The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2019.03.25Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, March 25, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft February 11, 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 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/25/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 434 Bloomfield Road, 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)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Parshadi and Kaushal Shah, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi a. 434 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 434 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 434 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: 1369 Drake 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 CEQA, per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (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 1369 Drake Ave - Attachments 1369 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue and 1007-1025 Rollins Road, zoned C-2 with R-4 Overlay - Application for a Sign Variance for height of placement of a sign on a multfamily residential development. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15311 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Buddy Burch, applicant; SHAC Carolan Apartments LLC, property owner) (82 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit c. 1008-1028 Carolan Ave - Staff Report 1008-1028 Carolan Ave - Attachments 1008-1028 Carolan Ave - Plans Attachments: 1660 Rollins Road, zoned RR - Application for Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance for an addition and facade changes to an existing commercial building. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (David Mena, Mena Architects, applicant and architect; Symons Consulting International Ltd ., property owner) (35 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi d. 1660 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1660 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1660 Rollins Rd - Plans Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/25/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 2305 Poppy Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Elizabeth Watson and Alex Para, property owners) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Note: This item has been continued at the request of the applicant. a. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting March 18, 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 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 April 4, 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 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/25/2019 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 11, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakuafisi, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and TsePresent5 - Comaroto, and TerronesAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the January 14, 2019 minutes with amendments submitted to staff earlier. The December 10, 2018 minutes were not completed in time and will be reviewed at a later date. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - a.Draft December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: b.Draft January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA >Item 8a - 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. This item has been continued to a future Planning Commission Meeting (date not determined). 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.1328 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Special Permit for reduction of on-site parking. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Hari and Depali Abhyankar, Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes property owners) (165 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1328 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1328 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1328 Capuchino Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent was recused for non-statutory reasons. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakuafisi provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >The staff report mentions a special permit for reduction of parking spaces for an attached garage . Should that instead indicate a detached garage? (Kolokihakuafisi: Yes, that is a typo.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jim Neubert, James Neubert Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: None. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Does not see any issues. Conforms to the regulations. Only a net increase of 8 square feet. >There is a long driveway, with plenty of space for parking. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse4 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - Recused:Sargent1 - b.1125 Oxford Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Special Permit for reduction of on -site parking. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Vishal Jangla, property owner) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1125 Oxford Rd - Staff Report 1125 Oxford Rd - Attachments 1125 Oxford Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >The special permit findings include how the project blends with the neighborhood. Does that provide latitude to evaluate the design? (Gardiner: In this instance the special permit is related just to the reduction of parking. Special permits can cover a range of items, with some of them being more architectural than others, such as declining height envelope.) >Since the special permit in this application is regarding the parking, would the design of the garage be part of the consideration, particularly since it would still look like a two -car garage even after the reduction in parking? (Gardiner: Direction can be provided to the applicant on how to integrate a single -car garage into the design of the house, given that it is related to the reduction in parking.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jim Neubert, James Neubert Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Why two garage doors even though one will be living space? (Neubert: Thought it helped divide the rooms, and look like garage door entries. Thought it had appeal as a two-car garage from the street.) >Will the driveway space in front of the den be maintained? (Neubert: Will remain untouched.) >Since it is not a garage, would it make sense to remove the pavers? (Neubert: Could do other landscape if asked.) Public Comments: Vince Emory, 1115 Eastmoor Road: Looks nice from the outside. It is a four -bedroom house, however there was an illegal family room, and it has since been referred to as a fifth bedroom. Worried about a four bedroom house becoming a five bedroom house. (Neubert: The room is intended to be a den/study for the children, not a bedroom.) Highway Road resident: How is increasing the living space resulting in the garage being reduced? (Kolokihakaufisi: It was originally a two-car garage, then it was converted into living area. This proposal would convert half of the unauthorized conversion back into garage space, and the other half would remain as a den. Also, a rear porch area would be enclosed to add to the rear bedroom as living space.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Concern the site plan allows parking in front of the den, which breaks the code. >Double-car garage does not fit the pattern of the neighborhood. >Eliminate some of the driveway and add landscaping to inhibit parking. >Should be treated as habitable space and made distinct from the garage, to look like habitable space. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.400 Chapin Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for a Variance, Conditional Use Permits and Special Permit for a new detached garage and a new detached guest and pool house . This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303 (e) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Ryan Morris, Morris Architecture, applicant and architect; Richard and Christina Jones, property owners) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit. 400 Chapin Ln - Staff Report 400 Chapin Ln - Attachments 400 Chapin Ln - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent pulled the item for consideration. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Richard Jones, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There was a condition of approval requiring replacing or repairing of the fence. Wanted to confirm that it is still being repaired. (Jones: Either repaired or replaced.) Commission Discussion: >No problem extending the application. Others have been extended under similar circumstances. >Commissioner Gaul notes for the record that he did not support the original application, but will support the permit extension. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - 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 Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Amendment to Title 25 Zoning - Staff Report Amendment to Title 25 Zoning - Attachments Proposed Amendments to Title 25 Zoning PC Resolution Attachments: >Item 8a - 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. This item has been continued to a future Planning Commission Meeting (date not determined). b.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: Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >In Figure 1-1 in the Seifel financial analysis, why is the maximum justifiable fee per square foot $85.00 when the unit fee is much lower? (Gardiner: The analysis indicates a maximum fee based on the demand for additional workforce housing, however that maximum fee may be higher than what the market can support.)(Kane: It is a dilution factor, in that the higher occupancy housing has a greater impact on the jobs balance than lower occupancy housing such as single family homes. It can be counterintuitive.) >What is the difference between base impact fee and impact fee with prevailing /area wage? (Gardiner: A discount is applied to projects that utilize prevailing wage labor and enter into a prevailing wage agreement. It is meant to encourage the use of prevailing wage labor, but also recognize that prevailing wages has a benefit on the workforce. Therefore there is a tie-in in justifying the discount.) >The fees would only apply to projects with applications deemed complete upon the effective date of the ordinance. What establishes the effective date of the ordinance? (Kane: The ordinance will go forward to the City Council with two readings. Since it is a development impact fee, it would become effective 60 days after final adoption by the City Council.) >How was the threshold of 11 units for the rental multifamily and 7 for the condominiums determined? (Gardiner: There was discussion among the Council to determine a threshold for small projects for each development type. In particular, they would be smaller projects that would have a harder time absorbing the impact fees.)(Kane: The thinking was also that smaller projects would have less impact on neighborhoods, so the Council did not want to risk disincentivizing small projects. The fees would apply where there were greater economies of scale that could absorb the fees more easily.) >Is the 55 year affordability period a common timeframe? (Kane: It reflects structure in State Law, as well as tax credit financing. There are a lot of things that hinge off of a 55-year covenant.) >Can the Planning Commission provide additional input on items to include in the ordinance? (Gardiner: Yes, the overall structure of the fees has been set by the City Council, but the Planning Commission is welcome to make suggestions that will be forwarded to the Council.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >On the last page of the Seifel report, likes the list of Policy Considerations to Encourage Onsite Affordable Housing. In particular likes the suggestion of developing a more predictable and streamlined process for land use approval and design review in order to reduce the time and risk associated with infill development. This seems like it would be beneficial to provide to developers, a means to outline more of what to anticipate from the dais. In advance of a presentation to the Planning Commission a lot of time goes into developing plans, and even something as simple as materials could be clarified. Perhaps a "pre-presentation " before coming to design review. There could be a list of acceptable materials, window specifications, landscaping, sizes of decks, etc. There could be a collection of general findings made in recently approved projects. It could also be done at the staff level. >Report references a preference for providing on -site units. From the report, it appears the only densities where that is economical is at the highest densities of 120 units per acre or more. Where would that be? Would that be the Rollins Road Mixed Use area? (Gardiner: The highest densities under the new General Plan are in the North El Camino Real area, near the Millbrae Caltrain /BART station. Downtown also allows high densities. The Rollins Road area has a slightly lower density, but an additional variable is when projects utilize State Density provisions, which can change the economics and make the lower densities more viable as well. There is currently a proposal in the Rollins Road area at around 90 units per acre, and it has affordable units consistent with the specifications in the ordinance so presumably pencils out. The economics of each project will vary, but generally the higher -density projects are more able to absorb the cost and spread them ) >Shares the desire to encourage below -market units rather than the fees. It will take a while to build up the fees, and when considering the cost of land and construction it will not go very far. Whatever the City can do to encourage building the units rather than collect the fees would be worthwhile. >Has been a proponent of getting the fees program in place. It is a place to start, and is necessary for addressing housing issues. Supports the ordinance as proposed. >The ordinance is responsibly written, with the intent of maintaining a healthy mix of socioeconomic households in the population. >The ordinance also has an option for appeal; if someone wants to build a project and the requirements would hinder that, they can make their case. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance and resolution be approved as proposed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - c.1268 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a project that was previously denied without prejudice 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 Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1268 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1268 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1268 Cortez 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. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Eric Nyhus, Nyhus Design Group, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >What are the plate heights on the wing on the right side? (Nyhus: 7'-6" to the daylight plane. 6'-3" with the dormers extending above that. >Why was the second floor plate height raised? (Nyhus: Originally had a 7'-6" height for the windows . The owner wanted to get it as high as possible, to get a lot of visibility. Started talking to contractors, and received input that the slope of the roof was odd, with a slope of 4.25:12. Changed it to 4:12, which provided the roof height and allowed the window height to be raised a bit.) >What color will the standing seam metal roof be on the bays? (Nyhus: Dark bronze) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Previously the garage had been the issue. If the garage had been the only change, would make a motion to approve right now. But increasing the plate height on the second floor throws off the proportions, particularly on the right side with the smaller element there. It feels too tall now, and the right side looks out of proportion. (Nyhus: The wing did not change; it was the main body roof form that changed. The pitch changed, but the ridge was lowered on the wing so the eave would not be lost.) >New position of the windows does not provide relief between the roofline and the tops of the windows . It looked more natural in the last iteration. >Proportion of the upper and lower windows looks OK with the higher plate height. It is the type of house, with a big front face. It does not have the undulation seen on other styles of houses. Not opposed to the plate height and taller windows. >Project looks good and the changes to the garage are a big improvement. Hesitates to play double jeopardy; if there were concerns with the 10-foot plate height on the ground floor, it should have been discussed in the first round. >Previously the second floor was not 9 feet. >If the reason for raising of the second floor is to better match the 10-foot plate height on the first floor, it seems the wrong approach. If it came back with 10 feet on the first floor and 8 feet on the second as originally proposed, it would be a different discussion. Since the second floor plate height has been raised, it has opened up the discussion. >Cannot use the first-floor plate height as justification for a 9-foot plate on the second floor. >Neighborhood has a lot of older housing stock with lower plate heights and second stories nestled into roof structures. The intent of the design guidelines is to minimize the impact of the two -story face from the street. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >It is a boxy style but is well articulated. It is a style of house that typically comes out square. With the lower roof pitch, can live with the 9-foot plate height upstairs. It increases the window heights, which makes it seem more in proportion. >10 feet is an enormously high ceiling. 9 feet is still a very high ceiling for a ground floor. However this was not discussed previously. >It is a stately house. This type of a house warrants a higher ceiling height. >Can still be a stately house at 9 feet first floor and 8 feet second floor. Can have more volume inside on the second floor by doing things with the ceiling joists and cathedral ceilings. Concern not with the inside, it's on the outside in terms of how it looks in the neighborhood. A stately house with these plate heights will look really big compared to what is around it in the neighborhood. >Supports the changes to the garage. The continuation is regarding the plate heights. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, and Tse3 - Nay:Loftis, and Gaul2 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - d.800 Winchester Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit to attach a new garage to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Mike Amini, Craftsmen's Guild, applicant and designer; Neel and Adrienne Patel, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 800 Winchester Dr - Staff Report 800 Winchester Dr - Attachments 800 Winchester Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mike Amini, Craftsmen's Guild, represented the applicant. There were no questions of the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the changes. They have addressed the concerns that were raised. >The neighborhood predominantly consists of attached garages, which justifies the special permit. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The changes have improved the project but it is still quite clumsy. However the addition is far enough back, and the front of the house has been maintained. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - e.1613 Coronado Way, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a 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) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jerry Deal, J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Gregory Button, property owner) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1613 Coronado Way - Staff Report 1613 Coronado Way - Attachments 1613 Coronado Way - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Tse recused, as one of the neighbors is her client. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis was not in attendance at the Design Review Study meeting, but viewed the video and 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. Jerry Deal, Jerry Deal Associates, represented the applicant, with property owner Gregory Button. Commission Questions/Comments: None. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the changes that have been made to the project. It is improved. >Well integrated with the existing architecture. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes f.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. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company, applicant and architect; Rich Schoustra and Holly Rogers, property owners) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1350 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1350 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1350 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis was not in attendance at the Design Review Study meeting, but viewed the video. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: None. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Well-designed addition. Not highly impactful. >Variance supportable due to the slope of the lot. >Well-crafted project. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - g.251 California Drive, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the exterior facade of a commercial storefront. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Marco Fung, applicant and architect; Ken White, property owner ) (85 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 251 California Dr - Staff Report 251 California Dr - Attachments 251 California Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis was not in attendance at the Design Review Study meeting, but viewed the video. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. >The previous staff report mentioned that the entire space needed to be treated as one unit. Is that still the case? (Kolokihakaufisi: There had been two tenants previously, but only one is proposed now. It can only be one tenant since access needs to be from the street frontage, and cannot be from the alley.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gerardo Fuentes, Archit Studio, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >The demolition drawing indicates existing header to be removed, or is it being replaced? If it is being replaced, what is the material? (Fuentes: The header will be refinished, not replaced. The windows above will be replaced.) Should be indicated as such on the plan, makes sense to leave it in place. >What will be the new finish of the header? (Fuentes: Just being repainted.) >Is it being marketed as a single tenant space? (Fuentes: Yes, not two tenants.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Like the changes that were made. More in line with the existing character of the building. >Huge improvement. >The header matter needs to be clarified on the plans. It can come back as an FYI. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following condition: >Clarification that the header will be refinished rather than replaced shall be made to the plans prior to issuance of a building permit. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.329 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage. (Joe and Julia McVeigh, property owners; TRG Architects-Carlos Rojas, applicant and architect) (99 noticed) Staff contact: Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Catherine Keylon 329 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 329 Occidental Ave - Attachments 329 Occidental 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. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Most of the elevations have horizontal siding, except on the left elevation? (Grange: It seemed cramped on the two big gables with the wide fin.) >Is there meant to be a gate on the front porch? (Grange: It is for a small dog, probably not a permanent gate. Could move it around to the back side of the columns so it would be less visible.) >Where did 9'-7" and 8-'7" plate heights come from? (Grange: Once sheetrock and flooring are added it would come out to 9'-6" and 8-'6". The scale of the surrounding houses is large.) >Is the native grass in the back lawn? (Grange: It is a "no-mow" variety that does not grow tall, and has low water use.) >There is a lot of hardscape. (Grange: Owner wants to be able to turn around and come out forward from the driveway, and not have to back out. Could look at a different type of paver.) It's not visible from the street, it just feels like a lot of pavers. >Plans should note the size of knee braces, want them to have some substance. >What color will the standing-seam metal roof be? (Grange: Dark bronze.) >Wood brackets don't show up in some of the elevations in profile. (Should be corrected.) >Site plan shows adjacent house up to the property line. Does not show the driveway. Needs to be pulled over. >Some of the wood brackets show up in elevation but not in profile. >The rear elevation appears to have two pairs of doors, but the plan shows a pair of doors and a pair of windows. (Grange: One pair is a door but not meant to be used, it can be opened for ventilation. The flow is out the side.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Nicely articulated, well-scaled project. >The house looks compact from the front. This has to do with the roof articulation. >Appreciates the restraint on the standing-seam metal roof, that it is not used across the entire house. >Can come back on the Consent Calendar with the clarifications mentioned. >Context of neighborhood is big houses. The higher plate heights are appropriate in this location. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the Consent Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - b.1457 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Environmental Scoping, Design Review, Condominium Permit, Conditional Use Permit for building height and Variance for Front Setback Landscaping for a new 4-story, 9-unit residential condominium building . (Rabih Balout, applicant and property owner; Troy Kashanipour, architect) (99 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1457 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1457 El Camino Real - Attachments 1457 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Troy Kashanipour, architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >How is the deck at rear how is it screened from the neighborhood behind? (Kashanipour: There would be a fence, probably 6 feet tall. There is also an easement providing separation from the adjacent property.) >Plans should note the fencing and screening. It is an important detail, as it effects neighboring properties. >Are there no windows on the front elevation? (Kashanipour: It is intentional. Tried some options with windows, but thought it looks cleaner and more contemporary with a solid backdrop. Wanted a canvas for the trees to live in front of.) The lack of windows combined with the small entry space makes it look like it is presenting a blank wall, looks uninviting from the street. >Percentage of landscaping cited in the variance application is not correct. 18 percentage points cited, but it is actually almost 40 percent less. >38-foot height does not include the penthouse? (Kashanipour: Correct.) >Spoken with Caltrans about the double driveway? (Kashanipour: Spoke with a Caltrans engineer who said it would likely not be an issue given the pattern on El Camino Real.) >Has the ceramic tile cladding been replaced with stone? (Kashanipour: Yes, wants something more textured such as limestone. Will still be a veneer, but with dimensional quality.) >Is the full metal screen on the front also on the side? (Kashanipour: It will wrap the full upper stories . It is intended to be a rainscreen detail.) >Concern the roof decks could be noisy if everyone is up there at the same time. The terraces are large, which would invite a lot of people. >Could the parking be configured to be double -loaded rather than having two driveways? (Kashanipour: Car parking space dimension is 20 feet, but the lot width is 50 feet. Would not have enough room for two bays plus an aisle.) >Is the area on the first floor indicated as stamped concrete walkway a useable space? (Kashanipour: It's primarily a service area. Needs to have a concrete slab since there is parking structure below.) Looks Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes like there could be an opportunity to use the area for functional outdoor space. >How would garbage be picked up? (Kashanipour: Recology does not drive onto the property. The building association will need to designate someone to bring the bins up to the curb. Can likely work with one pickup per week.) Seems far back in the building. Maybe there is a location closer to the front. Also it is facing the only remaining community space on the site. >Is there an overhang over the front door to protect people from the weather? (Kashanipour: There is a two-foot overhang. Would like it to be more, but it would be counted as building area if it extends beyond two feet, and there is not enough buildable area remaining. Would have preferred four feet.) >How many square feet is the landscaping under what is required? If it were not for the sidewalk would it comply? (Kashanipour: No, it is the driveway. If the second driveway was not there, it would just barely comply.) >Has there been consideration of a smaller building, and not filling the entire site from setback to setback? (Kashanipour: No, based on what owner paid for the property, it would be hard to have a smaller building work. Did not do a serious study of a smaller building with less parking.) Public Comments: Walter: Lives across the street on Highway Road. Supports condo development. Appreciates 1:1 parking. Two guest spots are not enough. Appreciates underground parking, and that it is not stacked. Did not realize the front has no windows, is reminiscent of the correctional facility in Redwood City. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Too big for the footprint. Front variance. This location needs the setback and landscaping to feel supportive of pedestrians. Likes the current condition with greenery, serves as a respite. Understands the current condition will change, but not in support of the landscape variance. >OK with material palette. However would like a more inviting treatment of the front. >The number of units drives the parking, which then creates the need for the variance. If the building were smaller it would not need to have a variance. >Wants to see residential units, but not at any cost. Cannot agree with the variance request. >Much of El Camino Real is defined by curb cuts, so two may be OK here. However it shows the need for landscaping. >Should consider evaluating if it could be smaller so it could fit within the development standards. >Likes the building, including the folding metal plate. Would be a nice addition to the eclecticism of El Camino Real. However the front is not inviting, needs some windows. >Renderings help, but the elevations are confusing to read. >Could consider a studio unit in lieu of one of the one -bedrooms, and reducing one of the multi -story units, so that it could fit within the development standards but still pencil out. >Front without windows is uninviting, would like a more inviting face. >Understands the double driveway but should address the needs for landscaping. >Make better use of some of the available space to create more useable open space. >Side setbacks look larger than required. Perhaps reconfigure some of the building to push things back and get more landscaping in front of the structure. >Does there need to be these type of bumpouts to get access to the roof terraces? Perhaps they could be tied in better with the architecture of the building, rather than just looking like the top of a stairwell. >Would parking stackers require a variance? (Gardiner: Yes.) >Two driveways is driven by desire to max out everything. Can't make findings for the variance. Getting the maximum number of units is not justification for a variance. >Program on the first floors is so maxed out, in order to meet the open space requirements it leads them to needing to have roof decks. The decks are so large they read as a fifth floor. It will overwhelm the neighbors. >Wants to study how the decks would impact neighbors on Balboa Avenue behind. Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Would encourage alternate parking methods. Hard to justify the variance. >Architectural style is interesting, but the front elevation needs to be revisited. Too stark. >Needs a serious revision of the program. Cannot support it in its current form. >Building reads as a large box and is very plain. >Penthouses make it appear too tall. Roof decks should be brought down in size. >Intent of open space is not just to have usable space, but to provide buffers between neighbors. That is being lost by the size of the building. >Lacks human scale in the front. Entrance should be more appealing to pedestrians. >Sidewalk can be offset to match up with the sidewalk on each side. >Not supportive of two curb cuts. While El Camino Real has a lot of curb cuts, it also has a lot of paved front yards. The street would benefit from more landscaping, and projects should conform to the requirements. >Eucalyptus tree should be shown in correct location. Another tree appears to be proposed to be removed, but not sure it can be removed. Could influence whether a second driveway is possible. >Would prefer one wider driveway rather than two that take up the full frontage. >Concern with drainage issues on El Camino Real, and potential drainage into the garage. >Caltrans will not allow drainage onto El Camino Real. Water in garage cannot be pumped onto the street. As a Design Review Study/Environmental Scoping item, there is no action from the Planning Commission . The application will return as an Action Item with the environmental review at a later date. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There will be a Community Center committee meeting this week. The project is looking good. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that the City Council... a.1245 Cabrillo Avenue - FYI for changes requested by the Planning Commission to a previously approved Design Review project. 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Memorandum & Attachments 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Plans Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on February 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 February 22, 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 15City of Burlingame Printed on 3/21/2019 PROJECT LOCATION 434 Bloomfield Road Item No. 8a Regular Action Items Item No. 8a Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 434 Bloomfield Road Meeting Date: March 25, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. Applicant and Architect: J Deal Associates APN: 029-181-200 Property Owners: Parshadi and Kaushal Shah Lot Area: 4,979 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and f acilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The subject property is a substandard corner lot that has frontages on both Bloomfield Road and Lexington Way. For corner lots, the code defines the front of the property as the side with the shortest linear frontage (C.S. 25.08.435). For this property, the front of the lot is the frontage facing Lexington Way even though the street address and front entrance of the house is on Bloomfield Road. The existing one-story house with an attached garage contains 1,971 SF (0.40 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to add a new 727 SF second story. Also proposed is demolishing the existing attached garage an d building a new detached carport that is partially enclosed. An existing patio niche on the exterior side of the first floor will also be removed and filled in with habitable space (14 SF). The existing exterior side wall of the patio niche has a non -conforming side setback (5’-6” where 7’-6” is the minimum required), however this exterior wall will not be demolished. With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,697 SF (0.54 FAR) where 2,743 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 46 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The number of potential bedrooms is increasing from two to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The new carport will provide one covered parking space (11’-3” x 20’-1” clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking is provided in the driveway (9’ x 20’). 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 and new detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(2)). This space intentionally left blank. Design Review 434 Bloomfield Road 2 434 Bloomfield Road Lot Area: 4,979 SF Plans date stamped: August 15, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Front Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 15’-0” n/a no change 23’-8” 15’-0” or block avg 20’-0” Side Setback (interior): (exterior): 5’-0” 5’-6” * no change no change 4'-0" 7’-6” Rear Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 18’-9” n/a 30’-9” 42’-9” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,985 SF 39.9 % 1,976 SF 39.7 % 1,992 SF 40 % FAR: 1,971 SF 0.40 FAR 2,697 SF 0.54 FAR 2,743 SF 1 0.55 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (10’-9” x 20’ clear interior) no uncovered parking* 1 covered (11’-3” x 20’-1” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (10' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 21’-4” 28’-6” 30'-0" DH Envelope: n/a complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 4,979 SF) + 900 SF + 250 SF = 2,743 SF (0.55) FAR * existing non-conforming Staff Comments: The proposed project was originally scheduled for Action on the August 27, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. But the project was continued at the request of the property owners. No changes to the revised plans have been made since they were submitted on August 15, 2018. The applicant and designer have submitted a response letter (dated February 15, 2019) to explain the changes shown on the revised plans (see attachments). Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on June 25, 2018, the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below is a summary of the Planning Commission’s comments and suggestions:  Existing house has funky charm, proposed project is missing quirkiness and detail of existing house;  Needs more articulation and charm that replicates what’s there, maybe replication of gable vents or deep recessed windows so it isn’t just a box;  Agrees with letter from neighbor - tough project to start with; o West front elevation – two planes in façade; roof unnecessarily complicated; o New south elevation - the entire box that’s intersecting lower mass of building is asymmetrical where ought to be symmetrical;  New gable vent doesn’t relate to current gable vent;  Original chimney better;  Tapering of walls and soft curves on firs t floor may be repeated on second floor; Design Review 434 Bloomfield Road 3  No consistency in shapes and sizes of windows ; and  Tie together better. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped August 15, 2018, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and suggestions. Revisions include shifting the second floor back by 3’-8” and demolishing the existing attached garage, making the second floor more centered. The applicant has also added more articulation to the second floor elevations and created more consistency among the new and existing gable vents and between the first and second floor windows (includes recessed windows). Wall details on second floor have also been added to match the shape and curves present on the existing first floor. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring a combination of hip and gable roofs, proportional plate heights, wood and stucco siding, composition shingle roofing and recessed windows) is compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis co ntained 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 August 15, 2018, sheets A1.1 through A4.1, G1, SF, and L1 ; 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 constructio n project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Design Review 434 Bloomfield Road 4 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construc tion 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 exteri or, 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 SHAL L 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 arch itect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved p lans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyo r shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. J Deal Associates, applicant and designer Parshadi and Kaushal Shah , property owners Attachments: June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Letter of Response, dated February 15, 2019 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 15, 2019 Area Map 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 26 FEB 2019 PLANNING REV 13 MAR 2019 2ND FLOOR 1ST FLOOR EAST RWL RWLRWL RWLRWL BASEMENT 2'-6" x 5'-0" EGRESS 2'-6" x 5'-0" EGRESS RWL 5'-0"2'-5"ALL POINTS WITHIN 5'-0" OF THE PORCH HAVE A VERTICAL DIMENSION LESS THAN 30" TO GRADE 2'-6" x 5'-0" EGRESS 1'-6"RAKE - TYP. 1 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 1/4"=1'-0" 30'-0" MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 12 5.3 SOUTH 9'-6"8'-4"FIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORRWL RWLRWL RWL RWL RWL 5'-0" x 6'-10" 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 BASEMENT 2'-6" x 4'-0" EGRESS 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 RIDGE = 80.05' (30'-0" FROM TOP OF CURB)30'-0" MAXIMUM HEIGHT FROM TOP OF CURB (80.05')PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE12'-0"AVERAGE GRADE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 9'-6"FIRST FLOOR12 5.3 7'-6"NORTH F.F = 55.0' AVERAGE TOP OF CURB = 50.05' BASEMENT STONE VENEER BASE & CHIMNEY SHINGLES - TBD 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 FLOOR8'-4"DECORATIVE GABLE END - PAINTED WOOD ± 4'-11"1'-1"RWL WOOD ENTRY DOOR - PAINTED30'-0"1'-6"EAVE - TYP. 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 26 FEB 2019 PLANNING REV 13 MAR 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" 5.3:12 WEST RWL SOUTHEAST RWL NORTH 12 5.3 3 DETACHED GARAGE ELEVATIONS 1/4"=1'-0"8'-1" TOP PLATE11'-1"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" 5.3:12 5.3:125.3:12 5.3:12 5.3:12 5.3:12 5.3:12 5.3:12 5.3:12 5.3:12 5.3:12 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 5.3:125.3:12 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 (35.1%): *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 1,646.6 SF 1,283.7 SF 699.8 SF 264.0 SF 90.4 SF 3,284.7 SF 108.0 SF 2,109.0 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 26 FEB 2019 PLANNING REV 13 MAR 2019 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 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 2/25/19 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 26 FEB 2019 PLANNING REV 13 MAR 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 ROOMKITCHEN8'-3"9'-5"9'-0"LIGHTWELL4'-8"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'-9"90.4 SF0 COVERED PORCH AREA TOTAL COVERED PORCH AREA: DIMENSION SQUARE FOOTAGE 90.4 SF 108 SF FRONT PORCH EXEMPT FROM FAR 3 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1/8"=1'-0" TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA = 3,284.7 SF 13'-4" x 26'-9" 8'-0" x 1'-0" 19'-11" x 22'-7" 10'-0" x 7'-1" 28'-5" x 23'-8" 12'-2" x 7'-6" 356.1 SF 8.0 SF 448.0 SF 70.8 SF 672.5 SF 91.2 SF A B C D E F RESIDENCE FLOOR AREA TOTAL FIRST FLOOR AREA: DIMENSION SQUARE FOOTAGE 1,646.6 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" 23'-5" x 12'-10" 9'-10" x 4'-6" 191.1 SF 313.5 SF 81.4 SF 162.3 SF 190.1 SF 301.0 SF 44.3 SF G H I J K L M DIMENSION SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL SECOND FLOOR AREA:1,283.7 SF TOTAL RESIDENCE FLOOR AREA:2,930.3 SF City of Burlingame Sign Variance Address: 1008 – 1028 Carolan Avenue Meeting Date: March 25, 2019 Request: Application for Variance for height of a wall sign on a multifamily residential building. Applicant: Buddy Burch, Scott AG APN: 026-240-380 and -390 Property Owner: SHAC Carolan LLC Lot Area: 235,030 SF (5.40 Acres) General Plan: Commercial Uses (Carolan Rollins Commercial Area) Zoning: C-2 / R-4 Overlay Housing Element: Listed on Housing Sites Inventory Adjacent Development: Multiple-Family Residential and Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15311 - Accessory Structures Class 11(a) consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including but not limited to: (a) On premise signs. Site History: In June 2015 this site was approved for development as a multifamily residential project including 268 apartments and 22 townhomes (SummerHill Development Project). The project is currently under construction. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a Variance for height of a wall sign on a multifamily residential building. The project site is zoned C-2 with an R-4 Overlay and because the development is entirely residential, the proposed signage was evaluated using the sign regulations for the R-4 zoning district. The applicant is proposing a total of four signs, three of which are to be located on the parcel frontage that faces Carolan Avenue. The fourth proposed sign is on the frontage facing Rollins Road. Based on the length of the Rollins Road frontage, a total of three signs and 100 SF of signage is allowed, with a maximum allowable height of 12‘-0” from grade or no higher than the first story. For reference, in a C-2 zoned district the maximum allowable height is restricted by the height of signable area on a building (defined as an area free of architectural details, including, but not limited, to windows, friezes, corbels, tile and trim, on the facade of a building or part of a building); so a sign could be placed on the highest story of a building. The proposed wall sign on Rollins Road (Sign A3 on the plans) complies with the maximum number and square footage allowed for the zoning district, however the applicant is requesting a Variance for the height of the sign on the building. Per Code Section 22.12.050, the maximum allowable height for a wall sign in an R-4 zone is 12'-0" from grade or no higher than the first story, where the applicant is proposing a height of 54'-2" above grade,on the fifth story of the building (proposed sign is located above the fourth floor parapet). The three remaining signs for the project face Carolan Avenue, which serves as the main entrance and has a more pedestrian scale. All of the proposed signs on the Carolan Avenue frontage (Signs A2, B1, and B2 on the plans) meet the sign requirements for the R-4 zoning district. The three signs include one wall sign and two monument signs that total 28.4 SF, where the maximum allowed is three signs and 100 SF. Staff would note that Sign A1 shown on the plans meets the definition of a non-commercial sign in a residential district and is therefore not included in the maximum allowable signage calculations. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Variance for height of a wall sign on a multifamily residential building (CS 22.06.120(a)(1)). Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Sign Variance 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue 2 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue Lot Area: 235,030 SF Plans date stamped: March 11, 2019 PROPOSED # OF SIGNS ALLOWED PROPOSED SF ALLOWED PROPOSED HEIGHT ALLOWED SIGNS IN R-4 ZONING DISTRICT Carolan Avenue: 3 signs (2 monument signs and 1 wall sign) 3 signs 28.4 SF total for 3 signs 100 SF 7'-0" for monument 1st story for wall sign 7'-0" for monument 1st story for wall sign Rollins Road: 1 wall sign 3 signs 57.6 SF total for 1 sign 100 SF 54'-2" or fifth story 1 1st story for wall sign 1 Variance required for height of a wall sign on a multifamily residential building. Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that since this request for a Variance for height of a single wall sign, the application was placed directly on the action calendar. If the Commission feels there is a need for more discussion, this item may be placed on a future action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Required Findings for Sign Variance: In order to grant a Sign Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings (Sign Variance for height of a sign): That the location of the proposed wall sign faces a frontage road that runs adjacent to a highway, so that the proposed height will not alter the character of any neighborhood and will not have a detrimental impact on the character any adjacent properties. That this site is the only C-2/R-4 Overlay in Burlingame and that other properties just north of the site along Rollins Road and facing the freeway will be entitled to signage heights that are allowed in commercial zoning districts. That the design of the building and the height of the proposed landscaping along Rollins Road would prevent a wall sign placed at a lower story from being seen by travelers on Rollins Road or Highway 101. And that the proposed single wall sign at a height near the top of the building is aesthetically more desirable for a multifamily project of this size than three signs at a lower story height. For these reasons, the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the Variance criteria. Sign Variance 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue 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 March 11, 2019, sheets 1.0 through 6.0; 2. that any increase in the number, letter height, sign height, location or area of the signs shall require a building permit and may require a Sign Variance; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Sign Variance associated with the building, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; and 4. 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. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. Buddy Burch, Scott AG, applicant Attachments: • Application to the Planning Commission • Applicant's Letter of Explanation • Variance Application date stamped March 11, 2019 • Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) • Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 15, 2019 • Area Map SCOTT AG, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL GRAPHICS SCOTTAG.COM City of Burlingame Signage Variance Submittal Sign Type “A3” March 11, 2019 1008 Carolan Avenue Burlingame, California SITE PLAN 1.0CAROLAN/ROLLINS BURLINGAME #5274-200 SIGNAGE VARIANCE SUBMITTAL MARCH 11, 2019 A3 A1 A2 B2 B1 WEST ELEVATION / CAROLAN AVENUE 2.0CAROLAN/ROLLINS BURLINGAME #5274-200 SIGNAGE VARIANCE SUBMITTAL MARCH 11, 2019 1008 THE RESIDENCES ATANSON 8´-2˝ CLEARANCEEXIT ONLY LEASING • GUESTSLEASING • GUESTS WEST ELEVATION / CAROLAN AVENUE Scale: 1/16” = 1’-0” Townhome Monument Arrival Court Entry Art A1 Canopy Project I.D. A2 B2 Anson Monument B1 EAST ELEVATION / ROLLINS ROAD 3.0CAROLAN/ROLLINS BURLINGAME #5274-200 SIGNAGE VARIANCE SUBMITTAL MARCH 11, 2019 GRADE LEVEL PLAN / PARTIAL Scale: 1/16” = 1’-0” EAST ELEVATION / ROLLINS ROAD Scale: 1/16” = 1’-0” GARAGE RAMPTRASH STAGING LOBBY 1028 CAROLAN Wall Mounted Project I.D. A3 Primary Directional Secondary Directional Arrival Court Feature I.D. Leasing Office ID D1 L Anson Lane Gate Address SignR1 E D2 Anson Lane Street SignD3 A3: WALL-MOUNTED PROJECT ID ON ROLLINS RD 4.0CAROLAN/ROLLINS BURLINGAME #5274-200 SIGNAGE VARIANCE SUBMITTAL MARCH 11, 2019 L K K K6 K8 J1 J1 L L K K K6 K8 J1 K3 K5 L L J1 4242 42 31 31 34 34 34 42 424242 31 34 34 34 42 4242 34 C C C1 C1 4242 31 31 K3 K5K5 K3K3 K5 42 34 34 42 42 34 20 20 20 20 20 A3.01 2 EAST ELEVATION PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION Scale: 3/32” = 1’-0” FRONT VIEW Scale: 1/2” = 1’-0” SIDE VIEW Scale: 1/2” = 1’-0” 15'-11" 5'-3" 3'-7 3/8"2'-11 1/2" Logo Standoff Letterbase SELF-HALO ILLUMINATED LETTER BACK VIEW SELF-HALO LETTER DETAIL Reverse-channel letter w/LED halo-illumination, polycarbonate backer Standoffs Acrylic Backer Aluminum Backer 4"5/8"5/8"3/8" Materials Logo: Fabricated aluminum reverse channel letter, paint finish, with polycarbonate back and internal LED lights, halo illuminates against and is mounted to, frosted acrylic and aluminum backing plate assembly. Letterbase: Fabricated aluminum, painted Standoff: Colors Logo: MP 36465 to match SW 7069 Iron Ore, with 10% flattener, custom mottled finish Acrylic Backer: P95 Frosted Aluminum Backer: MP 36465 to match SW 7069 Iron Ore, with 10% flattener, custom mottled finish Letterbase: TBD Illumination: White LED Lights Standoff: TBD Typestyles Logo: Project Logotype Letter Heights Logo: 3’-7 3/8” (height of “A”) Notes 1. Letters are self-halo illuminated Sub to install steel tube per detail on page XXX 50'-6"D3 002 R1 001 A VIEW ALONG US 101 5.0CAROLAN/ROLLINS BURLINGAME #5274-200 SIGNAGE VARIANCE SUBMITTAL MARCH 11, 2019 North-Bound 101 South-Bound 101 ANALOGS TO SIGN PLACEMENT 6.0CAROLAN/ROLLINS BURLINGAME #5274-200 SIGNAGE VARIANCE SUBMITTAL MARCH 11, 2019 Lawrence Station Apartments from 237 Avalon Berkeley Project from 580 City of Burlingame Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance Address: 1660 Rollins Road Meeting Date: March 25, 2019 Request: Application for 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 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The applicant, David Mena of Mena Architects, representing Sycomp, is proposing façade changes and an addition to 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 proposed where 70% is the maximum allowed). The proposed addition would be located at the rear of the building and includes 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, a 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 of the building. The applicant is also proposing to change the front building façade by bringing forward the entire front wall by 3’- 2” so that it is flush with the building columns, which are proposed to be clad with blue aluminum panels. The new panels will extend above the roof by 1’-8”. 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. Off-Street Parking: There is no existing striped parking on site. The proposed addition does not eliminate any existing parking or potential areas for parking, because the addition is proposed where there is currently a ramp serving the rear of the building. Therefore, it is assumed that the proposed parking is 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. However, the proposed 18 parking spaces does not fulfill the 21 parking spaces required by code for the intensification of uses on-site. The proposed project includes restriping in conformity with the zoning code requirements and results in a total of 18 parking spaces where 21 parking spaces are required. Therefore, the applicant is requesting Parking Variance for three spaces. Please refer 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 12 feet in height is considered a story and each fraction of 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 the 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. 8d Regular Action Item Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 1660 Rollins Road -2- 1660 Rollins Road Lot Area: 21,888 SF Plans date stamped: February 27, 2019 and March 15, 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 Off-Street 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: The proposed project meets all of the landscaping requirements, including front setback landscaping and total site landscaping. Proposed landscaping within the front setback is 78.9% where 60% is the minimum required. The total amount of landscaping proposed for the lot is 10.9% where 10% is the minimum required. The applicant is proposing minor changes to the existing landscaping at the front of the site. A new entry path is proposed that will be lined with new landscaping 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 . The applicant is requesting approval of the following applications : Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 1660 Rollins Road -3- Commercial Design Review for changes to the façade of an existing commercial building (CS 25.44.070); and Parking Variance for not fulfilling the amount of parking required on-site (21 spaces required where 18 spaces are proposed) (CS 25.70.040). 1660 Rollins Road Lot Area: 21,888 SF Plans date stamped: February 27, 2019 and March 15, 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: This application was submitted to the Planning Division on October 25, 2018. At that time, the General Plan Update had not yet been adopted and the project was evaluated based on the RR (Rollins Road) Zoning District regulations. The General Plan update was adopted by the City Council on January 7, 2019 and became effective on February 7, 2019. With the update, the northern portion of the RR Zoning District was rezoned to Rollins Road Mixed Use (RRMU) to create a new neighborhood of live/work units and development, support commercial businesses and other employment uses within walking distance to the Millbrae multimodal transit station. The interim zoning code regulations for RRMU were also adopted along with the General Plan update. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the new RRMU zoning district. However, this application is not subject to the new RRMU zoning because it was submitted prior to its adoption as a new zoning district. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on March 11, 2019, the Commission had concerns about the proposed front façade and the Parking Variance request (see the attached March 11, 2019, Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission requested that the applicant revisit the proposed design for the front façade and bolster the findings to justify the request for the Parking Variance. The applicant submitted revised plan sheets of the proposed building elevations, date stamped March 15, 2019, to address the Planning Commission’s comments to simplify the design. The applicant has also submitted a letter of response that provides further explanation about the revised design and additional information to support their Parking Variance request, which includes proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures (see attachments). 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 Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 1660 Rollins Road -4- 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, bulk, 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 o n 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 pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the new storefront window and door system framed by new aluminum panels, concrete panel siding and metal coping are compatible with the existing building and consistent with the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial areas ; that the proposed storefront and front setback landscaping promotes pedestrian activity by allowing views directly into the business; that the proposed storefront improvements are consistent with the architectural style and mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area and retains the existing character of the original building, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s design review criteria. Required Findings for Parking Variance: In order to grant a Parking Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a -d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to pro perty or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings: That the proposed use is not a significant increase in impact compared to the existing uses on site and that the proposed number of persons on site (with a maximum of 10 pe rsons on site at any one time) is significantly lower than the number of parking spaces required by code (21 spaces). That the close proximity to the Millbrae Intermodal Station, public transit bus routes, and company access to rideshare for appointments or emergencies, provide alternative transportation options to driving and therefore help to mitigate the lack of three parking spaces to fulfill the code required amount of parking on site. That though the application is reviewed under the previous zoning district code due to date of submittal, the subject property is currently under a newly adopted zoning code (RRMU) that provides up to a 20% parking reduction in required off -street vehicle parking for projects that provide a Transportation Demand Managemen t (TDM) Plan that encourages alternative transportation for 25% or more of the building occupants; that 3 out of the current 7 employees (43% of employees) take public transit and walk to Sycomp and the proposed TDM Plan by Sycomp incentivizing all employees such as pre-tax funds to cover mass transit expenses , providing company owned bicycles to close the last-mile gap, installation of an EV charging space, and storage within the warehouse for personal employee bicycles, in whole fulfill the RRMU zoning code TDM parking incentive. That the 18 parking spaces proposed to be provided exceeds the 16 parking spaces (20% reduction in the code required 21 spaces) required on site with the TDM Plan; therefore the proposed expansion and the requested Parking Variance at 1660 Rollins Road will Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 1660 Rollins Road -5- not be detrimental or injurious to surrounding properties or improvements in the vicinity. For these reasons the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the Variance criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirm ed 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 27, 2019, sheets C1 – C7, L1, A010 – A300, A400 – A402 and date stamped March 15, 2019 sheets A301, A302, A304, and A501; 2. that should the subject property increase in lot coverage and/or floor area with uses that in tensify the site to require parking beyond the required parking for this application (21 spaces), it shall require an amendment to this Parking Variance; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. 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 Plannin g Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and s uch 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 requir ed; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in affect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other li censed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or con tractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; and Commercial Design Review and Parking Variance 1660 Rollins Road -6- 11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. David Mena, Mena Architects, applicant and architect Sycomp Consulting Int’l, Ltd., property owner Attachments: March 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Letter of Response, received March 15, 2019 Application to the Planning Commission Parking Variance Application Commercial Application Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 15, 2019 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 11, 2019 e.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 1660 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1660 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1660 Rollins Rd - 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. Mike Symons represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >How do the employees get from BART to the building? (Symons: Employees walk.) How many employees do that currently? (Symons: Three out of seven employees. We intend to add bicycles in the future for employee use.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Existing simple frame elevation is nice, not sure what the folding metal provides. >If less square footage was added, would not need as much parking. Not sure what the justification is. > Don't have an issue with Parking Variance because of the transportation corridor nearby and if employees are taking BART, they are not driving in. Caltrain is also nearby. > Warehouse uses have few employees and may not need the amount of parking required. > Indifferent to the commercial remodel of the front facade. It's in an industrial area and if it is what the applicant wants, have no opposition to it. >Does the rezoning change anything? (CDD Gardiner: There may be options for Transportation Demand Management program.) Would be great if staff could look at that, the underlying application is a great one and should be encouraged. >Other uses in the area have sometimes had parking reductions based on use of the space compared Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes to the zoning requirements. Warehouse use does not have much parking demand. >Facade improvements seem a bit fussy. > Good application in terms of its intent and its uses. Addition of warehouse is being built in an area that is not being currently used for parking. It is being added where the existing ramp is. Applicant is infilling area that does not serve purposes now. >Can support the reduction of spaces given location, proximity to mass transit, and lowering need of automobiles with alternative transportation options. > Operations require additional warehouse space which is in exceptional circumstance. >Existing design is dated. Can support the design and improvement of the front if it is to make a statement for business in attracting customers and staying competitive. >Front is trying too hard, needs to be simplified. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 P4 P4 P4 P4P3P4P3 (N) BLUE ALUMINUM PANEL PROPOSED WAREHOUSE EXPANSIONEXISTING (E) ROLL UP DOOR (D) ROLL UP DOOR 12'-0" W X 13'-0"H (N) EX. DOOR (N) EX. DOOR (N) CEMENT PLASTER±9'-8" T.O. AWNING ±20'-2" (28.89') T.O. PARAPET (E) CONCRETE COLUMN (N) METAL COPING (N) SMOKE GREY ALUMINUM PANEL (N) METAL COPING CONTROL JOINT, TYP.ALIGN(E) TILT-UP PANELS MP1 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O.CURB) 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O. CURB) ±22'-8" (31.36') T.O. PANEL COLUMNS VERTICAL SEISMIC JOINT COVER, SEE A304 P3P3 P4 PROPOSED WAREHOUSE EXPANSION EXISTING (N) DOWNSPOUT (N) CEMENT PLASTER ±9'-8" T.O. AWNING (N) BLUE ALUMINUM PANEL (N) METAL COPING(N) METAL COPING (E) TILT-UP PANELS(E) CONCRETE COLUMN CONTROL JOINT, TYP.ALIGN ±20'-8" (31.36') T.O. PANEL COLUMNS MP1 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O.CURB) ±20'-2" (28.89') T.O. PARAPET 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O. CURB) VERTICAL SEISMIC JOINT COVER, SEE A304 1660 MP1 PROPOSED STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM 13 A500 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O.CURB) 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O. CURB) ±22'-8" (31.36') T.O. PANEL COLUMNS ±21'-0" (29.69') T.O. PARAPET T.O. AWNING ±9'-8" PROVIDE JBOX FOR ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE (N) BLUE ALUMINUM PANEL (N) SMOKE GREY ALUMINUM PANEL ±9'-7" T.O. CONCRETE BEAM B.O. CONCRETE BEAM ±8'-6" (N) LED LIGHT BEHIND ALUMINUM PANEL A501 13 A501 01 MP2 MP2 GL1 P3 PROPOSED WAREHOUSE (N) CEMENT PLASTER (N) METAL COPINGCONTROL JOINT, TYP. 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O.CURB) 0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O. CURB) ±20'-2" (28.89') T.O. PARAPET ±20'-2" (28.89') T.O. ROOF 011/8"=1'-0" 18-588PROPOSED ELEVATION - SOUTHAll 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 9401002.20.19 18-588575 W El Camino Real/Mountain View, CA 94040tel 650.210.8800 - fax 650.210.8801www.menaarchitects.comarchitecture / planning / interiorsarchitectsELEVATIONS PROPOSED AS NOTED A301 021/8"=1'-0" 18-588PROPOSED ELEVATION-WEST 041/8"=1'-0" 18-588PROPOSED ELEVATION-EAST 031/8"=1'-0" 18-588PROPOSED ELEVATION-NORTH 13SCHEDULE - CURTAIN WALL PAINT PAINT MANUFACTURER: SHERWIN WILIAM COLOR NUMBER: SW 7006 COLOR: EXTRA WHITE FINISH:SATIN P1 P2 ROOFING R1 CORK 16NOTES - FINISH SCHEDULE FINISH NOTES FINISH NOTES: F1. ENSURE THAT SURFACES TO RECEIVE FINISHES ARE CLEAN, TRUE AND FREE OF IRREGULARITIES. DO NOT PROCEED WITH WORK UNTIL UNSATISFACTORY CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN CORRECTED. COMMENCEMENT OF WORK SHALL INDICATE INSTALLER'S ACCEPTANCE OF SUBSTRATE. F2. ALL CODE REQUIRED LABELS SUCH AS "UL", FACTORY MUTUAL, OR ANY EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION, PERFORMANCE RATING, NAME OR NOMENCLATURE PLATES SHALL REMAIN READABLE AND NOT PAINTED. F3. GLASS SUBJECT TO HUMAN IMPACT SHALL BE OF SAFETY GLAZING MATERIAL TO MEET STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. F4. U.O.N. PROVIDE MINIMUM 3-COAT PAINT SYSTEMS FOR EACH SUBSTRATE, REFER TO FINISH SCHEDULE FOR COLORS AND FINISHES. F5. TRANSITION OF FLOOR MATERIALS TO BE LOCATED AT CENTER OF DOORS IN CLOSED POSITION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. F6. PAINT BACK SIDES OF REMOVABLE ACCESS PANELS AND HINGED COVERS TO MATCH EXPOSED SURFACE. F7. PRIOR TO PURCHASE OR INSTALLATION OF ANY FINISH MATERIALS SUBMIT SAMPLES, SHOP DRAWING AND PRODUCT LITERATURE TO TENANT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ORDERING PRODUCTS AND/OR MATERIALS. F8. ALL NEW AND EXISTING FINISHES SCHEDULED TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. F9. ALL FINISH SELECTIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY OWNER. F10. MANUFACTURE TO SUBMIT SAMPLE FOR APPROVAL TO INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS (IHG) PLAN REVIEW AND DESIG TEAM FOR WRITTEN APPROVAL, PRIOR TO SHIPMENT. F11. PRODUCTS TO MEET ALL LOCAL JURISDICTION CODES AND REQUIREMENTS. F12. PAINT TO BE OF CONTRACT QUALITY AND SUITABLE FOR COMMERCIAL USE. F13. USE BENJAMIN MOORE - ALKYD PRIMER FOR BASE METAL SURFACE. F14. METAL DOORS AND DOOR FRAMES SHALL BE FINISHED WITH PT1 ROOF MEMBRANE MANUFACTURER: CARLISLE STYLE: SURE-WELD TPO THICKNESS: 45-MIL POURED CORK/LINOLEUM MANUFACTURER: FLUID FLOORS PART #:GR409H COLOR: GREY C1 C2 WD1 WOOD FLOORING MANUFACTURER: reSAWN TIMBER SPECIES: White oak FINISH: MATTE POLYURETHANE SIZE:5/8" t X 7" w X 2'-10' (RANDOM LENGTHS) POURED CORK/LINOLEUM MANUFACTURER: FLUID FLOORS PART #:BL331H COLOR:BLUE PAINT MANUFACTURER: SHERWIN WILLIAMS COLOR NUMBER: SW 6521 COLOR:NOTABLE HUE FINISH: SATIN T1 T2 WALL TILE MANUFACTURER: HEXA TILES PART #:HEXAML3 COLOR:NAVY FINISH:MIXED MOSAIC UNGLAZED PORCELAIN STONEWARE SIZE:12"X12" FLOOR TILE MANUFACTURER: HEXA TILES PART #:HEXAML3 COLOR:WILD SAGE FINISH:MIXED MOSAIC UNGLAZED PORCELAIN STONEWARE SIZE:12"X12" TILE WD2 WOOD PANEL MANUFACTURER: reSAWN TIMBER SPECIES: White oak FINISH: MATTE POLYURETHANE WOOD TRIM CB1 COVE BASE MANUFACTURER: SCHLUTER PART #: DILEX-AHX FINISH: CLEAR ANODIZED SOLID SURFACE SS1 MARBLE MANUFACTURER: AGORA STYLE:SNOW WHITE SS2 LAMINATE MANUFACTURER: WILSON ART STYLE:DESIGNER WHITE PAINT MANUFACTURER: SHERWIN WILIAM COLOR NUMBER: SW 7064 COLOR: PASSIVE FINISH:SMOOTH P3 P4 PAINT MANUFACTURER: SHERWIN WILLIAMS COLOR NUMBER: SW 7067 COLOR:CITY SHADE FINISH: SMOOTH METAL PANELS COLORED ALUMINUM PANEL MANUFACTURER:DRI-DESIGN COLOR: BLUE MP1 COLORED ALUMINUM PANEL MANUFACTURER: DRI-DESIGN COLOR:SMOKE GREY MP2 CURTAIN WALL MANUFACTURER:KAWNEER MODEL: 1600 FRAME COLOR:CLEAR GLAZING:PILKINGTON COLOR:ARCTIC BLUE GL1 1 1 REVISION1 03.14.19 8'-6"8'-6"(E) CEILING TO REMOVE. (E) WINDOW GLAZING SYSTEM TO REMOVE. (E) ROOF FRAMING. V.I.F. (E) FLOOR JOIST FRAMING (E) WINDOW GLAZING SYSTEM TO REMOVE. (E)CONCRETE SLAB 2'-1"1'-0" (E) CONCRETE COLUMN BEYOND (E) CONCRETE COLUMN BEYOND ±9'-7" B.O. 2ND FLOOR F.F. ±8-6" T.O. 1ST FLOOR CEILING ±0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O. CURB) ±18'-1" T.O. 2ND FL CEILING ±20'-4" (29.02') PARAPET HEIGHT WEEP ±0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O. CURB) ±22'-4" (31.02') T.O. PANEL COLUMN ±16'-4" @ HORIZ. SEAM ±6'-4" @ HORIZ. SEAM (N) ALUMINUM PANEL CLADDING SYSTEM (N) METAL STUD FRAMING ℄ (E)CONC. COLUMN BEYOND (E)ROOF FRAMING. V.I.F. (E)FLOOR JOIST (E) CONC. SLAB (E)CONC. COLUMN BEYOND 1'-8" 3'-0"3"8'-6"8'-6"WEEP ℄ ±17'-9" B.O. ALUM. PANEL ±21'-1" (29.77') T.O. PARAPET (N) ALUMINUM PANEL CLADDING SYSTEM (N) STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM ENTRANCE AWNING BEYOND (N) METAL STUD FRAMING (N) ALUMINUM PANEL BEYOND (E)CONC. COLUMN BEYOND (E)CONC. COLUMN BEYOND (N) ALUMINUM PANEL BEYOND (E) CONC. SLAB (N) LED LIGHT RECESSED 3"±0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O. CURB) 1'-0"±11" 2'-2" ±8'-2" B.O. ALUM. PANEL ±9'-9" T.O. ALUM. PANELS ±8'-2" B.O. AWNING ±9'-9" T.O. AWNING ±17'-9" B.O. ALUM. PANEL (N) ALUMINUM PANEL CLADDING SYSTEM (N) STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM (N) ALUMINUM PANEL (N) METAL STUD FRAMING (N) ALUMINUM PANEL BEYOND (E)CONC. COLUMN BEYOND (E)CONC. COLUMN BEYOND (N) ALUMINUM PANEL BEYOND (E) CONC. SLAB (N) LED LIGHT RECESSED 2'-2" ±0'-0" (8.69') F.F. (T.O. CURB) ±21'-1" (29.77') T.O. PARAPET 3"3'-0"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 9401002.20.19 18-588575 W El Camino Real/Mountain View, CA 94040tel 650.210.8800 - fax 650.210.8801www.menaarchitects.comarchitecture / planning / interiorsarchitectsFRONT FACADE SECTIONS AS NOTED A501 1318-588_ASB-ELE 1/2"=1'-0"EXISTING SECTION-FRONT FACADE 09 05 0118-588_AFB-ELEPROPOSED SECTION-FRONT FACADE 18-588_AFB-ELEPROPOSED SECTION-FRONT FACADE 18-588_AFB-ELEPROPOSED SECTION-FRONT FACADE1/2"=1'-0"1/2"=1'-0"1/2"=1'-0" 1 REVISION1 03.14.19 11