The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2024.07.08Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers/Online7:00 PMMonday, July 8, 2024 Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this Planning Commission Meeting will be held in person and virtually via Zoom. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can observe the meeting virtually or attend the meeting in person. Below is information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting. To Attend the Meeting in Person: Location: Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 To Attend the Meeting via Zoom: To access the meeting by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 853 5587 4074 Passcode: 302809 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-669-444-9171 Meeting ID: 853 5587 4074 Passcode: 302809 Please note that the public may not make public comments via Zoom during Planning Commission meetings. The public may either attend the meeting in person to comment or send an email to publiccomment@burlingame.org (see below). To Provide Public Comment in Person: Members of the public wishing to speak will be asked to fill out a "Request to Speak" card located on the table by the door and then hand it to staff. The provision of a name, address, or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, however, the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2024 July 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Agenda To Provide Public Comment via Email: Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org to be read aloud during the public comment period for an agenda item. 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 Calendar. The length of the comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure that 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 July 8, 2024. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time but cannot guarantee such emails will be 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. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online 2. ROLL CALL 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION Announcements/consideration and approval of requests by Planning Commissioners to participate remotely pursuant to AB 2449 (Government Code Section 54943(f)). 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft June 24, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft June 24, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA The public is permitted to speak on items that are listed under the Consent Calendar, Commissioner ’s Reports, Director Reports, Requests for Future Agenda Items, new items, or items not on the agenda . Public comments for scheduled agenda items should wait until that item is heard by the Planning Commission. Persons are required to limit their remarks to three (3) minutes unless an extension of time is granted by the Chair. Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the Planning Commission and, if relevant, the Commission may direct them to the appropriate staff member. 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. 7. STUDY ITEMS There are no Study Items. Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2024 July 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 8. CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1588 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved first and 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.(Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Vincent Ko, property owner ) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali a. Staff Report Attachments Plans Attachments: 1472 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Debo Sodipo, dZXYN Management Group, designer; Tan Tseng, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao b. Staff Report Attachments Plans Attachments: 114 Bayswater 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. (Quinn Ye, Rockwood Home Development LLC, applicant and designer; Rockwood Home Development LLC, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi c. Staff Report Attachments Plans Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2024 July 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way, zoned I /I - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for vehicle storage in an existing warehouse building. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301. (Sailesh Mehra c/o Larry Soloman; Michael Nilmeyer, Nilmeyer and Nilmeyer, architect;Whitehorn LLC c/o SC Properties (Kevin Cullinane)) (29 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon d. Staff Report Attachments Plans Attachments: 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There are no Design Review Study Items. 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting of July 1, 2024 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 14. 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, July 8, 2024 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 July 8, 2024. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on July 18, 2024, 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 $900.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2024 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, June 24, 2024 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Interim Community Development Director Ruben Hurin, Assistant Planner Fazia Ali, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent6 - ComarotoAbsent1 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft June 10, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft June 10, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: The following corrections were made: Item 9a; first bullet under Commission Discussion /Direction: change "...window is a lot. It if is cumulative, people change just one window, it can be a lot of windows 25% in any direction." to "...window size is a lot, in particular if it is cumulative. People may change just one window, but it could be a lot of windows of 25% in any direction." Item 9a; first bullet under Commission Discussion /Direction: insert ", nor made larger all over" after "My concern is that windows don't look great when made smaller all over". Item 10b; first bullet from top of page: change "may move one" to "may move on". Vice-Chair Horan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Page 1City of Burlingame June 24, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Robert Yorio, 2325 Adeline Drive: I am here to speak about the environmental review and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Mercy High School Athletic Center that was on the June 10th Planning Commission meeting. I have reviewed the meeting minutes and a few comments said to the commission . I am here tonight with my neighbors from 2335 Adeline Drive. We have some concerns about the location, use and access to what is referred to in the applicant ’s construction logistics plan as the Construction Parking Lay Down Area. It’s an area on the maps where construction equipment will be situated during construction and where the construction workers will come in and out to park on their daily work. That location is across the street almost directly from our property. Adeline Drive is particularly narrow at that proposed location. The contractor ’s plan indicates that there will be two 8-ft wide gates to accommodate the delivery of equipment and access for as many as 50 workers over the course of the 14-month construction of the project. That is a real problem for neighbors that live on Adeline Drive and the adjoining streets, daily commuters who go down Adeline Drive to El Camino Real in the morning and back in the afternoon, and parents and students who are driving and walking to either Lincoln Elementary, Hoover Elementary, Burlingame Intermediate or Mercy High School itself. There’s a lot of foot traffic in the morning. Parents walking kids, high school kids walking by themselves, elementary students some with parents and some without. There are 4, four-way stop intersections from El Camino Real to the site where this construction lay down location is. I reviewed the comments about this area from the June 10th meeting and from my reading of the meeting minutes, there was an attempt to address this issue by noting that worker parking during construction will be at a lot inside the property instead of Adeline Drive where there is clearly not enough parking spaces, including side streets. But that approach misses the main safety concerns. Cars and trucks driving to the proposed site will greatly increase the traffic during morning commute hours. Equipment movers and workers will be traveling right next to the parents, students and children walking and biking on their way to the neighborhood schools mentioned earlier. There’s an alternative that I want to point out to the commission. If you look at the map, there is an area at the end of Hoover Avenue that is called the Eucalyptus Lot which is used for overflow parking. It seems big enough and relatively flat to accommodate workers who come daily. They can park there and be shuttled over to the construction site. It would greatly alleviate the traffic problems on Adeline Drive with this proposed site for the construction lay down. I encourage the commission to take a look at that. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a.Adoption of Resolution Updating the Guidelines Regarding the Level of Review Required for After-Action Changes to Approved Design Review Projects. Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Staff Report Attachments Resolution Attachments: Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Page 2City of Burlingame June 24, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS There were no Regular Action Items. 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1556 Balboa Way, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Alex Tzang Architects, applicant and architect; Daniel Gage, property owner) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1556 Balboa Way - Staff Report 1556 Balboa Way - Attachments 1556 Balboa Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Shores noted that he briefly spoke with the property owner during his site visit. Assistant Planner Ali provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Ricci Wu, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Acknowledged receiving the letter from the neighbor. I have a similar thought expressed in this letter . The front does not hold the whole thing together. >Appreciate the 3-D views provided, it really helps us to see what your design is trying to accomplish . Also appreciate the new gable entry to try and move away from the full ranch style architecture. But I agree with my fellow commissioner that the second story is not holding the first floor together. We don ’t get much of ranch style homes that have second stories. It just looks like something that has been put on top instead of integrating into the design of the first floor. I was hoping that the front piece would do it, but it’s not. Now that you have turned the gable ends of the second floor towards the street, which I typically like, with the board and batten going all the way up to the ridge beam there is not much break up there. It is making the second floor look taller than it is. Appreciate the 8-foot plate height, but the proposed design is making it look disproportionately bigger on top on what is traditionally a low ranch style base. It has some scale challenges. Suggests making it feel integrated both on top and the bottom. >The wrap-around roof at the first level does break up a larger plane in the back in the elevation, but I’m not sure if you can keep the rafters when you build the rest of the structure going up. Consider providing an overhang, a belly band or another way to differentiate the lower floor plane from the upper floor. The materials don ’t bother me. We are just not getting the scale to integrate quite right. The wrap around roof is not doing any favors in the back. I see some great potential but am struggling with scale and a few other items. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. Appreciate how this design is trying to get together but I am having some issues with the proportions of the second story in relation to the main floor regarding window Page 3City of Burlingame June 24, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes sizing. In some cases, the large window in the primary bedroom is out of scale in relation to the multi-sliding door down below. Suggests addressing it more carefully. There could be a better way to connect the upper floor with the lower floor rather than having the tiny roof extensions between the levels, as my fellow commissioner suggested. I don ’t mind the material changes either, but the vertical board and batten on the second story is making the upper floor look taller than it really is. It could be because there is nothing on the pediment area that could help bring the scale down. A change of material or direction of materials can help. >From a design perspective you need to have the first and second stories come together cohesively and represent some type of a unified whole even though there may be material changes. I feel like the project is on the way to something but is not quite there. Not sure if a design review consultant may be able to aid this applicant in pulling the design cohesively. The vertical posts at the front porch are a little thin, they feel fragile in terms of holding up a large, framed member over the front porch. Needs adjustments to details of proportions, size and items like that. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. The design is going in the right direction. I like the massing on the second floor; I like the way it is set back. I don ’t mind the material change. I was confused why the overhang on the gable end is so narrow on the front versus the back of the house. There are two different dimensions shown. It would be good if we have an overhang on the front. The roof eaves look a little plain . I also agree that the front needs to be beefier if it is going to make a statement. >I am concerned that you are taking down 49.9% of the walls. If you take an extra 5-1/2 inches of wall down, you have now exceeded 50% and you will have to come back to the Planning Commission. It seems pretty close for a contractor to get on site, and you are exactly on the maximum FAR. If you make the house ten square inches bigger, you will be out of compliance. You are pushing it too close to the edge for a renovation. I am a little nervous about these numbers. >I don’t know if the design is far away. It is up to the applicant if they want to go through the design review consultant, it doesn’t seem that far to me. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. The comment from one of the neighbors stuck out to me. The front porch is beautiful, but as my fellow commissioner said, the posts need to be bigger. If that design is repeated somewhere in the eaves in the front, that may help with the it being plain. The shallowness at the front could use a similar depth. >I agree with everything that has been said. The applicant has received a lot of interesting points. Even though the front porch is not exactly in line with the farmhouse style, I think it is attractive and adds a lot . It is close and all the pieces are here. >We have a lot of examples in the Design Review Guidelines to help guide the applicant. A lot of those were well thought out by people who put a lot of effort into trying to help with the architectural styles . There’s a lot that you can take with that to apply. The project is close, there are just a few things that are not going your way right now. If you don’t address them, the next meeting will not go that well. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Horan, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - b.114 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Quinn Ye, Rockwood Home Development LLC, applicant and designer; Rockwood Home Development LLC, property owner) (65 Page 4City of Burlingame June 24, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 114 Bayswater Ave - Staff Report 114 Bayswater Ave - Attachments 114 Bayswater Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Ali provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Quinn Ye, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Curious why there was a porch exemption, why is that considered a porch and not just a regular door stoop? (Hurin: It is considered a porch because it is covered. Porches can be recessed or project out. In this case, it is a recessed porch.) >Wanted clarification on the new assembly bill regarding the number of bedrooms and parking. Staff mentioned that there are four bedrooms in this home and thus the requirement for two parking spaces . Doesn’t the living room on this floor plan qualify as another bedroom because it is enclosed? (Hurin: The code now specifically calls out living rooms as not being a bedroom. So, no matter the configuration of the room, enclosed or not, a living room is not considered a bedroom. Under the zoning code update, we listed the different types of rooms that are not considered bedrooms and a living room is one of those rooms.) >With regard to the water issue raised by a neighbor, is that something that is being addressed? (Ye: At the planning stage, we received a comment about the drainage. It seems okay that we are adding drainage on the other side. We will provide more details during the building permit stage. The same neighbor also raised a question about the fence. The existing fence is 5-foot tall with 1-foot of lattice on top. We will talk to the neighbors if they are willing to share the cost so we can raise it to a 6-foot fence with 1-foot of lattice on top. The same neighbor also requested that the door on the east side of the house contain frosted glass; we can do that.) >There are two risers at the front landing and another step up into the house from the front door . Consider raising the level of the front porch so there is a level transition between the porch and finished floor inside the house to build up the front porch and have a grander entrance. >This is quite well done and a very attractive home. >I agree with my fellow commissioner ’s comment regarding the details on the windows. I like the idea of having the header and the sill expressed and defined. You can do it in stucco in another color. It just needs to come out proud a little bit, so it shows significantly and not just a faint line. If it comes out like an eyebrow about an inch, you will get the effect. There are a lot of ways to do that easily. I would encourage you to do a section through the window system to show how it is bumping out the header piece . When windows details are provided, it helps us to know that you have thought about quality windows, how that assembly works and that you will have good trim details. I appreciate the rest of the drawings, but a Page 5City of Burlingame June 24, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes window detail would be fantastic and will clarify what we are looking for in that area. I didn ’t see any concerns and I think it will look nice. I am looking forward to it. >I agree that this is a very nicely tailored home. It has a nice style and massing with the modern Tudor architecture. The reason why I was questioning the window trim detail is because it can look cheap if it is not done well. You have mentioned that you are intending to use a prefabricated product; please provide a specification sheet along with the details for the next meeting so we have an idea of the product you are planning to use. There is a project currently being constructed along Hillside Drive near Alvarado Avenue, that detail looks horrible and very cheap. It is a nicely designed home but want you to pay attention to this one element because it can add a lot of interest to your windows. It is very pared down as modern, but the shadow details and corner edges being sharp versus rounded, can be expressed on the finished product. >I like the project; t does a good job. The proportion and massing are all good. Even though it is a modern Tudor style, the absence of anything in those large gable ends in the first story on the left side and the second story on the right side seems like dead space. It could use an additional detail, like a vent or something. If it is investigated and it does not look like it is going to add to the design, it ’s not a deal breaker for me. Overall, the design is good. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. It is a beautiful design. Thank you for providing the rendering, it is beautiful and very helpful. Looking at the rendering the first time, it seems a little elongated with the Tudor architecture having steep roofs and the windows can be a little wider. Now that I ’ve been looking at it longer, the design seems to grow on me. Consider widening the windows to see what it does. Otherwise, the project is great. >I like the width of the windows. >My fellow commissioner has an interesting idea about the gable with the vent. It would look nice and may pull it down. Also consider the comment about the front stoop having the same floor level as the house, it will look classy. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - c.1472 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. (Debo Sodipo, dZXYN Management Group, designer; Tan Tseng, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao 1472 Drake Ave - Staff Report 1472 Drake Ave - Attachments 1472 Drake Ave - Renderings 1472 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Ali provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Debo Sodipo, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Page 6City of Burlingame June 24, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Lynne Carson: I find it difficult to see yet another beautiful, historic home in Burlingame destroyed. The Burlingame neighborhoods are losing the charm of unique historic homes in favor of white shipping container houses. One of the characteristics that makes Burlingame a sought-after town to live in, are the homes. If someone doesn't like the style of a particularly beautiful, older home, don't buy it. At what point will the Planning Commission step in and stop the leveling of our beautiful Burlingame homes? Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Thank you for the presentation. Appreciate the thoroughness and for providing samples of homes for use to compare with. >There are inconsistencies between the floor plans, elevations and renderings. Correct drafting errors to be consistent with the design intent. Make sure that the line weights are correct to help us read the drawings appropriately. >On the sample of approved projects that were shown in the presentation, I just wanted to note that we don’t do skimpy porches anymore. At some point, we all realized that a porch needs to have a presence on your design. Thank you for making the porch have a presence on your design. >I appreciate the presentation and touching on some of the issues I had with the design based on the email we received from Mr. Sargent. I still think the windows are too big, especially the front windows. I am glad that the owners have decided to put divided lites because all the homes in the neighborhood have divided lites. In keeping with the neighborhood, that is a must. >1516 Bernal Avenue has more details on the gables while the gable on this house is plain. It could use a bit more detailing to add interest to the front of the house. >I like the idea of making the front columns larger and removing the faux veneer stone. Whenever I see faux veneer on columns, it does not work when it is 12 inches around because you are just seeing the edges of the veneer and it looks cheap. I would be in favor of removing the veneers entirely and just having a more substantial wood column. >What are the rules on the deck at the back? It is almost like a second -floor balcony. I am concerned about the privacy of the homes that are downhill from there. (Hurin: In this particular case, we have a down sloping lot. We consider a second floor deck to be at least 9 feet above adjacent grade. If you have a level lot, the second floor will be 9 feet above grade. In this case, it is less than 9 feet, so we still consider it a first floor deck. A Special Permit is not required and they are not limited to 75 square feet.) > I read through Mr. Sargent’s email and agree with a lot of the points he raised. The Bernal Avenue examples are not great for Drake Avenue. There are a lot of nice houses on that block that are a bit of a craftsman style and more historically noted. His points are well-taken. >The windows are too tall at the front. It has a western exposure, so those windows will get extremely hot. It’s either you will have some shades down or the room will take a lot of heat. As much as you want the view, consider that you will have a lot of sun exposure on that side. >I agree with my fellow commissioner about the gable end. Consider a material change to help with the scale quite a bit. We have been seeing a lot of people taking the materials all the way up to the ridge and it looks like something is missing. There is an opportunity to improve upon the scale in that area. Page 7City of Burlingame June 24, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Having divided lites is a huge enhancement in design. >The columns stuck out for me. If you look at 1151 Rosedale Avenue, which was recently completed, they did a poor job of doing those columns with the material and how skinny they are. It is just way out of scale. It is a great example of how not to do this; we are concerned about that. Sometimes straight square columns look skinny. There are a few examples on Howard Avenue where people have done a more angled base to their column or angled all the way up, like starting with 18 inches at the bottom and ending up with about 10 inches at the top. It gives you a more dynamic look and helps to avoid the skinny look . Another option to consider is building a low wall in between columns and help expand that material to make it be more than just a column base. >I am a little concerned about how the down slope on the left side and the retaining wall will impact the neighbor next door. Suggests providing a section of the site since you are raising the garage slab about 2- 3 feet where it is now. There would be some retaining to even out what is happening at the neighbor ’s side. I would hate for you to get that far along then get caught with the civil drawings and must change your design quite a bit. Just to make sure that both sides of the neighbors are happy and could make that work. >The windows are big. The divided lites will help bring down the scale, but there are still a lot of windows facing west. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. The window sizes should be addressed. Adding some divided lites will help in this situation. >I wanted to comment on the public comment that was read to us. We as a commission cannot weigh in on colors. Though somebody may be concerned about the preponderance of white and black houses in the city, it is not in our purview to comment on that. However, we can talk about materials. Looking at the stone cladding on the columns, suggests applying a different material on part of the house to add some architectural or textural interest. Consider adding some cladding along the front living room with reduced-sized windows. >The gable ends could have more attention which can benefit the design. >The split finish on the roofing materials is fine with the limit of standing seam metal roof over the front porch. >Samples have been provided on how to address the columns at the front porch, which I agree with. >Cleaning up the drawings, clarifying some of the details on the elevations to be consistent with the renderings will help. >The massing seems fine. I appreciate the thought that has been put into the presentation. >Thank you for the very detailed presentation. I wish more people had samples of designs that they were going for that are already built for us to look at, that was very helpful. I agree with what my fellow commissioners have said. >Right now, there are triangular pieces of wood at the gable ends which I have missed. The renderings are good, but they did not show as well. It is something going in the right direction. To make it stand out a little bit more, consider adding a belly band or a small strip of trim. >The divided lites are very important in this neighborhood. Page 8City of Burlingame June 24, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >In my opinion, this is the most beautiful block in Easton because it has a lot of old historic homes and the new ones have been done very meticulously with a lot of attention to detail and materials. It feels like a high bar but being informed of the context of that street may be helpful. >I didn’t have any issues with the attached garage. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Horan, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Interim Community Development Director Hurin noted that at the June 17, 2024 City Council meeting, Parks Superintendent /City Arborist Richard Holtz and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail presented information regarding the Tree Ordinance Update. Assistant City Attorney Spansail noted that the Ordinance will be returning to the City Council in the Fall. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Page 9City of Burlingame City of Burlingame Amendment to Design Review Address: 1588 Columbus Avenue Meeting Date: July 8, 2024 Request: Application for Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Designer: James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc. APN: 027-141-410 Property Owner: Vincent Ko Lot Area: 5,112 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. History and Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story single-unit dwelling at 1588 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on July 10, 2023 (see attached July 10, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued on October 31, 2023. The property owners decided to make a series of exterior modifications, which now requires an application for Amendment to the previously approved Design Review project. Please see the applicant’s explanation letter, date June 16, 2024, for changes made to the plans, which include: • Change the exterior stucco finish from a waved stucco pattern texture to smooth stucco. • Alter the style and material of the garage door from wood to steel (please see attached brochure). • Increase the size of the front door from 36” x 83” to 42” x 96”. Description of Previously Approved Project: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing one-story single-unit dwelling and an attached one-car garage. The approved project includes for a first-floor addition at the rear of the house and a new 935 SF second story, which increases the floor area from 1,277 SF (0.25 FAR) to 2,725 SF (0.53 FAR) where 2,736 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). With this project, the number of bedrooms increased from five to six (office on first floor qualifies as a bedroom). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on-site. Two covered parking spaces are provided in the existing attached garage (20’-6” wide x 19’-6” deep clear interior dimensions). The site is nonconforming in uncovered parking because there is not enough length provided in the driveway (15’- 1” to the inner edge of the sidewalk provided/existing where 18’-0” is the minimum required). However, because there is no change in the parking requirement based on the number of bedrooms (from five to six), a Parking Variance was not required in this case. All other Zoning Code requirements were met. The following application was approved by the Planning Commission on July 10, 2023: • Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020 (C)(1)(b)). The development table on the following page provides information for the originally approved project with this Amendment application. With this Design Review Amendment application, there are no changes proposed to the development standards. Item No. 9a Regular Action Item Amendment to Design Review 1588 Columbus Avenue -2- 1588 Columbus Avenue Lot Area: 5,112 SF Plans date stamped: June 25, 2024 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 21’-7” 42’-11” no change 21’-7” 15’-0” 20’-0” Side Setbacks (exterior, 1st flr): (2nd flr): (interior, 1st flr): (2nd flr): 8’-7” 8’-7” 35’-79” 35’-9” no change no change 30’-9 1/2” 35’-9” 7'-6” 12’-0” average 4’-0” 4’-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 37’-8” 37’-8” no change no change 15'-0” 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 1,973 SF 20% 2,116 SF 21.7% 3,893 SF 40% FAR: 3,160 SF 0.32 FAR 3,635 SF 0.37 FAR 4,014 SF 1 0.41 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 6 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (20’-6”W x 19’-6”D) 0 uncovered ² no change 2 covered (18’ x 18’) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) Building Height: 34’- 5½” 30’-0” (to addition) 30’-0” Plate Height: (1st flr): (2nd flr): 9’-1” 8’-0” no change 9’-0” 8’-0” Declining Height Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.10.055 ¹ (0.32 x 9,732 SF) + 900 SF = 4,014 SF (0.41 FAR) ² Existing nonconforming off-street parking (no uncovered parking space provided). Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites • Doors: wood front entry door and garage door • Siding: cement plaster finish • Roof: light weight tile roof and standing seam metal • Other: wood porch posts with wood corbel braces, wood fascia, decorative wood knee braces, decorative gable vents Staff Comments: None. Amendment to Design Review 1588 Columbus Avenue -3- 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. Suggested Findings for Amendment to Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the proposed structure and proposed revisions are compatible with the character of the neighborhood and that the architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s seven design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 25, 2024, sheets AC and A1.0 through A5.0 and revised sheets A.6 through A.9; 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 (to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition 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; Amendment to Design Review 1588 Columbus Avenue -4- 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; 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 verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Fazia Ali Assistant Planner c. James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc., designer, and applicant Vincent Ko, property owner Attachments: July 10, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Applicant Letter of Explanation, dated June 16, 2024 Garage Door Brochure Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 28, 2024 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, July 10, 2023 a.1588 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and 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.(Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Vincent Ko, property owner) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1588 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1588 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1588 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: This item was pulled off the Consent Calendar for further discussion at the request of a member of the public. All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Sam Williams, 2301 Valdivia Way: I, with my wife, Kara Williams, own the adjoining property. First, I want to thank this commission for letting us know about this improvement that's planned. Kevin, thank you for sending us the note. We live in a wonderful neighborhood, and I ’m really proud of the investment that our neighbors have put into their properties. We're excited to see our neighbors continue to invest in their properties. On the face of it, I don't have any major concerns with what the co -property is planning . One thing that was not so clear in the plans as drawn was that the slope that's at the back of the property runs down into Mills Creek. This is actually quite a steep slope. They're planning on putting the back of their property within 15 feet where this drops off about 30 feet down into an active waterway. This waterway along Mills Creek in the summer doesn't carry all that much water. In the winter, it picks up a considerable amount of water. We've noticed that there have been landslides along its length, which have threatened a number of the properties. So, what we want to ensure is that this is in the record. This is being built right next to an active waterway. We also want to ensure that appropriate engineering considerations are built in to mitigate any kind of landslide risks that might be incurred by building in this way. We also want to ensure that water that comes out of the property, and I ’ll point out that in their plans, they have said that's going to the street side, in no event go into the stream or into any kind of drainage ditch that abuts the stream bed because that would definitely contribute to the risk of slippage. Again, we're very happy to see our neighbors developing their land. We just want to make sure that everything is developed in a responsible way to ensure that we don't damage the waterways that we all enjoy. Thank you. >Chu: The Public Works Division did request that we show the top of the bank and that we must stay out of it. That's what we did. The foundation will match the existing, it is 15 feet away but the area that we're building is mostly flat. That's been there for a long time. It's only a single story that's 15 feet away Page 1City of Burlingame July 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from the property line. We will address the comment with regards to drainage, engineering, and foundation when we're ready to submit for a building permit. >Sam Williams, 2301 Valdivia Way: I will point out that the abutting property does appear to be trying to mitigate some slippage that's occurring on the slope that's right nearby. I really do think that you need to take that seriously. Building a standard foundation in that space is putting the stream bed at risk. It's putting your property at risk. I’d really like that to be entered into the record so that if there is future damage that's caused to the stream bed, that is acknowledged before this project begins. Thank you very much. >Hurin: Those issues are going to be reviewed by the Public Works Division and the Building Division to make sure that the correct type of foundation is used in this case, and that the drainage is properly handled as well. It's not really under the purview of the Planning Commission. It will be taken care of during the building permit review process. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I just wanted to thank the applicant for addressing our comments. The enhancements are beautiful aesthetically to coordinate with the already beautiful design of the home. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - Page 2City of Burlingame — #% %"&%" !""%(%! ' C+ C #!!!#'(%! "% ASSESSOR’S PARCEL # (APN) %,%',(!%#!',"#%(%,'''!"% '"!)!%!&'%(!"%%''"'&'" , !"*! APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE (IF DIFFERENT FROM PROPERTY OWNER) *%"'#%"#"&##'"!!%,('"%-'")##!''"&( ''&##'"!'"' #!!!" &&"!)&"! PROPERTY OWNER’S SIGNATURE %,%!''',"(%! '('"%','"%#%"((#"!%$(&'!"%#"&'#!&&( ''*''& APPLICATION ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE AS PART OF THE PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESS AND WAIVE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY ARISING "('""%%''"&('"! "!'"!(&#% '(# &!%)*&% )%!)% &##% '&# "'%............................ !"% "'"! &%"!&'%('"!#% ' &&"%,*!(!'( *%&& !+#'"! #83/>3<=;A623/:/22=3>>?;B5615?;/88=34@:215317>B688039/6832?; 1588 Columbus Ave 027-141-410 First and second story addition Vincent Ko 1588 Columbus Ave, Burlingame CA 94010 415-730-8563 vincentko2015@gmail.com James Chu; Chu Design Associate 210 Industrial Rd #205, San Carlos CA 94070 650-345-9286x1001 james@chudesign.com Digitally signed by James Chu DN: cn=James Chu, o=Chu Design Associates Inc., ou, email=James@chudesign.com, c=US Date: 2023.02.23 10:35:13 -08'00'Dec 5, 2022 Dec 5, 2022 JC ■ 22684 R-1 ■ ■ 1588 Columbus Ave, Burlingame CA 94010Vincent Ko FEB 23 2023 CDIPLG-Fazia Ali From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Paul Ureta < paul@chudesign.com > Friday, June 14, 2024 12:07 PM CDlPLG-Fazia Ali jack.shih@outlook.com; Vincent Ko; James Chu 1588 Columbus elevation revision request 1 588 Columbus elevation revision.pdf Follow up Completed Hi Fazia, Please see attached owners revision request letter below and 1588 Columbus revised elevation set for your kind review June 16, 2024 Dear Planning Committee, We are writing to propose a series of exterior modifications to our property located at 1588 Columbus Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010. The aim of these changes is to modernize the appearance of my home and ensure it contributes positively to the neighborhood's aesthetic and value. To achieve this, I am requesting approval to l) change the exterior stucco from textured to smooth, 2) alter the style and material of the garage door from wood to steel, and 3) increase the size of the front door to 42x96. Modern Architectural Trends The textured stucco currently adorning our home's exterior is representative of an outdated style that does not reflect the contemporary design trends prevalent in new housing developments. Modern architecture has increasingly favored the clean lines and sleek appearance of smooth stucco, and this change would align our home with these current preferences. Neighborhood Aesthetics Upon observing the neighborhood, it is apparent that the textured stucco of my residence stands out and does not harmonize with the prevailing aesthetic of our community. A transition to smooth stucco would allow for a more cohesive and visually appealing neighborhood environment, which is an important consideration for both current and prospective residents. Property Value Preservation Maintaining and enhancing the value of our homes is a mutual interest for all homeowners in our community. lt is our conviction that updating the stucco finish to a smooth texture will not only preserve but potentially elevate the marketability and desirability of our property and neighborhood. Garage Door Style & Material Change The garage door is a prominent feature of our home's facade. By updating to a more current style, our property will better reflect the modern and sophisticated character of the neighborhood. The new door style will also provide enhanced functionality and improved aesthetic appeal. Front Door Size lncrease The front door serves as the main entry point and sets the tone for the entire residence. Enlarging the front door will not only make a bold statement but will also improve accessibility. This modiflcation can make the entrance more welcoming and accommodate the diverse needs of residents and guests, including those with mobility challenges. 1 Maintenance and Longevity Smooth stucco offers practical benefits in terms of maintenance and durability. lts ease of cleaning, repair, and repainting can lead to decreased upkeep costs over time. Additionally, a smooth finish is less prone to cracks and weathering, which contributes to the longevity and structural integrity of the home. ln conclusion, we believe that these modifications will bring numerous advanteges, and we respectfully request the committee's consideration and approval. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We look foMard to your response and hope for a positive outcome. Warm regards, Jack Shih and Vincent Ko Thank you. Best regards, Poul Urelo Emcrili ooul@chudesign.com Website: www.chudesion.com Chu Design Assoclotes lnc. CUSTOM HOME DESIGN & ENGINEERING 210 lndustriol Rd. Suile 205 Son Corlos, CA 94070 Tel: (650)345-9285 x1004 This emaiI is from an externaI source. Please take caution when cticking tinks or opening attachments. When in doubt, contact your lT Department 2 Amarr"Classica' Looks can be deceiving. From a distance, you see wood, Up ctose, it's sturdy, durabte, low-maintenance steet. The Amarr Ctassica cottection of carriage house doors. Precision-shaped doors in fresh, ctean, c[assic carriage house stytes that go up and down tike traditionaI garage doors. Three-section tatl designs, instead of four, hetp detiver a more authentic carriage house look. Deception never [ooked so good. *L*" q 3,,' 8o.de.ux wllh J.rdln Wlndow3 (875, Vat.ncla wlth SelneWlndows (Vg) Tuscany wlth Ctos€d Arch (TI) III,rfII. Corton. wlth Clo$d Squ..a (C2) Luc6rn wlth Th.no5 Wlndows (Lt0) II zaiII rIlrll Ilrr-illlt il lrT PANEL DESIGNS LI. LUCERN CLOSEO ARCH T1 . TUSCANY CLOSEO ARCH SI. SANTIAGO CLOSED ARCH Vl. VALENCIA CLOSED ARCH T{I. NORTHAMPTON CLOSEO ARCH 31.',3,'X35i" mmmmmimmi ffim mmm C2. CORToNA CLOSED SOUARE mmmm mmNm l|uimmN , Norlhamptoh deSgn witfi tiadeira whdow5 in Walndwith Cant.rbury hahdtes and hlnqes I "t I% I It I -ffi!m IImr- ES-F-:i: - -+ ffi il ll g.i l,/ I ll mrmmm mflilmm mmmm mmmm NmN|luI ImNmN mmmm mNeNl NmN[m ML mTmmmmm Amarr'Classica' Construction Single-Layer: SteeI Steet Exterior Double-Layer: Steet+ lnsutation Triple-Layer: Steet + lnsutation + Steel Potyurethane SteetExterior lnsutation ftlt il SteeI Exterior Vinyt"Coated [".HIH"' II tl cL0sEo00uBLEARCH (tD) AvaitabteforT1D,StD,Lt0,vtD Steet lnler or CLOSED ARCH (I) . NORTHAMPTON CLOSEDARCH (] ). BORDEAUX Top Sections cLosEoARCH (1) Avaitable for Tl, Sl, Ll, Vl CLOSED SOUARE (2) . CORTONA CLOSEO 5OUARE (2) Avait bte forT2, 52, L2. V2ll CLOSEO SOUARE (2) . NORTHAMPTON CL0SE0 S0UARE (2) . B0R0EAUxY+ Aqgg PANELDESlGNS Carriage House INSULATIOIiI u-FAcroR ry R.VALUE' ENERGY EFFICIENCY OUIETOPERATIOI{ DOORTHICKNESS l1{SULATEo GLASS 0PTl0]'lt WIND LOADIAVAILABLE PAII{T FINISH WARRANTY' WORKMANSHIP/}IARDWARE WARRAiITY' AIIAIR cLASStCA cLt000 AI{ARR cLASStCA c12000 A].IARR cLASStCA c13000 Bottom Weather SeaI Specif ications Gtass 0ptions CLEAR (C) Bottom Weather Seat 7 Designs 2" (5.'lcm) Lifetime 3 Years Bottom Weather SeaI 7 Designs Polystyrenei 0.32 6.64 Better Better 2" (5.lcm) 7 Designs Polyurethane 0.22 13.35 Best Best 2" (5.1cm)II OANUBE (4)T NILE (6)' sErNE (8)* JARDIN (75) t rllsr Irr[rl rnl illrr-ll,rtlrlll iEffiI .lr aI\Ilt ltrIII III rlltr,Irltr IIIIIIIIII Ir CASTLE ROCK rNO INSERT IVADEIRA (5) RHrNE (7)r THAMES (]())* TRELUS (76)I I ni IITII]IiIrIIrl ItI *brllrtr rrr Irlr rrri illhlil 6pl -rllllIItr ilrillLifetime 5 Years Lifetime Lifetime I lnsubtion has passed ? Catcubted door section 3 X is your responsibiLily to . For compLete weranty d€taits, setFignilion, flamespread R.vabe islnscdnce mak€sureyourgarage door visitamaricomorconlactyour and smoke developed with DASMA TDS -ffi, m€et5 locat buitdinq codes, locat har deatei idex fire tesling. I price uFharge applies. Gg Verilied thlrmat perlormn.e rating pe. DASMAThemat Perform.nce Verification Program. Cotors ,,,.1,';'$:,";:';"Jfl::[?-'ll'.j[]llffiii,'"'fi,",X1,oocoooo CHMCOA GRAY(EF) DNKBROWN (0N) BUCX (BL) rWindow insert shown on Ctear glass. De3ign atso avaitabtewith 0bscure, Frost or0arkTint gtass. tLmper€d obscure gtasswilh bak€d.on ceramic de5i9n. Design visibitilyvaries dueto tighling. Decorative Hardware @D Aluminum decorativeslrap hing!swithctavosnotracohhrnded lorarch opanin95, VERSAILLES TRUE ALMONO WCKERTAN SNDTONE TERRATONEwHrrE[w) (aL) (wK] {s1) (TT) Atso avaitabte in two-tone options. III II An..,Cot.Z6.i' - r!i! ffi 'i,'":i:#:;#ff','":#:',,?;, ^85:",litj'5 imarr3oro,-zone. rl------ visityourtocat ? Srr**,*lIrlur snii^,n-n^"ei5 Afiirliii. slor€ for paint chips. 'E 'odd heights nor avait6bte in cL]o00/c12000. 8ffi GP CANTERBURY WEATHTREOGRAY GOLDENOAX(OK)T II{wz) il ll:il-.:-Jr@ BLUE RIOGE -a> IrE> ALPINE N4APLE CREEKWANUI(NT) hrdmrs are pre'g.inled;hom€owm can u* enerior btex Fint forcuslom cotots. Visit.mr.cm lor Fintng initruciions. Non{eclory pai.ting ol garege doorvoids the paint tinish waranty, ll :{F: OBSCURE (O)t lnsuteted gtasst availabte in C[ear, Frost and 0arkTint, FROST (WF)I DARKIINT (WD)I I Eil -tPrice u pc harge ap pties, C LAVO S NOTTINGHAM Amarr participates in the DASMA Thermat Perf ormance Verif ication Program. The program verifies the thermaI performance of a comptete -^^r:^-^t f^^-^-^^-Ltt, iL^t^r..^-|E^tt_a-.+^- tt oo:Eil "r -1r Ol/8'(0.32cm) Tempered DoubteStength AmarrCompantr 165 Carriage Court Winston-Satem, NC 27105 800-503.D00R www.amarr.com re= MADE IN USA ajC' - "rr RECYCLED STEEL I tlt Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT 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 Amendment for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling at 1588 Columbus Avenue, Zone R-1, Vincent Ko, property owner, APN: 027-141-410; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 8, 2024, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e) (2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF, and if all public facilities are available for maximum development permissible in the general plan, and the site is not in an environmentally sensitive area, is hereby approved. 1. Said Design Review Amendment 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. 2. 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 8th day of July, 2024 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment 1588 Columbus Avenue Effective July 18, 2024 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 25, 2024, sheets AC and A1.0 through A5.0 and revised sheets A.6 through A.9; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition 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 and Design Review Amendment 1588 Columbus Avenue Effective July 18, 2024 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 verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 1588 Columbus Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 027-141-410 City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1472 Drake Avenue Meeting Date: July 8, 2024 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. Applicants and Property Owner: Tan Tseng APN: 026-042-190 Designer: Debo Sodipo, dZXYN Management Group Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with an existing single-unit dwelling and an attached garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and attached garage and build a new, two-story single-unit dwelling with an attached garage and accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The proposed floor area is 3,016 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch and basement exemptions). The new single-unit dwelling would contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. One covered parking space (11’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) is provided in the attached garage and one uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 18’-0”) is provided in the driveway. Per C.S. 25.48.030(L)(3)(c), no parking is required for the ADU. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. Staff would note that Per C.S. 25.10.035(1), a Special Permit is not required in cases where an existing attached garage is being replaced with a new attached garage. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The site contains an existing protected size Magnolia tree (36-inch diameter) and two fruit trees (6 and 7-inch diameter). All three trees are proposed to be removed as part of this application. An Arborist Report, prepared by Mathey Tree Care, dated May 29, 2024 (attached), notes that the Magnolia tree is in poor health and recommends removal of the tree “as this tree is located in an unsuitable location and the space for the tree to grow is far too limited”, and that “the tree is in severe decline”. The Parks Division has reviewed the Arborist Report. Based on the proposed floor area, three landscape trees are required on-site. The proposed landscape plan includes three new 24-inch box landscape trees to be planted in the front yard, including one Chinese pistache, one Japanese blueberry, and one Southern magnolia. Therefore, the project complies with the Urban Reforestation Ordinance requirements. Staff would note that currently there is one street tree along the parcel frontage which would remain. Accessory Dwelling Unit This project includes the construction of a new 500 SF ADU on the first floor of the dwelling. Per State law, review of the ADU Permit application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined that the ADU complies with the ADU regulations. The attached ADU is exempt from lot coverage and floor area regulations. The applicant is requesting the following application: • Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and attached garage (C.S. 25.68.020 (C)(1)(a)). Item No. 9b Regular Action Item Design Review 1472 Drake Avenue -2- 1472 Drake Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: July 1, 2024 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): (attached garage): 25’-10” 34’-4” 31’-9” 24’-9” (block average) 20’-0” 25’-0” for single-car garage Side Setbacks (left): (right): 5’-8” 4’-0” 4'-0” 4’-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 35’-3” (23’-3” to deck) 34’-11” 15'-0” 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 2,164 SF 37% 2,400 SF 40% FAR: 3,016 SF 0.50 FAR 3,020 SF ¹ 0.50 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (11’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) 1 covered ² (10’-0” x 18’-0” clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) Building Height: 25’-11” 30’-0” Plate Height: (1st flr): (2nd flr): 9’-0” 8’-0” 9’-0” 8’-0” Declining Height Envelope: complies CS 25.10.055(A)(1) ¹ (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR). ² Per C.S. 25.48.030(L)(3)(c), no parking is required for the ADU. Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: composite (wood fiber and thermoplastic polymer) windows with divided lites • Doors: fiberglass entry door and glass panel garage door • Siding: stucco on the first floor and wood lap siding on the second floor • Roof: composition shingle and standing seam metal over the front porch • Other: wood trim Staff Comments: None. Design Review 1472 Drake Avenue -3- Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on June 24, 2024, the Commission expressed concerns about the size of the proposed windows at the front of the dwelling, the design of the proposed columns and roof gables, as well as the proposed retaining wall having adequate retainage. The Commission also suggested adding different materials to parts of the façade to add some architectural interest. The Commission voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached June 24, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, both dated July 1, 2024, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and suggestions. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a detailed list of the changes made to the project (see attachments). 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. 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; the proposed dwelling is consistent with the design guidelines; that the mass and bulk of the proposed structure is in scale with the lot and in relation to neighboring properties, and that architectural details follow a simple contemporary design, including the composite windows with divided lites, a fiberglass front entry door, stucco and wood lap siding, and composition shingle and standing seam metal roofing, making the project compatible with the 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. Design Review 1472 Drake Avenue -4- 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, building height, declining height envelope, and parking requirements. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 1, 2024, sheets A0.0 through A6.0, sheet L1.0, and topographic 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 (level of review to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 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 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; Design Review 1472 Drake Avenue -5- 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 verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Brittany Xiao Assistant Planner c. Tan Tseng, applicant and property owner Debo Sodipo, dZXYN Management, designer Attachments: June 24, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated July 1, 2024 Project Application Arborist Report, prepared by Mathey Tree Care, dated May 29, 2024 Email submitted by Rich Sargent, dated June 23, 2024 Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 28, 2024 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, June 24, 2024 c.1472 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. (Debo Sodipo, dZXYN Management Group, designer; Tan Tseng, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao 1472 Drake Ave - Staff Report 1472 Drake Ave - Attachments 1472 Drake Ave - Renderings 1472 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Ali provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Debo Sodipo, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Lynne Carson: I find it difficult to see yet another beautiful, historic home in Burlingame destroyed. The Burlingame neighborhoods are losing the charm of unique historic homes in favor of white shipping container houses. One of the characteristics that makes Burlingame a sought-after town to live in, are the homes. If someone doesn't like the style of a particularly beautiful, older home, don't buy it. At what point will the Planning Commission step in and stop the leveling of our beautiful Burlingame homes? Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Thank you for the presentation. Appreciate the thoroughness and for providing samples of homes for use to compare with. >There are inconsistencies between the floor plans, elevations and renderings. Correct drafting errors to be consistent with the design intent. Make sure that the line weights are correct to help us read the drawings appropriately. >On the sample of approved projects that were shown in the presentation, I just wanted to note that we don’t do skimpy porches anymore. At some point, we all realized that a porch needs to have a presence on your design. Thank you for making the porch have a presence on your design. >I appreciate the presentation and touching on some of the issues I had with the design based on the email we received from Mr. Sargent. I still think the windows are too big, especially the front windows. I am glad that the owners have decided to put divided lites because all the homes in the neighborhood have divided lites. In keeping with the neighborhood, that is a must. Page 1City of Burlingame June 24, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >1516 Bernal Avenue has more details on the gables while the gable on this house is plain. It could use a bit more detailing to add interest to the front of the house. >I like the idea of making the front columns larger and removing the faux veneer stone. Whenever I see faux veneer on columns, it does not work when it is 12 inches around because you are just seeing the edges of the veneer and it looks cheap. I would be in favor of removing the veneers entirely and just having a more substantial wood column. >What are the rules on the deck at the back? It is almost like a second -floor balcony. I am concerned about the privacy of the homes that are downhill from there. (Hurin: In this particular case, we have a down sloping lot. We consider a second floor deck to be at least 9 feet above adjacent grade. If you have a level lot, the second floor will be 9 feet above grade. In this case, it is less than 9 feet, so we still consider it a first floor deck. A Special Permit is not required and they are not limited to 75 square feet.) > I read through Mr. Sargent’s email and agree with a lot of the points he raised. The Bernal Avenue examples are not great for Drake Avenue. There are a lot of nice houses on that block that are a bit of a craftsman style and more historically noted. His points are well-taken. >The windows are too tall at the front. It has a western exposure, so those windows will get extremely hot. It’s either you will have some shades down or the room will take a lot of heat. As much as you want the view, consider that you will have a lot of sun exposure on that side. >I agree with my fellow commissioner about the gable end. Consider a material change to help with the scale quite a bit. We have been seeing a lot of people taking the materials all the way up to the ridge and it looks like something is missing. There is an opportunity to improve upon the scale in that area. >Having divided lites is a huge enhancement in design. >The columns stuck out for me. If you look at 1151 Rosedale Avenue, which was recently completed, they did a poor job of doing those columns with the material and how skinny they are. It is just way out of scale. It is a great example of how not to do this; we are concerned about that. Sometimes straight square columns look skinny. There are a few examples on Howard Avenue where people have done a more angled base to their column or angled all the way up, like starting with 18 inches at the bottom and ending up with about 10 inches at the top. It gives you a more dynamic look and helps to avoid the skinny look . Another option to consider is building a low wall in between columns and help expand that material to make it be more than just a column base. >I am a little concerned about how the down slope on the left side and the retaining wall will impact the neighbor next door. Suggests providing a section of the site since you are raising the garage slab about 2- 3 feet where it is now. There would be some retaining to even out what is happening at the neighbor ’s side. I would hate for you to get that far along then get caught with the civil drawings and must change your design quite a bit. Just to make sure that both sides of the neighbors are happy and could make that work. >The windows are big. The divided lites will help bring down the scale, but there are still a lot of windows facing west. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. The window sizes should be addressed. Adding some divided lites will help in this situation. >I wanted to comment on the public comment that was read to us. We as a commission cannot weigh in on colors. Though somebody may be concerned about the preponderance of white and black houses in the city, it is not in our purview to comment on that. However, we can talk about materials. Looking at the Page 2City of Burlingame June 24, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes stone cladding on the columns, suggests applying a different material on part of the house to add some architectural or textural interest. Consider adding some cladding along the front living room with reduced-sized windows. >The gable ends could have more attention which can benefit the design. >The split finish on the roofing materials is fine with the limit of standing seam metal roof over the front porch. >Samples have been provided on how to address the columns at the front porch, which I agree with. >Cleaning up the drawings, clarifying some of the details on the elevations to be consistent with the renderings will help. >The massing seems fine. I appreciate the thought that has been put into the presentation. >Thank you for the very detailed presentation. I wish more people had samples of designs that they were going for that are already built for us to look at, that was very helpful. I agree with what my fellow commissioners have said. >Right now, there are triangular pieces of wood at the gable ends which I have missed. The renderings are good, but they did not show as well. It is something going in the right direction. To make it stand out a little bit more, consider adding a belly band or a small strip of trim. >The divided lites are very important in this neighborhood. >In my opinion, this is the most beautiful block in Easton because it has a lot of old historic homes and the new ones have been done very meticulously with a lot of attention to detail and materials. It feels like a high bar but being informed of the context of that street may be helpful. >I didn’t have any issues with the attached garage. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Horan, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Page 3City of Burlingame July 01, 2024 The Planning Commissioners City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: New Two-Story Residential Building at 1472 Drake Avenue, Burlingame, California – Response to Comments by Planning Commissioners from June 24, 2024, Meeting. Dear Planning Commissioners: This letter summarizes our responses to the comments you made regarding plans for the subject project that we had an opportunity to present during your Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 2024. An outline summary of the changes to our plans is presented as follows:  We now have windows with ‘divided lights’ to be consistent with the other buildings on the block.  The columns at the front porch are now beefier than were originally shown.  The entire first floor now has stucco cladding, with a contrasting warm gray color. It appears to give the building a distinctive appearance and does appear to truly complement the neighboring buildings.  Line weights of projecting elements on the sides of the building as viewed on front and rear elevations have been adjusted to ensure that they are no longer barely legible.  Corbels have been added below the roof gable ends of the front elevations. Additional wood trim has been added to complement the front elevations. Refer to sheetA3.0 and A3.1 (Elevations). 1472 Drake Avenue Burlingame, California Response to Comments By Planning Commissioners July 01, 2024 Page 2 of 2  The height of the three street facing windows in the formal living room has been significantly reduced. Refer to sheets A3.0 and A3.1.  The Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) designation has been changed to ADU for the 499 square feet attached secondary unit at the first-floor level.  The inconsistency on the rear elevation that does not show the slight overhang of the second floor has been fixed. Thank you all for the constructive input that was collectively made to the project as initially submitted. We look forward to Planning Approval of the project during the next Planning Commission meeting of July 08, 2024. Sincerely, Debo Sodipo City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road (650) 558-7250 planningdept@burlingame.org Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to post plans submitted with this application on the City’s website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. _________(Initials of Architect/Designer) Project Application - Planning Division Type of Application:Accessory Dwelling Unit Conditional Use/Minor Use Permit Design Review Hillside Area Construction Permit Minor Modification Special Permit Variance Other Project Address:Assessor’s Parcel #:Zoning: Project Description: Applicant Property Owner Name:Name: Address:Address: Phone:Phone: E-mail:E-mail: Architect/Designer Name: Address: Phone: E-mail: Burlingame Business License #:* Architect/Designer must have a valid Burlingame Business License. Applicant:I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant’s signature: Date: Property Owner:I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Division. Property owner’s signature: Date: Date Application Received (staff only): 1472 Drake Avenue dZXYN Management Group 925 980 9880 debs@dzxyn.xom Debo Sodipo 510 681 9411 debs@dzxyn.xom Tan Tseng 650 430 8997 20508060 March 08, 2024 3/8/2024 DS R-1 2603 Camino Ramon, Ste 200 San Ramon, CA 94583 dZXYN Managment Group 3826 Naughton Avenue Belmont, CA 03.08.24 May 29,2024 Site: 1472 Drake Ave Burlingame,California Subject 1 Magnolia Tree ARBORIST REPORT On May 23,I Rich Mathey,inspected one Southern Magnolia tree located in the back yard of 1472 Drake Ave,Burlingame,CA. Please consider my observations as noted below: Subject tree #1 –Magnolia -Magnolia grandiflora DBH –36 inches. Height –Approximately 50 feet Canopy Spread –Approximately 50 feet Health –Poor Comments -The Magnolia tree is in very poor health.The tree was topped at some point and the branches as a result have weak branch attachments.There are less than 40%of live branches throughout the crown of the tree.The tree appears to have declined as a result of drought stress and a very limited area for the root zone to thrive. The buttress roots are touching the fence post and the soil is compacted.There are targets in the drop zone which include the fence,potentially people in the backyard and the communication wires run through the canopy.The tree has a history of large branch failure and the 2 central leaders of the tree are dead.I did assess the health of this tree 6 months ago and since my last site visit the tree has declined further and is now a hazard. 4635 Dolores Ave.Oakland,CA 94602 (510)326-2686 matheytreecare@gmail.com Recommendation -I am recommending removal of the Magnolia as this tree is located in an unsuitable location and the space for the tree to grow is far too limited.The tree is in severe decline and the targets under the crown include a house and living spaces. Please observe the pictures below. 4635 Dolores Ave.Oakland,CA 94602 (510)326-2686 matheytreecare@gmail.com 4635 Dolores Ave.Oakland,CA 94602 (510)326-2686 matheytreecare@gmail.com Although the recommendations in this report are based on sound and accepted horticultural practices,the author cannot be held responsible for the final outcome of the recommendations or any liabilities associated with this project.Tree inspections,in this case,do not cover all internal cavities,condition of the root system nor non-visible structural defects or disease.Trees are living organisms that exist in a natural setting with variable conditions.Healthy trees that appear free of defects can and do fail. Recommendations and various tree services are intended to provide a reduction of risk but do not eliminate risk. If you have any questions or require any additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me.You may contact me on my cell phone at (510)326-2686 or by email at matheytreecare@gmail.com.Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration in this matter. 4635 Dolores Ave.Oakland,CA 94602 (510)326-2686 matheytreecare@gmail.com Regards, Ricd L.Mat Richard L.Mathey Certified Arborist WI-1084A ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified 4635 Dolores Ave.Oakland,CA 94602 (510)326-2686 matheytreecare@gmail.com From:Rich Sargent To:GRP-Planning Commissioners; Public Comment Subject:June 23 meeting: 1472 Drake Ave. Date:Sunday, June 23, 2024 1:54:01 PM Dear Planning Commissioners, I’m sorry I’m not able to deliver my comments for the new home application at 1472 Drake Ave. I live just down the street from this property at . As you consider this project, I would like to alert you to the historic nature of this block of Easton Addition and the ways that I feel this project does not meet the design guidelines. This is a unique block of Easton Addition since it includes homes that predate the area’s development, the homes of the original developer and general contractor of Easton Addition, and a handful of homes that have been recently redeveloped in a way that complements these older homes in the spirit of the city’s design guidelines. Given this, I believe special attention should be paid to applications for new homes in this neighborhood. This application could use some improvements to better adhere to the design guidelines. The windows of this project are oddly sized, out of proportion to the overall design and lack the detailing of other homes in the neighborhood. Almost every house on the block has original true divided light or simulated true divided light wood or cladded wood windows. The commission has regularly asked that projects include this detail and the same should be asked of this project. Additionally, the upstairs front windows appear overly tall. Can the commission the verify that the project designer has allowed for a structural header on the hip roofs? I question whether these window can actually be sized and installed as drawn. At the front entry, the columns appear undersized for the Craftsman style the home is based on and the front door (6’8” high?) appears undersized for the 9’ plate height of the first floor. Overall, I don’t get the sense from this design of the richly detailed custom home designs typically found by the commission to meet the city’s design guidelines. Given the importance of making sure the details of this project meet that code, I wonder if this project would be a good candidate for referral to a design review consultant. Thanks for considering my input. Best, Rich ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sargent Development www.sargentdev.com CA Lic No 817665 This email is from an external source. Please take caution when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, contact your IT Department Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and attached garage at 1472 Drake Avenue, zoned R- 1, Tan Tseng, property owner, APN: 026-042-910; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 8th, 2024, 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 is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 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 8th day of July, 2024 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1472 Drake Avenue Effective July 18, 2024 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 1, 2024, sheets A0.0 through A6.0, sheet L1.0, and topographic 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 (level of review to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition 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 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; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1472 Drake Avenue Effective July 18, 2024 Page 2 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 verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 1472 Drake Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 026-042-190 AS SHOWNA3.2RENDERINGS ISHEETPROJECT NO.CHECKEDNo.DATEDESCRIPTIONBYCKDDRAWNSCALEDATEOWNER06/28/2024CADD 003 1 4 7 2 D R A K E A V E N U E B U R L I N G A M E, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 O 1 0TAN TSENG3826 NAUGTON AVENUEBELMONT, CA 94002650 430 8997 2 6 0 3 C a m i n o R a m o n S a n R a m o n, C A 9 4 5 8 3 9 2 5 . 9 8 4 . 9 8 8 0 ( t e l )FRONT RENDERING City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 114 Bayswater Avenue Meeting Date: July 8, 2024 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Quinn Ye, Rockwood Home Development, LLC APN: 029-284-160 Property Owner: Rockwood Home Development, LLC Lot Area: 4,896 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), 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. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing one-story single-unit dwelling with a detached garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish all structures on the site and build a new, two-story single-unit dwelling, a new detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU), and a new detached garage (attached to the ADU). The project proposes a total floor area of 2,874 SF (0.59 FAR) where 2,894 SF (0.59 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes 28 SF front porch exemption). The new dwelling would contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The new detached garage (10’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) provides the required covered parking for the four-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. As part of this project, three (3) new 24-inch box landscape trees (Magnolia ‘Little Gem’) are proposed throughout the site. A plant schedule for proposed trees and plantings can be found on sheet L1.0 of the proposed plans. There is one existing City tree to remain at the front of the lot. Accessory Dwelling Unit This project includes a detached ADU (388 SF) that is located at the rear of the lot and is connected to the new detached garage. 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. 25.68.020 (C)(1)(a)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 9c Regular Action Item Design Review 114 Bayswater Avenue -2- 114 Bayswater Avenue Lot Area: 4,896 SF Plans date stamped: June 26, 2024 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 16’-3” 22’-3” 16’-3” (block average) 20’-0” Side Setbacks (left): (right): 4’-0” 10’-0” 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 41’-5” 41’-5” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,723 SF 35.2% 1,958 SF 40% FAR: 2,874 SF 0.59 FAR 2,894 SF 1 0.59 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (10’ x 20’) 1 uncovered (9’x18’) 1 covered (10' x 18') 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Plate Height: 9’-0” on 1st floor 8’-0” on 2nd floor 9’-0” on 1st floor 8’-0” on 2nd floor Building Height: 30’-0” 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: complies using window enclosure exemption along left side C.S. 25.10.55(A)(1) 1 (0.32 x 4,896 SF) + 1,100 SF + 227 SF = 2,894 SF (0.59 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: fiberglass with simulated true divided lites • Doors: wood entry door, fiberglass garage door • Siding: stucco • Roof: composition shingle Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on June 24, 2024, the Commission had several comments and 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 June 24, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter, dated June 25, 2024, and revised plans, date stamped June 26, 2024, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and suggestions. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a detailed list of the changes made to the project (see attachments). Design Review 114 Bayswater Avenue -3- 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. 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; the proposed dwelling is consistent with the design guidelines; that the mass and bulk of the proposed structure is in scale with the lot and in relation to neighboring properties, and that architectural details, such as the wood entry door, fiberglass garage door and windows with simulated true divided lites, stucco siding, hip and gable roofs, are compatible with the 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, building height, declining height envelope, and off-street parking requirements. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: Design Review 114 Bayswater Avenue -4- 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 26, 2024, sheets A0.1 through A4.3, L1.0 and L2.0; 2. that the window grids on all windows be simulated true divided lites or simulated divided lites with spacer bar; 3. 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 (level of review to be determined by Planning staff); 4. 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; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition 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; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 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 framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the 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; 13. 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 Design Review 114 Bayswater Avenue -5- 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. 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Quinn Ye, Rockwood Home Development, LLC, applicant and designer Attachments: June 24, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated June 25, 2024 Neighbor Letter of Concern, dated June 24, 2024 Application to the Planning Commission Applicant’s Letter of Explanation, dated January 8, 2024 Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 28, 2024 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, June 24, 2024 b.114 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Quinn Ye, Rockwood Home Development LLC, applicant and designer; Rockwood Home Development LLC, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 114 Bayswater Ave - Staff Report 114 Bayswater Ave - Attachments 114 Bayswater Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Ali provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Quinn Ye, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Curious why there was a porch exemption, why is that considered a porch and not just a regular door stoop? (Hurin: It is considered a porch because it is covered. Porches can be recessed or project out. In this case, it is a recessed porch.) >Wanted clarification on the new assembly bill regarding the number of bedrooms and parking. Staff mentioned that there are four bedrooms in this home and thus the requirement for two parking spaces . Doesn’t the living room on this floor plan qualify as another bedroom because it is enclosed? (Hurin: The code now specifically calls out living rooms as not being a bedroom. So, no matter the configuration of the room, enclosed or not, a living room is not considered a bedroom. Under the zoning code update, we listed the different types of rooms that are not considered bedrooms and a living room is one of those rooms.) >With regard to the water issue raised by a neighbor, is that something that is being addressed? (Ye: At the planning stage, we received a comment about the drainage. It seems okay that we are adding drainage on the other side. We will provide more details during the building permit stage. The same neighbor also raised a question about the fence. The existing fence is 5-foot tall with 1-foot of lattice on top. We will talk to the neighbors if they are willing to share the cost so we can raise it to a 6-foot fence with 1-foot of lattice on top. The same neighbor also requested that the door on the east side of the house contain frosted glass; we can do that.) >There are two risers at the front landing and another step up into the house from the front door . Page 1City of Burlingame June 24, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Consider raising the level of the front porch so there is a level transition between the porch and finished floor inside the house to build up the front porch and have a grander entrance. >This is quite well done and a very attractive home. >I agree with my fellow commissioner ’s comment regarding the details on the windows. I like the idea of having the header and the sill expressed and defined. You can do it in stucco in another color. It just needs to come out proud a little bit, so it shows significantly and not just a faint line. If it comes out like an eyebrow about an inch, you will get the effect. There are a lot of ways to do that easily. I would encourage you to do a section through the window system to show how it is bumping out the header piece. When windows details are provided, it helps us to know that you have thought about quality windows, how that assembly works and that you will have good trim details. I appreciate the rest of the drawings, but a window detail would be fantastic and will clarify what we are looking for in that area. I didn’t see any concerns and I think it will look nice. I am looking forward to it. >I agree that this is a very nicely tailored home. It has a nice style and massing with the modern Tudor architecture. The reason why I was questioning the window trim detail is because it can look cheap if it is not done well. You have mentioned that you are intending to use a prefabricated product; please provide a specification sheet along with the details for the next meeting so we have an idea of the product you are planning to use. There is a project currently being constructed along Hillside Drive near Alvarado Avenue, that detail looks horrible and very cheap. It is a nicely designed home but want you to pay attention to this one element because it can add a lot of interest to your windows. It is very pared down as modern, but the shadow details and corner edges being sharp versus rounded, can be expressed on the finished product. >I like the project; t does a good job. The proportion and massing are all good. Even though it is a modern Tudor style, the absence of anything in those large gable ends in the first story on the left side and the second story on the right side seems like dead space. It could use an additional detail, like a vent or something. If it is investigated and it does not look like it is going to add to the design, it ’s not a deal breaker for me. Overall, the design is good. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. It is a beautiful design. Thank you for providing the rendering, it is beautiful and very helpful. Looking at the rendering the first time, it seems a little elongated with the Tudor architecture having steep roofs and the windows can be a little wider. Now that I ’ve been looking at it longer, the design seems to grow on me. Consider widening the windows to see what it does . Otherwise, the project is great. >I like the width of the windows. >My fellow commissioner has an interesting idea about the gable with the vent. It would look nice and may pull it down. Also consider the comment about the front stoop having the same floor level as the house, it will look classy. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Logic Home Development Design|Management 2024.06.25 __________________________________________________________________ City of Burlingame Community Development Permits Attn: [ Amelia Kolokihakaufisi – Planning Phone: 650-558-7216 Email: ameliak@burlingame.org Re: 114 Bayswater Avenue New Residence Project Address: 114 Bayswater Ave, Burlingame, CA 94010 Planning Permit Cycle: Planning Commission Meeting Hi Dear Ms. Kolokihakaufisi, City of Burlingame Planning Division, This letter is in response to the city planning commission meeting dated June 24th, 2024 pertaining to the design of the above-referenced project. My response to your comments is itemized by the comment number below. Furthermore, the drawings are resubmitted as attached for the revision made in response to your comments. Sincerely, Quinn Planning Commission Summary Provide a spec sheet of the window trim detail. Add more information about this detail on the plans. Would like to see the window trim detail be more prominent or bolder to stand out more. Response: Please refer to A4.3 for details. We will be adding decorative foam trim to both the top and bottom of the window. This trim will project 2 inches from the wall. The upper trim will be 4 inches tall, and the lower trim will be 2 inches tall. Raise front stoop so that it is level with the front door entry. Response: If we add another step, it will encroach upon the setback. Instead, we will create a very mild slope for the walkway, reducing the level difference. The front porch floor will be 2 inches lower than the interior floor. Consider adding vent detail to the gables for more architectural interest. Response: Please refer to the elevations. We have added narrow vents in the gable to enhance architectural interest and further emphasize the Tudor style. In some of the gables we cannot add vents because there are the vaulted ceilings. Maybe widen the windows a little bit. Response: Please refer to the elevations. We have increased the width of the four front windows from 30 inches to 36 inches to allow more natural light into the bedrooms, enhancing brightness and creating a more inviting atmosphere. Rendering and title 24 report have been updated accordingly Add frosting to exterior door facing driveway, per neighbor request. Response: Per the neighbor's request, we will add frosting to the exterior door facing the driveway. Instead of the current door, we will install a wood door with frosted glass panels to ensure privacy. Neighbor’s comments: Dear Planning Commissioners, I live at and have reviewed the proposed development at 114 Bayswater Ave.. While I support the project, I have the following comments regarding privacy and drainage: - I request that the developer specify a frosted door for the exterior fiberglass door along the driveway. Response: We will replace it with a wood front door with frost glasses to ensure privacy. - I request that the new fence along the driveway be as tall as possible since 112 Bayswater and 114 Bayswater kitchen windows are facing each other. Response: We will discuss this with the owner of 112 Bayswater. If they agree to share the cost, we can replace the fence, making it as tall as possible while still complying with city codes. - The project is proposing to raise the site at least 5 inches on the East side (see Sheet A1.1 and the Point of Departure on sheet A1.3) and perhaps more throughout the site (the plans do not show enough information). I request that a curb be placed along the property line on the East side of the driveway as a positive measure to prevent water from spilling onto 112 Bayswater. While the landscape plans, Sheet L1.0, show that each concrete block of the driveway is be sloped/curved to create a swale down the middle toward the street, the amount of curvature isn't specified and water will saturate the surface/grass between the concrete blocks and could spill onto 112 Bayswater without a curb along the property line. Response: Regarding the drainage concern, we have lowered the grade on the East side. Please see the updated elevations for details. - The plans do not show enough information to determine how the drainage will work around the ADU but there are 2 downspouts along the east side, facing 112 Bayswater. Unless the ADU downspouts are piped elsewhere on site, I request that a curb be placed along the property line to prevent water from spilling onto 112 Bayswater. There is no existing drainage pattern from 114 Bayswater to 112 Bayswater due to the current site conditions. Response: Regarding the drainage concern, we will add drainage on the East side. Detailed plans will be provided when we apply for the building permit. Thank you, Mike Nafziger From: To:Public Comment; GRP-Planning Commissioners Subject:6-24-24 Planning Commision meeting - Comments on application for 114 Bayswater Ave. Date:Monday, June 24, 2024 3:40:21 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Planning Commissioners, I live at and have reviewed the proposed development at 114 Bayswater Ave.. While I support the project, I have the following comments regarding privacy and drainage: -I request that the developer specify a frosted door for the exterior fiberglass door along the driveway. -I request that the new fence along the driveway be as tall as possible since 112 Bayswater and 114 Bayswater kitchen windows are facing each other. -The project is proposing to raise the site at least 5 inches on the East side (see Sheet A1.1 and the Point of Departure on sheet A1.3) and perhaps more throughout the site (the plans do not show enough information). I request that a curb be placed along the property line on the East side of the driveway as a positive measure to prevent water from spilling onto 112 Bayswater. While the landscape plans, Sheet L1.0, show that each concrete block of the driveway is be sloped/curved to create a swale down the middle toward the street, the amount of curvature isn't specified and water will saturate the surface/grass between the concrete blocks and could spill onto 112 Bayswater without a curb along the property line. -The plans do not show enough information to determine how the drainage will work around the ADU but there are 2 downspouts along the east side, facing 112 Bayswater. Unless the ADU downspouts are piped elsewhere on site, I request that a curb be placed along the property line to prevent water from spilling onto 112 Bayswater. There is no existing drainage pattern from 114 Bayswater to 112 Bayswater due to the current site conditions. Thank you, Mike Nafziger This email is from an external source. Please take caution when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, contact your IT Department City of Burlingame  Community Development Department  501 Primrose Road  (650) 558-7250  planningdept@burlingame.org Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to post plans submitted with this application on the City’s website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. _________ (Initials of Architect/Designer) Project Application - Planning Division Type of Application: Accessory Dwelling Unit Conditional Use/Minor Use Permit Design Review Hillside Area Construction Permit Minor Modification Special Permit Variance Other Project Address: Assessor’s Parcel #: Zoning: Project Description: Applicant Name: Address: Address: Phone: Phone: E-mail: E-mail: Architect/Designer Name: Address: Phone: E-mail: Burlingame Business License #: * Architect/Designer must have a valid Burlingame Business License. Applicant: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant’s signature: Date: Property Owner: I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Division. Property owner’s signature: Date: Date Application Received (staff only): 114 Bayswater Ave Rockwood Home Development LLC 650 797 3999 Quinn.ye.sf@Gmail.com Logic Home Development LLC 650 797 3999 Logichomeinc@gmail.com 20504745 12/26/2023 12/26/2023 QY 029284160 R1 274 Redwood Shores Pkwy, STE 318, Redwood City CA 94065 274 Redwood Shores Pkwy, STE 318, Redwood City CA 94065 ✔ 1) demo a (e) 1206-sf single family residence 2) construct a (n) 2658-sf single family home, a (n) 390-sf ADU, and and a (n) detached garage 530 360 8082 rockwoodhomedev@gmail.com 274 Redwood Shores Pkwy, STE 318, Redwood City CA 94065 Property Owner Rockwood Home Dvelopment LLC Name: 1.8.24 AK 114 Bayswater New Residence Project Overview: This residential project at 114 Bayswater Ave,Burlingame,CA,embodies a commitment to seamlessly integrate with the existing neighborhood while adhering to city codes and guidelines.The design focuses on harmonizing with the local environment and contributing positively to the community. Design Philosophy: The design philosophy centers on blending into the neighborhood's architectural character.Careful consideration has been given to the nuances of Burlingame's aesthetic,ensuring a cohesive and respectful addition to the area. Neighborhood Context: Situated on Bayswater Ave.,the design draws inspiration from the surrounding architectural styles.Rooflines,materials,and landscaping have been thoughtfully chosen to align with the prevailing aesthetics,fostering a sense of continuity and cohesiveness. Community Harmony: More than just a residence,this project strives to promote community harmony. Thoughtful landscaping,pedestrian-friendly elements,and a scale in line with neighboring homes contribute to a positive living experience for both residents and the local community. Compliance with Codes and Guidelines: The project diligently adheres to city codes and guidelines,ensuring full compliance with Burlingame's regulations.Working closely with city officials,every aspect of the design has been tailored to meet and exceed the expectations set by local authorities. RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION 1.8.24 Environmental Considerations: In addition to regulatory compliance,the project integrates sustainable practices. Energy-efficient systems,responsibly sourced materials,and environmentally conscious landscaping reflect a commitment to ecological responsibility. Conclusion: This residential project at 114 Bayswater Ave,Burlingame,is more than a dwelling;it's a conscientious addition to the community.With a focus on seamless integration, adherence to city guidelines,and a commitment to sustainability,this project contributes positively to the vibrant fabric of Burlingame. Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage at 114 Bayswater Avenue, Zoned R-1, Rockwood Home Development, LLC, property owner, APN: 029-284-160; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 8, 2024, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review is 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 8th day of July, 2024 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 114 Bayswater Avenue Effective July 18, 2024 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 26, 2024, sheets A0.1 through A4.3, L1.0 and L2.0; 2. that the window grids on all windows be simulated true divided lites or simulated divided lites with spacer bar; 3. 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 (level of review to be determined by Planning staff); 4. 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; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition 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; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 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 framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 114 Bayswater Avenue Effective July 18, 2024 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; 13. 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; 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. 114 Bayswater Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 029-284-160 RECEIVEDCITY OF BURLINGAMECDD-PLANNING DIVISION6.26.24REVISED BAYSWATER AVENUE(70' WIDE)BANCROFT ROAD(50' WIDE)THIS SURVEY PLAT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS REFLECTS THE SITE CONDITIONS AT THE TIMEWHEN THE FIELD SURVEY WAS PERFORMED.THIS SURVEY PLAT MUST BE USED AS A STAND-ALONE DOCUMENT. IT CAN NOT BESCANNED, ALTERED, CROPPED OUT OR MODIFIED WITH ZHEN'S LAND SURVEYING CORP.'STITLE BLOCK AND SURVEYOR'S STAMP AND SIGNATURE.THIS SURVEY PLAT CAN BE ONLY ATTACHED AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT BY ITSELF TO THEDEVELOPMENT PROJECT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND CAN NOT BE USED ON OTHERDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF ZHEN'S LAND SURVEYING CORP.A1.1 Item No. 9d Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit Address: 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way Meeting Date: July 8, 2024 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit for vehicle storage within an existing commercial building. Architect: Michael Nilmeyer, Nilmeyer/Nilmeyer Associates APN: 026-131-180 Applicant: Sailesh Mehra c/o Larry Soloman Property Owners: Whitehorn LLC c/o SC Properties (Kevin Cullinane) Lot Area: 77,110 SF General Plan: Innovation Industrial Zoning: I/I Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review. Site History: The subject property is a flag lot accessed only via Whitethorn Way, a private road. The project site consists of a single parcel (APN: 026-131-180) containing three commercial buildings. The addresses for the buildings are: 1) 1221 through 1251 Whitehorn Way (subject building); 2) 1271 Whitehorn Way; and 3) 55 and 65 Star Way. The recently constructed building at 1221-1251 Whitehorn Way was approved by the Planning Commission in 2021 which included applications for Commercial Design Review, Variance for site landscaping (3.1% provided where 10% is required), and Variance for required off-street parking for six parking spaces (48 spaces provided for on-site uses where 54 spaces were required).The building was constructed to be divided into four tenant spaces. Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to utilize two of the four tenant spaces 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way for vehicle storage with a private office. The tenant space totals 9,901 square feet and would be used by the applicant for private vehicle storage. The building was recently completed as a “shell” and the proposed use would include construction of a demising wall to separate the other tenant spaces. In addition, the tenant improvement to finish out this space would include new walls for the entry, storage space, restrooms, and the office area as detailed on Sheet A1.0. The proposed vehicle storage use is for a private car collection to be stored on-site, inside the building. Depending on the size of the vehicles, the number of cars to be stored would vary between 25-35 cars. A sample parking diagram is shown on Sheet A1.2. There would be no vehicle sales on-site. The vehicles would not be serviced at this site and there would be no detailing or washing; all such services would be provided off- site. The interior improvements include creating a private office space for the applicant. Given that this space is proposed for personal use rather than a business, the hours of operation would vary and it is anticipated that the applicant would be on-site between three to four hours per day, ranging from three to five days per week. The building would not be open to the public. There would periodically be visitors to the site, by invitation only, and there would be no events hosted at this site. Off-Street Parking: A Parking Variance was granted for the subject property in 2021. The Parking Variance was for six spaces; with a total of 48 parking spaces provided on-site where 54 parking spaces were required. The proposed warehouse use requires nine on-site parking spaces (1 space for each 1,000 SF for warehouse use), but it is anticipated that the parking demand for the proposed use will be much lower given that the proposed use is for the storage of a private car collection. Conditional Use Permit 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way -2- The applicant is requesting the following application:  Conditional Use Permit for vehicle storage within an existing commercial building (Code Section 25.12.020 and 25.12-1). 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way Lot Area: 77,110 SF Plans date stamped: June 26, 2024 Existing Proposed Allowed/Req’d Use: vacant (no previous tenant – new construction) private car storage permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 25.12.020) Off-Street Parking Required: vacant (no previous tenant – new construction) 9,101 SF - warehouse (1:1,000 SF) 9.1 spaces 9 spaces dedicated for use by 1241-1251 Warehouse 1 space / 1,000 SF (Code Section 25.40.030) 48 spaces for all tenant spaces 9 spaces dedicated on site for the proposed warehouse use at 1241-1251 026-131-180 USES AND PARKING 1221 - 1251 Whitethorn Way (New Building): --- 1,431 SF - office 16,510 SF - auto repair 3,460 SF - storage 4.7 spaces 20.66 spaces 3.5 spaces 28.9 spaces 1261 & 1271 Whitethorn Way: 9,855 SF storage no change 9.9 spaces 55 & 65 Star Way: 9,072 SF Auto repair 1,720 SF Storage 628 SF Office no change 11.3 spaces 1.7 spaces 2.1 spaces 15.1 spaces 54 total spaces required Staff Comments: Central County Fire has unresolved comments dated June 26, 2024 (see attachments). The applicant will work with this Division to address these comments during the building permit process. Staff would note that this application was brought directly to the Planning Commission as a Regular Action Item due to the low impact nature of the business and size of the business/tenant space. However, if the Commission feels there is a need for more discussion, this item may be placed on a future action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Conditional Use Permit 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way -3- Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.66.060, A-E): A. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. B. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code. C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. D. The site is physically suitable in terms of: 1. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use to accommodate the use, and all fences, landscaping, loading, parking, spaces, walls, yards, and other features required to adjust the use with the land and uses in the neighborhood; 2. Streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to accommodate public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access; 3. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.); and 4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.). E. The measure of site suitability shall be required to ensure that the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. Suggested Conditional Use Permit Findings: A. That Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.106.230 defines Vehicle Storage as “The storage of operative or inoperative vehicles. These uses include storage of towed vehicles, impound yards, and storage lots for buses and recreational vehicles, but does not include vehicle dismantling or off-site airport parking” and that the proposed use is for storage of a personal car collection which is a use that is consistent with the General Plan land uses envisioned for the Innovation Industrial area. B. The proposed use is allowed within the zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code. C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity in that the proposed automobile storage will operate indoors within an existing commercial building with no outdoor display area and no changes to the building envelope; that the vehicles are part of a private collection and the warehouse will not be open to the public with all visitors to the site by invitation only therefore the proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. D. The site is physically suitable for the proposed use in that there is no change to the site other than interior improvements that will be subject to all Building and Fire code requirements applicable to the automobile storage use. Conditional Use Permit 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way -4- E. The proposed vehicle storage use for a private car collection within an existing commercial building, will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. For these reasons, the use may be found to be compatible with the Conditional Use Permit criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the vehicle storage use shall be limited to operating inside the building at 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way, in approximately 9,101 SF within the designated areas as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped June 26, 2024, sheets CS 1.0, A0.0 through A 1.2; 2. that any changes in operation, floor area, or use, shall require an amendment to this use permit; 3. that vehicles may not be displayed outdoors in driveways, drive aisles or fire lanes; 4. that the Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to vehicle storage and does not include vehicle sales, repair, or detailing; the addition of vehicles sales, repair or detailing at this site shall require an amendment to this use permit; 5. that the Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to vehicle storage inside the existing commercial building at 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way and shall become void if the vehicle storage use ceases, is replaced by a permitted use, or is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of business operating, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c. Michael Nilmeyer, project architect Sailesh Mehra c/o Larry Soloman, applicant Whitehorn LLC c/o SC Properties, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Commercial Application Conditional Use Permit Application Project Description / Explanation Letter, Staff Comments – Central County Fire, dated June 26, 2024 Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 28, 2024 Area Map 04.18.24 ! ! 1,- (21,)114'3.1,% % -% $ .% ! $ /%& (!!)$ 0% !( ) $ ! " " " " " " " 1% & !$ ! " " " " " " " 2% !( #! &)$ 3% & ! " 4% && " 5% $ -,% !#!# ( )$ Private office and private car collection storage at 1241-1251 Whitehorn It varies, but typically 3-4 hours, three to four days a week 25-35 vehicles Just the owner and possiblly one visitor There are two parking stalls allocated onsite There is one onsite parking stall allocated for a visitor Warehouse Only one tenant will occupy the site 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road P (650) 558-7250 www.burlingame.org City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit Application The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City’s Ordinance (Code Section 25.66.060). 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. Refer to the end of this form for assistance with these questions. A. How will the proposed use be consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and any applicable Specific Plan? B. How will the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity? Page 1 of 2 The General Plan designates this property as "Innovation - Industrial" as does the zoning ordinance. As such, these documents' visions, plans and policies encourage retention of auto-related uses. The Land Use Element promotes a mix of uses for economic vitality for the city in that this use will provide another way to augment both private and public recreational uses. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Updated (November 2019) General Plan in that the plan encourages the retention of buildings and uses that they were originally designed for. This building has been historically been used for warehousing and/or auto-oriented uses. Further, the proposed use will improve and modernize a building and it will occupy a vacant building. The proposed use will also be compatible to adjoining land uses in that it is auto-oriented and may make use of nearby auto repair and servicing businesses, thereby contributing to the city's economic base. The proposed use is conditionally permitted per the zoning code of Burlingame. Additionally, with the conditions of approval, and the fact that the occupant and/or building owners will obtain all necessary permits before occupancy will ensure that the use complies with not only the zoning code, but also all other applicable codes. The proposed activity will be compatible with adjoining uses because a large number of these uses are auto-related. Additionally, the building is undergoing renovations, which will reduce interior noise but also upgrade HVAC systems to provide a safe and insulated environment and minimize, if not eliminate any potential conflicts with abutting uses. C. Explain how the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. D. Explain how the site is physically suitable in terms of: 1. Its design, location, shape, and size to accommodate the use, and all fences, landscaping, loading, parking, spaces, walls, yards, and other features required to adjust the use with the land and uses in the neighborhood; 2. Streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to accommodate public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access; 3. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.); and 4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.). Page 2 of 2 The proposed use will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property or uses in the vicinity of this property because it is low intensity, private and contained within a building. Furthermore, the findings, as well as conditions of approval will ensure that the strict application of the conditions, and Mr. Solomonns rare car collection is within the building, he intends to safeguard it without impacting adjoining properties, or calling attention to it. Also, as the site upgrades are considered to be minor and within an existing structure. Additionally, the proposed use and maintenance of the existing facility would not result in an increase in intensity as the users of the facility would include Mr. Solomon and sporadic visitors. Surrounding uses consist of a mixture of production/distribution/repair/wholesale, commercial and office uses, the proposed vehicle storage use will be compatible with the existing uses as it will be contained entirely within an existing structure. Responses: 1. The site's design, location, shape, and size to accommodate the use, and all fences, landscaping, loading, parking, spaces, walls, yards, and other features required to adjust the use with the land and uses in the vicinity in that it consists of fully enclosed building. The property is well-maintained with landscaping and is well-lit. Furthermore, the site is developed with an existing warehouse building, which was built to applicable development standards in place at the time. The proposed use/tenant will obtain all necessary clearances from the city. 2. The property is accessible via city-maintained roads, which would allow emergency vehicle access to the proposed use; 3. The property and proposed use will comply with all life-safety provisions that the city codes require; 4. The existing building was built to city's utility standards in place at the time of construction. If any improvements are proposed, the tenant will obtain the necessary permits for any upgrades. A. How will the proposed use be consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and any applicable Specific Plan? Ask the Planning Division for the General Plan Designation and Zoning District for the proposed project site, and an explanation of each designation. Once you have this information, you can compare your proposal with the stated designated use and zoning, then explain why this proposal would fit accordingly. B. How will the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity? How does the proposed structure or use compare with the design, location, size and operating characteristics in the existing neighborhood and structures in the vicinity? If changes to a structure are proposed, are the improvements designed to match the existing architecture and development pattern on adjacent properties in the area? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with existing uses. State why your project would be consistent with existing and potential uses in the vicinity. C. Explain how the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, etc. Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safety. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, and traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). D. Explain how the site is physically suitable in terms of: 1. Its design, location, shape, and size to accommodate the use, and all fences, landscaping, loading, parking, spaces, walls, yards, and other features required to adjust the use with the land and uses in the neighborhood; 2. Streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to accommodate public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access; 3. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.); and 4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.). Briefly explain how the sites’ design, location, shape and size will be able to accommodate the proposed structure or use. Will improvements be required to accommodate public and emergency vehicle access, public protection services, and utilities? If improvements to these elements are required, please list them here. 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way Project Description This is an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), pursuant to Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code of the City Burlingame, private “vehicle storage” within the “Innovation-Industrial” zoning district requires a CUP, as stated in Table 25.12-1: Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts Use Regulations contained in 25.12.020. As such, the narrative will provide a description of the proposed use at a commercial warehouse building located 1221 Whitehorn Way. This application for a CUP, on behalf of Larry Solomon, proposes to establish private vehicle storage for his car collection within this 9,901 square foot commercial warehouse building (see attached interior and exterior photos). The attached plans will provide additional details. The building has a private office, storage, bathroom and counters with coffee maker and a mini refrigerator and a mezzanine for storage. The building is not going to be open to the public, but serve as Mr. Solomon’s private office and car storage facility. In addition to working here, part of his car collection will reside here. He may take the cars out for drives periodically. The vehicles will not be serviced here, nor will they be washed on-site. He may get visitors from time to time, but the total number of visitors is not expected to exceed eight at any given time. Mr. Solomon’s hours at the building will vary, but he will not keep regular business hours. The number of vehicles he expects to keep here will also vary, but will be in the range of 25 to 35 cars. The building is ideally suited for vehicle storage in that it is sprinklered, has high ceilings (see photos) and four roll-up doors. There will be no events help here. There will be no amplified or live music at the property and as stated above, this building will be “by invitation only”. [consider providing photos of a few cars] Findings Pursuant to Section 25.66.060, of the Zoning Code, the following findings shall be made in order for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted: Before a conditional use permit and minor use permit may be granted, the Review Authority shall make the following findings: A. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The General Plan designates this property as "Innovation - Industrial" as does the zoning ordinance. As such, these documents' visions, plans and policies encourage indoor recreational uses. The Land Use Element promotes a mix of uses for economic vitality for the city in that this use will provide another way to augment both private and public recreational and instructional facilities Burlingame's residents. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Updated (November 2019) General Plan in that the plan encourages the retention of buildings and uses that they were originally designed for. This building has been historically been used for warehousing and/or auto-oriented uses. Further, the proposed use will improve and modernize a building and it will occupy a vacant building. The proposed use will also be compatible to adjoining land uses in that it is auto-oriented and may make use of nearby auto repair and servicing businesses, thereby contributing to the city’s economic base. B. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code. The proposed use is conditionally permitted per the zoning code of Burlingame. Additionally, with the conditions of approval, and the fact that the occupant and/or building owners will obtain all necessary permits before occupancy will ensure that the use complies with not only the zoning code, but also all other applicable codes. C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. The proposed activity will be compatible with adjoining uses because a large number of these uses are auto-related. Additionally, the building is undergoing renovations, which will reduce interior noise but also upgrade HVAC systems to provide a safe and insulated environment and minimize, if not eliminate any potential conflicts with abutting uses. D. The site is physically suitable in terms of: 1. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use to accommodate the use, and all fences, landscaping, loading, parking, spaces, walls, yards, and other features required to adjust the use with the land and uses in the neighborhood; 2. Streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to accommodate public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access; 3. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.); and 4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.). Responses: 1. The site's design, location, shape, and size to accommodate the use, and all fences, landscaping, loading, parking, spaces, walls, yards, and other features required to adjust the use with the land and uses in the vicinity in that it consists of fully enclosed building. The property is well-maintained with landscaping and is well-lit. Furthermore, the site is developed with an existing warehouse building, which was built to applicable development standards in place at the time. The proposed use/tenant will obtain all necessary clearances from the city. 2. The property is accessible via city-maintained roads, which would allow emergency vehicle access to the proposed use; 3. The property and proposed use will comply with all life-safety provisions that the city codes require; 4. The existing building was built to city's utility standards in place at the time of construction. If any improvements are proposed, the tenant will obtain the necessary permits for any upgrades. E. The measure of site suitability shall be required to ensure that the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. (Ord. 2000 § 2, (2021)) The proposed use will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property or uses in the vicinity of this property because it is low intensity, private and contained within a building. Furthermore, the findings, as well as conditions of approval will ensure that the strict application of the conditions, and Mr. Solomon’s rare car collection is within the building, he intends to safeguard it without impacting adjoining properties, or calling attention to it. Also, as the site upgrades are considered to be minor and within an existing structure. Additionally, the proposed use and maintenance of the existing facility would not result in an increase in intensity as the users of the facility would include Mr. Solomon and sporadic visitors. Surrounding uses consist of a mixture of production/distribution/repair/wholesale, commercial and office uses, the proposed vehicle storage use will be compatible with the existing uses as it will be contained entirely within an existing structure. Project Address: 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way, zoned I/I, APN: 026-131-180 Description: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for vehicle storage in an existing warehouse building. From: Patricia Koch Central County Fire Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. Provide occupancy classification and occupant load based on use and square footage. Corrected. 2. Demonstrate that means of egress requirements are met based on occupancy classification and use. Show exit routes with the vehicle storage placement and from the mezzanine to the public way. Corrected 3. Provide details of storage area: • Storage layout in building • Number of vehicles stored. • How they will be stored (in racks?) • Any other storage in the warehouse? Corrected . 4. CFC 314.4 Vehicles stored indoors shall meet the following requirements: (Add note to plans) a. The engine starting system is made inoperable, or batteries are disconnected except where the fire code official requires that batteries remain connected to maintain safety features. b. Fuel in fuel tanks does not exceed one-quarter tank or 5 gallons whichever is less. c. Fuel tanks and fill openings are closed and sealed to prevent tampering. d. Vehicles, aircraft, boats or other motor craft equipment are not fueled or defueled within the building. Required for building permit as condition of approval. 5. Will there be EVA charging or batter charging inside the building? corrected 6. Does the building have a fire sprinkler system, and if so, is it designed to accommodate the storage of motor vehicles as a commodity. Deferred to building permit 7. Location of fire extinguishers corrected The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at the time of building permit submittal. 1. CFC 314.4 Vehicles stored indoors shall meet the following requirements: (Add note to plans) a. The engine starting system is made inoperable, or batteries are disconnected except where the fire code official requires that batteries remain connected to maintain safety features. b. Fuel in fuel tanks does not exceed one-quarter tank or 5 gallons whichever is less. c. Fuel tanks and fill openings are closed and sealed to prevent tampering. Project Comments – Planning Application d. Vehicles, aircraft, boats or other motor craft equipment are not fueled or defueled within the building. Required for building permit as condition of approval. 2. Confirm fire sprinkler system meets the requirements for vehicle storage, consult with fire sprinkler contractor who will verify at annual required maintenance for the building. Reviewed By: Patricia Koch Date: 6/26/2024 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Conditional Use Permit for vehicle storage within an existing commercial building at 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way Zoned I/I, Whitehorn LLC c/o SC Properties (Kevin Cullinane), APN: 026-131-180; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 8, 2024, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 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 8th day of July, 2024 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way Effective July 18, 2024 Page 1 1. that the vehicle storage use shall be limited to operating inside the building at 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way, in approximately 9,101 SF within the designated areas as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped June 26, 2024, sheets CS 1.0, A0.0 through A 1.2; 2. that any changes in operation, floor area, or use, shall require an amendment to this use permit; 3. that vehicles may not be displayed outdoors in driveways, drive aisles or fire lanes; 4. that the Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to vehicle storage and does not include vehicle sales, repair, or detailing; the addition of vehicles sales, repair or detailing at this site shall require an amendment to this use permit; 5. that the Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to vehicle storage inside the existing commercial building at 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way and shall become void if the vehicle storage use ceases, is replaced by a permitted use, or is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of business operating, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 1241-1251 Whitehorn Way 300’ noticing APN: 026-131-180 Note: All buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition, shall comply with article 87 of the California Fire Code (2022 Edition) OCCUPANCY GROUP: S-1 (Moderate Hazard; Auto Body; Storage) B Office CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III-B NO. OF STORIES: ONE (1) FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: YES, Fully Srinklered TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 17,941 Sq. Ft. (Ground Floor) (APPROVED) 3,460 Sq. Ft. Mezzanine (APPROVED) TOTAL: 21,401 Sq. Ft. (APPROVED) TOTAL TENANT AREA (THIS TENANT): 8,977 Ground Floor Area (Gross) 382 Sq. Ft. Mezzanine Does not include covered exterior entry areas of 103 Sq. Ft. & 99 Sq. Ft. EXISTING ON SITE PARKING:32 Spaces (29 Required + 3 EV Charging Stations)) CS 1.0 COVER SHEET ARCHITECTURAL A 0.0 OVERALL SITE PLAN (REFERENCE) A 0.1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN (REFERENCE) A 1.0 GROUND FLOOR PLAN A 1.1 MEZZANINE PLAN A 1.2 SCHEMATIC CAR LAYOUT PLAN CONSTRUCTION HOURS: No person shall erect (including excavation and grading), demolish, after or repair any building or structure other than between the following hours except in the case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and then only with prior written permission from the Building Official, which approval shall be granted for a period not to exceed three days. Holidays are the first day of January, the third Monday of February, the last Monday of May, the fourth of July, the first Monday of September, the eleventh day of November, the fourth Thursday of November, the fourth Thursday in November and the twenty-fifth of December. If the first day of January, the fourth of July, the eleventh day of November, or the twenty-fifth of December falls upon a Sunday the following Monday is a holiday. The following construction hours per City of Burlingame Municipal Code 18.07.110. Monday through Friday: 8AM to 7PM Saturdays: 9AM to 6PM Sundays and Holidays: No work allowed HIDDEN CONDITIONS: Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission. The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job copy of the plans prior to performing the work. ARCHITECT Nilmeyer / Nilmeyer Associates Architects 128 Pepper Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010-5235 650.347.0757 Michael Nilmeyer, Architect Catherine J.M. Nilmeyer, Architect OWNER Whitehorn, LP c/o SC Properties 311 South Ellsworth Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401 Mr. Kevin Cullinane 650.342.3030 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER Hobach-Lewin, Inc. 545 Sansome Street, Suite #850 San Francisco, CA 94111 Mr. Stuart Lowe, Project Manager 415.318.8520 MEP ENGINEERS MK Engineers 3450 3rd Street. Building 4, Suite B San Francisco, CA 94124 Crystal Yan, Mechanical Engineer 415.282.3100 x 108 GENERAL CONTRACTOR WL Butler 1629 Main Street Redwood City, CA 94063 650.361.1270 FIRE PROTECTION SPRINKLER DENSITY: THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING SHELL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS BASED ON A DENSITY OF .39 / 2000 SQ. FT. (POSSIBLE FUTURE HIGH PILED STORAGE) Design Build by C-16 Licensed Contractor Under Contract to the General Contractor A Separate Permit and Fire Plan Check Submittal is required for any fire alarm system, fire sprinkler systems(s), and fire suppression system(s) relocation and renovation work, submit to the City of Burlingame Building and Fire Department for these approvals. ALL FIRE PROTECTION WORK TO CONFORM TO NFPA 13, 2022 EDITION AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE Deferred Submittals: Fire Sprinkler Modifications Fire Alarm Systems DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK The building is recently completed and was anticipated to be divided into as many as four tenant spaces that would likely be a warehouse use or an auto body repair type use that is prevalent the area. This project is for interior tenant improvements to encompass an entry area, coffee area, storage area and two toilet rooms, one of which is the tenant's private space. In addition, there will be an office area on the mezzanine for the owner and a possible small office area on the ground floor to accommodate possible use per ADA regulations. The warehouse area will house the owners private car collection. No work is anticipated to be performed on the vehicles as they are sent out for any mechanical work and / or detailing. There is no change to the exterior of the building. PROJECT DATA: BUILDING CODE: 2022 CBSC (California Building Standards Code) 2022 CBC (California Building Code) 2022 CFC (California Fire Code) 2022 CEC (California Electrical Code) 2022 CMC (California Mechanical Code) 2022 CPC (California Plumbing Code) 2022 California Energy Code City of Burlingame Municipal Code & Ordinances NOTE TO ANYONE DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY: Any one doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame SYMBOLS A/C ACOUS. ACC. AC. T. ADJ. A.F.F. AGG. ALUM. ANOD. A.P. APPROX ARCH. ASPH. BD. BLDG. BLK. BLKG. B.M. BM BOTT. BTW. CAB. C.B. CEM. CER. C.FL. C.FT. CLG. CLR. COL. CONC. CONST. CONT. CONTR. CORR. CPR. CPT. CTSK. C.YD. D.F. DIAM. DIM. DISP. DIV. D.L. DN. DR. D.S. DTL. DWG. DWR. AIR CONDITIONING ACOUSTIC (AL) ACCESS ACOUSTICAL TILE ADJUSTABLE, ADJACENT ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR AGGREGATE ALUMINUM ANODIZED ACCESS PANEL APPROXIMATELY ARCHITECT (URAL) ASPHALT BOARD BUILDING BLOCK BLOCKING BENCH MARK BEAM BOTTOM BETWEEN CABINET CATCH BASIN CEMENT CERAMIC COUNTERFLASHING CUBIC FOOT, FEET CEILING CLEAR, CLEARANCE COLUMN CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUOUS CONTRACT (OR) CORRUGATED COPPER CARPET COUNTERSUNK CUBIC YARD DOUGLAS FIR, DRINKING FOUNTAIN DIAMETER DIMENSION DISPENSER DIVISION DEAD LOAD DOWN DOOR DOWNSPOUT DETAIL DRAWING DRAWER PFN. PL. P.LAM. PLAS. P.L.F. PLYWD. PNL. PNT. PR. P.S.I. PT. P.T. PTN. P.V.C. PREFINISHED PLATE PLASTIC LAMINATE PLASTIC POUNDS PER LINEAL FOOT PLYWOOD PANELING (ING) PAINT (ED) PAIR POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH POINT PAPER TOWEL PARTITION POLYVINYL CHLORINE CENTER LINE; FINISH FLOOR LINE BREAK LINE SECTION LINE; REFERENCE(S) ELEVATION KEY DETAIL KEY DIMENSION TO FACE OF WALL; ETC. DIMENSION TO CENTERLINE STAIR DIRECTION; (RISE & TREAD) EQUIPMENT OR FIXTURE NORTH ARROW ELEVATION # DRAWING # DETAIL # DRAWING # FOW C/L UP 16 R @ 7" 15 T @ 11" ROOM NAME 0000 ROOM NAME AND / OR NUMBER CONCRETE; PLASTER; GYP. BD. SHEET METAL GLASS WOOD BRICK MASONRY CONCRETE UNIT MASONRY CERAMIC TILE; QUARRY TILE PLYWOOD WOOD - ROUGH WOOD - FINISHED INSULATION - RIGID GLASS GYPSUM BOARD INSULATION - BATT ACOUSTICAL TILE METAL - LARGE SCALE METAL - SMALL SCALE DRAWING # REFERENCE # PLANS / SECTIONS ELEVATIONS E. (E) EA. ELEV. ENCL. EQ. EQUIP. EXH. EXIST. EXP. EXT. EAST EXISTING EACH ELEVATION, ELEVATOR ENCLOSE (URE) EQUAL EQUIPMENT EXHAUST EXISTING EXPOSED, EXPANSION EXTERIOR MAT. MAX. M.B. MECH. MED. MEMB. MET. MFR. MIN. MISC. MLD. MOV. MTL. MULL. N. N.I.C. NO. N.T.S. MATERIAL MAXIMUM MACHINE BOLT MECHANICAL MEDIUM MEMBRANE METAL MANUFACTURE (R) MINIMUM MISCELLANEOUS MOULDING MOVABLE METAL MULLION NORTH NOT IN CONTRACT NUMBER NOT TO SCALE O.C. O.D. O.F.C.I. OPP. OPNG. ON CENTER OUTSIDE DIAMETER OWNER FURNISHED, CONTRACTOR INSTALLED OPPOSITE OPENING business license. NOTES I.D. INSUL. INT. JAN. JT. L. LAM. LAV. L.L. LT. INSIDE DIMENSION INSULATED, INSULATION INTERIOR JANITOR JOINT LENGTH LAMINATE (D) LAVATORY LIVE LOAD LIGHT PROJECT DIRECTORYINDEX OF DRAWINGS PROJECT DATA ABBREVIATIONS PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FOR: CUP SUBMITTAL Mr. Larry Solomon 1251 Whitehorn Way Suite #'s 1241 & 1251 Burlingame, CA 94010 OCCUPANT LOAD R. RAD. R.D. RDWD. REF. REFL. REG. REINF. REV. RM. R.W.L. S. S.C. SCHED. SECT. SHT. SIM. S.P. SPEC. SQ. S.S. S.ST. STD. STL. STOR. STRUCT. SUSP. SYM. T. TELE. TEMP. TEXT. T&G T.SL. T.STL. T.O.W. TYP. U.B.C. UNF. U.N.O. V.C.T. VERT. VEST. W. W/ W.C. WD. W.I. W/O W.P. WT. W.W.M. RISER, RADIUS RADIUS ROOF DRAIN REDWOOD REFERENCE REFLECTED REGISTER REINFORCED REVISED, REVISION ROOM RAINWATER LEADER SOUTH SOLID CORE SCHEDULE SECTION SHEET SIMILAR SOUND PROOF SPECIFICATION SQUARE SERVICE SINK STAINLESS STEEL STANDARD STEEL STORAGE STRUCTURE (AL) SUSPENDED SYMMETRY (ICAL) TREAD TELEPHONE TEMPERED TEXTURED TONGUE AND GROOVE TOP OF SLAB TOP OF STEEL TOP OF WALL TYPICAL UNIFORM BUILDING CODE UNFINISHED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE VINYL COMPOSITE TILE VERTICAL VESTIBULE WEST WITH WATER CLOSET WOOD WROUGHT IRON WITHOUT WATERPROOF (ING) WEIGHT WELDED WIRE MESH F.O.C. F.O.F. F.O.G. F.O.M. F.O.S. F.O.W. FT. FTG. FURR. GA. G.C. GD. G.I. GL. GYP. H.B. H.C. HDW. H.M. HORIZ. HR. HT. HTG. HVAC H.W.H. FACE OF COLUMN FACE OF FINISH FACE OF GLASS FACE OF MASONRY FACE OF STUD FACE OF WALL FOOT, FEET FOOTING FURRED, FURRING GAUGE GENERAL CONTRACTOR GRADE, GRADING GALVANIZED IRON GLASS, GLAZING GYPSUM HOSE BIBB HOLLOW CORE HARDWARE HOLLOW METAL HORIZONTAL HOUR HEIGHT HEATING HEATING/VENTILATING/ AIR CONDITIONING HOT WATER HEATER F.B.O. F.D. F.E. F.E.C. F.F.E. F.H.M.S. F.H.W.S. FIN. FLASH. FLR. FLUOR. FND. FURNISHED BY OTHERS FLOOR DRAIN FIRE EXTINGUISHER FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FINISHED FLOOR ELEV. FLAT HD. MACH. SCREW FLAT HD. WOOD SCREW FINISH FLASHING FLOOR FLUORESCENT FOUNDATION LOCATION PLAN SITESITE PARKING ANALYSIS 1221 - 1251 Whitehorn Way: (THIS PROJECT) Auto repair:16,510 / /800 =20.63 Storage: 3,460 / 1000 = 3.46 Office: 1,431/ 300 = 4.76 Parking Required:29 spaces Parking provided: (including EV charging)29 spaces PARKING NOTE: THE OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THE NEW TENANT SPACE IS: Entry, Coffee, Storage, Toilets: 1,031 /150 = 7 Warehouse / Storage: 7,956 /500 = 16 Mezzanine: 382 / 150 = 3 Total Occupants: 26 Two exits required ; Six exits provided Issues / Revisions Number Date By Sheet Number: FILE NAME: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY: PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FOR ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE, REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACY OF DRAWINGS IS FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. Project: Client: Nilmeyer ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Nilmeyer 128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 650.347.0757 T Michael Nilmeyer, Architect michael@nilmeyer.com Catherine J.M. Nilmeyer, Architect catherine@nilmeyer.com LARRY SOLOMON Suite 1241 & 1251 Larry Solomon 1251 Whitehorn Way Bulringame, CA 1 COVER SHEET Larry Solomon CS 1.0 2402 6/24/2024 None MN CS 1.0 6/24/2024 MN 1241 & 1251 Whitehorn Way Burlingame, CA ROLLINS ROADWHITEHORN WAY(A PRIVATE ROAD)SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD R.O.W.STAR WAY (A PRIVATE ROAD)PROPOSED SITE PLANN. CAROLAN A V E .NOPARKINGCOMPACTCARONEWAYONEWAYONEWAYONEWAYWHITEHORN WAY(A PRIVATE ROAD)NOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGONEWAYONEWAYONEWAYONEWAYCLEAN AIR /VAN POOL/EVEVCHARGINGONLYEVCHARGINGONLYCOMPACTCAREVCHARGINGONLYCLEAN AIR /VAN POOL/EVCLEAN AIR /VAN POOL/EVIssues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FORALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 TMichael Nilmeyer, Architectmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer, Architectcatherine@nilmeyer.comLARRY SOLOMONSuites 1241 & 1251Larry Solomon1251 Whitehorn WayBurlingame, CA 940101OVERALL SITE PLAN(REFERENCE)Solomon Stie Plan24026/24/2024As NotedMNA 0.06/24/2024MN1241 - 1251 Whitehorn WayBurlingame, CA 94010 WHITEHORN WAY(A PRIVATE ROAD)NOPARKINGCOMPACTCARONEWAYONEWAYWHITEHORN WAY(A PRIVATE ROAD)ONEWAYCLEAN AIR /VAN POOL/EVCLEAN AIR /VAN POOL/EVCLEAN AIR /VAN POOL/EVEVCHARGINGONLYEVCHARGINGONLYEVCHARGINGONLYCOMPACTCARENLARGED SITE PLANAIssues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FORALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 TMichael Nilmeyer, Architectmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer, Architectcatherine@nilmeyer.comLARRY SOLOMONSuites 1241 & 1251Larry Solomon1251 Whitehorn WayBurlingame, CA 940101SITE PLAN(REFERENCE)Solomon Stie Plan24026/24/20241/8" = 1'-0"MNA 0.16/24/2024MN1241 - 1251 Whitehorn WayBurlingame, CA 94010 GROUND FLOOR PLAN Issues / Revisions Number Date By Sheet Number: FILE NAME: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY: PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FOR ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE, REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACY OF DRAWINGS IS FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. Project: Client: Nilmeyer ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Nilmeyer 128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 650.347.0757 T Michael Nilmeyer, Architect michael@nilmeyer.com Catherine J.M. Nilmeyer, Architect catherine@nilmeyer.com LARRY SOLOMON Suites 1241 & 1251 Larry Solomon 1251 Whitehorn Way Bulringame, CA 1 GROUND FLOOR PLAN Larry Solomon Base Plan 2402 6/24/2024 1/8" = 1'-0" MN A 1.0 6/24/2024 MN 1241 - 1251 Whitehorn Way Burlingame, CA 94010 MEZZANINE FLOOR PLANIssues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FORALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 TMichael Nilmeyer, Architectmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer, Architectcatherine@nilmeyer.comLARRY SOLOMONSuites 1241 & 1251Larry Solomon1251 Whitehorn WayBulringame, CA1MEZZANINE FLOOR PLANLarry Solomon Base Plan24026/24/20241/8" = 1'-0"MNA 1.16/24/2024MN1241 - 1251 Whitehorn WayBurlingame, CA 94010 GROUND FLOOR SCHEMATIC CAR COLLECTION LAYOUT IMAGE OF VEHICLE TYPES TO BE IN THE SPACE Issues / Revisions Number Date By Sheet Number: FILE NAME: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY: PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FOR ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE, REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACY OF DRAWINGS IS FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. Project: Client: Nilmeyer ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Nilmeyer 128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 650.347.0757 T Michael Nilmeyer, Architect michael@nilmeyer.com Catherine J.M. Nilmeyer, Architect catherine@nilmeyer.com LARRY SOLOMON Suites 1241 & 1251 Larry Solomon 1251 Whitehorn Way Bulringame, CA 1 SCHEMATIC CAR LAYOUT Larry Solomon Base Plan 2402 6/24/2024 1/8" = 1'-0" MN A 1.2 6/24/2024 MN 1241 - 1251 Whitehorn Way Burlingame, CA 94010