Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2019.04.08Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, April 8, 2019 STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A Discussion of Planning Commission Procedural Issues and Architectural Elementsa. Memorandum Residential Design Guidebook - Roof Design Component Attachments: 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft March 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft March 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Draft March 25, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesb. Draft March 25, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak " card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 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. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 April 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1431 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for a One Year Permit Extension for a previously approved application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Parking Variance for the use of mechanical parking lifts for a new 3-story, 6-unit condominium building (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon a. 1431 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1431 El Camino Real - Attachments 1431 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 748 Plymouth Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition and interior remodel 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.(Mark Pearcy, applicant and architect; Heather & Ekine Akuiyibo, property owners) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz a. 748 Plymouth Way - Staff Report 748 Plymouth Way - Attachments 748 Plymouth Way - Plans Attachments: 1125 Oxford Road, zoned R-1 - Application for a Special Permit for reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Vishal Jangla, property owner) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon b. 1125 Oxford Rd - Staff Report 1125 Oxford Rd - Attachments 1125 Oxford Rd - Plans Attachments: 2217 Davis Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang, applicants and property owners; MEI Architects, architect) (88 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal c. 2217 Davis Dr - Staff Report 2217 Davis Dr - Attachment 2217 Davis Dr - Plans Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 April 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 722 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as -built changes to a previously approved application for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Bill Buckleman, applicant and contractor, JoAnn Gann, designer; Jeannie and Noah Tyan, property owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit d. 722 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 722 Crossway Rd - Attachments 1 722 Crossway Rd - Attachments 2 Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting April 1, 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 April 8, 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 18, 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 4/4/2019 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 2, 2019 Study Session TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 8, 2019 FROM: Planning Division Staff SUBJECT: Discussion of Planning Commission Procedural Issues and Architectural Elements Planning Division staff wishes to bring the following items to the Planning Commission for discussion and direction. Timing of Staff Report Deliveries: Currently staff reports, attachments and plans are delivered to the Planning Commission on the Thursday evening prior to the Planning Commission meeting, providing the Commission up to four days to review the materials. Recently, we received inquiries about the possibility of delivering packets one day earlier (on Wednesday). Planning staff has always provided exceptional customer service by giving applicants enough time to submit required information so that projects can be processed in a streamlined manner. Although it is the difference of only one day, how that day lands on the calendar impacts timelines for application resubmittals. Shortening the time period to submit information may require some projects to be postponed to a later agenda, which as a result would lengthen the processing time. In addition, given the current workload in the division, it may be a challenge for staff to deliver packets on Wednesdays. However, staff can consider including electronic copies of the plans along with the Draft Agendas, which are emailed to the Commission ten days in advance of the meeting. We welcome any other ideas for discussion. Possibility of Canceling a Planning Commission Meeting in the Summer: During the summer of 2018, several Commissioners had planned to be absent and as a result, the second meeting in July was canceled due to a lack of quorum. Please provide us with your anticipated absences during the summer. If there are enough absences planned for a particular meeting during the summer, staff would like to discuss canceling a meeting with the City Manager. This will also help staff plan accordingly with project applicants. Similarly, if it would be helpful for commissioners to anticipate a scheduled canceled meeting in the summer (similar to the City Council meetings that are canceled in the summer, and the second Planning Commission meeting in December), this could be incorporated into the annual Planning Commission calendar. Architectural Elements – Metal Roofs: In recent months, the Planning Commission has reviewed several applications for additions and new homes which included metal roofs. In reviewing these applications, the Commission has expressed varying thoughts on if and when metal roofs are appropriate. The Commission expressed a desire to have a more in-depth discussion regarding this issue. Community Development Department Memorandum April 8, 2019 Page 2 Below are comments from meeting minutes from various projects reviewed within the last year:  Don't believe standing seam metal roofs are appropriate for Burlingame. This is not a seaside, farming or rural community.  Concerned that we're seeing metal roofs in more projects.  Think it is an appropriate look for this architecture and it's something we've approved before. Think it fits in the neighborhood.  Not about what we like and don't like, but determining whether it fits the guidelines and pattern of the community. Don't think they belong in Burlingame.  Concern is whether or not the project starts to look too commercial. When we've approved metal roofs or have reviewed any other materials, it's based on whether or not the application is done in an appropriately residential fashion. Think the application is consistent with the residential application.  City Council has debated, on behalf of community and for us, where it's appropriate to have more contemporary designs.  Architecture previously approved fits this neighborhood. Metal roof for this particular project fits the architecture and therefore is supportable.  Like metal roofs, have had plenty of discussions about metal roofs in different neighborhoods. Have seen metal roofs scattered throughout several neighborhoods.  Concerned that once we start approving them, when do we say one project be approved with metal roof and another one can't.  Feel that Burlingame Hills is an area that can support modern architecture.  When assessing appropriateness of metal roofs to the house, style of house had a lot to do with it.  Preponderance of composition shingle and clay tile roofs in neighborhood made me question whether or not it is appropriate, even though the design warrants it.  Because house is located uphill rather than looking down on an entire roof, helps solidify decision that this is the right roofing material.  There are cases where a metal roof may not be approved where it's been allowed elsewhere. It's not a matter of preference, but whether or not it fits a given context of a project. That is the criteria we use throughout the design guidelines.  Worried that there will be metal roofs everywhere, it would significantly change character of the City.  Appreciates the restraint on the standing-seam metal roof, that it is not used across the entire house.  Proposed standing seam metal roof helps to add texture to the front facade.  Not concerned with metal roofing because there is not much of it on this house.  Don't typically review color because it can be changed. However, on a metal roof the color will remain for a long time. When project returns, provide something that is more definitive on metal roof color, want to avoid bright color.  Concern with potential colors of metal roofs in general. Unlike other exterior materials such as walls and windows which may change over time, roof colors will be long lasting particularly for standing seam metal roofs.  Good mix of materials. The metal roof complements the house, works well in this application.  Metal roofs seems akin to the consensus to not allow vinyl windows. Does not believe metal roofs fit in Burlingame. This one feels gratuitous.  The steeper the roof, the more prominent the metal roof becomes.  Struggling with the "extreme farmhouse" style; not sure it fits with the neighborhood. The standing seam metal roof pushes the design over the top. Worried about this type of roof taking over in Burlingame. Community Development Department Memorandum April 8, 2019 Page 3 Although the Neighborhood Design Guidelines do not specifically discussion roofing materials, attached you will find the Roof Design Component for reference. The Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee will be taking up this matter in the future. However staff thought it would be productive for the full commission to provide general input on this issue beforehand, and then allow the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee to develop a specific recommendation to bring back to the full commission for consideration. Attachments: Neighborhood Design Guidelines – Roof Design Component City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook Component 6: Roof Design Page 46 Roof Design Beyond Mass and Scale, Roofs are one of the most notable and formative elements in defining neighborhood character. The design should include visible entries and components for human use. Houses in a neighborhood will include roof patterns that are distinctive and repeatable. It is important to observe the patterns and create a building that is consistent with that pattern in order to conserve the character of the existing neighborhoods. Example houses may include flat roofs with parapets, pitched roofs or combinations. Consideration should be given for the basic size and shape of example roofs in the neighborhood. Additionally, Design Professionals should be sensitive to the pattern of roof details and the ways those details relate to roof form. Particular attention should be paid to the size and configuration of fascia boards, gutters, outriggers, barges, rafter size and treatment and dimensions of overhangs. All of these items serve to define a roof and will be reviewed for compatibility. Refer to Burlingame Zoning Ordinance for related components: Building Height and Exceptions (25.26.060 & 25.26.073) Declining Height Envelope (25.26.075) Applicable Findings: The following Findings in the Design Review Ordinance apply to this Component of the Guidelines: • Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the Neighborhood. • Architectural style, consistency, mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures. • Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties. • For additions: Compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Roof Design City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook Component 6: Roof Design Page 47 Roof Design: Articulation Articulation Roofs should be articulated in ways that support the desired Mass and Scale of the building, Typically a Primary Roof Element should be defined which relates closely to the actual size and Mass of the house. Secondary forms can then be articulated which may include or otherwise identify important components of the house. Secondary forms should not become so numerous that the house appears to be a series of small roofs with no unifying element. Refer to the Burlingame Zoning Ordinance Section 25.26.075 for Declining Height Envelope exceptions for dormers. City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook Component 6: Roof Design Page 48 Roof Design: Additive Elements Additive Elements Additive elements to the roof form should respond carefully to the mass and scale of the building and should not become too large. Elements which are too large compete with the primary forms of the roof and make the roof look more like trim attached to a two story building. Use of dormers and monitors (shed dormers) to add space to an attic will require design professionals to think "attic" rather than "second story". Additionally, additive elements that are different in style than the existing residence will not support the continuity of the architecture. City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook Component 6: Roof Design Page 49 Roof Design: Consistent Roof Forms Consistent Roof Forms A critical element in unifying a building and relating additions to existing forms is the consistency in roof forms. The roof is one of the most important identifying elements for a house. It is largely responsible for defining the character of a building. Additionally, the articulation of the roofs will form a pattern. Some neighborhoods will include simple, sweeping hip roofs, while others will include gabled roofs with numerous dormers or monitors. City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook Component 6: Roof Design Page 50 Roof Design: Variable Forms Variable Roof Forms Randomly varying roof forms are probably not supportive of Neighborhood Compatibility. There are, however, numerous precedents for variable roof slopes and forms. Numerous architectural styles include combinations of sheds and gables, sheds and hips and sloping and flat roofs. If a proposal includes varying roof forms, they should be justified based on the architectural style and the pattern in the neighborhood. If varying forms occur simply to make interior spaces work, there may be a need to redesign the interior layout to achieve a compatible roof form. Sometimes roof forms are varied to accommodate height limitations. Hip roofs are often "clipped" to remain under this limit. When a flat roof is included at the top of a sloped roof, flashing will be apparent where the transition occurs, making the roof unsightly and the clipping apparent. It is more desirable to request a height exception in order to resolve a roof properly in a ridge or peak. Roof forms and materials have a close relationship with the general character and style of a building. When a particular style is existing or adopted, the roof form should be consistent with that style. Tudor Revival buildings will have somewhat different roof slopes and forms than a Spanish Colonial Revival building. City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook Component 6: Roof Design Page 51 Roof Design: Substantial Additions Substantial Additions When substantial additions are proposed, the overall roof form (as well as the architectural style of the house), may need modification. Low sloping roofs on single story ranch houses may not adequately engage a large second floor addition. The result may be a residence that does not meet the criteria for Mass and Scale. Roof management can be an effective tool for housing a large space in a building of appropriate Mass and Scale. When a flat roof is included at the top of a sloped roof, flashing will be apparent where the transition occurs, making the roof unsightly and the clipping apparent. It is important to avoid the "layer cake" look in second floor additions. Most existing two story houses look more integrated, as though all parts were designed as one. The "layer cake" looks like a floor was flown in and dropped on an existing house. In some cases it may be necessary to design smaller spaces to achieve integration of the additional forms. City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook Component 6: Roof Design Page 52 Roof Design: Criteria Numerous roof patterns will occur. In many cases, there will be a number of roof patterns in a given neighborhood. Where this occurs, scale and mass become driving factores in shaping the design. As a design progresses, a roof form will emerge as a result of the internal organization of the building. As this occurs, the designer should be sensitive to similar forms in the neighborhoods. Details and configurations should then be harmonized with the example forms seen in the neighborhood. Design Review Criteria Compatibility is achieved through consistency in roof form and articulation. Compatible designs will include the following elements: • Consistent roof slope throughout. • Limited use of inconsistent roof forms when appropriate to the architecture of the building. • Consistent roof materials throughout. • Roofs articulated into Primary and Secondary elements, with primary element(s) relating to the Mass and Scale of the buildings in the neighborhood. • Roof slopes and materials consistent with the character or style of the building, including scale of materials. • New roofs consistent with the level of articulation of existing roofs. • Response of the roof design to the mass and scale of the building: The roof should be consistent, however the roof design may require the floor plan to be adjusted to achieve an overall compatible design. • Avoidance of "layer cake" appearance to second story elements. BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 11, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner and Senior Planner Catherine Keylon. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent6 - KellyAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the minutes with the amendments as submitted. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Kelly1 - a.Draft December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: b.Draft January 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft January 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: c.Draft February 25, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft February 25, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA 6. STUDY ITEMS a.16 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance for parking off -site at 12 Park Road for a personal training studio. (Philip Levi, applicant; Park Road Properties, LLC, property owner) (198 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 16 Park Rd - Staff Report 16 Park Rd - Attachments 16 Park Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul had met with the applicant. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Can the rear setback variance be specific to the type of land use? (Gardiner: Yes. Variances run with the land provided that the pergola remains. There can be specific conditions pertaining to the pergola with the variance.) > Is there information that is provided by the applicant about the lease agreement pertaining to exclusive use of parking on -site? (Gardiner: No, there is only a deed restriction pertaining to one of the pergolas on-site.) > Can there be a condition included that if 12 Park Road gets redeveloped that the variance expires? (Gardiner: Yes. If 12 Park Road gets redeveloped in the future, Burlingame Fitness would have to come back to the Planning Commission for an amendment.) > Is there more information about the Code Enforcement complaint? (Gardiner: There have been a series of unpermitted uses over the site's history but the nature of the proposed project is to rectify these unpermitted uses.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Philip Levi, Burlingame Fitness, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Is your lease for both properties? (Levi: Yes, the lease agreement is for both properties and I did not realize that Planning approval was required to park on the 12 Park Road side.) >Was a contractor involved in building the structure? Did either mention permits? (Levi: Two contractors were involved and permits were not brought up.) > Is there an architect involved or designer that can help you with the plans? (Levi: There is a structural engineer that has verified the structural integrity of both pergolas. I can provide documentation.) >Who did the parking layout? (Levi: Myself and my wife.) >Which driveway will be used? Not seeing how cars are going to be maneuvering on site. (Levi: Depends on which direction they enter. Health coaches park in the back to ease the flow of traffic.) >Needs to show accessible space. Backup space to pergola is not shown correctly. (Levi: Typo. Understands there is a minimum space for backup. Understands it has been met.) >Did you prepare the responses to the variance request? (Levi: Yes.) >What is the extraordinary circumstance with the pergola? (Levi: Had been a house. Slab remained . Sunk posts to create a cover. Did not know about required rear setback. Structure supports a sagging fence adjacent.) >What is the exceptional circumstance for the parking variance? (Levi: Cannot provide parking without the spaces. Permission to park on the lot at 12 Park Road was agreed upon in the lease.) >What was the nature of the code complaint in 2017 for parking? (Levi: Does not know. Has documented use of the lot, but parking on the street is constrained. Has never had parking issues.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >For the structure in the back, needs to see elevations to determine plate height and overall height. >Having trouble making the findings for the variance. Disrepair of the slab is not sufficient. > Cannot make finding for rear structure no matter its size or height. > Cannot support findings in the applicant's application for a parking variance. >Could support a variance if it states that the properties operate as one property. Because of the way the property is operating, the parking is located on the adjacent lot. >Not convinced the layout will work. Needs to show dimensions and backup space. >Does not see unique circumstances with the lot. >An exceptional circumstance with the parking is with the lease. Would require a condition that if the lease ends or 12 Park Road is sold, the variance would be null. >16 Park Road has space for parking. It's just being used in other ways. >Would like to find a way to make this work. >Find a way to rewrite the variance request for off-site parking. >Cannot support the pergola variance. Would like to find a way to support the parking variance. Likes how the property is being used. The back area is a vital part of the success of the business. As a Study Item, there is no Planning Commission action. The application will return on the Regular Action Calendar for action. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Terrones noted that he did not attend the study meeting for 329 Occidental Avenue, but he watched the video. A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Kelly1 - a.1612 Devereux Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer; Ji Yoon Chung & Austin Choi, property owners) (85 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1612 Devereux Dr - Staff Report 1612 Devereux Dr - Attachments 1612 Devereux Dr - Plans Attachments: b.329 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Joe and Julia McVeigh, property owners; TRG Architects-Carlos Rojas, applicant and architect) (99 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 329 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 329 Occidental Ave - Attachments 329 Occidental Ave - Historic Resource Study 329 Occidental Ave - Plans Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1125 Oxford Road, zoned R-1 - Application for a Special Permit for reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Vishal Jangla, property owner) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 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 . Commissioners Terrones and Comaroto were not in attendance for the study item, but each reviewed the video. Senior Planner Catherine Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jim Neubert, James Neubert Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Does the desire to open the door require it to look like a second garage door? (Neubert: No. It is the preference of the owner. The original house had two doors. Wanted to have the same expression, but different uses.) >Was anything done to make the door to the den separate from the garage, so it does not look like a two-car garage? (Neubert: Thought the consensus was the two doors looked good. It is the owners' preference. Thought the only issue was the width of the driveway.) >How are the bottoms of the doors insulated? (Neubert: They are custom-made doors, with insulation at the closing flange and a curb at the bottom for wind and water resistance.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Surprised to see the doors there. Thought the applicant was instructed to have the garage doors look less like two sets of garage doors. >Could make the garage look like a garage separate from the den, such as a nested gable or Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes additional trim detail... something to differentiate the garage and the face of the garage doors from the den space. Something so it does not look like two garage doors side by side. >The two doors do not fit the neighborhood. French doors could be beautiful. >Meeting notes show intent to not have two garage doors. >There is so much reworking being of the front facade: the doors are being pulled, the gable is being completely redone, the vent is being replaced. It would not be difficult to revise it so it does not look like two garage doors. Understands the desire for the indoor -outdoor aspect, and it would be nice to have patio doors, but it looks odd to have two garage doors with it not being a two-car garage. >Likes the idea of the tree in front with the patio. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Kelly1 - b.1425 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Raymond Wong, property owner; Chu Design Associates (applicant and designer) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1425 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1425 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1425 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. 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. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Has the lighting fixture been selected? (Chu: No.) >Are you aware there are regulations that requires shielding to keep the light from leaving the property? (Chu: Yes.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Likes the changes. The cable railings previously proposed did not fit. Likes the solid rail. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Kelly1 - Recused:Sargent1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.2217 Davis Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang, applicants and property owners; MEI Architects, architect) (89 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 2217 Davis Dr - Staff Report 2217 Davis Dr - Attachment 2217 Davis Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the applicant and his son. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Casey Cole, MEI Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Consider using some of the other materials to accentuate the second floor? Looks a little flat. (Cole: Can consider that.) >Consider a lower plate height on the second floor? The volume of the roof is quite tall, could utilize space within the roof to obtain the height. (Cole: Started at 10', now at 9'-6", could consider further reduction.) >West elevation upstairs looks blank. Consideration of any other windows in the part that recesses back? (Cole: Yes could consider that.) >A stair window would be a great way to introduce light into the stairwell and study below. >Should reconsider the second floor plate height. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Articulating the massing with some alternate materials would help with the flatness. >A window into the stairwell would help break up the flat mass, even if it breaks up the belly band with Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a taller window. >Bringing down the plate height would help bring down the bulk on the back side of the house. >Because the elevations are so flat, it looks like the windows could happen anywhere. There is no order between the upstairs and downstairs windows. >On the second floor some windows have gravitated to the corners. Seems odd, particularly with the lack of coordination. >Upper plate height needs to be reconsidered. When the second story is higher than the first story it becomes unbalanced. Could use the roof structure to create more volume, either with coffered or vaulted ceilings. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Kelly1 - b.1369 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Metropolis Architecture, Lawrence Kahle, applicant and architect; Nick and Sara Adler, property owners) (111 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1369 Drake Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1369 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item since he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto spoke with the neighbor to the left, and Commissioners Tse and Gaul had met with the applicant. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Nick and Sara Adler represented the applicant, with Larry Kahle, Metropolis Architecture. Commission Questions/Comments: >Ten trees are being removed. Are any protected size trees? (Nick Adler: No, they are all smaller.) >Were lower plate heights considered? (Sara Adler: We were both raised in houses with tall ceilings . Wanted to have a light and airy feeling.) >Why is 10-feet clear proposed for the basement, given it is proposed for storage? (Sara Adler: Intention is to have it as a bare finished space. Has not decided what the use will be.) >Be careful with the design of the basement. There has been a history of basement flooding in this area. The deeper the basement, the more complicated with drainage and dewatering. >Needs to show how the Hardie siding would be mitered at the corner. Natural wood looks more fitting than the cementitious product. Natural shingles are available that come completely pre-painted. >Has there been consideration of windows on the left side (east elevation) where there is blank wall? The wall will be visible from the street since there is a smaller home next door. (Nick Adler: It can be considered.) Public Comments: Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Ted, house to the right: Generally supportive of the proposal. Vast improvement to what is there currently . Has had questions about the shadowing and light; the applicant has been assisting in exploring potential impacts. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >While it is an upsloping lot, which effects the height calculation, this is a brand new house. Difficulty with the request for special consideration for added height, given the plate heights are at 10 feet and 9 feet. Bringing the height down would help with the proportion of the architecture, particularly with the steeper pitched roofs. >While there are taller houses to either side, they're on the uphill side of the street. But the context is mixed, and the other side of the street has a row of single-story houses. >Well-crafted house, and the detailing is well-done; the only concern is the height. >Hard to support the additional height. House feels like it is bursting at the seems. More typically 9' and 8' plate heights are approved since most projects want to maximize the square footage, and higher heights further inflate the volume of the house. Bringing down the plate heights will help with the proportions. >Likes the house and the architecture. Agrees on the plate height, would like to see it lower. >Should look at the siding material. >Window grids need more consistency. Some window grids are horizontal, others are vertically -oriented with different dimensions. Would improve the design to be more consistent. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to have the item return on the Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Kelly1 - c.830 Paloma Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Scott Kuehne, Suarez Kuehne Architecture, applicant and architect; Jennifer and Matt Kulin, property owners) (147 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 830 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 830 Paloma Ave - Attachments 830 Paloma 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. >Is there a requirement to convert the woodburning fireplace to gas? (Gardiner: Does not know.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Scott Kuehne, Suarez-Kuehne Architecture, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >What are the plate heights? Are they 8'-6" on the first floor and 8'-9" on the second floor? (Kuehne: Yes.) >Will the woodburning fireplace be retained? (Kuehne: Yes, and we will extend the chimney.) It looks awkward - how will it be supported without ties? If there is a gas insert, would not need to extend it. >When a second floor is taller than the first, it looks off -balance. (Kuehne: It's just a few inches more, and seems appropriate for a master level. With the 4:12 roof it felt like it was balanced and proportionate . It is still within the height limit.) Could have a cathedral ceiling within the roof structure to obtain more volume, could be very striking. >Existing metal roof (simulated clay tile) may be hard to retain with the construction. Is there interest in something different if it needs to be replaced? (Kuehne: Can explore options.) >What other locations were considered for the second story addition? (Kuehne: Looked at a location closer to the front, but it created a tall elevation and would be very narrow, would require a long hall. This design allows a more compact floorplan. Also wanted to group the bedrooms together on the first and second floors. It felt like the best balance for the situation in terms of declining height envelope, setbacks, and low impact from the street.) Public Comments: Gabriella Addiego and son, neighbor to the left: Concern with losing privacy, and shading fruit trees. Too close to the trees in the yard. Has not seen the shade studies. Believes there is possibility for a second story, but wants it done with least impact on sunlight and privacy of the neighboring house. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The garage defines the house currently. The house would benefit from having an addition toward the front to balance the garage. >Could place the addition to the north, and closer to the front. >Windows are uncoordinated. >Needs more detail. Lacking in detail. >Not opposed to the addition in the back, but would want a lower floorplate so it fits better with the first floor. >Addition does not tie together with existing house's footprint. >If the addition was moved over and forward, could incorporate the chimney into the second story. >If the bedrooms were put where the family room is, and the family room moved to the back to open to the back yard, it would be a more functional design for the first floor and could integrate with a second floor addition further forward. > Would like second story addition brought forward. >Looks like a two-story house grafted onto a one-story house. >Understands the lot is narrow, but then the placement of the massing becomes more sensitive. >Would benefit from a design review consultant. >Should look at the proportion between first and second floor. Difference in plate heights not that different but some windows on the second floor are much larger than the second floor and accentuates the height, emphasizes the second floor. Design Review Guidelines minimize the second story and keep the emphasis on the first floor. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Kelly1 - d.748 Plymouth Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Mark Pearcy, applicant and architect; Heather & Ekine Akuiyibo, property owners) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 748 Plymouth Way - Staff Report 748 Plymouth Way - Attachments 748 Plymouth Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had met with the project architect for a pre-application meeting. Commissioner Tse had met with the architect. Commissioner Comaroto had spoken with the applicant. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Heather and Ekine Akuiybo represented the applicant, with architect Mark Pearcy. Commission Questions/Comments: >On the left side elevation, looks like it will loom over the house on the corner and be very visible from the Chatham side. (Pearcy: Has done a lot of work to keep the height in check. There is also a wide sideyard, about 15 feet. It will be somewhat noticeable from the Chatham side, but there is screening in place. Could add additional screening. Given that it is not particularly high, believes it will be a good neighbor. The addition is centered in the rear central portion of the site. Wanted to maintain a modest scale, and retain a one-story feel at the front.) >Would be helpful to have a rendering of the Chatham side, to get a sense of how it will interact with the other house. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Interesting project. The addition is relatively modest and compact. >There is a lot going on in a small amount of space, and feels a bit jumbled. >Does not like the northeast elevation; it feels like it is turning its back to the neighbor on that side, with the blank wall and expanse of roof. >The contemporary style seems to fit into the neighborhood. It is behaving like a house, with the massing like a traditional airplane bungalow. >Likes the interplay of the shed roofs. Leads to a massing in the front similar to the existing traditional ranch house. >Would benefit from having a window on the blank side, even a small window. >Appreciates the articulation of the second floor plates. >The neighborhood is eclectic, which lends to the contemporary style. The front has a low profile, as is the shed roof at the back. >The application of materials makes sense. It will blend in with the neighborhood. >Impressed with the house. Creative solution without pushing the envelope too far. Is massed well. >Has done a nice job with integrating a contemporary design into the neighborhood. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Still has concerns with the Chatham elevation. >The Chatham side has a lot of vegetation. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 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: They walk. It's about a five -minute walk.) >How many employees walk from BART that currently? (Symons: Three out of seven employees. We intend to add bicycles in the future for employees use, and there is a basketball court in back.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Existing simple frame elevation of the existing building is nice, not sure that the proposed changes to the facade improve it. Not sure what the folding metal plate is doing, and the frame disappears behind the glass. >If less square footage was added, there would not need as much parking and might not need the parking variance. Could build within the confines of what the parking would allow, not sure what the extraordinary circumstances are to justify the variance. >The existing simple metal frame building could be cleaned up and look quite nice. >Doesn't have an issue with parking variance because of the transportation corridor so close by, and if employees are taking BART, they are not driving in. Caltrain is also nearby. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Warehouse uses have fewer employees than general office, and may not need the amount of parking required. Seems 18 spaces is plenty. > Indifferent to the commercial remodel of the front facade. It's in an industrial area and if it is what the applicant wants, has no opposition to it. >Does the recent rezoning change anything? (Gardiner: There may be options for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, which would allow flexibility with parking. The bicycles mentioned by the applicant is an example of TDM.) Would be great if staff could look at that, the underlying application is a great one and should be encouraged. >There have been other instances in this area where the parking demand is less than what the code requires. Other uses such as commercial recreation have had parking reductions based on use of the space compared to the zoning requirements. Warehouse use does not have much parking demand. >OK with pulling the floorplate forward on the facade, but the proposal seems to be trying really hard with the bent plates and kinked buttresses. Seems a bit fussy, but does not have an issue with the character of the clad pilasters and glass front facade. > Good application in terms of its intent and its uses. The building addition 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 an area that does not serve their purposes now. >Can support the reduction of spaces given the location, proximity to mass transit, and lowering the need of automobiles with alternative transportation options. > Operations needs require additional warehouse space, which is an exceptional circumstance in this instance. >Existing building is dated. Can support the design and improvement of the front if it is to make a statement for the business in attracting customers and staying competitive. >Would like to see the parking solved in a manner other than a variance >Front is trying too hard, should be simplified. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to have the application return on the Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Terrones reported that he and Commissioner Loftis have been participating in the design review committee for the Community Center. The process is going well and it is shaping up to be a very nice building. The architect has a good handle on the design, program, and direction from the City Council. The design committee has provided input on various aspects of the project. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that the City Council reviewed the residential impact fees at its meeting on March 4th. The fees were generally supported, with some additional clarifications to be incorporated into the ordinance. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on March 11, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 21, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 4/4/2019 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 25, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioner Tse arrived at 7:02 p.m. Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Tse arrived after the vote was taken on approval of the minutes. A motion was made by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the minutes with amendments submitted to staff earlier. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Gaul4 - Absent:Tse1 - Recused:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - a.Draft February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA > Item 9a - 2305 Poppy Drive has been continued at the request of the applicant. Public hearing notices will be sent once the application has been scheduled on a future agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/3/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.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 434 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 434 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 434 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >On East Elevation, is there any reason why the wood siding above the three windows on the second floor pops up? Why wouldn't it continue straight across? (Deal: It could, but was trying to match the siding design on the existing house.) >Like the existing gable end vent on the side of the house. Have you decided not to use them on the project? (Deal: Would be difficult to build and are really odd, so decided not to emulate them.) >Will the siding on the gable ends be rough cut wood? (Deal: Yes, will have a corrugated look along the edges.) >Not a fan of the direct vent fireplaces with no chimney stack, but not a deal breaker since it's located at the rear of the property. However, if you did decide to have a stack, would hope it would be designed to match the style of the existing chimney stack. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Agree with comments made regarding the design of the siding above the windows on the East Elevation; no reason to continue with a bad decision. >Changes are a great improvement over the last design. >Addition fits in with the existing house and is massed well. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/3/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Discussion of Motion: >Would like to see horizontal siding above the three windows on the second floor on the East Elevation revised so that it continues along the same datum line. Commissioner Gaul amended the motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the following condition: >that the wood siding on the second floor of the East Elevation shall be installed at the same continuous horizontal line across the entire face of this elevation, including across the plane in between the three windows. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - b.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 1369 Drake Ave - Staff Report 1369 Drake Ave - Attachments 1369 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of subject property. 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. Sara Adler, represented the applicant and property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: >Have you determined what type of siding will be used? (Adler: Still debating between the NuCedar product and painted cedar. Trying to get a better understanding of the cost of NuCedar.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Have done a nice job with the revision. >Revised design eliminates the Special Permit for building height. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 4/3/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Project responds well to the design review guidelines. >Once applicant has determined what type of siding will be used, would like to review as an FYI . (Keylon: Suggest adding a condition of approval that FYI will be required only if a material other than NuCedar or cedar is proposed.) Concern is that the siding be real wood rather than a cementitious product. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application with the following condition: >that the exterior shingle materials shall be specified on the building permit set of plans as either painted wood (cedar) shingles or NuCedar shingles; any change to the siding material other than stated shall require review by the Planning Commission as an FYI item. Discussion of Motion: >Is the access door in the garage allowed to swing into the garage? (Keylon: Yes, this door is allowed to swing into the garage; still allows vehicle to park in garage.) >Thanked applicant for changes, very responsive, project looks good. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Recused:Sargent1 - c.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 1008-1028 Carolan Ave - Staff Report 1008-1028 Carolan Ave - Attachments 1008-1028 Carolan Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Michael Burch, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Proposed sign is classy and elegant. >Would be concerned if proposed signage said "for lease" as a commercial enterprise or something promoting that business aspect as is being proposed in the variance application. >What is the zoning for the areas occupied by Northpark Apartments and other apartments down Rollins Road that is different than the location we have here? (Keylon: Those areas are zoned R -4, so the same standards provided in the staff report would apply.) Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 4/3/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Those properties are not zoned C -2 with an R-4 Overlay, they are specifically R -4, correct? (Keylon: That is correct.) That is something that is somewhat unique to this condition. If they were to come back and ask for a similar variance, is it fair to say that it is a different condition here in that we have this overlay in an area that is otherwise commercial? (Keylon: It is and with the General Plan Update that's been recently adopted, there are a few properties north of this site that also have an overlay.) >In looking at the examples that the applicant has provided, I think of a hotel when I look at the Lawrence Station Apartments and a tech company when I Iook at the Avalon Berkeley project, not apartments or condominiums. Signage on a building like this makes me think of commercial enterprises . I get the logic, the argument that's being made that this is a commercial enterprise and that's what were being asked to consider. My concern is that when we see signage like this on a building, I don't think of apartments but rather commercial enterprises, and that is what I'm struggling with. I don't want to see this as a hotel or tech building, I want to see it as apartments. (Burch: Trying to reach out to people that are navigating by phone to get to apartments in the area. A number of people who would be using the sign would likely be people who are coming to the property or who are curious about the Anson. Examples were included in the package to primarily show that anywhere that there is an opportunity to get these residential projects out to a broader audience; it's being done and it's not uncommon. Trying to fit these in as well executed signage to match the project.) >Are there illumination criteria for the halo lighting proposed behind the lettering? (Hurin: Code does not provide any criteria for light measurement, but does allow indirect and halo lighting.) (Kane: There are restrictions on the overall amount of light that can leave the property, but there is no minimum amount of light.) >How far back is the fifth floor wall located behind the sign? (Burch: Approximately 15 feet back from the parapet.) So from certain angles, that portion of the building would not be seen and those letters may stand out on the parapet as a sillouhet against the sky. (Burch: Correct.) >Have extra square footage available along Rollins Road. Curious why there is no signage proposed at the entrance at pedestrial level? (Burch: Along the Rollins Road frontage, the lobby and garage entrance is only for residents, so trying not to attract attention to those entrances along Rollins Road because all of the entry is along Carolan Avenue. Tried to design the signage to get all attention off Rollins Road entry . Have considered it, but didn't want someone parking on Rollins Road and having to walk all the way around to Carolan Avenue to get to the leasing office.) >Did you look at options to install a sign on the face of the building? (Burch: Did consider it, but there are few opportunities left to place signage on a wall given the articulation and fenestration on the building . Felt that the proposed location of the sign is elegant as it relates to the parapet as opposed to trying to fit it on a wall on the building.) >Don't understand how the sign works at nighttime. (Burch: Led lights mounted against Acrylic and frosted edge provides the halo lighting.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Sign starts to make it look like a hotel. Building presents itself as apartment living. Not seeing a particular need for the sign in this case. With the proposed sign, it presents itself as a commercial enterprise. >Want to see project be successful, but not convinced success of project hinges on having this sign. I think about the commercial aspect of looking for an apartment, the process of looking for a place to live, and I don't make the connection between driving down the freeway and trying to find a place to live, versus driving down the freeway and trying to find commercial business. >The proposed sign is classy and simple, however am concerned the precedent set with this type of sign. What if the next sign that comes before us is not as classy? Are there free speech issues with Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 4/3/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes what we can restrict in terms of what can be said on a sign if they meet comply with sign regulations? >Signs A1, A2 and B1 are necessary for entry identification and wayfinding. With Sign A 3, understand that it is a commercial enterprise that is a year round operation that needs to keep the property marketed; don't see it competing with the other commercial enterprises along Rollins Road. One logic I can see is because of this unique situation or exceptional situation, in that we have this R -4 as an overlay in this C -2 area, that to me is an exceptional circumstance that may allow for a variance, if we are then willing to accept the need for this signage. >Struggling with justification that it is a C -2 District with an R-4 overlay; the entire project conforms to the R-4 zoning regulations, except in this case where it's not convenient, struggling with that as a justification that it is a unique circumstance. >Not sure it meets the need stated, seems more like a navigational tool than it does seem like branding, which I would associate more with a chain like Avalon. This is not really a branding, because there won't be another Anson. Most people will use maps on their phones to find the property. Don't understand the need for it. >Need to make findings in order to justify the variance. Question about proposed sign doesn't seem to be about the findings, but rather if it meets the business needs proposed in the application. Doesn't compel me to support the variance, is irrelevant to our review of the application. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Discussion of Motion: >Can't make the findings based on the unique situation of the lot. >If application returns, ask that information be provided showing the extent of the R-4 overlay in the C-2 areas so that we can look at how unique this situation is relative to this area and areas potentially further north. Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - d.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 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. >Application includes a TDM program, is that monitored in any way? (Keylon: Currently it's not, but when the new zoning is adopted, there will be criteria for TDM reporting requirements.) Are those criteria available yet? (Keylon: They are not and this project would not be subject to the new zoning regulations . However, the business owner is currently offering it to his employees, so wanted to bring it to your attention, but it is not required for this project.) >The application includes proposals for TDM measures, but it appears that currently there would be no monitoring. (Keylon: Proposed TDM measures are provided as justification for the variance, can write in as conditions of approval.) (Kane: Commission has also previously granted some parking variances that were tied closely to the level of intensity of use for the applicant. Could craft a condition that voids the variance Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 4/3/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes if the business is replaced with a different or more intense use.) >In this case, could continuance of variance be dependent on continuing use of TDM measures? (Kane: Yes, just keep in mind that in this case there would be no monitoring, however one could file a complaint with the Code Enforcement Division, for example, if they see parking impacts from this business.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mike Symons and David Mena, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Can you give us examples of the common look and feel amongst your various office around the world? Is it the vertical elements? Is it a specific color or material? (Symons: Our common look is based on color, a blue and grey motif; provides a modern look and feel since we're a high-tech company.) >Is there any proposed signage for the building? (Symons: Signage would be located internally, seen when you walk into the office. In buildings where a lot of valuable equipment is stored, we tend not to install large signs on the building for security purposes; signage is generally minimal if installed at all.) >See that there are LED lights tucked in behind pillars, which appear to be T -shaped. LED lights are vertical and run the entire length of the pillar. Am I reading that right? Will I be able to see the bulb image in the glass behind it? (Mena: You will only see the glass cover which will diffuse the lighting.) >What color is the glass? Is it mirrored, smoked, or clear? (Mena: It is a blue/green tint; it will be clear glass with low-e coating.) >It's important to know what the glass color will be as it relates to the architecture being a grid and that most of the front facade will be glass. Will there be hidden mullions with butt joint glass, providing a sheer surface between the grids? (Mena: Correct.) >Does the company own the property? (Symons: I own the property and company and lease the building back to the company. Our intention is to continue to invest in this property and in our company; intention is to stay in Burlingame indefinitely.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Like they way they've simplified the facade, it's still very elegant. >Would like to see glass detail brought back as an FYI item. >Argument for variance is supportable due to the fact that the timing of the submittal is a critical issue; if submitted later project could have been approved under the new zoning regulations with provision of TDM program. >Reason asked if property is owned is because this isn't a tenant that could potentially leave, their intention is to stay. >Based on type of use and TDM plan that they are providing, the variance is supportable. >Design is supportable based on the revisions made. >May want to add condition that says if use or operation changes to the point where it's different than currently proposed with the parking load and TDM measures, then variance becomes void. Kane: If the Commission is going in the direction of granting the variance conditioned on the TDM measures, would suggest that the motion include "equivalent or better TDM measures than proposed " because we don't know what other transportation modes may be coming in the next 20 years. Similarly in terms of the use, condition should include "the same or better intensity of use" so that it doesn't Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 4/3/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes negatively impact the variance. This would help the applicant and staff address future events. >Mitigating circumstance is that the zoning is changing, should be explicit in application. (Hurin: It is enough to state in motion.) Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition, noting that the findings for the parking variance are based on the applicant's written submittals and that this is a unique situation in that the zoning regulations will be changing, that the applicant would be able to comply with the new zoning requirements, and to ask the applicant to wait until the new zoning regulations are codified would be an unnecessary hardship. >that any change in or intensification of the existing use shall operate under the same general terms as the proposed use, with a TDM plan that is equivalent or better than proposed under this application; proposed uses that operate substantially different or are an intensification of the proposed use with no TDM plan or TDM measures that are less than the proposed use shall require an amendment to the parking variance with review by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.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. > Item 9a - 2305 Poppy Drive has been continued at the request of the applicant. Public hearing notices will be sent once the application has been scheduled on a future agenda. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Hurin reported that on March 18, 2019, the City Council reviewed an Ordinance establishing residential impact fees on new residential development. The Ordinance will be returning to the City Council for adoption at its next meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:09 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 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. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 4/3/2019 March 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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 9City of Burlingame Printed on 4/3/2019 748 PLYMOUTH WAY Proposed upper level addition & remodeling NORTHSITE & LANDSCAPE PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"site plan keynotesexisting electrical meter (125 AMP).new electrical meter, proposed location.power pole.gas meter (crawl space).sewer cleanout.water meter.downspout.12345site plan notes1. existing trees and landscaping to remainunless otherwise noted.PLYMOUTH WAYSIDEWALK15' rear SETBACK20' rear SETBACK(e) lawn(e) lawn(e) lawn6'-0" SIDESETBACK6'-0" SIDESETBACK(E) driveway (concrete)9'X20'unCOVEREDPARKINGSPACE(e) CONC. walk (e) BRICK walk (e) BRICK walk landscape keynotesexisting tree. Sycamore. 17" dia. trunk.existing tree. magnolia. 6"x2, 3"x2 dia. trunks.existing tree. privet? 6"x3, 4"x3 dia. trunks.existing tree. citrus. 7" dia. trunk.existing tree. Birch. 7"x2 dia. trunks.existing tree. Japanese maple. 4"x2 trunks.existing tree avocado. 4" dia. trunk.existing roses and wisteria.ABCDefG2.1' 4'-0"6'-0"19'-10"+/-5'-10"+/-3'-10"+/-22'-2"+/-60'108'(e) conc.patio(e) wooddeck(e) porchproposed upperlevel additionexisting residenceto be remodeled(one level)13456ABCDDDefG98.38'98.08'96.83'97.48'96.76'96.67'96.38'97.89'98.61'98.71'98.30'97.97'97.83'97.82'97.65'fin. flr.100.00'26(e) planter25'-8"+/-18'-9"+/-12'-10"+/-upper levelprojectionshHslope slope slope 20' frontsetback(2nd floor)7777777curb, gutter & sidewalkto be replaced asrequired by public works.see project note #8.(e) roof slope5:12 +/-, TYPICALEXISTING ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"ROOF PLAN KEYNOTESCOMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, typ., u.o.n.built-up roofing.skylight.existing brick chimney1232.5:12, u.o.n.PROPOSED ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0".25:12.25:12 41122334Design Review 1/11/19SHEET TITLE:PROJECTINFO, SITEPLAN &ROOF PLANSSCALE: 18"=1'-0"A1AKUIYIBO RESIDENCE MASTER SUITE & REMODELING 748 PLYMOUTH WAY BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA A.P.N. 029-162-150 1650 Barroilhet AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Phone: 650.348.1509www.pearcyarchitecture.comMARK PEARCYARCHITECTUREIssue DateCity Comments 2/15/19DR Comments 3/22/19 BEDRM 2BEDRM 1DININGGARAGELIVINGBEDRM 4PORCHBATH 1DECKKITCHENBEDRM 3BATH 2MAIN LEVELSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"NORTH25'-8"15'-8"5'-6"39'-8"8'-1112"14'-8"6'-2" 3'-21 2"3'-1112"34'-101 2"31'-112"22'-11"12'-2"15'-212"SCALE: 14"=1'-0"A2Design Review 1/11/19AKUIYIBO RESIDENCE MASTER SUITE & REMODELING 748 PLYMOUTH WAY BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA A.P.N. 029-162-150 1650 Barroilhet AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Phone: 650.348.1509www.pearcyarchitecture.comMARK PEARCYARCHITECTUREIssue DateSHEET TITLE:EXISTINGFLOOR PLAN M A R K P E A R C Y A R C H I T E C T U R E 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 6 5 0 . 3 4 8 . 1 5 0 9 www.pearcyarchitecture.com AKUIYIBO RESIDENCEMASTER SUITE & REMODELING748 PLYMOUTH WAYBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAA.P.N. 029-162-150Issue Date A3 SHEET TITLE: EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 2 south-east (street) elevation 1/4"=1-0"1 north-west (rear) elevation 1/4"=1-0" 3 north-east (side) elevation 1/4"=1-0" 4 south-west (side) elevation 1/4"=1-0" KEYNOTES COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING. CEMENT PLASTEr, painted. brick. fixed wood shutter. single-glazed wood window/door single-glazed aluminum window. paneled wood door. DOWNSPOUT. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5:12 +/- TYPICAL WINDOW & DOOR TRIM typical window head & jamb trim is approximately 1.5" wide with an extended sill. the aluminum window at the garage has no trim. typical door trim is also approximately 1.5" wide. Design Review 1/11/19 living level 100.00' ridge. 17.60'+/- above ave top of curb ave top of curb 96.57' plate 8'-2"+/-1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 8 3 4 455 7 7 8 6 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 8 Wood deck4'-4"+/-1'-8"+/-ridge. 15.93'+/- above ave top of curb 17'-7 1/4"+/-City Comments 2/15/19 M A R K P E A R C Y A R C H I T E C T U R E 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 6 5 0 . 3 4 8 . 1 5 0 9 www.pearcyarchitecture.com AKUIYIBO RESIDENCEMASTER SUITE & REMODELING748 PLYMOUTH WAYBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAA.P.N. 029-162-150Issue Date A5 SHEET TITLE: PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 1 south-east (street) elevation 1/4"=1-0" 2 south-west (side) elevation 1/4"=1-0" KEYNOTES new composition shingle roofing. new skylight. existing cement plaster, painted. extend/patch as required. new cement plaster, painted new HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING. STAINED. existing brick. new wood columns, painted. new wood trim, painted. new wood fascia, painted. existing wood window to remain. new aluminum clad wood window/door in existing opening. simulated divided lites. new aluminum clad wood window with simulated divided lites. existing paneled wood door, painted. new downspout. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 WINDOW & DOOR TRIM typical trim for windows and doors to be 3.5" wide. windows to have an extended sill and skirt. trim to be painted AT CEMENT PLASTER AND STAINED AT WOOD SIDING. Design Review 1/11/19 views from Plymouth way (street tree not shown) street elevation (not to scale) 748 Plymouth (street tree not shown) 744 Plymouth (approximate) (street tree not shown) 756 Plymouth (approximate)property lineave. grade ne 97.61' 45 deg 109.61'12'-0"upper level 109.25'7'-6"proposed upper level addition property lineupper level 109.25' main level 100.0' (e) plate master bath plate ridge 121.0'+/- (24.43' +/- above ave. top of curb) ave.top of curb 96.57' ave. grade sw 97.64'8'-2"+/-1'-1"8'-0"3.43'3'-9"+/-30' height limit 126.57' living ridge 112.66'+/- proposed upper level addition 14 1 3 33 4 4 5 5 5 4 6 existing wood deck 7 6 8 9 9 9 11111111 12 12 12 12 1111 1212 transluc. glass 12 12 7 9 1313 13 5 9 2.5:12 slope 31"x72" clr (16.09'+/-above ave. top of curb) 14 14 trellis for existing wisteria vines 35"x48" clr egress egress 31"x79" clr egress 5'-7"+/-City Comments 2/15/1924'-5"+/- M A R K P E A R C Y A R C H I T E C T U R E 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 6 5 0 . 3 4 8 . 1 5 0 9 www.pearcyarchitecture.com AKUIYIBO RESIDENCEMASTER SUITE & REMODELING748 PLYMOUTH WAYBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAA.P.N. 029-162-150Issue Date A6 SHEET TITLE: PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 1 north-west (rear) elevation 1/4"=1-0" 2 north-east (side) elevation 1/4"=1-0" Design Review 1/11/19property lineupper level 109.25' 45 deg 7'-6"12'-0"109.61'property lineupper level 109.25' main level 100.0' (e) plate master bath plate ave.top of curb 96.57' ave. grade sw 97.64' ave. grade ne 97.61'8'-2"+/-1'-1"8'-0"3.43'3'-9"+/-30' height limit 126.57' living ridge 112.66'+/- proposed upper level addition KEYNOTES new composition shingle roofing. new skylight. existing cement plaster, painted. extend/patch as required. new cement plaster, painted new HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING. STAINED. existing brick. new wood columns, painted. new wood trim, painted. new wood fascia, painted. existing wood window to remain. new aluminum clad wood window/door in existing opening. simulated divided lites. new aluminum clad wood window with simulated divided lites. existing paneled wood door, painted. new downspout. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 WINDOW & DOOR TRIM typical trim for windows and doors to be 3.5" wide. windows to have an extended sill and skirt. trim to be painted AT CEMENT PLASTER AND STAINED AT WOOD SIDING. 14 1 11 1 2 3 3 3 33 4 4 5 8 9 9 9 11 11 11 1112 12 12 12 2.5:12 slope 125'-9" plateproposed upper level addition 35"x48" clr egress 14 14 1414 5'-7"+/-transluc. glass ridge 121.0'+/- (24.43' +/- above ave. top of curb) City Comments 2/15/1924'-5"+/-views from CHATHAM ROAD (CENTER OF STREET) 756 pLYMOUTH BUILDING SIZES ARE APPROXIMATE. 12 (e) BIRCH. 25'h X 20'w +/- (e) AVOCADO. 15'h X 10'w +/-, CURRENT SIZE. (e) MAYTEN ON NEIGHBOR'S LOT. 15'h X 15'w +/- (e) AVOCADO. 20'h X 16'w +/-, (ANTICIPATED SHORT TERM GROWTH). mature tree may reach 30' to 40' tall. (E) TRELLIS PROPOSED RIDGE. 23'+/- ABOVE GRADE, 24.43' ABOVE AVE. T.O. CURB. DR Comments 3/22/19 proposed upper level proposed upper level WALL LEGEND EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED NEW WALLELIZABETHZOEJOSHUADININGKITCHENHALL 1GARAGELIVINGPLAY ROOMPORCHupBATH 2BATH 1DECKMAIN LEVELSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"NORTHbenchequalequal11'-0" +/-clg height25'-8"15'-8"5'-6"39'-8"8'-1112"14'-8"6'-2" 3'-212"3'-1112"34'-101 2"31'-11 2"22'-11"12'-2"15'-212"(e)wallremovedENTRYWASHEROUTLINE OFUPPER LEVELOUTLINE OFUPPER LEVELDRYERSINKDN(e)wallremoved10'X20' COVEREDPARKING SPACEFURNWHnewstairUPPER LEVELSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"EKINE &HEATHERCLOSETOFFICEMASTERBATHSTOR 1STOR 2DNequalequal8'-512"17'-512"7'-51 2"6'-212"16'-0"5'-11"2'-0"2'-0"shower10'-0" +/-clg height7'-0" +/-clg heightrailingSCALE: 14"=1'-0"A4Design Review 1/11/19AKUIYIBO RESIDENCE MASTER SUITE & REMODELING 748 PLYMOUTH WAY BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA A.P.N. 029-162-150 1650 Barroilhet AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010Phone: 650.348.1509www.pearcyarchitecture.comMARK PEARCYARCHITECTUREIssue DateSHEET TITLE:PROPOSEDFLOORPLANSDR Comments 3/22/19 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 11, 2019 a.1125 Oxford Road, zoned R-1 - Application for a Special Permit for reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Vishal Jangla, property owner) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 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 . Commissioners Terrones and Comaroto were not in attendance for the study item, but each reviewed the video. Senior Planner Catherine Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jim Neubert, James Neubert Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Does the desire to open the door require it to look like a second garage door? (Neubert: No. It is the preference of the owner. The original house had two doors. Wanted to have the same expression, but different uses.) >Was anything done to make the door to the den separate from the garage, so it does not look like a two-car garage? (Neubert: Thought the consensus was the two doors looked good. It is the owners' preference. Thought the only issue was the width of the driveway.) >How are the bottoms of the doors insulated? (Neubert: They are custom-made doors, with insulation at the closing flange and a curb at the bottom for wind and water resistance.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Surprised to see the doors there. Thought the applicant was instructed to have the garage doors look less like two sets of garage doors. >Could make the garage look like a garage separate from the den, such as a nested gable or Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/3/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes additional trim detail... something to differentiate the garage and the face of the garage doors from the den space. Something so it does not look like two garage doors side by side. >The two doors do not fit the neighborhood. French doors could be beautiful. >Meeting notes show intent to not have two garage doors. >There is so much reworking being of the front facade: the doors are being pulled, the gable is being completely redone, the vent is being replaced. It would not be difficult to revise it so it does not look like two garage doors. Understands the desire for the indoor -outdoor aspect, and it would be nice to have patio doors, but it looks odd to have two garage doors with it not being a two-car garage. >Likes the idea of the tree in front with the patio. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Kelly1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/3/2019 PROJECT LOCATION 2217 Davis Drive Item No. 8c Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 2217 Davis Drive Meeting Date: April 8, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling. Applicant and Property owner: Paul Yep APN: 025-192-030 Architect: Mei-Mei Chan, MEI Architects Lot Area: 5,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The existing single-story house with an attached one-car garage contains 1,734 SF (0.34 FAR) of floor area. The proposed project includes a first and second story addition which would increase the floor area to 2,608 SF (0.52 FAR) where 2,700 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed as per code. The proposed project is 92 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The existing house contains two bedrooms and with the proposed project the number of bedrooms would increase to four bedrooms (study room counts as a bedroom). For a four-bedroom house, two parking spaces are required, one of which must be covered. The existing garage would maintain a clear area of (17’-2” x 20’-1”), where (9’-0” x 18’-0”) is allowed for an existing one car garage. One uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 20’-0”) is provided in the driveway, where the required 20’-0” is measured to the inner edge of the sidewalk. Therefore, the project is in compliance off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a first and second story to an existing single-family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 2217 Davis Drive Lot Size: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: March 29, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 15’-4” No change 15’-0” (or block average) (2nd flr): NA 48’-1⅞” 20'-0" (or block average) Side (left): (right): 5’-2½” 2’-6½”1 No change No change 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 24’-6” NA 24’-6” 24’-6” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,825 SF 36% 1,908 SF 38% 2,000 SF 40% FAR: 1,734 SF 0.34 FAR 2,608 SF 0.52 FAR 2,700 SF 2 0.54 FAR ¹ Existing non-conforming setback 2 (0.32 x 5,000 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,700 SF (0.54 FAR) Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Design Review 2217 Davis Drive 2 2217 Davis Drive Lot Size: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: March 29, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (17’-2” x 20’-1”) 1 uncovered (9’-0” x 20’-0”) 1 covered (17’-2” x 20’-1”) 1 uncovered (9’-0” x 20’-0”) 1 covered (9’-0” x 18’-0” for existing) 1 uncovered (9'-0” x 20'-0”) Height: 18’-7½ ” 26’-0” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 Staff Comments: None Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting on March 11, 2019, the Commission suggested that the plate height on the second floor be reduced and encouraged the applicant to use different materials to bring more articulation on the facade. They noted that using stucco on the second floor seemed like an easy solution and that the applicant should experiment with the choice of materials. They also encouraged the applicant to look into the placement of windows and potentially adding another window on the second floor to bring in more light. Overall, the Commission was satisfied with the design and voted to place this item on the action calendar when the plans have been revised and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached March 11, 2019, Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter date stamped March 25, 2019, and revised sheets dated March 29, 2019. The plans have been revised to lower the second story plate height from 9’-6” to 8’-6”, with a maximum proposed overall building height of 26’-0”. New materials were added on the front façade of the second floor, which includes painted wood vertical siding and 0’-6” wide vertical wooden trim at the corners. Two new windows were added on the West Elevation, one in the stairwell and one in the laundry room on the first floor. Few other minor changes were made to the design, including changing the size of the first floor bedroom window from two-panels to one-panel. These changes do not affect any zoning requirements. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: The proposed second story addition is located at the rear of the house and is placed at a distance from the street, which helps to minimize the visual impacts of the second story. The materials used in the construction, such as vertical wood and stucco siding, asphalt shingle roof and aluminum clad wood windows, are of high quality and would match the style and finishes of the existing house. At the March 11, 2019, Design Review Study Meeting, the Planning Commission was satisfied with the overall design and placed this item on the Regular Action Calendar. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Design Review 2217 Davis Drive 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 revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 29, 2019, sheets G0-1 through A4; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the 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 Design Review 2217 Davis Drive 4 locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Mei-Mei Chan, architect Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang, property owners Attachments: March 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter date stamped March 25, 2019 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 29, 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 a.2217 Davis Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang, applicants and property owners; MEI Architects, architect) (89 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 2217 Davis Dr - Staff Report 2217 Davis Dr - Attachment 2217 Davis Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the applicant and his son. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Casey Cole, MEI Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Consider using some of the other materials to accentuate the second floor? Looks a little flat. (Cole: Can consider that.) >Consider a lower plate height on the second floor? The volume of the roof is quite tall, could utilize space within the roof to obtain the height. (Cole: Started at 10', now at 9'-6", could consider further reduction.) >West elevation upstairs looks blank. Consideration of any other windows in the part that recesses back? (Cole: Yes could consider that.) >A stair window would be a great way to introduce light into the stairwell and study below. >Should reconsider the second floor plate height. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Articulating the massing with some alternate materials would help with the flatness. >A window into the stairwell would help break up the flat mass, even if it breaks up the belly band with a taller window. >Bringing down the plate height would help bring down the bulk on the back side of the house. >Because the elevations are so flat, it looks like the windows could happen anywhere. There is no order Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/3/2019 March 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes between the upstairs and downstairs windows. >On the second floor some windows have gravitated to the corners. Seems odd, particularly with the lack of coordination. >Upper plate height needs to be reconsidered. When the second story is higher than the first story it becomes unbalanced. Could use the roof structure to create more volume, either with coffered or vaulted ceilings. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Kelly1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/3/2019 Comment No.DisciplineComment DateComment By Comment Response1 Planning Commission 3/11/2019 Michael GaulStucco seems like a simple solution, have you used other materials to accentuate the second floor a little more.  Vertical wood siding to match existing has been added to the North façade along with wood trim pieces to terminate the vertical wood siding.1 Planning Commission 3/11/2019 Audrey Tse Curious if you thought to go with a lower plate height on second floor.  We have revised the second floor height to 8'‐6" from 9'‐6".  We feel that this proportion reduces the bulk of the second story.  Lowering the second story plate height any further would cause the second story roof to conflict with the existing first story roof geometry.  2 Planning Commission 3/11/2019 Audrey TseOn West elevation rear, is there opportunity for another window?  (At stairs).  That elevation looks a little flat.We have added an additional window above the stair landing on the west elevation.3 Planning Commission 3/11/2019 Richard Sargent A stair window would be great way to introduce light to stairwell.  We have added an additional window above the stair landing on the west elevation.4 Planning Commission 3/11/2019 Richard SargentLook at plate height on second floor.  Upper plate height needs to be reconsidered. When second floor is taller than lower, creates balancing problems.  Use roof structure to create volume.We have revised the second floor height to 8'‐6" from 9'‐6".  We feel that this proportion reduces the bulk of the second story.  Lowering the second story plate height any further would cause the second story roof to conflict with the existing first story roof geometry.  5 Planning Commission 3/11/2019 Richard Torrenes Articulating massing with alternative materials would help with massingVertical wood siding to match existing has been added to the North façade along with wood trim pieces to terminate the vertical wood siding.2217 Davis Drive ‐ Planning Department Resubmittal 6 Planning Commission 3/11/2019 Richard Torrenes Window in stairwell would help with flat massWe have added an additional window above the stair landing on the west elevation.7 Planning Commission 3/11/2019 Richard Torrenes Plate height lowering would reduce bulk.We have revised the second floor height to 8'‐6" from 9'‐6".  We feel that this proportion reduces the bulk of the second story.  Lowering the second story plate height any further would cause the second story roof to conflict with the existing first story roof geometry.  8 Planning Commission 3/11/2019 William LoftisStruck me most is because its so flat, the windows feel like they could happen anywhere.  Little coordination of windows between first and second floor. Do not seem to be associating with eachother.Window locations have been coordinated on the East, West, and South facades.9 Planning Commission 3/11/2019 William LoftisOdd that first floor existing windows have gravitated to corners, second floor windows have gravitated to corners.  6" stucco at corners, I find it odd in respect to lack of coordination.Windows have been located so that the trim of the new windows is at least 12" from the edge of each exterior wall on all four facades Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review for a first and second-story addition to an existing single-family dwelling at 2217 Davis Drive, zoned R-1, Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang, property owners, APN: 025-192-030; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on April 8, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of April, 2019 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Categorical Exemption and Design Review 2217 Davis Drive Effective April 18, 2019 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 29, 2019, sheets G0-1 through A4; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT.one eighth inch = one foot16840one inch = one foot206"6" 0 2three quarters inch = one footone half inch = one foot40three eighths inch = one foot400 4 8one quarter inch = one footprinted on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 03/25/2019 PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2019 4:02:48 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt G0-1 COVER SHEET TMC - CAC CAC07/05/18 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang DRAWING INDEX G0-1 COVER SHEET G0-2 SITE SURVEY GENERAL ARCHITECTURE A0-1 SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS A1-1 FIRST FLOOR AND ROOF DEMOLITION PLAN A2-1 FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR PLANS A2-2 ROOF PLAN A3-1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - NORTH A3-2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - EAST A3-3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SOUTH A3-4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - WEST A4-1 BUILDING SECTIONS GENERAL NOTES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. LOT SIZE: 5000 SF x 40% = 2000 SF LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED BY PLANNING DEPT: AREA CALCULATIONS LOT COVERAGE: EXISTING: 1825 SF = 36.50% PROPOSED: 1908 SF = 38.16% (<2000 SF MAX. ALLOWED) GROSS FLOOR AREA: EXISTING: 1734 SF (INCLUDES 382 SF GARAGE) PROPOSED: FIRST FLOOR: 1816 SF (INCLUDES 382 SF GARAGE) SECOND FLOOR: 792 SF TOTAL: 2608 SF (<2700 SF MAX ALLOWED) DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010−5410 OWNERS: PAUL YEP AND MEI LING TANG GREEN BUILDING MANDATORY MEASURES: OWNER WILL PROVIDE TWO COPIES OF THE GREEN BUILDING MANDATORY CHECKLIST WITH SUBMITTAL OF PLANS FOR BUILDING CODE PLAN CHECK. THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING BUILDING CODES: •2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE •2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE •2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE •2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889. NOTE: IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS NOT APPROVED THE PROJECT PRIOR TO 5:00PM ON DECEMBER 31, 2016 THEN THIS PROJECT MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. A GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED, WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. CONSTRUCTION HOURS ARE AS FOLLOWS: •WEEKDAYS: 8:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. •SATURDAYS: 9:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. •SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS) CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM. ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE BUILDING OWNER, PROJECT DESIGNER, AND/OR CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT A REVISION TO THE CITY FOR ANY WORK NOT GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED ON THE JOB COPY OF THE PLANS PRIOR TO PERFORMING THE WORK. FLOOR AREA RATIO: (0.32 x 5000 SF) + 1100 SF = 2700 SF MAXIMUM ALLOWED (0.54 FAR) EXISTING: 1734 SF = 0.346 FAR PROPOSED: 2608 SF = 0.521 FAR (<0.54 FAR MAX ALLOWED) NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY UP UP UP UP A3-22 A3-3 A3-4 A3-1 2 2 2 50' - 0"100' - 0"2' - 6 1/2"15' - 4"5' - 2 1/2"24' - 6"(E) CONCRETE WALKWAY (E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PROPOSED WOOD DECK AND HANDRAIL (NOT COVERED)9' - 2"25' - 10" (E) BRICK STEPS AND PORCH (NOT COVERED) (E) BRICK STEPS AND COVERED PAINTED CONCRETE PORCH. DAVIS DRIVE STREETCL 7' - 6"4' - 6"18' - 0"FACE OF (E) CURB (E) SIDEWALK FRONT PROPERTY LINE FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING HOUSE TO REMAIN 12' - 0 1/2" 14' - 2 1/2" (E) PAINTED CONCRETE PATIO (NOT COVERED) ADJACENT RESIDENCE 2213 DAVIS DRIVE ADJACENT RESIDENCE2221 DAVIS DRIVE14' - 6" (E) CURB CUTS (E) GATE TO REMAIN (E) GATE TO REMAIN (E) FENCE TO REMAIN, TYP. PROPERTY LINE, TYP. REQUIRED SETBACK LINES, TYP. 12' - 5 1/2" GREY AREA DENOTES FOOTPRINT OF SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOORROOF PROFILESECOND FLOORROOF PROFILEGREY DOTTED LINE DENOTES NEW AND (E) ROOF PROFILES (E) 6'-0" HIGH WOODEN FENCE TO REMAIN (E) 4-6" HIGH WOODEN FENCE TO REMAIN (E) 5'-8" HIGH WOODEN FENCE TO REMAIN 48' - 1 7/8"13' - 10 1/2"46' - 9"1' - 1 1/4" 10' - 7 1/4"23' - 0 1/2"3' - 9 5/8" 13' - 1 1/4" (E) GRASS AREA (E) GRASS AREA DAVIS DRIVE (E) FICUS TREE (E) JAPANESE LAUREL BUSH (E) JUNIPER HEDGES (E) SCARLET OAK TREE 35'-40' HEIGHT 94" TRUNK CIRCUMFERENCE (E) LILLIES (E) ORANGE TREE (E) RAYWOOD ASH TREE 30'-35' HEIGHT 32" TRUNK CIRCUMFERENCE (E) BRICK EXTERIOR FIREPLACE PROPOSED WOOD DECK AND HANDRAIL ADJACENT RESIDENCE 2213 DAVIS DRIVE ADJACENT RESIDENCE 2221 DAVIS DRIVE (E) LEMON TREE (E) LEMON TREE (E) STREET LIGHT (E) JAPANESE LAUREL BUSH (E) GRASS AREA BELOW SCARLET OAK TREE DRIPLINE HATCHED REGION DENOTES TREE DRIP LINE HATCHED REGION DENOTES TREE DRIP LINE PROPERTY LINE, TYP. NEW 24" BOX JAPANESE MAPLE TREE (E) DECORATIVE PLUM TREE ON ADJACENT PROPERTY (E) GRASS AREA INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 NDrawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT.one eighth inch = one foot16840one inch = one foot206"6" 0 2three quarters inch = one footone half inch = one foot40three eighths inch = one foot400 4 8one quarter inch = one footprinted on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 03/25/2019 PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2019 4:01:05 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt 1/8" = 1'-0" A0-1 SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS TMC - CAC CAC07/05/18 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" 9 LANDSCAPE PLAN GENERAL NOTES: 1. EXISTING LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN, NO EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED. 2. NO EXISTING TREE OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54" FROM BASE OF TREE MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT A PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FROM THE BURLINGAME PARKS DIVISION. (558-7330) 3. SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED 4. EXISTING CITY STREET TREE MAY NOT BE CUT, TRIMMED, OR REMOVED WITHOUT PERMIT FROM PARKS DIVISION. (558-7330) NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" CITY HEIGHT LIMITATION 30' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" MIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" SECOND FLOOR TOP PLATE 19' - 5 1/2" GARAGE FLOOR 0' - 5 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 26' - 0" NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING NEW PAINTED WOOD VERTICAL SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING NEW PAINTED GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE(50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (69.83') (76.37') (80.37') (50.82') DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE BASIS -0' - 8 5/8"(49.65') D EC LIN IN G H EIG H T EN VELO PEOF DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FACE OF WALL 1/2" CLR.12' - 0" TYP.(61.65')7' - 6" TYP.(69.15')26' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28')5 1/2"1' - 3 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 6"6' - 6 1/2"4' - 0"WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN NEW PAINTED WOOD TRIM, TYP. 6" TYP. FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" GARAGE FLOOR 0' - 5 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 26' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" MIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED WOOD VERTICAL SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED EAVE TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED GUTTER TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED WOOD SHAKE SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. (50.37') TOP OF (E) ROOF 18' - 7 1/2" EXISTING OUTDOOR DOWN LIGHT TO REMAIN EXISTING PAINTED WOOD GARAGE DOOR TO REMAIN, TYP. (52.12') (61.32') (68.99') (50.82') (76.37')26' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28')5 1/2"1' - 3 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 0 1/2"7' - 8"WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT.one eighth inch = one foot16840one inch = one foot206"6" 0 2three quarters inch = one footone half inch = one foot40three eighths inch = one foot400 4 8one quarter inch = one footprinted on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 03/25/2019 PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2019 4:01:23 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt 1/4" = 1'-0" A3-1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - NORTH TMC - CAC CAC07/05/18 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 26' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK 15' - 0" MIN. SETBACK SECOND FLOOR 20' - 0" MIN. SETBACK FIRST FLOOR 15' - 0" EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED GUTTER TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED WOOD SHAKE SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED WOOD DOOR AND TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. (50.37') TOP OF (E) ROOF 18' - 7 1/2" EXISTING PAINTED IRON RAILING TO REMAIN, TYP. (52.12') (61.32') (68.99')7' - 8"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"(76.37')26' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28') WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" CITY HEIGHT LIMITATION 30' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK 15' - 0" MIN. SETBACK SECOND FLOOR 20' - 0" MIN. SETBACK FIRST FLOOR 15' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" SECOND FLOOR TOP PLATE 19' - 5 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 26' - 0" NEW PAINTED GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING NEW PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING NEW DECK AND HANDRAIL TYP. SILL2' - 4"MINIMUM OPENING AREA NOT LESS THAN 5.7 SQUARE FEET, TYP. MINIMUM OPENING AREA NOT LESS THAN 5.7 SQUARE FEET, TYP. (50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (69.83') (76.37') (80.37')4' - 0"6' - 6 1/2"8' - 6"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"TYP. SILL3' - 0"EXISTING PAINTED GUTTER TO REMAIN 26' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28') WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW NEW PAINTED WOOD TRIM 6"INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT.one eighth inch = one foot16840one inch = one foot206"6" 0 2three quarters inch = one footone half inch = one foot40three eighths inch = one foot400 4 8one quarter inch = one footprinted on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 03/25/2019 PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2019 4:01:47 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt 1/4" = 1'-0" A3-2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - EAST TMC - CAC CAC07/05/18 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 26' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" MIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED GUTTER TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED IRON RAILING TO REMAIN, TYP. TOP OF (E) ROOF 18' - 7 1/2" EXISTING PAINTED WOOD DOOR AND FRAME TO REMAIN, TYP. (50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (68.99') (76.37')26' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28')7' - 8"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" CITY HEIGHT LIMITATION 30' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" MIN. SETBACK 4' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" SECOND FLOOR TOP PLATE 19' - 5 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 26' - 0" NEW PAINTED WOOD TRIM NEW PAINTED GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING NEW PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING NEW PAINTED WOOD DOOR AND TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYP.12' - 0" TYP.DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPENEW OUTDOOR DOWN LIGHT TO MATCH EXISTING (50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (69.83') (76.37') (80.37')4' - 0"6' - 6 1/2"8' - 6"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"(61.65') DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE BASIS -0' - 8 5/8"(49.65')7' - 6" TYP.DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEOF DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FACE OF WALL 1/2" CLEAR (69.15')9 1/2"26' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28') WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT.one eighth inch = one foot16840one inch = one foot206"6" 0 2three quarters inch = one footone half inch = one foot40three eighths inch = one foot400 4 8one quarter inch = one footprinted on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 03/25/2019 PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2019 5:28:55 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt 1/4" = 1'-0" A3-3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SOUTH TMC - CAC CAC07/05/18 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 26' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK FIRST FLOOR 15' - 0" MIN. SETBACK SECOND FLOOR 20' - 0" MIN. SETBACK 15' - 0" EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED GUTTER TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING PAINTED WOOD DOOR AND TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. TOP OF (E) ROOF 18' - 7 1/2" EXISTING OUTDOOR DOWN LIGHT TO REMAIN (50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (68.99')7' - 8"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"(76.37')26' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28') WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOW: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED FIRST FLOOR 1' - 9" AVG. TOP OF CURB 0' - 0" CITY HEIGHT LIMITATION 30' - 0"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMIN. SETBACK FIRST FLOOR 15' - 0" MIN. SETBACK SECOND FLOOR 20' - 0" MIN. SETBACK 15' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 10' - 11 1/2" SECOND FLOOR TOP PLATE 19' - 5 1/2" TOP OF ROOF (PROPOSED) 26' - 0" NEW PAINTED WOOD TRIM NEW PAINTED GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING NEW PAINTED STUCCO SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING NEW WOOD DECK AND PAINTED IRON HANDRAIL (50.37') (52.12') (61.32') (69.83') (76.37') (80.37')4' - 0"6' - 6 1/2"8' - 6"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 2"1' - 9"9 1/2"26' - 0"(E) FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 9' - 11"(60.28') WINDOW: EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW WINDOW: NEW 6"INROF AL IS T ATE CAOF CHI E T C RA T N S DE LIECRENEWAL DATE C-29350MEI-MEI CHAN 11-30-2019 Drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Architect SHEET NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SHEET TITLE: KEY PLAN FILE: SCALE: CONSULTANTS: This is a 24"x36" size sheet. Any other size is not full scale. PARCEL NUMBER: 025-192-030 ADDRESS: 2217 DAVIS DRIVE, BURLINGAME CA 94010-5410 ISSUES AND REVISIONS T:(415) 703-0328 F:(415) 707-6328 www.meiarchitects.com 239 9TH STREET, Suite 201 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 07/05/2018 PLANNING DEPT.one eighth inch = one foot16840one inch = one foot206"6" 0 2three quarters inch = one footone half inch = one foot40three eighths inch = one foot400 4 8one quarter inch = one footprinted on: 4 3 2 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: 11/20/2018 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 02/11/2019 PLANNING DEPT. BACKCHECK 2 03/25/2019 PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2019 4:02:42 PM C:\Users\CASEY\Documents\Proj 712 - 2217 Davis Drive_caseycoulteraia.rvt 1/4" = 1'-0" A3-4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - WEST TMC - CAC CAC07/05/18 712 DAVIS DRIVE SECOND STORY ADDITION Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING TO REMAIN WINDOWS ARE MARVIN ULTIMATE REPLACEMENT CASEMENT TYPE (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD). EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN, TYP. 2.ALL EXISTING TO BE REMOVED WINDOWS ARE PAINTED WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG TYPE WINDOWS. EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. 3.ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE CASEMENT (EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH INTERIOR WOOD) TO MATCH EXISTING. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PAINTED WOOD WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICAL. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY