Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2018.08.27Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, August 27, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak " card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1104 Clovelly Lane, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Best Construction, applicant; Cornelia Haber, designer; Sumagny LLC, propert owner) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal a. 1104 Clovelly Ln - Staff Report.pdf 1104 Clovelly Ln - Attachment.pdf 1104 Clovelly Lane - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf Attachments: 717 Neuchatel Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Front Setback Variance, and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e) (2). (Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and architect; Lamar Zhao and Jennifer Guan, property owners) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin b. 717 Neuchatel Ave - Staff Report.pdf 717 Neuchatel Ave - Attachments.pdf 717 Neuchatel Ave - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf Attachments: 434 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling and new detached garage. 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 (THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT) c. 824 Cowan Road, zoned IB - Application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to increase the size of an existing incidental food establishment. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303, Class 1 of the CEQA Guidelines (Una Kinsella, applicant and architect; Mark Worrall, property owner) (46 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit d. 824 Cowan Rd - Staff Report.pdf 824 Cowan Rd - Attachments.pdf 824 Cowan Rd - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Consideration of amendments to Chapter 25.70 (Off-Street Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend motel and hotel parking requirements. e. Staff Report.pdf Draft June 25, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (excerpt).pdf Proposed Amendments.pdf Resolution.pdf Attachments.pdf Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 2721 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Xie Guan, Xie Associates, Inc., applicant and architect; Lin Yun Ping, property owner) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin a. 2721 Martinez Dr - Staff Report.pdf 2721 Martinez Dr - Attachments.pdf 2721 Martinez Dr - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf Attachments: 2108 Clarice Lane, zoned R -2 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single-story duplex dwelling (Jaime Rapadas, AR Design Group applicant and architect; Janice and Richard Samuelson, property owners) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi b. 2108 Clarice Ln - Staff Report.pdf 2108 Clarice Ln - Attachments.pdf 2108 Clarice Ln - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting August 20, 2018 1357 Columbus Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project. a. 1357 Columbus Ave - Memorandum.pdfAttachments: Zoning Ordinance Update Subcommitteeb. Zoning Ordinance Subcommittee MemorandumAttachments: 12. ADJOURNMENT Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on August 27, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on September 7, 2018, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551.00, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 25, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: The meeting minutes were inadvertently not included in the packet. The minutes will be reviewed in the next Planning Commission meeting. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.Consideration of amendments to Chapter 25.70 (Off-Street Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend motel and hotel parking requirements. Code Amendment to Chapter 25.70.034 - Staff Report Code Amendment to Chapter 25.70.034 - Attachments Attachments: Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >At least one hotel is interested in park -and-fly. Have other hotels expressed interest in other uses, or expanding with more rooms without needing to provide more parking? (Gardiner: The hotels that we know have expressed interest in expansion of existing park -and-fly program, and reduction in the parking requirement for a new hotel. This would provide the opportunity for hotels not interested in park -and-fly to expand if they wanted to.) >Does park-and-fly require a Conditional Use Permit? (Gardiner: Yes, currently. Depending on the approach, hotels may request a separate Conditional Use Permit for park -and-fly in addition to a Conditional Use Permit for parking reduction.) >What other uses are permitted on those sites? Are restaurants permitted? (Gardiner: Offices, restaurants, lodging, commercial recreation. For example, a hotel could expand its restaurant offerings . There may be a wider range of uses that could be accommodated beyond just park-and-fly.) >Does a Conditional Use Permit run with the property? (Gardiner: Yes, provided that the characteristics documented with the issuance of the CUP remains, it would run with the property. If a hotel changed ownership but the operations stayed the same, the CUP would still run with the hotel. It could be amended over time if the hotel changes its business model, for instance.) >Will not see the effect of this for years from now, but an alternative use to parking such as another amenity like a restaurant would be a better utilization of the space. Would prefer a reduced parking ratio or a Conditional Use Permit for parking reductions. >Concerned with setting a ratio because it may go too far. The San Mateo 0.4 ratio seems low. However the arguments are compelling with rideshare and other similar services. >Open to reducing the ratio, and reducing it in half would not be unreasonable given the survey findings. Was the South San Francisco example for parking reductions based on certain criteria? (Gardiner: There are two different types of parking reductions - one specific to hotels and another that is more general and applies to all land uses. Would opt for the more general option because the main challenge is figuring out the right parking ratio. May better serve hotels if they could put forth their own proposal based on their documented demand and intended use of the spaces.) >Concerned that we reduce the ratio and something changes in the hotel industry where parking demand increases. (Gardiner: Not aware of existing planning trends or dynamic that foresees an increased demand for parking. Trends we are seeing with rideshare and possibility of self -driving cars in the future would both reduce parking demand.) >How would parking needs be met when hotels have large events such as weddings and conferences? (Gardiner: It is something the hotel operator would need to take into account. Even with a reduced ratio, they may still need to build in a buffer for such occasions. Hotels have mentioned one option for special events is providing valet service which allows stacked parking. Some hotels may opt to retain more parking even if it would be allowed to be reduced.) >A Conditional Use Permit would allow for special circumstances. Letters submitted from the hotels state that the circumstances for each hotel are unique. We should look at each circumstance on a case by case basis. Allows the Commission to ask questions about special circumstances. >Via a Conditional Use Permit, let the hotel propose their own parking ratio instead of setting one parking ratio that tries to address each hotel's unique circumstances. >The option of no parking requirement and leaving the applicant to decide is a slippery slope . Applicants for apartment and condominium residential projects have just as much interest to say that they should determine their own parking standards. There is community interest in the Planning Commission being involved and there should still be control and review in what parking is required. There was no action on this item since it was a Study Item. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - a.2117 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes approved application for Design Review and Rear Setback Variances for a major renovation and 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). (Lin and Sharon Li, applicants and property owners; Javier Medina, Mark Davis Design, architect) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 2117 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report 2117 Carmelita Ave - Attachments 2117 Carmelita Ave - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: b.715-717 & 719-721 Linden Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Design Review and Tentative Map for Lot Split for construction of a new, two -story duplex on each proposed new lot. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (b). (1448 Laguna LLC, applicant and property owner; TRG Architects, architect) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Staff Report 715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Attachments 715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.834 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (John Nguyen, Dulon, Inc ., applicant and designer; Diane Mcglown, property owner) (58 noticed) Staff contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 834 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 834 Crossway Rd - Attachments 834 Crossway Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Is there proper turnaround space in front of the garage? (Keylon: They are required only to have one uncovered parking space. As long as they can back out the space, it meets requirements.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. John Nguyen, Dulon Inc., represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Will the new wood fence go all the way around the property? (Nguyen: Yes.) >Note specifies aluminum-clad windows with grids. Familiar with specifications for simulated true divided lites? Not a snap-in grid or grid between the glass. (Nguyen: Yes.) >Window sill is drawn differently on the front elevation compared to the detail on Sheet A 2.03. Will it be a 3-inch trim all the way around? (Yes, all the way around.) >There will need to be railing on the steps at the rear deck and a a guard rail for the steps in the front . (Nguyen: They will be wood railings.) >Could knee braces be added to the cantilever roof element in front? (Nguyen: Yes, could add that.) >Elevation specifies lap siding but it appears vertical in the elevations. (Nguyen: Note should specify vertical siding.) >Will it be vertical wood siding? Not T1-11? (Nguyen: Vertical wood siding.) >Would suggest windows in the laundry and master toilet room. Would help the elevation and bring in light. (Nguyen: Distance between the beams could not fit a standard window.) Could fit a transom or skinny awning window. >On the right elevation on either side of the fireplace there are blank walls. Could be an opportunity to add more glazing. (Nguyen: The Master Bedroom has a lot of windows on the other wall. Left these walls to allow for more wall space.) >Will the siding be painted? (Nguyen: Yes.) >Railing on the back deck should be shown on the elevation. >Front stairs could be a bit wider to be more inviting. >What roofing material will be on the eyebrow roof on the front? (Nguyen: Asphalt shingle.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Great improvements, but still a few small details that need to be addressed. >Still unclear on the siding. Sample of the siding and photographs of other projects with the siding would be helpful. Not clear what is being proposed. >Does not like the farm house style, and the metal roof. Does not believe it fits into Burlingame. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Nay:Loftis1 - b.705 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved new, two -story single-family dwelling with a detached garage . The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (705 Walnut Burlingame LLC, applicant and property owner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates, designer) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 705 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 705 Walnut Ave - Attachments 705 Walnut Ave - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Matt Nejasmich represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Wasn't the stone a key element of the design? (Nejasmich: Not sure they were totally sold on it. Could not find a stone that felt right. Wanted to find a material that works with the floorplan and elevation.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the change. Front elevation has a bit more depth on the right side. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - c.1250 Jackling Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Fence Exception to increase fence height limit to 8'-0" for a fence along the side and rear property line of an existing residential property at 1250 Jackling Drive. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e). (Greg and Lisa Ott, applicant and property owners; Alejandro Maldonado, designer ) (46 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1250 Jackling Dr - Staff Report 1250 Jackling Dr - Attachments 1250 Jackling Dr - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent had a brief email exchange with a neighbor of the project. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Greg Ott represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Can see through the slats of the fence. How would the additional height provide more privacy? (Ott: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There will be creeping ivy.) >If the plan is to plant something and let it grow up, why the need for the additional height? (Ott: To let it grow to 8 feet.) Typically vines grow higher than the top of a fence; an 8-foot fence would potentially become a 9-foot fence. >What was there before the fence was built? (Ott: Low box hedges, no fence.) >Would the ivy be planted on the street or house side of the fence? (Ott: Street side.) >Has there been consideration of a lower fence with trees? (Ott: Would be expensive to have trees along such a long stretch. Already has rhododendrons on the other side; wants to keep them since they look nice from the inside.) >Has there been thought on breaking up the long, flat expanse of fencing along the property line? The horizontal pattern further accentuates. The fence across the street does a better job of being broken up and having vegetation. (Ott: Unique circumstance, since there is no planting between the sidewalk and the street, it is paved over. Would suggest a planting strip with trees, like the rest of Vancouver Avenue.) >Was there not a permit for the fence? (Ott: Did not get a permit.) >Any other details considered for the one foot of open portion on the top of the fence? (Ott: Likes what has been built for the contemporary look.) >How far is the fence being moved back on the Vancouver Avenue side? (Ott: 2 feet. Already has it scheduled to be moved back.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes that the fence is being moved back, with ivy at the base, and the suggestion to plant the planting strip along the street. However does not see why it needs to be so tall to solve the problem, especially once the ivy grows on it. The ivy and the planting strip will make it feel settled in the neighborhood. >Landscaping will be key. Curious why landscaping was not included in the plans. Would suggest something other than ivy, maybe jasmine or honeysuckle. >Suggests planting on the inside of the fence as well. Would be easier to maintain and provide shielding from the street. >Ordinance allows a 6 foot fence with 1 foot open above it. Top foot on this fence does not feel open . Feels like an 8-foot fence. >Understands the desire for privacy, but does not see the exceptional circumstance unique to the property. >Supports planting street trees in the planting strip area. >Does not see unique circumstances with this property that would warrant the exception. Sees similar conditions on other properties, but they are not addressed with with 8-foot fences. Others utilize planting to create privacy. A greener solution would work better here. >8 feet feels excessive, even with the setback. The top foot feels as closed as the rest of the fence. >Feels very tall, would like to see greenery and open space on top of the fence. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - d.1615 Ralston Avenue, 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Section 15301 (e)(1). (Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders, applicant and designer; Henry and Jaclyn Eng, property owners) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1615 Ralston Ave - Staff Report 1615 Ralston Ave - Attachments 1615 Ralston Ave - Historic Resource Evalution 1615 Ralston Ave - plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Thomas A. Saviano represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >The west elevation finishes abruptly on the back side. Was there consideration to adding a roof over the rear door? (Saviano: It is one of the few remaining aspects of the house. It is only visible from the rear of the house. A trellis has been added to the rear.) Would provide some protection to the doors and windows. >The rear elevation has an element with a shed roof and a blank wall on the side of a bedroom. There is a window on the side of the bedroom; was there consideration to adding windows to that back wall? (Saviano: It is part of the existing structure, and was not looking to modify it more than necessary. There is foliage already screening it, and the trellis is intended to mitigate the abrupt nature of the blank wall.) It would help the bedroom programmatically to have windows on two sides, though it's not a deal -breaker. (Saviano: Has been trying to be cost-conscious. Emphasis has been on the aesthetics.) >Was there consideration on the west elevation do something with the large window to the left of the door? It's existing but seems a bit out of place. (Saviano: Has considered an apron or flower bed off the window to improve the aesthetics.) >Is there confidence that the interior flow works the way it should and that the windows will not need to move around? (100% of the interior layout is by the owners desire.) If windows move, will need to come back. (Saviano: Yes, the interior layout has been determined by the homeowner. Has ensured that what is proposed can be accommodated by solid engineering.) >All of the windows have a prairie -style grid pattern except for the two rear bedrooms on the left. Was there thought to changing those windows? (Saviano: Thinks there will be an effort to change all the existing windows to something that will accommodate the aesthetics. Needs to review with the client. They are covered with foliage so not visible, but client is interested in continuity. They are already old windows .) They would look good from the inside of the house as well. Could also look at the fenestration, so the sizes could match those around the rest of the house. >Gable vent on front could be more decorative. (Saviano: Will review with client. It is one of several nuances that could be accommodated to make the house more attractive.) >The double-hung windows on the front are not shown correctly; the upper sashes are smaller than the bottom, not equal. Not sure how that would look if the windows on the second floor are true split double-hung and have the prairie muntins. (Saviano: They are on different planes. The upper windows are set further back.) >On the east elevation there appears to be a drafting error, that the existing window is not centered on the gable as shown on the plans, and that the existing gable wall is wider than shown. (Saviano: It is not intended to be a modification so is probably an error.) >Corbel gable brackets are shown as 4 x 4s, but they should be 4 x 6s since they are wider than they Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are tall. >Is this the project that is intended to be built? Seems like there are still a number of things that might change. (Saviano: Yes, needs to get it approved so it can be built, but is malleable. If there are suggestions that the approval will hinge on, will be accommodating.) Public Comments: John and Kathleen Weatherwax, 1611 Ralston next door on the east side: Loves the idea of upgrading the house, but concerned the new upstairs might impact the light on the property, especially in the the front . How far from the front of the house will the new addition be? (Gaul: Suggests meet on site with the applicant so they can show where the addition will be .)(Tse: Looks like the second floor would be around 19 or 20 feet from the front.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >East elevation is far enough off, not comfortable with that not yet being resolved. >The proportion of the double -hung windows needs to be corrected so it will be able to see how they will look with the new windows. >The corrections can be made with a continuance. >Should double check the space planning on the interior. Doesn't look like it will be a comfortable house. Concerned the first floor powder room with 2-foot hallway will be unusable, but could be relatively easy to fix. The upstairs hallway is so narrow, it will make the whole floor feel claustrophobic. The interior layout is not the purview of the Planning Commission but it's a concern. >The changes that have been made are good and the house is much improved. The only concern was whether there are still changes anticipated. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - e.723-A Laurel Avenue, zoned R -2 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing duplex dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Robert and Germaine Alfaro Tr, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 723-A Laurel Ave - Staff Report 723-A Laurel Ave - Attachments 723-A Laurel Ave - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Catherine Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, J. Deal Associates, represented the applicant with property owner Germaine Alfaro. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >Would the addition on the front house have the corner boards like what appears on the rear house? (Alfaro: Similar. Does not need to be exactly the same.) >There is existing T 1-11 siding? That will not be applied to the new project, correct? (Deal: No T1-11 siding on the project.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Does not think the rear building fits into the neighborhood. Looks the triple -bevel siding on the front . The rear house looks colder and cheaper. Front house has character and would like to see that maintained. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to deny the request, and not have the substitution of the different siding. Commissioner Kelley seconded the motion. Commission Discussion: >It's difficult to get the same type of siding as the front house. >Likes the older look on the front house, but it's difficult to find that type of narrow siding. >Does not like the wider siding. >The narrow siding is still available. Does not need to be custom-made. The motion failed 4-3. A new motion was made to approve the amendment. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, and Terrones4 - Nay:Sargent, Gaul, and Tse3 - f.1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination for a new three -story, four-unit residential condominium. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (b). (Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu, applicants; Gary Gee Architects, Inc., architect; Opal Investments LLC, property owner) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Attachments 1500 Cypress Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 105 El Camino Real - Historic Resource Evaluation 1500 Cypress 101-105 El Camino Real - plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item as she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >The neighbor is asking for an 8-foot fence. Is that in the purview of the commission to allow? (Gardiner: Would require application for a fence height exception .)(Kane: Would need to meet the findings required for a fence height exception to be approved.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gary Gee, Gary Gee Architects, Inc., represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Has the applicant seen the letter submitted from the neighbor? (Gee: Property owner can address.) >Could the center portion of the side elevation be bumped out to provide deeper articulation? (Gee: Yes, or alternatively could be recessed in 6 inches.) >South elevation second floor balcony rails are shown as cement plaster on the elevations, but they look different on the renderings. Would they be painted differently? (Gee: Was one of the considerations; could paint it off-white to set it off a bit, but intention is to have a solid rail for privacy. The balconies are shallow, not for parties or sitting.) >Cypress elevation has a wall along the parking area. Could it be broken up with some openings, or wrought iron? (Gee: Could integrate four along the top to create a rhythm, about 8 inches down. Simple detail.) >Could the Pittosporum along the side be larger than the 5-gallon plants specified on the plans? (Gee: Would need to check with the landscape architect. 15-gallon could be considered. Pittosporum is a fast-growing hedge.) Public Comments: Peter Comaroto, 1576 Cypress Avenue: Good changes to the project. Busy traffic location, requests a traffic study. Side elevation facing Cypress Avenue looks like a great wall that divides neighborhoods, is very stark. The front of the building looks great. Concern roof decks will create noise and privacy issues for neighbors. Fredy Bush, 1508 Cypress Avenue: Nice changes to the building, but the changes have more windows and balconies facing, so less privacy than the previous version, and building is closer. Rooftop patios as well as well as balconies. Sight line is misleading, trees are not all 22-feet tall and garage is only one story. Privacy is a big concern. Concern with the noise of garage doors, and wants a solid wall to reduce noise rather then a fence. Calvin Paes and Stephen Wolf, 107 El Camino Real: Concerns with the distance between the two buildings and the height. Property now is 10 feet from fence, project would be 4 1/2 feet from the fence Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and straight up. Concern with appearance of the wall and sunlight. Requests distance of the new building be the same as existing. Has a patio adjacent. Also lives in a three -story building, would want the same side setback. 107 El Camino Real does not have roof decks. William Steul: Lives next to 1508 Cypress. Shares concerns with sight lines and noise levels. East side of building facing Cypress needs more work. Looks very blank, will not show well in the neighborhood. Kirby Altman, 1537 Cypress Avenue: Plans are much nicer than previous version. Does commission have purview to require maintenance of the cypress tree? Concern with entrance on Cypress, intersection is dangerous and sight line could be blocked by parked cars. Cypress elevation is too austere, stark . Should be more consideration for the current neighbors' privacy, responsibility of the applicant rather than the existing owners. El Camino addresses should not be eligible for street parking permits, parking should be provided on site. Wayne Hu, project applicant: Believes has addressed most of the privacy issues in the neighbor's letter . Has prepared site line drawings. Rear setback is 20 feet, and neighboring house has a 12-foot driveway for a total of about 32 feet between buildings. Living areas of the adjacent house are on other side of the house. Garage of adjacent house is 15 feet tall. Roof decks are set back so view into adjacent property is obscured. Agreeable with request for garage door openers. Questions to applicant: >Does the entrance to the driveway have a door? (Gee: No. It is open so there would not be queueing up.) >How are the roof decks expected to be used? (Gee: Used as open space for the unit. Could restrict types of activities if needed. Not large gathering spaces. Have been moved closer to the El Camino side.) >(Gee: Interior side setback is 7'-2" on the ground floor, and 9'-2 1/2" on the second and third floors . Has exceeded the required setbacks.) >Could the fence along the south side be changed from redwood to a solid 6-foot wall? (Gee: Would be amendable to it.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The fenceline along Cypress should be addressed. Right now it's a long, flat wall, could use some deviations. The wrought iron sounds like a good idea. >The height of the building is consistent with the pattern along El Camino Real. >Privacy issues are noted; the last iteration was better in terms of the neighbor's privacy. >East wall should jut out more to increase the depth. >Would like some detail on the solid wall on the Cypress side, rather than a solid block wall. At least the portion viewable from the street. >A lot has been done to the rooftop decks to address privacy. Decks and noise could be addressed in CC&Rs, but they're not large enough for a big party that would create impacts for neighbors. >Has not maximized the building envelope. >Approach from El Camino heading north is an important viewpoint. On Cypress elevation would like to see more articulation or integration of materials to enhance the Spanish Revival style. >Could add additional fenestration on blank part of wall on east elevation. (Gee: Originally had more windows on that side, but in the revision a closet was positioned against the wall. Could put a window in the closet.) >Painted railings on the juliet balconies look a bit commercial. (Gee: Has designed similar type of balcony at 824 Linden in Burlingame - can be viewed at 824linden.com.) >Revisions to the project are significant and to the better. Four units are replacing two, so while it is an intensification it is not a huge revision. The height is less than allowed, and it meets the setbacks. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Landscaping has been broken down so the residences have a presence on street. Not insular like the previous version; laudable that it addresses El Camino in a manner that most projects do not. >Concern with roof decks, despite ambient noise from El Camino. Could be reduced in size, currently 15' x 15'. Not clear what people will do on the roof decks, but does not think noise will be an issues. >Sight line studies are not particularly helpful, but does not believe people will be standing on the edge of decks, particularly the lower-floor decks. However it is important to have more robust pittosporum. >Does not think there will be noise issue with El Camino, but could reduce the size. Does not expect they will be used that much given the attractions of Downtown Burlingame. Appreciates the positioning of the decks, mitigates the sight lines well. >Simple straightforward solution with good architecture, not trying to have too many units on the site . Just needs work on the Cypress side. >Would want a bit of outdoor amenity for residents, and that is provided by the roof decks. The small outdoor seating area is useful but not as significant, and would not necessarily want more activity on the ground level since it would be adjacent to the fence. The roof decks provide the amenity; maybe they can be reduced in size but they are nicely placed. The project shall go before the Planning Commission for review of an FYI for the following items prior to building permit issuance: a.both the Cypress Avenue (exterior - east) and the interior (west) elevations shall be revised to add articulation; b.the size of the proposed pittosporum shall be revised with the consultation of a landscape architect (current size proposed at 5-gallon); c.the south side (rear) fence shall be revised from redwood to a solid material; d.the Cypress Avenue (east) wall along the parking area shall be revised to add articulation and /or openings; e.consider reducing the size of the roof decks. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the following condition: The project shall go before the Planning Commission for review of an FYI for the following items prior to building permit issuance: a.both the Cypress Avenue (exterior - east) and the interior (west) elevations shall be revised to add articulation; b.the size of the proposed pittosporum shall be revised with the consultation of a landscape architect (current size proposed at 5-gallon); c.the south side (rear) fence shall be revised from redwood to a solid material; d. the Cypress Avenue (east) wall along the parking area shall be revised to add articulation and/or openings; e.consider reducing the size of the roof decks. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - g.Proposed amendments to Chapter 25.59 (Accessory Dwelling Units ), Chapter 25.08 (Definitions), Chapter 25.26 (R-1 district regulations), Chapter 25.60 (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 districts) and Chapter 25.70 (Off-street parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ADU Staff Report - 6.25.18 ADU ord change 6.25.18- PC minutes 5.14 and Resolution ADU ord change REDLINES 6.25.18 ADU ord change CLEAN 6.25.18 ADU ord change Attachments 6.25.18 Attachments: Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >What are the fire sprinkler requirements for ADUs? (Keylon: The ADU is not required to be sprinklered if the house is not required to be sprinklered.) >Would fire-rated windows be required if there is proximity to the property line? (Keylon: In non-sprinklered structures the Building Code does not allow openings within 5 feet of the property line, and one-hour construction is required. If the structure is sprinklered the distance is 3 feet.) >If there is not a kitchen, would it be considered an ADU? (Keylon: There would need to be a kitchen to be considered an ADU. Otherwise it would be considered an accessory living space.) >A fire-rated window that is one-hour rated could be allowed on the property line. (Keylon: Correct. Building Code provisions are attached to the staff report for reference .)(Kane: Intent is to minimize inconsistencies between Conditional Use Permit provisions that consider issues differently than fire and building codes.) >The complexity of issue is why some commissioners supported eliminating the requirement for a CUP for windows within 10 feet of the property line, because of the various different issues related to the the fire and building codes that govern and dictate openings within proximity to a property line. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Jerry Deal: Having an additional unit can help people afford to stay in town. Conditional Use Permit is required for staircase from a basement to outside; this is a perfect example of a second unit that would not be on property line, which would be preferable. Otherwise a structure in the backyard could be disruptive to neighbors if the windows are open. Does not mind having an accessory unit in the back, but having a window close to the property line is an issue since sound carries. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Concern with window openings being close to property line. The Planning Commission needs to consider privacy. ADUs can be on the property line, so seems like it is worthwhile retaining. There will be instances where it doesn't matter at all, but it needs to be evaluated. >ADUs are otherwise approved ministerially, but one would come before the Planning Commission if it proposed a window within 10 feet of the property line. However in that instance it would not be before the commission for anything other than the CUP. >Would expect the commission will be reviewing a lot of CUPs for windows within 10 feet of the property line given the constraints in accommodating ADUs on small lots. >Needs to determine whether the CUP requirement restricts ADUs from happening. A project could be designed with no windows within 10 feet of the property line, so would not need the CUP. Doesn't mean the project itself cannot be within 10 feet of the property line. >The CUP window requirement will not necessarily limit the number of ADU applications, it will just change the nature of the ADU designs, while possibly preserving quality of life for neighbors. >The issue is not just noise, it can be light shining into an adjacent yard too. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to recommend the Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes amendments to the City Council with the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for a window within 10 feet of a property line retained. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1660 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling. (Sonia Jimenez, TOPVIEW Design Solutions, applicant and designer; Amauri Campos Melo, property owner) (52 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1660 Westmoor Rd - Staff Report 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments 1660 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 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. >What is threshold for requiring landscape plan? (Keylon: Required for new construction projects . Projects just involving additions are requested to at least show landscaping on the site plan. Can request it from the applicant if submittal does not provide enough information.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Amauri Campos Melo represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Discuss with designer whether or not to have muntins /grids in the windows? (Melo: Was divided on whether or not to have them. Likes the cleaner look a bit better, but would not be opposed to grids if the commission feels it would help with neighborhood compatibility.) Would add some nice scale and detail . Could just have dividing muntins along the top portion of the windows. >Massing is handled nicely. >Any consideration to adding a detail to the front gable? Gable vent, or siding. (Melo: Can consider it.) >Needs windows with muntins on all sides since house is on a corner. >Could have a window on the rear elevation second story, in the bedroom. It would make the elevation look better and would make the bedroom nicer to have two windows and improve ventilation. Also another window at the open area at the top of the stairs, would add some nice light to the space. >Front porch and garage door are craftsman style, but everything else is more pedestrian. Slider windows are huge, not correct the proportion to the craftsman elements. Should rethink the placement, size, and treatment of the windows. >Massing is right, but the windows are wrong. Diminishes the charm of the building. (Melo: Can look at it so it is more consistent with the Craftsman style.) >Double-hung windows that slide up and down will look good and match the craftsman style, or casement windows if needed for egress. Could still have 6-feet openings, but could have three sashes including possibly a wider middle sash. >Chimney looks massive on the front elevation with combining two of them. Could be scaled down if they are gas-burning fireplaces, would not need to go all the way up. >Is the RV parked on this property? What is the plan for that part of the site? (Melo: It is planned to be a back yard. RV will go into storage, and will close the fence.) >Would help with neighborhood compatibility if the plate height on the second floor was 8 feet instead Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 9. (Melo: Should not be an issue.) >Per the neighbor's letter, can there be netting during construction? (Melo: Yes, talked to contractor . Can put netting on the fence to increase it to 9 feet to avoid debris going over fence. There is a large setback now, so it is not too close to the fence.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Could be wrapped up quickly with the guidance of a design review consultant. >Items to be addressed would be the fenestration /windows (size, treatment, and location ), the second floor plate height, fireplace details, gable treatment, and landscaping shown on the plan. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - b.434 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage. (J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Parshadi & Kaushal Shah, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 434 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 434 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 434 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 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. Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, represented the applicant, with property owners Parshadi and Kaushal Shah Commission Questions/Comments: >What's happening with the triangular window on the Lexington side? Is it being replaced? (Deal: The existing windows are all metal sash and not operating well. Leaving the recess but will put new windows into those areas. Trying to replace almost all of the windows, except for one on the back side.) >The same type of siding is being used on the gable ends? (Deal: Yes.) >(Deal: Tree clarification: One of the trees is listed as a flowering plumb, but it's actually a blossoming cherry tree. It would count towards the tree requirement since it is not a fruit tree. The other two are Crepe myrtles, but would rather have something other than those. Can change those for the next meeting.) Public Comments: Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Project is straightforward, integrates well. >It is a challenging house to add a second story to. >Not sure how to add to the project given the idiosyncrasies of the existing house. >Does not have the charm and detail of the existing house - the deep recessed windows, the flair on the base of the front elevation. >OK with the basic program and massing, but needs some more articulation and charm to replicate some of what is already there. Perhaps replication of the gable vents, or deep recessed windows . Otherwise it's just a box on top of the house. >Feels very box-like. Concern with the east elevation, looks like a box on top of a box. >Charm has disappeared. Could repeat some of the tapering /soft curves on the upper floor. The horizontal siding element on the existing house could possibly be added to the upstairs as well. Otherwise does not see the upstairs tying in with the lower floor. >New gable vent does not relate to the current gable vents. >There is not consistency with the shapes and sizes of the windows. >Needs to be tied together better. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to bring the item back on the Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.119 Loma Vista Drive - FYI for as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 119 Loma Vista Dr - Memorandum 119 Loma Vista Dr - plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: Accepted. b.2721 Easton Drive - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 2721 Easton Dr - Memorandum 2721 Easton Dr - plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 p.m. Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning 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 June 25, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2018, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551.00, 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 17City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 PROJECT LOCATION 1104 Clovelly Lane Item No. 8a Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 1104 Clovelly Lane Meeting Date: August 27, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for a new, two -story single-family dwelling with an attached garage. Applicant and Designer: Cornelia Haber APN: 025-232-450 Property Owner: Sumagny LLC Lot Area: 5,533 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single -family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is e xempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single -family residences as part of a project. Project Description: The site is located on a cul-de-sac and there are one and two-story houses within the vicinity. The proposed project includes demolishing an existing two -story house and attached garage (1,965 SF) to build a new two-story house and attached garage (2,869 SF) at 1104 Clovelly Lane. With the proposed project, the floor area of the project would be 2,869 SF, where 2,870 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a new, two-story single-family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (1)); and  Special Permit for a new attached garage (CS 25.26.035 (a)). The proposed project includes a new attached garage with a front setback of 31’-6”, where 25’-0” is the minimum required. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for the attached garage per C.S. 25.26.035 (a). The new single family dwelling will contain f our bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the attached garage (10’-3” x 20’ clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project complies with the off-street parking requirements. As demonstrated in the following table, the project is consistent with the Zoning Code development standards. This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 8a Regular Action Item Design Review and Special Permit 1104 Clovelly Lane 2 1104 Clovelly Lane Lot Size: 5,533 SF Plans date stamped: August 17, 2018 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): Attached garage 20’-2½” 21’-6” 31’-6” 19-5” (block average) 20’-0” 25’-0” Side (left): (right): 7’-3½” 7’-1½” 7’-0" 7’-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr) 15’-4” 20’-0” 15'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 1,735 SF 31.3% 2,213 SF1 40% FAR: 2,869 SF 0.51 FAR 2,870 SF 2 0.51 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (10’-3” X 20’-0”) 1 uncovered (9’-0”X 20’-0”) 1 covered (10’x 20’) 1 uncovered (9'x 20') Height: 27’-0” 30'-0" DH Envelope: Complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.40 X 5,533 SF) = 2,213 SF (40%) 2 (0.32 x 5,533 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,870 SF (0.51 FAR) Staff Comments: None Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on May 29, 2018, the Commission was unsatisfied with the design and massing of the house. They highlighted that the house lacked consistency in the use of materials and articulation of the proposed wood siding. They commented that the house appeared massive due to the increased plate height on the first floor and asked the applicant to reconsider the first floor plate height. They also suggested that the house could benefit from reducing the number of entrance steps and bringing the first floor closer to the grade. Other suggestions included studying the fenestration pattern and using uniform grid patterns for the windows. Overall, the Commission felt that the house could benefit from being reviewed by a design review consultant and voted to refer this project to a design review consultant (see attached May 29, 2018, Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted revised plans , date stamped August 17, 2018, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and concerns. A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next section. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the project designer to discuss the Planning Commission’s concerns with the project and reviewed revised plans . Based on the feedback from the review, the applicant decided to revise the design from contemporary to a traditional style. As a result, all wood siding was eliminated and replaced with a combination of hip roofs and stucco siding. The applicant also moved the location of second floor bedroom to the front to create more articulation along the front of the house. The plate height of the first floor was reduced from 9’-6” to 9’-0½” and the design of the rear balcony was changed to wrap around the master bedroom. Other changes, such as adding a bay window at the front of the house and a shed roof over the side door, were made to complement the style of the house. Design Review and Special Permit 1104 Clovelly Lane 3 To address the privacy issue expressed by the rear neighbor, the applicant is proposing to plant a row of 24-inch box Pittosporum trees and two other landscape trees along the rear yard of the property. Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer recommends approval of the project as proposed. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the City 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 neighbor hood; 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 Desi gn Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the new house (featuring hip roofs, composition shingle roofing, proportiona l plate heights, stucco siding, and aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites and wood trim) is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties ; that the proposed design appears to blend in well with the rest of the neighborhood, which contains traditional one and two-story ranch style single- family dwellings; the massing and design of the house are well articulated by using the bay window at the front of the house and hip roof pitches throughout; For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for height, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a -d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existin g street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consisten t with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Special Permit Findings (For new attached garage): The applicant requests a Special Permit for the new attached garage. This neighborhood has predominantly attached garages and the new garage would be located on the same location as the existing attached garage. The new garage would use the same curb cut and driveway. The plate height of this garage would be consistent with the plate height of the house (9’-0 ½”) and the material used for the garage door (wood) would be consistent with the materials in the neighborhood. Therefore, the project may be found compatible with the requested Special Permit. Design Review and Special Permit 1104 Clovelly Lane 4 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 August 17, 2018, sheets A0 through A6; 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 p roject, 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, 201 6 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification doc umenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; Design Review and Special Permit 1104 Clovelly Lane 5 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. Cornelia Haber, applicant and designer Sumagny LLC, property owner Attachments: May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Consultant’s Analysis, dated August 15, 2018 Letter from the neighbor, received May 29, 2018 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing- Mailed August 17, 2018 Aerial Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, May 29, 2018 d.1104 Clovelly Lane, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling. (Best Construction, applicant; Cornelia Haber, designer; Symagny LLC, propert owner) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1104 Clovelly Ln - Staff Report 1104 Clovelly Ln - Attachments 1104 Clovelly Ln - Plans - 5.29.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Cornelia Haber represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is there a strategy for which of the interlocking boxes is wood vs stucco? (Haber: There is not a rule . The idea is to create a play on the two materials, and emphasize the protruding pieces. A small departure on the previous designs which are a little more traditional.) >Sheet A5 has a deck with a tiled parapet cap, with horizontal siding. However on the right side elevation looks like it will be stucco. Should it all be the same material or was the intention to just have the siding on the front side? (Haber: Yes, two different finishes.) >Concern the tile cap will not fit in. Perhaps wood would integrate better. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Looks confused, like it got expanded from inside. >Does not see a rhythm or logic in the materials. >Not sure the pitched roof works. Could either go full modern or go back to more traditional. >Lots of blank spaces, and nooks and crannies where it does not seem natural for them to be there. >Project is trying to do the right things but not doing it quite right. >OK with the subdued contemporary style. Massing is reminiscent of the existing house. >Needs better order for how the bump -outs and various pieces have the wood siding applied. Should Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/22/2018 May 29, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes only change materials at an inside corner so whatever mass feels like a wood piece. >Every other house on the street has an attached garage so not an issue with the special permit. >Heights could be revisited. 9'-6" on first floor, plus the first floor is already 3 feet off grade - adds to the height and massing, makes the proportions difficult. Work with the plate height, also maybe the first floor finished floor height. >Front door looks massive, is maybe taller than 8 feet so makes the first floor proportions look taller. >Should look at window patterns. There are are a lot of designs and styles. >First floor plate height creates a proportion issue with the garage. >Siding should turn corners, not look like wallpaper. >Likes the contrasting materials, but they need to be ordered in a legible way. >Talk to the rear neighbor about planting per the letter received, see what kind of additional planting there could be. Noted that the proposed house is pulling away from the property line further than the existing house. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/22/2018 Page 1 DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS CITY OF BURLINGAME August 15, 2018 City of Burlingame Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Address: 1104 Clovelly Lane Project Designer: Cornelia Haber Applicant: Sergiu Deac, Best Construction Property Owner: Benny Cheung, Symagny LLC Planner: Sonal Aggarwal Dear Planning Commissioners, I have received and reviewed the original plans submitted by Cornelia Haber to the Planning Commission for 1104 Clovelly Lane. I listened to the Planning Commission’s comments in the meeting video from the May 29, 2018, Study Session. I met with the Planner and Designer at City Hall to discuss the Planning Commission’s comments in addition to providing feedback on subsequent iterations. The Applicant and Owner were not in attendance at the feedback meeting and participated through email exchange instead. The design submitted reflects the following changes in response to Planning Commission feedback: REVISIONS TO ORIGINAL DESIGN • Explored a more cohesive modern design direction to conclude that the Owner prefers a more traditional style house similar to the neighbors with a simplified material palette. • First floor plate height brought down from 9’-6” to 9’-0-1/2” to address scale issues and reduce the amount of wall between the garage door and the wrapping roof eave above. • First floor finished floor height above grade reduced from three risers to one riser at the Entry. This helps further resolve proportion issues between the adjacent front and garage doors. Because of the sloping lot, two risers are required at the rear landings. • Shifted massing of the second floor bedroom facing the street to align with the bedroom below. This gives order to the random massing by creating a primary form and a place for the lower garage and entry roof to terminate. The additional bay window projection aligns with the windows above and creates a secondary supporting element at pedestrian scale. • Introduced window grids to add detail and scale. • Added tall plantings for privacy screening along the rear shared property line. Page 2 DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood This project is in the Burlingame Village neighborhood, which has predominately 1950s ranch homes. Several homes in the neighborhood have more recent second story additions. The majority of homes are stucco with asphalt composition shingle pitched roofs, as is this current and proposed residence. 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood This neighborhood has primarily attached garages, as does this current and proposed residence. No change is proposed to the existing driveway and curb cut location. 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure The second floor is setback from the first floor except where helpful to unify the design with defining primary forms. Window grids add detail and scale to the stucco house. Other architectural details include a street-facing bay window with trim panels, garage side door overhang with brackets, and decorative sconces. 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties This residence is located on Clovelly Lane between Westmoor Road and the cul-de-sac that abuts California Drive. No significant impact on the neighbors is anticipated. 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Pittosporum is proposed as screening along much of the rear fence to create privacy. The large 24-inch box size noted will give the adjacent neighbor more immediate privacy instead of waiting years for a hedge to grow from smaller plantings. SUMMARY The designer should be commended for her responsiveness and openness to the design review process. It is my opinion that the revised design meets the requirements of the design guidelines. Hopefully any design input from the Commission is minor at this point and can be addressed in a straightforward manner moving forward. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or clarifications. Sincerely, Jeanne Davis From: Lauren Greenberg Wanderman [lauren@wanderman.com] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 8:53 PM To: CD/PLG-Amelia Kolokihakaufisi; CD/PLG-Erika Lewit Cc: bestcontruction2004@yahoo.com; Rx7benny@yahoo.com; cornelia.harber@gmail.com; David Wanderman Subject: 1104 Clovelly Lane. Burlingame. Request for Additional Screening Along the Back Fence. To whom it may concern, My name is Lauren Wanderman and my husband is David Wanderman. We are property owners at 1105 Killarney Lane in Burlingame. Our property is located directly behind the subject property 1104 Clovelly Lane in Burlingame and we share a fence with the subject property. After reviewing the remodel plans for the subject property, we are requesting that the plans include additional screening in the form of landscaping along the back fence, in order to increase the privacy between the two properties. We would propose the landscaping include some type of tall hedges or similar barriers. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Best, Lauren Wanderman and David Wanderman (1105 Killarney Lane, Burlingame, CA.) -- Lauren (415) 377-9223 cell 05.29.18 PC Meeting Item 9d 1104 Clovelly Lane Page 1 of 1 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED MAY 29 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review and Special Permit for new, two-story single-family dwelling at 1104 Clovelly Lane, zoned R-1, Sumagny LLC, property owner, APN: 025-232-450; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 27, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Special Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permit 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 27th day of August 2018 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit 1104 Clovelly Lane Effective September 6, 2018 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 17, 2018, sheets A0 through A6; 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 Qualit y Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 1104A0CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC.DEC. 29 2017CHEUNG RESIDENCE NEW HOUSEMARCH 19, 20181AUGUST 14, 20182 CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010A1 PROJECT DATADESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEET INDEXGENERAL NOTESPROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE 18"= 1'-0"1DEMO SITE PLANSCALE 18"= 1'-0"2CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC.LOCATION MAPDEC. 29 201715'CONSTRUCTION HOURSWEEKDAYS: 8:00 A.M/ - 7:00 P.M.SATURDAYS: 9:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWEDCONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYSAND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 A.M.AND 5:00 P.M.MARCH 19, 2018111111111NOTES PER PLAN CHECK1.ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TOBE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDINGPERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHERCITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION.2.IF REQUIRED, A GRADING PERMIT WILL BE OBTAINEDFROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.3.A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITIES ENCROACHMENTPERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED TO-1.REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY ANDSIDEWALK FRONTING SITE-2.PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERALCONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL-3.ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATERMAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLEDPER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATIONS-4.ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHINCITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY23APRIL 10, 201822MAY 7, 20183AUGUST 14, 20184PROPERTY LINE 101.19' PR O P E R T Y L I N E 1 2 2 . 3 2 'PROPERTY LINE 77.83'PROPERTY LINE 30.63'CLOVELLY LANESETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE FIRST FLOOR25'SETBACK LINE SECOND FLOOR7'7'SETBACK LINEFIRST FLOORSETBACK LINESECOND FLOORSETBACK LINE1 CAR GARAGE(E) SIDEWALK(E) ROLLED CURB(E) WATERMETER(E) ELEVATION100.40(E) ELEVATION100.33(E) ELEVATION100.17(E)ELEVATION99.93PROPOSEDFIRST FLOORPROPOSEDSECOND FLOOR31'-212"8'-11"19'-912"LOT WIDTCH FOR SIDE SETBACKS 64'-812"MIDPOINT OFPROPERTY LINEMIDPOINT OFPROPERTYLINE28'-1012"15'(N) 6' TALLREDWOODFENCE ANDGATEAVERAGE ELEVATION FORDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPERIGHT SIDE:(100.61+99.93)/2 = 100.27AVERAGE ELEVATION FORDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPELEFT SIDE:(100.77+100.17)/2 = 100.47(E)POWER POLE1108CLOVERLLY LANEEXISTING HOUSE 1100CLOVERLLY LANEEXISTING HOUSE15'-4"7'-612"(E)6' TALL VERTICLEREDWOOD FENCINGTO REMAIN(E) 6' TALLVERTICALREDWOODFENCINGTO REMAIN(E)6' TALL VERTICLEREDWOOD FENCINGTO REMAIN(E) CONCDRIVEWAYTO REMAIN(N) 3'X6' CONC.PAVERS TYPTILEDDECK(N) ELECMETER (N) REDWOOD6' TALL FENCE31'-6"AVERAGE TOP OF CURB(100.33 + 100.4)/2 = 100.3622(E) ELEVATION100.77(E) ELEVATION100.6122GARAGE SETBACK2 7'-112"SEC. FLOOR SETBACK 3SECOND FLOORSETBACK #1AND CLOSESTDHA POINTSECOND FLOORSETBACK ANDCLOSEST DHAPOINT27'-712"FIRSTFLOORSETBACK210'X20'PARKINGSPACESEE NOTES PERPLAN CHECK/SHEET A1, NOTE #3213'-3"FIRST FLOORGAS METER(N)FIRST FLOORFIRST FLOOR (N) SEWERCLEANOUT7'-312"20'21'-6"SECOND FLOOR8'-912"22'-212"15'8'-312"11'-812"16'-3"15'-512"NEW 4 BEDROOM/ 4.5 BATHROOM SINGLERESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED ONE CARGARAGEDEMOLISH EXISTING SINGLE HOME WITH 3BEDROOMS/ 1 BATHROOM AND ATTACHEDONE CAR GARAGEA0TITLE PAGEA1SITE PLAN, PROJECT DATA, SHEET INDEX,GENERAL NOTESA1.1AREA DIAGRAMS AND ROOF ON SITE PLANA2EXISTING AND DEMOLITION PLANSA2.1EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3PROPOSED FLOOR PLANA4ROOF PLANA5PROPOSED ELEVATIONSA5.1PROPOSED ELEVATIONSA6SECTIONSA7ELECTRICAL PLANS- NOT INCLUDEDA8DETAILS- NOT INCLUDEDA9NOTES- NOT INCLUDEDC1TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEYT24TITLE 24 ENERGY REPORT- NOT INCLUDEDGBCALGREEN MANDATORY MEASURES1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM WITH THE FOLLOWINGCODES AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF BURLINGAME :-2016 CALIFORNIA RES IDENTIAL CODE-2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE-2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE-2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE-2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE-2016 BUILD ING ENERGY EFF ICIENCY STANDARDS-2016 CAL GREEN-2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE-BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE2. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED FORCOMPATIBILITY WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOWN HEREIN.3. ALL NOTES AND DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED.4. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE OBSERVED OVER SCALEDDIMENSIONS.5. SIMILAR DETAILS SHALL APPLY TO SIMILAR CONDITIONS.6. IN THE EVENT THAT DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND IN THEDRAWINGS, THE DESIGNER SHALL BE NOTIFIED BEFORE WORKCAN PROCEED.7. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORALL WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT, INCLUDINGBUT NOT LIMITED TO:- ALL WORK REQUIRED TO PREPARE FOR NEWCONSTRUCTION.- THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF ALL EXISTING PIPES,CONDUITS, WIRES, ETC., AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THEPROJECT.- THE MATCHING OF ALL NEW WALL, CEILING, ROOFINGMATERIALS AND TEXTURES, UNLESS NOTED OTHERW ISE.PROJECT DATAPROPERTY ADDRESS:1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME CAPROPERTY OWNER:BENNY CHEUNGA.P.N.:025232450ZONING:R-1OCCUPANCY GROUP:R-3/UTYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:V-BLOT SIZE:5,533 SQ.FT.MAX. ALLOWED:FAR IF ATTACHED ONE CAR GARAGE:32%X5533 +1100 s.f. = 1764.5 + 1100 = 2,870.5 SQ.FT.LOT COVERAGE:40%X5,533=2,213.2 SQ.FT.MAX. HEIGHT:30 FT.EXISTING:LIVING SPACE FIRST FLOOR1,185 SQ.FT.LIVING SPACE SECOND FLOOR 186 SQ.FT.GARAGE304 SQ.FT.STORAGE SHEDS 290 SQ.FT.TOTAL FAR1,965 SQ.F.TLOT COVERAGE 1,779 SQ.FT.EXISTING L.C. RATIO32.1%PROPOSED:F.A.R.:LIVING SPACE FIRST FLOOR1,473 SQ.FT.LIVING SPACE SECOND FLOOR1,162 SQ.FT.GARAGE 234 SQ.FT.TOTAL2,869 SQ.FT.LOT COVERAGE:FIRST FLOOR1,707 SQ.FT.ENTRY PORCH 28 SQ.FT.TOTAL 1,735 SQ.FT.RATIO 1,735/5,53331.3%(E)ELECT.METER(E) GASMETER TO BERELOCATEDPROPERTY LINE 10 1 . 19 ' PR O P E R T Y L I N E 1 2 2 . 3 2 'PROPERTY LINE 77.83'PROPERTY LINE 30.63'SETBACK L I N E SET B A C K L I N E SETBACK LINE F IRST FLOORSETBACK LINE SECOND FLOORSETBACK LINEFIRST FLOORSETBACK LINESECOND FLOORSETBACK LINE1 CAR GARAGE(E) SIDEWALK(E) ROLLED CURB(E) WATERMETER(E) ELEVATION100.40(E) ELEVATION100.33(E) ELEVATION100.17(E)ELEVATION99.93EXISTING HOUSETO BEDEMOLISHEDEXISTINGGARAGE TOBEDEMOLISHED304 SQ.FT.(E) 6' TALL WOODFENCE TO BEREPLACED(E)POWER POLE(E)6' TALL VERTICLEREDWOOD FENCINGTO REMAIN(E) 6' TALLVERTICALREDWOODFENCINGTO REMAIN(E)6' TALL VERTICLEREDWOOD FENCINGTO REMAIN(E) CONCDRIVEWAYTO REMAIN(E) 6' TALL WOODFENCE TO BEREPLACED46'-01 2"NO EXISTING TREESTO BE REMOVEDFIBER ROLL 8" MIN.INSTALL WITH 1"X1"STAKES AT 4' O.C.ALONG A LEVELCONTOUR.ENDS TO BE BATTEDTIGHTLY TOGETHERTO PREVENTLEAKAGE.(E) STORAGE SHEDSTO BE REMOVED260 S.F. + 30 S.F.8'-3"4'-612"222(E) GARAGE SE T B A C K20' CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010A1.2PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANSCALE 18"= 1'-0"1CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC.AUGUST 14, 2018(N) 24" BOXTRISTANIACONFERTA(N) 24" BOXCALOCEDRUSDECURRENS(N) 24" BOXTRISTANIACONFERTA(N) 15 GALRED OAK1108CLOVERLLY LANEEXISTING HOUSE 1100CLOVERLLY LANEEXISTING HOUSE(N) 3'X6' CONC.PAVERS TYP34661PLANT LISTBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEWATER USE1ABUTILON PALMERIINDIAN MALLOWLOW2ACHILLEAMILLEFOLIUMYARROWLOW3ALYOGYNE HUEGELIIBLUE HIBISCUSLOW4ARCTOSTAPHYLOSUVA-URSIRADIANT MANZANITALOW5GLECHOMAHEDERACEAGROUND IVYLOW6LANTANA HYBRIDSHYBRID LANTANALOW7EXISTING GRASS TOREMAINMODERATE/ MEDIUM824" PITTOSPORUMMODERATE/MEDIUM21243843567TILEDDECK3118888888884'-9"4'-9"4'-9"4'-9"4'-9"4'-9"4'-9"4'-9"4'-9" A2.1EXISTING FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"1CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC.DEC. 29 2017MARCH 19, 20181EXISTING REAR ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"2EXISTING RIGHT SIDE ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"3EXISTING LEFT SIDEELEVATION SCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"4APRIL 10, 2018223322332222MAY 7, 20183(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E) ROOFING ASPHALTCOMPOSITION TILESFIRST FLOOR(E) GRADE(E) FIRSTFLOOR PLATE(E)STUCCO(E) STUCCO(E) BRICKCHIMNEYAVERAGE CURB HEIGHT100.36 FT.11"100.36' + 19.45 = 119.81'(E) STUCCOTYP(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E) GRADEFIRST FLOOR8'2ND FLOOR(E) ROOFING ASPHALTCOMPOSITION TILES(E)(E) FIRSTFLOOR PLATE(E) STUCCO(E) BRICKCHIMNEYAVERAGE CURB HEIGHT100.36 FT.11"100.36' + 19.45 = 119.81'(E)(E)(E)(E) ROOFING ASPHALTCOMPOSITION TILES(E) GRADEFIRST FLOOR8'(E) FIRSTFLOOR PLATE(E) STUCCOTYP(E) BRICKCHIMNEY19'-51 2"100.36' + 19.45' = 119.81'11"AVERAGE CURB HEIGHT100.36 FT.(E)(E)(E)2ND FLOOR9'-10"(E) FIRSTFLOOR PLATE(E) GRADEFIRST FLOOR8'(E) ROOFING ASPHALTCOMPOSITION TILESTYP(E) BRICKCHIMNEY(E) STUCCOTYP.(E) STUCCO19'-51 2" 14'-2"AVERAGE CURB HEIGHT100.36 FT.11"100.36' + 19.45 = 119.81'WOOD GARAGE DOOR(E) WOODTRIM, TYP. A4PROPOSESD ROOF PLANSCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"2CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC.DEC. 29 2017MARCH 19, 20181WINDOW TRIM DETAIL SCALE 1"= 1'-0"3EXISTING ROOF PLAN TO BE REMOVEDSCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"1AUGUST 14, 20184DA6A6AAA6A6BBA6CA6CA6DA66/12SLOPE6/12SLOPERIDGE2ND FLOOR ROOF1ST FLOOR ROOF1ST FLOOR ROOFDOWNSPOUTSTYP1ST FLOOR ROOFRIDGE6/12SLOPE6/12 SLOPE 6/12SLOPE6/12 SLOPE 6/12 SLOPE RIDGE DECK6/12 SLOPE 1'6/12 SLOPE 6/12 SLOPE 6/12SLOPE6/12 SLOPE 6/12SLOPE6/12 SLOPE 2"11 2" 2"WINDOW TRIMWOOD OR COMPOSITETYP1"2"4/12SLOPE4/12SLOPE 4/12SLOPE4/12SLOPE4/12SLOPE4/12SLOPE 4/12SLOPE4/12SLOPE 4/12SLOPE4/12SLOPE4/12SLOPE4/12SLOPE(E) RIDGE (E) RIDGE (E) RIDGE(E) 1ST FLOORROOF(E) 2NDFLOORROOF1ST FLOOR WALLPERIMETER2ND FLOOR WALLPERIMETER(E) CHIMNEY TOBE REMOVED A5PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"1PROPOSED REAR ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"2CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC.DEC. 29 2017MARCH 19, 20181APRIL 10, 20182MAY 7, 20183AUGUST 14, 20184FIRST FLOOR PLATEFIRST FLOOR(E) GRADESECOND FLOOR PLATE1'-01 2"SECOND FLOOR9'-01 2"8'-1"1'-31 2"6'X4'6"CSMNT.WDW.EGRESSAVERAGE CURB HEIGHT100.36 FT.9"AVERAGE HEIGHT100.27 FT.AVERAGE HEIGHT100.47 FT.DECLININGHEIGHTENVELOPEPROPERTY LINE AT BEDROOM CORNER PROPERTY LINE AT MSTR. BEDROOM CORNER 13'-3"30'19'-912"27'100.36 + 27 = 127.36 FT.145238105451111111(E) GRADESECOND FLOORFIRST FLOORFIRST FLOOR PLATESECOND FLOOR PLATEAVERAGE HEIGHT100.27 FT.1268'-11"12' 9'-01 2" 30' 8'-1"AVERAGE HEIGHT100.47 FT.1'-01 2"DECLININGHEIGHTENVELOPEPROPERTY LINE AT POINT #1 MAX. HEIGHTSKYLIGHTs7'-6"8'-312"PROPERTY LINE AT STAIR CORNER AVERAGE CURB HEIGHT100.36 FT.1'-2" 12'-11 2"7'-6"100.36' + 30' = 130.36 FT.27'100.36 + 27 = 127.36 FT.11041452111137682'1010109555453124513TYPICAL EXTERIOR MATERIALS:178" 3-COAT STUCCO2ASPHALT COMPOSITION TILES3ALUMINUM GUTTERS ON 2X6 PAINTED WOOD FASCIA4ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS WITH SIMULATEDTRUE DIVIDED LIGHTS, TYP.5PAINTED WOOD TRIM6PAINTED WOOD GARAGE DOOR7 PAINTED WOOD PANELING8WROUGHT IRON GUARDRAIL9PAINTED WOOD DOOR WITH GLASS INSERT10ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS WITH SIMULATEDTRUE DIVIDED LIGHTS AND TRANSLUCENT GLASS11ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD SLIDING DOORS122X4 PAINTED WOOD BRACKETS13SELF ILLUMINATING HOUSE NUMBER A5.1PROPOSED RIGHT SIDE ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"1PROPOSED LEFT SIDE ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"2CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC.DEC. 29 2017MARCH 19, 20181APRIL 10, 20182MAY 7, 20183AUGUST 14, 20184EAVE DETAILSCALE 1"= 1'-0"3FOUNDATION DETAILSCALE 1"= 1'-0"4(E) GRADEFIRST FLOORFIRST FLOOR PLATESECOND FLOORSECOND FLOOR PLATE1261'-01 2"9'-01 2 "8'-1"1'-21 2" 10"AVERAGE CURB HEIGHT100.36 FT.27'100.36 + 27 = 127.36 FT.1452387110101055514545454545113129(E) GRADEFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORFIRST FLOOR PLATESECOND FLOOR PLATE6121'-2" 9'-01 2"1'-01 2"101 2"8'-1"AVERAGE CURB HEIGHT100.36 FT.27'100.36 + 27 = 127.36 FT.7145238454545454545454511'8" 1'-6"GRADETYPICAL EXTERIOR MATERIALS:178" 3-COAT STUCCO2ASPHALT COMPOSITION TILES3ALUMINUM GUTTERS ON 2X6 PAINTED WOOD FASCIA4ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS WITH SIMULATEDTRUE DIVIDED LIGHTS, TYP.5PAINTED WOOD TRIM6PAINTED WOOD GARAGE DOOR7 PAINTED WOOD PANELING8WROUGHT IRON GUARDRAIL9PAINTED WOOD DOOR WITH GLASS INSERT10ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS WITH SIMULATEDTRUE DIVIDED LIGHTS AND TRANSLUCENT GLASS11ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD SLIDING DOORS122X4 PAINTED WOOD BRACKETS13SELF ILLUMINATING HOUSE NUMBER A6A-A SECTIONSCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"1B-B SECTIONSCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"2C-C SECTIONSCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"3D-D SECTIONSCALE 1/4"= 1'-0"4CHEUNG RESIDENCE 1104 CLOVELLY LANE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 CORNELIA HABERDACA BUILDERS INC.DEC. 29 2017MARCH 19, 20181AUGUST 14, 20184(E) GRADEFIRST FLOORSUBFLOOR8"GARAGEBATHROOM#4BATHROOM#3BEDROOM#4CLOSET1'-6"MIN DININGROOMBEYONDMASTERBATHROOMSECOND FLOORSUBFLOOR8'-1"TOP OFPLATELANDING7'6'-2"FOUNDATIONPER STR PLANTYP9'-01 2"TOP OFPLATE4"NOTE: TYPE "X" GYP BDON ALL WALLS &CEILING UNDER STAIRSISLANDKITCHEN1'-6"MIN.DECKENTRYHOODFOUNDATIONPER STR PLANTYPLANDING9'-01 2"8'-1"(E) GRADEFIRST FLOORSUBFLOORSECOND FLOORSUBFLOORTOP OFPLATETOP OFPLATED-D1'-6" MIN KITCHENDININGROOMBEYONDMASTERBEDROOMMASTERBATHROOMGARAGEFOUNDATIONPER STRPLAN, typ.6" 9'-01 2"8'-1"(E) GRADEFIRST FLOORSUBFLOORSECOND FLOORSUBFLOORTOP OFPLATETOP OFPLATEGARAGESTORAGE1'-6" MIN MASTERBATHROOMDININGROOMBEYOND9'-01 2"8'-1" 7'-01 2 "(E) GRADEFIRST FLOORSUBFLOOR8"SECOND FLOORSUBFLOORTOP OFPLATETOP OFPLATE4'LANDING POLARIS SURVEYORS PROJECT LOCATION 717 Neuchatel Avenue Item No. 8b Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit Address: 717 Neuchatel Avenue Meeting Date: August 27, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new attached garage. Applicant and Architect: Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture APN: 029-051-160 Property Owners: Lamar Zhao and Jennifer Guan Lot Area: 3,499 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The existing one-story house with a detached one-car garage contains 1,157 SF (0.33 FAR) of floor area. The proposed project includes additions on the first floor, a new second story, and a new attached one-car garage along the left side of the house. The proposed project would increase the total floor area to 2,164 SF (0.62 FAR), where 2,220 SF (0.63 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project is 56 SF below the maximum allowable floor area. The existing house has two bedrooms and with the addition, the number of bedrooms will increase to four. Staff notes that the study room on the first floor qualifies as a bedroom since it is enclosed and measures at least 70 SF in area. The proposal includes demolishing the existing detached garage and replacing it with a new, attached one-car garage (10’-2” x 20’-2” clear interior dimensions). The attached garage is setback 25’-9½” from the front property line where 25’-0” is the minimum required for a one-car garage. One uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. There is an existing uncovered landing at the front entry of the house. The landing does not extend more than 30 inches above grade, therefore it does not affect setback or lot coverage requirements. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing landing with a new front covered porch with approximately the same footprint, which requires a request for a Front Setback Variance (15’-5” proposed where 19’-6” is required based on the average of the block). The proposed front porch does not extend further than the existing landing. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and a new attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2) and (6));  Front Setback Variance for a new front covered porch (15’-5” proposed where 19’-6” is required based on the average of the block) (C.S. 25.26.072 (b) (1)); and  Special Permit for an attached one-car garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 8b Regular Action Item Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit 717 Neuchatel Avenue 2 717 Neuchatel Avenue Lot Area: 3,499 SF Plans date stamped: June 21 and August 17, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): Attached Garage: 20'-11" to house n/a n/a 15’-5” to new porch ¹ 28'-2" 25’-9½” 19'-6" (block average) 20'-0" 25’-0” Side (left): (right): 7'-11" 3'-5½" 3’-6” 3'-5½" 3'-0" 3'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 33'-9½" n/a 23'-1½" 27'-1½" 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1164 SF 33.2% 1399 SF 39.9% 1400 SF 40% FAR: 1157 SF 0.33 FAR 2164 SF 0.62 FAR 2220 SF ² 0.63 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10'-2" x 20'-2”) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 19'-2½" 27'-10" 30’-0” DH Envelope: complies complies using window enclosure exception on right side and gable exception on left side C.S. 25.26.075 ¹ Front Setback Variance required for new front porch (15’-5” proposed where 19’-6” is required based on the block average). ³ (0.32 x 3499 SF) + 1100 SF = 2220 SF (0.63 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on August 13, 2018, the Commission had several comments regarding the proposed project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all of the required information has been submitted (see the attached August 13, 2018, Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached applicant’s response letter and revised plans, date stamped August 17, 2018, for responses to the Commission’s comments. A revised Variance Application, date stamped August 17, 2018 is attached. In summary, the following changes were made:  The previously proposed gable over the master tub has been replaced with a shed dormer (see revised building elevations, sheets A3.1 and A3.2).  A 2’ x 2’ was added in the family room facing the side yard (see revised First Floor Plan and West Elevation (sheets A2.2 and A3.2, respectively). Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit 717 Neuchatel Avenue 3 Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring a combination of gable and shed roofs, composition shingle roofing, proportional plate heights, stucco siding, fiberglass clad wood windows (with simulated true divided lites and wood trim), wood gable vents and roof fascia is compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood, and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings for Front Porch: That the substandard lot size (3,499 SF) and siting of the existing house on the lot presents an extraordinary circumstance and limits enlarging the existing house and adding a front porch, which is encouraged in the city’s design guidelines to break up the massing; that the 19’-6” block average is based on existing houses that do not contain front porches; that the existing uncovered front entry landing is being replaced with a new front covered porch with the same front setback and approximately the same footprint; and therefore granting a Variance for this porch would not be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and general welfare and would increase the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. Therefore, the project may be found compatible with the requirements of the City’s four Variance criteria. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit 717 Neuchatel Avenue 4 (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Findings for Special Permit (Attached Garage): For the following reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above:  that because the attached one-car garage is set back 6’-3½” from the front of the existing house, 10’-4½” from the front of the new front porch, and 25’-9½” from the front property line, and contains a shed roof facing the front property line and gable end facing the left side property line, the garage and addition are consistent with the design of the existing house and the massing in the neighborhood with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city;  that because the attached garage contains a shed roof, wood door and is set back from the existing house and new front porch, the attached garage is not the dominant feature along the front façade and therefore is consistent with the existing house and neighborhood which contains a mix of attached and detached garages;  that because the attached garage contains gabled and hipped roofs to match and tie into the existing house, is set back 3’-6” from the side property line, contains a window to break up the garage side wall, and is located next to an existing attached garage on the adjacent property, it will not have a negative impact on the adjacent property;  that no existing trees will be removed for construction of the attached garage or addition; one, 24-inch box tree is proposed in the front yard to comply with the city’s reforestation requirements. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 17, 2018, sheets A2.2, A2.3, A3.1 and A3.2, and date stamped June 21, 2018, sheets A0.1, A0.2, A1.1, A2.1, A3.3 and A9.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit 717 Neuchatel Avenue 5 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. 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; 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. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and architect Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit 717 Neuchatel Avenue 6 Attachments: August 13, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated August 17, 2018 Application to the Planning Commission Variance Application Special Permit Application Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 17, 2018 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 13, 2018 a.717 Neuchatel Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Front Setback Variance, and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and architect; Lamar Zhao and Jennifer Guan, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 717 Neuchatel Ave - Staff Report 717 Neuchatel Ave - Attachments 717 Neuchate Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Would the metal porch railing need to be higher than 24 inches? (Davis: Only if it is higher than 30 inches from grade. Will note on the site plan.) >What is driving the placement of the dormer window in front of the bathtub in the master bathroom? (Davis: Exterior appearance, so it would look less horizontal.) >Variance application could be strengthened with referencing extraordinary conditions of small lot. The standard setbacks and block average requirements are based on a typical lot. This lot is less than 3,500 square feet. Furthermore the house is built as it is, and in order to keep the bedrooms as they are the circumstances could support a variance. >Where did the average front setback calculation come from? (Davis: A neighbor was doing a remodel and had a surveyor prepare a survey the block. 19'-6" is the prevailing block average from the survey.) >Porch seems deep. Is there a possibility of having the porch be partially recessed into the house, and just a 3-foot projection forward, just to reduce the depth of the porch projection? The recessed garage makes the porch feel like it is projecting even more. Perhaps even just 18 inches. (Davis: Existing porch has enough depth to have a 3-foot arched opening on either side. Arches would be squished if it the porch were pushed back. >Why does the right-hand side wall on the family room not have any windows? It does not seem like it would have a privacy issue with neighbors. (Davis: Can look at it. Was designed to accommodate book shelves inside. The adjacent neighbor to the right reviewed the plans specifically to make sure nobody could see their side, and they were fine with what is proposed.) Public Comments: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/21/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes project, including the porch. Does not think it will be very intrusive. >Minor quibble: dormer seems to clutter an otherwise nice simple design, but it is not very visible so is not critical. >Family room wall was a concern but it can't be seen. Would not make it unapprovable. >The wall in the family room would provide a place for a television, since there are the glass doors across the back. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/21/2018 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit for an attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 717 Neuchatel Avenue, zoned R-1, Lamar Zhao and Jennifer Guan, property owners, APN: 029-051-160; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 27, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit 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 27th day of August, 2018 by the following vote EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit. 717 Neuchatel Avenue Effective September 6, 2018 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 17, 2018, sheets A2.2, A2.3, A3.1 and A3.2, and date stamped June 21, 2018, sheets A0.1, A0.2, A1.1, A2.1, A3.3 and A9.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the 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; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit. 717 Neuchatel Avenue Effective September 6, 2018 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed 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. 8/28/2019 18-638 - 717 Neuchatel Ave - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/3 18-638 - 717 Neuchatel Ave - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf /41 8/28/2019 18-638 - 717 Neuchatel Ave - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/3 18-638 - 717 Neuchatel Ave - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf /41 8/28/2019 18-638 - 717 Neuchatel Ave - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 3/3 18-638 - 717 Neuchatel Ave - Plans - 08.27.18.pdf /41 City of Burlingame Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Address: 824 Cowan Road Meeting Date: August 27, 2018 Request: Application for Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to increase the size of an existing incidental food establishment to more than 1,500 SF (New England Lobster Co.). Applicant and Architect: Una Kinsella, UMK APN: 024-390-210 Property Owner: Marc Worrall, New England Lobster Co., Inc. Lot Area: 31,819 SF General Plan: Industrial and Office Zoning: IB Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review. Current Use: Office, warehouse, and incidental food establishment for New England Lobster Company. Proposed Use: Same as current use; increase the size of the existing incidental food establishment. Allowable Use: Incidental food establishment that is more than 1,500 SF with approval of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment. History: On May 23, 2011, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for an office, storage/warehouse and incidental food establishment (kitchen, retail, and seating area) at 824-826 Cowan Road. After being in operation for approximately one year, the applicant requested to amend the Conditional Use Permit to allow increased hours of operation and alcoholic beverage sales for the incidental food establishment portion of the business. This amendment was approved on September 10, 2012. Project Description: The applicant, representing New England Lobster Company, is requesting approval of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit granted in May, 2011 to increase the size of the existing incidental food establishment to more than 1,500 SF at 824 Cowan Road, zoned IB. New England Lobster occupies both buildings on the site. There are no proposed changes to 826 Cowan Road, the building at the rear of the property is used for warehouse/storage. The building at the front of the site, 824 Cowan Road, currently contains a mix of uses including 6,145 SF of warehouse at the rear of the building, and 2,355 SF of office and 1,500 SF of incidental food establishment (including kitchen, retail, and seating areas) at the front of the building. The company operations on the site include a wholesale supply and shipping use in the warehouse portions of the buildings, as well as office and incidental food establishment uses in the building at 824 Cowan. The applicant notes that the office portion of the 824 Cowan Road building is underutilized and that there is a demand to increase the incidental food establishment business. The current application request is to amend the Conditional Use Permit to increase the size of the incidental food establishment in the building from 1,500 SF to 3,750 SF. Interior tenant improvements are proposed that will convert a total of 2,250 SF of existing office and warehouse space to be part of the existing 1,500 SF kitchen, seating area, and retail space, for a proposed 3,750 SF of incidental food establishment. With the proposed changes, the main use on the site will remain warehouse/storage for the wholesale business. The warehouse/storage use on the site is proposed to be decreased from 75.4% to 71.5% and the office use is proposed to be decreased from 14.9% to 5%. The incidental food establishment is proposed to be increased from 9.5% to 23.8%. The existing parking on the site is non-conforming, with 25 parking spaces required for the existing uses where there are 18 existing on-site parking spaces. The parking area is accessed by an entry driveway at the right side of the property and vehicles exit using the driveway at the left side of the property, which includes a 10'-4" recorded easement with the property at 836 Cowan Road. Per C.S. 25.43.080(c), incidental food establishments Item No. 8d Regular Action Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 824 Cowan Road -2- (those that are not the primary use of the building) located within the IB District shall provide parking on-site at the rate of one parking space for every three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area of food establishment use. The proposed change in uses in the building require two (2) additional on-site parking spaces. The applicant proposes to re-stripe the existing parking areas between the buildings on the site to create two new parking spaces, so that the on-site parking will total 20 spaces. All previously approved operational criteria for the Conditional Use Permit are proposed to remain the same, including the hours of operation for the incidental food establishment (open seven days a week from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.) and the a sale of alcoholic beverages (Type 41- On-Sale Beer and Wine). The number of employees is not regulated in the conditions of approval, however the applicant anticipates that with the proposed changes, the number of employees will increase from 12 during the weekdays and 6 on the weekends to approximately 17 during the weekdays and 15 on the weekends. There are no proposed exterior changes to any of the buildings or to the existing landscaping on the site. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow an incidental food establishment that is not the primary use of the building and does not meet the criteria of C.S. 25.44.020(e)(3); the food establishment is proposed to be increased to more than 1,500 SF (C.S. 25.44.030)(f). 824 Cowan Road Lot Area: 31,819 SF Plans date stamped: August 3, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Uses: Office, warehouse, storage and incidental food establishment no change Office, warehouse, storage and incidental food establishment permitted Size of Incidental Food Establishment: 1,500 SF 3,750 ² Incidental food establishment is permitted up to 1,500 SF; over 1,500 SF is permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit 1 Application for amendment to Conditional Use Permit to increase the size of an incidental food establishment to more than 1,500 SF (C.S. 25.43.030 (f)). Staff Comments: The Division comments included in the attachments will be addressed during the Building Permit application. Planning staff would note that because this application request is for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit and because required parking is being provided on site, the application was placed directly on the action calendar. If the Commission feels there is a need for more discussion, this item may be placed on a future action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 824 Cowan Road -3- (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Conditional Use Permit Findings: That the proposed uses are the same as the approved conditional uses on the site, with the food establishment remaining an incidental use relative to the other uses on the site; that the uses are compatible with the surrounding office and industrial uses in the zoning district and with the Burlingame general plan; that the required off-street parking for the change in uses will be provided on site; and that there are no proposed exterior changes to the building that will impact the streetscape or surrounding businesses. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s Conditional Use Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 3, 2018, sheet A1, including 20 on-site striped parking spaces and a maximum 3,750 SF of incidental food establishment; 2. that the incidental food establishment may not be open for business except during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week and that any change to the hours of operation which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 3. that the Conditional Use Permit to expand the hours of operation of an incidental food establishment shall apply only to the incidental food establishment and shall become void if it replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 7, 2018, memo an the Engineer's August 22, 2018, memo shall be met; 5. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures 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 the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 7. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. Marc Worrall, applicant Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 824 Cowan Road -4- Attachments: • Application to the Planning Commission • Conditional Use Permit Forms • Supplemental Form for Commercial Applications • Applicant's Letter of Explanation • Staff Comments • Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) • Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 17, 2018 • Address Map Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REGULAR ACTION (Public Hearing): Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Chapter 25.70.034 to amend hotel and motel parking regulations. MEETING DATE: August 27, 2018 AGENDA ITEM: 8e ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed changes to the zoning code to amend hotel and motel parking regulations is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines which states that minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, are exempt from environmental review. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission should review the proposal for the amendment to the zoning code, consider all public testimony (both oral and written) and, following conclusion of the public hearing, consider recommending adoption of the ordinance by the City Council, or alternatively, provide direction to staff regarding modifications to the ordinance prior to formulation of a recommendation to the City Council: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND HOTEL AND MOTEL PARKING REGULATIONS BACKGROUND In June 2017, the City Council’s Economic Development Subcommittee conducted a periodic check-in with the local hotel general managers. As part of the discussion, the managers encouraged the City to conduct a review of the parking requirements for hotels due to underutilization of their existing parking facilities. Data provided at that time, showed that some of the hotels had as much as 20% of on-site parking being unused on a regular basis and that in some instances, the percentage of unused parking spaces was greater. Managers cited three influencing factors: the popularity of ride-share services such as Lyft and Uber, the high use of hotel shuttles by guests, and the use of hotels in Burlingame as lodging for flight crews. Ride- share services and the availability of hotel shuttles are affordable alternatives to renting a car and given the close proximity to the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and flight crews use hotel shuttles for transport to and from the hotels. On July 3, 2017, the City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to proceed with a review and potential modification of parking requirements for hotel uses. Current zoning code regulations (Chapter 25.70.034) require hotels and motels to provide one parking space for every one room. A survey of all the local hotels and motels (12 hotels/motels in total) was conducted in May 2018 to evaluate parking utilization for each respective hotel/motel. The following section is an analysis and discussion of the survey findings. Amendments to Title 25 – Updates to Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations August 27, 2018 2 Survey Findings: In May 2018, Planning staff conducted an online survey to gather hotel and motel information for parking and room occupancy. Of the twelve hotels and motels in Burlingame, eight general managers responded to the survey (7 online, 1 by phone). The table below summarizes data collected from the survey. Some hotels provided the specific number of cars parked on a monthly and annual basis. For the remaining hotels, the daily average of unused spaces was calculated taking the total annual parking revenue for 2017 and dividing it by the daily parking rate. The weekly average of hotel occupancy was directly provided by survey respondents. Table 1. Summary of Burlingame Hotel and Motel Parking and Occupancy in 2017 Hotel/Motel Operator Total Rooms Total Spaces Daily Average of Not Used by Guests** Weekly Average of Hotel Occupancy Paid Parking Fees Park & Fly Bay Landing* 130 - - - - - Crowne Plaza 309 317 54% 80-90% Self-parking: $24/daily Valet: $26/daily Yes Doubletree 395 250 81% 91% Self-parking: $26/daily No valet Yes Embassy Suites 340 325 94% 90% Free to the public; Self-parking: $29/daily No Hampton Inn & Suites* 77 - - - - - Hilton Garden Inn 132 139 Does not track 80-85% Free Parking No Hilton SFO 400 400 Not provided on survey 92% Self-parking: $20/ daily Valet: $26/daily Yes Holiday Inn Express* 146 - - - - - Hyatt Regency 789 798 75% 83.8% - 85.6% Self-parking: $25/daily Yes Marriott 688 630 79-80% 87.4% Self-parking: $30/daily Valet: $35/daily No Red Roof Plus+* 213 - - - - - Vagabond Inn 90 78 Did not track in 2017 88.5% Free Parking with exception of park- and-fly Yes * These hotels did not participate in the survey. ** These figures represent hotel occupancy only; park-and-fly utilization is not included in these figures. Based on the data collected, there is a high underutilization of parking facilities by hotel guests at the respective hotels – ranging from 54% to 94% of the parking spaces being vacant, or more specifically not being utilized by hotel guests. Findings from the survey also included the following: • 100% of the hotels and motels surveyed provide complimentary airport shuttle service; and • the average hotel stay for flight crews is one to three days. Amendments to Title 25 – Updates to Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations August 27, 2018 3 Comparison to Similar Cities: All the Burlingame hotels and motels are located at the Bayfront and are in close proximity to the San Francisco International Airport. The farthest distance between the airport and a hotel/motel in Burlingame is three miles and the closest distance is less than one mile. Ride-share and airport shuttle services as alternative transportation options to hotel and motel guests, in addition to flight crew occupancy (for one of the hotels surveyed, flight crews make up 25% of their overall hotel occupancy), are bolstered due to this unique circumstance. These factors in turn, reduce parking demand at hotels and motels. Table 2 summarizes the hotel and motel parking requirements for cities near the three major airports in the Bay Area: San Francisco International (SFO), Oakland International (OAK), and San José International (SJC). Table 2. Hotel and Motel Parking Requirements in Cities near Major Airports in the Bay Area Near San Francisco International Airport Burlingame 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room San Bruno 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 1 space for resident manager San Mateo 2 spaces for every 5 hotel/motel rooms South San Francisco 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 2 spaces adjacent to registration office; Specific parking requirements for airport hotels and motels (see attachments) Near Oakland International Airport Oakland Based on zoning area ranging from the following parking requirements: • no parking required; • 1 space for 1 motel room, 1 space for each 2 hotel rooms; or • 1 space for 1 motel room, 3 spaces for every 4 hotel rooms. Alameda 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 1 space for resident manager Hayward 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 1 space for each 2 employees San Leandro 1.1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 1 space for every 50 SF of banquet seating area Near San José International Airport San José 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 1 space per employee Cupertino 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 1 space per employee Milpitas 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 2 spaces per manager’s unit Santa Clara 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room Amendments to Title 25 – Updates to Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations August 27, 2018 4 Potential Alternatives: Based on the information in this report and additional research into the basis for the development of parking regulations, the Commission may utilize one or more of the following to define an alternative to the current hotel and motel parking requirement in Burlingame: • Propose a decreased parking ratio that aligns with the data provided in this report; • Allow a Conditional Use Permit (as opposed to a Variance) to reduce the number of parking required for a particular hotel; • Impose no parking requirement, and instead allow hotels and motels to determine how much parking to provide to meet anticipated demand; or • Maintain the existing hotel and motel parking requirement. June 25, 2018 – Planning Commission Hearing: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed hotel and motel parking amendments at their June 25, 2018 meeting and discussed the potential alternatives. The commission came to consensus that a Conditional Use Permit for parking reduction would be the best approach. A detailed summary of the commission’s discussion is provided in the attached June 25, 2018 Planning Commission minutes. DISCUSSION The attached Draft Ordinance sets forth text amendments to the City’s existing hotel and motel parking regulations to address the underutilization of parking at nearly half of the City’s hotel and motel establishments. A reduction in parking from the existing parking standards would provide hotel and motel operators additional options with how to utilize excess parking areas which may include, but is not limited to, the following: • Expansion of existing park-and-fly programs that would generate increased revenue for hotels/motels; • Allow existing hotels/motels that cannot have a park-and-fly program due to the existing parking requirements to have the opportunity to consider a park-and-fly program; • Allow new (and existing) hotel/motel projects to propose their own parking ratios based on documented and/or anticipated demand; • Allow for mixed uses or expansion of mixed uses on site such as restaurant or commercial recreation; and • Reduction in underutilized land. Proposed amendment to Code Section 25.70.034 (Off-street Parking): Staff has prepared an amendment to the hotel and motel parking regulations that allows existing and new hotels/motels the opportunity to request a reduction in the amount of required parking without seeking a Variance. The proposed amendment is an added provision to Code Section 25.70.034 that would allow parking reductions through approval of a Conditional Use Permit and establishes criteria for approval of such requests. See attachments for complete language of the proposed amendments. Amendments to Title 25 – Updates to Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations August 27, 2018 5 Prepared by: ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner Attachments:  June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes  Code Section 25.70.034 Zoning Regulations – Redlines with proposed amendments  Proposed Resolution Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Code)  Code Section 25.70.034 – existing  Hotel Parking Survey Questions  Public Hearing Notice – published August 16, 2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 25, 2018 a.Consideration of amendments to Chapter 25.70 (Off-Street Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend motel and hotel parking requirements. Code Amendment to Chapter 25.70.034 - Staff Report Code Amendment to Chapter 25.70.034 - Attachments Attachments: Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >At least one hotel is interested in park -and-fly. Have other hotels expressed interest in other uses, or expanding with more rooms without needing to provide more parking? (Gardiner: The hotels that we know have expressed interest in expansion of existing park -and-fly program, and reduction in the parking requirement for a new hotel. This would provide the opportunity for hotels not interested in park -and-fly to expand if they wanted to.) >Does park-and-fly require a Conditional Use Permit? (Gardiner: Yes, currently. Depending on the approach, hotels may request a separate Conditional Use Permit for park -and-fly in addition to a Conditional Use Permit for parking reduction.) >What other uses are permitted on those sites? Are restaurants permitted? (Gardiner: Offices, restaurants, lodging, commercial recreation. For example, a hotel could expand its restaurant offerings . There may be a wider range of uses that could be accommodated beyond just park-and-fly.) >Does a Conditional Use Permit run with the property? (Gardiner: Yes, provided that the characteristics documented with the issuance of the CUP remains, it would run with the property. If a hotel changed ownership but the operations stayed the same, the CUP would still run with the hotel. It could be amended over time if the hotel changes its business model, for instance.) >Will not see the effect of this for years from now, but an alternative use to parking such as another amenity like a restaurant would be a better utilization of the space. Would prefer a reduced parking ratio or a Conditional Use Permit for parking reductions. >Concerned with setting a ratio because it may go too far. The San Mateo 0.4 ratio seems low. However the arguments are compelling with rideshare and other similar services. >Open to reducing the ratio, and reducing it in half would not be unreasonable given the survey findings. Was the South San Francisco example for parking reductions based on certain criteria? (Gardiner: There are two different types of parking reductions - one specific to hotels and another that is more general and applies to all land uses. Would opt for the more general option because the main challenge is figuring out the right parking ratio. May better serve hotels if they could put forth their own proposal based on their documented demand and intended use of the spaces.) >Concerned that we reduce the ratio and something changes in the hotel industry where parking Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes demand increases. (Gardiner: Not aware of existing planning trends or dynamic that foresees an increased demand for parking. Trends we are seeing with rideshare and possibility of self -driving cars in the future would both reduce parking demand.) >How would parking needs be met when hotels have large events such as weddings and conferences? (Gardiner: It is something the hotel operator would need to take into account. Even with a reduced ratio, they may still need to build in a buffer for such occasions. Hotels have mentioned one option for special events is providing valet service which allows stacked parking. Some hotels may opt to retain more parking even if it would be allowed to be reduced.) >A Conditional Use Permit would allow for special circumstances. Letters submitted from the hotels state that the circumstances for each hotel are unique. We should look at each circumstance on a case by case basis. Allows the Commission to ask questions about special circumstances. >Via a Conditional Use Permit, let the hotel propose their own parking ratio instead of setting one parking ratio that tries to address each hotel's unique circumstances. >The option of no parking requirement and leaving the applicant to decide is a slippery slope . Applicants for apartment and condominium residential projects have just as much interest to say that they should determine their own parking standards. There is community interest in the Planning Commission being involved and there should still be control and review in what parking is required. There was no action on this item since it was a Study Item. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2018 Proposed Amendments 25.70.034 Requirements for rooming houses, motels, hotels, group residential facilities for the elderly. The following are parking requirements for rooming houses, motels, hotels, and group residential facilities for the elderly: (a) Lodging Houses, Rooming Houses. There shall be provided one parking space for each two (2) lodging rooms plus one parking space for each two (2) persons employed on the premises, including the owner or manager. (b) Motels, Hotels. There shall be provided one parking space for each dwelling unit or lodging room, except as provided in subsection 25.70.034 (d). (c) Group Residential Facilities for Elderly People. There shall be provided one parking space for each three (3) residential units where such facilities are designed as separate units; if designed as lodging rooms, one space for each four (4) lodgers, plus one space for each two (2) people employed on the premises. (Ord. 1586 § 49, (1998); Ord. 1863 § 12, (2011)) (d) Parking Reductions. Required parking for motels or hotels may be reduced through approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (1) Criteria for Approval. (A) Special conditions—including but not limited to proximity to frequent transit service; transportation characteristics of persons residing, working, or visiting the site; or because the applicant has undertaken a transportation demand management program—exist that will reduce parking demand at the site; (B) The use will adequately be served by the proposed on-site parking; and (C) Parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area. (2) Parking Demand Study. In order to evaluate a proposed project’s compliance with the above criteria, the Community Development Director may require submittal of a parking demand study that substantiates the basis for granting a reduced number of spaces. RESOLUTION NO. __________ 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND HOTEL AND MOTEL PARKING REGULATIONS THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS: WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments would allow parking reductions for hotel and motel operators through approval of a Conditional Use Permit ; as reflected in the edits to Title 25, Chapter 25.70.034, as detailed in Exhibit A, attached; WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the zoning code are considered minor alterations to land use limitations, which are Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame on July 3, 2017 directed staff to proceed with amendments for hotel and motel parking regulations; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 27, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that it adopt amendments to Title 25 (zoning code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend the hotel and motel parking regulations to allow parking reductions through approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Chairperson I, __________________________, Secretary of the Burlingame Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of August 2018 by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: _________________________ Secretary EXHIBIT “A” 2 Proposed Amendments 25.70.034 Requirements for rooming houses, motels, hotels, group residential facilities for the elderly. The following are parking requirements for rooming houses, motels, hotels, and group residential facilities for the elderly: (a) Lodging Houses, Rooming Houses. There shall be provided one parking space for each two (2) lodging rooms plus one parking space for each two (2) persons employed on the premises, including the owner or manager. (b) Motels, Hotels. There shall be provided one parking space for each dwelling unit or lodging room, except as provided in subsection 25.70.034 (d). (c) Group Residential Facilities for Elderly People. There shall be provided one parking space for each three (3) residential units where such facilities are designed as separate units; if designed as lodging rooms, one space for each four (4) lodgers, plus one space for each two (2) people employed on the premises. (Ord. 1586 § 49, (1998); Ord. 1863 § 12, (2011)) (d) Parking Reductions. Required parking for motels or hotels may be reduced through approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (1) Criteria for Approval. (A) Special conditions—including but not limited to proximity to frequent transit service; transportation characteristics of persons residing, working, or visiting the site; or because the applicant has undertaken a transportation demand management program—exist that will reduce parking demand at the site; (B) The use will adequately be served by the proposed on-site parking; and (C) Parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area. (2) Parking Demand Study. In order to evaluate a proposed project’s compliance with the above criteria, the Community Development Director may require submittal of a parking demand study that substantiates the basis for granting a reduced number of spaces. Thank you for participating in our survey. Your feedback is important as it will provide the information needed for evaluation and potential modification of parking standards for hotel uses. For questions about the survey, please contact Associate Planner, 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi at ameliak@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7216. Welcome Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey General Information Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey Main Contact Person Hotel Name Address Email Address Phone Number 1. Hotel Contact Information* 2. Total number of hotel employees:* 3. Total number of hotel rooms:* 4. Total number of parking spaces on-site:* 1 Other (please specify) 5. Please select the alternate transportation options available at your hotel. Check all that apply.* Airport shuttle Shuttle service around town Rideshare (e.g. Uber, Lyft) Bikeshare (e.g. LimeBike) Carpool/Vanpool None of the above These questions relate to the types of parking and parking program/s available on-site at your hotel. Parking Types and Programs Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey 6. Total number of parking spaces designated for employees only:* 7. Total number of free parking spaces:* 8. Total number of paid parking spaces:* 9. Does your hotel offer valet parking?* Yes No 10. How many parking spaces are designated for valet parking? Skip this question if not applicable. 11. Does your hotel have a Park and Fly Program?* Yes No, but we are interested in having one. No, we are not interested in having one. 2 12. How many parking spaces are designated for Park and Fly? Skip this question if not applicable. It is important that we have supporting data to evaluate existing hotel parking trends. This data should include parking vacancy and parking occupancy for all parking types (employee parking, free parking, paid parking, valet parking, Park & Fly). If you are unable to provide this data or if the file size is too big to upload, please contact ameliak@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7216. Parking Trends Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey No file chosen 13. Please upload here parking data for the year 2017.* Choose File No file chosen 14. If available, please upload here parking data for 2016. Choose File Answers to these questions help to evaluate hotel parking trend/s in correlation to trends in hotel occupancy. Hotel Occupancy Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey 15. What was the weekly (weekday and weekend) hotel occupancy rate for the year of 2017?* 16. What was the weekly (weekday and weekend) hotel occupancy rate for the year 2016? No file chosen 17. Please upload here any available hotel occupancy data for the year 2017. Choose File No file chosen 18. Please upload here any available hotel occupancy data for the year 2016. Choose File 3 19. Does your hotel provide any special promotions for flight crews?* Yes No Other (please specify) 20. What is the average length of stay for flight crews?* 1-3 days 4-7 days 8-14 days more than 14 days 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION will hold a public hearing to consider amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning Ordinance, to amend motel and hotel parking regulations. The Planning Commission will review the proposed amendments to Section 25.70.034 of the Municipal Code, and make a recommendation to the City Council. The hearing will be held on Monday, August 27, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. The staff report for this item and copies of the proposed amendments may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department, Planning Division, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; and on the City's website at www.burlingame.org. For additional information please call the Planning Division at (650) 558-7250. To be published Friday, August 17, 2018. PROJECT LOCATION 2721 Martinez Drive Item No. 9a Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2721 Martinez Drive Meeting Date: August 27, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Architect: Xie Guan, Xie Associates APN: 025-023-040 Property Owner: Lin Yun Ping Lot Area: 10,015 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The site is located on a sloping lot, which slopes upward from front to rear by seven feet and upward from left to right by ten feet. The existing two-story house with an attached two-car garage contains 3,484 SF of floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a first and second story addition to the main dwelling and to add an attached secondary dwelling unit on the lower floor, which would increase the total floor area to 3,998 SF (0.40 FAR), where 4,305 SF (0.43 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project is 7 SF below the maximum allowable floor area. The subject property is located in the Hillside Area and Code Section 25.61.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code states that no new structure or any addition to all or a portion of an existing structure shall be constructed within the affected area without a Hillside Area Construction Permit. Staff notes that the application includes the addition of a new attached accessory dwelling unit on the lower floor of the main dwelling (behind the attached garage). Per State law, review of the accessory dwelling unit application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has reviewed the design of the accessory dwelling unit and has determined that it complies with the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance requirements (Chapter 25.59). The ordinance includes a number of performance standards, including the requirement that the accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate the same or similar architectural features, building materials and colors as the primary dwelling located on the property. With this application, the number of bedrooms will increase from three to five. Three off-street parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required for this project. The existing attached garage provides two covered parking spaces (18’-4” wide x 22’-3” deep clear interior dimensions provided where 18’-0” x 18’-0” is the minimum required for an existing garage) and one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’ as measured to the inner edge of the sidewalk) is provided in the driveway. The required uncovered parking space for the accessory dwelling unit is also provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant requests the following applications:  Design Review for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)); and  Hillside Area Construction Permit (C.S. 25.61.020). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 9a Design Review Study Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2721 Martinez Drive 2 2721 Martinez Drive Lot Area: 10,015 SF Plans date stamped: August 17, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 14'-11” ¹ 14’-11” ¹ no change no change 15'-6" (block average) 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 7'-8" 12’-0” 7’-8” 7’-0” 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 43’-6” 60’-6” 35’-4” 45’-4” to deck 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2905 SF 29% 3716 SF 37.1% 4006 SF 40% FAR: 3484 SF 0.35 FAR 3998 SF 0.40 FAR 4305 SF ¹ 0.43 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 5 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (18-4” x 22'-3”) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) no change 1 uncovered (2nd unit) 2 covered (18' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 1 uncovered (2nd unit) Building Height: 24'-10” 24’-10” 30'-0" DH Envelope: --- complies CS 25.26.075 1 Existing nonconforming front setback. 2 (0.32 x 10,015 SF) + 1100 SF = 4,305 SF (0.43 FAR). Staff Comments: None. Ruben Hurin Planning Manager c. Xie Guan, Xie Associates, applicant and architect Lin Yun Ping, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation submitted by the applicant, date stamped January 12, 2018 Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 17, 2018 Area Map 2721 MARTINEZ DRIVE 025.023.040 300’ noticing PROJECT LOCATION 2108 Clarice Lane Item No. 9b Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 2108 Clarice Lane Meeting Date: August 27, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing duplex dwelling. Applicant and Architect: Jaime Rapadas, AR Design Group APN: 025-141-160 Property Owners: Janice and Richard Samuelson Lot Area: 8,388 SF General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains a one-story duplex dwelling with an attached garage and uncovered parking for each respective unit. The applicant is proposing to add a second story to the duplex totaling 1,650 SF. The existing lot coverage is nonconforming since it exceeds the maximum allowed lot coverage by 98 SF. With this project, there is no increase in lot coverage. There is no FAR requirement for the R-2 zone, so the FAR was not calculated for the property. With this application, the number of bedrooms will increase from three to four in Unit A and from two to four in Unit B. Based on the existing bedroom count, a total of four and one-half parking spaces are required (rounded up to five spaces). Based on the proposed bedroom count, a total of five parking spaces are required on-site, so there is no increase in the number of parking spaces required. Three covered parking spaces are provided in the existing garages and two uncovered parking spaces (9’ x 20’) are provided in the driveway area in front of the garages. The code requires that 80% of the required parking spaces, or in this case four spaces, must be covered. The existing on-site parking is nonconforming with respect to the percentage of required parking that is required to be covered (60% existing). However, since there is no increase in the total number of parking spaces required based on the proposed parking demand, a Variance is not required for this existing nonconforming condition. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: Design Review for a second story addition to an existing duplex dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 2108 Clarice Lane Lot Area: 8,388 SF Plans date stamped: August 20, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 15’-0” n/a no change 24’-7” 15'-0" 15’-0” Side (left): (right): 7’-7” 11’-8” 10’-7” (to 2nd floor) 37’-5” (to 2nd floor) 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 16’-7” n/a no change 16’-7” 15'-0" 15'-0" Lot Coverage: 3,453 SF 41.2%¹ no change 3,355 SF 40% # of bedrooms: Unit A: 3 Unit B: 2 Unit A: 4 Unit B: 4 --- Item No. 9b Design Review Study Design Review 2108 Clarice Lane 2 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D Off-Street Parking: 5 total spaces 3 covered ² (9’ x 20' each space) 2 uncovered (9' x 20') no change 5 total spaces 4 covered (9' x 20' each space) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 24'-4" 27'-0" 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.27.075 ¹ Existing nonconforming lot coverage. ² Existing nonconforming percentage of covered parking on -site. Staff Comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Jaime Rapadas, AR Design Group , applicant and architect Janice and Richard Samuelson , property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 17, 2018 Area Map CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 20, 2018 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 27, 2018 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1357 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1357 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on October 23, 2017 (see attached October 23, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit has not yet been issued. With this application, the applicant is requesting approval for changes to the location and configuration of windows and doors along all four building elevations, as well as removing two windows on either side of the chimney along the right side property line at the rear of the house. There is also a minor change to the design of the chimney cap. The proposed changes have been clouded on the floor plans and building elevations, dated stamped August 3, 2018. Please also refer to the attached explanation letter, dated August 21, 2018 for an explanation of the proposed changes. The applicant submitted the originally approved and proposed floor plans and building elevations, date stamped August 3, 2018, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project. Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by the architect, dated August 21, 2018 October 23, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Originally approved and proposed floor plans and building elevations, date stamped August 3, 2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, October 23, 2017 a.1357 Columbus 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. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Steven F . Baldwin and Therese M. Baldwin TR, property owners) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Kelly noted that he reviewed the recording of the study meeting on this item. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Steve Baldwin represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no Commission questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the changes that have been made to the project. >There is sufficient justification for the special permit for height given the upsloping lot. >Likes the look of the house. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gum, Gaul, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto8 - Absent:Loftis1 - Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/21/2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 27, 2018 Director’s Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 27, 2018 FROM: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Update Planning Commission Subcommittee “Envision Burlingame” is the combined update of the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Draft General Plan was released in August 2017, and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in July 2018. Staff anticipated the Draft General Plan and EIR will return to the Planning Commission for recommendation at the October 22, 2018 meeting. The next phase of work will be the Zoning Ordinance Update. Ultimately, the entire zoning code will be rewritten, and it is anticipated to take approximately one year. In the nearer term, interim zoning standards are being developed for the most significant “change areas,” in particular the North El Camino Real Mixed Use Zone, and the North Rollins Road Mixed Use Zone. Staff would like to form a three-member subcommittee of the Planning Commission to review the draft zoning code as it is developed over the next year. The subcommittee will function similar to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee, but whereas that committee is focused primarily on single family neighborhoods the Zoning Ordinance Subcommittee will be considering all zoning districts in Burlingame. Commissioners may serve on both subcommittees if so inclined. It is anticipated that the Zoning Ordinance Subcommittee will meet approximately once per month over the next year. Please consider if you would like to volunteer for the Zoning Ordinance Subcommittee. We’ll check with commissioners during the Director’s Reports portion of the meeting.