The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About305 Burlingame Avenue - Staff ReportItem No. 8b Regular Action Items PROJECT LOCATION 305 Burlingame Avenue Design Review City of Burlingame Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue Item No. 8b Regular Action Items Address: 305 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: February 26, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. Applicant: Danny Meredith Architect/Designer: Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group Property Owner: Helen Cook General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 029-262-030 Lot Area: 4,720 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house and detached garage to build a new, finro-story single family dwelling with a new detached garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 2,903 SF (0.61 FAR) where 3,010 SF (0.64 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including 120 SF covered porch exemption). The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the detached garage (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Though the clear interior dimensions of the detached garage qualifies as a two-car garage, only one covered space is code compliant. The covered space at the left side does not have the minimum required 24-foot back-up area (14'-0" proposed) nor can a vehicle exit from this space within three maneuvers or less based on the parking template used by the Planning Division. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: ■ Design Review for a new single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(1)). 305 Burlingame Avenue Lot Size: 4,720 SF Plans date stam ed: Se tember 11 and November 13, 2017; Februa 13, 2018 ORIGINAL REVISED REVISED � PROPOSAL ALLOWED/REQ'D 09111/17 Plans 11/13117 Plans 02/13/18 Plans SETBACKS ; ........................................... ; ....................... _............................................................................................................ Front (1St flr): 15'-0" no change 15'-6" 15 -0" �2nd f�r�: 23'-6" no change 22'-6" 20'-0" ; ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:................... . . Side (left): 6'-4" no change no change 4'-0" (right): 11'-8" no change no change 4'-0" ,. : ..................................................................................................................:................................................................... _....................................... Rear (1Sf flr): 37'-0" 37'-3" 36'-9" 15 -0 �2nd fll'): 34'-6" 36'-0" 35'-3" 20'-0" : ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .. : _ .................................................................................................................. Lot Coverage: 1848 SF 1881 SF 1879 SF 1888 SF 39.2% 39.9% 39.8% 40% ; .................................................................................................................. ............................................................... , .................................................................................................................. FAR: 2970 SF 2937 SF 2903 SF 3010 SF' 0.63 FAR (0.62) FAR (0.61) FAR 0.64 FAR �(0.32 x 4720 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3010 SF (0.64 FAR) 2 Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue 305 Burlingame Avenue Lot Size: 4,720 SF Plans date stam ed: Se tember 11 and November 13, 2017; Februa 13, 2018 ORIGINAL PROPOSAL : REVISED REVISED ALLOWED/REQ'D 09/11/17 Plans 11113/17 Plans 02/13/18 Plans # of 4 no change no change --- bedrooms: Off-Street 1 covered no change no change ; 1 covered (10' x 20') Parking: (20' x 20' clear interior)* ; 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 27'-9" ; no change ; 28'.�9 ............................................................................................30'.-0,............... DH complies complies complies CS 25.26.075 Envelo e: " Left side covered space does not have minimum required 24' back-up area and cannot be exited within 3 maneuvers or less. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks and Stormwater Divisions. The Design Review Consultant reviewed revised plans date stamped January 22, 2018. After their review, minor revisions were made to the plans that involved non-design changes to the proposed detached garage to make it code compliant. Therefore, the latest revised plans are date stamped February 13, 2018 (after the Design Review Consultant's Analysis was submitted on January 29, 2018). Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on October 10, 2017, the Commission provided recommendations for the project and referred the application to a design review consultant (see attached October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped November 13, 2017 that addressed the Commission's recommendations which included: ■ Enlarging the front covered porch from 56 SF to 120 SF; ■ Revising the originally proposed vinyl material for the windows to fiberglass clad wood; ■ Resizing window sizes to be more compatible; ■ Adding detail to the Left Side and Rear Elevations; and ■ Coordinating with neighbors abouf the location/position of the detached garage. After making revisions to the plans, the design reviewer still had concerns regarding the massing of the project and recommended to meet again to go over the revisions made. The applicant and project architect decided to move forward with the revised plans as is. The design reviewer's analysis and recommendation, received November 16, 2017 is attached. Design Review Action Hearing: At the first Action Hearing on November 27, 2017, the Planning Commission continued to have concerns with the project and referred the applicant to meet with the Design Review Consultant once more (see attached November 27, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below were the Commissions' main concerns: ■ The massing and drawings are not cohesive; ■ Articulation of the surfaces does not work with the design; and ■ Design is boxy and relies on the roofline to articulate the elevations. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped February 13, 2018. The revised plans include changes to the mass and bulk of the project as well as more articulation and detail to all four elevations. 3 Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant went through one more round of review with the project architect and applicant to address the Planning Commission's main concerns. Please refer to the attached design reviewer's analysis and recommendation, dated January 29, 2018, for a detailed review of the project. The design reviewer notes that the "previous massing of the structure has been dramatically reduced" and that the latest revision "has a definite Tudor style" that blends in with the neighborhood. Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer supports approval of the project as proposed. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. InterFace of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the proposed project (featuring hip and gable roofs, proportional plate heights, wood trim, fiberglass clad wood windows and wood doors) is compatible with the variety of styles that define the character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 13, 2018, sheets A-1.0 through A-4 and sheet L-1; 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 staffl; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans 4 Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. `Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Danny Meredith, applicant � Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group, designer Helen Cook, property owner Attachments: Design Review Analysis, dated January 29, 2018 November 27, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Analysis, date stamped November 16, 2017 Response Letter from Designer to the Planning Commission, dated November 16, 2017 October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed February 16, 2018 Aerial Photo 5 Design Review Comments City of Burlingame Property Owner: Applicant Name: Designer: Project Address: Planner: Date of Review: Design Guidelines: Helen Cook Danny Meredith Jaime Rapadas 305 Burlingame Avenue `Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 29 January 2018 1. COMPATABILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. There are some large two story structures in the immediate vicinity. There doesn't seem to be a particular style of architecture in the neighborhood. Common elements are exteriors of cement plaster and wood siding with wood or metal windows. The original era of homes is probably the 1940's; however, several have been remodeled into two story homes. This particular location has some unusual circumstances such as a giant palm tree in the center of the lot; the existing house is setback to the rear of the site; and it is adjacent to a church to the East. 2. RESPECT FOR THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The area has both attached and detached garages. The proposed garage will be detached in the rear of the property. Now that the Eucalyptus tree at the right of the driveway has been removed; it may be possible to straighten out the proposed driveway entrance from the street. 3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CONSISTENCY AND MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. The previous massing of the structure has been dramatically reduced by the increased roof slope; decreasing the second floor plate height; articulating the first and second floor elevations and incorporating gables at the roofline. All these elements add to the interest in the exterior elevations. The structure has a definite Tudor style, including several elements noted above. 4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. Within seven adjacent residences on the block, five of them are very large two story structures. This residence will not stand out as overly large in the area. The church to the left, 301 Burlingame Avenue, is mainly single story, with the parking lot adjacent to the proposed new residence. There should be no impact on the church structure with the new two story residence. The adjacent structure to the right, 315 Burlingame Avenue is a tall two story residence. The two properties will have the distance of approximately 24'-0" between the residences, due to adjacent driveways. There should be little or no impact on the neighbor's home. 5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. The neighbor to the right has bushes which are quite mature and will screen the first floors from each other. A few trees are to be added to the rear yard and one in the front. 6. IN THE CASE OF AN ADDITION, COMPATABILITY WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS REMODELED. The current residence is a small single story residence at the rear of the yard. There are no similarities between the existing and the proposed residences. COMMENTS: The architect and developer have definitely listened to comments suggested by the Planning Commission. Instead of working solely with the roofline, the architect worked in 3-D to incorporating the elevations and plan to achieve this newly proposed structure. The massing has been reduced by lowering the second floor plate height, increasing the roof slope and articulating the exterior elevations. Also, timbers have been added to the elevations to represent the Tudor style proposed here. The front porch was previously increased, thus providing a welcoming entrance. This proposed residence will be a nice addition to the neighborhood, and in actuality may be even more compatible than the existing residence. ��1' Catherin J.M. '1 eyer �=�a ��.�, , �� r�4� 1 � n,^:, �5 � L,1,,� C1TY CF �URL►f��G�{r��E CD�-�'!-�fdi�1�NG D1�1. � CITY �� . � ,�,` j � °� —, qv�k�. City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, November 27, 2077 7:00 PM Council Chambers b. 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, finro-story single-family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Danny Meredith, applicant; Helen Cook, property owner; Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group, designer) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Commissioner Comaroto returned the dais. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Commissioner Gau/ noted that he had submitted a bid on the project previously, but has no involvement in the project at this time. Commissioner Sargent left the chambers as he was recused from the discussion for non-statutory reasons. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.� There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Danny Meredith and He/en Cook represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Noted that comments regarding the floor plan were not intended to presume the conversion of space to an additional bedroom; was concerned about where the media wall wou/d be placed. > Why was the dialog cut off with the design review consultant? (Meredith: felt that every prob/em raised by the Commission had been addressed. Are in a time crunch.) > Noted that the intent of the design review process is to streamline the process by gaining the experience of the consu/tant in assisting with refining designs. > Doesn't understand why there are two larger, inboard gables on the /eft e/evation? Doesn't appear that these elements are necessary. A/so, isn't clear how the center gab/e reso/ves into the main roof on the /eft elevation. (Meredith: stated that they are clearly shown on the rear elevation.) The gab/es are not drawn proper/y on the roof p/an. These e/ements need to be resolved. > Noted that the small bay on the left e/evation shows a belly-band that doesn't appear to fo/low a/ong to the rear elevation. > Whaf is creating the doub/e lines on the roof? (Meredith: had the architect remove the roof finish pattern.) > The massing and the drawings don't hang together. > Feels that the architect's approach to articulating the surfaces doesn't work with the design; doesn't belief the proposed means of articulation really addresses the concerns. > The roof doesn't do a good job of articulating the wall surfaces. > Likes the increased size of the porch and some of the other changes. CityofBurlingame Page 1 Printed on Z/22/2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 27, 2017 > Concerned that the design is a large box that relies upon an undulating roofline fo articulate the elevafions. The changes don't really fully address fhe issues raised by the Commission previously. > Suggested that a 3-D model would he/p the interpretation of the design; not clear that the person drawing the p/ans real/y understands the concerns expressed by the Commission. > Likes what was done with the front e/evation, but has the same concems expressed by others regarding the /eft e/evation. > Appears that the primary concern of the Commission is the roofline articu/ation. Noted that some details get worked out when being built. Doesn't fee/ that the articulation concerns have been adequately resolved. Needs further revisions. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > One more round of review by the design review consu/tant may have resolved the outstanding issues; this is confirmed by the design reviewer's comments. A/so noted a/ack of consistency in the project p/ans. The projects shou/d have been fina/ly reviewed by the licensed architect before being presented to the Commission. > Make more of an effort to improve the articu/ation, not just roofline changes. > The roof drawings do not match the e/evation details, particu/ar/y re/ated to gab/es. The front and right-side elevations show incorrecfly drawn gables (hips are shown, rafher than gab/es.) Have taken what was massive and bu/ky and simply made changes to the roofline and added a bay. Likes the enlarged porch. Now a matter of better articu/ating what is implied in the roof design as it re/ates fo the elevations . The most significant suggestions raised previously were to enlarge the porch and work with a design review consultant. > Asked other Commissioners if there were concerns regarding the window se/ection. > The window selection is acceptable. > Have made a good effort to address design concerns, but needs to work further with the design review consu/tant. > Make sure that the project designer can adequately respond to the questions raised by the design review consultant,� the drawings need to hang together. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the item and refer the matter back to a design review consultant for further evaluation. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5- Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Kelly Recused: 1 - Sargent City of Burlingame page 2 Printed on 2/22/2018 Design Review Comments City of Burlingame Property Owner: Applicant Name: Designer: Project Address: Planner: Date of Review: Helen Cook Danny Meredith ��f �� Jaime Rapadas 305 Burlingame Avenue `Amelia Kolokihakaufisi �JOV �: � 2G�� Ci i Y OF �'UR! iiJ.�-�,�Ni� �'l. C��-PL<<`,j^;,"�;G �.� Design Guidelines: 1. COMPATABILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHODD. There are some large two story structures in the immediate neighborhood. There doesn't seem to be a particular style of architecture in the neighborhood. Common elements are exteriors of cernent plaster and wood siding with wood or metal windows. The original era of homes is probably the 1940's; however, several have been remodeled into two story homes. This particular location has some unusual circumstances such as a giant palm tree in the center of the lot; the existing house is setback to the rear of the site; and it is adjacent to a church to the East. 2. RESPECT FOR THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The area has both attached and detached garages. The proposed garage will be detached in the reaz of the property. 3. ARCHITECTU.R.AI. STYLE AND CONSISTENCY AND MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. The front elevation is articulated with the second floor set back; two front gables on the first floor; and increasing the Front Porch size as requested by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had asked to have the massing of the structure reviewed. The architect has lowered the first floor plate height from 9'-6" to 8'-6" to reduce some of the massing. T'he side elevations have more articulation with adding the belly band, pushing in the second floor Bathroom 2'-0", while popping out the opposite second floor wa11 1'-6". This is a step in the right direction, but I do not believe it is enough to improve the overall massing. The roof lines appear to be "drawn or pasted on" instead of incorporating gables or dormers three dimensionally into the elevations and plan. 4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. The church to the left, 301 Burlingame Avenue, is mainly single story, with the parking lot adjacent to the proposed new residence. There should be no impact on the church structure with the new two story residence. 315 Burlingatne Avenue is a large two story residence. The iwo properties will have the distance of their driveways separating them with little or no impact on the neighbor's home. 5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. The neighbor to the right has bushes which are quite mature and will screen the %rst floors from each other. A few trees are to be added to the rear yard and one in the front. 6. IN THE CASE OF AN ADDITION, COMPATABILITY WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS REMODELED. There are no similarities between the existing and the proposed structures. COMII�NTS: As previously mentioned, there are improvements that have been made in the design of the structure, however there are still areas which need attention. The roof could be lowered by tucking it anto a lower plate height at the perimeter and adding more three dimensional features such as gables. The Bay window in at the Kitchen makes sense from the interior space, however, it is awkward at the exterior elevation as it breaks the belly band and inset above at the second floor. I do feel more attention should be given to the overall massing of the residence. l�� Catheri J.M. meyer AiR DESIGN GROUP 801 MAHLER ROAD SUITE 106 BURLINGAME CA 94010-1608 ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING ph: 650 697 0950 email: ardg@sbcglobal,net 16 November 2017 The Planning Commission City of Burlingame Sir/ Madam: First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for your comments and concerns during the 10 October 2017 Design Review of our project at 305 Burlingame Avenue. They were inspiring critiques to this Architect which led the way to a better overall design. Due to the narrow lot, it was our design intent, with the Owners' approval, to make the main roofs of the first and second floor hips to lessen the bulk on all sides, the front in particular. When viewed from the street, it creates an effect that the lower roof seems to be a part of the upper roof. Following Catherine Nilmeyer's advice, smaller gables at strategic locations resulted in eliminating the "bath tub effect" of the second floor. The Owner (Danny Meredith) chosed Milgard, Essence series for windows and sliding doors. It is a fiberglass clad wood frame on insulated glass with divided lites as required Your comment on the entry porch being minimal resulted in an increased area for the porch and adjustments for a more efficient floor plan. The powder room was incorporated with a stacked laundry unit, away from the full bath. Relocating the fireplace gave way to a more desirable open plan. The front elevation now sports an eyebrow entry archway. After the Owner's meeting with the neighbors at 223 Channing Road and 232 Stanley Road, it was decided to move the relative sides of the garage 6" from the property line. The Owner is in the process of donating the existing palm tree to a worthy location. Offsetting the second floor bath rooms was a solution to reduce the scale and mass of the side elevations, with the south facing rear elevation, enhanced by adding wood trellis above the patio doors. The smaller gables on all elevations were big factors in better articulation. The bark in landscaping has been changed to gravel as a practical material for drainage. The tree remains because it is located between the reduced-in-size bay window and the archway of the front entry. We are grateful to the planning staff, Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, especially, whose assistance and guidance led us to a design appropriate to the neighborhood. es ec y, i e a s, A DG Archit ct cc: Danny Meredith, Helen Cook, Owners .� ��---: ;� r� � �:R.� � �• � ` � �,�r.— • r'?,� fi,.� :iJ'�! � �; �'.��7 t ; i?_,y; „J;= �=7 `�? �; `: _ ._,9 ,. �.�i d� i,�!71�� Cf.:�C�-�"_;';;�°i�:i?�.�(�3 ;_)�?I � CITY �� , � ��, ', _ �;,� ,tio� _9� 4voanry City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME. CA 94010 Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:00 PM Council Chambers b. 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, finro-story single-family dwelling. (Danny Meredith, applicant; Helen Cook, property owner; Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group, designer) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. P/anning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.� > What makes the lot substandard? (Hurin: 50 feet is the minimum for a new lot. Anything /ess than 50 feet is classified as substandard.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Danny Meredith represented the applicant with designer Jaime Rapadas. Commission Questions/Comments: > (Meredith: are Milgard Montecito windows acceptab/e?) Commission: The commission has not typically approved vinyl windows, but the applicant may submit a proposal for consideration. In evaluating the window the commission considers the window profile, design details, muntin bars, etc. Providing a samp/e of the window is more he/pful than only a cut sheet. > Why a full bath right across from the powder room on the first floor? (Meredith: The family room, great room and office has a full bath. If's just a half bafh coming in from the side door. > Porch is minimal - not much more than a stoop. Have options been explored for having a more gracious porch? Can exempt up to 200 square feet from floor area. (Meredith: The distance between the stairs and the corner at the door is not very large. Making the porch larger wou/d shrink the distance.) Public Comments: Eric Haseleu, 233 Channing Road: Back yard abuts the back yard of the subject property. Eager to see the proposed project built. However back of garage comes a/mosf to the fence, with only 1 foot in between. Leaves will get stuck between the fence and the back of the garage, will be hard to paint, and will attract animals. Requests to move the garage forward 1 foot so there is enough space to get between the fence and the back of the garage, to keep the area clean and be able to keep the back of the garage maintained. Rebecca Hase/eu, 232 Stanley Road: Shares a property line with fhe subject property. Neighbor at 315 has same situation with garage almost to property line. Can only maintain the back of the garage by coming into the adjacent yard. Would prefer that the garage be moved further in to provide enough space for someone to maintain it. Othenvise supports the application. Palm tree is right in the midd/e of the lot, curious whether it could be moved rather than removed. City of Burlingame page 1 Printed on 11/21/2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion.� > Palm tree root ball could be 8-10 feet deep, so could be a big undertaking to move it. Does not like to see it go, but it is right in the midd/e of the property. > Needs some work in massing and detailing. > Left side e/evafion is stark and flat, needs to be addressed. > Does not have a hierarchy in the windows from the first f/oor to the second floor. > Rear elevation is flat - could have an eyebrow or porch roof over the french doors. > A more generous porch could help, even if it is something narrow that extends across the front of the house with a turned gab/e. > Landscaping is shown as bark - would prefer plantings to help soften the driveway wall. There is enough room for some shrubs or bushes. > Coordinate the fencing with the neighbors, in relation to the position of the garage. Could consider stopping the fencing at the garage so that the back of the garage serves as the edge of the yard and can be maintained. > Would benefit from a design review consultation. > Attention should be given to the small windows on first floor, the size of the porch, articulation on left side. > Side gab/es on the front elevation seem odd. > Wou/d benefit from articulation and detailing. Rear and left elevations are stark, with tall amounts of solid stucco. > All the eaves on the second floor are the same - gives it a'bath tub ring" effect. Could break the line with a dormer or bay to provide relief and bring down the massing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6- Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Gaul City of BuAingame Page 2 Printed on 11/21/2017 � CITY ~r � �1 : � �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: ❑ Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: �� p� � Q � a ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: � �' � /� U 2- I ��-� C� -+� ✓Y)� �-�� , APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: � ��-� � � � D �` � Name: 17 �f—� J`-{ (�� \ Address: �� , �-��lCfz-,�1�� -- Address: 3�J ��Z/f��9,�1 � Cit /State/Zi � . Y p� � *� x% �� Y�/ City/State/Zip: �� C� � I a}�� - �� Q Phone: � �� '� �h Phone: v � d Ci -- � C E-maiL � 1 �! �2�-�� 'I"� � � ��y(C�C,o��'E-mail: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER NaFne: � ��/�'1� �� ►�F�S Address: �(k�� L-��, (2pnl� City/State/Zip: �� % � ( � M � � � �� g �v�� d� �?b3 -l3� � Phone: E-maiL '?�5��- �<6�J�� G� fr�2DC-� Burlingame Business License #: R�� u�� zo�7 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PIANNl;�G DIV Authorization to Reqroduce Proiect Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part ' anning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such actio (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: � O�fS�� UL-� /�� s�, �� 1 �(�'S �/Jlz:�l� .� �%GY� � S� � �e � � �-� � �� l' �2� c�-� . AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby c' under Ity of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: ' �1 G Date: � - � - �_ � I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Cornmission. � Property owner's signature:,�/k_-c�..� �� -�-- Date: ��a �� Date submitted: 5: �HANDOUTS�PC Application. doc This Space for CDD Staff Use Only � Project Description: Ke : Abbreviation ' Term : CUP Conditional Use Permit DHE Declinin Hei ht Envelope DSR Desiqn Review E Existin N New SFD Sin le Famil Dwellin SP Special Permit � CITV O �� •;:� � �'.E . ,��. �_,. Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-030 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: ', . No further comments. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 3. Based on the scope of work, this is a"Type I" project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). 4. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 5. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non-City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 6. A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit is required to (1) replace all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site, (2) plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and install a new 4" lateral, (3) all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city's right-of-way. 7. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 8. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 9. A survey by a licensed surveyor or engineer is required. The survey shall show how the property lines were determined and that the property corners were set with surveyors license numbers on durable monuments. This survey shall be attached to the construction plans. All corners need to be maintained or reinstalled before the building final. All property corners shall be maintained during construction or reestablished at the end of the project. 10. Please submit an erosion control plan. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. 11. Insert the `Best Management Practices', updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at http://www.flowstobay.ors/sites/default/files/Countvwide%20Prosram%206MP%20PIan%20Sheet- June%202014%20Update.pdf#overlav-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.or�/brochures then click "construction bmp plan sheet" Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 8/24/17 � CITY a �� ' � —�'� �° � , � aV-. @_ . Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-030 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling. From: Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comment The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 17) On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work. 18) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: August 22, 2017 650 558-7270 � CITV � �i" t : 1 .` �� Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-030 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling. From: Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal: Provide a residential fire sprinkler system throughout the residence: a. Provide a 1-inch water meter or size to accommodate sprinkler system flow demand. b. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — A schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building permit plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. c. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate fire sprinklers shall be installed under a separate deferred fire permit, approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 2. If an electronic gate crosses the driveway, provide a Knox key switch connected to the gate to allow for fire department emergency access. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 7-6-17 650-558-7617 � eurturvc.wME Project Address Description: From Project Comments - 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-030 Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling. Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. Private Protected Tree Removal Permit required for removal of palm tree once project is approved. 2. Water Conservation Checklist (attached) must be submitted for review. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Irrigation plan shall include name of controller, valves, drip system etc. and be on separate sheet. Due for Building Permit. 2. Existing City owned Eucalyptus trees may be removed pending ongoing independent arborist evaluations. Park Division (558-7330) will notify homeowner via US Mail on any necessary removals. Reviewed By: BD Date: 8.30.17 650.558.7333 Bdisco@burlingame.org � CITY O �s' :� � �`� � -+� ,�� — Project Address Description: From: Project Comments - Planning Application 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-030 Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling. Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Project does not create or replace 2,500 square feet of impervious surFace or use architectural copper. Nothing further needed at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.orq/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolvn.critz(c�veolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: July 13, 2017 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desiqn Review for a new two-story sinqle familv dwellinq with a detached qaraae at 305 Burlinqame Avenue. Zoned R-1. Mary Helen Cook Trust/Cook Trust, propertv owners APN: 029-262-030; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 26. 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th dav of Februarv, 2018, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue Effective March 8, 2018 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 13, 2018, sheets A-1.0 through A-4 and sheet L-1; 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 staf�; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue Effective March 8, 2018 Page 2 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. . CITY OF BURLINGAME � i ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD -_ ,; BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �+ PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 305 BURLINGAME AVENUE The fity of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2018 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 305 BURLINGAME AVENUE zoned R-l. APN 029-262-030 Mailed: February 16, 2018 (Please refer to other sideJ PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlin , ame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other sideJ 305 Burlingame Avenue, R-1 Item No. 8b Regular Action Items PROJECT LOCATION 305 Burlingame Avenue City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 305 Burlingame Avenue Item No. 8b Regular Action Items Meeting Date: November 27, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. Applicant: Danny Meredith ArchitectlDesigner: Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group Property Owner: Helen Cook General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 029-262-030 Lot Area: 4,720 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a new detached garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 2,937 SF (0.62 FAR) where 3,010 SF (0.64 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including 120 SF covered porch exemption). The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the detached garage (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Though the clear interior dimensions of the detached garage qualifies as a two-car garage, only one covered space is code compliant. The covered space at the left side does not have the minimum required 24-foot back-up area (15'-9" proposed) nor can a vehicle exit from this space within three maneuvers or less based on the parking template used by the Planning Division. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: ■ Design Review for a new single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(1)); 305 Burlingame Avenue Lot Size: 4,720 SF Plans date stam ed: Se tember 11 and November 13, 2017 ORIGINAL PROPOSAL REVISED ALLOWED/REQ'D 09/11/17 Plans 11/13/17 Plans SETBACKS ; _ ........................................................................................................................................................_.......................................................................................................................................................... Front (15` flr): 15'-0" no change 15'-0" (2"d flr); 23'-6" no change 20'-0" :...........................................................................................................................................................:.......................................................................................................................................................... Side (left): 6'-4" no change 4'-0" (right): 11'-8" no change 4'-0" ; t.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rear (1S` flr): 37'-0" 37'-3" 15'-0" (2"d flr): 34'-6" 36'-0" 20'-0„ Lot...............................................................1848_.S.F_........................................................�..........................................................1.88.1.....S.F.........................................................: 1888 SF Coverage: 39.2% 39.9% 40% . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ FAR: 2970 SF 2937 SF 3010 SF � 0.63 FAR (0.62) FAR 0.64 FAR (0.32 x 4720 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3010 SF (0.64 FAR) 2 Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue 305 Burlingame Avenue Lot 5ize: 4,720 5F Plans date stam ed: Se tember 11 and November 13, 2017 ORIGINAL PROPOSAL REVISED ALLOWED/REQ'D 09/11/17 Plans 11/13/17 Plans # of 4 no change --- bedrooms: : ........................................ . ... . . .. . . _ .......... .............. ....... ... ................................................................................................. Off-Street 1 covered no change 1 covered (10' x 20') Parking: (20' x 20' clear interior)'" 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') , , ........................................................................................................................................................... Height: 27'-9" no chan e ; 30'-0" ................................ ..... .. ............................................9....... ............................... . .... DH complies complies CS 25.26.075 Envelo e: " Left side covered space does not have minimum required 24' back-up area and cannot be exited within 3 maneuvers or less. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on October 10, 2017, the Commission provided recommendations for the project and referred the application to a design review consultant (see attached October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below is a summary of the Commission's comments from the Design Review Study meeting and the applicant's response (in italics) to these comments as reflected on the revised plans submitted and date stamped November 13, 2017: ■ Porch size is minimal, consider enlarging it. A 56 SF (7'x 8) front porch was originally proposed; the applicant has reduced interiorspace on fhe first floor by combining the laundry and powder room allowing for the front porch to expand to 120 SF (10' x 12 ) in size. ■ Window material and sizes: o vinyl material not typically approved; applicant may submit a proposal for consideration o there is no hierarchy from the first to the second floor Vinyl clad windows were originally proposed; the revised plans propose fiberglass clad wood windows by Milgard Essence Series. On the Front Elevation, the living room window has reduced in size while the two middle windows on the second floorhave been enlarged to be more similarin size with the windows on each side. Second floor windows on the Rear Elevation have been realigned. The number of windows on the Right Side Elevation have been reduced on the second floor and alignment of windows rearranged on both floors. On the Left Side Elevation, a couple of windows have been resized and relocated on both floors. ■ Left Side and Rear Elevations are flat and stark. The second floor layout has been slightly readjusted so that the bedrooms on the left side bump out by 2' 0" creating articulation on the exterior. The roof line on the Rear Elevafion has been adjusted and a trellis overhang added above the door from the breakfast nook/kitchen that extends 3' 0" from the wall. 3 Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue ■ Coordinate with neighbors about the location/position of the garage. The applicant met wifh the neighbors at 233 Channing Road and 232 Stanley Road; the location of fhe detached garage has been slightly moved so that now it is setback 6-inches from the rear property line (1 '-0" originally proposed) and 6%-inches from fhe right side property line (1 '-0%" originally proposed). ■ Massing and detailing needs work. Please refer to the project architect's response letter (attached). The project architect's response letter (attached) also includes responses to the Commission's comments regarding landscaping and the existing palm tree proposed to be removed. A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next section. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the project architect and applicant once to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed proposed revisions to the plans. After making revisions to the plans, the design reviewer still had concerns regarding the massing of the project and recommended to meet again to go over the revisions made. Instead, the applicant and project architect decided not to meet further with the design reviewer and to move forward with the revised plans as is. Please refer to the attached design reviewer's analysis and recommendation, received November 16, 2017, for a detailed review of the project. The design reviewer notes that the proposed design shares some "common elements" with the architectural styles in the neighborhood such as the "exteriors of cement plaster and wood siding with wood or metal windows." Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer acknowledges the revisions made to the proposed plans but recommends additional changes to further improve the design. The design reviewer also recommends that "more attention be given to the overall massing" of the structure. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. This space infentionally left blank. 4 � Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue Suggested Findings for Design Review: For the following reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the Design Review Criteria listed above: ■ that the architectural style and choice of building materials (cement plaster siding, wood windows, composition shingle roofing) are compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. ■ that the size of the detached garage and its location near the rear property line respects parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood as well as the interface with adjacent properties. ■ that the proportional plate heights, combination of hip and gable roofs, building height less than the maximum allowed, and placement of windows and architectural elements on the structure blend in with the character and architectural styles of the neighborhood. ■ that the proposed side setbacks on each side of the property (6'-4" on the left and 11'-8" on the right) exceeds the minimum required setback (4'-0") respecting the interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties. ■ that the proposed Japanese Maple and plantings at the front of the house and additional landscaping proposed at the rear of the house are in proportion to the mass and bulk of the structure. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 13, 2017, sheets A-1.0 through A-4 and sheet L-1; 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 staffl; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 5 Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. `Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Danny Meredith, applicant Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group, designer Helen Cook, property owner Attachments: Design Review Analysis, date stamped November 16, 2017 Response Letter from Designer to the Planning Commission, dated November 16, 2017 October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 17, 2017 Aerial Photo C Item No. 9b Design Review Study PROJECT LOCATION 305 Burlingame i4venue City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 305 Burlingame Avenue Item No. 9b Design Review Study Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. Applicant: Danny Meredith Designer: Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group Property Owner: Helen Cook General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 029-262-030 Lot Area: 4,720 SF Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with a substandard lot area and street frontage (C.S. 25.08.455). The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a new detached garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 2,970 SF (0.63 FAR) where 3,010 SF (0.64 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 40 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the detached garage (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Though the clear interior dimensions of the detached garage qualifies as a two-car garage, only one covered space is code compliant. The covered space at the left side does not have the minimum required 24-foot back-up area (15'-3" proposed) nor can a vehicle exit from this space within three maneuvers or less based on the parking template used by the Planning Division. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: ■ Design Review for a new single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(1)); 305 Burlingame Avenue Lot Size: 4,720 SF Plans date stam ed: Se tember 11, 2017 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS ;. Front (15t flr): 15'-0" 1.5'.-0�� ................................................................ �2nd f/�.): 23'-6" 20'-0" Side (left): 6'-4" 4'-0" (right): 11 '-8" 4'-0" : ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rear (1St flr): 37'-0" 15'-0" �Znd fll'): 34'-6" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1848 SF 1888 SF 39.2% 40% :.............................................................................................................................................................. FAR: 2970 SF 3010 SF' 0.63 FAR 0.64 FAR �(0.32 x 4720 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3010 SF (0.64 FAR) : D��ic�n Review 305 Burlingame Avenue 305 Burlingame Avenue Lot Size: 4,720 SF Plans date stam ed: Se tember 11, 2017 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (20' x 20' clear interior) 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Hei ht: 27'-9" 30 -0 � �� 9 : ...................................... . .......... . DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Danny Meredith, applicant Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group, designer Helen Cook, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 29, 2017 Aerial Photo 2 �'' �, CITY � � �� ;' � ��' . �� 6 ,��' hc � � �Avo City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, November 27, 2017 7:00 PM Council Chambers b. 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Danny Meredith, applicant; Helen Cook, property owner; Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group, designer) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Commissioner Comaroto returned the dais. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Commissioner Gaul noted that he had submitted a bid on the project previously, but has no involvement in the project at this time. Commissioner Sargent /eft the chambers as he was recused from the discussion for non-statutory reasons. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.• There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Danny Meredith and Helen Cook represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Noted that comments regarding the floor plan were not infended to presume the conversion of space to an addifional bedroom; was concerned about where the media wall would be placed. > Why was the dialog cut off with the design review consultant? (Meredith: felt that every prob/em raised by the Commission had been addressed. Are in a time crunch.) > Noted that the intent of the design review process is to streamline the process by gaining the experience of the consultant in assisting with refining designs. > Doesn't understand why there are two larger, inboard gables on the left elevation? Doesn't appear that these elements are necessary. Also, isn't clear how the center gable resolves into the main roof on the left elevation. (Meredith: stated that they are c/early shown on the rear elevation.) The gables are not drawn properly on the roof plan. These elemenfs need to be resolved. > Noted that the small bay on the left elevatoin shows a belly-band that doesn't appear to follow along to the rear elevation. > What is creating the double lines on the roof? (Meredifh: had the architect remove the roof finish pattern.) �> The massing and the drawings don't hang together. > Feels that the architecYs approach to articu/ating the surfaces doesn't work with the design; doesn't belief the proposed means of articulation really addresses the concerns. > The roof doesn't do a good job of articulating the wall surfaces. > Likes the increased size of the porch and some of the other changes. Clty ofBurlingame Page 1 Printed on 12H3/2017 r Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 27, 2017 > Concerned that the design is a large box that relies upon an undulating roofline to articulate the elevations. The changes don't really fully address the issues raised by the Commission previously. > Suggested that a 3-D model would help the interpretation of the design; not clear that the person drawing the plans really understands the concerns expressed by the Commission. > Likes what was done with the front elevation, but has the same concerns expressed by others regarding the left elevation. > Appears that the primary concern of the Commission is the roofline articu/ation. Nofed that some details get worked out when being built. Doesn't fee/ that the articulafion concerns have been adequately resolved. Needs further revisions. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum c/osed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > One more round of review by the design review consultant may have resolved the outstanding issues; this is confirmed by the design reviewer's comments. Also noted a lack of consistency in th9 project plans. The projects should have been final/y reviewed by the licensed architect before being presented to the Commission. > Listen to Richard's specific design comments... > Asked other Commissioners if there were concerns regarding the window selection. > The window selection is acceptable. > Have made a good effort to address design concerns, but needs to work further with the design review consultant. > Wiil's comments... Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue Discussion Item . The motion failed and the motion carried by the following vote: back to design review consultant. Aye: 5- Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Kelly Recused: 1 - Sargent City of Burlingeme paya 2 Printed on 12/13/2017 [� CD/PLG-Amelia Kolokihakaufisi From: CD/PLG-Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:15 PM To: dmeredith66@comcast.net; Jaime Rapadas; 'Ricci Wu' Cc: 'Catherine Nilmeyer'; CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon Subject: 305 Burlingame Ave - Follow-up to 11.27.17 PC Action Hearing Attachments: 305 Burlingame Ave - Action Meeting - PC Comments.pdf; DSR Consultant Analysis.pdf Hello Danny and Jaime, The outcome of the action hearing last night is that the Planning Commission decided to continue the item and has referred your project back to the Design Review Consultant. The following is a short bullet list of the Commission's comments/concerns: • LIKES (changes made that they liked) o Bigger porch o Added bay on first floor left side o Added trellis at the rear o Window alignment ISSUES (concerns they want to be addressed with the design) o Roof lines and elevations are not consistent with one another in the drawings o Massing still needs to be reduced o Articulation needs to be handled better—just changing the roof lines does not provide significant articulation Please view video of the meeting for further detail/information: 11.27.17 Plannin� Commission Meetin� . Below the video is the meeting agenda, click on your project and it will directly go to that portion of the meeting. Attached is a summary of the Planning Commission's comments regarding the project. I am also attaching the design review consultant's analysis since it was emphasized by the Commission. Please reply with a few dates and times that vou both will be available to meet with the desi�n review consultant. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, `Amelia `Amelia Kolokihakaufisi — Associate Planner Community Development Department - Planning Division � City of Bur9enqame ph 650.558.7250 � ameliakCa�burlingame.org Our hours: Monday through Friday - open 8:00 to 5:00, closed each day from 12:00 to 1:00 Effecttve 06.01.15 - closed every Wednesday afternoon from 12:00 to 5:00 305 Burlineame Ave — Action Meetin� 11 27 17 • Planning Commission Comments: o Terrones — Left side elevation, three gables across side that appear to be hip as reflected on Roof Plan. However, what is creating the inboard hip on the two side gables shown on the Roof Plan that they extend out but viewing from Rear Elevation — they do not. The center gable does not resolve into the valleys of the adjacent gables. Roof line that have been broken up by false gables. Roof Plan, Rear, and Front Elevations are not consistent with one another. Small bay on first floor on left side — belly band on header above window doesn't wrap around to the sides of the bay, why? What is creating the double lines on the roof? o Loftis — Similar concerns about roof as Terrones. Appears that design team is suggesting that just breaking the eave line and putting a gable shape on the face that that's articulating the surface significantly. This is not much of an articulation. Big box. Changes still don't address fundamental issues with design and its massing — it does not break down sense of a plain big box building, some of the changes do. Extraneous lines that can't sort out. Drawings don't hang together. A 3-D model would help so we can tell whaYs going on. Done some things to help but is incomplete. o Comaroto — Appreciate the changes done, looks better. Roof lines and articulations need to be resolved somehow on the plans. o Gaul —Seems like only concern Commission now has is the roof line articulation. I understand what is happening on left and right side elevations but Commission is looking more for a pop out like a bay. Double line at ridges is confusing. Very close. o Terrones — Most important point for me are the comments we got from design review consultant. The project would have benefitted by at least one more round of engagement to take changes made and break down massing further (e.g. adding bays, making roof lines into something more real and substantial, lack of consistency in drawings). There are lines on the roof that if we actually have a gable that's engaging a hip, you would not have a line there on both the front and the back. Valley is not occurring at the proper location. (Watch video of ineeting from 37:20 to 40:30 for more detail about roof line concerns.) o Comaroto — Suggest one more round with design review consultant because design is almost there. o loftis — Go back to design review consultant, make sure to answer questions that design review consultant asks because it will be the same answers the Commission reviews. w Design Review Comments City of Burlingame Property Owner: Helen Cook Applicant Name: Danny Meredith Designer: Jaime Rapadas Project Address: 305 Burlingame Avenue Planner: `Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Date of Review: Design Guidelines: 1. COMPATABILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITIi THAT OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. There are sorne large two story structures in the immediate neighborhood. There doesn't seem to be a particular style of architecture in the neighborhood. Cornmon elements aze exteriors of cement plasfier and wood siding with wood or metal windows. The original era of homes is probably the 1940's; however, several have been remodeled into two story homes. This particular location has some unusual circumstances such as a giant palm tree in the center of the lot; the existing house is setback to the rear of the site; and it is adjacent to a church to the East. 2. RESPECT FOR THE PARKIlV'G AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHSORHOOD. The area has both attached an.d detached ga,rages. The praposed gazage will be detached in the rear of the properry. 3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CONSISTENCY AND MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. The front elevation is articulated with the second floor set back; two front gables on the first floor; and increasing the Front Porch size as requested by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had asked to have the massing of the siructure reviewed. The architect has lovc�ered the first floor plate height fram 9'-6" to 8'-6" to reduce some of the massing. The side elevations have more articulation with adding the belly band, pushing in the second floor Bathroom 2'-0", while p�pping out the opposite second floor wall 1'-6". This is a step in the right direction, but I do not believe it is enough to improve the overall massing. / � � '� The roof lines appear to be "drawn or pasted on" instead of incorporating gables or dormers three dimensionally into the elevations and plan. 4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. The church to the left, 301 Burlingame Avenue, is mainly single story, with the parking lot adjacent to the proposed new residence. There should be no impact on the church struciure with the new two story residence. 315 Burlingame Avenue is a large two story residence. The two properties will ha.ve the distance of their driveways separating them with iittle or no impact on the neighbor's home. 5. L.ANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURAI. COMPONENTS. The neighbor to the right has bushes which are quite matuze and will screen the first floors from each other. A few trees are to be added to the rear yard and one in the front. 6. IN THE CASE OF AN ADDITION, COMPATABILITY WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CH.ARACTER OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS REMODELED. There are no similarities between the existing and the proposed shuctures. COMMENTS: As previausly mentioned, there are improvements that have been made in the design of the structure, however there are still areas which need attention. The roof could be lowered by tucking it into a lower plate height at the perimeter and adding more three dimensional features such as gables. The Bay window in at the Kitchen makes sense from the interior space, however, it is awkward at the exterior elevation as it breaks the belly band and inset above at the second floor. I do feel more attention should be given to the overall massing of the residence. �� Catheri J.M. lmeyer City of Burlingame Planning Division (650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 (fax) Plan Review Comments Project Address: 305 Burlingame Avenue Description: New two-story single family dwelling and new detached garage. Date of Plans: January 22, 2018 Lot Area: 4,720 SF Zoning: R-1 P/ease address all items marked with a"► " symbol. 1. Design Review (Code Section 25.26.040 and 25.57.010) • The proposed new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage is subject to Design Review. Application has been submitted. ► On the Proposed Building Elevations, note material of exterior doors on the Right Side Elevation and on the Rear Elevation. ► On the Proposed Building Elevations, note material of the wood trellis on the Rear Elevation. ► On Sheet A-4, if there is attic space - show on Section A-A detail. 2. Setbacks (Code Section 25.26.072) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Proposed Allowed/Required Front (1S� Floor): . 15'-6" 15'-0" �2nd Floo�): : 22'-6" 20'-0" Side (left): 6'-4" 4'-0" (right): ; 11'-8" 4'-0" :..........................................................................................................<.................................................................................................................................:............................................................................................................................; Rear (1St Floor): ; 36'-9" 15'-0" 2"d FIOOr :......' ..................................................35'-3" ; 20'-0„ .......................................................�......................................).. _. _......................................................................................................................: � The proposed project complies with setback regulations. 3. Lot Coverage (Code Section 25.26.065) d0% Y d79f1 SF - 1RRR SF inaYim��m allnwprl Proposed Allowed/Required :..........................................................................................................i.................................................................................................................................i............................................................................................................................; Lot Coverage: 1912 SF 1888 SF ►40.5% 40% :............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:............................................................................................................................: d�/ � The proposed project exceeds the maximum allowed lot coverage by 24 SF (calculations attached). �� "�� (Suqqestion: Reducing the extension of the rear trellis on the first floor from 3'-0" to 2'-0" will make the project comply with lot coverage regulations.) 1 City of Burlingame Planning Division (650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 (fax) Plan Review Comments 4. Floor Area Ratio (Code Section 25.26.070) 0.32 x 4720 SF + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3010 SF inaximum allowed 0.64 FAI .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Proposed Allowed/Required i..........................................................................................................e..............................................................................................................................._:........................................................................................................ Floor Area Ratio: : 2936 SF 3010 SF 0.62 FAR 0.64 FAR • The proposed project complies with floor area ratio regulations (calculations attached). 5. Building Height (Code Section 25.26.060) Average top of curb: (7.18' + 7.07')/2 = 7' Proposed: 7' + 27.75' = 34.75' (27'-9" above average top of curb) Allowed: 7' + 30.0' = 37.1' (30'-0" above average top of curb) • The proposed project complies with building height regulations. �► Include the original land survey in the plans that shows the stamp and signature of the licensed surveyor. 6. Declining Height Envelope (DHE) (Code Section 25.26.075) Points of Departure - Left Side: (7.3' + 7.2')/2 = 7.25' - Right Side: (7.25' + 7.3')/2 = 7.28' � The proposed project complies with DHE regulations. 7. Off-Street Parking (Code Section 25.70.030) 4 bedrooms proposed. Proposed: 1 covered (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions) + 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Required: 1 covered (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions) + 1 uncovered (9' x 20') • The proposed project complies with off-street parking regulations. Though the clear interior dimensions qualify to be a 2-car garage, it is considered to have only 1 covered parking space because the covered space in the left side of the garage does not have the required minimum 24' back-up area (15'-3" proposed) nor can a car exit that same space within 3 maneuvers or less based on the parking template used by the Planning Division. �j► Please label the clear interior dimensions of the garage. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Division (650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 (fax) Plan Review Comments 8. Accessory Structure (Code Section 25.60.010) • Proposed plate height is 8'-10" above grade (9'-0" maximum allowed). • Proposed structure is 441 SF (600 SF inaximum allowed). • Proposed detached garage is exempt from setback requirements because it is located within the rear 30°/a of the length of the lot (Code Section 25.26.073). ��Proposed window on the Left Side Elevation is located 8'-6" from rear property line and window portion of garage door is located 2'-10" from the side property line; all windows and other glazed opening must be located a minimum of 10 feet from any property line. Revise plans so that all glazed opening are at least 10 feet from the property line or apply for a Conditional Use Permit. �► Proposed overall height is 15'-9" where the maximum height allowed is 15'-0". Revise height to comply or apply for a Conditional Use Permit. �sl�Note all building materials of the accessory structure. 9. Landscaping (Code Section 11.06.090) � Based on calculated FAR (2936 SF), three landscape trees (non-fruit or nut bearing) are required on the property. The proposed project complies with landscaping requirements since there are at least three proposed landscape trees to be planted. 3 � . City of Burlingame Planning Division (650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 (fax) Project Address: 305 Burlingame Avenue Lot Size: 4, 720 SF Date of Plans: January 22, 2017 Zoning District: R-1 Lot coveraqe: .40 x 4.720 SF = 1,888 SF inax allowed 5o'-3"X 2g' — ��.C�� —o r� �vYc,l� �j �� _� _C �. i , ,� _�1 ..... ................... _�...�......X....�.- �a � ............. . _'':....................�_Y.��-�.......... ....._.. ,t � ' 5 , s �' , _�. ...__ ... ..... ..................`� ,_r1S... ... .. �....... ..........� -'� �.. . _ . _� _.bo.. . _�_�_"��" !.... _� � �-E:.�::......_�,'� � -{? , ,, �` p � i 25 �! � � " % � � iAa t�.r t �A's-,o�.� � � �,� � � �� i r � �. ti ......... ................................................... . ......................... Z-� �'�� `" � ��:GC� -� � c`.�'� ,� �, � �� ( � � X �; r j C�.� _ ��:�'��' - �.. - - , .:�.�� r _ � �...... 1.�. � � � 1 t-4_, _~l_S � � X � '�� — _�r.a. ...... . � a. v 3 �S � � � �� _' ;�. � 3 � "l � .................. ......... 3 _x_�(-�.�_�1._'. �. , , �� `, - . _ .�. _ �i ti - � ,� . � _ . _.. ,�. y. a'� � Z'� ._------> ;�5�' � . ,� ,��- . �_�` ` ,�,� e"�`"s ��! �,2 � ►�1� , /'y ✓J ._:.__.., , � , `�'� r � J �- ......................( .... �......._1... . ... �....._. t� ........... .::, .. ... . . ...... ._e, �Y� � �,_.. .. ....... . ....._. .................. ... � � � � � � �E � d1�� o� 4�� O � � � � � a �. . S . �r�... __�..__ � .� �, � � :� . __� . _ �...�� --..-.��- .� � Floor Area Ratio (FAR): (.32 x 4,720 SF1 + 1.100 SF + 400 SF = 3,010 SF (0.64) FAR � .............................. . , �n�� 1 , ' ,; �. , v, . � j �$.�IS _.�.---�� o , 8' � �� _-.� � i� _ �' � t � \ 2D �Y t�"'�+ m� �-r �,� 5�.�� R 3'-�' � _ l � 0� X) � ........................... ............................................................... . . .. . :.� - . �._I....... ......................................... � ./.. �..._�...... — �r� 1vtc.�,,. 352, 1� 2�'.3'' ,��3'-S'' .. ��' .......................................................... _�.. � (� ��+�� '� `'i� �i' `At ��►,i'�`,�.,� 1� �� .............�_�.).�./��"............_...... �.,.:.._ i� ..,: ......... ......... ... . ...... .. .. .....................................................................__........................................... .... �r /' r 1'I 35, S� 1 S ( i-I� X I D) �s �!'-e_" XiQ'�. �� .� _��s_'-�_,, x_2 g' 3� ( 3 `x 12' S'' � �� - ` `200` Z � - � 1'1 �S� _S___,_ _ 3 3 __ __ �-�� }", �' l `` ��., 2 � � Z . , , i ( �, �Z>-��. � � L__�,) _ Nu lX� _�� _ 3a'' Qa�,w� Trc.� �b � r c.m �c� • � �c t3'�1� �-�"�a �h �S � �, i,,,,,'acolll.,�-- �� b t �� i-cm� � s � 2n•l "�0 fi ��k� � �s' � '' � _ ZZ � � �� ,� �„ � � 1��r �Z.�..r 1 ��" 3� � q �, � - 2"� � 35�� 3��