Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2013.10.15CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION A G E N D A 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Tuesday, October 15, 2013 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I.CALL TO ORDER II.ROLL CALL III.MINUTES September 9 and September 23, 2013 Regular Planning Commission Meetings IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA V.FROM THE FLOOR VI.STUDY ITEMS There are no Study Items for review. VII.ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 1.847 Acacia Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and a new detached garage (Thornton Weiler, applicant and architect; Oussama Mannaa, property owner) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Staff Report Proposed Plans VIII.REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2.748 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Special Permit for a detached garage exempt from setback restrictions located within the rear 40% of the lot (Maxwell Beaumont, applicant and designer; Gorlat Bains property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier (item continued from the September 23, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting) Staff Report Proposed Plans 3.832 Edgehill Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Side and Rear Setback Variances and Special Permit for a first floor addition (considered two-story at the rear of the house) and a new attached garage (Donald Yu, applicant and designer; Marc Maniscalco, property owner) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Staff Report Proposed Plans 4.824 Linden Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage (Eric Gee, designer; John Britton, applicant and property owner) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Staff Report Proposed Plans 5.401 California Drive, zoned C-2 - Application for Amendment to Commercial Design Review for changes to a previously approved remodel and addition to an existing commercial building (Marci Palatella, applicant and property owner; J Deal Associates, designer) (89 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier Staff Report Proposed Plans IX.DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 6.1048 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition and a new detached garage (Anthony Ho, LPMD Architects, designer; Mr. & Mrs. Wilson Cheng, property owners) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier Staff Report Proposed Plans 7.1378 De Soto Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Geoff Gibson, Winder Gibson Architects, applicant and architect; Kermit and Sari McConnell, property owners) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Staff Report Proposed Plans 8.21 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Environmental Scoping, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Tentative Condominium Map for a new three-story, 8-unit residential condominium (Samir Sharma, applicant; Dana Denardi, property owner; SDG Architects, architect) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Staff Report Staff Report Proposed Plans X.COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS - There are no Commissioner ’s Reports. XI.DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting October 7, 2013 - FYI: 1444 Burlingame Avenue - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Commercial Design Review project. - FYI: 3 Belvedere Court - Review of as-built changes to a previously approved Design Review project. - FYI: 60 Edwards Court - Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Commercial Design Review project. Staff Report Staff Report Staff Report XII.ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s action on October 15, 2013. If the Planning Commission’s action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 25, 2013, 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 $485, which includes noticing costs. AGENDA.10/15/13/posted10/09/13 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, September 23, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the September 23, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney Kathleen Kane; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES The minutes of the September 9, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be reviewed at the October 15, 2013 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 1a. 2205 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES AND LORETTA STEPHENSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES MCFALL, MCFALL ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 1b. 1010 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP (KEN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 2 RODRIGUES, KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JIM HANNAY, RECTOR MOTORS CAR CO., PROPERTY OWNER) (17 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Terrones moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:01 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 2346 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (AUDREY TSE, INSITE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN TAM AND LANA LEE, PROPERT Y OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex parte communications. Reference staff report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Audrey Tse and Lana Lee represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Believes the revisions look great. The changes work better with the overall design.  Thanked the applicant for continuing to review the project design and to continue to make improvements.  Clarified that the wall on the left side deck wall is in the same plane as the left wall. (Tse – yes.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  The changes enhance the design. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 9, 2013, sheets A1.0 through A2.6.0; and date stamped March 12, 2013, survey; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 3 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Lot Coverage Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 5. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s December 18, 2012, memo, the Chief Building Official's February 25, 2013 and December 4, 2012, memos, the Parks Supervisor’s December 7, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 3, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's December 4, 2012 memo shall be met; 6. 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; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 4 13. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:07 p.m. 3. 748 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE EXEMPT FROM SETBACK RESTRICTIONS LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT (MAXWELL BEAUMONT, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GORLAT BAINS PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER All Commissioners had visited the property owner. Commissioners Yie and Bandrapalli indicated that they had spoken to the property owner. Reference staff report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Questions of staff:  Why is a special permit required for the garage? (Hurin – explained that the garage is placed within the rear 40% of the lot.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Maxwell Beaumont represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Design is a big improvement from the initial submission.  With respect to the front and rear grid patterns; will they be consistent with the three over one pattern? (Beaumont – yes.)  Why didn’t the porch make it into the design? (Beaumont – the front porch was existing non- conforming and wasn’t useable to the property owners. Rather than try to increase the non- conformity by extending the setback and requiring a change to the roofline. The owners requested the current design without the porch so they could have more space inside the building.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 5  W ill all of the window sills match? There are a couple of different styles shown on the plans. Likes the sills and aprons shown on the side elevations. (Beaumont – the sills will all match what is shown on the side elevation.)  Requested clarification regarding the porch column design; will it have a base as shown on the front elevation? (Beaumont – yes.)  Would be nice to have a porch, but the stoop into the house is a nice gesture.  Are the two second story windows on the front elevation the same size? (Beaumont – they are to be of the same size.) On the plan it appears that the bedroom 3 window is larger than on bedroom 2.  Wouldn’t the gable on the left front be better matching the right?  The stone base should be of a horizontal design. Has an alternate design been considered?  Want to be certain that the construction plans show the windows will match the design of the side windows. Wants to see the window design shown on the plans.  Need clarity of the details on the plans. Want to be certain that it is clear what is being approved so there is no confusion while the project is being built.  Belly band is different on the rear elevation than on the left and right side.  On right elevation, there is a line that appears to go to the rear elevation; should be clarified.  Appears that there is more than four inches between the rails and the deck; need to clarify the dimension.  On the front elevation, what are all of the vertical lines? Needs clarification.  There is a different datum line relative to the brick on the elevations.  Chimney on front elevation appears to be floating.  The massing is great, but another round of edits to the plan to fine tune the details is needed.  The trim around the windows needs to be consistent and details of the window trim needs to be provided.  Need a specification sheet for the stone to be used.  With respect to the garage; show the divided lights, knee braces and other features to better tie the structure to the main house.  Perhaps provide glass in the top panel of the garage door to create a cohesive design with the house.  Second floor balcony; the post extends beyond the handrail; clarify this detail.  Specify the details of the exterior doors; they should match the window design. Will the rear sliders be metal clad wood? Clarify these details. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Lack of clarity would leave it to the contractor to design; which could lead to a later FYI and a potential delay. Commissioner Sargent moved to continue the application to the October 15, 2013 meeting with direction to the applicant, as stated in the Commission’s discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. The Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:26 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 6 4. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 25-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (BEJHAN RAZI, CAMELLO INC., APPLICANT; CHATEAU TROUSDALE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND TOBY LEVY, LEVY DESIGN PARTNERS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex parte communications. Reference staff report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Toby Levy represented the applicant.  Made the changes in response to dealing with other Building Code comments; were not intended to revise the project.  The plan checker needed the area of the herb garden to be ADA accessible. Commission comments:  Appreciates the enumeration of the changes.  Understands the reasons for the changes.  Appreciates reinstalling the landscaping on the two sides. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 22, 2013, sheets A0.0, A0.3, A0.5, A0.7, A0.8, A0.9, L1.1 through L4.2, A1.0, A1.1, A2.1 and A2.7, and date stamped September 16, 2013, sheets L5.1, L5.2, A2.2 through A2.6, A3.1, A3.2 and A4.1; 2. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 102.93'' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Trousdale Drive (42.58') for a maximum height of 60'-4", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections; should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 7 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that the backflow prevention device and post indicator valve (PIV) shall be located and screened by landscaping so they will be hidden from both the street and project residents; 6. that the conditions of the Building Division’s February, 2013 and December 4, 2012 memos, the Parks Division’s February 8, 2013 and December 7, 2012 memos, the Engineering Division’s December 27, 2012 memo, the Fire Division’s December 3, 2012, memo, and the Stormwater Division’s December 12, 2012, memo shall be met; 7. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 8. 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; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the Public Impact fee in the amount of $98,586.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 10. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $9,818.37, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 11. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $9,818.37, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 12. that this project shall comply with the inclusionary housing requirements in Municipal Code Chapter 25.63; the applicant shall enter into an agreement for the administration of the sale, rent or lease of the affordable unit with Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley at least 120 days before the final inspection; 13. that 'guest parking stall' shall be marked on the three guest parking spaces and designated on the final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; and that in addition to the three guest parking stalls, and one service vehicle parking stall, 53 parking spaces shall be available on site for owners, and none of the on-site parking shall be rented, leased or sold to anyone who does not own a unit on the site; 14. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the three guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 8 15. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 16. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 17. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 18. that the security gate system across the right side entrance driveway shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 19. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 20. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 21. 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; 22. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 23. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 24. that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 25. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 26. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City’s noise requirement; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 9 27. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 28. that in lieu of meeting the requirement specific to fire apparatus access required by Section 902.2.1, Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by Burlingame Municipal Code 17.04, the project applicant shall extend the required Class I Standpipe outlets to garage stair landings in accordance with fire department approved locations, and install Quick Response Sprinklers throughout the garage; (Land Use, Fire Dept) 29. that the proposed project shall comply with construction standards and seismic design criteria contained in the Building Code as adopted by the City; (Geology and Soils; Building Division) 30. that before construction of the proposed project, per the Building Code, the project applicant shall obtain a site-specific soils report that identifies any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as expansive, liquefiable, or compressive soils) and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including provisions to reduce the effects of expansive soils. The recommendations made in the soils report for ground preparation and earthwork shall be incorporated in the construction design. The soils evaluations shall be conducted by registered soil professionals, and the measures to eliminate inappropriate soil conditions must be applied. The design for soil support of foundations shall conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the Building Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33; (Geology and Soils, Building Division) 31. that a site-specific evaluation of soil conditions required by the City shall be completed as part of the building permit process and shall contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the project site that would become an integral part the construction design. Recommendations shall be included in the excavation and construction plans for the proposed project; (Geology and Soils, Building Division) 32. that although the proposed project would be exempt from preparing and implementing a project- specific SWPPP, because the City of Burlingame is a member of the STOPPP, the proposed project shall obtain coverage under STOPPP’s Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit and comply with performance standards set forth by STOPPP’s Stormwater Management Plan. The City Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.14; Ordinance 1503 Section 1; June 20, 1994) would also be applied to the proposed project. In addition, the project applicants shall perform the following actions as uniformly required conditions of project approval, as identified by the City’s NPDES Coordinator upon submittal of project applications to the City: a. Implement appropriate stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to minimize pesticide usage in accordance with the City’s New Development/Redevelopment Landscaping Fact Sheet. b. Incorporate applicable structural source control measures to minimize stormwater pollutants in accordance with the City’s Model List of Structural Source Control Measures. c. Identify the responsible party who would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the permanent post-construction stormwater treatment measure(s). Prior to issuance of a final building permit, submit a completed, notarized Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement; (Hydrology and Water Quality; Public Works Department) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 10 33. that the proposed project shall comply with City grading requirements specified in Section 18.20 of the Municipal Code; (Hydrology and Water Quality; Public Works Department) 34. that the proposed project shall comply with the City’s Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.17.001; Ordinance 1476 Section 1; January 4, 1993), thereby reducing the amount of project site runoff polluted by landscape chemicals; (Hydrology and Water Quality; City Arborist) 35. that the project applicant shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; (Air Quality; Building Division) 36. that the project applicant shall prepare and implement a construction phasing plan and traffic management plan that defines how traffic operations would be managed and maintained during each phase of construction. The plan should be developed with the direct participation of the City of Burlingame. To the maximum practical extent, the plan should: a. Detail how access will be maintained to individual properties where construction activities may interfere with ingress and egress. Any driveway closures shall take place during non- business hours. b. Specify predetermined haul routes from staging areas to construction sites and to disposal areas of agreement with the City prior to construction. The routes shall follow streets and highways that provide the safest route and have the least impact on traffic. c. During construction, require the contractor to provide information to the public using signs, press releases, and other media tools of traffic closures, detours or temporary displacement of left-turn lanes. d. Identify a single phone number that property owners and businesses can call for construction scheduling, phasing, and duration information, as well as for complaints. e. Identify construction activities that must take place during off-peak traffic hours or result in temporary road closures due to concerns regarding traffic safety or traffic congestion. Any road closures will be done at night under ordinary circumstances. If unforeseen circumstances require road closing during the day, the City of Burlingame should be consulted; (Traffic; Public Works Department) 37. that in order to improve the ability of vehicles to turn from the lower level ramp to the driveway, the project has been revised so that the west driveway is 12 feet wide; (Traffic, Public Works and Planning Departments) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 11 38. that the proposed project driveways shall be secured with an automatic gate system that would allow delivery vehicles to enter and exit the driveways with an opener. The entrance gate shall also provide an intercom system that would allow delivery vehicles to call from the entrance. Furthermore, rolling dumpsters shall be acquired by the project applicant, which can be maneuvered outside of the parking garage to the curb, to facilitate garbage pickup from Trousdale Avenue; (Traffic; Public Works Department) 39. that the project applicant shall include in the proposed project a bicycle parking area that is 12 feet by 21 feet, in the lower level of the parking garage, as indicated in the site plan which is sufficient space for approximately 25 bicycles; (Traffic; Public Works and Planning Departments) 40. that the removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys shall be required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 14 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings, grading, or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; (Biological Resources; City Arborist) 41. that the trees proposed to be removed shall be evaluated by a licensed arborist whose report shall be reviewed by the City arborist to determine whether they are “protected trees” per Section 11.06.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code and whether a tree removal permit is appropriate. If any trees proposed to be removed are protected trees, the City Arborist shall make a determination regarding the removal and replacement of these trees. As the proposed landscaping plan includes the planting of 16 new trees, the City Arborist may determine that the proposed landscaping plan is sufficient and no other replacement trees are required. a. The Municipal Code includes the following requirements regarding replacement trees. b. Replacement shall be three 15-gallon size, one 24-inch box size, or one 36-inch box size landscape tree(s) for each tree removed; and c. Any tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two 24-inch box size, or two 36- inch box size landscape trees for each tree removed; and d. Replacement of a tree may be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exists on the property to meet all other requirements of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance; and e. Size and number of the replacement tree(s) shall be determined by the director and shall be based on the species, location and value of the tree(s) removed; and f. If replacement trees cannot be planted on the property, payment of equal value shall be made to the City. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree-planting fund to be drawn upon for public tree planting; (Biological Resources; City Arborist) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 12 42. that the project applicant shall be responsible for maintaining and protecting the existing on-site trees to be retained. The following specific actions shall be followed to maintain the health of the remaining trees: a. Any pruning shall be done according to the direction of a certified arborist and all pruning shall comply with International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter Standards or other comparable standards deemed acceptable to the City Arborist. b. Any abandoned utility lines (water, electrical, etc.) in the root zones (radius of ten times the trunk diameter) shall be cut and left in the ground to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. c. Any surfacing material inside the root zone shall be pervious and installed on top of the existing grade. As an example, pervious pavers are acceptable provided the base material is also sufficiently pervious. Base rock containing granite fines is not sufficiently pervious. d. Temporary construction fencing shall be erected to protect the retained trees of a size to be established by the City Arborist. The fencing shall be placed at the perimeter of the root zone unless the pavement is supervised by a certified arborist. The fencing shall be in place prior to the arrival of construction materials or equipment. e. The landscape irrigation shall be designed to prevent trenching inside the root zones of retained trees. f. Supplemental irrigation shall be provided during construction. Approximately 10 gallons of water for each inch of trunk diameter should be applied at or near the perimeter of the root zone every two weeks during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall on average). g. Retained trees shall be thoroughly mulched with a 3-inch layer of bark chips with the exception of a 6- to 12-inch area around the base of the root collar, which must be left bare and dry; (Biological Resources, City Arborist) 43. that as required by BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, the proposed project shall implement preventative measures during demolition and removal of all asbestos containing materials (ACMs) to prevent emissions of asbestos into the air. The proposed project shall also remove and dispose of all asbestos and PCB-containing materials according to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations and comply with the Cal/OSHA guidelines for worker safety during removal; (Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Building Division) 44. that the project applicant shall abide by its declared building height as specified in the FAA determination for the proposed project. The project applicant shall also ensure that construction equipment for the proposed project (e.g. cranes) shall not exceed the maximum height restriction specified in the San Francisco Airport Land Use Plan for the project site; (Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Planning Department) 45. that if markings or lighting are to be included in the proposed project, the project applicant shall ensure that they are installed and maintained according to FAA guidelines; (Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Planning Department) 46. that the applicant shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor. These control measures, such as installation of noise control devices (e.g. mufflers), selection of quieter machinery, and other noise control measures (e.g. surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), all of which would not require major equipment redesign. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 13 a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: • Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; • Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; • Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and • Minimize backing movements of equipment. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. e. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible. f. The project applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” for construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem. g. The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site; (Noise; Planning, Public Works) 47. that the project applicant shall incorporate the following practice into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor. The project applicant shall require that loaded trucks and other vibration-generating equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals; (Noise, Building Division) 48. that the project applicant shall include in the final project design noise insulation features that would effectively maintain interior noise levels of 45 dBA or less; (Noise; Planning and Building) 49. that the existing sanitary sewer on site shall be examined by the City after project construction to evaluate the pipe’s condition. If the City Engineer determines that the pipe is substandard or if the pipe has been damaged by project construction, the pipe shall be replaced or repaired by the project applicant to the City Engineer’s satisfaction; (Utilities and Service Systems; Public Works Department) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 14 50. that if the project applicant does not provide a 12-foot wide driveway, the project applicant shall be required to purchase maintenance equipment for the City that can access the on-site sewer easement through the proposed 9.5-foot-wide driveway; (Utilities and Sewer Systems; Public Works Department) 51. that per the City’s Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Requirement, the project applicant shall submit a waste reduction plan that demonstrates that at least 50 percent of the construction and demolition waste can be recycled; (Utilities and Service Systems; Building Division) 52. that the project applicant shall design and locate all exterior lighting so that the cone of light and/or glare from the lighting elements is kept entirely on the project site on or below the top of any fence, hedge, or wall at the site’s property line, as required by the Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 (pertaining to light spillage off site in commercial or residential areas). All wall mounted up-lighting shall be excluded from the proposed project. All project lighting shall comply with requirements of the California Energy Commission and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for illumination levels; and (Aesthetics; Planning and Building) 53. that the following provisions shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts to address the potential to encounter currently unknown cultural resources: a. Prior to the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall receive environmental training that will include discussion of the possibility of buried cultural and paleontological resources, including training to recognize such possible buried cultural resources, as well as the procedure to follow if such cultural resources are encountered. b. Retain Project Archaeologist. Since the project area contains a portion of one recorded Native American archeological resource, and other previously unknown prehistoric or historic cultural deposits may be encountered elsewhere in the project site during excavations, the City shall retain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant meeting federal criteria under 36 CFR 61, and who has expertise in California prehistory and urban historical archaeology. c. If potential historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be suspended and alteration of the materials and their context shall be avoided pending site investigation by a qualified archaeological or cultural resources consultant retained by the project applicant. The immediate vicinity wherein work shall be suspended shall be approximately 50 feet from the discovery or within an appropriate distance to be determined by the archaeologist or cultural resources consultant. Construction work shall not commence again until the archaeological or cultural resources consultant has been given an opportunity to examine the findings, assess their significance, and offer proposals for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to any potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources that have been encountered. d. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, and if avoidance of the resource would not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources consultant shall prepare a plan for the methodical excavation of those portions of the site that would be adversely affected. The plan shall be designed to result in the extraction of sufficient volumes of non-redundant archaeological data to address important regional research considerations. The work shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural resources consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports. Such reports shall be CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 15 submitted to the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Construction in the vicinity of the find shall be accomplished in accordance with current professional standards and shall not recommence until this work is completed. e. The project applicant shall assure that project personnel are informed that collecting significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of the project is prohibited by law. Prehistoric or Native American resources can include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources can include nails, bottles, or other items often found in refuse deposits. f. If human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In general, these provisions require that the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are found to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The most likely descendant of the deceased Native American shall be notified by the Commission and given the chance to make recommendations for the remains. If the Commission is unable to identify the most likely descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be re-interred with appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If recommendations are made and not accepted, the Native American Heritage Commission will mediate the problem. (Cultural Resources; Planning) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:36 p.m. 5. 1512 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (ENRIQUE RAMIREZ, CONTI AUTO SALES, APPLICANT; DALE MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER; WILLIAM SPENCER CO., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Yie indicated that she had spoken to an employee of the adjacent tenant (Coca-Cola). Reference staff report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Questions of staff:  No drive aisle required in the building? (Hurin – No, the plans have been reviewed by the Fire Department and were approved.)  Noted that the existing driveway curb-cut is more on the adjacent property, it is not a full vehicle width. Seems odd that the driveway is partially on the adjacent property. (Hurin – it is not uncommon for driveways in the Rollins Road area to be shared between properties. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 16  Could the applicant be asked to widen the approach? (Hurin – may ask the applicant which driveway will be used most. Meeker – there is no nexus to require the widening of the driveway given the nature of the application.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, Franco Gonzalez and Nathan Demosthenes represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Noted that parking spaces 103 through 106 are shown as dedicated spaces for this tenant, is this correct? (Meyer – yes.)  Is there a plan for where employees will park? Will they park in the large lot that surrounds the property? (Gonzalez – possibly, but not planning on more employees at this time.)  Will not likely be a parking impact, but need to ensure that the parking for the tenant is available.  An employee of Coca-Cola indicated that there may only be two parking spots left and also that the large parking area is gated off.  There are a lot of spaces in theory, but the adjacent tenant’s employee indicated that the spaces are full. (Gonzalez – employees of Coca Cola park where the trucks are that they use during the day.)  Will likely need to work with the property owners to ensure that the parking spaces shown as dedicated to this use will be available.  Noted that the prior tenant was involved in car sales and had the spaces available. Suspects that the spaces are being filled up now because the tenant space is empty.  The parking area that accesses David Road was virtually empty when observed today.  Noted that the guest parking spaces are labeled as Coca-Cola parking only. Seeks clarification regarding the parking that will be available to the tenant. Doesn’t want a situation where the parking spaces are assigned to specific tenants. Requested a letter from the property owner ensuring that the parking spaces shown on the plan are available to this tenant. (Meyer – have been told that the spaces are available to this tenant. Were also told that parking is available at the rear of the property. Not certain why the Coca Cola sign is on the spaces. (Demosthenes – can obtain written assurance that the spaces will be available to this tenant.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Wants to avoid an inadequate parking situation, but confirmation of that parking spaces 103-106 are available to the tenant space may come to the Commission as an FYI.  Stipulate that the employees park in the rear. May a parking plan be required? (Kane – can’t impose conditions upon an existing lease, and cannot impose conditions upon the landlord’s behavior; may only impose conditions that are within the control of the applicant. The permit may be conditioned upon providing adequate parking. Meeker – noted that the applicant indicated that written confirmation is available.)  The use will not create a huge impact. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped September 11, 2013, sheets A1 and A2; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 17 2. that the applicant shall provide a parking plan that addresses employee and visitor parking as an FYI to the Planning Commission; 3. that vehicles for sale may not be displayed outdoors or in any required on-site parking spaces, driveways, drive aisles or fire lanes; 4. that no vehicles shall be loaded or off-loaded from trucks, trailers or vehicle carriers on Rollins Road, David Road or any other public right-of-way; vehicles shall be loaded and off-loaded on-site; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:59 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Bandrapalli indicated that she would recuse herself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 6 (1533 Meadow Lane) as she resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the City Council Chambers. 6. 1533 MEADOW LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DW ELLING (SETH BROOKSHIRE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; SHARON O’BYRNE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the neighbor at 1532 Westmoor Road. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Seth Brookshire represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Need to do something to bring down the mass a bit more.  On the south elevation, other than the vine trellises, needs a bit more  Thinks the massing is generally handled nicely.  Large windows flanking the French doors on the rear elevation make the façade seem more massive. Other large windows looking into the rear add to the massive appearance and could impact the neighbor’s privacy. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 18  Looks like a house on top of a house. Some elements make the home seem like it has three stories. Was this massing selected because you didn’t want to get into the declining height envelope issue? (Brookshire – No. Have created a non-occupiable balconette on the second floor to tie it in to the existing features on the first floor. Is purely an aesthetic approach to the design. The second floor is stepped back so it will not appear quite as dramatic.)  Could more of the massing be moved over to the right? (Brookshire – there are two other examples of similar additions on the cul-de-sac. Those designs do not complement the original architecture of the home. The height of the two adjacent buildings is quite similar. As the building terraces back, the impression of height is brought down.)  Why is a window on the rear being blocked by the trellis? (Brookshire – owner wishes to retain the existing roses at that window that exist on the trellis.)  Other additions in the neighborhood have a bit more articulation.  Feels the chimney in the living room is floating and sticks out like sore thumb.  May be able to address the chimney and other massing issues by shifting the design to the right side of the existing home.  There are exceptions to the design guidelines that could be applied to marry the chimney to the addition better.  Doesn’t feel the addition fits with the neighborhood. Doesn’t feel that the design fits in with the design of the neighborhood. Have huge concerns about the design. Feels the design would change the neighborhood.  Feels the flaw in the design approach is the echoing of the design of the original house that results in a house stacked on a house design.  Was a first floor addition explored? (Brookshire – yes. The split-level design makes it challenging to create a useable floor plan.)  Would prefer a variance request from the declining height envelope to allow the addition to be shifted to the right. Would like to see what happens when the design is shifted to the right.  There are also neighbors on the side that need to be treated sensitively by reducing massing of the design.  Feels that with some work that the design could be refined. Has developed a design that presents a three-story design in a neighborhood where three-stories are not present. Public comments: Janine Poimiroo, 1532 Westmoor Road and Shannon Delucci, 1545 Meadow Lane:  Agrees with all comments made by the Commissioners.  Will look out on the design from her kitchen.  Her privacy will be affected in her rear yard.  The design is not consistent with the neighborhood.  Would likely be the tallest house in the neighborhood.  Offered the opportunity to visit her property to view potential impacts.  If the project is approved at the proposed height; is it possible to require trees to be planted to shield the neighborhood from the design? There is no place in her yard to plant trees to provide a shield.  Echoed prior speaker’s concern.  Protect the quaintness of the street. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Feels a referral to a design review consultant could be helpful. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 19 Commissioner Terrones made a motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Bandrapalli recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:39 p.m. Commissioner Bandrapalli returned to the dais. 7. 1317 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (NATALIE HYLAND, HYLAND DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JENNIFER PANOS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Noted that the landscape and irrigation plans were omitted from the project plans. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Natalie Hyland and Jennifer Panos represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Concern regarding the scale of some of the elements.  Stucco belly bands are quite difficult; wants to see a sample of what is proposed. Synthetic stone could be used.  There is little hierarchy to the arrangement of windows and doors on the front elevation.  The columns could perhaps be brought down in scale.  The porch should be made more substantial and friendlier to the neighborhood.  The left hand side is just one long wall. Important to look at design touches to help break up that wall. Consider articulation, perhaps with a dormer element.  The pediment element across the first floor French doors on the rear appears out of scale; the plinth over the beam elements is too thin.  Details and scale need a bit more charm.  The belly band is in the same plane as the wall; should be more dimensional.  Feels that the front elevation is tortured. The door is not emphasized. The entry doesn’t have enough presence and is overpowered by the elements on both sides.  Prefers the rear elevation to the front elevation.  Front elevation needs to be a bit more cohesive.  Perhaps only have an arched window at the entry and flatten the arches at the top of the other windows. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 20  Visual language and roof elements need to be simplified. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. 8. 832 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (CONSIDERED TWO- STORY AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE) AND A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (DONALD YU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARC MANISCALCO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of Staff:  Would a carport be acceptable? Could it be in the setback? (Hurin – the applicant could build a carport, but it must have a solid covering. If it is detached, it could be in the rear 30% of the lot without required setbacks. However, there is a 4-foot minimum distance requirement from the home for a detached garage that cannot be met in this instance.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Donald Yu and Marc Maniscalco represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Tough lot, there are grounds for the variances.  Substandard Lot due to area and width.  Adding covered parking where none is available.  Simple application.  In the future he may wish to consider other development options.  Why not add more to the garage as a second story. Did the applicant look at adding a second story at the front of the lot (Edgehill side). (Maniscalco – would add significantly to the cost. Yu – hasn’t been considered.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 21  Why isn’t the garage attached to the house? How will the area be maintained? (Maniscalco – there is a small gap between structures. Yu – the garage will still need to be fire rated.)  Has a problem with the view from California Drive. Is there anything that can be done to the California Drive wall to make it appear better? (Yu – currently no plans to alter this area. Maniscalco – can continue the stone from the front of the house at this location.)  Seems like it would be pretty easy to just ask for a second story rather than ask for so many variances. (Maniscalco – better for the family to keep everything on one floor. Has an elderly mother. Wants to minimize the amount of stairs.)  If the garage is pulled forward, would eliminate the view from California Drive and provide a useable rear-yard. How do you get to the rear yard? (Maniscalco – is an alley that provides access to the rear. The area will be redone as some form of patio, but not that desirable due to the presence of the railroad and California Drive.)  Having a rear yard could provide a place for more greenery to shield the view from California Drive.  Doesn’t believe the rear yard will be used in this instance.  Is there a place to install an interior stair to the rear yard? Could access be through the garage to the rear yard?  Why is there no landscape plan provided with the plans? (Hurin – since there are no changes to be made to the landscaping, and due to the minor nature of the addition, a landscape plan is not required.)  Is there a hardscape limitation? (Hurin – no.)  Does the project meet the minimum requirement for trees? (Hurin – yes.)  Could move the garage forward to provide yard space without impacting the window for the bathroom.  Would provide the opportunity to provide a closet and access to the rear yard.  Could extend a hallway to the rear yard that would make it more usable. Would be a means of encouraging the future use of the area. (Yu – would the Commission be willing to accept an additional variance? Hurin – would be subject to setback requirements if a stairway is above 30- inches high.)  Would consider an additional variance as it would provide a means of access to the rear yard and enhance the livability of the property.  Why not have the garage share the wall with the house? (Yu – cheaper to build a new wall. Feels it could be a water issue.) Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Accepts the variances necessary for the garage. Sees other options to adding a bedroom to the house. Likes the idea of providing a path to the rear yard. This is an example of taking the easiest path for the bedroom addition, but not the best solution for the addition. The justification for the variances for the addition are not adequately justified.  Could be adding a car by adding the bedroom.  Is compelled by the argument regarding the CR zoning on the property requiring no rear setback. This is the sole remaining single-family home in the area and is required to comply with the R-1 setbacks.  Noted that the other side of Edgehill includes only single-family residences.  The California Drive frontage is purely commercial. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 22  If the garage were pulled forward, then the potential may exist to place commercial development on the California Drive frontage.  Noted that the excavation cost would be so expensive that the presence of the garage would not be a deterrent.  Could the lower level have been excavated to allow more space to be built there?  Could a garage have been built with frontage on California Drive? (Hurin – Public Works would not allow a new curb-cut on California Drive.  Garage should be pulled forward. There should also be a connection from the interior of the house to the rear yard. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-1-0-0 (Commissioner Davis dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. 9. 847 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (THORNTON WEILER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OUSSAMA MANNAA, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated September 23, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Thornton Weiler and Shirley Azzghayer represented the applicant. Commission comments:  The massing has been handled nicely.  Feels it is the correct design solution; there is an argument for exceeding the height restriction. Glad the designer didn’t flatten the ridge of the roof in order to stay within the height limit.  Will there be a door to the tool shed area shown on the elevation? (Weiler – there will be a door. It is currently covered with lattice.)  Will there be window trim below the windows as shown on the front? (Weiler – are planning to remove the historic trim. Going in the direction of a decidedly flat trim that is more consistent with Craftsman architecture. The shingles will tie closely to the bottom of the window sill.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 23  The apron below the windows would hide the staple line for the shingles. Would be a good detail to add.  Is the ceiling flat on the second floor? (Weiler – there will be a flat spot as there is a need for insulation. The ceiling heights will vault up to 9 or 10 feet.)  Suggested exploring the lower pitch roof. Can the vaulted ceiling be achieved without the additional roof height? Is really only the tip of the roof that exceeds the height.  Could ask for story poles to be installed to give the neighbors a sense of the height proposed.  The additional height is not likely to obstruct anyone’s property. (Hurin – noted that the finished floor elevation is around 6 feet above the existing curb level. Weiler – the first floor already has 9 foot ceilings.)  Was the lower pitch explored? Really likes the gables on the front. If a lower roof were proposed, then perhaps an eyebrow-type dormer could be done without requiring the additional height. Doesn’t like the loss of the existing gables. Handsome design, can certainly accept it, though. (Weiler – considered adding behind the gables, but the street-facing windows would be sacrificed. Small rectangular windows would result.)  What would happen with a lower pitch? (Weiler – would result in a more wedding-cake look with walls stacked upon walls.)  Will the Wisteria stay on the pergola? (Weiler – yes.)  Likes the front and the Edgehill elevations. One concern is that the rear elevation is such a drastic change. Did the applicant meet with the neighbors at 1315 Edgehill? (Osgeyer – met with the neighbors across the street, but did not meet with the neighbor at the rear. Meeker – noted that the property owners were notified.)  The neighbor to the rear will be the most impacted by the addition.  The neighbor may wish to know that the removal of the garage will not impact their existing fence. May wish to substitute the wall of the garage for a portion of the existing fence.  May be helpful to consult with the neighbor to the rear to affirm that they do not object to the proposal. (Meeker – noted that a letter from the neighbors cannot be required and that the owners were noticed and a placard has been present on the property.)  Consulting with the neighbors now could avoid future delays caused by the neighbors prior to action by the Commission.  Asked the applicant to review the height restrictions for shrubs – the Jasmine on the corner is currently obstructing vision at the corner. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  Asked if justification for the special permit must be made like for a variance? (Meeker – there is not as high a bar for justification of the special permit. Connecting the special permit with the desire for design consistency is adequate.  Provide the apron on the window trim and show the door on the tool shed area.  Not certain if the apron under the windows is absolutely necessary. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes September 23, 2013 24 Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:51 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of September 16, 2013:  None. FYI: 1207/1209 Burlingame Avenue – Clarification of requested changes to a previously approved Commercial Design Review project:  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary 20'-0"6'-11"7'-6"2'-10 3/8"3'-7" +/-2'-0"10'-0" 2'-0" 12'-0" 6'-0"4'-0"2'-11"4'-0"2'-0"23'-8"7'-6" 12'-0" 11'-5" 13'-1"40'-7"16'-0"3'-7"21'-2"21'-0"21'-8"1'-0"4'-0"452 Lincoln AvenueAlameda CA 94501thornton.weiler@comcast.netTEL: 510.521.7300CELL: 510.381.4829Date: Scale: Drawn: Job: Sheet Of Sheets ISSUE Stamp Site PlanNew 2nd Story addition and garageA1 DATE Azzghayer-Mannaa847 Acacia DriveBurlingame, CAApn 029-015-050DESIGN REVIEW 8-12-13 RESUBMITTAL PLANNING COMMENTS 9-11-13 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 9-12-13 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 10-4-13 (E) GARAGE REMOVED TANDEM PARKING SPACE 9'X20'DORMERS(E) 3' RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN (E) POWER POLE EXISTING STONE CURB (E) SIDEWALK (E) SIDEWALKExisting Proposed Allowable APN Lot Size 7190 Floor Area existing house (main floor)1585 1585 lower level storage 200 160 1st floor addition 0 40 2nd floor addition 0 1290 garage 700 441 Gross floor area removed 700 Gross floor area excluding garage 1785 3075 TOTAL FLOOR AREA 2485 3516 3550.8 total lot coverge 0.347 0.315 0.4 Building height 19'7"32'11"36'0" Set Backs front 20'0"20'0"20'0" left side 10'0"10'0"7'6" right side 10'0"10'0"7'6" back 20'0"20'0"20'0"2ND STORY SETBACK2ND STORY SETBACK SITE PLAN SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" CURB RAMP EDGE OF CURB CONC. WALK NEW WOOD RETAINING WALL EXISTING 6 FT HIGH WOOD FENCE ON WOOD RETAINING WALL EXISTING WOOD GATE (E) CONC. WALK (E) CONC. WALK (E) 6 FT HIGH REDWOOD FENCE (E) RR TIE STEPS (E) CONC. WALK (E) 4' HIGH PICKET FENCE WITH GATE LAWN LAWN PLANTING F.F. REFERENCE EL 103.0' 98.14 (E) GRADE EL 93.21' GRADE EL 90.0 GRADE EL 95.57' BLDG EL 95.40 BLDG EL 99.57' BLDG EL 98.96 BLDG GRADE EL 90.5' GRADE EL 99.7' GRADE 1ST STORY SETBACK EXISTING STONE CURB PLANTER EL 98.07 T.O. CURB EL 97.91' (E) GRADE SETBACK (E) SIDEWALK (E) SIDEWALK(E) PLANTER STRIP (N) CURB CUT PER CITY OF BURLINGAME STANDARDS EL 97.90 T.O. CURB GENERAL NOTES 1.ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM WITH: 2010 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2010 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2010 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2010 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2010 CA FIRE CODE 2008 ENERGY CODE STANDARDS 2010 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1856-2010 2.CONSTRUCTION HOURS WEEKDAYS: 7:00AM - 7:00PM SATURDAYS: 9:00AM - 6:00PM SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: 10:00AM - 6:00PM (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS) 3.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 WORK. 4.GRADING PERMIT: IF REQUIRED WILL BE OBTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS 5.HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- ASBESTOS REMOVAL IS REQUIRED UNDER SEPARATE CONTRACT, FOLLOW ALL CAL OSHA REQUIREMENTS FOR ABATEMENT. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS FOR BUILDING AND SITE PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK 7.CONFLICTS FOUND IN THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 8.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS 9.THE DRAWINGS INDICATE LOCATION, DIMENSIONS, REFERENCE, AND TYPICAL DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION. THE DRAWINGS DO NOT ILLUSTRATE EVERY DETAIL. WORK NOT PARTICULARLY DETAILED SHALL BE OF CONSTRUCTION SIMILAR TO PARTS THAT ARE DETAILED. 10.DIMENSIONS ARE NOT ADJUSTABLE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECT, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AS +/- 11.DO NOT SUBSTITUTE, REVISE, OR CHANGE THE WORK WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT 12.ALL DIMENSIONS, WHEN SHOWN IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, ARE TO FACE OF FINISH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 13.NOTES ARE AN AID TO THE CONTRACTOR IN UNDERSTANDING THE WORK AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS BEING COMPLETE IN EVERY DETAIL. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO BECOME THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH THE WORK, AND REPORT DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND ACTUAL CONDITIONS TO THE ARCHITECT. NEW LAWN (CONC. REMOVED) NEW 2 CAR GARAGE NEW CONC. STEPS 65.5'100.0'100.0'78.3' PATIO (E) CONCRETE SLAB REMOVED ADJACENT 2 STORY RESIDENCE ADJACENT 1 STORY RESIDENCE EAVE EAVE(E) RAIL ROAD TIES (N) CONC. R.W. RETAINING WALLS TO BE REMOVED (E) GARAGE NEW TREE, SEE SHT L1 NEW TREE, SEE SHT L1 NEW TREE- SEE SHEET L1 452 Lincoln AvenueAlameda CA 94501thornton.weiler@comcast.netTEL: 510.521.7300CELL: 510.381.4829Date: Scale: Drawn: Job: Sheet Of Sheets ISSUE Stamp Proposed & Existing Elevations2nd Story addition and garageA3.0 DATE Azzghayer-Mannaa847 Acacia DriveBurlingame, CAApn 029-015-050DESIGN REVIEW 8-12-13 RESUBMITTAL PLANNING COMMENTS 9-11-13 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 9-12-13 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 10-4-13 (N) PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 AVE GRADE HT. REF EL 95.6 14'-0"SIDE PROPERTY LINEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FRONT P.L. CORNER 98.07 REAR P.L. CORNER 93.2' FIRST FLOOR REFERENCE EL 103.0' 2ND FLOOR 10'-0"3'-0"TOP PLATE 7'-6"8'-0"1'-9"FLR TOP PLATE AA-AA-EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1SIDE PROPERTY LINEFIRST FLOOR +3'-0" TOP PLATE HT. +12'-0"9'-0"173'-0"12 10 12 3 12 6 12 6 (E)(E) (N) (E) 12 10 2 5 7 9 14 15 (E) 16 13 1 19 20 1 A3.3 TYP. WINDOW TRIM ROOF HEIGHT REF. ELEV. ABOVE AVE. T.O. CURB 129.5' (E)(E)7'-4"11'-0" AVE T.O. CURB 98.07 + 97.9 /2 = EL 97.98'31'-0"AVE T.O. CURB 98.07 + 97.9 /2 = EL 97.98' 6 3 22 2 A3.3 REFER TO WATER TABLE DETAIL KEY NOTES 1.CEDAR SHINGLES, CLEAR FIINSH, TYPICAL 2.COMPOSITION SHINGLES, 5 TAB, FIBERGLASS CLASS B ROOF 3.KNEE BRACKET- 4X4 REDWOOD, PAINTED TYP. 4.KNEE BRACKET- 4X6 REDWOOD, PAINTED, TYP 5.EXISTING PERGOLA TO REMAIN- 4X4S SUPPORTED ON 4X10 BEAMS AND BOXED WOOD COLUMNS, PAINTED 6.EXISTING WOOD WINDOW WITH NEW TRIM REFER TO DETAIL ON SHEET A3.3 7.NEW WOOD ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW WITH SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS, TYPICAL 8.BARGE RAFTER 2X10 WITH 1X3 EDGE BOARD AND 2" SHEET METAL EDGE FLASHING 9.EXISTING WOOD DOOR WITH SIDE LIGHTS AND TRUE DIVIDED LIGHTS 10.NEW WOOD DOOR WITH FULL GLASS LIGHT 11.NEW WATER TABLE TRIM- FIBER CEMENT BOARD SEE DETAIL ON SHEET A3.3 12.NEW RAILING WITH REDWOOD TOP RAIL AND 2X2 VERTICAL PICKETS 13.FIBER CEMENT BOARD 1X10 BEVELED SIDING, SMOOTH FINISH, PAINTED 14.STUCCO WITH SMOOTH FINIS: 3 COAT OVER METAL LATH, & PAINTED 15.SHAPED 1X10 CEMENT BOARD TRIM 16.EXISTING STUCCO 17.EXISTING WOOD LAP SIDING, TYPICAL 18.EXISTING WOOD LATICE 19.ALUMINUM GUTTER WITH OGEE PROFILE 20.ALUMINUM DOWNSPOUT 21.EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS WITH TRUE DIVIDED LIGHTS 22.TYPICAL WINDOW TRIM: CEMENT BOARD, SMOOTH FINISH 1X4 AT JAMBS, 1X4 APRON, 5/4X6 AT HEAD, AND 1-1/8 STOOL, TYPICAL AT ALL WINDOWS 23.EXISTING ACCESS DOOR 452 Lincoln AvenueAlameda CA 94501thornton.weiler@comcast.netTEL: 510.521.7300CELL: 510.381.4829Date: Scale: Drawn: Job: Sheet Of Sheets ISSUE Stamp Proposed & Existing Elevations2nd Story addition and garageA3.1 DATE Azzghayer-Mannaa847 Acacia AvenueBurlingame, CAApn 029-015-050DESIGN REVIEW 8-12-13 RESUBMITTAL PLANNING COMMENTS 9-11-13 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 9-12-13 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 10-4-13 12 10 12 3 PROPOSED EDGEHILL DRIVE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING REAR ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING EDGEHILL DRIVE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 FIRST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR 7'-1"10'-0"TOP PLATE @ DORMER 8'-0"RIDGE EL 129.5' ABOVE AVE. T.O. CURB AA-AA-12 10 12 3 12 4 12 6 12 6 (N) (N)(N) (N) (E) (E)(E) (E) (N) (N) (N)(N)(N)(N) (N)(N)(N) (E)(E) (N) 4 8 10 11 12 1 1 139'-4"EGRESS WINDOW- NET CLEAR 28"WIDE X 24" HIGH & 5.7 S.F. NET CLEAR EGRESS WINDOW- NET 28" WIDE X 54" HIGH EGRESS WINDOW- NET 28" WIDE X 54" HIGH 14 2'-0"18 21 2 (E)(E)(E) (N) (N)31'-0"(N) (N) 14 23 (E)452 Lincoln AvenueAlameda CA 94501thornton.weiler@comcast.netTEL: 510.521.7300CELL: 510.381.4829Date: Scale: Drawn: Job: Sheet Of Sheets ISSUE Stamp Proposed & Existing Elevations2nd Story addition and garageA3.1 DATE Azzghayer-Mannaa847 Acacia DriveBurlingame, CAApn 029-015-050DESIGN REVIEW 8-12-13 RESUBMITTAL PLANNING COMMENTS 9-11-13 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 9-12-13 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 10-4-13 452 Lincoln AvenueAlameda CA 94501thornton.weiler@comcast.netTEL: 510.521.7300CELL: 510.381.4829Date: Scale: Drawn: Job: Sheet Of Sheets ISSUE Stamp Proposed & Existing Elevations2nd Story addition and garageA3.2 DATE Azzghayer-Mannaa847 Acacia DriveBurlingame, CAApn 029-015-050DESIGN REVIEW 8-12-13 RESUBMITTAL PLANNING COMMENTS 9-11-13 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 9-12-13 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 10-4-13 EXISTING INTERIOR SIDE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 ROOF HEIGHT REF. ELEV. ABOVE AVE. T.O. CURB 129.0' TOP OF FLOOR +3'-0" PROPOSED INTERIOR SIDE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 2ND FLOOR TOP OF PLATE @ DORMER 3'-2"7'-6"10'-0"PL 12 4 12 3 12 10 12 10 (N) (N) EGRESS WINDOW- NET CLEAR 28"WIDE X 24" HIGH & 5.7 S.F. NET CLEAR EGRESS WINDOW- NET 28" WIDE X 54" HIGH EGRESS WINDOW- NET 28" WIDE X 54" HIGH 14 14 31'-1"AVE T.O. CURB 98.07 + 97.9 /2 = EL 97.98' (N) (N) (E) (E) (E) (N) (N)5'-0" 21'-0" GARAGE FLOOR PLAN Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"121'-0"20'-3"20'-5"452 Lincoln AvenueAlameda CA 94501thornton.weiler@comcast.netTEL: 510.521.7300CELL: 510.381.4829Date: Scale: Drawn: Job: Sheet Of Sheets ISSUE Stamp Proposed Garage2nd Story addition and garageA4 DATE Azzghayer-Mannaa847 Acacia DriveBurlingame, CAApn 029-015-050DESIGN REVIEW 8-12-13 RESUBMITTAL PLANNING COMMENTS 9-11-13 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 9-12-13 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"1 FRONT ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"3 BACK ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"4 TOP PLATE 8'-0"12'-4"4 2 3 1 ELEVATION KEY NOTES 1.COMPOSITION SHINGLES, CLASS B ROOF 2.4X4 KNEE BRACKET, REDWOOD, PAINTED 3.1X8 FIBER CEMENT SIDING 4.WOOD SECTIONAL16'-0" X 7'-0" DOOR, PAINTED 5.REDWOOD TRELLIS - 3X4S SPACED 16" O.C. OVER 4X8 6.WOOD STYLE AND RAIL DOOR WITH DIVIDED LIGHTS 7.WOOD WINDOWS WITH SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS 5 3 6 7 12 4 21'-2"21'-0"21'-8"1'-0"4'-0"452 Lincoln AvenueAlameda CA 94501thornton.weiler@comcast.netTEL: 510.521.7300CELL: 510.381.4829Date: Scale: Drawn: Job: Sheet Of Sheets ISSUE Stamp Landscape PlanNew 1st & 2nd Story addition and garageL1 DATE Azzghayer-Mannaa847 Acacia AvenueBurlingame, CAApn 029-015-050DESIGN REVIEW 8-12-13 RESUBMITTAL PLANNING COMMENTS 9-11-13 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 9-12-13 (E) TURF GRASS (E) TURF GRASS T1 T3 S1 V1 S2 S3 S3S4 S4 S5 T2 N2 T4 S6 S7 N1 N3 5-(N) S10 N4 PLANT LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QUANTITY SIZE COMMENT TREES T1 Platanus acerifolia Sycamore NA NA Existing Street fTree Along Edgehill Rd T2 Magnolia grandifolia Southern Magnolia NA NA Existing Street Tree Along Acacia Ave. T3 Acer japonica Japanese Maple NA NA Existing T4 Prunus cerasifera 'Atropurpurea'Purple-Leaf Plum NA NA Existing N1 Platanus acerifolia Sycamore 2 24"Box New Street Tree along Edghill Rd N2 Magnolia grandifolia Southern Magnolia 1 24"Box New Street Tree along Acacia Avenue N3 Lagerstoemia hybrid 'Yuma'Yuma Hybrid Crape Myrtle 1 15 GAL New N4 Fraxinus angustifolia 'Raywood'Raywood Ash 1 15 GAL Alternative garden tree rear yard, new N4 Koelreuteria paniculata 'Rose Lantern'Golden-rain Tree 1 15 GAL Alternative garden tree rear yard, new N4 Chionathus restusus Chinese Fringe Tree 1 15 GAL Alternative garden tree rear yard, new SHRUBS S1 Trachelospermum jasminoidesStar Jasmine NA NA Existing S2 Abelia grandiflora Glossy Abelia NA NA Existing S3 Correa 'Ivory Bells'Ausralian Fuschia NA NA Existing S4 Viburnum Lauritanus 'Dwarf'Laurustinus NA NA Existing S5 Myrica californica Pacific Wax Myrtle NA NA Existing S6 Abelia grandiflora Glossy Abelia NA NA Existing S7 Abelia grandiflora Glossy Abelia NA NA Existing S10 Myrica californica Pacific Wax Myrtle NA NA Existing VINES V1 Wisteria siinensis Chinese Wisteria NA NA Existing 45'-3"9'-6"13'-7"18'-6"9'-0"38'-4"7'-5"16'-1"11'-3"19'-10"16'-1"90'-7"SETBACKSETBACK SETBACK19'-10"45'-0" SIDEWALK EDGEHILL DR 4'-0"5'-10"(E) CURB CUT 2'-2"BUSHES (E) LEMON TREE (E) STREET TREE 4'-0" 5'-6" 4'-5" 1'-8" SETBACK (E) PALM TREES (3 TYP.) AVG. TOP OF CURB LEVEL 45'-3"12'-0"32'-1"8'-0"41'-10"7'-5"13'-7"11'-3"1'-8"19'-10"13'-7"90'-7"SETBACK SETBACKSETBACK SETBACK19'-10"45'-0" SIDEWALK EDGEHILL DR 4'-0"5'-10"(E) CURB CUT 2'-2"BUSHES 5'-6" 4'-5" 4'-0" MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA LANDSCAPING TREES (2 TYP.) (E) STREET TREE AVG. TOP OF CURB LEVEL 10'-3"SETBACKLOCATION SHEET TITLE PROJECT TITLE REVISIONS SHEET PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE CHECKED DRAWN BLOCK : 022 ZONING : C-R LOT : 11 DATENO.DESCRIPTION MARC MANISCALCO 650-520-4955 OWNER ENGINEERING LLC YUFLUX 5418A GEARY BLVD. SAN FRANCISCO, CA P 415-322-0793 F 415-963-4080 No. C76647 EXP. 12/31/2014 8/2/20131PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 8/30/20132PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 9/27/20133PLANNING COMMISSION 1.ENCLOSE DECK AND CONVERT INTO HABITABLE SPACE AT REAR 2.HORIZONTAL EXTENSION AT REAR APPROX. 2'-6" 3.ERECT NEW COVERED PARKING SPACE AT REAR 4.NEW STAIRWAY AT REAR FOR REAR YARD ACCESS ADDRESS:832 EDGEHILL DR. BURLINGAME, CA STORIES:1 PRESENT USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY:R-3 TYPE:V-B YEAR BUILT:1922 ZONING:C-R PARCEL:029022110 LOT SIZE = 4077 SQUARE FT (E) LOT COVERAGE = 1587 SQUARE FT (DOES NOT INCLUDE PREVIOUSLY DEMOLISHED COVERED PARKING) (E) CONDITION FLOOR AREA = 1190 SQUARE FT (E) UNCONDITIONED FLOOR AREA = 397 SQUARE FT (N) LOT COVERAGE = 1931 SQUARE FT (INCLUDES 264 SQUARE FT FROM COVERED PARKING) (N) CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA = 1490 SQUARE FT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: x REAR SET BACK REQUIREMENT OF 20'-0" x PROPOSED MAIN PROPERTY REAR SET BACK OF 13'-0" x PROPOSED COVERED PARKING REAR/SIDE SET BACK OF 0'-0" CONSTRUCTION HOURS WEEKDAYS:7:00AM - 7:00PM SATURDAYS:9:00AM - 6:00PM SUNDAYS & HOLIDAYS:10:00AM - 6:00PM (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS) 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 GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED, WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ABV.ABOVE A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ALC.ALCOVE ADJ.ADJACENT ADJUST.ADJUSTABLE ALUM.ALUMINUM A.V.AUDIO-VISUAL B.O.BOTTOM OF BD.BOARD BLDG.BUILDING BTWN.BETWEEN CAB.CABINET C.G.CORNER GUARD C.H.CLOTHES HOOK C.J.CONTROL JOINT C.L.CENTER LINE CLG.CEILING CLR.CLEAR CNTR.COUNTER COL.COLUMN CONC.CONCRETE COND.CONDITION CONT.CONTINUOUS CONST.CONSTRUCTION CPT.CARPET C.S.C.I CONTRACTOR SUPPLIED & CONTRACTOR INSTALLED CTR.CENTER DBL.DOUBLE DEMO.DEMOLITION DIM.DIMENSION DISP. DISPENSER DN.DOWN DR.DOOR DTL.DETAIL DWG.DRAWING DWR.DRAWER (E)EXISTING EA.EACH EL.ELEVATION ELEC. ELECTRICAL ENCL.ENCLOSED EQ.EQUAL EQUIP.EQUIPMENT EXPAN.EXPANSION EXT.EXTERIOR FAB.FABRICATION F.D.FLOOR DRAIN F.F.FINISH FLOOR FEC.FIRE EXT. CABINET FIN.FINISH FLR.FLOOR FLUOR.FLUORESCENT F.O.FACE OF F.T.FEET F.S.FIRE SHUTTER GA.GAUGE G.B.GRAB BAR G.D.GARBAGE DISPOSAL G.C.GENERAL CONTRACTOR GL.GLASS GYP. BD. GYPSUM BOARD H.C.HANDICAPPED HT.HEIGHT INT.INTERIOR INSUL.INSULATED JT.JOINT K.S.KNEE SPACE L.LOCKER LOC.LOCATION MAG.MAGNETIC MAX.MAXIMUM MECH.MECHANICAL MIN.MINIMUM MOS.MOTION SENSOR MTD.MOUNTED MTG.MOUNTING MTL.METAL (N)NEW N.I.C.NOT IN CONTRACT N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE O/OVER O.C.ON CENTER O.H.OPPOSITE HAND OPNG.OPENING OPP.OPPOSITE O.S.C.I.OWNER SUPPLIED & CONTRACTOR INSTALLED O.S.O.I.OWNER SUPPLIED & OWNER INSTALLED PART. BD.PARTICLE BOARD PL.PLATE P. LAM.PLASTIC LAMINATE PLCB. PLASTIC LAMINATE CABINET PNL.PANEL P.T.PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER PTD.PAINTED RAD.RADIUS REINF.REINFORCE REQ'D.REQUIRED RESIL.RESILIENT R.C.P.REFLECTED CEILING PLAN RM.ROOM R.O.ROUGH OPENING R.O.S.ROLL OUT SHELF S&P SHELF AND POLE S.D.SOAP DISPENSER SIM.SIMILAR SHT.SHEET S.C.D.SEE CIVIL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS S.E.D. SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS S.L.D. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS S.M.D.SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS S.P.D. SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS SPECS.SPECIFICATIONS SQ. IN.SQUARE INCHES SQ. FT.SQUARE FEET S.S.STAINLESS STEEL S.S.D. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS ST. STL.STAINLESS STEEL STL.STEEL STN.STATION SUSP.SUSPENDED T.TEMPERED GLASS TEL.TELEPHONE TEMP.TEMPERED T.O.TOP OF TYP.TYPICAL U.N.UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED V.A.T. VINYL ACOUSTICAL TILE V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD W/WITH W.C.WATER CLOSET WD.WOOD WDW WINDOW W/O.WITHOUT W.O.WHERE OCCURS NN AVG. TOP OF CURB _ TOP OF ROOF (E) 8" EXTERIOR WOOD SIDING (E) 6" VINYL ROOF EAVE FASCIA (E) VINYL WINDOWS (TYP.) (E) WOOD DECK & RAILING 1ST FLOOR (E) 4" WOOD TRIM (E) STONE VENEER 11'-3"32'-2"1'-8" 2:12 SLOPE 2:12 SLOPE (E) RAIN GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT (TYP.) (E)(E) (E) BRICK CHIMNEY TOP OF PLATE +48.16' 63.52' 51.19' 59.19' GROUND TOP OF ROOF 1ST FLOOR (E) RAIN GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT (TYP.) (E) 6' VINYL ROOF EAVE FASCIA (E) ALUM. WINDOW (E) WOOD DECK & RAILING 11'-3"32'-2" (E) 4" WOOD TRIM GROUND AT CALIFORNIA DR (E) 8' TALL RETAINING WALL 2:12 SLOPE 2:12 SLOPE (E) 8" EXTERIOR WOOD SIDING (E)(E)(E) (E) WOOD DR. 2'6"X5'8" (E) VINYL WINDOWS (TYP.) (E) BRICK CHIMNEY (E) VINYL GABLE ATTIC VENT (7.5SF) 1'-8" AVG. TOP OF CURB _+48.16'12'-0"7'-6"12'-0"TOP OF PLATE 36.22' 44.22' 63.52' 51.19' 59.19' TOP OF ROOF 1ST FLOOR 11'-3"32'-2"1'-8" 2:12 SLOPE 2:12 SLOPE (E)(E) (N) METAL GARAGE DR. 4:12 SLOPE4:12 SLOPE (N) 8" EXTERIOR WOOD SIDING GARAGE OUTLINE AVG. TOP OF CURB _+48.16' TOP OF PLATE 63.52' 51.19' 59.19' TOP OF ROOF @GARAGE 58.85' (N) 8" EXTERIOR WOOD SIDING (N) 6" WOOD ROOF EAVE FASCIA (N) VINYL WINDOWS (TYP.) 11'-3"32'-2" (N) BEDROOM WINDOW W/ 36"W X 48" H NET CLR. OPENING 2:12 SLOPE 2:12 SLOPE 4:12 SLOPE 4:12 SLOPE (N) (N) (N) WOOD DR. 2'6"X5'8" (N) WOOD GABLE ATTIC VENT (7.5SF) 1'-8" GROUND TOP OF ROOF 1ST FLOOR GROUND AT CALIFORNIA DR AVG. TOP OF CURB _+48.16'12'-0"7'-6"12'-0"TOP OF PLATE (N) 4" WOOD TRIM (TYP.) 63.52' 51.19' 59.19' 36.22' 44.22' (N) WOOD DR. 2'6"X6'8" TOP OF ROOF @GARAGE 58.85' (N) REDWOOD DECK & RAILINGS LOCATION SHEET TITLE PROJECT TITLE REVISIONS SHEET PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE CHECKED DRAWN BLOCK : 022 ZONING : C-R LOT : 11 DATENO.DESCRIPTION MARC MANISCALCO 650-520-4955 OWNER ENGINEERING LLC YUFLUX 5418A GEARY BLVD. SAN FRANCISCO, CA P 415-322-0793 F 415-963-4080 No. C76647 EXP. 12/31/2014 8/2/20131PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 8/30/20132PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 9/27/20133PLANNING COMMISSION 1 3/16" = 1' - 0" EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION VIEW 3 3/16" = 1' - 0" EXISTING REAR ELEVATION VIEW 2 3/16" = 1' - 0" PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION VIEW 4 3/16" = 1' - 0" PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION VIEW 13'-7"49'-10"19'-10" (N) 8" EXTERIOR WOOD SIDING (N) ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING 7'-5" 24'-0" (E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(N) DOWNSPOUT (TYP.) (N) 6" WOOD ROOF EAVE FASCIA AVG. TOP OF CURB _ TOP OF ROOF 1ST FLOOR TOP OF PLATE +48.16' 63.52' 51.19' 59.19' TOP OF ROOF @GARAGE 58.85' (N) REDWOOD DECK & RAILINGS 10'-3" 13'-7"12'-0"45'-3"19'-10" (N) 8" EXTERIOR WOOD SIDING (N) ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING (E)(E)(E)(E) (N) DOWNSPOUT (TYP.) (N) 6" WOOD ROOF EAVE FASCIA GROUND _ TOP OF ROOF 1ST FLOOR AVG. TOP OF CURB TOP OF PLATE +48.16' 63.52' 51.19' 59.19' 44.22' (N) REDWOOD DECK & RAILINGS 10'-3" 16'-1"9'-0"38'-4"19'-10" (E) 8" EXTERIOR WOOD SIDING (E) ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES (E) ALUM. SLIDING GLASS DR. (E) WOOD DECK & RAILING 7'-5" (E) STONE VENEER (E)(E)(E) (E) DOWNSPOUT (TYP.) (E) VINYL WINDOWS (TYP.) (E) WOOD DR. (E) BRICK CHIMNEY (E) 6" VINYL ROOF EAVE FASCIA AVG. TOP OF CURB _ TOP OF ROOF 1ST FLOOR TOP OF PLATE +48.16' 63.52' 51.19' 59.19' 16'-1"9'-6"45'-3"19'-10" GROUND _ TOP OF ROOF 1ST FLOOR (E) 8" EXTERIOR WOOD SIDING (E) ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES (E) 4" WOOD TRIM (E) BRICK CHIMNEY (E) VINYL WINDOWS (TYP.) (E) BEDROOM WINDOWS W/ 48"W X 30"H NET CLR. OPENING (E)(E)(E)(E) (E) DOWNSPOUT (TYP.) (E) BRICK CHIMNEY (E) 6" VINYL ROOF EAVE FASCIA AVG. TOP OF CURB TOP OF PLATE +48.16' 63.52' 51.19' 59.19' 44.22' LOCATION SHEET TITLE PROJECT TITLE REVISIONS SHEET PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE CHECKED DRAWN BLOCK : 022 ZONING : C-R LOT : 11 DATENO.DESCRIPTION MARC MANISCALCO 650-520-4955 OWNER ENGINEERING LLC YUFLUX 5418A GEARY BLVD. SAN FRANCISCO, CA P 415-322-0793 F 415-963-4080 No. C76647 EXP. 12/31/2014 8/2/20131PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 8/30/20132PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 9/27/20133PLANNING COMMISSION 2 3/16" = 1' - 0" PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION VIEW 4 3/16" = 1' - 0" PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION VIEW 1 3/16" = 1' - 0" EXISTING LEFT ELEVATION VIEW 3 3/16" = 1' - 0" EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATION VIEW SUBJECT PROPERTY BLOCK: 58 LOT: 46 ADDRESS: 1378 DE SOTO AVENUE OCCUPANCY TYPE: 1 UNIT RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE: 50'-0" x 120'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY BLOCK: 58 LOT: 45 ADDRESS: 1374 DE SOTO AVENUE OCCUPANCY TYPE: 1 UNIT RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE: 50'-0" x 120'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY BLOCK: 58 LOT: 41 ADDRESS: 2117 HILLSIDE DRIVE OCCUPANCY TYPE: 1 UNIT RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE: 50'-0" x 120'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY BLOCK: 58 LOT: 42 ADDRESS: 2113 HILLSIDE DRIVE OCCUPANCY TYPE: 1 UNIT RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE: 50'-0" x 120'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY BLOCK: 58 LOT: 43 ADDRESS: 2109 HILLSIDE DRIVE OCCUPANCY TYPE: 1 UNIT RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE: 50'-0" x 120'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY BLOCK: 58 LOT: 6 ADDRESS: 1383 VANCOUVER AVENUE OCCUPANCY TYPE: 1 UNIT RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE: 50'-0" x 120'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY BLOCK: 58 LOT: 7 ADDRESS: 1377 VANCOUVER AVENUE OCCUPANCY TYPE: 1 UNIT RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE: 50'-0" x 120'-0" DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY CURBCUT REAR YARD REAR YARD REAR YARD REAR YARD REAR YARD EASEMENT EASEMENT FRONT YARD FRONT YARD FRONT YARD FRONT YARD FRONT YARD SIDEWALK DOWNDOWN DOWNDOWN DOWN DOWN FLAT ROOF ABOVE SECOND FLOOR DECK AT SECOND FLOOR PLANTERS PLANTERS DOWNDOWN DOWNDOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN DN DN DN DN PLANTER TERRACE TERRACE TERRACE TERRACE DOWN DOWNDOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN FLAT ROOF ABOVE SECOND FLOOR DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN 120'-0" SUBJECT PROPERTY DEPTH7'-0" 50'-0" SUBJECT PROPERTY WIDTH 50'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY WIDTH 120'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY DEPTH50'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY WIDTH120'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY DEPTH 50'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY WIDTH50'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY WIDTH120'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY DEPTH 120'-0" ADJACENT PROPERTY DEPTH 22'-912"PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE(N) PITCHED ROOF DOWN (N) ROOF ABOVE 2ND FLOOR SIDE YARD (E) PLANTERDN (E) STREET TREE (E) STREET TREE (E) STREET TREE(E) STREET TREE (E) STREET TREE (E) STREET TREE DE SOTO AVENUE (E) STREET TREE (E) STREET TREE CURBCUT CURBCUTCURBCUT CURBCUT SIDEWALK SIDEWALKSIDEWALK SIDE WALK SIDE WALK SIDE WALK (E) 85 S.F. SHED (E) 6" JAPANESE MAPLE NEW 24" BOX-SIZE JAPANESE MAPLE TREE NEW 24" BOX-SIZE JAPANESE MAPLE TREE10'-0"ON-SITE PARKING AT GARAGE AT FIRST LEVEL NORTH PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" AS NOTED GG, MK 1305 PLANNING PERMIT 07.22.13 1378 DE SOTO AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010SCALE DRAWN DATE t: 415. 318.8634 f: 415. 318.8638 351 ninth street, suite 301 san francisco, ca 94103 interiors planning architecture w w w . a r c h s f . c o m REVISION 1 09. 18. 2013 REVISION 2 10. 03. 2013 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A 2.0 1 A2.0 + 108.59' (N) THIRD LEVEL 30' HEIGHT LIMIT 36' HEIGHT LIMIT C.0.01 C.0.01 C.0.03 C.0.04 C.0.04 C.0.05 C.0.07 C.0.08 C.1.00 C.1.01 C.1.01 C.1.01C.1.01 C.1.10 C.1.09 C.1.09 C.1.11 C.1.12 C.2.01C.2.01 C.2.01 C.2.00 C.2.04 C.5.00 7'-2" RISE AT FRONT YARD93.93'93.94' 94.20' 94.29'+ 93.94' (E) LOWER LEVEL / GARAGE33'-4"12'-0"7'-6"DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE92.69' 1X7 WOOD FASCIA BOARD 6'-10"2'-712"1'-0"4'-012"1'-0"4'-1112"1'-0"egress3'-5"2'-1"1'-612" SILL HTegress C.1.17 AVERAGE OF FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY CORNER SPOT ELEVATIONS ALONG LEFT SIDE: (88.88' + 96.50') / 2 = 92.69'30'-0"36'-0"+ 93.94' (E) LOWER LEVEL / GARAGE D.0.06 7'-212" RISE AT FRONT YARD+ 116.86' (E) HIGH POINT 29'-812"93.93'93.94' 94.20' 94.29' 12 3.5 12 3.5 12 3.25 12 3.25 6'-10"2'-712"1'-0"4'-012"1'-0"3'-312"1'-0"AS NOTED GG, MK 1305 PLANNING PERMIT 07.22.13 1378 DE SOTO AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010SCALE DRAWN DATE t: 415. 318.8634 f: 415. 318.8638 351 ninth street, suite 301 san francisco, ca 94103 interiors planning architecture w w w . a r c h s f . c o m REVISION 1 09. 18. 2013 REVISION 2 10. 03. 2013 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A 3.0 PROPOSED WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" CONSTRUCTION SHEET NOTES 0.00C 0.01C 0.02C 0.03C NEW CONCRETE FOOTING OR FOUNDATIONS S.S.D EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE TO REMAIN. PATCH AS REQUIRED. EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN 1.00C NEW EXTERIOR 2x4 WOOD STUD WALL WITH NEW EXTERIOR STUCCO 1.03C NEW ONE-HOUR FIRE-RATED INTERIOR 2x4 WOOD STUD WALL WITH 5/8 TYPE-X GYPSUM WALLBOARD ON BOTH SIDES 1.02C EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL TO REMAIN. SMOOTH COAT OR REPLACE STUCCO AS REQ'D EXISTING INTERIOR WALL TO REMAIN 1.04C 2.00C NEW EXTERIOR POWDER-COATED ALUMINUM DOUBLE-GLAZED SLIDING DOOR UNIT 2.01C EXISTING PAINTED WOOD UPWARD ACTING GARAGE DOOR WITH MIN 200 SQ. IN. OF VENTILATION TO REMAIN 2.02C 2.06C 3.00C NEW INTERIOR DOOR 2.04C 2.05C EXISTING MASONRY FIREPLACE TO REMAIN AND INSTALL NEW FIREPLACE SURROUND AND GAS INSERT. 5.00C 5.01C 1.05C 5.02C 5.03C 1.07C (N) INTERIOR 1 HOUR FIRE-RATED WOOD STUD WALL W/ 5/8" TYPE-X GYP. BD. ON BOTH SIDES. WALL TYPES NEW 20 MIN FIRE-RATED SOLID-CORE INTERIOR DOOR WITH SELF-CLOSER AND SMOKE GASKET BETWEEN GARAGE AND LIVING SPACE 1.09C (E) EXTERIOR OR INTERIOR WALL TO BE RETAINED 1.01C 1.06C 1.10C 1.12C 1.13C 1.14C NEW EXTERIOR ALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD DOUBLE-GLAZED WINDOW UNIT WITH NEW PAINTED WOOD TRIM NEW STAINED WOOD AND FROSTED GLASS ENTRY DOOR 2.03C 3.01C NEW BATHROOM WITH NEW FIXTURES AND FINISHES. 3.03C NEW LAUNDRY AREA WITH NEW WASHER, GAS DRYER AND CABINETS. VENT AS REQUIRED. 3.04C (N) EXTERIOR 1 HOUR FIRE-RATED WOOD STUD WALL W/ PAINTED STUCCO, OVER 2 LAYERS BLDG. PAPER, OVER PLYWD SHEATHING, OVER FRAMING W/ BATT INSULATION, WITH 5/8" TYPE-X GYP. BD. INTERIOR 0.04C NEW CONCRETE ENTRY STAIRS WITH PLANTERS, PER CBC 1009.4: MIN 10" RUN, MAX 7.75" RISE. NOSING NOT LESS THAT.75" BUTNOT MORE THATN 1.25". NEW INTERIOR STAIR WITH NEW WOOD STRUCTURE, HARDWOOD TREADS AND RISERS. PER CBC 1009.4: MIN 10" RUN, MAX 7.75" RISE. NOSING NOT LESS THAT.75" BUT NOT MORE THATN 1.25". 1.18C NEW EXPOSED STAINED WOOD BEAM NEW KITCHEN WITH NEW CABINETS, CONCRETE COUNTERS, APPLIANCES AND FIXTURES NEW BUILT-IN PANTRY CABINETS. NEW MASTER CLOSET WITH NEW CLOSET SYSTEM3.05C 4.00C NEW HARDWOOD FLOORING 4.01C 4.02C NEW BOILER FOR NEW RADIANT HEATING SYSTEM AND DOMESTIC HOT WATER THROUGHOUT HOUSE NEW GUARDRAIL, 42" HIGH ABOVE TREAD NOSING, MAX 4" OPENINGS. EXISTING CONCRETE FOOTINGS / FOUNDATIONS TO REMAIN 0.05C EXISTING PLANTERS TO REMAIN 0.06C NEW WOOD DECK AND STAIRS TO REAR YARD, PER CBC 1009.4: MIN 10" RUN, MAX 7.75" RISE. NOSING NOT LESS THAT.75" BUTNOT MORE THATN 1.25". NEW GUARDRAILS / WALLS, 42" HIGH ABOVE TREAD NOSING, MAX 4" OPENINGS. 0.07C NEW CONCRETE WALKWAY 0.08C EXISTING FLOOR FRAMING TO REMAIN NEW FLOOR FRAMING AT NEW ADDITION AND RAISED FLOOR AT NEW FAMILY ROOM NEW 5 8" TYPE-X SHEETROCK OVER NEW FRAMING AT CEILING EXISTING CEILING FRAMING TO REMAIN. REPLACE CEILING FINISH WHERE REQUIRED 1.08C NEW LOW SLOPE ROOF WITH TORCH DOWN ROOFING, 1 3 8" PLYWOOD, WOOD FRAMING AND 5 8" TYPE- X GYP. BD. AT CEILING. EXISTING PITCHED ROOF WITH ASPHALT SHINGLES TO REMAIN. NEW PITCHED ROOF WITH ASPHALT SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING, 1 3 4" PLYWOOD, WOOD FRAMING AND 5 8" TYPE- X GYP. BD. AT CEILING. NEW ROUND STEEL COLUMN 1.11C NEW LOW SLOPE ROOF WITH TORCH DOWN ROOFING, 1 1 8" PLYWOOD, WOOD FRAMING AT FRONT ENTRY. EXISTING ALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD WINDOW TO REMAIN. REPLACE EXISTING TRIM WITH NEW PAINTED WOOD TRIM NEW EXTERIOR ALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD DOUBLE-GLAZED DOOR WITH NEW PAINTED WOOD TRIM. 2.07C NEW BUILT-IN CABINETS NEW TILE FLOORING NEW LINOLEUM FLOORING NEW DOUBLE SIDED GAS BURNING, DIRECT VENT, UL-LISTED FIREPLACE AT FAMILY ROOM NEW WHOLE HOUSE FAN IN NEW ROOF ABOVE STAIRS TO MASTER SUITE. LANDSCAPING TO BE DETERMINED 1.15C NEW HARDWOOD TREADS AND RISERS AT EXISTING STAIR STRUCTURE. PER CBC 1009.4: MIN 10" RUN, MAX 7.75" RISE. NOSING NOT LESS THAT.75" BUT NOT MORE THATN 1.25". 1.16C NEW HANDRAIL, 36" HIGH ABOVE TREAD NOSING. 1.17C NEW FLOOR - TO - CEILING SCREEN ELEMENT BETWEEN KITCHEN AND DINING AREA. RELOCATED DOUBLE-GLAZED WINDOW WITH NEW PAINTED WOOD TRIM2.09C EXISTING INTERIOR DOOR TO REMAIN2.10C 3.02C NEW POWDER ROOM WITH NEW FIXTURES AND FINISHES. 3.06C EXISTING BATHROOM TO REMAIN3.07C 4.03C BASIC CONCRETE FLOOR AT GARAGE 4.04C EXISTING HARDWOOD FLOORING TO REMAIN. REFINISH TO MATCH NEW. IF REQUIRED, A GRADING PERMIT WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. NEW DESIGN / BUILD SPRINKLER SYSTEM THROUGHOUT ALL NEW SPACES UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. EXISTING WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" DEMO SHEET NOTES 0.00D 0.01D RETAIN EXISTING FOOTINGS / FOUNDATIONS 0.02D REMOVE EXISTING ENTRY STAIRS 1.00D 1.01D RETAIN EXISTING INTERIOR WALL AND EXISTING INTERIOR FINISH. 1.02D RETAIN EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL, EXISTING EXTERIOR STUCCO FINISH AND EXISTING INTERIOR FINISH. 1.03D 2.00D REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW, EXTERIOR TRIM AND/OR FOAM MOLDING 3.00D REMOVE EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL REMOVE EXISTING INTERIOR WALL WALL TYPES (E) WALL TO REMAIN (E) WALL TO BE REMOVED 1.04D 2.01D 2.02D REMOVE EXISTING DOOR 2.03D 1.05D 1.06D 1.07D RETAIN EXISTING FLOOR FRAMING REMOVE EXISTING ROOFING AND ROOF FRAMING 3.01D REMOVE EXISTING KITCHEN CABINETS, APPLIANCES, FIXTURES AND FINISHES 4.00D REMOVE EXISTING FIXTURES AND FINISHES AT EXISTING BATHROOM 5.00D REMOVE EXISTING FLOORING RETAIN EXISTING MASONRY WOOD-BURNING FIREPLACE AND FLUE 5.01D REMOVE EXISTING WATER HEATER 5.02D REMOVE EXISTING FURNACE RETAIN EXISTING DOOR 0.03D RETAIN EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE. REMOVE EXISTING WOOD DECK, WOOD STAIRS AND CONCRETE FOOTINGS 0.04D RETAIN EXISTING WINDOW. REMOVE EXTERIOR TRIM AND/OR FOAM MOLDING. REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE STEPS AND TERRACE AT REAR YARD 0.05D LANDSCAPING TO BE DETERMINED0.07D 1.08D (E) PLANTERS TO REMAIN0.06D 1.09D REMOVE EXISTING CEILING FINISH AND FRAMING RETAIN EXISTING ROOFING AND ROOF FRAMING REMOVE BRICK STAIRS, WALKWAY AND PLANTER AT FRONT YARD EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN0.08D REMOVE EXISTING FLOOR FRAMING RETAIN EXISTING CEILING FRAMING. REPLACE CEILING FINISH WHERE REQUIRED 2.04D RETAIN EXISTING GARAGE DOOR 2.05D REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW AND REINSTALL AT ALTERED OPENING AT ADJACENT WALL 4.01D RETAIN EXISTING FLOORING REMOVE EXISTING INTERIOR STAIR1.10D REMOVE TREADS AND RISERS FROM EXISTING INTERIOR STAIR. RETAIN EXISTING WOOD STRUCTURE. REPLACE EXISTING GUARDRAIL. 1.11D REMOVE EXISTING DECK AND GUARD WALLS AT THIRD LEVEL1.12D 3.02D RETAIN EXISTING FIXTURES AND FINISHES AT EXISTING BATHROOM. REMOVE EXISTING TILE FLOORING. 2 A3.0 1 A3.0 PROPERTY LINE30' HEIGHT LIMIT 36' HEIGHT LIMIT PROPERTY LINEC.0.00C.0.01 C.0.01C.0.06 C.1.00 C.1.00 C.1.01 C.1.10 C.1.10 C.1.09 C.1.09 C.1.08 C.1.13 C.2.09 C.2.00C.2.00 C.2.00 C.2.00 C.2.02 C.2.03 C.2.02 C.2.03 C.5.00 C.5.01 2'-5" VIF+ 108.59' (N) THIRD LEVEL + 93.94' (E) LOWER LEVEL / GARAGE 95.45'12'-0"7'-6"92.69'DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE12 3.5 12 3.5 12 1.57"912"51 2" 1X7 WOOD FASCIA BOARD WOOD RAILING AT REAR DECK33'-4"6'-10"2'-712"1'-0"4'-012"1'-0"4'-1112"1'-0"egress4'-6"2'-0"2'-8" SILL HT30'-0"36'-0"AVERAGE OF FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY CORNER SPOT ELEVATIONS ALONG LEFT SIDE: (88.88' + 96.50') / 2 = 92.69' + 93.94' (E) LOWER LEVEL / GARAGE + 116.86' (E) HIGH POINT 94.98' 12 3.25 29'-812"6'-10"2'-712"1'-0"4'-012"1'-0"3'-312"1'-0"AS NOTED GG, MK 1305 PLANNING PERMIT 07.22.13 1378 DE SOTO AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010SCALE DRAWN DATE t: 415. 318.8634 f: 415. 318.8638 351 ninth street, suite 301 san francisco, ca 94103 interiors planning architecture w w w . a r c h s f . c o m REVISION 1 09. 18. 2013 REVISION 2 10. 03. 2013 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A 3.1PROPOSED EAST (REAR) ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING EAST (REAR) ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 A3.1 1 A3.1 30' HEIGHT LIMIT 36' HEIGHT LIMIT C.0.01 C.0.01 C.0.04 C.0.04 C.0.06 C.0.07 C.1.00 C.1.00 C.1.01 C.1.01 C.1.01 C.1.10 C.1.10 C.1.10 C.1.09 C.1.08 C.1.13 C.2.00 C.2.00 C.2.00 C.2.01 C.2.01 C.2.01 C.2.01 C.5.01 PROPERTY LINE(E) LOWER LEVEL / GARAGE + 93.94' (E) ENTRY LEVEL + 97.60' (E) SECOND LEVEL + 102.66' 93.93' 12 4.25 12 1.57"912"1X7 WOOD FASCIA BOARD WOOD RAILING AT REAR DECK 1X7 WOOD FASCIA BOARD 33'-4"6'-10"2'-712"1'-0"4'-012"1'-0"4'-1112"1'-0"egress egress 2'-10"3'-1112"3'-0" SILL HT2'-5"3'-10"3'-6" SILL HTC.1.17 30'-0"36'-0"TC 87.15' SIDEWALK (E) LOWER LEVEL / GARAGE + 93.94' (E) ENTRY LEVEL + 97.60' (E) SECOND LEVEL + 102.66' (E) THIRD LEVEL + 106.93' D.0.00 D.0.00 D.0.03 D.0.04 D.0.07 D.1.00 D.1.01 D.1.01 D.1.01 D.1.01 D.1.09 D.1.09 D.1.08 D.1.08 D.2.02 D.2.02 D.2.02D.2.02D.2.00 D.2.05 D.0.08 (E) HIGH POINT + 116.86'PROPERTY LINE93.93'29'-812"6'-10"2'-712"1'-0"4'-012"1'-0"3'-312"1'-0"12 12 AS NOTED GG, MK 1305 PLANNING PERMIT 07.22.13 1378 DE SOTO AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010SCALE DRAWN DATE t: 415. 318.8634 f: 415. 318.8638 351 ninth street, suite 301 san francisco, ca 94103 interiors planning architecture w w w . a r c h s f . c o m REVISION 1 09. 18. 2013 REVISION 2 10. 03. 2013 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A 3.2PROPOSED NORTH SIDE ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING NORTH SIDE ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 KITCHEN HOOD VENT SIDEWALK 30' HEIGHT LIMIT 36' HEIGHT LIMIT C.0.00C.0.01 C.0.04C.0.04 C.0.06 C.0.07 C.1.00 C.1.00 C.1.01 C.1.01 C.1.01 C.1.10 C.1.10 C.1.09 C.1.09 C.1.09 C.1.09 C.1.08 C.1.13 C.2.00 C.2.00 C.2.00 C.2.00 C.2.00 C.2.00 C.5.00 C.5.01 + 108.59' (N) THIRD LEVEL + 93.94' (E) LOWER LEVEL / GARAGE 94.20'94.39' 12 4.25 12 4.25 121.5 12 4.25 1X7 WOOD FASCIA BOARD 7"912"7"1X7 WOOD FASCIA BOARD 33'-4"6'-10"2'-712"1'-0"4'-012"1'-0"4'-1112"1'-0"TC 87.15'30'-0"36'-0"SIDEWALK D.0.00 D.0.00 D.0.00 D.0.02 D.0.05 D.0.07 D.1.00 D.1.00 D.1.00 D.1.00D.1.01D.5.00D.1.01 D.1.01 D.1.09 D.1.09 D.1.09 D.1.09D.1.08 D.1.09 D.1.08 D.1.12 D.2.00 D.2.00 D.2.00 D.2.00 D.2.01 PROPERTY LINE+ 93.94' (E) LOWER LEVEL / GARAGE + 116.86' (E) HIGH POINT 94.20'94.39'94.70'94.98' 12 12 12 4.25 12 4.25 12 4.25 29'-812"6'-10"2'-712"1'-0"4'-012"1'-0"3'-312"1'-0"AS NOTED GG, MK 1305 PLANNING PERMIT 07.22.13 1378 DE SOTO AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010SCALE DRAWN DATE t: 415. 318.8634 f: 415. 318.8638 351 ninth street, suite 301 san francisco, ca 94103 interiors planning architecture w w w . a r c h s f . c o m REVISION 1 09. 18. 2013 REVISION 2 10. 03. 2013 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A 3.3PROPOSED SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A3.3 2 A3.3 (E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY (E) CURBCUT REAR YARD FRONT YARD (E) PLANTERS (E) PLANTERS PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESIDE YARD (E) PLANTERDN (E) STREET TREE (E) STREET TREE(E) CURBCUT (E) SIDEWALK (E) 85 S.F. SHED (E) 6" JAPANESE MAPLE NEW 24" BOX-SIZE JAPANESE MAPLE TREE NEW 24" BOX-SIZE JAPANESE MAPLE TREE NEW GRASS NEW PAVERS NEW BUILT-IN BBQ COUNTER (E) FENCE. REPAIR AS REQ'D. (E) FENCE. REPAIR AS REQ'D. (E) FENCE. REPAIR AS REQ'D. EXISTING AND EXTENDED GRASS NEW CONCRETE WALKWAY NEW CONCRETE STAIRS, LANDINGS AND PLANTERS NEW PLANTER, TYPICAL NORTH PROPOSED SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" AS NOTED GG, MK 1305 PLANNING PERMIT 07.22.13 1378 DE SOTO AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010SCALE DRAWN DATE t: 415. 318.8634 f: 415. 318.8638 351 ninth street, suite 301 san francisco, ca 94103 interiors planning architecture w w w . a r c h s f . c o m REVISION 1 09. 18. 2013 REVISION 2 10. 03. 2013 PROPOSED SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN L 2.0 1 L2.0 DESIGN/BUILD NOTE: SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWN FOR INTENT ONLY. ALL LANDSCAPE WORK SHALL BE DESIGN-BUILD BY A LICENSED QUALIFIED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. TREE NOTE: PROPOSED HOUSE IS 3019 S.F. PER BURLINGAME ZONING CODE, 3 NON-FRUIT TREES ARE REQUIRED. EXISTING JAPANESE MAPLE AT THE FRONT YARD IS RETAINED. TWO EXISTING SMALL MAGNOLIA TREES ARE REMOVED TO MAKE SPACE FOR THE DECK. TWO NEW 24" BOX-SIZE JAPANESE MAPLES ARE PROPOSED AT THE REAR YARD. GRADING NOTE: NO CHANGES TO EXISTING GRADE ARE PROPOSED IN THIS PLAN. SEE SURVEY FOR ALL EXISTING GRADES. FENCE NOTE: NO CHANGES TO EXISTING FENCES ARE PROPOSED IN THE PLAN. REPAIR EXISTING FENCES AS REQUIRED. PARK ROADPROPOSEDBUILDINGEL CAMINO REALCOMPACT COMPACT6/6/13As NotedGreg21 Park Rd., Burlingame, CA APN 029-223-130of1/8"=1'-0"8'16'SheetJobDateDrawnScaleRevision#2176GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 736 Park Way Santa Cruz, CA 95065 (831) 425-4747Planting Planlewislandscape@sbcglobal.net0'21 Park Road4 L1Landscape NotesPlant Legend9/10/13No ScaleTree PlantingNo ScaleShrub PlantingCity Comments LOBBY ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A1 LEFT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION A6RIGHT, REAR & LEFT ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN