Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2012.03.26CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California March 26, 2012 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the March 26, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul to approve the minutes of the March 12, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: Page 3, Item 3 (Proposed Ordinance Amending Titles 22 and 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code); within sentence starting with "Commissioner Terrones moved to recommend...'; replace "Sigh" with "Sign". Page 5, Additional Commission Comments, third bullet, revise to read: "Are protected because if changes are required by the Public Works or Building Divisions or any other regulatory agency which would affect the design of the building as approved by the Planning Commission, these changes would need to be brought back to the Planning Commission for further review." Motion passed 7-0-0. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Yie noted that there was an error regarding the start time posted on the meeting agenda. The agenda indicates a start time of 7:30 p.m. instead of 7:00 p.m. Due to this error, a public hearing cannot be held on any action item until 7:30 p.m. Therefore, the Chairperson suggested moving the design review study item, Item 6 — 1436 Cabrillo Avenue, to the beginning of the meeting since there is no final action being taken on this item. In addition, she noted that if there is time the Commissioners' Reports and Director's Report can also be reviewed after the design review study item. The Planning Commission agreed to move Item 6 to the beginning of the meeting. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1436 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (LARRY MORSELLO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: BRUCE BALLENTINE. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 26, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Bruce Ballentine, 1124 Haven Street, Martinez, represented the applicant. Worked out a solution with the next door neighbor regarding the second floor window in the master bathroom, will make this window translucent to provide privacy. Commission comments: ■ Reviewed agreement between the neighbors, think you meant to say translucent window, not opaque? (Ballentine — yes, window will be translucent.) ■ Roof brackets are missing on the gable ends along the left side and rear elevations, please add. ■ House was built in the 1940's, why is it being torn down? (Ballentine — the existing house needs a lot of upgrades and the interior is deteriorating.) ■ Wide casing is proposed for the door trim around the entry door, is this intentional? (Ballentine - yes, was done to emphasize the front door, not done for structural reasons.) ■ Are wood or wood clad windows being proposed? (Ballentine — originally were going to do wood clad windows, but property owner decided to go with wood windows to provide a more authentic look.) ■ This is a large house, but it has been articulated nicely. Success of the project will be in the details — detailing needs to be carried through to the completion of construction of the project. ■ This is a great design and appreciate the effort by the owner and architect. ■ On the right side elevation there is an extra roof bracket to the right of the dormer. ■ Would like to see attic wood vents used instead of metal louvers. ■ The beam across the front porch is a really important element to a craftsman house. Would like to see the beam exaggerated so you can see it from the street. Should consider increasing the size of the beam to perhaps 6 x 14. ■ Concerned with size of upper roof on front elevation, consider adding an element to break up the roof such as a long and narrow eyebrow window, which would also add more light into the attic. Could also look at adding windows on the gable end. ■ Have nice circulation in the house, would you consider French doors off the dining room? (Ballentine - considered this idea with the property owner, but he decided to go with windows to add symmetry along the front of the house and add more wall space in the dining room — will look into it again.) ■ As proposed, each bedroom has its own bathroom. Perhaps Bedroom 2 and 3 could share a bathroom and then make the extra bathroom a laundry room. (Ballentine - will review again.) ■ Concerned with massing of trim around front door, makes the front door look miniscule. Will front door be stain -grade and paint -grade? (Ballentine — front door will be paint -grade, tried to emphasize front door with larger trim.) ■ Perhaps you could build up the head piece over the front door. ■ What is material proposed for porch floor? (Ballentine — porch will contain brick to match the front walkway.) 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 ■ Have you considered sidelights for the front door? (Ballentine - entry is a bit tight for sidelights). Public comments: ■ None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:24 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: • There were no Commission Communications. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of March 19, 2012: ■ Nothing to report. FYI: 1821 Ashton Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 1900 Broadway — review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 1715 Sebastian Drive — review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. VI. STUDY ITEMS 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 There were no study items for discussion. Chairperson Yie called for a break at 7:25 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:30 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 1508 & 1510 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1: APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGENCE OF TWO PARCELS PREVIOUSLY MERGED BY A USE. a. 1508 CYPRESS AVENUE - DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. b. 1510 CYPRESS AVENUE - DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. (CYPRESS AVENUE INVESTMENTS, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JAMES CHU, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 26, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions for 1508 Cypress Avenue were suggested for consideration. Fifteen (15) conditions for 1510 Cypress Avenue were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Commission comments: Noted that most historic resource evaluations for properties in this subdivision have concluded that the properties do not qualify as a historic resource, so existing houses are being torn down to allow construction of new houses. At some point, these existing structures all contribute to the historic character of neighborhood and collectively they are important to the historical heritage of our town; seems like when there will be too many new houses and not enough old houses, we'll have lost something valuable and it will be too late to do something about it. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Craig Suhl, 1508 Cypress Avenue and James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 Clarified that there will be a gate within the arch at 1508 Cypress Avenue. In addition, there will be a property line fence behind the arch which would extend along the side property line to the rear of the property. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1508 Cypress Avenue that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 13, 2012, sheets A.1 through A.6, G.1, L.1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineers February 2, 2012, memo, the Chief Building Official's February 9, 2012 and January 18, 2012, memos, the Parks Supervisor's February 15, 2012, and January 17, 2012 memos, the Fire Marshal's January 18, 2012 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's January 17, 2012, memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Side Setback Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 1510 Cypress Avenue that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 13, 2012, sheets A.1 through A.6, G.1, L.1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineers February 2, 2012, memo, the Chief Building Official's 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 February 22, 2012, and January 18, 2012, memos, the Parks Supervisor's February 15, 2012, and January 17, 2012 memos, the Fire Marshal's January 18, 2012 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's January 17, 2012, memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition 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; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the 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; 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: ■ This is a very nice project, but am concerned that there is no hardship on the property for the variance; these lots are large and flat and there are no large significant trees on the lot that are creating a hardship to build around; can't support project as submitted. ■ We should consider changing the code to accommodate for elements such as "wing walls'; these types of freestanding elements could be treated like fences. ■ Afraid that this might set a precedent for another less desirable situation than what is being created here. ■ Not necessarily sure there is a hardship, but note that arch is paying homage to previous design; not maintaining a substantial property right, but granting a variance because they are staying with same type of design; this is adding to the design and can distinguish it from other projects; for these reasons can support application. ■ Typically are very cautious with regard to variances and look very carefully at what the extraordinary circumstances might be; view hardship as this specific neighborhood being a quasi - historic area that has potential to be a historic neighborhood; because of that architecture needs to make reference to the historic architecture of our city; the converse to allowing variance is that existing houses built in the 1920's and 1930's that have a simple wing wall that is not habitable space would be deemed illegal; don't think it's opening up a whole new realm of variances; can support the motion. ■ Raises interesting point of classifying this element differently. ■ Point out that the Commission is supporting a project that is paying respects to the existing neighborhood; would like to find a way to allow architectural elements such as wing walls with a special permit rather than a variance; need to be sure that it is not detrimental to environment or quality of life. ■ Could take up this issue at the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:46 p.m. 2. 725 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TIM AND LINA REETH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND WALDEMAR STACHNIUK, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (THIS APPLICATION WAS PREVIOUSLY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) Reference staff report dated March 26, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: A CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Waldemar Stachniuk, 500 Airport Boulevard and Tim Reeth, 725 Crossway Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Commissioners Cauchi, Gaul, Terrones and Yie disclosed that after the last meeting they met with property owner to preview changes made to the project, but did not discuss the merits of the project. ■ Were you planning on replacing the existing windows? Looks like muntin patterns were added to the windows on the front elevation? (Stachniuk - no, existing windows will remain, previous drawings showed them incorrectly). ■ Previously, was in favor of project based on continuing the existing design. However, revised project is now significantly improved, there is added articulation and window grids look better. ■ Like the revised design, this is a much improved project. ■ Existing first floor railings at the rear of the house are wood. Would you consider changing them to match the proposed iron railings on the second floor? (Stachniuk— since the railings are existing, it would be an added cost, property owner would have to consider and decide.) ■ Will the skylights will be flat glass? (Stachniuk — yes.) ■ Combination of windows and skylights in Bedroom 3 may create a bright and hot room. ■ Sheet 3 of 8 indicates that a dryvit system is proposed for the exterior finish; however building elevations indicate stucco to match existing. Please clarify. (Stachniuk — will use three coats of stucco for exterior finish.) ■ Like changes to windows. ■ Clarify size of corbels below the second floor pop -out along the east elevation. (Stachniuk — corbels will be 7x7x4). ■ Does the door on the west elevation into existing utility room have a stoop? (Stachniuk - there is no stoop.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 6, 2012, sheets 1 though 8 and Topographic Map; 2. that all new skylights shall be of a flat glass design; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 13, 2012 and November 17, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's December 9, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's January 17, 2012 and November 28, 2011 memos, the Fire Marshal's November 21, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 21, 2011 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: none. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 3. 3018 ATWATER DRIVE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE -STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RENDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SAKKUBAI PRATHIKANTI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 26, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road, Suite 203, Burlingame, represented the applicant. Want to make a bathroom that is more accessible for the property owners. Commission comments: ■ Is there a foam roof on their now? (Grange — there is no insulation in ceiling now, there is a small cavity in between the ceiling and roof). ■ How will the water heater venting be handled? (Grange - will do tankless water heater to serve all three bathrooms). ■ Suggest lowering the window in the bathroom down to the edge of the tub to take advantage of bay views. ■ Make the bathroom space a special place to take advantage of views. ■ Like that the roof is being raised at the addition to match the existing house. ■ Hardship is that the only way to get more substantial floor area on this house is to add a second floor, which does not work with the design of an Eichler house. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: The existing house exceeds the maximum allowed coverage and with this application the lot coverage is being reduced. In the future we should consider requiring a special permit rather than a variance for these situations. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 Project captures the existing design and makes the house better. Hardship is that the existing house was built with wide roof eaves. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 2, 2012, sheets Al. 1 through A3.4, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. 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; 3. 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; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the Side Setback Variance and Lot Coverage Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. 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; and 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: none. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:12 p.m. 4. 2504 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FORA NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RICHARD M. SARGENT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 26, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 Questions of staff: None. Chair Yie opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 West 43d Avenue, San Mateo and Richard Sargent, 2504 Hillside Drive; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Like the revisions made to design; added details and an increase in the size of the columns improved the front of the house and make it not so top heavy. ■ Did you change the design of the columns? (Chu — yes, tapered columns were changed from a 24- inch square design to 28-inch x 24-inch rectangular design.) ■ On the gable ends, may want to consider using a 6 x 8 beam with a 6 x 6 knee brace support; could mock one up in the field during construction and then decide. ■ There are a number of shingled houses on Hillside Drive that aren't noticeable because they were either painted or a solid body stain color was applied; the existing shingled houses on Hillside Drive now blend in nicely, but don't portray a woodsy look. Have you decided how the shingles will be treated? (Chu - Haven't decided yet). ■ Cannot condition color or stain, but would encourage applicant to choose a solid color or stain color to blend in with neighborhood and existing shingled houses. ■ Like size of columns and beams, should consider increasing the size of the knee braces as was suggested in the previous application. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 14, 2012, sheets A.1 through A.6, G.1, L.1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 24 and February 7, 2012 memos, the City Arborist's February 29 and February 13, 2012 memos, the City Engineer's February 29, 2012 memo, and the Fire Marshal's and NPDS Coordinator's February 6, 2012 memos shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: none. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:18 p.m. 5. 1526 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TONY LEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 26, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen (17) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: ■ Did staff discover this change during an inspection or did the applicant come forward with the change? (Hurin — the applicant notified staff of the change.) ■ Would we have seen this change as an FYI later? (Hurin — no, this type of change to the roof configuration requires an application for amendment; also stipulated as a condition of approval.) ■ Did the applicant submit an architectural certification letter as required by the conditions of approval? If we haven't received the letter yet, the builder is putting himself at risk. Received a letter from neighbor who appears to be okay with the change to the roof, but is concerned with what else the builder may have missed. (Hurin — have not verified that the certification letter has been submitted; if it has not been submitted will require the applicant to submit.) ■ Is architectural certification letter a standard condition of approval? (Hurin — yes.) Chair Yie opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo represented the applicant. This was our mistake; we sent the previous roof plan to truss company and the engineer didn't catch the change. The applicant voluntarily changed the roof configuration from a gable roof to a hip roof; this wasn't required of the Commission. Feel that the gable end with the roof brackets and fish scale shingles works well with the design of the house. Commission comments: Don't disagree that it doesn't look bad; what looks bad is that the overall roof massing was distinctly a design element that we were cognizant of during the review of the project. Agree that the hipping the roof at the rear of the house was not something that the Commission specifically required. Do you typically do the architectural certification letter and has one been submitted for this project yet? (Chu — yes I do, but not sure if one has been done for this project). The certification letter is an important piece and should be completed so that we and the neighbor can have confidence that the structure has been built according to the originally approved plan. IR CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 Concern that this doesn't become a way for changes to get approved; understand that in this case it was an honest mistake. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Positive thing here is that the applicant submitted for an amendment when they discovered the area; was not discovered by staff. ■ Changes are acceptable and work well with the design of the house. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 14, 2012, sheets A.2 through A.5.2; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing all tree maintenance recommendations as defined in the arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated October 7, 2011; that prior to the final inspection, the City Arborist shall verify that all appropriate recommendations were implemented; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 1 and August 22, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's September 1 and August 30, 2011 memos, the Fire Marshal's August 9, 2011 memo, the City Arborist's September 2 and August 9, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 11, 2011 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 15. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 16. 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 17. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 26, 2012 ■ Neighbor to the rear who previously expressed concerns with the project isn't present; presume she has no concern with the change. (Hurin — noted that the revised plans and applicant's explanation letter was emailed to Mrs. Mink and was given the opportunity to comment tonight.) ■ Recollect that the Commission specifically directed the applicant to change the garage roof to a hip roof, and that there was no specific direction given regarding the roof at the rear of the house. ■ Changes are acceptable, glad to see applicant came forward to the Commission after realizing the error. ■ Don't see any impact on neighbor with this change. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:29 p.m. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 21