based on information in the General Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration, they were consistent in saying that there were higher decibels because of the proximity to the train tracks and that you need to be at or above the STC ratings at the Summerhill site.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. >Thanked applicant for additional information, it was helpful to have. Commended applicant for working with the community on this project to ensure that it fits in with the neighborhood. >Have looked at the Milgard Tuscany window or similar windows a lot over the years. Can only remember one project where they have been approved, the Summerhill project, which was because it was the only window they could find that met the STC ratings. And for the specific reason, can support a motion to approve it. >Generally speaking, it doesn't meet the design review guidelines. Have had lots of applicants come in Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes with this specific window and we've denied those requests, to the point where the Commission has made applicant remove these windows after they've been installed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project the applicant shall return to the Planning Commission for an FYI with a letter prepared by an acoustical engineer regarding the noise impacts to potential residents of the proposed project and the sound rating required for the windows to meet the Building Code requirements. Commission Discussion: >Thanked the applicant for the additional information provided. Still don't like vinyl windows, but understand that applicant must comply with building code regulations. Happy that you and staff did the research on Summerhill, which we clearly approved for that very reason, which was to meet the STC ratings requirement. >Had suggested a couple of other window manufacturers at the last meeting and reviewed the specifications sheet for those windows. Found that the STC ratings are slightly lower than the proposed window, so assume that it makes a difference. >Also not a fan of vinyl windows, but applicant has changed enough of the other exterior materials to help us find a middle ground. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - g.150 Park Road (Parking Lot F), zoned HMU & R-4: Application for Design Review, Density Bonus Incentives and Lot Merger for construction of a new 132-unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Pacific West Architecture, architect) (405 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 150 Park Rd (Lot F) - Staff Report 150 Park Rd (Lot F) - Attachments CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 150 Park Rd (Lot F) - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. >The design of the park element is not under consideration, correct? (Hurin: That's correct. City staff will work with the applicant on the design and may share the proposal with the Parks and Recreation Commission for their input.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Caleb Roope, Doug Gibson and Chris Grant, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >In looking at your civil plan it looks like they got the flow -through biotreatment. But the swath of coloring encompasses the tree wells where the two existing magnolias and the new magnolia are. In looking at the landscape plan, am I correct in understanding that the flow -through biotreatment won't be where the mangolia trees are located? Just want to make sure the magnolia trees will be not damaged . (Gibson: Correct, we would only be doing the flow -through biotreatment where new ground level planting is . The intent would be that we would modify that area for the new planting.) >On sheet A3.1, there is a swath of area outside of the garage identified by a green diagonal hatch . What is that area? Will that be shoring area or that's just outside the limits of your construction? (Gibson: That area primarily would be for service access to the base of the structure.) (Grant: Would also note that at the request of the Fire Marshal, that area was provided wide enough so that there was pedestrian access for fire apparatus.) > Regarding the proposed windows, I don't recall seeing muntins between the glazing when we last reviewed the project. We didn't have that detail provided on the revised plans. Why the muntins between the glazing as opposed to expressed on the exterior and interior, like a simulated true divided lite? (Gibson: The proposed Alside windows meets the price point for the project in order to be economically feasible.) >In past experience we have not accepted the muntins between the glazing, it's just not expressive enough. (Grant: Would the Commission accept a window design that did not include muntins between the glazing much like the submittal in February?) If there was a choice between muntins between the glazing or not, would prefer no muntins. However, don't know if architecture will still work without the muntins. >The issue that I have is that when lights hits the windows, the muntins between the glazing look like security bars on the inside of a window. Would be one of the last characteristics that we would want this project to have. It's something we'll need to continue to discuss and perhaps look at other options. >The stucco is true cementitious base stucco, not an EIFS exterior finish, correct? (Gibson: Correct, the intent would be a three-layer stucco). >The lap siding is cementitious Hardie board, correct? (Gibson: Correct.) >Wood is called out for the trellis, that's not a Trex material, correct? (Gibson: Correct, it would be timbered wood provided with proper waterproofing and flashing.) >Is the community space intended to be accessible by the public? (Gibson: It's meant to be used by the residents of the facility, it's not meant to be a space that can be leased out or rented for community events. Not intended to be used as a commercial space as a revenue generator for the property.) >Would the doors leading to the space typically be locked and only unlocked if there was a party or some type of gathering to let people come off from the street? (Roope: It's an amenity for the residents that live there. Lobby will be accessible all of the time, but other parts of the building would be open during the day when the on -site management team is there. Somebody could come in from the outside, but then would meet the manager on site and work with them. >How would one enter this space from the inside of the building? (Roope: There is an access provided through the mail room.) >Transformer roof and electrical room have doors leading from the street, is that your intention? Would they be serviced from those doors? (Roope: Yes, those rooms would be locked and serviced that way .) Are they glass doors? (Roope: They are all designed to have a storefront look to be consistent with the architecture of the building; would be designed so that you would not be able to see into the rooms.) >Would the glass doors provide enough security of the equipment? (Roope: Doors would be solid, could work with staff to study that issue further.) >Given that approximately half of the residents will be seniors, was there any thought to having an ADA ramp from the lobby to the first floor? (Roope: Elevator provides access from the lobby to the first floor, there is also an elevator from the parking garage to the main floor, where more of the senior housing is located.) >What is the height of the canopy at the main entrance to the building? (Gibson: Approximately between 13 and 14 feet.) >Realize that the canopy is establishing the main entrance, but at that height does it provide enough weather protection? (Roope: Shouldn't be an issue because the lobby doors would be open, so one would not need a key to open the door. Canopy height appears to be more like 10 to 11 feet, can look at details Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and study further.) (Gibson: Could look at lowering it to match the other canopies, however the design intent was to bring it up higher to announce the entry.) >Think the different material face at that area, lighting and signage would be enough of an indicator where the entrance would be, so lowering the canopy might be more useful for the users. >Stepping back the building mass is helpful, but also seems that two of the more robust and outward corners of the building were placed on the park side of the building. Is there a reason why they weren't placed on the front of the building instead of the rear? (Gibson: Tried to accomplish a couple of things . Have two apartment buildings at the rear, some of which have balconies and patios which are very close to our property line. In working with the neighbors, tied to soften that elevation. As a result, transferred that loss of square footage to the front of the building. (Gibson: Also reprogrammed some of the elements on the floor plans at the rear of the building to make it more urban, provide access from the raised patio to grade at rear. This is a four sided structure, not turning our backs to anyone.) >Have you considered changing some of the colors on the building? Concern is with the yellow color on the rooftop mechanical and stairway enclosures. Would like to see a softer color. (Gibson: We could paint them down so that they would only look like an apparatus on the roof. Went through multiple color iterations following the last meeting. Concerned that we were starting to wash out the building, there is a lot of movement and massing on the structure. Feel that contrast of proposed colors will be a signature type of color for this development.) >Do you know what brand of paint you're using? Do you have specific color names picked out? (Gibson: Colors are noted on the color board. Can provide additional smaller or larger samples. Not married to the yellow, but want to come up with a color that is agreeable to the Commission.) >Application of colors working well with the continuity of the different planes. Like the way the colors are working now. Only have concern with the Jade color on the awnings it reminds me of 1980's post-modernism, worried about it getting dated fast. Should revisit this color. >Would like to see storage for bicycles or Lime bikes. Would also like to see seating provided near the entrance. (Gibson: Have programmed in storage for 20 bicycles within the building. We have the room, so we can look into adding those elements.) >Is that a railing at the roof level? Will it be visible from the street? (Gibson: That is actually screening for the rooftop equipment, it will be horizontal banding that looks like it's part of the building. You'd have to be pretty far back to see it from the street.) >Have you considered any other materials other than Hardie for the horizontal lap siding? (Gibson: We've used Allura, which is a step down from Hardie if it gets too expensive on a project.) Have you looked at using any wood products? (Gibson: Not for a product of this size. If wood was considered, it would be placed lower on the building so that it could be easily maintained.) (Roope: Durability and maintenance concerns are at the top of the list when building affordable housing. Maintenance of wood is a cost to the property and threatens the long term affordability of the asset. Spend more money if needed upfront on durability to make sure maintenance is not an issue.) >Saw some products at the Pacific Coast Builders Conference this is impregnated wood, it looks great and has a 25 year warranty. I believe the brand was Thermory. Should look into newer product options to see if it would make sense costwise. (Roope: Could look into other options, products are improving over time.) >Recall that at the last meeting, neighbor to rear expressed a concern regarding the existing Cypress tree along the rear property line. (Roope: Have been working closely with the neighbor.) Public Comments: Tom Cady, 128 Lorton Avenue: Our property is located directly across the street from the project site . Thanked the Commission for their committment to the community. Noticed evolution of growth in Burlingame, glad to see Commission is here to preserve design standards. Met with developer and have reviewed several of his projects. Belive they have a committment to do things right. Am in support of the project. Marina Franco, owner of apartment building behind project site: Thanked developer for working with us to Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes increase setbacks at the rear of the building. The portion of the lot on Park Road is zoned HMU and the park portion of the site on Lorton Avenue is zoned R -4. Will the lot merger affect the zoning? (Hurin: The park portion of the site would remain R-4, unless there is a proposal in the future to rezone the lot.) Tom Hafill, 110 Park Road: Building has a lot of articulation, don't think it needs as many colors as proposed, think one solid color would look better. Thought it was mentioned that there would be 4,000 square feet of commercial space, want to make sure there will be no commercial or retail space in the building. Renderings don't show any utility poles. Existing utility poles are ugly and block views of cars when existing the site. Would like to see utilities placed underground as part of this project. Based on shadow studies, it appears that our pool and gazebo area will be in a shadow all afternoon during the summer months. Would have liked to see building stepped back so that our recreation area wouldn't be in shadows during the summer. Is there any way to revise the project at this point? David Mendell, 214 Lorton Avenue: Project has improved a lot and will continue to improve as it's being processed. Important to complete construction of the public parking garage before the housing project . Because it's such a big project, it's important to consider were the construction workers will be parking. Mike Dunham: Am a member of a group called Housing for All Burlingame that advocates for renter protections and affordable housing in our community. Thank you all and the developers for the work that's been done so far on this project. We're in a housing crisis but there is in particular an affordable housing crisis. If you look at the Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers for the last few years, Burlingame has built three affordable units out of 420 that we should have permitted by now. Is an enormous problem that is only getting worse and by the year. Strongly disagree with the suggestion that the parking structure be built first, the City would be much better off finding an off -site solution for parking temporarily because you'll need to deal with 100 plus parking spaces disappearing anyways. There is no way the City can absorb that as is you have to find a solution. Know it's really the City Council's purview, but would strongly encourage this that the housing portion be be prioritized. Timing matters a lot, would urge you to move this project through as quickly as possible, we are about to face a tsunami of 4,000 highly-paid Facebook employees working very nearby in 2020. Hopefully most of them choose to stay wherever they are and ride on buses to get here, but assume some percentage of them will look at the good schools and walkable downtown and will choose to live in Burlingame. That will only make the pressure on renters worse and worse. Two weeks ago met a single mom and her middle -school aged daughter, who are getting their rent increased by $1,000 a month from her landlord. She is lucky because she was able to negotiate the rent increase down to $700 a month. If you're a homeowner and were told that your property taxes were going up $1,000 a month, you would be very upset and in fact that happened and Prop 13 exists. Renters are getting killed in this City, so it is critical that development happens quickly and it's especially critical that the affordable housing goes in as soon as possible. Urge you to keep this project moving. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. >My understanding of the plans is that the utility poles are remaining in place. In fact the housing project and parking garage had to be stepped back because of the existing utility poles that are remaining in place. >Interpreted the 4,000 square foot commercial space as the area of the community room on the ground floor, but the project still does not include retail or what would be considered as traditional commercial or retail tenant space on that ground floor. >Really like the way that the project has evolved, the articulation and revisions that have been made . Just looking at a side -by-side comparison of the street elevation on the Park Road side, it's dramatically different in terms of the pedestrian experience, including the rhythm of the awnings, the storefront windows, bringing down the garage height, and some of the other articulation, I think is really important along that that side of the of the project. Especially like the element looking from the park area, it's a really nice piece of detailing along that side at the bottom with the awning. Like the way the cornices have been revised and bolstered and think th project is supportable at this point. >Concerned with the integrated muntins in between the glazing. Needs to be reconsidered, can come Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes back as an FYI. In looking at the expressions of the elevations, now have a simple cruciform muntin on windows, does help with the articulation of the elevation, but the muntins won't be seen. Think that if they could find a window that has the simulated true divided lites, not looking for a true divided lite window, can be a muntin on the exterior and interior with a spacer bar between the dual glazing. >Like the project, there have been some good changes that happened in the past year. Agree with the comments made regarding the windows and muntins. Would prefer to see no muntins at all rather than the cheap-looking muntins. Renderings are representative of what the building would look like without muntins because they don't show up in the renderings. On the previous project we looked at, the style required that additional articulation in the windows. This style is much simpler and more contemporary and doesn't require the muntins like the style of the last project did. If you can't find a way to solve the problem, then I'd rather not see the muntins at all. >Agree with the comments made regarding the teal color, don't think it's a good choice. >Would like to see a softening of the components on the roof. Like idea of having an area out front to park shared bikes, would help with concern over bikes being left on sidewalks. >Like project and look forward to seeing it started. >Agree with suggestion of having benches or a seating area in front of the building. >Would also like the applicant to look at the Hardie siding or wood siding material options. >Can staff share thoughts on the order of construction, which portion of the project should be built first? (Kane: This is one of several issues that has to be finalized with the City Council because it involves City land. There are issues about construction, staging and how many different contractors at different times you have pouring cement, so that's something that will need to be addressed on the Council side . The action tonight is the design approval and then we will keep you and the public updated, but there are a couple of issues that need to be tied out and that's one of them. Some of that will be dictated by the realities of the economics of the financing structure because this involves a lot of tax credit financing, and also how to minimize impacts on the City. This project will have parking impacts, these are used lots, and so the Cities' Public Works Department will need to work very closely with the project on timing and make sure that we have a back -up plan for how consumers and workers are going to be able to park once these parking lots go offline. There will inevitably be a delay between when one of them goes offline and the parking structure gets built. At a recent City Council study session, the applicant noted that because of the lack of finish work, construction of the parking garage goes faster. So once it gets underway, it has a shorter build time to completion than the housing. >Do you know how long construction will take for the garage? (Grant: Trying to shorten to get much closer to a year.) (Kane: It's an aggressive time frame, 18 months to be safe.) Chair Gaul reopened the public hearing. Roope: Haven't seen the final version of the conditions of approval for the project, but had a few items we wanted to request with your permission. Condition #3 deals with the affordability levels, is subject to City Council, would like to add to that condition the phrase "unless modified by the City Council". Reason for that is that there have been tax law changes in the past year, and there is an opportunity to serve an additional band of income levels that may be more appropriate for teachers in the community, an 80% AMI level. Want to preserve the Council the opportunity do that if they so choose. Regarding Condition #28, would be helpful to substitute "grading" for "building", to be able to submit for a separate grading permit in order to move the project along faster. Could save a few months while the building permit for the project is being processed. (Kane: Difficult to be drafting conditions during the meeting. Note that staff exchanged some edits prior to the meeting, which have been provided to the Commission. Think that wording can still work with a partial permit issuance, that way it is still a building permit, it's just not saying which part of the building permit, so we don't have to redraft the condition.) Roope: Had a question regarding Condition #47, which has to do with the time period we are not allowed to construct because of nesting birds. Usually we see some kind of further definition, such as an endangered bird or protected bird, but the condition is so broad that one could interpret it to mean any type of bird, don't know if that was the intent but that could be a real problem if it includes any type of Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes bird. Don't want to staff stuck in a box where we're having to conduct a survey for a common bird and it disrupts the project meaningfully. (Kane: After the first sentence in Condition #47, we could add "to the extent feasible as determined by staff".) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application including the revised conditions provided to the Planning Commission at the meeting, the language discussed for Condition #47, and the following condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review of the following items: -revise the type and style of windows from internal grids to either simulated true divided muntins with a spacer bar between the dual glazing or windows with no muntins; provide window details and revise building elevations/renderings; -revisit the color specified for the storefront and awnings (“Jargon Jade” or equal previously specified); -revisit the color specified for the structures on the roof (“Honey Bees” or equal previously specified); -provide bicycle parking and bench seating near the main entrance to the building; must be determined feasible by the Department of Public Works if provided within the right-of-way; and -revisit alternative options for the Hardie horizontal lap siding, such as wood or other material. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - h.160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N), zoned R-4: Application for Design Review and Lot Merger for construction of a new five -level parking garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Watry Design, Inc ., designer) (319 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 160 Lorton Ave (Lot N) - Staff Report 160 Lorton Ave (Lot N) - Attachments CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 160 Lorton Ave (Lot N) - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chris Grant and Genaro Morales, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Do you have any point of reference as to what the metal mesh will look like? Suggest taking a look at the mesh on the wall of the Audi dealer on Broadway, it's handled very well on the that building. Would help to jazz up the building given the amount of concrete on the structure. (Morales: Included a detail of the mesh in the attachments.) >Mesh is a woven wire fabric, so there will need to be a subframe to attached that to, but it is not shown on the rendering. Concerned the frame will be larger and overdone, don't want to see huge members holding up the light fabric. (Morales: Agree, there are two reasons not to build it that way. First, the expense of using a lot of steel. Second, don't want it to be bulky. It will be a tension fabric, so it will be supported at the top and bottom to provide the tension. So will try to minimize the size of the subframe.) >Concrete is poured in place, not precast, correct? (Morales: That is correct.) >Some of it will be high end, architectural finish, right? (Morales: We are proposing for the board form to show the ties and provide a smoother finish than what is normally done.) >When I hear board form, I think of a rugged, very textured finish. (Morales: No, it's the form work, will provide a smooth finish.) >Will all the concrete be the same color, or will there be variation of color? (Morales: The color may vary in tones, based on the way it's poured. The intent is not to color the concrete. Difference would be in the finish, which would provide some reflection and contrast. If you want color, might as well paint it.) >Like the paseo along the side of the structure. There is a passage gateway feature at the alley along Burlingame Avenue between Lorton Avenue and California Drive. Would like to see a pedestrian scale created to the entrance to the paseo on either end, would make it more special to enter and walk along the paseo, given that the structure is so tall. (Morales: Can take a look at that.) >Has there been any consideration given to a zip car operation here? This solution works well in San Francisco and helps to get people out of owning cars. (Grant: Willing to work with staff, conversation are ongoing.) (Kane: Zip car feature would note change the architecture of the building. These programming questions will be up to the City to decide in the long term. Project has agreed to provide the conduit so that we can have EV charging stations in a designated area.) >Can you tell us more about the panels needed to conceal headlights? Will they be colored? (Morales: Panels will be prefinished 16-gauge plates. Will be colored.) Public Comments: Gary Vielbam, business owner at 124 Highland Avenue: Located across the street from project. Need access on Highland Avenue, concerned with the amount of construction material, staging and construction workers and how it will impact my business. Need to be able to maneuver cars in and out of shop. David Mendell: In support of project, parking is needed downtown. Passageway appears too narrow for the trees as shown. Hopes this does not become a hold site for construction of the housing project, want to keep project moving, downtown desperately needs parking. Michael Brownrigg: Thanked Commission for their time on the housing project, design got a lot better. Is one step closer to 132 families having a place to live. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Have come to like the design as it is now proposed. Critical that details on screen mesh be worked out. Like the way it adds varied mass to the building. Like the idea of enclosing the stair with the mesh, Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes will be a much nicer experience with the open stair. >Like the way the massing is articulated, has some calm to it. Variation between metal panels and cable railings at lower level, adds articulation and spark. Storefront glass helps with the pedestrian experience. Paseo helps soften building along ground level and provide connection without having got walk through the garage. >Assume there will be a construction logistics plan that gets worked out with Public Works in terms of timing sequencing, construction worker parking, etc. >Did not see any parking signage on the plans, assume there will be lighted signs indicating available parking. >Like the way the project is simplified, with a simple concrete structure, cable rail, and few urban gestures with the metal panels. >Based on its location and proximity to residential uses, feel that it is still too rough around the edges for being a mid -block large parking structure. Missing level of charm, needs to be a little better for its location. >Project has improved a lot since the first iteration. No matter what, it is still a large parking structure. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the following condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review of the details of the architectural screening and a detail of the sub frame showing how the architectural screening is supported/attached to the parking structure. Comment on the motion: >Should think about the architectural screen very carefully and what is used to hold up the screen. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Nay:Kelly1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1628 Lassen Way, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a major renovation and first and second story addition, including Front and Side Setback Variances to increase the height of nonconforming walls and Side Setback Variance for the first floor addition . (Master SWU Associates, Steve Wu, applicant and designer; Jeff Leung, property owner ) (139 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1628 Lassen Way - Staff Report 1628 Lassen Way - Attachments 1628 Lassen Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >Do we know what the block average is for the front setback? (Keylon: Can review the plans to see if that information is provided. However, the minimum required front setback to a garage is 25 feet.) >The plate heights are being raised throughout the first floor to 10 feet, except at the garage where it's increasing from 8 feet to 9 feet, correct? (Keylon: No, the garage plate height is also being raised to 10 Page 19City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes feet.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Steve Wu, project designer, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >The only area where the plate height is increasing from 8 to 10 feet is the great room, but would a variance still be required for increasing the plate heights from 8 to 9 feet? (Keylon: Yes, a variance is required because the plate heights are increasing on nonconforming walls; considered to be an intensification of a nonconforming wall.) >What is the purpose of increasing the plate heights throughout the ground floor? (Wu: Project includes removing most of the existing walls, increasing bedrooms sizes, and modernizing the space, so it's a matter of proportion. Great room at rear of house includes dining room, family room and kitchen. So given its size, felt that increasing the plate height would be in proportion with the space in plan view. Reason for the front setback variance at the garage was to raise the plate height so that it is consistent with the rest of the house along the front facade. Plate height for the existing garage sits 20 inches below what is being proposed.) >In looking at the building section on sheet A 06, you're increasing the plate height to 10 feet, but you're also vaulting the ceiling. Do you still feel you need to increase the plate height to 10 feet even though you're vaulting the ceiling? (Wu: Yes.) >One of the hardest things in justifying a variance is making a finding that there is an exceptional circumstance that is related to the property itself that is different than the surrounding properties. It's unclear from this application what is unique about this property than the neighboring properties. (Wu: Difference is that this property will be improved and have modern spaces, which is why we decided to raise the ceilings to be consistent with the proportions. Larger spaces with an 8 foot ceiling would feel squat . Would point out that the existing living room has a 9 foot ceiling, so property owner has a sense of the difference between 8 and 9 foot ceilings and made the decision to increase the plate height to 9 feet.) >Currently have walkways from the sidewalk and driveway leading to the front door. Proposed landscape plan shows eliminating the walkway from the sidewalk and changing the walkway from the driveway to the new front door. Will the remaining area in the front yard and along the side of the house really just be grass? Will there be any planting areas? (Wu: Yes, that is correct.) Would encourage you to revist the landscape plan to add more planting areas and softening of the building. >What is meant by "stacked stone" as indicated for the wainscoting on the house? (Wu: Stacked stone is a stone veneer that is attached as a siding material, comes in 4 foot panels.) How thick is the stone veneer? (Wu: It's 5 inches thick.) >Presume that at the new entry, the stone veneer does not turn back towards the door, but rather shears off at the entry towards the north side. At the garage side, is the stone veneer glued on to the front of the garage or does it return down the side of the garage? (Wu: Stone veneer does return along the exterior sides of the house, as well as on the inside wall towards the entry.) >Stone veneer is 5 inches thick, so will it sit proud of the stucco by approximately 4 inches. Will there be a cap on the veneer? (Wu: Yes, there will be a cap on it.) This should be articulated on the plans. >The way the building elevations are drawn, it appears that the stucco is proud of the stone veneer, is that what you intended? (Wu: No, that was not intended. Will revise the building elevations accordingly.) >How do you propose to increase the plate heights? (Wu: To increase plate heights from 8 to 9 feet, would use a 3 1/2 x 11 7/8 psl beam on top of the existing wall. To increase plate to 10 feet, would build a wall on top of the existing wall and shear it with plywood.) >So you wouldn't need to remove the stucco? (Wu: The intent is not to remove the existing stucco.) >Will be doing a lot of work to make the walls taller and the entire existing roof is being removed, so have you thought of moving the walls in to comply with setback requirements and eliminating some of the variance requests? (Wu: Trying to keep costs down, so would be concerned with pouring new foundations for new walls.) >What type of windows are being proposed? (Wu: Aluminum clad are proposed.) Page 20City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >We have on occasion for some variances accepted as a unique circumstance, a building that was built prior to having ordinances and setback requirements. While the existing footprint of the house could be accepted as an exceptional circumstance, could not make the finding that by not granting the variance, the property owner is being denied a property right. There doesn't seem to be a substantial property right that is lost through denial of the variance. Don't see a right to have a 9 or 10 foot plate height as a reasonable property right that if we deny the variance they wouldn't have access to. Can't make the findings for the variance. >While we may consider a 9 or 10 foot plate on a new house, if it complied with all of the development requirements, we may be able to make that consideration. However, can't make that in this case if we have to grant a variance, especially considering that the house doesn't need to have that height. In fact by having that height, it make the first floor look that much taller relative to a lot of the other houses in the neighborhood. For most houses of the same style and character, the eave is just above the garage door, and that is what is typically seen as the character and pattern in the neighborhood. Having a tall first floor and garage hurts the design. Can't make findings for design review based on the proposed design. >Having difficulty with the variance requests. Also concerned with the massing, is front -loaded, which is what we try to avoid. >Concerned with how stacked stone will look like, so would be helpful to see a sample. >This project is a good candidate for a design review consultant. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the application to a design review consultant. Commission Discussion: >Existing plate heights should be kept as they are, would eliminate a lot of problems. >See no justification for the variances, especially in this neighborhood. >There are still a lot of single story bungalows in this neighborhood. The intent of the design guidelines is to minimize second floors, think this design has a long way to go to address our concerns. >9 foot second floor plate height also needs to be looked at. >Applicant should discuss with the design review consultant the landscape plan. Don't need a lot of detail, but needs to be thought through in terms of planting areas and large species as opposed to a simple indication of just lawn. >There are a few large houses in the neighborhood and on that block, would caution the applicant that many of those houses were built prior to design review, so shouldn't look to those as examples to follow. >Should consider adding a front porch, is exempt from floor area ratio and would add to the depth of the house. >To help with keeping a lower profile on the second floor, should consider changing the gables to hip roofs since there is a predominant profile of a hipped roof. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 21City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no Commissioners reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.185 Pepper Avenue - FYI for changes requested by the Planning Commission to a previously approved Design Review project. 185 Pepper Ave - Memorandum 185 Pepper Ave - Attachments 185 Pepper Ave - Approved Plans 185 Pepper Ave - Proposed Plans Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on December 10, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 20, 2018, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 22City of Burlingame Printed on 3/6/2019 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 28, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent5 - Sargent, and LoftisAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA >Item 8a - Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development has been continued to a future Planning Commission Meeting. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development Staff Report Residential Impact Fee Ordinance - Exhibit A Seifel Consulting Report Proposed Resolution - Residential Impact Fees Proposed Resolution - Prevailing Wages Public Notice Attachments: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Item 8a - Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development has been continued to a future Planning Commission Meeting. b.1020 Toyon Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Genesis King Hwa LLC, applicant and property owner; Christian Ruffat, designer) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1020 Toyon Dr - Staff Report 1020 Toyon Dr - Attachments 1020 Toyon Drive - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Christian Ruffat, Residential Design Solutions, represented the applicant, with the property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: >The notes specify two different window manufacturers. Has a manufacturer been determined? (Ruffat: Had originally planned on an Andersen product, but more recently changed to another manufacturer. Had not updated the notes accordingly.) Does not matter which manufacturer is selected, but should make sure the windows have simulated true-divided lites. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Has come a long way. The process has worked well, and likes the end result. >Add a condition specifying that the windows shall have simulated true divided lites. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application with the following condition: >All of the new windows shall be either true divided lite windows or simulated true divided lite windows; The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Sargent, and Loftis2 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c.2721 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (accessory dwelling unit permit has been eliminated from project). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 153031 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Xie Guan, Xie Associates, Inc., applicant and architect; Lin Yun Ping, property owner) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 2721 Martinez Dr - Staff Report 2721 Martinez Dr - Attachments 2721 Martinez Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Bill Guan, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Was the size of the deck reduced, or just the usable space? (Guan: The overall size is the same, but the usable area has been reduced.) Public Comments: Martha Valle, 2715 Martinez Drive: Concern with privacy and noise from the patio, as it is adjacent to the bedrooms of the neighboring house. Not sure what a planter will do, whether it will be maintained. Cannot tell where the entrance to the downstairs family room is; if it is from the side it would be directly next to the bedrooms of the neighboring house. Would prefer an entrance be from the back or from the garage. Commission question to the applicant: >Would it be possible to have the door open through the bedroom and rear yard instead? (Guan: Does not understand the concern. There is an 8-foot setback from the property line, and a 7- to 8-foot fence, then another 8 feet to the next house. It is probably 16 feet to the neighboring house.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Applicant and designer have made changes, and has benefited from the design review process. The architecture has been simplified and fits more into the context of the neighborhood. >Removing the stone veneer and changing the materials of the banisters in the rear are improvements. >Side doors are not unusual and should not be an issue in this instance. >Deck has been reduced to a reasonable size, and there is privacy screening. The size of the deck is within the range of what is ordinarily approved. >Design review consultant has suggested a condition to require installation of irrigation in the deck planter and install screening. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition: >The building permit shall include a planting and irrigation plan for the planter located on the left side of the deck at the rear of the second floor; the deck planter landscaping and irrigation shall be maintained and in proper working order to sustain the privacy screening. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Sargent, and Loftis2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1448 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for Declining Height Envelope and for a basement with a direct exit, for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage. (Eric Bluestein, applicant and property owner; RDS-Residential Design Solutions, designer) (121 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1448 Drake Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1448 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Plannner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Christian Ruffat, Residential Design Solutions, represented the applicant, with property owners Eric and Allison Bluestein. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is there a reason why there is not a clay tile roof given the Spanish /Mediterranean style? (A. Bluestein: Likes the style of a gray shingle roof. Based the selection on an inspiration photo.) >If this were a level lot would there still be an encroachment into the declining height envelope? (Ruffat: Does not believe there would be. It is a sloping lot, the measurement is taken from the top of curb, and the two story element on the left prompts the exception.) >Was there thought to embellishing the front porch area with an element such as a portico? (Ruffat: It reflects the design intent from the owners.) >There is a delicate quality to the front, except for the large front window. Was there consideration of sculpting at all, or perhaps scalloped corners? (A. Bluestein: It's a design preference, and has seen other examples in the neighborhood. There is a house across the street with a similar large window.) There are ways to still have a large window but break down the scale a bit, such as a turned mullion that would reference the scale of the other windows. >The fireplace box does not have a chimney. Any thought to having a chimney? (Ruffat: There was a chimney in an earlier rendition, but to save money and simplify the construction it was removed.) >The fireplace can be a nice architectural element. Right now it just looks like a bump. >How will the windows be recessed? (Ruffat: 2 x 6 walls with a 2 x 4 window jam.) >Will the plaster wrap header trim be similar to the photo that has been provided? (Ruffat: Correct.) Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There do not appear to have overhangs on the gable ends. Looks like it is missing something, perhaps the cove at the bottom of the gable ends could wrap around under the rake. It would provide relief and not look so flat. (Ruffat: Will probably be an exposed rafter tail. Will provide additional refinement .) Looks like thin edge of roofing on the top of a flat wall. >Given the slope of the lot, expects the basement will be exposed on the back side, not sure the exterior stair will actually happen. Not a proponent of the stair exiting from the basement, as it brings activity to the side yard rather than rear yard. That can be a potential nuisance with neighbors given how close houses are to the fences and to each other. Should prepare a site section from the front to the back and see if an entrance can be from the back instead. (A. Bluestein: Has met with the adjacent neighbor and he is aware of the stairs. He has written a letter of support.) >Landscape plan shows shows an A /C condenser unit in the side yard, obstructing the side stair . (Ruffat: There will be 3 feet clearance between the unit and the side.) >What is the horizontal line on the elevations between the first and second stories? (Ruffat: Meant to be smooth.) >Is the declining height envelope encroachment about 3 1/2 feet? (Ruffat: That sounds about right. It is mostly from the stair gable incursion, and a portion of the gable element on the front elevation. It's about 1 1/2 feet in each ohorizontalal and vertical directions.) >Would it be possible to reduce the dimensions of some of the room sizes to avoid the declining height envelope encroachment? (Ruffat: Prefers to keep it as it is in the front and the stair, but can consider it.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Concept is appealing. However some aspects are too two -dimensional, for example from the top of the second floor windows up it looks too flat. Seems like a lot of flat wall. >The choice of the roofing material adds to the flatness. Tile would provide more relief >For new homes, declining height exceptions have been approved to accommodate distinct, prescribed architectural styles. This house has elements of simple plantation style, but there are other elements such as the gable ends with the curved corbel that has a Spanish Revival or Mediterranean quality. >The flat front is lacking a single -story or first floor element like a lot of the other houses in the neighborhood. Other two-stroy houses in the neighborhood have single -story elements that provide scale . Otherwise it creates a flat front or flat box, which makes it hard to justify a special permit for the declining height envelope encroachment. >Concern with side entrance from the basement, in potential to create a nuisance. >Fireplace would look better with a chimney element. >It looks like there is a grade differential of 9 feet. If the family room in the basement were to be moved further back, it might be possible to have access directly into the backyard. However it might no longer be considered a basement. (Keylon: Portions with 2 feet or more above grade would be counted towards floor area. As currently proposed, all of the basement is below grade so is not counted towards floor area.) >Window at the front could be OK if there is relief elsewhere. Needs to be consistent with the detailing of the rest of the house. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones4 - Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Sargent, Loftis, and Tse3 - b.1629 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and designer; Peter and Judith Cittadini TR, property owners) (119 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1629 Howard Ave - Staff Report 1629 Howard Ave - Attachments 1629 Howard Ave - Historic Resource Study 1629 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There is a new parking area shown on the site plan where the driveway is being widened in front of the house. Is that allowed? (Keylon: It is allowed for accessory dwelling units. If project does not contain an ADU, it is not allowed unless it's leading to a garage. Would not be allowed in this case since an ADU is not proposed.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Have you talked to the neighbor on the right on the corner of Howard Avenue and Occidental Avenue? Their back yard backs up against your right side of the property. (Bittle: Their side yard where the garage is really their yard, so we tried to open up also in flipping the garage to the opposite corner; creates an open space that the two properties can share. Have not talked to this neighbor.) >Have you decided on the type of stone cladding? Encourage you to choose something in the vernacular that fits the neighborhood, should not choose river rock. (Bittle: Thinking to use a natural stone, but don't have that detail yet.) >Plans call out aluminum clad windows and doors. Are you familiar with the simulated true divided lite muntins that we look for? Please add note to plans specifying type of muntins. (Bittle: Yes.) >Understand explanation of massing and trying to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. Think there is support for it in looking at the massing of the houses on either side. Plate heights are 10 feet on the first floor and 9 feet on the second floor. House is within the limit allowed. Second floor windows are tall, and there is a lot of freeboard of shingles that makes the second floor feel heavy. Will the second floor ceilings be vaulted and have volume? (Bittle: Yes, there will be sloped ceilings. Did look at lower plate heights on both floors, but it looked out of scale compared to the house on Occidental Avenue. Also used trim on the gable ends to break down the face of the house.) Should revisit reducing the second floor plate height, perhaps bringing it down to 8'-6", would help with scale as you work from freeboard below window sills to the tall windows. (Bittle: Will take a look at it.) >Like style of existing bungalow with low slung roof and wood brackets. >Existing house has tapered front columns, new house has simple square columns that look light for this design. Could you consider tapered columns with a solid base? Would make the front of the house pop. >Are trim boards on gable ends flat against the wall with shingle in between them or pulled out under Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the barge rafter? (Bittle: They are flat against the wall. Probably should transition to a clapboard between something different material.) Could look really nice if the trim was pulled out, would help the design, should consider it to make things jump out more. (Bittle: We're not too deep on the rake as shown, not enough to get the emphasis you're looking for.) >Agree that plate height should be reduced, would help bring back the Craftsman design we are losing in the existing house. >There doesn't appear to be an weather protection over the rear patio doors. Should consider an eave overhang or other detail to protect those doors from weather. (Bittle: With current waterproofing methods, it should work. Looked at adding a trellis, but decided against it because the yard is so small and want to bring light into the house. Can look at recessing it a bit, but not looking to do a full covered roof.) Public Comments: Neighbor on Occidental Avenue (name not provided): Did not review proposed plans until today. Concerned about window placement and privacy on side of house facing my home. Appreciate thoughtfulness of the size of windows and them not being located directly from my office. Would like owner to consider adding privacy hedges between houses. Less worried about first floor windows except at the rear of the house, where my kitchen sink window is located. Concerned with second floor facing daughter's bedroom. More than likely lines up with the stairwell window, which will always produce light at nighttime. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Landscape plan should be developed further. Suggestion to add landscape screening along the driveway would be helpful. >Delineate size of patio in back yard on the site plan, floor plan and landscape plan. >Should check with staff if pull-out area in driveway is allowed by code. >Revisit plate heights, particularly on second floor. Would help with overall scale; adjusting by six inches or so would help with the overall context of this house fitting in with the neighbors. >Revisit front porch columns as discussed. >Indicate size of wood trims, brackets, and corbels on building elevations. >Indicate simulated true divided lite windows on building elevations. >Encourage applicant to meet with the neighbors to discuss details of the project, including adding landscape screening along both side yards of the house. >Encourage applicant to meet with neighbor on right to review alignment of the windows. Could consider making stairwell window frosted glass to reduce light impact. >Would be helpful to see alignment of windows with neighboring house to right on plans. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Sargent, and Loftis2 - c.1350 Columbus Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company, applicant and architect; Rich Schoustra and Holly Rogers, property owners) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1350 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1350 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1350 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Is there a maximum a variance can exceed over the 40% limit? (Keylon: No limit. Anything from 40% to 41% can be processed as a minor modification, otherwise it would be a variance and there is no limit.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company Architects, represented the applicant, with property owner Rich Schoustra. Commission Questions/Comments: >Are both windows on the front being replaced? (Diebel: They are close to the existing but are being replaced.) Should be indicated as new on the plans, with specification that they have simulated true divided lites. >There is an alcove just outside the kitchen. Was there thought of having a door leading out? (Diebel: There was an existing door but there was privacy concern from the adjacent neighbor. Thinking of it more as a garden area.)(Schoustra: That side of the house is dark.) >Has there been discussion of an elevator instead of expanding the first floor? (Schoustra: Does not feel safe with an elevator with the wheelchair. Original plan did not have the deck, but the variance is driven by the deck and need for access from the wheelchair.) >Size of variance seems large. Could tighten up the ground floor a bit. (Schoustra: If the lot was flat there would not need to be a variance. The slope of the lot causes the deck to be counted towards lot coverage.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Can support the variance. The slope of the lot creates a unique condition, requiring a lot coverage variance that would not be required if the site was flat. >Second floor has been added in very cleverly, fits with the context and detailing of the existing house . It looks like it was original, including the clipped gable. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Sargent, and Loftis2 - Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d.1095 Rollins Road, zoned C-1 - Application for Enviromental Scoping, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Height, Density Bonus, and Vesting tentative and final map for a new 6-story, 150-unit apartment building. (The Hanover Company, Scott Youdall, applicant; SA Properties Company L .P., property owner) (29 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1095 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1095 Rollins Rd - Application 1095 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1095 Rollins Rd- Renderings- 1.28.19 1095 Rollins Rd - Plans- 1.28.19 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had met with the applicant for a pre-application meeting, and Commissioner Comaroto had met with the applicant to review the project. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Is the percent of soft landscaping figure based on the proposed front setback or the required front setback? (Keylon: The proposed setback.) >What is new General Plan designation and zoning? (Keylon: General Commercial with a Multifamily Residential overlay allowing between 8 and 80 dwelling units per acre.) >What about the adjacent properties? (Keylon: Same.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Scott Youdall, Hanover Company, represented the applicant, with Jonathan Ennis, BDE Architects. Commission Questions/Comments: Environmental Scoping: >What is the elevation of the site currently? (Youdall: 6 or 7 feet above sea level.) >Has there been a geotech report? (Youdall: Yes.) Are you assuming you'll be driving piles? (Youdall: No, will not be driving piles. It will have a mat foundation. Will excavate 10 feet down to where the drive aisles will be, and a bit further down for pits. Most recent consultation with the geotech and structural engineer specified a 10-foot mat slab with folds in the mat for the pit.) >Will dewatering be required once the building is completed? (Youdall: Assumes dewatering during construction, but not waterproof post -construction. Does not assume an active dewatering system once construction is completed.) >Will there be a traffic study? (Youdall: Conducted a feasibility traffic study earlier; it showed traffic going straight out to Rollins Road and Broadway up to the freeway. It will be further studied in the environmental review.) General Plan Amendment and Design Review: >The zoning change would be supported if this was determined to be an appropriate location for this type of project. Believes it is; it would be a great use for this area. Adding additional housing units next to Northpark makes sense, and will add vitality to the area. There is a logic with it being adjacent to the same zoning. >Has the window manufacturer been identified? (Youdall: VPI.) Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Are there unit plans for ground floor stoop units? (Ennis: Would be similar to the units on the upper floors, except for the doors to the stoops. They stack up with the same layouts.) Would like to delineate the ground floor units on the plan, to show how the stoops integrate with landscaping. >Is there a tree planting schedule yet? (Youdall: It's not in the presentation but it's in the packet. There is a planting plan and a legend. London Plane street trees accented with Maples and Junipers to create a layered effect.) >Has there been any consideration to enhancing the design of the rear wall? Right now there is an open metal picket fence at the back of Northpark. Can the wall be articulated somehow? (Ennis: Can look at it. It is a concrete wall, could have some reveals.) Something to give it some texture, a visual camouflage perhaps with some colors and relief. >Has there been further thought on what options are being considered for the amenity space on second floor? It looks like a great space, adjacent to the courtyard. (Ennis: Probably fitness, and gathering room/club room.) >Is the loading area for tenant move -in and move-out? (Ennis: Yes. There is an elevator with direct access.) >What are the square footages of the roof decks? (Ennis: The plans have a special page with yellow and green shown the various areas.) If the roof decks were included as open space, would that meet the 50% open space requirement? (Youdall: Yes.) >Has there been engagement with Northpark? (Youdall: Equity Residential manages Northpark. A fence and landscape treatment will be coordinated with Northpark.) >How will guest parking be accommodated? Street parking? (Youdall: Some guest parking can be on the ground level in the front, and existing street parking along Rollins Road will be maintained. It is quite a ways away from the single family neighborhood to the south, so there is quite a bit of street parking available.) Expects the residents of the units with stoops will want to park in front of their units; will there be time restrictions on the street parking? (Youdall: Typically reserves a white curb near the lobby for ride share. Has not proposed any street parking restrictions in coordination with Public Works.) >Is there bicycle storage? (Youdall: Yes, there will be secured bike storage for residents in the area shown in gray in the garage level.) >Are electrical car chargers compatible with the lift system, and will there be chargers for every space? (Youdall: Yes, they are compatible with the lift system. There will not be chargers for every space, but typically installs a higher number than required by code. Additional spaces can be wired for the future if demand were to increase.) >Will the move-ins and move-outs need to be coordinated? (Youdall: Yes, there is a dedicated loading dock space, and it will be managed with reservations. Has had lots of experience with managing this on other projects.) >How does the trash get picked up? Can the trucks get to the trash room? (Youdall: Property management will take the bins out to the street on pickup days. Typically coordinate with the trash service and bring the bins back in once the trash has been collected.) >Why do some of the units not have balconies? Does not look as much residential as might be expected.(Youdall: Rollins faces the freeway, did not expect people would want to be out on balconies there. There are some balconies facing the courtyard. Considers balconies together with the other open spaces offered in the project, and finds people will often use the balconies only for storage and then use the common open spaces anyway.) >Have you reviewed the letter from Jennifer Pfaff about the landscaping? (Youdall: Yes. The landscape team talked with the City Arborist, who suggested the tree selection. The secondary layer of trees has smaller evergreen trees.) Has there been consideration of the room needed for the tree root structure in relation to the underground garage? (Youdall: Works very closely with the arborist and landscape team to ensure there is room for the bulbs and canopies. Takes this into account when choosing the trees, and sizing and spacing them.) Public Comments: James Cutsinger, building owner of 1011 Cadillac Way: Adjacent to the property, has concerns with the project. The proposed building is 74 feet high compared to smaller single -story building at 1011 Cadillac, Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes will block the morning light. Had skylights installed recently, concerned the proposed building will block the light. Concerned with construction noise over a 12- to 18-month project, the truck traffic, dust and debris. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The use is probably where the site is heading anyways, but has trouble with all the exceptions being requested. >Concerned with the height in relation to surroundings, will dwarf other buildings in the area and will not fit in with the scale, including the Northpark apartments. At Northpark the open space is on the ground and provides a buffer between the buildings. The rooftop gardens do not not work the same way, and the building is so close to the rear property line. >Would rather see the building scaled down to fit with the other buildings in the area. >Wants to see the traffic study. >Can't find arguments against the rezoning, but expects there will be a large contrast with the surroundings. >Would like to see a dedicated space for bikes and bike lockers, rather than just a room that may or may not be able to accommodate them. Could be helpful in reducing concerns with traffic, and would dovetail with the Broadway Caltrain opening in the future. Would provide an argument for reduced traffic impacts. >Would not have an issue with the height if there was more green space. Would like to see more relief somewhere else on the ground so it does not feel right on the street. Maybe the office could be pushed back a bit. >Looks like it is busting at the seams. >The parcels are smaller than the adjacent properties. Nicely designed complex, and a lot of thought has been put into how to utilize the spaces on the different levels. But concerned with the reduced front setback on such a busy street, but there is no buffer zone between the sidewalk and the stoops. Likes the project overall and supports the program but concerned with the Rollins Road frontage. >The project provides additional housing units in an area where units are desperately needed. This site is comprised of a unique combination of lots, very narrow, so there need to be concessions for achieving a project like this. >Understands why there are not balconies facing Rollins Road, they will be filled with noise and dust . The building itself serves as a buffer to the rest of the community, including Northpark. >It's impossible to compare to other buildings in the area, since they include a number of single -story buildings. The proposed building is tall but the carve -outs creating additional open space on the roof works based on that articulation. >As part of the environmental assessment, it would be helpful to see a shade and shadow study. The north direction is towards the freeway, so much of the shade and shadow will be towards the freeway . However wants to be able to see what happens in the morning towards the properties to the west. >Is in favor of the project in terms of the massing, style, and concessions being requested because they are in step with other provisions in the code, such as the density bonus and below market rate units . The project offers great community benefit. >There is a need for more housing, and this is a good location for more housing, but 140 units per acre seems very high compared to new General Plan designation of 80 units per acre. >The below market rate units in the Moderate category are not as affordable as one would expect. The rents will be very high; not sure how cutting back would hurt the project. >If the lot was bigger it would make sense to bring it down in scale and spread it out more, but since the lot is small and the development is being maximized it makes it feel like it is too much for the lot. There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental review has been completed. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 January 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Terrones suggested that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee be reconvened to discuss current issues of interest, such as metal roofs. Commission Comaroto reminded the Commission of an upcoming Planning Commissioners training being provided by 21 Elements on January 31st. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that at the January 22nd City Council meeting, the small cell applications from AT&T were approved. He noted that the final design that was approved was more streamlined and refined than the earlier design that the Planning Commission had considered, and that the applicant provided additional information on the site selection criteria. 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on January 28, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 7, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 3/7/2019 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 25, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and Senior Planner Erika Lewit. 2. ROLL CALL Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent6 - SargentAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no meeting minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1328 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Special Permit for reduction of on-site parking. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Hari and Depali Abhyankar, property owners) (163 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1328 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1328 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1328 Capuchino Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Sargent1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.250 California Drive, zoned CAR - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for a new, four-story mixed use office building (retail and office). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. (20 Hobart LLC, applicant and property owner; MBH Architects, architect) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 250 California Dr - Staff Report 250 California Dr - Attachments 250 California Dr - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Consideration of an Amendment to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning Code, to allow commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zone within Downtown Burlingame. Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Amendment to Title 25 Zoning - Staff Report Amendment to Title 25 Zoning - Attachments Proposed Amendments to Title 25 Zoning PC Resolution Attachments: Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Was there any discussion at the economic development subcommittee level in regards to hours of operation or would that be considered on a case -by-case basis as part of a conditional use permit application? (Hurin: That level of detail was not part of the discussion, however conditions of approval may be added as part of the conditional use permit application.) >Hours of operation for particular businesses could be of concern, such as fitness businesses operating in the early morning hours. (Hurin: Commercial recreation includes a variety of uses . Subcommittee focused on fitness uses, which could create concerns regarding noise; however these concerns could be addressed with conditions of approval limiting the hours of operation.) >What types of uses does commercial recreation include? (Hurin: In general, it includes athletic and fitness centers, gyms, art and dance studios, martial arts studios, bowling alleys, billiard halls, performance theaters, and activity /play centers for children and adults. Staff would evaluate a proposal and determine if it qualifies as a commercial recreation use.) >In the subcommittee meeting minutes, property owners made observations and suggestions including a minimum depth requirement for active retail at the front of the space. How was the 15-foot dimension Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes determined? (Hurin: Staff discussed the different businesses that are interested in opening in Burlingame, felt that 15 feet was an appropriate dimension to provide an active use so that it is visible from the street and to provide enough room for retail display or lounge /reception area. If the dimension is too short, then it will become left over space and not be used well. If the active space is too deep, the tenant may be concerned that it takes away from their primary business activity.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Conditional use permit process provides the level of protection in case an application presents possible negative impacts. Have no objections to the proposed ordinance. >At City Council and subcommittee levels, the issue has been vetted and discussed in regards to the changing face of retail, and the need to open ourselves up in terms of what types of uses are going to continue to make our downtown vibrant. We have to think about how downtowns are going to remain alive with e-commerce. Commercial recreation uses will continue to bring people downtown; don't see a reason not to allow it. >15-foot buffer is potential retail area, so will add to the retail feel on Burlingame Avenue. In support of proposed change. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance and resolution be approved as proposed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - b.1268 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a project that was continued from a prevoius hearing for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Special Permit for an attached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Eric Nyhus, applicant and architect; GLAD Trust, property owner ) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1268 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1268 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1268 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Tse noted that she had a phone conversation with the property owner. Commissioners Comaroto, Kelly, and Terrones noted that they had email exchanges with the applicant. Commissioner Terrones communicated with staff to get clarification on the process. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Eric Nyhus, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Windows on the left side wall of the garage are shown on the floor plans, but not on the left elevation . Can you confirm whether or not windows are proposed on the left side of the garage? (Nyhus: For cost reasons, decided to remove these windows. Also, noted the roof plan will be updated to match the roof pitch shown on the building elevations, from 4.25:12 to 4.44:12). Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Project has come along way, applicant has made many changes requested by the Commission, is approvable at this point. >Applicant has worked really hard to address concerns. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. Commission Discussion: >Add condition of approval that requires the roof pitch to match the roof pitch shown on the building elevations, as opposed to on the roof plan. The maker of the motion and second agreed to add the following condition of approval: >that the roof pitch for the house shall be 4.44:12 as shown on the building elevations. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - c.1629 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and designer; Peter and Judith Cittadini TR, property owners) (99 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1629 Howard Ave - Staff Report 1629 Howard Ave - Attachments 1629 Howard Ave - Historic Resource Study 1629 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Adam Bittle, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >In response letter, you mention a 15-foot increased setback. Trying to understand where the extra setback was provided, can you explain? (Bittle: There is 15 feet between the stairway window and the neighbors' window, and horizontal alignment with the neighbors' window is off five feet.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >This is a good looking project. Like changes made and it blends in well with fabric of this neighborhood. >Lowering plate height settles second floor down more. >Like bolstered porch columns. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application. Commission Discussion: >Suggest that downspout not be taken down the porch column, should find another solution, such as a hanging chain. Chair Gaul reopened the public hearing to allow a member of the public to speak. Property owner, 144 Occidental Avenue: Their existing garage abuts our driveway, proposed plans show garage to be removed and relocated to other corner of lot, which will leave a big gap. Existing garage is approximately 20 feet long and 15 feet tall, provides privacy in backyard. Concerned that they are not taking this into account. Would like to know how they plan to address that. >Landscape plan shows a new 6-foot tall wooden fence in the backyard and a Chinese tallow trees in the rear corner where the garage is currently located. >Suggest meeting with the applicant to discuss possible planting solutions to provide privacy. >Code allows a six-foot tall solid fence with one additional foot of lattice, for a total of seven feet. Can't suggest a taller fence since it would require a Fence Exception. However, landscaping can be taller. Bittle: New fence and tree will be installed along the rear property line. Could consider incorporating additional screening along the rear fence. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commissioner Terrones amended the motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes application with the following condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall submit an FYI to the Planning Commission that shows a revised landscape plan; that the revised landscape plan shall show a 7-foot tall fence that complies with Chapter 25.78 of the Burlingame Municipal Code along the rear property line and additional landscape screening along the rear property line; and that the applicant shall provide documentation to show that the property owner to the rear the subject property (at 144 Occidental Avenue) has reviewed and agrees to the revised landscape changes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - d.1628 Lassen Way, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Master SWU Associates, Steve Wu, applicant and designer; Jeff Park, property owner) (139 noticed) Staff contact: Ruben Hurin 1628 Lassen Way - Staff Report 1628 Lassen Way - Attachments 1628 Lassen Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Steve Wu, project designer, and Jeff Park, property owner, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions for the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Project has come a long way to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. >Project suffers from graphics, makes it difficult to tell what we're going to get. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - e.1448 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Eric Bluestein, applicant and property owner; RDS -Residential Design Solutions, designer ) (121 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1448 Drake Ave - Staff Report 1448 Drake Ave - Attachments 1448 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. >Can staff explain what the applicant will need to do so that the workout room in the basement does not qualify as a bedroom? (Lewit: Could reconfigure the stairs so that they lead directly into the workout room or remove the pocket door into the room and open the wall so that it is 50% open.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Christian Ruffat, project designer, Julie Carlson, designer, and Eric and Allison Bluestein, property owners, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Didn't get a landscape plan in the revised drawings. Landscape plan will need to be revised to reflect the changes made to the project. For example, the location of the air conditioning unit will need to be updated because the exterior stairway was eliminated. (Ruffat: The air conditioning unit will now be located to left of rear deck. Will include all changes in the construction documents.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Originally noted that the project looked too two -dimensional and flat. Like changes made to project and staggered look at front of house. >Concerned with grid pattern on living room window at front of house. All panes in other windows in house are in a vertical orientation, while the panes in the living room window are more horizontal. Suggest adding one more vertical grid line so that there would be five vertical sections by four horizontal sections. >For the added condition of approval to address the potential bedroom in the basement, will compliance with the condition be reviewed at staff level? (Lewit: Yes, that is correct. Assumes that there are no associated exterior changes that would trigger an FYI or amendment.) >Would like to see landscape plan revised so that it is consistent with current design. (Lewit: This can Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes also be reviewed at staff level.) >Believe there is an lighting ordinance which requires that exterior lighting be kept on the property and not extend beyond the property line. Have seen many lights on houses that don't comply with this ordinance. The light fixture proposed at the front of this house suggests that there will be bright glow and therefore not comply with the lighting ordinance. Suggest that the applicant look at this carefully. We need to pay more attention to this in general. (Hurin: Correct, ordinance stipulates that exterior lighting cannot be located more than nine feet above finished floor and that the cone of light must be directed downward so that it does extend beyond the property line.) Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following conditions: >that the living room window at the front of the house shall contain a five vertical pane x four horizontal pane pattern. >that the landscape plan shall be consistent with the site plan, showing light wells without stairs along the left side of the house and an air conditioning unit that complies with the regulations of Chapter 25.58.050 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. >that prior to issuance of a building permit, Planning staff shall review revised interior plans for the project to confirm that the project has four or fewer bedrooms; and that Planning staff shall evaluate any exterior changes that may be result from the interior revisions to determine if an FYI or amendment is required. >that prior to submittal for a Building Permit, Planning staff shall review revised interior plans for the project to confirm that the project has four or fewer bedrooms; and that Planning Staff shall evaluate any exterior changes that may be result from the interior revisions to determine if an FYI or amendment is required. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - f.1505 Sherman Avenue, zoned R -1 and R-3 - Application for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit to add twelve additional students for a pre -school use at a church. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Rev. Schufreider and Dan Ionescu, applicants; Trinity Lutheran Church, property owner) (257 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1505 Sherman Ave and 1248 Sherman Ave - Staff Report 1505 Sherman Ave and 1248 Sherman Ave - Attachments 1505 Sherman and 1248 Balboa - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Rev. Jeffrey Schufreider and Dan Ionescu, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >What types of activities and users have been using, as part of the youth group program, the 1248 Balboa Avenue portion of the site? (Rev. Schufreider: Used on Sunday mornings for events, Wednesday afternoons for children, and during the summer for Vacation Bible School. During the summer, there are up to 20 participants.) >Will these programs then go away with the proposed preschool use? (Rev. Schufreider: Will be working around these programs. Participants in the Vacation Bible School were in the preschool, and they may also have siblings.) >How would the students in the two buildings be separated? Are they different age groups? Do they play together during recess? (Rev. Schufreider: Would probably have difference recesses.) >Would the students at the 1248 Balboa Avenue site use the outdoor play area immediately next to that building? Or would they cross over the traffic lane to use the other outdoor play area? (Rev. Schufreider: Children would use the play area on the same site, and the site is fenced in during recess, so there would be no cars driving through the site.) Public Comments: >Resident, 1217 Balboa Avenue: Have children that attend the preschool. When purchased home, didn't realize there was a school there. Appreciate that the pastor and staff have been so inviting and welcoming to all of the events at the school. Have brought a lot to the community. In support of the application. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Was here for the original amendments to the conditional use permit and various amendments along the way. Glad to see operation is going well and that the traffic engineer has made specific observations to see that there is no congestion. >Encouraging to see that it is a good neighborhood resource and would like to see them continue to thrive. >Believe that preschool is well run, based on the original application and given the number of neighbors expressing concerns at that time. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - g.988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a real estate office on the third floor (Urban Compass, Inc., applicant; Vocon, designer; Opus One Properties, property owner) (82 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 988 Howard Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 988 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >We've processed conditional use permits for real estate offices in downtown, correct? (Hurin: Yes, that is correct.) >Have we had any issues or complaints filed with real estate offices? (Hurin: No, there have been no complaints filed regarding real estate offices or parking associated with real estate offices.) >Don't understand bias against real estate offices. (Hurin: Traditionally, there was a potential for impacts due to the number of agents reporting to the office to complete transactions. However, the way real estate offices operate has changed over the years. In the upcoming zoning update, we will be looking at considering real estate offices as a general office use.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Am I correct in recalling that there has been some coordination with the other tenant and that they're in support of the application? (Hudak: Building owner knows who the other tenant will be and wants to make sure these businesses are complimentary. Feel that during the two hours per month where we will use more parking, we will not use that much parking for the remainder of the time.) >Staff reports indicates 39 spaces are proposed for the real estate use, but there are 29 dedicated spaces. So one is by calculation and the other by contract. (Hudak: If you were to calculate the required parking based on the 1:300 SF parking ratio for traditional office use, you would need 39 spaces. This was the basis for the required parking for the building as a whole. But because you have one shared space and therefore some reduction credits for this building, you don't really have the right number of parking spaces for the formulas if you had the office on the second and third floors and other use on the ground floor. So there has to be some sharing. We'll have first call on the 29 spaces, but won't need 20 of those spaces most of the time, so that's why it should work out for the building.) Public Comments: >No name provided: Compass moving to the east side will take burden off of real estate offices located on west side, and in this way will highlight the east side and all of its attributes. In support of project. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Work for real estate company, in our office Morning morning meetings are packed, with 70-75% of agents attending the meeting. Find that agents are having to park on the street. Also looked at how conference rooms are being used, estimate conference rooms are used 50% of the time throughout the week. So there is a lot of fluctuation and constant use of the rooms. >Like that there will only be two general meetings per month, will help to reduce impacts. However, still believe that there will be a high volume of people and cars coming to the site. >Concerned about how it will impact the neighborhood, do believe that more than just a handful of agents showing up at any give time, especially for the Monday morning meetings. Would like to discuss issue further with applicant. Chair Gaul reopened the public hearing. Hudak: Did consider it, also considered the timing relative to the elementary school located down the street. Will have a proving out period where we see whether the Compass agents follow the traditional model or a different model given that they are more technology oriented, so there could be fewer agents coming to the site. Office manager and broker will work with the agents; if we sense that there is a problem, will give strong instruction that they cannot park in the neighborhood and will need to park in a Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes commercial district if there is no parking available on site. Property owner has made it clear that he does not want to impact the neighborhood.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Further Commission Discussion: >There will be a new public parking garage built in the downtown area just a few blocks away, would encourage company to direct agents to use those spaces. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition: >that that one year after the real estate business opens, the applicant shall provide a written update regarding the parking and vehicle circulation patterns associated with the real estate business, as well as any traffic or parking complaints associated with the real estate business and received by the business owner, property owner, or by the City of Burlingame; the written update shall be presented as an FYI item to the Planning Commission. Comment on the motion: >In regards to that neighborhood, Washington Elementary School operates well because it has three street frontages, so the intensity is focused right at the school. If the real estate company does not park in the residential areas, the school should operate just fine. >Area is being impacted by development and don't want to see residents getting upset with regards to parking impacts in the area. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1425 Bernal Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Raymond Wong, property owner; Chu Design Associates (applicant and designer) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1425 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1425 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1425 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, project designer, represented the applicant, and Eric Wong represented the property owner. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >In the rear left corner, where the garage is going to be located, is there an existing two -foot diameter tree that is being removed? What kind of tree is it? (Chu: Yes, that is correct. The arborist report notes it as a Catalina ironwood.) >Composition at the front of the house is fairly traditional, but because the house is raised to meet grade at the rear of the house, the left elevation towards the front of the house is tall and flat. Besides the four windows in this area, there is no articulation. Is there anything you can to articulate this wall better? (Chu: Sure, will look into it.) >The house seems very traditional, proposed modern cable railing doesn't match the style of house . (Chu: Was trying to do something different, but will revisit the railing material to better fit the house, perhaps a wood material with a different patter.) >Is there a reason why the doors at the front porch don't include grids? (Chu: No reason, we can add grids to match the windows. Can also add grids to the doors at the rear of the house.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Very well designed and articulated house. >At first wondered why house was lifted so far off the ground, but understand now that it is due to the upward sloping lot. >Needs to address left side elevation and cable railing material as discussed. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. Commission Discussion: >Regarding left elevation, the landscape plan just shows low lying shrubs in planter in front of wall. Would benefit to have a small specimen tree like a Japanese maple. Don't think it's the only solution, there still should be some architectural articulation on that wall, but it would help. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There was no Director's Report. 12. ADJOURNMENT Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on February 25, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 7, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 3/5/2019 City of Burlingame Variance Address: 16 Park Road Meeting Date: March 11, 2019 Request: Application for Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance to provide parking off-site at 12 Park Road for a personal training studio . Applicant: Philip Levi APN: 029-225-200 Property Owner: Park Road Properties, LLC Lot Area: 7,500 SF Downtown Specific Plan: Bayswater Mixed Use District Zoning: BMU Project History: In February 2009, Park Road Fitness was granted approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate as a personal trainer and assessment business. At that time, the Downtown Specific Plan had not yet been adopted so the zoning district for the subject property was C -1. The conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit limited the personal trainer business to the first floor and noted that the second floor would be maintained as a residential use (three bedroom apartment). The business was also limited to a maximum of four employees on-site at any one time with a maximum of ten persons on-site at any one time. Also, the hours of operation would be from 6 AM to 8 PM , Monday through Saturday and closed on Sundays. In December 2010, Code Enforcement received a complaint that the business was not operating within the conditions of the existing Conditional Use Permit. The Downtown Specific Plan had now been adopted and the zoning district became BMU (Bayswater Mixed Use). Park Road Fitness had transitioned from individual training services to group fitness (serving three or more clients at one time) which changed their use to commercial recreation which requires a Conditional Use Permit in the BMU zoning district. They were also required to apply for a Parking Variance to park off-site at the adjacent lot on 12 Park Road since they were already using that lot for parking. Park Road Fitness submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance i n June 2011. Their application was inactive for four years for reasons unknown. Burlingame Fitness took over the lease for the properties at both 16 Park Road and 12 Park Road from Park Road Fitness in June 2015. They attempted to continue the Planning application started by Park Road Fitness by submitting revised plans for both properties, but noted that Burlingame Fitness would operate under the same conditions of approval for the existing permit originally granted to Park Road Fitness. Therefore, it would eliminate the request for a new Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use but still require approval for a Variance to park off-site at 12 Park Road. Eventually, their application became inactive and expired. In September 2017, Code Enforcement had received a complaint about parking for the business. Upon investigating the property, Code Enforcement found that two accessory structures had been constructed on the 12 Park Road lot without a building permit and that the business was also using the property at 12 Park Road for parking. Burlingame Fitness was directed to consu lt with the Planning Division for the necessary approvals required and to get a building permit for the accessory structures. One of the accessory structures constructed requires approval of a Rear Setback Variance. Therefore, Planning approvals must first be granted before submitting for a building permit. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a Rear Setback Variance for an existing 177 SF pergola located at the rear right corner of the lot at 12 Park Road. In the BMU zoning district, there is no side setback requirement for this property, but the required rear setback is twenty feet. The applicant is also requesting a Parking Variance to provide required parking off-site at 12 Park Road because there is no parking existing on site at 16 Park Road. Please refer to the attached Letter of Explanation and the Commercial Application submitted by the applicant for more detailed information about how the business operates. The applicant submitted parking information showing the percentage of parking spaces utilized on weekdays and weekends (Saturdays only). The Item No. 6a Study Item Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance 16 Park Road 2 information indicates that the morning hours (6 AM to 12 noon) are the peak times where most vehicles are present, ranging from 2% to just under 10% parking utilization on the weekends and approximately 8% to just under 14% parking utilization on the weekdays. The applicant also conducted a one -month study (March 23 – April 23, 2018) counting by hour the amount of clients and independent contracto rs (personal trainers) on site. The table below summarizes the findings from this study. There is a 1:1 ratio of clients to personal trainers and on average, the most persons on-site at any one time is six to eight persons primarily during the morning hours on weekdays. Average # clients on-site per hour Average # personal trainers on-site per hour Average total persons on-site per hour Weekdays Saturdays Weekdays Saturdays Weekdays Saturdays Morning (6 AM – 12 PM) 3 to 4 3 3 to 4 3 6 to 8 6 Afternoon (12 PM – 5 PM) 1 to 2 0 to 1 1 to 2 0 to 1 2 to 4 0 to 2 Evening (5 PM – 9 PM) 1 to 2 1 1 to 2 1 2 to 4 2 Parking: The earliest records of 16 Park Road indicate that the rear of the lot had been paved and used for parking but it is unknown as to how many parking spac es there were because they were not striped. In 2009, when the previous personal trainer and assessment business (Park Road Fitness) applie d for a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use, no additional parking was required because the previou s use was a real estate office. A personal trainer and assessment business is considered to be a personal service and has a parking ratio of 1 space required for every 400 SF (1:400 SF); real estate uses or office uses have a parking ratio of 1:300 SF. Therefore, parking was not addressed with the 2009 application. Furthermore, there was no information regarding use of the lot at 12 Park Road for parking. Presently, there is no parking on -site at 16 Park Road. Parking for the use at 16 Park Road is being provided off- site at the adjacent lot of 12 Park Road (12 and 16 Park Road are under the same ownership). The lot at 12 Park Road consists of compacted gravel. Approval of a Parking Variance is required for a business to provide parking off-site. With the parking credit from the previous use, an estimated nine parking spaces are required for the Burlingame Fitness business. The applicant is proposing a total of 12 parking spaces on the 12 Park Road lot. The applicant is requesting approval of the following applications: Rear Setback Variance for a pergola located 20-inches from a rear property line (Code Section 25.35.060 (d)); and Parking Variance for the use at 16 Park Road to provide required parking off-site at 12 Park Road (Code Section 25.70.010 (c)). This space intentionally left blank. Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance 16 Park Road 3 16 Park Road Lot Area: 7,500 SF Plans date stamped: January 7, 2019 Previous Use Square Footage Parking Ratio Spaces Required Personal Training Studio: 1,754 SF 1 space / 400 SF 4.38 spaces 3 Bedroom Apartment: --- --- 2 spaces Total Spaces Required: 6.38 or 7 spaces Proposed Use Square Footage Parking Ratio Spaces Required 1st Floor - Personal Training Studio: Storage: 1,637 SF 117 SF 1:400 SF 1:1000 SF 4.09 spaces 0.12 space 2nd Floor - 3 Bedroom Apartment: Personal Training Studio: --- 320 SF --- 1:400 SF 2 spaces 0.8 space Outdoor - Rear Yard: Pergolas: 2,745 SF 565 SF 1:400 SF 8.28 spaces Total Spaces Required: 15.29 or 16 spaces Staff Comments: See attached memo from the Building Division. Areas labeled “support” on the plans were counted as part of the personal training studio with exception of the stairway area on the second floor. On the first floor, not all areas labeled as “storage” on the plans were counted as such; only “storage” areas 42 SF and above were counted as storage. The pergolas cannot be considered storage and were counted as part of the personal training studio. In the applicant’s Letter of Explanation, they mention that 17 parking spaces would be proposed at the 12 Park Road lot. In their initial application, those number spaces were proposed but were not all code compliant. Therefore, the applicant had to revise their parking plan and currently is proposing 12 parking spaces at the 12 Park Road lot. Required Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a -d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved 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 pub lic 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. Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance 16 Park Road 4 ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Philip Levi, Burlingame Fitness, applicant Park Road Properties, LLC, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation from Applicant Rear Setback Variance Application Parking Variance Application Commercial Application Parking Data provided by Applicant Hourly Count Report – Number of Clients by the hour Hourly Count Report – Number of Independent Contractors by the hour Building Division Staff Comments dated May 3, 2018 Deed Restriction Letters of Support Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 1, 2019 Area Map UPUPDN1234567891011existing curb cut10' - 0"50.00'150.00'50.00'150.00'150.00'50.00'50.00'OUTDOOR TRAINING AREAexisting curb cutSIDEWALKPARK ROADTRAINING AREA 248 SF896 SFTRAINING AREAOUTDOOR TRAINING AREA2745 SFSUPPORT 320 SF192 SFSUPPORT172 SFRESIDENT291 SFKITCHEN191 SFRESIDENTBURLINGAME FITNESS16 Park Rd. Burlingame, CASITE PLAN WITH PROPOSED PARKINGFLOOR LEVEL 1 AREA ANALYSISFLOOR LEVEL 2 AREA ANALYSIS1st 2nd exteriortotalParkingOccupancy Factor(25.70)11440274538894009.72535535222TRAINING AREARESIDENTSUPPORT/STORAGE301512 0 011RESIDENTEXISTING TREESUPPORT/STORAGE172 SF11 SF5 SF12 SFTSUPPORT/STORAGESUPPORT261 SFSTORAGE STORAGE6 SF5 SFSTORAGE12 SFSTORAGE2 SF---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25 SFSTORAGESTORAGE50 SFSTORAGE42 SFSTORAGE22 SFSTORAGE8 SF4 SF5 SFCOMPACT CAR EXTRUDEDCONCRETE CRUB8' - 0"17' - 0"8' - 1/2"18' - 0"20' - 0"9' - 0"CHANGINGROOMSUPPORT40 SF36' - 2"43' - 1"24' - 0"565388 SF177 SF49' - 8" SETBACK59' - 10" SETBACK 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 second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1612 Devereux Drive, Zoned R-1, Ji Yoon Chung and Austin Choi, property owners, APN: 025-223-120; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 11, 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 15301 (e)(1), 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 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 11th day of March, 2019, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1612 Devereux Drive Effective March 21, 2019 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 27, 2019, sheets 1 through 4 and BMP’s; 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 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 the conditions of the Parks Division’s January 23, 2019 memo shall be met; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Buil ding 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 framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1612 Devereux Drive Effective March 21, 2019 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 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; 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 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 build according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 10"HOLLY19"SYCAMORE412679999999999993333333333555111111111212121212121117774888811111161114141414141488EE2EEV3V3EEEEEEEG2G2G2V2AAABBFFGDV 2RESIDENCE(N)GARAGE(N)(N) UNIT PAVERDRIVEWAYCONCRETE*SAND/BASE ROCKBASE(E) 6'-0" SOLIDWOOD FENCING9'-7"(N) CONCRETE DRIVEWAYAPRON PER CITY STDS(N) STONELANDING / STEP(E) SYCAMORETREE TO REMAINO C C I D E N T A L A V E N U EOUTLINE OF (E)HOUSE TO BEREMOVED(E) SIDEWALK(E) CURB /GUTTER(E) SHRUBS TOBE REMOVED*PERVIOUS(N) GRANITEFINES PATH*PERVIOUS(E) 6'-0" SOLIDWOOD FENCING(N) CONC. WALK(E) 6'-0" SOLIDWOOD FENCING(N) EVERGREENFAST-GROWINGHEDGE *PERNEIGHBOR'SREQUEST(N) 5' WOODTRASH ENCLOSURE(N) PAVER DRIVEWAYCONCRETE UNIT*TURN-AROUND(N) NATIVEGRASS(N) STONELOGGIA(N) 3'-0" TALL BBQ /COUNTERTOP3'(N) UNIT PAVERDRIVEWAYCONCRETE*SAND/BASE ROCKBASE*PERVIOUS(E) WATERMETER(N) DROUGHTTOLERANTGROUNDCOVER(N) STONEPATH12'-0"(N) EVERGREENPRIVACY HEDGE(N) EVERGREENPRIVACY TREES(N) SPECIMENTREE(N)LAWN(N)LAWN(N) STONESTEPRESIDENCE(N)GARAGE(N)O C C I D E N T A L A V E N U E1111111111111112H1MX3MX5MX4MX6H7MX(N) BACKFLOWPREVENTIONDEVICE3/4" PVC SCH 40 MAINLINE L1.0DATE:DECEMBER 6, 2018SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"LANDSCAPE PLANTITLE:SHEET NO:PLANLANDSCAPEREVISIONSMCVEIGH RESIDENCE 329 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIASCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"IRRIGATION PLANPLANTING NOTES1.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT AND SOD QUANTITIES PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID FOR WORK.2.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST STANDARDS OF NURSERY STOCK, PUBLISHED BY THEAMERICAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION.3.PLANT MATERIAL CANNOT BE GUARANTEED AS DEER RESISTANT DUE TO CHANGING HABITS OF DEER.4.ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A LAYER OF BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 INCHES,WITH A CHIP SIZE OF NO LESS THAN ONE INCH. A 2 INCH LAYER OF GREENWASTE MULCH UNDER THE BARKMULCH IS RECOMMENDED.5.SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE USED AS NECESSARY. SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS. ROCKSLARGER THAN ONE INCH DIAMETER WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE NOT PERMITTED INTYPICAL NATIVE PLANT LANDSCAPE AREAS.6.PLANTING HOLES SHALL GENERALLY BE 2x - 3x THE SIZE OF THE ROOT BALL. THE WALLS AND BASES OF PLANTHOLES SHALL BE SCARIFIED. HOLES SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH 5% ORGANIC COMPOST & 95% EXISTINGSOIL. PLANTING HOLES OF NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD BE INOCULATED WITH MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI, PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECS.7.TREES SHALL BE STAKED WITH TWO PRESSURE TREATED 2" DIA. POLES. TREE TRUNK SHALL BE SECURED WITHTWO RUBBER TIES OR STRAPS FORMING A FIGURE-EIGHT BETWEEN TRUNK AND STAKE.8.RESIDUAL WEED PRE-EMERGENT SHALL BE APPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS NECESSARY. APPLICATION SHALLBE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.9.LAWN SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 25%. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE FERTILIZED ATTIME OF INSTALLATION.IRRIGATION NOTES1. THE CONCEPTS ON THE IRRIGATION PLAN ARE SCHEMATIC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, THE FULL EXTENT OFWHICH ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS ASNECESSARY BASED ON ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS.2. ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS SUPERSEDE ANY SPECS ON THESE PLANS / DETAILS.3. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL USE PRESSURE REGULATORS AS NEEDED TO KEEP ALL COMPONENTS WITHINOPTIMAL PSI RANGE, PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS.4. CONTROLLER TYPE SHALL BE A SMART CONTROLLER. RAIN SENSORS AND / OR WEATHER STATIONS ARERECOMMENDED.5. CONTROLLER SHALL BE SET TO IRRIGATE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8PM AND 10AM. CONTROLLER SHALL BESET TO IRRIGATE DEEPLY AND LESS FREQUENTLY TO ENCOURAGE DROUGHT RESISTANT ROOT GROWTH.IRRIGATION SCHEDULE TO BE DETERMINED BY AUDITOR / CONTRACTOR.6. PIPING BETWEEN THE WATER METER AND A REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY SHALL BE BRASS OR COPPER TYPE'K'.7. THE BOTTOM OF THE REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY SHALL BE INSTALLED MIN. 12" ABOVE THE GROUND.8. A 100 MESH FILTER SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE MAINLINE BEFORE THE REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY.9. VALVES SHALL BE HOUSED IN WEATHER-PROOF PLASTIC BOXES, WITH LOCKABLE LIDS MARKED WATER.10. CONTROL WIRE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITH WATERPROOF PLASTIC WIRE NUTS.11. MAIN SUPPLY LINES & FITTINGS SHALL BE PVC SCH 40, SIZE AS NOTED ON PLAN, BURIED 12" - 16" DEEP.12. LATERAL SUPPLY LINES & FITTINGS SHALL BE PVC SCH 40, SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR, BURIED9" - 12" DEEP.13. FLEXIBLE POLY PIPE TO BE 12" -34", DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR . ALL 14" FLEXIBLE DISTRIBUTION LINES TOBE A MAXIMUM OF 5'-0" IN LENGTH & ARE TO BE STAKED.14. BUBBLERS SHALL BE SPACED TO CREATE AN EVEN WET ZONE ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE CANOPY OF ALL NEWSHRUBS, NEW TREES & EXISTING IMMATURE NON-NATIVE TREES. BUBBLERS SHALL BE PLACED TO AVOID AS MUCHAS POSSIBLE IRRIGATING OAK TREES & ANY OTHER EXISTING, MATURE NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS.15. HOSE BIBS SHALL BE MOUNTED ON GALVANIZED STEEL RISERS 30" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. SECURE TO A#4 STEEL BAR DRIVEN 18" INTO SOLID GROUND.16. CHECK VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL DOWNHILL DRIPLINE & DISTRIBUTION LINE.17. RISER HEIGHT IN LAWN AREAS SHALL BE 4". RISER HEIGHT IN MEADOW AREAS AND OTHER LANDSCAPEAREAS SHALL BE 12". THE RISERS FOR SPRINKLERS ON SLOPES SHALL BE SET APPROXIMATELY PERPENDICULARTO THE PLANE OF THE SLOPE.18. IF LOCATION OF A SUPPLY LINE INTERFERES WITH THE DRILLING OF THE PLANT HOLES, THE PLANT HOLESSHALL BE LOCATED AS TO CLEAR THE SUPPLY LINES.18. ALL LINES SHALL BE THOROUGHLY FLUSHED OUT PRIOR TO ATTACHMENT OF VALVES, SPRINKLERS, EMITTERS,& OTHER TERMINAL FITTINGS.19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE FINAL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO ENSURE PROPERCOVERAGE AND PREVENT WATER RUN-OFF AND EXCESS SPRAY.20. ALL SPRAY AND DRIP ZONES TO BE MIN. 5'-0" AND PREFERABLY 10'-0" AWAY FROM OAK TREE TRUNKS.HUNTER MPR40 BODY W/ MP ROTATOR SERIES30-55(C)-CORNER, (1)-1000 etc.CFILTER / PRESSURE REGULATORFEBCO 825Y REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLYPVC SCH 40 SLEEVINGIRRIGATION LEGENDDESCRIPTIONPVC SCH 40 LATERAL PIPINGPVC SCH 40 MAINLINEIRRITROL 100 SERIES CONTROL VALVESHUT-OFF VALVESYMUNDER ALL PAVING / WALLS AS NEEDED PER MFR'S SPECSSIZING TBD BY CONTRACTORW/ GLOBE VALVEW/ SHUT-OFF VALVESBRASS BALL VALVEREMARKSSEE PLAN FOR SIZINGW/ WEATHER STATIONWEATHERMATIC SMARTLINE SERIES CONTROLLERHOSEBIB30" TALL BRASS LINE & FIXTURE60-100--60-10060-100-175 max.PSI30-5560-100-GPM.07-2.63----------SIZING TBD BY CONTRACTORIRRIGATION METHODWATER USE(SPY: SPRAY DRP: DRIP BUB: BUBBLER SUB: SUB-SURFACE)(VL: VERY LOW L: LOW M: MEDIUM H: HIGH MX: MIXED)MXDRPNETAFIM TECHLINE CV DRIPLINE (E)(E)± 0'-0"FIN.FLOOR+ 8'-4"TOPPLATE(N)20'-10"(E) HEIGHT± 0'-0"FIN.FLOOR+ 8'-4"TOPPLATEPROPERTY LINE 12'-0" 45°DAY LIGHT PLANEPROPERTY LINE12'-0"45°DAY LIGHT PLANE THIS PART ISEXISTING,& NO WORKPROPOSED ON ITEXISTINGTO REMAINEXISTINGAREA OF REMODEL(N) VELUX FCM4646 SKYLIGHT(N) STUCCO PERSTUCCO DETAIL -/A-(N) WOOD SHINGLES,MATCH (E) IN TYPE& COLOR(N) BRICK VENEER, MATCH(E) IN TYPE & COLOR(N)(N) 18" DIA.ROUND WOODSLATTED VENTW/ TRIM ASSHOWN2'-4"TWO (N) PAIR OF CUSTOM FABRICATED WOODSWING BARN DOORS IN 8'-0" X 7'-0" OPENINGS W/TEMPERED GLAZING AS SHOWN. DOORS ONRIGHT TO HAVE CONCEALED CURB AT BASE(N) Item No. 8b Regular Action City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1425 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: March 11, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. Property Owner: Raymond Wong APN: 026-054-030 Applicant and Designer: James Chu 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 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 may be constructed or converted under this exception. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with one and two-story houses within the vicinity. The site abuts two-story houses on both sides of the subject property. The lot slopes upward by approximately 8’-0” from front to rear property line. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing split level single family dwelling and attached garage and build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 3,414 SF (0.57 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including a 159 SF covered front porch exemption). The new single family dwelling will contain five bedrooms. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on-site. Two covered parking spaces are provided in the detached garage (20’ x 20’ clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(1)). 1425 Bernal Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: February 28, 2019 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 21’-7” (to porch) 23’-3” 21’-6” (block average) 21’-6” (block average) Side Setback (left): (right): 10’-0” 4’-0” 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 32’-8” 47’-0” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,315 SF 38.6 % 2,400 SF 40% FAR: 3,414 SF 0.57 FAR 3,420 SF 1 0.57 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 --- Design Review 1425 Bernal Ave 2 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (20' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (20' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 29’-11” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 6,000) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,420 SF (0.57) FAR Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on February 25, 2019, the Commission had several comments regarding front railing material, articulation along the left elevation towards the front of the house, and grids on front porch doors (see attached February 25, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission voted to place the project on the Regular Action Calendar. The applicant submitted a response letter dated February 28, 2019, and revised plans date stamped February 28, 2019, to address the Planning Commission’s comments. Please refer to the copy of the February 25, 2019, Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of Planning Commission comments. Although the designer will be available to address additional comments/questions from the Commission during his presentation at the action hearing, listed below are the summarized revisions to the project and plans provided by the applicant. 1. Previously proposed cable railing on front porch changed to solid horizontal wood siding (see revised building elevations). 2. W indow in bedroom #1 has been enlarged to provide articulation along the left side of the house (see revised Left Elevation). 3. Simulated true divided lite grids have been added to front and rear doors (see revised Front and Rear Elevations. 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 architectural style of the proposed new house is similar to the existing home and is consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. The proposed project includes a detached garage at the rear of the property, which is consistent with the garage patterns within the neighborhood. The project proposes a variety of materials including composition shingle roofing, wood siding and stucco, wood doors, and aluminum clad wood casement windows with simulated true divided lite grids and wood trim. The articulation provides visual interest on all elevations and the architectural elements of the proposed craftsman style structure compliment the neighborhood; for these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Design Review 1425 Bernal Ave 3 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 February 25, 2019, sheets A1 through A6, N.1, and L1.1 and L2.1; 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 14.6-inch diameter Catalina Ironwood tree along the rear property line; 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, in effect 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: 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 Design Review 1425 Bernal Ave 4 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. Michelle Markiewicz Assistant Planner c. Raymond Wong, property owner James Chu, applicant and designer Attachments: February 25, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated February 28, 2019 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 1, 2019 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 25, 2019 a.1425 Bernal Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Raymond Wong, property owner; Chu Design Associates (applicant and designer) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, project designer, represented the applicant, and Eric Wong represented the property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: >In the rear left corner, where the garage is going to be located, is there an existing two -foot diameter tree that is being removed? What kind of tree is it? (Chu: Yes, that is correct. The arborist report notes it as a Catalina ironwood.) >Composition at the front of the house is fairly traditional, but because the house is raised to meet grade at the rear of the house, the left elevation towards the front of the house is tall and flat. Besides the four windows in this area, there is no articulation. Is there anything you can to articulate this wall better? (Chu: Sure, will look into it.) >The house seems very traditional, proposed modern cable railing doesn't match the style of house . (Chu: Was trying to do something different, but will revisit the railing material to better fit the house, perhaps a wood material with a different patter.) >Is there a reason why the doors at the front porch don't include grids? (Chu: No reason, we can add grids to match the windows. Can also add grids to the doors at the rear of the house.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Very well designed and articulated house. >At first wondered why house was lifted so far off the ground, but understand now that it is due to the upward sloping lot. >Needs to address left side elevation and cable railing material as discussed. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/1/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >Regarding left elevation, the landscape plan just shows low lying shrubs in planter in front of wall. Would benefit to have a small specimen tree like a Japanese maple. Don't think it's the only solution, there still should be some architectural articulation on that wall, but it would help. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/1/2019 55 West 43rd Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Phone: (650)345-9286 Fax: (650)345-9287 February 28, 2019 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Rd Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: New residence at 1425 Bernal Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Planning Commissioner: Per your design review comment, we have made the following changes to 1425 Bernal Ave. 1. The railing at front porch has been changed from metal to wood. 2. The window in bedroom #1on left side has been enlarged. 3. True divided grids have been added to front/rear doors. 4. Contractor/owner shall apply for tree removal permit noted on site plan. Sincerely, James Chu James Chu Chu Design 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 1425 Bernal Avenue, Zoned R-1, Raymond Wong, property owner, APN: 026-054-030; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 11, 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 11th day of March, 2019, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1425 Bernal Avenue Effective March 21, 2019 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 25, 2019, sheets A1 through A6, N.1, and L1.1 and L2.1; 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 14.6-inch diameter Catalina Ironwood tree along the rear property line; 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, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1425 Bernal Avenue Effective March 21, 2019 Page 2 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. PROJECT LOCATION 2217 Davis Drive Item No. 9a Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 2217 Davis Drive Meeting Date: March 11, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling. Applicant and Property owner: Paul Yep APN: 025-192-030 Architect: Mei-Mei Chan, MEI Architects Lot Area: 5,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The existing single-story house with an attached one-car garage contains 1,734 SF (0.34 FAR) of floor area. The proposed project includes a first and second story addition which would increase the floor area to 2,608 SF (0.52 FAR) where 2,700 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed as per code. The proposed project is 92 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The existing house contains two bedrooms and with the proposed project the number of bedrooms would increase to four (study room qualifies as a bedroom). For a four-bedroom house, two parking spaces are required, one of which must be covered. One covered parking space is provided in the existing garage (17’-2” x 20’-1” clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 20’-0”) is provided in the driveway (can be measured to the inner edge of the sidewalk). Therefore, the project is in compliance with the off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: Design Review for a first and second story to an existing single-family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 2217 Davis Drive Lot Size: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: February 21, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 15’-4” No change 15’-0” (or block average) (2nd flr): n/a 48’-1⅞” 20'-0" (or block average) Side (left): (right): 5’-2½” 2’-6½”1 No change No change 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 24’-6” n/a 24’-6” 24’-6” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,825 SF 36% 1,908 SF 38% 2,000 SF 40% FAR: 1,734 SF 0.34 FAR 2,608 SF 0.52 FAR 2,700 SF 2 0.54 FAR ¹ Existing non-conforming setback 2 (0.32 x 5,000 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,700 SF (0.54 FAR) Item No. 9a Design Review Study Design Review 2217 Davis Drive 2 2217 Davis Drive Lot Size: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: February 21, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (17’-2” X 20’-1”) 1 uncovered (9’-0” X 20’-0”) 1 covered (17’-2” X 20’-1”) 1 uncovered (9’-0” X 20’-0”) 1 covered (9’-0”X 18’-0” for existing) 1 uncovered (9'-0”X 20'-0”) Height: 18’-7½ ” 27’-0” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 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. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Mei-Mei Chan, architect Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang, property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 1, 2019 Area Map INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT.one eighth inch = one foot16840one inch = one foot206"6" 0 2three quarters inch = one footone half inch = one foot40three eighths inch = one foot400 4 8one quarter inch = one footprinted on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 2/11/2019 3:36:48 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt G0-1 COVER SHEET TMC - CAC CAC07/05/18 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang DRAWING INDEX G0-1 COVER SHEET G0-2 SITE SURVEY GENERAL ARCHITECTURE A0-1 SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS A1-1 FIRST FLOOR AND ROOF DEMOLITION PLAN A2-1 FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR PLANS A2-2 ROOF PLAN A3-1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - NORTH A3-2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - EAST A3-3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SOUTH A3-4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - WEST A4-1 BUILDING SECTIONS GENERAL NOTES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. LOT SIZE: 5000 SF x 40% = 2000 SF LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED BY PLANNING DEPT: AREA CALCULATIONS LOT COVERAGE: EXISTING: 1825 SF = 36.50% PROPOSED: 1908 SF = 38.16% (<2000 SF MAX. ALLOWED) GROSS FLOOR AREA: EXISTING: 1734 SF (INCLUDES 382 SF GARAGE) PROPOSED: FIRST FLOOR: 1816 SF (INCLUDES 382 SF GARAGE) SECOND FLOOR: 792 SF TOTAL: 2608 SF (<2700 SF MAX ALLOWED) DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010−5410 OWNERS: PAUL YEP AND MEI LING TANG GREEN BUILDING MANDATORY MEASURES: OWNER WILL PROVIDE TWO COPIES OF THE GREEN BUILDING MANDATORY CHECKLIST WITH SUBMITTAL OF PLANS FOR BUILDING CODE PLAN CHECK. THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING BUILDING CODES: •2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE •2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE •2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE •2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889. NOTE: IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS NOT APPROVED THE PROJECT PRIOR TO 5:00PM ON DECEMBER 31, 2016 THEN THIS PROJECT MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. A GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED, WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. CONSTRUCTION HOURS ARE AS FOLLOWS: •WEEKDAYS: 8:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. •SATURDAYS: 9:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. •SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS) CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM. ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE BUILDING OWNER, PROJECT DESIGNER, AND/OR CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT A REVISION TO THE CITY FOR ANY WORK NOT GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED ON THE JOB COPY OF THE PLANS PRIOR TO PERFORMING THE WORK. FLOOR AREA RATIO: (0.32 x 5000 SF) + 1100 SF = 2700 SF MAXIMUM ALLOWED (0.54 FAR) EXISTING: 1734 SF = 0.346 FAR PROPOSED: 2608 SF = 0.521 FAR (<0.54 FAR MAX ALLOWED) NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT. printed on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 2/11/2019 3:36:49 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt G0-2 SITE SURVEY TMC - CAC CAC11/12/18 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang FIELD SURVEY - FOR REFERENCE PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS SURVEY IS ROTATED 180° FROM SITE PLAN ON SHEET A0-1.NREAR OF PROPERTY NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY UP UP UP UP A3-22 A3-3 A3-4 A3-1 2 2 2 50' - 0"100' - 0"2' - 6 1/2"15' - 4"5' - 2 1/2"24' - 6"(E) CONCRETE WALKWAY (E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PROPOSED WOOD DECK AND HANDRAIL (NOT COVERED)9' - 2"25' - 10" (E) BRICK STEPS AND PORCH (NOT COVERED) (E) BRICK STEPS AND COVERED PAINTED CONCRETE PORCH. DAVIS DRIVE STREETCL 7' - 6"4' - 6"18' - 0"FACE OF (E) CURB (E) SIDEWALK FRONT PROPERTY LINE FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING HOUSE TO REMAIN 12' - 0 1/2" 14' - 2 1/2" (E) PAINTED CONCRETE PATIO (NOT COVERED) ADJACENT RESIDENCE 2213 DAVIS DRIVE ADJACENT RESIDENCE2221 DAVIS DRIVE14' - 6" (E) CURB CUTS (E) GATE TO REMAIN (E) GATE TO REMAIN (E) FENCE TO REMAIN, TYP. PROPERTY LINE, TYP. REQUIRED SETBACK LINES, TYP. 12' - 5 1/2" GREY AREA DENOTES FOOTPRINT OF SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOORROOF PROFILESECOND FLOORROOF PROFILEGREY DOTTED LINE DENOTES NEW AND (E) ROOF PROFILES (E) 6'-0" HIGH WOODEN FENCE TO REMAIN (E) 4-6" HIGH WOODEN FENCE TO REMAIN (E) 5'-8" HIGH WOODEN FENCE TO REMAIN 48' - 1 7/8"13' - 10 1/2"46' - 9"1' - 1 1/4" 10' - 7 1/4"23' - 0 1/2"3' - 9 5/8" 13' - 1 1/4" (E) GRASS AREA (E) GRASS AREA DAVIS DRIVE (E) FICUS TREE (E) JAPANESE LAUREL BUSH (E) JUNIPER HEDGES (E) SCARLET OAK TREE 35'-40' HEIGHT 94" TRUNK CIRCUMFERENCE (E) LILLIES (E) ORANGE TREE (E) RAYWOOD ASH TREE 30'-35' HEIGHT 32" TRUNK CIRCUMFERENCE (E) BRICK EXTERIOR FIREPLACE PROPOSED WOOD DECK AND HANDRAIL ADJACENT RESIDENCE 2213 DAVIS DRIVE ADJACENT RESIDENCE 2221 DAVIS DRIVE (E) LEMON TREE (E) LEMON TREE (E) STREET LIGHT (E) JAPANESE LAUREL BUSH (E) GRASS AREA BELOW SCARLET OAK TREE DRIPLINE HATCHED REGION DENOTES TREE DRIP LINE HATCHED REGION DENOTES TREE DRIP LINE PROPERTY LINE, TYP. NEW 24" BOX JAPANESE MAPLE TREE (E) DECORATIVE PLUM TREE ON ADJACENT PROPERTY (E) GRASS AREA INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 NDrawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT.one eighth inch = one foot16840one inch = one foot206"6" 0 2three quarters inch = one footone half inch = one foot40three eighths inch = one foot400 4 8one quarter inch = one footprinted on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 2/11/2019 3:35:04 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt 1/8" = 1'-0" A0-1 SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS TMC - CAC CAC07/05/18 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" 9 LANDSCAPE PLAN GENERAL NOTES: 1. EXISTING LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN, NO EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED. 2. NO EXISTING TREE OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54" FROM BASE OF TREE MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT A PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FROM THE BURLINGAME PARKS DIVISION. (558-7330) 3. SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED 4. EXISTING CITY STREET TREE MAY NOT BE CUT, TRIMMED, OR REMOVED WITHOUT PERMIT FROM PARKS DIVISION. (558-7330) NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" CITY HEIGHT LIMITATION 30' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" MIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" SECOND FLOOR TOP PLATE 20' - 5 1/2" GARAGE FLOOR 0' - 5 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 27' - 0" NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING NEW PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING NEW PAINTED GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE(50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (70.83') (77.37') (80.37') (50.82') DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE BASIS -0' - 8 5/8"(49.65') D EC LIN IN G H EIG H T EN VELO PEOF DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FACE OF WALL 1/2" CLR.12' - 0" TYP.(61.65')7' - 6" TYP.(69.15')27' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28')5 1/2"1' - 3 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 0 1/2"9' - 6"6' - 6 1/2"3' - 0"WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" GARAGE FLOOR 0' - 5 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 27' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" MIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED WOOD VERTICAL SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED EAVE TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED GUTTER TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED WOOD SHAKE SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. (50.37') TOP OF (E) ROOF 18' - 7 1/2" EXISTING OUTDOOR DOWN LIGHT TO REMAIN EXISTING PAINTED WOOD GARAGE DOOR TO REMAIN, TYP. (52.12') (61.32') (68.99') (50.82') (77.37')27' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28')5 1/2"1' - 3 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 0 1/2"7' - 8"WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT.one eighth inch = one foot16840one inch = one foot206"6" 0 2three quarters inch = one footone half inch = one foot40three eighths inch = one foot400 4 8one quarter inch = one footprinted on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 2/11/2019 3:35:24 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt 1/4" = 1'-0" A3-1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - NORTH TMC - CAC CAC07/05/18 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 27' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK 15' - 0" MIN. SETBACK SECOND FLOOR 20' - 0" MIN. SETBACK FIRST FLOOR 15' - 0" EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED GUTTER TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED WOOD SHAKE SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED WOOD DOOR AND TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. (50.37') TOP OF (E) ROOF 18' - 7 1/2" EXISTING PAINTED IRON RAILING TO REMAIN, TYP. (52.12') (61.32') (68.99')7' - 8"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"(77.37')27' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28') WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" CITY HEIGHT LIMITATION 30' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK 15' - 0" MIN. SETBACK SECOND FLOOR 20' - 0" MIN. SETBACK FIRST FLOOR 15' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" SECOND FLOOR TOP PLATE 20' - 5 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 27' - 0" NEW PAINTED GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING NEW PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING NEW DECK AND HANDRAIL TYP. SILL2' - 4"MINIMUM OPENING AREA NOT LESS THAN 5.7 SQUARE FEET, TYP. MINIMUM OPENING AREA NOT LESS THAN 5.7 SQUARE FEET, TYP. (50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (70.83') (77.37') (80.37')3' - 0"6' - 6 1/2"9' - 6"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"TYP. SILL3' - 0"EXISTING PAINTED GUTTER TO REMAIN 27' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28') WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT.one eighth inch = one foot16840one inch = one foot206"6" 0 2three quarters inch = one footone half inch = one foot40three eighths inch = one foot400 4 8one quarter inch = one footprinted on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 2/11/2019 3:35:52 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt 1/4" = 1'-0" A3-2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - EAST TMC - CAC CAC07/05/18 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 27' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" MIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED GUTTER TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED IRON RAILING TO REMAIN, TYP. TOP OF (E) ROOF 18' - 7 1/2" EXISTING PAINTED WOOD DOOR AND FRAME TO REMAIN, TYP. (50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (68.99') (77.37')27' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28')7' - 8"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" CITY HEIGHT LIMITATION 30' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" MIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" SECOND FLOOR TOP PLATE 20' - 5 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 27' - 0" NEW PAINTED WOOD TRIM NEW PAINTED GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING NEW PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING NEW PAINTED WOOD DOOR AND TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYP.12' - 0" TYP.DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPENEW OUTDOOR DOWN LIGHT TO MATCH EXISTING (50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (70.83') (77.37') (80.37')3' - 0"6' - 6 1/2"9' - 6"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"(61.65') DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE BASIS -0' - 8 5/8"(49.65')7' - 6" TYP.DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEOF DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FACE OF WALL 1/2" CLEAR (69.15')9 1/2"27' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28') WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT.one eighth inch = one foot16840one inch = one foot206"6" 0 2three quarters inch = one footone half inch = one foot40three eighths inch = one foot400 4 8one quarter inch = one footprinted on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 2/11/2019 3:36:21 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt 1/4" = 1'-0" A3-3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SOUTH TMC - CAC CAC07/05/18 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 27' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK FIRST FLOOR 15' - 0" MIN. SETBACK SECOND FLOOR 20' - 0" MIN. SETBACK 15' - 0" EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED GUTTER TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED WOOD DOOR AND TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. TOP OF (E) ROOF 18' - 7 1/2" EXISTING OUTDOOR DOWN LIGHT TO REMAIN (50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (68.99')7' - 8"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"(77.37')27' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28') WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" CITY HEIGHT LIMITATION 30' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK FIRST FLOOR 15' - 0" MIN. SETBACK SECOND FLOOR 20' - 0" MIN. SETBACK 15' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" SECOND FLOOR TOP PLATE 20' - 5 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 27' - 0" NEW PAINTED WOOD TRIM NEW PAINTED GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING NEW PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING NEW WOOD DECK AND PAINTED IRON HANDRAIL (50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (70.83') (77.37') (80.37')3' - 0"6' - 6 1/2"9' - 6"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"9 1/2"27' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28') WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT.one eighth inch = one foot16840one inch = one foot206"6" 0 2three quarters inch = one footone half inch = one foot40three eighths inch = one foot400 4 8one quarter inch = one footprinted on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 2/11/2019 3:36:43 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt 1/4" = 1'-0" A3-4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - WEST TMC - CAC CAC07/05/18 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" CITY HEIGHT LIMITATION 30' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" SECOND FLOOR TOP PLATE 20' - 5 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 27' - 0" (E) ATTIC SPACE (NON-OCCUPIED) (E) CRAWL SPACE ATTIC SPACE (NON-OCCUPIED) STUDY (E) HALLWAY MASTER BEDROOM (E) LIVING ROOM (E) GARAGE BEYOND (50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (70.83') (77.37') (80.37') (E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"3' - 0"6' - 6 1/2"9' - 6"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"(60.28') FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" CITY HEIGHT LIMITATION 30' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" SECOND FLOOR TOP PLATE 20' - 5 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 27' - 0" (E) BATHROOM(E) LAUNDRY STUDYCLOSETMASTER BATHROOM (E) HALLWAY (E) BEDROOM (E) CRAWL SPACE ATTIC SPACE (NON-OCCUPIED) (50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (70.83') (77.37') (80.37') (E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"3' - 0"6' - 6 1/2"9' - 6"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"(60.28')INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT.one eighth inch = one foot16840one inch = one foot206"6" 0 2three quarters inch = one footone half inch = one foot40three eighths inch = one foot400 4 8one quarter inch = one footprinted on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 2/11/2019 3:36:44 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt 1/4" = 1'-0" A4-1 BUILDING SECTIONS TMC - CAC CAC08/04/11 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 BUILDING SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" 6 BUILDING SECTION NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY Date Scale Drawn Job Sheet 445 N. Whisman Road Suite #300 Mountain View, CA 94043 650-318-0211 9 JAN 2019 NOTED METRO ADLERA D L E R R E S I D E N C E1369 DRAKE AVENUEBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAPLANNING REV 22 FEB 2019 30'-0" MAXIMUM HEIGHT FROM TOP OF CURB (80.05')PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE12'-0"AVERAGE GRADE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 10'-1"FIRST FLOOR12 6 7'-6"NORTH F.F = 55.0' AVERAGE TOP OF CURB = 50.05' BASEMENT RIDGE = 82.38' (32'-3" FROM TOP OF CURB) STONE VENEER BASE & CHIMNEY FIBER CEMENT SHINGLE SIDING - PAINTED 50 YEAR ARCHITECTURAL GRADE COMP. ROOF CLAD WOOD WINDOWS BY 'MARVIN' OR EQ. - EXTERIOR & INTERIOR DIVIDED LITES W/ SPACER BAR BETWEEN GLASS 2x6 WOOD TRIM - PAINTED WATERTABLE - PAINTED BUILT-UP WOOD COLUMNS & WOOD RAILING RWL RWL RWL GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT - TYP.SECOND FLOOR9'-1"DECORATIVE GABLE END - PAINTED WOOD ± 4'-11"1'-1"RWL 32'-3"WOOD ENTRY DOOR - PAINTED 1 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 1/4"=1'-0" 2ND FLOOR 1ST FLOOR EAST RWL RWLRWL RWL RWL BASEMENT 2'-6" x 5'-0" EGRESS 2'-6" x 5'-0" EGRESS 2'-6" x 5'-0" EGRESS RWL 30'-0" MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 12 6 SOUTH 10'-1"9'-1"FIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORRWL RWLRWL RWL RWL RWL 5'-0" x 8'-0" EGRESS MIN. 42" GUARD @ BALCONY (SOLID PANEL & SHORT RAILING) RWL LANDING 2ND FLOOR 1ST FLOOR WEST RWL RWL RWL RWL RWL FROSTED T 2'-6" x 5'-0" EGRESS 2'-6" x 5'-6" EGRESS BASEMENT A4 5.7 SF MINIMUM CLEAR OPENABLE AREA WITH 20" MIN. WIDTH, 24" MIN. HEIGHT & SILL HEIGHT NOT MORE THAN 44" ABOVE THE FLOOR. EGRESS PROVIDE SAFETY GLAZING PER CRC R308.4.5 INCLUDING: 1. AT SHOWER & BATHTUB DOORS AND ENCLOSURES 2. WITHIN 12" OF A DOOR AND WITH A BOTTOM EDGE LESS THAN 60" ABOVE FIN. FLOOR. 3. WITH PANELS OVER 9 SF & WITH LOWEST EDGE LESS THAN 18" ABOVE FIN. FLOOR 4. WITHIN 24" OF DOOR SWING T = TEMPERED GLASS 5'-0"2'-5"ALL POINTS WITHIN 5'-0" OF THE PORCH HAVE A VERTICAL DIMENSION LESS THAN 30" TO GRADE Date Scale Drawn Job Sheet 445 N. Whisman Road Suite #300 Mountain View, CA 94043 650-318-0211 9 JAN 2019 NOTED METRO ADLERA D L E R R E S I D E N C E1369 DRAKE AVENUEBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAPLANNING REV 22 FEB 2019 (N) GARAGE 11'-0" x 21'-0" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE1 PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE PLAN 1/4"=1'-0" 2 DETACHED GARAGE ROOF PLAN 1/4"=1'-0" 6:12 6:12 WEST RWL SOUTHEAST RWL NORTH 12 6 3 DETACHED GARAGE ELEVATIONS 1/4"=1'-0"8'-1" TOP PLATE11'-5"A5 SHINGLE SIDING TO MATCH HOUSE COMP. ROOF TO MATCH HOUSE 22'-0"12'-0" 4.106.2 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: - COMPLIANCE WITH A LAWFULLY ENACTED STORM WATER ORDINANCE. 4.106.3 SITE GRADING AND PAVING WILL MANAGE SURFACE WATER AWAY FROM BUILDINGS 4.106.4 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING, PARKING SPACES: COMPLY WITH ALL RELEVANT SECTIONS 4.201 MEET ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 24, PART 6. SEE T24 SHEETS. 4.303.1 WATER CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURES, INDOOR WATER USE 20% REDUCTION. - MAX FLOW RATES FOR PLUMBING FIXTURES: 1. WATER CLOSET = 1.28 gpf 2. SHOWER HEAD = 2.0 gpm (gal/min) at 80 psi 3. LAVATORY = 1.2 gpm at 60 psi (min. 0.8 gpm at 20 psi) 4. KITCHEN FAUCETS = 1.8 gpm at 60 psi 4.304.1 NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH AN AGGREGATE LANDSCAPE AREA OF MORE THAN 499 SF SHALL SUBMIT A RESIDENTIAL OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST 4.406.1 ENHANCED DURABILITY & REDUCED MAINTENANCE: - ANNULAR SPACES AROUND PIPES, ELECTRIC CABLES, CONDUITS OR OTHER OPENINGS IN SOLE/BOTTOM PLATES AT EXTERIOR WALLS WILL BE RODENT-PROOFED BY CLOSING SUCH OPENINGS WITH CEMENT MORTAR, CONCRETE MASONRY, OR SIMILAR METHOD ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY 4.408 CONSTRUCTION WASTE REDUCTION OF AT LEAST 65%. - RECYCLE AND/OR SALVAGE FOR REUSE A MINIMUM OF 65% OF THE NON-HAZARDOUS CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS. THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SOIL AND LAND CLEARING DEBRIS. 4.410 BUILDING MAINTENANCE & OPERATION: - A OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL WILL BE PROVIDED AT FINAL INSPECTION. 4.503.1 FIREPLACES: - GAS FIREPLACES SHALL BE DIRECT VENT-SEALED-COMBUSTION AND WOOD STOVES MUST MEET EPA U.S. EPA NSPS EMISSIONS LIMITS. 4.504.1 AT THE TIME OF ROUGH INSTALLATION, DURING STORAGE ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND UNTIL FINAL STARTUP OF THE HVAC EQUIPMENT, ALL DUCT AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENTS OPENINGS WILL BE COVERED WITH TAPE, PLASTIC, SHEET METALS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WATER, DUST, OR DEBRIS THAT MAY ENTER THE SYSTEM 4.504.2.1 ADHESIVES, SEALANTS & CAULKS: - SHALL FOLLOW LOCAL AND REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION OR AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT STANDARDS. 4.504.2.2 PAINTS & COATINGS: - ARCHITECTURAL PAINTS & COATINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH VOC LIMITS (TABLE 4.504.3). CALGREEN COMPLIANCE 4.504.2.3 AEROSOL PAINTS & COATINGS: - SHALL MEET THE PRODUCT-WEIGHTED MIR LIMITS FOR ROC, AND COMPLY WITH PERCENT VOC BY WEIGHT OF PRODUCT LIMITS, REGULATION 8, RULE 49. 4.504.2.4 VERIFICATION: - VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED. DOCUMENTATION OF VOC LIMITS & FINISH MATERIALS. 4.504.3 CARPET SYSTEMS: - ALL CARPET INSTALLED IN THE BUILDING INTERIOR SHALL MEET THE CALGREEN TESTING & PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS. 4.504.4 RESILIENT FLOORING SYSTEMS: - AT LEAST 80% OF FLOOR AREA RECEIVING RESILIENT FLOORING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. 4.504.5 COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS: - HARDWOOD PLYWOOD, PARTICLEBOARD & MDF USED ON THE INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENT FOR LOW FORMALDEHYDE EMISSIONS STANDARDS (TABLE 4.504.5). 4.505.2 CONCRETE SLAB FOUNDATIONS: - REQUIRED TO HAVE A VAPOR RETARDER & CAPILLARY BREAK. 4.505.3 MOISTURE CONTENT OF BUILDING MATERIALS: - BUILDING MATERIALS WITH VISIBLE SIGNS OF WATER DAMAGE WILL NOT BE INSTALLED. WALL AND FLOOR FRAMING WILL NOT BE ENCLOSED WHEN THE FRAMING MEMBERS EXCEED 19% MOISTURE CONTENT. MOISTURE CONTENTSHALL BE VERIFIED BEFORE ENCLOSURE. REPLACE WET INSULATION PRODUCTS, OR ALLOW TO DRY BEFORE ENCLOSURE. 4. 506.1 BATHROOM EXHAUST FANS: - SHALL BE ENERGY STAR COMPLIANT, DUCTED TO TERMINATE OUTSIDE THE BUILDING & MUST BE CONTROLLED BY HUMIDITY CONTROL, UNLESS FUNCTIONING AS A COMPONENT OF A WHOLE-HOUSE VENTILATION SYSTEM. 4.507 HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM DESIGN: - SHALL BE SIZED, DESIGNED & HAVE THEIR EQUIPMENT SELECTED USING THE FOLLOWING METHODS: 1. ESTABLISHED HEAT LOSS & GAIN ACCORDING TO ANSI/ACCA 2 MAN. J-2011 OR EQ. 2. DUCT SYSTEMS ARE SIZED ACCORDING TO ANSI/ACCA 1 MAN.D-2014 OR EQ. 3. SELECT HEATING & COOLING EQUIPMENT ACCORDING TO ANSI/ACCA 3, MANUAL S-2014 OR EQ. 702.1 INSTALLER TRAINING: - HVAC SYSTEM INSTALLERS SHALL BE TRAINED AND CERTIFIED IN THE PROPER INSTALLATION OF HVAC SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT BY A RECOGNIZED TRAINING/CERTIFICATION PROGRAM. 703.1 VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CODE - MAY INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, BUILDER OR INSTALLER CERTIFICATION, INSPECTION REPORTS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THE BUILDING DIVISION THAT WILL SHOW SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE 2016 CODE REQUIREMENTS ENERGY EFFICIENCY (2016 CEC) 150.0 (c) 2 - WALLS WITH 2x6 AND LARGER FRAMING REQUIRE R-19 INSULATION. 150.0 (j) 2 A ii - HOT WATER PIPING INSULATION REQUIRED: PIPING 3/4 INCH OR LARGER 150.0 (k) - LIGHTING: ALL LUMINAIRES SHALL BE HIGH EFFICACY. 150.0 (m) 1 - DUCT INSULATION: MINIMUM R-6 REQUIRED. 150.0 (m) 11 - DUCT LEAKAGE TESTING: 6% WITH AIR HANDLER, 4% W/OUT AIR HANDLER 150.0 (m) 13 - RETURN DUCT DESIGN/FAN POWER, AIRFLOW TESTING, AND GRILL SIZING REQUIREMENTS 150.0 (n) - WATER HEATING: 120 VOLT RECEPTACLE < 3 FT., CAT III OR IV VENT, AND GAS SUPPLY LINE CAPACITY OF AT LEAST 200,000 BTU/HOUR 150.0 (o) - THIRD PARTY HERS VERIFICATION FOR VENTILATION AND INDOOR AIR QUALITY 150.0 (q) - MAXIMUM U-FACTOR (0.58) FOR FENESTRATION AND SKYLIGHTS. TABLE 150.0-A - CLASSIFICATION OF HIGH & LOW EFFICACY LIGHT SOURCES. 150.1 (c) 2 - RADIANT BARRIER REQUIRED IN CLIMATE ZONE 3 (PRESCRIPTIVE)1'-0"EXPOSED CEILING 1'-0" ROOF EAVES WILL NOT PROJECT WITHIN 2'-0" OF THE PROPERTY LINE (2016 CRC TABLE R302.1(1)) ALL ROOF PROJECTIONS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THE POINT WHERE FIRE-RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE RATED CONSTRUCTION PER 2016 CRC R302.1(1) OR 2016 CBC 705.2. DETAILS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:126:12 D R A K E A V E N U E 1/8" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN1 15'-0" 1ST FLOOR4'-0"4'-0"FRONT SETBACKSIDE SETBACKSIDE SETBACK 20'-0" 2ND FLOORFRONT SETBACK15'-0" 1ST FLOORREAR SETBACK20'-0" 2ND FLOORREAR SETBACK50.01' 50.01'120.05'120.05'17'-2"BLOCK AVERAGESETBACKA1REFNORTH(N)GARAGE 10" TREE 6" TREE 4" TREE 10" TREE 6" 4" TREE MULTI 4" TREE 8" CYPRESS 6" TREE MULTI 6" TREE 12" TREE 10" TREE 8" 6" WALNUT 8" TREE 12" 8" 4" TREE 12" TREE 10" CYPRESS DRIVEWAY (N)RESIDENCE SKYLIGHT 10'-0" WIDE ALLEY PP CURB/GUTTER SIDEWALK WM 83.2' RIDGE UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE REMOVE (E) RESIDENCE OUTDOOR KITCHEN (N)TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE & (N)DETACHED GARAGE SCOPE OF WORK REMOVE (E) GARAGE 9'-6"2'-0" PLANTER ARCHITECTURAL A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 SURVEY LANDSCAPE L1 L2 SHEET INDEX SITE PLAN PROPOSED 1ST & 2ND FLOOR PLANS PROPOSED BASEMENT PLAN, SECTION, & FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS PROPOSED ELEVATIONS PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE EXISTING & PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN, PLANT MATERIALS, & FRONT FENCE DETAILS DIMENSIONS & OUTDOOR KITCHEN DETAILS THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH: -2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE -2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE -2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE -2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE -2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889 WEEKDAYS: 8:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M. SATURDAYS: 9:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. SUNDAYS & HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 18.07.110 FOR DETAILS) (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS) CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. & 5:00 P.M.) CONSTRUCTION HOURS ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION VICINITY MAP D R A K E A V E B E R N A L A V E V A N C O U V E R A V E C A B R I L L O A V E C O R T E Z A V E B A L B O A A V EHILLSIDE DREASTONDRNORTH1369 DRAKE AVE E L C A M I N O R E A LADELINE DRAN OSHA PERMIT WILL BE OBTAINED PER CAL/OSHA REQUIREMENTS IF REQUIRED, A GRADING PERMIT WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OBTAIN A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY LINES FOR ANY STRUCTURE WITHIN 1'-0" OF THE PROPERTY LINE A STORMWATER CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION PREVENTION PERMIT IS REQUIRED A/C CONDENSER ON CONC. PAD -SHALL NOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM OUTDOOR NOISE LEVEL OF 60 dBA DAYTIME (7AM TO 10PM) OR 50 dBA NIGHTIME (10PM TO 7AM) AS MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE REPLACE CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY, AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE PLUG (E) SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION, AND ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY 048 168 PREP FOR SOLAR STORMWATER STORAGE PIPE, JUNCTION BOX, & THRU CURB DRAINAGE - SEE CIVIL PLANS RAIN WATER LEADER - TYP. APN: ZONE: LOT AREA: MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA: MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE (40%): PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR AREA: PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR AREA: PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA*: PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE AREA: PROPOSED REAR PORCH AREA: TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA: PROPOSED FRONT PORCH AREA: TOTAL PROPOSED COVERAGE (35.3%): *700 SF OF BASEMENT AREA EXEMPT FROM FAR SITE DATA 026-057-020 R-1 6,004.0 SF 3,285.3 SF 2,401.6 SF 1,656.7 SF 1,274.8 SF 699.8 SF 264.0 SF 89.3 SF 3,284.8 SF 108.0 SF 2,118.0 SF (N)SEWER LATERAL & CLEANOUT ELECTRIC METER GAS METER Date Scale Drawn Job Sheet 445 N. Whisman Road Suite #300 Mountain View, CA 94043 650-318-0211 9 JAN 2019 NOTED METRO ADLERA D L E R R E S I D E N C E1369 DRAKE AVENUEBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAPLANNING REV 22 FEB 2019 Date Scale Drawn Job Sheet 445 N. Whisman Road Suite #300 Mountain View, CA 94043 650-318-0211 9 JAN 2019 NOTED METRO ADLERA D L E R R E S I D E N C E1369 DRAKE AVENUEBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAPLANNING REV 22 FEB 2019 A3 UP LIGHTWELL MECH 10'-0" x 6'-7" STORAGE 24'-9" x 24'-6" MECHANICAL SOFFIT T FAU WH WATER HEATERS & FURNACES LOCATED IN CLOSETS ADJOINING ROOMS THAT CAN BE USED FOR SLEEPING MUST COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF 2016 CPC 504.1 & 2013 CMC 904.1 - PROVIDE A LISTED, GASKETED DOOR ASSEMBLY & LISTED SELF-CLOSING DEVICE - THE SELF CLOSING DOOR ASSEMBLY SHALL COMPLY W/ CPC 504.1.1 & CMC 904.1.1 - THE DOOR ASSEMBLY SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A THRESHOLD & BOTTOM DOOR SEAL & SHALL COMPLY W/ CPC 504.1.2 & CMC 904.1.2 - COMBUSTION AIR SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE OUTDOORS PER CPC 506.4 LADDER DETAILS & LIGHTWELL DRAINAGE DETAILS WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL BATHBEDROOM 3 HALL ATTIC STORAGE FAMILY ROOMKITCHEN9'-0"10'-0"10'-0"LIGHTWELL5'-2"2 PROPOSED SECTION 1/4"=1'-0" 2 - 2 - 2'-0" 1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 1/4"=1'-0" 3'-0" CLEAR 4'-0"CLEARAT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, PLANS & ENGINEERING WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR SHORING AS REQUIRED BY 2016 CBC, CHAPTER 31 AND AS REQUIRED BY OSHA 1. WALLS OF THE BASEMENT SHALL BE PROPERLY SHORED PER APPROVED DESIGN BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD OR SOILS ENGINEER 2. ALL APPROPRIATE GUIDELINES OF OSHA SHALL BE INCORPORATED. WHERE SPACE PERMITS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SLOPES MAY BE UTILIZED IN LIEU OF SHORING. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VERTICAL CUT SHALL BE 5'-0", BEYOND THAT HORIZONTAL BENCHES OF 5'-0" WIDE WILL BE REQUIRED. TEMPORARY SHORES SHALL NOT EXCEED 1 TO 1. 3. SHORING AND BRACING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL FLOORS, ROOF, AND WALL SHEATHING HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY CONSTRUCTED 4. SHORING PLANS SHALL BE WET STAMPED AND SIGNED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS TEN FEET FROM THE EXIT TERMINAL OF ANY NEWLY INSTALLED HIGH EFFICIENCY MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT THE PIPE SIZE OF THE FINAL TEN FEET OF ANY TERMINAL MUST BE INCREASED TO 3 INCHES, OR PROVIDE MANUFACTURER-APPROVED BAFFLES 12'-0" x 22'-0"264.0 SFN DETACHED GARAGE AREA TOTAL DETACHED GARAGE AREA: DIMENSION SQUARE FOOTAGE 264.0 SF FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR GARAGE A B C D E F G H I JK L M N O 13'-4" x 6'-8"89.3 SF0 COVERED PORCH AREA TOTAL COVERED PORCH AREA: DIMENSION SQUARE FOOTAGE 89.3 SF 108 SF FRONT PORCH EXEMPT FROM FAR 3 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1/8"=1'-0" 13'-4" x 26'-9" 8'-0" x 1'-0" 19'-11" x 22'-11" 10'-0" x 7'-5" 28'-5" x 23'-8" 12'-2" x 7'-6" 356.1 SF 8.0 SF 454.6 SF 74.2 SF 672.5 SF 91.3 SF A B C D E F RESIDENCE FLOOR AREA TOTAL FIRST FLOOR AREA: DIMENSION SQUARE FOOTAGE 1,656.7 SF 12'-11" x 14'-9" 15'-5" x 20'-4" 10'-2" x 8'-1" 13'-3" x 12'-3" 15'-5" x 12'-4" 22'-11" x 12'-10" 9'-10" x 4'-3" 191.1 SF 313.5 SF 81.4 SF 162.3 SF 190.1 SF 294.6 SF 41.8 SF G H I J K L M DIMENSION SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL SECOND FLOOR AREA:1,274.8 SF TOTAL RESIDENCE FLOOR AREA:2,931.5 SF TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA = 3,284.8 SF PLANTING NOTES -ALL BEDS/EXPOSED SOIL TO BE DRESSED WITH 3" MINI MULCH BARK. -ALL NEW PLANTS INSTALLATION BACK FILLED WITH PREMIUM SOIL. -COMPOST SURFACES: PROVIDE AT LEAST 4 CUBIC YARDS PER 1000 SF TO A DEPTH OF 6" -DO NOT SUBSTITUTE PLANTS ON LIST WITHOUT ADVISEMENT OF DESIGNER DRIVEWAY GATE 2'-0" EXISTING 3' H PICKET FENCE EXISTING 6'H GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE NOTES: -DRIVEWAY GATE FOR DESIGN PURPOSES. MECHANICS TO BE DETAILED BY CONTRACTOR FOR BUILDING PERMITS -HARDWARE TBD BY HOMEOWNER/CONTACTORS -EXISTING GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCES TO REMAIN. FRONT FENCE DETAILS Silver Swan Euphorbia Euphorbia characias "Wilcott'' BRISBANE BOX TREE TRISTANIA CONFERTANuccio's Pearl Camellia Camellia japonica 'Nuccio's Pearl' Pink Flowering Maple Abutilion 'Roses' Pink Flowering Maple Abutilion 'Roses'Matt Rush Lomandra confertifolia 'Seascape" Blueberry Ice Bougainvillea Bougainvillea 'Blueberry Ice' Silver Swan Euphorbia Euphorbia characias "Wilcott'' Emerald Gaiety Euonymus Euonymus fortunei 'Emerald Gaiety' Royal Hawaiian® Hawaii Magic Conebush Leucadendron 'Hawaii Magic' Morning Light Westringa Westringia fruticosa 'Morning Light' Royal Hawaiian® Hawaii Magic Conebush Leucadendron 'Hawaii Magic' Rainbow Maiden New Zealand Flax Phormium 'Rainbow Maiden' Star Jasmine Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine Trachelospermum jasminoides RAISED BEDS FOR VEGETABLES PLANT LIST Image Qty Latin Name Common Name Scheduled Size Water Rng 16 TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX TREE 24" BOX M 20 Euphorbia characias "Wilcott''Silver Swan Euphorbia 1 GAL L 11 Euonymus fortunei 'Emerald Gaiety'Emerald Gaiety Euonymus 1 GAL L 49 Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine 1 GAL SHRUB L 15 Lomandra confertifolia 'Seascape"Matt Rush 1 gal L 9 Leucadendron 'Hawaii Magic'Royal Hawaiian® Hawaii Magic Conebush5 gal L 4 Camellia japonica 'Nuccio's Pearl'Nuccio's Pearl Camellia 15 gal ML 4 Phormium 'Rainbow Maiden'Rainbow Maiden New Zealand Flax 5 gal L 10 Abutilion 'Roses'Pink Flowering Maple 5 gal ML 5 Bougainvillea 'Blueberry Ice'Blueberry Ice Bougainvillea 5 gal vine L 4 Westringia fruticosa 'Morning Light'Morning Light Westringa 5 gal L IRRIGATION NOTES -ALL PLANTING BEDS ON DRIP. -LAWN TO BE SPRINKLER. -PLANTING BEDS AND LAWN TO BE ON SEPARATE VALVES. -EACH VALVE TO BE INSTALLED WITH ANTI-SIPHON DEVICE. -EACH VALVE SHALL IRRIGATE A HYDROZONE WITH SIMILAR WATER NEEDS. - SYSTEM TO INCLUDE AUTOMATIC CONTROLLER WITH TIMER, ATMOSPHERIC/RAIN SENSOR. -CONTROLLER SHALL NOT LOSE PROGRAMMING DATA WHEN POWER SOURCE IS INTERRUPTED. 1/16"=1' PLANT MATERIALS 1/8"=1' EXISTING LANDSCAPE =PLANTING BEDS (920sf) =LAWN(425sf) =ARTIFICIAL TURF (720sf) =STONE PAVERS ON BASE ROCK AND SAND (651sf) =GRAVEL (221sf) EXISTING 3'H PICKET FENCE NEW AUTOMATIC DRIVEWAY GATE (SEE DETAIL DRAWINGS) EXISTING GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE TO REMAIN NEW OUTDOOR KITCHEN (SEE DETAIL DRAWINGS) PLANTING BEDS (SEE PLANTING PLAN) S I D E W A L KF R O N T P O R C HB A C K P O R C HH O U S E NEW ARIFICIAL TURF PLAY AREA G A R A G E EXISTING FENCE ALONG NORTH PL TO REMAIN EXISTING BACK FENCE TO REMAIN STANDARD PEA GRAVEL AND STEPPING STONES 1/8"=1'PROPOSED LANDSCAPE =CONCRETE =PLANTING BED =LAWNDRIP LINE4'-0"2'-0"DRIP LINEAVOID MATERIAL STORAGE & EQUIPMENT NOTE: 12' SQUARE MIN. FOR WOOD BARRIER 6' RADIUS FOR PLASTIC BARRIER DO NOT STORE MATERIALS OR ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THESE AREAS EXISTING TREE HIGH VISIBILITY PLASTIC BARRIER FENCING OR SNOW FENCING AROUND DRIP LINE/CRITICAL ROOT ZONE EXISTING GRADE TREE PROTECTION -PROVIDE TREE PROTECTION FOR ALL TREES TO REMAIN: WALNUT AND STREET TREES. -NO HERITAGE/PROTECTED TREES ON PROPERTY OR SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. EXISTING STREET TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING STREET TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING BAY LAUREL TO BE REMOVED. TRUNK DIAMETER LESS THAN 12"EXISTING MAYTEN TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CYPRESS TO BE REMOVED. TRUNK DIAMETER KESS THAN 12" EXISTING PHOTINIA HEDGE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CYPRESS TO BE REMOVED (TRUNK DIAMETER LESS THAN 12") EXISTING EUGENIA TO BE REMOVED (TRUNK DIAMETER LESS THAN 12") EXISTING ENGLISH LAUREL TO BE REMOVED (TRUNK DIAMETERS LESS THAN 12") EXISTING PLUM TO BE REMOVED (TRUNK DIAMETER LESS THAN 12") EXISTING WALNUT TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PRIVET TREE TO BE REMOVED (TRUNK DIAMETER LESS THAN 12") EXISTING ACACIA TO BE REMOVED (TRUNK DIAMETER LESS THAN 12") E X I S T I N G H O U S E D R A K E A V E.EXISTING DRIVEWAY Title PROPERTY ADDRESS Date EXISTING AND PROPOSED Scale: Gigi McAdam Landscape Design Gigi@gigiscapes.com 415-793-9840 1369 DRAKE AVE. BURLINGAME 2/22/19 PROJECT LOCATION 830 Paloma Avenue Item No. 9c Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 830 Paloma Avenue Meeting Date: March 11, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling. Applicant and Architect: Scott Kuehne, Suarez-Kuehne Architecture APN: 029-015-270 Property Owners: Jennifer and Matt Kulin Lot Area: 5,240 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is located on an interior lot and contains 2,151 SF (0.41 FAR) of floor area. The existing lot coverage is nonconforming at 2,158 SF (41.2%) where 2,096 SF (40%) is the maximum allowed. Only interior improvements are proposed on the first floor; there would be no expansion to the existing building footprint. The applicant is also proposing to construct a new second story (614 SF). With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,765 SF (0.53 FAR) where 2,777 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 12 SF under the maximum allowed FAR. The number of potential bedrooms is increasing from three to six. The new “family den” on the first floor and new “study/nursery” on the second floor both qualify as bedrooms since they are enclosed, contain windows, and measure at least 70 SF in area. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached garage provides two covered parking spaces (19’-3” wide x 19’-0” deep clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(2)). 830 Paloma Avenue Lot Size: 5,240 SF Plans date stamped: February 8, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 17’-0” no change 15’-0” or block average (2nd flr): n/a 62’-5” 20'-0" or block average Side (left): (right): 3’-4” 4’-6” no change no change 3'-0" 3'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 29’-8” n/a no change 34’-5” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,158 SF* 41.2% no change 2,096 SF 40% FAR: 2,151 SF 0.41 FAR 2,765 SF 0.53 FAR 2,777 SF 1 0.53 FAR * Existing nonconforming lot coverage. 1 (0.32 x 5,240 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,777 SF (0.53 FAR) Item No. 9c Design Review Study Design Review 830 Paloma Avenue 2 830 Paloma Avenue Lot Size: 5,240 SF Plans date stamped: February 8, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: 3 6 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (19’-3” wide x 19’ deep) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’)** no change 2 covered (18’ x 18’) 1 uncovered (9' x 18')** Height: 16’-4” 25’-3¾” 30'-0" DH Envelope: encroaches on the left side complies CS 25.26.075 ** Allowed for existing conditions. Staff Comments: A letter of concern about the proposed project was submitted by the adjacent neighbor at 834 Paloma Avenue (see attachments). 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Scott Kuehne, applicant and designer Jennifer and Matt Kulin, property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Photos of Neighboring Properties (submitted by applicant) Letter of Concern Submitted by Neighbor Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 1, 2019 Area Map Kulin Residence830 Paloma AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010APN# 029015270 Owner: Jennifer & Matt Kulin830 Paloma AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Architect:Suarez-Kuehne Architecture 2412 14th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94116Attn: Scott Kuehne(415) 242-1400Revisions Sheet Name Date Owner # SKA# Sheet Number Seals/Approvals WHEN PLOTTED FULL SCALETHIS DIMENSION SHOULD SCALE 3"UNLESS THIS SHEET IS SIGNED BY A PRINCIPAL OF SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, THE DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION.© SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTUREA8.1 24 AUGUST 2018 3D VIEWS 1 3D View - Front SW23D View - Front NW 4 3D View - Rear NE33D View - Rear SE MAIN LEVEL 15.23 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 24.73 FAMILY ROOM (E) LEVEL 13.56 NORTH TC 11.66 TOP OF (N) ROOF RIDGE 36.98 FRONT PROP NW 11.93 REAR PROP NE 13.23 DHE DATUM NORTH 12.58 FRONT PROP SW 11.96 REAR PROP SE 13.53 DHE DATUM SOUTH 12.75 (E) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.27 3' - 4" + / - 4' - 6" SIDE PROPERTY LINE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SIDE SETBACK 3' - 0" SIDE SETBACK 3' - 0"EQEQEQEQPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL T.O.P. 33.56 (N) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.65 (E) BRICK CHIMNEY W/ ARRESTOR (E) WD FENCE & WD GATE TO REMAIN -TYP (E) MAIL SLOT TO BE RELOC TO SOUTH GARAGE WALL DEMO (E) GARAGE DR (E) CLAY TILE ROOF -TYP (E) PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUTS -TYP (E) MAIN ENTRY DOOR TO REMAIN OUTLINE OF PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN DASHED (E) STUCCO TO REMAIN -PATCH TO MATCH AS NEEDED-TYP DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FAMILY ROOM T.O.P. 22.19 12' - 0"12' - 0"MAX HT MEASURED FROM TOP OF CURB30' - 0"45.00°OUTLINE OF (N) RAISED ROOF SHOWN DASHED7' - 6"30' - 0"30' - 0"TOP OF (E) ROOF RIDGE 28.00 16' - 4"(E) WHITE VINYL FIXED WDW TO BE REPLACED W/ MARVIN ULTREX FIXED WDW SOUTH TC 11.667' - 6"45.00°MAIN LEVEL 15.23 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 24.73 FAMILY ROOM (E) LEVEL 13.56 NORTH TC 11.66 TOP OF (N) ROOF RIDGE 36.98 FRONT PROP NW 11.93 REAR PROP NE 13.23 DHE DATUM NORTH 12.58 FRONT PROP SW 11.96 REAR PROP SE 13.53 DHE DATUM SOUTH 12.75 (E) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.27 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL T.O.P. 33.56 (N) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.65 (N) (N)(N) (N) (N) SKYLIGHTS (E) BRICK CHIMNEY EXTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE (N) ADDITION HEIGHT (N) PAINTED WD DOUBLE GARAGE DOORS TO ACCOMMODATE 2 CAR GARAGE W/ PAINTED WD TRIM TO MATCH (E) (N) CLAY TILE ROOF TO MATCH (E) - TYP @ (N) ROOFS (N) PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUT & GUTTER TO MATCH (E) -TYP @ NEW ADDITION (N) 2ND STORY ADDITION (N) PAINTED WD TRIM TO MATCH (E) -TYP FAMILY ROOM T.O.P. 22.19 (N) MARVIN ULTREX CASEMENT WDWS -TYP TOP OF CHIMNEY25' - 8" + / -EQEQEQEQ(N) DUTCH GABLE ROOF SIM TO (E) TOP OF (E) ROOF RIDGE 28.00 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE NOTE: SEE EXISTING ELEVATION FOR EXISTING INFORMATION25' - 3 3/4"(N) MARVIN ULTREX FIXED WDW IN (E) OPNG SOUTH TC 11.6612' - 0"12' - 0"MAX HT MEASURED FROM TOP OF CURB30' - 0"45.00°7' - 6"30' - 0"30' - 0"7' - 6"45.00°Kulin Residence830 Paloma AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010APN# 029015270 Owner: Jennifer & Matt Kulin830 Paloma AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Architect:Suarez-Kuehne Architecture 2412 14th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94116Attn: Scott Kuehne(415) 242-1400Revisions Sheet Name Date Owner # SKA# Sheet Number Seals/Approvals WHEN PLOTTED FULL SCALETHIS DIMENSION SHOULD SCALE 3"UNLESS THIS SHEET IS SIGNED BY A PRINCIPAL OF SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, THE DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION.© SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTUREA4.1 24 AUGUST 2018 ENTRY (WEST) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/4" = 1'-0"2 Existing West (Entry) Elevation 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Proposed West (Entry) Elevation 1 PLANNING REVS 02-07-2019 MAIN LEVEL 15.23 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 24.73 FAMILY ROOM (E) LEVEL 13.56 NORTH TC 11.66 TOP OF (N) ROOF RIDGE 36.98 FRONT PROP NW 11.93 REAR PROP NE 13.23 DHE DATUM NORTH 12.58EQEQ FRONT PROP SW 11.96 REAR PROP SE 13.53 DHE DATUM SOUTH 12.75 EQEQ3' - 4" + / - 4' - 6" + / - (E) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.27 SIDE PROPERTY LINE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SIDE SETBACK 3' - 0" SIDE SETBACK 3' - 0" PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL T.O.P. 33.56 (N) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.65 RELOC (E) CRAWLSPACE ACCESS OUTLINE OF PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN DASHED (E) BRICK CHIMNEY W/ ARRESTOR (E) WD FENCE & WD GATE TO REMAIN -TYP (E) PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUTS -TYP (E) STUCCO TO REMAIN -PATCH TO MATCH AS NEEDED -TYP (E) WD FENCE & WD GATE TO REMAIN -TYP DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE DEMO (E) STEPS & WHITE METAL SLIDER DOOR FAMILY ROOM T.O.P. 22.19 (E) WHITE METAL GLIDER WDW TO BE REPLACED W/ MARVIN ULTREX GLIDER OUTLINE OF (N) RAISED ROOF SHOWN DASHED TOP OF (E) ROOF RIDGE 28.00 1' - 1"0' - 3 1/2"1' - 10 1/2"16' - 4"SOUTH TC 11.66 12' - 0"12' - 0"MAX HT MEASURED FROM TOP OF CURB30' - 0"45.00°7' - 6"30' - 0"30' - 0"7' - 6"45.00°0' - 11"0' - 3 1/4"1' - 6 3/4"(E) CRAWLSPACE VENTS -TYP MAIN LEVEL 15.23 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 24.73 NORTH TC 11.66 TOP OF (N) ROOF RIDGE 36.98 FRONT PROP NW 11.93 REAR PROP NE 13.23 DHE DATUM NORTH 12.58 FRONT PROP SW 11.96 REAR PROP SE 13.53 DHE DATUM SOUTH 12.75 (E) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.27 EQEQEQEQPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL T.O.P. 33.56 (N) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.65 (N)(N)(N)(N) (N) (N) RELOCATED CRAWLSPACE ACCESS (E) BRICK CHIMNEY EXTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE (N) ADDITION (N) CLAY TILE ROOF @ (N) ADDITION & (N) RAISED ROOF TO MATCH (E) (N) CONC PATIO STEPS - LESS THAN 30" ABOVE GRADE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE (N) PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUTS & GUTTER @ ADDITION TO MATCH (E) -TYP (N) STUCCO @ ADDITION TO MATCH (E) -TYP (N) 2ND STORY ADDITION FAMILY ROOM T.O.P. 22.19 (N) MARVIN ULTREX CASEMENT WDWS -TYP (N) 3 PANEL MARVIN ULTREX SLIDER DOOR (N) MARVIN ULTREX FIXED WDW (N) PAINTED WD TRIM TO MATCH (E) -TYP TOP OF (E) ROOF RIDGE 28.00 NOTE: SEE EXISTING ELEVATION FOR EXISTING INFORMATION 25' - 3 3/4"(N) EGRESS CASEMENT WDW -CLEAR OPNG: 2' -2 43/64" X 4' -0 15/16" (N) MARVIN ULTREX GLIDER WDW IN (E) OPNG -EGRESS CLEAR OPNG APPROX: 2' -2" X 3' -7" (N) HIGH EFFICACY EXTERIOR LIGHTING -TYP SOUTH TC 11.66 12' - 0"12' - 0"MAX HT MEASURED FROM TOP OF CURB30' - 0"45.00°7' - 6"30' - 0"30' - 0"7' - 6"45.00°(N) MARVIN ULTREX CASEMENT WDW W/ TEMPERED GLASS (N) CRAWLSPACE VENTS W/ ENGINEERED DUAL FUNCTION FLOOD VENTS IN (E) OPNG -TYP @ ALL (E) CRAWLSPACE VENT LOC Kulin Residence830 Paloma AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010APN# 029015270 Owner: Jennifer & Matt Kulin830 Paloma AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Architect:Suarez-Kuehne Architecture 2412 14th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94116Attn: Scott Kuehne(415) 242-1400Revisions Sheet Name Date Owner # SKA# Sheet Number Seals/Approvals WHEN PLOTTED FULL SCALETHIS DIMENSION SHOULD SCALE 3"UNLESS THIS SHEET IS SIGNED BY A PRINCIPAL OF SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, THE DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION.© SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTUREA4.2 24 AUGUST 2018 REAR (EAST) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Existing East (Rear) Elevation 1/4" = 1'-0"2 Proposed East (Rear) Elevation 1 PLANNING REVS 02-07-2019 MAIN LEVEL 15.23 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 24.73 FAMILY ROOM (E) LEVEL 13.56 NORTH TC 11.66 TOP OF (N) ROOF RIDGE 36.98 (E) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.27 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL T.O.P. 33.56 (N) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.65 TO PROP LINE 17' - 0" + / - FRONT SETBACK 15' - 0" 2ND STORY FRONT SETBACK 20' - 0" SIDEWALK 4' - 0" TO STREET 4' - 2" (E) WD GATE TO REMAIN (E) CRAWLSPACE VENTS -TYP (E) CLAY TILE ROOF (E) STUCCO TO REMAIN -PATCH TO MATCH AS NEEDED (E) PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUTS -TYP (E) BRICK CHIMNEY W/ ARRESTOR (E) CONC FDN BELOW STUCCO -TYP (E) WHITE METAL SLIDER WDWS (3) TO BE REPLACED W/ MARVIN ULTREX SLIDERS -TYP @ NORTH ELEV OUTLINE OF PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN DASHED FAMILY ROOM T.O.P. 22.19 1' - 8"1' - 10 215/256"8' - 7 1/2"8' - 5"RELOC (E) DOWNSPOUT TO OTHER SIDE OF (N) WDW TOP OF (E) ROOF RIDGE 28.00 4' - 8 95/128"16' - 4"GARAGE SLAB (SLOPED) 12.81(@ SURVEY POINT) MAIN LEVEL 15.23 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 24.73 FAMILY ROOM (E) LEVEL 13.56 NORTH TC 11.66 TOP OF (N) ROOF RIDGE 36.98 (E) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.27 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL T.O.P. 33.56 (N) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.65 EXTEND CHIMNEY TO MATCH (E) (SHOWN DASHED FOR CLARITY) (N)(N)(N) (N)(N)(N) (N) SKYLIGHT (N) CLAY TILE ROOF @ (N) ADDITION & (N) RAISED ROOF TO MATCH (E) (N) PAINTED WD TRIM TO MATCH (E) -TYP (N) CONC STEPS TO BACKYARD FROM FAMILY DEN (N) PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUTS & GUTTER @ (N) ADDITION TO MATCH (E) -TYP (N) PAINTED WD TRIM @ (E) WDWS TO MATCH (E) -TYP (N) 2ND STORY ADDITION FAMILY ROOM T.O.P. 22.19 1' - 8"9' - 6"13' - 0 3/4"25' - 3 3/4"3' - 5"13' - 4"8' - 10"8' - 5"(N) MARVIN ULTREX CASEMENT WDW -TYP (N) MARVIN ULTREX FIXED WINDOW (N)(N)WH (N) TANKLESS WATER HEATER TOP OF (E) ROOF RIDGE 28.00 NOTE: SEE EXISTING ELEVATION FOR EXISTING INFORMATION (N) MARVIN ULTREX GLIDER WDWS IN (E) OPNG -WDW @ STAIR LANDING W/ TEMPERED GLASS (N) EGRESS MARVIN ULTREX GLIDER WDW IN (E) OPNG -EGRESS CLEAR OPNG APPROX: 2' -2" X 3' -7" GARAGE SLAB (SLOPED) 12.81(@ SURVEY POINT) (N) CRAWLSPACE VENTS W/ ENGINEERED DUAL FUNCTION FLOOD VENTS IN (E) OPNG -TYP @ ALL (E) CRAWLSPACE VENT LOC Kulin Residence830 Paloma AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010APN# 029015270 Owner: Jennifer & Matt Kulin830 Paloma AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Architect:Suarez-Kuehne Architecture 2412 14th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94116Attn: Scott Kuehne(415) 242-1400Revisions Sheet Name Date Owner # SKA# Sheet Number Seals/Approvals WHEN PLOTTED FULL SCALETHIS DIMENSION SHOULD SCALE 3"UNLESS THIS SHEET IS SIGNED BY A PRINCIPAL OF SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, THE DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION.© SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTUREA4.3 24 AUGUST 2018 LEFT (NORTH) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Existing North Elevation 1/4" = 1'-0"2 Proposed North Elevation 1 PLANNING REVS 02-07-2019 MAIN LEVEL 15.23 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 24.73 FAMILY ROOM (E) LEVEL 13.56 TOP OF (N) ROOF RIDGE 36.98 (E) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.27 TO PROP LINE 29' - 8" + / - REAR SETBACK 15' - 0" 2ND STORY REAR SETBACK 20' - 0" PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL T.O.P. 33.56 TO FENCE 29' - 3" (N) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.65 (E) CLAY TILE ROOF (E) STUCCO TO REMAIN - PATCH TO MATCH AS NEEDED (E) PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUTS -TYP(E) WD GATE TO REMAIN OUTLINE OF PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN DASHED (E) WD FENCE TO REMAINFAMILY ROOM T.O.P. 22.19 (E) METAL SLIDER WINDOW TO BE REPLACED W/ MARVIN ULTREX GLIDER IN (E) OPNG (E) HIGH QUALITY SIMONTON WHITE VINYL CASEMENTS (3) TO BE REPLACED W/ MARVIN ULTREX CASEMENTS IN (E) OPNG (E) GARDEN / BOX WINDOW TO BE RELOCATED (E) WHITE METAL SLIDER WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED (E) ACCESS TO ELECTRICAL PANEL TO REMAIN (E) CONC STEPS TO BE REMOVED TOP OF (E) ROOF RIDGE 28.00 (E) EXTERIOR LIGHT TO REMAIN SOUTH TC 11.66 (E) CRAWLSPACE VENTS -TYP MAIN LEVEL 15.23 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 24.73 FAMILY ROOM (E) LEVEL 13.56 TOP OF (N) ROOF RIDGE 36.98 (E) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.27 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL T.O.P. 33.56 (N) MAIN FLOOR T.O.P. 23.65 (N) (N)(N)(N) (N)(N) (N)(N)(N)(N) (N) SKYLIGHT (N) CLAY TILE ROOF @ (N) ADDITION & (N) RAISED ROOF TO MATCH (E) (N) 2ND STORY ADDITION (N) PAINTED WD TRIM TO MATCH (E) -TYP (N) PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUTS & GUTTER @ (N) ADDITION TO MATCH (E) -TYP (N) CONC STEPS TO BACKYARD FROM FAMILY DEN (N) STUCCO @ (N) ADDITION TO MATCH (E) -TYP FAMILY ROOM T.O.P. 22.19 (N) MARVIN ULTREX AWNING WDWS -TYP (N) MARVIN ULTREX CASEMENT EGRESS WDWS -CLEAR OPNG: 2' -2 43/64" X 4' -0 15/16" (EACH) (N) MARVIN ULTREX CASEMENT WDW -TYP (N) MAILBOX SLOT LOCATION (N) (E) CHIMNEY EXTENDED (E) GARDEN / BOX WDW RELOCATED TOP OF (E) ROOF RIDGE 28.00 NOTE: SEE EXISTING ELEVATION FOR EXISTING INFORMATION (N) MARVIN ULTREX CASEMENT EGRESS WDW - CLEAR OPNG: 2' -2 43/64" X 4' -0 15/16" (N) MARVIN ULTREX CASEMENT WDWS (3) IN (E) OPNG (N) MARVIN ULTREX GLIDER WDW IN (E) OPNG SOUTH TC 11.66 (N)(N)(N) (N) CRAWLSPACE VENTS W/ ENGINEERED DUAL FUNCTION FLOOD VENTS IN (E) OPNG -TYP @ ALL (E) CRAWLSPACE VENT LOC Kulin Residence830 Paloma AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010APN# 029015270 Owner: Jennifer & Matt Kulin830 Paloma AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Architect:Suarez-Kuehne Architecture 2412 14th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94116Attn: Scott Kuehne(415) 242-1400Revisions Sheet Name Date Owner # SKA# Sheet Number Seals/Approvals WHEN PLOTTED FULL SCALETHIS DIMENSION SHOULD SCALE 3"UNLESS THIS SHEET IS SIGNED BY A PRINCIPAL OF SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, THE DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION.© SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTUREA4.4 24 AUGUST 2018 RIGHT (SOUTH) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Existing South Elevation 1/4" = 1'-0"2 Proposed South Elevation 1 PLANNING REVS 02-07-2019 A4.22 A4.1 1 A4.4 2 A4.3 2 NORTH PROJECT NORTH UPUP4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12" 4" / 12" 4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12" (N) (N)(N) CONC STEPSRAISE MAIN LEVEL TOP PLATE FOR (N) ROOF TO ACCOMMODATE (N) STAIR TO THE UPPER LEVEL SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHT TO PROP LINE9' - 3" + / -TO PROP LINE 62' - 5" + / - (E) 8' X 17' -6" UNCOVERED COMPACT PARKING SPACE OUTLINE OF HOUSE EXTERIOR BELOW SHOWN DASHED -TYP TWO 9' X 20' COVERED PARKING SPACES 4" / 12"4" / 12" SEE (E) SITE PLAN FOR (E) NOTES TO PROP LINE8' - 1" + / -TO PROP LINE 34' - 5" + / - (N) SIDEWALK TO BE REPLACED IN KIND (N) CONC SIDEWALK1. SEE EXISTING SITE PLAN AND SITE NOTES FOR ALL EXISTING SITE INFO. 2. SEE SURVEY FOR EXISTING CURB, FLOW LINE & DRIVEWAY ELEVATIONS -ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN 3. SEE SURVEY FOR EXISTING ELECTRIC, WATER, & GAS METERS AND SEWER CLEANOUT LOCATIONS -ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN. PROPOSED SITE NOTES Kulin Residence830 Paloma AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010APN# 029015270 Owner: Jennifer & Matt Kulin830 Paloma AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Architect:Suarez-Kuehne Architecture 2412 14th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94116Attn: Scott Kuehne(415) 242-1400Revisions Sheet Name Date Owner # SKA# Sheet Number Seals/Approvals WHEN PLOTTED FULL SCALETHIS DIMENSION SHOULD SCALE 3"UNLESS THIS SHEET IS SIGNED BY A PRINCIPAL OF SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, THE DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION.© SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTUREA1.2 24 AUGUST 2018 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0"1 Site Plan Proposed 1 PLANNING REVS 02-07-2019 City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 748 Plymouth Way Meeting Date: March 11, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition and interior remodel to an existing single- family dwelling. Applicants and Property Owners: Heather & Ekine Akuiyibo APN: 029-162-150 Architect: Mark Pearcy Lot Area: 6,480 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The existing single-story house with an attached one-car garage contains 2,153 SF (0.33 FAR). The proposed project includes adding a new second story that would increase the floor area to 2,973 SF (0.46 FAR), where 3,174 SF (0.49 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including a 147 SF covered front porch exception). The proposed project is 201 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The existing house contains four bedrooms and the proposed project is maintaining the same number of bedrooms (play room on first floor does not qualify as a bedroom since its wall is 50% open; office on second floor does not qualify as a bedroom since it is open to the stairway ). Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The existing garage (12’-3” x 19’-6” clear interior dimensions) will be modified to create a new bedroom behind it, but will maintain the required dimensions (10’ x 20’ clear interior dimensions) to provide one covered parking space. One uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 20’-0”) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 748 Plymouth Way Lot Size: 6,480 SF Plans date stamped: February 15, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 19’-10” (to porch) n/a no change 48’-11” 15’-0” or block average 20’-0” Side Setback (left): (right): ’5’-10” 1 3’-10” 2 no change no change 6'-0" 6’-0” Rear Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 22’-2” n/a no change 25’-8” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,296 SF 35.4 % 2,296 SF 35.4 % 2,592 SF 40 % FAR: 2,141 SF 0.33 FAR 2,961 SF 0.46 FAR 3,174 SF 3 0.49 FAR 1 Non-conforming, existing left side setback (5’-10” existing where 6’-0” is required). 2 Non-conforming, existing right side setback to the attached garage wall (3’-10” existing where 6’-0” is required). 3 (0.32 x 6,480 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,174 SF (0.49 FAR) Item No. 9d Design Review Study Design Review 748 Plymouth Way 2 748 Plymouth Way Lot Size: 6,480 SF Plans date stamped: February 15, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED # of bedrooms: 4 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (12’-3” x 19’-6” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (10’ x 20’ clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (10' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 17’-7 ¼” 24’-5” 30'-0" DH Envelope: n/a complies CS 25.26.075 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. Michelle Markiewicz Assistant Planner c. Heather & Ekine Akuiyibo, applicants and property owners Mark Pearcy, architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Letter to Planning Commission, dated March 1, 2019 Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 1, 2019 Area Map 748 PLYMOUTH WAY Proposed upper level addition & remodeling M A R K P E A R C Y A R C H I T E C T U R E 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 6 5 0 . 3 4 8 . 1 5 0 9 www.pearcyarchitecture.com AKUIYIBO RESIDENCEMASTER SUITE & REMODELING748 PLYMOUTH WAYBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAA.P.N. 029-162-150Issue Date A3 SHEET TITLE: EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 2 south-east (street) elevation 1/4"=1-0"1 north-west (rear) elevation 1/4"=1-0" 3 north-east (side) elevation 1/4"=1-0" 4 south-west (side) elevation 1/4"=1-0" KEYNOTES COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING. CEMENT PLASTEr, painted. brick. fixed wood shutter. single-glazed wood window/door single-glazed aluminum window. paneled wood door. DOWNSPOUT. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5:12 +/- TYPICAL WINDOW & DOOR TRIM typical window head & jamb trim is approximately 1.5" wide with an extended sill. the aluminum window at the garage has no trim. typical door trim is also approximately 1.5" wide. Design Review 1/11/19 living level 100.00' ridge. 17.60'+/- above ave top of curb ave top of curb 96.57' plate 8'-2"+/-1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 8 3 4 455 7 7 8 6 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 8 Wood deck4'-4"+/-1'-8"+/-ridge. 15.93'+/- above ave top of curb 17'-7 1/4"+/-City Comments 2/15/19 M A R K P E A R C Y A R C H I T E C T U R E 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 6 5 0 . 3 4 8 . 1 5 0 9 www.pearcyarchitecture.com AKUIYIBO RESIDENCEMASTER SUITE & REMODELING748 PLYMOUTH WAYBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAA.P.N. 029-162-150Issue Date A5 SHEET TITLE: PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 1 south-east (street) elevation 1/4"=1-0" 2 south-west (side) elevation 1/4"=1-0" KEYNOTES new composition shingle roofing. new skylight. existing cement plaster, painted. extend/patch as required. new cement plaster, painted new HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING. STAINED. existing brick. new wood columns, painted. new wood trim, painted. new wood fascia, painted. existing wood window to remain. new aluminum clad wood window/door in existing opening. simulated divided lites. new aluminum clad wood window with simulated divided lites. existing paneled wood door, painted. new downspout. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 WINDOW & DOOR TRIM typical trim for windows and doors to be 3.5" wide. windows to have an extended sill and skirt. trim to be painted AT CEMENT PLASTER AND STAINED AT WOOD SIDING. Design Review 1/11/19 views from street (street tree not shown) street elevation (not to scale) 748 Plymouth (street tree not shown) 744 Plymouth (approximate) (street tree not shown) 756 Plymouth (approximate)property lineave. grade ne 97.61' 45 deg 109.61'12'-0"upper level 109.25'7'-6"proposed upper level addition property lineupper level 109.25' main level 100.0' (e) plate master bath plate ridge 121.0'+/- (24.43' +/- above ave. top of curb) ave.top of curb 96.57' ave. grade sw 97.64'8'-2"+/-1'-1"8'-0"3.43'3'-9"+/-30' height limit 126.57' living ridge 112.66'+/- proposed upper level addition 14 1 3 33 4 4 5 5 5 4 6 existing wood deck 7 6 8 9 9 9 11111111 12 12 12 12 1111 1212 transluc. glass 12 12 7 9 1313 13 5 9 2.5:12 slope 31"x72" clr (16.09'+/-above ave. top of curb) 14 14 trellis for existing wisteria vines 35"x48" clr egress egress 31"x79" clr egress 5'-7"+/-City Comments 2/15/1924'-5"+/- M A R K P E A R C Y A R C H I T E C T U R E 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 6 5 0 . 3 4 8 . 1 5 0 9 www.pearcyarchitecture.com AKUIYIBO RESIDENCEMASTER SUITE & REMODELING748 PLYMOUTH WAYBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAA.P.N. 029-162-150Issue Date A6 SHEET TITLE: PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 1 north-west (rear) elevation 1/4"=1-0" 2 north-east (side) elevation 1/4"=1-0" Design Review 1/11/19property lineupper level 109.25' 45 deg 7'-6"12'-0"109.61'property lineupper level 109.25' main level 100.0' (e) plate master bath plate ave.top of curb 96.57' ave. grade sw 97.64' ave. grade ne 97.61'8'-2"+/-1'-1"8'-0"3.43'3'-9"+/-30' height limit 126.57' living ridge 112.66'+/- proposed upper level addition KEYNOTES new composition shingle roofing. new skylight. existing cement plaster, painted. extend/patch as required. new cement plaster, painted new HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING. STAINED. existing brick. new wood columns, painted. new wood trim, painted. new wood fascia, painted. existing wood window to remain. new aluminum clad wood window/door in existing opening. simulated divided lites. new aluminum clad wood window with simulated divided lites. existing paneled wood door, painted. new downspout. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 WINDOW & DOOR TRIM typical trim for windows and doors to be 3.5" wide. windows to have an extended sill and skirt. trim to be painted AT CEMENT PLASTER AND STAINED AT WOOD SIDING. 14 1 11 1 2 3 3 3 33 4 4 5 8 9 9 9 10 11 11 11 1112 12 12 12 2.5:12 slope 125'-9" plateproposed upper level addition 35"x48" clr egress 14 14 1414 5'-7"+/-transluc. glass ridge 121.0'+/- (24.43' +/- above ave. top of curb) City Comments 2/15/1924'-5"+/- NORTHSITE & LANDSCAPE PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"site plan keynotesexisting electrical meter (125 AMP).new electrical meter, proposed location.power pole.gas meter (crawl space).sewer cleanout.water meter.downspout.12345site plan notes1. existing trees and landscaping to remainunless otherwise noted.PLYMOUTH WAYSIDEWALK15' rear SETBACK20' rear SETBACK(e) lawn(e) lawn(e) lawn6'-0" SIDESETBACK6'-0" SIDESETBACK(E) driveway (concrete)9'X20'unCOVEREDPARKINGSPACE(e) CONC. walk (e) BRICK walk (e) BRICK walk landscape keynotesexisting tree. Sycamore. 17" dia. trunk.existing tree. magnolia. 6"x2, 3"x2 dia. trunks.existing tree. privet? 6"x3, 4"x3 dia. trunks.existing tree. citrus. 7" dia. trunk.existing tree. Birch. 7"x2 dia. trunks.existing tree. Japanese maple. 4"x2 trunks.existing tree avocado. 4" dia. trunk.existing roses and wisteria.ABCDefG2.1' 4'-0"6'-0"19'-10"+/-5'-10"+/-3'-10"+/-22'-2"+/-60'108'(e) conc.patio(e) wooddeck(e) porchproposed upperlevel additionexisting residenceto be remodeled(one level)13456ABCDDDefG98.38'98.08'96.83'97.48'96.76'96.67'96.38'97.89'98.61'98.71'98.30'97.97'97.83'97.82'97.65'fin. flr.100.00'26(e) planter25'-8"+/-18'-9"+/-12'-10"+/-upper levelprojectionshHslope slope slope 20' frontsetback(2nd floor)7777777curb, gutter & sidewalkto be replaced asrequired by public works.see project note #8.(e) roof slope5:12 +/-, TYPICALEXISTING ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"ROOF PLAN KEYNOTESCOMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, typ., u.o.n.built-up roofing.skylight.existing brick chimney1232.5:12, u.o.n.PROPOSED ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0".25:12.25:12 41122334Design Review 1/11/19SHEET TITLE:PROJECTINFO, SITEPLAN &ROOF PLANSSCALE: 18"=1'-0"A1AKUIYIBO RESIDENCE MASTER SUITE & REMODELING 748 PLYMOUTH WAY BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA A.P.N. 029-162-150 1650 Barroilhet AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Phone: 650.348.1509www.pearcyarchitecture.comMARK PEARCYARCHITECTUREIssue DateCity Comments 2/15/19 City of Burlingame Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance Address: 1660 Rollins Road Meeting Date: March 11, 2019 Request: Commercial Design Review for changes to the façade of an existing commercial building and Parking Variance. Applicant and Architect: David Mena, Mena Architects APN: 025-262-250 Property Owner: Sycomp Consulting Int’l Ltd Lot Area: 21,888 SF General Plan: Industrial and Office Use Zoning: RR North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Project Description: The applicant, David Mena of Mena Architects, representing Sycomp, is proposing façade changes and a 3,639 SF addition to the footprint of an existing two-story commercial building at 1660 Rollins Road, zoned RR. The existing building footprint is 4,914 SF (22.5% lot coverage). With the proposed project, the total building footprint would increase to 8,553 SF (39.1% lot coverage). The proposed addition would be located at the rear of the building and includes an addition of 3,639 SF on the first floor and a 1,376 SF mezzanine above the new first floor addition; with a total of 5,015 SF of new floor area. Sycomp is an IT security company and the use is classified as light industrial, with office, warehouse and production uses on -site. The front façade of the existing building contains concrete columns, concrete beam, tilt-up concrete panels with a series of floor-to-ceiling rectangular windows on both floors, and a glass front entrance door. The wall of the front façade is set in by 3’-2” on both floors. The rear and side elevations are concrete columns and tilt-up concrete panels with one roll-up door on the right side and two roll-up doors at the rear. The applicant is proposing changes to the front façade by bringing forward the entire f ront wall by 3’-2” to be flush with the front building columns proposed to be blue aluminum panel s. The new panels will extend beyond the roof by 2’-6”. The tilt-up concrete panels on the front façade are proposed to be replaced by a storefront window system. The proposed siding for the new addition is cement plaster with metal coping that will carry over to the existing building as well. Parking: There is no existing striped parking on site. The proposed addition does not eliminate any existing parking or potential area for parking, as the addition is proposed where there is currently a ramp that serves the rear of the building. Therefore, it is assumed that the proposed parking amounts to potential parking that could exist on site presently. With that basis, the existing parking demand complies and is conforming to the amount of potential parking that could be provided on site. But the proposed eighteen parking spaces does not fulfill the required 21 parking spaces for the uses on -site. The proposed project includes restriping in conformity with the zoning code requirements and results in a total of eighteen parking spaces where 21 parking spaces are required. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a three (3) space Parking Variance. Please re fer to the table below for a breakdown of the uses and parking required on -site. For calculation of floor area ratio for commercial buildings having enclosed spaces without floors, each twelve (12) feet in height is considered a story and each fraction of twelve (12) feet in height is calculated as a fraction of a story. Therefore, the existing commercial building has a gross floor area of 8,565 SF (0.39 FAR) and a proposed gross floor area of 15,217 SF (0.7 FAR). But in calculating parking requirement for the business, the “second story” areas open to below were taken out of the parking calculations to avoid double -counting. Item No. 9e Design Review Study Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 1660 Rollins Road -2- 1660 Rollins Road Lot Area: 21,888 SF Plans date stamped: February 27, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Use : (includes total SF minus SF of interior open areas beyond 12 feet) Office 2,487 SF /(1:300 SF) = 8.29 Production 1,086 SF /(1:800 SF) = 1.36 Warehouse/Storage 3,833 SF /(1:1,000 SF) = 3.8 Total = 13.45 spaces Office 2,996 SF /(1:300 SF) = 9.98 Production 2,365 SF /(1:800 SF) = 2.96 Warehouse/Storage 7,548 SF /(1:1,000 SF) = 7.5 Total = 20.44 spaces Office use limited to 25% of gross floor area, 19.7% proposed (C.S. 25.44.020 (g)).1 Warehouse/storage use limited to 0.5 FAR, 0.45 FAR proposed (C.S. 25.44.020 (k)). 2 Parking: 14 spaces required (in total) 18 spaces proposed 21 spaces required (in total) Variance for 3 parking spaces for intensification of use (21 spaces required where 18 spaces are proposed (7 parking space increase above existing) Parking space dimensions: potential for 18 spaces – no striping currently 17 spaces (8½’ x 18’) + 1 ADA space 8 ½’ x 18’ Aisle Width: n/a 24’ – 0” 24’ – 0” (C.S. 25.70.025 (a)(3)) Driveway Width: 10’ – 2” 12’-0” 12’ – 0” (C.S. 25.70.025 (b)(2) 1 Based on total gross floor area of 15,217 SF. 2 Includes warehouse/storage areas open to below (2,309 SF). Landscaping: All of the landscaping requirements are met with the total proposed landscaping, which includes the entry pathway, at 78.9% of the front setback where 60% is the minimum amount required for front set back landscaping. The total amount of landscaping proposed for the lot is 10.9% where 10% is the minimum amount required for the total lot. The applicant is proposing minor changes to the existing landscaping at the front of the building. A new entry path is proposed that will be lined with a new planting strip and some of the existing planting area to remain. To allow for an access path, a portion of the existing planting area at the front left corner will be removed. Existing trees and plantings will also be replaced with new ones that are different from the existing species . Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 1660 Rollins Road -3- The applicant is requesting approval of the following applications : Commercial Design Review for changes to the façade of an existing commercial building (CS 25.44.070); Parking Variance for not fulfilling the amount of parking required on -site (21 spaces required, 18 spaces proposed) (Code Section 25.70.040). 1660 Rollins Road Lot Area: 21,888 SF Plans date stamped: February 27, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setback: 25’-4” no change 20’-0” Side Setback (left): (right): 10’-2” 24’-6” 10’-2” (to addition) 24’-10” (to addition) 10'-0" 10'-0" Lot Coverage: 4,914 SF 22.5% 8,553 SF 39.1% 15,322 SF 70% Floor Area Ratio: 8, 565 SF 0.39 FAR 15, 217 SF 0.7 FAR 1.0 FAR Height: 19’-9” 22’-8” 35'-0" Staff Comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Commercial Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1652 adopted by the Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows: 1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial areas; 2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; 3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bul k, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area; and 6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestri an circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. 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 (Cod e 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; Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 1660 Rollins Road -4- (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the pr eservation 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Senior Planner c. David Mena, Mena Architects, applicant and architect Sycomp Consulting Int’l, Ltd., property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Parking Variance Application Commercial Application Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 1, 2019 Area Map 011/8"=1'-0" 18-5881626 ROLLINS ROADAll drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect.PROJECT: MILAGROS DE MEXICO, SHOREVIEW SHOPPING CENTER, 470 S. NORFOLK STREET, SAN MATEO, CA 94401SCALE: JOB NO.: DATE: REVISION DATEFACILITY IMPROVEMENT FOR:1660 ROLLINS ROADBURLINGAME, CA 9401012.19.18 18-588575 W El Camino Real/Mountain View, CA 94040tel 650.210.8800 - fax 650.210.8801www.menaarchitects.comarchitecture / planning / interiorsarchitectsEXISTING PHOTOS AS NOTED A303 13- PHOTO 14- PHOTO 15- PHOTO 16- PHOTO 1640 / 1634 ROLLINS ROAD 1670 ROLLINS ROAD 1704 ROLLINS ROAD 03- PHOTOISOMETRIC VIEW 1660 ROLLINS ROAD (E) ROLL UP DOOR (E) METAL COPING (E) CONCRETE TILT-UP PANELS (E) CONCRETE COLUMN 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O.CURB) 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O. CURB) ±19'-9" (28.44') T.O. ROOF ±19'-9" (28.44') T.O. ROOF (E) CONCRETE TILT-UP PANELS (E) CONCRETE COLUMN (E) METAL COPING 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O.CURB) 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O. CURB) ±19'-9" (28.44') T.O. ROOF ±19'-9" (28.44') T.O. ROOF (E) ROLL UP DOOR (E) METAL COPING (E) CONCRETE COLUMN,TYP. (E) CONCRETE TILT-UP PANELS 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O.CURB) 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O. CURB) ±19'-9" (28.44') T.O. ROOF ±19'-9" (28.44') T.O. ROOF (E) WINDOW GLAZING SYSTEM, TYP. (E) FRONT ENTRANCE 13 ±19'-9" (28.44') T.O. ROOF (E) ROOF PARAPET (E) CONCRETE TILT-UP PANELS (E) CONCRETE COLUMNS ±9'-7" T.O. CONCRETE BEAM B.O. CONCRETE BEAM ±8'-6"1660 ±19'-9" (28.44') T.O. ROOF 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O.CURB) 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O. CURB) 011/8"=1'-0" 18-588EXISTING ELEVATION -SOUTH EXISTING ELEVATIONS AS NOTED A300 021/8"=1'-0" 18-588EXISTING ELEVATION-WEST 031/8"=1'-0" 18-588EXISTING ELEVATION-NORTH 041/8"=1'-0" 18-588EXISTING ELEVATION-EAST All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect.PROJECT: MILAGROS DE MEXICO, SHOREVIEW SHOPPING CENTER, 470 S. NORFOLK STREET, SAN MATEO, CA 94401SCALE: JOB NO.: DATE: REVISION DATEFACILITY IMPROVEMENT FOR:1660 ROLLINS ROADBURLINGAME, CA 9401012.19.18 18-588575 W El Camino Real/Mountain View, CA 94040tel 650.210.8800 - fax 650.210.8801www.menaarchitects.comarchitecture / planning / interiorsarchitects All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect.PROJECT: MILAGROS DE MEXICO, SHOREVIEW SHOPPING CENTER, 470 S. NORFOLK STREET, SAN MATEO, CA 94401 SCALE:JOB NO.:DATE:REVISIONDATEFACILITY IMPROVEMENT FOR: 1660 ROLLINS ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 9401010.22.1818-588575 W El Camino Real/Mountain View, CA 94040 tel 650.210.8800 - fax 650.210.8801 www.menaarchitects.com architecture / planning / interiors architectsMATERIALBOARDAS NOTEDA304PAINTMANUFACTURER: SHERWIN WILIAMCOLOR NUMBER: SW 7006COLOR: EXTRA WHITEFINISH:SATINP1P2PAINTMANUFACTURER: SHERWIN WILLIAMSCOLOR NUMBER: SW 6521COLOR:NOTABLE HUEFINISH: SATINPAINTMANUFACTURER: SHERWIN WILIAMCOLOR NUMBER: SW 7064COLOR: PASSIVEFINISH:SMOOTHP3P4PAINTMANUFACTURER: SHERWIN WILLIAMSCOLOR NUMBER: SW 7067COLOR:CITY SHADEFINISH: SMOOTHCOLORED ALUMINUM PANELMANUFACTURER:DRI-DESIGNCOLOR: BLUEMP1COLORED ALUMINUM PANELMANUFACTURER: DRI-DESIGNCOLOR:SMOKE GREYMP2WD1WOOD FLOORINGMANUFACTURER: reSAWN TIMBERSPECIES: White oakFINISH: MATTEPOLYURETHANESIZE:5/8" t X 7" w X 2'-10'(RANDOM LENGTHS)WD2WOOD PANELMANUFACTURER: reSAWN TIMBERSPECIES: White oakFINISH: MATTEPOLYURETHANECB1COVE BASEMANUFACTURER: SCHLUTERPART #: DILEX-AHXFINISH: CLEAR ANODIZEDPOURED CORK/LINOLEUMMANUFACTURER: FLUID FLOORSPART #:GR409HCOLOR: GREYC1C2POURED CORK/LINOLEUMMANUFACTURER: FLUID FLOORSPART #:BL331HCOLOR:BLUET1FLOOR TILEMANUFACTURER: HEXA TILESPART #:HEXAML3COLOR:WILD SAGEFINISH:MIXED MOSAICUNGLAZEDPORCELAINSTONEWARESIZE:12"X12"T2WALL TILEMANUFACTURER: HEXA TILESPART #:HEXAML3COLOR:NAVYFINISH:MIXED MOSAICUNGLAZEDPORCELAINSTONEWARESIZE:12"X12"SS1MARBLEMANUFACTURER: AGORASTYLE:SNOW WHITESS2LAMINATEMANUFACTURER: WILSON ARTSTYLE:DESIGNER WHITEF1NAME: WOOL FELTMANUFACTURER: SILENTRUMCOLOR : GREY01SCHEDULE-MATERIAL SCHEDULEPAINTWOODCORKTILETRIMFELTSOLID SURFACEMETAL PANELSCURTAIN WALLMANUFACTURER:KAWNEERMODEL: 1600FRAME COLOR:CLEARGLAZING:PILKINGTONCOLOR:ARCTIC BLUEGL1CURTAIN WALL ROLLINS RD. DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY DRIVEWAYNO PARKING5'-0" ±6'-2" DOWN N 32°57'33" E 228.00'11 SPACES @ 8'-6" 6 SPACES @ 8'-6"±21'-10"18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"PROPERTY LINE ±96'-0"PROPERTY LINE ±228'-0"PROPERTY LINE ±96'-0" (E) PARKING LOT OTHER PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE ±228'-0"S 57°02'27" E 96.00' S 57°02'27" E 96.00'(E) BUILDING(N) PROPOSED ADDITION±25'-4"(N )ROLL UP DOOR (E) CURB (E)CURB (E) LANDSCAPE, SEE LANDSCAPING DWGS. (N) PERMEABLE PAVERSN 32°57'33" E 228.00'(N) VAN ACCESSIBLE, SEE 02/A011 (N) ROOF DRAIN (N) ELEC. CHASE ±11'-6"±13'-0" ±45'-4"±6'-8"±9'-0" OTHER PROPERTY15'-0"(N) 6" CONCRETE CURB (E) BUILDING ±7,863 S.F. PROPOSED ADDITION ±4,670 S.F. (N) H.M. DOOR W/ CONC. LEVEL LANDING . LEVEL LANDING SHALL BE LEVEL ON EACH SIDE OF THE DOOR, FIRM & SLIP-RESISTANT; THE MAX SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN 1:48. PER 11B-502.4. (N) LIGHT POST (E) LOADING DOCK RAMP (N) ENTRANCE DOOR W/ CONC. LEVEL LANDING. LEVEL LANDING SHALL BE LEVEL ON EACH SIDE OF THE DOOR, FIRM & SLIP-RESISTANT; THE MAX SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN 1:48. PER 11B-502.4. 4'-0" MIN. 9'-0"8'-0" 10'-0" ±2'-10"4'-0"8'-8"12'-0" MIN. (N) H.M. DOOR W/ CONC. LEVEL LANDING. LEVEL LANDING SHALL BE LEVEL ON EACH SIDE OF THE DOOR, FIRM & SLIP-RESISTANT; THE MAX SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN 1:48. PER 11B-502.4.±14'-9"±12'-10"±29'-2"10'-7"5'-0" (N) TRASH ENCLOSURE, SEE 11/A011 (E )ROLL UP DOOR ±7'-10" ±15"±15"±2'-3"(N) CONCRETE STRESS PAD (N) LANDSCAPE (N) LANDSCAPE 5'-0"±7'-8" 4'-0" 5'-0" (N) DETECTABLE WARNINGS, SEE 07/A011 ±35'-0" ±9'-9" ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL. ACCESSIBLE PATH, GRADE SHALL NOT EXCEED 5% SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION PER CBC 11B-202.4, 11B-206.2.1 & 11B-402. (N) SITE ENTRANCE SIGN, SEE 05/A011 ±19'-9" (N) WHEEL STOP, TYP., SEE 06/A011 ⅊⅊ ROLLINS RD. DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DOWN DOWN PROPERTY LINE ±96'-0" S 57°02'27" E 96.00' (E) BUILDING ±7,863 S.F. OTHER PROPERTY OTHER PROPERTY N 32°57'33" E 228.00'PROPERTY LINE ±228'-0"PROPERTY LINE ±96'-0"PROPERTY LINE ±228'-0"S 57°02'27" E 96.00'N 32°57'33" E 228.00'(E) RAMP TO BE REMOVED (E) LANDSCAPE TO BE REPLACED (E) LOADING DOCK RAMP 011/16"=1'-0" 18-588 - ASPPROPOSED SITE PLAN NAll drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect.PROJECT: MILAGROS DE MEXICO, SHOREVIEW SHOPPING CENTER, 470 S. NORFOLK STREET, SAN MATEO, CA 94401SCALE: JOB NO.: DATE: REVISION DATEFACILITY IMPROVEMENT FOR:1660 ROLLINS ROADBURLINGAME, CA 9401012.19.18 18-588575 W El Camino Real/Mountain View, CA 94040tel 650.210.8800 - fax 650.210.8801www.menaarchitects.comarchitecture / planning / interiorsarchitectsSITE PLAN AS NOTED A010 091/16"=1'-0" 18-588 - ASPEXISTING SITE PLAN N(E) BUILDING STRUCTURE AND OBJECT TO BE REMOVED 04NOTES -LEGEND KEY NOTES# 08NOTES -LANDSCAPING CALCULATION 12NOTESPARKING CALCULATION TOTAL LOT SIZE: ±21,188 SF 10% OF LOT REQ'D FOR LANDSCAPE: ±2,272 SF FRONT SET BACK: ±25'-4" LOT WIDTH: ±96'-0" FRONT SET BACK AREA: ±2,409 SF 60% OF FRONT SET BACK AREA:±1,445 SF (E) FRONT LANDSCAPE: ±1,569 SF (N) SIDE LANDSCAPE:±730 SF TOTAL LANDSCAPING: ±2,299 SF LANDSCAPING CALCULATIONS PER ROLLINS ROAD DISTRICT REGULATION 25.44.100 PROPOSED PARKING CALCULATION (TABLE 25.70.040 BURLINGAME ORDINANCE) USE: (INCLUDES TOTAL S.F. MINUS OF INTERIOR OPEN AREAS BEYOND 12') EXISTING OFFICE: ±2,487 S.F. / (1:300 S.F.) = 8.29 PRODUCTION: ±1,086 S.F. / (1:800 S.F.) = 1.36 WAREHOUSE/STORAGE 3,833 S.F. / (1:1,000 S.F.) = 3.8 TOTAL = 13.45 OFFICE: ±2,996 S.F. / (1:300 S.F.) = 9.98 PRODUCTION: ±2,365 S.F. / (1:800 S.F.) = 2.96 WAREHOUSE/STORAGE ±7,548 S.F. / (1:1,000 S.F.) = 7.5 TOTAL = 20.44 OFFICE USE LIMITED TO 25% OF TOTAL FLOOR AREA, 21.7% PROPOSED (C.S. 25.44.020(g)). PARKING 14 SPACES REQUIRED (IN TOTAL) 21 SPACES REQUIRED (IN TOTAL) VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR INTENSIFICATION OF USE AND NOT PROVIDING REQUIRED PARKING ON SITE ( PARKING SPACE INCREASE) TOTAL ON-SITE PARKING POTENTIAL FOR 18 SPACES 17 SPACES (8 1 2' X 18X ) + 1 ADA SPACE EXISTING USES: 14 SPACES PROPOSED USES: 21 SPACES UN,ET PARKING: 3 SPACES AISLE WIDTH N/A 24'-0"24'-0" (C.S. 25.070.025 (a)(3)) DRIVEWAY WIDTH 10'-2"10'-2"12'-0" (C.S. 25.70.025 (b)(2)) ±20'-4" ±61'-2" ±20'-2"±20'-8" ±17'-10"±25'-6"±17'-10" ±61'-2" 17'-4"3'-0"±21'-0"±20'-0"±15'-10"±20'-4"±3'-2"±139'-10"(E) (N)±21'-0"±20'-0"±15'-10"±20'-4"±3'-2"29'-9"29'-9"APPROX. LOCATION OF (N) RTU, SEE MECH. DWGS. APPROX. LOCATION OF (N) RTU, SEE MECH. DWGS. APPROX. LOCATION OF (N) RTU, SEE MECH. DWGS. (N) ROOF DRAIN PAN (E) SKYLIGHT, TYP. OF 4 (E) ROOF ACCESS INFILL (E) SCUPPER, TYP. OF 2 (N) SKYLIGHT, TYP. OF 4 (N) ROOF DRAIN PAN, TYP. (N) CRICKET (N) CRICKET SLOPE1/4" MIN.(E) SLOPEV.I.F.SLOPESLOPESLOPEAPPROX. LOCATION OF RELOCATED (E) AC UNIT (N) CRICKET (N) RIDGE SLOPE1/4" MIN.(E) ROOF DRAIN (E) ROOF DRAIN SLOPE(E) SCUPPER, TYP. OF 2 (E) CONDENSER UNIT TO REMAIN (E) SKY LIGHT, TYP. OF 4 (E) ROOF HATCH (E) ELECTRICAL POLE ±20'-4" ±61'-2" ±20'-2"±20'-8"±3'-2"±21'-0"±20'-0"±15'-10"±20'-4"±3'-2"±80'-4"±21'-0"±20'-0"±15'-10"±20'-4"±3'-2"±17'-10"±25'-6"±17'-10" ±61'-2" (E) AC UNIT TO BE RELOCATED All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect.PROJECT: MILAGROS DE MEXICO, SHOREVIEW SHOPPING CENTER, 470 S. NORFOLK STREET, SAN MATEO, CA 94401SCALE: JOB NO.: DATE: REVISION DATEFACILITY IMPROVEMENT FOR:1660 ROLLINS ROADBURLINGAME, CA 9401012.19.18 18-588575 W El Camino Real/Mountain View, CA 94040tel 650.210.8800 - fax 650.210.8801www.menaarchitects.comarchitecture / planning / interiorsarchitectsAS BUILD & PROPOSED ROOF PLANS AS NOTED A201 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 01AS-BUILT ROOF PLAN 05 18-588_AFP 1/8"=1'-0" 18-588_AFP 1/8"=1'-0"