Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - PC - 2017.10.10
CITY O p ipQRATED , Tuesday, October 10, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda Planning Commission 7:00 PM 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. September 11, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: Draft September 11, 2017 Meeting Minutes b. September 25. 2017 Plannina Commission Meetina Minutes Attachments: Draft September 25, 2017 Meeting Minutes 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers 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 a. 1220 Vancouver Avenue. zoned R-1 - ADDlication for Conditional Use Permits for an accessory structure to have a bathroom, building height exceeding 11-feet above grade, and skylights more than 10-feet above grade. (Patricia and Michael Bader, applicant and Property owners; Tim Raduenz, Form+ One, designer) (51 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 1220 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1220 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1220 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 101612017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda October 10, 2017 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 a. 160 Elm Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15331 (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Lauren and Brad Kettmann, property owners) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 160 Elm Ave - Staff Report 160 Elm Ave - Attachments 160 Elm Ave - Page & Turnbull- Historic Resource Study 160 Elm Ave - Page & Turnbull- Project Analysis 160 Elm Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 b. 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners; Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 125 Crescent Ave - Staff Report 125 Crescent Ave - Attachments 125 Crescent Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 C. 729 Walnut Avenue. zoned R-1 - Application for Desian Review for a new, two-story sinale family dwelling and detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Form + One, applicant and designer; 729 Walnut Avenue LLC, property owner) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 729 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 729 Walnut Ave - Attachments 729 Walnut Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 101612017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda October 10, 2017 d. 3016 Alcazar Drive. zoned R-1 - Application for a Condtitional Use Permit for window and plate height for an approved detached accessory dwelling unit. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e). (Mia Zunni, IwamotoScott Architecture, applicant and architect; Michael Mazza, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 3016 Alcazar Dr - Staff Report 3016 Alcazar Dr - Attachments 3016 Alcazar Dr - Plans - 10.10.17 e. 121 Humboldt Road, zoned R-1- Application for Conditional Use Permits to legalize an accessory living space with a full bathroom and windows within 10-feet of property line in an existing accessory structure. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e) (J. Deal Associates, Jerry Deal, applicant and designer; Wei and Shirley Feng, property owners) (62 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 121 Humboldt Rd - Staff Report and Attachments 121 Humboldt Rd - Plans - 10.10.17 722 Crosswav Road. zoned R-1 - ADDlication for Desian Review Amendment for as built changes to a previously approved application for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (JoAnn Gann. apDlicant and desianer: Jeannie and Noah Tvan. Droperty owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 722 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 722 Crossway Rd - Attachments 722 Crossway Rd - Plans - 10.10.17 g. 339 Primrose Road, zoned DAC - Application for a Parking Variance to replace an existing personal service use with an office use. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Home Care Assistance, applicant; John Matthews Architects, Architect; Gisela Scigliano, property owner) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 339 Primrose Rd - Staff Report 339 Primrose Rd - Attachments 339 Primrose Rd - Plans - 10.10.17 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 101612017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda October 10, 2017 a. 1341 Vancouver 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 (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer: Victory Village 2004 LLC, property owner) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 1341 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1341 Vancouver Ave -Attachments 1341 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 b. 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family dwelling. (Danny Meredith, applicant; Helen Cook, property owner; Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group, designer) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 305 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 305 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 305 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 C. 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for re-emerging lots, Design Review and front setback Variances for two new duplex residential units on two separate lots (Ed Breur, TRG Architects, applicant and designer; Kurt Steil, property owner) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting October 2, 2017 a. 1601 Sanchez Avenue - FYI for review of an as -built change to a previously approved Design Review project. Attachments: 12. ADJOURNMENT 1601 Sanchez Ave - Memorandum 1601 Sanchez Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on October 10, 2017. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 20, 2017, 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 $533, which includes noticing costs. City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 101612017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda October 10, 2017 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. City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 101612017 CITY ryc�l 11 o� - 9 aPORATE Monday, September 11, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes - Draft Planning Commission Chair Gum opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 PM Present 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent 1 - Sargent 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Comaroto indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8c (1213 Grove Avenue) as she owns property within 500-feet of the project site. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA There were no public comments on non -agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Sargent a. 1704 Davis Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for One -Year Permit Extension of a previously approved application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in an accessory structure. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301(e)(1). (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Barbara Maley, property owner) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 101512017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft September 11, 2017 Attachments: 1704 Davis Dr - Staff Report 1704 Davis Dr - Attachments 1704 Davis Dr - Plans b. 1491-1493 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R-3 - Application for One -Year Permit Extension of a previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Lot Merger, Condominium Permit, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five story, 10-unit residential condominium with below -grade parking. Environmental review for this project is covered by Mitigated Negative Declaration 592-P, approved August 22, 2016. (Mark Haesloop, CHS Development Group, applicant; Chi-Hwa Shao, Sheil Patel c/o CHS Development Group, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 1491-1493 Oak Grove- Staff Report 1491-93 Oak Grove - Attachments 1491-93 Oak Grove - Material Board Image 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. 1354 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for basement ceiling 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). (Mac White, Michael G. Imber Architects, applicant and architect; Naveen and Seshu Sastry, property owners) (59 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 1354 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1354 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1354 Columbus Ave - Neighbor Urs 1354 Columbus Ave - plans - 09.11.17 1354 Columbus Ave - Study Minutes -Applicant's Response All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones and Gum met with the neighbor on the right. Commissioner Comaroto met with the neighbors on both sides of the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff - There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Michael Irmer and Naveen Sastry represented the property owners. Commission Questions/Comments: > Willing to remove the fountain? (Sastry: yes.) City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 101512017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft September 11, 2017 > How critical are the French doors? (Sastry: provide light and air; bay window would not provide this benefit.) > Requested clarification of the locations of the filmed windows. (Sastry/Irmer: stairwell and rear bedroom on the east elevation.) > Requested clarification re: Vastu approach to design. (Sastry: most important parts are how the home is entered and how guests are allowed to enter. Certain orientations are more advantageous than others. Doors facing other doors are inauspicious. Family will generally be entering the house through the mudroom at the rear, near the garage. Irmer: the design to the porch is not unlike other projects in the neighborhood. Irmer. the design approach is consistent with other homes in Burlingame.) > Does the owner usually park on the driveway? (Sastry: usually on the driveway or in the street. Intent is to place one car in the garage and one in the driveway with the new house.) Could park their vehicle in front of the neighbors' living room window currently? (Sastry: yes.) > Requested clarification regarding the fences on the south side. Will the existing fence remain? (Sastry: have a low wall at the front third of the site, then proceeds to a taller fence. Will need to work with the landscape architect. Will be a new fence.) > What type of glass will be installed in the second floor master bathroom? (Sastry: translucent glass.) Will the bathroom facing the street on the first floor also include the same type of glass? (Sastry: the window is high enough that it shouldn't be an issue. > Does Vastu address juxtiposing a door with a neighbors window in the living space; looking into the neighbors' front living space? (Sastry: he isn't aware of anything in Vastu that addresses this issue; he also isn't concerned.) > Concerned about having the patio (gathering space) on the side of the house supporting activity that could disturb the neighbors. Is there anything that can be done to alleviate this concern? (Irmer there is four feet of garden at that location currently.) > Clarified that "Turtle Glass" will be installed on the rear bedroom windows on the right side elevation. Public Comments: Rich Shoustra, 1350 Columbus Avenue (south of project site): summarized the comments contained in his letter that was submitted into the record earlier in the day. Appreciates the removal of the fountain. Michael Murray, 1367 Columbus Avenue: a building must have a relationship to the community and its environment. Doesn't believe the design is neighborly, nor does it fit in the neighborhood. The design vocabulary of the home doesn't fit into the expanded vocabulary present in Burlingame. The design is not in the right place; should be scaled down - too large for the property. Lives next door to 1354 Columbus Avenue where extensive excavation has occurred - it is very disruptive to the neighbors. Holly Rogers, 1354 Columbus Avenue: the request regarding the windows on the rear bedroom is not a new request to the applicant; the request was sent to the applicant prior to Labor Day. Doesn't feel that installation of transom windows will not affect the light into the bedroom. Lives part of her day in a wheelchair and cannot access the second floor. The movement of the driveway has placed the home closer to her primary living space. Rebuttal by Applicant (Sastry and Irmer): are well within the declining height envelope. Maximizing sunlight on the project site doesn't necessarily impact sunlight on the neighbors' property. Doesn't feel there is an impact. The first floor windows are only slightly larger than those present in the existing home. The house is lower, so with the fence there should be less of an opportunity to look into the neighbors' property. Will do everything possible to minimize neighborhood disturbance during construction. The central transom into the stairwell is pushed back to allow light into the central portion of the house. Additional Commission Questions: > Requested clarification regarding the location of the seven foot fence along the south side of the property; how does it relate to the elevation? (Sastry: needs to be further fleshed out, but willing to extend City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 101512017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft September 11, 2017 it further forward if needed.) > Will installation of a wall or partition outside the music room conflict with Vastu principles? (Sastry: willing to make the fence higher or plant additional landscaping at this area to help preserve the neighbors' privacy.) Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Feels like something is going on besides the architectural design; feels the design fits with the neighborhood and 4 meets the Design Guidelines. Doesn't want to get involved in the dispute between the neighbors. Supports the design as presented. This type of design occurs in a City such as Burlingame with smaller lots. Not over -scale; fits within the regulatory envelope for the property. Encouraged the applicant and the neighbors to sort out the differences. > Agrees with the prior comments. The only special consideration is the height of the basement; have generally been approved. There are some issues that have been taken into account even though not specifically within the regulations (i.e. the French doors leading to the side -yard). Changes that could be made may be addressed via an FYI, or a condition of approval. > Project is very well crafted. Is a fresh approach to the design; likes the way it looks. There are projects on the street that are similar in design. The applicant has gone a long way to address the concerns of the neighbors. The house will be much more appealing to the neighbor than having a driveway with a car parked on it. Supports the project. > Believes the privacy issues can be ironed out between the neighbors. Likes the project. > Would like the neighbors to work out solutions to their concerns. > Applicant has done so much to meet the neighbors' requests and the requirements of the Design Guidelines. Feels that work could still be done to address privacy concerns on the south neighbors' side, - could the number of windows be reduced? Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the following added conditions: 1. Include window film on the stairwell, stair clerestory, and bedroom two windows. 2. The master bathroom window whall have translucent glass. 3. The fountain shall be removed from the project. 4. An FYI shall be submitted to clarify the fencing and low wall design and placement and revisions to the patio are to reduce its size, potentially through revisions to the landscape plan on the south side of the property. Discussion of Motion: > Ideally the revisions requested would be addressed through cooperation of the neighbors; can't require it, but should attempt to minimize potential impacts. Have raised concerns regarding side patios in the past without having a neighborhood raise the issue; the neighbor is raising the issue in this case. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and it carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Sargent b. 1516 Highway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Tentative Parcel Map for Lot Combination for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 101512017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft September 11, 2017 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301(e)(2). (Form One Design, applicant and designer; Yousef and Gina Shamieh, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 1516 HighwaV Rd - Staff Report 1516 HighwaV Rd - Attachments 1516 HighwaV Rd - Plans 1516 Highway Rd - Memorandum - Engineering Division 1516 Highway Rd - Tentative Parcel Map All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Tim Raduenz represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Liked the wavy siding that has been removed. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Very nice project; is different. Could go either way with the wavy siding. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Discussion of Motion: > Willing to consider an FYI in the future if the applicant wishes to use the originally proposed wavy siding. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and it carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Sargent C. 1213 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits for a half bath and skylight in an accessory structure. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301(e) (2). (Jo Ann Gann, applicant and designer; Meghan and Jason Dunne, property owners) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 101512017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft September 11, 2017 Attachments: 1213 Grove Ave - Staff Report.pdf 1213 Grove Ave - Attachments.pdf 1213 Grove Ave - Plans.pdf Commission Comaroto recused herself from the discussion regarding this item as she owns property within 500-feet of the property. She left the Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.• > If the neighbor to the right needs to not use her driveway during the construction, can the City reserve a space on the public street for her? (Meeker: no, not the jurisdiction of the Commission.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Joanne Gann represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Has any progress been made with the neighbor regarding the shared driveway; the neighbor has the right to place a fence there if they wish to currently. (Gann: working with an attorney to revise the deed.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > The property owners are working out the shared driveway situation. > The applicant has addressed the issue regarding the full bath in the accessory structure. > Findings can be made in support of the project. > Appreciates that the porch had to stay small. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Sargent 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 1304 Mills Avenue , zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling. (Melina Copass, applicant and designer; Matt and Lauren Fleming, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 1304 Mills Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1304 Mills Ave - plans - 09.11.17 City of Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 101512017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft September 11, 2017 Commissioner Comaroto returned to the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Loftis, Gaul and Gum spoke to the neighbor at the right at 1300 Mills Avenue. Chair Gum also spoke to the neighbor on the left. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.- > Noted that the reference to the attached garage in the staff report should be changed to detached garage. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Kiki Durphy represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > On the left elevation, regarding the full-length window in the stairwell, has the property owner spoken with the neighbors to see if they have concerns with this window? (Durphy: no. But knows that the neighbors have seen the plan. There are some trees on this side that are maturing.) > The window on the far left on the left elevation, is there any reason why it has a different divided light pattern? (Durphy: the window size prevents the divided lights from being the same as other windows. > Has a survey been prepared for the property? (Durphy: a full survey was not prepared; based upon spot elevations. Didnt set corners.) Would like to have clarification regarding the placement of the fence and the neighbor's garage. > Is there a plan for a tree to replace the one that is to be removed? (Durphy: working with the Parks Department regarding the issue, but there are lots of other trees on the property.) Finalize the Parks Department's requirements before returning to the Commission. > Any thought given to providing more detailing to add variety to the right elevation; looks like a layer cake. Craftsman style homes usually have more detailing. (Durphy: added varied materials, including water table and stone veneer. Gables on that side would not work with the declining height envelope.) > What is the head height of the windows on the second floor; how does this relate to the nine -foot plate height? If the plate height were reduced, could still maintain the proper gable articulation. Feels top -heavy as designed. (Durphy: is problematic with the declining height envelope. Want to provide tray ceilings on the second floor.) > Why are the front porch steps off -center? (Durphy: centered on the gable. The porch and the front door are existing.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Applauds the desire to move toward Craftsman styling. However, the design appears very boxy; both floor plans are very similar. The left hand elevation is very sheer, the right looks like a wedding cake. Good candidate for a design review consultant. > There might be better justification for the higher plate height on the second floor if there was better articulation on the second floor. > Likes the detailing of the windows. > Likes the stone base for the house. City of Burlingame Page 7 Printed on 101512017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft September 11, 2017 > Massing needs more work. > Concerned about the location of the fence; a survey should be prepared. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application to a design review consultant. Discussion of Motion: > Ensure that the concerns of the Commission as expressed in the discussion are provided to the design review consultant. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Sargent 10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Director Reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on September 11, 2017. 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 21, 2017, 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 $533, 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. City of Burlingame Page 8 Printed on 101512017 CITY ryc�l 11 o� - 9 aPORATE City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, September 25, 2017 7:00 PM Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Present 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto Absent 1 - Kelly 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Kelly a. August 14, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: Draft August 14, 2017 Meeting Minutes Correction on Page 13, Commission Discussion, 2nd bullet, modern 'nome" should be corrected to home. " b. August 28, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: Draft August 28, 2017 Meeting Minutes 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Items. City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 912812017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2017 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS There were no Regular Action Items. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 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 (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Steven F. Baldwin and Therese M. Baldwin TR, property owners) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 1357 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1357 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1357 Columbus Ave - Plans All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones had an email exchange with the neighbors at 1359 Columbus Avenue regarding the landscaping. Commissioner Gum spoke with the neighbors at 1359 and 1353 Columbus Avenue. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.- > Is a building section required to be included in the plans for a new house? (Hurin: Not required but it is typically provided. It can be requested of the applicant.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Steven Baldwin represented the applicant, with designer James Chu. Commission Questions/Comments: > Per the letter from the neighbors at 1359 Columbus Avenue, is there possibility of adding additional taller landscaping along the side? > Revisit the stairwell window to see if there is a way to work something in to reduce the impacts on the neighboring property such as a tall hedge or tree. There is some area with the setbacks, since a lot of the wall is pulled in more than the required 4 feet. > Front porch height seems high. The posts look tall and gangly. Could bring the plate height down on the front of the porch to 8 feet, which would also help the second floor windows with more freeboard below the sill. Gutter and eave do not need to align with the top of the belly band - could align or fall just underneath it. > A railing would help the porch. (Baldwin: There will be a railing on the porch that fits with the craftsman style.) > Special Permit is from upsloping lot, which causes the house to be taller. The back patio doors are aligned with the rear grade. > Rear and side of the garage would be plywood, but there is only 1 foot between the garage and the fence. Concerned with maintenance. Consider moving the garage further out so there is room to maintain it? (Baldwin: Fence could stop at the garage in the rear.) > The Special Permit application mentions a metal roof. (Chu: No metal roof is proposed.) > On the right side the fence has suffered since the pittosporum was removed. (Baldwin: Has been coordinating with the neighbors and will build a new fence. Would prefer the fence go the full extent of the property line, past the neighboring garage.) City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 912812017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2017 > If the fence is being replaced it should be indicated on the plans. (Baldwin: Will probably happen sooner than the house would be built.) Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Nicely crafted project. > Applicant should consider the suggestions made by the commission to improve the project. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Kelly b. 852 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a new detached garage. (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Rick Lund, property owner) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 852 Paloma Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 852 Paloma Ave - Plans All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.• > Are the uncovered portions of front and rear porch counted towards lot coverage? (Hurin: As long as they are less than 30 inches above grade and is uncovered. The front elevation specifies 29 inches maximum, so it would not be counted.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant, with property owner Chandra Lund. Commission Questions/Comments: > Hard time finding justification for the variance. There needs to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that apply to this lot, that do not apply to other lots. The lot being small is not an extraordinary circumstance since lot coverage and FAR scale with the lot. The lot coverage and FAR are intended to prevent maxing out the lot. (Geurse: There are five children, and trying to make the bedrooms work.) > The amount of house is causing the lot coverage to be maximized, and the amount of garage, but not the amount of porch. (Geurse: Wants to get the space on the lower level to work properly. Wants to work in a decent -sized house that resembles a one-story to blend in with the neighborhood.) > Hardest part on a variance application is making the case that there is something unique about the lot City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 912812017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2017 that is different from any other lots in the neighborhood. The detached garage allows for a larger house since it provides an additional 400 square feet. > Believes there are other design options that would allow maximizing the FAR without needing a lot coverage variance or sacrificing the porch. Could put more square footage on the second floor. > The driveway is narrow. Is it usable? (Lund: It is narrow but usable.) > Is the space below the dormers inaccessible? (Geurse: Yes.) Is the plate height 10 feet? (Geurse: Yes, the 10-foot plate height is at the intersection of the roof and the ceiling, then pitches down.) Looks like it is designed with space that could be captured later. Also the dormers add to the mass of the house, and the height is already higher than the two-story house to the left. (Geurse: House has the appearance of a one-story house with a high pitch, which is common in Burlingame. Most of the second story is buried in the attic space.) > Chimney looks odd coming out of the middle of the dormer with windows below it. > Public Works notes the property is in a special flood zone. Has that been mitigated? (Geurse: Yes, using existing foundation and floors. The base flood line is at 16 feet, and the finished floor is currently at 16.7 feet.) > Will there be a pump for storm runoff? If there is a pump it should be located on the plans since it will be external mechanical equipment. (Geurse: Will locate it on the plans.) > Why does the chimney from the family room shift at the second floor? It looks odd to see the chimney come down with a window below. (Geurse: Wanted to tie the chimney against the wall so it is not free floating. It can be relocated.) > Finds the cutline confusing with not showing all the shingles. Would rather see the shingles shown on the elevation to be able to make a judgement. > Has there been thought to landscaping on either side for neighbor privacy? Particularly to the neighbor on the right. Any way to screen the views from the second story to the neighboring house? (Geurse: Neighbor is redesigning their house with a second story as well. The neighbors could discuss whether this is a concern. The driveway is too narrow for landscape screening.) > One chimney is stone, the other is shingle. Is this deliberate? (Geurse: Yes. If the chimney comes out of the ground a solid material is more typical.) > Will the windows in the dormers on the left allow light into the bedrooms? (Geurse: Yes, and also provide more articulation to the left elevation rather than having so much roof.) Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Well crafted, nicely articulated and detailed. > Struggling with the variance. Does not see an extraordinary or exceptional circumstance related to the site. > Likes how the dormers break up the massing of the roof. Agrees with the concept that the second story is tucked underneath the roof springing from the first floor. Without the dormers there would be a lot of expanse of shingles, and the dormers will bring light in. Adding the architectural feature without the additional floor space is analogous to a bay window that is stepped up into. > Chimney on the side is odd, disquieting. > Dormers seem to offer the potential to increase the FAR. > The roof will be framed and the dormers will be overlayed. The floor of the dormers will be the sloping roof below. Section C on Sheet A.7 shows how the dormers are framed. The dormer sits on top of the roof. > The offset chimney and the chimney above the window seem odd. The chimney going through the dormer doesn't work. > (Kane: Variance findings need to be from the unique characteristics of the lot, not the family City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 912812017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2017 occupying the house. It is a land use determination that will go with the property regardless of the occupants.) Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve Discussion Item Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loffis, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Kelly C. 160 Elm Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached garage (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Lauren and Brad Kettmann, property owners) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 160 Elm Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 160 Elm Ave - Page & Turnbull Proposed Protect Analysis 160 Elm Ave - plans - 09.25.17 All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.• > Page & Turnbull has already recommended the changes. So is the Planning Commission meant to comment if it does not agree with the recommendation? (Gardiner: Correct.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Diana Ruiz, Architecture Allure, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Which windows are being replaced? Is it just the windows with the New symbol being replaced? (Ruiz: Yes.) > Will the new windows match the existing windows? (Ruiz: Yes, they will be similar in style.) > The new windows are identified as painted aluminum -clad. The existing windows are wood, correct? (Ruiz: They new windows will be similar in style with the divided lites, but they are aluminum -clad for the energy requirements.) > Per the Page & Turbull report, is there direction yet on where the rafter tails will be eliminated? (Ruiz: No yet. It will be shown on the revised plans.) > Does the hatch pattern on the second floor plan represent non -accessible area under the roof? (Ruiz: Yes.) Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Project looks good. City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 912812017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2017 > If it comes back with the recommendations in the Page & Turnbull report it is approvable. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Kelly 10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on September 25, 2017. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 5, 2017, 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 $533, 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. City of Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 912812017 City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permits Address: 1220 Vancouver Avenue Item No. 6a Study Items Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permits for an accessory structure to have a bathroom, building height exceeding 11-feet above grade, and skylights more than 10-feet above grade. Applicant and Property Owners: Patricia and Michael Bader Designer: Tim Raduenz, Form+ One General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 026-173-170 Lot Area: 6,000 SF Zoning: R-1 Background: On May 17, 2017, a letter was sent to the property owners from the City's Code Enforcement Officer notifying them about a complaint regarding their existing garage at the time. The dilapidated condition of the garage violated Burlingame Municipal Code 1.12.040 and therefore was deemed a public nuisance. The property owners were required to obtain a building permit to demolish the garage and to complete construction of a new structure within six months after demolition. An application was submitted on August 9, 2017 for a building permit to demolish and rebuild the detached garage. Inspection of the existing detached garage by one of the Building Inspectors found the structure to be a hazard and likely to collapse due to the weak structural integrity. Therefore, a demolition permit was approved and issued before a building permit was issued. During review of the building permit, the proposed project triggered the need to approve the Conditional Use Permit requests stated in this application to the Planning Commission before continuing the building permit process. Project Description: The site currently contains an existing two-story single family dwelling that covers 23.5% of the lot with a total floor area ratio of 2,436 SF (0.41 FAR). The applicant is proposing to build a one -car detached garage that includes a bathroom (toilet and shower) and two skylights. To match the roof design of the existing house, the proposed roof design of the detached garage triggered a Conditional Use Permit request for building height exceeding 11-feet above grade because the roof ridge is closer than 5-feet to the side property line (1'-2" proposed). With the proposed project, the floor area ratio will increase to 3,012 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The lot coverage will increase to 30.9% (1860 SF) where 40% is the maximum allowed. Two off-street parking spaces (1 covered and 1 uncovered) are required for the three -bedroom house. One covered parking space is provided in the new detached garage (15-3" x 23'-6" clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. The applicant is requesting the following applications: • Conditional Use Permit for toilet and shower in an accessory structure (C.S. 25.60.010 (j)); Conditional Use Permit for building height of accessory structure to exceed 11'-0" (C.S. 25.60.010 (h)). • Conditional Use Permit for skylights more than 10-feet above grade (C.S. 25.60.010 (i)). This space intentionally left blank. Conditional Use Permits 1220 Vancouver Avenue 1220 Vancouver Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: August 10, 2017 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Setback: Side: 1'-2" C.S. 25.26.073(b)(4) exempts accessory structures located ! Rear.' 1'-6" in the rear 30% of a lot From house: 29'-3%' Use in Accessory one -car garage (409 SF) and1 Conditional Use Permit required for Structure: toilet/shower powder room (39 SF) toilet/shower powder room' Accessory Structure 448 SF ....... ......... ._. ....._. ........... 600 SF Size: Building Length: 28'-0" --- ............................._ . .---- Special Permit required if structure exceeds _ .-.....- .--- - -- - __ 28 0 in ten th.____... ..-.-.--.-. g .............. Plate Height: 8.0„ CUP required for plate height greater than 9'- 0" above grade . .-......... Building Height. 15'-0" above grade, ridge 1'-2" from Conditional Use Permit required for building .. property line ............................_- _.. _.-. height exceeding 11'-0" z # of bedrooms. info not provided .._- ....................... Off -Street Parking: 1 covered (16-3" x 23'-6") 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') ................................. - door with glazed opening - 12'-6" ............ ---------- ---- Glazed openings in from property line Conditional Use Permit required for glazed Accessory Structure: - skylights - at least 1l'-6" from openings more than property line; 1 V-6%" above 10' above grade3 grade ' Conditional tJse Permif fnr fnilaf and ehnwer in an acroemni mri]MFIm 2 Conditional Use Permit for accessory structure building height 3 Conditional Use Permit for accessory structure with a glazed opening more than 10-feet above grade Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks and Stormwater Divisions Required 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; (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. -2- Conditional Use Permits 1220 Vancouver Avenue 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Patricia and Michael Bader, applicant and property owners Tim Raduenz, Form+ One, designer Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Applications Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 29, 2017 Aerial Photo -3- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 W.) p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: U%(r -11 3 , (I C) ❑ Design Review ❑ Variance Parcel #: �•� Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit Zoning / Other: TLt✓s1A5LftA-t===:- PROJECT ADDRESS: V �y G p Lt�- APPLICA,N^T ^/� Name: �`>? •+ I `jam. Klke, L Address: City/State/Zip: 4F:;1tAr2-L1n164v r; I �401O Phone: PROPERTY OWNER t A Name: M 1 Are S. I Jkk� � Address: City/State/Zip: T alV—t-1(� q2le:i0 Phone: Name: 0 / I, w, —t,? �l Z Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: -4115 • $11• E-mail: t t �1zN1o�1EI�Esl6nl. Coles Burlingame Business License #: EL RECEIVED AUG 10 2� , CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-Pi ANNING DIV. Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part -o,-f -tthe Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City � arising out of or related to such action. � (Initials of Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: r�4bD� , S ("i(t�DVJG� -1-- A Lt-+�t�% 'Pp--yeG-- 1JA-T- (S I/S L�n�z1/l Nj ��llt IDtaG- AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE, I hereb e 'founder pe ty of perjury th the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belie . Applicant's signature: Date: I am aware of the proposed a plica an hereby au orize the above applicant to submit this applica ion o the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: D Date submitted: S• ID• 17 S: I HANDOUTSiPC Apphcation.doc City of Suriingame + Community Development Department • SUI PrWose Road +F (6 ) W&7236 • F (EW) 6 3790 • WWW, BURL�N6A ,E CITY OF Bt.l.t'RLI!\t7liME C E I V` D ' C�A"�L USE PEST �Ai ON'7SEP 2 7 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PUkNNING DIV. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making. the decision as: to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neady in ink. Refer to the back: of this form for assistance with these Questions. 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. yCi-4E W�2 ��ov�': or TEE- `S3v�zwSz�rv� �-S ��-,Saner F. Ci 'i rAE PTroPEtz O2 iiS N611 H jRS v3SurLL-U.—T�,4E¢e A¢v_ uao W �Npows waEa� -r-rtE l.t�c.-a.-e�oea . 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? AL�-OJT T�1�- J�'t'l�c. �O �-�C3Qi7th1 W y �H.�"-S t-`CaU�e•,1vt i� :MfJ�J� '1W,�Jt✓�.it'1-�t'9�i�'.rE�e1`�� [;G.IG�,i2t:.}`� ;iN D.2`f�:: - s-r l�-O'L-lc-cv� its `fi-1� �nASt�Gc. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of theexisting and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? G9,.04k:j -,- .,Dt, W�-cre�-t.� 1+-1Se 'P1'rd��v C.,,ascr�tiC-. P Rev 35.2007 Handouts\Conditional Use Permit App.doc okof 9~= — CoRlffiFAi Ty tJ@YH{6[.Rfl@ d DeP8l*Rlel - 5M PrBl' mse Read - P (SO) W4-E0'.l�s - r (s y6 ` ' ' ®b•»;an ecNnaavta_mc5 CFTY OF SURLWGAME RECEIVED Ci3=TMAL USE P.T APMICAMI♦i SEP 27 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME C'\VI t -(�' CDD-PLANNING DIV The Planning Commission is required by law to snake findings as definedby the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25 52_ _ your answers to the following questions Can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Phase type or write neatly In ink. Refer to the track of tt form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or h*fflous to property or 1mprsv&w&rM in Vm vicinity or to pubAc health, safety, general waftre or tonvenfenc& "j�FPf.'-\@c'�-'r'�•�- CUt�.veC.'t�Y;6:-\CS Or-_-xi-wwrc.. wvowe✓n YY AIVv MpskcAe;nCe•SmU\1eY ',.n bulk "6a- "" n2\c�� �pyS fir, 4&1�A S r, za, ��� _r ci bey @ I S �' h< 6�-' 4V,O- �GvGc�. �°t♦� Sic-yl;c�.�n•4-S •aG;ce. exa�O.y r5eed �av W�vsG�cxr�S W 14h�%5 \r- - 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? w� Orc RedvC,vec� ^e bue� Sv ttv-- ne\o�Y �ovs �Si.-� -('o Y�t,an-3-Ls1.'i fi"£';.s '�',vcaty v�,l�,l�„ '1��,,-,„7�1✓>C� lly��- pow✓, a,✓>� '1�-C cev7.5�r off' -}-�_ pJavgp�:® 3. How wiH the proposedprojectbe compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vid [vjUY? `�feSR�'ti YV6�iGH�S "li^'a� ��i�L-`cN`( %Ycc-!rfiZG :J% TNT M�1tJ °c�MF J-'� �S SM A(r�-6(L �.N SC'AI.E ICU\ K- "'("HKar1 Rev Oe M flandaulsXandffloml Use Pami t App.doc Project Comments — Planning Application Project Address: 1220 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-173-170 Description: Request for Conditional Use Permit for a full bathroom in an accessory structure. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. No comments at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Based on the scope of work, this is a "Type I" project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). 2. On the proposed plan, please show the location of all proposed locations for utilities (PG&E, water, sewer, and sewer cleanout). 3. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 4. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 5. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 6. The sanitary sewer lateral (building sewer) shall be tested per ordinance code chapter 15.12. Testing information is available at the Building department counter. A Sewer Lateral Test encroachment permit is required. Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 8/18/17 650-558-7245 Project Address: Description: From: Project Comments - Planning Application 1220 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-173-170 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a full bathroom in an accessory structure. Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1) On the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the property line 2016 CRC § Table R302.I (]) or 2016 CBC Table 705.2 2) Provide details on the plans which show that all roof projections which project beyond the point where fire -resistive construction would be required will be constructed of one -hour fire - resistance -rated construction per 2016 CRC § R302.1(1) or 2016 CBC §705.2. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 3) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 4) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. (PWE letter dated 8-17-88) 5) Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: August 11, 2017 650 558-7270 Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 1220 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-173-170 Description: Request for Conditional Use Permit for a full bathroom in an accessory structure. From: Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. No comments at this time. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 9/5/17 650-558-7617 Project Address: 1220 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-173-170 Description: Request for Conditional Use Permit for a full bathroom in an accessory structure. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comments The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Reviewed By: BD Date: 8.23.17 650.558.7333 Project Address Description: From Project Comments - Planning Application 1220 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-173-170 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a full bathroom in an accessory structure. Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Project does not create or replace >2,500 square feet of impervious surface or use architectural copper. Nothing further needed at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolyn.critzC&veolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: August 16, 2017 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 (D w z \/-0\ 3 v \/ {w 7/ \ z _ !» /a® E ' o )=s } \ z z }2 ±f > k *$ gym $- G w a ( \{ \)7 - e = z /} ®F § u §c -CL- Vim0 ® ! ° \ n \ ��� aE CL ƒ0 / a CO }/2 \(\§f° D 2: /)\20 w /�� m ƒ \AE{=R ^■Wk u\ ` E ] )r /§ \ Ecaa: 0M #§j CU /{\ t\%r�\ ° \%&aE \ sa® toi \§G \\\ \\\)) /0 ®a \CL )/0E/}n(E\ \£z \t 2/ / \o \ 0 N 0 0 N Q r N M '3' LC) k1O O O O O O O O O O O O O rW V 1 H sa Q -3 0 u ro H o H W U MO O I N d-' w N O 0 CD 00 mroCD CO CO Cam] a, a O O X l4 Q O �3 l0 • • ° a + a �, _4 a CDr o �' x - N a 3841 24th Street, #A San Francisco, CA 94114 Ph: 415.819.0304 E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM form + one DESIGN ■ PLANNING O N O N I N O O �4_4 Q 4 J W o Q � ��ll v ttl O • 3 Cl) (� �--I o O4 O N a h G2.0 Sheet Scale: See Details GENERAL NOTES & SCOPE 1. PROTECT ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPING AND TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONSULT ARBORIST AS REQUIRED. 2. NO EXISTING TREES OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54" FROM BASE OF TREE MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT A PROTECTED TREE PERMIT FROM THE PARKS DIVISION (558-7330) NO TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED FOR THIS PROJECT. 3. WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE NOT REQUIRED SINCE LANDSCAPE WILL NOT BE REHABILITATED AS NOTED ON PLANS. 4. A PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, AND WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, TO MANAGE STORM WATER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. CGC 4.106.2 ❑ CGC 4.106.3 5. ALL SPRINKLER DRAINAGE SHALL BE PLACED INTO LANDSCAPING AREAS STREET TREES 1. PROTECT ALL STREET TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION PUBLIC WORKS NOTES 1. A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITIES ENCHROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO (1) REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE, (2) PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL, (3) ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OF FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER -CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION. (4) AND OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT -OF WAY. 2. ALL WATER LINES CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE PROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. CONTACT THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT FOR CONNECTION FEES. IF REQUIRED, ALL FIRE SERVICES AND SERVICES 2" AND OVER WILL BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER. ALL UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SEPARATE UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE PERMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. STORMWATER CHECKLIST NOTES 1. DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF INTO CISTERNS OR RAIN BARRELS AND USE RAINWATER FOR IRRIGATION OR OTHER NON -POTABLE USE. 2. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS, AND/OR PATIOS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS. 3. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM DRIVEWAYS AND/OR UNCOVERED PARKING LOTS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS. 4. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS AND/OR PATIOS WITH PERMEABLE SURFACES. 5. USE MICOR-DETENTION, INCLUDING DISTRIBUTED LANDSCAPE -BASED DETENTION. 6. PROTECT SENSITIVE AREAS, INCLUDING WETLAND AND RIPARIAN AREAS, AND MINIMIZE CHANGES TO THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY. 7. MARK ON SITE INLETS WITH THE WORDS "NO DUMPINGLIFLOWS TO BAY" OR EQUIVALENT. 8. (A.) RETAIN EXISTING VEGETATION AS PRACTICABLE (B) SELECT DIVERSE SPECIES APPROPRIATE TO THE SITE. INCLUDE PLANTS THAT ARE PEST- AND/OR DISEASE -RESISTANT, DROUGHT -TOLERANT, AND/OR ATTRACT BENEFICIAL INSECTS. (C) MINIMIZE USE OF PESTICIDES AND QUICK -RELEASE FERTILIZERS. 9. DESIGN FOR DISCHARGE OF FIRE SPRINKLERS TEST WATER TO LANDSCAPE OR SANITARY SEWER. 10. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROLS TO STABILIZE ALL DENUDED AREAS UNTIL PERMANENT EROSION CONTROLS ARE ESTABLISHED. 11. DELINEATE WITH FIELD MARKERS THE FOLLOWING AREAS: CLEARING LIMITS, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, SENSITIVE OR CRITICAL AREAS,BUFFER ZONES, TREES TO BE PROTECTED AND RETAINED, DRAINAGE COURSES. 12. PROVIDE NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS OR ATTACHEMENTS DESCRIBING THE FOLLOWING: (A) CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS, INCLUDE INSPECTION FREQUENCY❑(B) METHODS AND SCHEDULE FOR GRADING, EXCAVATION, FILLING, CLEARING OF VEGETATION, AND STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED OR CLEARED MATERIAL, (C) SPECIFICATIONS FOR VEGETATIVE COVER MULCH, INCLUDE METHODS AND SCHEDULES FOR PLANTING AND FERTILIZATION (D) PROVISIONS FOR TEMPORARY AND OR PERMANENT IRRIGATION 13. PERFORM CLEARING AND EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES ONLY DURING DRY WEATHER 14. USE SEDIMENT CONTROLS OF FILTRATION TO REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN DEWATERING AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. 15. PROTECT ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS IN VICINITY OF SITE USING SEDIMENT CONTROLS (E.G. BERMS, SOCKS, FIBER ROLLS OR FILTERS) 16. TRAP SEDIMENT ON -SITE, USING BMP'S SUCH AS SEDIMENT BASINS OR TRAPS, EARTHEN DIKES OR BERMS, SILT FENCES, CHECK DAMS, COMPOST BLANKETS OR JUTE MATS, COVERS FOR SOIL STOCK PILES, ETC. 17. DIVERT ON -SITE RUNOFF AROUND EXPOSED AREAS::DIVERT OFF-STE RUNOFF AROUND THE SITE (E.G SWALES AND DIKES) 18. PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND UNDISTURBED AREAS FROM CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS USING VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR FILTERS, DIKES,MULCHING OR OTHER MEASURES AS APPROPRIATE. 19. LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES AND STABILIZE DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS. 20. NO CLEANING, FUELING OR MAINTAINING VEHICLES ON -SITE, EXCEPT IN A DESIGNATED ARE, WHERE WASHWATER IS CONTAINED AND TREATED. 21. STORE, HANDLE AND DISPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS/WASTES PROPERLY TO PREVENT CONTACT WITH STORMWATER. 22. CONTRACTOR SHALL TRAIN AND PROVIDE INSTRUCTION TO ALL EMPLOYEES/SUBCONTRACTORS RE: CONSTRUCTION BMP'S. 23. CONTROL AND PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF ALL POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING PAVEMENT CUTTINGWASTES,PAINTS, CONCRETE, PETROLEUM PROD UCTS,CHEMICALS,WASHWATEROR SEDIMENTS, RINSE WATER FROM ARCHITECTURAL COPPER, AND NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES TO STORM DRAINS AND WATERCOURSES. I �fl 1 F� W tA, a i v i Z f o I v ' � I GUY WIRE PGBE, PT& T ROL E W/ a IBq�Y�EP9MFR �fLECTRn'R _ 1///i��%%%Ti i� 534 °56 '00 "W /20. 00 �� i T OP i owl J n U W LLj � 17.83' 8 a ILL ELGRD 0/50' 1 V I { EL61.4/ EL�2.08 I EL.61.69 1 13-95, 1.15 � • ' 3,27 4.75' 8111 8 � 25. ad 't i 0. LOT 24 -f✓L-- - 8.-/9y/2, LOWER DECK EDGE f8� SIDE SETBACK 4'-ram p777COL UMN ( EL.64.32 13.20' ni 5.28' BELOW- .• • ._ ._._ . _. EL.65.50�6 4 ° !%rA TEP 3.60 osIR I ? �o, o `yO h, o FINISH F � EL.65.59 G4q� � U 1220 VANCOUVER AVENUE 2./5' LOT w 2 STORY RESIDENCE _ - - U)!STUCCO FINISH)-15.70' 10.45' (NO WORK) f j uj Q • f I _ i -EDGE OF8LDG. a ABOVE , 3 1/2" TO (E) MAIN HOME EL.CONC. 60.22 GRD. 59,75 EL 6092 EL 6022 EL.59.53 EL.58.9/ ..-..___.__. 4�._.. _-__--. ._._E __..`. .-..-._--. �.-w _._._..-� .��. -.�.- ,..-._..__. �_ ,I EL-- EDGE OF CONCRETE DRIVEWAY EDGE OF CONCRE rE ORI VEWA Y EL 6/.38 EL.�2 0� L gl L.�z09� I ......ACE OF GRAPESTAKE_ FENCE - .- H E D G E `SET 314 "IRON PIPE I.60'TO S34 056 '00 ' W W/LS TAG 3918 FACE OF FENCE 23.00' 52.30 1216 VANCOU VER A VENUE ONE STORY RESIDENCE ( STUCCO FINISH) 14.37' T YP ..j I L5.4.56-�- - SIDE SETBACK 4'-0" 120.00 ' I.84 FACE OF FENCE - r HUGH RA+70NPR)OFESSIONAL LAND :;tI C GENERAL NOTES I I I I (N) GARAGE r----I I � � REBUILT IN PLACE OF (E) GARAGE ( ) DILAPATED BEYOND REPAIR I I I I I I I I LOT 22 SET314 "IRON PIPE W/L S TAG 39/8 BENCHMARK: CITY OF BURLINGAME BENCHMARK NO. 148, EL.=61.384. AREA: L O T 23 = 6000 S.F. O.1377 ACS. O t,�►�i � MR.& MRS. MIKE SA DER ` o SUS I �eN�•~om, 1220 VANCOUVER AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA. "a�®� c7 APPROVED BY: SCALE: I1NCH=8FEET DRAWN BYH.ANTON P * • No. DATE :OCTOBER,1994 REVISED cf'J`%•�� 3918.��,� PARTIAL BOUNDARY B TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY -LOT 2.3, BL K. 09 •C A���O� 36 , MAP OF EA S TON ADD I T/O N NO.2 s HUGH R. AN TON, PROFESSIONAL LAND DRAWING NUMBER SUR VEYOR SAN MA TEO , CAL IFORNIA. 94.3 47 01 4 R PROPOSED SITE PLAN 0 0 .H Q rl N Cl) IT Ln l9 O O O O O O ao00000 W Q O C r EQ U O O CV I M 00 w M o �a O U) N a o O x �a lz� o � c rt ro � +' -I a QI Sti . N S-I C O � - W 0 N a 3841 24th Street, #A San Francisco, CA 94114 Ph: 415.819.0304 E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESTGN.COM form + one DESIGN ■ PLANNING N I 0 I N 0 �4 CD '7 O Q pq rn E Ou • s~ v� �4 w - r-I I --I + CD N N �-I '-4 N o u 0 E� W ° A1.00 Replaces (Existing) Garage (Un-repairable) Scale: V = F 1-0" Sheet Scale: See Details 24 X 36 PRINTED ON NO. 1000H CLEARPRINT Item No. 8a Regular Action Item PROJECT LOCATION 160 Elm Avenue Item No. 8a Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 160 Elm Avenue Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a garage. Applicant and Architect: Architecture Allure, Adam Bittle Property Owners: Lauren and Brad Kettmann General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 028-263-110 Lot Area: 10,296 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15331, which states that projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995) are exempt from environmental review. Staff notes that since the Secretary of Interior's Standards specifically include "additions" in the definition of rehabilitation, the use of Exemption Category 15331 is applicable to the proposed project. "Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The Rehabilitation Standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building's historic character."' Background/Historical Status: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 3 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated June 6, 2017 (attached). The evaluation notes that the two-story main volume of the house at 160 Elm with a one-story rear portion features a mix of Colonial Revival and Craftsman features and has been found to be individually eligible for listing as a highly intact and representative example of residential vernacular architecture in Burlingame. It also appears to be a representative example of Colonial Revival architecture in the neighborhood. Therefore, the results of the evaluation conclude that 160 Elm Avenue is eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 (Architecture). However, it does not appear to be eligible to the extent necessary for significance under Criterion C of the National Register. Project Analysis Under Secretary of Interior's Standards: Because the subject property was determined to be eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, Page & Turnbull was retained to prepare an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed addition under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and pursuant to CEQA, dated September 14, 2017 (Proposed Project Analysis, attached). The proposed project was determined to comply with the Standards, with one condition to consider in order to strengthen compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 3: "Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features orelements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken." Design Review 160 Elm Avenue The Analysis notes that all of the character -defining features of the primary fagade will be retained and while some character -defining features of the rear volume would be altered, the removal of these features and their in - kind replacement was found not to impact the eligibility of the property for listing in the California Register and not to cause a potential adverse change in its continued significance. One project improvement recommendation (below) is provided that would help to reinforce the reviewed proposal's compliance with the Standards, see discussion under "Project Improvement Recommendations". Project Description: The subject property is 10,296 SF in area and contains a two-story house and detached two -car garage totaling 3,765 SF (0.37 FAR) in floor area. The applicant is proposing to remove a large portion of the first and second floors at the rear of the house and reconstruct and add to both the first and second stories. The front portion of the house (both floors) would remain untouched. The proposed addition would increase the total floor area to 4,312 SF (0.42 FAR), where 4,795 SF (0.47 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing house has 5 bedrooms (office is counted as a bedroom) and the bedroom count would not change with this project. A minimum of three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required for a house containing five or more bedrooms. The existing detached garage is nonconforming because the interior parking space depth is only 17'-4" where a 20' depth is the minimum required. Because the bedroom count is unchanged and because there are no modifications proposed to the detached garage the nonconforming parking may remain. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application • Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2))_ 160 Elm Avenue Lot Area: 10,296 SF Plans Date Stamped: August 30, 2017/Se tember 27, 2017 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS _.- .._...... Front (1st f/r). ....................... ....... ....-_ 33'-1 Y2' ....-__ ............................... --.....- ......... .... ----- no change 15-0" or block average (2"d f/r): 33'-1 Y2' no change 20'-0" or block average - -- - ---- . ......._ Side (left). ......- .----= . 9'-OYZ" _ ------- _ .. _..................... ......._.... 11'-0" (to addition) 4'-0" (right) -------...-. --... 4'-8 ._.._ _. ..._:_ v. 6 7 (to addition) 4'-0" ...... ............... --- . . . Rear (1st fir): 114'-3'/" 104'-l" 15'-0" (2°d fir): ..... - ......... 114'-3Y2" ---. - 104'-l" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,680 SF 3,119 SF 4,118 SF -._ .-.... --. ......-. 26% .--.._...... ---- 30.3% 40% FAR: 3,765 SF .-. 4,312 SF 4,795 SF' - .. .. ......................... 0.37 FAR ........ ------------ ----------- -------- .. .. .......... 0.42 FAR 0.47 FAR - --_.. .. # of bedrooms: 5 - - -- .-..---_-. -.-.- ..-.-..------- No change _- Off -Street Parking. ...._-.- ._............. _.- 2 covered _._...-__.. _._._.__._. (17 -4" x 23'-3") z 2 covered 1 uncovered No change (20' x 20' clear interior) (9' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Design Review 160 Elm Avenue EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Building Height: 29_1 No change 30'-0" _.. DH Envelope .I.............................. ---............ Existing encroachment into ......... .... _..... . --..................... ................ Addition complies with CS 25.26 075 DHE DHE (0.32 x 10,296 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 4,795 SF (0.47 FAR) Existing nonconforming covered parking spaces (17'-4" x 23'-3" dimensions where 20' x 20' clear interior dimensions are required). Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering, and Stormwater Divisions. The revised plans dated September 27, 2017 only include changes to the elevations in terms of architectural details; the building footprint and envelope were not changed and therefore did not impact the data provided in the above table in terms of zoning compliance. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on September 25, 2017, the Commission reviewed the project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached September 25, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). The Planning Commission asked the applicant for clarification on the windows to be replaced. The Commission felt that the project was well designed and with the suggested changes from Page & Turnbull that the project could be approved. Project Improvement Recommendation: The analysis prepared by Page & Turnbull suggests the consideration of one change under the Secretary of Interior's Standards #3. The report notes that the proposed project intends to integrate new construction at the sides and rear of the residence that is compatible in its material, yet subtly differentiated in its design, placement, and orientation (new wood frame and sash casement windows and fully glazed, multi-lite doors; painted shingle siding at the rear and second story additions; and new composite shingle roofing throughout). The analysis notes that the language of the overhanging roof eaves, exposed rafters, brackets, and wood trim detailing is repeated at the rooflines of the new addition, and overall is not directly imitated. However, exposed rafter tails and brackets are featured only at the roof eaves of the existing primary volume and garage, and not at all of the existing rear volume. Page & Turnbull note that although the proposed use of it at the new roof eaves at the side and rear would appear compatible with the aesthetic of the resource, the addition of it on all new rooflines, particularly at the dormers, may veer towards creating a sense of false historicism. Therefore their analysis recommends that the applicant consider simplifying or reducing the amount of exposed rafter tails and brackets to avoid a sense that they are original to the building. The project architect concurs with this recommendation has made the recommended modifications to the design/drawings, on the revised elevations sheets date stamped September 27, 2017. In the applicant's response letter, dated September 28, 2017, the project architect notes that in order to differentiate the new construction from the existing building that the new roofs will feature reduced eaves of 1'-6" at the main roof and 1'-0" eaves with 9" rakes at the new dormers. The plans have been revised with the rafter tails exposed but with a reduced depth cross section of 2-1/2" x 4-1/2" with square end cut. This change to the details on the addition will comply with the Page and Turnbull recommendation to differentiate new areas of improvement from the original and will be more consistent with designs typical of today. The project architect also notes that the other following changes have been made to the plans in response to the Planning Commission's comments at the September 25, 2017 Design Review Study meeting: Added notes to elevations to clarify new and replacement windows; (R) denotes existing windows intended to be replaced and (N) denotes new windows. Design Review 160 Elm Avenue Existing windows are wood and will be replaced with painted aluminum clad with true divided lites similar to the existing. The existing wood windows are single pane. All new windows will be aluminum clad wood window with true dived lites. As the leady agency, the Planning Commission (which acts as the Historic Preservation Commission per C.S 21.04060(a)) will need to determine if the project causes a significant impact if the recommendations are not incorporated. The Planning Division determined that the project plans have been revised to comply with the recommended changes and have reduced any potential impacts to the historical resource to less than significant under CEQA. However, the Planning Commission may request additional changes for consideration. 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: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 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 is compatible with the character of the neighborhood; with a modest rear addition that compliments the existing architectural style, while not mimicking the originality of this historic home. That the project has been modified adequately to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation to incorporate the recommended improvements with a reduction to the amount of exposed rafter tails and brackets which will reduce potential impacts to historical resources and therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 30, 2017, sheets Al through Al and revised sheet A6 through A9 date stamped September 27, 2017; 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; 0 Design Review 160 Elm Avenue 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; 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; and 12. 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. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c. Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect Lauren and Bard Kettmann, property owners Design Review 160 Elm Avenue Attachments: • Planning Commission Design Review Study Minutes, September 25, 2017 • Applicant's response letter, dated September 28, 2017 • Application to the Planning Commission • Project Description, date stamped April 12, 2017 • Proposed Project Analysis, prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated September 14, 2017 • Historical Resource Evaluation, prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated June 6, 2017 • Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) • Notice of Public Hearing — mailed September 29, 2017 • Aerial Photo The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 2017. CityINGAME HALL of Burlingame B501 PRIMROSE ROAD � 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Monday, September 25, 2017 7:00 PM Council Chambers C. 160 Elm Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached garage (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Lauren and Brad Kettmann, property owners) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 160 Elm Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 160 Elm Ave - Pape & Turnbull Proposed Project Analysis 160 Elm Ave - plans - 09.25.17 All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex parte communications. Planning Manager Gardinerprovided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff. > Page & Turnbull has already recommended the changes. So is the Planning Commission meant to comment if it does not agree with the recommendation? (Gardiner. Correct.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Diana Ruiz, Architecture Allure, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Which windows are being replaced? Is it just the windows with the New symbol being replaced? (Ruiz: Yes.) > Will the new windows match the existing windows? (Ruiz: Yes, they will be similar in style.) > The new windows are identified as painted aluminum -clad. The existing windows are wood, correct? (Ruiz: They will be similar in style with the divided lites, but they are aluminum -clad for the energy requirements.) > Per the Page & Turbull report is there direction yet on where the rafter tails will be eliminated? (Ruiz: No yet. It will be shown on the revised plans.) > Does the hatch pattern on the second floor plan represent non -accessible area under the roof? (Ruiz: Yes.) Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Project looks good. Cttyofa0rgngame Page 1 Printed on 9/28/2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2017 > If it comes back with the recommendations in the Page & Turnbull report it is approvable. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Kelly City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 912812017 September 28`h, 2017 Catherine Keylon City of Burlingame Response Letter Re: Kettmann Residence - Response Letter APN/Lot No.—028-263-110 Planning Comments: A ARCHITECTURE ALLURE Architecture s Interiors 1. Make changes recommended by Page & Turnbull (remove rafter/tails/brackets). Response: Existing conditions at eaves and rakes to remain at front massing of the residence (original structure). Eaves consist of deep 2'-6" eaves with exposed rafter tails that are approx. 1-1/2" x 5-1/2" and plumb cut. The existing rake condition is an approx. 3'-0" overhang with a very large/deep barge rafter with bracketing for support. To differentiate the new construction from existing, new roofs will feature reduced eaves of V-6" at main roof and V-0" eaves with 9" rakes at the new dormers. Rafter tails will be exposed but will be reduced depth cross section of 2-1/2" x 4-1/2" with square end cut. The above will differentiate new areas of improvement from the original and will represent more typical scabbed -on rafter tail designs typical of today. 2. Clarify (label) which windows are new and which are existing. Response: Notes added to elevations to clarify. (R) denotes existing windows intended to be replaced with new aluminum clad windows with true divided lites similar to existing. 3. It appears the existing windows are wood or new will be aluminum clad wood? So they will be different, but with matching mullions right? Response: Existing windows are wood. They will be replaced with painted aluminum clad with true divided lites similar to the existing aesthetic. The existing wood windows are single pane. They are deficient for energy purposes for today's standards and present a safety risk at the upstairs kid bedrooms. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Adam Bittle Architecture Allure, Inc. (650) 208-1204 adam@archallure.com S"' 2 i 2017 7 CITY OF BURUNGAME CDD-? ANNIING DIV, Architecture Allure, Inc. 1501 Mariposa Street, Suite 308 San Francisco, CA 94107 (650) 208-1204 (415) 876-8779 w .archallure.com COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: ® Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: D /7 `Z(c 3 ' 1 (O Q Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: 160 Elm Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 APPLICANT Name: Architecture Allure (Adam Bittle) Address: 550 15th Street, Suite M13 City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (650) 208-1204 E-mail: adam@archallure.com ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Architecture Allure Address: 550 15th Street, Suite M13 City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (650) 208-1204 E-mail: adam@archallure.com Burlingame Business License #: 29891 PROPERTY OWNER Name: Lauren & Brad Kettmann Address: 160 Elm Avenue City/State/Zip: ,IBurlingame, CA 94010 Phone: I f''TyO8. 42o . U2r I E-mail: D C�2 Llina.n� (' a" eC L ro u.1 k . corn RECEIVE® APR 12 2.017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DN. Authorization to Reproduce Protect Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City artatng out of Or related to such action. _AB _ (Initials of Architecf,'Desi-y-er) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rear addition (574 sf total) to existing two-story single family home. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: 4/10/17 I am aware of the proposed application td ►te eb authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: / Date: Ib . (� Date submitted: 4/12/17 5:IHANDOUNPC Application. doc A ARCHITECTURE ALLURE 160 Elm Avenue — Project Description For the property located at 160 Elm Avenue in Burlingame, the proposed improvements include a ground floor rear addition (329 sf) and a second floor rear addition (245 sf) to an existing (3,302 sf) two-story single family home. The existing home is located on a 10,296 sf lot with a detached garage (442 sf) at the rear of the main house. The detached garage is to remain and is not in the scope of work. The existing landscape is to remain. The proposed material of the main house addition is to match the existing palette of painted wood shingle siding and composition shingle roof that reflects the neighborhood character. Sincerely, Adam Bittle Architecture Allure, Inc. (650)208-1204 adam@archallure.com RECEIVED APR 12 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Architecture Allure, Inc. 550 15^ Street, Suite M13 San Francisco, CA 94103 (650) 208-1204 (415) 876-8779 w .archallure.com RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached garage at 160 Elm Avenue, Zoned R-1, Mark B. and Lauren E. Kettmann, property owners, APN: 028-263-110; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 10, 2017, 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: 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 15311, which states that that projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995) are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10r" day of October, 2017, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review. 160 Elm Avenue Effective October 20, 2017 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 30, 2017, sheets Al through A10 and revised sheet A6 through A9 date stamped September 27, 2017; 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; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review. 160 Elm Avenue Effective October 20, 2017 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; and 12. 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. O O O Z m O y 0 L> t CO =- O _0 W U O) Q W a .E .0 a) C W_ F 3a 2 E a)f 5 o T V O LO 0.-0 S �c Z a) .J a) m m a o m > c ca E a) F- O m ��-a W o d m - N U CO N Z w N • a) a) 7 m co 00 dN ^ o _ •� U to a) l0 ❑ vi T o i 0. + (n O Ln C C o m N L N N 'C O' O LO W cam❑ C a '� w E ul C a) (0... 0 �� E o m Co �a c0� U s O m W c O y v °�v U) > m 0 C C U p XX N V— o v c O N O U N� N a) O EL Q c o Q 0_ �. w N w oL �� _ ; > -To aO m L) 2000 0 0 0• E Y E 7 /�/�� D Z c0 C �. 3 a) N a) C9 > U Q Boa — o •� Z V C C C V O C '> 0_ j�02 C1—. mE� OEM OCU� �U O a) to O Z Z m a,� o m 0 w U D L N O L L C 0 aJ W E c .. rn P N a) C 3 Ln O N co ,E tE E a) O a) i ..-C., .0 > U UU u�'i 07a d c'c m c o m o a" a) m C).'C.." d C j a) Y c `m C 0-0 O N .«>` G "O 0 _ O .0 O a) >. O riO_N'a 7 m�0 a) C (cn �0 W J d o y r d U O- cu Q ,.L. `� 'O 0. d d LL. U m a W u I— ,O V Z W ^j a M State of California —The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code 3CS Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page _ 1 of 13 _ Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) 160 Elm Avenue P1. Other Identifier *P2. Location: []Not for Publication ElUnrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999 *c. Address 160 Elm Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessors Parcel Number 028-263-110 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 160 Elm Avenue is a two-story Colonial Revival residence with Craftsman features located in the Burlingame Park neighborhood on the east side of Elm Avenue, between Ralston Avenue on the north and Barroilhet Avenue on the south (Figure 1). The residence features a rectilinear plan and was originally constructed c. 1907 with a front, two-story main volume and a rear, one- story portion that was shortened sometime between 1921 and 1949; both architects are unknown. The wood -framed, shingle -clad residence is set back on the lot, allowing for a deep front lawn, and sits on a poured concrete foundation. The two-story volume is capped with a composite -shingle -clad, side -gabled roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails. The one-story rear portion has a front -gabled roof with slightly overhanging eaves and is also cladded in composite shingles. All windows feature wood casings, wood frames with wood sashes and muntins, and slightly projecting wood sills with mounted hooks for securing casement windows. A driveway on the north side of the property extends from the street to a detached, single -car garage located at the rear northeast side of the property. All photographs were taken by Page & Turnbull on May 5, 2017, unless otherwise noted. (See Continuation Sheet) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: ElBuilding ❑Structure ❑Object ❑Site ❑District []Element of District ElOther to P5b. Photo: (view and dale) View of the primary (southwest) fagade, May 5, 2017 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: 0historic c. 1907 *P7. Owner and Address: Lauren and Brad Kettmann, 160 Elm Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 417 Montgomery Street, 811 Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 *P9. Date Recorded: 5/5/2017 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none") None *Attachments: ❑None ❑Location Map ❑Sketch Map [H]Continuation Sheet OBuilding, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record ❑District Record ❑Linear Feature Record [Willing Station Record ❑Rock ArtRecord Artifact Record []Photograph Record ❑ Other (list) DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # I DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 2 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 160 Elm Avenue *Recorded by Paae & Turnbull. Inc. *Date June 6. 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update *133a. Description (continued): Figure Source: Google Maps, 2017. Edited by Page & Turnbull. urge). The primary fagade of the subject property faces southwest onto Elm Avenue (Figures 2). It features a gabled portico supported by slender Doric columns and pilasters that shelters an elevated front entry at fagade center (Figure 3). The portico and entry door are centered on a concrete -paved patio, which extends nearly the full length of the primary fagade and is accessed via four brick steps from the driveway (Figure 4). The main entry door is wood -paneled with multi-lite sidelites, and is flanked on the ground story by two groups of three 15-lite casement windows. These windows feature louvered shutters only on the outermost sides (Figure 5). The second story features two pairs of 12-lite windows casement windows with shutters on both sides. Figure 2. Primary fapade, looking northeast. 11- RNM T• _ Figure 3. Close-up view of main entry portico and door. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 3 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 160 Elm Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull. Inc. *Date June 6. 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update on@ oil oil men ME! _= EEO MOW WOE Figure 5. Multilite window to right (south) of primary facade. Figi The northwest facade of 160 Elm Avenue consists of the two-story main volume at the right (west) and the one-story rear portion at the left (east); the rear portion is slightly setback from the main volume (Figures 6). The main volume terminates at an open gable roof with overhanging eaves and Craftsman -style brackets (Figure 7), The ground story of the main volume features, from left (east) to right (west), a partial -height single -hung window followed by a grouping of four 15-life windows without shutters. The second story from left (east) to right (west) features two pairs of 12-lite casement windows. The rear portion has two groupings of three eight-lite casement windows that are evenly spaced on this facade (Figure 6). Figure 6, northeast. looking story, looking northeast. d DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 160 Elm Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull. Inc. *Date June 6, 2017 I] Continuation ❑ Update Figr est. Fil close-up of main volume roof at rear. The rear (northeast) fagade of the main volume (above the one-story rear portion) appears to feature no openings or detailing, except for the overhanging roof eaves and exposed rafter tails (Figure 9). The rear (northeast) fagade of the rear portion features, from left (south) to right (north), a pair of partial height and square -shaped four-lite windows; two nine-lite Dutch doors spaced apart by about five feet; a pair of nine-lite windows, followed by a double, solid wood door, which accesses a utility closet at the far right (north) side (Figure 10). A 12-lite window sits just beneath the gable peak of this fagade. A rear deck extends nearly the full length of this fagade, halting just before the utility closet, and is accessed by three wood steps at the northwest corner and three continuous steps along the east side of the deck. The two Dutch doors are accessed off the deck. Wood railings with an integrated bench and trellis run along the south, partial east, and north sides of the deck (Figure 11). southwest. The southeast fagade of the main residence faces a narrow side yard. The main volume (west portion of the fagade) features a brick chimney at center, which is flanked by two pairs of 12-lite casement windows at the ground story and two eight-lite windows at the second story. A window that appears to contain an inset screen is located at the far right (east) side of the main volume's second story (Figures 12 to 13). From left (west) to right (east), the rear portion of the fagade features two groupings of three eight-lite casement windows with detached wood sills, followed by a partial -height pair of six-lite casement windows (Figures 14 to 15). DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 5 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by rec *Recorded by Page & Turnbull. Inc. *Date June 6, 2017 Figure 12. Southeast facade ground story, window to right of chimney in foreground, looking northeast. southwest. Figure 13 Figure Continuation ❑ Update windows to right of chimney. right(east)side window. nd story, of far A two -car detached garage is situated approximately 30 feet northeast of the residence, in the middle of the rear yard along the north side of the property, and is accessed by a concrete driveway that extends along the north side of the house. The wood -frame garage sits on a poured concrete foundation and features wood shingle cladding. It is capped with an asphalt -shingle -clad, front - gabled roof with exposed rafter tails. The primary (southwest) facade contains a one -and -one-half car garage door and a single wood pedestrian door at the far right (south) side (Figures 16 to 17). The southeast facade contains a grouping of three vertically oriented, six-lite windows at center. The lower portion of the southeast facade is concrete, which serves as a retaining wall for the rear yard where it slopes upward. The rear (northeast) facade of the garage contains another grouping of three six-lite windows at the right (north) side. The lawn's topography slopes downward towards the north, exposing a full shingle -clad facade. The northwest facade abuts the adjacent property and contains no openings or other detailing (Figure 18). DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 6 of 13 Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder) 160 Elm Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull. Inc. *Date June 6. 2017 O Continuation ❑ Update Fi Figure 18. Garage Fi northeast. The subject lot features a front lawn, a few mature trees, a hedgerow, low plantings, the aforementioned driveway, a rear paved patio, and a rear lawn (Figures 19 to 21). Mulched landscaped beds surround much of the perimeter of the residence and there are raised planters at the rear south side. The rear paved patio fills approximately half of the rear yard and steps up to a grass lawn. Tall wood plank fencing borders the property at the southeast, northeast, and northwest property lines. The surrounding neighborhood is strictly residential, containing mostly one and two-story houses appearing to date from the 1910s- 1930s, and features a variety of revival architectural styles. _-iy; Figure 20. Front yard, looking southeast. Figure 21. Rear yard, looking northeast towards garage. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 7 of 13 *NRHP Status Code_3CS 'Resource Name or # 160 Elm Avenue Bt. Historic name: 160 Elm Avenue B2. Common name: 160 Elm Avenue B3. Original Use: Single -Family Residence B4. Present use: Single -Family Residence *135. Architectural Style: Vernacular Colonial Revival with Craftsman features *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) No original building permit was found, but based on records at the Burlingame Historical Society and the 1907 Burlingame city directory, 160 Elm Avenue was likely constructed c. 1907. The 1921 Sanborn map with revisions through 1949 portrays a longer building outline behind the pasted -on, current footprint, suggesting that a rear section was removed sometime between 1921 and 1949 (Figure 23). If this property was set back from Pepper Avenue, perhaps this portion was the front of the residence. It also appears from the Sanborn map that a smaller porch here was removed. Municipal water tap records indicate that there was a change in the property's source of water in 1924, which may have occurred when switched from a well water source (Figure 22). The architects/builders of the original residence and rear remodel remain unknown. The earliest building permit on file dates from 1947, but no work description was provided. It was likely not a major alteration since the total cost of the work was $500. A permit in the mid-1960s describes a kitchen and family room remodel. Reroofing occurred in 1990 and a bathroom was remodeled in 2004. The property otherwise appears unaltered, although exterior site elements, including the front patio, back porch, and landscaping, appear to have been added or altered in recent years. No building permits were filed for any major exterior work. All windows appear to contain original wood frames, sashes, and muntins. No historical photographs of the house were found to confine original conditions. The following building permit applications are on file at the Burlingame Building Department: Perm it# Date Owner/Builder Description 60-F 02/4/1947 S rin horn/Terminix Co. No description of work provided Q-493 10/14/1964 John de L Mendez Kitchen & family room remodel 9593 08/07/1990 Marion Mendez Reroofing 2025344 03/28/2004 Mendez Bathroom Remodel *B7. Moved? ®No OYes ❑Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Garage/shed, c.1907 B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown *1310. Significance: Theme Vernacular residential architecture Area City of Burlingame Period of Significance c.1907 Property Type Single -Family Residential Applicable Criteria 3CS (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Historic Context: City of Burlingame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican -era land grant given to Cayetano Arena by Governor Pio Pico in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (purchased 1848) and William C. Ralston (purchased 1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. (See Continuation Sheets) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: HP4. Ancillary building (List attributes and codes) *1312. References: See Page 13 B13. Remarks: *614. Evaluator: Casale Rogg. Page & Turnbull. Inc. *Date of Evaluation: June 6. 2017 (This space reserved for official comments.) Source: San Mateo County Assessors Office, 2017. Burlingame Park. Property shaded in red. Modified by Page & Turnbull. c �, may' �, ��.�.-7_• z---26 :. ,C :3 -- ----- ---- DPR 523E (912013) *Required information State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 8 of 13 Resource Name or # 160 Elm Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull. Inc. *Date June 6, 2017 1@ Continuation ❑ Update B10. Significance (continued): Following Burlingame's death in 1870, the land reverted to Ralston and eventually to Ralston's business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon's trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi - rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small-scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates and the Country Club to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 earthquake and fires had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which boomed with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village's population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910, annexed the north adjacent town of Easton. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area west of the town was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame's population had increased to 4,107. Burlingame Park Neighborhood The subject property was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (along with Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that reverted to William C. Ralston following Burlingame's death. Ralston began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, he hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall's early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall's cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan 'centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree -lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents."' The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The residential neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911.2 Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest planned residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by County Road to the north; Burlingame Park, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the east; Pepper Avenue to the south; and Bellevue Avenue to the west. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of about 50 years from the 1900s to the 1950s. Modest residences were constructed within the subdivision in the early years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and most of the residences within the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Today, the neighborhood reflects the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was subdivided in 1905, through the early -twentieth-century building boom, to the present day. In terms of architecture, most of the homes in the neighborhood are variations of the Craftsman style or of different revival styles, though many are often altered. 160 Elm Avenue According to records at the Burlingame Historical Society, it is likely that the subject property once extended to Pepper Avenue (street adjacent to the east of Elm Avenue), and following a boundary dispute c.1910, the parcels were subdivided and the house was readdressed as 160 Elm Avenue. In 1907, Porter E. Lamb was listed as a resident of Pepper Avenue near Ralston, so it is possible that the house was built this year shortly after he moved to Burlingame. Census records from 1912 and 1914 list the residence's owner as Porter E. Lamb, one of the early real estate pioneers in Burlingame and the city's Justice of the Peace. It is possible that Lamb commissioned the property in 1909-1910, after moving to Burlingame in 1906, and records list his residency there at least through 1920. The 1921 Sanborn map (with revisions through 1949) indicates that as of at least 1921, a building with the same two-story front massing with a slightly narrower one -and -a -half -story rear portion and a detached rear garage were on the property; however, the main residence had another one-story L-shaped section at the rear that was possibly a storage shed or outhouse. The pasted portion, added at an unknown time before 1949, depicts the current building footprint with a small, rear porch that is no longer extant. No historic photographs of the property were found to confirm original siting or architectural design features, and building permits do not indicate any major exterior alterations. Based on site observation, no doors, windows, or siding appear to have been replaced, though it is possible any deteriorated materials were repaired in -kind and are not noticeable. Overall, the residence and garage are in good condition and appear to have only a few minor alterations. ' Gray Brechin, Imperial San Francisco (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), 94. 3 Diane Condon-Wi'rgler, "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park" (Budingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004). DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 9 of 13 Resource Name or # 160 Elm Avenue 'Recorded by Paoe & Turnbull, Inc. 'Date June 6. 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update 160 3li.1 AV -,?[Ja Lot 19 Figure 22. Water record card, 1924. Source: Burlingame Historical Society. Figure 23. Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Map (March 1921 - November 1949). Property outlined in orange and backlit to show original footprint. Source: Burlingame Historical Society. Edited by Page & Turnbull. 1 z 1 1 � i 1 i N '41 c 1 � r 1 p fulo I 1 y r I� I,� L 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 24. Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Map (March 1921 — November 1949). Property outlined in orange. Source: Burlingame Historical Society. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Owner and Occupant History Research has identified Porter Emerson Lamb as the likely original owner of 160 Elm Avenue, first listed in census records in 1914 and in city directories in 1918. Lamb was born in New Hampshire in 1879, but moved to California with his family in 1896. He graduated from Stanford in 1903 where he earned a local reputation as an accomplished track and field athlete and even held the world's record for the 50-yard dash at that time. In 1904, Lamb married Josephine M. McEwen in San Francisco where he became a partner in her father's wholesale lumber business. In 1906, Lamb suffered from a debilitating bout of pneumonia and was forced to resign from a strenuous business career in the city. He and Josephine moved to Burlingame in 1906 before the city incorporated, at which point he started the Burlingame Investment Company along with a few business partners; the company later became the Middlefield Realty Company. Lamb became a partner in the real estate firm of F.D. Lorton & Co. by the early 1910s and was instrumental in the development of the young town of Burlingame where he purchased several large realty holdings. After establishing himself as a successful, though sometimes controversial, commercial real estate mogul, Lamb also took an active role in the political and civic life of the city. According to an account from 1916, Lamb "served the people as Justice of the Peace so satisfactorily that he was returned to the position by a flattering majority."3 City directories record Lamb as the city's Justice of the Peace, an elected position, while he resided at 160 Elm Avenue. He also served later in his career as the vice president of the Burlingame Commercial Club and as a member of the Burlingame Board of Trade. Lamb is recorded as owning the subject property at least through 1920. 3 "Porter E. Lamb." History of San Mateo County by Philip W. Alexander & Charles P. Hamm. Press of Burlingame Publishing Co., Burlingame, CA. pg 153, 1916. Available at ancestry.com Accessed May 12, 2017. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial of 13 Resource Name or # 160 Elm Avenue by Page & Turnbull. Inc. *Date June 6, 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update City directory data indicates that the subject property was next purchased in 1922 by James A. Vincent, a salesman, who resided there with his wife, Marion, until 1925. Walter L. Farrington, a linoleum salesman, and his wife, Irene, owned the property in 1925 and Josephine Lamb, Porter's wife, owned the property in 1926 but likely rented it out. Austin Moore, a residential architect and contractor in San Francisco, owned the property and resided there with his wife, Katrina, from 1927 through 1935. Roy Geary, a real estate broker, owned and resided at the property with his wife, Carol, from 1936 through 1942. Albert W. Springhorn, an insurance broker, purchased it in 1943 and lived there with his wife, Marjorie, until 1949. Everard P. Lamed, a sales manager in San Francisco, resided there with his wife, Betty Jane, from 1949 through 1955. John de Learmond Mendez, a sales agent, purchased the property in 1955 with his wife Marian, and the Mendez family resided at 160 Elm Avenue until 2009. John Mendez died in 1990 at the age of 81, survived by his wife and two daughters, Elizabeth Rood and Sheila Peters. Sheila Peters acquired the property from the Mendez Trust in 2009. No further information was discovered about these owners or previous owners/residents. Lauren and Brad Kettmann currently own the subject property, which they purchased from the Tom Neel Lynch Trust in 2015. The following table outlines the ownership and occupancy history of 160 Elm Avenue, compiled from Burlingame city directories, San Mateo County Assessor records, obituaries, Ancestry.com, and other available resources Year(s) of Ownership Name(s) of Owners and Tenants Occupation c.1907 — c.1921 Porter E. Lamb (Josephine) Burlingame Justice of the Peace and real estate broker; first record of ownership of 160 Elm Avenue in 1912 (city directories); possible he resided there as early as 1907 (though addressed as Pepper Ave. 1922 - 1925 James A. Vincent Marion Salesman 1926 Josephine Lamb Porter's wife; occupation unknown 1927 - 1936 Austin Moore Katrina Residential architect and builder 1936-1942 Roy Geary Carol Real estate broker 1943 — 1949 Albert W. S rin horn (Marjorie) Insurance broker 1949-1955 Everard P. Larned (Betty Jane Sales manager in San Francisco 1955-2009 John de Learmond Mendez (Marian), Mendez Trust Sales agent 2009—c.2011 Sheila Peters Unknown c.2011 — 2015 Tom Neel Lynch Trust Unknown 2015—current Lauren and Brad Kettmann Unknown Evaluation (Significance): The property at 160 Elm Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of a previous survey or evaluation is on file with the State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties beyond the Downtown Specific Plan area, and therefore the property is not listed locally. 160 Elm Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A or the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house was originally constructed c. 1907, one of the earlier properties to be developed in the Burlingame Park subdivision based on Sanborn maps and building permits of surrounding properties. Although the property does express contextual significance as an early single- family residence associated with the first major period of development of the neighborhood, its specific year of construction is not confirmed and thus it would best convey this significance as a contributing resource to a historic district. An evaluation of a potential historic district is outside the scope of this report. The property, therefore, does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. 160 Elm Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B or the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). The original owner, Porter E. Lamb and his wife, Josephine, likely commissioned the building and resided there until 1920. Though Lamb was a prominent public figure and successful real estate developer during Burlingame's formative years, he appears better known for commercial property development downtown. One residential property, Lamb & Lorton Apartments, remains extant at Park and Burlingame Avenues, but no further evidence was found tying Lamb to this building or other residential properties. Therefore, it does not appear that the subject property is representative of Lamb's career in ° Known owners are those who were specified either in city directories, permits or assessor records as homeowners. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 11 of 13 Resource Name or# 160 Elm Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date June 6. 2017 O Continuation ❑ Update real estate, and his overall contributions cannot be said to have made a greater impact on the region or state, such that the property would be found individually significant in association with his work. 160 Elm Avenue experienced significant turnover of ownership during the 1920s through mid-1950s, and little additional information was discovered about these owner -occupants that would indicate significant contributions to history. The longest -term owners and residents of the subject property were John Mendez, a salesman, his wife, Marian Mendez, and their two daughters, who resided at 160 Elm Avenue for 54 years. A native of Pennsylvania, John was a Burlingame resident for 36 years and was known to be active in several local organizations, such as volunteering at Little House Senior Center in Menlo Park and singing in the Orff Choir. However, little information was discovered about Mendez's career in sales, and research did not indicate that any members of the Mendez family were people significant to local, state, or national history. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to be individually eligible under Criterion B/2. 160 Elm Avenue does appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction, or example of high artistic merit. The house exhibits several character -defining features of both the Colonial Revival and Craftsman architectural styles. The subject building appears to be a highly intact and early example of residential vernacular construction in Burlingame Park. The original owner, Porter Lamb, was an emerging property developer when he arrived in Burlingame in 1906, who had worked previously in the wholesale lumber business in San Francisco. It is likely he commissioned the subject property with the intent to exhibit a variety of common stylistic features, but to not directly imitate examples found in high -style handbooks. The residence appears to be an early vernacular version of more expensive or stylish estates constructed nearby or in the city that could instead be affordable to more modest -income and middle-class buyers such as himself. Architectural details of 160 Elm Avenue, including the entry portico and eave brackets, are features common to the area, which do not claim special attention as unique applications of ornament, and thus could be interpreted at this property to offer a more accessible and democratic style of architecture. Moreover, it appears that few similar -age examples of the Colonial Revival style remain extant in Burlingame Park. The detached garage is a related feature and contributor to the house's significance, since it is a highly intact support structure that was likely constructed at the same time. The original architects and builders, however, are unknown and thus, the residence cannot be said to be the work of a master at this time. For these reasons, 160 Elm Avenue does appear to be eligible for individual significance under Criterion C/3. The period of architectural significance for 160 Elm Avenue is the probable year of construction, 1907. While the property appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3, it does not rise to a level of significance such that it would be eligible for the National Register under Criterion C. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register Criterion D/California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 160 Elm Avenue for eligibility under Criterion D/4 is beyond the scope of this report. Evaluation (Integrity): 160 Elm Avenue displays high integrity overall. A portion of the rear of the residence was removed sometime between 1921 and 1949, but otherwise there were few perceivable architectural alterations. The original massing of the house remains unchanged and all original doors and windows of the residence and garage appear intact with wood frames, sashes, and muntins. Overall, the house retains integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. It continues to be used as a single-family residence within a residential neighborhood, and has not been moved. Minor changes that have likely occurred to the site features (replaced concrete paving, front porch, rear deck, and perimeter planting beds) may have somewhat altered the property's original setting, but these changes do not appear to compromise the property's integrity of setting, since the front and rear yards and proximity to adjacent residences appear unaltered. Thus, the subject property retains its integrity. Character -Defining Features: For a property to be eligible for national or state designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character -defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must clearly exhibit enough of those characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms of form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. The character -defining features of 160 Elm Avenue include: House Colonial Revival features: -Symmetrical primary fagade composition -Two-story massing with an adjacent one-story portion -Multi-pane, paired casement windows with hooks throughout and shutters at the primary fagade -Entry portico with columns, pilasters, paneled door and sidelites -Gabled roof - Dutch doors Craftsman features: DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 12 of 13 Resource Name or # 160 Elm Avenue *Recorded by Pace & Turnbull. Inc. *Date June 6, 2017 I] Continuation ❑ Update -Overhanging roof eaves -Exposed rafter tails -Oversized brackets -Shingle cladding Garage -Overhanging roof eaves -Exposed rafter tails -Shingle cladding - Multi -paned windows Conclusion: 160 Elm Avenue was one of the earlier properties constructed c. 1907 during the first major period of development in this subdivision in Burlingame Park. No significant events are associated with the property, and though the probable original owner, Porter Lamb, contributed substantially to the politics and early commercial real estate development of downtown Burlingame, he, nor other owners or occupants appear to have contributed to history to the extent that the property would be considered significant in association. The two-story main volume of the residence with a one-story rear portion features a mix of Colonial Revival and Craftsman features and has been found to be individually eligible for listing as a highly intact and representative example of residential vernacular architecture in Burlingame. It also appears to be a representative example of Colonial Revival architecture in the neighborhood. Therefore, 160 Elm Avenue appears to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3(Architecture). It does not appear to be eligible to the extent necessary for significance under Criterion C of the National Register. As such, the California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of"3CS" has been assigned to the property, meaning that it has been "found eligible for the California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation."5 This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early -twentieth century Revival residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park and surroundings neighborhoods as a whole would need to be done to verify the boundaries of an eligible historic district within the neighborhood. ' California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User's Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 13 of 13 Resource Name or # 160 Elm Avenue *Recorded by Pace & Turnbull. Inc. *Date June 6. 2017 © Continuation ❑ Update *1312. References: 1921-1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map. Ancestry.com. Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Burlingame Advance. "P.E. Lamb for Justice of the Peace." August 13, 1910. Burlingame Historical Society, "Remembering Fern Schmitz." Burlingame Historical Society, Conversation with Jennifer Pfaff and Martha ("Matriarch" or Historical Society about Fern's work there and the history of the Society), March 23, 2017. Building Permit Records, 160 Elm Avenue, Burlingame, CA. Burlingame City Directories, 1918-1982. California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User's Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004. Carey & Company. "Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan." February 19, 2008. Census Records, 1914-1980s. Condon-Wirgler, Diane. "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park." Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004, Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007. McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. "Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame." July 26, 1982. San Mateo Times. John de Learmond Mendez Obituary. December 10, 1990. San Mateo County Assessor Grantor -Grantee Index. Water Tap Record. 160 Elm Avenue, Lot 19, Block 3. 1924. DPR 523L Profnored Project Anal m 160 Elm Avenue Final Bndingame, California XII. APPENDIX B Drawing set for Proposed Project (Architecture Allure, Inc., June 12, 2017). September 14, 2017 Page & Tmrnbm4 I= 18- 160 ELM AVENUE, BURLINGAME PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS [I7153A] PREPARED FOR. CITY OF BURLIHNGAP-IE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PAc,TE & TILRi�TBUT T EFTt imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology FINAL Proposed PmjedAnalyris 160 Elm Avenue. Final Burlingame, California TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 2 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION....................................................................................................... 2 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................ 2 II. BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS .............................. 3 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES..................................................................................... 4 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES...................................................................... 4 Ill. CHARACTER -DEFINING FEATURES.................................................................... 5 160 ELM AVENUE................................................................................................................................. 5 IV. PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS.......................................................................6 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................... 6 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT................................................................................ 7 STATUS OF EXISTING BUILDING AS A HISTORICAL RESOURCE .................................................... 8 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS.............................................................................. 9 STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION.................................................................................I.............. 10 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC IMPACTS UNDER CEQA........................................................ 13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS..................................................................................................................... 13 PROJECT IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION............................................................................. 14 VII. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................... I5 Vlll. REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................... 16 XI. APPENDIX A........................................................................................................ 17 XII. APPENDIX B....................................................................................................... 18 September 14, 2017 Page 2 Dimbuq Inc. _1_ Proposed Prnud Analysis Final I. INTRODUCTION 160 Elm Avenue Burb'agame, California This Project Analysis has been prepared at the request of Architecture Allure, Inc. and their clients, Lauren and Brad Kettman, for proposed alterations to 160 Elm Avenue (APN 028-263-110) in Burlingame, California. Constructed c.1907, the two-story, single-family residence at 160 Ehn Avenue was one of the earliest properties built during the first major period of development in this subdivision in the Burlingame Park neighborhood. The building features a mix of Colonial Revival and Craftsman elements and is a notable example of Colonial Revival architecture in the neighborhood. In May 2017, Page & Turnbull evaluated the building using the State of California DPR 523A and 523B forms. It was determined to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a highly intact and representative example of residential vernacular architecture in Burlingame (Appendix A). Therefore, 160 Elm Avenue is considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project at 160 Elm Avenue involves an interior remodel of the ground floor and second floor; an addition at the rear of the ground floor; an increased roof height at the rear volume for a full second floor; and a new rear patio. No alterations are proposed for the primary facade. The City of Burlingame requires that all proposed work to eligible historic properties be evaluated for potential substantial adverse impacts as defined by CEQA, which may threaten the continued significance of the resource. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION The proposed project was evaluated according to the Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (the Standards). It was determined to comply with the Standards, with one consideration to strengthen compliance with one of the Standards to avoid a false sense of history. As designed, the proposed project would not impact the eligibility of the property for listing in the California Register, and therefore, would not have a significant adverse impact under CEQA. No mitigation measures were suggested for this project, though one project improvement recommendation is provided that would help to reinforce the reviewed proposal's compliance with the Standards. METHODOLOGY This report includes a summary of the building's current historic status, its significance, a list of character -defining features that enable the property to convey its historic significance, and photographs taken of the building at the time of evaluation in May 2017, which are included in the DPR forms (Appendix A). Page & Turnbull prepared this report using information collected from a May 2017 site visit, drawings of the proposed project provided by Architecture Allure, Inc., as well as the evaluation and character -defining features outlined in the 2017 DPR forms. Based. on the finding of historic significance, the proposed project was evaluated using the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. September 14, 2017 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -2- Proposed PrajeaAnalysis Final 160 Elm Aoenne Barlingame, California II. BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS The property is on the east side of Elm Avenue, between Ralston Avenue on the north and Barroilhet Avenue on the south (Figure 1). The residence features a rectilinear plan and was originally constructed c. 1907 with a two-story primary volume and a rear, one -and -one -half -story portion that was shortened sometime between 1921 and 1949; both architects are unknown. The wood -Framed, shingle -dad residence is set back on the lot, allowing for a deep front lawn, and sits on a poured concrete foundation. The two-story volume is capped with a composite -shingle -clad, side - gabled roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails. The rear portion has a front -gabled roof with slightly overhanging eaves and is also clad in composite shingles. All windows feature wood casings, wood frames with wood sashes and muntins, and slightly projecting wood sills with mounted hooks for securing casement windows. A driveway on the north side of the property extends from the street to a detached, single -car garage located at the rear northeast side of the property. Figure 1. Current aerial photograph of 160 Elm Avenue (outlined in orange). Source: Google Maps, 2017. Edited by Page & Turnbull. 160 Elm Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, and no previous evaluations were found on record. The property was evaluated in May 2017 using the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A (Primary Record) and 523B (Building, Structure, and Object Record) forms by Page & Turnbull (Appendix A). The city of Burlingame does not currently have a specific ordinance in place to regulate historic properties. The Preliminary Historic Resources Survey of Burlingame, completed in 1982, was not officially adopted by the City Council, and thus does not serve as an enforced "local register."t The Downtown Specific Plan's Section 5.3 Design Standards far ResidentialAreas outlines guidelines for maintaining architectural diversity and character, but focuses only on downtown residential development. t Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, Chapter 5.0 `Historic Resources', Section 5-6 through 5-9. adopted in 2010 and revised in 2016 to be Chapter 6.0 `Historic Resources'. September 17, 2017 Page 6 TmnbuQ In, _3_ Pmpored RojeaAnalytis 160 Elm Avenue Final Burlingame, Cahfornia NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation's most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. 160 Elm Avenue was evaluated in 2017 by Page & Turnbull and determined not to be eligible to the extent necessary for significance under any of the evaluative criteria of the National Register. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register -listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. 160 Elm Avenue was evaluated in 2017 by Page & Turnbull and determined to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture). As such, the California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of "3CS" was assigned to the property, meaning that it has been "found eligible for the California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation." However, 160 Elm Avenue has not been listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, 160 Elm Avenue is considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). September 14, 2017 Page & Turnbu4 Inc. -4- Proposed P-jeetAnalysis 160 Elm Avenue Final BurBngame, California III. CHARACTER -DEFINING FEATURES 160 ELM AVENUE For a property to be eligible for national, state or local designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character -defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. According to the 2017 DPR forms, the period of significance for 160 Elm Avenue was determined to be its approximate year of construction, 1907. The evaluation includes a list of the character - defining features for the building. Generally, significance for architecture is supported by the retention of features that relate to design, materials, and workmanship, and significance for association with events or persons is supported by the retention of features that relate to location, setting, feeling, and association. Please refer to the DPR forms for descriptions of existing conditions and photographs (May 2017) of the subject property (Appendix A). The character -defining features of 160 Elm Avenue include: House Colonial Revival features: • Symmetrical primary facade composition • Two-story massing with an adjacent lower portion • Multi -pane, paired casement windows with hooks throughout and shutters at the primary facade • Entry portico with columns, pilasters, paneled door and sidelites • Gabled roofs Craftsman features: Garage Site • Overhanging roof eaves • Exposed rafter tails • Oversized brackets • Shingle cladding • Overhanging roof eaves • Exposed rafter tails • Shingle cladding • Multi -paned windows • Setback with deep front lawn • Spatial relationship between the house and the rear detached garage September 14, 2017 Page 6 Turnbull, In, -5- Proposed PmlettAnalyns 160 Elm Avenue Final Borlingame, California IV. PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS This section analyzes the project -specific impacts of the proposed project at 160 Elm Avenue on the environment, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The following analysis describes the proposed project, assesses its compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards far Aebabildahon; and identifies cumulative impacts. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION This proposed project description is based on a set of drawings prepared by Architecture Allure, Inc. for submission to the City of Burlingame's Planning Department and dated June 12, 2017. The set was provided to Page & Turnbull by the architects. The proposed project at 160 Elm Avenue involves an interior remodel of the ground floor and second floor; an addition at the rear of the ground floor; an increased roof height at the rear volume for a taller and expanded second floor; and a new rear patio. The project proposes no changes to the existing primary facade or rear -detached garage. The ground -floor addition will be at the rear of the existing rear volume and will be one story. The proposed second -floor alteration and addition will remove the existing gable roof and replace it with a similar gable roof approximately three feet taller to reach 23 feet-9 inches. This will remain below the front volume's approximately 26-foot roofline and will not exceed the maximum allowable residential height limit of 30 feet. The project includes a net increase of 574 square feet by adding 329 square feet to the ground story and 260 square feet to the second story (15 square feet of the existing ground floor will be demolished). The existing driveway and other site conditions will be also be retained in the proposed project. As proposed, Architecture Allure intends for the new constmction to respect the vernacular Colonial Revival and Craftsman styles by incorporating similarly pitched gable roofs, fenestration, massing, and architectural detailing. All new roofing and siding materials are proposed to match the existing composite shingles and painted wood shingles, respectively. No trees will be removed from the site. All property line setback requirements Nvill also be observed in the proposed design. Refer to drawings provided for more information (Appendix B). Primary (Westl Facade and Portions of the Existing North and South Facades to Remain The existing historic primary (south) facade is proposed to be fully retained. The second story addition will be within the existing gable roof at the rear portion, about two feet below the roofline of the front facade, and thus not be visible from Elm Avenue. At the north side facade of the primary volume, one partial -height window at the left (east) side of this portion will be removed. No changes are proposed to the south facade of the primary volume. The existing brick chimney at the south side of the front volume will remain. North Facade — Rear Side and Second Story The rear one -and -a -half story volume of the north facade will become a two-story volume. At the ground floor, a new side door will be installed at the existing facade center, which will be accessed by four steps up to the deck. The door will be wood framed, multi-lite, and fully glazed. The ground - floor addition will extend the building by approximately 14 feet to the rear. The rear (east) part of the ground -floor north facade with an existing grouping of three casement windows will be demolished along with the rear (east) ground -floor facade. It will be replaced with a longer facade with a new grouping of five new multi-lite windows to match the remaining set of triple windows on this facade. The second story will feature the taller front -gable roof of the second -floor addition with a side - gabled dormer window projection containing three evenly spaced, multi-lite windows. The new roof will feature exposed rafter tads where it extends to the approximate height of the existing eave. The September 14, 2017 Page 6 Turnbull, Inc. -6- Pmpored P-jedAnalyrir Final 160 ElmAvenue Burlingame, California dormer's shed roof and the new tear one-story volume's roof will also feature new exposed rafter tails. South Facade — Rear and Second Story At the ground story of the existing rear volume, the proposed project will replace the center triple window and partial height window at the right (east) side with two horizontally -oriented, multi-lite, and partial -height, fixed windows with painted wood trim to match that of the existing windows. The existing electric meter will be retained. The new rear ground -floor addition will also contain one horizontally oriented multi-lite window on the south facade. The second story of the rear volume will similarly feature a side -gabled dormer projection in the taller roof that will accommodate the second - story addition. The existing single dormer and windows will be removed. The new dormer on the south facade will be smaller than on the north facade and will contain two multi-lite windows. Like the north facade, the new roof and dormer roof eaves will feature exposed rafter tails, as will the new ground -floor addition. Rear (Faso Facade and Second Story Addition The rear Facade of 160 Elm Avenue will feature the most visible change. The existing ground -floor facade will be demolished and the rear, one-story addition added. The addition's new east facade will contain a French door at center flanked by two sets of three multi-lite windows with painted wood trim to match the existing. The outermost windows of each triple set will be operable and the center window fixed. The new rear facade addition will be dad with wood shingles, also painted to match the existing. The ground -floor addition will be capped with a shed roof that intersects the open gable of the new second -floor addition's roof. The ground -floor addition's roofline appears to feature four carved wood brackets, similar to those of the original primary volume's north and south facades. Above the shed roof in centered in the second -floor addition's gable will be a shed -roofed dormer featuring exposed rafter tails and a set of three multi-lite wood sash windows. The open gable roof of the second -story addition will be clad with painted wood shingles to match the existing. The new rear patio will largely assume the footprint of the existing, but be built further to the east on the site. It will still be accessed primarily by wide steps at the east side but with no steps or railing at the north side. Interior The proposed ground floor will consist of the existing entry, living room, office, and powder room, while the stairs and the interior walls in the rear portion will be reconfigured for a new dining room, guest suite, kitchen, and family room. The second floor will contain an expanded and remodeled master bedroom suite at the rear volume corresponding to the new taller roof and dormers and two bedrooms with a shared bathroom at the front volume. The interior remodel is not subject to review under CEQA. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) is state legislation (Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.), which provides for the development and maintenance of a high -quality environment for the present day and future through the identification of significant environmental effects.' -For public agencies, the main goals of CEQA are to: 1. Identify the significant environmental effects of projects; and either 2 State of California, California Environmental Quality Act, accessed 19 November 2013, http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env—law/ceqa/s=mary.html. September 14, 2017 Page 6 Turnbull, In, -7- Proposed Project Analysis 160 E1mAuenne Final Brrdiagame, Ca§fornia 2. Avoid those significant environmental effects, where feasible; or 3. Mitigate those significant environmental effects, where feasible. CEQA applies to "projects" proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval from state or local government agencies. "Projects" are defined as "...activities which have the potential to have a physical impact on the environment and may include the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps."} Historical and cultural resources are considered to be part of the environment. In general, the lead agency must complete the environmental review process as required by CEQA. The basic steps are: 1. Determine if the activity is a "project;" 2. Determine if the project is exempt from CEQA; 3. Perform an Initial Study to identify the environmental impacts of the Project and determine whether the identified impacts are "significant." Based on the finding of significant impacts, the lead agency may prepare one of the following documents: a) Negative Declaration fox findings of no "significant" impacts; b) Mitigated Negative Declaration for findings of "significant" impacts that may revise the Project to avoid or mitigate those "significant" impacts; c) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for findings of "significant" impacts. STATUS OF EXISTING BUILDING AS A HISTORICAL RESOURCE In completing an analysis of a project under CEQA, it must fast be determined if the project site possesses a historical resource. A site may qualify as a historical resource if it falls within at least one of four categories listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). The four categories are: 1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.). 2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852). 4. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Pub. Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Pub. Resources 3 Ibid. September 14, 2017 Page dr TurnbuQ Inc. g_ Pmpoted PTectAnalysis Final 160 EIm Aoenue Burlingame, California Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Pub. Resources Code sections 5020.10) or 5024.1. In general, a resource that meets any of the four criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) is considered to be a historical resource unless "the preponderance of evidence demonstrates" that the resource is not historically or culturally significant"+ Based on analysis and evaluation contained in the 2017 DPR 523A and B forms, 160 Elm Avenue meets the criteria for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, and should therefore be considered a historical resource under CEQA. In the case of the proposed project at 160 Elm Avenue, the City of Burlingame acts as the lead agency. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS The Secretary of the Interior's Standarth for Rebabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rebabilitating Historic Buildings (Standards) provide guidance for reviewing proposed work on historic properties, with the stated goal of making possible "a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values."5 The Standards are used by federal agencies in evaluating work on historic properties. The Standards have also been adopted by local government bodies across the country for reviewing proposed rehabilitation work on historic properties under local preservation ordinances. The Standards are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of substantial changes to historic resources. Under CEQA, projects that comply with the Standards benefit from a regulatory presumption that they would have a less -than -significant adverse impact on an historic resource.6 Projects that do not comply with the Standards may or may not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. The Standards offers four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic. properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The four distinct treatments are defined as follows: Preservation: The Standards for Preservation "require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the building's historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time." Rehabilitation: The Standards for Rehabilitation "acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing new uses while retaining the building's historic character." Restoration: The Standards for Restoration "allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods." Reconstruction: The Standards for Reconstruction "establish a limited framework for recreating a vanished or non -surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes." 4 Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq. 5 National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, accessed online 19 November 2013, http://ww .nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/. 4 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(3). .September 14, 2017 Page ds' Turnbull Inc. -9- Proposed ProjeaAn,dnx Final 160 ElmAmnue Burlingame, Cakforma Typically, one set of standards is chosen for a project based on the project scope. In this case, the proposed project scope is seeking to alter and add to a historic building to continue its existing residential use. Therefore, the Standards for Rehabilitation will be applied. STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION The following analysis applies each of the applicable Standards for Rehabilitation to the proposed project at 160 Elm Avenue. This analysis is based upon the proposed designs by Architecture Allure Inc. Gone 12, 2017), as submitted to Page & Turnbull (Appendix B). Rehabilitation Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships: Discussion: The proposed project does not alter the use of the historic residential property at 160 Elm Avenue, as it will continue to be used as a single-family residence. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 1. Rehabilitation Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved The removal of distinctive materials or alteration offeaturer, spaces, and spatial relationships that cbaracien e the properly will be avoided Discussion: As proposed, the project would not involve the removal of historic materials or alteration of character -defusing features on the front (west) facade. From the public right-of-way on Elm Avenue, the historic character of the c. 1907 vernacular Colonial Revival/Craftsman-style residence will be fully preserved. Several character -defining features at the rear, north, and south facades will also be retained, including the two-story massing with a lower rear portion, multi-lite casement windows, gabled roofs, overhanging roof eaves, shingle cladding, and brackets and exposed rafter tails at the front volume. Although the one -and -one -half -story massing of the rear volume will be altered, it will remain lower the than front volume and it appears this change will compromise the building's ability to convey its significance as a notable example of the vernacular typology. The new dormers are not visible from Elm Avenue, and the new taller gable roof of the second -floor addition retains and clearly articulates the ground -floor roofline at the north and south facades. The residence's overall high integrity of design and setting will not be substantially compromised by the rear extension and second story addition at the secondary facades of the existing budding. All new side and rear casement windows will feature wood frames, sash, and muntins painted to match existing windows. New doors will be wood framed, fully glazed, multi-lite, and also painted to match the existing. Although existing windows and doors proposed to be removed contribute to the overall historic integrity and character of the resource, it is unknown whether these rear elements ate original to the construction of the building. Thus, the removal of these original features at the secondary facades will not substantially impact the character of the resource to the extent that its significance under Criterion 3 (Architecture) is no longer communicated. Therefore, the proposed project will comply with Rehabilitation Standard 2. Rehabilitation Standard 3: Eacb pmperty will be tre'ognixed as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken. Discussion: The proposed project intends to integrate new construction at the sides and rear of the residence that is compatible in its materiality, yet subtly differentiated in its design, placement, and September 14, 2017 Page 6 Tumball, Inc. -to- Proposed Pro,eaAnalyri.r 160 ElmAmnue Final Burlingame, California orientation (new wood frame and sash casement windows and fully glazed, multi-lite doors; painted shingle siding at residence rear and second story additions; and new composite shingle roofing throughout). The new windows and doors appear successful as new elements, given that they recall the general rhythm of the original windows and doors proposed to be removed but are stylistically different from, yet compatible with, the existing casement windows, in terms of lite pattern, rhythm, and proportions. Moreover, the design of the proposed rear shed and gable roofs will appear appropriate adjacent to the pitch, massing, and aesthetic of the existing roofs and single dormer, such that the proposed forms do not appear starkly out of place as compared with the existing volumes. The language of the overhanging roof eaves, exposed rafters, brackets, and wood trim detailing is repeated at the rooflines of the new addition, and overall is not directly imitated. However, exposed rafter tails and brackets are featured only at the roof eaves of the existing primary volume and garage, and not at all at the existing rear volume. Although the proposed use of it at the new roof eaves at the side and rear would appear compatible with the aesthetic of the resource, the addition of it on all new rooflines, particularly at the dormers, may veer towards creating a sense of false historicism. Consider simplifying or reducing the amount of exposed rafter tails and brackets to avoid a sense that they are original to the building. Therefore, with one consideration, the project was found to comply with Rehabilitation Standard 3. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved Discussion: 160 Elm Avenue includes no previous major observable or permitted alterations. However, the original appearance of the rear facade is not known, not the alterations that may have occurred when a rear portion was added and removed before 1949. The rear detached garage has been identified as a character -defining feature, given its likely date of construction during the period of significance and Craftsman -style detailing. Thus, no changes have acquired significance in their own right. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 4. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction tecbniques or examples of craftsmanship that characteritie a property will be preserved Discussion: As discussed, the proposed project will alter the rear massing of the historic property and remove some character -defusing materials and features, including original windows and doors, at the sides and rear. However, the primary facade will not be affected and the most visible character - defining features that characterize the property, particularly the gabled roofs, brick chimneys, wood shingling, wood brackets, eaves, trim, and casement windows of the front, side, and rear facades, will be preserved. As designed, the proposed project will largely comply with Rehabilitation Standard 5. Rehabilitation Standard 6: Deteriorated bistoric features will be repaired rather than replaced Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, wherepassible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Discussion: As planned, the project does not describe any proposed repairs or replacements. Existing wood trim and shingles will be repainted, and the existing rear roofing material will be replaced with composite shingles to maintain consistency throughout. If it is determined that any historic element September 14, 2017 Page dr Turnbull, Inc. -11- PrahotedProjea-4md u Final 160 Elen Aeenue Burlingame, California cannot be repaired due to significant deterioration and needs to be replaced, the new windows or architectural detailing should be replaced in -kind. At this time, no repairs are proposed, and therefore, the proposed project will be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Rehabilitation Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Discussion: No cleaning methods or repair of windows, detailing, or other historic materials is proposed at this time. If it is necessary to propose chemical or physical treatments, these methods should not involve the use of harmful treatments that would damage the historic elements. At this time, no treatments axe proposed and therefore, the project will be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 7. Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Discussion: The proposed project will not include excavation work, as the ground floor is proposed to be retained as it currently exists. As planned, the proposed project will be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 8 Rehabilitation Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy bistoni materials, features, and spatial relationships that cbaracteni e the property. The new work shall be differentiatedfmm the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, sitie, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and environment. Discussion: As discussed in Standard 2, the proposed project will not alter character -defining materials or features on the front (west) fa4ade or north and south facades of the primary volume. The residence's one -and -one -half -story rear volume will be altered, including a rear extension and a taller gable roof with more dormers, resulting in a full -height two stories at the rear; however, the proposed rear volume will still be lower than the primary volume and maintain this original spatial relationship between the two portions of the residence. The proposed project will also remove some character -defining materials and features —namely a few original windows at the rear volume's sides and the windows and doors of the rear fa4ade. The location of the new windows and doors will also be different. However, the alteration in massing, removal of these features, and changed fenestration pattern are on secondary facades and do not appear to substantially affect the overall historic character of the resource, particularly as observed from the public right-of-way on Elm Avenue. As proposed, new construction appears to employ a subtly distinct, yet compatible, design vocabulary, as compared with that of the historic building. The proposed new windows of the rear extension, second floor and dormer additions will feature wood frames and trim to preserve the overall aesthetic of these historic features; yet, the design, orientation, and placement of the new multi-lite windows and doors will not directly imitate that of the originals, and thus, clearly differentiate them as new features. The painted wood shingle siding of the new portions will be compatible with the original shingling of the residence and maintain a desired consistency of this directly adjacent character -defining feature. On the other hand, though compatible with the style of the resource, the proposed addition of exposed rafter tails on all new roof eaves does not appear sufficiently differentiated as a new element, especially if featured more prevalently at the new addition relative to the existing residence (See Standard 3). The rear fagade's original proportions, September 14, 2017 Page dr Tumbull, Inc. -12- Proposed PrafectAnalysis Final 160 ElmAmnue Burlingame, California composition, and end -gabled roofline will be reconstructed in the new fagade, and its new massing does not appear that it will distract from the overall character of the residence. Therefore, with incorporation of the consideration regarding the exposed rafter tails in Standard 3, the proposed project will comply with Rehabilitation Standard 9. Rehabilitation Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic pmperly and its environment would be unimpaired Discussion: The proposed project involves the demolition of the rear fagade, rear volume's roof, and a small portion of the rear volume's north fagade. New construction of a rear extension and the taller roof to create two stories at the rear and sides will expand upon and alter the existing rear building envelope. However, in the event that these additions are removed in the future, it appears that the essential overall form and integrity, including the primary front volume, its spatial relationship with a lower rear volume, and the sidewalls of the rear volume, would remain relatively unimpaired. Therefore, as designed, the proposed project will comply with Rehabilitation Standard 10. ANALYSIS OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC IMPACTS UNDER CEQA As the above analysis demonstrates, the proposed project as currently designed appears to comply with all ten of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and thus will not affect the ability of 160 Elm Avenue to be eligible for local listing or designation. There is one condition mentioned in the Standard 3 evaluation, which is discussed in further detail in the following section; however, the non-compliance with this measure would not significantly impair the historic character of the resource. Thus, according to Section 15126.4(b)(1) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA), the project's impact "will generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant." Although the proposed new construction will alter the building's original rear massing, 160 Elm Avenue would still retain the majority of its character -defining features, such that the historic character and integrity of design will still be conveyed. As proposed, the project complies with the Standards and will not result in project -specific impacts or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource as defined by CEQA. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The California Environmental Quality Act defines cumulative impacts as follows: "Cumulative impacts" refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.? 7 CEQA Guidelines, Article 20, subsection 15355. September 14, 2017 Page da Turnbull, Inc. -13- P-pmd PmjeerAnalyris Final 160 Elm Aoenue Bnrlingame, California Proposed new construction at 160 Elm Avenue does not appear to cause any significant cumulative impacts which would compound or increase environmental impacts. Directly adjacent properties to the subject project site on the north and south sides contain similar scale, two-story- Revival -style residences (172 and 158 Elm Avenues, respectively) (Figures 14 to 15). Parcels across the street are larger and residences are mostly obscured by trees. There is no record of the adjacent properties having been evaluated or designated as historic resources. According to the Burlingame Planning Department's list of `Approved' and `Proposed Projects Under Review', there are no other proposed development projects currently planned in the direct vicinity of the subject property. As designed, the rear extension and upper story addition would be compatible with the surrounding setting and design aesthetic of adjacent properties, and therefore was not found to cause any project -specific or cumulative impacts to the surrounding environment of the resource as defined by CEQA.B Source: Google Earth, 2017. PROJECT IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION Figure 15.158 Ehn Avenue indicated with arrow; (Primary fagade was obscured from Elm Avenue by a tree). Edited by Page & Turnbull. Source: Google Earth, 2017. To support the project's compliance with the Secretary of the Interiar5 Standard, the following project improvement is presented. This recommendation could be considered and incorporated into design revisions, if possible. No mitigation measures are presented. Project Improvement Recommendation # I Page & Turnbull appreciates that the proposed design respects and retains the character -defining materials and architectural features of the historic resource in the proposed new construction. As stated, it is also important that proposed new construction be compatible overall, yet clearly differentiated from the historic building fabric in order to most effectively preserve the character of the resource. While the proposed project appears largely successful in integrating new features and materials in a way that is both compatible and clearly new (altered rear massing, new multi-lite windows and doors), the addition of the Craftsman -style exposed rafter tails and brackets on all new roof eaves may appear to give a false sense of historic development, as compared with the lack of this feature on the existing rear volume. Page & Turnbull would suggest reducing or removing some areas of rafter tads, especially at the new ground story roofline, in the case it might be mistaken as an original feature. 8 Burlingame Planning Department website. "General and Specific Plans " http://www.burlingame.org/index.aspx?page=151 September 14, 2017 Page d." Tumbu!!, In:: _14_ Proposed PmjeaAnalysis Final VII. CONCLUSION 160 ElmAuenue Burlingame, California The property at 160 Elm Avenue was evaluated in May 2017 using the State of California DPR 523A and 523B forms and determined to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 (Architecture) (Appendix A). 160 Elm Avenue appears to be one of the most intact and earliest examples of a vernacular residence with Colonial Revival and Craftsman -style features, including a well-preserved rear support structure, in the neighborhood. Therefore, 160 Elm Avenue is considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project was evaluated according to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rebabilitation and was determined to comply with the Standards, with one condition to consider in order to strengthen compliance with Standard 3. All of the character -defining features of the primary facade will be retained. Although some character -defining features of the rear volume will be altered, the removal of these features and then in -kind replacement was found not to impact the eligibility of the property for listing in the California Register and not to cause a potential adverse change in its continued significance. One project improvement recommendation is provided that would help to reinforce the reviewed proposaPs compliance with the Standards. September 14, 2017 Page & Turnbul4 Inc -15- Proposed PmjmtAnalysu Final LVLIIN".14 4:14\ OORK41 01 160 Elm Avenue Bnrhbigame, California DPR Forms for 160 Elm Avenue. Recorded by Cassie Rogg by Page & Turnbull. May 2017. Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, Chapter 5.0 `Historic Resources', Section 5-6 through 5-9. Adopted in 2010 and revised in 2016 to be Chapter 6.0 `Historic Resources'. September 14, 2017 Page 6 Turnbull, Inc -16- Proposed ProjectAnalysis Final XI. APPENDIX A 160 Elm Amnue Burlingame, Calfornta DPR Forms for 160 Elm Avenue. Recorded by Cassie Rogg by Page & Turnbull. May 2017. September 14, 2017 Page 6 Turnbull, Inc. -17- 25'-11" +94'-3" T.O. (E) RIDGE AT FRONT 23'-9" (+92'-1 ") T.O. RIDGE AT REAR 18'-5" (+86'-9") T.O. (E) PLATE AT FRONT 18'-2" (+86'-6") T.O, PLATE AT REAR (E) PTD. WD. 1.5" X 5.5" RAFTER W/PLUMB / TAIL, TYP. / 10'-8" +79'-0" T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR ,gk 10'-2" (+78'-6") \ — — — — — — — — — — — T.O. (E) F.F. AT FRONT 9'-0" +77'-4" T.O. (E) PLATE 0'-6" (+68'-10") T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR 0'-0" +68'-4" T.O. (E) F.F. AT FRONT 25'-11" (+94'-3") T.O. RIDGE AT FRONT 20'-6" +88'-10" T.O. RIDGE AT REAR ,gk 18'-5" (+86'-9") T.O. PLATE 10'-8" (+79'-0") T.O. F.F. AT REAR 10'-2" +78'-6" T.O. F.F. AT FRONT 9'-0" (+77'-4") T.O. PLATE 0'-6" (+68'-10") T.O. F.F. AT REAR 0'-0" (+68'4") T.O. F.F. AT FRONT 0 N /I / / I / I / I / I � _ I I I I ZI I YI �I QI �I �I W CI al WI al � FJ5I I I I AVG. GRADE FOR DECLINING HT. ENV. — I +64.10 T.O. CURB -2'-2" (+66'-211) AVG. GRADE FOR DECLINING HT. ENV. PTD. WD. 1.5" X 5.5" RAFTER W/PLUMB TAIL, TYP. I I ZI U �I a LU n ILl W q o 0 r i 30'-0" MAX. HT. LIMIT ,-- (E) BRICK -]Hv- - (E) COMP. SHINGLES uI�-R' LN,I �I � ILU 00 (E) PTD. WD. SHINGLES (E) PTD. WD. TRIM, TYP. W a r\ \=(E) BARGE RAFTER \ WITH BRACKETS, TYP. --- --- - a IL - h I tWDE I HIE] w h I M�OCASTER COLUMNS- . ❑ +66.2 (E) PTD. SOLID WD. DOOR T.O. CURB DECLINING HT. ENV. ---------------------------L J-31-2"(+65'-211)� (R) INDICATES EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED 4'-0" (E)AVG. TOP OF CURB AND REPLACED WITH PAINTED ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS WITH TRUE DIVIDED LITES. SIZE AND STYLE TO MATCH (E) PROPOSED WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION (EXISTING TO REMAIN' SCALE: 1 /4" = l'-0" BARGE RAFTER WITH BRACKETS, TYP. DECLINING HT. ENV. —--------------------- -- --- ---L -3'-2" (+65'-2") ri (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB 4'-0" EXISTING WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION (NOT IN SCOPE w U Z W 0 W r_ Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date 04-12-17 08-30-17 Q Z 0� O LU LL Z J LUQ�"� QCUN 00 LU N J � O LU Q O Z Z — Q J ry D m 16-44 Issue DESIGN REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW EXISTING AND PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1' 4' 0' 2' 8' SCALE: 1 /4"=l'-0" SCALE: 1 /4" = l'-0" 25'-11" (+94'-3") T.O. (E) RIDGE AT FRONT 23'-9" +92'-1" T.O. RIDGE AT REAR 18'-5" +86'-9") T.O. (E) PLATE AT FRO 18'-2" (+86'-6") T.O. PLATE AT REAR (E) PTD. WD. 1.5" X 5.5" RAFTER W/PLUMB TAIL, TYP. 10'-8" (+79'-0") T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR _ 10'-2" (+78'-611) 1 T.O. (E) F.F. AT FRONT N 9'-0" (+77 41 T.O. (E) PLATE _ o w N Z_ } w 0'-6" (+68'-10") T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR 0'-011 (+68'-4") T.O. (E) F.F. AT FRONT T.O. RIDGE AT FRONT 20'-6" +88'-10" T.O. RIDGE AT REAR T.O. PLATE Y T.O. F.F. AT REAR 'IF T.O. F.F. AT FRONT T.O. PLATE T.O. F.F. AT REAR T.O. F.F. AT FRONT (E) BRICK Ll- — — — — — — — — — 30'-0" MAX. HT. LIMIT I I 12 (E) COMP. SHINGLES �9 12 12 3 I \ \ I I _ � '2 A IL a (N / OMP. SHINGLES Q / O MATCH (E) fi iu � � II IIII IIIII I �I nl ,T (N) OLID W PTD. WD SHI 0'-8" (+69'-0") 1 � TO MATE) AVG. GRADE FOR DECLINING HT. ENV. +66.2 1 T.O. CURB 1 STONE STEPS & PATIO OIL -3'-2" +65'-2" L — — — — — — (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB 4'-0" (N) INDICATES NEW ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS WITH TRUE DIVIDED LITES. STYLE TO MATCH (E) PTD. WD. 1.5" X 5.5" RAFTER W/PLUMB TAII TVP / I DECLINING HT. ENV. (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB PTD. WD. TRIM I TO MATCH (E), TYP. PROPOSED EAST (REAR) ELEVATION � BRICK r 1 V. VV V. J I/"%II\J UC VLVf\ ----�— -- EXISTING EAST (REAR) ELEVATION BARGE RAFTER WITH BRACKETS, TYP. - EXISTI ENVELOPE, I\ SHOWN ASHED I(N) PTD. WD. 2.5" X 4.5" RAFTER W/ SQUARE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TAIL, TYP.pi — — — — 4'-0" +64.10 T.O. CURB J (L W Q z. SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" d 1 � I � I I I I IW w IQ I� co cA Io I � N BARGE RAFTER WITH BRACKETS, TYP. I'1V V, VR/'1UC FVR DECLINING HT. ENV. DECLINING HT. ENV. w U Z W 0 W z z a w Y Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date r00 y ry 0 08 30 17 Q Z O W Q � L.L � Z J WQC'� QU N � W N J � O W Q .. p Z p Z W — Q J m 16-44 Issue DESIGN REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW EXISTING AND PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1' 4' 0' 2' $, I SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-0" A7 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" BARGE RAFTER WITH BRACKETS, TYP. I'1V V, VR/'1UC FVR DECLINING HT. ENV. DECLINING HT. ENV. w U Z W 0 W z z a w Y Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date r00 y ry 0 08 30 17 Q Z O W Q � L.L � Z J WQC'� QU N � W N J � O W Q .. p Z p Z W — Q J m 16-44 Issue DESIGN REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW EXISTING AND PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1' 4' 0' 2' $, I SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-0" A7 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 25'-11" (+94'J' T.O. (E) RIDGE AT FRONT 23'-9" +92'-1" T.O. RIDGE AT REAR 18'-5" +86-9" T.O. (E) PLATE AT FRO 18'-2" (+86'-6") T.O. PLATE AT REAR 10'-8" (+79'-0") T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR ,gk 10'-2" (+78'-6") T.O. (E) F.F. AT FRONT N 9' 0" (+77' 4") T.O. (E) PLATE 0'-6" (+68'-10") T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR 0'-0" (+68'4") T.O. (E) F.F. AT FRONT -3'-2" (+65'-211) (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB EXISTING ENVELOPE, SHOWN DASHED 12 3F- w w N (N) PTD. WD. 2.5" X 4.5" --- J Q RAFTER W/ SQUARE a a TAIL, TYP. 12 io 3F F- ------------------- 25'-11" (+94'-3") T.O. RIDGE AT FRONT 20'-6" +88'-10" T.O. RIDGE AT REAR ,gk 18'-5" (+86'-9") T.O. PLATE 10'-8" (+79'-0") T.O. F.F. AT REAR 10'-2" +78'-6" T.O. F.F. AT FRONT 9'-0" (+77'-4") T.O. PLATE 0'-6" (+68'-10") T.O. F.F. AT REAR 0'-0" (+68'-4") T.O. F.F. AT FRONT w 80 co (N) w PTD. WD. SHINGLES, L- TO MATCH (E) - (N) INDICATES NEW ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS WITH TRUE DIVIDED LITES. STYLE TO MATCH (E) ----------- OIL -3'-2" (+65'-2") --- (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB N) (E) BRICK 30'-0" MAX. HT. LIMIT /71 COMP. SHINGLES, -i TO MATCH (E) PTD. SOLID WD. DOOR PTD. WD. TRIM TO MATCH (E), TYP n i 12 1 (E) +/-7 (E) BARGE RAFTER WITH BRACKETS, TYP. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -77 �LZ -1 (E) PTD. WD. SHINGLES - w Q J a- w A 1A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N I I I I w IY I IAD -t 4 I I� I U) I o z IU- I0� - (E) PLASTEq COLUMNS I -i I O -� - (R) INDICATES EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH PAINTED ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS WITH TRUE DIVIDED LITES. SIZE AND STYLE TO MATCH (E) PROPOSED NORTH (SIDE) ELEVATION EXISTING NORTH (SIDE) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = l'-0" BRICK 12 BARGE RAFTER WITH BRACKETS, TYP. COMP. SHINGLES PLASTER COLUMNS � J l 0 1 U- la U) Iw U- IU ------------- I I I I I I 20'-0" I I I I I I I I I I I I F - I I I I I I I 15'-0" IY I 0 Y I- m Q Iw I� I W to z II U- tOf o 0 IU- o to Iw U- I� I - I I I 20'-0" 15'-0" w z_ J w 0- 0 w z_ J w a_ O W U z W Q 0 z - rn w00 � W Z wQ"' J QO CUN Z W co O z LLI < Q C)0z (.0 z 0- C G -Q J ry W Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. 16-44 Date Issue 04-12-17 DESIGN REVIEW 08-30-17 DESIGN REVIEW EXISTING AND PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1' 4' of 21 8 I SCALE: 1 /4"=l'-0" SCALE: 114" = l'-0" W z_ J lY W a_ O ry — — — — — — — I 25'-11" (+94'-3") T.O. (E) RIDGE AT FRONT 23'-9" +92'-1" I I T.O. RIDGE AT REAR I I I I I oL 18'-5" (+86'-9") I I T.O. (E) PLATE AT FRO I I fi 18'-2" +86'.6" I I T.O. PLATE AT REAR I I I I I I 10'-8" (+79'.0") I I I I T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR sL 10'-2" (+78'-611) T.O. (E) F.F. AT FRONT c Q m LU 9'-0" +77'4" w T.O. (E) PLATE � z w z 0z 01 >- LL Of ~ w O O 0 O J J W 0 of 0'-6"(+68'-10") ,�—� w T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR - oL 0'-0" (+68'-4") T.O. (E) F.F. AT FRONT I L------------------1------I--- I I 1 15'-0" 20'-0" ------------------- 25'-11" (+94'-3") T.O. RIDGE AT FRONT 20'-6" +88'-10" T.O. RIDGE AT REAR o,L 18'-5" (+86'-9") T.O. PLATE (E) BARGE RAFTER WITH BRACKETS, TYP. (E) PLASTER COLUMNS -- (E) BRICK ----- �--- -- 12 7 (E) +/-7 (E) PTD. WD. SHINGLES L COMP. SHINGLES, TO MATCH (E) -EXISTING ENVELOPE, SHOWN DASHED L 12 �3 PTD. WD. SHINGLES, W N N w L TO MATCH (E) Q Q J CL CL 12 13 - ------------------ PTD. WD. SHINGLES, TO MATCH (E) w (N) (N)LILIE (N) 00 El- PTD. WD. TRIM w TO MATCH (E), TYP. (E) ELECTRIC METER (E) GAS METER (N) INDICATES NEW ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS - (R) INDICATES EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED WITH TRUE DIVIDED LITES. STYLE TO MATCH (E) AND REPLACED WITH PAINTED ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS WITH TRUE DIVIDED LITES. SIZE AND STYLE TO MATCH (E) BARGE RAFTER WITH BRACKETS, TYP. 10'-8" (+79'-0") T.O. F.F. AT REAR 10'-2" +78'-6" T.O. F.F. AT FRONTco U Q — 9'-0" (+77'-4") w W T.O. PLATE U) ~ z O o 00 PLASTER COLUMNS J J L L.L UI of 0'-6" (+68'-10") U-- w T.O. F.F. AT REAR C/) L - 0'-0" (+68'-411) T.O. F.F. AT FRONT ------------- L------ ---- 15'-0" 20'-0" � n W Q J a_ O GAS METER — BRICK PROPOSED SOUTH (SIDE) ELEVATION 12 — PTD. WD. SHINGLES SCALE: 1/4" = l'-0" COMP. SHINGLES ^TD. WD. TRIM, TYP D. WD. WINDOW:..., TRUE DIVIDEDLITE_TYP. EXISTING SOUTH (SIDE) ELEVATION -J I — LL ELECTRIC METER (N) PTD. WD. 2.5" X 4.5" RAFTER W/ SQUARE TAIL, TYP. -3'-2" (+65'-2") _ (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB — — — — — — — — — -3'-2" (+65'-2") — — — — — — (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB W U z W Q 0 z — w0LL W Z wQ"' J QO CUN Z LJJ co O z LLI Q O (.0 0 z z 0- C G -Q J W Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. 16-44 Date Issue 04-12-17 DESIGN REVIEW 08-30-17 DESIGN REVIEW EXISTING AND PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1' 4' 0' 2' 8' I SCALE: 1 /4"=l'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = l'-0" City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 125 Crescent Avenue Item No. 8b Regular Action Item Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicants and Property Owners: Terry and Barbara Freethy APN: 028-293-080 Architect: Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture Lot Area: 8,207 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project. Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated March 31, 2017. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. Project Description: This proposal includes demolishing the existing two-story house and attached garage and building a new, two-story house with a detached garage. The floor area will be 4,074 SF (0.496 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 4,126 SF (0.502 FAR). The proposed project is 52 SF below the maximum allowed FAR, including the front porch exemption. With this project, there will be four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. There is one covered parking space (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions) in the proposed detached garage and one uncovered parking space in the driveway leading to the garage. Therefore, the project complies with off-street parking requirements. In addition to a one -car garage, the accessory structure will contain a workshop/storage area (permitted). The proposed storage area within the detached garage is permitted as long as it does not exceed 10% of the area of the house (154 SF proposed where 345 SF is allowed). An existing protected size Cedar tree (36-inch diameter) located at the front of the lot will be removed as part of the project. A Protected Tree Removal Permit was approved by the Parks Division and will become effective only after Planning Commission approval is granted for the project (see attached). There is one existing landscape tree that will remain and the applicant proposes to add three additional 24-inch box landscape trees throughout the site. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: 0 Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)). Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue 125 Crescent Avenue Lot Area: 8,207 SF Plans date stamped: September 26, 2017 Proposed Allowed/Req'd SETBACKS ..................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................................... Front (1st fir): 27'-5'/�" 27'-5'/2' (is the block average) (2nd fir): ...................................................................................................:....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31'-5'/z" 27'-5'/2' (is the block average) Side (left): 5'-0" 5'-0" (right): ..................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................................... 10'-01, 5'-0" Rear (1st fir): 62'-21' 15'-0" (2nd fir): ........................................................ .......................................... :.................................................................................................................. 63'-8v' 20'-0" ........................................................................................................................................ ............. . Lot Coverage: 2793 SF 3283 SF < 34% 40% .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... FAR: 4074 SF .................................................................................................................................................... . 4126 SF' 0.496 FAR 0.502 FAR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... # of bedrooms: 4 --- ..................................................................................................:........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Off -Street Parking: 1 covered 1 covered (10' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered ..................................................................................................:........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Building Height: 27'-0" 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 ' (0.32 x 8,207 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 4,126 SF (0.50 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on August 28, 2017, the Commission had several suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached August 28, 2017PIanning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter dated September 18, 2017, and revised plans date stamped September 26, 2017, for responses to the Commission's comments and a detailed summary of changes made to the project since the design review study meeting. Planning staff would note that the Conditional Use Permits previously requested for a toilet/shower and window within 10'-0" of the rear property line in an accessory structure have been eliminated with the removal of the full bathroom in the detached garage. This space intentionally left blank. PA Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue 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 structure, featuring a front covered porch, a combination of cement plaster and vertical wood siding, articulated first and second floor walls, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, wood trim, composition shingle roofing, and a combination of hip and gable roofs is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood; 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; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants, hedges and trees at locations so that they help to provide privacy and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 26, 2017 sheets Al through A8, L1, and 1-2; 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 for 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; 3 Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue 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. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. 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; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner c. Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect Attachments: August 28, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated September 18, 2017 Diagrams and Photographs Submitted by Iry Holmes, date stamped August 28, 2017 Email Submitted by Iry and Kathy Holmes, dated August 25, 2017 Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation, dated May 30, 2017 Tree Removal Permit, dated July 7, 2017 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 29, 2017 Aerial Photo Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated March 31, 2017 4 CITY ryc�l 11 o� - 9 aPORATE Monday, August 28, 2017 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers a. 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for location of window and for a shower and toilet in the detached garage (Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners; Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones spoke with the owner at 129 Crescent Avenue in order to access the rear yard. Commissioner Loftis spoke with the owner of 129 Crescent Avenue. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the owner of 1575 Newlands Avenue. Commissioner Gum spoke with the owners to the left and right of the subject property. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.• > One of the letters was from a neighbor regarding the existing property having a second dwelling unit. Is that permissible under the Municipal Code? (Hurin: The current code allows for secondary dwelling units. However an application for this property has not been received. There are many existing units in Burlingame so can't determine whether this one would be legal or not, but under the current code a second dwelling unit could be legalized or added to an existing home as long as it complies with the criteria in the code.) > Would a second unit be required to have parking? (Hurin: One parking space would be required unless the property is located within 1/2 mile of a train station, in which case it would not need additional parking.) > Would the parking space be required to be covered or could it be uncovered? (Hurin: It may be uncovered.) > Is this property within 1/2 mile of the train station? (Hurin: It is just within the 1/2 mile radius, so parking would not be required.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Terry and Barbara Freethy represented the applicant, with architect Mark Pearcy. Commission Questions/Comments: > What are the plans for the detached garage? (Mark Freethy: It is a garage with a work room on the side.) > Are there plans to use it as a dwelling unit? (Mark Freethy: No.) > What is the purpose for the shower in the garage? (Mark Freethy: Clean-up when coming in from the back yard. Saw dust clean-up, sweat clean-up when coming back from a bike ride. Convenience without having to come into the house.)(Pearcy: The owner is retired and does a lot of home improvement City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 101212017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 projects.) > Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Mark Freethy: The neighbors were provided with pictures of what is planned, but there have not been discussions.) > The lower walls on the driveway side seem blank. Any thought to windows on either side of the fireplace? The driveway wall is stark, and will be visible from the street. (Pearcy: Thought was to respect the privacy of the neighbors. The wall is on the north side so there is not a lot of potential for light. It has been broken up with two wall planes and three materials. The stained wood siding is meant to create a warm and friendly elevation.) > Why the changes in siding? (Pearcy: It's a cement plaster stucco building but if it was all stucco it could look harsh, so there is stained wood siding at logistical points such as the dormers and projections to warm things up. Also stained wood on the front door and garage door.) > Why horizontal siding? (Pearcy: It is stone, not siding. Just two siding types.) > Is the siding board and batten? (Pearcy: Vertical stained wood with a butt joint, center -matched. It will have a warm saw -texture finish that accepts stains.) > Has there been consideration of flipping the garage to lessen impact on the neighbor? (Pearcy: The garage needs to align with the driveway, and are trying to retain the existing deck. The garage has an 8 -foot plate so is low. The new house is further back from the side than the existing house.) > Could the driveway side elevation be pulled in 1 or 2 feet to add some landscaping? It is a new house so could be pulled it in a bit to get planting to soften the ground line. (Pearcy: Needs to have a 9'-6" driveway. It's a challenge on a 50-foot lot to get a center hallway and two rooms on either side. There is more flexibility in length.) > Are the existing brick walls along the side property lines being retained or removed? (Pearcy: On the right-hand side most would be retained but about 30 feet would be replaced behind the gate.) > Could the gate be moved back to retain some of the brick walls and their mature landscaping? (Barbara Freethy: Wants to consider the security aspect and have more land behind the gate. Doesn't want people to be able to climb a low wall into the back yard.) > Simulated divided lite windows? (Pearcy: Yes.) > Landscaping towards the front of the garage to shield the view from the neighbors would be helpful. A hedge would grow taller than the fence. > Could the garage be further from the fence line to provide space for foliage and screening plantings? (Pearcy: Wants to keep the existing deck and patio.) > Has there been thought to keeping the tree in the front? (Pearcy: It is a deodar cedar tree, belongs in a park -like space. Huge canopy - to have enough breathing room the tree would need to be back out of the drip line, 20 or 30 feet. It is park tree and not well suited to this location.) > Has there been consideration to lowering the pitch of the roof of the garage to lessen the apparent mass from the neighbors? (Pearcy: Wants to tie in with the main house, with a 6112 slope. Even a 4112 slope would look mismatched.) > (Mark Freethy: The neighbor sent a letter implying there is an illegal unit in the existing house. The unit was built originally with the house. It is a legal unit, with restrictions. It will be eliminated in the new construction.) Public Comments: Irvin Holmes, 129 Crescent Avenue - Lives on the north side of the property. Submitted a letter. Per design guidelines pages 24 and 28, the project does not respect the conditions and qualities of existing homes, or support separation at the property line, neighboring yard is not respected. Current house has an attached garage and a large footprint; an attached garage can accommodate needs and there are many examples of attached garages on the street. Opposes the detached structure because of its length, height, and proximity. Concern with drainage from roof of garage onto neighboring property. Currently has 45 feet of unobstructed fenceline adjacent with views of trees and vegetation. Proposed garage is 15 feet high, 20 feet across; most attached structures are not as imposing or high. Structure could be flipped or moved back from property line to allow 15-18 feet of adjacency with room for landscaping. Offers suggestions in the letter. Shower, toilet and windows in the garage likely to be a prelude to an occupied dwelling. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 101212017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 Kathy Holmes, 129 Crescent Avenue - Negative impact of detached garages and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). State Senate Bill 1069 brings Burlingame to a crossroads to maintain the unique small-town character of Burlingame. Tipping point may be subdividing the single family living spaces with ADUs. Other cities seem to be maintaining their land. Should instead explore perimeter, uninhabited areas such as the Bayside instead of subdividing backyards of single family residences. Questions whether the detached garage in the project would be used as an occupied dwelling. ADUs encourage the noncompliant practice of renting out vacation rentals. ADUs mean more cars parked on streets and driving on roads, and more non -property tax -paying households. Mark Gschwind, 1553 Newlands - Shower and toilet in detached garage suggests it is being prepared to be an occupied dwelling. Opposed to adding another unit to the neighborhood. There are parking impacts already. It seems like a nice house, but appears to have an open door to an occupied dwelling. Linette Edison - Lives in the house to the south. There is only a 5-foot side setback, and it is completely paved. Would prefer there be vegetation to help with the water drainage. Opposed to the bathroom in the garage. There are other properties on the street that have been converted over to apartments. City does not need many more apartments, would deteriorate property values. Needs to maintain balance between rental units and single family homes. Mary Streshly - Lives on the south side. Happy neighbors are remodeling. When buying into an R-1 single family, buy into a designated neighborhood for what it is zoned for. Disingenuous to ask cursory question whether the structure will be rented. No way to be promised that it would not happen. Police have been called multiple times to rental nearby. If it is zoned to have units, it is not R-1 - the neighborhoods need to be kept separate. Happy with the remodel, not happy to have rental units on the street. Kerbey Altmann, 1537 Cypress Avenue - More and more giant houses being built. Past opposition to large houses, and large Safeway. Should re -look at standards such as the FAR and lot coverage. Small lots do not need 5,000-6,000 square foot houses. Should revise rules especially for smaller lot sizes in older neighborhoods in order to preserve character. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Handsome design. > Concern the house is pushing out to the edge of the driveway. Even a small amount of landscaping could soften the edge. > With the rest of the detailing a lower slope 4112 or 5112 roof on the garage could still fit with the rest of the house. Could help with the overall height of the structure. > Can't support a full bath in the detached garage. Can understand a toilet and sink to support a workshop, but does not see the logic for the shower. A shower would suggest a closet for clothes, which would then suggest the workshop becomes a bedroom, and then it becomes accessory living space that wasn't part of the original application. > Driveway elevation is stark. Described as warm because it is wood, but it looks like the side of a barn. There is no opportunity for landscaping to soften the edge. If it were pulled back to allow landscaping may not need to do much more work to the facade, otherwise needs to do work so the facade is less stark. > Should show downspouts on the garage as well as the house. > Landscape plan needs help on both property lines. Would help to soften the view from the neighbors. > Cannot support the shower in the garage since it would suggest becoming a living unit in the future. > The bathroom would probably need an ejector pump for the sewage system; should be shown on the plans to indicate whether it would be inside or outside the structure. > Streetside elevation is nice, sad to see the tree go as it is a cornerstone of the lot currently. City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 101212017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 > Supports the detached garage, except for the bathroom. One of the main emphases of the design guidelines is the detached garage pattern. Can provide more separation and privacy between neighbors, particularly if the wall along the property line is finished nicely. The proposed development meets that pattern. > Drainage is addressed in the municipal code. Water is required to be controlled on the property and not flow onto neighboring properties. This will be verified during the Building Permit inspection process. > The south and north side elevations are markedly different. Perhaps they could be more similar or less stark. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly Recused: 1 - Comaroto City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 101212017 The following are responses to Planning Commission comments from the August 28th,2017 meeting. Project: Freethy Residence Project Address: 125 Crescent Way SEP 20' 20-17 Project Scope: New residence and detached garage. Date: 9/18/17 C11-Y OF BURLINGAME Detached Garage ADD -PLANNING DIV. 1. Due to neighbor concern that a bathroom could lead to a future garage apartment, the Freethys have decided to remove the garage bathroom from the project. The window within 10 feet of the property line has also been removed. See the revised garage floor plan on sheet A3 and south elevation on sheet A6. 2. The neighbors to the north expressed concern that the garage roof would be visible from their backyard. In response to this concern we have added a planting bed (approximately 3' X 18') along the fence line to the east of the garage with 3 evergreen screen trees (English laurels in 24" boxes). These trees are usually 6' to 8' tall at planting and mature to a height of 10' to 18'. It should be noted that 3 mature trees exist on the neighbor's property directly to the north of the proposed garage. These trees range in height from about 15 to 20 feet and overhang the proposed garage location. The combination of the new and existing trees will obscure the neighbor's views of the garage roof. See sheets A 1, Ll and attached photos. 3. We feel the current garage design is the best overall look for the property and neighborhood. Lowering the roof pitch would create a look that would be inconsistent with the main residence (i.e. a 4:12 roof pitch has a bungalow appearance). Please note that the current design is below limits for plate & ridge heights, is held back 2 feet from the property lines and the eastern 6 feet has a lowered ridge (about 12'-6" high). The roof also slopes toward the northern neighbor. These design measures were taken With the neighbor's interests in mind. 4. Garage downspouts were shown on the original drawings. See keynote 9 on sheet A6. North Side of Residence I A few commissioners commented that the north elevation seemed stark and lacked softness. In general, we disagree with these comments and believe that a closer look will show that this is not the case. We are confident that the three stepped wall planes, shed dormers, wall materials (stained wood & cement plaster) and craftsman detailing (e.g. exposed rafter tails, barge rafters, outriggers, wide window trim boards, etc.) result in an elevation that has a level of variety, interest, warmth and detail consistent with other sides of the residence. To illustrate this, please see additional perspective drawings on sheet A8. We will also bring a wood siding sample to the next meeting. In response to commissioner comments we have added taller, more robust plantings in the 3 beds along the north elevation to further soften the elevation (7 Camellias in 15-gallon containers). These shrubs are usually 3' to 5' tall at planting and mature to a height of 8'. See sheets A I and L1. We also added three windows (2 in the family room & 1 in the master bedroom) and relocated a window (in Bedroom 1) for more detail. See elevation 2 on sheet A5 and perspective views on sheets A7 and A8. 2. A commissioner suggested adding gable end detailing on the north elevation for consistency with the other three sides of the building. As illustrated on the drawings, the residence has a clear main gable running east -west along the driveway and a cross gable to south, creating a simple "T" layout. Since a gable end is not associated with the north elevation, adding a gable feature on this side of the building would look out of place and detract from the overall appearance. As noted above (item 1), we feel the updated north elevation is well composed and neighbor friendly. 3. In response to a neighbor comment, the drawings have been revised to show the low brick wall along the north-eastern property line remaining, in its entirety. The driveway gate will be moved to the west to the transition of the existing brick wall and existing wood fence. See sheet A 1. South Side of Residence A planter bed has been added near the center of the south elevation to help soften this side of the building. The planter contains 2 New Zealand Christmas bushes. These shrubs are usually 3' tall at planting and mature to a height of 6'. See sheet U. If you have any questions regarding the above responses, please call Mark Pearcy at 650-348-1509. 3 EXISTING NEIGHBOR TREES NEAR PROPERTY LINE. APPROX. 15' TO 2U TALL �y • V'� � ^ -� � • N :.?Ti• �'..S - 7y, , •J �r R7�s �i3r- Yi ` ��i yati "/Z�'C� �.f'.�1 - � ' �' ;`. ••�. •s X��O ,•' 1, �� 1�Iir ����s+ s 6 �,' �:c: � >'',�✓s�"���,- ter- !�. y�" r',"� ��� _ 'M' y:' _�� � • ,.•.-'Y� - r •�... �. >!.- f•c'* ;, �/��� .y�� 1. .� ,` ; .�, . " �� '�`1�l?'at. '_. tea• .. .1� ft��r , M1. IAAL r_ Y j�/ ��i�'+ . `i7�� � ,.+.`T�^ C�% "y^ -TY '1• ivy. Y ',�'� .2'vi � � �".���� G��, :+•y . � ���� � fit-', •- n jyt;,` - �. {.Sy«��'1NS.'.j1;.. }�[ ! Fi �'� �.� ti '� a•: M� . •.'t tC•ti , j �� + t `ir .. -.•�+-.r,1.�•. �+,_ hj y`' •.����-�rf��k.`. c._ p�'°t�,�' a -. ` � �a�- _ �+•9 Ct`... - � �F,�.,V,�~�� �`r. •s l 11• APPROXIMATE FRONT (EAST) WALL OF DETACHED GARAGE I • 1'I I NMI ' EXISTING SHED (see site plan) 125 CRESCENT AVENUE Rear yard looking northwest showing existing trees near proposed detached garage PHOTO 1 OF 2 f : IL C, FENCE 08.28.17 PC Meeting COMMUNICATIONRECEIVED Item # 9a AFTER PREPARATION 125 Crescent Avenue OF STAFF REPORT Page 1 of 11 RECEIVED AUG 25 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. -----Original Message ----- From: Iry Holmes [mailto:Irv. Holmes(D_challeng edairy.com] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 2:24 PM To: CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner <kgardiner(a_burlingame.org>; GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissionersAburlingame.orq> Subject: Neighbors Comments re Hearing for 125 Crescent Ave. on 8-28.pdf Mr. Gardiner and Planning Commissioners, Attached is a Letter stating our comments and concerns to the proposed new construction at 125 Crescent Ave. We hope that these will be considered in your deliberations, and we intend to attend the Hearing on Monday evening to present them. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Iry and Kathy Holmes 129 Crescent Ave. Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Neighbors Comments re Hearing for 125 Crescent Ave. on 8-28.pdf Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled, [http://www.challengedairy.com/files/sig-logo.gif] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If any reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately return the message to the sender via return email, and delete all electronic or other copies made. Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Challenge Dairy Products, Inc... ^REC IV ED August 25,2017TION COMMUNICA AUG 70'7 OF Mr. Kevin Gardiner --�-- ------ -------� CITY OFBuPUNGAIVIE Burlingame Planning Department CIDID-PLP-MINE-7��\/ SO1Primrose Road, Burlingame 94010 emoUssent to and Re: Adjacent Neighbor Input to Public Hearing for 125 Crescent Ave, Burlingame Dear Mr. Gardiner and Burlingame Commissioners, We (Kathy and Iry Holmes) have lived at 129 Crescent Ave., Burlingame for 23 years, adjacent to the proposed site for new home construction at125Crescent Ave. Please know, vvedonot object tothe Freethy family having anice, new home. Respectfully we would like to convey our objection with several aspects of this newly proposed home plan, specifically: 1. The Detached «Garage°Apartment (see attached photos) a. The new design proposes a detached "Garage" Apartment, calling for a Conditional Use Permit for a shower, toilet and 4 sets of windows. As background, the current owners have created and rented an apartment upstairs in their house for we believe 20 + years. Renters have included both couples and singles. VVesuspect the in-house apartment has not been legal due tothe long-standing R'1single-family dwelling zoning. This in -home apartment has aseparate entrance, and likely akitchen. VVehave never lodged aformal complaint, because vvewanted tobe"good ne|ghbos". But xvehave been unhappy with this situation for years. Therefore, if 20 + years is any indicator, we believe the owners of 125 Crescent will likely rent the current proposed detached "'Garage" Apartment given it's proposed size, plumbing, .windows and design. With the square footage and roof elevation, |t|oessentially another mini -house directly next toour backyard, and vvooppose this. b. The proposed "Garage" Apartment drawing place this structure immediately next to our backyard, with virtually no separation or privacy, 2 feet from our lot line, c. This imposing, dominant structure will significantly alter and destroy the visual quality of our primary living space and kitchen. VVewill look atthis mini -house all day long, because the "Garage" Apartmentsight line is immediately outside our kitchen window and eating area, No 7-foot proposed fence or foliage will hide this wide, tall and "in your face" edifice. This dominant structure will compromise the current sight line and peaceful feel we have worked years toplant and maintain inour lovely backyard, d. Renters of the proposed "Garage" Apartment can ONLY access their apartment alongside our dining room and living room windows and backyard patio, Therefore several times aday they will walk beside our home space. This would become a source of unnecessary/unwanted activity, noise and adisruption ofour privacy. e. The new tenants would NOT likely use dedicated space for their car(a), given the "'gated" driveway single -car design. Therefore street parking would be required. Our 125 Crescent neighbors current garage has only been used for storage and never a car in our 23 years of 1 residence. Therefore, one could legitimately conclude their proposed "garage" would be used for housing people and not a car. Recommendations L Move the detached "garage" apartment to the LEFT SIDE of the property at 125 Crescent. The neighbors to the left of 125 Crescent already have a detached garage on their property. Therefore two detached garages would be next to each other, not disrupting privacy, space or views. Additionally, there is no gas meter in front of 125 Crescent, and the tree on the street side could be replaced with a more attractive tree, accommodating a left side driveway. There is no current right or left side pattern to the homes on Crescent Avenue. The current owners of 125 Crescent have some hardscape they have poured in the last two years on the left side of their yard. But we respectfully suggest, since it was just poured recently, it can possibly be replaced to the right to help maintain their neighbor's privacy. OR ii. Move the "garage" apartment to the middle rear of the backyard at 125 Crescent. If the owners want a large "garage" apartment, then it seems more appropriate for the owners to be able to view this structure, versus imposing this structure on our backyard privacy and views. OR ill. Re -configure the garage "apartment" to an attached garage, consistent with 125 Crescent's current structure and the designs of approximately 50% of the garages on Crescent Avenue. (Page 20 in NDG,) Note: Several photos are also attached of very attractive attached and set -back garages throughout Burlingame. Page 22 in NDG, provides notations for "Low Impact Attached Garages. "There are examples of attached garages which do not dominate the front of the residence." 2. Privacy (see attached photos) a. We ask you to consider the goals outlined on pg. 24 of the NDG, specifically: "Homeowner privacy is achieved by sensitive placement of buildings and landscaping and by the ways buildings and components are orchestrated to support separation at property lines," "Privacy can be most readily achieved by creating a sense of separation at property lines." "Elements such as screening and creative spatial organization can help enhance..." "Design Professionals should consider the existing situation in neighboring yards and res ect it in their designs." There is no attempt (and per the NDG there should be) to place the detached garage away from the property line to address all of the concerns listed above, to "support separation at the property line". We ask that our privacy be respected and that separation at the property line be supported. 3. "Respect of Neighbors Existing Conditions and Utilization" (see attached photos) a. We ask you to consider and honor the goals outlined in the Design Review Criteria on pg. 28 of the NDG, namely: "Respect the neighbors existing condition and utilization, Design... to maintain existing qualities......... Utilize architectural and landscape elements to create real or apparent boundaries between adjacent occupied spaces." As mentioned above, the proposed detached "garage" apartment design/location does NOT "respect our existing 2 irl OF G� aRLNGAMI c condition" nor does it "maintain existing qualities". Further the proposal does NOT "utilize architectural and landscape elements to create... boundaries between adjacent spaces". We ask that our existing condition be respected, and our existing qualities be maintained. Recommendation See Recommendation in point I above. In addition to altering the "Garage" Apartment we ask for consideration of potentially enhancing the architectural and landscape elements on the north/right side of the house. The proposed design feels mostly like a wooden flat structure with little window coverage. In contrast, the view of our house from our neighbor's right side is an attractive one, we believe. The right side of our house is lined by large picture windows and attractive foliage planted along the entire side of our house. We have worked hard to maintain lovely landscaping throughout the entire side of 125 Crescent Avenue's views. We would be most grateful for the same consideration. b. We appreciate the visual freedom of low fences in most neighbors' front side -yards throughout Burlingame. This creates the imagery of uncluttered, open space. The proposed new design of a 7-foot fence, which extends an additional 20 feet alongside the right of our home, creates an imposing barrier in the front of the neighborhood. It detracts from the current foliage we've planted. Foliage intended to inspire a natural, attractive property line. The current, low, creeping fig covered brick fence is a more pleasing view and attractive fence for the neighborhood, versus the proposed 7 foot high fence extension from its current location. Recommendation Enhance the beauty of the right side of 125 Crescent with more interesting architecture, windows, landscaping, and maintaining the current low, brick fence where it is currently placed. Do not allow for a 7-foot fence until the current break midway through the lot line. Lastly, we wonder if you would indulge us in a philosophical side bar ................ We moved to Burlingame 23 years ago from San Francisco. We left behind a dense, non -family oriented, concrete filled, expensive area in search of a small, quaint town with low density, green spaces, family atmosphere and a spirit of community. We have been long-term, active supporters of our small-town Burlingame. We have and continue to participate in boy -scouting, our church community, our schools and by serving the poor and marginalized. We understand now there are significant pressures on Burlingame government to. enlarge our quaint town. These housing shortage demands also have tax -based interests and incentives. Several in Burlingame government told us "there are federal and state mandates. People want to move to California. There is pressure to build more. To build apartments in the middle of homes." But we honestly ask if this housing shortage, and the increased prices and new developments are doing more to serve the rich coming to and changing our special gem of a town, than to serve the existing hard-working members of Burlingame. Therefore, we ask philosophically and with complete sincerity: What is in the best interest and fairness to the current residents, supporters and volunteers that make up the community of Burlingame? How much do we want to tarnish our charming little gem by over -crowding it? How much does building apartments in the backs of homes alter our precious family -oriented neighborhoods. How much 3 "E C A U G 2 5 2 CITY OF 01,URUNGAME does encouraging more concrete in the form of driveways and "detached garages" take away green space and backyards in the interest of satiating a never-ending "housing shortage"? Mow much do we want to saddle Burlingame with the headaches and density of mixed -use properties in the middle of downtown to satisfy a housing shortage. The housing seekers will keep coming. The demand will not stop. But when will more building be too much in Burlingame? When will the long-time Burlingame community supporters and volunteering home owners pack up their tents and move on in search of that quaint small town they yearned for in the beginning? What will this little gem of a town look like in 10 years? Will we have controlled the insatiable development giant, or will development have slayed us? Do we have the strength, courage and zeal to protect Burlingame from over -growth for our families for generations to come? We thank you far your service, and for indulging us in this philosophical side -note. Respectfully, Iry and Kathy Holmes 129 Crescent Ave., Burlingame 4 t AUl G CITY CAP BUi •1-NUGAME CDD-PLANNING DI ,r� �� r., ��� �� .�' �t �`''t'2+' �_ - .i, ..1�.,:1� �., . ��� is k�u ,f ., t ' �`" _ .�j ,� S ?� � - ,.� . �r "� ;� �:_. � ,+� T,L#y�!-� ;�, �� .:. .•and s'�+'ri ,,�q _ _ � *� �� ���; � , �- a y � � � 1 :f.t .. _;�!" � r; ` t � � 'r . �: �.• r•- i1 F. • � _ i f. � -� _•:- � _ �� . . K y°. ..� ': . .a' 1. � a'.j :•: �ti -. :, ALL ' Y 31 �` .y►f w t x -- b r' I�fffi � a MdAt ♦ •. 1, Or, n> �• •�Fr4.':! 1�1 •� � p: •�-_MA •\ C'• � .Its• � - ` .{I1.�'�{! ?V Ilk je 1't .s JG3 YiURLINGAM E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD - BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 9 f: 650.696.3790 - www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review 0 Variance 0 Parcel #: Conditional Use Permit 0 Special Permit 11 Zoning / Other: PROJECT ADDRESS:- 11--9 � APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: "4 Name: Address: 12-9 Address: City/State/Zip: 'T-44-44nty/State/Zip: Phone. 09 Phone: E-mail: pmaJ C1411 All E-mail: ARCH ITECTMES IG N ER Name: ECEIVED Address: City/State/Zip: elor 91 JUN - 1 2017 Phone: (,_"p4_C0 -4 A)- - CITY OF 13URLINGAME E-mail:2 nz_� 1�0 z CDD-PLANNING DIV --------------------- Burlingame Business License (� � Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action... (initials of Arch itect]Desig ner) PROJECT DESCRtPTION: r C I r 2) ak _ 4! - AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: �SaA iks: P row r-� 6N_J A-4/r Date: I am aware of the proposed applicatio ancll, r by aut rite th -above-applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature Date: Date submitted: S: IHANDOUTSIPC Application. doc Terry and Barbara Freethy 125 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA Date: May 30,2017 Letter of Explanation JUN - 1 2017 CI'rY OF BURLINGAME CIDD-PLANNING DtV. About us We are Barbara and Terry Freethy. We bought our home at 125 Crescent in 1985 just in time for our wedding. We were excited to live in Burlingame as Terry had grown up in the city, attending St. Catherine's Elementary School and graduating from Burlingame High School, Barbara grew up in Southern California but fell in love with her husband and Burlingame in the early 80's. We have lived in our home for 32 years and raised two children there, Logan and Kristen Freethy, who attended elementary, middle school and high school in Burlingame. We love the Burlingame Park neighborhood, but we have outgrown our home and the outdated floor plan of a house built in 1929. We believe a new house would not only improve our lifestyle but would also be a great asset to our charming neighborhood. About our plans Our proposed home has an inviting front porch, entry and living room facing Crescent Avenue and Pershing Park, with a great room located adjacent to the backyard. We plan to have a master suite and 2 bedrooms on the upper level, with a guest bedroom on the main floor that could function as a master bedroom in the future. We have chosen to build a 4-bedroom home in the event that one of our children decides to live here and raise a family. Our proposed home uses craftsman building forms that will integrate beautifully with our Burlingame Park area. The major building forms are a simple two-story gable with a perpendicular cross gable. A pattern of shed dormers, step -backs and projections add a degree of variety and interest without detracting from the overall concept. The street elevation is composed of a vertical, two-story gable element on the right with the contrasting horizontal forms of the front porch, shed dormer and cross gable on the left. The same forms are revealed at the rear elevation with a different interpretation. The side elevations are stepped back more than required by declining height envelopes to allow daylighting and privacy at side yards while maintaining a nice level of architectural interest. It should be noted that the proposed residence is less imposing on the neighbors than the existing building. Exterior detailing will include features common to craftsman homes in the Burlingame Park area such as wide trim boards, barge rafters, exposed wood beams & columns, brackets, exposed rafter tails, trellis elements, g(idded windows, paneled doors, etc. The predominant exterior wall material will be painted cement plaster, softened by stained wood siding at the shed dormers, projections on the north side, and near the front door. The front entry door and garage door will also be stained wood. The front porch floor and column bases will be stone. Our front yard is currently dominated by an oversized and poorly located Deodar Cedar. We plan to remove this tree and have reviewed the process with Bob Disco at the Parks Department. Removal of this tree will allow us to locate our new home in a reasonable way that is consistent with other homes in our neighborhood and also develop a more attractive front yard. Our proposed front yard has a similar layout to our existing yard but with many enhancements that will make it much more attractive and inviting. For example, a new, curved stone entry walk will lead visitors between a pair of low stone columns and through a landscaped area to front porch. An existing brick curb that borders the yard on the sidewalk and driveway sides will be replaced by a stone curb. Areas that are currently brick paving along the sidewalk and planter strip will be replaced with plantings. The driveway will remain on the north side of the property and our plan is to reuse the existing pavers for our new driveway, partly to reduce off -haul during demolition. We also plan to keep the low brick walls that are located along the side property lines in out front yard. In our backyard, we're proposing a detached one -car garage with an additional area that will be used for a workshop or storage. Adjacent to this area we'd like to include a bathroom with shower. Terry has worked as a carpenter in the past and enjoys home improvement projects. The work area will provide a great space for his projects and the bathroom will provide the perfect place for him to clean up before going into the house. One of Terry's past projects is the backyard deck that has been integrated into the new house design. We also plan to keep an existing patio area to the west of the deck. Aside from the new garage and driveway, new work in the backyard will be minimal. We are very excited about our proposed project and think it will be a great addition to our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. 7 Since Terry and Barbara Freethy City e of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame: Ave., Burlingame, CA 940,10 BURLINGAME phone.: (650) 558-73*30 a fax:. (650) 696-7216 .gborba@burliLigamQ-qr July*7, 2017 Terry Freethy 125 'Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA. 940,10 Dear Terry, I reviewed, your request for the removal of the Cedar tree.in front of the house at 125 Crescent Avenue and based on the information you have provided, I have made the following determination: This Cedar is growlng*3V from the existing house and causing damage to the foundation and exterior stucco. With the proposed building improvements to the property,, the roots from this tree will need to. be cut to accommodate the new foundation causing this tree to become unstable. The permit will. be Issued after the Planning Commission has approved the, project. Therefore, I intend to issue a perm.itfor the removal of the Cedar tree. The tree is s0iectto the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06 060(d)(1), (1) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger of failing; proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways and other trees; and interference with public -services; Replacement with one 24-inch box -standard single stem size land5cd etree( . no fruit or nut will be required to be planted anywhere on P a I . t the. private property as defined in Section 11-06-090. If you agree with the conditions, pleases #n the ei7closedp6rmita dreturninthe self-addressed envelope byJulyi9i.2017. Adjacent property owner(s) at the -address(s) listed below are also receiving v ng notification of this decision. Appeals to this decision or any of its. conditions or findings, must be filed I.Awritingto our office byMy19,2.017as provided-inSettion 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Btirfingarne Municipal Code Chapter 11,06). The permit will be issued on October 25, 2016 if no appeal has been i date., received by thatda. , . - Sincerely, IC 7_11 13ab Disco Park Superintenclent/CitY Arbo.rist Enclosure CC: Prop" Owner 112 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 940.10 Property Owner 1569 Newlands Avenue .Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner Property. Owner Property Owner 117 Crescent. Avenue 121 Crescent Avenue 129 Crescent Avenue 133 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 940I0 Burlingame; CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 940*10 Burlingame, CA 94010 11W PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION _P Parks &.Recreation Department 85OBuriiiigai.*zeAveirrie,Burlingame, CA 94010 Date'-�(650) 558-7330 The undersignedowner of the property at: Address; VIE? — hereby for a permit to rem . ove or prune . more than 1/3 Ye canopy of the following protected tree(s): Species-, Circumference:, Location on Property Work to be Performed:. Removal Trim .More Than 1/3 of the CrONVII Reason Work is Necessary, . ... .... . .. � I. Is this Tree .Removal.Request Part of B t YES uilding Project?" NO Note:.A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(8) on the property most. be submitted along With $7.5 00 to: of Burlingame. Additional documentation ittayk re d'*t support. tehioval, 4 .:City required`to Attach all Ex Reportfrom y documentation you may have. ample: an Independent Arborlst, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern fir eithbors etc.).. Owner (Print) Phone �nC Address r Email 661q (if different than above) ---------------------- r ------ — ---------------- —'----ram --------- — ---- -------------- -------- PERMIT - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. ZLIIJPaytnentMethod This permit allows the a .47Q_�7S713 applicant t to remove or prune the: above listed tree(s) in accordance; with the provisions of the. Urban Reforestation. and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Cha ter 1.1.06), si thii. perm'.... . h licant gnin it the app. acknowledges receiEt of a copy off Chapter 11.06 and agrees to c with it lister[ omp: y with its provisions an all conditions sted below; -and that all appeals, aveexpfTPdorbeeVqsQlved,fi SIGNATURE CITY A CONDITIONS: 24 - ' box inch size landscape tree(s) (110fruit or nut trees) will be required quired and maybe planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter IL06.090.(b)(5),payment of $ 700for each tree into the tree replacementfundwill be:required. NO replacement(s) required. C no a . Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 A W lei? re lov 1(s) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT.* Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES. 1 DATE COMPLETED This work should be done b site qualified treef rofes*ionals and a copy of this perinit must be available at the job s te '1 at all times when ten work is beingperf6rined, 08l2oisreviseti RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 125 Crescent Avenue, Zoned R-1, Terry and Barbara Freethy, property owners, APN: 028-293-080; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 10, 2017, 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: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of October, 2017 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review. 125 Crescent Avenue Effective October 20, 2017 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 26, 2017 sheets Al through A8, L1, and L2; 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 for 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 and Design Review. 125 Crescent Avenue Effective October 20, 2017 Page 2 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. 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; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ne BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-.7250 0 FAX: (650) 69a www.burlingame.org Site: 125 CRESCENT AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 125 CRESCENT AVENUE zoned R-1. APN 028-293-080 Mailed: September 29, 2017 (Please refer to other side) Fty of Burlin A copy of the application and plans for thi the meeting at the Cornmunity DevelopmE Road, Burlingame;: Ca ifornia If you challenge the su raising only those issuE a.: described in the notice prior to the public heari Property ownerE tenants about th For additional in William Meeker Community Developmen (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE reviewed prior to t 501 Primrose •� [ S s 1'�` 4 1 5 d 0 �` w NI i. 0 3 ... ; $ t S46 �- ��. ISOl IS y54 Br 77��L���• 4 r +�: o Is y S 7'5 - 1� , �S. TssS 1560 Iss5 rn{s a0 >53 op- 4 4+ s' ^� •' r56r56, 1,56S Al 7 � bz r r 4 S 7 nA h. N MIL df Z [ i 4 ol E 7 A �l a `v �' d • f i' 1E l W -- '�i i � 1 5 r. ��y' • t is VIEW FROM CRESCENT AVENUE, LOOKING SOUTHWEST (front yard landscaping not shown) 12 VIEW LOOKING EAST li I ) VIEW FROM CRESCENT AVENUE, LOOKING NORTHWEST (front yard landscaping not shown) VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com 3 Z W r/ =)p Z LU J QU zw00 w o UQC�) V) LI � 1� 1 lJ 00 ZN U — O Liz N � m Q Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7/13/17 PC Comments 9/18/17 SHEET TITLE: PERSPECTIVE VIEWS SCALE: NO SCALE &TI ti VIEW LOOKING SOUTHEAST VIEW LOOKING NORTH (GARAGE ON LEFT) VIEW FROM SIDEWALK LOOKING SOUTHWEST AERIAL VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com Q z w0:� O W U z LU LU> OQU v► z w 00 LU LU o �UQ ' o, LU V N 00 �Uz0 LU W Lr) iv Z W N =) n LL. , m Q Issue Date PC Comments 9/18/17 SHEET TITLE: PERSPECTIVE VIEWS OF NORTH SIDE SCALE: NO SCALE KEYNOTES 1 COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYPICAL 2 CEMENT PLASTER. PAINTED. 3 WOOD SIDING, STAINED. STONE. OWOOD WINDOW/DOOR WITH ALUMINUM CLADDING. 51MULATED DIVIDED LITES. OPANELED WOOD DOOR, STAINED. 6Xro OUTRIGGER, PAINTED. $ 2X10 RAKE FASCIA, PAINTED. 9 EXP05ED RAFTER TAIL, PAINTED. l e 5.5" WIDE WOOD TRIM, PAINTED. 11 WOOD COLUMN, PAINTED. 12 WOOD 5RACKET, PAINTED. DOWNSPOUT. WINDOW f DOOR TRIM TRIM AT LARGER WINDOWS (AND DOORS) TO 5E 5.5" WIDE. TRIM AT SMALLER WINDOWS TO 5E 2.5" WIDE. TRIM AT CEMENT PLASTER WALLS TO 5E PAINTED. TRIM AT WOOD SIDING WALLS TO 5E STAINED. ALL TRIM TO 5E WOOD. TRELLIS, PAINTED EXISTING DECK 2 SOUTH ELEVATION 1 /4"=1-0" C�'IC�II 30' HEIGHT LIMIT I— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — T —I 52.13' I I I I I I RIDGE AT GABLE 6:12 I I 19.15' WL."L'V I-"LHIN I CM Q(Jx, I-'LkIIV 1 CV EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION 1 /4"=1-0" 13 MIZE v CD 6:12 PROPOSED GAS METER LOCATION 2.65:12 I In PLATE AT GABLE t-LA i t I DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT WEST END OF RESIDENCE I I m DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT EAST END OF RESIDENCE I AVE GRADE NORTH SIDE 54.5(o AVE TOP OF CURS 52.13 RIDGE AT GABLE 19.15' AVE TOP OF CURS 52.13, MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com F� LU 1121:� :::)p Z LL LU J QU Z LU CD CD LU :E o U Q �' °' lJ LU 1� CV � C6 ZN UJc) L Z N � � m Q Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7/13/17 PC Comments 9/18/17 SHEET TITLE: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1 /4"=1 '-0" FA 2 iMI&MVIA v CD 6:12 PROPOSED GAS METER LOCATION 2.65:12 I In PLATE AT GABLE t-LA i t I DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT WEST END OF RESIDENCE I I m DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT EAST END OF RESIDENCE I AVE GRADE NORTH SIDE 54.5(o AVE TOP OF CURS 52.13 RIDGE AT GABLE 19.15' AVE TOP OF CURS 52.13, MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com F� LU 1121:� :::)p Z LL LU J QU Z LU CD CD LU :E o U Q �' °' lJ LU 1� CV � C6 ZN UJc) L Z N � � m Q Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7/13/17 PC Comments 9/18/17 SHEET TITLE: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1 /4"=1 '-0" FA 2 iMI&MVIA KEYNOTES 1 COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYPICAL 2 CEMENT PLASTER. PAINTED. 3 WOOD SIDING, STAINED. STONE. 5 WOOD WINDOW/DOOR WITH ALUMINUM CLADDING. SIMULATED DIVIDED LITES. PANELED WOOD DOOR, STAINED. 6X(o OUTRIGGER, PAINTED. 2XIO RAKE FASCIA, PAINTED. EXPOSED RAFTER TAIL, PAINTED. 5.5 WIDE WOOD TRIM, PAINTED. WOOD COLUMN, PAINTED. WOOD BRACKET, PAINTED. DOWNSPOUT. WINDOW f DOOR TRIM TRIM AT LARGER WINDOWS (AND DOORS) TO 5E 5.5" WIDE. TRIM AT SMALLER WINDOWS TO 5E 2.5" WIDE. TRIM AT CEMENT PLASTER WALLS TO 5E PAINTED. TRIM AT WOOD SIDING WALLS TO BE STAINED. ALL TRIM TO 5E WOOD. j UPPER LEVEL 61.08' DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT WEST ENE OF RESIDENCE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT EAST ENE OF RESIDENCE 54.5(o r— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I � I I I I WEST (REAR) ELEVATION NORTH (DRIVEWAY) ELEVATION 30" HEIGHT LIMIT 52.13 RIDGE AT GABLE 19.15" PLATE AT GABLE 6' PLATE AT DORMER UPPER 61 ea PLATE MAIN LEVEL 51.6 AVE GRADE SOUTH SIDE 54.62" ` DECK 11I v� DECAVE TOP OF CUR5 52.13 RIDGE AT GABLE m N MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com Z LU 0/ =)p Z L.L LU J Q QU Z LU 00 LU O UQcy") c) N LU� 1� 1 lJ 00 ZN U-0 L Z N � � m Q Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7/13/17 PC Comments 9/18/17 SHEET TITLE: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1 /4"=1 '-0" 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1 /4"=1-0" NORTH ELEVATION 1 /4"=1-O" z EAST ELEVATION WEEI ion WEST ELEVATION 1 /4"=1-9" KEYNOTES 1 COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYPICAL 2 CEMENT PLASTER. PAINTED. 3 WOOD WINDOW/DOOR WITH ALUMINUM CLADDING. SIMULATED DIVIDED LITES. 4 PANELED WOOD DOOR, STAINED. 5 roX(o OUTRIGGER, PAINTED. ro 2X10 RAKE FASCIA, PAINTED. I EXPOSED RAFTER TAIL, PAINTED. 5 5.5" WIDE WOOD TRIM, PAINTED. 9 DOWNSPOUT. WINDOW f DOOR. TRIM TRIM AT LARGER WINDOWS (AND DOORS) TO 5E 5.5" WIDE. TRIM AT SMALLER WINDOWS TO 5E 2.5" WIDE. TRIM TO 5E WOOD AND PAINTED. 15' HEIGHT LIMIT 10.0fo" — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3E :)PERTY LINE STING FENCE m OR AT ,T 55.15' AT 55.5� ,T � iYl LOUDEST ADJACENT GRADE 55.06' MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com 3 Z w ry =) 0 Z w J > Q QU zw00 LU o UQcy') LI lJ� 1� CV 00 ZN U-0 Lr)rz N =) n. m Q Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7/13/17 PC Comments 9/18/17 SHEET TITLE: GARAGE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1 /4"=1 '-0" GARAGE ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1 /4''=1 '-0" "�cN �) BE 1-HOUR :SI5TANT ROOF PLAN N SCALE: 1 /4"=1 '-0" 2 MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com W U z W 0 H W w M W W w LL Q Z wD:� z � LU Q � � U z <w< o Ly < o � r�^ N LU V z 006 U L'r) z N 1IL: m Q Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7113117 PC Comments 9/18/17 SHEET TITLE: ROOF PLAN & GARAGE PLANS SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-0'' A3 3 PROJECT NOTES 1. PURSUANT WITH BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.110, CONSTRUCTION HOURS ARE: • WEEKDAYS: 7:00 AM TO Tee PM • SATURDAYS: 9:00 AM TO 6:00 PM • SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED • WORK IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON -CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 AM AND 5:00 PM. 2. ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE BUILDING OWNER, PROJECT DESIGNER AND/OR CONTRACTOR MUST 5UM5IT A REVISION TO THE CITY FOR ANY WORK NOT GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED ON THE JOB COPY OF THE PLANS, PRIOR TO PERFORMING THE WORK. 3. A SUPPLEMENTAL DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION IS REQUIRED WHEN PLANS ARE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DIVISION FOR PLAN REVIEW. A DEMOLITION PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR THE PROJECT. 4. IF A GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED, IT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMMTN OF PUBLIC WORKS. 5. A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PLAN SHALL BE DESIGNED AND SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AS A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL. THE SUBMITTAL SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 6. ROOF EAVES SHALL NOT PROJECT WITHIN 2 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINES PER CRC TABLE 302.1(1) AND 302.1(2). ROOF EAVES SHALL BE 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTANT RATED CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 2- AND 5- FROM THE PROPERTY LINES IN A BUILDING WITHOUT AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PER GRG TABLE 302.10. ROOF EAVES SHALL BE I -HOUR FIRE RESISTANT RATED CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 2' AND 3' FROM THE PROPERTY LINES IN A BUILDING WITH AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PER CRC TABLE 302.1(2). 1. EXTERIOR WALLS LESS THAN 5' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTANT RATED CONSTRUCTION IN A BUILDING WITHOUT AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PER GRG TABLE 302.1(1). EXTERIOR WALLS LESS THAN 3' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION IN A BUILDING WITH AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PER GRG TABLE 302.1(2). NATURAL LIGHT AND VENTILATION (CRC R303) ROOM FLOOR AREA GLAZING AREA REQUIRED (a% FA) GLAZING AREA PROVIDED OPENING AREA REQUIRED (4% FA) OPENING AREA PROVIDED LIVING 234 15.1 (00 9.4 30 GUEST BEDROOM 215 11.4 21 8.1 18 KITCHEN/DINING 340 21.2 60 13.6 14 FAMILY 320 25.6 15 12.5 30 BEDROOM 1 1 &1 12.5 33 6.4 24 BEDROOM 2 114 13.9 22 6.9 14 OFFICE NOOK Iro 6.1 1 ro 3.0 15 MASTER BEDRM 213 Ile 1 44 1 8.5 1 28 SITE: PLAN KEYNOTES OEXISTING TREE TO REMAIN. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR MORE INFORMATION. OEXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED. OEXISTING WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN. APPROX. l' HIGH WITH ]'HIGH LATTICE TOP. ONEW STONE CURB TO REPLACE EXISTING BRICK CURB. 12"+/- HIGH. ONEW STONE COLUMN, 3' +/- HIGH (4' +/- HIGH ON SIDEWALK SIDE). ONEW STONE WALK. IMPERVIOUS. SLOPE TOWARDS VEGETATED AREAS, TYPICAL. ONEW STONE OR PRECAST CONCRETE STEPS WITH METAL HANDRAIL. ONEW CONCRETE WALK. IMPERVIOUS. SLOPE TOWARDS VEGETATED AREAS, TYPICAL. O(E) WALK TO REMAIN. PAVERS. IMPERVIOUS. SITE: PLAN NOTES I. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR TREE, PLANTING AND IRRIGATION INFORMATION. 2. A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITIES ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO: (I) REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE. (2) PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL. (3) ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATIONS. (4) ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND WORK IN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. 3. ALL HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS (COLUMNS, FENCES, ETC.) SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN PROPERTY LINES. 4. ROOF RUNOFF TO BE DIRECTED TO VEGETATED AREAS WHERE PRACTICAL AND WILL NOT CREATE POTENTIAL FOUNDATION ISSUES. 5ro.14' Esj 3 (E) BRICK WALL TO REMAIN. 3' +/- HIGH. REMOVE (E) IRONWORK. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 /8"=1 '-0" kN N 100 U+ 52.84' (E) WATER METER (E) STREET TREE F- I 5,-0„ SIDE 51.25' 533C N ro (E) PATIO TO REMAIN. IMPERVIOUS 15' REAR SETBACK 20 REAR S T13Ac.� (SECONDFLOOR) (E) PLANTER TO REMAIN (E) DECK TO REMAIN. PERVIOUS. f- ---- + 5(o.3(o' I I I I I I � I PROPOSED GARAGE I I a I I 2 I 0 - - - - - - - -� I I I I I - EXTENT OF (E) DECK I I NEW TRELLIS r- I I I I I ° I I r- _ ------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L- - - - - - - J I NEW DECK EXTENSION+/- IN PROPOSED RESIDENCE >u .:Q z I N (LTL LU _ NEW GATE. MATCH - - J ,,,-NEW ADJACENT FENCE I .4 LU m I W Rl LU • PROPOSED GAS I .4I`n Q METER LOCATION I W ::3 > 0 (L I () M IX WL I I z Q I I I PORCH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ V SII 7.4(o FRONT SETBAC 2 S. �- ---------- -- --- 4 54.0 S36p14'14 E SIDEWALK --------- T ----T I I Giz�s 'ANT AV F-NUF- 112 52.15' ul 3 NEIGHBOR TREES NEAR PROP LINE. APPROX. DRIPLINES. 15' TO 20' +/- HEIGHTS NEW PLANTER � SCREEN TREES. SEE SHEET L1. 9'X20' UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE D (E) RESIDENCE, TO BE REMOVED. NEW PLANTINGS. SEE SHEET LI FOR MORE INFO. (E) BRICK WALL TO REMAIN. 3' +/- HIGH PROPOSED ELECTRICAL METER LOCATION NEW PLANTINGS. SEE SHEET LI FOR MORE INFO. 52.61' (E) CURB CUT, 13'-6" +/- WIDE (E) SANITARY SEWER GLEAN -OUT (E) STREET TREE PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS: 125 CRESCENT AVENUE PROPERTY OWNERS: TERRY i BARBARA FREETHY APN: 028-293-080 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE AND DETACHED GARAGE. SEE DRAWINGS FOR DETAILED PROJECT SCOPE. GODS INFORMATION OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3/U CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-B CODES: • 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL GORE • 2e16 CALIFORNIA GREEN STANDARDS CODE • 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE • 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE • 2e16 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE • 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE • 201 �o CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE • 2e16 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE ZONING INFORMATION ZONE: R-1 SITE AREA: 8207 SF, BASED ON SURVEY SETBACKS FRONT, FIRST FLOOR: 21.46%545ED ON BLOCK AVERAGE FRONT, SECOND FLOOR: 21.46' SIDE, FIRST FLOOR: 5-e- SIDE, SECOND FLOOR: SEE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE REAR, FIRST FLOOR: REAR, SECOND FLOOR: 20'-0" LOT COVERAGE ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: 40% X 8207 SF= 3252.5 SF PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: • RESIDENCE SF • FRONT PORCH O'HANG 152 SF • REAR TRELLIS 115 SF • GARAGE 468 SF • TOTAL 2795 SF (487.5 SF UNDER) FLOOR AREA RATIO ALLOWABLE F.A.R.: .32 X 820l + 1500 SF= 4126.24 SF PROPOSED F.A.R.: • RESIDENCE, MAIN LEVEL 1967 SF • MAIN LEVEL, UNDER STAIR 25 SF • RESIDENCE, UPPER LEVEL 1455 SF • REAR TRELLIS Ila SF • GARAGE 468 SF • TOTAL 4096 SF (30.24 SF UNDER) F.A.R. NOTES: 1. PORTIONS OF THE STAIR OVER 12 FEET HIGH ARE COUNTED TWICE. 2. ACCESSIBLE ATTIC AREAS OVER 5 FEET HIGH ARE INCLUDED IN UPPER LEVEL CALCULATIONS. BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWABLE 30'-0"ABOVE AVE. TOP OF CURB (82.13') PROPOSED: 21'-0" DHE DEPARTURE PT., NORTH SIDE: 54.56' DHE DEPARTURE PT., SOUTH SIDE: 54.62' PARKING 1 COVERED (Ie'X20') AND 1 UNCOVERED (9'X20') REQUIRED FOR A FOUR BEDROOM RESIDENCE. SHEET INDEX ARCHITECTURAL Ai SITE PLAN AND PROJECT INFORMATION A2 FLOOR PLANS A3 ROOF PLAN AND GARAGE PLANS A4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A6 GARAGE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Al PERSPECTIVE VIEWS AS PERSPECTIVE VIEWS OF NORTH SIDE LANDSCAPE Li LANDSCAPE PLAN L2 IRRIGATION PLAN SURVEY PROPERTY SURVEY MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com W Q U z Z ::D O LJJ Z IL 0 LU J to Q U LU z o LLl <LLJ < o V LU (D N U z 00 o W Lr) J Z o_ CV U m Q Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7/13/17 PC Comments 9/18/17 SHEET TITLE: SITE PLAN & PROJECT INFORMATION SCALE: 1 /8"=V-0" Al PLANT LEGEND STEPHANIE O'ROURKE 1345 HOWARD AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (650) 347-2499 TREES 1 .LAGERSTROMERIA TUSCARORA STD. CREPE MYRTLE LOW 24" BOX-1 2.OLEA ' SWAN HILL' STD. FRU ITLESS OLIVE LOW 24" BOX- 1 3.CERCIS FOREST PANSY HEART REDBUD TREE STD. LOW 24" BOX -1 SHRUBS 4.ANIGOZANTHOS DWARF RED KANGAROO PAW 5.BERBERRIS PYGMY DWARF BARBERRY 6.DAPHNE ODORA VAR.DAPHNE 7.LAVENDER 'HIDCOTE' LAVENDER 8.METEROSIDEROS EXCELSA VAR. NEW ZEALAND CHRISTAMS BUSH 9.NANDINA'GULF STREAM' NANDINA 10.OLEA'LITTLE OLLIE' OLIVE BUSH 1 1 .SCAVEOLA MAUVE CLUSTERS FAIRY FAN FLW 12.TULBAGHIA SILVER SOCIETY GARLIC BLVD. 12.TULBAGHIA SILVER SOCIETY GARLIC A r% r% A ri LOW 1 GALLON-9 LOW -5 GALLON-4 Low 5 GALLON -I LOW- 1 GALLON-4 Low 5 GALLON-1 1 Low 5 GALLON-1 1 Low 5 GALLON-8 Low- 1 GALLON-6 Low-1 GALLON-22 (E) LOW 1 GALLON- 17 12.TULBAGHIA SILVER SOCIETY GARLIC LOW 1 GALLON-5 13. CAMELLIA JAPONICA DEBUTANTE DBL. CAMELLIA LOW 15 GAL-6 14. CHOISYA TERNATA MEXICAN ORANGE Low 5 GAL-3 1 5.PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS STD. ENGLISH LAUREL TREE LOW 24" -3 NOTES 1. ALL TREES SHOULD BE STAKED WITH TWO STAKES -WITH-TIE-S- ■ !JOUS Tr&ILITIILIG SPACING VARIES SEE PLANE SCHEDULE SHEET L-1I3 NOTES+ 1. CLEANLY PRUNE ALL DAMAGED BRANCHES_ 2. TREE SHALL HAVE STRAIGHT TRUNK AND BE PLUMB AFTER SETTLEMENT. CONTRATOR SHALL ADJUST AS REQUIRED OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 3. ALL TREES SHALL BE FLOODED TWICE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF PLANTING_ TREE SHALL BEAR SAME RELATION TO FINISH GRADE AS TO NURSERY EXISTING GRADE. DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE. 3- HIGH EARTH SAUCER AROUND TREE PIT 3' MULCH MAX. HOLD BACK MULCH FROM TRUNK OF TREE SCARIFY EDGES OF TREE PIT UNTIE ALL ROPES AND REMOVE ALL POLYBURLAP. ROLL JUTE BACK _T3 FROM TOP OF BALL PRIOR TO BADKFU NG. BACKFILL WITH UPLAND PLANTING SOIL AS SPECIFIED PLANTING MIK; COMPACTED TO 927E UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SUBGRADE BEAR SAME FINISH GRADE AS TO SDI ARE. GRADE. DO NOT NOTES: 1. CLEANLY PRUNE ALL DAMAGED BRANCH ES- 2. TREE SHALL IaAVE STRAIGHT TRUNK AND BE PLUMB AFTER SETTLEMENT. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST AS REQUIRED OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 3. ALL TREES SHALL BE FLOODED TWICE V TTHIN 24 HOURS OF PLAITING_ TREE SHALL BEAR SAME RELATION TO FINISH GRADE AS TO NURSERY EXISTING GRADE. DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE. 4- HIGH CONTINUOUS EARTH SAUCER - T - MUL H FROV%UNK1W TREE 1 BACK SCARIFY EDGES OF TREE PIT ' BAGKFILL WITH UPLAND PLANTING SDIL AS SPECIFIED EQ. TO ROOT UNTIE ALL ROPES AND REMOVE ALL POLYBURLAP. ROLL JUTE BACK -1 3 FROM ROQTBALL E - TOP OF BALL PRIOR TO BACKFlWWNG_ DIA. TYP PLANTING MIX; COMPACTED TO 92X UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SUBGRADE EVERGREEN IF S Cl LE: NTS SPACING VARIES. SEE PLANT SCHEDULE SHEET L-16 , NOTE: 1. FOR BROADLEAF FLOOD PLAIN AND HIGH MARSH, SEED AREA IN ADDITION TO INSTALLING PLUGS. SEE SPEC 02952 UPLAND SEEDING AND SPEC 02953 WETLAND S2 DING. INL H SHRUB �HERBACEOUS PLANT BASE OF PLUGS FOR WETLAND PLANTING. ----�_ -- -- —^ �- — UNTIE ALL ROPES AND - FINISH GRADE WITH ``REMOVE ALL WIRE BASKETS MIGROTOPOGRAPHY UP TO 3" �_---- -* 1- -- -- OR CONTAINERS. ROLL JUTE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL BACK 1 3 FROM TOP OF BALL PRIOR BACKFILLING_ i MATTING IN HIGH MARSH AREAS -. EXCAVATE EACH SHRUB -._ � — ... ONLY INDIVIDUALLY TO REQUIRED DEPTH ! 12' WETLAND OR UPLAND AND BACKFILL WITH UPLAND i PLAITING SOIL PLANTING SOIL AS SPECIFIED. j = . -• EXISTING SUBGRADE UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE 49 LIVE STAKE. TYP. FLAT TOP END. PAINTED BY COLOR ACCORDING TO SPECIES LATERAL BUD —..—.. PROPOSED GRADE ■I x W J ri 45' TAPERED BUTT END LIE�TA�KE� S f;pLE: NTS PLANTING PLAN rW V Z W Q (n W x W W x LL W d U I~ W Z � w U w Z x J U !Y tv m September 18, 2017 scale 1 /8 paper size 24x36 SHRUB P1 ANTING HERE �EOLJ-R PLANT P1 UG-q L1 S C.€sLE: NTS S C Qd-E: NTS fow City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 729 Walnut Avenue Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Architect: Form + One Design Property Owner: 729 Walnut Ave, LLC General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 028-142-030 Lot Area: 7,976 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. August 14, 2017 Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission action meeting on August 14, 2017, the Commission expressed a concern that there were no changes made to the design of the house since the design review study meeting and the house is too boxy, that the roof form is not appropriate for a traditional design approach, and that its base is too wide. The Commission voted to deny the application without prejudice (see attached August 14, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). A denial without prejudice allows the applicant to resubmit a project for review by the Planning Commission as long as revisions were made to the project to address the Commission's concerns. The designer submitted a response letter, dated September 27, 2017, and revised plans, date stamped October 2, 2017, to address the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. Please refer to the remainder of the staff report, applicant's letter and revised plans for a description of revisions proposed by the applicant since the August 14, 2017 action meeting. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story single family dwelling and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 4,011 SF (0.50 FAR) where 4,052 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The new single family dwelling will contain five bedrooms. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on -site. Two covered parking spaces are provided in the detached garage (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have also been met. The application includes removing a protected size redwood tree located in the rear half of the lot. The Redwood tree contains two large trunks measuring 56.8 inches and 64.5 inches in diameter. The arborist report, prepared by Kielty Arborist Services (Kielty), dated June 23, 2017 (attached), notes that the tree is in fair condition, is poorly located on the lot, and restricts the buildable space. Due to the proximity to the proposed foundation (3'-0" away), Kielty recommends removal of this tree, noting that it would likely fail or die as a result of root loss this close to the tree. The applicant submitted a second arborist report, prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated July 26, 2017. The report notes that "Overall, this tree has good vigor, poor form and has become excessively large for the lot it is growing in." It concludes that "The proposed construction plan will significantly impact this large Redwood tree. These impacts will make the tree structurally unstable and it will need to be removed prior to the beginning of the project." Design Review 729 Walnut Avenue In his memo dated August 3, 2017, the City Arborist agrees with both arborist reports and will recommend removal if approval of the project is granted by the Planning Commission. He also notes that a Private Protected Tree Removal Permit is required for removal of the Redwood tree and that it will not be effective until the Planning Commission approves the project. The applicant is requesting the following application: ■ Design Review for anew, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)). 729 Walnut Avenue Lot Area: 7,976 SF Plans date stamped: October 2, 2017 PREVIOUS 6.23.17 Plans CURRENT ALLOWED/REQUIRED 10.2.17 Plans SETBACKS 27'-3" to porch no change 27-2" (block average) Front (1st fir): (2nd fir): 36-0" 34'-7" 27'-2" (block average) Side (left): 10'-0" to 2n1 floor no change 4'-0" (right): 4'-0" no change 4'-0" 57'-l" 58'-6" 15'-0" Rear (1st fir): (2nd fir): 58'-3" 60'-11" 20'-0" 2422 SF 2430 SF 3190 SF Lot Coverage: 30.3% 30.4% 40% FAR: 3989 SF 4011 SF 4052 SF' 0.50 FAR 0.50 FAR 0.51 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 no change --- 2 covered 1 covered Off -Street Parking: (20' x 20' clear interior) no change (20' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') ................................................................................................................... 29'-0" ...................................................... 30'-0" 30'-0" Building Height: complies complies CS 25.26.075 DH Envelope: (0.32 x 7,976 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 4,052 SF (0.51 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Parks Division. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on July 10, 2017, the Commission provided comments and questions about the project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached July 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached applicant's response letter and revised plans, date stamped July 24, 2017, for responses to the Commission's comments. Planning staff would note that there were no changes made to the 2 Design Review 729 Walnut Avenue proposed design of the house (see applicant's response letter). 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 structure, featuring a front covered porch, horizontal wood siding, articulated first and second floor walls, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, wood trim, asphalt diamond shingle roofing, and a combination of hip and gable roofs is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood; 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; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants, hedges and trees at locations so that they help to provide privacy and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 2, 2017, sheets T1.0, GN, CG, SW, FAR, A1.0 through A9.0, and LA1.0 through LP1.0; 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 the conditions of the Parks Division's August 3, 2017, June 29, 2017, and May 3, 2017 memos shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3 Design Review 729 Walnut Avenue 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the 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. 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; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Form + One, applicant and designer Attachments: August 14, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter dated September 27, 2017 July 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter dated July 24, 2017 Application to the Planning Commission Report Prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated July 26, 2017 Report Prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated June 23, 2017 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 29, 2017 Aerial Photo 0 CITY ryc�l 11 o� - 9 RPORATE Monday, August 14, 2017 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers a. 729 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Form + One, applicant and designer; 729 Walnut Avenue LLC, property owner) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Comaroto was recused from the discussion of this project. She left the City Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum noted that he had communicated with the neighbor at 774 Walnut Avenue. Commissioner Gaul noted that he had communicated with the neighbor at 722 Walnut Avenue. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff - There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > It was clear in the Commission's prior discussion that there were major concerns about the design; noted that the Commission felt that a talented designer was involved, so no need to refer the project to a design review consultant. Was this not clear? The project remains not approvable since none of the Commission's concerns have been addressed. (Raduenz: the planner didn't state that a redesign was needed.) > With respect to the Redwood tree, was any thought given to removing the portion of the tree that is most impactful? (Raduenz: not an option, would severely impact the health of the tree.) > Suggested that the designer watch the video of the July 10, 2017 Planning Commission discussion to learn what the concerns were. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Is the arborist in the business of removing trees? (Meeker: the arborist considers preservation of the City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 101312017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 14, 2017 tree first. The report was reviewed by the City Arborist.) > Feels that the home design is appropriate and not completely out of line with other homes in the area. > Applicant needs to listen to the recording of the prior discussion. The home is too boxy. Felt that the base was too wide. The houses that have steeper slopes are smaller. The house is too wide for the lot. Not approvable in this form. > The designer is experienced and talented and has completed other projects in the City. There have been no changes to the project that were requested. The architecture is still boxy and the roof form is not appropriate for a traditional approach. Looks much like a bed and breakfast. > Expected to see some pretty significant changes. Doesn't fit in the neighborhood. > The house is speculative, not someone's dream house. > The home is placed too close to the tree, take it into consideration. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to deny the application without prejudice. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, and Loftis Nay: 1 - Kelly Recused: 1 - Comaroto City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 101312017 Form + One 384124"' Street, #A San Francisco, Calif. 94114 P+ 415.819.0304 E + tim@formonedesign.com TRANSMITTAL FORM 12098 Highway 42 Ellison Bay, Wisco. 54210 To: Planners + Commission From: Subject: 729 Walnut Ave. Date Sent: Number of Pages: Re -submittal of Planning Design for approval: t i_ : .� 4:. �✓ J 5470 Cross Country Way Park City, UT 84098 Tim Raduenz 09.27.2017 1 Hello commission, these are the updated plans for 729 Walnut, after the last meeting in which the original design was not approved without prejudice I went back to the drawing board and redesigned the exteriors an a few items in the plans. Exterior Feel + Style: Greg + I both wanted a very traditional design and not overdo the shingles as I think it over -designs and overloads the elevation on small lots and lots that are on an angle such as this one. as its skewed to the road frontage. After taking the commissions comments in mind "this time" we neatly tucked the house's 2nd floor into the roof lines, like we did in our past projects on Drake + Crescent + Cabrillo. Front Elevation: In review of the front elevation we added more depth with dormers and the larger more prominent entry porch, we also added the second floor cantilivering over the first floor adding more detailed trim and a sense of design custom design with a stand along column, which gives it a more traditional look/style, and creates a custom look. Side Elevations: In reviewing the comments on massing, we changed to tucking the rooms into the roof and adding dormer to Form + One ■ Design & Planning ■ 3841 24th Street, #A ■ San Francisco ■ CA - 94114 ■ 415) 819.0304 ■ tim@formonedesign.com elevate the concern of massing. One the right side sharing the property line with the neighbors we added smaller dormer windows and have only 1 egress window shown, with a sunken in area for a planter or other architectural detail. The driveway side basically mimics it but has a strong dormer cutting through, which houses the stairwell with larger windows to push light into the center of the house! this will be pretty visiable as driving down Walnut so we wanted a focal point that is well appointed, and draws your eye too, as it doubles as the kids side entry which is a design feature Greg and I really like and also gives you more varied designs on the inside, instead of the stand cookie cutter first floor layout that a lot of plans now seem to have. In finishing: We stayed with the traditional lap siding and did details of shingles in the gable area, we removed the fireplace bump out from the Living Room. We kept with the traditional columns (Chadsworth) and nicely trimmed out window details. The Roof will stay with the "diamond" shaped asphalt which Greg and I like over the fake asphalt cedar shingles we see almost everywhere. To that end, we hope the extreme changes from what we had, and what we now have is well received! and to that end approved at this meeting so we can move forward with construction drawings. Please call me with any questions about the above responses. Tim Raduenz — CGBP Form + One ■ Design & Planning ■ 3841 24`h Street, #A ■ San Francisco ■ CA ■ 94114 ■ 41s) 819.0304 ■ tim@formonedesign.com BURLINGAME CITY HALL City of Burlingame 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 C A L I; F. _ O 9 N I A Meeting Minutes - Draft Planning Commission Monday, July 10, 2017 7:00 PM Council Chambers C. 729 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (Form + One, applicant and designer; 729 Walnut Avenue LLC, property owner) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 729 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 729 Walnut Ave - Attachments 729 Walnut Ave - Plans 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. Questions of Staff.- > Where are the existing elevations? (Hurin: is a complete demolition, typically existing elevations are not required.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Courtney Harrison represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Was there any desire to keep the large Redwood tree in the rear? (Harrison: to meet the average setback the tree needed to be removed.) Was a variance request considered? (Hurin: could do so. Courtney: noted the findings of the arborist report; it leans toward the home.) > Were any other options to break up the sides of the building? Is two stories on all sides with a broad eave line. (Harrison: didn't look at a lot of articulation on the sides because they are trying to accommodate the driveway. Tried to do a couple of interesting things, but were told not to do them. Noted instances where there are some areas that pop out slightly.) > What is the purpose of the large area of flat roof? (Harrison: done to accommodate solar panels.) The large, flat area is not an appropriate design solution for a traditional home; the roof would have peaked at a greater height. (Harrison: played with plate heights and roof pitches and arrived at this design; felt it was a good solution.) House has nice detailing, but the house appears too massive. > Has the same concerns about the vertical feeling of the design. Look at plate heights. > The chimney appears like a water heater enclosure; perhaps add a chimney that pierces the roofline and consider a treatment like the other chimney, Clinker Bricks. Could help break up the elevation. > Design is boxy and vaguely Gothic. The combination of roof pitch and plate heights makes it look boxy. > Overall feels like the design will fit within the neighborhood. > Encouraged trying to save the Redwood tree and addressing the boxy appearance of the design. Public Comments: Karen and Bill Crandle, 733 Walnut Avenue: Concerned about the removal of the Redwood tree. Its removal will have a significant impact upon the character of the neighborhood, it is part of a cluster. City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 8/8/2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft July 10, 2017 Hopes that the tree can be retained. (Harrison: the tree leans toward the home and affects the foundation of the existing home.) Commission Discussion: > Feels the designer has the ability to make appropriate changes without a referral to a design reviewer. Needs significant attention. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Regular action. Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly Recused: 1 - Comaroto City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 8/8/2017 Form +One 3841 24" Street, #A 12098 Highway 42 5470 Cross Country Way San Francisco, Calif. 94114 Ellison Bay, Wisco. 54210 Park City, UT 84098 P+ 415.819.0304 E + tim@formonedesign.com TRANSMITTAL FORM To: Planners + Commission From: Tim Raduenz Subject: 729 Walnut Ave. Date Sent: 07.24.2017 Number of Pages: 1 Response to Comments from the Planning Commission Meetinq on(7/10/2017)• 1.) The Comment: Review the roof pitch and changing plate height. The home is designed so that the front has strong expressive gables with a distinguished 12/12 pitch allowing form prominent architectural details. The gables are the focal feature of the front elevation, the roof is in the background and will barely be noticeable from the street since they are behind the gables. We have also tried to stay one foot under the max height cap to not have a home that is large and bulky. When designing the home we look at the neighborhood and to stay in context with it we gave our home a steep pitch, similar to the cool Tudor two doors down from the project. The flat roof also allows for us to hide all solar materials and plumbing vents- a pet peeve or our design firm. We strongly feel that dropping a plate height for a few extra inches on the roof is not worth the trade off. 2.) The Comment: Right side elevation, considering raising the chimney passed the roof. The chimney can not break the roof plane that it currently sits under. Doing so would leave a air gap between the first and second floor, since the second floor is stepped back. This would leave the front and side elevation feeling disjointed and not a thoroughly thought out design, such as we have presented to the commission. This design allows for the neighbor to have less massing to look at with the building of this proposed project. 3.) The Comment: Considering saving the redwood tree shown for removal in the center of the yard. We have brought a second arborist (Mayne Tree Expert Company) on board the project who has come to the same conclusion as our original arborist(Kielty Arborist). That the split redwood tree should be removed. The city arborist also supports this decision and we are replacing the removal of this tree with more than the required amount of trees. The planning department informed us of the avg. block setback which the proposed project is abiding by. This pushed the home only a few feet from the tree and with the split trunk the owner does not want the liability after learning the arborist's recommendation. The tree being this close to the home just does not work with the home, the foundation and its root system. Please call me with any questions about the above responses. " E E I V Build It JUL 2 4 2017 GREEN" Tim Raduenz — CGBP MEMBER CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLAID NING DIV. Form + One - Design & Planning - 3841 24t" Street, #A - San Francisco - CA - 94114.415) 819.0304 - tim@formonedesign.com ciTV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Parcel ❑ Zoning / Other:s�+�1',�r-,, PROJECT ADDRESS: 72'9 ���LIT— l'TVfi. APPLICANT Name a Address: T11 '' *A City/State/Zip: PROPERTY OWN R Name: M5. Address: 1,N 1AT' City/State/Zip: 4�A q Phone: . b Phone:"1t E-mail: M , E-mail: � � ✓a�` %L tn(Dl C�« C ,a4 ° TEC--T/DESIGNER Name: T_07-^ aJr—, Address:'t-�"` City/State/Zip: Phone: i , gl` CA E-mail:N% Burlingame Business License #: Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related.to such action. ATZ (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 4- AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I here certi under natty of perjury that the information givenZher i/tru and correct to the best of my knowledge and beli Applicant's signature: Date: 1 am aware of the proposed a plica i an eby authorize the above applicant to submit dis a pl4ccation to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: APR 2 4 2017 Date submitted: C1U I CDD-PUPM-NO-00APCApplication, doc Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 276793 CERTIFIED FORESTER CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON 535 13R.AGATO ROAD, STE. A PRESIDENT SAN CARLOS, CA 94070-6311 IEROMEY INGALLS TELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400 CONSULTANTIESTIMATOR FACSIMILE. (650) 593-4443 July 26, 2017 EMAIL: info@Inaynauee.com Mr. Tim Raduenz Form+One 3841 24th St. San Francisco, CA 94114 Dear Mr. Raduenz, RE' 729 WALNUTAVENUE, BURLINGAME RECE r-D AUG -2 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. At your request, on July 19, 2017, 1 visited the above -referenced site to inspect a large two -stem Redwood tree located in back of the home. Included in this report will be a review of the proposed construction plans and the impact on the large Redwood tree in question. Limitations of this Report This report is based on a visual -only inspection that took place from ground level. I accept no responsibility for any unseen or unidentified defects associated with this tree or any other trees on this site. Method This tree was identified as a Redwood tree that is located in back of the home. I found the diameter of this tree by measuring the trunk at 54 inches off of the natural grade as described in the City of Burlingame Heritage Tree Ordinance. The height and canopy spread of this tree was estimated to show its approximate dimensions. I gave a condition rating to this tree that is based on form and vitality and can be further defined by the following table: 0 — 29 Very Poor 30 — 49 Poor 50 — 69 Fair 70 — 89 Good 90 — 100 Excellent Lastly, a comments section is included to give more individual detail about this tree. 729 Walnut Ave., Burlingame 2 July 26, 2017 Tree Survey Tree # Species Diameter Condition Height (feet) Spread (feet) (inches) (percent) 1 Redwood 111.2 80 120 45 Comments: Codominant at base with included bark; sprouts near the trunk, ivy growing up the trunk; large buttress roots lifting and cracking the nearby concrete; large surface roots lifting the walkway; girdling root at the base, the home is approximately 8 feet from the base of the tree; potential tripping hazard; heavy lateral limbs. Support cable with a spring at 55 feet high. Observations During my inspection of the two -stem Redwood Tree at the back of the home, I noticed the base of the tree has affected a large portion of the backyard (Picture #1). The buttress roots of this tree have expanded well beyond its base, have lifted/cracked a large portion of a nearby concrete driveway, and caused significant upwelling in a walking path on the opposite side of the tree (Pictures #2, #3, and #4). There is also an abundance of sprouts around the base of the tree that are impeding the walking area near its base. This tree has a codominant attachment at the base with included bark between the two stems (Picture #5). The canopy of this tree has excess end weight on the lateral limbs and between the two stems at 55 feet high is a support cable with a spring that was installed to reduce the chance of a failure occurring. Overall, this tree has good vigor, poor form and has become excessively large for the lot it is growing in. Plan Review Upon reviewing the proposed construction plans for the above address, I have determined that the existing home will be demolished and a new home built in its place. At the rear of the new home a patio will be built and, at the left rear corner of the property, a detached garage will be built. The Redwood tree identified in this report will be significantly impacted by the construction of the new home and the new driveway that leads to the new garage. Due to these impacts, the Redwood tree will need to be removed prior to the construction of the new home. Summary The proposed construction plan will significantly impact this large Redwood tree. These impacts will make the tree structurally unstable and it will need to be removed prior to the beginning of the project. I believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at my office. 1E #7076A JAI:pmd No. wE-7079A Y y 119 t • S 4 ► Jr �. qs4 •4 vwi Wftlik:o 3 r, j t,+ i Awv r �n s. t t" w 1 !,a 0 7yv r ellrie #.5 T. .y Kielty Arborist Services Certified Arborist WE#0476A P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 June 23, 2017 650-515-9783 Tim Radunez Form One RECEIVE® 3841 24s' Street San Francisco, CA 94114 JUN 2 3 2017 Site: 729 Walnut, Burlingame CA CITY OF BURLINGAME Dear Mr. Radunez, CDD-PLANNING DIV. As requested on Friday, March 10, 2017, I visited the above site for the purpose of inspecting and commenting on the large redwood tree in close proximity to the existing home. A new home is proposed on this site and your concern as to the future health and safety of the redwood tree on site has prompted this visit. Method: All inspections were made from the ground; the tree was not climbed for this inspection. The tree in question was located to be by the property owner. The tree was then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The tree was given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale. 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The height of the tree was measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided. 729 Walnut /6/23/17 (2) Observations: The large redwood tree (Sequoia sempervirens) is codominant tree. Two large leaders extend from grade level to a height of 100 feet. The leader to the north has a diameter of 56.8 inches and the leader to the south has a diameter of 64.5 inches. The union at the base of the tree is in fair condition, and no included bark is present. The canopy spread of this tree is 40 feet. A large supporting cable has been installed in the past connecting the two large leaders. The cable was installed at a height of 60 feet. This was done to mitigate the lean of the leader towards the home. The leader to the north slightly leans towards the home. The large surface roots of this tree can be seen headed in the direction of the existing home. The tree is 10 feet from the existing garage and 28 feet from the existing home. This tree was given a condition rating of 60 making it a fair tree. Notice leader on right hand side showing slight lean. Summary: The large redwood tree is in fair condition. The plans for the proposed home have been revised to reflect the minimum first floor setback of 27-2". The large redwood tree now sits at 3 feet from the proposed foundation. The impacts from the proposed design will have a high impact on the tree. Roots at this distance are critical for the stability of the tree. The tree is poorly located on the lot and restricts the buildable space. It is recommended to remove the tree as the tree would likely fail or die as a result of root loss this close to the tree. This tree will need to be replaced by the city of Burlingame's ordinance. A 24-inch box size landscape tree will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified by the city of Burlingame, payment of $700 dollars for each tree removed will be required and put into the tree replacement fund. Replacement recommendations: Coast live oak, valley oak, cork oak, red oak, red maple, Brisbane box, ginkgo, and southern live oak. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty Certified Arborist WE#0476A David P. Beckham Certified Arborist WE# 10724A Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 729 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-142-030 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story house with a detached garage. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. Water Conservation In Landscape checklist required for Building Permit. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. • The additional arborist report by Mayne Tree confirms the Kielty Arborist Report that redwood tree would be severely affected by the new construction making it structurally unstable and a future hazard. I agree with both reports and will recommend removal after the Planning Commission approves project. • New Acer rubrum proposed for replacement tree. • City street tree to remain. • Landscape and Irrigation Plan approved Reviewed By: Bob Disco Date: 8/3/17 650.558.7333 bdisco@burlingame.org CITY KU �P'C7RA1 D Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 729 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-142-030 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story house with a detached garage. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. Private Protected Tree Removal Permit required for removal of Redwood tree as recommended in arborist report. Permit will not be effective until Planning Commission approves project. Contact Park Division for permit (558.7330) 2. Replacement requirements for redwood: replace with one of the species recommended in the arborist report in addition to a least 3 other trees to fulfill requirements. 3. City street tree may not be cut, trimmed or removed. Proposed plans show removal. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Reviewed By: Bob Disco Date: 6.29.17 650.558.7333 CITY x Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 729 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-142-030 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story house with a detached garage. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. New construction will affect redwood trees. Update arborist report with regards to new construction and location of trees to foundation. Include in summary why or why not trees should be removed or retained. 2. Provide landscape and irrigation plans. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Reviewed By: Bob Disco Date: 5.3.17 650.558.7333 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a new, two story single family house and a detached garage at 729 Walnut Avenue, Zoned R-1, 729 Walnut Ave, LLC, property owner, APN: 028-142-030; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 10, 2017, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of October, 2017 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 729 Walnut Avenue Effective October 20, 2017 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 2, 20177 sheets T1.0, GN, CG, SW, FAR, A1.0 through A9.0, and LA1.0 through LP1.0; 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 the conditions of the Parks Division's August 3, 2017, June 29, 2017, and May 3, 2017 memos shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 729 Walnut Avenue Effective October 20, 2017 Page 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the 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. 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; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPI B A L I F 0GAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �F PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 64 www.burlingame.orgj Site: 729 WALNUT AVENUE PUBLIC HEARING The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the NOTICE following public hearing on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 729 WALNUT AVENUE zoned R-1. APN 028-142-030 Mailed: September 29, 2017 (Please refer to other side) reviewed prior to :501 Primrose limited to blic hearing, :o the city at or rming their HEARING NOTICE I 49'-4" LIMITED GEOGRAPHY: SIVE boards are not available everywhere... check with your local Pro Lumberyard or call 888.229.7900. 8 `Warmnry bored on proper imra!lareon, ree W:'ndarONEso'mrall for draiG SIDING CUTSHEET A b S1S2E TRIM BOARDS 16 , f Year warray`on 2O 31OProrertedbonard lx2 lx3 Ix4 lx6 lx8 1xIO 1x12 s/4 x3 s/4 x4 1A x6 5/4 x8 s/4 x 10 s/4x12 2 x2 2 x4 2x6 2x8 2.10 2 x12 i REVERSIBLE ROUGH SAWN ON ONE SIDE, SMOOTH ON OTHERS WITH EASED EDGES All S I S2E products are protected with a 30 year warranty against rot, insects and mold. Durable for the exterior, healthy for the interior. 9 Scale: 1/4 = F-0" 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (127.06) 2ND FLR T.O.P. (116.75) HEADER 6_10" (115.08) C _i 2ND FL (SUB. FLR) (108.25) — TOP PL TE (107.25) — HEADER 8'=5" (106.25) bo MAIN F R F.F. VA (97.75) — VG T.O.C. (97.06) 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (127.06) F__ I 40 YR ARCH. ASPHALT DIAMOND SHINGLES WOOD CEDAR SHINGLE (PAINTED) z I J J IW I 2ND FLR T.O.P. (116.75) G.S.M. GUTTERS — I OGEE (PAINTED) HEADER 6-10" (115.08) VERTICAL 2X CORNER TRIM "windsorONE" 440 HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING "windsorONE" 0 LOE WD/CLAD WINDOWS W/ S.D.L. I 2ND FLR(SUB. FLR) (108.25) TOP PLATE (107.25) HEADER 8'-5" (106.25) - Lf� W � D.H.E.(99.92) MAIN FLR F.F. (97.75) GRADE SEE TOP CAP (SPEC. SHEET) PHOTO PATIO �Ol�0000000E— F--j 00000 D.S. BRICK (CLINKER) ANTIQUE FACING ON COVERED PATIO + CHIMNEY CHADSWORTH 12X12 POLY COLUMNS - TRANSOM WINDOWS TO BE LEADED AND PRODUCED BY LOCAL ARTISAN - DRIVEWAY (N) 6' REDWOOD FENCE GOOD NEIGHBOR DESIGN L — (N) PLANTER POCKETS FOR PRIVACY OF BOTH NEIGHBOR + OWNER 14--0" IOOOOC �000� IOOOOC 1= E: �OOOC o0001: Too= F—I _jDOOC IOOOOC 1= =F_77777 =E: �OOOC l0000� OO�O�OC __j ��oo�ooi _J�0000i �0000i 7 ZZ / EGRESS EGRESS \ \ EGRESS LZ TEMP. \ \ 0000000000000000 000000000r MDO PANEL WITH D.S. DOUGLAS FIR (PAINTED OR STAINED) DETAILED TRIM (PAINTED) COVERED PATIO OPTION: IPE OR RDWD BRICK (CLINKER) ANTIQUE FACING ON COVERED PATIO (N) 6' REDWOOD FENCE GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE 31'-3" 49'-4" PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION / / / TEMP. ALL BRACKETS + CORBEL DETAILS FROM REDWOOD (PAINTED) DETAIL TO BE CUT FROM TEMPLATE + CONFIRMED ON SITE 4'-0" Y w z m J W U) LU Iw q U) I 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (127.06) ALL BRACKETS + CORBEL DETAILS FROM REDWOOD (PAINTED) DETAIL TO BE CUT FROM TEMPLATE + CONFIRMED ON SITE 'TRIM BOARD, TYPICAL W/ FASCIA BD. TO BE 2X WITH RAKE TRIM o �50 ALL IN "windsorONE" ti co 2ND FLR(SUB. FLR) (108.25) Scale: 1/4 = F-0" I �CHADSWORTH 12X12 POLY COLUMNS WINDOWS + DOORS BY SIERRA PACIFIC ALUM. CLAD EXTERIOR + INTERIOR WOOD W/ STANDARD S.D.L. PATTERN AS SHOWN TYPICAL. D.H.E (97.45)AK — PORCH 40 YR ARCH. ASPHALT DIAMOND SHINGLES G.S.M. GUTTERS OGEE (PAINTED) VERTICAL 2X CORNER TRIM "windsorONE" HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING "windsorONE" CHADSWORTH 12X12 POLY COLUMNS I4J o +0 N -ri ^ \ U 0 H q � EI -H U) q r_ ri 4 a to EH I a a a o � � +' Ri c +J N , 0.Q -P (� U �:j o °a 0-1 Q4 CO Fi ) c° —1 N M 'f' tr-) �.o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 0 0 0 co o r_, 4-1 O � 4 C -ri o U ) N ,,SSl�a� � QQ4 E N O (0 > F rl C7 -rl U Q' T v is Q o O M ` O O 1P � O I-7 E .H U CO ,Q o U�ID Q _w� F� 2 C7UNx W O � U CD Cn CD I CV o I 00 CD v CD .. S4 (0 Ls O r CJ N 3841 24th Street, #A San Francisco, CA 94114 Ph: 415.819.0304 E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM form + one DESIGN ■ PLANNING 0 N I 0 N I N O (D CD J J-1 CD Q o O 4--) F1 co N 7� U) �4 Q O O TCD F--.1 6l �4 N � � o z o a F-I w h A3.0 PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION (DRIVEWAY) Scale: 1/4 = F-0" Sheet Scale: See Details =s G ti 7 A O N N O Q to v 0 0 w a w ai 0 3 G N O T ti M ttl O. O l� G N a U O 'd U1 O N l� W O y N Q O U X ttl 0 b b E+ la ZS N 0 a� G v G 0 v a v a 0 s 0 v G l 0 w a w 3 m H 0 O G 0 O v a U v rn N 0 a v sa N 3 sa v G rs w 0 a� 0. v a� M v U 0 v G M m b v -o 0 a G O N U .ti W r{ U C4 O LS M b N � N H J-� O J-) N -rl In \ U 0 � ] H -H (] C: H r4 o U) rl -'d a W� � 0 :-Q,-- �I U �II +) z `I N N OQ4" N a)o Q 1 �4U r1N M'f' LO �.O O O O O O O ao00000 _H +J O I— i C -H o U) (1)}-I � O (0 > Q, rl (7 _H U �l s Ca oo N N T Ll S-I JJ b) 1 I --I U _H a M O M �7 � M O O+ O U _Q N —A l O E 0 H - 0C7UNxC4 O � U (-O O I N o I 00 M N v°' O 4j N 4-3 O 1— CO N 3841 24th Street, #A San Francisco, CA 94114 Ph: 415.819.0304 E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM form + one DESIGN ■ PLANNING C` O N O N I N O ((A n W —I O H O Q � � ~ O O ..� � 0) i S4 -4 x � � Q� U) S �4 �-I o) �4 C) � � o z o a F-i w h A3.1 Sheet Scale: See Details O N rIN M `1' Lnl0 O O O O O O O O O O O O m� o +1 O W -.� o r rn o (0� rlC rl C7 -rU v is Q 0 i O M �7 O O 4-) �3 O 1 E -'-I U cn ,Q o a.! to —i to 5:I C r i El N O 7.C7UN x W O . Fn4 U MO O I N H o I CO N �4 61 O a) FC H 7 U ri FG JJ a � ro r � rt �4 oa -� a a) O W N 3841 24th Street, #A San Francisco, CA 94114 Ph: 415.819.0304 E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM form + one DESIGN ■ PLANNING 0 N O N I N O rA ( � i-I O W O Ct H H °' - r-I O Q ^� T fn El �I I� S4 �4 x Ct U • 3 �-4 Ct ct o ❑ O M �-I I �4 N N 4-' aa) o z o E� a h G2,00 Sheet Scale: See Details GENERAL NOTES & SCOPE 1. PROTECT ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPING AND TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONSULT ARBORIST AS REQUIRED. 2. NO EXISTING TREES OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54" FROM BASE OF TREE MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT A PROTECTED TREE PERMIT FROM THE PARKS DIVISION (558-7330) NO TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED FOR THIS PROJECT. 3. WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE NOT REQUIRED SINCE LANDSCAPE WILL NOT BE REHABILITATED AS NOTED ON PLANS. 4. A PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, AND WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, TO MANAGE STORM WATER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. CGC 4.106.2 & CGC 4.106.3 SMH 5. ALL SPRINKLER DRAINAGE SHALL BE PLACED INTO LANDSCAPING AREAS IM: 91.27 8„ V: 86.1 SS SS 6" 6" 8" STREET TREES - 1. PROTECT ALL STREET TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION JJ U A a PUBLIC WORKS NOTES 0 o 1. A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITIES ENCHROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO (1) REPLACE ALL II CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE, (2) PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY w SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL, (3) ALL WATER LINE I CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OF FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER o 3 CCITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION. (4) AND OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT -OF WAY. o 2. ALL WATER LINES CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE PROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MATERIAL L 0 T 1 I SPECIFICATIONS. CONTACT THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT FOR CONNECTION FEES. IF I REQUIRED, ALL FIRE SERVICES AND SERVICES 2" AND OVER WILL BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER. o ALL UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SEPARATE UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE PERMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. f W 0 oo . I o x STORMWATER CHECKLIST NOTES ro o. - 1. DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF INTO CISTERNS OR RAIN BARRELS AND USE RAINWATER FOR I E IRRIGATION OR OTHER NON -POTABLE USE. I 2. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS, AND/OR PATIOS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS. 3. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM DRIVEWAYS AND/OR UNCOVERED PARKING LOTS ONTO VEGETATED(21 AREAS. w 4. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS AND/OR PATIOS WITH PERMEABLE SURFACES. o 5. USE MICOR-DETENTION, INCLUDING DISTRIBUTED LANDSCAPE -BASED DETENTION. 6. PROTECT SENSITIVE AREAS, INCLUDING WETLAND AND RIPARIAN AREAS, AND MINIMIZEo I CHANGES TO THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY. I 7. MARK ON SITE INLETS WITH THE WORDS "NO DUMPINGLIFLOWS TO BAY" OR EQUIVALENT. 3 8. (A.) RETAIN EXISTING VEGETATION AS PRACTICABLE (B) SELECT DIVERSE SPECIES APPROPRIATE TO THE SITE. INCLUDE PLANTS THAT ARE PEST- AND/OR DISEASE -RESISTANT, _ DROUGHT -TOLERANT, AND/OR ATTRACT BENEFICIAL INSECTS. (C) MINIMIZE USE OF PESTICIDESo - - AND QUICK -RELEASE FERTILIZERS. 9. DESIGN FOR DISCHARGE OF FIRE SPRINKLERS TEST WATER TO LANDSCAPE OR SANITARY o SEWER. a 10. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROLS TO STABILIZE ALL DENUDED AREAS UNTIL PERMANENT w EROSION CONTROLS ARE ESTABLISHED. w 11. DELINEATE WITH FIELD MARKERS THE FOLLOWING AREAS: CLEARING LIMITS, EASEMENTS, w SETBACKS, SENSITIVE OR CRITICAL AREAS,BUFFER ZONES, TREES TO BE PROTECTED AND IX RETAINED, DRAINAGE COURSES. 12. PROVIDE NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS OR ATTACHEMENTS DESCRIBING THE FOLLOWING: (A) CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS, INCLUDE INSPECTION FREQUENCY❑(B) METHODS AND SCHEDULE FOR GRADING, EXCAVATION, FILLING, CLEARING OF VEGETATION, AND STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED OR o CLEARED MATERIAL, (C) SPECIFICATIONS FOR VEGETATIVE COVER & MULCH, INCLUDE METHODS AND SCHEDULES FOR PLANTING AND FERTILIZATION (D) PROVISIONS FOR TEMPORARY AND OR PERMANENT IRRIGATION L 0 T 2 13. PERFORM CLEARING AND EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES ONLY DURING DRY WEATHER 14. USE SEDIMENT CONTROLS OF FILTRATION TO REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN DEWATERING AND o OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. 15. PROTECT ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS IN VICINITY OF SITE USING SEDIMENT CONTROLS (E.G. BERMS, SOCKS, FIBER ROLLS OR FILTERS) A 16. TRAP SEDIMENT ON -SITE, USING BMP'S SUCH AS SEDIMENT BASINS OR TRAPS, EARTHEN DIKES OR BERMS, SILT FENCES, CHECK DAMS, COMPOST BLANKETS OR JUTE MATS, COVERS FOR SOIL STOCK PILES, ETC. 17. DIVERT ON -SITE RUNOFF AROUND EXPOSED AREAS -DIVERT OFF-STE RUNOFF AROUND THE SITE (E.G SWALES AND DIKES) o 18. PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND UNDISTURBED AREAS FROM CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS USING VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR FILTERS, - - o DIKES,MULCHING OR OTHER MEASURES AS APPROPRIATE. 19. LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES AND STABILIZE DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS. 20. NO CLEANING, FUELING OR MAINTAINING VEHICLES ON -SITE, EXCEPT IN A DESIGNATED ARE WHERE WASHWATER IS CONTAINED AND TREATED. 21. STORE, HANDLE AND DISPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS/WASTES PROPERLY TO V w w w w w w w w W W W A L N U T A V E N U E (50' R/W) O SS SS 61 SS SS SS SS SS SS SSCO 94.82 95.49 96.51 ss ss 94.13+ p� 94.08 SSMH RIM: 98.43 INV: 94.9 SS SS � 6" 6" 98.80 98.72 5' '9.25 95.75 9P.2 99.0 O/ 94.41 o/H96.64 3-- Cp1' s7.is O/H s7.so 7H /H O/-- ' 9+ s.sAl 9735 ,S GRID (O "® SS.CO GIRD 5.6GRID 10TROh96 37 (PROTEC)6.86 00 95.77 7.29 8.07 95.92 9 �h 1� 4)CONC SIDEWALK 00 FOUN �• �. UTIL. VAULT 0' MAG NAIL o, O °' °� 1� 96.06 °� 97.00 97.18 O 95.98 s + 97.7979,8,5150.02' X N46°47'00"W x 0.02' N46°47'00"W (50.00') °`x0.00')BASSIS OF BEARINGS 0 IP010• OGRDGRD 96.33+ 01X+ 98WPSG NT TBACK 15'-0"(FIRS F OOR �' 9 X x°b u� x0 FONT SETBACK 20'-0"(SEC ND LOOR L 0 T 7 B L 0 C K 4 PREVENT CONTACT WITH STORMWATER. (50.00') W 22. CONTRACTOR SHALL TRAIN AND PROVIDE INSTRUCTION TO ALL 49.79 EMPLOYEES/SUBCONTRACTORS RE: CONSTRUCTION BMP'S. N41°55'42"W - - 123. CONTROL AND PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF ALL POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING 3 PAVEMENT CUTTINGWASTES,PAINTS, CONCRETE, PETROLEUM b PRODUCTS, CHEMICALS,WASHWATEROR SEDIMENTS, RINSE WATER FROM ARCHITECTURAL COPPER, AND NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES TO STORM DRAINS AND WATERCOURSES. o I L 0 T 6 Io. I I o ro U rl W co x O\ zl + x x ? 9 rn 96�j 23 g162 AVG. SETBACK 27. 'k GIRD _ _ 9Q P 5 9), .>X GIRDI 1 I OR� (N) COVERED ,x X � PORCH 11 (N) GAS METER - I i 97'93 'K^ -4 (N) ELECT. METER I I N) S1I 1 2 STORY LE FgMIL x I HOME .90 rn o) 1 -= � I = I) 1 I I I II of I II O) �x U 0) I� LO rn W W+ 5 I_ I co o off) REMOVE TREE rn � 01 1 0 M 96.4 1 +� rn zLu 4 L 0 T 8 °I 2 AREA = 7, 976± SO. FT. CID rn _ � IREMOVE TREE - Z 0I 9 .76 w (N) T ERRq CE REMOVE TREE o o x Iz z I 12" 50 97'93 REMOVETREE REMOVE TREE �x �I O LANDSCAPE O o d- GIRD + 97.46 x U IN O� oD FOUND w �`�' NAIL co + 99.68 + 97.96 + o 5 W FOUND NAIL tlllxD I & WHISKERS f9 .431 rn; - - REAR TBA K 20 . ") (SEC 7[FLOOR) L_�_ REAR SETA 1 -0" (FIRSFLOOR) - o (N) 2 STALL REMOVE TREE 99 CAR GARgGE 12"C ER " 8CLU ER OP REMO E TREE L - X x (N) 6' WOOD FENCE _ N41°55'4 ----- w ------ 9. 9 ) 6'WO D F-E L 0 T 9 (50.0o') - MOVE TREE L O T 1 0 TREE 1 9 L L S 3 5 L 0 T 1 1 (50.00') O 49.79' N41 °55'42"W - - BOUNDARY NOTE: MONUMENTS WILL BE SET AT THE PROPERTY CORNERS AND A RECORD OF SURVEY OR CORNER RECORD WILL BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO. Ib °lbIb BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON AN ASSUMED DATUM. TBM: FOUND MAG NAIL IN BACK OF WALK ELEVATION = 97.79 cc c 99.42 99.32 �/� f 99.67 41, CP O 50.02' (50.00') �Co K^ (o I I I I I I �l I "I N I I I I I I I I BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARING N 46°47'00" W BETWEEN TWO FOUND IRON PIPES ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF WALNUT AVENUE, AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FEBRUARY 22, 1999 IN VOLUME 19 OF L.L.S. MAPS AT PAGE 35, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY. LEGEND: FOUND 3/4" IP SET PER 19 LLS 35) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED xFOUND 3/4" BRASS TAG & MAG NAIL (SET PER 19 LLS 35) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED O SET 3/4" IP, LS****** (SET PER *** M ********) A/C ASPHALTIC CONCRETE BW BACK OF WALK CB CATCH BASIN CIP CAST IRON PIPE CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CONC CONCRETE CO CLEAN -OUT DI DROP INLET EM ELECTRIC METER FD FOUND FF FINISHED FLOOR FL FLOW LINE FH FIRE HYDRANT GA GUY ANCHOR GM GAS METER GRD GROUND HCR HANDICAP RAMP INV. INVERT I IRON PIPE JP JOINT POLE LAT. LATERAL LG LIP OF GUTTER O/H OVERHEAD P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE RET. WALL RETAINING WALL R/W RIGHT OF WAY SSCO SANITARY SEWER CLEAN -OUT SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE TBC TOP BACK OF CURB T/W TOP OF WALL U/G UNDERGROUND VCP VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE WV WATER VALVE WM WATER METER BOX -CTV- CABLE TELEVISION LINE -E- ELECTRICAL LINE -G- GAS LINE -SS- SANITARY SEWER LINE -SD- STORM DRAIN LINE -T- TELEPHONE LINE -W- WATER LINE UTILITY NOTE THE UTILITIES EXISTING ON THE SURFACE AND SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING HAVE BEEN LOCATED BY FIELD SURVEY. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE FROM RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND THE SURVEYOR DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR COMPLETENESS, INDICATED LOCATION, OR SIZE. RECORD UTILITY LOCATION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED BY EXPOSING THE UTILITY. AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK: ADDRESS FRONT SETBACK 733 25.3' 729 29.8' 725 27.9' 721 31.3' 717 33.5' 713 25.0' 709 21.3' 705 23.5' AVERAGE 27.2' SAND SO GF WAYNE HAAS 0 No. LS 7701 Exp. 12-31-18 )� ��9TF OF C BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LOT 8, BLOCK 4 "MAP OF SUBDIVISION NO 4 OF BURLINGAME PARK" VOLUME D OF MAPS AT PAGE 43 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 028-142-030 (729 WALNUT AVENUE) BURLINGAME SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 1'' MARCH, 2017 B & H SURVEYING, INC. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING 901 WALTERMIRE ST. BELMONT, CA 94002 OFFICE (650) 637-1590 FAX (650) 637-1059 C +p N -rl N O \ U 0 E- E rl a w m i 0 C +-) o V A (� U u) �-I m °a (Da) U cG) °oa (n a (D0 Q „ , rl N M u-) l0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 E-1 'o o r_ +� o 1-141 r _H o v�4 ro o FC rl C7 r4U�' �o c a) o Q �, -P :s C7 .� ; M H O M r7 �4 Z, 0Ucj �CW O a U O CY7 0 I CV o 0I CV O U 4-1 C ro =N-- b, P° 2 O X r-- W N 3841 24th Street, #A San Francisco, CA 94114 Ph: 415.819.0304 E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM form + one DESIGN ■ PLANNING r 0 N I 0 N I N o �I O I -I T I °' +) rI O ra p.., 4-' N 11 �4 x 4 3 U b) 4 co + (D r o z o E-i a h Al 00 1 I � L 0 JOB: 7070-17 DWG: 7070-FIN BY: J.M. Sheet Scale: PLANT LIST 11/14/16 1125 Bernal Avenue -BURLINGAME, CA SYM SCIENTIFIC NAME 1 COMMON NAME QUANTITY SIZE / SPACING GROWTH WUCOLS T) 1 AR LN Acer rubrum 'Aumtumn Blaze' our nobil� 'Sar a' 'Autumn Blaze' Red Maple 'S t I 1 3 24" BOX 24" BOX MOD. FAST M L (S) SHRUBS AH MC RF RI TL Abutilon palmed Myrtus communis 'Compacta' Rosa 'White Flower Carpet Rose' Ribes sanguineum 'White Icicle' Trichostema Ianatnum Indian Mallow 'Compacta' Dwarf Myrtle Flower Carpet Rose 'White Icicle' Flowering Currant Woolly Blue Curls 9 11 9 4 11 5 GALLON 5 GALLON 5 GALLON 15 GALLON 5 GALLON MOD. MOD. FAST MOD. FAST L L M L L (P) PERENNIALS AN Anigozanthos hybrid 'Harmony' 'Harmony' Kangaroo Paws 13 5 GALLON FAST L (Og) / (V) ORNAMENTAL GRASSES / VINES FO II RB TJ VC Festuca ovina 'Glauca' (Og) Ipomea indica (V) Rosa banksiae 'Lutes' (V) Trachelospermum jasminoides (V) Vitis californica (V) Dwarf Blue Fescue Blue Dawn Flower 'Lutea' Lady Bank's Rose Star Jasmine California Wild Grape 28 4 5 5 3 1 GALLON 5 GALLON 5 GALLON 5 GALLON 5 GALLON MOD. FAST FAST MOD. FAST L L L M L (Gc) GROUNDCOVERS SM Scaevola 'Mauve Clusters' 'Mauve Clusters' Scaevola 22 1 GALLON FAST L (L) LAWN (SOD) Bolero Dwarf Growing Tall Fescue by Delta Bluegrass Company 551 SF ROLLS FAST - H *IF THERE IS NO WUCOLS VALUE SEE COLUMN " * " FOR WATER USE TOT L 128 L & VL TOTAL 115 89.8% PLEASE NOTE: NEWLY IRRIGATED AREAS TOTAL 2517 sf 'S s PRC).1FrT'.'; TC)TAI I ANn.gC APF AREA n 9S17 D �f 1 *550.9 sf / 2517.0 sf ❑ 21.9 ❑ (PERCENT OF FINAL LANDSCAPE AREA TO BE HIGH WATER USE SOD LAWN AREA) WATER EFFICIENCY IN LANDSCAPING CALCULATION SUMMARY SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA ALLOWED TURF IRRIGATED AREA 551 21.9❑ 25❑ MAX. NON -TURF IRRIGATED AREA* 1966 78.1 ❑ SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREA 0 0❑ WATER FEATURE(S) AREA 0 0❑ 10❑ MAX. TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA 2517 100.011 * NON -TURF IRRIGATED AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED USING NETAFIM-BRAND IN -LINE DRIP HOSES PLANTING NOTES: 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT AND SOD QUANTITIES PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID FOR WORK. 2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST STANDARDS OF NURSERY STOCK, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION. 3. PLANT MATERIAL CANNOT BE GUARANTEED AS DEER RESISTANT DUE TO THE CHANGING HABITS OF DEER. 4. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A LAYER OF BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF (3) INCHES, WITH A CHIP SIZE OF NO LESS THAN (1) INCH. A 2-INCH LAYER OF GREENWASTE MULCH UNDER THE BARK MULCH IS RECOMMENDED. 5.4 YARDS OF COMPOST MUST BE INCORPORATED PER 1000 SF OF PERMEABLE AREA. 6. SADDITIONAL OIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE USED AS NECESSARY. SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS. ROCKS LARGER THAN 1-INCH DIAMETER SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN TYPICAL NATIVE PLANT LANDSCAPE AREAS. 7. PLANTING HOLES SHALL GENERALLY BE 2x - 3x THE SIZE OF THE ROOT BALL. THE WALLS AND THE BASES OF THE PLANT HOLES SHALL BE SCARIFIED. HOLES SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH 511 ORGANIC COMPOST AND 95❑ EXISTING SOIL. PLANTING HOLES OF NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD BE INOCULATED WITH MYCORRHIZAE FUNGI, PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS. 8. TREES SHALL BE STAKED WITH (2) PRESSURE -TREATED 2-INCH DIAMETER POLES. TREE TRUNK SHALL BE SECURED WITH TWO RUBBER TIES OR STRAPS FORMING A FIGURE -EIGHT BETWEEN TRUNK AND STAKE. 9. RESIDUAL WEED PRE -EMERGENT SHALL BE APPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS NECESSARY. APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. 10. LAWN SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 25L]. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE FERTILIZED AT TIME OF INSTALLATION. GENERAL NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL PERMITS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE PROPOSED WORK PER CITY OF BURLINGAME REQUIREMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ON SITE ALL GRADES, PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, SITE IMPROVEMENTS, WATERPROOFING AND UNDERGROUND PIPING BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE DESIGNER ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLANS AND ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. ALL DISCREPANCIES OR PROBLEMATIC SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE DESIGNER. 3. WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY IS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF BURLINGAME. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY. THIS WORK MAY INCLUDE LANDSCAPING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, NEW CURB DRAINS AND PARKING STRIP. 4. FINISHED GRADES SHALL PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE PROPERLY INSTALLED TO PREVENT ANY STANDING WATER. ALL HARDSCAPE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM GRADE OF 211 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. JUTE MESH EROSION CONTROL NETTING SHALL BE USED ON ALL 3:1 OR GREATER SLOPES AND STAKED APPROPRIATELY. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR EXISTING TREES BY INSTALLING TEMPORARY FENCING AROUND THE TREES AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE DRIPLINE. IN THE EVENT THAT TREE ROOTS OVER 6" ARE DISCOVERED, THE LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHOULD BE CONTACTED. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIL AND OTHER ENGINEERING DRAWINGS / DOCUMENTS IN RELEVANT AREAS. 7. THE LANDSCAPE DESIGNER MAY MAKE SITE OBSERVATIONS DURING CONTRUCTION BUT SHALL NTO BE UTILIZED TO SUPERVISE CONSTRUCTION ON SITE. 8. THIS PLAN IS NOT A SURVEY OR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. IT IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SHOULD BE USED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. W � W 5U R/W� U E 1 A L N U s 96.99 J SS / 6. 1\ -SS 95•49 � g7.16 097.35 96.85 / SSco g4.82 0/ 6.64 96.88 95.7' 10„ 6.g6 g7.2g g5.25 �RO g6 37 (E) STREET TREE rpp V64 LK oo / (PR O-T Ikl]T + +' �h 95.77 95.92 CbNC SIDEWA C� /�g7.00 + + + UST 1 + U11L + (5 0 1 FO w 9 + + + +, 0) 19 0 + + o^. + �tK + - o. "� + o9. Co' + MC g6.33 +" 95 7 + 9636X C�.� f x + ❑ 1 + + + + + + + i? + RB - - - + + +. 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ TJ 5 c3i (:6 8 Ln r, 0 0 T 8 T L 7976 SO. F AREA o + '-�97 •g3 ID ❑❑❑❑❑❑ + g7.46 e: �II N r- + ❑❑ { 9/•� + R I + 43 AP + • 51 FO T 4L 11 + + �ER � CLUSIt + Cam. + x - - 49.7ZJ' - 41*5542 (50.00') L p T 9 RI AR 1 A SSMO 43 RIM. 94.9 S� INV • S 6" gg.80 SS 6" gs.72 d- CO rn Y Q 0 N N + 0 00 SSA 99.42 99.32 99 67 V�1 moo. GRO CP Co C� (50 Op -'00>,W g8- BASS S OF BEARINGS 47 Q0 -0 Nr Li N ro Q0 N Q° �0 Co. LO 1 LAWN (SOD) AREA 550.9 SF 0 0 LEGEND AC Air Conditioning AP A/C Power Box CS Crawl Space DN Down DO Door Opener DS Down Spout (E) Existing EM Electric Meter EO Electric Outlet EP Existing Pipe ES Existing Stoop EV Existing Valves FB Fuse Box FH Fire Hydrant GM Gas Meter North GS Gas Shut-off HB Hose Bibb IB Intercom Box LT Light MB Mail Box PA Planting Area PB Power Box PC Plant Cut-out PE Pool Equipment PL Property Line SA Sewer Access SL Service Line TA Telephone Access UP Utility Pole WM Water Meter 1 U) 0 Fn W Z) U) c E C E O .U) o •> 0 (D�aaa 0 o U M N o Itt U Q o oUo -0 E- ti c M c) U o a� w 0V__ CO -0 o m Qo O,- Q� 06Z O w - �� Ww PROJECT NAME 0 M o W N V z _ Z o0 N o Q Z �Q C) ♦■■r Q .� i QU ■ i 4_0 W E co ku 0) 06 .� L MM W ' PROJECT DATE: 06/2017 DRAWN BY: JPB SHEET NAME (PROPOSED) PLANTING PLAN SCALE: 1 /81, 1'-0" SHEET NUMBER: LP1 mO OF - SHEETS Item No: 8d Regular Action City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure Address: 3016 Alcazar Drive Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for plate and glazed opening heights for a new detached accessory structure approved for use as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Applicants and Property Owner: Michael Mazza Architect: Craig Scott and Mia Zinni, IwamotoScott Architecture General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 025-333-340 Lot Area: 11,074 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e), which states that construction or conversion of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences is exempt from environmental review. Property Description: The subject property is a wedge-shaped interior lot with an atypical long and curved frontage on Alcazar Drive. There is an uphill slope on the lot, moving from the right (East) side property line to the left/West side property line. The existing single -story house is situated at the right side of the lot, with a 6-foot right side setback and a 25'-2" left side setback. There is a gradual difference in grade at the location of the existing house, but starting at the left/West side of the house, there is a steep uphill slope (of approximately 14 feet difference in grade) leading to the left side property line. Project Description: Planning Staff would note that although this property is located in the Hillside Area Construction Permit Zone, State Law 65852.2 requires that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) must have a ministerial approval process. Therefore, ADUs are exempted from the City of Burlingame's Hillside Area Construction Permit Process (C.S. 25.61). In addition, C.S. 25.57.070.010(a) requires Design Review for single- family houses and duplexes, but not for work proposed solely to accessory structures on a property. Planning Staff would further note an applicant can choose the option of an ADU design that may require one or more of the Conditional Use Permit requirements listed in C.S. 25.60, requesting a variance for an ADU is prohibited per C.S. 25.59.050. The applicant is proposing a detached single -story accessory structure at the left side of the property. There are no proposed changes to the existing 5-bedroom single-family dwelling or the parking on the site. The proposed single -story accessory structure is approved for use as an ADU and the project meets all code required standards for setbacks, lot coverage, floor area, roof height, design and material compatibility, and parking. The proposed accessory structure is a 640 SF studio unit with the required full bath and kitchen. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a plate height greater than 9 feet above adjacent grade and for three glazed openings that are greater than 10 feet from adjacent grade. The code requires that the overall ridge, plate, and glazed opening heights of accessory structures be measured from adjacent grade (as opposed to an average grade). Due the steep slope at the left side of this property, the height of the roof, plate, and proposed windows varies depending on the elevation and the grade immediately beneath that feature. There is one proposed plate height that exceeds 9 feet from adjacent grade. The proposed butterfly roof configuration of the accessory structure does not have a plate height as defined for more traditional roof construction, so for the proposed structure the plate heights were measured to the top of the vaulted ceiling at the interior edges of the structure. Using this measurement, the proposed plate at the right/ East elevation (in the kitchen) is 12'-5" from the adjacent grade. Conditional Use Permit 3016 Alcazar Drive There are three proposed glazed openings that exceed 10 feet from adjacent grade. The measurement to the top of the glazing of the window at the right/East elevation (in the kitchen) is 12'-5" from adjacent grade. This window faces the main dwelling on the site. The measurement to the highest point from adjacent grade to the flat skylight at the right/ East elevation (in the bathroom) is 13'-7. And the measurement to the top of the glazing for the interior garden window at the South elevation measures 11'-6" (less than one quarter of the glazing for this window extends more than 10 feet above adjacent grade because of the change in slope at this location). The glazing for the interior garden window is oriented to the front left corner of the subject site. One stated goal of the design and location of the proposed accessory structure is to minimize the visibility of the accessory structure from nearby properties. The structure has been situated partially in the existing sloped hillside and the design of the roof results in the maximum height being no greater than the height of the existing roof on the main house when viewed from properties located uphill from the subject property. A second goal of the accessory structure design and location is to capture the available distant view to the East of the subject site; the view that is visible through the open space in the existing roof configuration of the main house. Due to the slope of the lot at the location of the accessory structure, this goal is accomplished with the butterfly roof design of the structure and the picture window at the right side (in the kitchen) of the accessory structure; the applicant notes that the location, plates and glazed opening heights could be altered to eliminate the requested Conditional Use Permits, however this would result in a loss of the view. There are 7 existing trees on site that are proposed to be removed, two of which are of protected size. The three existing strawberry trees, two trees below the existing retaining wall, and two protected size pine trees at the front left side of the lot will be removed. The applicant has applied for and received approval of a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the City Arborist (see attached permit). The existing trees and screening will be replaced with three 24-inch box size Norfolk Island pine trees. There is an existing oak tree at the rear, left side of the lot (facing the sliding doors of the proposed accessory structure) that will remain with construction, as well as various other trees on the lot. The applicant is requesting the following application: • Conditional Use Permit The plate line of the accessory structure will be more than nine (9) feet above grade at the closest point between the plate line and adjacent grade (where the proposed plate height at the right side of the accessory structure is 12'-5" above adjacent grade); (C.S. 25.60.010(g)); and • Conditional Use Permit for any portion of a glazed opening will be higher than ten (10) feet above grade (portions of two windows and one skylight are greater than 10 feet from adjacent grade) (C.S. 25.60.010(i)); This space intentionally left blank. Conditional Use Permit 3016 Alcazar Drive 3016 Alcazar Drive Lot Area: 11,074 SF Plans date stamned: Sentember 26- 2017 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FORWARD OF REAR 30% OF LOT Existing to the Proposed main dwelling Allowed/ Required Front 14'-9" 17'-5" to accessory structure 17'-5" is the block average Side (right): 6-0" No change 7'-0 (left): 25-2" 14'-9" to accessory structure 7'-0" From any other structure: --- 5'-0" 4'-0" ------ ----- Rear (1st flr): ---------------------------- -------- _.._-.-.-.-- 22 -9" 65'-0" to accessory structure ........... --------------------- ....... --- 15'-0" Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that because of the nature of the request, it was determined that this request could be brought forward directly as a Regular Action Item. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on a subsequent action calendar for a second review 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; (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: The proposed accessory residential use is consistent with the land use designation in the General Plan. The location of the structure at the left side of the property and situated in the uphill slope on the lot results in a substantial portion of the structure at the front and left elevations being hidden below existing grade and not visible from adjacent properties. That the proposed setbacks to the accessory structure are greater than the code -required setbacks so thatthe plate and window heights requested as Conditional Use Permit items have greatly reduced impacts on any neighboring properties. Specifically, the proposed roof design (including the placement of the > 9'-0" plate height on the interior side of the structure) reduces the visibility of the structure from the street and from adjacent residences, so that it is not detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed glazed openings in the structure that are placed higher than 10 feet from grade are oriented towards the main house or behind landscaping which reduces any impact of light pollution for neighboring properties. The architectural style and materials are Conditional Use Permit 3016 Alcazar Drive compatible with the existing main house. 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: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 26; including that there shall be a minimum of three new evergreen trees planted at the front, left side of the property; 2. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit shall be void or shall be amended to reflect the changes; 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c: Craig Scott and Mia Zinni, Architects Attachments: • Application to the Planning Commission • Applicant's letter of Explanation, date stamped September 26, 2017 • Conditional Use Permit Application • Protected Tree Removal Permit, issued September 13, 2017 • Resolution (Proposed) • Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 29, 2017 • Aerial Photo 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD •BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: ❑ Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: Lot 2, Mills Estate No. 23 PM 24-25 Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other: ADU PROJECT ADDRESS: 3016 Alcazar Drive, Burlingame CA 94010 APPLICANT Name: Michael Mazza Address: 3016 Alcazar Drive City/State/Zip: Burlingame CA, 94010 Phone: (650)270-8408 PROPERTY OWNER Name: See Applicant Info Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: E-mail: mikemazzamail(c),gmail.com E-mail: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Craig Scott Address: 729 Tennessee Street City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: (415) 643-7773 19 E-mail: cscott@iwamotoscott.com Burlingame Business License #: C 23713 RECEIVED JUL 2 6 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THIS PROJECT IS A DETACHED, SINGLE -STOREY ACCESSORY DWELLING DN THE PROPERTY OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY LOT. FACILITIES FOR LIVING, SLEEPING, EATING OOKING. AND SANITATION WILL BE PROVIDED. LANDSCAPING WORK AROUND THE SECONDARY AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATUR*rebyqher nalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge aApplicant's signature: Date: 7,2f9 30 (?I am aware of the propou o e fhe above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: t% Date submitted: r a o / S:I NANDOUTSI PC Appix.Uon.doc IWAMOTOSCOTTARCHITECTURE 729 TENNESSEE STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 415-643-7773 MAZZA ADU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION COVER LETTER DATE September 25, 2017 PROJECT DESIGN APPROACH AND DESCRIPTION The proposed ADU massing is site -specific and discrete. In plan, the project pushes into the hill, embedding a significant portion of the building in the ground. In elevation, the form adapts to the sloping grade, creating a low profile that follows the site's contours. This helps to hide the project's mass behind the existing residence's landscape and fencing, producing a minimal visual impact from the street. The ADU's massing also responds to the primary dwelling; a slight lift in the project's roof allows a small view to the bay through an opening in the primary dwelling's roofline. Nonetheless, the proposed ADU remains lower than the existing residence and would not impact any neighboring views of the bay. The primary exterior facade material will be dark wood siding, spaced to match the current wood siding on the primary dwelling. This means that the small portion of the proposed massing that would be visible from the street would be similar to the primary dwelling in scale, color, and material. We look forward to sharing our physical architectural model and project design drawings with you on October 1 Oth. In the meantime, if there are any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out via email or phone. Sincerely: Craig Scott and Mia Zinni Date: 09/25/17 Contact Information: cscott(Miwamotoscott.com mia(CDiwamotoscott. com T (415) 643-7773 R h y D CITY' City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlineamo.org CITY OF BURLINGAME CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION MAZZA ADU Conditional Use Permit for: Plate Line and Glazing Above loft The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience The Mazza Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is applying for a Conditional Use Permit for the ADU's Plate Line and Glazing Heights on the northeast side of the structure and bathroom skylight. The northeast side of the ADU is at the lowest point of the ADU's site and facing the existing property, thus, will not affect the neighboring properties views or cause light pollution. By responding to the primary dwelling's roof and strategically nesting the ADU within the slope of the site, the Plate Line and Glazing Above loft avoid impacting neighbors views to the bay or airport. New trees will be planted on the property's southeast street front to screen the majority of the structure from public view. As a compliant ADU in area, program, and construction the structure's partially raised Plate Line and Glazing Heights have no impact on the public health, safety, welfare or convenience of the neighborhood. For more information on the ADU please review the plan documents submitted to the Burlingame Planning Department. 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? The proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit is in R-1, Hillside Area Construction Permit zone, consistent with the single family usage within the zone. The Plate Line and Glazing Height question have no impact on designated use. The Accessory Dwelling Unit (proposed to be built after 1954) is a detached accessory structure compliant with the minimum lot size of 6,000 SF (lot is 11,074 SF), trait size of 640 SF (unit is 639 SF), primary dwelling setbacks, lot coverage and floor area ratio. For more zoning information please see the cover sheet of the plans submitted to the planning department. �_ 4� �v �iI - SEF, 96 cU17 Ci Y OF Cl;IRl_INGAME CDD-F'L V-,3P%, N DN. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The proposed modern design for the ADU is consistent with the contemporary architectural approach used by Eichler for designing the primary dwelling and surrounding district. The architecture is contemporary while still compliant with the restrictions of C.S. 25.60 for accessory structures. The existing primary dwelling has vertical wood siding. The proposed ADU will have a similar dark wood colored vertical siding with similar spacing. The proposed northeast window uses a contemporary bevel and lighter colored window frame to create visual depth around the window, speaking to the deep overhangs of the primary dwelling. The project complies with parking requirements. The site provides 4 spaces total, 2 covered + 1 uncovered for the main dwelling and 1 uncovered space for the ADU (uncovered can be in tandem with one other vehicle), and thus will not impact parking in the neighborhood. CUP.FRM PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL 6UglINGAME PERMIT APPLICATION I Parks & Recreation Depararlent 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7330 Date: SO I The undersigned owner of the property at: Address: 3OI% ftL e4Z;?2 CA 9yo/G hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more thanr1/3 of the canopy of the folio ing protected tree(s): Species: A&Aj�tl f lAle Circumference: 4*Gx SZ) .. Location on Property Sdt�Lt/G� % �i'J2/VGfZ Work to be Performed: Removal_ Trim More Than 113 of the Crown Reason Work isNecessarv: 177JI(_DIttiCo Bel) At)t,'(IoJPP 8C`7?* rr:�ILt,'*67Fr=S?1$r Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES x NO Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures ofdamaged structures, letters of concern from neighbors, etc.). Owner (Print) i V` I C L Wi AZT Phone Gs-0 ;7_70 --£i �/0 p Address Email W1 t k2 vVI U ZZclLVItI i (� fl L'tfGl i LC'yt� (if different than above) iJ -- — —------------- ---- ----- -- -------------- ----------------- PERMIT - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY t ,,\} Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune ve listed tree(s) in a r e with the pro siogs of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance nici ai ode Chapter 11 6 . Si g s e 't, the applican['I acknowledges receipt of a cop f Chapter 11. P s to comply with'its pro4is ns d n ed below; hst and that all appeals "ve exp' o ee Sol OWNER SIGNATURE �/1%v'f/LL _/ !/I 1_ CONDITIONS: 24 -inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and maybe planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090.(b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT.- Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. 1 ` DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE (M1 Q"1A\�r- PERMIT EXPIRES C)�� 1�120�9' DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed 0812015revued RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE 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 a Conditional Use Permit for a detached accessory structure approved as an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 3016 Alcazar Drive, Zoned R-1, Michael Mazza property owner. APN: 025-333-340; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 10, 2017, 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: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (e), which states that construction or conversion of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use 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. I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted Planning Commission held on the 10th day of October. 2017 Chairman the City of Burlingame, do at a regular meeting of the by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit 3016 Alcazar Drive Effective October 20, 2017 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 26, 2017; including that there shall be a minimum of three new evergreen trees planted at the front, left side of the property; that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit shall be void or shall be amended to reflect the changes; 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 7 2 mm § w U �§ \\\ I � }\ ®0 \ )� \// �z 2/ § \ \ m !7/ o ( a ° /{ 020 ) @ 6 3 0 \ e _ ( /\ /\a KoI Lo /k � �\ \Lo )�) )z \)§ g e / 0 , -\k Vim/ _ � !)@i: )§+ /[§ � \®) \ / )>O2< )�/ {§} � /�j /\ƒ6 = E \:�5)` %02 >_feeez�3 0E \§§t )§ ) D �`§$}{ Cd -;§/\ (, )e/ /#_/ °« ) E K)E�©4 .4 ;,> 9 = Eo %\ 2 ) m rf er=�§ ; E// - . [0-=3; < & a§ - : °}/® ° o osc=! - S ` : ®� ) k f \ \] [ 0 \ } \ £ g a ƒ en \{w§/ /\2 \f ] E§ \�§®f-7 0 G-in br =, 2§ ƒ in <aof 2= i/ 2 /o w U � 0 2 0 z R « ■ _ U ] m m a A, \` O b {J{� q D NCO' "Lt�e •.'S ry n E f O oIt N CV # •n 0 0.0 7� -1 1< {it O e � 41 O 5 0 o . . ,, _t t CO poop {} i W_ cr 8 039 cy W rj Q 3042 c 3`045 U 5 2.9 6 H .` 3 0 4 8 e 3 13 . 4,� .Y�1•:... } 54t 3057 4 3 C 6 t, €�"��!•-c" _ i �069 t c N - O o h o _ It �' • ! KEYED NOTES IWAMOTOSCOTT ARCHITECTURE 729 Tennessee San F—d—CA94107 415643 7773 4158 662868M.bM MAZZA ADU 3016 At —,Drive Budi,Ip., CA P-1 W�b— IEt HOUSE W2. 461im-N,23 59PM24-25 LaA—AI.?55SF 0—; mkh.1 M... h, u- ----U- ISM EM 4>DOwNSPWT f , (E) FENCE SHEET NOTES IN) CONC.RETAINING WALL CORTENSTEELSTRINGER C—Aw.- WGRAVELINFILL UP 0 bTCHEN STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TI SM1uclural E.,m—, I— .3 A"W Blvd., S.K. 106E .0 game, CA 9d010 IN) PATIO, PERVIOUS GRAVEL 288 SFom T 0 620 9555 F650 62D "W UP 1111 WD FENCE lot IN) CONC. RETAINING -a'-v 100 COVERED ENTRY LANDING Er2" - o :, WIVYDDECKING GLAWDGWALLWJ F- 3SISLIGINGDOORS 4 .2 alaol' WALLLEGEWD EXTERIOR WALL Issues /NA.ons Care INTERIOR WALL W-2 114' FINISH LEGEND IL—R.1 SHMITT. FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN SWUNUMBER SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" Al. 1 KEYED NOTES IWAMOTOSCOTT ARCHITECTURE 929 Tennessee Street San Fnndsco, CA 941m 4156437T93M ,m 4158662868 Mohia ocottAiaamoascon.com IwRtMoscon.cem IEI RESIDENCE INI AOU MAllA ADU 3016 Aaazar Dive -0 -0 IEIWD FENCE Budd yme,CA -01 Assessor's Parcel Number T.O.WALLs14'O-& Ld12, MAk Estate No23 T.O.IN HOUSE e12'-9- 59 PM 24-25 LotA-11,255SF Owner Michazl Maua \� 7��Y/ /r/i^ /\i l / \� ' � \� �' •�\�/� ADUGRADED-D-& ED Ea :I i\ON �\iC� Ti�`� .% / T.O.IEICONC.-2'4-4m SHEET NOTES •� � //�//�. / //: / �/\ / '��'% ; � / /\ '\ Yi - -/T�� \/?\ \ \'f �T 11 SEA-1.05 FOR ROOFPITCHES STRUCTURAL ENGINEER • f;;:\�t�\J�l� \�< Cr j:����5'C�./� �\'�1 .F�.� \/\ \.\:/�:'�`��\/\���:�,:.� \�:�Z :C,\/f,'</-J�i':c^/�•'-�'%.t�\./,\/�.-.�l •\F\:�\Q�i\<<�\! �\:� \nc \�\;� TSASIrucWmtEngineers.1- T"��v!\�y ������ ��//��\'/!.//��T��`�c%/\ !'��� � ���% / %� �///v//���//`� j� ��Jl/ \\`%/j. > /�`J'/%`%j/ •l/\ l� j�j� yj/ /, ,!\j�y�,`/\//\ '��j l/:�i`Y��•.`Y/�j� 433,MTn81ae..50e106E +\ \,\\,\\, ...•. ,n>,v\ ..>..vv n\v\\.•\, `.\.:?.,v\v\\.. \�\\>\;fi..\`��Ji\v\�/.\n J�Sw\Y,J\`\Se��v,\`.a`:,i.\Y,\:5.\`:��:.`. �����/�l��a\Yi\v�\\n \�,�JS�\�\,%U�\�1: BUAngame. CA 94010 T656209555 f 6506209559 vmw.lsaaz.com NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION S - A L E :'/' - P-O' —IEI NEIOHBOgING HOUSE IEIWDFENCE (NI ADV 0 IEIRESWENCE SNalbbmuaon da m rz9a ManinB Perna set mown EnxLee 0 �sgrLIGHT T.O. WALLe14' 0' s KNISH LEGEND T.0.8:IHOUSE.+12'-9■ Iswes /RsiortDate WDSIDING. EWICALml61 TD.WDO 10-DB IEIEGTO IDINGO RSIDENCE T IOTAL Sf: 9Y[Sf W, i%Yl/// I I I I! i i i ili III WOOD TDTAL SF: 290SF AnlP n .m Ntw \ \ \ I I II I { rLdme.rn ana notes _ 690carea:nM aaano.a 01 awes wrw. amcnntientdroa '/�\�\\S\�/\(•\�� /\{\`C{{{ �.� / t'4'C' I i 11iIi1 I ®STANDING SEAM METAL M1eert. ADV GRADE ROOFASSEMBLY xm wacoxsTRucraN 41 \ EXTERIOR nrj�%%i?,jijii/i1,•'.\�:��i,>,•/ ... Zl. \\\' Z'y /j\/Yh %!/\����\ /%\\/jL./���%\�%•i�%\S\J ELEVATIONS 6HELTNDMBER SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONIf �� SCALE:1/4"=P-0" 4 A2.2 � e � � FERcx �3: �� a\ PROPOSED ADU ov�...� 6405E AREA 1EITREETO— .�, w.� BEREMOVED / (EITREE EO %`,'1/ SITE PLAN Tj j ;II i I I 17•53/64'BLOCK I . I AVG. SETBACK M�f - NIGHTGF WAY ROPERTY ,11 1I —'Sp DNE SETBACK r PARgNG I ' '1 O :: Lf _L__ '—, 1J• WATfR 1.1RiEY/E6IXTi.� Q •---at'MmG 1�F,. YGCONNECTTG(N)ApU 1 i / Q j 1 But 1 -IE) GAS 6 ELEC. METEAI. GAS & ELEC UNESTOCORNECT HOACU TB . 'Rd01ANT HEAT 5'15TEM 512EU ACCOMODA7E FAOU J , I311N)/1SLANDPINETREES TO BE PLANTED IN 26`BOXES 70 // REPLACE RGMOVEOiREES. KEYED NOTES IWAMOTOSCOTT ARCHITECTURE 929 Tennessee Slcaat San Fron In ' CA 9L109 415643 TT13 Main 4f Q064286B Mobco a n(dixemoto n.wm iwamaoscon.com MAZZAADU 3016 Ak—, Drt Burlingame, CA A,,eaor, Paccar Named: Lm2, NiU Efate No.23 59 PM 24-25 Lot A-11,955SF Csnsuna", 11 A.R.CALC. REFERENCE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER -PROJECT DATA- ON COVER SHEET TSA S-c—lEngineers, Ine Q3 Atmo BIM., Suite 106E BurtiZ... CA 94010 T656209555 FF6550 KO %59 .tsase— Sxe•t bbmwtlon Da•, m26rzmT lean Pacma sH crxAaa LEGEND is— TRwi— Ome El IEI RESIDENCE PLANHRlOPBIMRsET WWI am INI ADU 0Caplslyat5l IEI PINES HAVE BEEN APPROVED y.wn:,e wuunxa AND PERMITTED BY PARKS AND x INa anA4M a e. mm'xa '� a a a M pbrxipmconsantaf 1xe REC. FOR REMOVAL •mna«1. Pwcea15igabre: NOT PoRCONSTRURgN sxlxTTrrtE PROPOSED SITE & LANDSCAPE WORK PLAN SNEETNUMBER M� A0.1 IWAMOTOSCOTT KEYED NOTES • MA ARCHITECTURE 729 Tennessee W.1 San F2rrosco, CA 941 G7 615663 ]TI3 Main LOT I 4158662868 Msblw aomsmnsom MILLS ESTATE NO.23 TEL ;wamdox9n.can 69 PM 24-25 MAZZAADU 4"0.7 Ems: FENCE CHANCE 555°tt'33'E =�..BWCN •— �1�• r 0 9t J0J'-+""'— ' -- I 16.E s. FL486. -. rcl 3016 At —,Drive Surlimpme, CA Assessors Parcel Numbers Ld2, Mills ESlale N,23 NOUN ATWAMROR ALLNAR DR ® _ 4 I * x _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ y s _ a: _ • .. O Cl3 1SACAGIA �,6 ! • 1 i L94 CHANGE -N" - V 493 • j FENCE,p�9F- I I3"ZO'ACACIh 15'FI 59 PM 24-25 La Area:11;l555F Owner. Michael Maua 49 7 M-P4UM VICINITY MAP NO SCALE J ' ,97 493 BW i. .. %'./ �ro�. .a. I I I I 6 P „` LmseOants: SHEET NOTES STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TSA S truc—1 Engineers. Inc 433AiMm 8tW.,SORe306E auriingame,CA96010 T656299555 _ i F • I - -_ - •i I, I I - d - I e' anwre I I. e I F6µ5062095557 LANDS OF— ZHAN XIAOYANJ��'NlVII,ABLEPARKIDOC $1 _ i SSMH . '. AVAILABLE PARK GI i PoM6T6.65 'CARPORfi f' • INV.d6Z1�5 "0 I•I% •, DRNEWAY•• _ f?7 FG91.9, - 4•CI aic venn . NO. 2012084796O 2 \ � •-. �� - AO r 9'1ITA1( \ '• . i' \ `\ % \ we.5 �k$ p -\\. \... FENCE 3'WIRE FENCE PARKINGSPACE'GARAGE� O.a G �' •. RET I GWALL 49382 ��! i - - GATE �� • .� � �� 696 O E8 � �BIRC �AND50F 939e 3 a _•Wici-IAEL ANTHONY _-" 6Y = MAZYA % o' b = M-STRAWBE f OSS • GROSS l M-SIRAWBE a•. 11;7553 SO FT, n9 .1� • m • D27t AGRES / M-STRAWGE / Ob'CONCR r • a • `. O.q� cl. - .198 - Bv[REE q.N / /' ` �4 .' - , 98 ( r ��' . • r po ,3 / sne.emlam.,en Wh OT/26ROO Issue RJerina Pormd SN true xn"^'a ibwed iRam;on: tare mh, Ccprsi9M 51dwnem Allarardngs eaevrtelm maTrW eFpeeKeg lsrvncros5lm Onq'mlN ar IwL1ehM enelbe �u90ca!eA ro 4 e uwKrcie m;.uerdnw LOT J �� M-TREE r Q's J • /. J � J / _ J J _ J .. ' - NOT PoRC016TRUCiION S IF EXISTING EXISTING SITE PLAN SNEETNUMBER AO O EXISTING SITE PLAN IWAMOTOSCOTT KEYED NOTES ARCHITECTURE 729 Tennessee Street San Fran i—. CA 91107 415 643 7773 Mein IEI RESIDENCE INI AOU 4158642860 Mobia cottBiwamoascon.com a Iwamolos<on.cam MAZZA ADU b BurlingamerCA __ ___ ____ _ __ ____________ ______ _ _ _ - - - - _--__ __ _- _ __ To. IEIHOUSE +12'-9' Assessor, EsI,M Number: Cat z, Mills Esbte No.23 T.O. WOO+W 59 PM 26-25 LOAreaw 11,755SF y� owner. MKnlet Mexza < i AOUGRA0EW-0- <� �.. /y/Y` '�' /. r/ ✓/ // �:�/.lam/ /A�YJ,/� it r�A`��w/`2�A�A�?%:Ai•`,,/V�%.=%AAv/i% v'- <l/w��!v ��`�r.{vv/�_ w �Vv/`�l' :.. �}vy<iCy�� :CCw ��f� f Y v�wA - jC\ v � - V�,�Y ..�(„ ` A; vY;�il� i.iyi� rv.,: i.��/ c �.�y/�7A`'��,?�A��`�y: `f�.:(< '�i�'`�''<:vJ'j�' ; i� / t�C TO. 1EICONC. -z-6 SHEET NOTES j�,�(\`///� v./ 'i-J: .}/�,v,vA/v ..:�. }�j�,V,�! .'•�V'� y�`j/� C—lWte: STRVCTURW. ENGINEER TSA Shactonl - Engineers, Inc 433Airyarl BIM.. Slue 106E Wftgame, CA 94010 T656209SS5 F 650 620 9559 DIAGRAMMATIC SECTION SW —NE www�a«om SCALE; IA"- t'-0" NII AOU (EI RESIDENCE -- —.— .<`` ♦ 'A� TO WALL 14 SIw110MdROn IssRe 9lanrine Fermi set I caeuea Avyavea TO. IEI HOUSE. H2'-9'� R,ar,7 %\�f.�/'\:///\%'/// % \ j�/Y/✓/%,//�\\�/\� /���// .. -. m AOUGRADEO.-Ir Arelmwrnaen ammtba / / J ) � To. (EtCONC. -r-6-,g AppmelSquare J NOTPoRCONSTMMKIN ••... 1.... BUILDING zr-zi? �,...7avr SECTIONS SHEET NNMRER DIAGRAMMATIC SECTION NW —SE G SCALE: 1A" = 1'-0" A2.3 MAX HEIGHT 0.14'-O- FROM ADJ. GRADER NORTH- ' 0 GLAZING 0 10'-m FROM ADJ. GRAE B NORTHI PLATE LINE �.9'4- FROM ADJ. GRADEBNORTH PROPOSED ADU LOCATION �1 DIAGRAM - AVERAGE GRADE SCALE: t/4"= P-0" MAX HEIGHT �• 14'-O- FROM ADJ. GRADE 8 NORTH--- i0. GLAZING 0 IG'-O-FROMADJ.GRADEONORTH1 PLATE LJNE `� �.9'-0-FROM PDJ. GRAOE6 NORTH ��� PROPOSED ADU �1 HEIGHT LIMIT DIAGRAM U KEYED NOTES MAXHEIGH ♦ iC-0' FROMADJ. GRADEO =H& T.O. GLAZING 'FROM ADJ. GRADE 8 SOUTH PLATE LINE 'FROM ADJ. GRADE D SOUTH IWAMOTOSCOTT ARCHITECTURE 729 Tennessee Street San F—dsco, CA 96109 415663 TTTO Main 111 aB642WA WNW c ttaiwamomscon.com iwamotescoh— MAllA ADU ]GM Akatar Drive Buftingame,CA Assessors P—t Numhv: La Z Milts Estate No. n 59 PM 24-5 Lot Area:11,9555F Owner: Michael Maus LEI GRADE LOW PT D INIBLOO.BASE� 11 SEE ELEVATION SHEETS A-2.01 Conwltants: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER •0-0- ANDA-2.02FORADDIRONALWEWSOF L Rglneers,nc HIGHBLOWPISOFIEISLOPEDGRAOE 81N)ADU dO,ti,,q t,CA940IO 106E 96010 T 65 bTD 9555 T656a9555 F 6506209559 MAX HEIGHTp — — ------------- • 16'-0- FROM ADJ. GRpOE 8 SOUTH`S ' TO GLAZING FROM ADJ. GRADE 8 SOUTH`V PLATE LINEpp 'FROM ADJ. GRADE 8 SOUTFN IEIGRADELOW PT 81NIBLDG.BASE& W-T Sheetln /Unrza, mM m mT PMnrim RriN SN LYarn Eraaee bRuz6 I- /Rnkiki s D- -mGP0%MR5ET m IT Cgryxi9ht Slmemene Allbmn�gs and reitlm material nppeari�g Mrriemnstilae adyM m6 unpegnhedarynel rLof W wrA[eUwW maY�tM h9Eated geed wa<do><6 vi9mu prorwdnmarsem d Me erthaM. A9pmnl SgwWre: NOTPoRLONSTRUmMN SHEETTRtE ZONING HEIGHTS SHEETMIMBER Z0.3 City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permits Address: 121 Humboldt Road Item No. 8—] Regular Action Item Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permits to legalize an accessory living space with a full bathroom and windows within 10-feet of property line in an existing accessory structure. Applicant and Designer: J. Deal Associates, Jerry Deal Property Owner: Shirley and Wei Liang Feng General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 029-285-080 Lot Area: 6,100 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e), which states that construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences is exempt from environmental review. Project Description: The site currently contains an existing one-story single-family dwelling with an attached two -car garage and a detached accessory structure in the rear left corner of the property. The existing house and detached accessory structure cover 36.1 % of the lot and total 2,201 SF (0.36 FAR). The existing detached accessory structure contains 264 SF (14'-6" x 22') in area with accessory living space that includes a full bathroom. The property appears to have originally been developed around 1920 when the house and accessory building (which was originally used as a garage) were constructed. Based upon the City's permit history and the County Assessor's appraisal reports it appears that the house was demolished and the current house was moved to this site from Borel Avenue in San Mateo in the early 1960's, however there were no plans accompanying the permits to verify. The records show that given the new house that moved to the site had an attached two -car garage that the detached garage was then to be used as storage. Sometime between the mid- 1960 and now it appears that detached accessory structure was remodeled and has been used as accessory living space. The City first received a code enforcement complaint about the subject property because there was a rental posting on Craigslist for the space within the detached accessory structure. The City has been working with the property owners, who purchased the property in the current condition, to bring the space into compliance with our codes. The applicant would like to legalize the existing structure which includes accessory living space, a closet and a full bathroom. There is no kitchen existing or proposed in the detached structure. There are however two windows located within 10-feet of the property line for which a Conditional Use Permit is required. The window on the rear of the structure is not in compliance with the Building Code regulations and will need to be removed; which will be required as a condition of approval. There is no expansion or alterations to the accessory structure proposed. The existing house has three bedrooms which requires two off-street parking spaces (1 covered and 1 uncovered), which are provided in the existing attached garage and driveway. There are no changes proposed to the main house. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Conditional Use Permit for accessory living space (office) in an accessory structure (C.S. 25.60.010(m)); 0 Conditional Use Permit for accessory structure with a full bathroom (C.S.25.60.0100)); and Conditional Use Permits 121 Humboldt Road • Conditional Use Permit required for accessory structure with windows within 10-feet of property line (C.S. 25.60.010(i)). 121 Humboldt Road Lot Area: 6,100 SF Plans date stamped: September 19, 2017 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Setback: C.S. 25.26.073(b)(4) Side: 2'-6" No change exempts accessory Rear: 2'-6" i structures located in the j rear 30% of a lot From house: 6'-3" i E structure is in i rear 2 0 % of lot Use in Accessory Accessory living space No change Conditional Use Permit required Structure: with a full batrhoom' & z (legalize existing for accessory living quarters 2 use) i Accessory -... ... ............... _...... ---- 264 SF No change i 600 SF' Structure Size: (12'-0" x 22'-0") Building Length: 22'-0" No change i Special Permit required if structure exceeds 28'-0" in length ---------------------------------.-+.-.-.-..-.-.-...--- ......--..-.-.-.-..-..-._.-._.-_.- .....-------------- Plate Height: 7'-6" No change CUP required for plate height ..... ......... ........-. ................-. greater than 9'-0" above grade Building Height: 10'-6" No change i 15'-0- above grade if plate height ---------------------------- _...---- -------------..-._..-- does not exceed 9'-0" ----....._.--..--.._.-._._.__....--------------- # of bedrooms: -------------------- ----- -------_..- .-___..._.__..__.... - 3 ------------ ----- ----- ---- No change - — - i-.-._.-.-.-._....-..-.-.-.-.-.-._.-.-.. I Off -Street 2 covered 1 covered Parking: (20'-5" x 23'-1 ") No change (10'-0" x 20'-0") + 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20) (9' x 20') Windows in Two existing windows in No change windows within 10' of property Accessory access. structure are line or more than 10' above Structure: Within 10' of property grade require a Conditional Use line' i Permit ' & 2 Conditional Use Permit for accessory living space and for a full bathroom in an accessory structure. Conditional Use Permit required for windows within 10 feet of property line. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Engineering, Parks and Stormwater Divisions and Fire Department. -2- Conditional Use Permits 121 Humboldt Road Required 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; (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: The accessory structure will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity as it will contain accessory living space that will be supplemental to the main dwelling. It is a residential use that is consistent with the land use designation in the General Plan and not uncommon in this neighborhood. The existing 264 SF accessory structure is 10'-6" tall and a limited size, is not located directly on the side or rear property line and 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. It will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan. With these findings, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit. 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 September 19, 2017, sheets A-1 and A-2, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the accessory structure shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the accessory structure shall only include 264 SF of accessory living quarters with a toilet, sink and shower as shown on the plan date stamped September 19, 2017; 3. that the applicant shall obtain a building permit to remove the 3/0 x 4/0 slider window located along the rear wall (facing the rear property line) and permits for any other work necessary to bring the accessory structure into compliance with the Building Code so that is can used as accessory living space; 4. that the accessory structure does not contain a kitchen and is not a second dwelling unit unless an application is filed with the Planning Division and approval is granted to convert the space to a legal second dwelling unit in conformity with Code Section 25.59; that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permits as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; -3- Conditional Use Permits 121 Humboldt Road that the conditions of the Building Division's September 27, 20176 memo, the Park Division's August 3, 2017 memo, the Engineering Division's August 18, 2017 and September 25, 2017 memo, Fire Department's August 14, 2017 memo and the Stormwater Division's August 16, 2017 memo shall be met; 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; 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; and 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c. J. Deal Associates, Jerry Deal, applicant and designer Wei and Shirley Fang, property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Application Photos of subject property Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 29, 2017 Aerial Photo 13 10 CONNUVI-Y DEV171. OPMFN' DEPAR'NE NT - 501 PRINROSE ROAn' BVRLINOANE, CA 940 1 L p� 650 558 7250 • t: 65o.696.3730 • www.burlingan,e. or9 k APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application Cesign RPv ew Fj Variance D Parcel #:_ - I L G x�ditio^ai 'Jse f anlilt ❑ specia Jermil ❑ Zoning I Other: r PROJECT AD 21 APPLICANT ry Name: Acdress 7 V A- 1-vt 1IC L %ice g L /F../�f7 E I( /A Lt1,1,&` `i T 14 l �/ PROPERTY OWNER Name: 1 f / >cdress ll — =yrstatsr2; Phone E-mail. 7JG k' CO TlDESIGNER Nance: fCTz— (�7K Acdre_s U--2-sc* (Z �� r.,v'Statei2ip: Phone rOl —/37,_ - Rurlingams Business 1_icense #' RECEIVE® JUL 31 7017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Authorization to Reproduce Protect Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request andlor post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and valve any claims against the city arising out of or related to such actirnt. __.—__ __ Initials of Architectinesigner] PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a 1 � FIDAVRISIGNATURE: I hv' y certify under penalty of pequry that the information given herein is Uue and correwt to the • or my knowledge and bell Z © / licant's signature: rare of the propose pplica on n ereb authorize the above applicant to submit this applieatlon to the Planning Sion. ` — 2 v t lwner's signature: Date submitted:_ is e ` $-iHAYf1U MiPiAWAcetbndor CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION - CITY OF BURLINGAME 25.60.010 Conditional use permit requirements • (i) Glazed openings of the accessory structure will be within ten (10) feet of the property line or any portion of a glazed opening will be higher than ten (10) feet above grade; • 6) Water or sewer connections to the accessory structure will exceed building code minimums or the accessory structure will contain any shower, bath or toilet; • (m) Any portion of the accessory structure will be used for accessory living quarters, recreation purposes or for use in a home occupation; Property Owners Wei & Shirley Feng 121 Humbolt Rd Burlingame, CA 94010 Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be der imental or injnriousto property or improvementsin the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Windows There are two glazed windows that are within 10' of the property line. Window #1 along the side of the accessory structure is 2'6" from the property line Window # 2 along the rear of the accessory structure is 2'6" from the property line It is not known if these are original locations. Windows appear to be newer than the structure itself. It ispossiblethe building department willnot allowthese to continue in their present location and if so they will be removed. Structure to contain shower, sink and toilet A necessary component of an accessory living quarter is a bathroom. There will be no cooking facilities. A bathroom is allowed in an R-1 zone with a Conditional Use Permit Accessoryliving quarters The existing accessory structure will be used as an Accessory Living Quarters. 2 How will the proposed use he located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? The proposed use is an existing detached accessory structure, and with approval will be converted to an accessory living quarter as allowedby the Zoning Ordinance. The bathroom is allowed in an R-1 zone with a Conditional Use Permit. Windows of an accessory structure which are closer than 10 feet to a property line can be allowedwith aConditional Use Permit. The use is in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. How wild the proposed prgjectbe compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on ad, joining properties in the general Weiniiy? The exterior of the structure is to remain as is. If two existing windows are required to be removed they will be filled in with exterior finishes to match the existing. There are many accessory structures in the general vicinity Project Address Description: From Project Comments - Planning Application 121 Humboldt Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-285-080 Request for Conditional Use Permits to legalize existing accessory living space, full bathroom, and window within 10-feet of property line in an existing accessory structure. Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: PRO . WnStFUCtien lamp . lan sheet" J• 2. OR th PFePGSed plan, please show the lecatien ef all pFepesed lecatiens feF Utilities (PG&E, wateF, sewer-, and seweF - Deferred to building permit • . 3. No further comments at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 4. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 5. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for all activities (including hauling). 6. The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirements to prevent storm water pollution. 7. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 8. The sanitary sewer lateral (building sewer) shall be tested per ordinance code chapter 15.12. Testing information is available at the Building department counter. A Sewer lateral Test encroachment permit is required. Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 9/25/17 650-558-7245 Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 121 Humboldt Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-286-080 Description: Request for Conditional Use Permits to legalize existing accessory living space, full bathroom, and window within 10-feet of property line in an existing accessory structure. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: t. Insert the 'Best Management Practices', updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at htti)://www.flowsto bay.o rR/sites/defa u It/files/Co u ntvwide%u20 Proera m%20BM P%u20P la n %20Sheet- June%202014%20Update.pdf#overlay-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click "construction burp plan sheet" ; JR 2.r On the proposed plan, please show the location of all proposed locatioiis'for utilities (PG&E, water, sewer, and sewer cleanout). The following comments do not need to be addressed now, bLit you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 3. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 4. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for all activities (including hauling). 5. The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirements to prevent storm water pollution. 6. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 7. The sanitary sewer lateral (building sewer) shall be tested per ordinance code chapter 15.12. Testing information is available at the Building department counter. A Sewer Lateral Test encroachment permit is required. L ac a 'atic �:G. Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 8/18/17 650-558-7245 Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 121 Humboldt Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-285-080 Description: Request for Conditional Use Permits to legalize existing accessory living space, full bathroom, and window within 10-feet of property line in an existing accessory structure. From: Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal,, J 1. Exterior walls located within side and rear set back shall be a minimum of 1-hour rated construction. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 8/14/17 650-558-7617 Project Address: Description: From: Project Comments - Planning Application 121 Humboldt Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-285-080 Request for Conditional Use Permits to legalize existing accessory living space, full bathroom, and window within 10-feet of property line in an existing accessory structure. Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Project does not create or replace >2,500 square feet of impervious surface or use architectural copper. Nothing further needed at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolvn.critz(a,)veolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: August 16, 2017 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 UPLIN(iPME Project Comments - Planninn Annlirafinn I Project Address: 121 Humboldt Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-285-080 Description: Request for Conditional Use Permits to legalize existing accessory living space, full bathroom, and window within 10-feet of property line in an existing accessory structure. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. Site Plan must include all existing major trees and shrubs. 2. Please indicate on plans if landscape will remain or be rehabilitated. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 3. Two landscape trees required for final. Trees may be existing or new and nut and fruit trees do not meet requirements. Reviewed By: BD Date: 8/3/17 650.558.7333 bdisco(aDburlingame.org RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Conditional Use Permits to legalize accessory living space with a full bathroom in an accessory structure at 121 Humboldt Road, Zoned R-1, Wei Liang and Shirley Feng, 121 Humboldt Road, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owners, APN: 029-285-080; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 10, 2017, 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 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 15303 (e), which states that construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Conditional Use Permits are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use Permits 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 10th day of October, 2017, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permits. 121 Humboldt Road Effective October 23, 2017 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 19, 2017, sheets A-1 and A-2, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the accessory structure shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the accessory structure shall only include 264 SF of accessory living quarters with a toilet, sink and shower as shown on the plan date stamped September 19, 2017; 3. that the applicant shall obtain a building permit to remove the 3/0 x 4/0 slider window located along the rear wall (facing the rear property line) and permits for any other work necessary to bring the accessory structure into compliance with the Building Code so that is can used as accessory living space; that the accessory structure does not contain a kitchen and is not a second dwelling unit unless an application is filed with the Planning Division and approval is granted to convert the space to a legal second dwelling unit in conformity with Code Section 25.59; 5. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permits as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 6. that the conditions of the Building Division's September 27, 20176 memo, the Park Division's August 3, 2017 memo, the Engineering Division's August 18, 2017 and September 25, 2017 memo, Fire Department's August 14, 2017 memo and the Stormwater Division's August 16, 2017 memo shall be met; 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; 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; and 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 0 z _ § \m E ■ m '/U w u �E _ \ � E.2 E U o -3 \\® z $r 7 t 2 \) (\ } \ / % E{ \ 2 o f d ` 00 ®k( & ) 20 co [ems 2 LO ELO ± - �? :\= e _LO o LU 2 \� //\ \ §/777 - ` ° M a - k ) A§);,e : ° - CL m \ \ §Muff/ ■ kk\k�}( } \\ \ �f e e b »()\§& 2©�a���& 2§- §§/a §§ § £ ro&k\�k}\/\k . )o/ )/2/ og \ CL ! �kE)�\-0ƒ)g«24 �2i �o2g ¥\ b - [8§a/| « (k=2Qƒ2) ! /\\ &/ / ` \ c . §£ - )$ - _ p > a \ 0 c ® \ : i E3 - - o g & =Eƒa" ) {§2£ f II ; >1 =2 22 \ E/ /\% \f«0 \2 2E \ . <a) �))£ �a 2 /3 w U � 0 z 0 z � « w _ U ] m n a Z Ox (z = m =m D� m m^ rn N m � p� Z-n MN O O m N x 22'-0' Z U O N Z m Z\ 122.25' FL m22'-10' 22'-5" 5'-S" -8" l7 m xl I r x1 N 63 - D rn m rn3m �'C7Zm Ln r N � mo mO=�`o z I 0 Z N C LO m�rnm { mZ ri A m{ _-- Cl7 E E E E )0 m r rn E E E E E E E E E �1 m (l -. E E E E E E f fE E � � mm F OmDrn E E b� N 0 O mE E -fmE. rz o0 I> M- f f _ mm Q -f zME E F 4` I'Tl oo O rn Z M 1-� Cl m N� Xm Dm N b IU1 O -0 =ern Cn �� _� f 0 f f E m O l9 b A-4rn mz J Op m m X zrn O� r � W E EEZCA�,EE v r �m w r w G7 0 W rrn ern Cl Orn�rn ern. E G) O rn� EE rn G)m ° 0-. �m �' o ��„ E` r^ D 20'-5" p Z zm O� r z rn f F N F (l A�` D CLR m z nm E u'�c EEfEE O iE ,-AM E G) � 1 O D c,}nrn m T I I b. E E t JT E E E E E E E E E E L tt E m E E E rn A f J 'E rn z O A -40 f f f EEEE f f f E N^N'N �N -nm�.z f E E - E E E E E E E E E E f f f m y �- 0 mom b 3 rnm. w -4 -=+ rnrX 122.50' FL 0 0 0 �m �m »- N m6p Z r U _f 3 NO m"'-4 m m 23' - 6 " 53' -0" A m xl zz m U �wrr mPZ ] ytdzt�o yt� r N CD D �Iq 0 �,� F �� zo•'Z mZ oo O00 aco�ooC� y ���a��`,°�> ���CD� �' o w Svc ?' a, o �. � o Ell Z Ltd ° Cho d a r" 8 CD a CD U] ,,t 0 va CD UE" 0 ID .n ?� �•� ac a ¢CD z. 21 °� CD CD cD ° Lr O O 's E� � N b O n �. CDCD CL cD CD C O 2 M rb y (D c) CD (D F.. c+ O N N cD (D r� CD Q CCD v Q-. n x W D C� C� y ('� D m m m r o0 w� •sl) �l � X � X > y 0 X rn rn D O C m 0 0 o i i i n 0 O O r o ^tpw�- U,tiJNE O d � y � � � z � Z m n m -i (0 N - 0 kv -1 7 z � 0 x1 =- m C_ 7J o m Z + G) + G) = G) x x m w Rl D D Z �OrTpm m c�rC,a �_ r- r cn m 0O m m rro W O n� c� � CD z cn cn rn p r0 0 0 CD b 0 Q1 1 O yO_q Uc, a¢ o z O z Z oo O oo r0 O O o N D -1 D. 6 D LO D. O im — n G) 0 z N C� N O r D O + r � m��' o -1, —1 m CD CD Z cD (TJ d o �' Uo fTl C� D ° �'' . �1 O o lfli � mno rn0 rn� � � = z � - O g� VT M- 0-1 �:l a1= C� C� a a. � . z Cn ai M Z G) O p CD �, D (P 3 D Q rtr iU i,, i,, ¢ a. D D cn m D m ° LO -4 im Z oot,N- 0 Q � � D X m arnN 0 z m >_ c Q i9b O 0 �. n_ n m D Z �O (D � � O c d Q- < O No � D m c' z n C/) m CD m z W CY) N CT1 _ W N W d) Cn � � � � CP C _n _n (n Cn Cn U) Oo c0 n -n -n -n Cn Cn Cn -n -n TI O m W W D > 0 m The drawings on this sheet, specifications, ideas, designs, D Z m t J DEAL ASSOC (A I E S ` FEND RE S 1 1DENCE (ACCESSORY) and arrangement represented therebyare and shall remain the property of J Deal Associates; no prt thereof shall be copied, disclosed to others or used in connection with any work or L9r- m]> L Z m �' RS11�NT1�4L 1�SICN T,41"I I II I1� /l 121 50LDT ROAD project other than the specified project for which and the specified Owner for the have been developed the ' z O _ Z — 1"�U which prepared and without J.D. & Associates. Visual these Z Cn ' — written consent of contact with -4 -1 331 BEACH ROAD, SUITE A TEL: (650) 691-13-10 BURLINGAME, CA '34010 plans or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidence of acceptance of these restrictions. J.D. & Associates reserve the � m p BURLINGAME CA '34010 www.jdealassociates.com a AP 02g-2&5-000 right to refuse use of drawings and specifications by the City or County of jurisdiction for issuance of building permits. m W � Item No. 8f Regular Action City of Burlingame Design Review Amendment Address: 722 Crossway Road Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review Amendment for as -built changes to a previously approved application for Design Review for a first second story addition to an existing two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. Applicant Designer: JoAnn, Gann, JMG Design Property Owner: Jeannie and Noah Tyan General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 029-051-240 Lot Area: 6,500 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. History and Proposed Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 722 Crossway Road was approved by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2016 (see attached February 22, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). The Building Permit was issued on October 4, 2016. The Planning Division visited the site for a final inspection of the project on September 19, 2017 and noted several as -built changes to the approved project. The applicant has submitted a letter of explanation from the designer and from the contractor, as well as a letter of support from the neighbor to the right side of the property (the property ownerforwhom the changes would be most visible). Planning Staff would note that the as -built revisions do not result in any change to the approved, code compliant setbacks, height, declining height envelope, or lot coverage; the as -built floor area is 6 SF less than the approved floor area. The applicant is seeking approval of a Design Review Amendment for the following as -built changes: Right Side/Driveway Elevation (refer to Sheets 3 and 6 of the originally approved and the as -built proposed lans • The gable roof line of the addition at the rear was altered so that the gable does not extend down to the end of Bedroom #5 with a shed dormer configuration at the rear, starting with Bathroom #4 (see explanation letters for the reasons for this change); • This change in the roof line has resulted in two jogs in the exterior wall plane of this second floor elevation; one above the original gable roof at the front and one between Bedroom #5 and Bathroom #4, where previously there was a single plane of wall under the gable and a shed dormer starting at the Bathroom; • This roof line change has resulted in the elimination of the approved wood louvre vent at the top of the rear gable addition; the approved knee braces have been installed under this roofline; • The roof line change has resulted in the elimination of a horizontal wood trim piece beneath the gable addition (to match the existing trim piece at the front second floor gable); the applicant is proposing to install this piece should that architectural detail be approved by the Planning Commission; • This roof line change has resulted in a slightly wider window on the right elevation at Bedroom #5; and • Planning Staff notes that there was an inconsistency in the originally approved plans: the approved right elevation showed a window at Bathroom #4, where the approved floor plan did not show a window in this location. The as -built project does not have a window at Bathroom #4. Design Review Amendment 722 Crossway Road Rear Elevation (refer to Sheet 6 of the originally approved and the as -built proposed plans) • The two windows at the left side of the second floor have been reduced in length from 3' x 4' to 3' x 2'; and • The left side of the first floor was approved with two sliding doors and two deck landings, where a single door and landing were built. Miscellaneous • The existing windows on the first floor are vinyl with divided lites between the glass. Sheet 6 of the approved plans, as well as Condition #1 of the Conditions of Approval for the project state that all the existing windows would be replaced with aluminum -clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites (muntins adhered to the outside of both interior and exterior glass); the as -built photographs show that the existing first floor windows were not replaced. With the proposed as -built revisions, the applicant is proposing to replace all of the existing windows with aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites to be compliant with the original approval. The primary muntin pattern (already installed on the second floor) is two or three muntins across the top of the windows, and the windows being replaced on the first floor will be consistent with this pattern. This work will commence after the Commission's review of the proposed amendment. • Due to the need for a structural post location, the dimensions of the existing Bedroom #2 were reduced, eliminating 6 SF of floor area from the total. This change did not result in any exterior changes to the elevation on the left side. Project Description: 722 Crossway Road Lot Area: 6,500 SF Plans date stamped: September 21, 2017 APPROVED FEB. 2016 PROPOSED AS -BUILT IALLOWED/REQ'D REVISIONS SETBACKS j ... .------------- ---_- . Front (1sf flr): ..... ............ . .......... No change ................... ----- No change -- ------- - 15'-0' -- ---- (2nd flr) No change No change 20'-0" ------- -.- .....- - Side (left): 4'-6" No change 4'-0" — - -- (right): -.I ------..... -10-1�1-----......-------._No...change ..............:.... ........ ---......_4,'0..-....._........- ...... Rear (1st flr): 52'-4" No change 15'-0" (2nd fir): 59'-0" ---- ----- No change i 20'-0" Lot Coverage: ! -------- 2,421 SF -- . No change ------- 2,600 SF --- - ---- 37% -------............ -- - ------ i No change _ - - --.-.. _ _ 40% --- -- — -- FAR: 3,516 SF I 3,510 SF 3,580 SF 0.54 FAR 0.54 FAR 0.55 FAR # of bedrooms: ........ — - - - - ......__..,-------------------- 5 - 11_------------------- ----- ------- No change .:------------------ - ------- Parking: 2 covered i No change -- -....... --- --- -- 2 covered (20' x 20') (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Design Review Amendment 722 Crossway Road APPROVED FEB. 2016 ;PROPOSED AS -BUILT REVISIONS ALLOWED/REQ'D Height: 27'-0" No change 30'-0" - -- - -- - - DH Envelope: complies No change CS 25.26.075 ' Existing, non -conforming left side setback to the first floor. 2 (0.32 x 6,500 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3,580 SF (0.55 FAR) 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: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 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 as -built revisions to the approved plans are consistent with the architectural details and the overall massing of the originally approved plans. That these as -built revisions do not negatively impact any of the approved, code -compliant zoning standards such as height, setbacks, declining height envelope, and floor area. That in particular the revisions made to the right side elevation maintain the orientation and massing of the second floor addition towards the rear of the property. For these reasons the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 21, 2017; including that all windows shall be aluminum clad wood with three-dimensional muntin bars permanently adhered to both sides of the glass and spacer bars in between the panes of glass, and a horizontal wood trim piece shall be installed across the rear addition at the right (driveway) side elevation; 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; and THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 3 Design Review Amendment 722 Crossway Road 4. 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. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. JoAnn Gann, applicant Attachments: • Explanation letters (2), date stamped September 21, 2017 • Letter from neighbor at 718 Crossway Road Minutes from the February 8 and February 22, 2016 Design Review Meetings • Application to the Planning Commission • Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) • Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 29, 2017 Aerial Photo 4 JMG Design — Consultant — Planner JoAnn Madeira Gann 244 Fulton Street Redwood City, Ca. 94062 Phone # (650) 464-9182 Email: jmadeiral8@aol.com September 19,2017 PLANNING COMMISION: 1. The rear doors off the family was revised and approved by the building department. 2. Right and left elevations were changed due to building restrictions and confusion on the structural plan. They did put the wood louvered vent on the lower ridge to try to stay with the original design. A band will be put on the sides to help break up the side. 3. The plate heights do not change. 4. Six feet was removed out of the bedroom upstairs Iea.._e 4 40 a �e on tha ofc � 5. All existing windows that do not match the new windows will be replaced to match. Clients decided to match the family room design of windows instead of the existing style. 6. See letter from the contractor for more information and letter from the neighbor on the right. R P H7P 1 2017 CITY OF BUF-1INGAVE CDD-PLANI'MIN;G DIV. ALL PHASE BUILDERS RE: 722 Crossway Rd. Burlingame, CA To whom it may concern, This project stated at the end of September with the foundations. The roof was removed around the end of October/1 st of November. That month was the start of the 5th wettest year in 133 years. It rained just about every week. Most storms had strong winds and it was difficult to keep tarps from tearing off. This was all done because the existing first floor was mostly remodeled and had hardwood floors. The homeowners lived there with their two small children for the first couple months We started with the posts and ridge beams then installed rafters so we could plywood the upper top roof surface to tarp over them. The outside walls were framed while we were obtaining structural revisions/changes due to existing structural conditions that were different than originally assumed. The house was originally built in 1915 and had many framing inconsistencies. One problem was that the main existing roof was framed almost ift out of square. None of the proposed floor space was altered except the top, front left, bedroom was made smaller by 6 sq.ft. of area due to the need for a structural post wall. The structural engineer had shown a ridge line as being longer then needed and required an end post. One reason the upper sidewall roof eve (in question) was not installed was because it was supposed to tie into the lower rear (1st floor) roof over the family room. The problem was that the rear lower roof slope was less of a slope (6/12) then the top main slope which was around a 7.5/12 slope. Because the main roof was not square, this added to the problem of lining the roofs up as shown. The lower rear roof pitch also had to be less of a slope in order for the master bedroom rear windows to have a sill height less then the egress code of 44" in. If the slope was stepper the roof would cut into the lower windows. 1111 Arguello Street #101 - Redwood City, CA 94063 - (V) 650.368.5021 f "rE info@oallphase.com-www.allphase.com 1 D SEP`;i2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANN!NG DIV. ALL PHASE w: BUILDERS y It became difficult to figure out how to tie these roofs together correctly and not have an unsightly look and/or water problems later. We were also concerned as how to structurally support or attach this long length of roof eve, without structural let -ins or supportive bracing. With the tarps on the house being torn at every storm, we were only able to work on the house 2-3 days a week. The homeowners were expecting a 3rtl child the beginning of June and could not afford to rent another house after that. I understood that any design change took 2-3 months to obtain, if possible. It was necessary for me to make decisions that were in my customers best interest as well as attempt to keep the design of the house within the spirt of the original design. The two rear patio doors were changed to one large 10" patio door and the two sets of stairs became one large landing with full stairs. That process went through the city as a revision and we believed it went through the proper channels not to become a problem. My original bid to the homeowners did not include replacing the homes existing windows in the attempt to help save money. I have been told they were supposed to be replaced. The owners intend to replace them and have them match with the style and grid pattern of the existing and new windows we installed at the rear areas. I hope the commission will understand the difficult position the homeowners and I were in during this project as well as the time constraints and existing problems that arose due to the weather, etc., and the homeowner's family needs. PS. The homeowners have spoken to the neighbors that can see the sides of the house and have shown them the original plans and explained the changes. They expressed their content with the final look. Sincerely, Bill Buckleman 1111 Arguello Street #101 - Redwood City, CA 94063 - (V) 650.368.5021 - (F) 650.299.0560 infotaallphme.com-www.allphasexom September 19111, 2017 To Whom It May Concern: We are neighbors of 722 Crossway Road. We understand that the Planning commission has a concern about the change in roofline from the original submitted plans. From our property we can see the roofline. We have seen the original plans and the current roofline and we do not feel like the change impacts our view or the streetscape of our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, %l � CiLa�Yh� Y HALL City of Burlingame BURLING501 PRIMMROSEROSE ROAD BU,RLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Monday, February 8, 2016 7:00 PM Council Chambers C. 722 Crossway Road - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing two-story, single family dwelling. (Jo Ann Gann, applicant and designer; Jeannie and Noah Tyan, property owners) (76 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Gum was recused from this item for statutory reasons, having a financial interest in a property within 500 feet. Ali Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. JoAnn Gann represented the applicant: > Existing one story house. Adding dormer to the back to keep the massing down. > Add to bay to make it wider and add to the proportion. Commission questionsfcomments. > What are the plate heights? (Gann: 8'-6" on the bottom, 8' 0" on top.) > Will the addition have simulated true -divided lites? (Gann: Yes. Back already has simulated true -divided lites.) > What will happen to pop-up dormer on the front? (Gann: Will matched existing windows, which are true divided.) > Will chimney be continued in brick? (Gann: Yes.) > Clapboard siding below, stucco above, shingles in the gables. Why three types of siding? (Gann: Horizontal siding on bottom. Trying to break it up, didn't want to put stucco at the top. Could have horizontal siding or stucco.) Seems like one too many elements. Could have a bigger grate or a lattice or gable vent. (Gann: Could consider a triangular vent with stucco below.) > Shared plans with neighbors? (Gann: No.) > No changes to landscaping? (Gann: No changes.) > Can drawings be crisper? Hard to tell what is proposed for the siding. Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Loffis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: > Can be placed on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item City o/Buringame Page 1 Printed on 101312017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 8, 2016 on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: City o/ Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 10/312017 INGAME HALL City of Burlingame B501 PRIMROSE ROAD -+ � 501 PRIMROSE ROAD 6URLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Monday, February 22, 2016 7:00 PM Council Chambers b. 722 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Jo Ann Gann, applicant and designer; Jeannie and Noah Tyan, property owners) (76 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote: City o/Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 10/3/2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: K Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Parcel #: bhl 194-0 ❑ Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: —7-02 9 Please indicate the contact person for this project APPLICANT project contact person El PROPERTY OWNER project contact person OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ 1 OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: ��� �(�S%`l ��l�kl.1 Name: Address: Z44 `Fuu-rb" !�T City/State/Zip: VW �-, Phone: �e o � 4-6 4— (1 ( E) 2 Fax: Address: " (`2'Z lm_nPp City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax: E-mail: J ot, ctlCi CC,- Vi (. Ay t-, CAF1 E-mail: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person a, OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ 12R i Z Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax: E-mail: * Burlingame Business License SEP 29 2015 CITY OF BURLINGANIE CDiD-PLANNING DIV PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 15,C_171-r( ON -rO C $L6bj�t J�i� itlLY 4 of:f :L(j-nof4 Ta t boF �QVz 2 F210F str"ts a!tip P7,6—((4 l tWC71z AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. n Applicant's I am aware of the proposed applic ti n and hereby Commission. /? Date: I , zfr;- lcj above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Property owner's signature: ZO., d.— 3Qf✓ Date: �G C1�1 ��f Lim �j9jg Date submitted: Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. ❑ Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. s:tHANooUrstKApplication 2008.handout.doc RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for a Design Review Amendment for as -built revisions to first and second story additions at 722 Crosswav Road WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 10, 2017, 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: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman 1, , 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 10th day of October. 2017 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment 722 Crossway Road Effective October 20, 2017 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 21, 2017; including that all windows shall be aluminum clad wood with three-dimensional muntin bars permanently adhered to both sides of the glass and spacer bars in between the panes of glass, and a horizontal wood trim piece shall be installed across the rear addition at the right (driveway) side elevation; 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; and THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 4. 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. » § ®\ ) « � 0E ?\/ E uj = k \/ 2Z0 { Q o } 2 2 E_ co{ ] z $ ±« j § m — ( ® $ E {\ ƒ ) § 0` )� \ )Fin co \k\ \ LO C) /e 2!§ 2 ƒ a ° = E °" - m §,o / 9\ \CA UE _ ° \k �k - U) ±�_ ` 22a�3 0 c a f k $§E�°m )■) \\ V 7 �f - \� 6 I CL § -055\/ ■f�f \�3= §§o ƒ we q§ \ )®Gg2; 2 =�- _ [] =§e# § }_\\\E Eoo //g\ °* ) 2 0: ■Ee ■" )e _o= E a)a) %\ & \ ~&© ■&'ia��fe� cL— [SAa/| §Jf3/]�I�$ ) a) [ §/ / \ �� \ \ \ �k2�)®`■£® ��0 co �o / §'E \ 0)� ¥\3/ 22 \ E* % ! }`\ \§\o oc m E 0 2E </« �)]& a± / /G w U � 0 z 0 z re « LLI z u 2 m n a ueu u LEA ELf-vA-T oN i-- a � ELEVATIONS � wa>n tpAM CVO FY7 . 41-Y u� elNy 1 3oI-a' .CLLawad *t 19.8 P<v-� I - CE%7�^KIP Np�. C��2KL Cfl LAFWm LA � _�44pJ4'Fd - I�IpI 1`IA9 pbd A4 O � `U a�np�q __ ��oUT " - E LVATlotJ . F1.L-HEW %1`gj WINM"k Tb I— =m91J..IMIk1uM�WMD`/+1NGau5 I/C(Y.p lK4L 9NIbY•o oir e�•?0.15 �6s: wqw os . ++ 156Zr7 a Iy nW. 4w0 k _ __ _— — _ .l :. g'wmn•�uM � I F-VA-(roU. I �b Fes— Wwn'�aNq 7q ME] i 3al-A' ICLLOWEG ' /GaM��l�C1oN •6/11114��- ,' woon -- --_ - I � y IL �7Y N fi�,, —' IzzZ =1! r�FF r _ FL- - - -- i. w. — 19.a Pon c�7N,puu.l c6p a q:� sFo \ ,log 19o9pbo> i4' w 40 U i u gam, i 11LT G: C4 W LE -T ELryA-TioN o o �� NT EL )w - F13aMluuM�Wroo MLSWLLRIS °a+'bs NOlto . ji,4L CEi V.t ll.1ti0 W 5 To slMul,a-cev'R�ua � „s � avlpxo --ITM rLAW ' AkonbEaNq m o�'mma�i ib.a u�x a�w iamPm4pea0 � aW�D6+lwm Na nPta r N.x anyese w vawe a m ems•m BM. xmmm eleven b emf and 'iaFsa� a a rvN we a ue area.w. a oeu+n AA ee �ww�pN.-. yy al'a/ei /vlf aaa el.m swat pAeaaa aA w� b�auA.ye: Y7oY349�L11T TO G04uEc'r To Y'Rlc To sul•)p QUHP:nuFtp"r GIT'( • To{-M VI2a w4 E SYSZP+1 uore� ' Al- 1-E.LIvSGA.r14ycCO r-epv4u. • da � JAuua.�-{ I� 2014 sni4vl CZooq� -IL(4LLIFE+S H011-la14 pLIiA14't �I.YMGI� �I+L-1131 TO GG "r-A.e.Rn PY WKT1B� N -LolYie�R+/�IFNIa.) rLLLNDlI.If� �UCiu �+ WNFh) A I I"I T • • 15 UNveK4(olw C) �d-Te)'I.Tous O� IM eve.+-7e(t'FS hLL "('R+MKLF¢ {TF.ANAyR d4M1. im rL 14E� LAIApSGA.Qp AT'PA``a .. �IFr hi1�lUKL�fs `>I}Ad3_ 6E lut/jAd.lE1P 654IBP br+.wluys .y4dJ; YR o rr/.A. P rif.r rF VErAr HELrr wall xrer-A-IE rep-irf a� -[0 14%LAC11011. SCB DIFORMATION PROPERTY ADDRESS SIFEAREA ASSF.550R3 PARCH NUMBER 20NEDISIRICE CONSIRUCITONiYPE NUMBFROF StOR@4 BUILDBJG Sf3E COVERAGE IX FTRSTPLOOR IX SECOND 1100R msTIND aARAGe PGRCN (103x 10)EXEMPFION TYEALEXISIII40 NEW FIR3FFLOOR NeW SECOND FLOOR NEW BAMMRCERS WF-FAR W VERAGE 024 ♦ 1100+400-3380SF MAX TOTALLOi COVFRAGB MAX 26M.¢P APP ! ana. CODFB n-A'130NC Qld ie Rsdhofial Code 2013 QOfpaoia Cald—Bvi1Gw8 20iJ RrtCadeM2013 Qliformu Pw5in8 Code 201) Q1Ra+via Ekapical Cadc 201 J QlRomia MeaWvkal Code 2p13 QlNwvii Fne+gyCade 2013 C+ICavia FawpER'MeocY SUMards 2013 CelRwvia Grtw Bml&ng SModuda Cade 2I13 All a+6w mN d IoaJ a+daawv d rtgoladam T32CR=S AYROAD + SREPIAN 6.f003F. : PROPOSEDfIR5TFL00R PLAN �9-51-210 R-1 3 PPAPOSEOSE[ONDFLDORI-N 4 fOUnDATN)N PLAN VM 5 FLOOR FRAMIN4/ROOFFRAMING TWO STORY 6 MOI—WELEYATN)NS I E%ISTINGROORPLAN 8 EXISTNIG ESFVATIONS SA EN4INEENING 1313.6 SF 5322 SF SDa ENGINEERING T24AIOtE24 S. SF lagBTD1E>4 2.4SIASF BIAP BESTMANAGEI.IENTPRARI(FS COMM 450.6 SF B .—C DESIGN NSF I.OTLISF XIMNGANN W-- REDWOODOFY. CA94o6a 51 SF 65oy6gylex _ OWNER 3,50135E OLMESITYAN >u CR06TWAY ROAD BW4'4'- SeU 2,3711 SF - 65oe+4�vo6 ADDOIONOF FAMILY AODROEFRI:TOFlRSTFLOORLINDN MASTER BEDROOM,MASTFRBORBA DROOMANO T S DORJ%M FLOOR REMODELSE[OND FLOOR BATHROOMAND NEW DORMEA INIWO NM IN BEDROOMS Mob: wtlgems Nb laW ms460moua •PWRw�bb �amltpeb Mmnswmeaapopwry.Tro+u+eanelr wYFmEF mmr blenmrywms�.yb� romr�eFM bamwaw0"YPi.si °mm�ama Tb pw++a.m neweWnwwwwMasmtrVWi mvm yr rclbmwwe �NMOsbR w"�"mitltllPeOeBEq �NamfylduenN �+aaa0.®Nv�nam+edwrrm4erw9iaagAe mrsrwu0ra N0uRs ' vem:baesiealaN.mnmm wn�im MLam® aay+m� W .inn ama.+ean e. A �����.nab Pm�lwapo-be+w+nameeeme �aNn.aebun6wa� o. im M.myasww��.PO"ieW xwnTlaawyaroamw,wpm MmyRm ayaDrowdlrnesew.s. sang em mF.•Ec M>•MY x .bay. --CwsbcHm Fbvt WuMyc )WO mn. ->4q P.m. 9anNyn 9:00 ae. -6A0 p.a (Ea Ory 9wxry Nwim4el COEe�eXm t3.0e.100mb iela&) -�+/ HdNn me'ilbw Rnt reple -ma ro h FeeFvam4 bymtl Nw ' em�411D iwmN band fw+Aap ilsm my r<Pma fwPow Oh eppowN �9 rerica y Nw FW.my tmwly.r Beni Pm.n, n..9awm..� b aeroeee rw.+b Ogannwl a Adk Wvb. �110Te: )'LUM Glut' �OIY(}bce[oF-F&ILL �' OIaE aSIF.IyER.uuC mA, ¢mw & -nme ar lusrec-(ou AFD l43T IB-vuL -mi Ave a((FovA.� la ei cnugx-ro�s�sp,Fia. >.,ea,mx,wamn wNW.wNawaeaa.apxww�m..w. ,a w,Am m.a mya,.na, me aYe Nwa ,.,,m,.wm.,�w ro w-.n xw,.nn a. �-awe.,.•, mw,e am, •�. a w.Fr w w....n wa e. maae�xwea_n.w baH. �_ a e.•be, a v�a�a ma.�... a m. aew w'�m.,� aw�..e �,., �I. .ae. m.wa.,roa �,a.xm,o a., way.aewa awe m wo a a,y .ole••u 3waaeexnau+au.malm)aa1N wemvsmN. e.a... n c�ma„n.+-n. w.a tyros s+e e-a ww F+a+roa- yo.ww.m.m•p.n E FIRST FLOOF. 1) 36.0X36.8-1317.6 2) 13XMA6 .6 3) IAX4.6-I TOTAL IT/4A SECOND FLUOR 4) Ibx19-10.1 5) 162x36.6-591 6) 13.M3-30.9 .7) 293x63-IW.6 TOTAL 1206.6 -Te FLA43 Y.I F -- L uTM I=— 14.1�11 -I Cr 2"o R-1 Uw C, Lo I -re-44 E rWILT I 4 lr7 e,. C FL ooz rLAw y f,W-o' NEW ar- rwawvwwi�vnc was PAV==AT--G- 11 ly. F C'm —TILE To cEu.�uy Trw 5LI.. "Irl 1/ WALL I-Wwo� City of Burlingame Parking Variance Address: 339 Primrose Road Item No. 8g Regular Action Item Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 Request: Application for Parking Variance for an intensification of use from a personal service use to an office use. Applicant: Bridget Lynch and Chen Xie, Home Care Assistance APN: 029-122-140 Property Owner: Gisela Scigliano Trust Lot Area: 5,189 SF General Plan: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Donnelly Avenue Area Zoning: DAC Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301, which states that existing facilities, consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination are exempt from environmental review. Project Description: The applicants, representing Home Care Assistance, are requesting a Parking Variance to operate an office at 339 Primrose Road (672 SF commercial space). The existing two-story mixed use building consists of first floor commercial and second floor residence. The first floor is divided into three, approximately 672 SF commercial spaces: the existing uses include 337 Primrose Road retail (Wine Stop) and 341 Primrose Road personal service (Rachel & Co. salon). The space at 339 Primrose Road was previously used as personal service (Primrose Cleaners) for over 65 years. The existing second floor of the building consists of four, 2- bedroom residential apartments. The applicant is requesting a single space parking variance to intensify the use on site in the commercial space at 339 Primrose from personal service (cleaners) to an office use (Home Care Assistance). Office is a permitted use on the first floor in the Donnelly Avenue Commercial (DAC) zone, but the use is being intensified with a change in parking requirements from 1 space: 400 SF (personal service use) to 1 space: 300 SF (office use). The net difference in parking requirements calculates to 0.44 parking space, and this is rounded up to 1 parking space per C.S. 25.70.060. The site is non -conforming in parking with no on -site parking for the existing uses. Based on current code parking ratio requirements, the existing first floor personal service and retail commercial uses (salon, cleaners and retail shop) are exempt from parking requirements because the property is located in the boundaries of the Parking Sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The existing second floor residential uses require a total of 6 parking spaces (1.5 space: 2-bedroom units/ four total units). The applicant is requesting the following application: • Parking Variance for an incremental increase in the number of parking spaces required on -site due to the conversion of personal service use (dry cleaners) to office (incremental increase of 0.44- rounded up to 1 space) (CS 25.70.010 (b)). Public parking is available on the street and in neighboring Lot B along Chapin Avenue (42,10-hour stalls and 2 disabled -accessible stalls, Lot B-1 along Chapin Avenue (9, 2-hour stalls, 10, 9-hour stalls and 2 disabled - accessible stalls), Lot A, the parking structure (24, 2 hour stalls, 127, 9-hour stalls and 5 disabled -accessible stalls), Lot A-3 along Donnelly Avenue (17, 2-hour stalls, 9, 9-hours stalls and 2 disabled -accessible stalls, and Lot C along Donnelly Avenue (51, 2-hour stalls, 24, 10-hour stalls and 4 disabled -accessible stalls). In addition to the main mixed use building that has frontage on Primrose Road, there are two accessory structures on the site that are located behind the main building. Accessory structure #1 (482.5 SF at the rear, right side of the lot), was previously used as a processing building for the dry cleaning business, and includes a Parking Variance 339 Primrose Road bathroom. The applicant proposes to change the use in this building to storage for client files and to upgrade the existing bathroom for the use of the office workers in the main building. The parking requirement for this building is decreasing from processing/manufacturing at 1 space: 800 SF to storage at 1 space: 1,000 SF and the difference has been included as part of the overall parking calculation. Accessory structure #2, (733.5 SF) at the rear, left side of the lot, was also used for processing by the cleaning business and has an attached, covered area (83.4 SF) that housed a boiler. The applicant does not intend to use this dilapidated building and therefore, there is no change in use to the existing processing/manufacturing use. Home Care Assistance is an office use where representatives meet with clients and work to provide in -home care for seniors. The proposed use will initially have 5 employees on site during regular business hours and this number is projected to increase to 9 employees in 5 years. The number of clients visiting the site during each day is 2-3 persons and this number is not projected to change over time. There will also be a small retail display area in the space to demonstrate wares sold by the company; however this area labeled as'retail' on the plans does not meet the requirements of a permanent retail display and is considered an accessory use to the primary office use. There are no interior or exterior improvements proposed with this application. History of the application: The current application is the result of code enforcement by both the Planning and Building Divisions. Planning staff noted a sign in the window of the space that announced a new office use and contacted the tenant to inform them that a parking variance would likely be required for the use. Work was also done to the interior and the exterior of the building (including electrical work and a new awning at the rear that connected the main building with Accessory structure #1) without the benefit of Building permits. A Stop Work order was issued by the Building Division. The applicant hired a commercial architect to address these issues and to make the necessary applications, but the business is currently operating without the benefit of a Burlingame Business License. Planning Staff would note that though vehicles appear to occasionally park in the rear of the lot, that this site has no existing access to a public -right -of way. There is paved alley or open space leading from Chapin Avenue to the subject site (running along the rear several properties with frontage on Primrose Road and on Chapin Avenue) but this path is entirely located on private property and there is no recorded easement allowing access across these properties to the site at 339 Primrose Road. With regard to required parking, Resolution 48-2000 was adopted by City Council on April 17, 2000 establishing a policy regarding in -lieu parking fees within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District in connection with Planning Commission applications. The in -lieu fee could be imposed as mitigation for granting of a parking variance. The fee was established at a rate that would cover the cost of building a space in a decked structure on a City parking lot. The fee is updated annually based on the Consumer Price Index, and is now $52,923 per parking space. With this application, the Planning Commission may consider the following in its review of the request for a Parking Variance: • Approve the Parking Variance with the required findings, but without requiring payment of the Parking In - Lieu Fee; • Deny the Parking Variance; or • Approve the Parking Variance subject to payment of a Parking In -Lieu Fee of $52,923 per parking space (may be required for a 0.44 portion of the space or for a full space). Staff Comments: The various City divisions reviewed the application and had no comments. Planning staff would note that because of the nature of the request, it was determined that this request could be brought forward directly as a Regular Action Item. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on a subsequent action calendar for a second review with direction to the applicant. Staff notes that that while the request is for 1 parking space (rounded up per code) that the parking in -lieu fee has been previously assessed by the Commission to reflect the applicable fractional space (0.44 = $23,286.12). Parking Variance 339 Primrose Road Required Findings for Parking Variance: In order to grant a Parking Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Findings for a Parking Variance: Granting the single space variance would prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship by not requiring a portion of the existing building to be demolished to provide on -site parking. That the overall increase in employees for the office use will be off -set by the fact that the number of clients visiting the site daily will be decreased from the previous personal service use. That granting the parking variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience since it is for a use (office) that is permitted within the zoning district. That there are no changes to the aesthetics or mass of the building and the proposed use is compatible with other existing office, real estate and financial institutions in the general vicinity. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the variance criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 25, 2017, including a maximum of 9 employees on site and any time; 2. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 3. that if any remodeling is proposed, 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; 4. that if any remodeling is proposed, 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 5. 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. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. Bridget Lynch and Chen Xie, Home Care Assistance, applicants Parking Variance 339 Primrose Road Attachments: • Application to the Planning Commission • Variance Application • Applicant's Letter of Explanation, dated August 18, 2017 • Commercial Application • Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) • Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 29, 2017 • Aerial Photo S.. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 660.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: ❑ Design Review El Variance ❑ Parcel #: 029-122-140 ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other PROJECT ADDRESS: 339 PRIMROSE ROAD APPLICANIHOME CARE ASSISTANCE Name: BRIDGET LYNCH, CHEN XIE 148 HAWTHORNE AVENUE Address: City/State/Zip: PALO ALTO, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 462-6900 PROPERTY OWNER Name: GISELA SCIGLIANG Address:1186 BARROILHET AVE. City/State/Zip: HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010 Phone: BLYNCH @ HOMECAREASSISTANCE.COM; E-mail: E-mail: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS —",41rJ Gor�7 �T 335-A EAST FOURTH AVE. RECEIVED Address: �J SAN MATEO, CA 94401 City/State/Zip: AUG 1 S 2017 Phone: (650)340-1107 CITY OF BURLINGAME E-mail: JACK@MATTHEWSARCHITECTS.COM CDD-PLANNING DIV. 30166 Burlingame Business License #: Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. (Initials of ArchitecUDesigner) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PARKING VARIANCE APPLICATION DUE TO CHANGE IN USE FROM RETAIL TO OFFICE; CHANGE IN USE OF R:PQRA9F AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby cert' and r penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. i 1 } -1 1 177 Applicant's signature: Date: I am aware of the proposed ap nation and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. /y Property owner's signature: V p4, �.,n Date: / �j f-! `l7 Date submitted: 5: t HANDO UT $ t PC Appfication. dx COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.658.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.or G 1 8 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION CIIY C - i3URLINGAME COD- LANNING DIV. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. The proposed use as office is a permitted use. This is a built-up site with no available on -site parking. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofa substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. The proposed use as office is a permitted use. For the proposed use only one additional parking space is required. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The use of the space as office will not affect neighboring properties as office is a common use in the downtown. The business improves public health and welfare by providing services and products essential for seniors. New accessibilty features at the main entry will provide greater access to the public. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The existing building will remain unchanged. There will be a small display and demonstration space at the street -front area for products sold to and/or used by clients. Signage is being installed and is compatible with other signage in the downtown. The business offers in -home care and products for seniors not otherwise offered in the area. Client consultations and product sales and demonstrations will generate pedestrian traffic HandoutsWanance Application.2008 compatible to other uses in the downtown area. Id July 20, 2017 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Parking Variance Application for 339 Primrose Road APN: 029-122-140 To Whom It May Concern: RECEIVED AUG 18 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Home Care Assistance offers in -home care for seniors. The location at 339 Primrose is intended for home care sales as well as product sales and demonstrations. 339 Primrose was previously used for many years as a dry cleaning operation with processing in the rear accessory structures. Presently in the main space Home Care Assistance operates a retail space with limited office use. Devices such as telepresence robots, walkers, and technological devices geared toward seniors are currently on display in the retail space. The accessory buildings are not being utilized at this time. The main entry is currently being modified with accessible hardware and push plate actuators which will provide accessible entry for visitors and staff. Home Care Assistance proposes to increase the office space in the main space with a small area at the street -front for display, demonstration, and client consultation. One rear accessory building is proposed to be used as storage for products and client files. We have an aging population and Home Care Assistance offers an essential service for the community; one that is compatible with the downtown area. Jack Matthews John Matthews Architects John Matthews Architects tale 650-340.1107 335 A East Fourth Avenue fax 650-3404677 San Mateo, CA 94401 email jack@maffhewsamhitects.com RECEIVED Community Development Dept. • 501 Primrose Road • Burlingame, CA 94010 • P:650.558.7250 • F:650.696.3790 • w ."624417 61UN9AME 1. Proposed use of the 2. Days and hours of CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMERCIAL APPLICATION CDD-PLANNING DIV. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM OFFICE (SMALL DISPLAY/RETAIL AT STREET -FRONT); STORAGE AT 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by NONE 4. Current and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this location: At O.- Hours of Before After Before After Before After Operation 6:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm Weekdays Full-time 5 0 7 0 9 0 Part-time 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weekends Full-time 0 0 0 0 0 0 Part time 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Current and projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: At Opening/Existing Before After Before After 5 Years Before After Hours of Operation 6:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm Weekdays 2-3 0 2-3 0 2-3 0 Weekends 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner, employees and 7 visitors/customers): 7. Where do/will the owner and employees park? ALL DAY PARKING GARAGE 8. Where do/will the customers/visitors park?, SHORT-TERM STREET PARKING 9. Present or most recent use of site RETAIL AT STREET FRONT; ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN REAR NOT USED 10. List other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach a list if more room is 337 PRIMROSE: THE WINE SHOP; 3 EMPLOYEES; MONDAY-SATURDAY, needed)_9:00 AM - 8:00 PM; SUNDAY, 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 341 PRIMROSE: RACHEL & CO., SALON & DAY SPA; 3 EMPLOYEES; Commercial Application.doc TUESDAY - FRIDAY, 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM; SATURDAY, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM; EVENINGS BY APPT. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been Variance for an office at 339 Primrose Road, Zc 029-122-140; and application has been made for a Parking WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 10, 2017, 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: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301, which states that existing facilities, consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Parking Variance is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Parking Variance 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 10th day of October. 2017 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Parking Variance 339 Primrose Road Effective October 20, 2017 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 25, 2017, including a maximum of 9 employees on site and any time; 2. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 3. that if any remodeling is proposed, 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; that if any remodeling is proposed, 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 5. 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. Z o o ` of m W o m '— Q o. � -o o cmW V -O .E _2 t0 a) _c E 2w E V o O S o 0 a > .0 Q O C Y J +. >, m i c m a) N coL a) m >1 E � '� a) H Z 0 Q : a W O a> 1� N a) 7 m fn 00 o o -a N = O Q 0 In c LO a C C 0 m CL CD co _LO SQ (D E Co LR O O a) O w O o a3 xQ V) > M C C 0 W ppo`i QN w E N O QW Qom• rn E}�+ a °'„a Ir CL 0.0 ` .. (6 0 Z W W L) n rn s m =' c V o c C V O C > d 0 �pCo2wE a �o�a .= o-�„ cEo mNo0) L) c •• m Z Od' Q vZi m a e ti o ti o O O@ N 7 0 a) a) U co E OgwZ�a H °i = 3a C.) o N•oL c E o o Y �o r maS c 3� O o Oo tiWQ2.; 7yo > U ma CU cu om(D d a) a5 7 P'C 0 c a) +0_0 O d) w 0cu O a) >+ 0 7 T a) Ln O Em M 0E � p0 0 >1 O� ti 0 Q O0_CL � �U :° A CHAP(N AVE. Fps ILty HY n u O ® O PP0.. tE 7 k POMNELLY APE. Q c I-- E 1 D C 0 A n c y a p NI IV x.el� /r n• � a' � l,i I A LOCATION MAP I 4 I ACCESSORYti/PROPOSED STORAGE I R 1[e NE1[R 111E pe:,elowwAu L _ _ _ — — — — — p_ --- 1T•r 12'e b ar e10• eULTI� p mcaxeKenviPlio n Nyie ._R. ACCEBBORYI2•(I PROCESSING F S ACCESSORY 1.' NO•AO•MEO CVNOEN VSF —OKAKAOIONpe6 OVReCOe iPV•CB1r BUNNO .be ADJACENT TENANT I � I I l PROPOSEDOFFICE f� �I N. ADJACENT TENANT 1.18TIE PUN A ROOFPUN PROJECT TEAM SCOPE OF WORK TENANT; HOAECAREASSISTANCE CHANGEINUSE-RETAR TOOFFICE NEW STORAGE USE AT E ISITNG ACCESSORY BRIDGET LYNCH, CHEN AE kj ZONING INFORMATION LoNEDEPAOALT340()l TEL 185%4524100 ASSESORSPARCELNUMBER :02 ".u0 ARCHITECT: JOHNMATTHEWSARCHRECTS JOHNA MATTHEWS. AIA LOT70SF UDDIICTION :CITY OF BURUNIAME ZONING DISTRICT DAD MONNELLYAVENUECOMMERCIAL) JOHN 335A E 4TH AVENUE SANMATEO. CA9M0I TEL:(5W) 340.1IN. FAX:(850) 31 1577 MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS BUILDING DATA OCCUPANCY GROUP: TENANT SPACE -B (OFFICE) PROPERTY OWNER: REM ACCESSORY -82 ROW -HAZARD STORAGE) U GISESCIGUANO 1188 BARROILHET AVENUE HSLSSOROUGH, CA 04010 OCCUPANCY ERDIP NOT IN SCOPE OF WORIQ MFLOOR- R2(A RESIDENTIAL UNITS) PARTWLBASELENT-M (STORAGE FOR THE TWO ADJACENTRETA%USES) aaenW voumev[w[ srH TLquwm = CONSTRUCTION TYPE :V•B PARKING+¢+'y M RETAIL 877 S17900'•1."PARKING SPACES (E)PROCESSIM483SF/BW IPARKINGSPACES 229 PARKING SPACES (N)OFFlCE N SFOXI'yWPARKINGSPACES a �' >• 1 ,.. �. (N)STORAGE 483 SFH000••048 PARKING SPACES 2.]A PAR10N0 SPACES — 'BMC•25.TO.dO R02.T4 • (E)228 =045.1 PARKING SPACE REQUIRED w O Z o Q aOT U J G W Q 2 U GROSS FLOOR AREA (NO CHANGE) NAME EKISTIN6 AREA OREATOBE AREATEE ADDED A REMOVED AREA TOTAL O (/) 4 — W J QO KU W z� OFFICE SIP 877 SF STGNAGE 483 SF ZZ3 483SF TOTAL IIWSF OSF OSF 11805E BUILDING CODE INFORMATION DILL Z fN _1 N 1. ALL NEW WORK SHALL BE IN STRICT CONFORMANCE WITH THE FMLOWINO CODES A ORDINANCES INCLUDING BUT NOT UMITED TO: LU < W •PART 1: 201BCAUFORNIA MMNI ADSTRATNE CODE 00 Q • PART 22de CAUFORNIABUILDINGOODE 'PART252018 GUFORNIARESIDENT+ALCODE In Q •• (n Z QZ • PART 2018EIECTRICAL CODE O Q � 0'� •PART4:201 AUFORNIAMECHANICALOODE O N 'PART5.201B GAUFORNIAPLUMMNGCODE • PART 5 2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE •PARTS, ZdBGUFORHIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE 06 • PART B. 2018 CALIPORNIA FIRE CODE W 0' NOTE: CURRENT TENANT IMPROVEMENT FOR RETAIL USE: 'PARTIO:CAUFORNIAEXISTINGBUILDIGCODE .PART +,:2d8 CAL FORM GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALG-1) {IJ d PRIMROSE .'�39 B'1 T-0197 ' PART 12:2018 MIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE (� L 0 ALL OTHER ADOPTED APPLICABLE CODES AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LL M LOCAL AND STATE LAWS.REGULATIONS. ORDINANCES INCLUDING ALL AMENCATICNS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE- O d SHEETS INDEX / / CURRENT IesclRe I PARKING VARANCE APPLIGT`�OH n 0 '� a... • J�r Cu n',waroAwreaeeL I b' v t O - Li o wARRRE ER I x 3 eNRYe PN Cl-"-'.' dipURLlNrAMI.. t y Tom— L FLNNING DIV. I I SHEET NAME SHEETNUMBER _— _.... . SITE PUN GENERAL NOTES 1. IT ISTHE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL FIELD CONDITIONSMDCONIP E THEM WTHTHE CONSTRUCTION PARKING VARIANCE DOCUMENTS BEFORE COMMENCING ACTIVITIES. ERRORS, OMISSIONS ARPUCA� OR ANY OTHER INCONSISTENCIES DISCOVERED SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT. 2, CONDUCT ALL OPERATIONS TO PREVENT INJURY OR DAMAGE TO uTE PERSONS, ADJACENT BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, OTHER FACILITIES. JULY 20, n17 LANDSCAPING. TREES AND Ex1STiNG CONDITIONS TO REAIPRI ON SITE AND WITHINTHE CITY RIGHT-0E-WAY. PROMPTLYREPAIR DAMAGES, CAUSED TO ADJACENT FAC5ITIES BY DEMOLITION OPERATIONS AT onTc noTes NO COST TOTHE OWNER w 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL TEMPORARY BARRIER3 TO _ 1 sarxs.xaT mvOioN• I I CiRIWCCNSTRU aC OOTIONANDIDEMOLTION DEBRIS: THE CONTRACT COMPLY WITH THE CTIYOF BURUKMAME CONSTRUCTION DEMOTITON RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS. 5. CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL TEMPOIO PROJECT NORTH STRUCTURESMDBMCNGDURINGCONSTRUCTK)N. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN M ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ANY WORK WITHIN ANY RIGHT OF WAY BEYOND / FIR OPER AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM ,. NONE a 4• a +e• 3z• ewE 1M4' • 1'4T pMWI OB MK w17823 elElT A1.1 ac �.erre JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS mauowm�'al s Elauan,w� Dunes orro�Rralnlarc parr;-���,,. _______ ----------------------- _L__—__—_ I 1 PROPOSED 1iwp 1 STORAGE O I tM raysas Nlp re:s*mal lL Z O 1 a»aErno•:wam.Rn 1 a a o 1 I () J rn ADJACENT TENANT W Q 1 1 U i 0O N w CURRENT PARKING VARIANCE APPLICATION = IL Q V Z----------------------------- UJI N 0_ cNv 1 .,...� 4__ ____— _____________� O 0 ' 1 TANEB'Ja rq G18 �� O i In W QO u rA�xla wo 1 0 1 c Z 0 z v�imis 1 mKoaem f/1 o w a R 6 ; P OFRCOBm DISPLAY AREA b i a 0 D 1 B L I W W Of C Y.IT aT-aV!' I N.P I V 0. a 1 I LL O M LL 0 �I a r-----______________ opo-- PLAN ACCESBORY421 (E) PRDCESSINO ADJACENT TENANT S PARKING VARIANCE Appuu® JULY W, M17 e wTc aorta polnueo.rol.�llreuwo a®r:ax1, IewoN a, m PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN \. 1p•. Ya LnwulroRn.,.l aula 1M'•1'V wx ® AO�EIaL�Ot'Algoanares'0` AIK 3 - - RIODNamucnoxroea _ � wonNwsR ��1]B17 II w�wlnAl�n CONSTRUCTIONLEGEND A2.3 i!<" = TQ ylE fly km JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS _ ------------------------------ ----------------- -- --------- ---------- E�oxEL - 1 1 1 OAC 1 1 I O 1 O wZ O (E)PROCESSING 1 P1 M.u,en a NO WORK PROPOSED OR ; IOOtc u[,[n C U Lu U CHANGE IN USE UNDER V1 W 1 CURRENT TENANT IMPROVEMENT- 1 PRIMROSE039B17019T I 1 W W Z� i i 1 1 ), _____----- Vl J 1 `� LL E W Ix O to Z pz 1 Vl o Q O W a °i 9 mEa.Aowio.r b 1 (/1 0 7 NHwLoCEI ♦ 1 9ii S 1; 1 w _ ..,,• , .,� 1 - a 1 1 LL O n 1 O Q. n a 1 - CURRENT (E) CONDITIONs ACCESSORY.21 (E) PROCESSING ACCESSORY .11 '-' BOILER NOTE NO WORK PROPOSED ORS CHANGE M USE UNDER PARKING VARIANCE :CVRRENTTENANT APPUCAPON )IMPROVEMENT- 'PRIMROSE 339817-0197 i a,[ DULY w, 2017 gmrE9EADNO:M xwLwc CBRREIIT��CO �`g 1 1N��P-0' .®t M>•A17 rtLVBrox 3 O IE1 WNLr9 x,'u.vx s�.YF E ® claiwe,[owowvf�iwm K 1H'+1'-P V--_- IEleoxmque,Kxro �x ex7, MK y ® owxxweeA 0 x1�17821 0 /-�GONSTRUCTION LEGEND A2.2 actTs r-0- A6IACENT TENANT 1—=pRE=PMNINO-ARIA==MPUCA710N n CARE I I I9%OFFICE l61% I of=dL I ( i 1 E] E] O 0 NOTE CURRENT TENANT IMPROVEMENT FOR ' RETAIL USE: ; PRIMROSE 33981T-019T ADJACENT TENANT JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS iisaeo.ue..o: e s.sw�+o� Ar s�aw,e• wa ounsear.oMaxTeanNa ��,-, ;,� � �. ----------------------------- i _ ,`=_-..— WARRTONeIIPTIgOF ❑ ❑ [mac a.r�i I I -------------- i FtEVPIeoCIXIC. PID i m.c mn I O J 1 i rse• I W � ¢ 1 IAwpttyxt I CURRENT PARKING VARIANCE APPUCATION o In Dj 1 oeaK 1 = � I Teevlw.s.eTw L---------- ------ w g ' --VAC pNMY NeAeOe �� �u w z� '----------, �' - ---------------------- K.eRNuT.i I-•"; erneeKmet i w 'm .f r I Re emoN oeaK I W o 0 g wew eAPe,Kro PA®oN r - ------------- eo Aeo e Q z o z r I L PAR N dAPFM[Y I o O N °� r ; r r li 1 I � o r - _ `� asunmoow P - --- arteasxuRmmoR \ IIJ NAasrE �� I LL o L� U. o L7 E 0 IL eN1Ae0Ve—,i '--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PRE . (E)VKXIS ONB r ' .: i ; : 1[AOKiTANK 1 1 lxnTOAe�n I J' I 1 - �o PARKING VARIANCE TIII Jlr APPUCA® _ - - -- - - - JUIY M. �1T NOTE THI8PIA IS BASED ON NCOMPLETEHISTORICPHOTOGRAPHSANDISAN APPROXIMATION CF THE PREVWS MY CLEANING OPEMTION ^� i 'r (l PREVNMl9 PROBABLE IEI OOtIdTK)NH tl NA F 1N' • 1'-P oRPvx WK oallo W�17623 A2.1 a sleet WEST ELEVATION-337,13"1 PRIMROSE _ V 1!{.1'.p _ ACCESSORY 93 ACCESSORY 01-PROPOSED STORAGE EAST ELEVATION - STORAGE 3 A SSORY R] vr- r-0� KEYNOTE LEGEND K Velw TmQ 15 EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATEDBUILOINGADDRESSASPERCBC5G1.]. NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND, SHALL SEA MINIMUM OF ON -HALF INCH STROKE BY FOUR INCHES HIGH. -UNDER TI 817-0197 18 (N) INTERNATIONAL SYMSOLOF ACCESSIBILITY. UNDER TI B77-01S] 7Z REMOVE (E) DOORANDVANDOWABOVE. WORK COMPETED WO PERMITS. 13 (N) STUCCO ON CONCRETE BLOCK WORK COMPETED WN PERMITS. 2/ ( CONCRETE MASONRY WALL % ELEC. SUBPANEL % 1gLLARD— INGREeSR UNDER TI B17-0197 ffi E)VANGUW EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION . 337-&" 1 1 1M'•Td e ACCESSORY 01-PROPOSED STORAGE ACCESSORY WEST ELEVATION -STORAGE 6 ILI mm ACCESSORYn ACCESSORY K] NORTH ELEVATION - ACCESSORY Q& S t3 NOTE; NO EXTERIOR CHANGES=#3. THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE MAI ACCESSORY STRUCTURES #2 __---- ACCESSORY S1-MDR. STORAGE S EIEVA E 1M'+1'P JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS ]l,A1M.TfOMRHAYFW �E i aae,w�i KeR1o,P7 m Q o J (7 Q U v N ui W g go U W Z� Z fn J 1 Lu N Lu o N Z pZ }O N F- OR i W a am w (L ELFVnnONS PARKING VARIANCE —LICA J ULY o+. N17 noT[s i LOR]A AN IFVU�ox. City g of Burlingame Item No. 9a Design Review and Special Permit Design Review Study Address: 1341 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for anew, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Chu Design Associates Property Owner: Victory Village 2004 LLC General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-151-120 Lot Area: 6,015 SF Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 3,338 SF (0.55 FAR) where 3,340 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch exemption). The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on -site. One covered parking space is provided in the detached garage (14'-4" x 20'-4" clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. The applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for the overall building height as measured from the average top of curb level along Vancouver Avenue to the highest roof ridge (33'-11" proposed where 30'-0" is allowed with a Special Permit). Planning staff would note that the finished floor of the house is 9'-4" above the average top of curb (see Proposed Front Elevation on sheet A.4). The area of the roof that extends above 30'-0" is at the center peak of the house. The applicant is requesting the following applications: ■ Design Review for anew, two-story single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)); and ■ Special Permit for building height between 30 and 36 feet (33'-11" proposed) (C.S. 25.26.060 (a) (1)). This space intentionally left blank. Design Review and Special Permit 1341 Vancouver Avenue 1341 Vancouver Avenue Lot Area: b,U1b 5r Plans date stamped: September 11, 2U1 / PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:........................................................................................................................................................... Front (1st fir): 22'-5" 22'-5" (block average) (2nd fir): 28'-5" 22'-5" (block average) Side (left): 10'-01, 4'-0" (right): 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st fir): 34'-6'/2" 15'-0" (2nd fir): 33'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2192 SF 2406 SF 36.4% 40% ................................................................................. FAR: .....................................................................................................................................................................................................,................................................................................... 3338 SF .................................. 3340 SF' 0.55 FAR 0.55 FAR ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:............................................................................................................................................................. # of bedrooms: ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:............................................................................................................................................................. 4 --- Off -Street Parking: 1 covered 1 covered (14'-4" x 20'-4'/2" clear interior) (10' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Building Height. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:............................................................................................................................................................. 33'-11 " 2 30'-011 DH Envelope: complies —window enclosure CS 25.26.075 exemption along right side 1 (0.32 x 6015 SF) + 1100 SF + 315 SF = 3340 SF (0.55 FAR) 2 Special Permit required for building height (33'-11" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed). Staff Comments: None. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer Victory Village 2004 LLC, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 29, 2017 Aerial Photo V, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: 0( Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit 9 Special Permit PROJECT ADDRESS: 1341 VANCOUVER AVE. APPLICANT Name: CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES Address: 55 W. 43RD AVE. City/State/Zip: SAN MATEO, CA 94403 Phone: 650-345-9286 x104 E-mail: fames@chudesign.com ARCHITECT/DESIGNER ❑ Parcel #: ❑ Zoning / Other: 02,1 —I S 1 -- 12-0 PROPERTY OWNER Name: RAYMOND WONG Address: SEQUOIA WCL LLC - PO BOX 16695 City/State/Zip: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116 Phone: (415) 310-6916 E-mail: raywong5677@gmail.com Name: JAMES CHU Address: 55 W. 43RD AVE. City/State/Zip: SAN MATEO, CA 94403 RECEIVED Phone: 650-345-9286 x104 JUL - 7 2017 E-mail: james@chudesign.com CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Burlingame Business License #: 22684 Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. is (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE W/ DETACHED GARAGE AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I h y,certify under penalty of perjury that the information given he iA is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and b ief. ��,,:'' Applicant's signature: Date: I am aware of the prop d application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this plication to the Planning Commission. �, y ''7► 7 Property owner's signature:`--J Date: 7a ! / Date submitted: 7` 1- 17 S: � HANDO UTS�PC Application. doc City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org �a�C'' O� B RLINGAME EIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION .ilk 011Y OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. -7 2u17 The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why 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. The proposed new two-story modern farm house inspired residence with single car -detached garage is consistent with existing detached garage and surrounding properties that have similar garage patterns, mass, and scale on the "west" side of Burlingame neighborhood. Due to the up sloped condition (8 to 10feet difference in elevation between front & rear property line), the special permit is required to allow the building height to exceed 30 feet from average top of the curb but still within 36'-0" max. allowable height. 2. Explain how 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 The proposed modern farm house dwelling is located within a variety of styles neighborhood. The low pitch metal roof, combination of stucco/stone/wood siding material, and front porch are all consistent with this style and it should blend well on this block without changing the character of the neighborhood. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The proposed single-family residence with detached garage is consistent with City Design Review Guidelines, and it complies with all zoning requirements, except for the building height (Special permit). 4. Explain how the 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. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. Three (3) 7" trees will be removed with new landscaping proposed for the entire lot. SPECPERM.FRM CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ne BURLINGAME, CA 94010 09; PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 69C31 www.burlingame.org r Site: 1341 VANCOUVER AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1341 VANCOUVER AVENUE zoned R-1. APN 027-151-120 Mailed: September 29, 2017 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for.;this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) • _ rq 1 h �� , ,•P '` 7 ^ � � ,^� n P �p ti R' ^ •` � ► � T..7 0 4 2 yy n D b i � � � M � � ^ ti fir, ^h�.• o i A3 o r 0 y lb l, ^ ry ,"^ n Ara p 2 � y\Q 2T 9 � n. � � L..; � n � ,^ � :. � ..: O •. g�-syd''. ..?r?9 . _ h E' •a ell 2�0 ,J/` • T Y2' '� • h' l G `Sry 'y]� AOS, I ID eN °8 w� } ■ �� tip. �rofr ,` Q�C ^ p ou S CIS -ID e6 V W 0 'S h ^ ID.� V p` ^ 0 ls� R AS 41( 16) a y ro AL r 0 lb 113 .y hL ry R sty :7 n •C ' ^ _ T s ��, a - a i. Illl lhlI 1 �x. ELASHTOMERIC SHEET WATERPROOFING EXTED AS NOTED SLOPE METAL FLASHING WITH DRIP EXTEND 4" MIN ABOVE CEDAR WOOD TRIM PER ELEVATION WINDOW FRAME HEAD WINDOW FRAME SEALANT WOOD TRIM PER ELEVATION ELASHTOMERIC SHEET WATERPROOFING EXTED AS NOTED SILL 1 TYP. HEAD + SILL DETAIL SCALE: 1n 1-0" YP. BD, EADER PER PLAN DBL 2x SILL 2x BLOCKING OMIT AT PLYWD.SHEARWALL GYP, BD. I I TOP OF RIDGE EL. +12456 TOP PLATE J� UPPER FLOOR PLATE LEVEL MAIN FLOOR EL. +10020 TOP OF RIDGE EL. +12458 TOP PLATE UPPER FLOOR IRV PLATE IRV MAIN FLOOR EL. +I mm mm WOOD LATTICE VENT, TYP. 6x WOOD TYP_ ROOF PITCH OUTRIGGERS, TYP. 12 I I J I / / r-- 1�1 oc / 7 sk Im'-01, SETBACK D.H.E. 95.&0 100.&0+96.6 2 -NOTE: WINDOW MATERIAL - SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED ANDERSEN 400 SERIES FULL ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD DIVIDED LIGHT ALUMINUM CASEMENT WINDOW W/ WOOD CLAD WOOD CASEMENT TRIM, DUAL GLAZING TYP. WINDOW W/ WOOD TRIM, DUAL STUCCO, TYP, GLAZING TYP. STONE ADHERED VENEER, TYP. STONE ADHERED VENEER, TYP. WOOD RAILING 8 BALUSTER I II I II II I f u WOOD ENTRY DOOR W/ WOOD TRIM e GLASS OPAQUE, PAINTED, FROl N l L1-dL' V r1 1 1lJl SCALE: 1/4"=l'-0" 6x WOOD WOOD LATTICE TYP. ROOF PITCH OUTRIGGERS, VENT, TYP. 12 TYP, 5 SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD DIRECT VENT CASEMENT WINDOW W/ WOOD 4x WOOD THRU CHIMNEY, TRIM, DUAL GLAZING TYP. HORIZONTAL STUCCO FINISH TRIM, TYP. RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 2 STANDING SEAM 6" HORIZONTAL WOOD METAL ROOF, TYP. F- SIDING, TYP. DIRECT VENT FIREPLACE STUCCO, TYP. II lip II LEGEND EE EMERGENCY EGRESS 12" WOOD BAND REVISIONS BY 9%7%1N7 0 PU O � O Z 0000 W W �OMM Q � U � «3 7c, U o mow . t � z� �w �Q z gg zo W03 O L U -CS O ?+tir t �Db C 0 3 C13 o C. sue.. o y Gf� O 9 v U H 3 -' W� �N w�W oc DATE: JUNE 2017 SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWN: PU roE: SHEET NO. A04 OF SHEETS TOP OF RIDGE EL, +124.58 TOP PLATE \ UPPER FLOOR \ PLATE LEVEL \ IN FLOOR TOP OF RIDGE EL. +124.58 JII, UPPER FLOOR19-1 \ JII, PLATE LEVEL 19-1 MAIN FLOOR EL. +I0 0-00 --------------L- TYP. ROOF PITCH —\ THRU CHIMNEY, CORBELS SLIDING DOORS WATTS MAX. _ ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD STUCCO FINISH CASEMENT WINDOW W/ WOOD TRIM, DUAL GLAZING TYP_ REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 6x WOOD TYP. ROOF PITCH OUTRIGGERS, TYP. STANDING SEAM �12 METAL ROOF, TYP, -�-�t�F T IL FI D 6" HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING, TYP. FE ■ WOOD LATTICE VENT, TYP. 6x WOOD F—OUTRIGGERS, TYP, ECI ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD STUCCO, TYP. � CASEMENT WINDOW W/ WOOD TRIM, DUAL GLAZING TYP. STONE ADHERED VENEER, TYP. LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" LEGEND tt EMERGENCY EGRESS REVISIONS BY 9%7%1N7 0 PU i� O i� � O Z �Daocoo Z W �OMM ^W ~ 7�F-+00 "C c U O s-r c3l g [Z] N Z Z > z0 =w z gg zo ��D O L U -CS O R U O O O CIS CIS Uj • i-4 iUr A 3 c y C 0 3 C13 o 'C.sue.. o 5 y Gf� O 9 v U H �g 3 4B W� �N w�W �O� 0 44 DATE: DUNE 2017 SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWN: PU JOB: SHEET NO. A.5 OF SHEETS GARAGE 6x WOOD Gil :I FASCIA BD., TYP. HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDINGS, TYP. - 12 m cs� I cf� STUCCO, TYP. WOOD GARAGE DOOR RAISED PANEL LIGHT FIXTURE, 40 WATTS MAX. FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=11-0" V I wV j I I I. LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=F-0" CJ I Ul,-1,-L/, I I r-. REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=11-0" WIJVL/ GIN IN I L/VVI� RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=F-0" 12' SIDE S TBAC o N l'-6" 114011 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4"=11-0" N REVISIONS BY 7t � Z con 0 W Z j 00 ooc � �U V � w M M 0 3 -5 w s W v, Z o 0 a>cq p c w cn Q U0 U ad ,o IJn N w U �., f 3 Acd cn 4 � 3 CD tb .a? o a> ^� aJI F— > It, 41 b--�-I W� �O� O 00 Q�v � DATE: JUKE 2017 SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWN: PU JOB: SHEET NO. A.6 OF SHEETS GENERAL NOTES: 1_ SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR DETAIL INFORMATION 2. MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED FIFTEEN (15) PERCENT AT ANY POINT WITHOUT SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK5± SLOPES IN EXCESS OF TWENTY (20) PERCENT SHALL REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. TRANSITIONAL SLOPES ARE REQUIRED FOR DRIVEWAYS WHICH EXCEED TEN (10) PERCENT MAXIMUM SLOPE, NO TRANSITIONAL SLOPE SHALL EXTEND INTO A REQUIRED PARKING SPACE. 3. TOPOGRAPHY 15 PREPARED BY: W.E.C. 4 ASSOCIATES 2625 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD %58 BPALO ALTO, CA 94306 TELL (650) 823-6466 4. A DEMOLITION PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR SIDEWALK, SEWER AND WATER REPLACEMENT 5. REQUIRED PROTECTIVE FENCING MUST BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO DEMO PERMIT ISSUE. 6. SEWER BACKFLOW PROTECTION CERTIFICATE 15 REQUIRED PER ORDINANCE NO, I110_ A DRAFT CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 1. THE SURVEYOR RECOMMENDS THE CITY VERIFY THAT THE PERTINENT RESIDENCES WERE USED IN THE CALCULATION. 8. GARAGE FOOTING SHALL NOT EXTEND INTO ONE FOOT SETBACK WITHOUT A LICENCED SURVEY AND FIELD STAKING REVIEWED BY INSPECTOR 9, NEW WATER METER SHALL NOT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. IT MUCH BE LOCATED ON PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR ACCESS BY METER READER 10, NEW SEWER LINE WITH CLEANOUT FOR NEW HOUSE. CLEANOUT AT SEWER MAIN LINE TO BE IN PUBLIC EASEMENT FOR CITY ACCESS. 11_ CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THE DOUBLE VALE ASSEMBLY FOR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE TESTED AND APPROVED BY A SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVED CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO SCHEDULING WATER DEPARTMENT FINAL. 12. PROVIDE ADEQUATE FIRE FLOW BASED UPON CONSTRUCTION AND 51ZE OF BUILDING, SEE UFC APPENDIX IIIA. MINIMUM 500 GPM REQUIRED. SEE TABLE NO. A-III-A-1. 13_ MINIMUM 1" WATER METER REQUIRED 14. IF BACKWATER PROTECTION 15 REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AN ISOMETRIC DIAGRAM OF THE BUILDING SEWER INCLUDING ALL BACKWATER VALVES, RELIEF VALVES, AND ANY SEWER INJECTION SYSTEM DETAILS. CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 1110. 15_ PROVIDE SURVEY STAKES PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION TO VERIFY LOT LINES. 16. PROVIDE A PRESSURE ABSORBING DEVICES OR APPROVED MECHANICAL DEVICES ARE REQUIRED ON WATER LINES, LOCATED AS CL05E AS P0551BLE TO QUICK ACTING VALVES, THAT WILL ABSORB HIGH PRESSURES RESULTING FROM QUICK CLOSING OF QUICK -ACTING VALVES. CPC 6ECTION609.10 PUBLIC WORK NOTES 4 CONDITIONS: 1. A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITIES ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED- • REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE. • PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 6" LATERAL. • ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITYWATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION. • ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'5 RIGHT OF WAY. 2. THE SANITARY SEWER LATERAL (BUILDING SEWER) SHALL BE TESTED PER ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 15.12. TESTING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT COUNTER AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WHENEVER THE CITY'S PORTION OF THE SEWER LATERAL OR CITY CLEANOUT IS TO BE LAID AND/OR CONNECTED TO THE SEWER MAINS. 3. SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATION 15 REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW SEWER FIXTURE PER ORDINANCE NO.1110, 4, ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE PROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. CONTACT THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT FOR CONNECTION FEES. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. 5, A SURVEY BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER IS REQUIRED. THE SURVEY SHALL SHOW HOW THE PROPERTY LINES WERE DETERMINED AND THAT THE PROPERTY CORNERS WERE SET WITH SURVEYORS LICENSE NUMBER60N DURABLE MONUMENTS. THIS SURVEY SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. ALL CORNERS NEED TO BE MAINTAINED OR REINSTALLED BEFORE THE BUILDING FINAL. ALL PROPERTY CORNER5 SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION OR RE-ESTABLISHED AT THE END OF THE PROJECT. 6. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 15 REQUIRED FOR ANY WOW IN THE CITY'5 RIGHT-OF-WAY. 1, CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING USE SHALL CONFORM TO CONDITIONS AS DE5GRIBED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. 8. THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY'5 NPDE5 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT STORM WATER POLLUTION. 9. NEW DRIVEWAY OR DRIVEWAY WIDENING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER SHOW DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY OPENING TO THE CLOSEST ADJACENT DRIVEWAY ON SITE PLAN. 11. NO STOW WATERS, UNDERGROUND WATERS DRAINING FROM ANY LOT, BUILDING, OR PAVED AREAS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO DRAIN TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES NOR SHALL THESE WATERS BE CONNECTED TO THE CITY'5 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. THESE WATERS SHALL ALL DRAIN TO EITHER ARTIFICIAL OR NATURAL STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES BY GRAVITY OR PUMPING REGARDLESS OF THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY." MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.08.010 (1). • STORM WATER SHALL BE DRAINED THROUGH A CURB DRAIN OR TO THE STOW DRAINAGE SYSTEM. SEE CITY STANDARDS FOR CURB DRAIN DESIGN. • FLOOD ZONE 'C' REQUIRES FLOOD ZONE CONFIRMATION AND/OR PROTECTION OF HABITABLE SPACE. • PROVIDE ELEVATIONS TO CONFIRM DRAINAGE AND 51TE DESIGN. 12. NEW DRIVEWAY OR DRIVEWAY WIDENING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER SHOW DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY OPENING TO THE CLOSEST ADJACENT DRIVEWAY ON SITE PLAN. TABLE NO. A-111-A-1 FIRE SPRINKLER MINIMUM REQUIRED FIRE FLOW 4 FLOW DURATION BUILDINGS DOMESTIC WATER MGV LEGEND= WM - WATER METER V - VALVE DCV - DOUBLE CHECK VALVE WM MCv - MAIN CONTROL VALVE BFD - BACK FLOW PREVENTION DEVICE -W- - WATER LINE 1-1/4"0 TYP, 1, PROVIDE A BACFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE - U5C APPROVED DOUBLE CHECK VALVE A55EM5LY_ 2, CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THE DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE TESTED AND APPROVED BY A SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVED CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO SCHEDULING WATER DEPARTMENT FINAL. 3, PROVIDE ADEQUATE FIRE FLOW BASED UPON CONSTRUCTION AND SIZE OF BUILDING, SEE UFC APPENDIX IIIA. 5Q4 MAT I l; UJA NOT TO 5CALE DRAINAGE NOTES= FAJ RAINWATER COLLECTION ALL NEW ROOF RAINWATER SHALL BE COLLECTED BY MEANS OF GALVANIZED METAL GUTTERS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, LOCATED AT THE EAVES. PAINT TO MATCH COLOR SCHEME OF RESIDENCE. GUTTER SHALL LEAD TO 2" X 4" RECTANGULAR METAL DOWNSPOUTS OR DOWNSPOUTS TO MATCH EXISTING AND/OR COPPER RAINWATER LEADER DOWNSPOUTS SHALL TERMINATE BELOW GRADE TO A PERIMETER 4" DIAMETER A55 SOLID DRAINPIPE. RUN 4" DIAMETER (OR SIZE AS NOTED ON SITE PLAN) SOLID PIPE THROUGH FACE OF CURB SO THAT WATER WILL EMPTY INTO THE STREET GUTTER SYSTEM. SLOPE ALL PIPES FOR ADEQUATE DRAINAGE. INSURE THAT THE LOCATION CHOSEN FOR THE PIPE TO GO THROUGH THE FACE OF CURB 15 ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE WATER FROM THE SITE TO A CITY MAINTAINED WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM. IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES THE WATER MAY FLOW TO THE STREET BY GRAVITY METHOD PROVIDED THERE IS SUFFICIENT GRADE TO INSURE FLOW TO THE STREET GUTTER AND THAT WATER DOES NOT FLOW ONTO ADJOINING PROPERTIES. SUMP PUMP MAY BE REQUIRED (SEE SITE PLAN) IF THE GRAVITY METHOD OF DRAINAGE CANNOT BE USED, PROVIDE A SUMP PUMP OF ADEQUATE 51ZE TO CARRY ALL WATER THROUGH A 2" DIAMETER A55 PIPE THROUGH THE FACE OF THE CURB SO THAT THE WATER WILL EMPTY INTO THE GUTTER SYSTEM. INSURE THAT THE LOCATION CHOSEN FOR THE PIPE TO GO THROUGH THE FACE OF CURB IS ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE WATER FROM THE SITE TO A CITY MAINTAINED WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM. PROVIDE A BACKFLOW PREVENTER/DEVICE AT A LOCATION NEAR THE TERMINATION OF THE SOLID PIPE THROUGH THE FACE OF CURB AS REQUIRED TO PREVENT RAINWATER FROM THE GUTTER SYSTEM ENTERING THE SUMP PUMP SYSTEM. SUMP PUMP AT A MINIMUM SHALL BE A 1/4 HP AUTOMATIC SUBMERSIBLE SUMP PUMP WITH PERFORMANCES AS LISTED BELOW (MINIMUM). INSTALL AS PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. DISCHARGE FEET OF HEAD 5 ID 15 PERFORMANCE (GALLONS PER HOUR) 2250 1620 660 SUMP PIT- INSTALL PUMP IN SUMP PIT (CATCH BASIN) WITH THE MINIMUM CLEARANCES AND DEPTHS AS PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. FIRE NOTES CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN SEPARATE FIRE SPRINKLER PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11-04-030 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE. THE MINIMUM SIZE SERVICE FOR FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL CONFORMS TO NFPA 13 OR 13R 15 2"_ FOR NFPA 130 SYSTEMS THE MINIMUM 51ZE 15 1" FIRE SPRINKLER SHOP DRAWINGS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE BURLINGAME FIRE DEPARTMENT AT 1399 ROLLINS ROAD, BURLINGAME ONLY AFTER FIRE SPRINKLER UNDERGROUNDS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE BURLINGAME BUILDING DEPARTMENT. NOTES: I. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE MEASURES TO AVOID EROSION OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE SITE AND FLOWING INTO THE STREET, CURB OR GUTTER (USE STRAW WADDLES) 2. REPLACE DAMAGED OR DISPLACED CURB, GUTTER AND/OR SIDEWALK ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE. A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 15 REQUIRED. 3_ THE SANITARY SEWER LATERAL (BUILDING SEWER) SHALL BE TESTED PER ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 15.12. TESTING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT COUNTER AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 15 REQUIRED FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WHENEVER THE CITY'5 PORTION OF THE SEWER LATERAL OR CITY CLEANOUT IS TO BE LAID AND/OR CONNECTED TO THE SEWER MAINS. 4. NEW DRIVEWAY OR DRIVEWAY WIDENING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER SHOW DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY OPENING TO THE CLOSEST ADJACENT DRIVEWAY ON SITE PLAN. 5. A PROPERTY SURVEY 15 REQUIRED IF ANY PART OF PERMANENT STRUCTURE INCLUDING FOOTING IS WITHIN 12" OF PROPERTY LINE. FIRE AREA (square feet) FIRE FLOW (gallons per minute) FLOW DURATION X0.0929 for m2 (hours) Type I-F.R. Type II One-HR. Type IV-H.T. Type II-N II-N1 Type V-N1 x 3 .785 for II-F.R.1 Ill One-HRA V-One-Hr.1 Umin. 0-22,700 0-12,700 0-8,200 0-5,900 0-3,600 1,500 22,701-30,200 12,701-17,000 8,201-10,900 5,901-7,900 3,601-4,800 1,750 30,201-38,700 17,001-21,800 10,901-12,900 7,901-9.800 4,801-6,200 2,000 2 38,701-48,300 21,801-24,200 12,901-17,400 9,801-12,600 6,201-7,700 2,250 48,301-59,000 24,201-33,200 17,401-21,300 12,601-15,400 7,701-9,400 2,500 59,001-70,900 33,201-39,700 21,301-25,500 15,401-18,400 9,401-11,300 2,750 70,901-83,700 39,701-47,100 25,501-30,100 18,401-21,800 11,301-13,400 3,060 83,701-97,700 47,101-54,900 30,101-35,200 21,801-25,900 13,401-15,600 3,250 3 97,701-112,700 54,901-63,400 35,201-40,600 25,901-29,300 15,601-18,000 3,500 112,701-128,700 63,401-72,400 40,601-46,400 29,301-33,500 18,001-20,600 3,750 128,701-145,900 72,401-82,100 46,401-52,500 33,501-37,900 20,601-23,300 4,000 145,901-164,200 82,101-92,400 52,501-59,100 37,901-42,700 23,301-26,300 4,250 164,201-1;83,400 92,401-103,100 59,101-66,000 42,701-47,700 26,301-29,300 4,500 183,401-203,700 103,101-114,600 66,001-73,300 47,701-53,000 29,301-32,600 4,750 203,701-225,200 114,601-126,700 73,301-81,100 53,001-58,600 32,601-36,000 5,000 225,201-247,700 126,701-139,400 81,101-89,200 58,601-65,400 36,001-39,600 5,250 247,701-271,200 139,401-152,600 89,201-97,700 65,401-70,600 39,601-43,400 5,500 271,201-295,900 152,601-166,500 97,701-106,500 70,601-77,000 43,40147,400 5,750 295,901-Greater 166,601-Greater 106,501-115,800 77,001-83,700 47,401-51,500 6,000 4 " 115,801-125,500 83,701-90,600 51,501-55,700 6,250 " 125,501-135,500 90,601-97,900 55,701-60,200 6,500 " 135,501-145,800 97,901-106,800 60,201-64,800 6,750 " 145,801-156,700 106,801-113,200 64,801-69,600 7,000 " 156,701-167,900 113,201-121,300 69,601-74,600 7,250 " 167,901-179,400 121,301-129,600 74,601-79,800 7,500 " 179,401-191,400 129,601-138,300 79,801-85,100 7,750 " 191,401-Greater 128,301-Greater 85,101-Greater 8,000 NOTE: 1'-0" SIDE SETBACK (E) GARAGE TO BE REMOVED (E) ASPHALT PATH TO BE REMOVED NOTE-- 1, EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS LESS THAN 5 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED A5 A 1-HR FIRE RESISTIVE ASSEMBLY. 20T3.CBCl TABLE 602. 2, ROOF EAVES WILL NL� l PROJECT WITHIN 2 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. (N) 6'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCIN($ PLUS 12" LATTIC� ADJACENT NEIGHBOR I (N) UNIT PAVERS( (E) BRICK CURB TO BE REMOVED (E) BRICK PORCHI TO BE REMOVEDI li m 96.60 (2 )9"BIRCH n A REMOVE / REPLACE UTILITIES ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 15 REQUIRED TO (U REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE, (2) PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL, (3) ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION, (4) ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'5 RIGHT -OF -WAY - 1'-0" REAR SETBACK lilt■ jib 10 FFA MAN PIANO ■�i� jib ji 9220 l I T.o_C_ / 9' - DRI WAY .........................I .......... 7. ....... .... ... ........ 1: ..........[.......L.... �. - -_� .......1.. - - ..... . . . .......- ....... .❑L 1 . .. I ...................................... .............. ....................r ........... ............... L....1....................... ............................................. ..........1 ..................................................... l......#........ l L J .......... 1 NEW. �6I. . ENCE.............. f� ............................. ......... FFL.EL . 100-00.............*....... .........................I . . .... ..... .. ..... .. .. .................. .......................... ........................................................................ .... . L 5 1-2 TYP ................................ .. . .. .... .. ........ 1........................................... .................................. ......T.I... .............. ............1 :: ................................................I... ............� 1..... ......... ::.::::.::::::::.:::.:.:::.:.:::.:.:::.:.::I::: 1 ... �. �.. 0 1/2 .............................. ::...... ........... ......... 1 .1................: .. .. L IDE TBAC - .. ..::.. .... ...... ............ J❑ I I ................r. f................ r....1 �� 1I ❑ 1� C ......:...:C1 ()i" le -_ - --1 ------� I 96.58 m 95 N LU LAWN z 9550 LAWN I 9250 N55 0 - 50,02' I (E) 1I 3"TREE U VANCOUVER SIDEWALK MAX. 36" HT STONE WAEC AVENUE (N) 4" SEWER LATERAL TO CITY CLEANOUT PER CITY 5TD5. (E) CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED - -(E) CONCRETE PATH TO BE REMOVED I I (E) RESIDENCE TO BE REMOVED I I (E) ASPHALT PAD TO BE REMOVED W I E � I � I � I 95.11 r_. d ADJACENT NEIGHBOR BUILDING 5ET5,4CK I I ADDRESS, 1315 SETBACK- 't 1311 01 21A' 1321 25.2' 1325 25.2' 1329 23.1' U 1333 225 r Z 1331 163' ILL - 1541-(-6IT€)- - 23.1' 1345 213' _ 1349 (SITE) 21.8' w 1353 225' 1351 23-0' 1361 i365 243' 1369 25�' 24.9' 1313 18.9' 1311 222' 1383 22.1' AVERAGE SETBACK = 22A' (501 R/W) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCALE: 1/8'=1'-0" N REVISIONS BY 9%7%1N7 0 PU U � O Z �D ocoo Z� NN �OMM ^W ~ 7:$ ,zt 1,c � �I w Y a> c! >~ un z Q 5 =z8 w UO d Q C, w 7 a o 3 Q o o w a> w I� Zs O o 3 t�l $�� Y a> o 50 a.) o a> .3 C. O 03 9 v' U H c's 3 -� as W W� �N w�W OC z� z N DATE: JUNE 2017 SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWN: PU JOB: SHEET NO. A.2 OF SHEETS T.0 PERIMETER WOOD FENCE BATTER ANGLE on M= vooT n o" MAX HE STACKED STC 8x10 TO 12x' BASE STONE 16x16 COMPACTED SUBGRADE STONE WALL DRY -STACK NTS NITS c6 PT )ST ANCHOR NISH GRADE FOOTING STEEL VERT IFORCEMENT .. CROSSBARS WOOD FENCE, 6' HIGH SOLID PLUS 12" LATTICE. SEE DETAIL 1 WINZOI O] UNIT PAVER DRIVEWAY a ADJACENT NEIGHBOR UNIT PAVER DRIVEWAY 7' H FENCE > - - - - 4' H FENCE cYJ3"BIRCH O I2"TREE O GARDEN COMPOST BIN Garage BARK CHIPS n u Lawn O 0 11 0o ep \ �-" HEMER ". a ALY H E p6MEN ■n■:n■n ■■■■n_�i Lawn 3'TREE Lawn HEMER CONCRETE PATIO LAV ASS SOLID WOOD FENCE THIGH ADJACENT NEIGHBOR STEPPING STONES X `I `STONE WALL q HEUCH CONCRETE X HIGH EXISTING GRASS STEPS KOE BIP STRIP TO REMAIN VANCOUVER AVENUE Planting Plan - N 7' H FENCE 4' H FENCE BUXUS Plant List 6/30/17 No. Botanical Name Common Name Qt ' Size Plant Type BET PEN Betula pendula European White Birch 1 24" Box Dec. Tree GIN BIL Gingko biloba Maidenhair Tree 1 24" Box Dec. Tree CITRUS Citrus - Orange Orange Tree' 1 24" Box Fruit Tree ALY HUE Alyogyne hue elli Blue Hibiscus 5 Gal Ev n Shrub ARIST Aristida purpurea Three Awn Grass 1 Gal Clumping Grass v.'Atro ur urea' BUXUS Buxus micro h Ila japonica Green Beauty 1 Gal Ev n Shrub 'Green Beauty' Boxwood COL PUL Coleonema pulchrurn Pink Breath of Heaven 5 Gal Ev n Shrub EUP RIG Eu horbia ri ida Gopher Spurge 1 Gal Clumping Grass GREW Grewia occidentalis Lavender Starflower 15 Gal Espalier Ev n Shrub HEMER Hemerocallis'Yellow' Daylily 1 Gal Ev nShrub HEUCH Heuchera "Opal' Opal Coral Bells 1 Gal Perennial ESCA RUB Escallonia rubra Red Escallonia 1 Gal Ev n Shrub LAV ASS Lavatera assur entifolia Tree Mallow 5 Gal Ev n Shrub LOROP Loro etalum'Razzleberri' Chinese Loro etalum 5 Gal Ev. Shrub/ small PHOR Phormium 'Pink Stripe' Flax 5 Gal Ev n Shrub PIT TOB Pittos orum tobira Variegated Japanese 5 Gal Ev n Shrub TUL VIO Tulbha is violacea Society Garlic 1 Gal Perennial GEL SEM Gelsemium sem ewirens Carolina Jasmine 5 Gal Ev n Vine BIG CAR Bi nonia ca reolata Cross Vine 15 Gal Ev n Vine Tan erine Beauty' Note: Contractor to verify quantities PLANTING NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UNDERGROUND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION PRIOR TO EXCAVATION AND GRADING. 2. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE CLEARED OF WEEDS AND OTHER DEBRIS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH THE OWNER WHICH EXISTING PLANTS ARE TO REMAIN. EXISTING PLANTS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH OWNER PRIOR TO REMOVAL. ALL IVY IN PROJECT AREA SHALL BE REMOVED; IVY SHALL BE SPRAYED WITH HERBICIDE TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO REMOVAL. 3. SOIL TESTING SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE CONTRACTOR, AND PERFORMED BY A CERTIFIED LABORATORY. A COPY OF THE REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS AND FERTILIZATION SHALL REFLECT THE NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFIED PLANT SPECIES. 4. SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS SUCH AS LITTER, BROKEN CLAY POTS, AND OTHER FOREIGN MATERIAL. ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH DIAMETER WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING CONTENT: REDWOOD NITRIFIED COMPOST 40%, COARSE SAND 30%, BLACK TOPSOIL 30%. S. PLANT HOLES SHALL BE DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THE CONTAINER (generally). THE WALLS AND BASES OF PLANT HOLES SHALL BE SCARIFIED. HOLES SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH THE FOLLOWING MIXTURE: 80%TO 20% IMPORTED SOIL TO EXISTING SOIL. 6. SOIL BERMS SHALL BE FORMED AROUND ALL PLANTS 1 GALLON SIZE AND LARGER. BASINS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH A 3" LAYER OF BARK CHIPS, MINIMUM OF V IN SIZE. PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A THREE INCH LAYER OF BARK CHIPS. 7. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FERTILIZED. FERTILIZER SHALL BE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE TYPE, AGRIFORM OR EQUIVALENT. APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. RESIDUAL WEED PRE -EMERGENT SHALL BE APPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR. APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. S. TREES SHALL BE STAKED WITH TWO PRESSURE TREATED 2" DIAMETER POLES. TREE TRUNK SHALL BE SECURED WITH TWO RUBBER TIES OR STRAPS FORMING A FIGURE -EIGHT BETWEEN TRUNK AND STAKE. Bruce A. Chan Landscape Architect CA Lie. # 002324 923 Arguello Street, Suite 200 Redwood City, California 94063 Tel (650)346-7645 Fax (650)367-8139 Email: bacla@sbcglobal.net Landscape Architecture Environmental Design Site Planning TITLE Landscape Plan REVISIONS Date Notes 09-7-17 Add street tree, modify notes to Wes height PROJECT#: DATE: 07-5-17 rTTTTIF-MIIIrTTTT I I I I I r-M I I I rTTTT I rTI I I I rTTTT I I I I I ITT I I I rTTTI I ITT I I I r_TTl I rTI I I I rTTTT I I I I I m I II rTTTTI m I I I rTTTI I I I I I ITT 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 16 m m N m m m n N .N M <o u N ac a W u w % se m m N ee 0 ro n N w n 111 9 N a: N 0 m N m m Im ,m ,N ,m ,N lie in 134 716 111 ,m SHEET #: L 1 A Item No. 9b Design Review Study PROJECT LOCATION 305 Burlingame Avenue City of Burlingame Design Review Item No. 9b Design Review Study Address: 305 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. Applicant: Danny Meredith Designer: Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group Property Owner: Helen Cook General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 029-262-030 Lot Area: 4,720 SF Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with a substandard lot area and street frontage (C.S. 25.08.455). The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a new detached garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 2,970 SF (0.63 FAR) where 3,010 SF (0.64 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 40 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on -site. One covered parking space is provided in the detached garage (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Though the clear interior dimensions of the detached garage qualifies as a two -car garage, only one covered space is code compliant. The covered space at the left side does not have the minimum required 24-foot back-up area (15'-3" proposed) nor can a vehicle exit from this space within three maneuvers or less based on the parking template used bythe Planning Division. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: Design Review for anew single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(1)); 305 Burlingame Avenue Dui Size: 4,720 Sr Flans date stamped: September 11, 2017 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1s' fir): -- ---- .......... .. -- 15 -0" ............................. . -. ... . . ......... - 15 -0" (2nd fir): _ _... _......... 23'-6" ............... _............ - -- 20'-0" Side (left): ---._.._-.-.-.-..-------_----.-..-.-........-.-.-.-.-.-..------- 6'-4" -------------------- --- - - 4'-0" - ... (right): 11'-8" 4'-0" .--------......... .... Rear (131 fir): ...- ----- ------------ _— ----------------- 37 -0" _ :.--._ . ---- - 15 -0" (2"" flr): --........................ - - --- 34'-6" 20'-0" Lot Coverage. ------- -... ----------------- ------....................... 1848 SF _.......... --- .............. ........ .-- ----- ---- ------ _- ..-. 1888 SF - ----- 39.2% -- - -.-.. __ ---- ---40% FAR: 2970 SF ......... —--- -------- ---------- ------------------ --------- 3010 SF 0.63 FAR 0.64 FAR l (0.32 x 4720 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3010 SF (0.64 FAR) Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue 305 Burlingame Avenue Lot Size: 4,720 SF Plans date stamped. September 11, 2017 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D # of bedrooms: 4 ............I _ .. ........ --__ ......... - ._ .... ........ ......... ... ........... .. . . ... . ................. - --- --- -............ ... Off -Street Parking: 1 covered (20' x 20' clear interior) 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height 27 9" 30-_0-- DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks and Stormwater Divisions. 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. Danny Meredith, applicant Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group, designer Helen Cook, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing - Mailed September 29, 2017 Aerial Photo VA euE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application ❑ Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: > l L` �. Ira(C2 f o)0(2 r 3Q�IL APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: / ��/= i? f� N Name: /r ! F x( Address: `O- S A1, C t_iX&-.1kxd '4 Address: ) City/State/Zip: �g � 1 ! / I )c r� C��f / ���C City/State/Zip: 113 c) i 1 ii 41 R1-),,Y1C (/) 2�&Q Phone:T / Phone:_ } C>-- J �AA E-mail: I.Jia�V=1�L1)1�ft �. (�`(C'�i"l��lS�//tl E-mail: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: J_i)i")Ir= ��P.� 1)r) Address: / 1A I Il- It t< K'C;l/),) City/State/Zip: i'3c(-IY^I %>) J�o/li` Phone: t��� 7 (, 3 — / E-mail: . tic (wl_,_J1y wet Burlingame Business License #: RECEIVED _.-., 27 (.noI CITY OF BURLIINGAME CDD-PLC NINM' DIV Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part`t anning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action III\ (Initials of Arch itect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: i Gam✓ yb UG ��CX>'1 �"c ;f� 1�C "�,<I i< rl a�'av) �•� vhl<)Cj n' AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby best of my knowledge and belief of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the Applicant's signature; r '' � � Date: `7 _- J I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. )) r Property owner's signatureb//—�,, G4g-K. e �—. Date: , �� C�Uri Date submitted: S:IHA NDOUTSI PC Application. doc Project Address: Description: From: Project Comments - Planning Application 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-030 Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling. Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: W pFeYeAt StBFFA wateF Funeg eAte adjacent ffepeAdes, show a dFainage system design. N9AewsteFmruAe4isa49we4 2. No further comments. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 3. Based on the scope of work, this is a "Type I" project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). 4. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 5. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 6. A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit is required to (1) replace all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site, (2) plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and install a new 4" lateral, (3) all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city's right-of-way. 7. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 8. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 9. A survey by a licensed surveyor or engineer is required. The survey shall show how the property lines were determined and that the property corners were set with surveyors license numbers on durable monuments. This survey shall be attached to the construction plans. All corners need to be maintained or reinstalled before the building final. All property corners shall be maintained during construction or reestablished at the end of the project. 10. Please submit an erosion control plan. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. 11. Insert the 'Best Management Practices', updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/sites/default/files/Countywide%2OProgram%20BMP%20PIan%20Sheet- June%202014%20UPdate.Ddf#overlav-context=brochures orhttp://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click "construction bmP Plan sheet" Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 8/24/17 Project Address: Description: From: Project Comments - Planning Application 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-030 Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling. Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comment The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 17) On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work. 18) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: August 22, 2017 650 558-7270 Project Address: Description: From Project Comments - Planning Application 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-030 Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling. Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal: Provide a residential fire sprinkler system throughout the residence: a. Provide a 1-inch water meter or size to accommodate sprinkler system flow demand. b. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly —A schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building permit plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. c. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate fire sprinklers shall be installed under a separate deferred fire permit, approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 2. If an electronic gate crosses the driveway, provide a Knox key switch connected to the gate to allow for fire department emergency access. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 7-6-17 650-558-7617 RSIRLINfjFME Project Comments - Project Address: 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-030 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. Private Protected Tree Removal Permit required for removal of palm tree once project is approved. 2. Water Conservation Checklist (attached) must be submitted for review. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Irrigation plan shall include name of controller, valves, drip system etc. and be on separate sheet. Due for Building Permit. 2. Existing City owned Eucalyptus trees may be removed pending ongoing independent arborist evaluations. Park Division (558-7330) will notify homeowner via US Mail on any necessary removals. Reviewed By: BD Date: 8.30.17 650.558.7333 Bdisco@burlingame.org Project Address: Description: From: Project Comments - Planning Application 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-030 Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling. Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Project does not create or replace 2,500 square feet of impervious surface or use architectural copper. Nothing further needed at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolyn.critz(@veolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: July 13, 2017 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 � o 0 Cc:) m Z o c a-)o coo.c y Q-' a ° o _0 coi � m Q W o. 91 o c W C) 3 a` E .2 E _ - V 0 a) o a o_-o c Y —Z CoRmr_a`) `o cca J a E : s m T C N N o �-- 0 CD E� ° m aai g Ln a a) o a) N N QZ 0co W 0 Na �U C O. C .0 o O_ af M rn y o O LO W Q C O U 0 o ccO O C) o O Z m y o= N> (moo EO C C U L1) 0 0 2 co O U W ."O N o p xxQQ (. N WE plL '�" O 3 Q yr CL QO >� ..L. m U <joQom z "a— o� C� a)�E ��•� o aiu E a a z o f n o o'� L) .;-- or o D� 0� �n rn W c F .�_.. V y ca C) w y Ci n3 O 0 coCE m Q' Q G i C V ti 7 U V N .N 0 i C ` O- ���Zo�Qo(i ocL 3V) o ° ac�Vo .o t9 E .c rn c of o a cL:S a) a) ' C o � O '- � 2 c a� c c a M c a7 O L -r- o a) N 0 O) U U u�i m a C_ m c o a m w m,C T.0 O- 3 o o 0.0 0 owo � m c-om CL O 0L0 o Ttoo m'o o O)Qp 1•�.a E E - E C C co Co Qw� w (`6'O O. d LL >U m a W c.) 0 Z 0 i' a W C) J a 11 rr s n air C. IN r r low inns`-�' `t £` a fI �. � f o !r , I n n' e rr r, r •Ln% � �► lP C. n y- 9 rt' '�C � i • P •i r' N4b O eel 1S^d, ell M1nO ` 1v `�V/ `61 rr �•pr ,•'r i �_9• P/ r r •`r B 15 r rC- �o !yr • -!5 006 jelr , lb b. 1 i t� - • [• r O CEO — v i n5 NP�/' •'• �bO +N LCP P b i r b, Z V f.�f, avc 0r nb vse a � • . 5. s s c • at arI�a 9 9 F • i ti e` 'C CL C• �C 0 77 2 ar- a,_ C ti DECLINING HT. ENVELOPE, TYP. MAX. BLDG. HT. ❑ 30' FROM REF.T.O.C. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I I I I 1'-6" MAX. ROOF ; TOP OF RIDGE LINE EL.❑ 34.75' EAVE,TYP. i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ...I. I . I / / / / 2ND FLR. LINE EL. 18.50' ------------- I I I I I I I I I AVG. PL. EL. 7.25' REF. AVG. T.O.C. EL 7.00' nil I■ � Q QI■� --- ■.■■■■■■■■■■1 �L F 0 W-1 1 RONT ELEVATION Scale: 1/4 1'-0" ti COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. CEMENT PLASTER FINISH, TYP. DBL. GLAZED VINYL WINDOWS W/ SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES, TYP. COPPER CHIMNEY HOOD PAINTED WOOD LOUVER W/ SCREEN, TYP. PAINTED GSM GUTTER DOWNSPOUT, TYP. I I I � l\ BOX BAY WINDOW 450 \ TYP. \`\ PENDANT NO -GLARE EXT. LIGHT FIXT. O N � F.F. EL. 9.00' 11'-8" STONE -CUT ON CEMENT PLASTER FIN. BEVEL, TYP. STAINED SOLID WOOD DR. D-1 W/ SIDE LITES, TYP. TOP OF RIDGE LINE EL. ❑ 34.75' O a ❑a _ D-3 0 REAR EL 0' 5' 10' 2 0' SCALE: 1/4 1'_o" AVG. PL. EL. 7.28' 0 TYP. WINDOW TRIM: �2 1X4 PAINTED WD. TOP 1X2 PAINTED WD. SIDES FR. 2X PAINTED WD. SILL 1X2 PAINTED WD. BELOW TOP OF RIDGE LINE EL.❑ 34.75' E TOP OF PLATE EL.I 26.5' O� O� Cw_ ❑ ❑ O O ❑ ❑ - ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CDbo m0 N 11111111111111111144FY' ------------------------------ ---------------------------- L �� I :' SECOND FLOOR LINE EL.I 18.5' ------------------------------------------------------------- 1ST FLR. CEILING EL. 17.5' O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■■■■ OI■ � OI■I � ■■■ I■ � Q ■■■■ ��� ■■■■ M■■ • LINE REF. 0-) D.S., TYP. D-2 W-1 FIRST FLOOR LINE EL.❑ 9.00' O N � RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4 : V-0" EVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION Style: 1/4 : 1'-0" � Scale: 1/9 : 1'-0" INDICATES EGRESS WINDOW, TYP. AVG. T.O.C. EL. 7.00' TOP OF RIDGE LINE EL.❑ 34.75' TOP OF PLATE EL.I 26.5' SECOND FLOOR LINE EL.❑ 18.5' 1ST FLR. CEILING EL. 17.5' LINE REF. FIRST FLOOR LINE EL. ❑ 9.00' 0 N AVG. T.O.C. EL. 7.00' SHEET NOTES: 1. REFER TO SHT. A-2 FOR ELEVATION ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGI AND PARTIAL DOOR ❑ WINDOW SCHEDULE REVISIONS BY 15 AUG. 2017 RW PER 2ND REVIEW RW 30 AUG. 2017 o F cfl 0 o � o E � Q F � U w -0 w Q Z U' 0 z Q J � � m C)CD w uj _ D = cn U � Q°Lo � o Jrl- o ❑ 2E 00 a `moo BPS � UQP C) 7 O Q Q N � U p U � LL y o oa 0 C 0 Z Z U U 0] (!l Z O Q w a 0 w O Q Wo 91wW-�wz w w W w U= w W w 0 w o W o z a p 0 o z0 z3 o Q CooWwo�=QzQ W 2 X� Z z 0 w 0 O w 1 m 8 } (_ w w w a 0 < 5= o a Q Z s w1= W U w } � 0 0 _ w z w Q w :2Y L LI (D O U z0 Z J Z Lu E) -i 0 CO o Co L Lj z O Q w z L1] U 0 z Jo oz '_ z Q� °oFz w> z LLI Q~wLLj J O JL>LIpw U W J &5 9 w w z�=F- �w�w z:LU DATE: 22 JUN. 2017 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN: R.W. JOB: 17:0302 SHEET NO.: 4 A- 3 COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. 1 HR. FIRE RATED W/ 1" RWD. SIDING ASSEMBLY, TYP. CEMENT PLASTER FIN., TYP. WALL HUNG NO -GLARE EXT. LIGHT FIXT., TYP. molimmilmolimm mimimm mimimim 0 FRONT ELEVATION Scale: 1/4 : V-0" 0 REAR ELEVATION Scale: 1/4 : V-0" 0' 5' 10' 20' SCALE: 1/499-19-0" FAMILY KITCHEN 0 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4 : V-0" 02 SECTION A -A Scale: iia : i•-o•• TOP OF RIDGE LINE EL. ❑22.58' N CO 1ST CEILING LINE EL.❑ 16.41' GARAGE LEVEL EL. ❑ 7.91' (E) GRADE LINE 411 @ GARAGE EL. 7.58' T(1D ()G Qlfl(,G 1 IKIG M 100 r'Q' [� VHKHI�t tL. /.5t5� � LEFT SIDE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4 : V-0" E PROPERTY LINT O z U LLJ p Qo 0 TOP OF RIDGE LINE EL. ❑ 34.75' TOP OF PLATE EL. L 26.5' O - -I m 00 Lo N SECOND FLOOR LINE EL.❑ 18.5' ------------------------------------ 1ST FLR.CEILING LINE EL.I 17.5' Co FIRST FLOOR LINE EL. 9.00' 0 N REF. T.O.C. EL. 7.00' 1 HR. FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY Er10 \A/AI 1 Q -11 nn COr1KA TUC O 1 0 FLOOR PLAN � Scale: 1/4 : 1'-0" REVISIONS BY 15 AUG. 2017 RW PER 2ND REVIEW RW 30 AUG. 2017 Co E O F cfl � o � o E Q F � U W W Q Z CD ZQ J Z) W m H (-0 O U W LU F — _ D = cn U d Q Lo - o J � T- O O Lo O _ O = 00 0- �o z P� 7 U Q j o LL y o oa 0 Z wvp O Q W a 0 w O Q W w w w~ n F z U_ Q w0 0 vj w a Z U U w W W U= W W W 0 w o W o z o a p 0 z`��o<z z3 n ><zw U)oWwo W X Z Z 0 W O O a 0 w w ��_ 0O d Q Z D H= W U w 2 } wU _ 0 r Q� D o w Z) z w Q w :2Y LLl (D O U z (-) Z J Z mw 0 o� W z O � Q w w U Z zJO z oz Q �zO �z Q�z OO W OJWW a0>QZ wW O LL J0W U ZWwJ&5p W W �QZ�=F- F- LU U�0Q LL EEw T- WQWW EE DATE: 22 JUN. 2017 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN: R.W. JOB: 17:0302 SHEET NO.: 5 A - 4 NEW RESIDENCE AT 305 BURLINGAME AVE 301 BURLINGAME AVE. 2 PARCELS CORNER CHANNING RD 305 BURLINGAME AVE. SUBJECT PROPERTY 315 BURLINGAME AVE. � NEIGHBOR PHOTOS 1 /�y Vzo• ' 1�f LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE O NORTH NO SCALE BURLINGAME AVE CORNER 240 STANLEY RD PROJECT DATA 1 2 LOT SIZE 4,720 SF FLOOR AREA: A. FIRST FLOOR - HABITABLE 1,347 SF FRONT PORCH 56 SERVICE ENTRY 11 FIRST FLOOR, GROSS 1,407 B. SECOND FLOOR, HABITABLE 1,162 C. DETACHED GARAGE 441 MAX LOT COVERAGE @ 40 I OF 4,720 1,888 FIRST FLR. GROSS + SECOND FLR. OVERHANG 1,442 INTERIOR LOT FAR MAX. @ (.32 x 4,720) + 1,100 2,610 DETACHED GARAGE 441 TOTAL INT. LOT FAR MAX. 3,010 A+B+C 3,010 SF ZONE R-1 TYPE OF CONST. TYPE V-N CODES DEVELOPMENT STANDARD OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CAE2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (WHERE APPLICABLE), 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE AND 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889 AMENDMENT TO 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE: WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS LESS THAN TEN (10) FEET FROM THE EXIT TERMINAL OF ANY NEWLY INSTALLED OR REPLACED HIGH EFFICIENCY MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, THE PIPE SIZE OF THE FINAL TEN (10) FEET OF ANY TERMINAL MUST BE INCREASED BY THREE (3) INCHES OR, AS AN ALTERNATIVE, MANUFACTURER BAFFLES MUST BE INSTALLED "CONSTRUCTION HOURS" WEEKDAYS: 8:00 AM - 7:00 PM SATURDAYS: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM SUNDAYS I HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED. DRAWING INDEX: A-1.0 NEIGHBOR PHOTOS A-4 SECTION A -A LOCATION MAP GARAGE ELEVATION VICINITY MAP FRONT ELEVATION PROJECT DATA REAR ELEVATION PROPOSED SITE PLAN RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION A-1.1 (E) SITE PLAN LEFT SIDE ELEVATION (N) ROOF/ SITE PLAN L-1 LANDSCAPING PLAN A-2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN IRRIGATION PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN DRAINAGE PLAN DOOR/WINDOW SCHEDULE ELEVATION ALLOWABLE WALL OPENING A-3 FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /8" =1 "-0" 24'-0" 46-0 %2" 21'-0" 1 1-0" O 0 0 REVISIONS BY 15 AUG. 2017 RW PER 2ND REVIEW RW 30 AUG. 2017 co ❑ CD Br O ❑ O 8 o ❑❑ Q IJ w b w Q Z c� o z J o Q � J � � m O � o U w LU _ D . = co U � o Q O Ln �o wr-- J p� � o= coM ° O Z�GP�PS U Q j Q o U CJ °v o o o w Ci p Z Z U U 0] (A Z O Q w a p w Q w w a w~ n F z d Z OU Q U U_ uj w a o U 0 w W o W o z a p p o Z U} U Z Z= co 0 w 10 T z w W X� Z_ Z p w 0 O w� m�>� w w w _ ~ a Q Z � _ w U w < > U �__ r Q � � o w z w Q w � Y LLJ (D O () z c) Z J Z Lu m w o Lr)= � co LL I z w Qz w v Z °o O z O Lu Q o z O 0� z 2 z U m 0} U Q w = —wa w(3U z pw O _U H = w �_ U) Z J > 0- U) DATE: 20 JUN. 2017 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN: R.W. JOB: 17:0302 SHEET NO.: 1 A-1.0 I LOT 6 LOT 24 APN 029-262-060 APN 029-262-230 BALDWIN JANET M HACKLEMAN P 8c HASELEU R TRUST I �o i o0 J' A- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 46.04' I S 48°24'38" W 46.04' 46.04' II I I I I it LOT 3 I APN 029-262-030 COOK FAMILY TRUST o P L A N T E R 46.04' SIDEWAL -sS— — — — — —— 48°29"09" E (280.21 ") 0 (E) SITE PLAN Scale: 1/8 : V-0" 0 5' 10' 2 0' 771 SCALE: 1 /8"=1'-0" I o-) I Issco�i0 10 ,I z I n Q 0 z_ moo= 0 N U o (ro (-D I Q (_0 0 � N � LOT 2 46.04' SIDEWALK — -s s— — LEGEND: A\ TANKLESS WATER HTR. @ EXT. KIT. WALL PER 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING MECHANICAL CODE B\ FORCED AIR UNIT @ ATTIC PER 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING —1 MECHANICAL CODE -- N 48°29'09" E (280.21') SHEET NOTES: 1.(E) SITE PLAN IS REFERENCED TO TOPOGRAPHIC MAP BY MISSION ENGINEER, INC. AS ATTACHED PLEASE NOTE: FOR ARCHITECTURAL CLARITY, NORTH OF OUR PLANS IS SHOWN POINTED DOWN, TYP. 2. WORK THE (N) ROOF/SITE PLAN W/ THE DRAINAGE PLAN / L-1 3. ROOF EAVES AS SHOWN ON THE (N) ROOF/SITE PLAN @1'-6" MAX TO FASCIA BD. WILL NOT PROJECT WITHIN TWO FT. OF THE PROPERTY LINE 4. A GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORK 5. ROOD EAVES WILL NOT PROJECT WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE �_CPN A2 ROOF/ SITE PLAN Scale: 1/8 : V-0" 0 8 REVISIONS BY 15 AUG. 2017 RW PER 2ND REVIEW RW 30 AUG. 2017 RF. PITCH INFO. RW 21 SEP. 2017 Co F Co � o c o E • aF U �w Lu ¢ Z c� Q J Z) � m F- (-0 o U u1 LU F — _ D 2 C/) U � ¢ rn �o LLJ J � _(.0 <Lo Lo 00 0- U Q j Q m co Q o LL y o oa 0 z wvp co Z U p Z U m (!l Z O Q w a p w O Q� w z w z 00 U_ Q U N o W o z a p p o zz3 n �o<z U)oWwo ><zw D W X Z Z UM w 0 p w m} 0 W w w a 0 W U w } wU _ w Z) z w Q w L LI (D O U z (-) Z J Z L LI =) -i 0 CO — Lr)= o L LI z o� � <z w C) ZJo z J d z z Q ~ O U LL w O � t O w U uwz DATE: 22 JUN. 2017 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN: R.W. JOB: 17:0302 SHEET NO.: 2 A-1.1 SIDEWALK WM ❑ EUCALYPTUS TREE EUCALYPTUS 0 TREE OH W BURS NGAME AVENUE LANDSCAPING PLAN Scale: 1/8 : V-0" 0 5' 10' 2 0' SCALE: 1 /8"=1'-0" w 0 ww z_w J Q �0 w ww O r� 0-80 0 w U� 0< J LL w U)> 0� w0 a a� SHEET NOTES: LANDSCAPING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE NEW "WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS" VM3 IRRIGATION PLAN_ PROPOSED GRAVEL BASIN STORMWATER RETENTION AREA 2 O z U w O NMI 1 , IDS LOW NEW GARAGE JB DS 7.34' z- IDS JB DS ' , I � I I I DS , " ;t DS JB ' 7.30 WM ❑, IS FAMILY KITCHEN EUCALYPTUS TREE 100 I OO �oo BEDROOM 4 HALL FOYER LIVING ENTRY PORCH DS WIN EUCALYPTUS TREE 0 OH W REF. T.O.C. EL. 7.00 BURS NGAME S 0 DOWNSPOUT, TYP. GRAVEL AROUND FRENCH DRAIN W/ 4"0 PIPE W/ PERFORATION FACING DOWN, TYP. o JB Al LANDSCAPING SYMBOLS: CALIFORNIA FESCUE ElSTAMPED CONC. DRIVEWAY FIN. imPAVER CONC. STEPPING STONES BARK (11) ABELIA EDWARD GOUCHER 5 GAL (1)GINGKO BILBOA 24 GAL (1) RED FLOWER MAPLE 24 GAL (5) KNIPHOFIA UVARIA 5 GAL (10) JUNIPERUS CHINESIS GOLD COAST 5 GAL (1)JAPANESE MAPLE 24 GAL IRRIGATION LEGEND: V1 (1) VM (1) VALVE MANIFOLD (VM) W/ ANITI-SIPON VALVES V1 (2) VM (2) VALVE MANIFOLD (VM) 'DIRECTION OF W/ ANITI-SIPON VALVES ; FLOW, TYP. V1 (3) VM (3) VALVE MANIFOLD (VM) W/ ANITI-SIPON VALVES V1 (4) VM (4) VALVE MANIFOLD (VM) W/ ANITI-SIPON VALVES 'JB V1 (5) VM (5) VALVE MANIFOLD (VM) W/ ANITI-SIPON VALVES 7.35 V1 (6) VM (6) VALVE MANIFOLD (VM) SIDEWALK W/ ANITI-SIPON VALVES SH1 - SPRINKLER HD W/ QTR RAND PATTERN SH2 - SPINKLER HD/ SQ. PATTERN EUCALYPTUS TUS D W1, D WY DH - TYP. SRIP HEAD PP HB - HOSE BIBB WITH NON -REMOVABLE BACK -FLOW DEVICE CWL - COLD WATER LINE AVENUE JB - JUNCTION BOX DRAINAGE PLAN Scale: 1/8 : V-0" DS - DOWNSPOUT REVISIONS BY 15 AUG. 2017 RW CO o ❑❑ c0 r O ❑ r 0 8 • U � � b w < Z c� ❑ Z J I Q� J � m O CD U r w H - D . _Co U Q O Q O Ln � o w ti J O� _ CO O o = CO 0 U QP � zz v R Q (o M Q Q U o U 0 O a O w Z U U W. O Z Z rp O Q W d O W O Q �WW2¢,Qw86aZ at2<mW I- It W 2 x� m w,L ww, % > LL J Q O -, � Z O O Z a 0 o to Z�� Z Z O W W O O X W W a m o>z (A W w W U o w Z a= 0 7 x O w W w W U d F w z w Q w � Y w Z 0 U ZJ Z I..I..I =) J 0 m w — L17 = co o W z o� w az W v z°o z Lu Q o Q o w Q ~ co z wo (D Z Q = Q C/) J DATE: 22 JUN. 2017 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN: R.W. JOB: 17:0302 SHEET L -1 4S 14 » c'r � • F �� ve, AilA -. °'.*' ♦ .'?. 'iy 1. .. .. QQyyyQQ��77��pp � q - i nu i Item No. 9c Design Review Study City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Variances Address: 1025 Capuchino Avenue and 1029 Capuchino Avenue Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Re-emerging Lots, Design Review and Front Setback Variances for construction of a new, two-story duplex on each lot and a detached garage on one lot. Applicant and Architect: TRG Architects APN: 026-214-050 Property Owner: Kurt Steil Lot Area: 9,275 SF (1025 Capuchino Avenue) 9,092 SF (1029 Capuchino Avenue) General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 Adjacent Development: Duplex and single-family dwellings. Current Use: Two detached units on one parcel consisting of two legal lots; (A total of 2 residential units on the site) Proposed Use: Duplex dwelling on each re-emerging lot; (A total of 2 duplexes or a total of 4 residential units on the site that was formerly one parcel) Allowable Use: Duplex and single-family dwellings Site Description: The site on Capuchino Avenue is a single, 18,367 SF parcel that consists of two legally subdivided lots that are roughly rectangular in shape. Lot 5 is located on the right side of the parcel and will be assigned the address of 1029 Capuchino Avenue. Lot 6 is on the left side of the parcel and will be assigned the address of 1025 Capuchino Avenue. There are several structures on the existing parcel, including two single-family residences and a detached garage. Two of these structures extend across the existing lot line between Lots 5 and 6, resulting in the de facto merging of the two lots. There is an existing underground culvert that runs across the parcel, extending from the front left (Northeast) corner of 1025 Capuchino Avenue to the rear, right (Southwest) corner of 1029 Capuchino Avenue. There is a ten foot Public Utilities Easement running across the rear of site, extending over both existing lots. Per the requirements of the Public Works Division, no permanent structures may be erected over the culvert or the easement. There are a total of 7 protected size trees on the parcel: 4 protected size trees on 1029 Capuchino (Lot 5), including 2 redwoods, 1 cedar and 1 cypress all at the rear of the lot; and 3 protected size trees on 1025 Capuchino (Lot 6), including 2 coast live oaks and 1 palm at the front of the lot. Conditional Use Permit: Code Section 25.26.030(e) requires a Conditional Use Permit application for the demolition of a residential structure or an accessory structure thereto, which structure is built over or across two (2) or more legally subdivided lots, and the construction of a structure upon one or more of said lots. The applicant has submitted the required Conditional Use Permit form (attached) for the demolition of the existing structures on the site. Project Summary: The applicant is proposing to demolish all of the existing structures on the site and build two new, two-story duplex units on the re-emerging lots. Each building consists of two attached units (a total of two units on each lot) and an attached garage, however each building will have a different exterior design style, roof forms, and architectural features. A detached two - car garage is also proposed in the rear of the lot at 1029 Capuchino Avenue (Lot 5). Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Variances 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue Front Setback Variances: The applicant is requesting three front setback variances for the proposed new buildings. The existing average front setback for the block is 34'-11" and the proposed development must comply with this setback both the first and second floors. The applicant is requesting two front setback variances to the duplex proposed at 1029 Capuchino Avenue (Lot 5). The proposed setback to the first floor is 15 feet and the proposed setback to the second floor is 20 feet. The applicant is requesting one front setback variance to the duplex proposed at 1025 Capuchino Avenue (Lot 6). The proposed setback to the first floor is 30'-10". The applicant notes in the variance request forms (attached) that the configuration of the buildings on the lot is restricted by several factors unique to the site, including the PUE at the rear of the lot, the existing protected size redwoods at the rear of the lot, and the underground culvert that traverses both lots. Off -Street Parking: The code requires 2.5 off-street parking spaces for each four or five -bedroom unit. There are a total of 5 parking spaces required for each re-emerging lot, and 4 of these parking spaces must be covered. The two units in the proposed duplex at 1029 Capuchino Avenue each have four bedrooms: 1 guest bedroom/den on the first floor and 3 bedrooms on the second floor of each unit. The 4 covered parking spaces for the site are provided in the attached two -car garage between the units and the in the detached two -car garage at the rear, left side of the lot. The fifth required parking space is uncovered and is located in the widened paving area in front of the detached garage and in tandem with the right covered parking space. The two units on the proposed duplex at 1025 Capuchino Avenue each have five bedrooms: 1 guest bedroom/den on the first floor and 4 bedrooms on the second floor of each unit. The 4 covered parking spaces for the site are provided in two attached two -car garages between the units. The fifth space is uncovered and is located to the left of the driveway at the side of Unit A. The project is in compliance with the off-street parking requirements. Vehicular ingress and egress to the garages will be by way of a driveway located along the right side of Lot 5 and along the left side of Lot 6. Landscaping: The existing site contains a total of 7 protected size trees, 5 of which are proposed to be removed. The two existing protected size redwood trees at the rear of 1029 Capuchino (Lot 5) are proposed to be remain. The applicant has submitted protected size tree removal permits to the City Arborist (see attached). The City Arborist requires that the permits be revised to reflect the location of the trees to be removed according to each re-emerging lot. A complete arborist report for the site will be required to address the protected size trees that will be removed and protection measures for those trees that will remain. Proposed landscaping and hardscaping throughout both sites is shown on sheets L1.0. The proposed landscaping for the project complies with the on -site reforestation requirements. Two existing street trees (liquidambar) will be removed in the planter strip right-of-way and will be replaced with two new red maple trees as required by the Parks Division. Please refer to the development table on the following pages for project compliance of each building with the R-2 zoning regulations. Planning staff would note that there is no floor area ratio regulation for the R-2 zone. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Design Review for construction of anew, two-story duplex on each re-emerging lot (C.S. 25.27.045); Variances for three proposed front setbacks (C.S. 25.27.071(b); and 2 Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Variances 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue Conditional Use Permit for two re-emerging lots (C.S.25.26.030 (e)). 1025 Capuchino (Lot 6) Lot Area; u,cto ar Plans date stamped: September 21, 2017 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS ............ Front (1s1 fir): ........ 30'-10"' _- ------ - ---- ----- 34'-11" (is the block average) (2°" fir): -.....-. 40'-8" 34'-11" ... Side (left): ----- ------------------------- --..................... --- - 4'-0" ----- ... ..................... ........- --....- 4' 0" (right): ----------- ....... ............... _....._.. - --... 5' 6" - - -- - ................------------------ -----4 0„ Rear (1st fir): 15'-7 " _--............_..-------------.... 15'-0" (2nd fir): _._ ...... .....................................-- - 15'-7 " 15'-0" - '........................_.-._.............-..-_..-.._.. -- Lot Coverage: 3,681 SF -- 3,683 SF - -.._.. - 39.9% ......-.--.. 40% Building Height: ----- - - ---. ------ _..----- 29 -4" -..... , .._....... _ _............ _...- - - - 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope. --------.. .............. ......... - complies --- - - __. . .-..... CS 25 27.075 Off -Street Parking _. ........-.- _. 5 total spaces ......-. - — 5 total spaces 4 covered 4 covered (10'-0" x 20'-0" each space) (10'-0" x 20'-0" each space) 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') 80% covered 80% covered 1 Front setback variance requested for the first floor (30'-10" proposed where 34'-11" is required). 1029 Capuchino (Lot 5) Lot Area: 9,092 SF Plans date stamped: September 21, 2017 PROPOSED ALLOWEDIREQUIRED SETBACKS - - - Front (11t fir): ----- - _---------------------- 15'-0"' --.-.-.-. ---- - 34'-11" (is the block average) (2"a fir): .....-----------------------------..................------ 20'-0" 2 34'-11" -- Side (left): 9'-6 " --- ------ —..- --------------- --- -............-------------- ----- 4'-0" (right): 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1111 flr): 39'-7 " 15'-0" (2nd flr): ----- ------------------------ 45'-1 " -- - ------------------------- --- ----------- 15'-0" Lot Coverage: 3,618 SF --0.. - - - --------------- 3,637 SF 39.8% 40% 3 Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Variances 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue Building Height: Declining Height Envelope: Off -Street Parking: PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED 29'-8" complies 5 total spaces 4 covered (10'-0" x 20'-0" each space) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 80% covered 30'-0" ------- -.............._......--...._ CS 25.27.075 5 total spaces 4 covered (10'-0" x 20'-0" each space) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 80% covered Front setback variance requested for the first floor (15'-0" proposed where 34'-11" is required). 2 Front setback variance requested for the second floor (20'-0" proposed where 34'-11" is required). Staff Comments: Applicant is working to address remaining comments from the Parks and Public Works Divisions. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components Findings for a 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; (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. 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; 4 Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Variances 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue (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. Erika Lewit Senior Planner Attachments: • Application to the Planning Commission • Conditional Use Permit form (1) • Variance forms (3) • Protected tree removal permits (2 total, 1 for each re-emerging lot) • Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 29, 2017 • Aerial Photo 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.builingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: rL7( Design Review 0 Variance ❑ ,/ Conditional Use Permit Q Special Permit ❑ PROJECT ADDRESS: 1029 Capuchin Avenue ® Please indicate the contact person for this project APPLICANT project contact pemon❑D OK to send electronic copies of documents IVII Name: Michael Lojo Address: City/State/Zip: 1014 Howard Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401 Phone: 650-579-5762 Fax: 650-579-0115 E-mail: michael@trgarch.com ARCH ITECTIDESIG N ER project contact person OK to send electronic copies of documents Name: Randy Grange Address: 1014 Howard Avenue City/State/Zip: Phone: San Mateo, CA 94401 650-579-5762 Fax: 650-579-0115 E-mail: randy@trgarch.com Parcel #: 026-214-050 Other: PROPERTY OWNER project contact person Q OK to send electronic copies of documentsQ Name: Kurt Steil Address: 891 California Drive City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94011 Phone: 650-400-5520 Fax: E-mail: kurtstetl@gmail.com RECEIVED DEC 2 2 2016 * Burlingame Business License #:14562 CITY OF BURLINGAME g CDD-PLANNING DIV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New 2-story duplex residence AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ------- I Applicant's Date: 12/22/16 I am aware of the proposed application an'd hereby authorize theAbove applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. '41 I Property owner's signature: p Date: 12/=16 Date submitted: 12l22/16 * Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. 0 Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. S wandouts\PC Application zoos-e.handout September 19, 2017 Attachment D CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1025 & 1029 Capuchino RECLEIVED S E P 21 1.017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property in the vicinity... The proposed use remains residential. The conditional use permit is only required because there are 2 structures on site, to be removed, that straddle the lot line between the reemerging lots. b. The proposed use will be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Pans and Zoning Code. The proposed use is exactly as specified in the zoning code. The conditional use permit is only required because there are 2 structures on site, to be removed, that straddle the lot line between the reemerging lots. c. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. The proposed use is the use specified by the zoning code. The mass bulk and character of the project are residential. The conditional use permit is only required because there are 2 structures on site, to be removed, that straddle the lot line between the reemerging lots 1014 Howard Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 9 650.579.5762 voice • 650,579.0115 fax • admin@trgarch.com SEP 21 2017 September 19, 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Attachment C VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK 1025 Capuchino a. There are extraordinary circumstances surrounding this property. This particular block has a few wildly deep front setbacks that skew the block average beyond the intent of the design guidelines. The majority of the block has more typical front setbacks: 24', 24', 23', 23', 20'. The intent of the Design Guidelines, and block averaging, is to even the houses up in a range such as that. The proposec 31'-10" setback is closer to that range, and the actual pattern of the block, than the theoretically required 34'-11". b. Denial of the variance would cause unnecessary hardship. Clearly, the intent of the system of averaging setbacks is to establish a consistent "lining up of houses" along the street. In fact, bringing the structure closer to 24', as described above, would actually be closer to the neighborhood pattern, but this is not possible due to the underground culvert. Enforcing an additional 3' of front setback would serve no purpose and have no benefit to the neighborhood. Incidentally, with the system of block averaging, the block average changes with every new project. Once completed, this project would realign the block average to 28'-11", still large for a typical Burlingame block, but less than that being proposed, and closer to creating a consistent line along the block. c. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. There are no proposed changes that would impact public health, safety, or convenience. The proposed front setback is greater than the existing house setback. Public health and safety are generally the purview of the building codes, and there are no code issues with this proposal. d. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. This project will help to better align the houses along the street. The mass has been articulated with wall offsets and one story roof lines. 1014 Howard Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 9 650.579.5762 voice • 650.579.0115 fax 9 admin@trgarch.com RECEIVED SEP 21 2017 September 19, 2017 CITY OF DURLINGAME Attachment A CDD-PLANNING, DIV. VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK 1029 Capuchino a. The existing house, to be removed, has a 10' front setback; this proposal improves the setback situation. This property also has extraordinary conditions that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity; There is a 10' wide underground culvert that snakes its way through the site. That snaking line dictates that not only must the proposed footprint take on a unique configuration, but that there are severe limitations on the ability to push the proposed structure further back on the site. The proposed second floor setback meets the City minimum requirements, but also technically requires a variance. Aesthetically, the second floor makes sense as proposed; to meet the 34'-11" foot block average would be at odds with the design guidelines. Denial of the variance would cause unnecessary hardship. Clearly, the intent of the system of averaging setbacks is to establish a consistent "lining up of houses" along the street. The 34'-11" average for this block is due to the extraordinarily deep setbacks of a couple of structures on the block, and is much deeper than a typical front setback average. The existing structure, to be removed, is even further forward than the proposed structure, so the existing situation is being improved. c. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. There are no proposed changes that would impact public health, safety, or convenience. The proposed front setback is greater than the existing house setback. Public health and safety are generally the purview of the building codes, and there are no code issues with this proposal. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. As stated above, the existing building is situated at a smaller front setback, so this proposal will be an improvement. The mass has been articulated with wall offsets and one story roof lines. 1014 Howard Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 • 650.579.5762 voice • 650.579.0115 fax • admin@trgarch.com RECEIVED SEP 2 1 2017 September 19, 2017 CITY OF M IRLIRGAME GDD-PAN-NING DIV. Attachment B VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK 2nd FLOOR 1029 Capuchino a. The existing house, to be removed, has a 10' front setback; this proposal improves the setback situation. This property also has extraordinary conditions that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity; There is a 10' wide underground culvert that snakes its way through the site. That snaking line dictates that not only must the proposed footprint take on a unique configuration, but that there are severe limitations on the ability to push the proposed structure further back on the site. The second floor setback, therefore, also requires a variance to the block average. Aesthetically, the second floor makes sense as proposed. To meet the 34'-11" foot block average, one would need to offset it 20' back from the first floor. That makes designing and integrated second level nearly impossible, and would be at odds with the design guidelines. b. Denial of the variance would cause unnecessary hardship. Clearly, the intent of the system of averaging setbacks is to establish a consistent "lining up of houses" along the street. The 34'-11" average for this block is due to the extraordinarily deep setbacks of a couple of structures on the block, and is much deeper than a typical front setback average. The existing structure, to be removed, is even further forward than the proposed structure, so the existing situation is being improved. And if the proposed first floor setback is approved, there would be no advantage in denying the proposed second floor setback. c. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. There are no proposed changes that would impact public health, safety, or convenience. The proposed front setback is greater than the existing house setback. Public health and safety are generally the purview of the building codes, and there are no code issues with this proposal. d. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. As stated above, the existing building is situated at a smaller front setback, so this proposal will be an improvement. The mass has been articulated with wall offsets and one story roof lines. 1014 Howard Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 • 650.579.5762 voice 0 650.579.0115 fax • admin@trgarch.com M Date: I hibli The undersignjd own r of the pr hereby applies for a Location on Property _ Work to be Performed: Reason Work is Necessary: PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7330 or prune Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a I Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Attach any documentation you may have. letters of concern from neighbors, etc.). Owner (Print) 1 /3 Than 113 RECM11VE1W SEP 2 > 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD;RLANNING DIV. protected trec(s): . it ;dject? YES /X_NO drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be e. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal Report froin an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged stniclures, (if different than abover) --------------------------------� --- -PERMIT— ----- FOOR r-- j YJFI This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above l' Reforestation and TreeProtection Ordinance (Municipal Cod, acknowledges receippt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to and that all appeals h9vc expired or been resolved. Email USE ONLY Payment Rec. Payment Method in accordance with the provisions of the Urban 1.06). By signing this permit, the applicant h its provisions and all conditions listed below; OWNER SIGNATtfRE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (nd fruit or nut trees) will be 'required and may be planted anywhere an the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090.(b)(5), payment of $ 700for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replaeement(s) required. Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed BUILDING PROJECT. Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed. o82omr"ised s�� PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL eO� ""`'"" PERMIT APPLICATION Parke & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 ' (650) 558-7330 Date: The undersignel own 4f of the property at: Address: hereby ap to remove or ordne more EE I SEP 2 1 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. protected trec(s): ,0% i // Location on Property ix ItT/ py' // Work to be Performed: Remo d Trim More Than 1l3 of the Crown Reason Work is Necessary: �i�%s (�liw, LA ta6✓g Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YESNO Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern from neighbors, etc.). Owner (Print) _ Phone Address Email (if different than above) -------------- —--- —------- ------- ------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONL Y Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). Bysigning this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape trees) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not metwithin the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090.(b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed BUILDING PROJECT. Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This mark should be done by qualified tree professionals and a co y of this permit must be available at the job site at all tunes when work is being performed. moisrevaed z ■ {) 2\\ 2 LU /§ 2 Lu . 7\E I 22 \5\ E U 2 {§ ƒ\D { ] (D / m ±/ E C % ( E \ \ 0 - e \L £)\ \ ( 3/ 00 a) -a £ LO w LO k /k co LO —G� _ \ , k\\� _ / _\\ MC) 0 co \j/ki )}/\ 2 \ \�\ \ 2 \ °>Wzw /§[ _ - V �ƒ , > C E co <Lli CL - \(p \/\\ \4 / 2 )��� )03 j/t/ og ( / K2CL _ ;_® _ - . L a) _a) %� 2 - (At2/\ +§& kf {_% 222 g rf > oGa� G]fa�� G)\ (D Qk\ & ° \/ \ ° ���±a�I\ _ _� c \\ ( §& \}�§a&i§111 \)3 {§2£ \{ w - �® g Ek \!s \�k\ {* 2 �\ \)$;/ </) �]2t 2/ 2 \o w U E 0 z 0 z � « Q _ Q ca D a i T Ij I I I I I I I IT I i i i i T.J i i i i i i i i T i_j I I I I I I I I I _j STREETSETRAOCS 2C �Wg 11, 24' 101, 23 la �0579.0115 1021 1257 Jon 73.T EMai 1025 165 1 on 1033 1037 S6S 1041 27 AVE. WWI= 54 W ffrCHER mm— GIR ROOM FAMILY ROOM F1029-Al LVL( 1029 FAMILY ROOM , CAPUCHIN nP APN.' 026-21"50 GARAGE p -J Ld 1029 Capachlan Avenue NMBudingame, CAI 0 OM-1-Y C; — -- — L Mr. Kurt Steil 06 MPAVEDENINEWAY MPAMED (L PAM I DWWG LIVING it < gg INNG L SITEPLAM FOYER MUD MUD L-1 PAM, F PLYRODM GARAGE FAMfLYROom LWtIGROOM MECH DEN DEN — SITE PUN SCALE: 118- = 1 A1.1 r IIIIII I I l l l l l l f Uls• - Ga• EGRESS WOAONCHMT WINDOW I NET CLEAR HEIGHT L WIDTH 1 31'X/5117 2 01'XUIM CHARTDFOPENNO 1025 CAPUCNNO • LEFT SIDE ELEVATION OPENING S� FANLYROONWINDOW 7-1PXTd LATMROON WINDOW 1'-1r Xi•1r DEN WINDOW 2'-irx5W GARAGE DOON T%xw-0 TOT&OPFNNGARFA .A., TOT& WALL AREA LESS THAN N 5 FEET FRON PROPERLY ONE: 11NS SOFT PERCENTAGE &LOVED PER 2015 CRC. TMLE R1D2.1111: 25% PERCENTAGE PROPOSED: 1727% 1,f 1111111 l•�"I I I -1I-fw T�If I I I f I I I 1 1" -ra• 1 i` mr w IF iMs SIE£i 6 x01364N', D 6 su.LEAcmPDwzr 1P++N,.NmAw.. s.weo,Tr,Nswol a��Psnnlls snswsnsw EaISL aeagrpa�� ArWWJ ConRManpsl: b 1025 Y d I CAPUCHIN - (1025 Capuchino) LEFT SIOE ELEVATION SCALE - 111C . I' 1029 Capuchin Avenue Burlingame, CA On ra(s' Mr. Kurt Steil SAeN LaMen6: — - - — FRONT ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION w"A.1.e (1025 Capuchin) °I` I!■ �li�ll 11 its �i� ��. - IIII'. I i • _ .. .. -------------- /1y41111yy11�1� � 11114111111411111 IIT.7jljljy NON ONE ■��■■■ •11i ■■■■ I■■ �■■I■ ov_ 1 i� ■� (1025 Capuchino) FRONT ELEVATION 1 SCALE . a1Fr. 1W r�A r L 111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I wuwcscuEs: utc•_ro EiaESSWOMMCWT xfaox xEruE�axEicxrawront arxes trr z arxaer r,( 11 1 11 1 I IT I I I I- Id I I I ( I I I I'I°I I` ytv. r ur _ ro — _ _ Ali �SiSw N➢CO _ �� _ _ _nF — ,E1K u�F'W — 1�1�1�I�14�Ih�l�l�141 EMI AE o f MM s.,, wee.E.�,�tsuot m�Esasnans d�aws»snz EWL ad�i®FprcAmm NtlrkG iEU p- § ® v,*a - 1025 CAPUCHIN APN: 026-214-050 (1025 Capuchin) RIGHT SIOE ELEVATION 1029 Capuchin Avenue Burlingame, CA �t1 Mr. Kurt Steil s t�wh w. REAR ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION - - — - - — —t (1025 Capuchin) III II II II II loon Io■■���0 ; ,■■■■ A3.2 Id I It I I I I ri I I I I Ld I I I I I I I y]s_ro w•-rn (1029 Capuchin) LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 2 E(i WWMOYI t)Wtr SCALE _ 3l15' = I'-P wraon ra-ral=nnuExxnawonl 1 31'X W 12 Y 31'X451M 3 31•XW1r! �caare:ow.w �� 1 (1029 Capuchino) FRONT ELEVATION 3CAlf-]lib'=1'-P s�r]s uorw•,¢v, Rs vnwr-svaE,.cmxowiar touta..anwu srwmo,r�:slwt �sosaons gev�s]es�a EY,i iSmQtyatl,mn PlNittt 1029 CAPUCH/N0 APN: 026-214-050 1629 Capuchins Avenue BuAingame, CA OmeQs): Mr. Kurt Steil Sheet Ccr'el: FRONT ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION (1029 Capuchin) AM r iuui i i i i i i l i7 Tlnii I I I Y,I,i'iiifi)iiiii� i '• GWRR[YM6: 41c-1'-0' 1Ir-1'V y16•-1'il• , EGRESS WPXXWYCHMT WWM NETCIFMNEIpR3 W311H i 31'XWW 2 31•XA3w 3 31•Xffi 2 CHARTOFOPB G 1@9CAPOCH9M1-RIWSUE9 AT OPENNG ONNGWVa10Y(1xarA) 3'd x SW WCf WWDW(UWA) ?�XfF GARAGEDOOR(1NITN 7-19-X3'dl' vnaa3lWN (Uwrer "XSs FAMLYROOM MW (1NRB) 7-0•XS8 TOTALOPENNGN 12A.1890FT TO WA AREA,LE53T 5F FROM PROKKrf NE f130FT PERCENTAGEP110WEOPFRww CRC.T RJO2111): 25% PERCENTAGE PROPOSED: 13.93% (1029 Capuchino) RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ---� 4 --snve�Nznao� vu Sm M,bo. Calb,v9u01 to fi505i9f 115 Fk RASi — EA4[ a6�,®hgitli¢m P1*d 1029 CAPUCHINO APN: 026-214-050 1029 Capuchins Avenue Burlingame, CA Mr. Kurt Steil REAR ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION (1029 Capuchin"/ Pvwm I I x - � I I I (1029 Capuchin) REAR ELEVATION A3.2 r um......... �nu���� n�ra���ra��rara���■ mi����������� Ram REAR ELEVATION c Scut =,/,=rr 6 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION —= fir =,P 4 DET. GARAGE ROOF PLAN 1 I - I'III III IH I I I I II nll'� LIf I�II� - I I I � - I I II'li�I If rII I f.I �� � �a• RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION Sr=n,=,•Q 3 rT - -f -- ----n I I � - I I mda�a I I � I i I � I GARAG' � I I I � I I DETACHED GARAGE PLAN NwrdEA�w San AIaN,UNon691101 hcfi50519.0115 ph�051B.5)4 Eiti ab�u®A�Nmm ANile2 1029 CAPUCHHVO APN: 026-214-050 1029 Capuchin Avenue Burlingame, CA �rtc Mr. Kurt Steil s -- DETACHED GARAGE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS (1029 Capuchin) A2.3 ADJACENT `M)ViA[ �MN EECW PU15 12 ATTICF - II EXISTING TREE LIST ile bl 0.'9 L PU I O AV BURDNGAME, A TWO LOrS .�.I .. .. w.x ln�� re- _ � n n_ _ _ - � nw• r nt. :.�. xr q -bar s yrvllw 5we t Ga--, 10' SAV` U)i 6 r - r� Frvt T— M--, Cypress _ r _ O wnaw V�ww r lw¢rlrt ecaauw G t Fr' T - - 5 i G dns decumens f<cx rwn wrUvr r�rar R[Trainxtt rfY,rMl ue rauW(aG vyt.n tw_ wvxartxnmttl [GOR'r5. Vr lGoir4GYsceeruf[vu[rt.2wlrib5nVlrs xxtrrn It rent nre nse J.OVE IDT G LO16 n . . o m nrvrvirr.nuxo rvnw,w rrra.wvranc Irrrrartu Inrs n rT,uutno. rxwv ne rrr.n .rn wutrmnv+stwrn urtsmoVrruub wrerBmove. xo r.na. Irv. Date Pam _ O �T5 w RnNno `nrraerr[vrs4x nrrmmtua mra.rw., untavr vmt rni t�nLvar¢mr.A pmr, `tvi.tt '�' U tdlUru odcmu fall B,y l.tr - J.tO lOi 5- V+rrFin. uwn a ivrtsr stumrentvrvanr. .. _ -_ __ - - - -- � - _ _z s)nld� Lre Oat fpvE i5- -es B wnxtl voituOcrn Ss iM.V.CmuC5I r+Ss[OnGwt 'Y'Sxae olnewNe mrrt B,n tnu mernorr U,v Cwi LC[nirf .In Vrr[...w winnn'>eva&tpnnen. k� -t- r i - a�nldra Lve Oat ^- -.FJ OVE IS _ RJ.rOVE LDI 5 - - •I— cicsAer- - WmvL 51WnR.PluRv nnnumtntkrwn. ne ^ rcwlrw'tLC YLVLmnlo.rc'rRCnsN.J.aromcen[anm.6.vee5rmutvrsnzrmxrw.wl uT.tS rwu'nrrv�'� ry ol— i io T nwtRiBMSIrµS ha.0 nrcAsf tVM n!Nnxt9lrt Nm51M_ m+'x[. II LOI 5 - - msxtrvnurtnitVva'r Yrtrwru wetl o_E-_ Inr Pth dtn.rt �Htl� �L.��rt �,..tir����titlrL �nnBAa LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" I - rur ec-+uru r�.� .ra ✓- I-AL(IN)IREES 1 2I _ _-.- U CD L _U co O) CD - co U y M-P U E,' MR-1--lP, z a Lu Z z O LU a \ U O CE< Z SLL L m a W z 2 LL U a D U W z L1.0 r dull I I I I I 1 1 1 TI I I I l I avancscuEs: uss•-ro I I T us•-r�a• 1.1"1 1 1 f I I I I I I I I I'I T,j I I I i• I I I I 'I I Ir y�r-rc .ry 1 f I I i` L. yr. ra .1' I IT I . I I .s'a I I L-vr-ro I I I 'r-L•o• I• ffTMas>r£Trsxmx+:+'•Ra naLa.�mmm-swEncmanurzr one4%E� w �- " iauw.wn.r,e su,weo.c.oTwwoi laswsLsn s Bunn simw< ow ra.,eenw..e � 4 yessasrvsrss E1{Y air6®Ipicl�mn w� NA 6 NS GT-i 4 s CmvA+^tle): 1025 CAPUCHINO 'r a ? - APN: 026-214-050 a11 1029 Capuchin Avenue a Burlingame, CA t o �Ercsc w Mr. Kurt Steil 5 5 Ns Ns qM snrel co•���s. FIRST FLOOR PLAN (1025 Capuchino) (1025 Capuchino) FIRST FLOOR PLAN A21 ■ I I � cNe�wLs DINING arc LIVING I7'-0' x 13'-]' 15'-2' x 13'-2• s, KITCHEN ia•-b•xls'-�' OINING FRO 4 = II'-b' % II'-5' ENTRY � KITCHEN 13'-b' X II'-l' li r w L 111111 I I I T L I III rIII I'illl�'i �,I,il I I rI I I I'�al iz i, i. I L/C�L'C ,aeKweevw NOTES: WI 1. ROOF EAVES WILL NOT PROJECT _ 6 THIN TWO FEET OF PROPERTY A3A ATS LINE. 2. ALL ROOF PROJECTIONS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THE POINT 111111111111111111(I iL1111111fi 11:i�1: i�l:ia ii�lll CI �I � L 17i�I ■I 1111111I111111 I:Li CI il��y'L_� �'Y 0 0 • iaaa.L�a 11111111111111 'I! IIIIIIIIIIyl11- ..:- � 11111111111111 �. • • M • • MASTER BEDRM 14'-4' X 15'-1' - _ IF IH6 SIEET IS lel3{',R6 AP®,I®PNIM-SdIEA®xPlMix ru,w leHese '" �" ION® artf stU=LrE � � sen Meb,tini9R51 1¢5505]9n115 pk6505N5152 Eib[ aA,igbp<I,mm . CamJbnl(eX ALT 5 AiS IFlH wenw Np� UUUMIJULUMMUILMZ1025 CAPUCHCHINO (1025 Capuchino) ROOF PLAN KALE: ]/16•. IvP APN: 026-214-050 1029 Capuchino Avenue Burlingame, CA .M' .rq•romATI+eL'Iee DA.MeI: Mr. Kurt Steil e T SECOND FLOOR PLAN (1025 Capuchino) I BEDRM 3 ROOF PLAN I 12'-2' X 11-2• ,.. F �� (1025 Capuchino) x T• ao. HALLWAY 21'-1' X 4'-0' ua, I Au J, -- BEDRM2 O -- BEDRM4 11'-1'X 12'-312'3'X 12'-I' h C1 I — a-�. eA wen w (1025 Capuchino) SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.2 SCALE: J/Is•=I'm r IBIIi I I I I I I I i II111i I I I I4 Th I I T I I I ITI I 1 I i ?,..r I I I lrc I I I I I h i i I I �'_..I'• 1 lr i I i• I lY i I I I` °"'� TSHOI Q1•,R6 41c=1'd IIB'=1'a lrl6•=1'd y1•=1'd ]/1•=1'4 1•�Pd 1-I/t=1'd Alpf-SCALE MCOxD01[YT rvNKilo!®t � � 101{Hw,NArem Sanllmo. Callmi B1,01 � t¢6505190110 tv,Bt s,sAtA ii. pk BW5iB51R E1Yt e!m@pvtliom tM iwal CEM16t YE � ¢ ANieft r r�46Y 1029 e s CAPUCHIN Ns las APN.' 026-21"50 s 1029 Capuchino Avenue 9 t \ Burlingame, CA �a Av ona,;r,l. Mr. Kurt Steil 9 FIRST FLOOR PLAN )1029 Capuchino) I (1029 Capuchino) FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.1 - sbS' sa4 ao � a sa I =� KRCHEN DINING �s J DEN KITCHEN DINING '"'' 13' • x n'-v la'--1' x Iz'-v 15•-I• x Izo• Ig_z• X Iz'a• GARAGE LYING ROOM FAMILY ROOM Ia't• x n'-e' LIVING (UNIT -A) za-v x za_r I la's• x Is-0• � �T � FRONT O ROOM n'-I' % la' r IIIIII I I I I I I I I RNM6CSLY6 Ns=ry I I I I Ir 4 Nwr racr0u.,�rw2 ' : I1 I I S..- .uA 4 IT" NOTES: 1. ROOF E/WS WILL NOT PROJECT WRHIN TWO FEET OF PROPERTY LINE 2. ALLROOFPROJECTIONS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THE POINT WHEREF1-RESISTNE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE -HOUR FIRE RESISTANCE: TED CONSTRUCTION PER 2016 CRCSRS02.1 OR 2016 COC a 7062 III (I I I I "II I is g I I I I h I I I I �I I l 1 I w•-ra• vr. ra 'I 1 Lill 11 ' 1 11 I l�ll ' _ _ r 1111�Ji}�,1`i�Il il! ILLIIJIIIJ 1J III) �� li 6 �, rianm�iasma At5 AV// (1029 Capuchino) ROOF PLAN 3 6 l SCALE 311,=— (1029 Capuchino) SECOND FLOOR PLAN T ' mr=r-r �Is rorwnr, Ra -srxeA�lxR.r 1® San01< Nato. Cib�c SH01 Isc(A1518A115 PN6505]951@ EY[ aM1:m@hgMmm Ntlie¢ AV r 1029 �Z CAPUCHINO APN: 026-214-050 1029 Capuchino Avenue NadingaMe, CA Mr. Ned Sul/ 1 SIeeICaAaAr SECOND FLOOR PLAN (1029 Capuchino) ROOF PLAN (1029 Capuchino) A2.2 CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPL6AE Community Development Department MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3, 2017 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: FYI — REVIEW OF AN AS -BUILT CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1601 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage and basement ceiling height for construction of a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 1601 Sanchez Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on June 18, 2015 (see attached June 18, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in October 2015 and construction is nearing completion. With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of one as -built change, which includes replacing the originally approved cedar siding feature under the front window on the Front Elevation with stucco to match the surrounding the wall. The applicant provided a letter dated September 29, 2017 to explain why the change was made. The applicant submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed Front Elevation, date stamped September 29, 2017, to show the as -built change to the previously approved design review project. Other than the change 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 applicant, dated September 29, 2017 June 18, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes Originally approved and proposed Front Elevation, date stamped September 29, 2017 **Architects September 29, 2017 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1601 Sanchez Dear Commissioner, The new house at 1601 Sanchez is nearly complete. It has come to our attention that an area of proposed wood siding below a front window was constructed in stucco, matching the rest of the wall. The owners would like to keep the stucco as built. We hope you will find these changes acceptable. Sincerely, Randy Grange AIA LEED AP CI Li i, i�I g�6}A 2..�rlWsgll'�i `<J�e ip��giV E— ING 205 Park Road, Suite 203, Burlingame; CA 94010 9 vc: 650.579.5762 • fx: 650.579.0115 9 admire@trgarch.com Monday, June 8, 2015 7:00 PM Council Chambers b. 1601 Sanchez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage and basement ceiling height for construction of a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Bryant McLaughlin, property owner) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had a brief conversation with the neighbor to the right. There were no other ex parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff: Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Yossi Zinger, TRG Architects, represented the applicant. > No typical garage pattern on the block. > Garage flipped to right side to allow living areas to have best sun. > A similar metal roof being constructed in the Easton Addition currently. Is light, not shiny, not disruptive. > Ribbon window is a common approach for getting light into the house. Questions of applicant: > Possible historic significance to the existing house? (Zinger. No.) Public comments: None. Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: > Nice update to a traditional form. > Does not agree with assessment of attached garage. Not sure this is a neighborhood where an attached garage can be approved. > Neighborhood context for attached garage - windshield survey indicated 12 detached, 7 attached (not including corners). The design guidelines do not have a particular ratio. > Driveways can provide distance between houses. Do not have to be given to cars, can also serve as a useful space. > Houses next door to each other both right up to setbacks. > Rationale for having garage on the right is compelling given size of adjacent house. > Metal roof on the house on Bernal Avenue looks good. Concerned with metal roofs in future if they are bright colors, but fine if a neutral color. > Shed roof over garage does not help. A flat roof that extends the line of the porch across with a trellis above the garage would be helpful. > Troubled to see existing house go away, would prefer to retain same form. House to right has an old Burlingame feel. City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 101312017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 8, 2015 > There is sufficient precedent in the neighborhood for an attached garage. Handles attached garage nicely, is set far back from street. > Awning is a mistake - looks flimsy, afterthought, not an integral part of the house. Discussion of motion: > Approximately 113 of the houses on street have attached garages. Well integrated with the house according to the City's guidelines. > Majority of the basement height is below grade. > Awning does not need to be addressed specifically. > Dissent - point of design guidelines is to try to perpetuate garages to be in the rear. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 4 - DeMartini, Loftis, Gaul, and Bandrapalli Nay: 3 - Gum, Sargent, and Terrones City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 101312017 FF = 48.00 Q PAINTED 2x8 WD FASCA, HIGHEST RIDGE PAINTED PC, TYP 2ND FLR PL HT CEDAR 51DIN6 (SEMI OPAQUE STAIN) (Y d� r PAINTED 2x& WD FASCIA, TYP 2ND - FLR R st FLR PL HT PAINTED WD SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH a w/ INTE6RAL COLOR iv Ist FLR SUB-FLR ,I BASEMENT PLATE HT ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW WD ENTRANCE DOOR w/ WELL 51DELITE, TYP (BEYOND) SMOOTH STUCCO FINI w/ INTEGRAL COLOR 12 Q TYP DAB SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH A w/ INTEGRAL COLOR BASEMENT OUTLINE, BEYOND H16HE5T RIME, PAINTED METAL DOM5POUT, TYP 2ND FLR PL HT_i ROOF CANOPY w/ STANDING SEAM METAL RO0FIN6 I LRFLR FLR 15T FLR PL HT PAINTED METAL GUTTER 4 DOWNSPOUT,TYR O r Lq PAINTED WD GARAGE DOOR 1st FLR 205 Park Road, Suite 203 '71.15 Burlingame, California 94010 FAX 650.579.0115 650.579.5762 E-Mail: admin@,trgarch.com Architect: ARCyn� T.RANDOLPH GRANGE * C-22.222 *' qT EXP 10/15 FOF CALIF° These plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an "architectural work" under Sec 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.O. as amended December 2990 and known as Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990. This protection Includes, but Is not gmTt d to the o 11 form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements of the design. Under such protection, unauthoduA use of these plans, work, or project represented, can legally result In the cessation of construction or buHding being seized and/or monetary compensation to TRG Architects. Consultant(s): SUB-FLR _ _ FF -- 4$.00 AV 49.13 POINT OF DEPARTURE Ilk 44.63 AVERAGE TOP OF CURB AS -BUILT FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4' = i'-0� STANDING SEAM - - - - - - - - 30'-0" 51.06 ENVELOPE - - - - - - - - - 30, BL06 ENVE METAL ROOFING, TYP PAINTED 2x8 WD FASCIA, TYP ALUMINUM CLAD PAINTED 2x8 SMOOTH 5T0000 FINISH WD WINDOWS w/ SIMULATED RAKE BD, TYP w/ INTEGRAL COLOR HIGHEST RIDGE TRUE DIVIDED LITES, TYP HIOHE5T RIDGE 11.13 h �. PAINTED NO, TYP 2 PAINTED METAL TYP DONIEFOUT, TYP 2ND FLR PL HT 2ND FLR PL HT CEDAR SIDING (SEMI OPAQUE 5TAIK)ROOF CANOPY WJ tV 5TAND N6 SEAM ;+ PAINTED 2x8 WD FASCIA, TYP \ METAL ROOFING v 2ND v 2ND tQi n FLR_ FLR R 5UI5-FLR N St FLR 1ST FLR PL HT I PL HT PAINTED WDj ❑`_ ------ PAINTED METAL GTTER 4 DOMSPO UT TYP = SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH 4 Q w/ INTEGRAL COLOR a tY I PAINTED ND GARAGE DOOR Ist FLR Ist FLR FF = 48.00 SUB FLR _ SUB-FLR FF = BASEMENT PLATE HT > 5 2,_ W 4b 92 �. 4650 _" Cl rt A 6`;6RADE AV6 GRADE - - - - - - - - 41.13-< POINT OF DEPARTURE POINT OF DEPARTURE r" n' 44163 ALUMINUM CLAD CEDAR 51DIN6 44h5 AVERAGE TOP OF CURB _ NINDON WD ENTRANCE DOOR wl (SEMI OPAQUE 5TAIN AVERAGE WELL SIDMITE, TYP gg _ TOP OF CURB (BEYOND) C € 6 �' O r'> BASEMENT OUTLINE, °�-"q a .red ^": 4�,• � {... :.'b.:' I" . .. >.." BEYOND F.✓ D .. 3':1. l BASEMENT SIB-FLR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED -FRONT ELEVATION SCALE. 1/4' = P-O' Project: Md AUGHLIN(WONG RESIDENCE New Residence APN: 028-131-210 1601 Sanchez Ave. Burlingame, CA Owner(s): Bryant McLaughlin & Kit Wong Sheet Contents: PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Scale: AS NOTED Drawn by: Checked By: TRG Job: Date: JAN 28, 2015 Status: PLANNING REVISIONS No. Revisions By Date Appr. /A� AS -BUILT I EG 1 09.29.17 Sheet: AIM Of Sheets