Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 05.10.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, May 10, 2010— 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the May 10, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Gaul, Terrones, Yie, and Vistica (arrived at 7:04 p.m.) Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; Civil Engineer Doug Bell; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Cauchi moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the April 26, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 4, top of page (vote on Consent Calendar); revise vote to be "4-0-2-1 ", rather than "5-0-2-1" Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Welcomed Commissioner Vistica back to the Commission. ■ Time to get debris boxes off of the street; they damage the streets, resulting in more potholes. The City has limited funds to repair streets. Debris boxes should be placed on the private properties. ■ Would like conditions of approval added to the two Consent Calendar items to ensure that debris boxes are placed on the property, rather than on the street. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 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. Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Items la and lb were removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. There were no other Consent Calendar items. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1a. 1349 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DANIEL J. STRAMBI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 10, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Suggested adding a condition that the debris box be placed on the private property in this case and all future cases. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Randy Grange, 21 Dwight Road, spoke: Place the debris box on the private property, not on the street. (Chu — agreed to the condition.) Requiring placement of a debris box on the property may not be feasible on some small lots; should be considered on a case -by -case basis. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Requiring a debris box to be placed on the property is a good addition to the standard conditions of approval; if infeasible, can be discussed at the time the application is considered by the Commission. Commissioner Yie 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 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 stamped April 28, 2010, sheets A.1 through A.6 and L.1; 2. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible; 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); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshal's March 22, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's March 31, 2010 memo and the City Arborist's and NPDES Coordinator's March 23, 2010 memos shall be met; 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, 2007 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 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 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes the City Engineer; May 10, 2010 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc. according to the approved Planning and Building plans The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None. will inspect and note compliance of the ) to verify that the project has been built Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 1b. 2300 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND REMODEL WITH A PLATE HEIGHT GREATER THAN 9'-0" (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRAD AND SUZANNE CRAIG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 10, 2010, with attachments. Twelve (12) were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones dispensed with the oral staff report. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Agreed to an added condition requiring the debris box to be placed on the property during construction. Commission comments: Confirmed that the purpose of the added condition is to get the debris boxes off of the street for traffic purposes and to reduce damage to public streets. Refer to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee regarding the appropriateness of applying this condition in all cases. Public comments: None. E, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Requiring a debris box to be placed on the property is a good addition to the standard conditions of approval; if infeasible, can be discussed at the time the application is considered by the Commission. Commissioner Cauchi 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 April 28, 2010, sheets A1.1 through A2.2, A3.1, A3.2 and A3.4, and date stamped April 15, 2010, sheets A2.3, A3.3 and A3.5; 2. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible; 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); 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; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 23, 2010 memo, the City Engineer's March 3, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 25, 2010 memo, the City Arborist's February 24, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 26, 2010 memo shall be met; 6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 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 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 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; 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 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 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; 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ There are numerous ways to get around this issue of debris boxes; the Town of Hillsborough does not permit them on the street. ■ Could require posting of a bond to ensure that damaged street elements are restored; could also limit timeframe for placement of the debris box. ■ There may be numerous properties in town where placement on the site is not possible. ■ Doesn't feel that a universal condition is necessary. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING CODE) —AMENDING THE REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SUBAREA OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA. STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 10, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report. Clarified the intent of the ordinance provision; no fast-food restaurants. Noted request from Eric Muhlebach of Fandel Retail Group, requesting that the 1100 block of Burlingame Avenue be included within the proposed amendment. Chair Terrones also clarified that the subject of fast-food restaurants was discussed previously, and it was determined that this type of food service use would not be included in the amendment. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Requested clarification of why the specific areas were targeted for restaurant expansion? (Meeker — the limitation on the areas for additional restaurants was created in an effort to preserve the retail 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 character of downtown; the initially excluded areas already contain the highest percentage of restaurants in the Downtown area.) Prior discussion focused on a concern regarding allowing additional bars; would the conditional use permit process allow denying permits for bars if desired? (Guinan — the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board's requirement for a finding of Public Convenience and Necessity would provide the opportunity for the City to weigh in on the appropriateness of allowing new alcohol sales uses.) Should a limit be placed on a maximum number of new bars? Public comments: Louisa Kao, property owner of 303-305 California Drive/1108 Burlingame Avenue and Juan Laredo, 221 Park Road; spoke: ■ The tenant space at 303-305 California Drive was originally used as a bar years ago. ■ Have several parties interested in renting the 303-305 California Drive/1108 Burlingame Avenue property (formerly "Ya Ya"), but they are not interested in leasing the entire space; wish to lease each of the two portions of the space separately. The proposed amendment would allow the tenant space to be operated by two independent food service uses. ■ Is in the best interest of the City to approve the amendment. ■ Interested in opening a bar at 303-306 California Drive; is currently the owner of "The Vinyl Room" at 221 Park Road. ■ There is not an oversaturation of bars within the area. ■ The space has been vacant for over two years. ■ There is not a good mix of places for people to go in Burlingame. Additional Commission comments: ■ Seems that we're artificially fabricating the limits of applicability of the amendment; should let the market dictate; allow the 1100 block of Burlingame Avenue to be included within the area addressed by the amendment. ■ There is not a huge demand for bars within the Downtown area. There are mechanisms in place to permit the City to restrict additional bars. Supports no additional restrictions on bars. ■ There could be a synergy that exists with the other restaurants located within the 1100 block of Burlingame Avenue, perhaps due to the proximity to California Drive and the train station. ■ Community Development Director Meeker noted that if the 1100 block of Burlingame Avenue is to be included within the area addressed by the amendment; there may be some merit in allowing the expansion in all of Sub -Area A; the Commission concurred. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner We moved to recommend adoption of the draft ordinance to the City Council, with the modification that the amendment be applicable to all of Sub -Area A of the Downtown Burlingame commercial district. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council, adoption of the ordinance amendment. The motion passed 7-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 3. 2617 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO REPLACE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE/WORKSHOP (WALT WORTHGE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER: ALI SADI. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 10, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Walt Worthge, 21 Avila Road, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Was interested in seeing the garage shown on the survey, as well as the drainage line to ensure that all work is done on the property and does not cross the property line. Doesn't see a solution to ensure that damage to the structure will not occur again with the reconstruction. (Worthge — noted that the property line stakes are still present on the property and show that the building will fall at the property line. Has tried to contact the neighbor regarding the drainage issue, but was unable to do so. There will be no changes to the existing situation. The existing structure has a flat roof; the proposed pitched roof will eliminate the damage problem.) The retaining wall is not being altered as part of the project. Perhaps consider routing the drainage through the subject property, rather than leaving it on the neighbor's property. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Requested that the debris box used during the construction process be placed upon the private property, not on the street. (Worthge — will agree to such a condition.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul 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 April 28, 2010, sheets 1, 2, 4 and 7; and date stamped March 4, 2010, sheets 3, 5 and 6; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's February 15, 2010 memo, the Chief Building Official's March 3 and January 19, 2010 memos, the City Arborist's January 21, 2010 memo, the Fire E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 Marshal's January 19, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's January 20, 2010 memo shall be met; 4. 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; 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; and 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:58 p.m. 4. 117 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BASEMENT WITH A CEILING HEIGHT GREATER THAN 6'-0", FORA NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (FLORIAN SPEIER, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOLANDA AND GARY BREAZEALE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 10, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 Florian Speier, 880 Harrison Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Detailed the changes to the project plans. Agreed to placing the debris box on the property during the construction process. Commission comments: ■ Why the single, bubbled skylight? (Speier — this type of skylight is required due to the slope of the roof; but could build it up on one side to meet the requirements for installation.) ■ Why is a portion of the roof flat? (Speier — needs to fit that portion of the roof under the main roof; necessitates the design.) ■ Could a solar tube be used in place of the skylight? (Speier — doesn't provide as much light.) ■ Likes the garden wall along the driveway; shows commitment not to use the area for parking. ■ Likes the column design at the entry. ■ Be certain that the double cantilever on the garage can work from an engineering standpoint. ■ With respect to the dining room wall; the windows in the dining room wall look a lot like apartment windows; is there an alternate design that may work better, even a series of three casement windows? (Speier — looked at several alternatives; selected this approach, using a high -quality window with thicker trim than that shown on the plans.) ■ Asked for a description of "Spanish -textured" stucco. (Speier — not completely flat, or completely smoothed.) ■ Pleased to see that some of the window area has been removed from the master bedroom; will need to be certain proper materials are used to reduce the potential for sun damage. ■ Was the potential for shading adequately calculated relative to the overhangs? (Speier— has been designed so that the home will not require air conditioning.) ■ Noted that the drainage may require tying into the City storm drain. (Speier— has reviewed with the Geotech; feels this will not be necessary.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Requested that the debris box be placed upon the private property during the construction process. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie 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 April 22, 2010, sheets A-001 through A-302; 2. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible; 3. that the "bubble" type skylight at the rear of the house shall be replaced with a flat profile skylight design; 4. 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 II CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 5. 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; 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 18, 2010 and November 30, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's November 30, 2009 and May 21, 2009 memos, the Fire Marshal's November 30, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's December 19 and May 6, 2009 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 30, 2009 memo shall be met; 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; 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, 2007 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 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 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: Clarified that adoption of the Negative Declaration was included in the motion. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:16 p.m. 5. 1783 EL CAMINO REALM501 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED— REVIEW OF CHANGES TO EXTERIOR OF BUILDING AND FIRE LANE/PATH FOR THE PENINSULA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT (ANSHEN+ALLEN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MILL -PENINSULA HOSPITAL. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 10, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. One -hundred forty-six (146) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Kevin Day, 901 Market Street, San Francisco and Larry Kollerer, 1501 Trousdale Drive; represented the applicant. ■ First responsibility is to comply with health and safety requirements; from this point of view the locations of the stacks is required. Was not something that was desired, but was required to ensure that the gases are properly dispersed. ■ The new location of the stacks is the only location that proper dispersion could be achieved. ■ Feels that a good job was done in hiding the stacks within the massing of the structures; have been clad with the architecture. ■ The fire lane needs to be able to withstand the weight of fire trucks; therefore, the design was altered to ensure durability. Commission comments: Agrees with the applicant regarding the bands in the fire lane. Concerned about the aesthetics of the stacks; the stacks are an eyesore and don't blend in. Doesn't appear to have been much thought given to hide the stacks; are visible from the rear yards of the neighbors. Is there any possible way to shield them? (Day — cladding the stacks when they are at the height they must be will cast more shadows; the stainless steel material is of high -quality. An additional structure would need to be larger than the area occupied by the stacks, but would add mass to the building. Not totally out of place with the high-tech appearance of the architecture.) 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 ■ The stacks are industrial looking; has taken what was a nice looking fagade and added the stacks as an industrial element that detracts from the appearance of the building. ■ Some sort of design needs to be presented to the Commission that shows how the stacks can be at least partially concealed; or made to actually look more high-tech. ■ Does not understand why the asphalt and concrete materials cannot be used together in the fire lane. (Day — the fire trucks will not be so frequent as to be a significant source of damage.) ■ Would need assurances that a 20-foot drive aisle will be adequate; want confirmation from the Fire Marshal. (Kollerer — have an approved set of plans showing the 20-foot width. Placing strips across the driveway adds to the cost of construction of the driveway.) ■ The logic behind the changes is disingenuous; need a better rationale for the changes. ■ Is there a way to trade-off the height of the stacks by providing greater diameter stacks? (Kollerer— probably impossible to redesign the stacks. If the stacks were increased in diameter, would impact the flow of gases out of the stacks.) ■ How can the appearance of the stacks be mitigated? (Day — perhaps they could be painted to match the steel elements on the building; would be a better way to camouflage them. The stacks are self-supporting.) ■ Was there a wind -dispersion study done with the original design of the building; if so, has the amount of exhaust changed? (Day — the intakes are also important; must ensure that the gases are not drawn back into the building. The design was not fully developed with the original plan.) ■ Appears that the stacks are there to stay; but need to be treated in a manner that can allow them to blend into the sky; perhaps with some screening. (Day — could perform some color studies to determine the best color to paint the stacks. The question is whether it is best to blend with the building, or the sky.) ■ Confirmed that the width of the fire lane is as required by the Fire Marshal. ■ Continues to like the bands that cross the fire lane; would like them to remain. ■ Could the stack heights be reduced if diffusers or filters are installed within the stacks? (Day — sometimes the filters or diffusers fail and reduce their effectiveness.) ■ Aren't there means of monitoring the effectiveness of the diffusers or filters? (Kollerer — would have like to have not made the stacks any taller than they are; BAAQMD required dispersal characteristics that defined the design. There is nothing that could be installed on the stacks that would allow the height to be reduced.) ■ Could the stacks at least be screened up to the roofline of the south elevation; would at least reduce the apparent height of the stacks. (Day — the element referred to is more than 100-feet away, so the desired effect would not occur. Feels screening would draw more attention to the installation. The best that can likely be achieved is to make them appear like part of the structural expression of the building.) ■ Will need to see additional information regarding the stacks. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Chris Foley, 1504 Davis Drive; Leonie Wohl, 1608 Davis Drive; and Steve Dambrosio, 1504 Davis Drive; spoke: The conditions of approval require the project to be built consistent with the approved plans; why didn't the applicant come back to the City previously once the need to relocate the stacks was identified? What chemicals are being discharged out of the stacks that require adequate dispersion; need to be clear about what is being discharged from the stacks. Maintenance of filters is a part of required maintenance; could be done in this instance. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 ■ The fire lane was originally to be built and landscaped to serve as a walking lane for the neighbors; then it became an emergency fire road; what happened to the walking path and the aesthetics? ■ How long will it take once construction is completed to install the berms and trees that are required to enhance the landscape? ■ Would like the applicant to respect the conditions of the original approval; provide full rationale for the changes before making the changes. ■ Disappointed to see "as -built" changes presented at this late date; is a mystery why this wasn't considered earlier; now appears to be a fait accompli. ■ Many of the features on the roof of the hospital were downplayed, but haven't turned out to be as attractive as represented. ■ Concerned about compliance with the noise limiting conditions of the permit. ■ Concerned about chemicals being released from the stacks; how is it known that the applicant has conducted an adequate analysis. ■ Would like to know if the stacks could be moved closer to the building rather than standing out so prominently. ■ Can the stacks be altered to make them less obvious. ■ Was the design change due to pollutants being released? ■ Reiterated that the fire lane design was settled upon was to ensure that it would appear more aesthetically pleasing to people using it as a walking path. Needs to be treated so as not to look like a big swath of asphalt. ■ Noted that the stacks overpower the design of the building. Additional applicant comments: Admitted that they "blew it"; the changes should have been resolved in advance of construction. Not trying to cover up the changes; but the difficulty now is that the need to seek approval was only recent known. Willing to leave the design of the fire lane as approved previously; the greater issue is the stacks. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ The fire lane was intended to provide a walking area for hospital patrons; would like the fire lane to installed as designed; though the narrower profile would be acceptable as long as additional landscaping is provided and colored concrete continues to be used. ■ The stacks are problematic; there is nothing that can be done to reduce their size, now must be concealed in some manner; paint may be the best approach. ■ There are materials that can be utilized to at least partially screen the stacks; needs more analysis by the applicant. ■ Need additional options to be presented to the Commission; perhaps attach screening to the existing support structure for the stacks. ■ Believes that the applicant did not intend to make the stacks higher; believes that there was a legitimate need based upon dispersion requirements, though the changes should have come back to the City sooner. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to prepare options for camouflaging the stacks to be presented to the Planning Commission; and also provide a commitment regarding the design and width of the fire lane, prior to action. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0-0. This item concluded at 9:14 p.m. Commissioner Vistica left the meeting at 9:15 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 133 COSTA RICAAVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAVID LAI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 10, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Requested clarification regarding the findings of the historic resource analysis. (Meeker — noted that the analysis determined that the structure is not eligible for designation, but may contribute to a potential historic district for the neighborhood; though analysis has not occurred to determine the appropriateness of creating an historic district for the neighborhood.) Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Felt that there is enough landscaping, and the rear deck is far enough removed from the rear property line to ensure the neighbor's privacy. ■ There is too much stucco proposed; should consider incorporating other materials to break up the stucco. ■ Doesn't see much support for the Special Permit for height; most of the house is being modified; there is no necessity to maintain the desired roof pitch; should maintain the height if only to reduce mass. ■ The first floor plate height could be reduced and would reduce the overall height of the structure. ■ Encouraged looking at the details of the existing house and emulating some of the design features in the new design. ■ Feels that the new house is not better looking than the existing house. ■ If the new house is built really tall, it will dwarf adjacent homes and put pressure on the redevelopment of those properties. ■ Not every home needs to maximize the use of the lot. ■ Make the front and rear roof configuration of the garage match. (Robertson — thought that the design was dictated by Planning. Hurin — not necessarily true.) 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 ■ There is a lot of articulation; this may unnecessarily add to the cost of construction. (Robertson — a lot of the articulation is provided through bays. Also added lots of articulation to reduce the plain appearance of the stucco.) ■ Noted that the entire chimney element is not needed in the master bedroom. (Robertson — could be eliminated.) ■ Would be nice to install a window in the area where the chimney chase is located in the master bedroom, if it is removed. ■ With respect to the windows on the west elevation; a nice job has been done matching the muntin pattern; would be nice to carry through these design features to the rear elevation. ■ The overall design is stripped of charm; there needs to be some solution that is acceptable from a design standpoint. ■ The arch at the entry is too simple and almost appears like a feature from a tract house. 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 Public comments: Zach Pineda, 129 Costa Rica Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Has lived in neighborhood for 30-years; has seen a lot of new homes being built; they are changing the character of the street. Houses that are devoid of charm are a bad thing. ■ Concerned that the neighbor may not appreciate the change in the location of the driveway. ■ Design will impact privacy of neighbors due to its height. ■ Will the fence with 129 Costa Rica be changed? ■ Two years ago, the Commission was holding tight to a limit on an eight foot plate height and in some cases has allowed a nine foot plate height; ten foot plate height is too tall. ■ The City has small lots; when second -floor living space is extended outside, it will impact the privacy of neighbors. ■ Requested that the debris box used during construction be placed upon the property, not the street. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Would like to see the landscape plan beefed up a bit more. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:33 p. M. 7. 1715 SEBASTIAN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHANG JIE LU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BILLY JUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 10, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Chang Jie Lu, 4700 Warm Springs Boulevard, Fremont; represented the applicant. Commission comments: EN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 ■ There is an inconsistency with the drawings; the roof plan indicates the ridge with the new gable for the addition is not at the same height as the existing main ridge; on the building elevations, this is shown in alignment; clarify this so that when story poles are erected, the correct ridge line is shown. ■ The right side elevation is massive; needs a bit more work to be sensitive to the neighbor on that side; reduce the appearance of a blank wall. ■ On the left elevation, do some additional work on the scale to reduce the appearance of mass; this will also affect the rear elevation. Could add a porch or patio area on that side of the family room facing the yard that could turn along the rear elevation to provide articulation. ■ Consider using brick on the back or side of the house to break up the mass. ■ Make certain that landscape plan accurately reflects what exists within the area; the landscape plan does not appear to show the true extent of the landscaping on the side. Be certain to adequately identify plant materials and provide additional landscaping if necessary to help screen the mass of the addition. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Regarding the story poles; they are erected for the purpose of demonstrating obstruction of a distant view; it doesn't appear that this will be the case in this instance; is it mandated? (Meeker — is only a policy of the Commission, could make the judgment not to require them in this instance.) Could require poles to only show the ridgeline of the highest element. (Hurin — could waive the requirement for a survey of the ridgeline.) Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete, with direction to the applicant to erect story poles to show the roof ridge height of the addition. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:49 p. M. 8. 1269 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK AND INTERIOR ACCESS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NICK AND ERIKA PIANIM, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 10, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. ■ Goal with the design was to use the existing architectural style as a springboard for the modifications. ■ Will be making some changes to landscaping and walkway around the front entry. ■ Is approaching the maximum FAR because of the attached garage. ■ As the lots increase in size, the development intensity decreases. ■ The existing garage is too far forward, too close to the house, and too small; therefore a new garage is proposed with a matching roof pitch to the house. Commission comments: ■ Asked for clarification of the roof section shown on the plans. ■ Why couldn't a window be provided to the breezeway? (Grange — would be difficult to span across the area with existing floor space. Have tried to minimize the number of special requests.) ■ What is the ceiling height at the garage? (Grange — would be eight feet at its highest point and then slope down to five feet.) ■ Could the roof height of the garage be lowered? (Grange — if it is lowered, the breezeway will not work. If the breezeway is removed, then a permit would be required because the garage is too far forward.) ■ Is the existing plate height in the house eight feet? (Grange — varies.) ■ Creative solution; likes that the garage is in scale with the house; breezeway is a good solution. ■ Noted that the swimming pool is in poor shape. ■ Clarify note on downspouts. ■ Clarified that the entire house will be re -sided with shingles. ■ The proposal cleans up the right -side elevation. ■ On the second floor bays; will the heavy brackets be shingled? (Grange — yes.) ■ With respect to the trellis on the rear elevation; appears to extend two feet beyond the rear elevation. ■ The garage elevation is a nice element. ■ There is support for the Variances, the garage is wedged between the house, the creek and the pool. ■ Commended taking a nice existing structure and enhancing the property. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: The architect has done a magnificent job on the design. Appreciates making modifications to an old house to retain it. Should be on the Consent Calendar. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Lindstrom made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 Discussion of motion: None. 21 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 10, 2010 Chair Terrones 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 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:08 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of May 3, 2010: ■ None. FYI: 1257 Drake Avenue — review of required changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 22