Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2017.09.25• City of Burlingame BURLINGAME F I Meeting Agenda Planning Commission Monday, September 25, 2017 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. August 14, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: Draft August 14, 2017 Meeting Minutes b. Auaust 28. 2017 Plannina Commission Meetina Minutes Attachments: Draft August 28, 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 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 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 912512017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda September 25, 2017 a. 1357 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (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 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 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 10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting September 18, 2017 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on 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 2 Printed on 912512017 CITY ryc�l 11 o� - 9 RPORATE Monday, August 14, 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 7 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. July 10, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: Draft July 10, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the July 10, 2017 Planning Commission minutes. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Comaroto indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8a (729 Walnut Avenue) as she resides within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8b (1029 Paloma Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the property, and 9c (700 Newhall Avenue) for non -statutory reasons. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA Bobbi Benson, 550 El Camino Real: thanked the Commission for not approving the project at 556 El Camino Real. Noted that the property is in a flood zone. Owner has had flooding on the property and will be pumping groundwater on the property. Concerned about the setbacks on the property and lack of parking available. Also concerned about potential impacts to the adjacent condominium property during construction. Concerned about excavation at the property line of the adjacent condominiums; concerned about impacts. Insufficient parking in the area now. The automated parking system will cause delays in parking on the property and could block traffic on El Camino Real. Appreciated requests of the Commission regarding privacy issues and the request for the developer to power -wash her property. The property is too large for that property at that location. 6. STUDY ITEMS a. General Plan Update EIR Scoping Session City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 Attachments: Staff Report General Plan EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) General Plan Proposed Land Use Map and Land Use Descriptions City Council Presentation Slides - December 6, 2016 Public Notice Publication Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report and introduced Dan Amsden and Victoria Harris from MIG. Dan Amsden and Victoria Harris provided an overview of the General Plan update process to date. And reviewed the purpose of the environmental scoping public hearing. All comments should be submitted to the Planning Division by September 1, 2017 so that they can be addressed in the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before it is released for public review. Community Development Director Meeker: provided context for the discussion and reviewed the focus areas (Bayfront, north El Camino Real and north Rollins Road) for changes in development policy and population and job growth projections. Commission Questions/Comments: > Why is there a reduction in the amount of office space? (Meeker: represents the impact of the conversion of the north Rollins Road area to residential use.) > Why is there zero growth in institutional uses; assumes this includes schools? Has there been coordination with the school districts? (Amsden: have been in coordination with the public school districts; they have their own planning process. The General Plan projections could lead them to change their plans.) > Will the environmental analysis include a study of the City's infrastructure? (Amsden: will coordinate with the school districts with respect to their infrastructure. With respect to the physical infrastructure, this is a big part of the analysis. Early work included evaluation of the existing infrastructure conditions which will serve as the basis for comparison. Harris: police, fire services, schools, etc. will be involved in the analysis contained in the EIR. A utilities section of the EIR will be included as well.) > Would like to see the sufficiency of public safety services and utilities reviewed, specifically in the Bayfront area. > How are potential impacts upon historic resources addressed in the EIR? (Harris: cultural resources will be addressed in a section of the EIR. In the general plan context, are looking at how the policies in the general plan will mitigate impacts, or identify mitigations and other future measures that will be needed to reduce impacts upon historic resources. Amsden: the 'project" is the policies in the general plan. There will be a subset of new policies that may be suggested in the general plan. The EIR will evaluate the adequacy of these policies.) > Would like to see a no -growth alternative considered in the EIR. (Harris: a 'no -project" alternative will be evaluated; represents the existing conditions.) > Concerned that the average household occupancy is perhaps too low, has seen other varied numbers. Perhaps look at where the number is derived from. > Are net new jobs directly related to the residential growth? (Amsden: is most likely due to the change in land -uses.) > Will impacts of transient populations (people at hotels) upon infrastructure be evaluated? (Amsden: will be evaluated based upon a commercial use for the hotels and utility impacts will be based upon usage per room.) Noted an error in the representation of the termination of the train on the land -use map. Public Comments: Leslie Austere: requested clarification of the process for notification of the property owners that will be affected by land -use and zoning changes. (Meeker: will directly notify owners of properties that are subject City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 to potential changes in zoning.) Bobbie Benson: need to look at means of collecting fees for ensuring completion of the Bay Trail. Need to be able to traverse both ways as you cross Highway 101 via the pedestrian crossing at Broadway. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Ensure that there is an analysis of infrastructure impacts at build -out and of impacts upon schools. > Look at sea -level rise as part of the EIR. > Clarified that historic resources and aesthetics are reviewed at a programmatic level and specific project compliance with the policies is the purview of the Planning Commission. > Appreciated that there will be an analysis of a no growth alternative. b. 1399 Broadway, zoned C-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for a class use (tutoring) in an existing commercial building (AJ Tutoring, applicant; W.J. Britton and Company, property owner) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon (71 noticed) Attachments: 1399 Broadway - Staff Report All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had communications with a neighbor at 1129 Capuchino Avenue and an email exchange with a realtor at AVR Realty. Commissioner Sargent noted that he received an email from a member of the public that wasn't sent to the entire Commission. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the project. Community Development Director Meeker read the names of the fourteen individuals that submitted written correspondance in advance of the public hearing. Questions of Staff.- > What uses are permitted by right in the zone? (Keylon: retail and personal services. Restaurants require a conditional use permit.) > Is payment of a parking in -lieu fee possible in this area? (Meeker: no, the in -lieu fee is only applicable within the Downtown (Burlingame Avenue) area.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak and Joe Niederman represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > How long has the current owner owned the building? (Hudak: four to five months. Prior owner wasn't able to find a tenant and sold the building out of necessity.) > How does the parking lot in the rear function? (Hudak: on a separate parcel and cannot be counted toward required parking. Can't commit that all of the spaces will be available to this tenant, but could be during the time that the adjacent property is vacant.) > Noted that based upon a conversation with the prior owner, they were trying to market the business. (Hudak: were unable to find another operator, so broadened the search for a tenant.) > Requested clarification of the operations of the tutoring center, they appear to be more of an office size. (Niederman: the spaces are for one-on-one use. Hudak: worked with staff to determine the best categorization of the use. Meeker: noted that ground floor office is not permitted on Broadway.) City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 > Recalls that there is a classroom component to the location in Menlo Park. (Neiderman: some locations do have classrooms where practice tests are administered.) > How did the applicant choose this location? (Niederman: have been searching for a Burlingame location since 2009. Have looked at a number of other locations, but they were determined not to be appropriate for the use by staff. Usually like to locate near downtown areas and schools.) > How does the applicant forsee that the use will be compatible with the existing and potential uses surrounding it? (Niederman: students, parents and staff would use the businesses in the area. Hudak: doesn't see any incompatibility with surrounding uses; will be complementary.) > Part of the goal is to enliven the Broadway district. Another use may enliven the area a bit more. (Hudak: only other candidate was another coffee shop; felt this would create an adverse impact upon other similar businesses on Broadway. Is challenging to find a business that is seeking this area as opposed to Burlingame Avenue.) > Is Hudak also representing the owner of the property? (Hudak: yes.) > On weekdays the use would be closed until 2:30 p.m., are there other uses that would occur early in the day? (Niederman: administrative staff would be there prior to 2:30 p.m.) > How long has the prior use been gone? (Hudak: about five or six months.) > What is the optimal size space? Are there other spaces east of Highway 101 that may serve the purpose? (Niederman: about 2,000 square feet. Not feasible to go to one of the office buildings east of Highway 101 due to the security aspects of operating within an office building.) > Are there other schools where space could be shared; Mercy High School, Burlingame High School? (Niederman: those schools are not open to sharing space. Hudak: difficult to share with public schools. At Mercy High School, parking is an issue.) > Could the Lions Club be a possible location, it has parking. (Hudak: need to be there seven days per week, this can't be guaranteed at the Lions Club. Trying to find the perfect location is a challenge.) > What happens during the summer months? (Niederman: summer hours would be most similar to other businesses operating hours. Also do academic tutoring in addition to test preparation. Hudak: students are still studying for testing.) Public Comments: Carrie Bitner. owns Que Sera Sera next door. Is aware of comments made by other residents and business owners. Is supportive of the applicant's requests. Would be costly to open a restaurant at the location. Is excited about having the business as a neighbor. Doesn't like having an empty building next door. Barbara Gurkhoff.• referenced a project at 826 Valencia in San Francisco. Placed a pirate booty store at the front of the building to provide a retail presence. Draws more people to the area. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Appreciates the need to rent vacant properties on Broadway, but has a hard time supporting this application. Broadway is a retail street. The use doesn't need to be a restaurant, but should be a retail use. The proposed use functions more as an office use, not a school use. Offices are not allowed on the ground floor because they do not add to pedestrian activity in the area. There will be times when there will be no students on the property and only office work is occurring. > There are opportunities for the use to be placed east of Highway 101. Students will be driven to the location, they will not walk and are not likely to hang out in the Broadway district after their sessions. The location allows great exposure for the applicant. > Has difficulty believing that this use and a coffee shop are the only two tenancies that work at the location. > Can't make the necessary findings for a conditional use permit given the lack of activity generated by the use and insufficient parking. City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 > Recalled how Broadway functioned when she was growing up in the area. Noted that she dropped her children off at the AJ Tutoring facility in Menlo Park; she stayed in the car and didn't frequent nearby businesses. Doesn't believe that the students would visit other businesses on Broadway. > Not convinced that a lot of energy has been put into marketing the tenant space. > Concerned about the lack of activity on the site between the hours of 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. > Has a hard time making the findings necessary for granting a parking variance; generally the problem is created by the characteristics of the business, not some hardship imposed by the nature of the property. Once a variance is granted, the approval runs with the property; is a gift to the property owner particularly since the in -lieu fee can't be paid. > The use will not enliven the Broadway district. > The location should be occupied by a retail use. > Bothered that the property may remain vacant for some time, though does have an issue with granting the parking variance. The use is really an office use. > Seem to try to match the zoning to the project, rather than having uses fit with the zoning. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 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 Attachments: 729 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 729 Walnut Ave - Attachments 729 Walnut Ave - Plans 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 City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 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 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 b. 1029 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and architect; Sherman Chiu, property owner) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 1029 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 1029 Paloma Ave - Attachments 1029 Paloma Ave - Plans Commissioner Comaroto returned to the dais. Commissioner Terrones was recused from the discussion of this item. He left the City Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she had communicated with the applicant. City of Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 Senior Planner Keylon presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.• > Was the shadow study omitted from this packet of information? Was it not up to standards of the City? (Keylon: not certain why it was omitted. Will review the file.) > Noted that some Commissioners reports are missing page 2 which includes the setback table. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Were any options studied that didnt include the secondary dormers over the shed dormer on the front; adds to the mass? (Chu: are other examples in the neighborhood; doesn't think it is that massive.) Public Comments: Mahesh Patki, 1025 Paloma Avenue: appreciates some of the changes made. As an architect and area resident remains concerned about the mass and bulk of the project, particularly at the second floor. Believes it is within the purview of the Commission to ensure that the project is consistent with the Design Guidelines. Is a two-story box. The second story should be set back and massed differently. The Cedar tree was existing when he installed his solar panels, caused minimal shading on the panels. The shading impacts from the residence will be worse. Additional Applicant Comments: Chu: clarified the proposed setbacks and disagreed with the neighbors allegation about shadow impacts upon his solar panels. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Elimination of the declining height envelope was a good compromise with the neighbor, though the original design was better. Likes the project though still believes the front dormers are too massive. Has visited the neighborhood multiple times and noted that the homes with second floors that are pushed back were originally single -story homes. When such projects have been presented to the Commission, they have been referred to a design review consultant. Fits with the neighborhood. > Likes the project, believes it will add value to the area. > Likes the changes that were made. Would have liked to see the second floor pushed back from the front. Is a good looking project. > Unfortunate that the shadow studies were not included in the report. Recalls that the impingement was in the late afternoon; not unreasonable. There is thirty feet between the structures. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the application. Discussion of Motion: > Feels that the design places the home too far forward on the lot when compared to other homes in the area. Would have preferred to see it pushed back. City of Burlingame Page 7 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Gaul, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Nay: 1 - Gum Recused: 1 - Terrones C. 400 Chapin Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for a Variance, Conditional Use and Special Permits for a new detached garage and a new detached guest and pool house. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e) (Ryan Morris, Morris Architecture, applicant and architect; Richard and Christina Jones, property owners) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit). Attachments: 400 Chapin Ln. - Staff Report 400 Chapin Ln. - Attachments 1 400 Chapin Ln. - Attachments 2 400 Chapin Lane - plans - 08.14.17 Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Comaroto communicated with the neighbors at 405 Chapin. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.- > What was the purpose of the variance granted in 1964? (Meeker: believes it was a side setback variance.) > What is the reason for the limit on the number and size of accessory structures on a lot? (Meeker: ensures that the property doesn't become cluttered and that adequate open space is provided.) > Is there no requirement for a driveway leading to the garage? (Keylon: minimum parking is based upon the number of bedrooms. Generally a required uncovered parking space is located on a driveway, but can be located elsewhere on the property.) > Clarified that two covered parking spaces are provided in this instance. (Meeker: not required to have provide an uncovered parking space. Keylon: have provided two covered parking spaces for the seven bedroom house; the uncovered space is non -conforming, but is allowed to be considered as it is not be altered.) > What is the difference between a accessory dwelling unit versus accessory living space. (Meeker: an accessory dwelling unit is a self-contained living space with a full kitchen. An accessory living space does not meet this criteria. Applicant is leaving their options open on how the space is used.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Ryan Morris, and Richard and Tina Jones represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > How far is it from the tree to the fence that is to remain? (Morris: roughly fifteen feet.) Doesn't look like there is enough room to building what is proposed. How far is it from the Redwood tree to the proposed guest house? (Morris: about three feet; no closer than the existing structure. Are proposing a City of Burlingame Page 8 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 pier/pile construction type to avoid roots for the trees. Will need to map out the roots before placing the piers.) Public Comments: Joe Gurkhoff.• none of the Commissioners visited his property, nor did the architect. The aerial view shown by the applicant isn't truly representative of existing conditions. There is a creek present. The only way that they can plant trees to cover the view is to remove all existing vegetation on his property. Will be able to see it from the entire rear -yard of the property, plus the kitchen and two of the three bedrooms. The back of the house is where they live and entertain; their front yard is unusable. The current design is possibly worse than the prior design since it has a broader presence on the property line and has more of an impact from his rear yard. Would be a detraction from his property. Will be very visible from his yard and will detract from the value of the property. There is no code that requires the building to be as large as proposed. The building proposed is twice as large as what currently exists. Even the Jones's wouldn't wish to have this structure looming across their property from an adjacent site. The fence that is there currently is their fence, but is on his property line; wishes the replacement fence to match the height. Carol Leininger, 405 Chapin Lane: appreciates changes that have been made so far, but still has other concerns. Spoke to the applicant on June 12th. The revised plan represents an anomaly in the neighborhood without setbacks. Would like the garage setback from the sidewalk many feet to soften the impact and preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. Has a large window that looks directly at the proposed structure. Will see a massive rooftop; wishes to have the structure pushed back with something planted to reduce the view. Kate Timberlake, 401 Chapin Lane: adding the guest house and the garage will be over the amount of space permitted and the setback is less than required. Doesn't believe any of the neighbors are against the plans for any other reason than to protect the character of the neighborhood. Feels like a lot of special requests are being made. No one wishes to have an accessory structure up against their property line. Barbara Gurkhoff: emphasized the size of the structures proposed. The applicant indicated that the space was being provided for a place for out of country relatives to stay when visiting. Not certain what the true purpose of the project really is. The only open space remaining will be along Chapin Avenue. Has an issue with calling her property line the rear of her property. Their front property line is on Chapin Lane; there is a covered walkway that leads to their front door; all openings are on Chapin Lane. There is no access to the property from Chapin Avenue. Too many exceptions being requested; looks like a strip mall. Additional Applicant Comments: Richard Jones: have reduced the scope of the project. Responded to comments from neighbors. Ryan Morris: nothing to add. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Still having some issues with the project; corner lots are difficult and have additional restrictions placed on them by the design guidelines. Having a problem with the size of the garage; perhaps bring down the size. The total number of accessory structures is too many, particularly the 200 square foot pool equipment structure. > Doesn't like to see the driveway so close to the street. The garage and the accessory structure are too large. Doesn't seem right to have the structures so close to Chapin Lane. Can't go along with everything being requested. > Seems like the applicant is trying to fit the structures to the landscaping; perhaps look at shifting City of Burlingame Page 9 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 things around on the property to minimize impacts upon neighbors. > When reviewing the floor plan of the garage, it is only 23-feet x 23-feet; may be an error in the staff report. Commended the applicant for the significant changes made to the project. > Feels that the finding can be made that there is something specific about the lot that supports approval of the variances. > Need to look at the totality of the development on this oversize lot; significantly below the maximum FAR and lot coverage. > What is proposed fits the development pattern of the zoning. When properly fenced and screened, will have little impact upon the neighbors. Is a very atypical lot. Feels it is approvable. > Agrees with prior Commissioner's points regarding the special circumstances. The structures are generally in the location of the existing structures and have eight -foot plate heights with low -sloped roofs. Will have pretty much the same impacts as the existing structures. The front -yard is defined by the City, not the neighbors; must evaluate based upon what is placed before the Commission. > Would like to see the rear property fence repaired. > Feels all of the findings can be made. > No one will come out a winner; there will be frustration on both sides. Agrees with most of the other Commissioners' comments. Primary concern is about the guest house being placed against the neighbors fence; would like more room for landscaping to screen from the neighbor. > Is concerned with the impact that the project has on the street itself. Would like the structures pushed back from the street. > Requested clarification regarding setbacks in the rear portions of the lot. (Keylon: detached accessory structures in the R1 zone are exempt from setbacks within the rear 30% of the lot. Can request a special permit to permit no setbacks within the rear 40% of the lot.) Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve with the following additional condition: > The fence on the rear property line shall be repaired/replaced in consultation with the neighbor. Discussion of Motion: > The garage is not beyond the rear 40% of the lot. If it were kept in its original size and location, then a variance wouldn't be required? (Meeker: once the non -conforming structure is demolished, then the new structure must be built in conformance with current regulations.) Is it required that the garage be pushed up to the property line? (Commissioners: the existence of the tree requires the garage to be pushed forward.) Chair Gum asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 4 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Loftis Nay: 3 - Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 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 (Mac White, Michael G. Imber Architects, applicant and architect; Naveen and Seshu Sastry, property owners) (59 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon City of Burlingame Page 10 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 Attachments: 1354 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1354 Columbus Ave - olans - 08.14.17 1354 Columbus Ave- Rendering All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. 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. Mac White and Jim Lenihan represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Is the special permit for the basement just to make it livable? (White: yes.) > Clarify that all windows are to be simulated true divided lights. > Is the chimney stone veneer? (White: yes.) > Does the HVAC equipment placement on the roof comply with the new regulations? (Keylon: will work with the applicant to ensure compliance.) > What is the purpose of the dormer? (White: to allow light into the upper floor corridor.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Very nice project, fits well with the neighborhood. > Can support the findings for the special permit. The basement will not have an impact upon the neighborhood. > Nice project, but would fit better on a larger lot; feels it is massive, though beautifully crafted. Design guidelines encourage making two-story structures appear less massive to fit into one and two story neighborhoods. The plate heights on the second floor edges are low, but the large window at the center of the room accentuates the height. Ceiling height is nearly eleven feet at the highest point on the second floor. The clerestory window in the dormer makes it look like a third story. > Likes the design; feels the steep roof slope works. There are a few homes that blend in well with this design. > Is a beautiful project, but feels like a mansion. The general imagery of the structure makes it appear much larger than it will likely be. Well articulated. Believes it is approvable, but there is a funny thing going on with the scale. > Feels the second story bay window on the front accentuates the height. > Believes the project will fit into the neighborhood. There are several larger homes in the neighborhood. The mass is helped because the properties across the street are at a higher elevation. > Had some concerns about the glazing on the right and left, but the homes flanking the property are not really impacted. Fits into the neighborhood and with the neighbors. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when ready for action. City of Burlingame Page 11 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 Discussion of Motion: > The rendering evokes lodge -style architecture, but when you look at the unrendered elevations, the front elevation is very similar to other projects that have been approved. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Nay: 1 - Sargent b. 1411 De Soto Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Scott Duong, applicant and property owner; Jack Chu, Chu Design Associates, architect) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 1411 De Soto Ave - Staff Report & Attachments 1411 De Soto Ave -Plans All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Loftis met with the neighbors at 1407 De Soto Avenue. Community Development Director provided an overview of the staff report. He noted a petition from neighbors in support of the application. Questions of Staff There were no questions of Staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Scott Duong and Jack Chu represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Doesn't fully understand the various different fascia sizes. (Chu: Second floor is 2" x 12" and first floor is 2" x 8" to distinguish the two different facades.) > Why the tall plate heights? (Chu: client wanted taller ceiling heights.) > Shiplap siding shown on plans does not match the siding on the rendering. (Duong: Siding is natural cedar wood.) > Did the neighbors who signed the petition see the rendering? (Duong: No, the rendering was not completed yet.) > It's a struggle of how to incorporate modern architecture into a traditional neighborhood. > This block is primarily Tudor and Spanish style homes. Traditional form and massing with updated materials is ideal in such neighborhoods. This project does not meet that. (Duong: Do not want to build a Tudor or Spanish style. Want something fresh and contemporary.) Public Comments: Sherry Lewis, 1407 De Soto: Concerned regarding how the light to their property will be affected. Has a shadow study been prepared; would like to request one to see what the impacts will be. Did not see the plans or the rendering until Sunday. Concerned about a second floor deck in the rear that would look into their property. Could there be design elements to address privacy concerns. Doesn't feel the architectural City of Burlingame Page 12 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 style fits within the neighborhood; attractive but is radically different in style to everything else on the block. Other homes have pitched roofs, not flat roofs. Brian Benn, 1408 DeSoto: Materials in this type of design are important to the aesthetics; want more details. Perhaps more use of wood elements. Jan Robertson, 1408 DeSoto: Had only seen architectural drawings but not the rendering until this evening. Is quite modern in design. Other homes are Spanish and Tudor in the neighborhood. Need to be open to new ideas, but defers to the Commission to determine if it fits with the neighborhood. Applicant's Response: Duong: Front, side and rear will include wood siding. Only the left hand side will be stucco. Neighbor to the left's property is much taller than the proposed house. The rear deck is over the new family room, is inset, doesn't project out and is along the driveway side. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > There could be ways to ease the Modern design into the neighborhood. The design looks like the bottom half of an apartment building because of flat roofs. Pitched roofs may help design. With no similar homes around it, it sticks out like a sore thumb. > Is an older neighborhood with mature trees. Not sure that the design fits currently but it could fit. The massing is not done well; everything is two stories; could be broken up a bit more. Would rather see more wood siding. A modern nome usually has a chimney that is more squared off. The massing needs to be reigned in a bit more. > Doesn't have a problem with Modern design in a traditional neighborhood if the design still reads as a home. Need to build something that still behaves with its neighbors. There are a number of one -story traditional homes with a few two-story homes. If a traditional design was submitted with this massing, it still would have been too boxy. Need fine detailing to fit into the neighborhood. Scale and proportion need to be looked at; is not necessarily a function of style. Will need to look at the plate heights. > There are fine examples of Modern architecture in the Easton Addition area that fit in well. > The second floor plate height is generally nine -feet, with the main corner element on the front being eleven feet. Could include a mix of sloped and flat roofs. Feels is a good candidate for a design review consultant. > There have been some homes in Easton Addition that bring a Modern take on Traditional architecture. Must be careful with the design. The rear deck will be intrusive to the neighbors, particularly from a noise standpoint. Doesn't believe that the home fits with the neighborhood; would not approve it as designed. > Doesn't feel that this design fits, though appreciates Modern design. Agrees that an updated Traditional design could fit. Would like to see a contemporary home that is made to fit in with neighborhood. > Is a different design than is produced by this architect firm. This design doesn't fit. Would more likely to approve project if Traditional style with Contemporary features rather than a Contemporary style with Traditional features. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to send the item to a design review consultant. Discussion of Motion: > The second floor deck appears to meet criteria privacy of neighbors. > Have generally looked at a 100 square foot enclose a portion of the deck that would make it fit better. applied in prior instances in order to preserve threshold for second floor decks. Could also City of Burlingame Page 13 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 > The applicant is skilled enough to demonstrate that most shadows will be cast to the right. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto C. 700 Newhall Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Side Setback Variance, and Parking Variance for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling and Special Permit for an attached garage (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Danny Abajian and Aline Kalebjian, property owners) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 700 Newhall Rd - Staff Report 700 Newhall Rd - Attachments 700 Newhall Rd - Plans Commissioner Terrones recused himself from the proceedings regarding this item for non -statutory reasons. He left the Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Chair Gum spoke with the neighbor at 704 Newhall Road. 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. Randy Grange, and Danny and Aline Abajian represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Is a straightforward project, should be placed on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Comment on Motion: > Noted that the owners have done an exceptional job in creating a lovely home. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: City of Burlingame Page 14 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft August 14, 2017 Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Recused: 1 - Terrones 10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS There were no Commissioners reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Director's reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:04 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 August 14, 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 August 24, 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 15 Printed on 912012017 CITY ryc�l 11 o� - 9 RPORATE Monday, August 28, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Present 7 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. July 24, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: Draft July 24, 2017 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes with edits as presented. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Abstain: 1 - Gum 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA No changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA No public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS No Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a. 700 Newhall Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Side Setback Variance, and Parking Variance for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling and Special Permit for an attached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Danny Abajian and Aline Kalebjian, property owners) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: 700 Newhall Rd - Staff Report 700 Newhall Rd - Attachments 700 Newhall Rd - Plans - 08.25.17 August 28, 2017 Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Recused: 1 - Terrones 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. 1810 Barroilhet Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15331. (Nancy Scheinholtz, applicant and architect; David and Rodhelen Liao, property owners) (39 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 1810 Barroilhet Ave - Staff Report 1810 Barroilhet Ave - Attachments 1810 Barroilhet Ave - Proposed Project Analysis (Page & Turnbull) 1810 Barroilhet Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation (Page & Turnbull) 1810 Barroilhet Ave - Plans - 08.25.17 All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Chair Gum noted he will abstain from the vote since he was absent from the study meeting. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff. - There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Nancy Scheinholtz represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Rear elevation in the original submittal had a dormer placed in the upper gable with a window. Would it be possible to fit in a window? (Scheinholtz: No, the change in the pitch of the roof is too steep.) > On the west elevation the existing eave detail has the exposed rafter tails, and a portion of roof towards the rear also has exposed rafter tails. Can the new eave also have the exposed rafter tails to match the detail? (Scheinholtz: Yes, it can have the exposed rafter tails. They were deleted by mistake.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > The revisions are nicely done. > Special Permit is supportable. The intent of the request is to match a traditional design, which it has done in this case. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Abstain: 1 - Gum b. 1417 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment to a previously approved design review application. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Martina A. Sersch, applicant and property owner) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 1417 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1417 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1417 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 08.25.17 Commissioner Gaul was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones had a brief discussion with Commissioner Gaul, who was the original designer on the project. Commissioner Kelly spoke to a neighbor who requested to remain unidentified. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff. - There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Martina Sersch represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Height of the garage appears to be taller than what is shown on the plans. (Sersch: The plans do not accurately reflect the location of the aluminum roof flashing.) > How far back does the glass guard rail extend on the side elevation? (Sersch: Glass guard rail goes all the way from the front to the back. The original approval was for an entire deck. When it was changed it was with a smaller guardrail, but that was not what was wanted. The first approval was for the entire terrace deck and had guard rail to the rear; it was supposed to be shown this way on the second set of drawings, but had not noticed the discrepancy when they were submitted. The building inspector said that as long as it was made safe, it would not matter where the guard railing was ended as long as it would be secure all around. Did not understand it would be a problem since it had been approved that way initially.) > The most recent plans dated June 26th show the glass rail going all the way back, as it has been built. City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 > The applicant letter mentions that the glass guard rail would be safer than approved. However the building code would require the design of metal guard rails to limit the spaces between the balusters. Is there a reason why these code requirements would not be safe enough? (Sersch: Narrow guard rails did not feel safe with children. Kids like to throw things, worried about getting their hands stuck.) > Page 2 of the plans show rafter tails on the gable above the garage that match the gable to the right of the front door. Did not see them on site. (Sersch: They are missing and will be installed, needs to find someone to install them.) > How did all of these things that were not approved get built? (Sersch: Initially the garage was built with an opening, but there was wind along the side of the house and the bikes would fall. Were told originally it would be better to have a garage rather than a carport but did not have the money to build the entire garage. Asked the building inspector if doors could be added if certain steps were taken. Asked the contractor to follow through but has not been successful. Dispute over who is responsible for paying for the fees. Verified the installation of the rail and garage doors with the building inspector.) > Is there understanding that what the Planning Commission approves is what must be built? (Sersch: No, thought the building inspector was able to make approvals. It was not the intent to build something that was not approved.) > There was statement of intent to keep the integrity of the house, so how would the glass enclosure fit the integrity? (Sersch: It can hardly be seen. There is aluminum flashing over the garage, so thought the aluminum on the rail would match and make the rail look more safe. Would prefer glass without the aluminum on top. The house never had wrought iron detail.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Don't want to look at changes from a punitive standpoint. Asks the question, "would it have been approved when first submitted?" > Find it impossible to believe that a glass guard rail with aluminum trim and posts would have been approved originally. It does not fit with the design of the rest of the house. > Although wrought iron pickets might not have occurred anywhere on the existing house, they are typical of this architectural style. > The garage doors are stark white panelized doors. The existing front door is either stained or painted brown, and the two newer spanish houses nearby have brown garage doors. Plain white garage doors are not consistent with the architectural style, and would not have been approved originally. > Other applications are built as designed and approved. If that same standard also applies to the neighbors, it needs to apply here. Building inspectors typically advise changes to be approved through Planning. > The glass and aluminum railings are out of place with the rest of the house. > The garage plate height is supportable. The issues are with the details, particularly the garage door and the glass rail. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve Action Item with the following amendments: > Approve the enclosure of the carport into a garage; > Approve the ornamental detail on the front wall of the garage to be replaced with a simplified square opening; > Deny the request for approval of the glass guard rail; > Deny the request to replace the terra cotta tile vents at the front of the garage with a light fixture; and > Deny the replacement of the stained wood garage door with a plain white painted door. City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Recused: 1 - Gaul C. 261 California Drive, zoned HMU - Application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to increase the hours of operation and maximum number of persons on site for an existing fitness gym (Basecamp Fitness). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301(a). (Dethrone Burlingame LLC, applicant and Hera LLC, property owner) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 261 California Dr - Staff Report 261 California Dr - Attachments All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones had an email exchange with a Basecamp member to get clarification on communications between Basecamp and the clientele. Commissioner Kelly spoke to a resident from an apartment behind the business. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff - There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak represented the applicant, with business manager Jesse Jones. Commission Questions/Comments: > The early morning classes are the most popular, and max out at 44? (Hudak: Yes. The maximum for any class is 44 based on the number of stations.) > Are there classes of 44 later in the day? (Jones: No.) > At 5:15 or 6:15 are there eight staff members present? (Jones: There is an average of three staff to provide customer service to a class of this size, plus the instructor.) > Have there been any complaints with the construction parking for 225 California Drive? (Gardiner: Not aware of direct construction complaints, but are seeing some indirect impacts such as from the parking spaces being out of commission during construction. The project has been compliant with its requirements for construction vehicles.)(Hudak: Has not observed construction workers from the 225 California Drive project using the parking spaces.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > A member of the club has confirmed that Basecamp has been operating for a number of years, and that management has reached out to the Basecampers to ask them not to park in front of the facility and City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 they have responded. > Satisfied that once construction is completed the situation will settle. The construction has displaced parking spaces. > Spoke to resident behind who said occassionally they hear classes but with the business's attention to keeping the door shut it should be fine. > Applicant was responsive with the sandwich boards and it seems to have worked. Would encourage the patrons to park further away even after the construction is completed to help the other businesses in the area. > Appreciates the outreach that was conducted. > Noise concern seems to be under control. > Keep communication open with everyone along the strip. > Concern with the noise and number of people in the last meeting who were concerned with the noise. Concern with moving the hours to 5:00. > Could consider waiting to allow the longer hours until the neighboring construction is completed. > 225 California will have a substantial parking garage under it so it should meet the requirements of the building. > There is a great possibility to be able to accommodate overflow parking in the public lots such as the train station lot. > Have already been operating outside their CUP by starting at 5:00, so there is already understanding of what the impacts will be. > Does not expect there will be 52 people on site at a given time. The demand peaks in the early morning when there is plenty of parking. > It appears a lot of local residents attend the early classes. There are a lot of bikes in the bike racks and people run and walk to the facility. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Nay: 1 - Gum d. 1190 California Drive, zoned Unclassified - Application for an Amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit to add outdoor seating to an existing restaurant. (Maverick Jacks, LLC, applicant; Dennis Yeung, Oris Design, designer; Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and City and County of San Francisco Water Dept., property owners) (358 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 1190 California Dr - Staff Report 1190 California Dr - Attachments 1190 California Dr - Plans - 08.28.17 All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Comaroto met with the manager on the site. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.- > Can the owners of the property (SFPUC and JPB) take their properties back in the future? (Kane: That is a matter of the lease held between the business and the landlord.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Micheal Mallie represented the applicant. City of Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 Commission Questions/Comments: > Has this been done at the other location too? (Mallie: Yes, at Jack's Prime in San Mateo.) > Is that also bordering the train tracks? (Mallie: Yes.) > Have there been any issues with the outdoor seating in the past? (Mallie: No.) > Would the seating be comprised of the same type of metal seating typically seen at outdoor dining establishments? Would suggest spacious seating. (Mallie: Has heard that comment before.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Having seen turnover of the property between different restaurants, this business is a great tenant and neighbor for Broadway. > If the business thinks this can work, supports the application. > The cover over the outdoor dining is a great idea, will provide some shelter from the train tracks. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 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 Attachments: 125 Crescent Ave - Staff Report 125 Crescent Ave - Attachments 125 Crescent Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 125 Crescent Ave - Plans - 08.25.17 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. City of Burlingame Page 7 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 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 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. City of Burlingame Page 8 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 > 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. 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 to do need 5,000-6,000 square foot houses. Should revise rules especially for smaller lot sizes in older City of Burlingame Page 9 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 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. > 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 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 b. 1516 Highway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Lot Merger for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (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 - 08.25.17 All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. City of Burlingame Page 10 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 Questions of Staff - There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form + One, represented the applicant, with property owners Yousef and Gina Shamieh. Commission Questions/Comments: > Appreciates protecting the trees. (Raduenz: Garage will be put on piers to protect the trees.) > Has the property changed hands recently, and was the work that has been done on the property started before the purchase? (Yousef Shamieh: Bought the property in February of this year. Tried to purchase insurance, but the insurance companies had trouble insuring the building since it had not been touched in 60-70 years. There were no breaker or fuse boxes, and there were exposed gas lines. After submitting to Planning, took out all the gas and electrical and boarded up the windows to prevent breakins but did not do any building work.) > Likes the brick patterns on the front of the house and that start down the side of the windows. Thoughts of repeating it in other areas. Can see that the stucco has broken away, and it would be a good way to tie in the new and the old. Would then help the house look like it was designed on four sides rather than just on the front. > On the floorplan there is a little nook next to the front door and the wall goes straight across. To the left of the front door there should be a line, which defines the roof. Can't see how to get to the roof shown on the proposed elevation because the front door plane will be behind the plane of the dining room wall. (Raduenz: The entry will stay where it is. It is an error on the as -built.) > Dining Room window looks small and offcenter. Consider splitting it up or spreading it out? (Raduenz: Can split it up, could also have a small round or square window to the left and have the same type of brick work.) > Struggling with the roofs with the various pitches and the ends being cut off in some areas. While it is a steep roof slope, could decrease the size of rooms and lower plate heights to get the same pitch on the second floor addition but get a little more rhythm. The front looks a bit odd, and the left elevation boxy. > Needs to show the size of the new wood board detail. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Likes the project, though the horizontal siding seems alien. (Raduenz: It is wavy siding. It is a tudor look.) > Likes the site planning, and the detached garage has a separate carriage house look to it. > Likes the combination of the strong triangular forms on the front elevation combined with the siding. Has a European look, and has the feeling of a house that has evolved over time and is set in the landscape. > It is a tough lot for site planning, given how far back the house is set back from the front. Likes what has been done finding niches and corners to be able to add and make a workable plan. Commend that the large mature trees are being saved, adds to the creekside feel. > Agrees with repeating the stone details around some of the windows. > Likes the combination of the tudor style and the wavy horizontal siding. > Agrees the dining room windows need to be broken up, or some type of treatment. > Needs to indicate the specifications of the wavy siding. City of Burlingame Page 11 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to have the item return on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 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 Permit for a full bath in an accessory structure. (Jo Ann Gann, applicant and designer; Meghan and Jason Dunne, property owners) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 1213 Grove Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1213 Grove Ave - Plans - 08.25.17 Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item since she owns property within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.- > Is there anything the City can do to help mitigate construction and impacts on parking for the neighbor to the right? (Gardiner: Building Permit includes construction Best Management Practices that would address issues. The intent is to minimize impacts from the construction site on neighboring properties.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. JoAnn Gann represented the applicant, with property owners Jason and Meghan Dunne. Commission Questions/Comments: > Why the full bathroom in the garage? (Jason Dunne: No intent to be a rental unit. Useful for when doing lots of yard work and when surfing.)(Meghan Dunne: The plans provide that the living room is my space and the garage is a "man cave" for his space.) > Is the shared driveway a deeded easement? (Gann: Owners have not found anything in the deed that addresses it.)(Kane: Sometimes there is an implied easement if that is the only ingress and egress to both houses. It may be a legally implied right that does not exist in the deed.) > The site plan shows there is 11 feet between the property line and the neighbor's house, and 7 feet between the property line and the subject house.) > How long owned the property? (Jason Dunne: Since 2010.) The driveway has uniform paving across. Was the driveway project undertaken together? (Jason Dunne: Yes, it was done together with the neighboring property owner.) > Are there plans to keep neighbor's rear yard enclosed throughout construction so the dog does not get out? (Dunne: Yes, will ensure the fence enclosure. There is a small portion between the existing garages that would need to be closed off so the dog does not get out.) > Has there been a chance to talk to the neighboring tenant? (Jason Dunne: The tenant has been aware of the project and we offered to show her the plans. The letter was delivered last night. The fence will not be a problem, and will sort out the shared use of the driveway.) > Any thought of extending the porch towards California Drive? A lot of the properties in the area have wide, sweeping porches. (Gann: Could not extend further forward because of the setback. Had not considered taking away living space for more porch area.) City of Burlingame Page 12 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 > There is a floor area exemption for front porches. Could have the living space somewhere else and have a larger porch. (Gann: Had not considered, since the owners wanted to retain the mud room that is adjacent to the porch where it is.) Would suggest looking into it further before the next meeting. > Sheet 2 note regarding fire rating - check with staff on exception if the house is going to have fire sprinklers. > Were natural wood shingles considered rather than Hardie shingle? (Gann: No, preference is the Hardie shingle for maintenance.) Would encourage revisiting this; the Hardie shingle look does not fit in well with this neighborhood. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Nice project, well crafted. > Hardie shingle does not fit in. Typically the Hardie siding requires corner caps. It is possible to get pre -finished wood shingles that look good. > Suggests getting in contact with the neighboring property owner to work out an agreement for use of shared driveway. Would be a good investment for both properties. > Only issue is the request for the full bath in the garage. Not presuming illegal activity on the part of the applicant. However if the house changes hands and there is a full bathroom at the back of the garage and the large patio doors out to the side, it could lead to wanting to use it as additional living space. The commission has on occasion approved exterior showers for purposes of rinsing off. > Work with the tenant on the logistics and timing of the construction so they will be comfortable knowing their yard will be enclosed, and the shared driveway will not be a problem during construction. > Need to apply zoning regulations consistently and equally. Hard pressed to support the full bathroom in the garage. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on the 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 10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a. 1128 Rhinette Ave - FYI for changes to a previously approved application for Design Review for a second story addition. Attachments: 1128 Rhinette - FYI 1128 Rhinette - FYI plan Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. City of Burlingame Page 13 Printed on 912012017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on August 28, 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 7, 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 14 Printed on 912012017 Item No. 9a Design Review Study PROJECT LOCATION 1357 Columbus Avenue City g of Burlingame Item No. 9a Design Review and Special Permit Design Review Study Address: 1357 Columbus Avenue Meeting Date: September 25, 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: Steven F. Baldwin TR General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-153-070 Lot Area: 6,000 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 3,414 SF (0.57 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 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 (11'-0" x 22'-0" 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 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 300 SF is allowed). The applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for the overall building height as measured from the average top of curb level along Columbus Avenue to the highest roof ridge (3l'-9" proposed where 30'-0" is allowed with a Special Permit). Planning staff would note that the finished floor of the house is 4'-7" 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 (31'-9" proposed) (C.S. 25.26.060 (a) (1)). This space intentionally left blank. Design Review and Special Permit 1357 Columbus Avenue Lot Area: b,000 5F SETBACKS .................................................. Front (1st fir): (2nd fir): .................................................. Side (left): (right): Rear (1st fir): (2nd fir): Lot Coverage: FAR: # of bedrooms: ................................................................... Off -Street Parking: Building Height: ........................................................... DH Envelope: 1357 Columbus Avenue Plans date stamped: August 11, 2U1 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED 22'-1'/2" 18-0" (block average) 22'-1'/2" 20'-0" ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 10'-019 41_01' 4'-0" 4'-0" 44'-10" 44'-10" 1 covered (11' x 22' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') ............................................................................ 31'-9" 2 ............................................................................ complies 15-0" 20'-0" 2400 SF 40% ................................. 3420 SF' 0.57 FAR 1 covered (10' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') ............................................................................. 30'-0" ........................................................................... CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 6000 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3420 SF (0.57 FAR) 2 Special Permit required for building height (31'-9" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed). Staff Comments: None. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer Steven F. Baldwin TR, property owner Attachments Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 15, 2017 Aerial Photo 18� was COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.668.7250 • f: 660.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: IlM Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit PROJECT ADDRESS: 1357 COLUMBUS 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: james@chudesign.com ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: JAMES CHU Address: 55 W. 43RD AVE. City/State/Zip: SAN MATEO, CA 94403 Phone: 650-345-9286 x104 E-mail: james@chudesign.com ❑ Parcel #: 027-153-070 ❑ Zoning / Other: PROPERTY OWNER Name: MR. STEVE BALDWIN Address: 1357 COLUMBUS AVE. City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME CA 94010 Phone: 4/S" 7/6, - ozc> E-mail: sbaldwin@citybuilding.com R E C MAY 12 ^" 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME Burlingame Business License #: 2268CDD-PLANNING DIV 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. ic (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE W/ DETACHED 1-CAR GARAGE 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: I am aware of the proposed application and uthorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted: 5 - 1 L - 17 S: � NA NDO UTS� PC Application. doc City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org CITY O BURLINGAME Y.I.- : CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION CEIVED rt)�, I i ill? CITY OF BURUNGAME The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's OrdinarW(190*01NNINC DIV. 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 country 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 (5 to 6 feet 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 country farm house dwelling is located within a variety of styles neighborhood. The low pitch metal roof, combination of shingle/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 o f 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. No trees will be removed with new landscaping proposed for the entire lot. SPECPERM.FRM CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 0 FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 1357 COLUMBUS AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 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 1357 COLUMBUS AVENUE zoned R-l. APN 027-153-070 Mailed: September 15, 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. 1'hank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) 2�10 S ^ ^ r h p ¢ f V/ 41 _ ti 6 ry G r . 0 %If °fir Tq'cb , #'9L'W'b a a8 �4a Cyr . ' 2 Or^ � �! r, qo T * �y Vao — — �- - � f ^ A� s2 s8�•��� ! _ tit_ '` ..i`+., .r _ .. y a 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 TYP. HEAD + SILL DETAIL SCALE: 1n 1'—On GYP, BD. HEADER PER PLAN DBL 2x SILL 2x BLOCKING OMIT AT PLYWD.SHEARWALL GYP. BD. TOP OF RIDGE EL. +124.66 Ji TOP PLATE UPPERFLOOR PLATE LEVEL e MAIN FLOOR EL. +9i50 D.N.E.9635 98.10+94.60 2 TOP OF RIDGE EL. +1241o(o J� TOP PLATE MAIN FLOOR EL. +9750 ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD CASEMENT WINDOW W/ 2x WOOD TRIM, DUAL GLAZING TYP. C:ULUI" IN, I TF'. Al-UMINUI-1 (.L4U WUUU CASEMENT WINDOW W/ 2x WOOD TRIM, DUAL GLAZING TYP. RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" ENTRY DOOR W/ r� VCIVCCI� 4x WOOD TRIM FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" II /1/1T1 CIf lk 1/ / II WATERTAE�LE TRIM, TYP, (E) BASEMENT TYPE VENEER LEGEND EE EMERGENCY EGRESS REVISIONS BY PLANNIN8/10/17G PU 0 Z �Daoc c ���--,, Z N N Iv —I W �OMM ^W -� 7c, y 1:� �4 mow . t C-5 2> IDD z� z =w zo Q�oW ��D O O L U 'CS O R O O CIS CIS yy w. 3 c y C's 0 3 C13 o C. Q O 45 �. y Gf� O 9 v U as s, W �O DATE: AUG. 2016 SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWN: PMU JOB: SHEET NO. A04 OF SHEETS TOP OF RIDGE +124fo6 IRV TOP PLATE cfJ i UPPER FLOOR PLATE LEVEL MAIN FLOOR EL. +975m TOP OF RIDGE J� EL. +124.66 J� TOP PLATE UPPER FLOOR PLATE LEVEL MAIN FLOOR J� EL. +9150 i 6� 3" WOOD RAFTER TAIL5 BOARD AND BATTEN TYPE 511DING 12" PAINTED BAND SHINGLE, TYP. TYP, ROOF PITCH --\ ^ ��Mo ci Ihv_I i`c STONE VENEER WVVV i cA I DOORS 40 WATT5 MAX. WATERTABLE TRIM, TYP, REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" Elm SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD CASEMENT WINDOW W/ 2x WOOD TRIM, DUAL GLAZING TYP. WOOD LATTICE VENT, TYP. COMP, SHINGLES ROOFING, TYP. WOOD SIDING 6" EXPOSURE, TYP. 6x12 WOOD OUTRIGGER5, F—TYP. ■ �mn� � mmmn�mmmm� Omni � mmmm�n�nm �m n nmmmmnmrm imni � mmmmmmmm� Omni . mmmmmmmn ADHERED &x12 WOOD STONE VENEER COR15EL5 LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 2x Im" 50, WOOD WATERTABLE COLUMN, TYP. TRIM, TYP, a LEGEND EE EMERGENCY EGRE55 REVISIONS BY PLANNIN8/10/17G PU V i� � O Z �Daocoo Z W W �OMM Q �EW-+0p 3 � t g C/] z �Z z� z w zo �ti--, o.ox•� 7� O U 'CS O ?+tir Uj • i-4 O 4 2 3 c y �Dn .0 3 C13 o �+ O y Gf� O O 9 v U as s, W �O DATE: AUG. 2016 SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWN: PMU JOB: SHEET NO. A.5 OF SHEETS WOOD SIDING 6" EXPOSURE, TYP. WOOD LATTICE VENT, TYP• 12 61 6x12 WOOD OUTRIGGERS, TYP. Ilia VAN miIN11 pal 10 m mm u� 1 LIGHT FIXTURE, J 40 WATTS MAX. FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=F-0" w- ♦ 1 "1 WV BLIND -WALL LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=F-0" '' I— e 1-1, 1- , 11 V 1♦ 1 V I wV REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=F-0" 1un I I 1,� 1 ui�, vrlll .�.rtiti, 1 1 i. a_Z' WATTS MAX. RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=F-0" -O" REAR cA SETBACK N 2m'-8" GARAGE FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4"=V-0" N REVISIONS BY PLANNIN8/10/17G PU V o � o z �Daocoo Z W W �OMM .n-�I-1 g, W • > Nz U 1.1-C_�til z� �w era � ` 05 COD o w 8 c o 0 2 O L U -CS O ?+tir R o w a�i �• L CIS Uj i 4 A t N 4 3 c y � C 0 3 C13 o a�i Q-1 O 45 �- y 9 v U W DATE: AUG. 2016 SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWN: PMU JOB: SHEET NO. A06 OF SHEETS GENERAL NOTES: I. 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 WORKS± 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 IS PREPARED BY- W.E.G. 8 ASSOCIATES 2625 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD %58 BPALO ALTO, CA 94306 TEL; (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 BAGKFLOW PROTECTION CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED PER ORDINANCE NO,1110. 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 SIZE OF BUILDING, SEE UFC APPENDIX IIIA. MINIMUM 500 GPM REQUIRED. SEE TABLE NO. A-III-A-1, 13, MINIMUM I" WATER METER REQUIRED 14. IF BACKWATER PROTECTION IS 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 CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO QUICK ACTING VALVES, THAT WILL ABSORB HIGH PRESSURES RESULTING FROM QUICK CLOSING OF QUICK -ACTING VALVES. CPC 5ECTION609.10 FOLIC WORK NOTES 4 CONDITIONS: I. 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'S 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 IS 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 NUMBERSON 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 RE-ESTABLISHED AT THE END OF THE PROJECT. 6. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. 1, GONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING USE SHALL CONFORM TO CONDITIONS AS DESCRIBED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. 8, THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S NPDES 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 STORM 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'S 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 STORM 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 SITE 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. FIRE SPRINKLER DOMESTIC WATER 1" fCV LEGEND: WM - WATER METER V - VALVE DCv - DOUBLE CHECK VALVE WM MCv - MAIN CONTROL VALVE BFD - BACK FLOW PREVENTION DEVICE -W- - WATER LINE 1-1/44 TYP. I. PROVIDE A BAGFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE - USG APPROVED DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY. 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. 3CHEMATIC WATER LATERAL LIN NOT TO SCALE DRAINAGE NOTES: 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 ABS 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 IS 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 SIZE TO CARRY ALL WATER THROUGH A 2" DIAMETER ABS PIPE THROUGH THE FACE OF THE CURB SO THAT THE WATER WILL EMPTY INTO THE GUTTER SYSTEM. INSURE THAT THE LOCATION GHOSEN 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 10 15 PERFORMANCE (GALLONS PER HOUR) 2200 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 IS 211. FOR NFPA 131) SYSTEMS THE MINIMUM SIZE IS P. 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. REPLACE DAMAGED OR DISPLACED CURB, GUTTER AND/OR SIDEWALK ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE. A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED, 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, A PROPERTY SURVEY IS REQUIRED IF ANY PART OF PERMANENT STRUCTURE INCLUDING FOOTING IS WITHIN 12" OF PROPERTY LINE. 4, 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'S RIGHT-OF-WAY_ TABLE NO. A-111-A-1 MINIMUM REQUIRED FIRE FLOW 4 FLOW DURATION 51JILDING5 FIRE AREA (square feet) FIRE FLOW (gallons FLOW DURATION X0.0929 for m2 I minute) (hours) Type I-F.R. Type II One-HR. Type IV-H.T. Type II-N Type V-N1 x 3.785 for II-F.R.1 Ill One-HRA V-One-Hr.1 II-N1 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 3,000 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 42,70147,700 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 4 271,201-295,900 152,601-166,500 97,701-106,500 70,601-77,000 43,401-47,400 5,750 295,901-Greater 166,601-Greater 106,501-115,800 77,001-83,700 47,401-51,500 6,000 " 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 (N)6'-O" WOOD FENCING - 1 SOLID PLUS 12" LATTICE 5_550051 50_021 L 10' WIDE (F� ALLEY _.- - - - - 0- - - - :: a :::..:::- :- :::� ::::: I - - (N) 41 ��R-LATERAL I . j. I.. ❑ TO CITY CLEANOUT PER CITY STDS.I I ................ .. ............ E) GARAGE TO BE REMO D "C L .............. I ..:........... .:.. I I.... NEW GAR 4 ,5 R. � L (E) CONC. SLAB TO BE REMOVED 98.10 _E . �6..............I..'. .................... ::::.................... (N) LAWN SE .......::::.I f.EK.............. .....I ........... .. ....................I ........... 6 Q I (E) DRIVEWAY TO ........... ........... BE REMOVED Q I I I I I I B TO BE REMOVED NOTE, 6 .' L �- - ❑ �� (N) 55Q/COUNTER I. EXTERIOR BEARING ��° - - - - - - - WALLS LESS THAN 5 FEET FROM THE -� PROPERTY LINE MUST IL BUILDING SETBACK BE CONSTRUCTED AS A I -PR FIRE RESISTIVE - :: ' ADDRESS- SETBACK: ASSEMBLY.2013.CBC -A FPT-1 F ` `''` 1369 1361 145' 20.1' TABLE 602. 2. ROOF EAVES WILL NOT=r � - - � � 1365 18.6' PROJECT WITHIN 2 �. �. ,..r.t, ,... �. _... ...... ,........... .............. ,..r.t, "" . 1361 1359 225' 25.3' FEET OF THE - - J....................................L // ................... ................. .. 's i:, 1351 (SITE) 1353 16.4' 186' �PROPERTY_LIAIE_ i�i ( �........................ .................. ON RET I r ;sy..: I. + :: 13413 12 ._ RI WAY ............. . .........;::'°j L 1345 16 8 lIE) FENCE TO (REMAIN ............. .................... e ( I L . ^:' -, L . �.. 1341 16.81 I I ........................................... 1323 16.81 I .............. ..... �.......... ............................................' L . AVERAGE SETBACK = 18.1, L:.:.. I..::::. ................. 1 I � ...................... I..:},-_ L ..; F T 1 ..............................................l IIDS :..::. . .. .. , (N) GRAVEL WALN ......................... ............ ....... .I... .L I( D �.. �:12 TYP... ... . I ................. �.. ACI.....: I ....NE RE �DENCE i_I2 TY : \ / \ \ / \ J. .. L .. FFL -EL.. - 975m IDS( I...I ......... ADJACENT NEIGHBOR I I-0 ............................................1..... �...........................................� I ADJACENT NEIGHBOR ❑ �,n SIDE SET. I CK p I ...................... :..:...........{..L .. ID ...56 I I ............. ....................I.. I .:..... .............. ......................I I D � .....I ............... ....................I.. I........ .. z EM I..................... .... I.I :I I.........I..... .................1.. GM �6....... DS I............. ...: I ` '.... °❑0�°❑❑ I .............. 11 ❑o ❑o ....... j . a u, 0 I .................... F- I ..I TYP.. � I w ...... I (E) RESIDENCE TO ❑ BE REMOVED LU 94 (oO 93.88 crl LU L ,L a QNC TEI - m i�1V U�AY ❑ 00 QD 0 o z (2) 6" B RCH THE I_ Duo I I I I ❑0 I I i ❑ I I I I �� ---- ------------------------ a y ❑ '� 5ti�6 TOC. FH (E) TREE (E) TREE 92.11 T.OL, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCALE: 1/8'=1'-0" N DRIVEWAY ell APPROACH COLUMBUS AVENUE (501 R/W) REVISIONS BY PLAN07G 8/1/1 PU W M O U � O Z �D a OO pp Z�NN W �OMM pz,�� - QJ 3 , o C7 i' =1 w Y Q> G! y �Wl N z8 _ z o 44 o ¢ 03 o w. IDn � 0 3 c o ct s� o y Gf� O 9 v U lc�d s, W �O �j lid DATE: AUG. 2016 SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWN: PMU JOB: SHEET NO. A.2 OF SHEETS (E) FENCE TO REMAIN (N) 6'-0" VEHICULAR GATE (N) EVERGREEN - PRIVACY TREES (N) LAWN STRIP W/ DRIP IRRIGATION ADJACENT (E) PITT05FORUM HEDGE/TKEES TO REMAIN (N) STEPPING STONE PATH *SET FLUSH W/ LAWN (N) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 5550045 1 "E (N) DROUGHT TOLERANT GROUNDCOVER COLU M 15U5 50' R.O.W. (N) G' SOLID WOOD FENCING PLUS 1 2" LATTICE (N) BBQ / COUNTER *3' TALL MARBLE (N) GRAVEL WALK (N) 6' SOLID WOOD FENCING PLUS 1 2" LATTICE (E) PITTOSPORUM HEDGE/TREES TO REMAIN (N) GRAVEL WALK ADJACENT (E) PITTOSPORUM HEDGE/TREES TO REMAIN (N) STEPPING STONES (E) BIRCH TREES TO REMAIN (E) STREET TREES DROUGHT TOLERANT (E) WATER METER (N) STEPPING STONES SET ON SAND BASE AVENUE LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANT LIST 7/17/17 BALDWIN RESIDENCE, 1357 COLUMBUS AVENUE SYM SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME QTY SIZE GROWTH WUCOLS TREES A Quercu5 rubra Red Oak - 24" BOX MOD. M B Acer palmatum 'Sangu Kaku' Japanese Maple 1 24" BOX SLOW M C Citrus 5pp. Sweet Orange 3 24" BOX MOD. M D Tri5taniop5i5 Iaurina (5td) Swamp Myrtle 2 24" BOX MOD. M E Lauru5 nobih5 'Saratoga' (5td) Grecian Laurel 10 5 GAL MOD. L 5HRU135 / PERENNIAL5 I Hemerocalli5 'Dwarf Red Daylily 75 1 GAL MOD. M 2 Lavandula angu5tifolia'Hidcote' English Lavender 4 1 GAL MOD. L 3 Ro5a 'Flowering Carpet' Groundcover Rose 9 2 GAL MOD. M 4 Pitto5porum ten uifolium 'Marjorie Channon' Pitto5porum 4 15 GAL MOD. M 5 Ro5a 'I ceberg' Iceberg Rose G 5 GAL FAST M G Hydrangea macrophylla 'Endle55 Summer' Hydrangea 2 5 GAL MOD. M 7 Pieri5japonica'Mt Fire' Japanese PIerI5 3 15 GAL SLOW M 8 Loropetalum chinen5e 'R=Ieberry' Fringe Flower G 5 GAL MOD. L 9 Camellia japonica Camellia 5 15 GAL MOD. M 10 Ligu5trum japonicum 'Texanum' Japanese Privet 3 15 GAL FAST M I I Heuchera 5anguinea Coral 5el15 25 1 GAL MOD. M VINES V-1 Trachelo5permum ja5minoide5 (staked) Star Jasmine G 5 GAL MOD. M V-2 DI5tIctu5 bucclnatoria (espalier) Blood -Red Trumpet Vine 1 5 GAL FAST M MEADOW Native Mow Free Blend, Delta Bluegrass Co. (BOO) 637-8873 500 sf ROLLS SLOW - L LAWN Bolero PIu5 Blend, Delta Bluegrass Co. (800) 637--8873 575 5f ROLLS SLOW - H 'lawn not included in calculations, see area talcs TOTAL QTY: GG5 L VL QTY: 520 76. 2% VL O 5f 0 aty L 1,583 5f 520 c1ty M 442 5f 145 c1ty NON -TURF IRRIGATED AREA: 2,025 h 0 5f 0 city PI ANITINI(, Klr)TFI, 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR 511ALL VERIFY PLANT AND 50D QUANTITIES PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID FOR WORK. 2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST STANDARDS OF NURSERY 5TOCK, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN NURSERY � LANDSCAPE A550CIATION. 3. PLANT MATERIAL CANNOT BE GUARANTEED A5 DEER RESISTANT DUE TO CHANGING HABITS OF DEEP, 4. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A LAYER OF BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 INCHES, WITH A CHIP 51ZE OF NO LE55 THAN ONE INCH. A 2 INCH LAYER OF GREENWA5TE MULCH UNDER THE BARK MULCH 15 RECOMMENDED. 5. 501L AMENDMENTS SHALL BE USED A5 NECESSARY, 501L AMENDMENT SHALL BE FREE OF DE5RI5. ROCK5 LARGER THAN ONE INCH DIAMETER WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. 501L AMENDMENTS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN TYPICAL NATIVE PLANT LAND5CAPE AREAS. G. PLANTING HOLE5 SHALL GENERALLY BE 2x - 3x THE 51ZE OF THE ROOT BALL. THE WALLS AND BASES OF PLANT HOLE5 SHALL BE SCARIFIED. HOLE5 SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH 5% ORGANIC COMF05T $ 95% EXISTING SOIL, PLANTING HOLE5 OF NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL 511OULD BE INOCULATED WITH MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI, PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS. 7. TREES SHALL BE STAKED WITH TWO PRESSURE TREATED 2" DIA. POLE5. TREE TRUNK SHALL BE SECURED WITH TWO RUBBER TIES OR STRAPS FORMING A FIGURE -EIGHT BETWEEN TRUNK AND STAKE, 5. RESIDUAL WEED PRE -EMERGENT SHALL BE APPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR A5 NECESSARY. APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. 9. LAWN SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 25%. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE FERTILIZED AT TIME OF IN5TALLATION. REVISIONS vNcrnE r CD NC', r C --TNN L, �MQ1 Q, I I C � N N CIS cyQl-_l.- — C> M C9 M I I V p O O — — N LO LO N > -Coco W L tv LA- E co N @� Y E j�ptdDSCgp\\ L D0�s-A c� *a' --1 \OF' CAU\F5� LU < UIr z 0 zLLJ Q SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 LANDSCAPE PLAN NO. SCALE: 1 /8" = 11-011 L1.0 Al City of Burlingame Design Review and Variance Address: 852 Paloma Avenue Item No. 9b Design Review Study Meeting Date: September 25, 2017 Request: 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. Applicant and Designer: Jesse Geurse APN: 029-015-330 Property Owner: Rick Lund Lot Area: 5,340 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The existing one-story house with a detached garage is located on an interior lot; it contains 1,814 SF (0.34 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing an addition of a bay window at the front of the house, a 535 SF addition at the rear of the house, and to add a new second story (1,100 SF). Also proposed is removal of the existing detached garage and construction of a new two -car detached garage at the rear 30% of the lot. With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 3,204 SF (0.60 FAR) where 3,209 SF (0.60 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 5 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The number of potential bedrooms is increasing from two to six (5 bedrooms and 1 office room). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The new detached garage would provide two covered parking spaces (20' wide x 20' deep clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to increase the lot coverage to 40.9% (2,183 SF) where 40% is the maximum allowed (2,136 SF). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: ■ Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)); and ■ Variance for exceeding the maximum allowable lot coverage (1910 SF, 35.8% existing; 2183 SF, 40.9% proposed; where 2136 SF, 40% is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.26.065). 852 Paloma Avenue Lot Size: 5,340 SF Plans date stamped: September 11, 2017 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Front (1st fir): 19'-6 '/2" 19'-2 '/2" 15-0" (or block average) (2"d fir): .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. n/a 23'-6'/z" 20'-0" (or block average) Side (left): 3'-1'/2" 3'-1'/2" (to addition) 3'-0" (right): 7'-8'/2 " 9'-6" (to addition) 3'-0" ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Rear (1st fir): 70'-11'/2" 51'-5" 15'-0" (2"d fir): ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. n/a 51'-5" 20'-0' Lot Coverage: 1910 SF 2183 SF 2136 SF 35.8% 40.9% 40% .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. FAR: 1814 SF 3204 SF 3209 SF' 0.34 FAR 0.60 FAR 0.60 FAR (0.32 x 5340 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3209 SF (0.60 FAR) Design Review 852 Paloma Avenue 852 Paloma Avenue Lot Size: b,J4u 5r Mans date stamped: September i i, zui i EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D # of bedrooms: ........ ......... ......... 2 ......... .......... 6 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ --- Off -Street existing detached garage 2 covered (20' x 20') 2 covered (20' x 20) Parking: proposed to be demolished 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') ........ ......... ......... Height: ........ ......... ......... ........ .......... ......... ......... 14'-10'/z" " ..... ......... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................... 29'-8" 30'-0" DH Envelope: not applicable 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. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. `Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer Rick Lund, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Variance Application Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 15, 2017 Aerial Photo 4 ii& COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD " BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.bLrlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: M Design Review 14 Variance0 ❑ Conditional Use Permit © Special Permit Parcel #: 029-015-330 ❑ Zoning I Other ____R, PROJECT ADDRESS: 852 PALOMA AVENUE. BURLINGAME CA _ APPLICANT Name: Jesse Geurse Address: 405 Bayswater Avenue City/State/Zip: Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Phone: 650-703-6197 E-mail: jgeurse@sbeglobl.net ARCHITECTIDESIGNER Name: Jesse Geurse Address: 405 Bayswater Avenue City/State/Zip: Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Phone: 650-703-6197 E-mail: jgeurse@sbcglobl.net Burlingame Business License #: 22811 PROPERTY OWNER Name: Rick Lund Address: 852 Paloma Ave City/State/Zip: Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Phone: E-mail: rick.lurid@gmail com Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request andlor past plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any .-halms against the City arising out of or related to such action. (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: First story and new second story addition and new detached garage AFFIDAVITISIGNATURE: I hereby certify under natty f perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date:_�7�I I am aware of the proposed appli t n her alrthorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. 7/17/1 ! Property owner's signature: Cate: —_ Date submitted: 17 S:}HANVOUi PCAppN atlon.doc CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING D'IV. BURLINGAAAE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ■ 501 PRIMROSE.- ROAD ' BUFU-INGF,ME, CA 94010 P: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.tsurlingarne.org CITY OF BURLIM33AME. VARIANCE APPLICATION 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 cars assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type orwrite neatly in ink. Referto 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 subject property is a very small lot therefore lot coverage is confined to the area of the lot. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. The variance is requested in pursue of expanding the porch area and allowing for a 41 percent lox coverage. The Lund family are a 5 child household therefore a minimum 5 bedroom house is necessary. Due to 5 bedrooms we are required to have a 2 ca- garage. The two car garage created a hardship for lot coverage and forced us to request the additional square footage for lot coverage to add a porch area for the residence. The covered porch is very much wanted for the family so that they can have shelter to enter the residence. The denial of the 41 percent lot coverage will cause the removal of the porch thus creating a property loss. We would really like to keep a porch. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed loc:ation will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinhy or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The porch area would not be detrimental, injurious or a public health risk for the reason that the existing residence contains a porch as well as the majority of the residences. The use will remain the same. Therefore no issues should arise from the porch. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the rias,thetic:s, mass, bulik and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The added lot coverage will allow us to provide a porch that works well with the new overall design of the residence, As mentioned above the majority of all the residences on the block have porches so the overall look will be consistent with the neighbors. We ask that the commission please approve this request for the variance to allow for a porch to be built. JIINN�9d-C n`i k HandPIWVa�ajo,-,�pplination.2oo8 i 1i �I • -3AI:zlli{ CITY Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 852 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-015-330 Description: Request for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a new detached garage. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Please be aware that the property is located in the Special Flood Zone. Please confirm that the property has either (a) been removed from the flood zone with a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) provided by FEMA, or (b) show project compliance with municipal code section 18.22.513 "Elevation and Flood proofing". If the property is above the BFE, please provide an elevation certificate issued from FEMA Please show how the post -construction will address the additional stormoff due to the remodel. Please be aware that no additional storm runoff is allowed from post -construction project site. 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. 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. 2. 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. Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 7/21/17 Public Works Engineering CITY Project Address: Description From Project Comments - Planning Application 852 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-015-330 Request for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a new detached garage. 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. 3) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 4) Specify on the plans whether the fireplace is a gas or solid wood -burning device. If the fireplace is a solid wood -burning device clearly state on the plans that the fireplace will meet all requirements as a U.S.EPA Phase II certified wood -burning device. 6) This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2016 California Building Code for new structures. BMC 18.07.020 7) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been final. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 8) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 10) 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. 11) On the plans show that all openings in exterior walls, both protected and unprotected, will comply with 2016 CBC, Table 705.8. Provide a table or chart that specifies 1) the openings allowed and; 2) the size and percentage of the openings proposed. 12) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: September 19, 2017 650 558-7270 CITY Project Address: Description From Project Comments - Planning Application 852 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-015-330 Request for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a new detached garage. Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1) Provide existing elevation drawings 2) RESIDENTIAL: Rooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Note: The area labeled "Office" is a room that can be used for sleeping purposes and, as such, must comply with this requirement. 3) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 4) Specify on the plans whether the fireplace is a gas or solid wood -burning device. If the fireplace is a solid wood -burning device clearly state on the plans that the fireplace will meet all requirements as a U.S.EPA Phase II certified wood -burning device. 5) If the fireplace is a solid wood -burning device then specify on the plans that the fireplace chimney will terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet or will be retrofit with a fireplace insert (not a log lighter.) 2016 CRC § 1003.9 or 2016 CBC 2113.9 18.10.100 Appendix C, Figure C amended —Exit terminals of mechanical draft and direct -vent venting systems. The Figure in Appendix C of the 2016 California Residential Code is amended by adding the following note: Note: Where the property line is less than ten (10) feet from the exit terminal of any newly installed or replacement high efficiency mechanical equipment the pipe size of the final ten (10) feet of any terminal must be increased to three inches (3 ") or, as an alternative, manufacturer -approved baffles must be installed. (Ord. 1856 § 7, (2010); Ord. 1889 § 8, (2013)) 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. 6) This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2016 California Building Code for new structures. BMC 18.07.020 7) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been final. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 8) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 9) On the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the property line 2016 CRC § Table R302.1(1) or 2016 CBC Table 705.2 10) 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. 11) On the plans show that all openings in exterior walls, both protected and unprotected, will comply with 2016 CBC, Table 705.8. Provide a table or chart that specifies 1) the openings allowed and; 2) the size and percentage of the openings proposed. 12) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 13) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 2016 CRC R311.7.8 or 2016 CBC §1011.11 Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: July 21, 2017 650 558-7270 Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 852 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-015-330 Description: Request for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a new detached garage. 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. Fire sprinkler comments already noted. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 7/31/17 650-558-7617 a Proiect Comments - Plannina Project Address: 852 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-015-330 Description: Request for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a new 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. Recommend Trident Maple, Golden Rain Tree or Crape Myrtle in place of Japanese maple for new landscape trees. 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. 1. No existing tree over 48 inches in circumference at 54 inches form base of tree may be removed without a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Division. (558- 7330) 2. Existing City Street Tree may not be cut, trimmed or removed without permit from Parks Division (558-7330) 3. All new trees shall be double staked with 2" poles and secured with at least two rubber ties or straps. Reviewed By: BD Date: 8.3.17 650.558.7333 bdisco@burlingame.org Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 852 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-015-330 Description: Request for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a new detached garage. From: 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. Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing architectural copper. IF APPLICABLE, please read "Requirements for Architectural Copper." A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.fIowstobay.org/files/newdevelopment/flyersfactsheets/Architecturalcopper13MPs.pdf 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.flowstobaV.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(a)veolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: July 20, 2017 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 852 PALOMA AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review and Lot Coverage Variance for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling and a new detached garage at 852 PALOMA AVENUE zoned R-1. APN 027-153-070 Mailed: September 15, 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) B A B A.6 C OVERALL RIDGE HEIGHT AF.F. = 43.24' OVERALL RIDGE HEIGHT AT.C. = 43.27' f_O. DBL. PLATES AT DORMER— _ B.O. CLIPPED CIELNG DECLINING HGT. ENVELOPE _ 0 l 0 0 � I✓ NEW SECOND LEVEL FIN. FLR = (16UO) _ T.O. DBL. PLATE AND B.O. CEILING _ B.O. PORCH CEILING NO EAVE SHALL PROJE( 0 TWO FEET OF THE PROPI l � L] T.O. COLUMN BASE 0 1 , EXISTING FIRST LEVEL IN. FLR = (16.70') Ic,AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE = (15.20) 1 ,gr, AVERAGE TOP OF CURB= (13.60') — tviaLm"r mm\I WRIJlM�aillf� B.O. CLIPPED T.O. DBL PLATES AT DORMERS DECLR�IING I-IGT. ENVELOPE 0 i i✓ ao T SECOND LEVEL FINFLR T.O. DBL PLATE AND B.O. i IING FIRST LEVEL FIN FIR. jRAGE NATURAL GRADE L15.10-0 AVERAGE TOP OF CURB= (13.60) ,. 1-1-FRONT ELEVATION (WEST) 00 CN SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 1 2 A 3 C 4 A A.7 �■mm am 11 END � N[ 11011111 LLPINJ L - J1 L 11 �■I■1■1■I■1■1■I■101■I■1■1■I■1■1■I■1■1■I■1■1■I■1■1■I■1■1■I■1�' ■ 16 I - "-"-I "I, I 10 C 7 m ELEVATION -KEYNOTES 1. ASPHALT SHINGLES: MANUFACTURER: GAF, STYLE TIMBERLINE ULTRA HD SHINGLES -COLOR CHARCOAL CLASS W RATING O/ 2 LAYER SBS MODIFIED UNDERLAYMENT. USE 1 - LAYER OF BITUTHANE UNDER UNDERLAYMENT FOR ALL ROOF WITH 2:12 SLOPE AND LESS CONSULT MANUFACTURER OF ASPHALT SHINGLE FOR INSTALLATION OF SHINGLES ON A 2:12 ROOF SLOPE CONSULT OWNER AND ARCHITECT IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. SHINGLE LAP SIDING MANUFACTURER: TBD SIZE IX7 STYLE TBD MATERIAL: COMPOSITE -COLOR TBD SIDING OVER (2) LAYERS OF GRADED" BUILDING PAPER OVER TYVEX OVER PLYWOOD 3. STONE VENEER -MANUFACTURER: ARCH. SUPERSTORE SIZE VARYING 12" X 19" X1-1/2" THICK -STYLE-BEACH 4. DOOR AND WINDOW MANUFACTURER: MARVIN MATERIAL: ALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR STYLE TRADITIONAL -COLORTBD SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES 5. EXTERIOR COLUMN MANUFACTURER: TURNCRAFT OR EQUAL SIZE BASE F-8", SHAFT TAPER UP TO 12" WITH CROWN CAP. MATERIAL: WOOD SHAPE ROUND 6. DECORATIVE +42" WOOD GUARDRAIL MANUFACTURER: TURNCRAFT OR EQUAL MATERIAL: WOOD STYLE TRADITIONAL 7. WOOD CORBEL SIZE 6X6 8. WOOD FACIA BOARD AND GUTTER SYSTEM. 9. WOOD WATER TABLE AT ROOF TO WALL INTERSECTION. TYPICAL. 10. WOOD BASE WATER TABLE AT WALL TO FOUNDATION INTERSECTION. TYPICAL. 11. RECESSED NICHE 12. BELLYBAND SIZE OF BELLY 2X10 WITH 2" WATER TABLE 13. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS. TYP. -GUTTER SIZE 5" SINGLE BEAD HALF ROUND DOWNSPOUT:3-1/2" ROUND 14. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY SHROUD AS SHOWN. 15. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING: MANUFACTURER: TBD -STYLE-TBD -COLOR-TBD 16. ADDITIONAL HATCHING NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 17. WOOD GATES WITH DECORATIVE WROUGHT IRON. I& WOOD COMPOSITE GARAGE DOORS. DESIGN AS SHOWN 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GCLIYSC Conceptual DCS18nS, Inc. 405 Bayswater Ave. Burlin8ame, California 94010 Tel:650.703.6197 E:mail:i8eurse@sbc8loba;net SIGNATURE BOX: NAME JESSE GEURSE DATE JUNE 8, 2017 ' CITY OF BURLINGAME BUSINESS LIC : GEUR CO AL DESIGNS, INC. NO: 22811, EXPIRATION DATE: 06/30/ 017 Z 9-8-2017 JFG I PLANNING DEPT. RE -SUBMISSION 7-15-2017 JFG PLANNING DEPT. SUBMISSION NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION CONST. REVISIONS IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL FIELD CONDITIONS AND COMPARE THEM WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BEFORE COMMENCING ACTIVITIES, ERRORS, OMMISSIONS OR ANY OTHER INCONSISTENCIES DISCOVERED SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE REPORTED TO THE DESIGNER PROJECT NAME 1ST + 2ND STORY ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE for MR. and MRS. LUND 852 PALOMA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 DRAWING TITLE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DATE ENGINEER DRAWING NO. 1708 I AART ASSINK A 776 SEE SKEET AA FOR TYPICAL MATERIAL CALLOU T :S 2-RIGHTSIDE ELEVATION (SOUTH) JOB NO. — DRAWN JFG BY: REVIEWED SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" BY: JFG SCALE AS SHOWN RELEASED TO CONSTRUCTION A.4 O Q B A.6 B AG (:B SEE SHEET A.4 FOR TYPICAL MATERIAL CALLOUTS 3-REAR ELEVATION (EAST) Q 4 C 3 A 2 1 A.7 AG 1111■111� III■1■1■1■1■I■1■'�■I■1■■■I■1■■■u11111� I��1■■■1■1■1■1■1■1■1■1■1■I■1■11■I ■111�1■111�1■1 ��■1■1■■■1■1■1■1■1■1■1■1■11■I■111�1■111�1■111�1■111�1■111�1■111�11 �I■1■I■1■1■I■1■■■1■1■■■I■ II■III�I■I � � IIII�I■I ��, �Ill�lllnl I■Illnl � � 11HA Ed 1 1 II■I�1��■■ II■Ir1■■ C A7-.* SEE SHEET A.4 FOR TYPICAL MATERIAL CALLOUTS ELEVATION —KEYNOTES 1. ASPHALT SHINGLES: :GAP, STYLE TIMBERLINE ULTRA HD SHINGLES -COLOR CHARCOAL CLASS W RATING O/ 2 LAYER SBS MODIFIED UNDERLAYMENT. USE 1 - LAYER OF BITUTHANE UNDER UNDERLAYMENT FOR ALL ROOF WITH 2:12 SLOPE AND LESS CONSULT MANUFACTURER OF ASPHALT SHINGLE FOR INSTALLATION OF SHINGLES ON A 2:12 ROOF SLOPE CONSULT OWNER AND ARCHITECT IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. SHINGLE LAP SIDING MANUFACTURER: TBD SIZE IX7 STYLE TBD MATERIAL: COMPOSITE -COLOR TBD SIDING OVER (2) LAYERS OF GRADED" BUILDING PAPER OVER TYVEX OVER PLYWOOD 3. STONE VENEER —MANUFACTURER: ARCH. SUPERSTORE SIZE VARYING 12" X 19" X1-1/2" THICK STYLE BEACH 4. DOOR AND WINDOW MANUFACTURER: MARVIN MATERIAL: ALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR STYLE TRADITIONAL —COLORTBD SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES 5. EXTERIOR COLUMN MANUFACTURER: TURNCRAFT OR EQUAL SIZE BASE F-8", SHAFT TAPER UP TO 12" WITH CROWN CAP. MATERIAL: WOOD SHAPE ROUND 6. DECORATIVE +42" WOOD GUARDRAIL MANUFACTURER: TURNCRAFT OR EQUAL MATERIAL: WOOD STYLE TRADITIONAL 7. WOOD CORBEL SIZE 6X6 8. WOOD FACIA BOARD AND GUTTER SYSTEM. 9. WOOD WATER TABLE AT ROOF TO WALL INTERSECTION. TYPICAL. 10. WOOD BASE WATER TABLE AT WALL TO FOUNDATION INTERSECTION. TYPICAL. 11. RECESSED NICHE 12. BELLYBAND SIZE OF BELLY 2X10 WITH 2" WATER TABLE 13. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS. TYP. -GUTTER SIZE 5" SINGLE BEAD HALF ROUND DOWNSPOUT:3-1/2" ROUND 14. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY SHROUD AS SHOWN. 15. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING: MANUFACTURER: TBD —STYLE-TBD —COLOR-TBD 16. ADDITIONAL HATCHING NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 17. WOOD GATES WITH DECORATIVE WROUGHT IRON. I& WOOD COMPOSITE GARAGE DOORS. DESIGN AS SHOWN SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" Geurse Conceptual Desi8ns, Inc. 405 Bayswater Ave. Burlin8ame, California 94010 Tel:650.703.6197 Email: i8eurse@sbc8loba;net SIGNATURE BOX: NAME JESSE GEURSE DATE JUNE 8, 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME BUSINESS NO: 22811, EXPIRATION DATE: 06, II L� 9-8-2017 JFG PLANNING DEFT. RE -SUBMISSION I I 7-15-2017 JFG PLANNING DEFT. SUBMISSION NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION I U W REVISIONS INC. CONST. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL ■Ii1■iil■1■■■ 1■�■1■�■■■Ii1■■VI■ �� � �� ► •H • • • r ARE ■III��CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BEFORE• i i ACTIVITIES, ERRORS, OMMISSIONS DIS OVERED S LIMMEDIATELY BE REPORTED TO TI-IE DESIGNER PROJECTNAME 1ST + 2ND STORY ADDITIONTO THE RESIDENCE �. I forRD �r� �11 ■ �Lkcwfl I DATE 1708 JOB NO. DRAWN JFG BY: REVIEWED SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" BY JFG DRAWING TITLE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ENGINEER I DRAWINGNO. AART ASSINK 4-LEFTSIDE ELEVATION (NORTH) A A.6 SCALE AS SHOWN RELEASED TO CONSTRUCTION A.5 B A B A.6 C OVERALL RIDGE HEIGHT AF.F. = 43.24' OVERALL RIDGE HEIGHT AT.C. = 43.27' f_O. DBL. PLATES AT DORMER B.O. CLIPPED CHUNG DECLINING HGT. ENVELOPE i✓ NEW SECOND LEVEL FIN. FLR = (16.LO) T.O. DBL. PLATE AND B.O. CEILING B.O. PORCH CEILING T.O. COLUMN BASE 0 EXISTING FIRST LEVEL IN. RR = (16.70') Ic,AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE = (15.20) AVERAGE TOP OF CURB= (13.60') 0 BUILDING CROSS SECTION - A MAXIMUM OVERALL BUILD. HGT. = B.O. CLIPPED v T.O. DBL PLATES AT DORMERS DECLRNIING HGT. ENVELOPE 0 i i✓ ao NEW SECOND LEVEL FIN. FLR T.O. DBL PLATE AND B.O. i EXISTING FIRST LEVEL FIN. FIR AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE L14.701Z AVERAGE TOP OF CURB= (13.60) ,. 1 2 A 3 C 4 A6 A7 l Cn ELEVATION —KEYNOTES 1. ASPHALT SHINGLES: MANUFACTURER: GAF, STYLE TIMBERLINE ULTRA HD SHINGLES —COLOR-CHARCOAL CLASS 'B' RATING O/ 2 LAYER SBS MODIFIED UNDERLAYMENT. USE 1 - LAYER OF BITUTHANE UNDER UNDERLAYMENT FOR ALL ROOF WITH 2:12 SLOPE AND LESS CONSULT MANUFACTURER OF ASPHALT SHINGLE FOR INSTALLATION OF SHINGLES ON A 2:12 ROOF SLOPE CONSULT OWNER AND ARCHITECT IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. SHINGLE LAP SIDING MANUFACTURER: TBD SIZE IX7 STYLE TBD MATERIAL: COMPOSITE -COLOR TBD SIDING OVER (2) LAYERS OF GRADED" BUILDING PAPER OVER TYVEX OVER PLYWOOD 3. STONE VENEER —MANUFACTURER: ARCH. SUPERSTORE SIZE VARYING 12" X 19" X1-1/2" THICK —STYLE-BEACH cc 0) 4. DOOR AND WINDOW MANUFACTURER: MARVIN MATERIAL: ALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR STYLE TRADITIONAL —COLORTBD SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES 5. EXTERIOR COLUMN MANUFACTURER: TURNCRAFT OR EQUAL SIZE BASE F-8", SHAFT TAPER UP TO 12" WITH CROWN CAP. —MATERIAL: WOOD SHAPE ROUND 6. DECORATIVE +42" WOOD GUARDRAIL MANUFACTURER: TURNCRAFT OR EQUAL —MATERIAL: WOOD STYLE TRADITIONAL SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 7. WOOD CORBEL SIZE 6X6 8. WOOD FACIA BOARD AND GUTTER SYSTEM. 9. WOOD WATER TABLE AT ROOF TO WALL INTERSECTION. TYPICAL. 10. WOOD BASE WATER TABLEAT WALL TO FOUNDATION INTERSECTION. TYPICAL 11. RECESSED NICHE 12. BELLYBAND SIZE OF BELLY 2X10 WITH 2" WATER TABLE 13. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS. TYP. GUTTER SIZE 5" SINGLE BEAD HALF ROUND DOWNSPOUT:3-1/2" ROUND 14. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY SHROUD AS SHOWN. 15. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING: MANUFACTURER: TBD —STYLE-TBD —COLOR-TBD 16. ADDITIONAL HATCHING NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 17. WOOD GATES WITH DECORATIVE WROUGHT IRON. I& WOOD COMPOSITE GARAGE DOORS. DESIGN AS SHOWN Geurse Conceptual Desi8ns, Inc. 405 Bayswater Ave. Burlin8ame, California 94010 Tel:650.703.6197 Email: i8eurse@sbc8loba;net SIGNATURE BOX: NAME JESSE GEURSE DATE JUNE 8, 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME BUSINESS NO: 22811, EXPIRATION DATE 06, INC. / \ 1 9-8-2017 1 JFG PLANNING DEPT. R&SUBMISSION 7-15-2017 JFG PLANNING DEPT. SUBMISSION NO. DATE BY DESCRII'TION CONST. REVISIONS IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL FIELD CONDITIONS AND COMPARE THEM WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BEFORE COMMENCING ACTIVITIES, ERRORS, OMMISSIONS OR ANY OTHER INCONSISTENCIES DISCOVERED SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE REPORTED TO THE DESIGNER PROJECT NAME 1ST + 2ND STORY ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE for MR. and MRS. LUND 852 PALOMA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 DATE 1708 JOB NO. DRAWN JFG BY: DRAWING TITLE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ENGINEER I DRAWINGNO. AART ASSINK SCALE AS SHOWN RELEASED TO CONSTRUCTION A.6 BUILDING LONGITUDINAL SECTION -B REVIEWED SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" I BY. JPG C(:BB A OVERALL BUILD. HGT. = 43.60' CLIPPED CEELING T.O. DBL. PLATES AT DORMERS DECLINING HGT. ENVELOPE 0 l b� N 0o i r SECOND LEVEL FIN. FIR = (16.nO )BL. PLATE AND B.O. CEILING TING FIRST LEVEL FIN. FLR = (16.70') AVERAGE NATURAL GRADEA14.791 AV, AVERAGE TOP OF CURB= (13.60) G AZ 0 1 CM C—BUILDING CROSS SECTION OVERALL RIDGE HEIGHT A.F.F. = 43.24' OVERALL RIDGE HEIGHT AT.C. = 43.27' T.O. DBL. PLATES AT DORMER B.O. CLIPPED CIELING DECLINING HGT. ENVELOPE I✓ NEW SECOND LEVEL FINFLR-:-jL16.' T.ODBL PLATE AND B.O. CEILI B.O. PORCH CEILING -" 01 l in T.O. COLUMN BASE 0 l EXISTING FIRST LEVEL FIN. FLR = (16.70') AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE = (15.2Q)_0 in AVERAGE TOP OF CURB= 0 l 0 l 0 0 0 SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" ELEVATION -KEYNOTES 1. ASPHALT SHINGLES: MANUFACTURER: GAF, STYLE TIMBERLINE ULTRA HD SHINGLES COLOR CHARCOAL CLASS 'B' RATING O/ 2 LAYER SBS MODIFIED UNDERLAYMENT. USE 1 - LAYER OF BITUTHANE UNDER UNDERLAYMENT FOR ALL ROOF WITH 2:12 SLOPE AND LESS CONSULT MANUFACTURER OF ASPHALT SHINGLE FOR INSTALLATION OF SHINGLES ON A 2:12 ROOF SLOPE CONSULT OWNER AND ARCHITECT IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. SHINGLE LAP SIDING MANUFACTURER: TBD SIZE IX7 STYLE TBD MATERIAL: COMPOSITE COLOR TBD SIDING OVER (2) LAYERS OF GRADED" BUILDING PAPER OVER TYVEX OVER PLYWOOD 3. STONE VENEER -MANUFACTURER: ARCH. SUPERSTORE SIZE VARYING 12" X 19" X1-1/2" THICK STYLE BEACH 4. DOOR AND WINDOW MANUFACTURER: MARVIN MATERIAL: ALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR STYLE TRADITIONAL -COLORTBD SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES 5. EXTERIOR COLUMN MANUFACTURER: TURNCRAFT OR EQUAL SIZE BASE F-8", SHAFT TAPER UP TO 12" WITH CROWN CAP. MATERIAL: WOOD SHAPE ROUND 6. DECORATIVE +42" WOOD GUARDRAIL MANUFACTURER: TURNCRAFT OR EQUAL MATERIAL: WOOD STYLE TRADITIONAL 7. WOOD CORBEL SIZE 6X6 8. WOOD FACIA BOARD AND GUTTER SYSTEM. 9. WOOD WATER TABLE AT ROOF TO WALL INTERSECTION. TYPICAL. 10. WOOD BASE WATER TABLE AT WALL TO FOUNDATION INTERSECTION. TYPICAL. 11. RECESSED NICHE 12. BELLYBAND SIZE OF BELLY 2X10 WITH 2" WATER TABLE 13. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS. TYP. -GUTTER SIZE 5" SINGLE BEAD HALF ROUND 3-1/2"ROUND 14. DECORATIVE CHIMNEY SHROUD AS SHOWN. 15. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING: MANUFACTURER: TBD -STYLE-TBD -COLOR-TBD 16. ADDITIONAL HATCHING NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 17. WOOD GATES WITH DECORATIVE WROUGHT IRON. I& WOOD COMPOSITE GARAGE DOORS. DESIGN AS SHOWN GCUYSC Conceptual DCS18nS, Inc. 405 Bayswater Ave. Burlin8ame, California 94010 Tel:650.703.6197 E:mail:i8eurse@sbc8loba;net SIGNATURE BOX: NAME JESSE GEURSE DATE JUNE 8, 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME BUSINESS NO: 22811, EXPIRATION DATE: 06, G— GARAGE SECTION n_ , G2—GARAGE REAR ELEVATION (EAST) ' � SCALE 1/4 -1-0 SCALE 1/4 -1-Q 9_8-2017 JFG PLANNING DEPT. RE -SUBMISSION 7-15-2017 JFG PLANNING DEPT. SUBMISSION G A.7 NO. DATE BY DESCRR`110N REVISIONS OVERALL RIDGE HEIGHT T.O. DBL. PLA O c0 i 00 00 d TOP OF CONC. SLAB NA RAD SEE SHEET A.4 FOR TYPICAL MATERIAL CALLOUTS IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL FIELD CONDITIONS AND COMPARE THEM WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BEFORE COMMENCING ACTIVITIES, ERRORS, OMMISSIONS OR ANY OTHER INCONSISTENCIES DISCOVERED SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE REPORTED TO THE DESIGNER INC. CONST. PROJECT NAME 1ST + 2ND STORY ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE for MR. and MRS. LUND 852 PALOMA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 DATE 1708 JOB NO. — DRAWN JFG BY: DRAWING TITLE SECTION AND GARAGE ELEVATIONS ENGINEER I DRAWINGNO. AART ASSINK SCALE AS SHOWN RELEASED TO CONSTRUCTION A.7 G4— GARAGE RIGHTSIDE ELEVATION (SOUTH) G3—GARAGE LEFTSIDE ELEVATION (NORTH) SCALEI/4"=1'-0" GI —GARAGE FRONT ELEVATION (WEST) SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" REVIEWED BY: JFG ELEVATION -KEYNOTES AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE = (15.20) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F 1. EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLES: 2. EXISTING STUCCO FINISH 3. EXISTING ALUMINUM WINDOWS 4. EXISTING CLAY VENT 5. EXISTING STUCCO CHIMNEY 6. EXISTING STUCCO WINDOW AND SILL SURROUND GCLIYSC Conceptual DCS18nS, Inc. SIGNATURE BOX: NAME JESSE GEURSE DATE JUNE 8, 2017 405 Bayswater Ave. Burlin8ame, California 94010 Tel:650.703.6197 Email: i8eurse@sbc8loba;net A B C CITY OF BURLINGAME BUSINESS LIC : GEUR CO AL DESIGNS, INC. NO: 22811, EXPIRATION DATE 06/30/ 017 1-1-FRONT ELEVATION (WEST) EXISTING T.O. PARAPET_ EXISTING T.ODBL. PLATE AND B.O. CEILING EXISTING FIRST LEVEL FIN. FIR AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE: AVERAGE TOP OF CURB SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" U 9-8-2017 JFG I PLANNING DEPT. U—SUBMISSION 7-15-2017 JFG PLANNING DEPT. SUBMISSION NO. DATE BY DESCRII'TION CONST. REVISIONS IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL FIELD CONDITIONS AND COMPARE THEM WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BEFORE COMMENCING ACTIVITIES, ERRORS, OMMISSIONS OR ANY OTHER INCONSISTENCIES DISCOVERED SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE REPORTED TO THE DESIGNER PROJECT NAME 1ST + 2ND STORY ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE for MR. and MRS. LUND 852 PALOMA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 DATE 1708 JOB NO. — DRAWN JFG BY: REVIEWED SCALE 1/4°=1'-0° BY: JFG DRAWING TITLE EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ENGINEER I DRAWINGNO. AART ASSINK 2-EXISTING RIGHTSIDE ELEVATION (SOUTH) SCALE AS SHOWN RELEASED TO CONSTRUCTION EA.4 ELEVATION -KEYNOTES 1. EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLES: 2. EXISTING STUCCO FINISH 3. EXISTING ALUMINUM WINDOWS 4. EXISTING CLAY VENT 5. EXISTING STUCCO CHIMNEY 6. EXISTING STUCCO WINDOW AND SILL SURROUND GCUYSC Conceptual DCS18nS, Inc. SIGNATURE BOX: NAME JESSE GEURSE DATE JUNE 8, 2017 405 Bayswater Ave. Burlin8ame, California 94010 Tel:650.703.6197 Email: i8eurse@sbc8loba;net C B CITY OF BURLINGAME BUSINESS LIC : GEUR CO AL DESIGNS, INC. NO: 22811, EXPIRATION DATE 06/30/ 017 SEE SHEET A.4 FOR TYPICAL MATERIAL CALLOUTS 3—EXISTING REAR ELEVATION (EAST) SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 0 0 0 0 / \ 1 9-8-2017 1 JFG PLANNING DEPT. RE -SUBMISSION 7-15-2017 JFG PLANNING DEPT. SUBMISSION NO. DATE BY DESCRII'TION CONST. REVISIONS IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL FIELD CONDITIONS AND COMPARE THEM WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BEFORE COMMENCING ACTIVITIES, ERRORS, OMMISSIONS OR ANY OTHER INCONSISTENCIES DISCOVERED SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE REPORTED TO THE DESIGNER PROJECT NAME 1ST + 2ND STORY ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE for MR. and MRS. LUND 852 PALOMA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 DATE 1708 JOB NO. DRAWN JFG BY: DRAWING TITLE EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ENGINEER I DRAWINGNO. AART ASSINK SEE SHEET A.4 FOR TYPICAL MATERIAL CALLOUTS 4—EXISTING LEFTSIDE ELEVATION (NORTH) SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" REVIEWED BY: JFG SCALE AS SHOWN RELEASED TO CONSTRUCTION EA.5 SITE PLAN KEYNOTES n - City of Burlingame Community ❑evelopment ❑apartment. Tree List e ll RLI N a �;E 1. LINE OF EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE. '•I for Private Property Planting Sites 2. EXISTING GARAGE TO BE REMOVED. SEE SHT. DM.1 FOR GCUYSC Conceptual DCS18riS, Inc. �xFF.t.I..l�.*: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ) 558-7250 3.NEWFIRST STORY ADDTTIONSHOWNSHADED. f) 4. NEW DETACHED GARAGE SHOWN SHADED. ■ The Residential Design Review Guidelines discuss landscaping and site design under Component Number 9. Landscaping is an integral part of a residential remode}, addition or new construction project. Landscaping should be incorporated into the site design and 28 SB 5. NEW SECOND LEVEL FLOOR SHOWN I-IATCI-IED. should complement the architecture of a residence. It can also be useful in reducing the apparent mass of a building by joining tt to the ,� _ 6.LOCATION OFEXISTING GASMETER 405 Bayswater Ave. 4 ground and engaging important architectural elements. Landscaping can create a sense of privacy, as well as screen additions and faller elements of structures. 14 45 AN.G. =16.90' ° r P OPERTY LINE S40 25 0 40,00" AN.G.=15.60' 7. LOCATION OF NEW 200 AMP ELECTRICAL PANEL AND METER Burlingame, California 94010 8. EXISTING 7-0" WOOD FENCE TO BE REMOVED ON ENTIRE Tel: 650.703.6197 E-mail: jgeurse@slxgloba;.net . Landscaping is one of the required criteria to he met as part of the Residential Design Guidelines, therefore the Planning Commission requests That appropriate landscaping be Installed as part of a design review project on private property Listed below are several Irees ConcRet. / LEFTSIDE OF PROPERTY AND REPLACED WITH NEW WOOD FENCE } that are known to have successful growth in Burlingame. These trees would be appropriate choices for private tree plantings in Burlingame. Please note that this list is a reference and does not restrict the planting of other like trees. It you have any questions / \ 9. LOCATION OF NEW BUILDING ADDRESS. NUMBERSARETOBE A MINIMUM OF ONE-HALF INCH STROKE BYTWOAND ONE-HALF SIGNATUREBOX � about planting trees in the City's planter strip, please contact the Parks Division at 1650) 558-7334 for the street tree planting in front � \ NAME: JESSE GEURSE P. requirements in the City's right-of-way of your property. INCHES HIGH, AND ARE EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY Y The trees that are su sled are grouped accord; to their height as shown in the image below. Small and Medium size vees are 98e 9 rig i9 A 22 _ / ��\ 15 \ LANDSCAPE FLOOD CONTROLLED BY SENSOR INSTALL PER DATE JUNE8, 2017 recommended for tree plantings on hillside areas where future view obstructions could occur. 20'-0" \ BURLINGAME CODE 18.08.050. _ I �--0 \ 10. LOCATION OF EXISTING WATER METER CHANGE METER AND SIZE IN ACCORDANCE TO NEW FIRE PROTECTION CALCULATIONS CITY OF BURLINGAME BUSINESS LIC : GE CO AL DESIGNS, INC. �r O I \ \ AND PER CITY OF BURLINGAMES PUBLIC WORKS AND FIRE REQUIREMENTS NO. 22811, EXPIRATION DATE 06/30/ 17 - I�Zi •' i'- N f p AR G \ DEPARTMENT . MIN.1" METER 11. NEW MAIN LATERAL FROM METER TO RESIDENCE VERIFY SIZE - i- ij LJ 1 / OF LINE WITH FIRE PROTECTION CALCULATIONS AND APPROVED FIRE PROTECTION PLANS. - - I lair. we. xiT AM.•ae Qr a As', ".&INS was? U 28 I 12. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH PUBLIC WORKS FOR lFigure I- Trees for San Frscisoo. A VuWo w5t,n t•Tr.e Pwang aaa Coe 190 Fain. dfr Lkbw Forf.a Am. pigs 15) � OF � (N) LAWN I 4 REQUIRED WATER LINE FROM CITY MAIN LATERAL TO METER. OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR ALL WORK PERFORMED IN ^t�Cq 22 °�° I I I CITY RIGHT AWAY. 13. EXISTING CITY SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT _ 18 i 14. NEW SANITARY SEWER AND CLEANOUT PER PUBLIC WORKS REQUIREMENTS. SEE DETAIL SS-1 AND SS-2, SHEET PW.2 EXIST. SITE PHOTO rrl�rr EXIST. SITE PHOTO rr0 31 24 \ 15. NEW 4" DIA. DRAINAGE LINE AS SHOWN. DAYLIGHT I THROUGH CURB ASSI-IOWNINDETAIL SW-2, SHEETPW.1. ALL � T I (N) o Q � 2 a" / 24 ROOF DOWNSPOUTS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO DRAINAGE PIPE PER BURLINGAMES PUBLIC WORKS REQUIREMENTS. TYP. AT ALL - Wz 22 \. DRIVEWAY\ i _ - 4 Gay w Evnngame FTann rig tk daaen Too tar rn FYwafp v arxmr F 7anrug sma. small size Trees \ \ DOWNSPOUTS PER ROOFING PLAN. 16. LOCATION CITY STANDARD CURB DRAIN OUTLET. SEE DETAIL SW-2, SHEET PW.1 FOR DETAIL. r _ 4 • �' ,) , �- BOTANICAL COMMON HAMS MATURITY S PE SITE LOCATIONS DESCRIPTION! � - � � W ��,v • r NAME HEIGHT Auer buergerr•um TrlderM Maze 2azs� R "q°°^ Para Win. n1Odnrale gmwth, ramdish �„'' glossy, IfkrW Iobal! Rose Gordan -pitidsojoilA - Lsaw tiO � � 24 I � \ \ \ � QQ z 17. NEW LOCATION FOR DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY. SEE W-2780, SHEET PW.1 AND DETAIL 10, SHEET AD.1 y y i :rt•" NoeFn en.. -- - to modoram grmsen:leAowMwxs.;awes Gallen Rain Tree 20.35' r t see Hrawrd Aveouo L "a nrR • f: l f perwcutata - faddist, In Eln-W dull -preen ,n summer. Legerstr°mw irldica Craw MSrre 15-20' 1 Pershng Paff1i DadLvus mod°rale growth- SPnng lduga IWK glean WnW ,325 Drake Avenue brony ron. red dowers Ally-Soplombe111 knr FaX cdor. FI7MNMp C" i238 Balboa Avenue peodiws fast yrorrth, wmrig. graceful. open bm-chi ig panern. P`�"# O° R D - \ I _ \ TJ `� I I 14 U UO W Z, 18. AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER FOR LANDSCAPING WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE BUILDER AND -ii r r ':r I y;. . • j 'YneFino' iie5 hvl%Ae Drive I pink No neui wh,lo Ir lanl fto r n sad P y � %lhile�a- Fonvennp Peof 617 Hmrard Avome pecad�rws fast yrwvth, iyrr,gnt Turn, masses •fl wfali6 tkavrers In Pyl us c.derr•.r I ® 23 pa INSTALLED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION. 2013 CGC •Ansaocrar 2112 AdeYne Drive ed tears.mfak - - "Pn r j � - - 4.408 Medium Size Trees BOTANICAL MATURITY COMMON NAME SHAPE SITE LOCATIONS DESCRIPTION _ I \ I (N) \ I I 19. SYMBOL FOR DIRECTION OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PHOTOS. SEE THIS SHEET FOR PHOTOS. NAME HEIGHT ' ra3i Iea,�. I PATIO \I4 a a Aesri�iu•, rME Dead�ous easy growth. rraaad headed ila.k T- Red Hear .t 30' n 22 f 2 A.delne Drive �, tom_... es or rim id flute y oo S Dec.dious maderela barrios m Wvxor. Fan I ®N \ 20. EXISTING DIRECTION OF SITE DRAINAGE. SEE SURVEY. - y �I 0 ill r•Eh- Ciaeiaegan growth: red gmd oe„�A,i„m _ Wvsrxnp67n 7h m 2Q25 I 733 Le.ingWn way thunn _ _ _ _ EuGOISWus ecf�a Rod Flowanfy�gGum 20.4V D 1 [sOOxfad Road Evergreen npdarale b Mst grvM11 speetecuter pknk k° red :~ '�,� - - \ I ' � - 21. PROVIDE RIP RAP AT FRONT OF PROPERTY FOR MANAGEMENT OF STORM WATER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. REFER TO ■ - nrK ,n Sommer. r � d ;,Trades i° n - w,now.Lcarsd- - erey� •n rust y,�,wd�. �.,�r,na ..�wmewlm; kre le:iwea. �+ � E ad1 ypluk nacM _ 30 40 W 8 ti pomre d Road . Pe-nrxr•rrd , Eisen leaves sA fit vQof °! pepperminL '� OQ I L - I \ BMP.1 FOR ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS REQUIREMENTS DURING _ -- - - - FraldM1Ye myoupa Rayr ,d Ash 2s--35• 0 2&00 Easton Dneo I's '�,m da;�' ° '°"'� '°°dam• d""` PW in Fall CONSTRUCTION. - I -- - •t' Gelpra parnllkera Auiatrafran WAil 25-W RIIN wWs Varga Bank ieroadwayi Leo lq.en' moderala gnmvlh; gracviul bmeches Fine I -lured 1 IT Ba s aler Avenue leaves. Pe31 n[ •. , 22 .NEW 24"BOX CRAPE MYRTLE TREE OR A SUBSTITUTE . woos MdidarJyp kee .§p' v� Tod 6 gon M-k Do OJD s SHwi growth: rare mnaped hawse lum yellow In FBN. B11yeWaW Avenue spreadc� . almost umbrella form 15 � I \ III I \ FROM THE APPROVED BURLINGAME TREE LIST. SEE THIS PAGE friadreulae bgrr4lta Chinese FlE.ru true 20-35' D 209 t 39 Channing Read Decd,oux sWw to rnoderaly growth dustcas of ycdMxv iloavrs. No lost how mid; 8 I I \ 23 PLANNING REQUIRED TURNING NGANDBACKUPRADIUS. • - _ ru�g„pkreganluxa "0r° 2wlr i 2>�v ORBdd Ewr9rml, -vderate grown, ywC us le 'Sannuel Sarrnr Saaham Riagria. hul 9rnaNer, _ _1705 Once x 1 I 24 NEW CONCRETE SURFACE . - � •- - - - _ - - - - - - - PfsErie I;Hgvu6k Chinese Plylache 9L1I[I' R i}eeduous rnvderate gw6i. dsn, green lee�+rc hr�uaml fan rrr.r s2l Calla RKa Avenue area R - cleniclu" _ \ f='Lmcdln Avmie addif r'ale ceanil , coppery leases• Irghl pmk to .M�4e Prurxs eN&,,eq Puple Lear Pl. m 20.3V R Palle [Easvnaor Snial Ilowas. I _ • p 25 EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE - -- - - _"go riaoduelrr' moderate to fam: grryM: Spring dloarers a1 bf% M R06inte ambigue Idaho Locdsl 3oalr D 1448 Cepurrmo Avenue magenta Bowen: D^9 leaves �'IdL•Q Into oral IcaAels 3 '• � T� j�T� 30 MAN V V ER \ PROPERTY LINE WILL BE BUILT OUT OFONE-HOURFIRE RATED - sti,*,o ko dial Chinem Teww Tree W RID 20W Dereraux cares �� F �;a1e b rmt gromil: den" mund um": _ � - \ CONSTRUCTION(2013 CBC, TABLE 602. L. ftrgreen: nl dwate to Iasi grmWn. reddish -brown bark: gram. Tlwe,t ° alfabene am 3aev D r�'Ma �na'"'k oral kkae,ery leaoo5, remmties soma Eucalyptus AN.G. 15.20' I I AN.G. 15.10' 26. NEW LOCATION FOR FIRE RISER FOR FIRE PROTECTION. I COORDINATE WITH DESIGN BUILD/ FIRE PROTECTION COMPANY 2 IFOR ALL NECESSARY MAIN WATERLINE FROM CITY METER REFER TO APPROVED FIRE PROTECTION PLANS j 0 SEE SHEET PW.1 / 27. GRAVEL SIDEYARD. TYP. rr rr EXIST. SITE PHOTO G rr rr EXIST. SITE PHOTO C 15 - - I /� �� /� / I e / / / 1" (N)7-82 S.B. I I 28. TYPICAL PLANTER BED WITH SHRUBS. 29.PROVIDE 4'-0"DIA. DRAINAGE WELL. TIE ALL NEW ONSITE DRAINAGE LINES TO SYSTEM. DRIVEWAY 30. A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITIES ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO (1) REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND City of amv >n onrrecn Tree lay for Private Pr , Planfm s,rrz r �� na r R 5 SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE, (2) PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY r Le size Trees BOTANICAL COMMONNAME MATURITY SHAPE SITE LOCATIONS DESCRIPTION =d � {$$t k h W. fan Iearag. l .In aril lap oolw. ��- I 20 I C] I SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL ANEW 4" LATERAL, (3) ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD V _ + growth, p Acar r1b[Yr11 Red Maple 44-SW R 1450 CafanchMw Ater zee Ducduous: fast growth. grrygmen Elm-hke leaves. broad. upnplM Gflks auWaia European FNckba"y Ie-60' I 110E Caambndge Road; Cetdx saneness Chiral" Haol;b y WW t b ylidl, p[h sde entrance Oec ciuouusfast gromh: ¢easy. dark gmen, etm•hka leaves: broad. -"--"- 15 / / I - �I ,,1I(.,(\I�. j p PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION, (4) ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGI-IT-OF-WAY. INNfluercus � ° I macmea scarier Oak 40.70' !yD 1422 Calx hino Avenue i s moderate No rest growth: high, open breeches large, 2022 Dnve bn tit sari Isaias turn =iiot n clod Feu. OueFprs n bra Red Oak 4Q•70' RID 72e Clarendon Road dK.duius fall yrow9h; spreading'hranciies xenrand crmwa./// 00 / • // Conc. u J 31. REHABILITATE EXISTING LANDSCAPE AS REQUIRED. Londunpfana 1 CIMduous last grvMh. large lobed. maple Ake laavaf. fhade old %elanm aca"d,a 40.7V V 603 Phmalto Wail, bark. new bark snrmih. ErBsin Colaryd. -W�-77I / ^I •_/ // j / / /A (,/ / / / // I I V A Q k = I 5 Tree Shaver, La•errd R Round S Spread.ng Y•/ / al /. / / '•d IRRIGATION NOTE - : r �: 1 O Oral L7. Dfxlgh, W-Weeping I - IRvIX tar / / N 9'-31"SB. TO 2ND STORY I AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER FOR OVA 4? 0,a:'� do / I ,�{ I LANDSCAPING PROVIDED BY THE BUILDER AND INSTALLED AT ." I r�//�/ p� THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION SHALL COMPLY WITH CGC 4 304 .. .. M ^.:..,- rr,�/j/ j/// j I PUBLIC WORKS ... r r., wd .'•^'.,s.f 7 //j/// j/// j - r/ / /L• ro 5 1) THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT STORM WATER POLLUTION. SEE ` J .--jaw- �' / / 11 / (E) 7'-8- S.B. SHEET BMP.1 0 0 r: ��:_ :: $-F ::r. -'? �'�.• ' -.:'�� � � r-S w''• It j 2 / I CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT FRONTAGE PUBLIC 7 �' �• _ tFgeru 2• (reef b San Frr,awq, ✓t glwleM strfn•rroa PWeirq andc.re ,B96 Frienmkddle drffn FereN .lWi.PW151 1 (E) 3'-12" S.B. I r.( r �•' i 26 IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING CURB, GUTTER SIDEWALK 3 ® DRIVEWAY AND OTHER APPURTENANT WORK IF AREAS ARE I (N) REQUIRED TO BE ALTERED. k 15 PORCH PATIO con` 2) SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATION IS I 8 DN 9 28 U U REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW SEWER FIXTURE p I I I U PER ORDINANCE NO.1710, THE SEWER BACKWATER EXIST. SITE PHOTO rrF'r EXIST. SITE PHOTO rrBrr CITY OF BURLINGAME TREE LIST x I 17 I 31 °w x ¢ � y. �o 3) THE SANITARY SEWER LATERAL (BUILDING SEWER) SHALL BE TESTED PER ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 15.12. TESTING I 0 U 28 I (N) I (E) I � V' O � OR O r,q INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT COUNTER A SEWER LATERAL TEST ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS 4 9-8-2017 rr' 20 (N) ZI DRIVEWAY O L z O JIG PLANNING DEPT. RE -SUBMISSION 7-15-2017 JIG PLANNING DEPT. SUBMISSION OWz O F, V, LAWN (N) LAWN I - � WALK 31 O v � x U � REQUIRED. 4) SEE SHEET PW.1 FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC WORKS Qzz Q I °w I I Q W _ Q REQUIREMENTS NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION CONST. tf ' �' ;' I • I 14 I ^ �z _��, b 5) GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED, WILL BE OBTAINED FROM DEPART. OF PUBLIC WORKS. REVISIONS ti 4 07 I I l c, G. =13.80' a) I SITE DRAINAGE NOTE IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE 16 CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL FIELD CONDITIONS AND COMPARE - - PROPERTY LINE N40055'00"W 4 00` THEM WITH THE CONSTRUCTION t� AN.G.=13.50' o �- B 1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 4" DIA. PVC. SITE DRAINAGE LINE FROM AROUND RESIDENCE TO TO STREET PER CITY OF DOCUMENTS BEFORE COMMENCING ACTIVITIES, ERRORS, OMMISSIONS OR ANY OTHER INCONSISTENCIES NORTH I A BURLINGAME PUBLIC WORKS REQUIREMENTS. TIE ALL ROOF DISCOVERED SHALL IMMEDIATELY DOWNSPOUTS INTO 4" DRAINAGE LINE TO HAVE POSITIVE BE REPORTED TO THE DESIGNER r awn 13 10 DRAINAGE TO STREET. ALL WORK AT CITY SIDEWALK AND PROTECT NAME - _ Drtvewa Cr,�. N 30 II 30 II ao au Driveway 30 LAWN Conc j„9WN CURB IS REQUIRED TO HAVE CITY PERMIT. REPLACED AND Q l - REPAIR AS REQUIRED PER DETAILS ON SHEET PW.1 AND PW.2 1ST + 2ND STORY ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE for ` 'r � • `e � 12 2. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR ALL DOWNSPOUT LEADERS TO BOOT MR. and MRS. LUND TOP OF CURB =13.60' AVERAGE T.O. TOP OF CURB =13.60' LOCATIONS. 852 PALOMA AVENUE � D CURB=13.60' T PALOMA AVE. BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 PARKS DEPARTN[ANT DRAWING TITLE . �3OjSITE PROTECT STREET TREES DURING PLAN AND EXISTING SITE PHOTOS a. --- - -- --- - CONSTRUCTION DATE EN ENGINEER. DRAWING NO. ;` ,'' - ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -8"SSSLOPE=-03% _ - - - - - --------- --- ----------- e --- ----- --- EXISTING CITY STREET TREE MAY NOT BE �I�¢'D OR REMOVED WITHOUT PERMIT FROM PARKS DIVISION (558-7330) �. y - "' _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_ ♦_ _ _ _ _ 3. NO EXISTING TREE OVER 48 INCHES IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54 1708 AART ASSINK SCALE AS SHOWN 100.001 INCHES FORM BASE OF TREE MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT A JOB NO. 7.'r, z �,00��O�S PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FROM THE PARKS DIVISION. 4. ALL NEW TREES SHALL BE DOUBLE STAKED WITH 2" POLES DRAWN JFG BY: RELEASED TO SP.1 EXIST. SITE PHOTO rrErr EXIST. SITE PHOTO 'rArr SITE PLAN AND SECURED WITH AT LEAST TWO RUBBER TIES OR STRAPS. REVIEWED JFG CONSTRUCTION SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" BY I II II II I II II II II II I II LEDGEHILL R AD I w 13.1 ° O FL ° I IT5 1 �/ II 13.4 a, TC I II I II J BW 13.8 TC 13.6 ' 13.0 FL FL 3.5 I 13.2, TC II o i SSFL EL=10.1 (calc) I I TC IX v�l 3.6 - - - 13..7 -x x x x x x -�-. EI=13.3 O 13.5 1.5" FL P �Rs�_r TC I I TC Dirt Conc. 13.6 OE lq b, EI=13.1 14.0 141 2" FL FL I Q 25.1' FL W �-, I Gravel O I LLJ 001 BW Q 4.0 40 � I 3.8 6 13.5 O o TC O MAIL BOX °t° Q � N 00 Conc. FL 13.7 w O 13 2 O ° I I TC 13.7 3:1 FL N40°55'00W fff TC1 40.00' Q 13 7 II 3 THE II 13.7 II II � Y Q FL 13.3- o FIRE HYDRANT 155' I I _ _ U L 13.Ep- TC Wmz Lj TC 13.6 � z o°U ?v Q) • 13.2 FL I Q ❑ W I J of 13.6 TC FL 1 .3. Conc. 13. 7 TC o _v I II I 13.7 13. W 8 13.8 # Xd X X BW 13.8 II Qw II O 14 TREE 13.2 FL BW 13:6 I 13.8 TC rc 13.7 II III0 FL II 13.3 - > II ❑ TC 3.8 13.7 I I TC II RO K 0 IjI o 3 • > FL I o cc _ ❑ II FL L� v 13.4, _ I I PALM DRIVE 1I r9 13.7 TC III n II II �I III FL w� 13.5, w TC w z 13.9 13.7 TC oil I � ABBREVIATIONS i iw 0 AC BW GONG TC EL SDMH SSMH P. U. E ASPHALT BACK OF WALK CONCRETE TOP OF CURB FLOW LINE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT w PP II _ 00 O O 00 o � �r cn I BW 14.0 28.4 RIDGE Overhang Building R1� -ELEC METER 0 0 16.5 13.9x onc. 16.3 Conc. Ste S o 0 1�1 6 :t II Z Gravel 0 14.0 271 TOP OF ROOF 3 28.0 9 Dirt TOP OF PARAPET co h 13.8 Conc. x - x x x 14.2 OE �� 39 Fire Place ELEC METER N 0 TES X N48 °55'00 "E x 132.68' I � X ^�. �j I X x x x x s Conc. Gravel "� SUMP PUMP 14.5 \ 14.4 U w �o _o Ilp w3 Wood 14.5 Ste S 14 5 14.6 14.6 X \ 22. GIX \ \ RIDGE �/7RIDG241 Building RIDGEldin\ "BUIICIInOverhang Above 17.0 -x x - - x x 9 14.6�1�14.6 �� 1h �6. Shed • 15.4 n Gravel 15.8 ct: EI=15.8 Dirt 0 FINISH FLOOR U 14.7 15.1 ---Wood Step a h f 11.9 Conc. Ret Wall Conc. o, O 14.9 House 14.4 TOP OF ROOF 27.1- o V"1 0 ao F- .14.5 .14.8 S48'55'00"W 14.2 Conc. 0 0 X# cc h 14.2 GATE Conc. � N X x x 1: • 14.2 -14.3 �Q 14.6 6 Building x 32.2 RIDGE ALL DISTANCES AND DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS. UNDERGROUND UTILITY - LOCATION IS BASED ON SURFACE EVIDENCE. BUILDING LOCATION DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO THE PROPERTY LINES DIMENSIONS TO THE BUILDING ARE TAKEN AT THE EXTERIOR FINISHED SURFACE. (STUCCO/SIDING) FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION TAKEN AT DOOR THRESHOLD (EXTERIOR). BENCHMARK: NAVD 1988 DATUM OPUS BASE STATIONS USED PID DESIGNATION LATITUDE LONGITUDE DISTANCE(m) DH8725 SACK SACRAMENTO COOP COPS ARP N383917.971 W1212115.193 148083.E D07031 CASK SANTA ROSA CA COBS ARP N382626.414 W1224449.164 101196.5 DN5654 P344 VINAHELI TKCN2006 COBS ARP N395544.829 W1220140.643 262077.9 NEAREST NGS PUBLISHED CONTROL POINT HT0554 J 553 N373520. W1222155. 945.2 A CURRENT TITLE REPORT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY L. WADE HAMMOND LAND SURVEYOR. EASEMENTS OF RECORD MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS MAP. SITE LIES IN FLOOD ZONE AH16 PER FIRM MAP PANEL 06081CO153E 1011612012 TREE SPECIES IDENTIFICATION: BEST EFFORT, WE ARE NOT ARBORISTS OR DENDROLOGISTS TREES SHOWN ARE 6" TRUNK DIAMETER OR LARGER, MEASURED 5' ABOVE GRADE 15.0 x 29.4 RIDGE EI=15.0 GARAGE SLAB Garage 6Overhang Above I 9 -1 1 S R1.4' ^7 s . 14.9 19.9 16. x 15.9 I r 0 _ X Q) o 19.9 15.1 c U i X 0 15.1 16° X Conc. h' 0 X 19.8 X 6 EI=15.5 FINISH FLOOR 5 X \13 X �6 S X 6 g9 �x 7) Q S40 °25'00 "E 40.00' GRAPHIC SCALE 8 0 4 8 16 32 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch - 8 ft. 3-30-2011 LEGEND - WATER METER OR WATER VALVE BOX FIRE HYDRANT O 16 12 8 OAK TREE - TRUNK DIAMETER IN INCHES TREE SPECIES IDENTIFICATION: BEST EFFORT, WE ARE NOT ARBORISTS OR DENDROLOGISTS O16 12 8 OAK TREE WITH MULTIPLE TRUNKS TRUNK f TREE DRIP LINE POINTS TOWARDS TREE TRUNKS. TREE DRIP LINES ABOVE PROPERTY LOCATED AS SHOWN. TC 34 TOP OF CURB x x x FENCE OE OVERHEAD WIRES OPP POWER POLE + 72.34 SPOT ELEVATION 8.14 SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT EL_] UTILITY BOX -TYPE AS NOTED SIZE AS DRAWN O IRRIGATION VALVE BOX SIGN ELECTROLIER - - POLE ANCHOR EDGE OF AC PAVING 25.08 FLOW LINE FL HANDICAP RAMP OR PARKING TC=8.97 O STORM DRAIN CURB INLET INLET FL=12.34 00�pp0o�a0000000 0000 LAND 000000000 p� 00° \JADE h 000- o o �o a �o o J o J PLS 6163 d 0,o 4 O° O° o * 00 0 * °p 0° 0 00000 0° 0 o JT °o000000000000\� 0000 qTF OF CAL\Fa000000 � 000000 � MW-VJWI 852 PALOMA AVE. BURLINGAME APN: 029-015-330 LOT „U BLOCK 4, 7 MAPS 38 LOT AREA: 5, 300 SQ. FT. L . Wade Hammond Licensed Land Surveyor No. 6163 36660 Newark Blvd. Suite C Newark, California 94560 Tel: (510) 579-6112 Fax: (510) 991-8054 wade@whlandsurveyor.com ROOF PLAN KEYNOTES C A7 0A.54 ELEV. SYMBOL A _ A6 2 1 B A.6 I 3 A.5 ELEV. SYMBOL WON Iq EFAA A A.6 0A.4 2 ELEV. SYMBOL 1. ASPHALT SHINGLES: MANUFACTURER: GAF, —STYLE: TIMBERLINE ULTRA HD SHINGLES COLOR CHARCOAL CLASS B' RATING O/ 2 LAYER SBS MODIFIED UNDERLAYMENT. USE 1 - LAYER OF BITUTHANE UNDER UNDERLAYMENf FOR ALL ROOF WITH 2.12 SLOPE AND LESS CONSULT MANUFACTURER OF ASPHALT SHINGLE FOR INSTALLATION OF SHINGLES ON A 2.12 ROOF SLOPE CONSULT OWNER AND ARCHITECT IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS. TYP. GUTTER SIZE 5" SINGLE BEAD HALFROUND -DOWNSPOUT- 3-1/2" ROUND 3. DECORATIVE CHIlvINEY SHROUD AS SHOWN. 4. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING: MANUFACTURER: TBD STYLE TBD -COLORTBD 5. LINE OF WALL BELOW SAVE AND RAKE 6. GALVANIZED DECORATIVE SQUARE LOW PROFILE GRAVITY ATTIC VENTILATORS: FINISH: PRIME AND PAINT TO MATCH ROOF 7. ROOF FLASHING 24 GA G.I. FLASHING AT ALL ROOF 24 GA G.I. FLASHING AT ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS AND CRICKET VALLEYS. PRIME AND PAINT TO MATCH ROOF IN COLOR 8. LOCATION OF REMOTE BLOWER PRIME AND PAINT TO MATCH ROOF IN COLOR 9. NO SAVE SFIALL PROJECT WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE PROPERTY .LINE Geurse Conceptual Desi8ns, Inc. 405 Bayswater Ave. Burlin8ame, California 94010 Tel:650.703.6197 E:mail:i8eurse@sbc8loba;net SIGNATURE BOX: NAME JESSE GEURSE DATE JUNE 8, 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME BUSINESS NO: 22811, EXPIRATION DATE 06, U U INC. U 1 9-8-2017 1 JFG PLANNING DEPT. RE -SUBMISSION 7-15-2017 JFG PLANNING DEPT. SUBMISSION NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION CONST. REVISIONS IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL FIELD CONDITIONS AND COMPARE THEM WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BEFORE COMMENCING ACTIVITIES, ERRORS, OMMISSIONS OR ANY OTHER INCONSISTENCIES DISCOVERED SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE REPORTED TO THE DESIGNER I PROJECT NAME 1ST + 2ND STORY ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE for MR. and MRS. LUND 852 PALOMA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 DRAWING TITLE I ROOF PLAN ELEV. SYMBOL DATE ENGINEER DRAWING NO. 1 /� R B 1708 AART ASSINK A.4 A L A6 C JOB NO. SCALE AS SHOWN A.5 DRAWN JFG BY: RELEASED TO ROOF PLAN RENEWED CONSTRUCTION BY: JFG FRAMING LEGEND FRAMING NOTES GARAGE PLAN NOTES WALL LEGEND G CCU YS e Conceptual Des 18 n S Inc. 2X R.R. 016" O.C.(PER PLAN) FLOOR FRAMING NOTES: 1. FLOOR SHEATHING: 19/32" T&G PLYWOOD. PANEL INDEX = 1. 5" THRESHOLD. -THRESHOLD HEIGHT AT EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL NOT BE EXTERIORWALL 2X6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. ON EXTERIOR WALL ONLY WITH SMOOTH WOOD PANEL SIDING AND MITERED CORNER EDGES O/ 32/16 W/10D NAILS @ 6" AND 10" O.C, FACE GRAIN MORE THAN 7- 3/4" LOWER THAN THE FLOOR LEVEL AT TYVEX O/ PLYWOOD. MINIMUM R-19INSULATION. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 2X C.J. C@ 16" O.CVER PLAN) PERPENDICULAR TO JOISTS, JOINTS STAGGERED. (UNLESS DOORS SWINGING AWAY FROM THE LANDING AND NOT MORE NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS) THAN 1" AT THE DOORS SWINGING OVER A LANDING. I 12:12 SLOPE 2X F.J. @ 16" O.C(PER PLAN) ROOF FRAMING NOTES: 2_ MIN. 36" X 36" CONCRETE LANDING. 405 Bayswater Ave. 1. ROOF SHEATHING: 15/32" CDI PLYWOOD. PANEL INDEX = 3. TAMPER -RESISTANT RECEPTACLES IN DWELLING UNITS. IN Burlin8ame, California 94010 P&S POST ABOVE AND STRAP 32/16 W/ IOD NAILS @ 6"AND12"O.C, FACE GRAIN PERPENDICULAR TO RAFTERS, JOINTS STAGGERED. ALL AREAS SPECIFIED IN 210.52, ALL 125 VOLT,15-20 AMPERE G, Tel: 650.703.6197 Email: %eurse@sbc8loba;net RECEPTACLES SFIALL BE LISTED TAMPER -RESISTANT ELECTRICAL LEGEND P-",� PA POST ABOVE SHEARWALL LEGEND: RECEPTACLES 406.11 O SIGNATURE BOX: 4. EA MANUAL -ONSENSOR � NAME JUNE P. (2) 2 X 4 C SHEARWALL TYPE PER SCHEDULE MOTION SENSOR THAT WITH CEC 1�19(d) CEILING LIGHT FIXTURE -CEILING MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURES IN CLOTHES CLOSETS SI-TALL COMPLY WITH NEC 410-8,1996 NEC ♦ , AND SHALL NOT HAVE A CONTROL THAT ALLOWS THE 8, 2017 DATE JUNE 8, 2017 4 X 4 POST O5 HOLDOWN TYPE PER SCHEDULE LUMINARIES TO BE TURNED ON AUTOMATICALLY OR THAT HAS AN OVERRIDE ALLOWING THE LUMINARIES TO BE IJ HANGING CEILING LIGHT FIXTURE CITY OF BURLINGAME BUSINESS LIC : GEUR CO AL DESIGNS, INC. O LENGTH OF SHEAR WALL ALWAYS ON. TYP. NO: 22811, EXPIRATION DATE Z30/ 017 4 X 6 POST 5. LIGHTS ARE TO BE CONTROLLED BY MOTION SENSOR WITH F FLUORESCENT CEILING LIGHT FIXTURE RIDGE 1. ALL LUMBER SHALL BE DELIVERED SURFACE DRY W/19% INTEGRAL PHOTO CONTROL ,� G X G POST MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT. 12:12 SLOPE ~ - 2. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE 2X4 STUDS AT 16" O.C. 6. 1-HOUR RATED WALL O 4" DIA ROUND RECESSED INCADESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE (ALL CANS TO BE I.C. RATED) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED SHEARWALL (PER SCHEDULE) U.ON.. 3. FRAMING CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALLOWANCES FOR 7. NEW LOCATION OF NEW ELECTRICAL SUB PANEL. TIE BACK SHEARWALL DESIGNATION MECH/PLUMBING CHASE WAYS WHETHER VERTICAL OR INTO EXISTING MAIN ELECTRICAL PANEL. Q ROUND RECESSED FLUORESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE (ALL CANS TO BE I.C. RATED) HORIZONTAL AND SHALL COORDINATE INSTALLATION W/ 8. SENSOR /PHOTO CONTROL W/ DEFLECTION SHEILD. TYP. a OHOLDOWN DESIGNATION GENERAL, MECHANICAL, AND OR PLUMBING CONTRACTOR 9. NEW GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUT: (D VAPOR PROOF LIGHT FIXTURE MUST BE U.L APPROVED (ALL CANS TO BE I.C. RATED) NOTIFY ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 4. SEE FLOOR PLANS FOR DROPPED CEILINGS AND SOFFITS. 5. TWO LAYERS OF GRADE "D" PAPER ARE REQUIRED UNDER SIZE: 5" OG DOWNSPOUT: 4" SQ. SEE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN. WALL HUNG LIGHT FIXTURE .s. W STUCCO APPLIED OVER WOOD SHEATHING. 10. LINE OF WALL BELOW EAVE AND RAKE. `1 6. MICRO -LAMS AND PARALAMS SHALL BE PER NER 119 AND SHALL BE FABRICATED IN THE SHOP OF A LICENSED FABRICATOR MANUFACTURERS LOGO SHALL APPEAR ON ASPHALT SHINGLES: -MANUFACTURER- GAP, $ SINGLE PULL SWITCH 2: 12 SLOPE - HOLDOWN SCHEDULE BOTH SIDES OF PRODUCT. MICRO -LAMS AND PARALAMS -S TIMBERLINE ULTRA OCCUPANT SENSOR I SHALL BE LOAD TESTED BY MANUFACTURER WHO SHALL SUBMIT LOAD TEST DATA TO THE. BUILDING INSPECTOR -COLOR-CHARCOAL L STRAPS 7. FRAMING HARDWARE IS PER "SIMPSON". THERE SHALT. BE CLASS B' RATING O/ 2 LAYER SBS MODIFIED UNDERLAYMENT. GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTED DUPLEX OUTLET - - - - - - - ; _,T - - - - - - 7 HOLDOWN END POSTS BETWEEN HOLDOWN NO SUBSTITUTE USE 1 - LAYER OF BITUTI-IANE. UNDER UNDERLAYMENT FOR GFT i(i )ii (i ) SYMBOL FOUNDATION 8. USE COMMON NAILS AT ALL SIMPSON CONNECTIONS, ALL ALL ROOF WITH 2.12 SLOPE AND LESS SD SMOKE DETECTOR HARD WIRED INTO ELECTRICAL W/ 110 V POWER (WITH BATTERY BACK-UP) ALARM SHALL SOUND INALL - - - - - - - FLOORS. DIAPHRAGMS, AND ALL SHEAR WALLS. CONSULT MANUFACTURER OF ASPHALT SHINGLE FOR SLEEPING AREAS 9. CONNECTOR BOLT HOLES SHALL NOT BE MORE THEN 1/16" OVERSIZE 0. DOUBLED JOIST OR CONTINUOUS SOLID BLOCKING ARE INSTALLATION OF SHINGLES ON A 2:12 ROOF SLOPE CONSULT OWNER AND ARCFITECT IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE PRIOR TO FUEL GAS O 4X4 NONE NONE REQUIRED UNDER ALL PARALLEL BEARING PARTITIONS INSTALLATION. G)4X4 MST-37 NONE UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE ON PLANS 12. DOOR AND WINDOW GARAGE ROOF PLAN -MANUFACTURER- MARVIN INTEGRITY SCALEI/4"=1'_0" -MATERIAL FIBERGLASS CLAD EXTERIOR STYLE CRAFTSMAN O2 4X4 MST-48 NONE --COLOR STONE WHITE O4X4 MST-60 NONE SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES 13. LOCATION OF ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING STATION. INSTALL ALL ELECTRICAL PER ® 4X4 CMST-14X70" NONE MANUFACTURERS REQUIREMENTS. O4X8 CMST-12X80" NONE 14. 30" X 30" ATTIC ACCESS PANEL ONONE FRZAMING NOTES O 4X4 HDU-2 NOTE: BEARING WALL STUDS CANNOT BE NOTCHED MORE THAN ® 4X4 HDU-4 25 % OF THIER WIDTH. BORED HOLES CANNOT HAVEA DIAMETER GREATER THAN 40% OF THE STUD WIDTH. O4X4 HDU-5 NOTE LAG BOLTS: PROVIDE LEAD HOLE 40% - 70% OF THREADED SHANK DIA. AND FULL DIA. FOR SMOOTH SHANK 10 4X6 HDU-8 PORTION, 91NDS NOTE: PRE -DRILL JOIST BEFORE CUTTING, NO OVERCUTTING OF JOISTS ALLOWED NOTE: TWO LAYERS OF GRADED" PAPER SHALL BE APPLIED 1`Z 4X6 HDU-11 OVERALL WOOD BASE SHEAHTING PER(U.B.C. 4706(d)) NOTE: INSPECTION OF NAILING REQUIRED FOR DRYWALL AND ALL LATH WHEN IN PLACE CORNER BEADS ARE TO BE NAILED. 13 4X8 HDU-14 EARTHQUAKE DESIGN DATA DRYWALL BOARD SPACING TO BE 3/8" MAXIMUM. (U.B.C. 4705) 14 4X8 HDU-12 NOTE DOUBLE JOISTS OR BLOCKING REQ. UNDERALL PARTITIONS. 15 4X8 HDU-19 A) SEISMIC IMNPORTANCE FACTOR 1.00 B) OCCUPANCY CATEGORY. H C) SITE CLASS: D D) Ss = 2.267 S1= 1.085 SHEARWALL SCHEDULE (ASD) E) SDS = 1.51 SD1= 1.09 F) SEISMIC DESIGH CATEGORY: E G) BASIC SEISMIC - FORCE -RESISTING NAILING SHEAR ANCHORAGE MAX SYSTEM: BEARING WALL SYSTEM PANEL SYM TYPE OF SHEATHING ALLOW. H) DESIGN BASE SHEAR= 2.59 K Sg SILL PLATE Q EDGES FIELD TOP PLATE TW FLRS @ LOADS I) SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT (CS) = 0.233 FOUNDATION J) RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR 6.5 K) ANALYSIS PROCEDURE USED: EQUIVALENT LATERAL 7/8" PORTLAND CEMENT PLASTER O/ WOVEN OR WELDED 0 WIRE LATH (UNBLKD) W/ 11GA X 1/2" LONG 7/W DIA. HEAD LTP4 @32" O.C. 16d Nails 5/8" DIA AB. 90#/FI FORCE METHOD Q NAILS ORI6GASTAPLES HAVING 7/8"LONG LEGS @6"O.C. 08"O.C. 048"O.C. L) REDUNDANCY FACTOR= 13 GARAGE ROOF FRAMING PLAN .� 1/4"_ 1 0" G1��I�GE ELECTRICAL PLAN SCALE 1/4"=1'_0" AB 3/8" STRUCT 1 PLYWOOD 8d @ G" O.C. 8d @ 12" O.C. LTP4@ 24" O.C. 1/4X6" 5/8"DIAAB. 200#/FT VERTICAL DESIGN DATA SDS25600 @ 48" O.C. @ 1T O.C. 20'-10" A) ROOF LIVE LOAD: 20.00 PSF PROPERTY LINE B) ROOF DEAD LOAD:15.60 PSF - - - - - - C 15/32"STRUCT 1 PLYWOOD 8d @ G" O.C. 8d @ 12" O.C. LTP4 24"O.C. SDS25600 SDS25600 5/8"DIAAB. @ 32" O.C. 280#/FT. C) SNOWLOAD: N/APSFD) @ 12" O.C. FLOOD DESIGN: N/A PSF E) FLOOR LIVE LOAD: 40.00 PSF F) FLOOR DEAD LOAD: 17.10 PSF D 15/32"STRUCT 1 PLYWOOD lOd @ G" O.C. IOd @ 12" O.C. LTP4@ 15' O.C. 1/4X6" SDS2560 @ 4 0 340#/FT• G) H) @ 8" O.C. E 1/4X6" 5/8"DIAAB. 510#/FT. WIND DESIGN DATA o 9-8-2017 JFG PLANNING DEPT. RE -SUBMISSION 15/32" STRUCT I PLYWOOD .. 10d @ 4" OC 10d @ 12" O.C.. .. TP4@ 12"OC SDS25600 @ 16" O.C. 7-15-2017 JFG PLANNING DEFT. SUBMISSION @ 6" O.C. A) BASIC WIND SPEED: 110 MPH 20'-0" INTERIOR CLEAR NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION CONST. 1/4XU B) INTERNAL PRESSURE COEFF: +/_ 0.18 / P 15/32" STRUCT I PLYWOOD IW @ Y O.C. 10d @ 12" O.C. LTP4 @12" O.0 SDS25600 5/8" DIA AB. @ 16" O.C. 665#/FT. C) SURFACE ROUGHNESS: B REVISIONS @ 4" O.C. D) EXPOSURE CATEGORY. B E) IMPORTANCE FACTOR 1 I Q 3/8" DIA X 7" LAG 5/8" DIA AB. i a U Wz IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL 15/32" STRUCT I PLYWOOD 10d @ 2" O.C. IW @ 12" O.C. LTP4 @8" O.C. BOLTS @ 6" O.C. @ 16" O.C. 870#/FT. O o l ! a0 T O CAR GARAGE W FIELD CONDITIONS AND COMPARE THEM WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BEFORE COMMENCING ACTIVITIES, ERRORS, OMMISSIONS NORTH ATTIC VENTIL. CALC. 3/8" DIAX 7" 15/32" STRUCT I PLYWOOD LAG 5/8" DIAAB. 1330#/FI. o a _ OR DISCOVERED SHALOTHER ONSIS INCONSISTENCIES 10d @ 3" O.C. IW @ 12" O.C. LTP4@ 45" O.C. BOLTS @ 8"„ O C c•, BE REPORTED TO THE DESIGNER 2 SIDES @ 4" O.C. AREA OF ATTIC SPACE =348 SQ.FT. z PROJECT NAME 15/32" STRUCT I PLYWOOD L GDIAX 7 5/8" DIA A.B. I SQUARE FOOT FOR 150 SQUARE FEET OF ATTIC SPACE Q 1ST + 2ND STORY ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE lW @ TO.C. 10d @ 12" O.C. LTP4 @4" O.C. BOLTS @ 8"" O.C. 1740#/FT. i 4 \ for @ 4" O.C. ! o i z / MR. and MRS. LUND SHEARWALL GENERAL NOTES i BURLINGAME, CALIFOR�NIA 94010 TYPE OF VENTS PROVIDED: 12" X 6": LOW PROFILE GRAVITY VENT = .5 SQ. FT. 1. USE 3X OR (2)-2X FRAMING MEMBERS AT PANEL EDGES AND TOP % BOTTOM PLATES. USE DOUBLE TOP PLATES (TYP. @ WALLS E"F,G,H J) DRAWING TITLE 2. STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION IS REQUIRED @ ALL E, F, G, H, AND J SHEAR WALLS, BY THE ENGINEER 2" DIA EAVE VENT = SQ' FT. OR ARCHITECT OF RECORD, REQUIRED BY LOCAL BUILDING OFFICIALS. .022 GARAGE FLOOR PLANS 3. SEE APPROPRIATE SHEAR WALL TRANSFER DETAILS ON PLANS. 4.11OLDOWNS AS INDICATED ON PLANS TO BE LOCATED AT EACH SHEARWALL PANEL VENTILATION PROVIDED: 8'-0" X T-0" GARAGE DOOR 8'-0" X T-0" GARAGE DOOR � 0 DATE ENGINEER DRAWING NO. 5.HOLDOWNS AS INDICATED ON PLANS BETWEEN FLOORS TO BE LOCATED AT EACH END OF EACH PANEL, TO POST OR BEAM BELOW, UNLESS 12" X 6": LOW PROFILE GRAVITY VENT = (6) X .5 SQ. FT. = 3 SQ. AART ASSINK SHOWN OTHERWISE ON PLANS. FT. - 1708 JOB NO. 6.1/4" THICK X 3 X 3" PLATE WASHERS REQUIRED AT ALL SILL PLATE BOLTING AND AT (1) 2" DIA EAVE VENTS = .022 SQ. FT. @ (1) HOLE PER 33 BAYS = SCALE AS SHOWN G.1 ALL HOLDOWNS. .726 SQ.FT DRAWN JIG 7. BOLT HOLES FOR HOLDOWNS SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 1/16" OVERSIZE -INSPECTOR TO VERIFY. BY. RELEASED TO 8. HOLDDOWN CONNECTORS SHALL BE TIGHTENED JUST PRIORTO COVERING WALL. 9. MIN. 3/8" FROM EDGE OF PANEL TO NAILS. VENTILATION PROVIDED =3.726 SQ.FT. /� /� �� GARAGE FOUNDATION PLAN `l GARAGE PLAN REVIEW JFG CONSTRUCTION SCALE 1/4"=1,_0„ - _ " SCALE 1/4 -1 �0 BY: Item No. 8c Design Review Study PROJECT LOCATION 160 Elm Avenue Item No. 8c Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 160 Elm Avenue Meeting Date: September 25, 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 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 or elements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken. " 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. 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 Design Review 160 Elm Avenue 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, and given the one minor suggestion provided by the Page & Turnbull analysis, staff and the architect agreed that this modification (to the design/drawings) could be made following the Design Review Study meeting. 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. Based on the proposed changes, the Planning Division determined that the project plans are adequate to incorporate the recommended improvements and reduce potential impacts to the historical resource to less than significant under CEQA. However, the Planning Commission may request additional changes for consideration. 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 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS ...............-----................................--------- Front (1st fir): ---------- ---- -._................-..----------- ----- ----------------- 33'-1'/2' .................................................................----........... ;.-..-..---------- _.............._--------------------- ------------------ ----- -------- no change 15'-0" or block average (2"d fir): 33'-1'/:° no change 20'-0" or block average - -- _._.._ ...._ Side (left): ....... . .....__..__..... ...... _ 9'-0'/" _......... - -----.. - --- -----.. _ _.... 11'-0" (to addition) 14'-0" (right) 4'-8" 6'-7" (to addition) 4'-0" _. _._ _-_ _--_ -- _--_ _._........ Rear (1st fir). 114'-3'/z" 104'-1 " 15-0" (2"d flr): 114'-3'/i' -....---------- ............................--------------- ...---- -.._---- _._ 104'-1" j 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 6 Design Review 160 Elm Avenue EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED # of bedrooms: - 5 -..... No change Off-Sfreet Parking: ......... ..... ------.................................... 2 covered .------------------------._... ............ ... ---- ---------------------------- ---..-..---- ------ -- -- 2 covered (17'-4" x 23'-3") z No change j (20' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered 1 uncovered ------------ ------------------.-...-.-..---- (9' x 20') ..... ........ -------------- --- ------- -- (9' x 20') ------__---- _.........._--- -_............. - ...... ..___..- ._.-.......__..........................-.--... ------ Building Height: 29'-l„ No change 30'-0" i -------._..._.._...------...-ope DH Envelope: ----------------------- ------------------------ Existing encroachment into --._.-...--....— ........ ...... -...... -.... -.--- 2.5.2---.075..--.......... 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) 2 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. 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; 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. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c. Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect Lauren and Bard Kettmann, property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Project Description, date stamped April 12, 2017 Proposed Project Analysis, prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated September 14, 2017 o Historical Resource Evaluation, prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated June 6, 2017 Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing - mailed September 15, 2017 Aerial Photo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD •BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.568.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: ® Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: D /1 ❑ 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 PROPERTY OWNER Name: Lauren & Brad Kettmann Address: 160 Elm Avenue City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 4o8. 420. 6c2r E-mail: b VeAa t,,� e. Le OIA- h . Coro RECEIVE® APR 12 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME ODD -PLANNING DIV. Burlingame Business License #: 29891 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. _AB - (initials of Architect'Designer) 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 he eb authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. I/ Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted: 4/12/17 5: iHANDOUTSI PC 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 REEI9 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 H Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 160 Elm Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-263-110 Description: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing two-story house. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 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. 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). s. 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. 6. 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. 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. 9. 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/defa u It/files/Countywide%20Progra m%20BM P %20PIa n%20Sheet- June%202014%20Undate.pdf#overlay-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click "construction bmp plan sheet" Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 9/7/17 650-558-7245 M Project Address: 160 Elm Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-263-110 Description: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing two-story house. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. 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. Reviewed By: BD Date: 8.30.17 650.558.7333 Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 160 Elm Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-263-110 Description: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing two-story house. From: Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmiftal: 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: Provide a minimum 1-inch water meter, dependent on sprinkler system flow demand. 2. 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. 3. 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. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 5-2-17 650-558-7617 CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 4959 PH: (650) 558-7250 0 FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 160 ELM AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application 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. APN 028-263-110 Mailed: September 15, 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) I60 ELM AVENUE, BURLINGAME PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS [171 53A] PREPARED FOR -� OTY OF BURi_iN &C 1E C01'-ff-1UN1TY DEVELOPMENT DEPAR7 1FNT PAGE & TuRNBTTLL PTFif1�FF. i-. imagining change in historic environments through design. research and technology FINP,L PmoposedA ettAnalytis Final TABLE DE CONTENTS 160 Elm Avenue Bin-ingame, Cai�wrwia 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 III. CHARACTER -DEFINING FEATURES.................................................................... 5 160 ELM AVENUE................................................................................................................................. 5 IV. PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS....................................................................... 6 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................. 6 CAUFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT................................................................................ 7 STATUS OF EXISTING BUILDING AS A HISTORICAL RESOURCE .................................................... 8 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS.............................................................................. 9 STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION .............................................................................................. 10 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC IMPACTS UNDER CEQA........................................................ 13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS..................................................................................................................... 13 PROJECT IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION .......... ............................. ........................... ......... - 14 VII. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................... 15 VIII. REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................... 16 XI. APPENDIX A........................................................................................................ 17 XII. APPENDIX B....................................................................................................... 18 September 14, 201 % Page & Turnbull, Inc. PrapnredPinjeaA)ol sis Filial 1. INTRODUCTION 160 Elm Avenue Barlingame, Cabfontan 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 Elm 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 523E 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 of the 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 Interiors Standards for Reha6ifitation & Guidehne.r for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. September 14. 2917 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -2- Proposed Project Analysis Final 160 Elm Auenete Burlingame, California 11. 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 -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 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."' The Downtown Specific Plan's Section 5.3 Desin Standards for ResidentialArvas outlines guidelines for maintaining architectural diversity and character, but focuses only on downtown residential development. I 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. -3- Proposed ProjectAnallysis Final NATIONAL REGISTER Of HISTORIC PLACES 160 Elm Avenite Barlingame, California 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, atchitectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. 160 Ehn 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" Nvas assigned to the property, meaning that it has been "found eligible for the California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation." However, 160 Ehn 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 & Dowbull, Ine. Proposed PrttjeaAna# rir 150 Elm Avenue Feria! Burlingame, Cal#onrra 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 workmansl-iip, 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 (1blay 2017) of the subject property (Appendix A). The character -defining features of 160 Eim Avenue include: Howse 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 Se7itemGer 14, 2017 Page & TiuvrGulQ Inc: _s_ Proposed Proj6aApaly is 160 E/wAyewe Fipal Burliggame, Calyornia 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 Enviroiunental Quality Act (CEQA). The following analysis describes the proposed project; assesses its compliance with the Snreialy of the Interior's Standards far Rehabilitation; 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 construction 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 will also be observed in the proposed design. Refer to drawings provided for more information (Appendix B). Primary OY estl 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 partialheightwindow 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 tree evenly spaced, multi-fite windows. The new roof will feature exposed rafter tails where it extends to the approximate height of the existing eave. The September 14, 2017 Page & Turnbull IrPG. -6- Prnpased PrajeeiAnalysis Final 160 Elm Auenoff Barlfngame, Califo"xirt dormer's shed roof and the new rear one-story volume's roof will also feature new exposed rafter tails. South Facade — Rear and Second Stga 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 tear 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 swill the new ground -floor addition. Rear {East) 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 tear, 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 thatch the existing. The outermost windows of each triple set will be operable and the center window fixed. The new rear facade addition will be clad 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 carted 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 Enviromnent 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 State of California, California I:nvironmcntal Quality Act, accessed 19 November 2013, littp://ceres.ca.gov/topic/eu%,--Iaw/ceqa/,.iummary.html. SVember 14, 2017 Page & Trrr-nbull, Inc, Proposed Ptajed Ana -sir 160 I lm vontte Final Bnrlingctnre, Califorvtia 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 requiting 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 for 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 first 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 ate: 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, Tide 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 surrey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Pub. Resources 3 Ibid. ,Seplcmbfr 14, 2017 Page &Tarnhul! Ine: -8- Proposed Pi ject Auabjis Final 160 Elm Arenue Burlingame, Ca!lfornea Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Pub. Resources Code sections 5020A 0) 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 die 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 Standards for Rehabilitation t✓ Mustrated Gztidelines far Rehabilitating 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 tepair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. 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." i Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Titic 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq. National Park Service, The Setretag of tine Interior's Standards for Treatment of Histoize Properties, accessed online 19 November 2013, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/, G CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(3). September 14, 2017 Page & Turnbull, Lie -9- Proposed Project Analysi r Final 160 ElmAeenue Bsn'lingame, Cal�ornia 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 -,,ill be applied. STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION The following analysis applies each of the applicable Standardr for Rehabilitation to the proposed project at 160 Elm Avenue. This analysis is based upon the proposed designs by Architecture Allure Inc. dune 12, 2017), as submitted to Page & Turnbull (Appendix B). Rehabilitation Standard 1: A propery will be used as it was historically or begiven anew use that requires minhwal 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 proper iy will be retained and preserved. The removal of distiname materials or alteration o_ f featuree; rpacei, and spatial relationships that cbaradene the properly will be avoided. Dismssion:As proposed, the project would not involve the removal of historic materials or alteration of character -defining 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 -defusing features at the rear, north, and south facades will also be retained, including the two-story massingwith 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 willremain 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 building. All new side and rear casement windows will feature wood frames, sash, and mu.ntins painted to match existing windows. New doors will be wood framed, fully glazed, multi-litc, and also painted to snatch 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 are 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; FaLh proper will be recngni,ed as a physical record of its time, place and use, Changes that create a false sense of'bistorical deaelopment sauh as adding c'onjectarral features or elements from other historical properties, wilt not be undertaken. Diseussion: 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 & Trn-nhull, Inc•. -10- Pmj»sed Pmjea Analysis 160 F1,w Amvie Final Brrrlingame, 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 roofliries, particularly at the downers, 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 -vas found to comply with Rehabilitation Standard 3. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acgnired ,rzgnificance 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, nor 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, fanirbes and construction techniques or e camples of craftsmanship that characteriZe a property will be preserved. Disezrssian: As discussed, the proposed project will alter the rear massing of the historic property and remove some character -defining 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 S. Rehabilitation Standard 6: Deterrorated bistaricfeatrares will be repaired rather than replaced. 1p'here the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texhite, and, when possible, materials. Replacement o_ f missing features will be substantiated by doerrmentarq' , and physical evidence, Disalssion: 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 Siptemher 14, 2017 Page c�— Txtnhull lar. -rr- Proposed PiS ect.flnalysis Filial 160 ElmAvevee Buvlingame, Critijbnzia 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 are 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 undeeaken. 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 Mated new eonsirzrction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that charaelenZe the property. The new work shall be differentiatedfrom the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features; ri e, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the prapertj1 and environment. D smssion: As discussed in Standard 2, the proposed project will not alter character -defusing materials or features on the front (west) facade 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 facade. 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 Ehm 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 facade's original proportions, September 14, 2017 Page & Turnbull Inc. -12- Proposed ProjertAnalyrir Final 160 Elm Avenue Burlingame, California composition, and end -gabled roofline will be reconstructed in the new facade, 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: IVew additions and adjacent or related new Lonstivaion will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and inleglzty of the hirtoracprnperly and its environment mould be unimpaired. Discussion: The proposed project involves the demolition of the rear facade, rear volume's roof, and a small portion of the rear volume's north facade. 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 Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation, and thus will not affect the ability of 160 Elm Avenue to be eligible for Iocal 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 it Turnbull, Inc: - 1j_ Proposed Pr feet Analy sir Final 160 Elm ftoenue Burlingame, 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.R Figure 14. 172 Elm Avenue, looking northeast. Source: Google Earth, 2017. PROJECT IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATION Figure 15.158 Elm Avenue indicated with arrow; (Primary facade 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 oj'the Interior,lnterior,f Standards, 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 #1 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. V`hi.le 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 -Etc 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 tails, especially at the new ground story roofline, in the case it might be mistaken as an original feature. S Burlingame Planning Department website. "General and Specific Plans." http://w-,vw.burlingame.org/index.aspx?pagc=151 September 14, 2017 Page 2 Turnbull, Ins. Proposed PvnjeclAnalyus Final VI1, CONCLUSION 160 Elm AvenXe 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 Interior's Standards far Rehahilimution 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 -defusing features of die primary fagade will be retained. Although some character -defining features of the rear volume will be altered, the removal of these features and their in -bind 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 13 provided that would help to reinforce the reviewed proposal's compliance with the Standards. September 14, 2017 Page e' Tiirnbnll, Inc. 15- Propmed ProjertAnalysis 160 Elm Avenue Filial Bnrlingame, Califam is VIII. REFERENCES CITED 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 & Turnbull, Inc. -16- Proposed ProjedAnalyris Final XI. APPENDIX A 160 Elm Avenue Burlingame, California DPR Forms for 160 Elm Avenue. Recorded by Cassie Rogg by Page & Turnbull. May 2017. September 14, 2017 Page Turnbull, Inc. - 17- State of California —The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Other Primary HRI # Trinomial NRHP Status Code 3CS Review Code Reviewer. Page 1 of 13 Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) 160 Elm Avenue P1. *P2. Other Identifier: Location: ❑Not for Publication E lUnrestricted *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: Assessor's Parcel Number 028-263-110 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major eiements. 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: OBuilding ❑Structure ❑Object ❑Site ❑District ❑Element of District ❑Other P5b. Photo: (view and date) View of the primary (southwest) fapade, May 5, 2017 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Zhistoric 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, 8th 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 OContinuation Sheet OBuilding, Structure, and Object Record ❑Archaeological Record El District Record ❑Linear Feature Record ❑Milling Station Record El Rock Art Record ❑Artifact Record ❑Photograph Record ❑ Other (list) DPR 523A 19/2013) *Required information State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 2 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 160 Elm Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull. Inc. *Date June 6, 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update *P3a. Description (continued): Figur( Source: Google Maps, 2017. Edited by Page & Turnbull. ange). The primary facade 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 fapade center (Figure 3). The portico and entry door are centered on a concrete -paved patio, which extends nearly the full length of the primary facade 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 facade, looking northeast. Mon sonIN �i�i■ ■ Kim Elm ; all I MIN 11.!! --~ram--- - �. 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 Pao; & Turnbull, Inc. *Date June 6, 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update Figi patio, looking southeast. window to right (south) of main entry of primary fapade. The northwest fapade 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-lite 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 fapade (Figure 8). Figure 6. Northwest fapade west side, ground story, looking northeast. Figure 7 off Northwest fapade west side, second story, looking northeast. Df R 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 O Continuation ❑ Update Figure S. Northwest fagade rear (east) portion, looking northwest. Figure 9. Northwest facade rear (east) portion, 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). Figure 10. Rear (northeast) fagade north side, looking southwest. Figure 11. Rear (northeast) fagade and rear patio, looking 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 recorder) 160 Elm Avenue "Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. 'Date June 6, 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update Figure 12. Southeast facade ground story, window to right of chimney in foreground, looking northeast. Figure 14. Southeast facade rear volume, looking southwest. Figure 13. Southeast facade main volume, second story, windows to right of chimney. Figure 15. Southeast facade rear volume, close-up view of far right (east) side window. 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 fapade 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) fapade 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 vage b of 16 Kesource Name or 9 (Assigned by recorder) 160 Elm Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date June 6, 2017 0 Continuation 13 Update Figure 16. Garage southwest fagade, looking northeast. Figure 18. Garage northeast facade, looking southwest. Figure 17. Garage southeast fagade, looking northwest. � V { Figure 19. Di northeast. I 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. 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 B1. 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 confirm original conditions. The following building permit applications are on file at the Burlingame Building Department. Permit # Date OwnerlBuilder Description 60-F 021411947 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? ❑x No ❑Yes ❑Unknown Date: Original Location: *138. 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) 1311. Additional Resource Attributes: HP4. Ancillary buildinq (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: See Page 13 B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Cassie Rogg, Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: June 6, 2017 (This space reserved for official comments.) Source: San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2017. Burlingame Park. Property shaded in red. Modified by Page & Turnbull. 18 C XAll '. f za . � 2 O 4 30 � DPR 523B (912013) *Required information State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial page is of 13 Resource Name or # 160 Elm Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull. Inc. *Date June 6, 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update B10. Significance (continued): Fallowing 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. z Diane Condon-Wirgler, "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park" (Burlingame, 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 'Recorded by Page & Turnbull. Inc. 1G9 a31_; Lot 19 Resource Name or# 160 Elm Avenue *Date June 6, 2017 El Continuation ❑ Update Figure 22. Water record card, 1924. Source: Burlingame Historical Society. 01- Figure 23. Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Map (March 1921 — Novemher 1949). Property outlined in orange and backlit to show original footprint. Source: Burlingame Historical Society. Edited by Page & Turnbull. z I {� t , r 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 Page 10 of 13 Resource Name or # 160 Elm Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. `Date June 6, 2017 ❑x 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. Larned, 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.4 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 in1912 (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. 5 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 A11. 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 Nage 11 of 1:3 Resource Name or # 160 Elm Avenue *Recorded by P2ge & Turnbull, lnc. *Date June 6, 2017 EI Continuation ❑ Update real estate, and his overall contributions cannot be said to have made a greater impact on the region or state, such thatthe 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 B12, 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 C13. 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 Dl4 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: DPk 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 Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date June 6, 2017 IYI 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 (Arch itectu re). 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. 5 California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #6: User's Guide to the Califomia 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 Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date June 6, 2017 O 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 Proposed PuajectAua4,7s 160 Elm Avenue Final Burlingame, California XII. APPENDIX B Drawing set for Proposed Project (Architecture Allure, Inc., June 12, 2017). September 14, 2017 Page 6 Turnbull, Inc. - 78 - SHEET INDEX - ARCHITECTURAL o G ■ Al COVER SHEET, PROJECT STATISTICS, FLOOR AREA CALCS ■ SU-1 BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 1]', ■ A2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE PLAN L11 Il IJ 1 11 IT 11 11 IT 1 11 IT 11 11 IT 11 11 11 IL1 1 IT 11 11 IT I I IT 111111 1 11 IT I I IT I l■ A3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROOF PLAN T ` ■ A4 EXISTING AND PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN U !! ll ■ A5 EXISTING AND PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN L ll, , 11, ■ A6 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ■ A7 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - ■ A8 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - I I I I 1 ■ A9 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ■ A10 SECTIONS v � c PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER: Lauren &Brad Kettmann � _ 160 Elm Avenue i Burlingame, CA 94010 I 1 ARCHITECT: Architecture Allure, Inc. Adam Bittle Tel: (650) 208-1204 FE I I I I A InI I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 l 550 15th Street, Suite M13 adam@archallure.com San Francisco, CA 94103 SURVEYOR: BGT Land Surveying Bryan G. Taylor Tel: (650) 212-1030 REAR ELEVATION 1206 S. Amphlett Blvd. Suite 3 bgtlnfo@bgtsurveying.com San Mateo, CA 94402 UJ U K E T T M A N N R E S I D E N C E PROJECT STATISTICS Z Q PROJECT LOCATION: 160 ELM AVENUE, BURLINGAME CA W — 160 ELM AVENUE, BURLINGAME CA A. P. N.: 028-263-110 ZONING: R-1 0 z 0�o LOT AREA: 10,296 SF LU 0 U) D ILL EXISTING CONDITIONS: (E) 1,979 SF GROUND FLOOR (E) 1,323 SF SECOND FLOOR 1' 1 z LU J M FLOOR AREA DIAGRAMS (E) 442 SF DETACHED GARAGE LJJ > Q (.0SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" (E) 3,744 SF TOTAL S.F. Q U N SECTION AREA PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: (N) 329 SF GROUND FLOOR ADDITION 2i LU (N) 260 SF SECOND FLOOR ADDITION Z J 2 (E) GROUND FLOOR (E) - 15 SF SECOND FLOOR DEMOLITION O A 1,979 SF (N) 574 SF =TOTAL PROPOSED S.F. Z w Q ' ' (N) GROUND FLOOR ADDITION O CD z B 329 SF (E) DETACHED GARAGE PROPOSED CONDITIONS: 2,308 SF GROUND FLOOR 1,568 SF SECOND FLOOR Q z — Q 442 SF DETACHED GARAGE -J C 442 SF 97 SF ATTIC � � (GARAGE) (E) SECOND FLOOR 4,415 SF = TOTAL FLOOR AREA D 1,308 SF 27 SF = (E) COVERED ENTRY m A B (N) SECOND FLOOR ADDITION 300 SF = (E) FRONT PATIO E 144 SF 286 SF - (N) REAR PATIO W F 84 SF G 32 SF FLOOR AREA RATIO = .32(10,296 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 4,795 SF = COMPLIES LOT COVERAGE _ .40(10,296 SF) = 4,118 SF = COMPLIES ATTIC > 5' CEILING H 17 SF 1 17 SF DEPARTMENT GENERAL NOTES J 17 SF K 46 SF 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE 2016 RESIDENTIAL CODE, 2016 TOTAL FLOOR AREA 4,415 SF CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2016 Date ALLOWED FLOOR AREA 4,795 SF CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, 2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2016 CALIFORNIA Drawn By GROUND FLOOR COMPLIES ELECTRICAL CODE, 2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, AND 2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN Checked By Project No. 16-44 BUILDING STANDARDS ALONG WITH ANY OTHER LOCAL AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT THE MOST STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS Date 04-12-17 Issue DESIGN REVIEW SHALL APPLY. 08-30-17 DESIGN REVIEW 2. AS OF JANUARY 1, 2014, SB 407 (2009) REQUIRES NON -COMPLIANT PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE REPLACED BY WATER -CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURES WHEN A PROPERTY IS UNDERGOING ALTERATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS. THIS LAW APPLIES TO ALL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BUILT PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, Li CONSTRUCTION HOURS 1994. E 3. EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WILL BE BUILT OF ONE -HOUR FIRE -RATED CONSTRUCTION (2013 CBC, TABLE 602). COVER SHEET NO PERSON SHALL ERECT (INCLUDING EXCAVATION AND GRADING), DEMOLISH, ALTER 4. ROOMS THAT COULD BE USED FOR SLEEPING PURPOSES MUST HAVE AT LEAST PROJECT DATA, OR REPAIR ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OTHER THAN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING ONE WINDOW OR DOOR THAT COMPLIES WITH THE EGRESS REQUIREMENTS. 2013 Ll HOURS EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF URGENT NECESSITY IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) R310. FLOOR AREA CALCS p HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND THEN ONLY WITH PRIOR WIRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE 5. GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED, WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF G BUILDING OFFICIAL, WHICH APPROVAL SHALL BE GRANTED FOR A PERIOD NTO TO PUBLIC WORKS. 21 81 EXCEED THREE DAYS. HOLIDAYS ARE THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, THE THIRD 6. FOR ALL SOLID WOOD BURNING FIREPLACE DEVICES, FIREPLACE TO MEET ALL 0' 4' 16' MONDAY OF FEBRUARY, THE LAST MONDAY OF MAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, THE REQUIREMENTS AS A U.S.EPA PHASE II CERTIFIED WOOD -BURNING DEVICE. FIRST MONDAY OF SEPTEMBER, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, THE FOURTH 7. FOR ALL SOLID WOOD BURNING FIREPLACE DEVICES, FIREPLACE CHIMNEY WILL SCALE: 1/8" 1'-0" = THURSDAY IN NOVEMBER AND THE TWENTY-FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER. IF THE FIRST TERMINATE AT LEAST TWO FEET HIGHER THAN ANY PORTION OF THE BUILDING K F DAY OF JANUARY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, OR WITHIN TEN FEET OR WILL BE RETROFIT WITH A FIREPLACE INSERT (NOT A LOG THE TWENTY-FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER FALLS UPON A SUNDAY, THE FOLLOWING LIGHTER.) 2013 CRC 1003.9. MONDAY IS A HOLIDAY. PER THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE 18.07.110, 8. ANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN THE CITY, REGARDLESS OF SIZE, SHALL COMPLY THE CONSTRUCTION HOURS ARE AS FOLLOWS: WITH THE CITY'S STORM WATER NPDES PERMIT TO PREVENT CONSTRUCTION MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY: 7AM TO 7PM ACTIVITY STORMWATER POLLUTION. CONTRACTORS SHALL IMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) DURING ALL Al SATURDAYS: 9AM TO 6PM PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING DEMOLITION. SECOND FLOOR SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: 10AM TO 6PM 9. ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WEEKDAYS AND NON -CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:OOAM AND 5:OOPM. 26-11" (+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 10'-8" (+79'-0") T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR 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 T.O. (E) F.F. AT FRONT -2'-2" (+66'-211) AVG. GRADE FOR DECLINING HT. ENV. 25'-11" +94'-3" T.O. RIDGE AT FRONT 20'-6" (+88'-10") T.O. RIDGE AT REAR 18'-5" (+86-9") T.O. PLATE /I /I / / I / I / / I 30'-0" MAX. HT. LIMIT ------------------ L.IIVIVCL.) - - - - - - — (E) BRICK I 0'-8" (+69'-011) AVG. GRADE FOR DECLINING HT. ENV. +66.2 T.O. CURB 4-2" (+65'-2") (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB 4'-0" PROPOSED WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION (EXISTING TO REMAIN SCALE: 1/4" =1'-0" KICK n w U Z W C!) W z z Q W Q Z 1121� O W0� LL Z J W Q M QC0 U N �wco N J O LJJ pUZ cflZ� — Q ryNJ D m Dte PTD. WD. EAVE BRACKETS, TYP. Drawn By / \ Checked By / _ A / Dateu Project No. Issue -44 10'-8" +79'-0° / 04-12-17 DESIGN REVIEW T.O. F.F. AT REAR / 08-30-17 DESIGN REVIEW 10'-2" (+78'-611) T H R TYP. P I I — — — J T.O. F.F. AT FRONT / — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9'-0" (+77'-4") P T.O. PLATE _ wl YI IY w o W IQ I JEXISTING AND W � ILu I w PROPOSED a1 w1 o Iw I� N W I ]I L: °' h a EXTERIOR 0'-6" (+68'-10") i I DO i � , „ , „ ELEVATIONS T.O. F.F. AT REAR I I 0 -8 +69 -0 -------- — _ _ AVG. GRADE FOR 1' 4' 0'-0" +68'4 DECLINING HT. ENV. T.O. F.F. AT FRONT I I i I I 0121 8' PTD. SOLID WD. DOOR --- PTD. ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW WITH oL 2'-2" (+66'-211) TRUE DIVIDED LITE, TYP. 3 2 +65 2 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" AVG. GRADE FOR----------------- --- ---J _1_11( ,_„)�i DECLINING HT. ENV. (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB 4'-0" EXISTING WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION (NOT IN SCOPE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-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 10'-8" +79'-0" T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR 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 I U. UUMD -3'-2" (+65'-211) (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB 25'-11" (+94'-3" T.O. RIDGE AT FRONT aL 20'-6" (+88'-10") T.O. RIDGE AT REAR oL 18'-5" (+86'-9") T.O. PLATE omL 10'-8" (+79'-0" IF T.O. F.F. AT REAR o,L 10'-2" (+78'-6") T.O. F.F. AT FRONT OgL 9'-0" (+77'-4" T.O. PLATE _ 0 N 0'-6" (+68'-10") T.O. F.F. AT REAR 0'-0" +68'-4" T.O. F.F. AT FRONT 0'-8" (+69'-0") AVG. GRADE FOR DECLINING HT. ENV. OiL -3'-2" (+65'-211) (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB (E) BRICK F- L---- --------------------- 4'-0" mmiflii 30'-0" MAX. HT. LIMIT - J 1 UIVC J I r-t,0 be F'H I I - (E) PTD. WD. EAVE BRACKETS, TYP. \ ENVELOPE, \ ASHED \ I \ I I 1 PTD. WD. EAVE RACKETS TO MATCH (E), TI P. 1 I ± I I I l< I I I I I I Y I 1¢ 1 1U I 1 V*Dl S I L S VI TC 1 I I Y I 1 I 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4'-0" +64.10 T.O. CURB PROPOSED EAST (REAR) ELEVATION EXISTING EAST (REAR) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PTD. WD. EAVE BRACKETS, TYP. DECLINING HT. ENV. w U Z W C!) W z z Q W Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date 04-12-17 00 00 17 Q z�/ I..f_ p W O LL Z J W Q M QC0 U N 2iwco N J 2i O LJJ Q pUZ cflZ� — Q �J// LL D W 16-44 Issue DESIGN REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW EXISTING AND PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1' 4' 0' 2' 8' SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-0" A7 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ---------------- 25'-11" +94'-3" T.O. (E) RIDGE AT FRONT 23'-9" (+92'4") 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 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 (0 N — — PTD. WD. EAVE BRACTS.JETO MATCH (E),YP w 4-2" (+65'-2") (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB EXISTING ENVELOPE, SHOWN DASHED 12 3 F_j 12 3F_ w Q J a_ d PTD. WD. RAFTERS TO MATCH (E), TYP. PTD. WD. SHINGLES, TO MATCH (E) 30'-0" MAX. HT. LIMIT COMP. SHINGLES, I II II II II II II II TO MATCH (E) PTD. ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW W/ TRUE DIVIDED LITE, TYP. PTD. SOLID WD. DOOR PTD. ALUMINUM CLAD- ` WINDOW W/ TRUE DIVIDED LITE, TYP. PTD. WD. TRIM TO MATCH (E), TYP ===--T�= n i co -, �1I L j- (E) BRICK l (E) PTD. WD. EAVE BRACKETS, TYP (E) PTD. WD. SHIh���,� IIIIIIIIIIIII� -------------------------------- PROPOSED NORTH (SIDE) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 12 01, if w Q J a O n I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N I I I I I I I I I I I I w IY — - — — — ---------I m------ I Iw cwn 10 z w z 10 1 0 w (E) PLASTEF COLUMNS I-i 10 a - to ° 10 1 C Iw U IC ------I --�— I I I —----------- I I I ------------ I I I J 15'-0" 20'-0" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BRICK 25'-11" +94'-3" I I T.O. RIDGE AT FRONT 12 T d ] +/-7 20'-6" (+88'-10") I 1 T.O. RIDGE AT REAR II II � � I I 18'-5" (+86-9") -------------- —-------------- T.O.PLATEHA — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — w r 1 Q I�II IJ II .. II IJ II IJ II IJ II IJ II IJ II IJ II IJ II IJ II IJ II IJ II IJ II IJ II IJ II IJ II IJ II IJ II ll II lJ II lJ II IJ II ll II lJ II L o - - PTD. WD. EAVE BRACKETS, TYP. 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 OIL 4-2" (+65'-2") ----------- (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB EXISTING NORTH (SIDE) ELEVATION I I I I COMP. SHINGLES Ye — — — _ 1 — — — —-T Y----------- Iw I co U) 10 z w z IU_ I ry I � to o W PLASTER COLUMNS J O n to U 0 10 C Iw U Ico ----------I ---�— I I I I I I I I I --------- —�-- J 15'-0" 20'-0" w U Z W C!) W z z Q w Y Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date 04-12-17 Q Z w0p LL Z J W Q M (.0Q U N 2iwco N J 2i p L LJ Q . . pUZ cflZ� — Q J ry D m 16-44 Issue DESIGN REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW EXISTING AND PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1' 4' 01 21 8' I SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" — — — — — — — — — — — 25'-11" (+94'-3") T.O. (E) RIDGE AT FRONT 23'-9" (+92'-1") (E) PTD. WD. EAVE BRACKETS, TYP. I I T.O. RIDGE AT REAR I I I I I 18'-5" +86'-9" I I T.O. (E) PLATE AT FRO 18'-2" +86-6") I I T.O. PLATE AT REAR I I I I Or (N oL 10'-8" +79'-0" T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR N oL 10'-2" (+78'-6") "IF T.O. (E) F.F. AT FRONT U Q m-----P - ---- T - ------ 9'-0" +77'-4" W T.O. (E) PLATE z z l o l WI U-I 1 O 1 w O O O (E) PLASTER JI COLUMNS 0 of a of 0'-6" (+68'-10") L w T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR co — OL 0' 0" +68'-4" T.O. (E) F.F. AT FRONT — I M E()Gk""ETE 15'-0" 20'-0" — — — — — — — — — — — — odL 25'-11" (+94'-3" I T.O. RIDGE AT FRONT I I I oL 20'-6" (+88'-10") I I T.O. RIDGE AT REAR I oL 18'-5" (+86'-911) I I T.O. PLATE I I I I I I I I I I I I PTD. WD. EAVE BRACKETS, TYP I odL 10'-8" +79'-0" I I T.O. F.F. AT REAR oL 10'-2" (+78'-6") T.O. F.F. AT FRONT Y U --�I----- m ------------ 9 -0 (+77 -4)1 F (n I ww CO T.O. PLATE w z of z 0 rI ry o 1 o 1 PLASTER COLUMNS 1 -I I o � I of U of oL 0'-6" (+68'-10") U w I T.O. F.F. AT REAR U) ---L------1----- — 0'-0" +68'-4° I 1 T.O. F.F. AT FRONT I --------------L------I----- I I 15'-011 20'-0" T � GAS METER - (E) BRICK ------------ 12 I (E) +/-7 E R Q ------------711 (E) PTD. WD. SHINGLES BRICK COMP. SHINGLES, II II II111111 111111 IIITII IIITII IIITII EXISTING ENVELOPE, TO MATCH (E) I 1 11 1 11 1 1 SHOWN DASHED 12 II II I 3 — _- — —— - LL I I I I -- PTD. WD. SHINGLES, w N N11 111111 111111 1111 11 w TO MATCH (E) Q Q J CL d PTD. ALUMINUM CLAD ffl4 12 r` WINDOW W/ TRUE DIVIDED LITE, TYP. �3 PTD. WD. SHINGLES, 1L TO MATCH (E) w (N) (N) (N) J [F-T 11 PTD. ALUMINUM CLAD PTD. WD. TRIM - w WINDOW W/ TRUE TO MATCH (E), TYP. E . . . . . . . . . . . DIVIDED LITE, TYP. (E) ELECTRIC METER ------------------- PROPOSED SOUTH (SIDE) ELEVATION 12 Ll F PTD. WD. SHINGLES SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PTn- WD. TRIM, TYF' ,A CLAD WINDOWS WI H TRUE DIVIDED LITE-TYP. EXISTING SOUTH (SIDE) ELEVATION ELECTRIC METER -3'-2" (+65'-211) (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB -3'-2" (+65'-2") (E) AVG. TOP OF CURB w U Z W C!) W z z Q w Y Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date 04-12-17 Q Z 0� O W 0 LL Z J W Q M QC0 U N 2iwco N J 2i O L LJ Q . . pUZ cflZa- - Q J ly- m 16-44 Issue DESIGN REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW EXISTING AND PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1' 4' O' 2' 8' I SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" DRAIN/BUBBLE BOX O SSMH O DI LL i LL i a WE n SSMH O 0 NEIGHBOR'S TREE 0 Form/l//m/ 64.10 PROPERTY LINE 205.50' UJ -7' (E) BRICK o (E) DRIVEWAY7 w w -4 v 172 ELM AVENUE j (E) 24" TREE (E) WALL I � 15'-0" - - - - (E) DRIVEWAY (E) RAGE C? 20'-0" NO IN SCOPE j w 2ND LOOR FRONT SETBACK 1 T FLOOR FRONT SETBA K - - (N) REAR ADDITION,VF WORK / o OUTLINE OF (N) 2ND FLOOR, SHOWN DASHED LO o o 20'-0" I SHOWN DASHED ----- E) 17'-4" j 0(E) 16 TREE (E) LAWN I z w - - TO REMAIN I J z 2ND FLOO RONT SE K J J } E 31'-0' TO POS I / J _ LU () f I /LU 15 0 0 0- (E) MAIN HOUSE (E) 1ST FLOOR FRONT SETBA 0 (E) BRIK�3 I 1 '-3" Of (N) PATIO a LAWN I 110'-6" T D FLOOR TO REMAIN I0 U S, ( ) TWIN 18" 0 T EES '-1" TO 1ST FLOOR I I (E) 33'-1 1/2" T1ST & IND OOR 10 01 L I I I (E) 60" TREE MEN= I EM QH U ap �� JP o Q COW co 0 H OH OH — 6620 ; w o JP _ _ OH —CH O — — H — — — — — — — — — — — — — (E) ELECTRIC METER PRO ERTY LINE 205.60' (E) RETAINING WALL REMAIN ui (E) GAS METER TO -(E) HEDGE TRIMMED TO NO MORE THAN TO REMAIN FIVE FEET (5') TALL PER MUNICIPAL CODE 25.78.020 / 158 ELM VENUE U 158 ELM AVENUE z 2 S PROPOSED ITE PLAN UJ Q A2 SCALE: 1/8" =1'-0" 0 z 0� - W0C) rx %� ") LL 172 ELM AVENUE W z LJJ J Q co > Q U (fl N w C0 CN Z o Z LLJ o z Q (flz� 172 EL AVENUE �JQ Of NEIGHBOR'S TREE y PROPERTY LINE 205.50' 64.10 m o (E) BRICK (E) WALL w Q m 04 EXISTING SITE PLAN SCALE:1/8" =1'-0" DLIJU NORTH TRIIF Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. 16-44 Date Issue 04-12-17 DESIGN REVIEW 08-30-17 DESIGN REVIEW EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE PLAN 2' 8' 0' 4' 16' SCALE: AS NOTED A2 4 � 1 1 A10 , I I I I I 12 I I Z 9 I 12 12 3 �18-5 (X-X) / L T.O. PLATE BEYOND u u u i u u F1 I x SITTI G o _ o cm o ATTIC LO LO ATTIC T.O. F.F. 10'-2" (+X'-X") T.O. F.F. BEYOND I 9'-0" (+X'-X") T.O. PLATE I I c� KITCHEN BREAKFAST \ / FAMILY �0 L.1 1 LI1 0'-6" (+68'-10") T.O. F.F. z 0'-0" (+68'-411) Q T.O. F.F. BEYOND W z 0 W00 z J , W W< 0 2 SECTION Q N �10 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" W co z o z w Q .. o cD z Q cflz� A10 5 J GOf 25'-11" +94'-3" � m T.O. (E) RIDGE AT FRONT 23'-9" (+92'4) W T.O. RIDGE AT REAR 12 (E) +/-7 F— ATTIC oL 18'-5" (+86'-9") T.O. (E) PLATE AT FRO 18'-2" (+86'-6") T.O. PLATE AT REAR C? BEDROOM BATH MASTER Date EO BEDROOM o0 12 Drawn By w ATTIC (D ATTIC 3 Checked By Project No. 16-44 10'-8" +79'-0" Date Issue T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR 04-12-17 DESIGN REVIEW 08-30-17 DESIGN REVIEW 10'-2" +78'-6" T.O. (E) F.F. AT FRONT 9'-0" (+77,-4. T.O. (E) PLATE LIVING \ DINING POWDER COAT 80 KITCHEN SECTIONS w xoL w 0'-6" (+68'-10") T.O. (E) F.F. AT REAR 1' 4' 0'-0" +681-4. T.O. (E) F.F. AT FRONT 0' 2' 8' SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-0" 1 SECTION A10 �10 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 63.12 63.93 62 87 ELM x 63.0 64.04 64.10 64.03� 64.50 65.15 6314 /C DRIVE V ZN O 0 E rn O Q U WU a) \ N � o III M 0';� m N 0' 8' 16' 24' �, N E _ � GARAGE 1 - 8 En M N WOOD W RET. WALL 66.34 Q BLOCK WALL x 66.56 3E ❑ ❑ 68.24 ❑ 66.45 66.76° 6 4 -�f�7� �6-�� 67.20 66.41 68.41 ��AND S� - ---- -- 68.30 I 1 I � �P G. 67.276� 6g�� LOT 2 W 0 68.58 68.82 x 69.1 GRADE BREAK 0" LIQUID 68.56 r AMBER `J NO. 7551 x 63.72' x 64.59 \RESIDENCE, 40t ABOVE GROUND LOT 19 x Z �qTF oQ`�� 65.51 00 4' MAP 68.35 �-. _ 65.42 65.58 65.69 65.88 66.24 66.48 x 66.64 I 68.45 TALL HEDGE ��I OF CA\-�F 16; x 66.94 68.93 a �8 66.07 DRAIN/BUBBLE BOX 65.24 65.51' ----- - 66.61 69.01 �� I® 63.50 64.16 64. 0 -- - / A/C DRIVE 67.36, 57.69 00 a I EXISTING GARAGE W 68.34 rn �0 x 63.74 v�p'• d d° %�� z �Ll r n TALL PITTO ORUM a LL w v 1 HEDGE 66.87 66.84 67.05 WALL 16" BIRCH W 66.84 66. 67.03 w CO 63. 3 a' Q� a as J O Q BRICK d Cn 63.99 a � --"`� - - 68.91 � U o z � � WALL o V,� UIT a ax z a N� �J 68.83 a f `° c Q rn ___- x 68.99 co Q LAWN AREA 6 .15 67.52 ° ° �r EXISTING RESIDENCE RIDGE: 88.8' FF WOODWEK 67 1� a67. 5 / 6 :23 a 67.21° 67. 69.28 � 64.72 L X 65.41 65.73 6i I a a cn z 67'69 xa 68.29 o I `' Q a a a LAWN AREA {� 69.18 O W FF WOOD ° e --- 6p.Of7 69.52 7 O x 64.43 w a a e a - LUj CONCRETE a s a 69.02 x 0.39 .16 r' m PORCH a 67.61 69.09 69.10 70.34AGGREGATE CONCRETI� � / LLJ zO�64. 6 _ a PARCEL AREA 68.8 a - p66.44 °a THRESHOL67.14 a aX, 67.32 a v 69.19 x 72.03 =p Q v J Q 64.7 x W I� TWIN 18" I 10,296 SQ. FT. a a a 70.3 \,, x � m � SSMH� o a a 67.54 72.05 00 W TREE a a ° a O �,� a 69.13 LL- L as _ 69.08 00 _ Z a tOBBLE�TONE a s - x 72� 2 x 70.66 CD Z RETAINING WALL a NO APPARENT EASEMENT OF 72 43 x N � � 64.7 RECORD FOR OVERHEAD LINES \�x Q Z O a a I 69.03 0 0 65.51 a 60" REDWOOD u 67.71 ira � � � �7.43 x' 4 � 67.55 69.43 69.1 i m J � L� 66.00 x x EM 67.67 67.67 a -- 71 03 71.15 WOOD RETAINING W�L-L 71'3 (f� _1 8, x 65.27 x 65.05 --"" -------- / ---- ------ 69.05 69.35 x 72.97 WM ----"" 66.27 66.- 66.87 6812 x 68.36 �� JP m U FOUND OLD 1" OPEN IRON 66.17 GM CHIMNEY _ 68.57 71.05 ' PIPE - HELD FOR PROPERTY 66.42 66.69 CO 66.93 j BAMBOO PLANTER 67 59 67 67 -��-----fi8-------- 70.75 71 2 71.5 72 03------------ - < O Z __---- 72.07 __ram __ -- 0 LL /CORNER /` � z 66.68 \�' 67.14 OH JP 02 66.20 66.40 + T/W: T/W: T/W: T W: � UH,.4 -- -_--------------- T W T/W: /205.67' 75 2' 76.6' BLOCK RETAINING WALL WITH 76.3' 76.3' \ O W60� RET. WALL x 69.57 6' HIGH BLOCK WALL $ 50.06'28" W 74.1' 74'6 (205.60 WOOD FENCE ON TOP Q O / U 65.63 66.096804O Z 68.61 4. .Pt Ui N ' m r Cn oD �< �m mZ m CTIo ow' FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE WITH PLASTIC PLUG AND TACK IS 5454" N 50.06'28" E NOTES] r I J W W J I(if W W w LARGE OAK 0 65❑ 44 ❑ 6' WOOD FENCE 01 i•70 BRICK BO/RDER ALONG DRIVEWAY 66.2 FURTHEST SOUTHEAST BRANCH/OF OAK ABOVE / RESIDENCE BGT RELIED UPON A FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY TITLE REPORT, ORDER NO. 4104-4964771, AS TITLE REFERENCE. NO EASEMENTS WERE REFERENCED WITHIN SAID REPORT. UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON TAKEN FROM VISUAL SURFACE EVIDENCE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS APPROXIMATE ONLY. ACTUAL LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES MAY VARY. TRUE LOCATION OF UTILITIES CAN ONLY BE OBTAINED BY EXPOSING THE UTILITY. TREE LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE SHOWN SYMBOLICALLY WITH SYMBOL SIZES BASED UPON TRUNK DIAMETER AT CHEST HEIGHT, AT THE LOCATION WHERE THE TREE ENTERS THE GROUND SURFACE. LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF TREE TRUNKS CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED ON THE MAP. TREES OF TRUNK DIAMETER SIZES OF 6 INCHES OR GREATER WERE LOCATED BY THE FIELDCREW. SURVEY PERFORMED BY: BGT LAND SURVEYING, INC. DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: AUGUST 31, 2016 JOB NUMBER: 16-106 205.50' BUILDING O O Q C Co N W Q Cn Z LL LLJ Q O � Q � U z_ J BASIS OF BEARINGS/BOUNDARY CONTROL Q m THE B&H SURVEYING RECORD OF SURVEY, WHICH WAS FILED FOR 0 v RECORD IN BOOK 23 OF LLS MAPS PAGE 30 ON JANUARY 14, 2002, z o WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS AND CONTROL FOR THIS SURVEY. 0 CO CONTROL FROM THEIR SURVEY WAS HELD (SOME OUTSIDE MAPPING LIMITS) 0 C LOT 3 O J BENCHMARK LL ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON CITY OF BURLINGAME o BENCHMARK "BM-77" LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF z PEPPER AVENUE AND CHAPIN LANE WITH AN ELEVATION OF 62.403. TBM TO USE FOR SITE WORK IS THE CENTER OF THE SEWER MANHOLE LID WITH AN ELEVATION OF 64.74 FEET. CL LOT 18 LEGEND LAT. LATERAL AC ASPHALT CONCRETE LG LIP OF GUTTER BW BACK OF WALK MON-MON MONUMENT TO MONUMENT DISTANCE Assessor Parcel Number: CB CATCH BASIN PBV PACBELL/SBC VAULT 028-263-110 C/L CENTERLINE PGE PG&E VAULT CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE PP POWER POLE Prepared For: CI CAST IRON PIPE SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE ARK B. 1^ 0 Elm ANN Avenue CO CLEAN OUT BOX SL STREET LIGHT Burlingame, CA 94010 CP SURVEY CONTROL POINT SLB STREET LIGHT BOX CTV CABLE TELEVISION LINE SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE DI DROP INLET TBC TOP BACK OF CURB Date: SEPT. 2016 Scale: 1" = 8' EM ELECTRIC METER TBM TEMPORARY BENCHMARK EV ELECTRIC VAULT TS TRAFFIC SIGNAL Contour Interval: 1' FF FINISHED FLOOR TSB TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOX Drawn by BGT FL FLOWLINE VCP VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE FH FIRE HYDRANT WM WATER METER BOX Revisions: GM GAS METER WV WATER VALVE GRID GROUND -CTV- CABLE TELEVISION LINE GV GAS VALVE -E- ELECTRICAL LINE HCR HANDICAP RAMP -G- GAS LINE HVE HIGH -VOLT ELECTRIC INV. INVERT -OH- -SD- OVERHEAD LINE STORM DRAIN LINE SU-1 IP IRON PIPE -SS- SANITARY SEWER LINE JP JOINT POLE -T- TELEPHONE LINE KV KILOVOLT -W- WATER LINE Job No. 16-106