Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2022.05.23Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Online7:00 PMMonday, May 23, 2022 On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361, which allows a local agency to meet remotely when: 1. The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency; 2. State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; and 3. Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. On May 16, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 054-2022 stating that the City Council and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the following reasons: 1. The City is still under a local state of emergency; 2. County Health Orders require that all individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear masks; and 3. The City can't maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers, and Commissioners in their meeting spaces. Pursuant to Resolution Number 054-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the May 23, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging on to the Zoom meeting listed below. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on YouTube and uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the consent agenda. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure your comment is received and read to the Planning Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 23, 2022. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Planning Commission after the meeting. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/18/2022 May 23, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 836 1165 2905 Passcode: 492121 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 836 1165 2905 Passcode: 492121 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft May 9, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS There are no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1928 Devereux Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Michael Liu, applicant and property owner; Qing Gan, architect) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon a. Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/18/2022 May 23, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1132 Killarney Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Robert Criscuolo, applicant and property owner; Joe Sabel, Aero 11 Design, designer) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi b. 1273 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Peter Suen, Fifth Arch, applicant and architect; Betty Chen and Kevin Lange, property owners) (142 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi c. 2201 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a single story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc., applicant and designer; Chuck and Shirley Paterson, property owners ) (110 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit d. 1369 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for building height, second story plate height, and second story balcony for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., applicant and designer; Anuj Batra and Mishthi Kapoor, property owners) (110 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali e. 309 Chapin Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form +One, applicant and designer; Kelly and Kent Kockos, property owners) (96 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi f. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 1829 Sebastian Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer; Gina and Yousef Shamieh, property owners) (88 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi a. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting of May 16, 2022 Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/18/2022 May 23, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 12. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, May 23, 2022 at rhurin@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on May 23, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on June 2, 2022, 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 $708.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/18/2022 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, May 9, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Horan was abstained because he was not seated as a Commissioner for the April 11 and April 25, 2022 meetings. a.Draft April 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft April 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: The following corrections were made: Page 8; fourth line from top of page: insert "not" after "should". b.Draft April 25, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft April 25, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: The following corrections were made: Page 7; third bullet from top of page: replace "Queen" with "St. Mary" on second line. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Abstain:Horan1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. Page 1City of Burlingame May 9, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1799 Bayshore Highway, Suite 248, zoned I/I - Application for a Fixed Location Non-Storefront Cannabis Delivery Business in an existing building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guideline. (Dan Georgatos, VMK, Inc. dba Purple Lotus, applicant; Geller Partners LP, property owner) (28 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1799 Bayshore Hwy Ste 248 - Staff Report 1799 Bayshore Hwy Ste 248 - Attachments 1799 Bayshore Hwy Ste 248 - Plans Chapter 25.75 - Regulations for Cannabis (Marijuana) Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Dan Georgatos, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Request for a security plan to visualize how deliveries are handled. (Hurin: A security plan has been submitted which was reviewed and approved by the Chief of Police for compliance with other requirements . Unfortunately, we cannot share that information to the public as it is confidential.) >This is different than what I was expecting when we were reviewing the Ordinance. I was thinking that there will be a warehouse or a fenced off parking lot that somebody will drive into. This is a little bit more public than what I was expecting. I don ’t know if it is high risk going down the hallway. Maybe on the delivery of the product from San Jose to this staging area, there could be a larger amount of product going in at one time and somebody might figure that out, but I am sure that they are working on that security plan. I trust the Police Department has reviewed it appropriately. I’m not sure I see anything to object to on this project. >During the meeting when we were reviewing this Ordinance, I asked if there was a community that has benefited from this type of operation. I can ’t think of one and I do not know if there is a city that says they are better placed because they have cannabis distribution. I am looking at the findings for the Conditional Use Permit, specifically that “the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health or general welfare of the city.” I cannot make that finding. Maybe this is more of a moral or ethical stand for me and I may be looking for something, but in my mind I don ’t think this makes the city better. How much is going to be distributed in Burlingame? I don ’t think it helps us as a community. I don ’t think I will be supporting the application but would love to hear from my fellow commissioners. Page 2City of Burlingame May 9, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > I would like to understand more the aspect of traveling, the doors and the surveillance cameras even though the Police Department has vetted this. I agree with my fellow commissioner. I have children in this community and I am always worried about the access to drugs and how prevalent it is in our community, especially now but this is something that we have voted on in the past. Again, like my fellow commissioner, it is of a moral standard personally. This is not something where we can pretend that is not going to happen because it is happening on our streets. I would just like to see clarity on the surveillance and security cameras. > We are in a difficult spot because of the Ordinance that we have approved. I too worry about the access in our city to not only the young people but also the legal adults who can purchase these products . I’m finding this location a little bit confusing, I ’m having a hard time feeling that it is a secure location of delivery from point to point. Even with a security guard accompanying the delivery person, especially that this is a public meeting, everyone now knows that there is this location that is setting itself up for somebody to be potentially attacked. It just seems odd that it is not a direct point of delivery from the back of a car to a door and instead you have to go in this long hallway inside a building. It is confusing and does not make me feel that it is a secure set up, even though our Police Department has reviewed and approved the security plan. I am not sure I am in support of this project in this location specifically. >I want to thank staff, it is a very thorough presentation. It is a very confusing topic for me because there is a lot of zoning and options for a Conditional Use Permit, it made it easier for me to understand . Because it does meet all the different requirements, I am certainly in favor of this. I hope everyone is aware that cannabis delivery is already well established in Burlingame. There is nothing keeping people from ordering these products if they are of legal age. As we all know, the federal guidelines will change very soon. This is already a legally allowed substance and Burlingame would benefit from the tax revenues of having these types of establishments nearby. By simply not allowing this, it is not going to stop it in any way, shape or form. We will be a little remiss to focus on those points as opposed to the actual benefits of substantial tax revenue. You can find several cities who have benefited from the additional tax revenues. There have been many studies that have shown that and they do go to good purposes. I am in favor and the plan is thorough and has been very well thought out. >I am echoing mostly what my fellow commissioner has said. Sticking to the Conditional Use Permit, I am okay with this application. Responding to my fellow commissioner ’s point about “not detrimental”, the Conditional Use Permit says “it should not be detrimental” and it doesn’t say it must be beneficial. >In line with some of the comments regarding the security aspect, I struggled with that at the beginning as well, but they are just as exposed from the car to the house as they are delivering to the suite. As much as I would have thought that this would be more of a warehouse where you drive in and get the product directly from the premises, I don ’t know that the distance from the suite to the car is any more dangerous for the driver than it is for the driver to come up to the house. I’m trying to offer that we should not be as worried about the security as long as the Police Department has reviewed it. >Spansail: Unfortunately, due to some of the security concerns we are not going to see a much more detailed security plan because we don ’t want to be showing that to the public. While we understand that it is something you would want to know, part of the reason we are not doing that is to make sure the public safety is there. I don ’t think we will be able to provide much more of a detailed plan of where the security cameras are located if it was requested for future meetings by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Nay:Gaul1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY There were no Design Review Study Items. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 3City of Burlingame May 9, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.812 Linden Avenue, zoned R -1 - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling. 812 Linden Ave - Memorandum and Attachments 812 Linden Ave - Letter of Explanation 812 Linden Ave - FYI Plans Attachments: >This item was pulled for further review at a future regular meeting. Commission noted that the explanation letter addresses changes to materials, however in visiting the site saw other as -built changes not identified in the letter or shown on the plans. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Notice: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on May 9, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on May 19, 2022, 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 $708.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 4City of Burlingame Item No. 8a Regular Action ltem Gity of Burlingame Design Review Address: '1928 Devereux Drive Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling Applicant and Architect: Qing Gan Property Owner: Michael Liu General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 025-122-270 Lot Area: 5,500 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Note: This application was submitted prior to January 5,2022,the effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance, and therefore was reviewed under the previous Zoning Code. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot. The existing one-story house with an attached garage contains 1,763 SF (0-32 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The proposed project includes a major remodelwith new habitable space on the first floorthat would be created by enclosing the existing covered porch; a new entry porch would be constructed at the front of the house. The second floor addition (936 SF) would add three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a laundry room. With the proposed project, the floor area would increase to 2,852 SF (0.51 FAR) where 2,860 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). The existing front and left side garage walls are nonconforming with respect to front and left side setbacks (1 5'-3" existing front setback where 1 5'-4" is the block average and 3'-0" existing left side setback where 5'-0" is the minimum required). The nonconforming areas would not be modified as part of this project. The new construction proposed along the right side and front of the house (towards right side) would comply with the required setbacks- With this application, the number of potential bedrooms would increase from two to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached garage (17'-6" x 20 -0' clear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space; one uncovered space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: . Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C-S. 2s.57.010 (a) (2)). Left bl ank i ntention ally Meeting Dale:, May 23,2022 Design Review '1928 Devereux Drive Lot Size: 5 5OO SF Plans date stam Ma '12.2022 Existing nonconforming front and left side setbacks to be retained;if removed durinq construction will need to complv with current setback requirements or applv for Variances (0.32 x 5,500 SF) + '1,100 SF = 2,860 SF (0.52 FAR) The revised plans, date stamped May 12,2022, have no changes that affect the development standards listed in the table above. Staff Comments: None. Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: . Windows: aluminum clad wood with simulate true divided lites. Doors,' wood garage door. Siding: stucco with 1x6 horizontal fiber cement ship lap siding at gables . Roof.' composition shingles o Other: wood knee braces; 1x4 wood trim around windows; 2x6 fiber cement fascia board; 2x12 wood belly band 2 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D 21'-6" N/A 15',-3" 1 16'-5' (to new porch) 26'-7" No change 3'-3" 1 ,'.-2" No change No change 15'4" (block average) 20'-0' 35'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 'ts'-0' 20'-o" 2,200 sF 4oo/o 2 4 31'-3" N/A No change (deck <30') 29'-3' 1,977 SF 35.9% 1,763 SF 0.32 FAR 2,852 SF 0.51 FAR 2,860 SF ' 0.52 FAR Front (1st flr): (7d flr): (atlached garage): Lot Coveruge: # of bedrooms: Off-Street Parking: Building Height: DH Envelope: FAR: SETBACKS Side (teft): (right): Rear (1"t flr): (7d flr): No change Not applicable 17'-7" 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9'x 20') 'l covered (17'-6" x 20'-0') l uncovered (9' x 20') 30'-0"26',-8', complies c.s. 25.26.07s(bx2) 1928 Devereux Dive 1,907 SF 34.6Yo Design Review 1928 Devereux Drive Planning Commission Action Meeting: On March 'l4,2022lhe Planning Commission reviewed the revised project and continued to have concerns with the project, noting that the previous comments were notthoroughly addressed. The project was referred to a design review consultant for additional assistance with their concems. The following is a summary of the Commission's main concerns . Drafting errors - plans need clean up;. Changes to the rear and south elevations aren't finished;. Revised trellis on south elevation needs work;. Concerned with window trims;. Front door seems oddioff;. Rear deck needs to be revisited - could been an opportunity to make it nicer; and. Needs more of a cohesive overall design approach that ties everything together better Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the architect and the property owner to review the proposal and go over the Planning Commission's comments from the March 14, 2022 Planning Commission action meeting. After working with the design review consultant, the applicant submitted a response letter, dated May 17 ,2022 and revised plans, date stamped May 12, 2022, to address the Planning Commission's concems at the direction of the design review consultant. ln summary, there were no changes to the building envelope or footprint. The following changes were made; please refer to the applicant's attached response lefter for a detailed description of all changes: Front (East) Elevation:- board and batten gable replaced with painted horizontal siding;- window trim has been simplified;- front door has been revised with a different taller door and no transom;- stone veneer has been removed;- front porch columns have been simplified. Right (North) Elevation:- board and batten gable treatment replaced with painted horizontal siding;- window trim has been simplified;- stone veneer has been removed;- windows in the upper gable have been modified. Rear (West) Elevation:- board and batten gable treatment replaced with painted horizontal siding;- window trim has been simplified. Left (South) Elevation:- side deck and ramp have been removed;- window trim has been simplified;- "belly band" added at second floor line;- trellis has been replaced with small side porch; and- windows have been modified for more consistency. Per the design reviewe/s recommendation, he states that the project has been improved since the first Commission review. He initially felt that the design proposed had too much going on for a relatively small structure. Simplification would be the key to creating a subtle change to the neighborhood. Using the Planning Commission's comments as a starting point, he thinks the design has achieved that. .) Design Review 1928 Devereux Dive The design reviewe/s direction to the applicant was to simplify the design, which he felt was too busy. The revisions to the South (left) Elevation have been greatly improved with the addition of the belly band, replacement of the trellis with a roof, and especially the window revisions. The design review consultant feels that now using the horizontal siding in the gables, instead of the board and batten, softens the design nicely, grounding the house rather than adding a verticality to it that doesn't seem to fit as well. He feels that the newly proposed window trim isn't actually simpler, just quieter and more sophisticated. While this was not mentioned by the Planning Commission, the design reviewer felt that the stone wainscot at the front was unnecessary and that it further complicates what the house is trying to be. He recommended that the applicant consider removing the stone veneer, and without it, feels the house is even calmer, which is better in a tight knit neighborhood. Furthermore, he notes that stone wainscots tend to be a manufactured stone such as Eldorado, and end up cheapening the house rather than improving it. Overall, with the changes made in response to the Planning Commission's comments and the additional changes recommended by the design reviewer for cohesiveness, he can support the project as now proposed. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting on February 28, 2022,ihe Commission had several concernsisuggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached February 28, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The following is a summary of the Commission's main concems:. Front Elevation shows pre-fabricated columns, appear to be vinyl - either change to wood or fiberglass;. Windows on second floor, north elevation are not shown on the floor plan (bathroom number two) and they appear to be too small with not much glazing - revisit size of windows;. South Elevation needs work - issue with scale and blank wall on South side; south patio door at landing has a blank wall - consider adding a roof eave over the door to break up that elevation;. Consider extending the roof over bathroom number one at the back of the patio door to help with the scale;o Window sizes seem too big - please revisit window and door sizes and proportions;o Window pattern seems different in the renderings please be consistent; and. Verify window trim sizes (new or existing) - window trim looks out of place - existing trim may be very small, please look at refining this trim detail. The applicant submitted a response letter (see attachments) and revised plans, date stamped March 4,20221o address the Planning Commission's concems. ln summary the following changes were made, but please refer to the applicant's attached response letter for a full detail of all changes:. Front columns changed to fiberglass;o North Elevation - bathroom #2 windows increased in size (glazing);. Window proportions revised;. South Elevation - window added to the guest bedroom (1st floor) and wood trellis added above window and patio door; ando Window trim sizes revised (increased). 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: 'l . Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; lnterface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components 2 3 4 5 4 Design Review Suggested Findings for Design Revrew: That the architectural style, mass and bulk ofthe proposed addition has been designed to be integrated into the existing structure and to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood; that the architectural elements of the proposed struc{ure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; and that the proposed materials include upgrades to the existing materials with stucco, fiberglass columns, wood garage door, fiber cement ship lap siding at the gables, wood trim around the aluminum clad wood windows, wood guardrails, wood decorative knee braces, and composition shingles. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any actaon should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 12,2022, sheets GO, Al .0 through A4.0, and site survey sheet; that the existing nonconforming wall and foundation, located within the left side setback at 3'-3" where 5'-0" is required per code and measuring 21'-0' in length, shall not be removed during mnstruction; if any wall studs or foundation, or both, along the existing nonconforming length are removed during construction, either an application for a Side Setback Variance will be required to replace the wall at the same location or an application for a Design Review Amendment will be required showing compliance with current setback requirements; that the existing nonconforming wall and foundation, located within the front setback (garage wall) at 15'-3" where 35'-0" is required per code for a two-car attached garage and measuring 18'-0" in length, shall not be removed during construction; if any wall studs or foundation, or both, along the existing nonconforming length are removed during construction, either an application for a Front Setback Variance will be required to replace the wall at the same location or an application for a Design Review Amendment will be required showing compliance with current setback requirements; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYl or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the pro.iect construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Direclor; that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans 1 2 4 5 5 1928 Devereux Drive that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been lssued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. 7. 8. 9. Design Review throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 10 that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11.that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12 that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Buriingame; THE FOLLOWNG CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE ]NSPECTIONS NOTED IN EAGH CONDITION: 13 that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the poect architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. 15 that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16.that priorto final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner Qing Gan, applicant and architect Michael Liu, property owner Attachments March 14, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated May 17, 2022 Design Reviewe/s Recommendation (Design Review Memo), dated May 16,2022 February 28, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated March 4, 2O22 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing - Mailed May 13,2022 Area Map c o 1928 Devereux Drive BURLIN G 8l\.'tE City of Budingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME. CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission e Monday, March 14, 2022 7:00 PM Online 1928 Devereux Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Michael Liu, applicant and property owner; Qing Gan, architect) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners have visited the project srte. Senior Planner Keylon prcvided an overuiew of the staff repon. Chair Schmid opened the public heaing. Oliver Qing Gan, designer, reprcsented the applicanl and answered questbrs about the applicaion Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public heaing Commisslon D/scussion/Direction : > Coiect drafting erors. Drawings should indicate that the French doors are sliding doors and the deck is existing to rcmain. > The ftont door is very odd given the rest of the house. The house is leaning towards a modemisl direclion, but the front door is a Dutch door design wilh a solid panel and glazing. That design elemenl needs rethinking. lt seems very out of place on the facade. The genenl theme is similar to the last project where we need to see some sense of cre dibility with what is being proposed. > The wood handrail doesn't wo* and it would look like it was a lemporary retrofil if il's buift the way it's proposed. lt cedainly wouldn't suslain a 200 pound lataral force which is required by cade. > The addilion of the window is fine, but there's no rcason it shouldn't be the same as the two windows adjacent lo it. The answers were rationalizations and there's no real reason for changing it. > The trellis is an intercsting idea but that entire area just doesnl hang together. lt feels it was just cnmmed in there as a response to the plan check comments and I dont think it wotks. > The 2" x 4" window tim may wod<, but it doesn't feel like it's therc yet. > I appreciate the changes that were made in response to the comments, the windows upstairs and bathrcom windows for exanple, but I don't have a whole lot of confidence in what l'm seeing right now laryely because it just doesnt hang together. lt feels like a patch wo*. Had I known we were going to end up here tonight, I would have suggesfed that this be refeffed to a design review consultant then. l'm hesitant to do it now, but it needs more wot*. > I agree with my fellow c.ommissioner on this. ln a lot of ways when I look at the elevalions and squinl, I like a lot of the window paftem. They're not overcized and they're not wrong; there are a lot of nice lhings going on in tems ot scale. But l'm a little concemed with the trims because if you held some of those tims up against the existing house and tied to put together a vocabulary that wo*, what l'm seeing might be challenging for somebdy. I wish I was feeling more confident that what we're looking at to City of Audingane Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Ma.ch 14,2022 apprcve could be buift that way and we would a be happy at the end. So, l'd like to feel more confident as well. A telis ,s a start in that arca, but it doesn't quite go far enough. lt's just an eyebrow when there needs to be something a litde bit more substantial in thal comer. ln a way it looks good in elevation, bul I donl think it's going to reflect that way when I look at it three-dimensionally and what it does to make that comer any better. Therc's an oppodunity to make the deck a little nicer, it needs a little bit more to it . Overall, it's going in the ight direciion, but there is some room for it to get better and it would be tme well spent so that what we approve can be executed and everybody knows what they're going to get. > I agree wilh my fellow commissloners. I do think this would be a great candidate for a design rcview consuftant. I know that they\e done a really nice job in trying to lie it all together, but I feel that having somebody to help them out to finish the projecl would be beneficial and night get them just over that hutdle instead of having them come back. > I feel compelled to give an example of the challenge that we face above and beyond the wood handrail. lf you look at the trellis end shape at the south elevalion, you can see the same trellis end shape when you're looking at the west elevation. lt's unclear if one is stacked on top of another, that's what I'm seeing, maybe it makes more sense than I think it does. I now see how it's proposed to wot*. I was lost to how it could be buift, bul it looks like it can be buift. One of the rcasons , said I r:s a mess is if you look al the west elevation, I would expecl that lrellis to pickup on some line of lhe building but nothing is lining up therc, nothing seems ,o De associaled wilh anylhing e/se. Ihat's lhe problem, the proposed project doesnt seem to be reflecting the othet lhings going on in the house. One place doesn\ rcflect what's going on in another place in an incredible way. lt's very slnnge. > ,n rasponse lo what my fellow commissioner was saing, weye spent a considerable amount of time on this project now in lwo meetings. l'm not cleat il the applicant is understanding all of the changes cohesively to pu everything together. Enough commentary has been provided to assisf them, bu, s,rc€ the design review consultant fee is a patl of the tees paid fot the design review, for expediency and consistency of design, it would be a good idea lo run it thtough a design review consultant to wo* with this applicant to clean up the design, make it cohesive and make it make sense so we will be ready to approve and move it foNard the nert [me we review this project. > /l seoms that might be a good motion we can gel behind. I don't look at it as a punishment, but us lrying to find the best way forward to help the applicanl get to tho endgame and for all of us to be salisred that our direction is underslood. > /l's./usl to expedite lhe process for the applicant. lt doesnt need a lot of time trom the design rcview consultant and it would tie the whole project together quickly fot them lo get them through the system a little bit quicker. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, appliqation to a design reyiew consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: to refer the Aye: 6 - Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff Absent: 1- Tenones Page 2 1928 DEVEREUX DRIVE-SINGLY FAMILY HOUSE MAJOR REMODEL 2nd DESIGN REVIEW STUDY MEETING (March 14,2022!. PtAN REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE: May 17 ,2O22 This round of revision is u nder the instruction of the Design Review Consultant. GENERAL: . Per comment, allwindow and doortrims have been simplified. Alltrims shall be 1x4 wood trim boards. . All gable wall siding has been changed from panel and batten siding to ship lap siding to increase horizontal lines. EAST ELEVATION (FRONT}: . Per comment, the entry door has been revised to be a simple panel door with a side light. . To simplify this elevation, the stone veneer base has been removed. The entry porch columns have been revised by removing the pedestals and the moldings. WEST ELEVATION (REAR}: o See the revisions on South Elevation SOUTH ELEVATION (LEFT): . Per comment, the entry door on the floor plan has been change to French doors to match south elevation. . The layout of the master bathroom on the 2'd floor has been changed so to have a big regular window on the south wall. . Per comment, the window on the ground floor next to the entry door has been change to have the same size as the two windows on the left. . Per comment, the existing wood deck, ramp, and wood handrails shall be removed and replaced with a new concrete steps and concrete patio. r Per comment, to separate the ground floor and 2nd floor to break down the scale, the previously proposed trellis is replaced with a covered porch. The new porch has 9' plate height to align with the ground floor roof on the west elevation. The porch column is the same as the columns of the main entry porch. A new belly band has been added right at the floor line to furth separate the two stories. Please notice that there is no building footprint change at this round of revision. REALLY APPRCIATE THE HETP FROM THE DESIGN REVIEW CONSULTANT, RANDY GRANGE. Sincerely Yours, Qing Gan (architect of this project) NORTH ELEVATION (RIGHT): . Per comment, the layout of the 2nd story shared bathroom is revised so to have a regular window (instead of high window) centered with the gable. Design Review Memo City of Burlingame Date: May 16,2022 Re: 1928 Devereux Architect: Qing Gan Planner: Catherine Keylon I have received and reviewed the latest plans (3-1-2022) submitted to the Planning Commission for 1928 Devereux. I listened to the Planning Commission's comments in the meeting video. I met with the owner, Architect, and Planner at City Hall to discuss the Planning Commission's comments. Per our suggestions, the designer made revisions and we reviewed one interim design in between our first meeting and the current plans (5-12-2022). Following is a comparison between the original design, and the current design. Revisions to original design Floor Plans: Side deck and ramp have been removed. Front (East) elevation: . The board and batten gable treatment has been replaced with painted horizontal siding.. The window trim has been simplified.o The front door has been revised with a different taller door and no transom.. The stone veneer has been removed-. The front porch columns have been simplified. Right (North) elevation: . The board and batten gable treatment has been replaced with painted horizontal siding.. The window trim has been simplified.. The stone veneer has been removed.. The windows in the upper gable have been modified. Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Rear (West) elevation: The board and batten gable treatment has been replaced with painted horizontal siding. The window trim has been simplified. Left (South) elevation: . The window trim has been simplified.. The existing deck and ramp have been removed. o A "belly band" has been added at the second floor line.. The trellis has been replaced with a small side porch. . The windows have been modified for more consistency. 1 . Compatibility of the Architectural Style with that of the Existing Neighborhood. There are a variety of houses on this block. The style of this house is generally traditional, and the proposed design should be compatible. The massing is respectful of the neighboring properties. 2. Respect for Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood The proposed attached garage is "existing to remain" and consistent with the neighborhood. 3. Architectural Style, Mass & Bulk of the Structure: The revisions made to the initial proposal have improved the architectural style of the project. The architectural style is more consistent. Proposed changes, such as the new simplified material pallet, softens the mass. 4. lnterface ofthe Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side: The proposed house will interface reasonably well with its neighbors: similar to others in the area. The new second floor is set well back from the sides of the house and well past the daylight envelope. 5. Landscaping and its proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components: The proposed landscaping is essentially the same as the existing landscaping. DESIGN GUIDELINES: SUMMARY The project has been improved since we first saw il. My first impression of the design proposal was that there was perhaps, too much going on for a relatively small structure. Simplification would be the key to creating a subtle change to the neighborhood. Using the Planning Commission's comments as a jumping off point, I think the design has achieved that. The left (South) elevation really benelits from the addition of the belly band, replacement of the trellis with a roof, and especially the window revisions. ln my opinion, using horizontal siding in the gables instead of the board and batten softens the design nicely, grounding the house rather than adding a verticality to it that doesn't seem to fit as well. The newly proposed window trim isn't actually simpler, just quieter and more sophisticated. Although not mentioned by the Planning Commission, I feel that the stone wainscot is unnecessary; lt further complicates what the house is trying to be. Without it, the house is even calmer, which is better in a tight knit neighborhood. Furthermore, these stone wainscots tend to wind up being a manufactured stone such as Eldorado, and end up cheapening the house rather than improving it. With all that said, I can support the poect as now proposed. Sincerely Randy Grange, AIA LEED AP Gity of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAO BURLINGAME, CA 94010 d Monday, F ebt uary 28, 2022 7:00 PM Online 1928 Devereux Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for second slory addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. (Michael Liu, applicant and property owner; Qing Gan, architect) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Anachmenls: 1928 Devereux Dr - Staff Report 1928 Devereux Or - Attachments 1928 0 Dr - Plans All Commissioners have visitod the project site. Community Develoryent Director Gardiner provided an oveNiew of the stafl repoft. Chair Schmid opened lhe public hearing Oliver Gan, designer and Michael Liu, propefty owneL represented the applicant and answered questions about the applicalion. There were no public comments Chair Schmid closed the public heaing Commiss/bn Discuss io n/Di re cti o n > Provide spec sheet of the pre-fabdcated vinyl column proposed at the front elevation. > Concemed about the nodh elevation bathroom window sae because it does not ptovide enough glazing and may not be commercially available. Encourage to reisiting with lhe owner. > Soulh elevation is a tall blank wall withoul a lot of sc,ale. Consider adding anothet window or extend a poiion of the toof ol the garage to create a covered porch over the patio door. > Struggling with the window sizes, they seem b,g. The vinyl column wmps are not going to be a gaod sohlion, consider using fiberglass or wood column. > Realty appreciate the montage of photographs that were provided, it is rematuably helpful to see the buildings next to each olher and give an oveNiew of what we are looking at. > The window tims are quile bizane, not sure il these are existing or proposed wlution for the project. > fhe wes, and lront elevation seemed very well composed, everything is in papodion with each olheL although some of the windows are quite large. The notth elevatioo is also ok. The south elevation aeems lost like it isn'l paft of the same building. This fagade needs to be revisited. The soluton my fellow commissioner pointed out is a good one bul it seems to me that it has to be more than that. There are a lot of good things in this proj€cl ,t ls c/ose. > I agrce with my tellow commissioners, the south elevation needs some wo* and the small window needs to be addressad, > The windows are the big issue. Structurally, they wi not work. They all seem squished undemeath the double top plate of the top floor and you need some room for a header. Suggesl speaking with an engineer or a contractor about how those could be built. The windows on the top floor seem out ol scale. The patio City ot Budingame Public Comments: Planning Commission February 28,2022 door on the south elevation can be lowered. The sizes of the windows and the doors need to be looked at. The project can be moved fotward because it is propottioned well and it tits lhe neighborhood but there aae some scale /ssues with some of the elements mentioned. > Looking at the existing tim on the photos, it actually is quite a bit smaller which is more typical of a Ray Park home in that area. lt probably is a 2" Iim whercas the drawing is showing a 4" trim. lt is definitely going up in scale and everything is a lffie bulked up. There are some oppodunities fot refinement. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the ilem on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 -Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff ComarotoAbsent: 1- City ot Budinsame Meeting Manutes 1928 DEVEREUX DRIVE-SINGLY FAMILY HOUSE MAJOR REMODEL March02,2022 DESIGN REVIEW STUDY MEETING PLAN REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE: . Front elevation shows pre-fabricated columns, appear to be vinyl, either change to word or fiberglass; R: Revised to fiberglass colunrn wrap. Please see east elevation on sheet 43. . Window on north elevation is not shown on the floor plan and bathroom number two, it appears to be too small with not much glazing revisit size of window; R:The two high windows are now shown on the 2"'r floor plan. The windowsills have been lowered to make the tu,o windows higher, have more glazing area, and have better proportion. Please see north elevatron on sheet A3. . South elevation patio door at landing has a blank wall - consider adding a roof eave over the door to break up that elevation; R: Add a window on the exterior wall of the hallway to the Guest Bedroom. Also add a wood trellis above this windovr and the patio door to panially separate the two stories and also provide shading. The length of the trellis matches the length of the existing deck. The fenestration of the guest room has been changed. There are two windows on the south exterior wall of the guest roonr. This way can fill the blank wall and break down the scale of the south elevation. Please see the South Elevation on sheet A4 and see the qround floor plan as reference. . Consider extending the roof over bathroom number one at the back of the patio door it will help with the scale and can reduce the master bedroom; R: Please see response above. o lssue with the scale on the south elevation and blank wall on south; R:Please see response a bove. o Window sizes seem to big - please revisit window and door sizes and proportions; R: Lower the opening head height of ground floor from 8' to 7'6". Lower the opening head height of 2"'floor trcm 7'6" to 7'. Accord ingly, most of the windows a n d doors a re s nra ller to have better propo rtions and avoid potentialstructural issue. Please see a{l the exterior elevatior'rs on sheet A3 and 44. . Window trim look out of place, clarify if it is all new or matching existing; R: All window/door trims shall be new and not intend to match existing o South elevation needs a lot of worl! west and front elevation are well composed and elevation on the north is OK; R: South elevation has been revised per comrnents. Refer to the response above. . Window pattern seems different in the renderings please be consistenu R: Revised the front elevation on the street view to be consistent with the one on sheet A3. . Verify window trim sizes existing trim maybe very small or 2 inch new trim at 4 inch please look at refining this trim detail. R:The existing trims are about 2 inches wide. The trims design before the n'reetlng was ail 2x6 wood trims around the doors/windows. Now the trims have been revised to have 2x6 on the top and 2x4 at other sides. Please refer to the elevations on sheet 43 and A4. ( RECEIVED MAR -42022 CTTY OF BURUNGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV Qing Gan (architect ofthis project) Please notice that there are no building footprint change at this round of revision. Sincerely Yours, z,o F =d.oIL =Fo LU..,oEo- PLANNING APPLICAT]ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT_PLANNING DIVISION 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, BURLINGAME, CA 94010.3997 TEL: 650.558.7250 | FAx 650.696.3790 I E-MAIL: PLANNINGDEPT@BURLINGAME.ORG 1928 Devereux Drive 0252't2210 B-1 PROJECTAODRESS ASSESSORSPARCEL {APIT ZSIIIIG PROJECT DESGRIPIION This proiect is a single-family home maior remodel. Be.layout the ground floor and have a new entry. Add 2nd floor including a master suite. No ground floor perimeter change. No grading change. No backyard landscape change, and no trees are propoged to be removed Michael Liu PROPERTY OW}IER NAITE N APPLICAI{T? ( IF =E,olJ-z, Fz. (J =o-o- E{tat- 4973 Rio Vista Avenue, San Jose, CA 95129 ADDRESS gan.arch ilects@ gmail.com E.MAIL EUETUG UE_EUSEESSIIGEXSE_{ 'FOR PRoJECT REfUt{o$ - Please provide an adcress to rvhich to all retund checks will be mailed tol NAiIE ADORESS j I HEREBY CERIIFV UNDER PENATTY OF PERJURY :HAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN HEREIN IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BESI OF MY AND BELIEF c-U'uL!z, =o l!oL IL!IL z/g/zt DATE I z/s /-l PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE AUTHORIZATION TO REPRODUCE PLANS IHEREBY GRANT THE CIry OF BURLINGAME THE AUTHORITY TO REPRODUCE UPON REQUEST AND/OR POST PLANS SUBMITTED WTH THIS APPLICATION ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AS PART OF THE PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESS AND WAIVE ANY CLAIMS ACTAINST THE CITY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO SUCH ACTION lNTALS OF ARCHITECT/DESIGIIER) Jz,o uJa =ar.ll Fa HECEIVED uL 9 2021 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD.PLANNIT.IG DIV a{ .ll-rt C U,mo2t- DATE RECEIVED: APPUCATIO TYPE E ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) E] VARIANCE (VAR) E coNDrrror,rAl usE pERMrr (cup) E wtRELEss E DESIGN REVIEW (DSR) tr FENCE ExCEpTtOl E HILISIDE AREA CONSTRUC.TION PERMIT E OTHER: - E M|NoR MoDrFrcATro{ E SPECIAL PERMIT(SP) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desion Review for a first and second storv addition to an existrnq sinole-unit dwellinq at 1928 Devereux Drive. Zoned R-1, Michael and Jinq Liu, propertv owners, APN: 025-122-270 WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Mav 23. 2022, al which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the lnitial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section '15301(e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, is hereby approved. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit 'A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairperson 1 2 J t,Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23d dav ol Mav. 2022 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1928 Devereux Drive Effective Jvne 2, 2022 Page 1 that the poect shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 12, 2O22, sheets GO, A1 .0 through A4.0, and site survey sheet; that the existing nonconforming wall and foundation, located within the left side setback at 3'- 3" where 5'-0" is required per code and measuring 21 -0" in length, shall not be removed during construction; if any wall studs or foundation, or both, along the existing nonconforming length are removed during construction, either an application for a Side Setback Variance will be required to replace the wall at the same location or an application for a Design Review Amendment will be required showing compliance with current setback requirements; that the existing nonconforming wall and foundation, located within the front setback (garage wall) at 15'-3" where 35 -0" is required per code for a two-car attached garage and measuring 18 -0" in length, shall not be removed during construclion; if any wall studs or foundation, or both, along the existing nonconforming length are removed during construction, either an application for a Front Setback Variance will be required to replace the wall at the same location or an application for a Design Review Amendment will be required showing compliance with cunent setback requirements; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYl or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construclion process. Compliance with all condilions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; b 7 8 o 't. 2. 4. 5. Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1928 Devereux Drive Effective June 2,2022 '10. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11, that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 13 that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 14 that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15.that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16.that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. EXHIBIT "A" BURUNGAME CTTY OF SURUNGAME coMMUNITY DEVETOPi,ENI D€PARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAO BURUI{GAM€, CA 94010 PH: (6so) ss&7250 www.hJrlintame.or8 Proiecl Sile: 1928 Dsvereur Drive, zoned R-l Ihe tily of Burlingome Plonning (omnission onnouncss lhe folloving virluol publir heoring vio Zoom on fondoy. Ita,y 2?, 2022 al 7 |00 P. . You moy orcels the meeling online PUBTIC HEARING NOTICEol vwvJoom.us/ioin o,by phone ol 13451.248-fi99 lleeling lD, 836 I165 2905 Pois(ode: {92121 Dersillion: Applicotion for Design nevioy for o firsl md serond slory oddilion l0 0n exi ing single-unit dyelling. llembers of lhe publk moy proyide *rillon ommenk by em0il lo: 0ublic(0mmenl@burlin00me.0rg. trtoiled: lloy 13,2022 (Pleose rcfet to othet side) Citv of Burlinoame - Public Hearino Notice lf you have any questions about this application or would like to schedule an appointment to view a hard copy of the application and plans, please send an email to olanninedeot(aburlincame.ore or call (650) 558-7250. lndividuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed, should contact the Planning Division at olanninedeot@burtinrame.orr or (650) 55&7250 by 10 am on the day of the meeting. lf you challenge the subiect 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. Kevin Gardiner, AICP Community Development Director (Pleose refet to othet side) 1928 Devereux Drive 300'noticing APN #: 025-212-270 oeEN'^. su.s&^ooav bo,,% bru ^ocrG es,,s\oS (\o ^o"si & -"^' %, (, o Q) Do a4\ Hlllt C,"l ocJ G)q'eE' H $ (6 LBaa a-a ,,6^B B"o^ aoo 2o o5o oG! o-- "ss"^e ^cY a' ^c C.\ gOg$ I /( -Q \4' /l t?) I I I , (D )t E\. City of Burlingame Item No. 8b Regular Action ltem Design Review Address: 1 1 32 Killarney Lane Meeting Date: May 23,2022 Applicant and Property Owner: Robert Criscuolo Designer: Joe Sabel, Aero 1 1 Design General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 025-232-720 Lot Area: 5,000 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Ouality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (eX1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The sub,iect property is an interior lot and contains an existing two-story single-unit dwelling and attached garage totaling 2,093 SF (0.42 FAR). The applicant is proposing to remodel the interior of the first floor, expand the front covered porch, and build a new second floor. The project proposes a total floor area of 2,698 SF (0.54 FAR) where 2,700 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). The existing house contains four bedrooms. With this application, the number of bedrooms would remain at four (play room on second floor does not qualify as a bedroom since it is open to the stairway). Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The attached garage measures 10'-7" x 20'-0" (clear interior dimensions) and provides the required covered parking for the four-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)). Ihls space intentionally left blank Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Note: This application was submitted prior to January 5,2022, the effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance, and therefore was reviewed under the previous Zoning Code. Design Review 1132 Killarney Lane Lot Area: 5 OOO SF 1 132 Killarney Lane Plans date stam d: Ma 2022 Front Selbacks (lst flr): (2nd flr): 20'-o" 22'-11" 20'-0" (to porch) 22',-O', 20'-0" (block average) 20 -0" (block average) 4',-O" 4'-0" Side Setbacks (left): (tight): 2'-9" 1 5',-0" no change no change 15',-0' 20'-0' Rear Setbacks (1 sl flr) : (2nd flr): 2J -O 35',-5', 35'-4" 39',-3" Lot Coverage:1,949 SF 39% 1,755 SF 35.1o/o 2,000 sF 40Yo 2,700 sF, 0.54 FAR FAR:2,093 SF O.42FAR 2,698 SF 0.54 FAR 4# of bedrooms:4 l covered (9'-2" x 2O') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') l covered (9' x '18' for existing)l uncovered (9' x 20') Off Street Parking: 25'-0"29'-9"30'-0"Building Height: nonconforming encroachment along left side complies c.s.25.26.075Declining Height Envelope: 1 Existing nonconforming left side setback.z (0.32 x 5,000 SF) + 1 100 SF = 2,700 SF (0.54 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: . Windows: aluminum clad wood with simulated divided lites . Doors; wood front door, wood garage door. Siding: blueigray shake shingle, vertical siding at gables o Roof.' asphalt composition shingle. Other: wood porch posts with stone base, stone clad faux chimney Staff Comments: None Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review study meeting on M arch 14,2022, the Commission had several suggestions regarding this p@ect and voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached March 14, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The following is a summary of the Commission's comments/suggestions from the Design Review study meeting -2- iEXISTING ! PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED l covered (10'-7" x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 3 4 A Design Review 1132 Killarney Lane . Clarify note on plans that all windows will be replaced/new and that the material will be aluminum clad with simulated true divided lites; . Shingle siding - consider introducing another material such as stucco to make the home fit better into the neighborhood;. Rear sliding doors seem large and commercial sized - consider pocket doors that can bring scale down;. Side elevations seem flat, need to break up the plane on both sides - faux chimney with stone material or other material can be an option;. Window type and size - please add note on plans that clarify size of window trims and gable ends;. Front porch materials - please note material of porch base and steps (from porch landing to the ground); . Exterior lighting - show proposed exterior lighting on plans; and. 3D Rendering - please provide a rendering with different perspectives to better understand use of materials and other details. The applicant submitted a response letter (see attachments), dated April 28,2022, and revised plans, date stamped May 2, 2O22, to address the Planning Commission's comments. 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; Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components Suggested Findings for Design Revlew: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring a combination of hip and gable roofs, asphalt composition shingle roofing, proportional plate heights, cedar shake and vertical wood siding, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated divided lites, and wood doors) is compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties. Therefore, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted lo the Planning Division date stamped May 2, 2022, sheets A1 through A13; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dorme(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 1 2 J _i_ Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; lnterface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Planning Commission Actlon: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission- The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: b 4 5 o Design Review 1132 Killamey Lane that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction ofthe project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued, that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or elterior, shall require a demolition permit; that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE ilIET DURING THE BU]LDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10 that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architec{ or residenlial design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11 13 that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and lhat priorto final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 7. 8. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. 4- Design Review 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Robert Criscuolo, applicant and property owner Joe Sabel, Aero '1'1 Design, designer Attachments: March 14, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated April 28, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing - Mailed May 13,2022 Area Map 1132 Killarney Lane -5- RLI E_\ Gity of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Monday, Ma.ch 14,2022 7:00 PM Online c.1'132 Killarney Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. (Robert Criscuolo, applicant and property owner; Joe Sabel, Aero 11 Design, designer) (1'12 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Atlachme,t,s:'1132 Killarney Ln - Slaff Report 1132 Killamev Ln - Attachments '1132 Killarnev Ln - Plans All Commissioners have visited the prcject site. Serior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff repa{l. Chair Schmid opened the public heaing Joseph Sabel, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application Public Comments There werc no public conments Chair Schmid closed the public hearing Comm i ssion D i scu $ion/D i recl on : > Corect drafring erors to avoid conflicting window notes. > Consider doing a chimney for the firoplace, which is a nice architectural detail, rather than the proposed bump-out on the side ot the house. The chimney, being a zero clearance wouldnt need to clear the roof, so you can go up a couple of feet. lf ifs something you would consider l@king at, it would add to the look of he house as opposed to just having a box seemingly attached to the side of house. > Show proposed erteior lighting locations on the plans. > Suggesfs stacking the large sliding doors at the rear and creating a pocket wall to the left on the exterior elevation, which is vety dramatic and the doors disappeal lt thickens the wall and it's really not an inexpensive solution, but a nice solution. > Provide 3D rendering so we could see sone of the details a litfle bit befter.> There's a lot to like about this project. lt has a lot ol good things going for it and is consistent in its style. I ftnd the large panel g/ass windows at the rcar to not fit very well with the rest of the architecturc. lt would ba nice to see those things be stackable, sotT of disappear and open up enttely. Ihe sca/e as depicted feels wrong but I like that it's going to open the inside to the outside. The front and the back elevations arc pretty good except for the windows. The side elevations leave something to be desired and have that continuous horizontal element, which when viewed trom the roof plan and the lwo side walls feels like a pancake. There's no aftempt to break up the cgntinuous hoizontal element on either of the two side6 and that diminishes the architecture of the project somewhat I'd like to see that addressed. There aro ways to very easily break that horizontal element and make it much more nuanced as a tidy little craftsman project. Nl in a , it's a good project. Ciay ol Auding.no Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14,2022 > l'm conflicted. First ol all, I love the curent house. [t's one of the most lovely houses in the neighborhood. Visiting the srle, the use of wood shingle caught me off guard in a craftsnan style home. I cannot find a single shingle home around the Village Pafu neighbothood. lt's looks very busy. There were a lot of houses with horizontal wood siding and a lot with stucco. Looking at the design guidelines, it says compatibility of architectuml sye, the character, and mass with that of an existing neighborhood. The mass and the bulk d@sn't bother me, there are plenty of two-story houses fhere. But the proposed mateial bothers me. I love wood shingle, but it needs something to make it fit back in the neighbothood. > I agree that the neighborhood has more houses with stucco and hoizontal siding. But l've seen some shingle homes in the other Ray Park neighbothoods. When they're more painted rather than natural wood color, they tend to ftt in a lit e bit befter. Overall the project is nice looking; I do like it. My previous comments are really not so much criticisms of what we've got, it's just that we need to see a liftle bit more so that it's in the record. lt would be a good idea to have more detailing around the window trims and we know that we're getting 1" x 4" and 1" x 6", etc. lt's good to have some of the details around the gable ends. Similatly, my questions around the front porch, that's an area of great concem, having those mateials nailed down and working is impoftant. The big glass doors at the rear of the house could be incredible, but they are extremely expensive. So I would recommend that before coming back and locking into something that you're not going to want to change or have to come back to us with, ifs impoiant that you understand the cost and effod into making those happen. That would be a wise choice. There is also a good opportunity fot a rendeing on this, it doesn't have to be photo realistic, even some of the black and white rendeings that we get have some texture to it and enable us ,o see more three 4imensionally how the vaious elevations wotk, and it's a vast improvement over just elevations. > lf we can get those comments on the window types cleaned up, thal would be helpful. When I looked at the drawings, the shingle graphic was a liftle bit disturbing, pattly because I know the neighbothood prew we , but also because it's probably just the CAD design program that sp/as out this pafticular texture of shingle. My guess ,s the shingles would be a traditional shingle that would be square cut on the bottom and appear in horizontal rows. There's a house on Eastmoor Road down by Vi age Patu. it actually is nice looking. There may be one or two shingle ,ouses n that neighborhood although there arenl many. To my fellow commissionefs cunment about the hoizontalv of the side elevations, that's along the lines of what I was saying about the chimney. lf you incorporated a chimney, broke the roof plane even by a toot or two, and made it of a ditferent mateial, it would break that side up and help the plain look of that one side. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Loftis, to place on the item Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried following vote: Aye: 6 on the by the Absent 1 Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Lofris, Schmid, and Pfaff Tenones City of Buningame Page 2 TO: Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Planning Dept City of Burlingame 500 Rose Burlingame, CA. 94040 650 558 7216 FR: Joe Sabel AERO 11 DESIGN 855 Jefferson Ave. #475 Redwood City, CA 94064 650 255 8017 RE: Planning Commission Comment responses fot 1132 Killarney Lane Dear Planning Commission, Thanks again for all your helpful and insightful comments regarding our project at 1 132 Killarney Lane, the Criscuolo Second Story Addition Project. 'I . Clarified all of the notes on the plans and elevations that all of the windows shall be replaced and that the material will be aluminum clad with simulated true divided lites. 2. After much thinking and consideration the owners want to continue forward with the painted cedar shake siding as initially proposed, matching the look of a house around the corner on Westmoor, with similar matching painted cedar shake siding. 3. After considering the members comments the owner are reducing the size of the rear sliding doors and making it a sliding pocket door as well as suggested. 4. Clarified the size of window trims and gable ends on notes on the plans. 5. Noted and clarified the front porch and step materials on elevation notes on plans. 6. Revised the plans to reflect exterior light fixtures on all of the elevations. 7. Created 3D rendering perspectives ofthe project and included in the revision submiftal package. Thanks again for all your comments and feedback on our project! Joe Sabel AERO 1 1 DESIGN 650 255 817 04.28.22 Enclosed are revisions to the plan set responding to your comments from the meeting. ! have outlined the revisions in a list below: BI.,PLINGAME =IF =eoa! =Fo u.l o&.o- PLANNING APPLICATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OEPARTMENT-PLANNING DIVISION 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, BURLINGAME, CA 94010.3997 TEL: 650.558.7250 | FAX: 650.696.3790 | E-MAIL: PLANNINGDEPT@BURLINGAIIE.ORG t6c?lLAtLVtY thN€Lfl.7rz.tL,11) PROJECT ADORESS PROJECT DESCRIPTION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # IAPN} o1o +5L trt fr /5 (tfil eN OF +l ,,t+t/N pt,llrJl 'l.lvlNb 2 /65 0Y 1 )vt b"LY B u/a/ CfLl sc-.-..,t,j7- r.ll ".c*c Le.-r€-3^"CA@( ^z,IF =E,ou-z. Fz. o Jcc tTt lLNYqw6V+p AvE itffit*AP-g*) lLL a Pot' Ltt'\ BURLINGAME BUSINESS LICENSE # .A I v ARCHIIECI/DESIGi{ER B APPLICANT? 'FOR PRoJECT REFUiIDS' - Please provide an address lo which to all refund checks will be mailed to: pATd AUTHORIZATION TO REPRODUCE PLANS I HEREBY GRANT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THE AUTHORIry TO REPRODUCE UPON REQUEST A]\D/OR POST PLANS SUBMITTED WTH THIS APPLICATION ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AS PART OF THE PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESS AND WAIVE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST THE CIW ARISING OUT OF OR RELATEO TO SUCH ACTION IINITIALS OF ARCHITECT/DESIGNERI APPUCAIION IYPE E ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) tr E coNolfloNAl usE PERMTT (cuP) tr B DESTGN REVTEW (oSR) O E HILLSIOE AREA CO$FTRUCIION PERI'IT E El M|NOR MoO|FroArofi E SPECIAL PERMIT (SP) VARIANCE UAR) WRELESS FENCE EXCEPTION OTHER: DATE RECEIVED: ZONING \l \.-) *r9 ks. goln ' ;t .t : ...:t'i RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and applicalion has been made for Desion Review for a second storv addition to an existino sinole-unit dwellino at 1 132 Killarnev Lane. Zone R-1 . Robert Criscuolo. oropertv owner. APN: 025-232-720; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Mav 23, 2022, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the lnitial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review is set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. Chairperson 1 2 Secretary 3. lt is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the Counly of San Mateo. |'-,SecretaryofthePlanningCommiSSionoftheCityofBurlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd dav of Mav. 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1 132 Killarney Lane Effective June 2,2022 Page 1 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 2, 2O22, sheets A1 through 413; 6 2 J 4 7 8 o that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYl or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; that any recycling conlainers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Direclor; that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and lnstalled on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPEGTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the projecl architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review I 132 Killarney Lane Effective June 2,2022 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12 that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspeclion, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and t5 that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the proiect has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. OTY OT BUNUNGAME @MMUNTTY DEVETOPMENT DEPAfiTMENT 5O1 PRIMROSI R(XD BURUNGAME, CA 9{O1O PH: (650) 558'72s0 ww$r. burlintame.or8 Proietl Site: I132 l(illorney [one, zoned R.I The Cily of Burlingome Plonning (ommission onnoun(et lhe Iolloving virluol public heoring vio Ioom on fondoy, foy 23,2022 or 7:00 P.ll. You m0y !(esrlhe meeling 0nline ol uYv ri ioin or by phone ol (316)2{8J799: ileeting lD: 836 1165 2905 Poss(ods; {92121 Dorciption: Applitorion lor Desig[ lsvisu lor o second slory 0ddilion lo 0n erisling ringle-unil duolling. t{embers 0l lhe publi( moy ployido yritlsn commenlr by emoil lo: oublitrommenl@butlinorme.org. tloiled: iioy 13,2022 (Pleose refer to other side) PUBTIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlinodme - Puhlic Heorino Notice lf you have any questions about this application or would like to schedule an appointment to view a hard copy of the application and plans, please send an email to planninsdeot@burlinsame.ore or call (650) 558-7250. lndividuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be di5tributed, should contact the Planning Division at planninsdeot@burlingame.orE or (55O) 558-7250 by 10 am on the day of the meeting. lf you challenge the subiect application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, des€ribed 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. Kevin Gardiner, AICP Community Development Director (Pleose rclet to other side) 1132 Killarney Lane 300' noticing APN #: 025-232-720 6too $o o scot .'{56 o Dz) d $a br, ooo0 oz o .J00n o^t" B a!a/N'',"?' %^" oo- ""e "te ^o-6- *So^ 6 o6t .s ^ "t^$ *p ,.$ '1" fN d'oGt" 'r. ,* lE ( )/ a q,/ RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION Wood Aluminum Clad SDL Marvin Signiture or Equal Wood Aluminum Clad SDL Marvin Signiture or Equal Wood Aluminum Clad SDL Marvin Signiture or Equal Wood Aluminum Clad SDL Marvin Signiture or Equal Wood Aluminum Clad SDL Marvin Signiture or Equal Wood Aluminum Clad SDL Marvin Signiture or Equal Wood Aluminum Clad SDL Marvin Signiture or Equal Wood Aluminum Clad SDL Marvin Signiture or Equal T G EReplaced Under Recent Permit #P19-0086 Service to House Prior to the start of construction the Burlingame Parks Department shall be contacted at (650)-558-7330 to schedule replacement of city tree. Non Nut Trees RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION City of Burlingame Item No. 8c Regular Action ltemDesign Review Address: 1273 Balboa Avenue Meeting Oatei May 23,2022 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Architect: Peter Suen, Fiflh Arch Property Owners: Betty Chen and Kevin Lange General Plan: Low Density Residential Note: This application was submitted prior to January 5, 2022, the effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance, and therefore was reviewed under the previous Zoning Code. Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 'l 5303 (a), which slates that conslruction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. ln urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish all struclures on the site to build a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The proposed house would have a total floor area of 3,900 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,903 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including 143 SF covered porch exemption). There is a27.5 SF (2'-9" x 10'-0") encroachment into the declining height envelope along the lefi side which meets the window enclosure exception per Code Section 25.26.075 (b)(2). The new slngle-unit dwelling would contain five bedrooms (office on ground floorqualifies as a bedroom). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on-site. Two covered parking spaces are provided in the detached garage (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All otherZoning Code requiremenls have been met. Accessory Dwelling Unit This project includes an attached ADU (848 SF) within the main dwelling. Review of the ADU application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined that the ADU complies with the ADU regulations. The applicant is requesting the following application: Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)) Iris space intentionally left blank APN: 026-152-030 Lot Area: 7,509 SF Zoning: R-1 Design Review 1273 Balboa Avenue 1273 Balboa Avenue Lot Area: 7 509 SF Plans date stam 2 2022 (0.32 x 7,509 SF) + 1 ,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,903 SF (0.52 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: . Windows: fiberglass clad wood (type of divided lites unknown). Doors.' fiberglass clad wood. Sidirg.'wood board and batten. Roof.' cedar wood shake. Ofrrer.'wood corbels Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review study meeting on M arch 14,2022, the Commission had several concerns with the project and referred lhe application to a design review consultant (see attached March 14, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below is a summary of the Commission's main concerns from the Design Review study meeting: . Out of scale with the lot - height and FAR is maximized. Volume needs to come down. ls warehouse-like, needs charm. Garage looks like a storage unit. 2 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SEIBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 25'-o', 31',-1" 21'-5" (block average) 21 -5" (block average) Side (teft): (right): 4'-0' 1 'l'-0' 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 47'-8" 49'-9', 15',-o" 20'-0" Lot Coverage:2,836 SF 37 .8o/o 3,004 sF 40o/o FAR:3,900 sF 0.52 FAR 3,903 SF' 0.52 FAR # of bedrooms:5 Off-Street Parking:2 covered (20' x 20' clear interior) l uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (20' x20' clear interior) 1 unmvered (9' x 20') Building Height:29',-5"30'-0" DH Envelope:complies with window enclosure exception at left side cs 25.26.075 1 Staff Comments: None. 1273 Balboa Avenue . Very vertical - board and batten siding coupled with vertical lines and steepness of the standing seam metal roof accentuates the verticality of the project and needs to be addressed. . Break up the verticality of the siding with horizontal band/board, especially on side elevations. . Roof pitch is too steep and makes the standing seam metal roof more of a fagade, need to lower pitch. . No ridge cap, should be addressed. Concemed about skylights going right up against the ridge. r Need to know proposed color for metal roof. o Plate heights needs to be lowered.. Concemed about the board and batten siding going straight to the ground with no finishing. . Speciry all proposed materials for the front porch, including base of porch. . Tall brow areas above windows to the right of the front entry need to be revisited. . Window types need to be specitied clearly on plans. . Window trim should be added and size should be specified. . Window sizes should be relative to the plate heights. . Reconsider grid patterns for windows, consider 2x2 instead to be less horizontal. . Show all existing and proposed exterior lighting. . Redbud tree at front is small in scale, consider more prominent tree. . Renderings and drawings need to be consistent. The applicant submitted a response letter, dated May 10,2022 and revised plans, date stamped May2,2o22,lo address the Planning Commission's comments and concems. Adiscussion of the anatysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consullant is provided in the next seclion. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: Please refer to the attached design reviewe/s analysis and recommendation, dated May 11 ,2022, for a detailed review of the project. The design reviewer notes that the proposed materials selected for the poect is compatible with neighboring residences, lhe proposed detached garage is in keeping with the neighborhood pattem ofgarages, and that the proposed structure is incorporating many details ofthe neighborhood." Based on the design review analysis of the poect, the design reviewer recommends approval of the project as proposed. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; lnterface ofthe proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Reviewi That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the proposed structure (featuring hip and gable roofs, proportional plate heights, cedar wood shake roofing, fiberglass clad wood windows and doors, board and batten wood siding, and wood architectural details) is compatible with the characler ofthe neighborhood, and thal the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface wilh the structures on adjacent properties. Forthese reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. 1 2 3 4 5 Design Review Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; J 1 Design Review 1273 Ealboa Avenue Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: thal the window grids on all windows be simulated true divided lites; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYl or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); that any changes to the size orenvelope ofthe basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dorme(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters tor the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; that demolition for removalof the existing structures and anygrading orearth moving on the site shallnot occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districl; that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheel listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions ofthe roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; that the poect shall comply with lhe Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10 lhat the project shall meet all the requirements of the Califomia Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11 that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certiry lhe first-floor elevation ofthe new structure(s) based on the elevation atthe top ofthe form boards perthe approved plans;this survey shall be accepted bythe City Engineer; 4 2 3 4 5 t) 7 8 I 12 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 2,2O22, sheets 40.0 through A5.1 , and L1; that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; Design Review 13. 14 15 'Amelia Kolokihakaufi si Associate Planner Peter Suen, applicant and architect Betty Chen and Kevin Lange, property owners Attachments: March 1 4, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated May 10,2022 Design Review Analysis, dated May 11, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing - Mailed May 13,2022 Area Map 1273 Balboa Avenue that prior to scheduling lhe framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evidenl at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of thal height to the Building Division; and that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. c 5 NGAME City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission a Monday, March '14, 2022 7:00 PM Online 1273 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Peter Suen, Fifth Arch, applicant and architect; Betty Chen and Kevin Lange, property owners) (142 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachmenb: 1273 Balboa Ave - Staff Reoort 1273 Balboa Ave - Attachments 1273 Balboa Ave - Plans All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Huin provided an overuiew of the staff repotl. Chair Schmid opened tha public heaing Peter Suen, designer, represented the applicant and answered guestbns about the application. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing Commiss/bn Discuss,bn/D i rc ction > Consider using a difterent tree species for the front landscaping, the Redbud is diminutive. > Fix drafting error showing tha front door to match the 3D rendeing with the proposed elevation. > Ih,b is a modem famhouse style. Consider a mullion pattem with a 2" x 2" gid overall on the windows versus a 2' x 4" grid. That breaks everything down into more hoizontally shoft and wide panes versus a more veftical pane to accentuate the board and batten siding and the standing seam metal roof veftical lines. > Provide additional extetior lighting on the side of the garage doors. > I frnd the farmhouse style to be the least convincing of all architectural styles to ft into anwhere in Burlingame. This one pafticular st kes me as very odd. lt's looks like a warghouse and thafs pattly because everything is vefiical. The thing that really bothers me the most is the standing seam metal roof and its pitch; becomes very facadeJike. I have come to tolerate standing seam metal roofs because they typica y are lower in pitch, 4:12 and this is probably 8:12. When they get pitched up like that, they become very insistent in the tacade of the building. This is extensive, rea y long, and unbroken which makes it all the more egregious in my view. My fellow commissioner said something a while ago on another project and it repeats here, that the verlical siding in this case dnies diectly into the ground, it doesrt stop. ln the other case, f was hoizontal siding that went all the way to ground. You might say we dont need to wotry about that at this point in the project, but it's sott of representative of a ceftain na ivete about the design. lt is equally bazaar that the standing seam metal roof has no ridge cap at all on this building. There's going to be something up there and the sqights are pushed up against the top of that. There's no way they get that close to the top of this building. There are all sotts of lhmgs fhat suggesrs CWolBudinsane Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 14,2022 this building really needs to be looked at hader. lt needs to be much more realistic; I don't find it credible at a . There are some massing erors too. lf you look at the side elevation of the two rendeings with the zipline gutts that runs from the hont to back that separates the upper floor ftom the lower floor, it's very wedding cake. lt's stacked with no gesture to try to break up that hoizontalv. I might have expected the upper bay to saddteback down to break the line and it doesn't. There's a saddleback on the other side but there's no tim. The veftical board and batten runs right to the ground. l'm going to suggest this goes to a design review consultant because it needs some real attention to more realistic detail. I frnd it lacking in detail. > lt's interesting that you came up with the warehouse analogy because I had that wiften on two ditferent sheets on my plans. The vefticality of the board and baften siding coupled with the standing seam metal roof, not to mention the four skylights on either side of the ridge, make it look very much like a warehouse. The dual garage doors on sheet A5.1 look like a storage unit; thafs going to need help. I agree with the comments about the window trim needing something to be shown there. The window types need to be addressed a little bit more clearly. You've got a real jumbling of awning windows, double-hungs, casements, and arch top Frcnch wood windows. ldon't see a rhwe or reason to it. The vefticality of the board and baften is a little extreme; there are no breaks. There are no belly bands that you would typically see a break at the plate line, so you don't have these llres that go all the way up. You have it where it's offset, but on some of the sides and also at the front and the side of the gable, there should be a hoizontal board to break that, not just the two materials coming togetheL l'm leaning with my fetlow commissioner that a design review consultant could help on this one. > That was the first thought when I opened up the packet, it was very veftical and top heavy. I agree that this is a great candidate for a design review consultant. > I agree with my fellow commissioners. The neighboth@d has a vaiety of style, this one could potentially fit in. As designed, it looks like it would belong out in a rural environment than in the middle of Buflingame. Ihe vefticality needs to be addressed. Therc are a lot of veftical lines that are really accentuating ona direction. lt's oversimplifying the look ot the house and some of the heights. There's a tall brow area over the windows to the ight of the front door, that should be accounted for. The sizes of the windows in relationship to the plate heights of the two floors should also be looked at fufther. I agree that going through the process of the design review consultant would be a good direction to go to and get some help to expedite this project. > Definitely agree with all that has been said. lt looked like a dance hall or a community theater out in Grass Valley or something and ifs not meant to be mean, it's just the first thing I thought of when I saw it. h looks thin because of the verticality going all the way down to the ground and the lack of tim, but I'm sure it's very substantial. So, going to a design review consultant would be a great idea. > I think the plate height needs to be revisited at the ground flooL it's a D,I excessive. ln general, the project lacks in charm and the round top window which is where all the chatm was trying to go, is not very chaming. lt's just a semi-circular shape on top of the square. > I agree with what most of you have said. lt is out of scale for this lot. This pafticular structure has maximized the FAR and height. lt's actually going over if we took into consideration everything that is being built. The floor-to-floor plate heights are too high. If you stood in that porch, it would be a huge volume. Recognizing that windows are seven feet tall, there is still about threg to four feet on top ol that. lt does not have a homey atnosphere. I'm concemed about the mateials going to the ground and not finishing especially since it doesn't have a level lot. As you go up the side, you're going to have a bunch cut off. lt's not going to be constructed the way it's drawn in the computer. There needs to be thought about how that finishes off.> l'm concemed about the porch and the materials around it and the railing. I could foresee us rcally having a difficult time with this after it is built because l'm not seeing the mateials. I see a really poor tile put on there where it would look unattnctive. So, we need to be more specific on the mateials around that front area. lt needs to be more than specifying wood fascia. > The volumes need to come down, there's a 12 foot second floor open area. That's not something we see ,n frese homes. lt would be 16 feet if we didn't have to put in the ceiling in order to deal with the floor area ratio, that would have taken as a double count. > We need colors. A standing seam metal roof of this size and magnitude with the wrong color is going to look honible. I went by another modem farmhouse that just finished not that long ago and it's one CW of Budinsane Page 2 Planning Commiggion Meeting Minutes Match 14,2022 hundred percent white. No cham, no tim. lt was pooly done and we\e had people call it out. Whon you have something like this that's trying to be so different than the other things in our neighbothood, you have to do it we to make it wotk. There's one on Balboa Avenue, somewhere in the 1300 block, that looked a lot nicer and did a lot better hb of combining mateials. lt's a befter composition that might not be a bad one to look at for some inspinlon. The no tim thing, it's going to be no detail, I donl think we're going to like that. I agree with my felow commissioner that without a belly band or other horizontal tims to provide scale to this, it is a warehouse. So, i, does need a lot of wo* and its too big for the lot it's on. lt needs to be rethought. Vice4hair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to iefer th€ application to a d6aign review consultant The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff Absent 1 - Tenones City of Burlingan.Page 3 )))))FIiTHARCH May 10, 2022 City of Burlingame Planning Division (650) 5s8-7250 Re 1273 Balboa Avenue To'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi: We have revised our drawings based on the feedback from the Planning Commission and Catherine Nilmeyer, our assigned design consultant. Specifically: . We have reduced the overall building height from 29'-11" to 29'-5". . The ground level floor-te'ceiling height has been reduced from 9'-6" to 9'-0". The second level floor-tc.ceiling remains 8'-0". o Ridge capyvents have been added to the roof and the skylight locations have been adjusted accordingly. r Drip flashing at the bottom of the wood siding has been added. . The standing seam metal roof has been replaced with a cedar wood shake roof. . All windows and doors are now cased with 1x4 flat casing with stool and apron. . The transom window above the front door has been removed and the front door detailing has been adjusted. o All the casement windows have been replaced with doubl+.hung windows and the mullion pattems have also been adjusted. . The board and batten siding has been revised to be 1x12 boards with 1x2 battens. . We have added wood corbels to all the ends of the gable facades (two at end side and one at the center line), along with a band of corbels along the bottom of the cantilevered area at the second level. o The garage facade has been adjusted to show more detailing, including a revised garage door, lighting and trim. o Wall mounted lightang is now shown at the front door, garage door and rear patio doors. o Fascia boards have been added to the front porch framing. o All of the roof slopes are now clearly marked on the building elevations. r The arched patio doors at the rear facade have been revised to be square and consistent with all other openings. o The interior kitchen and living room positions have been swapped. . We have moved the larger new oak tree to the front of the property where it can be more prominent. Kind regards, Peter Suen Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above responses. Design Review Comments City of Burlingame Propedlt Owner: Applicant Nane: Designer: Project Address: Planner: Date of Review: Design Guidelines: J. Betty Chen, Kevin Lange Peter Suen Peter Suen 1273 Balbor Avenue 'Amelia Koloihakaufisi l1 May 2022 COMPATABILITY OF THE ARCHITECTI,]RAL STYLE WITH THAT OF TIIE E)ilSTING CHARACTER OF TIIE }IEIGIIBORIIOOD. The existing neighbor has many original Bungalows. Adjacent to this property are two large homes with two stories. Many of the homes in the neighborhood are stucco, wood siding and a few shingled homes, asphalt and shake roofs. The proposed materials for the house will blend in with the neighboring residences. The homes seem to be closer to the street than other locations in town. This residence will move forward more in line with the neighboring homes. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Ah{D CONSISTENCY AI{D MASS AIID BULK OF STRUCTT]RES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. The proposed structure is incorporating many details of the neighborhood. They are including a front porch, the exterior material will be wood board and baften, the proposed windows will be double hung, the roof material to be cedar wood shakes. To reduce bulk, the second story has been set back from the first floor. 'Ihere is articulation with the elevations, corbels have been used at the second floor to articulate the two floor planes. INTERFACE OF TITF' PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. To the south is 1265 Balboa a large two story structure with much articulation by way of bay windows, front deck area, and a recessed front entr-v- The driveway at this residence allori'/s a large distance between the homes. 2 l l. RESPECT FOR THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORIIOOD, This area has almost all detached garages. The proposed residence will retain the concept of the detached garage by building a new garage at the rear of the property. The neighbor to thenorfrt,1277 Balboa will be two driveways apart from the proposed residence. There should be no negative effects on either ofthe existing residences, as they are both quite large, and well-spaced from each other. LAI{DSCAPING AIID ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OI'TIIE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. There are several trees in the neighborhood. The adjacent house to the south is at the bank of a creek with many trees and foliage. Unfortunately, the large tree at the fiont ofthe house will have to be removed as the house is moving forward on the lot. Two new trees will be added to the front yard along with bushes at the street property line and two new street trees. There will be permeable pavers along the driveway to the r€ar gamge. A couple of trees will be added to the rear yard. There will be ddveway space on each side of the home, allowing more space between the adjacent residences on each side. IN TIIE CASE OFAN AI)DITION, COMPATABILITY WITH TIIE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS REMODELED. This is a new structue, this item is not applicable. COMMENTS: The architect and owners followed the recommendations ftom the Planning Commission: o Much detail has been added to the house and garage elevations, including double hung window with grids, trirnmed with 1x4 flat casing with stool and apron. The proEuding second floor on the West elevation is resting on corbels. . The overall structure height has been reduced at first floor from 9'-6" to 9'-0". Floor. The second floor bas rernained at 8'-0". Also, in the initial design. the structue seemed very tall horizontal board and batten, and the sleep metal roof with vertical lines. The use of cedar wood shakes have broken up the verticality of the elevations. . The board and batten has been scaled to lxl2 with lx2 battens which run into the drip screed below, not to the ground. r The roof cap has been added, and the skyligha have been lowered to clear the structurc of the roof- . The frst floor has been modified as the Living Room and Dining Rooms are at the front of the house, while the Kitchen has been relocated to the rear of the house, The proposed residence has been modilied well incorporating the recommendalions of Commission. This stnrcture will fit in well in the neighborhood. The ADU in the side rear of the house is very nicely desiped. Cath e J.M.meyer, Architect 6. PLANNING APPLICATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT_PLANNING DIVISION 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, BURLINGAME, CA 94010-3997 TEL: 650.558.7250 | FltX: 650.696.3790 iE-MAIL: PLANNINGDEPT@BTJRLINGAME.ORG z.eF =e.otr-z, F =o)o-(L o- -U'dul = =o l!o F =o l!l! ai -n -t1 C,amo =r z.IF =E,oLLz Fo UJ oE.o- .Jzoul <t =l!lr- F <t) ,I, DEMO. EXISITNG TWO STORY BUILDING & DETACHED GA&AGE; 2, REBUILD ONE TWO-STORY BUILDING TO CREATE ONE 4 BED 5 BATH ( 3,423 SF) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT AND ONE 2 BED 1 BATH (849 SF) ACCESSORY DEWLLING UNIT. 3, TO BUILD ONE NEW DETACHED GARAGE (415 SF)AT REAR YARD R-'1 zoNNG 026-152-0301273 Balboa Ave PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT DESCRIPTION BURLIT{GAME BUSINESS LICENSE # 'FOR PROJECT REFUT{DS' - Please provide an address lo which lo all refund checks will be malled to: Peter Suen 1177 Alabama St., San Francisco CA 941 'l 0 PHONE E.MAIL ADDRESS E.MAIL NAME ADDRESS E APPLTCANT UPROPERTY OW}IER NAiIE 415-513-61 10 ADDRESS peter@fiftharch.com I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN HEREIN IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, IAM AWARE OF THE PROPOSED APPLICATION AND HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE ABOVE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION/DIVISION. 11t14t2021 11t12t2021 APPLICAT{T'S SIGNATURE (F DIFFERENT FROiI PROPERTY OWNERI OATEPROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION TO REPRODUCE PLANS I HEREBY GRANT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THE AUTHORITY TO REPRODUCE UPON REQUEST AND/OR POST PLANS SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION ON THE CIW'S WEBSITE AS PART OF THE PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESS AND WAIVE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO SUCH ACTION lilmaLs Or ARCHTTECT/I,ESIG ERl APPLICATIoiI TYPE U[ ACcEssoRY DWELLTNG uNrr (ADU) tr E coriDfloNAL usE PERMTT (cuP) tr I oesrer nevrew tosR) tr E H|r-LSTDE AREA CO|.ISTRUCTTOI'r PERMTT E E] MINOR MODIFICATION E SPECIAL PERMIT (SP)DATE RECEIVED VAR|ANCE (vAR) WREESS FENCE EXCEPTION OTHER: ASSESSORS PAR.CEL #(APiI) PHONE Same as above@ * OATE RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desion Review for a new. two-storv sinole-unit dwellino and detached qaraoe at 1273 Balboa Avenue. Zone R- 1 , Bettv Chen and Kevin Lanqe. propertv owners, APN. 026-152-030 WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Mav 23. 2022, al which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that On the basis of the lnitial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. ln urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit 'A- attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review is set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records ofthe County of San Mateo. Chairperson l, _, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd dav of Mav.2O22 by the following vote: 1 2 3 Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1273 Balboa Avenue Elleclive June 2,2022 Page 'l 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 2,2O22, sheets A0.0 through A5.1, and Ll; that the window grids on all windows be simulated true divided lites; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount ortype of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYl or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the projecl, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required, the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; that all air duc{s, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; that the poect shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; THE FOLLOWNG CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 2 3 b 7 4 5 8 o 10 11 that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certificataon by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1273 Balboa Avenue Effective June 2, 2022 that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 1|>that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident al framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14 that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15 that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. EXHIBIT "A" 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first-floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; BURLINGAME CITY OF BURTINGAMT COMMUNTfv DEVEIOPMEiIT D€PARIIT,IENT SO1 PRIMROSE ROAD EURLIIiGAME, CA *O1O PH: (6so) ss&7250 vYww.budingame.org Prolett Sitc: I273 Bolboo Avenue, roned R-l Ihe tity of 0udingome Plonning (ommission onnoun.sr the folloving virtuol publk heoring vio Zoom on ondoy, ita123,2022 d f$0 P.ll. You moy occess the meeting onliro ot www.zoom.us/ioin or by phone ot 134q1.q8-fl99' l{eeting lD: 836 l165 2905 Possrode: 192121 Drription: Applitotion for Design leviev lor 0 rsv, lvo. slory !ingle-unil dyelling ond detoched go;oge. llembers oflhe public moy provide rritlen comments by emoil lo: oublittommenlGDburlinoome.org. iloiled: lloy 13,2022 (Pleose rcfet to other side) PUBTIC HEARING NOTICE Citv ol Bu inoame - Public Heorino Notice lf you have any questions about this application or would like to schedule an appointment to view a hard copy of the application and plans, please send an email to olanninsdeot(aburlineame.ors or call (650) 558-7250. lndividuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommoda$on to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meefing notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed, should contact the Planning Division at planninsdeot@burlinsame.ors or {650} 558-7250 by 10 am on the day of the meeting. lf you challenge the subjest 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. Kevin Gardiner, AICP Community Development Director (Pleose refer to other side) 1273 Balboa Avenue 300' noticing APN #: 026-152-030 N -QQ;,r';# se. '% pd* #- -oDs,% "$' ,{i oo* ,% qQ ,% ;3 ,% ,% ,% Srd ,* ,600 rv G. 6s.9 sQ^o_O\ 't9 %un $." t) ?/ Dz I |,/, ./ / € 1ST FF37'-0"2ND FF47'-0"2ND T.O.P55'-0"MAX.ALLOW.ELEV.64'-3"AVG.T.O.CURB34'-3"080112061211D040910SK1SK1SK1SK130'-0"EGRESS2'-6"4'-6"9'-6"2'-5"REAR DECKGUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUT1ST T.O.P.46'-0"WOOD CORBELWOOD CORBEL 9'-0"8'-0"BUILDING HEIGHT29'-7"LED LIGHT4.75124.75123122.12121'-0"RIDGE CAP, TYP(N) CEDAR WOOD SHAKE ROOF, TYP(N) WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 1X12 CEDAR BOARDS & 1X2 VERTICAL BATTENS1X4 CASING, PTD. TYP.MISSION SILL(N) CEDAR WOOD SHAKE ROOF, TYPDRIP SCREEDCONC. FOUNDATION1x4 TRIM1ST FF37'-0"2ND FF47'-0"2ND T.O.P55'-0"MAX.ALLOW.ELEV.64'-3"05AVG.T.O.CURB34'-3"020105010701SK1SK1SK1SK11211EGRESS2'-6"4'-6"WINDOW ENCLOSUREEGRESS116'-3"6'-3"2'-6"4'-6"6'-7"FRONT PORCHGUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTDOWN SPOUT1ST T.O.P.46'-0"8"9'-0"8'-0"BUILDING HEIGHT29'-7"DRIP SCREEDCONC. FOUNDATION0707026126126122.1212312RIDGE CAP, TYP(N) CEDAR WOOD SHAKE ROOF, TYP(N) WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 1X12 CEDAR BOARDS & 1X2 VERTICAL BATTENS1X4 CASING, PTD. TYP.MISSION SILL(N) CEDAR WOOD SHAKE ROOF, TYP1'-0"OWNERREVISIONSAPPROVALSPROJECTSHEET TITLESHEET NO.DRAWN BYYFLSCALEAS NOTEDCONSULTANTSARCHITECTJOB NO.20210630ABETTY CHEN & KEVIN LANGE1273 BALBOA AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(512) 567-6145Kevin: jklange@gmail.comBetty: bettychen111@gmail.comFIFTH ARCHPETER SUEN1177 ALABAMA ST.SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110(415) 513-6110PETER@FIFTHARCH.COMCHECKED BYPETERSURVEYORTRIAD HOLMES ASSOCIATESENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS(650) 366-0216sf@thainc.com2022/4/29 14:41:28A3.1NEW HOUSE FOR1273 BALOA AVE, BURLINGAME, CA94010ELEVATIONS1/4" = 1'-0"1(N) WEST ELEVATIONPROPOSED FINISH SCHEDULEROOF COVER: CEDAR WOOD SHAKE ROOF, PAINTEDGUTTERS: 4" OGEE SHEET METAL GUTTERS & DOWNSPOUTS, PAINTED EXTERIOR WALLS:WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDING -1X12 CEDAR BOARDS & 1X2 VERTICAL BATTENSWINDOWS & DOORS: ALL (N) WINDOWS SHALL BE FIBERGLASS CLADWD. WINDOWS U.O.N.CASING & TRIM: OPENINGS CASED WITH 1X4 REDWOOD FLAT CASING (MISSION SILL) PAINTEDSHEET NOTE:1. ALL NEW WINDOWS AND GLASS DOORS SHALL BE DOUBLE PANED, INSULATED W/ MAX U-VALUES AS STATED ON THE CALIFORNIA TITLE-24 REPORT. TEMP. MFGR LABELS SHOWING NEW GLAZING U-VALUES SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL BLDG. INSPECTOR AUTHORIZES TO DO SO2. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO HAVE SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES WITH SPACER BARS BETWEEN THE PANES AND GRIDS ADHERED TO THE INTERIOR AND THE EXTERIOR OF THE WINDOW.No. Description Date2 REVISION 2 04/28/221/4" = 1'-0"2(N) EAST ELEVATION 1ST FF37'-0"2ND FF47'-0"2ND T.O.P55'-0"8'-0"4 5 .0 0 °45.00°MAX.ALLOW.ELEV.64'-3"P.LP.L4'-0"4'-0"AVG.T.O.CURB34'-3"1ST FLOOR SETBACK1ST FLOOR SETBACK2'-6"3'-5"2ND FLOOR SETBACK2ND FLOOR SETBACKBUILDING HEIGHT29'-5"05060504D29080830'-0"P.O.D.36'-11"7"12'-0"P.O.D.36'-2"12'-0"50'-0"3'-5"WINDOW ENCLOSURE2'-0"6'-6"1'-2"4'-0"3'-0"EGRESSEGRESS2'-6"4'-6"GUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUT1ST T.O.P.46'-0"8128128128122.1212WOOD CORBEL2'-11"2'-8"9'-8"9'-0"8'-0"WOOD CORBEL RIDGE VENT(N) CEDAR WOOD SHAKE ROOF, TYP(N) WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 1X12 CEDAR BOARDS & 1X2 VERTICAL BATTENSDRIP SCREEDCONC. FOUNDATION1ST FF37'-0"2ND FF47'-0"2ND T.O.P55'-0"MAX.ALLOW.ELEV.64'-3"OUTLINE OF (N) 2-CAR GARAGED03AVG.T.O.CURB34'-3"45.00°4 5 .0 0 °P.LP.L4'-0"4'-0"1ST FLOOR SETBACK1ST FLOOR SETBACK2'-6"3'-5"2ND FLOOR SETBACK2ND FLOOR SETBACK021003D0329'-5"P.O.D.36'-11"P.O.D.36'-2"12'-0"02WINDOW ENCLOSUREEGRESS4'-6"2'-7"GUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTLED LIGHTLED LIGHT1ST T.O.P.46'-0"8128122.12122.12122'-11"2'-8"2'-3"9'-0"8'-0"13'-0"RIDGE VENTPATIO ON GRADE(N) CEDAR WOOD SHAKE ROOF, TYP(N) WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 1X12 CEDAR BOARDS & 1X2 VERTICAL BATTENS(N) CEDAR WOOD SHAKE ROOF, TYPOWNERREVISIONSAPPROVALSPROJECTSHEET TITLESHEET NO.DRAWN BYYFLSCALEAS NOTEDCONSULTANTSARCHITECTJOB NO.20210630ABETTY CHEN & KEVIN LANGE1273 BALBOA AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(512) 567-6145Kevin: jklange@gmail.comBetty: bettychen111@gmail.comFIFTH ARCHPETER SUEN1177 ALABAMA ST.SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110(415) 513-6110PETER@FIFTHARCH.COMCHECKED BYPETERSURVEYORTRIAD HOLMES ASSOCIATESENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS(650) 366-0216sf@thainc.com2022/4/29 14:41:32A3.2NEW HOUSE FOR1273 BALOA AVE, BURLINGAME, CA94010ELEVATIONS1/4" = 1'-0"1(N) NORTH (STREET) ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"3(N) SOUTH ELEVATIONNo. Description Date2 REVISION 2 04/28/22WINDOW SCHEDULETypeMarkWindow Size Rough openingType MaterialGlazingCountWidth Height Rough Width Rough HeightType01 2' - 0" 2' - 0" 2' - 1" 2' - 0 1/2" Window-Awning FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 402 4' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 1" 2' - 0 1/2" Window-Awning FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 403 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 1" 3' - 0 1/2" Window-Awning FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 104 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 7" 2' - 6 1/2" Window-Awning FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 105 1' - 11" 4' - 0" 2' - 0 1/4" 4' - 0" Window-Double_Hung_NG FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 406 2' - 11" 4' - 0" 3' - 0 1/4" 4' - 0" Window-Double_Hung_NG FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 207 2' - 11" 4' - 6" 3' - 0 1/4" 4' - 6" Window-Double_Hung_NG FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 308 9' - 6" 4' - 6" 9' - 6 3/4" 4' - 6" Window-Double_Hung_NG-Multiple_Units FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 309 6' - 3" 3' - 6" 6' - 3 1/2" 3' - 6 1/2" Window-Double_Hung_NG-Multiple_Units FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 210 12' - 9" 4' - 6" 12' - 10" 4' - 6" Window-Double_Hung_NG-Multiple_Units FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 211 6' - 3" 4' - 6" 6' - 3 1/2" 4' - 6 1/2" Window-Double_Hung_NG-Multiple_Units FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 312 6' - 3" 4' - 0" 6' - 3 1/2" 4' - 0" Window-Double_Hung_NG-Multiple_Units FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 3SK1 2' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 0 1/2" 4' - 0 1/2" Skylight-Flat FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 8Total40DOOR SCHEDULEType Mark Width Height Door Type NumbersD02 3'-0" 6'-8" Door-Exterior-Single-Entry 1D03 11'-11" 7'-2" Door-Sliding-4_Panel_French_Door 1D04 3'-0" 7'-2" Door-Exterior-Single-Entry 1D06 2'-6" 7'-0" Single-Flush 14D08 2'-6" 6'-8" Door-Interior-Single-Pocket 3D13 5'-0" 7'-0" Door-Folding-4 Panel 1D14 6'-1" 7'-2" Door-Sliding-2_Panel_French_Door-Clad_Ultimate 1D16 8'-0" 7'-0" Door-Garage-Embossed_Panel 2D29 6'-1" 7'-2" Door-Entry-Inswing_1_Panel_2_Sidelite_French_Door-Clad_Ultimate 1Total25PROPOSED FINISH SCHEDULEROOF COVER: CEDAR WOOD SHAKE ROOF, PAINTEDGUTTERS: 4" OGEE SHEET METAL GUTTERS & DOWNSPOUTS, PAINTED EXTERIOR WALLS:WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDINGWINDOWS & DOORS: ALL (N) WINDOWS SHALL BE FIBERGLASS CLADWD. WINDOWS U.O.N.CASING & TRIM: OPENINGS CASED WITH REDWOOD FLAT CASING (MISSION SILL) PAINTED GARAGE FF38'-0"D0209GUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTLED LIGHTP.L.RIDGE CAP, TYP(N) CEDAR WOOD SHAKE ROOF, TYP(N) WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 1X12 CEDAR BOARDS & 1X2 VERTICAL BATTENSWOOD CORBEL P.L.GARAGE FF38'-0"D16D16GUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTWOOD CORBEL12'-5"RIDGE CAP, TYP(N) WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 1X12 CEDAR BOARDS & 1X2 VERTICAL BATTENSLED LIGHTP.L.GARAGE FF38'-0"GUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUT12'-11"RIDGE CAP, TYP(N) WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 1X12 CEDAR BOARDS & 1X2 VERTICAL BATTENSP.L.GARAGE FF38'-0"GUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUT12'-11"8'-1"RIDGE CAP, TYP(N) CEDAR WOOD SHAKE ROOF, TYP(N) WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDING 1X12 CEDAR BOARDS & 1X2 VERTICAL BATTENSGARAGE FF38'-0"8'-2"11'-6"12'-5"1ST T.O.P.46'-0"RIDGE VENT106A5.1DRIVEWAYPLANNORTHN1'-0"8'-0"1'-0"8'-0"2'-0"18'-0"1'-0"1'-0"21'-3"1'-0"21'-3"1'-3"3'-0"5'-1"6'-3"2'-1"9'-5"25'-6"MAIN HOUSECOVER PATIOD0209D16D162-CAR GARAGED20'-0"20'-0"09OWNERREVISIONSAPPROVALSPROJECTSHEET TITLESHEET NO.DRAWN BYYFLSCALEAS NOTEDCONSULTANTSARCHITECTJOB NO.20210630ABETTY CHEN & KEVIN LANGE1273 BALBOA AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(512) 567-6145Kevin: jklange@gmail.comBetty: bettychen111@gmail.comFIFTH ARCHPETER SUEN1177 ALABAMA ST.SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110(415) 513-6110PETER@FIFTHARCH.COMCHECKED BYPETERSURVEYORTRIAD HOLMES ASSOCIATESENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS(650) 366-0216sf@thainc.com2022/4/29 14:41:42A5.1NEW HOUSE FOR1273 BALOA AVE, BURLINGAME, CA94010(N) GARAGE PLAN & ELEVATIONS1/4" = 1'-0"2(N) GARAGE EAST ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"3(N) GARAGE NORTH ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"4(N) GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"5(N) GARAGE WEST ELEVATIONSHEET NOTE:1. ALL NEW WINDOWS AND GLASS DOORS SHALL BE DOUBLE PANED, INSULATED W/ MAX U-VALUES AS STATED ON THE CALIFORNIA TITLE-24 REPORT. TEMP. MFGR LABELS SHOWING NEW GLAZING U-VALUES SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL BLDG. INSPECTOR AUTHORIZES TO DO SO2. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO HAVE SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES WITH SPACER BARS BETWEEN THE PANES AND GRIDS ADHERED TO THE INTERIOR AND THE EXTERIOR OF THE WINDOW.1/4" = 1'-0"6(N) GARAGE SECTIONNo. Description Date2 REVISION 2 04/28/221/4" = 1'-0"1(N) GARAGE FLOOR PLANPROPOSED FINISH SCHEDULEROOF COVER: CEDAR WOOD SHAKE ROOF, PAINTEDGUTTERS: 4" OGEE SHEET METAL GUTTERS & DOWNSPOUTS, PAINTED EXTERIOR WALLS:WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDINGWINDOWS & DOORS: ALL (N) WINDOWS SHALL BE FIBERGLASS CLADWD. WINDOWS U.O.N.CASING & TRIM: OPENINGS CASED WITH REDWOOD FLAT CASING (MISSION SILL) PAINTED DN50'-0"150'-0"PLANNORTHN1265 BALBOAAPN: 026-152-0402 STORYGARAGE1277 BALBOAAPN: 026-152-0202 STORYGARAGEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEFRONT SETBACK25'-0"102'-4"REAR SETBACK47'-8"TO SECOND FLOORSIDE SETBACK9'-0"11'-0"SIDE SETBACK4'-0"30% OF LOT LENGTH47'-8"(N) DRIVEWAYPERVIOUS CONC. PAVER1273 BALBOAAPN: 026-152-030(N) 2 STORY BUILDING1ST FLOOR FOOTPRINT: 1,862 SF(N) GARAGE(N) CEDAR WOOD SHAKE ROOF ROOFFOOTPRINT: 450 SF1'-0"(N) WALKWAYPERVIOUS CONC. PAVER11'-0"13'-10"6'-0"19'-2"50'-0"(E) LAWNRELOCATED(E) ORANGE TREE 7" DIA . REAR YEARLANDSCAPE AREAFRONT YEARLANDSCAPE AREABALBOA AVE2'-0"6'-0"4'-9"18'-3"6'-0"13'-10"24'-6"21'-10"17'-2"77'-4"49'-10"27'-6"37'-0"+38.2'+39.2'+34.7'+34.2'+34.14'+34.47'AVG. TOP OF CURB: +34.31'AVG. OF ELEVATION: +36.95'AVG. OF ELEVATION: +36.2'1ST FF: 37'-0"13'-2"17'-9"6'-0"(N) TREE25'-6"1'-0"TO FIRST FLOORFRONT SETBACK25'-0"OUTLINE OF SECOND FLOORCONC. LANDING4'-0"TO SECOND FLOORFRONT SETBACK31'-1"TO FIRST FLOOR11'-0"OUTLINE OF SECOND FLOORN34°54'37"E150.18'S55°04'00"E50.00'S34°54'37"W150.19'N55°03'19"W50.00'(N) ADU1273A BALBOA848 SFTO SECOND FLOORREAR SETBACK49'-9"(N) 24" STREET TREE(N) 24" STREET TREECO(N) 4" SEWER LATERALTO CITY MAIN NOTE:ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE SHALL BE REPLACED, PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL, ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION, AND ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY’S RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALL ABANDONED SEWER LATERAL OR WATER SERVICE SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AT THE MAIN AND PER CITY REQUIREMENTS.(N) ELEC. METER & PANEL200 AMP(N) GAS METER(E) WATER METER(N) TREE(N) ELEC. METER & PANEL200 AMP6' H WOOD FENCE(E) 6' H WOOD FENCE25'-0"OWNERREVISIONSAPPROVALSPROJECTSHEET TITLESHEET NO.DRAWN BYYFLSCALEAS NOTEDCONSULTANTSARCHITECTJOB NO.20210630ABETTY CHEN & KEVIN LANGE1273 BALBOA AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(512) 567-6145Kevin: jklange@gmail.comBetty: bettychen111@gmail.comFIFTH ARCHPETER SUEN1177 ALABAMA ST.SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110(415) 513-6110PETER@FIFTHARCH.COMCHECKED BYPETERSURVEYORTRIAD HOLMES ASSOCIATESENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS(650) 366-0216sf@thainc.com2022/4/29 14:40:39A1.2NEW HOUSE FOR1273 BALOA AVE, BURLINGAME, CA94010(N) SITE PLAN1/8" = 1'-0"1(N) SITE PLANNOTES:25.26.073 EXCEPTIONS(B) THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE EXCEPTIONS TO SIDE AND REAR SETBACK LINES:(4) A DETACHED GARAGE OR OTHER ONE-STORY ACCESSORY BUILDINGS LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR THIRTY (30) PERCENT OF THE LENGTH OF THELOT LINE.SHEET NOTES1. ALL ON-SITE DRAINAGE SHALL BE RETAINED ON-SITE OR DRAINED TO A PERVIOUS SURFACE WHENEVER FEASIBLE. IN THE EVENT ON-SITE DRAINAGE CANNOT BE KEPT ON-SITE, IT SHALL BE ROUTED TO THE STREET AND DIRECTED TO THE CITY’S DRAINAGE SYSTEM. CURB FACE DRAINAGE OUTLETS SHALL BE INSTALLED TO CITY STANDARDS.2. STORMWATER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE MANAGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CGBC 4.106.2. SPECIFICALLY, WATER WILL BE FILTERED BY USE OF A BARRIER SYSTEM, WATTLE OR OTHER APPROVED METHOD ALONG THE SOUTH & EAST EDGE OF THE PROPERTY TO PREVENT ADJACENT PROPERTY FLOODING, EROSION & RETAIN SOIL RUNOFF ON THE SITE.3. AS REQ'D., AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER FOR LANDSCAPING WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE BUILDER & INSTALLED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION PER 2016 CGC §4.304.14. PATH OF ROOF DRAINAGE PIPING FROM (N) ROOF DOWNSPOUTS TO CITY STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM; V.I.F. (E) DRAINAGE PIPING & REUSE IF POSSIBLE5. REGRADE REAR YARD IF NEEDED TO MAINTAIN MIN. 2% SLOPE DRAIN AWAY FROM FOUNDATIONNEW LOT COVERAGE= MAIN HOUSE 1ST FLOOR FOOTPRINT + GARAGE= 1,862 SF + 450 SF= 2,312 SFNo. Description Date 1ST FLOOR37'-0"2ND FLOOR47'-6"T.O.PLATE55'-6"MAX.ALLOW.ELEV.64'-2"AVG.T.O.CURB34'-3"160112061211D04100708SK1SK1SK1SK18'-8"8'-0"10'-6"2'-9"29'-11"3'-2"EGRESS2'-6"4'-6"9'-8"2'-7"4'-1"REAR DECKGUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTDOWN SPOUTDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUT1ST FLOOR37'-0"2ND FLOOR47'-6"T.O.PLATE55'-6"MAX.ALLOW.ELEV.64'-2"05AVG.T.O.CURB34'-3"0902010507010701SK1SK1SK1SK18'-8"8'-0"10'-6"29'-11"121501EGRESS2'-6"4'-6"WINDOW ENCLOSUREEGRESS156'-4"2'-7"4'-1"6'-4"2'-6"4'-6"4'-1"2'-7"FRONT PORCHGUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTDOWN SPOUTOWNERREVISIONSAPPROVALSPROJECTSHEET TITLESHEET NO.DRAWN BYYFLSCALEAS NOTEDCONSULTANTSARCHITECTJOB NO.20210630ABETTY CHEN & KEVIN LANGE1273 BALBOA AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(512) 567-6145Kevin: jklange@gmail.comBetty: bettychen111@gmail.comFIFTH ARCHPETER SUEN1177 ALABAMA ST.SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110(415) 513-6110PETER@FIFTHARCH.COMCHECKED BYPETERSURVEYORTRIAD HOLMES ASSOCIATESENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS(650) 366-0216sf@thainc.com2022/2/4 11:38:03A3.1NEW HOUSE FOR1273 BALOA AVE, BURLINGAME, CA94010ELEVATIONS1/4" = 1'-0"1(N) WEST ELEVATIONPROPOSED FINISH SCHEDULEROOF COVER: METAL STANDING SEAM ROOF, PAINTEDGUTTERS: 4" OGEE SHEET METAL GUTTERS (V.I.F.) & DOWNSPOUTS, PAINTED (N) EXT. SIDING COLOREXTERIOR WALLS:WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDINGWINDOWS & DOORS: ALL (N) WINDOWS SHALL BE FIBERGLASS CLADWD. WINDOWS U.O.N.CASING & TRIM: OPENINGS CASED W/ 2-1/2" REDWOOD FLAT CASING, PAINTED TO MATCH (N) EXT. SIDING COLORSHEET NOTE:1. ALL NEW WINDOWS AND GLASS DOORS SHALL BE DOUBLE PANED, INSULATED W/ MAX U-VALUES AS STATED ON THE CALIFORNIA TITLE-24 REPORT. TEMP. MFGR LABELS SHOWING NEW GLAZING U-VALUES SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL BLDG. INSPECTOR AUTHORIZES TO DO SO2. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO HAVE SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES WITH SPACER BARS BETWEEN THE PANES AND GRIDS ADHERED TO THE INTERIOR AND THE EXTERIOR OF THE WINDOW.No.DescriptionDate1 Planning Revision 102/04/221/4" = 1'-0"2(N) EAST ELEVATION 1ST FLOOR37'-0"2ND FLOOR47'-6"T.O.PLATE55'-6"8'-0"10'-6"4 5 .0 0 °45.00°11'-2"MAX.ALLOW.ELEV.64'-2"P.LP.L4'-0"4'-0"AVG.T.O.CURB34'-3"29'-11"1ST FLOOR SETBACK1ST FLOOR SETBACK2'-6"3'-5"2ND FLOOR SETBACK2ND FLOOR SETBACK29'-11"05180504D01081629'-11"P.O.D.36'-11"0"8'-1"12'-0"P.O.D.36'-2"12'-0"8'-1"50'-0"3'-5"WINDOW ENCLOSUREBAY WINDOW@ FIRST FLOOR2'-0"6'-6"1'-2"4'-0"3'-0"EGRESSEGRESS2'-7"4'-1"2'-6"4'-6"GUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUT1ST FLOOR37'-0"2ND FLOOR47'-6"T.O.PLATE55'-6"MAX.ALLOW.ELEV.64'-2"OUTLINE OF (N) 2-CAR GARAGED03AVG.T.O.CURB34'-3"45.00°4 5 .0 0 °P.LP.L4'-0"4'-0"1ST FLOOR SETBACK1ST FLOOR SETBACK2'-6"3'-5"2ND FLOOR SETBACK2ND FLOOR SETBACK02170313D039'-3"8'-6"9'-6"2'-9"29'-11"P.O.D.36'-11"P.O.D.36'-2"12'-0"02WINDOW ENCLOSUREEGRESS3'-0"4'-5"2'-7"4'-0"2'-6"GUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTLED LIGHTLED LIGHTOWNERREVISIONSAPPROVALSPROJECTSHEET TITLESHEET NO.DRAWN BYYFLSCALEAS NOTEDCONSULTANTSARCHITECTJOB NO.20210630ABETTY CHEN & KEVIN LANGE1273 BALBOA AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(512) 567-6145Kevin: jklange@gmail.comBetty: bettychen111@gmail.comFIFTH ARCHPETER SUEN1177 ALABAMA ST.SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110(415) 513-6110PETER@FIFTHARCH.COMCHECKED BYPETERSURVEYORTRIAD HOLMES ASSOCIATESENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS(650) 366-0216sf@thainc.com2022/2/4 11:38:16A3.2NEW HOUSE FOR1273 BALOA AVE, BURLINGAME, CA94010ELEVATIONS1/4" = 1'-0"1(N) NORTH (STREET) ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"3(N) SOUTH ELEVATIONPROPOSED FINISH SCHEDULEROOF COVER: METAL STANDING SEAM ROOF, PAINTEDGUTTERS: 4" OGEE SHEET METAL GUTTERS (V.I.F.) & DOWNSPOUTS, PAINTED (N) EXT. SIDING COLOREXTERIOR WALLS:WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDINGWINDOWS & DOORS: ALL (N) WINDOWS SHALL BE FIBERGLASS CLADWD. WINDOWS U.O.N.CASING & TRIM: OPENINGS CASED W/ 2-1/2" REDWOOD FLAT CASING, PAINTED TO MATCH (N) EXT. SIDING COLORNo.DescriptionDate1 Planning Revision 102/04/22WINDOW SCHEDULETypeMarkWindow Size Rough openingType MaterialGlazingCountWidth Height Rough Width Rough HeightType01 2' - 0" 2' - 0" 2' - 1" 2' - 0 1/2" Window-Awning FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 502 4' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 1" 2' - 0 1/2" Window-Awning FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 303 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 1" 3' - 0 1/2" Window-Awning FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 104 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 7" 2' - 6 1/2" Window-Awning FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 105 1' - 11" 4' - 0" 2' - 0 1/4" 4' - 0" Window-Double_Hung_NG FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 406 2' - 11" 4' - 0" 3' - 0 1/4" 4' - 0" Window-Double_Hung_NG FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 107 2' - 11" 4' - 6" 3' - 0 1/4" 4' - 6" Window-Double_Hung_NG FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 308 9' - 6" 4' - 6" 9' - 6 3/4" 4' - 6" Window-Double_Hung_NG-Multiple_Units FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 209 6' - 3" 3' - 6" 6' - 3 1/2" 3' - 6 1/2" Window-Double_Hung_NG-Multiple_Units FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 210 12' - 9" 4' - 6" 12' - 10" 4' - 6" Window-Double_Hung_NG-Multiple_Units FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 111 6' - 3" 4' - 6" 6' - 3 1/2" 4' - 6 1/2" Window-Double_Hung_NG-Multiple_Units FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 112 6' - 3" 4' - 0" 6' - 3 1/2" 4' - 0" Window-Double_Hung_NG-Multiple_Units FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 313 6' - 0" 7' - 0" 6' - 1" 7' - 0 1/2" Window-Casement-French_Round_Top FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 115 6' - 4" 4' - 6" 6' - 5" 4' - 6 1/2" Window-Casement-Multiple_Units FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 216 9' - 8" 4' - 6" 9' - 9" 4' - 6 1/2" Window-Casement-Multiple_Units FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 217 13' - 0" 4' - 5" 13' - 1" 4' - 5 3/4" Window-Casement-Multiple_Units FIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 118 3' - 0" 4' - 0" 3' - 1" 4' - 0 1/2" Window-CasementFIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 1SK1 2' - 0" 5' - 0" 2' - 0 1/2" 5' - 0 1/2" Skylight-FlatFIBERGLASS CLAD WD DOUBLE PANED, CLEAN 8Total42DOOR SCHEDULEType Mark Width HeightDoor TypeNumbersD01 6'-1" 8'-8" Door-Entry-Inswing_2_Panel_French_Door_DG_Transom1D02 3'-0" 6'-8" Door-Exterior-Single-Entry1D03 11'-11" 7'-2" Door-Sliding-4_Panel_French_Door1D04 3'-0" 7'-0" Door-Exterior-Single-Entry1D05 8'-0" 7'-0" Door-Folding-4 Panel1D06 2'-6" 7'-0" Single-Flush14D07 3'-6" 7'-0" Door-Interior-Single-Pocket1D08 2'-6" 6'-8" Door-Interior-Single-Pocket2D09 8'-0" 7'-0" Door-Garage-Flush_Panel2D13 5'-0" 7'-0" Door-Folding-4 Panel1Total25 GARAGE FF38'-0"D0209GUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTLED LIGHTP.L.GARAGE FF38'-0"D09D09GUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTP.L.GARAGE FF38'-0"GUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTP.L.GARAGE FF38'-0"GUTTERDOWN SPOUTGUTTERDOWN SPOUTGARAGE FF38'-0"8'-2"11'-6"12'-5"106A5.1DRIVEWAYPLANNORTHN1'-0"8'-0"1'-0"8'-0"2'-0"18'-0"1'-0"1'-0"21'-3"1'-0"21'-3"1'-3"3'-0"5'-1"6'-3"1'-10"8'-0"1'-5"8'-0"25'-6"MAIN HOUSECOVER PATIOD0209D09D092-CAR GARAGED20'-0"20'-0"0925'-0"OWNERREVISIONSAPPROVALSPROJECTSHEET TITLESHEET NO.DRAWN BYYFLSCALEAS NOTEDCONSULTANTSARCHITECTJOB NO.20210630ABETTY CHEN & KEVIN LANGE1273 BALBOA AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(512) 567-6145Kevin: jklange@gmail.comBetty: bettychen111@gmail.comFIFTH ARCHPETER SUEN1177 ALABAMA ST.SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110(415) 513-6110PETER@FIFTHARCH.COMCHECKED BYPETERSURVEYORTRIAD HOLMES ASSOCIATESENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS(650) 366-0216sf@thainc.com2022/2/4 11:38:22A5.1NEW HOUSE FOR1273 BALOA AVE, BURLINGAME, CA94010(N) GARAGE PLAN & ELEVATIONS1/4" = 1'-0"2(N) GARAGE EAST ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"3(N) GARAGE NORTH ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"4(N) GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"5(N) GARAGE WEST ELEVATIONPROPOSED FINISH SCHEDULEROOF COVER: METAL STANDING SEAM ROOF, PAINTEDGUTTERS: 4" OGEE SHEET METAL GUTTERS (V.I.F.) & DOWNSPOUTS, PAINTED (N) EXT. SIDING COLOREXTERIOR WALLS:WOOD BOARD & BATTEN SIDINGWINDOWS & DOORS: ALL (N) WINDOWS SHALL BE FIBERGLASS CLADWD. WINDOWS U.O.N.CASING & TRIM: OPENINGS CASED W/ 2-1/2" REDWOOD FLAT CASING, PAINTED TO MATCH (N) EXT. SIDING COLORSHEET NOTE:1. ALL NEW WINDOWS AND GLASS DOORS SHALL BE DOUBLE PANED, INSULATED W/ MAX U-VALUES AS STATED ON THE CALIFORNIA TITLE-24 REPORT. TEMP. MFGR LABELS SHOWING NEW GLAZING U-VALUES SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL BLDG. INSPECTOR AUTHORIZES TO DO SO2. ALL NEW WINDOWS TO HAVE SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES WITH SPACER BARS BETWEEN THE PANES AND GRIDS ADHERED TO THE INTERIOR AND THE EXTERIOR OF THE WINDOW.1/4" = 1'-0"6(N) GARAGE SECTIONNo.DescriptionDate1 Planning Revision 102/04/221/4" = 1'-0"1(N) GARAGE FLOOR PLAN DN50'-0"150'-0"PLANNORTHN1265 BALBOAAPN: 026-152-0402 STORYGARAGE1277 BALBOAAPN: 026-152-0202 STORYGARAGEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEFRONT SETBACK25'-0"102'-4"REAR SETBACK47'-8"TO SECOND FLOORSIDE SETBACK9'-0"11'-0"SIDE SETBACK4'-0"30% OF LOT LENGTH47'-8"(N) DRIVEWAYPERVIOUS CONC. PAVER1273 BALBOAAPN: 026-152-030(N) 2 STORY BUILDING1ST FLOOR FOOTPRINT: 1,862 SF(N) GARAGE(N) STANDING-SEAM ROOF ROOFFOOTPRINT: 450 SF1'-0"(N) WALKWAYPERVIOUS CONC. PAVER11'-0"13'-10"6'-0"19'-2"50'-0"(E) LAWNRELOCATED(E) ORANGE TREE 7" DIA . REAR YEARLANDSCAPE AREAFRONT YEARLANDSCAPE AREABALBOA AVE2'-0"6'-0"4'-9"18'-3"6'-0"13'-10"24'-6"21'-10"17'-2"77'-4"49'-10"27'-6"37'-0"+38.2'+39.2'+34.7'+34.2'+34.14'+34.47'AVG. TOP OF CURB: +34.31'AVG. OF ELEVATION: +36.95'AVG. OF ELEVATION: +36.2'1ST FF: 37'-0"13'-2"17'-9"6'-0"(N) TREE25'-6"1'-0"TO FIRST FLOORFRONT SETBACK25'-0"OUTLINE OF SECOND FLOORCONC. LANDING4'-0"TO SECOND FLOORFRONT SETBACK31'-1"TO FIRST FLOOR11'-0"OUTLINE OF SECOND FLOORN34°54'37"E150.18'S55°04'00"E50.00'S34°54'37"W150.19'N55°03'19"W50.00'(N) ADU1273A BALBOA848 SFTO SECOND FLOORREAR SETBACK49'-9"(N) 24" STREET TREE(N) 24" STREET TREECO(N) 4" SEWER LATERALTO CITY MAIN NOTE:ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE SHALL BE REPLACED, PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL, ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION, AND ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY’S RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALL ABANDONED SEWER LATERAL OR WATER SERVICE SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AT THE MAIN AND PER CITY REQUIREMENTS.(N) ELEC. METER & PANEL200 AMP(N) GAS METER(E) WATER METER(N) TREEOWNERREVISIONSAPPROVALSPROJECTSHEET TITLESHEET NO.DRAWN BYYFLSCALEAS NOTEDCONSULTANTSARCHITECTJOB NO.20210630ABETTY CHEN & KEVIN LANGE1273 BALBOA AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(512) 567-6145Kevin: jklange@gmail.comBetty: bettychen111@gmail.comFIFTH ARCHPETER SUEN1177 ALABAMA ST.SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110(415) 513-6110PETER@FIFTHARCH.COMCHECKED BYPETERSURVEYORTRIAD HOLMES ASSOCIATESENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS(650) 366-0216sf@thainc.com2022/2/4 11:37:45A1.2NEW HOUSE FOR1273 BALOA AVE, BURLINGAME, CA94010(N) SITE PLAN1/8" = 1'-0"1(N) SITE PLANNOTES:25.26.073 EXCEPTIONS(B) THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE EXCEPTIONS TO SIDE AND REAR SETBACK LINES:(4) A DETACHED GARAGE OR OTHER ONE-STORY ACCESSORY BUILDINGS LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR THIRTY (30) PERCENT OF THE LENGTH OF THELOT LINE.SHEET NOTES1. ALL ON-SITE DRAINAGE SHALL BE RETAINED ON-SITE OR DRAINED TO A PERVIOUS SURFACE WHENEVER FEASIBLE. IN THE EVENT ON-SITE DRAINAGE CANNOT BE KEPT ON-SITE, IT SHALL BE ROUTED TO THE STREET AND DIRECTED TO THE CITY’S DRAINAGE SYSTEM. CURB FACE DRAINAGE OUTLETS SHALL BE INSTALLED TO CITY STANDARDS.2. STORMWATER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE MANAGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CGBC 4.106.2. SPECIFICALLY, WATER WILL BE FILTERED BY USE OF A BARRIER SYSTEM, WATTLE OR OTHER APPROVED METHOD ALONG THE SOUTH & EAST EDGE OF THE PROPERTY TO PREVENT ADJACENT PROPERTY FLOODING, EROSION & RETAIN SOIL RUNOFF ON THE SITE.3. AS REQ'D., AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER FOR LANDSCAPING WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE BUILDER & INSTALLED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION PER 2016 CGC §4.304.14. PATH OF ROOF DRAINAGE PIPING FROM (N) ROOF DOWNSPOUTS TO CITY STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM; V.I.F. (E) DRAINAGE PIPING & REUSE IF POSSIBLE5. REGRADE REAR YARD IF NEEDED TO MAINTAIN MIN. 2% SLOPE DRAIN AWAY FROM FOUNDATIONNEW LOT COVERAGE= MAIN HOUSE 1ST FLOOR FOOTPRINT + GARAGE= 1,862 SF + 450 SF= 2,312 SFNo.DescriptionDate1 Planning Revision 102/04/22 UPDN50'-0"150'-0"PLANNORTHN1265 BALBOAAPN: 026-152-0402 STORYGARAGE1277 BALBOAAPN: 026-152-0202 STORYGARAGEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEFRONT SETBACK25'-0"102'-4"REAR SETBACK47'-8"TO SECOND FLOORSIDE SETBACK9'-0"11'-0"30% OF LOT LENGTH47'-8"(N) DRIVEWAYPERVIOUS CONC. PAVER1273 BALBOAAPN: 026-152-030(N) GARAGE1'-0"(N) WALKWAYPERVIOUS CONC. PAVER11'-0"13'-10"6'-0"19'-2"50'-0"(E) LAWNTO REMAINREAR YEARLANDSCAPE AREAFRONT YEARLANDSCAPE AREABALBOA AVE13'-10"24'-6"39'-0"77'-4"49'-10"27'-6"+38.2'+39.2'+34.7'+34.2'+34.14'+34.47'AVG. TOP OF CURB: +34.31'AVG. OF ELEVATION: +36.95'AVG. OF ELEVATION: +36.2'1ST FF: 37'-0"25'-6"1'-0"TO FIRST FLOORFRONT SETBACK25'-0"CONC. LANDING4'-0"TO FIRST FLOOR11'-0"OUTLINE OF SECOND FLOORN34°54'37"E150.18'S55°04'00"E50.00'S34°54'37"W150.19'N55°03'19"W50.00'(N) ADU1273A BALBOA(N) 24" STREET TREE(N) 24" STREET TREE(N) ELEC. METER & PANEL200 AMP(N) GAS METER(E) WATER METER(N) 15 GAL.WESTERN REDBUDRELOCATED(E) ORANGE TREE 7" DIA . (E) CORNELIAN CHERRY TREE(N) 15 GAL.COAST LIVE OAK(N) 15 GAL. WESTERN REDBUD(E) LAWNTO REMAIN(N) DG PATH(N) DG PATH22'-2"3'-0"24'-10"OWNERREVISIONSAPPROVALSPROJECTSHEET TITLESHEET NO.DRAWN BYYFLSCALEAS NOTEDCONSULTANTSARCHITECTJOB NO.20210630ABETTY CHEN & KEVIN LANGE1273 BALBOA AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(512) 567-6145Kevin: jklange@gmail.comBetty: bettychen111@gmail.comFIFTH ARCHPETER SUEN1177 ALABAMA ST.SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110(415) 513-6110PETER@FIFTHARCH.COMCHECKED BYPETERSURVEYORTRIAD HOLMES ASSOCIATESENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS(650) 366-0216sf@thainc.com2022/2/10 17:26:21L1NEW HOUSE FOR1273 BALOA AVE, BURLINGAME, CA94010NEW LANDSCAPE PLANNo.DescriptionDate1/8" = 1'-0"1(N) LANDSCAPE PLANLANDSCAPE NOTES:1.BEFORE PLANTING, ALLEVIATE ANY COMPACTED SOILS TO A DEPTH OF 8" IN ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS THATCANNOT BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION.2.PLANTING SOILS SHOULD BE AMENDED WITH RECYCLED, LOCAL,ORGANIC COMPOST.3.ALL PLANTING TO USE BAY-FRIENDLY PLANTING PRACTICES.4.APPLY SHEET MULCH COMPRISED OF CARDBOARD, COMPOST AND RECYCLED ARBOR MULCH TO ALL SOILSURFACES, ACCORDING TO BAY-FRIENDLY PRACTICES. SEEHTTP://WWW.BAYFRIENDLYCOALITION.ORG/DOWNLOAD/LYL/LYL-SHEETMULCHING-2012.PDF5.ALL PLANTS BROUGHT ONTO THE SITE SHALL BE WATERED AND PROTECTED FROM EXCESSIVE WIND, SUN,PHYSICAL DAMAGE, OR THEFT UNTIL PLANTING.6.TREES SHALL BE PLANTED BY PLANT PIT. WHEN PITS HAVE BEEN BACKFILLED APPROXIMATELY 2/3 THEIR DEPTH,WATER THOROUGHLY WITH A HOSE BEFORE INSTALLING REMAINDER OF PLANTING MIX TO TOP OF PIT. WHENBACKFILLING IS PARTIALLY COMPLETED, EXTRA CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO SEE THAT PLANTING MIX IS WORKEDAROUND ROOT BALL. ELIMINATE AIR POCKETS. BACKFILLING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY A TAMPING PROCESS. DONOT ALLOW ROOT BALLS TO DRY OUT BEFORE PLANTING. DO NOT ALLOW SOIL OR DENSE MULCH TO BUILD UPAROUND STEM OF PLANT.7.A MOUND OF EARTH SHALL BE FORMED AROUND EACH TREE OR SHRUB TO PRODUCE A SHALLOW BASIN TO RETAINWATER, LOCATED ON THE BACKFILL SUCH THAT WATER WILL BE FORCED THROUGHOUT THE ROOT BALL. PLANTSSHALL BE WATERED IN PLACE DURING AND AFTER BACKFILLING.8.ALL TREES SHALL BE STAKED. STAKES SHALL BE LODGEPOLE PINE, 10'X2" DIAMETER WITH CHAMFERED TOP.STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN 2' INTO FIRM GROUND AND FASTENED SECURELY WITH TIES. ALL STAKES TO BE SETPLUMB.SHEET NOTES:1.ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE SHALL BE REPLACED, PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARYSEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL, ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATERMAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION,AND ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY’S RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALL ABANDONED SEWER LATERALOR WATER SERVICE SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AT THE MAIN AND PER CITY EQUIREMENTS.2.ALL PLANTINGS ARE TO BE SUFFICIENTLY DEVELOPED AT TIME OF INSTALLATION TO ASSURE SURVIVAL ANDGROWTH OF PLANTINGS.3.ALL TREES ARE TO HAVE SUFFICIENT CENTRAL LEADERS TO ASSURE GROWTH AND SURVIVABILITY.4.(N) LAWNS & PLANTER BEDS SHALL BE IRIGATED W/ A COMBINATION OF SPRINKLER & DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEMSON A DESIGN/BUILD BASIS.5.FENCE & RETAINING WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" IN HEIGHT.(E) OAK TREE City of Burlingame Item No. 8d Regular Action ltemDesign Review and Front Setback Variance Address: 2201 Hillside Drive Meeting Date: May 23, 2022 Applicant and Designer: James Chu, Chu Design Associates lnc. Property Owners: Chuck and Shirley Paterson General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-152-010 Lot Area: 6,000 SF Zoning: R-1 Note: This application was submitted priorto January 5, 2022, the effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance, and therefore was reviewed under the previous Zoning Code. Project Description: The subject property is a corner lot at the intersection of Hillside Drive and De Soto Avenue. lt is an existing two-story house with an attached garage at the lower level. The garage door faces De Soto Ave. The lot slopes up approximately six to seven feet from the sidewalk on both frontages. The applicant is proposing single slory additions to the existing house which would increase the floor area from 2,718 SF (0.45 FAR) to 2,820 SF (0.47 FAR), where 2,820 SF (0.47 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including front covered porch and accessory dwelling unit exemptions). The proposed additions are considered to be single story because the area underthe floorjoists is not habitable Iiving space and is not more than six feet in height. The proposed single story additions require Design Review per C.S. 25.57.010(a)(5) because they will raise the existing plate line. The proposed addition attheentrytothe main dwelling raises the existing plate line from 8 -0" to 9'-0" and the proposed addition at the upper split level (Bedrooms #1 and 2 and Bath #1) raises the existing plate line from 8'-0'to 8'-5". The project proposes that both the entrance to the main dwelling and the entrance to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) would face De Soto Avenue, which is considered the exterior side of the comer lot. The front of the lotis the narrowest frontage, which faces Hillside Drive. The applicant is requesting a Variance for a proposed front setback on Hillside Drive of 15'-4", where the required front setbackto the main dwelling is 20'-1" (average of the block) (existing front setback is 23 -3"). Please refer to the attached Variance application for the applicant's responses regarding lhe hardships for the lot. The proposed project includes an atlached one-bedroom ADU forwhich no on-site parking is required because it is within 0.5 miles of a bus stop. The proposed project would increase the number of bedrooms in the main dwelling from three to four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site for a four-bedroom house. Two covered spaces are provided in the attached lower level garage (20'-8" x 20'-9" clear interior dimensions, where 20' x 20' is required). There is no uncovered parking provided on-site (driveway to attached garage is not long enough). There are a total of four existing street trees in front of lhe property, one on Hillside Drive and three on De Soto Avenue. All four of the existing street trees are proposed to remain with the project. The on-site trees include three existing landscape trees (Willows) at the fronl, left corner of the site (at the Hillside Drive and De Soto Avenue intersection) that will be retained with construction and that meet the minimum landscape requirement forlhe proposed floor area on site. To help screen and to reduce the massing of the single story additions from the street level, the applicant proposes to plant additional trees and shrubs between the house and the street; Request: Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a single story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (eX1 ) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition would not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Design Review and Front Setback Vaiance 2201 Hillside Dive the site plan shows two, 15-gallon citrus trees and 20, 5-gallon pittosporum shrubs on the Hillside Drive frontage and two unidentified shrubs to the lefi of the garage on the De Solo Avenue frontage. The applicant also proposes a 24-inch box size Japanese maple in the rear yard to screen the single story structure from neighbors- Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) This application includes a new, attached ADU (762 SF). Per State law, review of the ADU application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has reviewed the 622 SF ADU for conformance with the ADU requirements (Chapter 25.59) and determined that lhe ADU meets the standards for ministerial approval. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications Design Review for a single story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling that raises an existing plate line (C.S. 25.57 .O1O (aX5)); anO Variance for a front setback ( 15'-4" proposed where 21'-1" is required based on the block average) (C.S 25.26.072 (b)(1). Lot Area: 6 OOO SF Plans date stam ed: Ma 17 ,2022 . ADU is exempt from lot coverage and floo. area ratio.1 Front Setback Variance required ( 15'4" proposed where 2'l'-f is required based on block average) ' (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 900 SF = 2,820 SF (0.47 FAR). Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: . Windows: aluminum clad wood with simulated true divided lites. Doors: wood front door and garage door. Siding: wood shingles with mitered corners -2- EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front (1st flr - main level):Z5 -J 15',-4" 1 21 -1" (block average) Side (teft): @ght): 7',-7" 5'-0" 7'-7" No change 7'-6" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr - main level):37',-2',1 5 11"4'-0" (to the ADU) Lot Coverage:2,348 SF 39% 2,357 SF - 39o/o 2,400 sF 40o/o FAR:2,718 SF 0.45 FAR 2,820 SF - 0.47 FAR 2,820 SF ' 0.47 FAR # of bedrooms:4 Off-Street Pa*ing:2 covered (23 -6" x 20'-9" clea0 0 uncovered 2 covered (20 -8" x 20 -9" clear) 0 uncovered Building Height:21',-11"24'.-8"30'-0" 2201 Hillside Drive SETBACKS 3 2 total spaces (20' x 2O' clear) for covered Design Review and Front Setback Variance 2201 Hillside Drive Staff Comments: None Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meetingon January 24,2022, the Commission had several suggestions and comments regarding the design and justification forthe Variance request and voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached January 24,2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter dated May 13,2022 and revised plans, date stamped May 17,2022,1o address the Planning Commission's questions and comments. Please referto the January 24,2022, Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the full list of Planning Commission questions and comments. Listed below is a summary of the Commission's comments and the revisions made bythe applicant. 1. Design needs fudher development or articulation along the Hillside Drtve frontage to make this elevation more welcoming. The applicant has also revised the materials on the Hillside Drivefrontage to transition from stucco atthe left side of the single story house to horizontal wood siding at the center wall. Standing seam metal awnings have been added over several windows on the Hillside Drive and De Soto Avenue frontages- 2. The slope on the lot makes the house appear to loom over the sidewalk, even though the massing is single story throughout most of the house, More justification is needed for the Vaiance request because the wall is being proposed even closerto the sidewalk on Hillside than the block average. To reduce the massing of the addition as viewed from the right of way, the applicant has made the following changes: The plate heights for both additions have been lowered; the addition forthe main dwelling facing De Soto Avenue has been reduced from 10 -8" to 9'-0" and the addition to the main dwelling along facing Hillside Drive has been reduced from 9'-2" to 8 -5". The previous single plane for the wall facing Hillside Drive has been broken into three different front setbacks and further articulated with a change in materials. This elevation is further broken up with a standing seam metal window awning and an open railing uncovered deck. The landscaping for the project has been clarified and made consistent on the site plan and elevations (staff notes the renderings show a conceptual idea of the landscaping and do not match the plans). ln addition to the four mature street trees that will remain, three on De Soto Avenue and one on Hillside Drive, there are three existing Willow trees located on the property that will remain at the exterior corner that help to screen the dwellings from both Hillside Drive and De Soto Avenue. The applicant is proposing to plant three additional medium-scale landscaping between the sidewalk and the dwelling, including several shrubs to the left ofthe garage on De Soto Avenue and two citrus trees in each planter facing Hillside Drive. . Roof: composition asphalt single roofing. Other.'wood dentil blocks, brackets, porch columns, and railings, metal window awnings . The applicant has altered the design to create three staggered front selbacks on the Hillside Drive frontage. At the corner of the house closest to the inteGection of De Soto Avenue and Hillside Drive, there is a 1 5'-4" front setback proposed. The next plane of the front wall has a 16'-4" front setback, and therightwall of the house has a 23'-3" setback. The design nowincludesand uncovered deckwith open railings at the right side of the front elevation. Design Review and Front Setback Vaiance 2201 Hillside Drive To address the Variance justifications, the applicant has provided additional information on the response letter dated May 13,2O22 and for reference there are findings delailed in the Suggested Variance section of this staff report. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. t 591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility ofthe architectural style with that ofthe existing character ofthe neighborhood; Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; lnterface ofthe proposed structure with the slructures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Revrew: That the project proposes a variety of exteriorwall materials including stucco, horizontal wood siding, and stone veneer to provide visual interest and to break up the massing of the single story dwelling; that the articulation provided on the Hillside Drive frontage, including the metal roof shed awning, the varied roof heights, and the uncovered deck add a visual interest for curb appeal at that elevation; that the stone veneer and the terraced planters along the De Soto Avenue frontage enhance the overall design and reduce the appearance of mass on lhe upward sloping lot, and that the existing and proposed landscaping, including mature and smaller-scale trees at the street and on the property screen the dwellings from both street frontages and help the structure to blend with the surrounding neighborhood. Forthese reasons, the project may be found 10 be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Required Findings for a Variance: ln order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25-U.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 ofthe application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right ofthe applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c)the granting of the application would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d)that the use ofthe property would be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of exisling and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Suggested Variance Findings (Ftont Setback): That the seven foot upward slope on the lot and the corner siting of the property with two frontages is an unusual topography in the neighborhood; that the slope and the existing raised finished floorofthe dwelling combine to create a hardship in designing a project thatboth retains the existing structure and that meets all the requirements of the Zoning Code; that having two fully exposed frontages and a sidewalk situated so much lower than the existing finished floor requires the designer to choose between requesting a Variance for the height of a second story addition or requesting a Variance request for the front setback for a single story addition; that the single story addition and a front setback variance is preferable on this corner lot and will have less of a negalive impact than a Variance request for a new second story; and that the architectural articulation of the Hillside Drive frontage, including the standing seam metalwindow awning and the uncovered corner deck is consistent with other corner properties in the neighborhood that have porch entries facing Hillside Drive and helps the project blend with the existing patterns in the neighborhood. For these reasons, the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the Variance criteria. 4- J 4 5 1 2 6 I Design Review and Front Setback Vaiance 2201 Hillside Dive Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specilic findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped May 17,2022,sheets A.1 through A.8, L1 .0 through L2.5, and Boundary and Topographic Survey dated July 2021; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYl or amendmenl to be determined by Planning staff); that any changes to the size or envelope oflhe basement, first or second floors, orgarage, which would include adding or enlarging a dorme(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading orearth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districl; that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions ofthe roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; (not necessary if FAR is 200 SF + feet under max). that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or anolher architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window -5- 11 that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the poect, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction pro@ss. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. 8. Design Review and Front Setback Vaiance 2201 Hi side Dive locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans: architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submined to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 12 that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff would inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plan Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. James Chu, designer and applicant Attachments: January 24, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated May 13,2022 Application to the Planning Commission Variance Application Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing - Mailed May 13,2022 Area Map BURLI E City of Burlingame BURLINGAi/E CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAI\4E, CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission l{lo n day, J anuary 24, 2022 7:00 PM Online 2201 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a single story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. (James Chu, Chu Design, applicant and designer; Chuck and Shirley Paterson, property owners) (1'10 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissione/s have visited the project sire. Senior Planner Lewit provided an oveNiew of the staff repoft. Chai Schmid opened the public heaing. James Chu, designer and Chuck Paterson, prowiy owner represented the a@icant and answered questions rcgarding the proiect There were no public comments Chair Schmid closed the public heaing. Commission Discuss i o n/D i re ct i o n : > Revisit the strategy for the trees towards the noftheast side near the ADU. lt looks dense but the new construction seems like it wi be on the trees. Propose a scheme on how to address fhose lrees. > Provide a landscape plan to cleady show intent regarding the existing trees. Suggests pufrlng landscaping on the remaining space. > Suggests reaching out with the uphill neighbors regarding patential view blockage on Hi side Dive. > /i seems like you are asking lor a setback vaiance to W to save what is existing. I appreciate that the applicant is preseruing what is cuffen y there. As far as having a setback because ot the grade level, we just d/scussed a project ealier this evening that is similar, the designer of that project did not ask for a vadance. You went up a little higher, but you are allowed to do that when the whole propefty is raised anway. Personaly, just those will be enough. > Having a hard time seeing what the exceptional extraordinary circumstance is that wanants a variance. While visiting the property, the house aheady looms over the sidewalk which is somewhat mitigated by the tiered planters. lmagining the fagade with the &foot projection along the ight side, it will loom even more on that sidewalk. > Houses on comeE are particulaly difficuft because you have two fronts. Looking at the proposed ftont elevation, it looks like the side of the house, coming from the main street on Hillside Dive. Technically, it is because the front door has been moved over to the De Soto Avenue side. Something needs to be done to make it look a little bit welcoming and not like the side of the house. This isn't going to help the argument for the setback vaiance because you almost need to put in a porch or a railing or a door. Maybe the landscaping mitigaton might help. > We need to see a little bit more development on the Hillside Drive side elevation. Troubled by the flat plane transition of materials, seems like a simple solulion that can be improved upon. Nso struggling with the variance request. Concemed that the area of the proposed addition is more on the comer side of the propeiy versus the intemal side. From a massing perspeclive, would almost want to see it in reverse. Not City ol Budingane b. Public Comments: Planning Commiaaion Meeting Minutes sure if this will have effects on the visual pers@ctive of the divers who are tuming the comer. Suggests proiding a rendeing of the strcet vbw showing the neighbors beyond this property to get a befter sense of how this proposed massing can or does affect the steei Having a liltle trouble with this as well. > I also commend the idea of preseNing some existing conditions and Wing to wotk with what is thera . But I can't gat past the vaiance application to the point ot looking futther into the details of the design review. I also sttuggle with the idea of changing mateials in plane to try to break down the longer poftions of the faQade and W to define something that has a contemporary look to it. I can't make the findings for the vaiance at this point. > I can appreciate how difrcuft it is to do a renovation and to preseNe a lot of the architecture that is on the site already. I agree that this is a cha onging site. l, too, struggle and not seeing the extraotdinary part of it for this vaiance. I would like to see a better comer shot to see ff we are going to have the vaiance wo* to be able to help the flow of this project. The comer needs to be further developed. A 3D view ol that looking up the street will help us see becausa ight now, it looks very flat and is not really selling lor us. > Was having problems with the vaiance as well. lt is laudable that we are trying to preseve a one -story house on a raised site. Many other house don't do that. lt feels like if the ADU is not built, this does not need a vaiance because it can expand backwards onto the site. lt is a task of balancing an additional bedroom and an ADU and the potenlial for going up. Something big has got to change to make it pass the variance request. > Propafiy owners have the ngtu b develop and improve their propefties. The applicant is not askjng iust for design review, but also a special consideration. The question becomes, do they have a dght to develop to the level ol intensification that requires a vaiance? I am not seeitu the protection of that dght lo he extent that a varhnce is approvable in this circumstance with the exlraordinary @nditions that are presenled before us. lf there is something that we are not seeing, the applicant can point that out and l'll be glad to cansider it. Commiasioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Aclion Calendar wfien revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Lofris, Schmid, and Pfaff Ctty of Eudingemo Paqo 2 January 24,2022 Hom€ Desigh & Engihe€ring sociates Inc. May 13,2022 City of Burlingame Planning Commissioner 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 9401 0 Dear Planning Commissioner: Per your comments and suggestions at Jan,2022 Planning Commission meeting for 2201 Hillside Dr. We have added articulations of the Hillside and Desoto frontages with varied wall setbacks, the change in materials, the hipped roofs. metal awning and a balcony. All to reduce the impact ofthe variance request. The existing slope on both frontage and the fact this is a comer lot make this an unusual property in this neighborhood, and the front setback variance is less ofa hardship on the neighboring properties than a second story addition. which would most likely require a height variance. As for the landscaping, there are many existing trees and street trees that will be remained and protected during construction. These trees will provide screening and reduce the massing when viewing the proposed comer (Please see revised site and color renderings). We look forward to answer any questions you may have on next Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely. ) 210 Industrial Rd. Suite 205, San Carlos, CA 94070 James'@chudesisn.com Offic€: (650) 345-9286 Ext. l00l;Cell: (650) 400-8933 r Re: Paterson Residence at 220l Hillside Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 1it \PLANNING APPLICATION COMMUiIITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT_PLANNING DIVISION 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, BURLINGAI'E, CA 94010.3997 z.oF =e.oLr- =Fott)-od.o- zo F =E.olJ- =Fz. o =o CL CL =U)t IIJz, =o LLo F o lJ- Jz,o UJ(r, =tJ-LL FU' Chrck & Shirley Paterson FRoPERTY cr*lcR NAffi I-l APPLTAIT? E{AIL 210 INDUSTRIAL RD, #205 SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 AIXNESS iames@chudesign.com AUTHORZANON TO REPRODUCE PLANS I HEREBY GRA]'IT THE Clry 0F BURLINGAITE THE AUIHoRIY T0 REPRODIrcE UPON REQUEST Al'lD/OR PoST PLANS SUBMITTED WTH THIS APPUCATION ON IHE CITYS WEBSITE AS PART 0F IHE PLAI'lNlNG APPROVAL PROCESS AND WAIVE AI,IY CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO ST,CH ACTION fl TIITIALS OF ARCHI]ECT/DESIGNER) APPLICAIIOT{ TYPE E ACCESSORY DWE-Lrr,rG UN|I (ADU) E coNDrnoNAt- rJsE PERi,fr (cuP) EI DESIGN REVIEYV (DSR) RECEIVEDE vARi,Ar.rcE (vAR) E wRELEss E pelce g<cemou 3 0 2021 U'I .tt 'rI C<ltmoz.t- E I{ILLSIDE AREA MNSTRUCTION PERMIT E OTHER: El Mtr'roR [rootFtcATtoN E SPECIA PERMIT (SP) BLINGAME lNINIG DIv PROECT I'ESCRIPIIO{ Single story additiorvremodel ol existing two s1ory residence, with new entrance from Hillside to Desoto o27-152410Hillside Drive R-1 New attached ADU. New eriterior style. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # APN)zollrNG I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PER.JI,IRY T}IAT lHE INFORI/IATION GNEN HEREIN IS TRI.E AI'ID CORRECT TO ITE BEST OF MY KNOWIEDGE AI'ID BE-IEF. E d;c.iu@.qi^*d6r d,_Ei*,,.{n@c4 9n4m21 PROPOSED APPLCATION AND HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE ABOVE APPLICANT TO SUEMIT THIS APPLICATION TO THE 9/14f2021 DATE I AM AWARE PLANN APPLICAT{T'S SIGNATURE NF DIFFERENT FROI,! PROPERTY OIVNERI DATE DATE RECEMD: IEL 650.558.7250 J FAX: 650.696.3790 | E-t\,lAIL: PLANNINGDEPT@BURLINGAITE.ORG t- PHO|{E 226f4 E{AIL BURI.INGA E BUSITIESS LICENSEi 'FOR PROJECT REFUNDS! - Please ptovide an addess b rlirrd b all retund ciecks will be rnai,ed to: IATE ADDNESS 6onf 5<-\lte4- The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.O2O a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your propetv which do not apply to other properties in this area. The existing residence at 2201 Hillside Dr has three levels (garage, main and upper floor), which do not apply to other property in the area. b Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial propefty right and what unreasonable property ross or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. a It's our intent to keep the same single story feel of the existing home, but since the existing has three levels and this make it difficult to design an addition that keeps the scale of the existing without going up to second story. c d. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injuious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pubtic heafth, safety, general welfare or convenience. The proposed front setback variance willallow for a more articulated entry and outdated exteiiorto the main dwelling, and will not b€ detrimental or injurious to property. How will the proposed prcject be compatible with the aesthet cs, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The proposed single story addition will improve the overall mass/bulk without changing its character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. CoMMUNITY DEVELoPMENT DEPARTMENT \ 501 PRIMRoSE RoAD\ BURLT']GAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250r f: 650.696.3790 \ www.burlingame.org CITYOF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION HandoutsVarbrEe Application. 2008 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE Hillside Drive. Zone R-1 . Charles and Shirlev Paterson. oropertv owners. APN. 027-152-010; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Mav 23. 2022, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; On the basis of the lnitial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per Section 15301(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing struc{ures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition would not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. Said Design Review and Front Setback Variance are approved sub.iect to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Front Setback Variance are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairperson 1 2 3 Secretary RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desion Review and a Front Setback Variance for sinqle storv additions to an existinq sinqle-unit dwelling at 2201 NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: |,-,SecretaryofthePlanningcommissionofthecityofBurlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd dav of Mav, 2022 by the following vote: 2 .) 4 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review and Variance 2201 Hillside Drive Effective June 2,2022 Page 1 1.that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped May 17 , 2022, sheets A.1 through A.8, Ll .0 through L2.5, and Boundary and Topographic Survey dated July 2021; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount ortype of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYl or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construclion process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or elterior, shall require a demolition permit; that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, 6 7 6 that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review and Variance 2201 Hillside Drive Effective June 2,2022 that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; (not necessary if FAR is 200 SF + feet under max). 11 that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certificataon that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architeciural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 12.that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff would inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plan CTIT OF BURUNGAME COMMUI{ITY OEVTLOPMENT OEPARTMENT 501 PfiIMROSI ROAO SURLIIIIGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 55&72s0 w!xw.burllngame.org Proietl Sile: 2201 llillside Drive, zoned R-l Ihe (ity ol Burlingome Plonning (ommii3i0n onnounres lhe follouing vi uol publk heoring yio Zoom olt fondlr, l,tr'y 23, 2022 d 7 t0o P-, You moy o((ess lhe meeling 0nline ot vus.zoom.us/ioin or by phone ol (3441118-1799 A{eeling lD, 836 I165 2105 P0$(ode: 4921?l De.criplion: lpplkotion for Design levier ond frorl Sstbrd( Vorionce for 0 single rlory 0ddilion lo on exisling single-u[it dvelling. l{embers ol the publir moy provide rrillen tommenlr by emoil lo: oublicrommenl(dburlingome-org. lloiled: l{oy 13,2022 (Pleose rcfet to othet side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlinoome - Public Heorino Notice lf you have any questions about this application or would like to schedule an appointment to view a hard copy of the application and plans, please send an email to olanninsdept@burlineame.orq or call (550) 558-7250. lndividuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modificadon or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meetin8 notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed, should contast the Planning Division at planninqdept@burlinsame.ors or (6501 558-7250 by 10 am on the day of the meetng. lf 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, descrlbed in the no6ce or in written corr€spondence 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. Kevin Gardiner, AlcP Community Development Director (Pleose reJer to othet side) 2201 Hillside Drive 300' noticing APN: 027-152-010 (\- In d *8.+&* ^a I I , ) , { J fi / J \EI / 7 / f-a \ -d I #,S- ,,0e b!+ss Na City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permits Address: 1369 Columbus Avenue Meeting Date: May 23, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permits for building height, second story plate height, and second story balcony for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Designer: James Chu, CHU Design Associates Inc. APN: 027-153-020 Property Owners: Anuj Batra and Mishthi Kapoor Lot Area: 6,003 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot and currently contains a single-unit dwelling and an attached garage. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing single-unit dwelling and attached garage and build a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The total proposed floor area would be 3,019 SF (0.50 FAR), where 3,021 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for building height (33’-7” proposed where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed without approval of a Special Permit). Planning staff would note that the lot slopes upward from the front property line with the finished floor proposed at 9’-6” above average top of curb. The applicant is also requesting a Special Permit for a 9’-0” plate height at the second floor master bedroom located at the rear of the house (9’-0” proposed where 8’-0” is the maximum allowed on the second floor). A Special Permit is also being requested for a 55 SF second story balcony at the rear of the house (Special Permit required for any second story balcony; 75 SF maximum allowed). There would be a total of four bedrooms in the proposed dwelling. Per C.S. 25.48.030.L.3.a., no parking is required for the ADU because it is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit (bus stop located on El Camino Real/Hillside Drive). Per C.S. 25.47.030.L.5., when a garage is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced. The proposed project has no covered parking requirement and no covered parking is proposed. However, one uncovered space (9’-0” x 18’-0”) is required and provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) This project includes building a new, 709 SF detached accessory dwelling unit at the rear of the lot. Review of the ADU application is administrative and not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined the ADU complies with the ADU regulations. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.010.A.1.a.);  Special Permit for building height (33’-7” proposed where up to 36’-0” is allowed with a Special Permit) (C.S. 25.10.030 and 25.78.020.A.2.);  Special Permit for plate height (9’-0” second floor plate height proposed where 8’-0” is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.10.030 and 25.78.020.A.6.); and Item No. 8e Regular Action Item Design Review and Special Permits 1369 Columbus Avenue 2  Special Permit for second floor balcony (55 SF proposed where up to 75 SF is allowed with a Special Permit) (C.S. 25.10.030 and 25.78.020.A.7.). 1369 Columbus Avenue Lot Size: 6,003 SF Plans date stamped: May 11, 2022 1 (0.32 x 6,003 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,021 SF (0.50 FAR) 2 Special Permit for building height (33’-7” proposed where up to 36’-0” is allowed with a Special Permit). ³ Special Permit for plate height (9’-0” proposed on the second floor where 8’-0” is the maximum allowed). 4 Special Permit for second floor balcony (55 SF proposed where up to 75 SF is allowed with a Special Permit). Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: vinyl clad wood • Doors: wood front door and aluminum clad wood doors at side and rear of house • Siding: combination of stucco and horizontal wood siding • Roof: standing seam metal • Other: wood outriggers and corbels, wood square porch columns, metal cable railing Staff Comments: None. PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Front Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 20’-7” (to covered porch) 30’-1” 20’-7” (block average) 20’-0” Side Setback (left): (right): 5’-0” 11’-6” 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 54’-3” 58’-3” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,923 SF 32% 2,401 SF 40% FAR: 3,019 SF 0.50 FAR 3,021 SF ¹ 0.50 FAR Off-Street Parking: 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Building Height: 33’-7” 2 30'-0" Plate Height: 9’-0” on second floor ³ 8’-0” DH Envelope: Complies C.S. 25.26.075 Second Floor Balcony: 55 SF 4 (11’-3” left side setback & 28’-9” right side setback) 75 SF (8’-0” side setbacks) Design Review and Special Permits 1369 Columbus Avenue 3 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review study meeting on April 25, 2022, the Commission had several suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached April 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter, dated May 12, 2022, and revised plans date stamped May 11, 2022, to address the Planning Commission’s comments. Below is a summary of the changes made to the project; please refer to the applicant’s letter for a detailed response:  The modern “moment frame” front porch was replaced with a flat roof and square columns (see Front Elevation);  Flat roof above living room (facing street) was replaced with a gable end (see Front Elevation);  The “moment frame” design along the sides and rear of the house was replaced with pitched roofs and wood siding details (see revised Side and Rear Elevations);  Railing material at front porch, side porch and second floor balcony was changed from glass to metal cable (see building elevations);  Window material throughout the house was changed from aluminum clad wood to vinyl clad wood;  Glass on stairwell windows will be obscured (see Left Elevation); and  Street tree species was changed from Mayten (Maytenus boaria) to Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) (see Landscape Planting Plan, sheet L-3). As requested by the Commission, window locations on the adjacent house at 1367 Columbus Avenue were provided next to the Upper Floor Plan on sheet A.3. Color renderings were also prepared to provide a visual representation of the proposed project. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Design Review and Special Permits 1369 Columbus Avenue 4 Suggested Findings for Design Review: 1. The proposed new single-unit dwelling is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, with the exception of the building height and second floor plate height for which Special Permits are being requested; the proposed style of the house will blend with the existing neighborhood based on the proposed massing and variety of exterior building materials; that although a garage is not proposed with this application, the driveway and uncovered parking provided along the right side of the house is consistent with the parking pattern in the neighborhood; and the proposed architectural details, such as the covered front porch, wood and aluminum clad wood exterior doors, vinyl clad wood windows, and the combination of stucco and horizontal wood siding complement the architectural style of the house and is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio and declining height envelope requirements. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria. Required Findings for a Special Permit: Any decision to approve a Special Permit application in the R-1 zoning district pursuant to Chapter 25.78 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. 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 well-defined character of the street and neighborhood; 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street, and neighborhood; 3. The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City; and 4. Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the City’s reforestation requirements, and that the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is consistent with established City policies and practices. Suggested Findings for a Special Permit (Building Height, Plate Height and Second Story Balcony): 1. The blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new two-story single-unit dwelling are consistent with the character of the street and neighborhood which consists of two-story single-unit dwellings in a variety of architectural styles and massing; the 9’-0” second floor plate height is not significantly taller than allowed by right (additional 1’-0”) and is located only in the master bedroom at the rear of the house; the 55 SF second story balcony is within the maximum balcony size allowed (75 SF) and is setback from the side property lines in excess of the minimum required (28’-9” right side setback and 11’-3” left side setback proposed where 8’-0” is the minimum required). 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed new single- unit dwelling are consistent with the existing street and neighborhood in that the hip and gable roof configurations and pitches, combination of stucco and horizontal wood siding, roof eave brackets and Design Review and Special Permits 1369 Columbus Avenue 5 porch columns are consistent with those architectural features found on existing structures in the neighborhood; the building height exceeds the 30’-0” height limit (33’-7” proposed) in part because the lot slopes upward from the front property line to the rear of the lot by approximately 9’-6 and therefore the structure sits several feet above the average top of curb level; the encroachment suits the architectural style of the house and the request for the height beyond the 30-foot height is for the roof ridges, the majority of which is located in the middle of the property and is set back from either side property line. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City in that the proposed structure is compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria as noted above. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the Special Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped May 11, 2022, sheets A.1 through A.6, N.1, L-1 through L-3, and Topographic & Boundary Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; Design Review and Special Permits 1369 Columbus Avenue 6 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Fazia Ali Assistant Planner c. James Chu, CHU Designs Associates Inc, applicant and designer Anuj Batra and Mishthi Kapoor, property owners Attachments: April 25, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated May 12, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Applications Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 13, 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, April 25, 2022 c.1369 Columbus Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling. (James Chu, CHU Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; Anuj Batra and Mishthi Kapoor, property owners) (110 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1369 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1369 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1369 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he had a lengthy discussion and walked the block with the neighbor to the left of the project. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Anuj Batra, Rich Sargent, and James Chu represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Michael Murray, 1367 Columbus Avenue: I am the neighbor to the left. I have only seen, for a very short period of time, the drawings or plans of the house. Although our neighbors are lovely people, I must strenuously object to the style of the house. It doesn ’t fit in the traditional landscape of the houses on this or some other blocks at all. This metal roof farm house is very particularly fashionable now, which I think is a fad that will fade out quickly. Nobody does it well at all. I don ’t like the design. I don’t like the window that faces right at our front door, our bedrooms upstairs, our living room and our kitchen. I strenuously object to metal roof in an urban or suburban setting because they not only reflect light, but they also reflect heat. On some days, I don ’t want more heat directed to my house than the sun gives me already . I’m surprised at the lack of architectural detail on this. I see a little Hardie siding which is incongruous actually. It looks like an apartment house siding like what they did at Anson on Rollins Road. The glass hand rail looks like you are going to a bar. I think the whole thing really needs to be redone. I love our neighbors, I hate the house. Landscaping is a big concern. Unfortunately, we have been through this a couple of times on this block. The guy comes in with a bulldozer, scrapes everything and the race is on . So, please reconsider. Redesign it and make it comfortable for everybody on the block and in the neighborhood. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Type and size of tree to remain was not identified on the plans. Consider another type of evergreen for the street tree as they grow very slowly. >If the stairwell window is impacting the neighbor to the left, consider doing a frosted window to provide privacy for the neighbor. >Provide a 3D rendering so we can get a real sense of how the things are tying together. Page 1City of Burlingame April 25, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There are a lot of houses on that block that were redone or rebuilt. It is a very traditional looking block. Recommend trying to make it blend in with some of the other houses. >Was able to talk to the neighbor to the left and he did have some concerns about the windows and how they would affect his house. I would encourage the applicant to have some interaction with that neighbor to address the issue. Suggest outlining the neighbor ’s house and the location of his windows on the site plan in relation to this project. >The height doesn’t bother me for the special permit. The plate height in the master bedroom doesn ’t bother me given that it is flat roof. The pitch roof look fine. Where I am struggling more is the 3D complexity of the lower portion of the building. There are a lot of ins -and-outs on this but it is not really making me feel that it is compatible. It is forcing me to question the compatibility of the more modern shapes in the lower part. We need a 3D rendering to be able to see the forms and see where things are going. I’m not understanding the wood siding on the ends of the pop -outs and the stucco on the side. It will be a weird material transition that I am not used to seeing. The compatibility thing got me worried. I know that the team can do it, it’s just that I am not seeing it in the packet right now. >I too can see support for the special permit applications on this project. What I am struggling with is the overall design of the house, it doesn ’t know what it wants to be. There are so many materials on the various elevations that don ’t make sense to me, why something is on one face and not on another. There is a traditional sense with the second story with the siding and the outriggers, but then the finishes don ’t wrap around to the other sides and suddenly it is not traditional or transitional. I’m not sure about the glass railings mixed in with everything. It just seems too much of a hybrid of materials and not a clean statement of what it wants to be. I am concerned about the overall heaviness of the moment frame concrete arch that we see at the front and the sides. Because we are on an uphill sloping property and a fairly tall height to this first story, along with the increased height just to get to the finished floor from the average grade, it accentuates this particular element and the height. There is no need to accentuate the height as it is acceptable overall. I don ’t appreciate the over emphasis and the heaviness of what the moment frames are doing to the overall look of the house. I want a better clarity of what this house wants to be and a more cohesive look that makes sense on all four sides. >I completely agree with my fellow commissioner. The 3D rendering will be beneficial. I feel that the house is almost trying too hard. It is a house that can be very beautifully done. I have no doubt that the team can do this. The design can be simplified. >I completely agree with what has been said. This doesn ’t know what it wants to be. It will be really good to decide on a few things that are really important and let the other stuff go because it is just not going together. Particularly, these transitions can look like a patch work and not well thought out. I believe the whole house can come down about 6”, because it does not know what it wants to be and it is a large home, in deference to the homes around it will be helpful. >Should look at other trees that will be about 15’ – 20’ tall to be used at the front landscape and consider the St. Mary Magnolia, which is in our Burlingame tree list and will fit the planting strip to help pull the sidewalk a little bit better. You need an evergreen for this house. >I would have to agree with everything that has been said so far. I don ’t think this design is cohesive enough to know where it is going. My main concern is the compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood. The style of that neighborhood has already been developed and established. I’m not sure that this style of house fits. I don ’t think it interfaces well with the structures on the adjacent properties. It is trying to stand by itself and make a statement. I would agree that it can come down 6”, it might even be better if all the roofs are flat to make the design a little more cohesive and not make it seems like a large house even if it is in an up sloping lot. I don ’t know if I can support the project as it stands right now. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Tse, Gaul, Schmid, Pfaff, Comaroto, and Lowenthal6 - Page 2City of Burlingame 1534 Plaza Lane No. 132 Burlingame, CA 94010 P 650-344-9100 www.sargentdev.com License No. 817665 May 12, 2022 Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Chairman Gaul and Planning Commissioners: Thank you for your feedback at the April 25 Planning Commission meeting on our new home project at 1369 Columbus Avenue. We have made several changes to the plans and look forward to reviewing them with you. Our primary focus in revising the plans has been to reduce the massing at the front of the house and simplifying the architecture to improve neighborhood compatibility. To do this, we replaced the Modern “moment frame” front porch with a more delicate flat roof and four square columns. We also replaced the flat roof over the living room and those on each side elevation with modest pitched roofs and simplified the wood siding details. This property slopes ten feet from front to back, most of which occurs in the front 20 feet of the property. By making the architectural changes referenced above and keeping the nine and eight foot plate heights and low-pitch roofs, we feel this home will fit nicely into this neighborhood without overpowering it. At the Commission’s request, we have added the window locations of 1367 Columbus Avenue to the floor plans. We do not believe a privacy issue will result from the new stairwell windows: there is a large setback on the neighbor’s side of the fence line, and there is significant existing, mature foliage on the neighbor’s property that provides ample screening (see attached photo) between the two homes. The street trees have been changed on the landscape plans to Magnolia as requested by the Commission to better tie in to the tree in front of 1367 Columbus Ave. Since the Acer Palmatums proposed for the front yard can grow 33 feet heigh with a width of more than 20 feet, we think they will fill the space without overpowering it and the new street trees. We have provided color renderings as part of our submission and changed the exterior rails from glass to cable with metal posts and a wood cap. We look forward to answering questions about our project on May 23. Sincerely, 1534 Plaza Lane No. 132 Burlingame, CA 94010 P 650-344-9100 www.sargentdev.com License No. 817665 Photos looking toward 1367 Columbus Avenue in the area of the proposed staircase for 1369 Columbus Avenue. Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review and Special Permits for building height, second story plate height, and second story balcony for a new two-story, single-unit dwelling at 1369 Columbus Avenue, Zone R-1, Anuj Batra and Mishthi Kapoor, property owners, APN: 027-153-020; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on May 23, 2022, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Special Permits is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permits are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairperson I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of May, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permits 1369 Columbus Avenue Effective June 2, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped May 11, 2022, sheets A.1 through A.6, N.1, L-1 through L-3, and Topographic & Boundary Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permits 1369 Columbus Avenue Effective June 2, 2022 Page 2 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. LIVING ROOM PORCH BEDROOM #1 FOYER DEN / OFFICE MUD ROOM POWDER KITCHEN DINING GREAT ROOM STONE PATIO FFE 99.50 ADU LIVING ADU BEDROOM ADU STORAGE FFE 100.00 RESIDENCE T T T #1 #2 #3 #4 WMWM WV WV ARTIFICIAL TURF BIO RETENTION (PER CIVIL ENGINEER) BIO RETENTION (PER CIVIL ENGINEER) #6 #7 #5 REMOVE REMOVE ROOTBALL 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE tree planting detail 426.63 ROOT BARRIER DETAILNOT TO SCALE CONC. PAVING OR CONC. CURB, SEE PLAN PLANTING AREA, VARIES SEE PLAN LODGEPOLE PINE TREE STAKES -- 2-1/2" O RUBBER AND WIRE FASTENERS WITH WOOD CROSS PIECES, SEE PLANTING DETAILS FOR SIZE, QUANTITY, & REQUIREMENTS CONC. CURB OR CONC. PAVING , SEE PLAN 18" MIN.3" LAYER ORGANIC MULCH 1 EA. 4" DIA. PERFORATED PIPE W/ 1" DIA. DRAIN ROCK AND BUBBLER (TYP.) 3" HIGH BERM BACKFILL SEE NOTE #6- ROOTBALL FINISH GRADE SHRUB PLANT ROOT CROWN SHALL BE 2" ABOVE GRADE AFTER WATERING AND SETTLING. SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL 426.67 PLANTING DETAILNOT TO SCALE 3" HIGH BERM 2X WIDTH OF ROOTBALL12"UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL ROUGHEN SIDE OF PLANT PIT AGRIFORM 20-10-5 TABS 2-1 GAL., 3-5 GAL., 4-15. GAL. 6-24" BOX, 8-36" BOX SHRUB (TYP.)* EDGE OF PAVEMENT, MOW BAND, OR HEADER GROUNDCOVER/SHRUB LAYOUT COPYRIGHT 2022 Robert Mowat Associates. No portion of this drawing may be reproduced, duplicated, or copied in any way without the express written consent of Robert Mowat Associates.SHEET DATE REVISIONS CThis drawing is prepared for this particular site and may not be utilized for another site location.www.rmalandscape.comPhone 925.705.7424 Fax 925.954.1390LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + LAND PLANNING1501 N. Broadway Suite 400 Walnut Creek, CA 94596ROBERT MOWAT ASSOCIATESBATRA RESIDENCE, BURLINGAME CAL-BATRA RESIDENCE1369 COLUMBUS AVEBURLINGAME CA 94010PRINT DATE: 4-18-22 SCALE SCALE:1/8"=1'-0" NORTH 3-8-2022 1 3-25-22 CITY COMMENTS #1 2 4-18-22 CITY COMMENTS #2 3 4-27-22 CITY COMMENTS #3LANDSCAPEPLANTINGPLANPLANTING LEGEND SYMBOL SIZE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER USE SPACING TREES: Ace. pal.24" BOX Acer palmatum Japanese Maple MOD PER PLAN Lau. nob.24" BOX Laurus nobilis Grecian laurel MOD PER PLAN Mag. gra.24" BOX Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia MOD PER PLAN SHRUBS: Ach. mil.1 GAL Achillea millefolium - White Common Yarrow LOW 12" O.C. Aza. hyb.5 GAL Azalea hybrid - Double White Double White Azalea MOD 24" O.C. Bux. 'G.M.'1 GAL Buxus 'Green Mountain'Boxwood MOD 24" O.C. Cam. sas.5 GAL Camellia sasanqua - Single/Double White White Camellia MOD 36" O.C. Das. whe.5 GAL Dasylirion wheeleri Spoon Yucca LOW 36" O.C. Die. bic.1 GAL Dietes bicolor Yellow Fortnight Lily LOW 24" O.C. Equ. hye.1 GAL Equisetum hyemale Horsetail LOW 12" O.C. Hyd. spp.5 GAL Hydrangea spp. 'Blue'Hydrangea MOD 60" O.C. Iri. sib.1 GAL Iris sibirica Siberian Iris LOW 18" O.C. Lig. 'Tex.'5 GAL Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum'Waxleaf Privet - Columnar MOD 36" O.C. Lir. gig.1 GAL Liriope gigantea Giant Lily Turf MOD 48" O.C. Lup. alb.1 GAL Lupinus albifrons Silver Bush Lupine LOW 48" O.C. Phi. sel.5 GAL Philodendron selloum Elephant Ear MOD 48" O.C. Pho. 'Jes.'5 GAL Phormium 'Jester'Jester Flax MOD 30" O.C. Sal. leu.5 GAL Salvia leucantha Mexican Bush Sage LOW 48" O.C. Tax. 'hic.'5 GAL Taxus 'Hicksii'Hicks Yew MOD 48" O.C. GROUNDCOVERS: 1 GAL Arctotheca calendula Capeweed LOW 12" O.C. 1 GAL Agapanthus orientalis 'Henryi'White Lily of the Nile MOD 12" O.C. 1 GAL Carex tumulicola Foothill Sedge MOD 12" O.C. FLATS Dymondia margaretae Silver Carpet LOW 48" O.C. FLATS Lobularia maritima - White Sweet Alyssum MOD 6" O.C. 1 GAL Ophiopogon japonicus 'Nana'Mondo Grass - Dwarf LOW 12" O.C. 1 GAL Senecio mandraliscae Blue Chalksticks LOW 18" O.C. FLATS Viola hederacea Australian Violet MOD 12" O.C. VINES: 5 GAL Gelsemium sempervirens Carolina Jessamine MOD N/A 5 GAL Wisteria chinensis - Blue Blue Wisteria MOD 48" O.C. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN (TYP.) EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED PLANTING NOTES 1. TO INSPECT PLANTS ON ARRIVAL FROM NURSERY 2. AT TIME OF PLANTING 3. A FINAL SITE REVIEW 6. LOOSEN THE TOP 10" OF TOPSOIL AND BLEND THE TOP 4" LAYER OF SOIL W/ FOLLOWING OF TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL CONSIST OF THE ABOVE AMENDED SOIL PREPARED AS FOLLOWS: 3 PARTS PULVERIZED SITE SOIL 1 PART NITROGEN STABILIZED ORGANIC AMENDMENT* 1.0 LBS. IRON SULFATE THE TOP 12" OF PLANT BACKFILL AROUND THE SIDES OF THE ROOTBALL AMOUNTS / 1000 SQUARE FEET: 50.0 LBS. GYPSUM 25.0 LBS. NITROFORM (38-0-0) UNIFORMLY BLENDED WITH: (AMOUNT / CUBIC YARD BACKFILL MIX) 3/4 POUND 6-20-20 COMPLETE FETILZER 1/4 POUND POTASSIUM SULFATE (0-0-50) 50.0 LBS. TREBLE SUPERPHOSPHATE (0-45-0) 25.0 LBS. POTASSIUM SULFATE (0-0-50) 15.0 LBS. FERROUS SULFATE (10% FE) 4.0 CU. YDS. NITROGEN STABILIZED ORGANIC AMENDMENT* (4" LAYER) 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A LICENSED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR AND PERSONNEL FAMILIAR WITH THE WORK AND UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A QUALIFIED PLANTING FOREMAN. 2. PLANT MATERIAL LOCATIONS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN THE FIELD AS DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. LOCATE PLANT MATERIALS TO SCREEN UTILITIES, IRRIGATION DEVICES, ETC. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE YET ALLOW ACCESS TO THEM. 3. ALL TREES SHALL BE STAKED AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS. 4. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE SUBSTITUTIONS, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS IN THE PLANTING SCHEME AS NECESSARY WHILE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. SUCH CASES ARE TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE CONTRACT PRICE IF/WHEN NECESSARY. 5. THE PLANT COUNT IS FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE. IN CASE OF A DISCREPANCY, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN. 7. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE ALL TREES FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND ALL SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. 8. ANY REQUIREMENTS IN THE PLANS SHALL BE CONSIDERED BINDING. IN CASE OF DISCREPANCIES THE OWNER AND LAND. ARCH. SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED FOR A DECISION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 9. THERE SHALL BE REGULAR SITE VISITS BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND THE OWNER THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND A FINAL SITE REVIEW. 10. ALL PLANT MATERIAL NOT APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAY BE SUBJECT TO REJECTION. 11. ALL WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED PERMITS. 12. PROTECT EXISTING TREES AS NECESSARY. FENCE AS NECESSARY. LOCATE ALL UTILITIES COORDINATE ALL DIGGING AND TRENCHING BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK WITH THE PROJECT SUPERVISOR FIRST. 13. THE DESIGN INTENT OF THE PLANTING PLAN IS TO ESTABLISH AND IMMEDIATE, ATTRACTIVE AND MATURE LANDSCAPE APPEARANCE. FUTURE PLANT GROWTH WILL NECESSITATE TRIMMING, SHAPING, PRUNING AND IN MOST CASES, REMOVAL OF TREES AND SHRUBS AS PART OF AN ON-GOING MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.. 14. ALL PLANT PITS SHALL BE FREE FROM ROCKS AND DEBRIS GREATER THAN 2" IN DIAMETER. 15. APPLY "RONSTAR" OR "ELANCO XL" PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE TO ALL PLANTED AREAS. APPLY HERBICIDE IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECS. THE LANDSCAPE SHALL BE WEED FREE AT THE TIME OF THE FINAL WALK-THROUGH. 16. FOR A PERIOD OF 10 DAYS FOLLOWING OWNER'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPLETION OF THE FINAL PUNCH LIST AS PART OF HIS BID. ALL PRUNING, SPRAYING, FERTILIZING, MOWING, CLEAN-UP AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPE PRACTICES SHALL BE INCLUDED. THE 10 DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD DOES NOT END UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER IS GRANTED. 17. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT UNIT PRICES FOR THE POSSIBLE ADDITION OF PLANTS TO THE PROJECT. SUBMIT UNIT PRICES FOR 15 GALLON TREES, 5 GALLON SHRUBS, 1 GALLON SHRUBS, LAWN AND GROUND COVER AT SQ. FT. PRICES. 18. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL EPOXY VINE TIES AT ALL VINES PLANTING LOCATIONS TO TIE VINES TO WALLS AND POSTS AS NEEDED. 19. 3" LAYER OF SHREDDED FIR BARK OVER ALL PLANTED AND IRRIGATED AREAS. 20. ON ALL SLOPES 3:1 OR GREATER, INSTALL JUTE MESH NETTING, LAP MIN. 12", STAPLE AT 24" O.C. TYP. 21. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE OF THE QUALITY AND SIZE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK GUIDELINES, LATEST EDITION. 22. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL FROM THE OWNERS'S PROPERTY ALL WASTE MATERIAL GENERATED BY FROM THE PLANTING OPERATIONS. (2X WEEKLY). 23. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH RELATED SUB-CONTRACTORS AND WITH THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR OF THE PROJECT. 4'8'16'32'0'24' SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" COLUMBUS AVENUE DYM. AGA. CAR. CAR. VIO. AGA.ARC. SEN.SEN. 6 5 G BUX. 'G.M.' 13 1 G PHO. 'JES.' 2 24" BOX ACE. PAL. 28 1 G EQU.HYE. 9 1 G EQU. HYE. 2 5 G TAX. 'HIC.' 6 1 G EQU.HYE.1 5 G LIG. 'TEX.' 9 1 G DIE. BIC. 12 1 G LIR. GIG. OPH. 17 1 G CAM. SAS. 2 5 G DAS. WHE. 5 5 G AZA.HYB. DOUBLE WHITE 3 5 G GEL. SEM. ON TRELLIS 2" LAYER OF 1/2" O PEA GRAVEL LOW 30" HT. STONE WALL w/ 36" TALL PILASTERS AT ENTRY WALK. PILASTER @ ENTRY SHALL HAVE ADDRESS NUMBER . GLAZED POTS (2 EA) 3 CAR. LOB. 1 5 G HYD. SPP BLUE 10 1 G ACH. MIL. 3 1 G LUP. ALB. LOB. 30 1 G IRI. SIB. 16 1 G EQU. HYE. 3 5 G WIS. CHI. BLUE ON FENCE 1/2" O PEA GRAVEL 2 5 G PHI. SEL. 1/2" O PEA GRAVEL EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN (TYP.) 1 2 24" BOX MAG. GRA. W/ ROOT BARRIERS 1 1 1 EXISTING WALNUT TREE TO REMAIN (12" O) DYM. 1 EXISTING PINE TO REMAIN EXISTING CORDYLINE AUSTRALIS TO REMAIN (12" O) 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 24" BOX LAU. NOB. 2 2 2 EXISTING FRUIT TREE TO REMAIN (10" O) 2 3 3 3 City of Burlingame Item No. 8f Regular Action ltemDesign Review Meeting Dalei May 23, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling and new detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Tim Raduenz, Form+One Property Owners: Kelly and Kent Kockos General Plan: Low Density Residential Note: This application was submitted priorto January 5, 2022, the effective date ofthe new Zoning Ordinance, and therefore was reviewed under the previous Zoning Code. Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEOA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exemptfrom environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50o/o of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivislons, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any signiricant 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 forthis property by Page & Tumbull, Inc., dated October26, 202'1. The results of the evaluat;on concluded that 309 Chapin Lane does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot and conlains an existing two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage totaling 3,349 SF (0.36 FAR). The applicant is proposing to demolish and reconfigure the rear portion ofthe first floor and demolish the majority ofthe existing second floorto rebuild and expand it. The existing detached garage, currently located toward the middle of the lot, will be replaced with a new detached garage at the rear, left side ofthe lot. Connected to the right ofthe new detached garage is a new detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The project proposes a totalfloor area of4,370 SF (0.47 FAR) where 4,445 SF (0.48 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes 194 SF covered porch and ADU exemption). There is a 21.7 SF (2'-2" x 10'-0") encroachment into the declining height envelope along the right side which meets the window enclosure exception per Code Section 25.26.075 (b)(2). The existing house contains four bedrooms. With this application, the number of bedrooms would increase to five bedrooms (office on first floor and office on second floor count as bedrooms). Three parklng spaces, two of which must be covered, are required for a five-bedroom house. The new detached garage measures 20 -3" x 20'-1" (clear interior dimensions) and provides the required covered parking for the five-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. Address: 309 Chapin Lane APN: 028-311-060 Lot Area: 9,203 SF Zoning: R-1 Design Review 309 Chapin Lane Accessory Dwelling Unit This project includes a detached ADU (550 SF) that is connected to the new detached garage and located at the rear of the lot. Review of the ADU application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined that the ADU complies with the ADU regulations. The applicant is requesting the following application Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)) 309 Chapin Lane Lot Area: 9,203 SF I Existing nonconforming side setback.2 (0.32 x 9,203 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 4,445 SF (0.48 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: . Windows: wood clad with simulated true divided lites. Doors.' wood clad. Siding: cedar shingles with mitered corners, stucco. Roof.' asphalt shingle. Other: brick veneer porch base, wood brackets, cedar siding at gables Plans date stam :Ma 2,2022 EXISTING ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 16'-2%" (lo porch) 38'-5" no change 31',-6', 23 -9" (block average) 23'-9" (block average) I 2 '-10"Side Setbacks (reft).' (right): 9',-1o', ( 4'-11" ( to addition) to addition) 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear Setbacks (lst flr): (2nd flr): 103',-8', 104'-11" 98',-2', 96',-2', 15',-o 20'-0 Lot Coverage:2,516 SF 27 .30k 2,755 SF 29.9% 3,681 SF 40o/o FAR:3,349 SF 0,36 FAR 4,370 SF 0.47 FAR # of bedrooms:4 5 Off Street Parking:l covered (15-3"x29'-1") l uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (20'-3" x20'-1") l uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (20'xzo') l uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height:28'4"30'-0' Declining Height Envelope: encroachment along right side complies with window enclosure exception along right side c.s. 25.26.075 PROPOSED 4,445 SF '0,48 FAR 29'-l', Design Review 3og Chapin Lane Design Review Study Meeting: Atthe Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on March 28, 2022, the Commisslon had several comments/suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed bythe Planning Division (see attached March 28, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The following is a summary of the Commission's comments/suggestions from the Design Review Study meeting: Front Elevation -top rightwindow, would like clarity on thewindow depth; is it consistentwith the boxed- out window on the bottom left. Consider simplifying number of materials. The applicant submitted a response letter (see attachments), dated April 5,2022, and revised plans, date stamped May 2,2022, to address the Planning Commission's comments. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; lnterface ofthe proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components Suggested Findingsfor Design Review''Thatthe architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring gable and shed roofs, asphalt shingle roofing, proportional plate heights, stucco and cedar shingle siding with stone veneer base, and wood clad windows with simulated true divided lites) is compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties. Therefore, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conducl a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings suppoding the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any aclion should be stated clearly for the record- At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 2,2022, sheets T1 .0, GN, CG, AMP, SW, AR, Topographic and Boundary Survey, 41 .0 through A5.0, G2.0, and G2.1; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYl or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dorme(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; -3- Staff Comments: None. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4 5 Design Review 309 Chapin Lane that demolition for removalofthe existing structures and anygrading orearth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; that all air ducts, plumbing venls, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single lermination and installed on the portions ofthe roof notvisible from lhe street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requiremenls; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10- that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonslrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11 that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12 that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13 that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to veri{y that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 'Amelia Kolokihakaufi si Associate Planner c. Tim Raduenz, Form+One, applicant and designer Kelly and Kent Kockos, property owners 6 7 8 o 4- that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; Design Review 309 Chapin Lane Attachments: March 28, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated Aptil 5, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing - Mailed May 13,2022 Area Map Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, lnc., dated October 26, 2021 -5- NGAMEBU City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, March 28, 2022 7:00 PM Online b 309 Chapin Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling and new detached garage. (Tim Raduenz, Form+One, applicant and designer; Kelly and Kent Kockos, property owners) (96 noticed) Stafi Contact:'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Afrach,nenls: 309 Chaoin Ln - Staff Reoort 309 Chapin Ln - Attachments 309 Chaoin Ln - Historic Resource Evaluation 309 Chaoin Ln - Plans All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid was recused from this item Senior Planner Lewit provided an overuiew of the staft report. Acting Chair Loftis opened the public heaing Tin Raduenz, designer, and Kent and Kelly Kockos, propedy owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: There were no public comments Acting Chat Loftis closed the public heaing > Coordinate and update ?D rendeing to match proposed elevations. > On the top ight window, consider doing the same box window detail that is on the boftom window. > Chapin Lane has a very restrained use of mateials, it's usually wood shingles or stucco. This project has about five or six different mateials. lt is very busy. lt could work but there is something at the porch that is very distracting, it's keeping it from holding together. Consider eliminating one or two of the proposed mateials. lt's not a deal breaker but could be better by simplifying the mateials. > I don't disagrce with my fellow commissioner in tems of the use of varying materiats. lt could come down to color, whether it is monochromatic or not. There is a lot going on. lt is a detailing issue that I suggest the applicants reconsider. Generally, I like what is happening on the project. The front elevation is scaled nicely. Wth the added details of corbels and porch columns, it does bing it in closer hamony with the rest of the neighbo lood. The side elevation has some weird elemants happening with the existing additions and alterations that were done, but the proposed is a much befter form that is more appropriate with the overal mass. I like where the project is going, but the details and the palette of mateials need to be revisited betore it comes back to us. > Ih,b is a nice project. We all have different perspectives of what is calm and what is noL Ihls seems to be a prew sedate project. I don't feel lre busyness that my fe ow commissioners are commenting on. There were some projects that we have reviewed recently that are more glaing and have nothing going on. Cornmisslo, Dlscussion/Direction: City of Budingame Planning Commission ileeting Minutes Itarch 28,2022 I am interested to see iow it develops. There is nothing that I see here that I wouldn't be comfottable moving foNard with. > I agree with my fellow commissioner I actually really like the project. I like the detail and some of the differences. There is a house at Coftez Avenue that has a lot of the same old charm and different vaiations. It adds a lot of detail to that street. commissiorer Comaroto made a motion, seconded by commisaiorer Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar wher plans have been revised as diracted- The motiofl car ed by the following vote: Aye: 4 - Comaroto, Tenones, Loftjs, and Pfaff Absent: 2 - Tse, and Gaul Recssed: 1- Schmid Ciay ot Budingane Page 2 Page I of 1 Form + One 4843 Silver Springs Drive Park City, UT 84098 P+ 415.819.0304 E + tim@formonedesign.com TRANSMITTAL FORM To: City of Burlingame (Amelia K.) Subject: 309 Chapin Ln. (Response to commenls) From: Tim Raduenz Date Sent: 0410512022 Number of Pages: I 1. Existing tree at house + driveway comment: Response: We have protected this tree and will make as so on plans, also the owners are very set on keeping it as well. 2. Simpliffing materials comment: Response: we have stayed the course on materials, we have updated our 3d with a better color palate and have removed the railing (steel + glass) so to make it more cohesive. 3. Clariffing front entry dormer + pop outs Response: we have updated the drawings to be more detailed at these areas, and also on 3d 4. Updates to trees on landscape: Response: we have updated the drawings from the landscape designer. 5. Updates to Fire Department Comments: Response: We have approval form for the ADU To that end, we believe the corrections and changes to this project have been to make this an approvable project and look forward to moving on to Building Phase Best, Tim Raduenz Form+One.Design&Planning.4343SilverSpringsDrive.ParkCity.UT'84098.(a15)819.0304.tim@formonedesign.com Response to Planning Commission Comments: PLANNING APPLICATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT-PLANNING DIVISION 501 PRIMROSE ROAD.2ND FLOOR, BURLINGAME, CA 94010-3997 TEL: 650.558.7250 IFAX: 650.696.3790 lE-MAIL: PLANNINGDEPT@BURLINGA[rE.ORG 028-311-060 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # (APN) R-1309 CHAPIN LN PROJECT AODRESS PROJECT OESCRIPTION 1ST & 2ND FLOOR REMODEL ZONING z.o F =d.olr-z. Fo!u ot(L NEW GARAGE, NEWADU REMOVAL OF EXISTING GARAGE =otr =dolr- =Fz, s2Jo-o- 309 CHAPIN LN. BURLINGAME. CA.9401O ADDRESS E.MAIL KNOWLEDGE AND BEL|9..7 DATE RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desiqn Review for a first and second storv addition to an existinq sinqle-unit dwellinq and new detached qaraqe at 309 Chapin Lane, Zone R-1. Kellv and Kent Kockos. propertv owners. APN: 028-311-060; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Mav 23. 2022, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review is set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. |,-,SecretaryofthePlanningCommissionoftheCityofBurlingame'do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd dav of Mav.2022 by the following vote: 2 J Secretary 1 . On the basis of the lnitial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set fo(h above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before lhe addition, is hereby approved. Chairperson EXHIBIT'A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 309 Chapin Lane Effective June 2,2022 Page 1 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 2,2022, sheets T1.0, GN, CG, AMP, SW, AR, Topographic and Boundary Survey, 41.0 through A5.0, G2.0, and G2.1; 4 E 2 a b 7 8 I that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYl or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements, any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE IUET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 10 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 309 Ghapin Lane Effective June 2,2022 1'l. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12 that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13.that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. CITY OF BURTINGAME COMMUN!TY OEVELOPMEI.IT D€PARTMENT SOl PRIMROSE ROAD EURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (6s0) ss8-72so ww*.burlinSame.or8 Proieo Site: 309 (hopin [one, zoned X-l Ihe (ily of Eurlingone Plonning (ommission onnounces lhe folloving virtuol puhlic heoring vio loom on ondcy, tloy 23, 2022 ot 7:00 P. . You moy occess lhe meeling online ol ruv.zoom.us/ioin or by phone ol (3{6}218.r799: lileeting lD: 836 ll552m5 Posscode: 492121 De*ription: Applkolion for Design f,evior for o firsl ond se(ond rlory 0ddilion lo 0n exisling single-unil drelling ond nev detorhed goroge. llembers olthe public moy proyide uritlen commenh by emoil lo: publi((ommGnt@burlin00me.0ro. oiled' iloy 13,2022 (Pleose reler to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlinoome - Public Heorino Notice lf you have any questions about this application or would like to schedule an appointment to view a hard copy of the application and plans, please send an email to olanninedeot@burlingame-orp or call (650) 558-7250. lndividuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodaUon to participate in this meeting, or who have a disabilfi and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed, should contact the Planning Division at olanninqdeot@burlineame.orE or (650) 558-7250 by 10 am on the day of the meetint. lf you challenge the subiect 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. Kevin Gardiner, AICP Community Development Director (Please reler to other side) 309 Chapin Lane 300'noticing APN #: 028-311-060 -ao b,o oaoa "ts o 6A .t , ,t oo ...,f:''" .r.-'ttc 6061 Qoo @.0 @ aaa r,p I 6)- I n .a 7( fr. \ a(64(o aa a Ato @ e.\?^c oa r-)a gst q6f @@ ss s66 q6o r66 {60 soo q68 469 r46 ooQ $o9 .aC ( attt ?'0.6 axl %oIE,"% .at' :cP .s{6 ^e,N' t6o -ot - 6do - .)t) s6o A 16 x ,/ v't trr .)'I \ \ I\ I\ c t t CHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPGRADE/TYPSKLTSKLT9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0" (E) LOT LINE2ND FLR. TOP PLATEAVERAGE T.O.C.TOP OF RIDGE26'-7" 3'-0"9'-8 1/2"2'-2 1/2"50'-0"D.H.E LEFT SIDE97.02'14'-0"45°7'-6" (E) LOT LINERIGHT D.H.E.96.43'45° 14'-0"(E)28'-3 1/2" OVERALL HEIGHT9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0" (E) LOT LINE100.00'109.00'110.08'2ND FLR. TOP PLATE118.58'AVERAGE T.O.C.96.68'126.68'TOP OF RIDGE125.01'26'-7 1/2"D.H.E LEFT SIDE97.02'14'-0" 3'-0"(E) DRIVEWAY(N) STONE VENEER(E) STUCCO(N) STONE VENEER @ FOUNDATION50'-0"CEDAR SHINGLES 5" EXP.(BLUE LABEL) (MITEREDCORNERS)G.S.M. GUTTER SYSTEM(PAINTED), TYP.ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES GRACE UNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.SIERRA-PACIFIC WOOD/CLADWDS. + DRS, PUTTY SDLSTANDARD, 3-COAT STUCCO(SMOOTH FINISH) OR OLDSCHOOL PITTED STUCCO(PAINTED)BRICK VENEEREXISTING (OVERALL REMODEL/RE-DESIGN)(E) GRADE/TYP.(E) STUCCO7'-6"RIGHT D.H.E.96.43'45°45° 14'-0"9'-8 1/2"36"+ HEIGHT DIFFERENCEFROM GRADE TO F.F.12123123123TEMP.EGRESSEGRESS(E) FENCE (PROTECT)97.00'+/-DS(E) FENCE (PROTECT)EXISTING1x6 CEDAR T&G (CENTERMATCH) (TYP.)4x6 BRACKETS (TYP.)28'-4" OVERALL HEIGHT Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :10-01-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_29Job No. : Owner : APN#: 028-311-060 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 9,203 SQ. FT. RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 01.31.2022RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 04.05.2022 Existing & Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.0A3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING FRONT ELEVATIONA3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION2 CHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPGRADE/TYP9'-0" 1'-1" 8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0"2ND FLR. TOP PLATEAVERAGE T.O.C.TOP OF RIDGE26'-7" 3'-0" (E) LOT LINE 9'-8 1/2"50'-0"2'-2 1/2"D.H.E LEFT SIDE97.02'14'-0"45° 14'-0"RIGHT D.H.E.96.43'7'-6"45°9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0" (E) LOT LINE97.00'+/-100.00'109.00'110.08'2ND FLR. TOP PLATE118.58'AVERAGE T.O.C.96.68'126.68'TOP OF RIDGE125.01'26'-7 1/2" 14'-0" 3'-0"(E) DRIVEWAY50'-0"(E) FENCE (PROTECT) (E) LOT LINE D.H.E LEFT97.02'14'-0"50'-0"RIGHT D.H.E.96.43'7'-6"45°1231231231297'-6"EGRESSTEMP.TEMP.DS(E) FENCE (PROTECT)(N) BBQ9'-8 1/2" Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :10-01-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_29Job No. : Owner : APN#: 028-311-060 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 9,203 SQ. FT. RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 01.31.2022RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 04.05.2022 Existing & Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.1A3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING REAR ELEVATIONA3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION2 CHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPGRADE/TYPNOTE BNOTE BSKLTNOTE B9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0"2ND FLR. TOP PLATEAVERAGE T.O.C.TOP OF RIDGE26'-7"D.H.E3'-0"9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0"97.00'+/-100.00'109.00'110.08'2ND FLR. TOP PLATE118.58'AVERAGE T.O.C.96.68'126.68'TOP OF RIDGE26'-7 1/2"3'-0"125.01'123123123123123TEMP.TEMP.PRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORSPRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORSPRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORS(N) TERRACE(E) FRONT YARDTEMP.DSDSDS24" METAL ROOF PANELS(TYP.)TEMP. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :10-01-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_29Job No. : Owner : APN#: 028-311-060 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 9,203 SQ. FT. RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 01.31.2022RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 04.05.2022 Existing & Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.2A3.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING LEFT ELEVATIONA3.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION2 CHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPGRADE/TYPNOTE BNOTE B9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0"2ND FLR. TOP PLATEAVERAGE T.O.C.TOP OF RIDGE26'-7"D.H.E3'-0"GRADE/TYP9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0"97.00'+/-100.00'109.00'110.08'2ND FLR. TOP PLATE118.58'AVERAGE T.O.C.96.68'126.68'TOP OF RIDGE26'-11"3'-5"125.01'(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.PRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORSPRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORSPRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORSEGRESSPRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORS(E) STUCCO(E) STUCCO + (N) PATCHING(E) STUCCO + (N) PATCHINGADDITIONEXISTING (OVERALL REMODEL/RE-DESIGN)(N) STONE VENEER @ FOUNDATION10'-0" MAX.PER 25.26.075(2)FALSE WINDOW123CEDAR WOODBRACKET11'-0"TEMP.(N) TERRACE(E) GRADE(E) FRONT YARD(N) TERRACE(E) REAR YARDTEMP.PRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORSDSDSDSDSDS1'-8"(E) STUCCO + (N) PATCHING Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :10-01-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_29Job No. : Owner : APN#: 028-311-060 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 9,203 SQ. FT. RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 01.31.2022RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 04.05.2022 Existing & Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.3A3.3Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATIONA3.3Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION2 BUILDINGFINISHED FLOOR = 100.0±BUILDINGBUILDINGGARAGESHEDLAWNLAWNLAWNBRICK DRIVEWAYWOOD DECKCONCRETEASPHALT COURTPLAY AREABUILDINGBRICK WALL & CHAIN LINK FENCE CHAIN LINK FENCEWOOD FENCEWOOD FENCEBRICKPORCHWATERMETERBRICK PATHWOOD FENCEELEC.METERGASMETERBRICK PATHCONCRETEAREADRAINSANITARYSEWERCLEANOUT(3)4"JAPANESE MAPLEPAVERDRIVEWAYCONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER BRICK GRAVEL CONCRETETENNIS BACKBOARDCONC.PAVERS WOOD FENCE96.1597.1496.6796.6897.0396.6396.8196.9096.5696.3496.0697.0296.9397.1897.0296.7196.8796.7596.6196.3796.3396.3596.1796.2596.4896.6396.5296.0196.1796.5396.5396.6296.5997.4997.5096.9296.8996.7397.1297.1497.0897.0997.0797.0197.0297.0297.0097.0697.0497.4497.3998.0699.76100.0296.7396.7096.7396.5096.5897.1097.0997.2197.6198.1999.8997.1997.0997.1097.0096.9896.8497.2596.1496.50109.8096.5098.0296.6896.8696.8698.2899.8598.3798.2397.1797.7596.9396.8796.9696.9396.9596.6396.7996.6696.6196.7996.8096.7796.3497.5397.0096.8596.2596.8696.3996.3396.3496.4896.0396.0296.0596.0696.0896.1196.0396.0296.0096.1396.0996.2096.1596.1296.1096.7395.8695.9496.1596.1596.1996.2296.2496.1796.8697.30979 7 971.9'S65°30'40"W - 184.57'S26°26'45"E - 50.03'S65°30'40"W - 183.54'N27°37'05"W - 50.07'SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOORFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBRICK WALL & CHAIN LINK FENCE WATERMETERSANITARYSEWERCLEANOUTPAVERDRIVEWAY(N) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (N) CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER BRICK GRAVEL 96.1597.1496.6796.6897.0396.6396.8196.9096.5696.3496.0697.0296.9397.1897.0296.7196.8796.7596.6196.3796.3396.3596.1796.2596.4896.6396.5296.0196.1796.5396.5396.6296.5997.4997.5096.9296.8996.7397.1297.1497.0897.0997.0797.0197.0297.0297.0097.0697.0497.4497.3998.0699.76100.0296.7396.7096.7396.5096.5897.1097.1097.2596.1496.50109.8096.5098.2896.6396.7996.6696.6196.7996.8096.7796.3497.0096.8596.2596.8696.3996.3396.3496.4896.0396.1196.0096.1396.0996.2096.1596.1095.8695.9496.1596.1596.1996.2296.2496.1796.8697.3097S65°30'40"W - 184.57'S26°26'45"E - 50.03'S65°30'40"W - 183.54'N27°37'05"W - 50.07'DISTANCE FROM(E) HOUSE TOPROPERTY LINE2'-5"(E) GAS METER(N) 200 AMP.ELECT. METER20'-0" REAR SETBACK 4'-0" SIDE SETBACK4'-0" SIDE SETBACK23'-9" FRONT SETBACK 2'-8"1'-6"1'-0" 2'-5"12'-10"DISTANCE FROM(E) HOUSE TOPROPERTY LINE2'-6"4'-0"94'-6"20'-0"5'-10"4'-0"(E) 2-STORYFAMILYRESIDENCE(N) GARAGE(N) PAVERS(N) LAWN(N) PATIO(E) COVEREDPORCH(N) 6' WD. GATE(E) 6' WD. FENCE(PROTECT)(E) 6' WD. FENCE(PROTECT)(N) 4" SEWER LINES(N) PATHWATER(N) AUTOGATEFIRST/SECONDFLOOR ADDITION(N)(E)(N)(E) BRICK(N) BRICK98.0296.68(E) CHAIN LINK FENCE(PROTECT)(N) CONCRETESIDEWALK +APPROARCH PERCITY STANDARDSADJ. CONC APRON (N) PATIO(N) ADU2'-2"98'-2"2ND FLR1ST FLR2NDFLR1ST FLR1ST FLR31'-6"96'-2"(N) DRIVEWAY 2ND FLR2'-2"4'-11"(E) JAP.MAPLE TREE(PROTECT)(N) PLANTING AREA(N) PLANTINGAREA(N) PLANTINGAREA(N) PLANTING AREA (N) RAISEDVEG BEDS(N) RAISEDVEG BEDS(N) DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH(N) PLANTING AREA Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :10-01-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_29Job No. : Owner : APN#: 028-311-060 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 9,203 SQ. FT. RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 01.31.2022RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 04.05.2022 Existing & Proposed Site Plan See DetailsA1.0A1.0Scale: 1/8 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED SITE PLANGENERAL NOTES & SCOPE1. PROTECT ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPING AND TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION,CONSULT ARBORIST AS REQUIRED.2. NO EXISTING TREES OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54" FROM BASE OF TREEMAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT A PROTECTED TREE PERMIT FROM THE PARKSDIVISION (558-7330) NO TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED FOR THIS PROJECT.3. WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE NOT REQUIRED SINCELANDSCAPE WILL NOT BE REHABILITATED AS NOTED ON PLANS.4. A PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, AND WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, TO MANAGE STORMWATER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. CGC 4.106.2 & CGC 4.106.35. ALL SPRINKLER DRAINAGE SHALL BE PLACED INTO LANDSCAPING AREAS6. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN (L1.0) FOR LOCATION OF EXISTING TREES & MAJORSHRUBS.7. CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE ARE TO BE REPLACED.8. ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS TO BE REPLACED WITHNEW 4" LATERAL. EXISTING WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS ARETO BE REPLACED. ALL ABANDONED SEWER LATERAL OR WATER SERVICE SHALL BEDISCONNECTED AT MAIN AND PER CITY REQUIREMENTS.9. NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES ARE PROPOSED BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE ANDINTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.CAL GREEN SITE DEVELOPMENT1. PROJECTS THAT DISTURB LESS THAN 1 ACRE SHALL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT APLAN TOMANAGE STORM WATER DRAINAGE (DURING CONSTRUCTION). A BMP PAGE ISSUFFICIENT.2019 CGC 4.106.22. PLANS SHALL INDICIATE HOW GRADING + PAVING WILL PREVENT SURFACE WATERFLOWSFROM ENTERING BUILDINGS. EXCEPTION: PROJECTS THAT DO NOT ALTER THEDRAINAGEPATH. 2019 CGC 4.106.33. ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (EV( CHARGING, PARKING SPACES: COMPLY W/ RELEVANTSECTIONS2019 CGC 4.106.4PUBLIC WORKS NOTES1. A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITES ENCHROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO (1)REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE, (2)PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL ANEW 4" LATERAL, (3) ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINSFOR SERVICES OF FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER =CITY STANDARDPROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION. (4) AND OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITYWORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT-OF WAY.2. ALL WATER LINES CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES ORFIRE LINE PROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARDPROCEDURES AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. CONTACT THE CITY WATERDEPARTMENT FOR CONNECTION FEES. IF REQUIRED, ALL FIRE SERVICES ANDSERVICES 2" AND OVER WILL BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER. ALL UNDERGROUNDFIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SEPARATEUNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE PERMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.STORMWATER CHECKLIST NOTES1. DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF INTO CISTERNS OR RAIN BARRELS AND USE RAINWATERFOR IRRIGATION OR OTHER NON-POTABLE USE.2. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS, AND/OR PATIOS ONTOVEGETATED AREAS.3. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM DRIVEWAYS AND/OR UNCOVERED PARKING LOTS ONTOVEGETATED AREAS.4. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS AND/OR PATIOS WITH PERMEABLESURFACES.5. USE MICOR-DETENTION, INCLUDING DISTRIBUTED LANDSCAPE-BASEDDETENTION.6. PROTECT SENSITIVE AREAS, INCLUDING WETLAND AND RIPARIAN AREAS, ANDMINIMIZE CHANGES TO THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY.7. MARK ON SITE INLETS WITH THE WORDS "NO DUMPING! FLOWS TO BAY" OREQUIVALENT.8. (A.) RETAIN EXISTING VEGETATION AS PRACTICABLE (B) SELECT DIVERSESPECIES APPROPRIATE TO THE SITE. INCLUDE PLANTS THAT ARE PEST- AND/ORDISEASE-RESISTANT, DROUGHT-TOLERANT, AND/OR ATTRACT BENEFICIAL INSECTS.(C) MINIMIZE USE OF PESTICIDES AND QUICK -RELEASE FERTILIZERS.9. DESIGN FOR DISCHARGE OF FIRE SPRINKLERS TEST WATER TO LANDSCAPE ORSANITARY SEWER.10. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROLS TO STABILIZE ALL DENUDED AREAS UNTILPERMANENT EROSION CONTROLS ARE ESTABLISHED.11. DELINEATE WITH FIELD MARKERS THE FOLLOWING AREAS: CLEARING LIMITS,EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, SENSITIVE OR CRITICAL AREAS,BUFFER ZONES, TREES TOBE PROTECTED AND RETAINED, DRAINAGE COURSES.12. PROVIDE NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS OR ATTACHEMENTS DESCRIBING THEFOLLOWING: (A) CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EROSION ANDSEDIMENT CONTROLS, INCLUDE INSPECTION FREQUENCY; (B) METHODS ANDSCHEDULE FOR GRADING, EXCAVATION, FILLING, CLEARING OF VEGETATION , ANDSTORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED OR CLEARED MATERIAL, (C)SPECIFICATIONS FOR VEGETATIVE COVER & MULCH, INCLUDE METHODS ANDSCHEDULES FOR PLANTING AND FERTILIZATION (D) PROVISIONS FOR TEMPORARYAND OR PERMANENT IRRIGATION13. PERFORM CLEARING AND EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES ONLY DURING DRYWEATHER14. USE SEDIMENT CONTROLS OF FILTRATION TO REMOVE SEDIMENT WHENDEWATERING AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.15. PROTECT ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS IN VICINITY OF SITE USING SEDIMENTCONTROLS (E.G. BERMS, SOCKS, FIBER ROLLS OR FILTERS)16. TRAP SEDIMENT ON-SITE, USING BMP'S SUCH AS SEDIMENT BASINS OR TRAPS,EARTHEN DIKES OR BERMS, SILT FENCES, CHECK DAMS, COMPOST BLANKETS ORJUTE MATS, COVERS FOR SOIL STOCK PILES, ETC.17. DIVERT ON-SITE RUNOFF AROUND EXPOSED AREAS; DIVERT OFF-STE RUNOFFAROUND THE SITE (E.G SWALES AND DIKES)18. PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND UNDISTURBED AREAS FROMCONSTRUCTION IMPACTS USING VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERSOR FILTERS, DIKES,MULCHING OR OTHER MEASURES AS APPROPRIATE.19. LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES AND STABILIZE DESIGNATED ACCESSPOINTS.20. NO CLEANING, FUELING OR MAINTAINING VEHICLES ON-SITE, EXCEPT IN ADESIGNATED AREA WHERE WASHWATER IS CONTAINED AND TREATED.21. STORE, HANDLE AND DISPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS/WASTESPROPERLY TO PREVENT CONTACT WITH STORMWATER.22. CONTRACTOR SHALL TRAIN AND PROVIDE INSTRUCTION TO ALLEMPLOYEES/SUBCONTRACTORS RE: CONSTRUCTION BMP'S.23. CONTROL AND PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF ALL POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS,INCLUDING PAVEMENT CUTTINGWASTES,PAINTS,CONCRETE, PETROLEUMPRODUCTS,CHEMICALS,WASHWATEROR SEDIMENTS, RINSE WATER FROMARCHITECTURAL COPPER, AND NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES TO STORMDRAINS AND WATERCOURSES.A1.0Scale: 1/8 = 1'-0"1EXISTING SITE PLAN2 L1.0!"#$%&'()*+#!"#$"%&'(%)*(+#(,-.&/012)+&31+(4&5678)+91:(;<=>&),(-".(/012 3%#*"()+456(!7(819:; <%*=(;09>?1/>@:0: ABCD%*%C%#'EF*+#GE$+&%>$"C( Drawn 2/08/22 By: JGR Scale: NOTED ),(-".(/012 3%#*"()+456(!7(819:; <%*=(;09>?1/>@:0: ABCD%*%C%#'EF*+#GE$+&%>$"C( 23 0 8 16 N LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN 1/8” = 1’-0”1 PLAN ABBREVIATIONS: AC AIR CONDITIONER BU DRAINAGE OUTFLOW BUBBLER BW BOTTOM OF WALL CL CENTER LINE CO SEWER CLEAN OUT D DEPTH DG DECOMPOSED GRANITE DIA DIAMETER (E) EXISTING ELEV ELEVATION EM ELECTRIC METER EQ EQUAL GM GAS METER H HIGH HT HEIGHT LF LINEAR FEET MAX MAXIMUM (N)NEW NG NATURAL GAS NTS NOT TO SCALE OC ON CENTER PA PLANTING AREA PE POOL EQUIPMENT PL PROPERTY LINE POC POINT OF CONNECTION PP POWER POLE QTY QUANTITY R RISER RAD RADIUS SAD SEE ARCH DRAWINGS SCD SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS SF SQUARE FEET T TREAD TC TOP OF COPING TW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL OF UP UTILITY POLE W WIDTH WM WATER METER REMODELED RESIDENCE (N) GARAGE (N) ADU (N) RAISED VEG BEDS (N) OUTDOOR KITCHEN LOCATION (N) BRICK PATH (E) BRICK OPTIONAL (N) DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH (N) 36” BRICK PILLARS WITH OPEN STYLE WOOD FENCE WM SCO (N) ACCENT TREE (N) ENTRY WALKWAY (N) WIDENED DRIVEWAY SECTION (N) GROUNDCOVER AREA WITH BRICK BORDER (E) TREE (TYP) (N) FRONT PORCH MATERIAL (N) CONCRETE SIDEWALK/ DRIVEWAY APPROACHC H A P I N L N(E) DRIVEWAY GATEOPTIONAL (N) DRIVEWAY MATERIAL DN DN DN DN DN GM PL EM (N) SOD LAWN (N) PATIO WITH RAILING (N) GAS FIRE PIT (N) DINING PATIO OR IPE DECKING OPTIONAL (N) ACCENT FEATURE/ WATER FEATURE (N) TREE (TYP)(N) SCREENING SHRUBS (TYP) (N) DRIVE ON SUPPORT MATERIAL UNDER LAWN (N) PARKING/ BASKETBALL AREA (N) ADU PATIO PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA (N) FENCE AND GATE PA CHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPGRADE/TYPSKLTSKLT9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0" (E) LOT LINE2ND FLR. TOP PLATEAVERAGE T.O.C.TOP OF RIDGE26'-7" 3'-0"9'-8 1/2"2'-2 1/2"50'-0"D.H.E LEFT SIDE97.02'14'-0"45°7'-6" (E) LOT LINERIGHT D.H.E.96.43'45° 14'-0"(E)28'-3 1/2" OVERALL HEIGHT9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0" (E) LOT LINE100.00'109.00'110.08'2ND FLR. TOP PLATE118.58'AVERAGE T.O.C.96.68'126.68'TOP OF RIDGE125.01'26'-7 1/2"D.H.E LEFT SIDE97.02'14'-0" 3'-0"(E) DRIVEWAY(N) STONE VENEER(E) STUCCO(N) STONE VENEER @ FOUNDATION50'-0"CEDAR SHINGLES 5" EXP.(BLUE LABEL) (MITEREDCORNERS)G.S.M. GUTTER SYSTEM(PAINTED), TYP.ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES GRACE UNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.SIERRA-PACIFIC WOOD/CLADWDS. + DRS, PUTTY SDLSTANDARD, 3-COAT STUCCO(SMOOTH FINISH) OR OLDSCHOOL PITTED STUCCO(PAINTED)BRICK VENEEREXISTING (OVERALL REMODEL/RE-DESIGN)(E) GRADE/TYP.(E) STUCCO7'-6"RIGHT D.H.E.96.43'45°45° 14'-0"9'-8 1/2"36"+ HEIGHT DIFFERENCEFROM GRADE TO F.F.12123123123TEMP.EGRESSEGRESS(E) FENCE (PROTECT)97.00'+/-DS(E) FENCE (PROTECT)EXISTING1x6 CEDAR T&G (CENTERMATCH) (TYP.)4x6 BRACKETS (TYP.)28'-4" OVERALL HEIGHT Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :10-01-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_29Job No. : Owner : APN#: 028-311-060 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 9,203 SQ. FT. RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 01.31.2022 Existing & Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.0A3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING FRONT ELEVATIONA3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION11 CHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPGRADE/TYP9'-0" 1'-1" 8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0"2ND FLR. TOP PLATEAVERAGE T.O.C.TOP OF RIDGE26'-7" 3'-0" (E) LOT LINE 9'-8 1/2"50'-0"2'-2 1/2"D.H.E LEFT SIDE97.02'14'-0"45° 14'-0"RIGHT D.H.E.96.43'7'-6"45°9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0" (E) LOT LINE97.00'+/-100.00'109.00'110.08'2ND FLR. TOP PLATE118.58'AVERAGE T.O.C.96.68'126.68'TOP OF RIDGE125.01'26'-7 1/2" 14'-0" 3'-0"(E) DRIVEWAY50'-0"(E) FENCE (PROTECT) (E) LOT LINE D.H.E LEFT97.02'14'-0"50'-0"RIGHT D.H.E.96.43'7'-6"45°1231231231297'-6"EGRESSTEMP.TEMP.DS(E) FENCE (PROTECT)(N) BBQGLASS GUARDRAIL 36" (NOT SHOWNFOR SIMPLIFICATION OF ELEVATION)9'-8 1/2" Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :10-01-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_29Job No. : Owner : APN#: 028-311-060 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 9,203 SQ. FT. RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 01.31.2022 Existing & Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.1A3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING REAR ELEVATIONA3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION CHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPGRADE/TYPNOTE BNOTE BSKLTNOTE B9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0"2ND FLR. TOP PLATEAVERAGE T.O.C.TOP OF RIDGE26'-7"D.H.E3'-0"9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0"97.00'+/-100.00'109.00'110.08'2ND FLR. TOP PLATE118.58'AVERAGE T.O.C.96.68'126.68'TOP OF RIDGE26'-7 1/2"3'-0"125.01'123123123123123TEMP.TEMP.PRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORSPRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORSPRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORS(N) TERRACE(E) FRONT YARDTEMP.DSDSDS24" METAL ROOF PANELS(TYP.)TEMP. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :10-01-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_29Job No. : Owner : APN#: 028-311-060 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 9,203 SQ. FT. RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 01.31.2022 Existing & Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.2A3.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING LEFT ELEVATIONA3.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION CHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPGRADE/TYPNOTE BNOTE B9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0"2ND FLR. TOP PLATEAVERAGE T.O.C.TOP OF RIDGE26'-7"D.H.E3'-0"GRADE/TYP9'-0"1'-1"8'-6"(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. TOP PLATE2ND FLR. F.F.30' HT LIMIT30'-0"97.00'+/-100.00'109.00'110.08'2ND FLR. TOP PLATE118.58'AVERAGE T.O.C.96.68'126.68'TOP OF RIDGE26'-11"3'-5"125.01'(E) 1ST FLR. F.F.PRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORSPRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORSPRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORSEGRESSPRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORS(E) STUCCO(E) STUCCO + (N) PATCHING(E) STUCCO + (N) PATCHINGADDITIONEXISTING (OVERALL REMODEL/RE-DESIGN)(N) STONE VENEER @ FOUNDATION10'-0" MAX.PER 25.26.075(2)FALSE WINDOW123CEDAR WOODBRACKET14'-0"TEMP.(N) TERRACE(E) GRADE(E) FRONT YARD(N) TERRACE(E) REAR YARDTEMP.PRIVACY FOR NEIGHBORSDSDSDSDSDS2'-4 1/2"(E) STUCCO + (N) PATCHINGGLASS GUARDRAIL 36" Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :10-01-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_29Job No. : Owner : APN#: 028-311-060 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 9,203 SQ. FT. RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 01.31.2022 Existing & Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.3A3.3Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATIONA3.3Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION BUILDINGFINISHED FLOOR = 100.0±BUILDINGBUILDINGGARAGESHEDLAWNLAWNLAWNBRICK DRIVEWAYWOOD DECKCONCRETEASPHALT COURTPLAY AREABUILDINGBRICK WALL & CHAIN LINK FENCE CHAIN LINK FENCEWOOD FENCEWOOD FENCEBRICKPORCHWATERMETERBRICK PATHWOOD FENCEELEC.METERGASMETERBRICK PATHCONCRETEAREADRAINSANITARYSEWERCLEANOUT(3)4"JAPANESE MAPLEPAVERDRIVEWAYCONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER BRICK GRAVEL CONCRETETENNIS BACKBOARDCONC.PAVERS WOOD FENCE96.1597.1496.6796.6897.0396.6396.8196.9096.5696.3496.0697.0296.9397.1897.0296.7196.8796.7596.6196.3796.3396.3596.1796.2596.4896.6396.5296.0196.1796.5396.5396.6296.5997.4997.5096.9296.8996.7397.1297.1497.0897.0997.0797.0197.0297.0297.0097.0697.0497.4497.3998.0699.76100.0296.7396.7096.7396.5096.5897.1097.0997.2197.6198.1999.8997.1997.0997.1097.0096.9896.8497.2596.1496.50109.8096.5098.0296.6896.8696.8698.2899.8598.3798.2397.1797.7596.9396.8796.9696.9396.9596.6396.7996.6696.6196.7996.8096.7796.3497.5397.0096.8596.2596.8696.3996.3396.3496.4896.0396.0296.0596.0696.0896.1196.0396.0296.0096.1396.0996.2096.1596.1296.1096.7395.8695.9496.1596.1596.1996.2296.2496.1796.8697.30979 7 971.9'S65°30'40"W - 184.57'S26°26'45"E - 50.03'S65°30'40"W - 183.54'N27°37'05"W - 50.07'SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOORFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBRICK WALL & CHAIN LINK FENCE WATERMETERSANITARYSEWERCLEANOUTPAVERDRIVEWAY(N) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (N) CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER BRICK GRAVEL 96.1597.1496.6796.6897.0396.6396.8196.9096.5696.3496.0697.0296.9397.1897.0296.7196.8796.7596.6196.3796.3396.3596.1796.2596.4896.6396.5296.0196.1796.5396.5396.6296.5997.4997.5096.9296.8996.7397.1297.1497.0897.0997.0797.0197.0297.0297.0097.0697.0497.4497.3998.0699.76100.0296.7396.7096.7396.5096.5897.1097.2197.1097.2596.1496.50109.8096.5098.2896.6396.7996.6696.6196.7996.8096.7796.3497.0096.8596.2596.8696.3996.3396.3496.4896.0396.1196.0096.1396.0996.2096.1596.1095.8695.9496.1596.1596.1996.2296.2496.1796.8697.3097S65°30'40"W - 184.57'S26°26'45"E - 50.03'S65°30'40"W - 183.54'N27°37'05"W - 50.07'DISTANCE FROM(E) HOUSE TOPROPERTY LINE2'-5"(E) GAS METER(N) 200 AMP.ELECT. METER20'-0" REAR SETBACK 4'-0" SIDE SETBACK4'-0" SIDE SETBACK23'-9" FRONT SETBACK 2'-8"1'-6"1'-0" 2'-5"12'-10"DISTANCEFROM (E)HOUSE TOPROPERTYLINE 12'-10"2'-6"4'-0"94'-6"20'-0"5'-10"4'-0"(E) 2-STORYFAMILYRESIDENCE(N) GARAGE(N) PAVERS(N) LANDSCAPE& LAWN(N) PATIO(N) LANDSCAPE& LAWN(E) COVEREDPORCH(N) 6' WD. GATE(E) 6' WD. FENCE(PROTECT)(E) 6' WD. FENCE(PROTECT)(N) 4" SEWER LINES(N) PATHWATER(N) AUTOGATEFIRST/SECONDFLOOR ADDITION(N)(E)(N)(E) BRICK(N) BRICK98.0296.68(E) CHAIN LINK FENCE(PROTECT)(N) CONCRETESIDEWALK +APPROARCH PERCITY STANDARDSADJ. CONC APRON (N) PATIO(N) ADU2'-2"98'-2"2ND FLR1ST FLR2NDFLR1ST FLR1ST FLR31'-6"96'-2"(N) DRIVEWAY 2ND FLR2'-2"4'-11" Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :10-01-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_29Job No. : Owner : APN#: 028-311-060 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET Mr. + Mrs. Kent Kockos 309 Chapin Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 9,203 SQ. FT. RESPONSE TO PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 01.31.2022 Existing & Proposed Site Plan See DetailsA1.0A1.0Scale: 1/8 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED SITE PLANGENERAL NOTES & SCOPE1. PROTECT ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPING AND TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION,CONSULT ARBORIST AS REQUIRED.2. NO EXISTING TREES OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54" FROM BASE OF TREEMAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT A PROTECTED TREE PERMIT FROM THE PARKSDIVISION (558-7330) NO TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED FOR THIS PROJECT.3. WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE NOT REQUIRED SINCELANDSCAPE WILL NOT BE REHABILITATED AS NOTED ON PLANS.4. A PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, AND WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, TO MANAGE STORMWATER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. CGC 4.106.2 & CGC 4.106.35. ALL SPRINKLER DRAINAGE SHALL BE PLACED INTO LANDSCAPING AREAS6. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN (L1.0) FOR LOCATION OF EXISTING TREES & MAJORSHRUBS.7. CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE ARE TO BE REPLACED.8. ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS TO BE REPLACED WITHNEW 4" LATERAL. EXISTING WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS ARETO BE REPLACED. ALL ABANDONED SEWER LATERAL OR WATER SERVICE SHALL BEDISCONNECTED AT MAIN AND PER CITY REQUIREMENTS.9. NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES ARE PROPOSED BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE ANDINTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.CAL GREEN SITE DEVELOPMENT1. PROJECTS THAT DISTURB LESS THAN 1 ACRE SHALL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT APLAN TOMANAGE STORM WATER DRAINAGE (DURING CONSTRUCTION). A BMP PAGE ISSUFFICIENT.2019 CGC 4.106.22. PLANS SHALL INDICIATE HOW GRADING + PAVING WILL PREVENT SURFACE WATERFLOWSFROM ENTERING BUILDINGS. EXCEPTION: PROJECTS THAT DO NOT ALTER THEDRAINAGEPATH. 2019 CGC 4.106.33. ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (EV( CHARGING, PARKING SPACES: COMPLY W/ RELEVANTSECTIONS2019 CGC 4.106.4PUBLIC WORKS NOTES1. A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITES ENCHROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO (1)REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE, (2)PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL ANEW 4" LATERAL, (3) ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINSFOR SERVICES OF FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER =CITY STANDARDPROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION. (4) AND OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITYWORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT-OF WAY.2. ALL WATER LINES CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES ORFIRE LINE PROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARDPROCEDURES AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. CONTACT THE CITY WATERDEPARTMENT FOR CONNECTION FEES. IF REQUIRED, ALL FIRE SERVICES ANDSERVICES 2" AND OVER WILL BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER. ALL UNDERGROUNDFIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SEPARATEUNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE PERMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.STORMWATER CHECKLIST NOTES1. DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF INTO CISTERNS OR RAIN BARRELS AND USE RAINWATERFOR IRRIGATION OR OTHER NON-POTABLE USE.2. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS, AND/OR PATIOS ONTOVEGETATED AREAS.3. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM DRIVEWAYS AND/OR UNCOVERED PARKING LOTS ONTOVEGETATED AREAS.4. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS AND/OR PATIOS WITH PERMEABLESURFACES.5. USE MICOR-DETENTION, INCLUDING DISTRIBUTED LANDSCAPE-BASEDDETENTION.6. PROTECT SENSITIVE AREAS, INCLUDING WETLAND AND RIPARIAN AREAS, ANDMINIMIZE CHANGES TO THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY.7. MARK ON SITE INLETS WITH THE WORDS "NO DUMPING! FLOWS TO BAY" OREQUIVALENT.8. (A.) RETAIN EXISTING VEGETATION AS PRACTICABLE (B) SELECT DIVERSESPECIES APPROPRIATE TO THE SITE. INCLUDE PLANTS THAT ARE PEST- AND/ORDISEASE-RESISTANT, DROUGHT-TOLERANT, AND/OR ATTRACT BENEFICIAL INSECTS.(C) MINIMIZE USE OF PESTICIDES AND QUICK -RELEASE FERTILIZERS.9. DESIGN FOR DISCHARGE OF FIRE SPRINKLERS TEST WATER TO LANDSCAPE ORSANITARY SEWER.10. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROLS TO STABILIZE ALL DENUDED AREAS UNTILPERMANENT EROSION CONTROLS ARE ESTABLISHED.11. DELINEATE WITH FIELD MARKERS THE FOLLOWING AREAS: CLEARING LIMITS,EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, SENSITIVE OR CRITICAL AREAS,BUFFER ZONES, TREES TOBE PROTECTED AND RETAINED, DRAINAGE COURSES.12. PROVIDE NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS OR ATTACHEMENTS DESCRIBING THEFOLLOWING: (A) CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EROSION ANDSEDIMENT CONTROLS, INCLUDE INSPECTION FREQUENCY; (B) METHODS ANDSCHEDULE FOR GRADING, EXCAVATION, FILLING, CLEARING OF VEGETATION , ANDSTORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED OR CLEARED MATERIAL, (C)SPECIFICATIONS FOR VEGETATIVE COVER & MULCH, INCLUDE METHODS ANDSCHEDULES FOR PLANTING AND FERTILIZATION (D) PROVISIONS FOR TEMPORARYAND OR PERMANENT IRRIGATION13. PERFORM CLEARING AND EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES ONLY DURING DRYWEATHER14. USE SEDIMENT CONTROLS OF FILTRATION TO REMOVE SEDIMENT WHENDEWATERING AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.15. PROTECT ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS IN VICINITY OF SITE USING SEDIMENTCONTROLS (E.G. BERMS, SOCKS, FIBER ROLLS OR FILTERS)16. TRAP SEDIMENT ON-SITE, USING BMP'S SUCH AS SEDIMENT BASINS OR TRAPS,EARTHEN DIKES OR BERMS, SILT FENCES, CHECK DAMS, COMPOST BLANKETS ORJUTE MATS, COVERS FOR SOIL STOCK PILES, ETC.17. DIVERT ON-SITE RUNOFF AROUND EXPOSED AREAS; DIVERT OFF-STE RUNOFFAROUND THE SITE (E.G SWALES AND DIKES)18. PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND UNDISTURBED AREAS FROMCONSTRUCTION IMPACTS USING VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERSOR FILTERS, DIKES,MULCHING OR OTHER MEASURES AS APPROPRIATE.19. LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES AND STABILIZE DESIGNATED ACCESSPOINTS.20. NO CLEANING, FUELING OR MAINTAINING VEHICLES ON-SITE, EXCEPT IN ADESIGNATED AREA WHERE WASHWATER IS CONTAINED AND TREATED.21. STORE, HANDLE AND DISPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS/WASTESPROPERLY TO PREVENT CONTACT WITH STORMWATER.22. CONTRACTOR SHALL TRAIN AND PROVIDE INSTRUCTION TO ALLEMPLOYEES/SUBCONTRACTORS RE: CONSTRUCTION BMP'S.23. CONTROL AND PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF ALL POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS,INCLUDING PAVEMENT CUTTINGWASTES,PAINTS,CONCRETE, PETROLEUMPRODUCTS,CHEMICALS,WASHWATEROR SEDIMENTS, RINSE WATER FROMARCHITECTURAL COPPER, AND NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES TO STORMDRAINS AND WATERCOURSES.A1.0Scale: 1/8 = 1'-0"1EXISTING SITE PLAN1111111 L1.0!"#$%&'()*+#!"#$"%&'(%)*(+#(,-.&/012)+&31+(4&5678)+91:(;<=>&),(-".(/012 3%#*"()+456(!7(819:; <%*=(;09>?1/>@:0: ABCD%*%C%#'EF*+#GE$+&%>$"C( Drawn 2/08/22 By: JGR Scale: NOTED ),(-".(/012 3%#*"()+456(!7(819:; <%*=(;09>?1/>@:0: ABCD%*%C%#'EF*+#GE$+&%>$"C( 23 0 8 16 N LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN 1/8” = 1’-0”1 PLAN ABBREVIATIONS: AC AIR CONDITIONER BU DRAINAGE OUTFLOW BUBBLER BW BOTTOM OF WALL CL CENTER LINE CO SEWER CLEAN OUT D DEPTH DG DECOMPOSED GRANITE DIA DIAMETER (E) EXISTING ELEV ELEVATION EM ELECTRIC METER EQ EQUAL GM GAS METER H HIGH HT HEIGHT LF LINEAR FEET MAX MAXIMUM (N)NEW NG NATURAL GAS NTS NOT TO SCALE OC ON CENTER PA PLANTING AREA PE POOL EQUIPMENT PL PROPERTY LINE POC POINT OF CONNECTION PP POWER POLE QTY QUANTITY R RISER RAD RADIUS SAD SEE ARCH DRAWINGS SCD SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS SF SQUARE FEET T TREAD TC TOP OF COPING TW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL OF UP UTILITY POLE W WIDTH WM WATER METER REMODELED RESIDENCE (N) GARAGE (N) ADU (N) RAISED VEG BEDS (N) OUTDOOR KITCHEN LOCATION (N) BRICK PATH (E) BRICK OPTIONAL (N) DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH (N) 36” BRICK PILLARS WITH OPEN STYLE WOOD FENCE WM SCO (N) ACCENT TREE (N) ENTRY WALKWAY (N) WIDENED DRIVEWAY SECTION (N) GROUNDCOVER AREA WITH BRICK BORDER (E) TREE (TYP) (N) FRONT PORCH MATERIAL (N) CONCRETE SIDEWALK/ DRIVEWAY APPROACHC H A P I N L N(E) DRIVEWAY GATEOPTIONAL (N) DRIVEWAY MATERIAL DN DN DN DN DN GM PL EM (N) SOD LAWN (N) PATIO WITH RAILING (N) GAS FIRE PIT (N) DINING PATIO OR IPE DECKING OPTIONAL (N) ACCENT FEATURE/ WATER FEATURE (N) TREE (TYP)(N) SCREENING SHRUBS (TYP) (N) DRIVE ON SUPPORT MATERIAL UNDER LAWN (N) PARKING/ BASKETBALL AREA (N) ADU PATIO PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA (N) FENCE AND GATE PA City of Burlingame Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 1829 Sebastian Drive Meeting Date: May 23, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Tim Raduenz, Form+One APN: 025-302-050 Property Owners: Gina and Yousef Shamieh Lot Area: 9,321 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains a one-story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. The applicant is proposing a first floor addition at the rear of the house, which includes a 210 SF loggia, and a new 632 SF second story with a second floor deck located above the proposed loggia. The proposed house will increase in floor area from 3,083 SF (0.33 FAR) to 3,699 SF (0.34 FAR) where 4,083 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). The subject property is located within the Hillside Overlay Zone. Code Section 25.20.040 states that hillside development shall be designed to preserve existing distant views. View preservation shall be limited to obstruction of distant views to San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Airport, and Mills Canyon from primary indoor living areas (living rooms and family rooms) (Code Section 25.20.040.B). Planning staff would note that the Special Permit requirement, limit of 75 SF, and increased side setbacks (Code Section 25.10.030 – Table 25.10-2) do not apply to lots located within the Hillside Overlay in order to accommodate the ability to capture views from these properties and because many of these lots are sloped so that a deck/balcony is the primary way to provide a level area in the rear yard. With this project, the number of bedrooms will increase from three to five (the proposed den on the second floor counts as a bedroom). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on-site. Two covered parking spaces are provided in the attached garage (19’-0” x 21’-10” clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020.C.1.b.); and  Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.70.020.A.). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 9a Design Review Study Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1829 Sebastian Drive 2 1829 Sebastian Drive Lot Area: 9,321 SF Plans date stamped: May 11, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 15’-9” n/a no change 72’-7” 15’-0” or block average 20’-0” or block average Side (left): (right): 7’-7” 8’-0” no change 8’-0” (to addition) 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 57’-5” n/a 35’-11” 35’-11” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 3,119 SF 33.5% 3,333 SF 35.8% 3,728 SF 40% FAR: 3,083 SF 0.33 FAR 3,699 SF 0.34 FAR 4,083 SF 1 0.44 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 5 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (15’-0” x 21'-10” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 2 covered (19’-0” x 21’-10” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 2 covered (18' x 18' for existing conditions) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Building Height: 20’-8” 28’-0” 30'-0" DH Envelope: not applicable complies Special Permit (C.S. 25.10.035.2) ¹ (0.32 x 9,321 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4,083 SF (0.44 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: wood clad • Doors: wood clad • Siding: board and batten, brick, stucco • Roof: concrete roof tiles and asphalt shingles Staff Comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1829 Sebastian Drive 3 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Any decision to approve a Hillside Area Construction Permit application pursuant to Code Section 25.20.040 and Chapter 25.70 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the purpose of the Hillside Overlay Zone. 2. The project complies with the development standards found in Section 25.20.040.B through I. 3. The placement of the proposed construction does not have a substantial impact on adjacent properties or on the character of the immediate neighborhood. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Tim Raduenz, Form+One, applicant and architect Gina and Yousef Shamieh, property owners Attachments: Project Application Hillside Area Construction Permit Application Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 13, 2022 Area Map SIDE SETABCK 72'-0"(E) LOT LINE 6'-0" 8'-6"TOP PLATE 8'-4 1/2"RIDGE30'-0"12'-0"7'-6"AVG. T.O.C.FIN. FLOORDHE30' HEIGHT LIMIT12'-0"DHE454.51'20'-8 5/8" (E) LOT LINE(E) MARVIN WDS. +DRS, WOODCLADCONCRETE ROOFTILESBRICKSTUCCOPAINTEDBOARD + BATTEN(E)WHITE(E)(E)WHITE(E)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF) (E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)455.55'454.62'451.70481.70'464.05'472.41'SIDE SETABCK 72'-0"(E) LOT LINE 6'-0"TOP PLATERIDGE12'-0"FIN. FLOOR455.55'DHE454.62'30' HEIGHT LIMIT12'-0"DHE101.25'(E) LOT LINE464.05'472.41'(E) MARVIN WDS. +DRS, WOODCLAD(E) CONCRETEROOF TILESBRICKSTUCCOPAINTEDBOARD + BATTEN(E)WHITE(E)(E)WHITE(E)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF) (E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)45° 8'-6"30'-0"RIDGE28'-0"479.70'FIN. FLOOR465.49' 7'-11 1/2"TOP PLATE473.44' 6'-3 1/4" 1'-5 1/4"ADDITION2ND FLOOR45° 7'-6"AVG. T.O.C.451.70481.70' Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098MR. + MRS. YOUSEF SHAMIEH 1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :01.07.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_01Job No. : Owner : APN#: 025-302-050 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET MR. + MRS. YOUSEF 1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formExisting + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.0A3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING FRONT ELEVATIONA3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION1111RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM 05.03.2022 05.11.2022 (E) LOT LINE (E) LOT LINE 72'-0"12'-0"7'-6"DHE(E) WHITESAVE(E)BLACK(E)BLACKTEMP.4X14 VENT4X14 VENT4X14 VENT4X14 VENT(E)SAVE(E)SAVE(E)(E)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF) (E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF) 8'-6"TOP PLATE 8'-4 1/2"RIDGE30'-0"AVG. T.O.C.FIN. FLOORDHE30' HEIGHT LIMIT20'-8 5/8"455.55'454.62'464.05'472.41'481.70'451.70454.51'(E) LOT LINE (E) LOT LINE 72'-0"FIN. FLOOR 8'-6"TOP PLATE30'-0"7'-5 1/2"AVG. T.O.C.DHE30' HEIGHT LIMITTEMP.TEMP.ADDITION(N)(N)(E)(E)(N)(E)NO WORK4X14 VENT4X14 VENT4X14 VENT4X14 VENT4X14 VENT(E) CONCRETEROOF TILESMARVINWDS. + DRS,WOOD CLAD(N) ASPHALTSHINGLES TOCOMPLIMENT(E) CONCRETEROOF TILES(N) STUCCO TOMATCH (E) STUCCO(TYP.)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF) (E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)(E) GRADE (TYPICAL)(E) GRADE (TYPICAL)RIDGE28'-0"FIN. FLOOR 7'-11 1/2"TOP PLATE 6'-3 1/4" 1'-5 1/4"TEMP.(N)(N)2ND FLOOR45°3'-6" 7'-6"45°455.55'454.62'464.05'479.70'465.49'473.44'OPTION DUTCH-HIPROOF TO MATCH(E) ROOF451.70481.70' Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098MR. + MRS. YOUSEF SHAMIEH 1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :01.07.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_01Job No. : Owner : APN#: 025-302-050 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET MR. + MRS. YOUSEF 1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formExisting + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.1A3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING REAR ELEVATIONA3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED REAR ELEVATIONRESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM 05.03.2022 05.11.2022 FRONT YARDREAR YARD(E)BLACK(E)BLACK(E)BLACKD.S.(E) LOT LINE (E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF) 8'-6"TOP PLATE 8'-4 1/2"RIDGEAVG. T.O.C.FIN. FLOORDHE20'-8 5/8"455.55'454.62'464.05'472.41'451.7030'-0"30' HEIGHT LIMIT481.70'FRONT YARDREAR YARDFIN. FLOOR 8'-6"TOP PLATEAVG. T.O.C.DHE(E) (N)ADDITIONEXISTING(E)(E)(E)(N)(N)(E) D.S. 1'-5 1/4"RIDGE28'-0"FIN. FLOOR 7'-11 1/2"TOP PLATE 6'-3 1/4"(N)(N)2ND FLOOR(PRIVACY FORNEIGHBORS)(PRIVACY FORNEIGHBORS)(PRIVACY FORNEIGHBORS)(PRIVACY FORNEIGHBORS)(N)D.S.61230'-0"30' HEIGHT LIMIT(E) LOT LINE(E) RETAINING WALLWOOD (REMOVED)ADDING CONCRETERETAINING WALL(S.S.D.)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)(N) CONC RETAININGWALL W/ STUCCOFINISH (S.S.D.)(N) PRIVACY LATTICEINSTALLED BY OWNERON EXISTING FENCE1'-0"(N) SCULPTURAL TREES464.05'455.55'454.62'479.70'465.49'473.44'481.70'451.70 Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098MR. + MRS. YOUSEF SHAMIEH 1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :01.07.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_01Job No. : Owner : APN#: 025-302-050 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET MR. + MRS. YOUSEF 1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formExisting + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.2A3.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATIONA3.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION1111RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM 05.03.2022 05.11.2022 FRONT YARDREAR YARDD.S.(E) A.C.4X14 VENT4X14 VENTGASELEC.(E)BLACK(E)BLACK(E)(E)(E) LOT LINE(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF) 8'-6"TOP PLATE 8'-4 1/2"RIDGEAVG. T.O.C.FIN. FLOORDHE20'-8 5/8"455.55'454.62'464.05'472.41'451.7030'-0"30' HEIGHT LIMIT481.70'FRONT YARDREAR YARDFIN. FLOOR 8'-6"TOP PLATE 1'-5 1/4"RIDGEAVG. T.O.C.DHE28'-0"(N) (E)ADDITIONEXISTING(E)(E)(E)CASEMENTS ORSLIDERS TO MATCH(E) MARVIN (TYP.)1'-0"TVLINEAR GAS F/U(E) A.C.4X14 VENT4X14 VENTGASELEC.(E)(E)(N) STUCCO TOMATCH (E) STUCCO(TYP.)(E) LOT LINE(E) RETAINING WALLWOOD (REMOVED)ADDING CONCRETERETAINING WALL(S.S.D.)(E) WD. FENCE 6' (VIF)(N) CONC RETAININGWALL W/ STUCCOFINISH (S.S.D.)(N) PRIVACY LATTICEINSTALLED BY OWNERON EXISTING FENCE1'-0"(E) GRADE (TYPICAL)(N)FIN. FLOOR 7'-11 1/2"TOP PLATE 6'-3 1/4"VIF(N)TEMP.(N)(N)22'-10 1/2"12'-0"(N)D.S.2ND FLOOR6123'-6"(N)30'-0"30' HEIGHT LIMIT(N) SCULPTURAL TREES464.05'455.55'454.62'479.70'465.49'473.44'481.70'451.70 Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098MR. + MRS. YOUSEF SHAMIEH 1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :01.07.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_01Job No. : Owner : APN#: 025-302-050 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET MR. + MRS. YOUSEF 1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formExisting + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.3A3.3Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING LEFT ELEVATIONA3.3Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATIONRESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM 05.03.2022 05.11.2022 K-108-3ANTIQUEFAUCETBRASS K-108-3ANTIQUEFAUCETBRASS K-108-3ANTIQUEFAUCETBRASSLSM 45LSM 45D.S.D.S.(E) CEMENT TILE ROOF(E) CLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) PROTECT612(E) SLOPE612(E) SLOPE(E)SLOPE6 12 (E) SLOPE 6 12 (E) SLOPE 6 12 (E) SLOPE 6 12 (E) SLOPE (E) RIDGE (E) RIDGE(E) RIDGE(E) VALLEY(E) VALLEY(E ) V A L L E Y (E ) V A L L E Y(E) HIP(E) HIP(E) HIP(E) HIP(E) G.S.M. GUTTER (PROTECT)(E) G.S.M. GUTTER (PROTECT)(N) RIDGE(N) RIDGE 612 (E) SLOPE (N) (E) 612(N) SLOPE612(N) SLOPE(N) G.S.M. GUTTER(MATCH EXISTING)D.S.A3.32 A3.12 A3.22 A3.01D.S.D.S.D.S.(N) VALLEY(N) VALLEY612(N) SLOPE612(N) SLOPE(N) CEMENT TILE ROOF(N) CLASS A: FIRE RATEDProposed Roof Plan See DetailsA2.3 Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098MR. + MRS. YOUSEF SHAMIEH 1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :01.07.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_01Job No. : Owner : APN#: 025-302-050 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SET MR. + MRS. YOUSEF 1829 SEBASTIAN DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formRELATED CODE REQUIREMENTS: (EGRESS)1. EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE A MIN. NET CLEAR OPERABLE AREA OF5.7 SQUARE FEET.2. THE MINIMUM NET CLEAR WIDTH DIMENSION SHALL BE 20"3. THE MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT DIMENSION SHALL BE 24"RELATED CODE REQUIREMENTS: (BATHS) (CONT.):PLUMBING:- SHOWER MUST BE PROVIDED W/ TEMPERATURE CONTROL (ANIT-SCALD)TYPE VALVE. TOILETS MUST HAVE A MIN. CLEAR SPACE OF 30" WIDE, & 24"CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT. IF NEW, TOILETS MUST BE WATER CONSERVING 1.28GALLON. SHOWER DOORS SHALL OPEN OUTWARD AND SHALL BE A MIN. 22"WIDE, THE SHOWERHEAD CANNOT DISCHARGE DIRECTLY AT ENTRANCE. ALLSHOWER COMPARTMENTS, REGARDLESS OF SHAPE,MUST BE CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A 30" CIRCLE. JOB-FORMED SHOWERPAN LINER MUST SLOPE 14" PER FOOT TO WEEP HOLES IN DRAIN, AND BEINSPECTED UNDER TEST PRIOR TO COVERING.RELATED CODE REQUIREMENTS: (BATHS) (CONT.):BUILDING:- SHOWER WALL SHALL BE FINISHED TO A HEIGHT 72" A/ THE DRAIN INLETW/ MATERIAL THAT IS NOT AFFECTED BY MOISTURE. GREEN BD. CANNOTBE USED AS A BACKER FOR MASTIC TILE WHERE IT WILL BE EXPOSED TOSPLASHING WATER & IS NOT ALLOWED ON CLGS.CEMENT BOARD WITH A MOISTURE BARRIER & CORROSION-RESISTANTFASTENERS IS AN APPROPRIATE BACKING MATERIAL IN WET LOCATIONS.MIN. CEILING HEIGHT FOR ALL BATHROOMS IS 7'-0". SAFETY GLAZING ISREQUIRED FOR WINDOWS IN TUB OR SHOWER LOCATIONS WHERE THEBOTTOM EDGE OF GLASS IS LESS THAN 5'-0" ABOVE THE DRAIN. AS PARTOF REMODEL SMOKE DETECTORS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL BEDROOMS,ADJOINING HALL, & AT EACH LEVEL PER THE BUILDING CODE.RELATED CODE REQUIREMENTS: (BATHS)(CONT.)ELECTRICAL:- IT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE RECEPTACLE WITHIN 3-FEET OFTHE OUTSIDE EDGE OF EACH BASIN, THIS RECEPTACLE AND ANY OTHERSLOCATED WITHIN THE BATHROOM MUST BE GFCI PROTECTED.- A SEPARATE 20-AMP CIRCUIT IS REQUIRED TO SUPPLY BATHROOMOUTLETS ONLY, OR A SINGLE BATHROOM.- LIGHTING WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE HIGH EFFICACY OR CONTROLLED BYA MANUAL ON OCCUPANTSENSOR SWITCH. (TYPICALLY HIGH EFFICACY LIGHT FIXTURES ARE PINBASE FLUORESCENT WITH ELECTRONIC BALLAST.MECHANICAL:- A FAN CONNECTED TO THE OUTSIDE CAN BE PROVIDED, FAN EXHAUSTSHOULD BE 3-FEET FROM BUILDING OPENINGS AND PROPERTY LINES. BE INSPECTED UNDER TEST PRIOR TO COVERING.GENERAL NOTES:1. PROVIDE 30" MIN. CLEAR WIDTH, 15" ON BOTH SIDES FROM CENTERLINEOF W.C.) AND 24" CLEARANCE IN FRONT OF THE W.C. PER CPC 402.52. PROVIDE MIN. SHOWER AREA - 1024 SQ. INCHES, CAPABLE OFENCOMPASSING A 30" CIRCLE. SEE PLANS PER CPC 408.63. TEMPERED GLAZING, TYP. AT ALL DOORS AND REQUIRED BY CODE4. PROVIDE DEVICES TO ABSORB HIGH PRESSURES RESULTING FROM THEWASHER & DISHWASHER, ETC., PER CPC5.NA6. EXHAUST VENT FOR DRYER SHALL TERMINATE TO THE OUTSIDE OF THEBUILDING AND SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A DRAFT DAMPER AND SHALL BERIGID METAL DUCT WITH SMOOTH INTERIOR SURFACES PER CMC SECT.504.7. VERIFY ALL FINISH FLOOR CALL-OUTS W/ OWNERS, TYP.8. SUB- PANEL ELECT., VERIFY LOCATION.9. NA10. ALL SHOWER WALLS TO BE WATERPROOF TO 72" ABOVE DRAIN INLET,WALL FINISHES TO BE OF SMOOTH HARD NONABSORBENT SURFACE, PERCRC R307.2 (CEMENT BASED)11. NA12. NA13. WATER HAMMER ARRESTORS AT ALL APPLIANCES THAT HAVEQUICK-ACTING VALVES (I.E.) DISHWASHERS HOT WATER LINE AND THEHOT/COLD LINES OF THE CLOTHES WASHER) 2019 CPC 609.10.14. CONTROL VALVE FOR SHOWER OR TUB/SHOWER SHALL BE OF THEPRESSURE BALANCE OR THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE, PER CPC420.0.15. THRESHOLD FOR IN-SWING DOORS SHALL BE 7.75" MAX. AND 7" MAX.FOR OUTSWING DOORS.16. (N) GAS METER LOCATION, PG&E, TYPICAL 36" FROM OPERABLEWINDOWS.17. (N) ELECTRICAL METER LOCATION18. MAX. DROP FROM TOP OF THRESHOLD TO THE EXT. LANDING AT ALLSLIDING AND IN-SWINGING DOORS SHALL BE LIMITED TO 7.75", AND NOTMORE THAN 1.5" LOWER THAN THRESHOLD FOR OUTSWING DRS. PER2019 CRC R311.319. (N) STAIRS TO HAVE MAX. RISER HEIGHT OF 7.75" AND A MIN. TREADDEPTH OF 10" PER CRC R311.7.4.20. A CAPILLARY BREAK WILL BE INSTALLED IF A SLAB ON GRADEFOUNDATION SYSTEM IS USED. THE USE OF A 4" THICK BASE OF 1/2" ORLARGER CLEAN AGGREGATE UNDER A 6 MIL VAPOR RETARDER WITHJOINT LAPPED NOT LESS THAN 6" WILL BE PROVIDED UNLESS ANDENGINEERED DESIGN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THEBUILDING DIVISION . 2019 CGC §4.505.2 AND CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIALCODE (CRC) §R5O6.2.321. BUILDING MATERIALS WITH VISIBLE SIGNS OF WATER DAMAGE WILLNOT BE INSTALLED. WALL AND FLOOR FRAMING WILL NOT BE ENCLOSEDWHEN THE FRAMING MEMBERS EXCEED 19% MOISTURE CONTENT.MOISTURE CONTENT WILL BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO FINISH MATERIAL BEINGAPPLIED. 2019 CGC §4.505.322. NA23. ANY GAS FIREPLACE WILL BE DIRECT-VENT SEALED-COMBUSTIBLETYPE 2019 CGC §4.503.124. NEW MANDATORY U-FACTOR (0.58) FOR FENESTRATION ANDSKYLIGHTS §150.0B25. WALLS WITH 2X6 AND LARGER FRAMING REQUIRE R-19INSULATION§150.0(C)226. ANY WOOD STOVE OR PELLET STOVE WILL COMPLY WITH US EPAPHASE II EMISSION LIMITS 2019 CGC §4.503.127. PLUMBING CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE THE CITY BUILDINGINSPECTOR A SINGLE LINE DRAWING OF THE EXISTING AND NEW GASLINES AND INDICATE THE DISTANCE FROM THE METER TO EACH GASFIRED APPLIANCE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. INCLUDE THE SIZE OF THEGAS PIPE TO EACH APPLIANCE AND BTU RATING OF EACH APPLIANCE.GAS PIP SIZING WILL BE SIZED PER TABLE 1216.2(1) IN THE 2019 CPC.NOTE: ANY INSTALLATION OF NEW GAS PIPING PRIOR TO PLAN CHECKAPPROVAL IS AT THE RISK OF THE CONTRACTORS RISK.28. HOT WATER PIPING INSULATION §150.0 (j)2 A ii29. LIGHTING - NEW MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR INDOOR ROOMS§150.0 (K)30. RADIANT BARRIER REQUIRED IN CLIMATE ZONE 3 §150.0 (C) 231. REDUCE U-FACTOR (0.30) AND SHGC (0.20) FOR HIGH PERFORMANCEWINDOWS §150.1 (C) 3 A32. ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND CAULKS USED ON THE PROJECT SHALLFOLLOW LOCAL AND REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION OR AIR QUALITYMANAGEMENT DISTRICT STANDARDS 2019 §4.504.2.133. ANNULAR SPACES AROUND PIPES, ELECTRIC CABLES, CONDUITS OROTHER OPENINGS IN SOLE/BOTTOM PLATES AT EXTERIOR WALL WILL BERODENT-PROOFED BY CLOSING SUCH OPENINGS WITH CEMENT MORTAR,CONCRETE, MASONRY OR SIMILAR METHOD ACCEPTABLE TO THEENFORCING AGENCY. 2019 CGC § 4.406.134. ROOF EAVES SHALL NOT PROJECT WITHIN 2" OF THE PROPERTY LINEWHERE SETBACK IS 4' PER 2019 CRC § TABLE R302.1 (1) OR 2019 CBCTABLE 705.2. ALL ROOF PROJECTIONS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THEPOINT WHERE FIRE- RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIREDWILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE- RATEDCONSTRUCTION PER 2019 CRC § R302.1 (1) OR 2019 CBC § 705.2.35. EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS LESS THAN 5' FROM THE PROPERTY LINEWILL BE BUILT OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RATED CONSTRUCTION. 2019 CRCTABLE R302.1 (1) § OR 2019 CBC, TABLE 602.36. REQUIRED: NON-COMPLIANT PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE REPLACEDBY WATER-CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURES WHEN A PROPERTY ISUNDERGOING ALTERATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS.37. PLUMBING - INDOOR WATER USE:-THE EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME OF WATER CLOSETS WILL NOT EXCEED1.28 GAL/FLUSH (2019 CGC - 4.303.1.1) FOR DUAL FLUSH TOILETSAVERAGE TWO REDUCED FLUSHES WITH ONE FULL FLUSH- THE EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME OF URINALS WILL NOT EXCEED 0.125GAL/FLUSH (2019 CGC - 4.303.1.2- MAX. FLOW RATE FOR SHOWERS SHALL BE 1.8 GPM, @ 80 PSI (20194.303.1.3- MAX. FLOW RATE FOR LAVATORY FAUCETS SHALL BE 1.2 GPM, @ 60 PSI(2019 CGC 4.303.1.4.1)- MAX. FLOW RATE FOR KITCHEN FAUCETS SHALL BE 1.8 GPM, @ 60 PSI,CAN TEMPORARILY INCREASE TO 2.2 GPM, BUT MUST DEFAULT BACK TOMAX. FLOW RATE OF 1.8 GPM (2019 CGC 4.303.1.4.4).A2.3Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1PROPOSED ROOF PLANPLUMBING & HVAC NOTE:1. GROUP ALL EXHAUST FLUES TOGETHER WHENPOSSIBLE & LOCATE ON ROOFS SLOPING TO THE REAROF HOUSE TYP. VERIFY LOCATION W/ DESIGNER.VENTILATION CALC:SQ. FT. OF (N) ROOF: 2,649.00 SQ. FT.(N) 2,649/150 = 17.66 SQ. FT. OF VENTILATION IN EXISTING ROOF(N) ROOF VENTS (27 ea. X .75 SQ. FT.) = 20.25 SQ. FT.TOTAL VENTILATION INSTALLED = 20.25 SQ.FT.