Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2010.11.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, November 22, 2010 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Vistica called the November 22, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Lindstrom, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Terrones Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Cauchi to approve the minutes of the November 8, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: Page 6, "Commission Comments", fifth bullet, delete "are they necessary" and insert "Suggested putting steps down the side of the patio to preserve patio space" Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Regarding the 1720 Adeline Drive FYI; when the house was approved it was described as a "Tudor" style. The new window design will make the house fairly non-descript, taking away the Tudor character of the home. The change will be a detriment to the project. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for discussion. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 2Z 2010 Chair Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the Consent Calendar. There were no requests. 1. 370 LANG ROAD, ZONED IB — APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK FOR NEW CANOPIES AND A WIND TURBINE ON AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; 370 LANG ROAD LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Cauchi moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 3 BELVEDERE COURT, 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 (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TODD B. LOWPENSKY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated November 22, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Requested clarification regarding the reason the rooms adjoining by the stairway are not considered bedrooms. (Hurin — noted that they are not considered to be bedrooms since they are connected, without features that allow privacy between the rooms.) Chair Vistica opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, 3841 24th Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Provided a photograph showing the outline of the proposed addition, as represented by story poles. The addition is buried into the hillside; does not feel that the addition will have a significant impact upon the neighbors' view. Commission comments: Visited the applicants' and the neighbors' properties; asked the applicant why the roofline of the adjacent roof could not be matched? The neighbors tried to work with the neighbor behind them when they designed their addition; everyone ended up being happy with the final design. If there is a means of matching the roof, it is encouraged to minimize impacts to the neighbor. (Raduenz — it is possible, but it is an aesthetic issue. Trying to break up the monotony of the architecture of the home. Have explored this alternative, but would prefer not to make the change.) There are issues in the hills regarding mechanical equipment on the roof; is it possible to provide a condition requiring screening of mechanical equipment? (Meeker— could include such a condition. Raduenz — agreed to the condition.) Is struggling with addressing the neighbors' concerns versus the proposed design option. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 22, 2010 ■ Believes that the flat -roof design is doing the neighbor a favor; can support the roof being raised, as proposed. However, encourages consideration of a roof material on the addition that is something more decorative than a "torch -down" style roof; provide a more natural roofing material. (Raduenz— are looking into other alternatives such as a decorative gravel surface.) ■ Doesn't feel the project truly impacts the neighbors. ■ The proposed addition blends well with the existing structure. ■ If the roof were lowered to match the existing roof, what would be the ceiling height? (Raduenz — eight -feet, ten -inches.) Public comments: John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive and Cinda Bailey, 3 Belvedere Court; spoke: ■ The photos are taken from the fence; it is more of an impact when in the family room of his house. ■ Asked the Planning Commission previously if there was any potential that the neighbors' home could be raised in height. ■ The challenge in this instance is the arrogance of the applicant in not addressing the neighbors' height concerns. The photos do not truly show what is happening with the view impacts; are only requesting some form of compromise; not an absolute prohibition on the addition. ■ His home is the only property impacted by the addition. ■ Visited the property at 2600 Summit Drive today and was able to take photographs, she feels the addition will not really impact the neighbors' view; there is only one small area where the addition would be visible through existing landscaping. ■ Are willing to try to be amenable; shocked by the neighbors' representations regarding view blockage. ■ The City ordinance references preservation of distant views. ■ Have been researching green roofs as an alternative roofing material for the addition. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Feels there is absolutely no obstruction of distant view from the neighbors' property. Commissioner Auran 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 November 8, 2010, sheets T1.0, A1.0, AB2 through AB3.1, A2.0 through A4.0, L1.0 and L2.0; 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 a decorative roofing material shall be used for the rootop on the addition; the final material shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI; 4. that all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the public street; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 2Z 2010 include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 27 and August 5, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's August 6, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's August 9, 2010 memo, the Park Supervisor's October 1 and August 5, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 4, 2010 memo shall be met; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 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 framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. E, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 22, 2010 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion: ■ Encouraged consideration of a "green" roof for the addition. ■ Not comfortable with the project; the term "distant view" and "habitable space" is not defined in the City Code. The neighbors at 2600 Summit Drive compromised with their neighbors when they designed their project; only suggests the same spirit of compromise in this instance. ■ Would be helpful to have a lower roof if it is a green roof. ■ Not able to support the motion since he has not been able to view the potential impact from the neighbors' property. ■ There would be no harm to the design in dropping the roofline; would not destroy the composition of the elevations. The public hearing was reopened. Additional applicant comments: ■ Pushing the addition back into the hillside is already a compromise. ■ The view from the family room of the applicants' home is being compromised. ■ Dropping from a ten -foot ceiling to a nine -foot ceiling is a significant impact upon the applicant. ■ Are intending to begin construction in the spring. ■ The interior design of the home is important; the taller ceilings make a great impact on the livability of the room. ■ Are spending a lot of money on the addition. ■ Have offered a decorative roof to the neighbor, but doesn't know if it will be accepted. Additional public comments from John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive: There has been no compromise with the neighbor of 2600 Summit Drive. It is not in the middle of the view, but it does impact the property. Just asking for a neighborly compromise. Additional staff comments: Community Development Director Meeker indicated that it appears that the vote on the motion will be split resulting in no action. He suggested that the Commission may wish to defer action to a date on which all members of the Commission are present and to provide all Commissioners with the opportunity to visit the neighbors' property. Further Commission comments: There is no way that the addition will be visible from the neighbors. The motion to approve was withdrawn by the maker of the motion (Commissioner Auran). Commissioner Auran moved to continue the matter to a future date on which all members of the Commission may be present to consider the project, and to permit the Commissioners to visit the adjacent property at 2600 Summit Drive to ascertain potential view impacts. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 22, 2010 Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Lindstrom indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Item 3 (1511 Drake Avenue) since he has a potential business relationship with the property owner. He left the Council Chambers. 3. 1511 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND COVERED PARKING SPACE WIDTH FOR CONVERSION OF LOWER LEVEL CRAWL SPACE TO HABITABLE SPACE AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOHN MATTHEWS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JON AND KATE HERSTEIN. PROPERTY OWNERS) (58 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 22, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Requested clarification of the meaning of proposed Condition 5, which terminates the variance approvals in the event the structure is demolished. (Meeker — noted that it requires all future projects to comply with current standards.) Chair Vistica opened the public hearing. Jack Matthews, 335A East Fourth Street, San Mateo and Jon Herstein, 1511 Drake Avenue; represented the applicant. Have reduced the requested FAR variance by 2/3rds; while still attempting to preserve a useable area. The variance doesn't affect mass or bulk of the building. Letters of support from the neighbors have been submitted; the neighbors previously opposed the work of the prior owner, but now support the proposal. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: The project results in no impacts upon the neighborhood; it will not change the exterior appearance of the home. 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 November 10, 2010, sheets A-1.1 through A-3.3; W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 2Z 2010 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 Chief Building Official's October 12, 2010, September 30, 2010 and August 5, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's August 6, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's August 9, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's August 9, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 4, 2010 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio Variance and Parking 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 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, 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 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 22, 2010 documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. 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 14. 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 Yie. Discussion of motion: ■ Agrees with the motion, and commended the applicant for decreasing the amount of the FAR variance. ■ The property owner bought the property as a "short -sale". ■ Were initially looking for a decrease in the size of the variance; the Commission sees the need for the addition. ■ Feels the project is approvable. Chair Vistica called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Lindstrom recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Lindstrom returned to the dais. Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Item 4 (1423 Paloma Avenue), since he is the property owner. He left the Council Chambers. 4. 1423 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; TOBY LONG, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 22, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Vistica opened the public hearing. Toby Long, 6114 La Salle Avenue, Oakland; represented the applicant. Appreciated the comments received at the study session. The design has been improved in light of the comments received; particularly with respect to the front fagade. Are now using stone veneer around the garage area, in combination with extending the horizontal eve across the front entry. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 22, 2010 ■ Have lowered the height of the parapet wall that is at the deck of the bedroom area. ■ Also clarified that the garage doors are wood, and that windows have been added to soften their appearance. ■ The west fagade changed due to some of the eave changes; the edge has been articulated more cleanly. ■ The eaves have been reduced to a uniform fourteen -inches along all sides of the home. ■ Looked at providing stairs at the rear deck, but doing so would have exceeded the lot coverage. Commission comments: ■ Have softened the appearance of the design; provides a better scale and feel. ■ The east elevation is still lacking detail; appears a bit stark, but doesn't feel it is a deal breaker. (Long — the east elevation is not used by either the applicant or the neighbors; intends to introduce landscaping to the area to soften the appearance.) ■ Requested clarification with respect to the window design and trim. (Long — anticipate using a new Andersen window that is made from recycled vinyl that competes with Fiberglas; does not fade. Will be a typical brown or bronze color; this color will be used in the trim as well. Painted cement board will be used around the "caseless" windows. The trim will be cut to size.) ■ Why wasn't a permeable surface chosen for the driveway? (Long — will advocate working with a more pervious surface). ■ Curious about the balcony on the side; doesn't appear very useable. (Long — was a choice to help in the massing of the building and to provide a space to go outside, or to locate landscape planters. gives a bit more character and definition to the master -bedroom suite.) ■ Was concerned about the mass of the house initially; but with the massing and positioning this impact is minimized. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Lindstrom moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: with addition of a pervious surface driveway as an FYI. 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 10, 2010, sheets A0.0 through A6.0; 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 the driveway shall be surfaced with a pervious material that shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as an FYI application; 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 August 5, 2010 memo, the City Engineer's August 6, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's September 13, 2010 and August 11, 2010 memos, the Fire Marshal's August 9, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 5, 2010 memo shall be met; E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 2Z 2010 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; 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 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 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 22, 2010 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: Nice project, the changes are "spot on". Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Gaul recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:19 p.m. Commissioner Gaul returned to the dais. 5. 1441 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT FOR FENCE AND HEDGE CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION QUALIFYING AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (TERESA HEI AND JAY TRYGSTAD. APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 22, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nineteen (19) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Vistica opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; represented the applicant. ■ All the applicant wishes to do is finish their project; they are nearing completion and would like to be in their home by the holidays. ■ Have been consistent in following the plans approved by the Commission previously. ■ Have been willing to pay for any changes to the plans that will benefit both them and their neighbors. ■ He was approached previously by the applicants regarding the process for receiving changes to the approved plans. Advised them that if agreement could be reached with the neighbors, then an FYI would be appropriate; if not, an amendment would be required. ■ The prior change to the porch was approved by the Commission; this change caused the desire to move the fence on the right side a bit further forward to coincide with the porch change. ■ Encouraged the applicants to meet with the neighbors at 1445 Balboa Avenue (Giorni property) to seek their approval; the applicant felt that an agreement was reached and proceeded with the work. ■ Indicated that Mr. Giorni would not sign a written agreement as it would cause domestic problems. ■ The general contractor had several conversations with the Giornis regarding the changes; he wouldn't have made the changes without knowing that he had complete understanding and agreement on the issue. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 2Z 2010 ■ Are now having a full public hearing over moving a fence forward slightly and replacing it with a new fence; the clients are bearing the full cost and are willing to replace the hedge that has been removed. ■ Requested approval of the very modest, minor amendment. ■ Clarified that the new fence would be six -feet high with one -foot of lattice on the top. ■ Hopes that it is not necessary for the applicants and contractor to speak to the Commission in response to anyone speaking up to dispute the agreements that were previously reached. Commission comments: Requested clarification regarding the fence placement along the left side. (Hudak — noted that there was a survey error that has been corrected, hence the fence has already been replaced, but still needs to be painted. This portion of fence is not part of the topic of the amendment.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Sorry that the staff had to spend time to generate the staff report, and that the Commission has to spend more time deal with the dispute at hand. ■ Noted that the prior approvals were a binding contract with the City of Burlingame; made note that a small portion of her property that has historically been used by the neighbors, but didn't pursue the matter. ■ Was satisfied that the amended plan showed the fence would terminate at the existing fence post. ■ Never cared if the picket fence was removed. ■ Two reasons for her opposition for extending the fence forward by sixteen -feet; it is an aesthetic interruption; she never made any objection to the request for a variance from the declining height envelope. Was satisfied that the greenbelt provided by the existing hedge would continue to soften the coming changes. ■ The fence extension will have a limited life to mitigate the loss of the hedges; the ground will now need watering throughout the year and will cause the fence to deteriorate. ■ The property owners never approach the Giornis with the request; but had the contactor, Toby Hart, approach the Giornis. She recommended that an amendment be filed with the Commission. ■ She made the following requests: the new six foot common fence will begin at the rear property line survey corner and end no more than twelve inches forward of the 1445 Balboa Avenue gatepost to allow clearance for the 1441 Balboa Avenue right elevation's first floor window; the newly existing gap between the new 1441 Balboa and 1445 Balboa fence posts at the rear of the property will be closed; there will be no lattice installed on the new six foot common fence; the 1445 Balboa side of the fence will be faced with grape stakes at the Giorni's expense; the root balls of the removed hedgerow will be removed by the owners of 1441 Balboa Avenue; a mutually agreed upon hedge replacement will be planted from the gateposts to the picket fence with costs shared by the owners of both properties; and retention of removal of the picket fence remains solely up to the discretion of the owners of 1441 Balboa, but not until the hedgerow is planted. ■ Wants all of these agreements memorialized in the new conditions of approval. ■ A new site development plan shall be prepared to reflect these changes. ■ Distressed and disturbed by Teresa Hei's letter. Rebuttal from applicant's representatives (Mark Hudak and Toby Hart): There should be no issue that there was an agreement to remove the root balls. With the new fence, there is no need for the new hedge. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 22, 2010 ■ The matter has become so complicated; let's get the project completed. ■ The fence is well positioned relative to the two homes. ■ Would not have removed the fence and hedge without approval of the Giornis. Did recommend that the Giornis meet with the Trygstads; was led to believe that the meeting did occur. ■ Mr. Giorni met with Hart showing the grape stake that would be re -installed. Giorni was provided the opportunity to make repairs before work proceeded. ■ The hedge was in bad shape, some was on the applicant's property, some on the neighboring property; Indicated that he would remove and replace the hedge. ■ The hedge and fence were removed subsequent to these discussions; a survey was completed. ■ The issue of the picket fence came up in a subsequent discussion; Ms. Giorni indicated that she did not care about the picket fence, but subsequently received word from the applicant indicating that the fence should remain as Giorni had opposed the removal. ■ There was a clear understanding between the contractor and Mr. Giorni regarding how to proceed. Additional public comment: Angela Valles, 1439 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Referenced the potential for disputes between married persons; you cannot assume that you have an agreement if both members of the partnership do not agree. The approach should have been to have all parties sit down and discuss the issues, not receiving written agreements with limited times for responses. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: The applicant should be able to put up the fence that they wish to build; the Giornis can finish their side any way they wish. Have been subjected to the he -said, she -said discussion. The applicant should be able to put in the fence as requested. 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 October 25, 2010, Site Development Plan and November 13, 2009, sheets A.1, A.3 through A.9, Landscape Plan and Boundary and Partial 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 the fence on the common property line between 1441 Balboa Avenue and 1445 Balboa Avenue shall not exceed six -feet in height, and shall not include an additional one -foot lattice element above the six-foot solid fence; 4. that a window shall be added to the front elevation of the structure adjacent to the porch; the curb - cut for the driveway shall be narrowed to the greatest extent possible to improve the space available for on -street parking; and vine pockets shall be installed along the driveway, adjacent to the property at 1437 Balboa Avenue; these items shall be submitted for consideration and approval 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 2Z 2010 by the Planning Commission as an FYI, in advance of issuance of a building permit for the project; 5. that the applicant shall purchase two 24-inch box sized trees of a species listed on the Planning Division tree list selected by the adjacent neighbor at 1437 Balboa Avenue, to be planted on the property at 1437 Balboa Avenue; 6. that all proposed debris boxes shall be stored on the site during demolition and construction; 7. that a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist's to show how the Birch tree will be protected during construction, the tree protection plan and installation shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department; 8. that if it is acceptable to the Public Works and Fire Departments, a bollard shall be placed in such a manner so it will prevent cars from hitting the fire hydrant located in the public right-of-way adjacent to the driveway curb cut; 9. 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. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 14, 2009 and October 16, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's September 18, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 14, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's September 15, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 14, 2009 memo shall be met; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. 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; 15. 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; 16. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 22, 2010 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 17. 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; 18. 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; 19. 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 20. 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 Auran. Discussion of motion: Encouraged the parties to continue to try to work together to address Ms. Giorni's requests, as outlined in her presentation. Chair Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 2628 SUMMIT 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 (ELLIS A. SCHOICHET, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; WAYNE AND JULISSA WESTERMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 22, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Questions of staff: None. Chair Vistica opened the public comment period. Ellis Schiochet, 307 South B Street, San Mateo; represented the applicant. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 2Z 2010 Proposing to maintain as much of the current character as possible, but upgrade the structure to meet the needs of the owners. Have attempted to keep the massing consistent with the neighborhood. Commission comments: ■ With respect to roofing materials; what will be used over the front door? (Schiochet — will be composition shingles). ■ The home appears to be more Tuscan or Mediterranean; the composition roof is inconsistent; would be more appropriate to install a tile roof. Consider exploring another roofing material. (Schiochet — will explore with the applicant. Roofs were lowered, but that restricts the types of tiles that can be used.) ■ Need to carefully consider the color of the roof, given the wooded location and the fact that you look down upon the structure. ■ There are a lot of different roof materials that could work in this situation. ■ Is an interesting design; likes the mixture of elements. ■ Would also like to see story poles installed for the project since it is in a hillside area. ■ Will views be impacted? (Schiochet — there is no way for one to see the addition with the existing tree cover. The owners have spoken to the neighbors and seem to have addressed any concern regarding view impacts.) ■ Requested 2660 Summit Drive owner contact information to permit viewing of story poles from that location. Public comments: Jerry Garibaldi, representing owner of 2620 Summit Drive and John Moran, 2616 Summit Drive; spoke: Ensure that the proposed addition does not become a privacy issue to the property at 2620 Summit Drive, particularly to the kitchen and bedrooms. The trees on the property do currently shield the properties; most concerned how far the addition will come over the top of the existing house. Anything over the garage area will not be an issue. Will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Additional applicant comments (Ellis Schiochet): Sought clarity about how to address the Garibaldi comments. (Commissioner - The story poles will tell the story.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 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 Vistica 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 Terrones absent). 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 22, 2010 The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:12 p.m. Commissioner Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Item 7 (1220 Mills Avenue) since he owns property within 500-feet of the property. He left the Council Chambers. 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 2Z 2010 7. 1220 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RON JOHNSTONE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 22, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Questions of staff: None. Chair Vistica opened the public comment period. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ On the front elevation; comparing sheets A2 and A4; it appears that the elevation should notch -in near bedroom 4. (Geurse — the wall being referenced is inside the attic space. The window is only for decorative purposes, the space is not useable.) ■ Looks like a steeper pitch roof is proposed. (Geurse — the pitch is not being altered, will match the existing roofline.) ■ The addition will not appear as high as it appears on the plans. (Geurse — the ridge is being extended somewhat higher than the existing roof; referenced sheet A3.) ■ Nice looking project, it is well proportioned. ■ Bedroom 1 has many doors that could affect its usability; perhaps consider combining closet doors; sliders could be used rather than true French doors to save interior swing space. ■ With respect to the columns on the rear elevation; don't appear to belong in the design; look out of place. Perhaps frame and shingle the columns and provide trim at the top and bottom. Perhaps an inset panel; call them out as square, they appear as round on the plans. Could conceivably reduce the number of columns. ■ The rear fagade has more articulation than the others; perhaps look at this more closely. ■ With respect to the front elevation, look at a means of making the addition look less like it is added on top the existing home. (Geurse — have looked at other design solutions that made the design look too busy; are trying to maintain a clean design. The drawing may be a bit misleading.) ■ With respect to the corbels under the stairwell; should be a bit beefier. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: EN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 2Z 2010 None. Chair Vistica 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 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Gaul recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:29 p.m. Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from participating in the discussion regarding Item 8 (1116 Drake Avenue) since she resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the Council Chambers. 8. 1116 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRET AND SUE BOTTARINI. PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated November 22, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Questions of staff: None. Chair Vistica opened the public comment period. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place; represented the applicant. In going with the Tudor design, felt that the 10:12 pitch was most appropriate; are seeking to add a bit of height to the project, since the flanking properties are quite tall. Commission comments: ■ Likes the side setbacks. ■ Nice design. ■ Likes the mixture of materials in the landscape plan. ■ Likes the front fagade, but the trim on the windows could perhaps be roughened up somewhat to add some texture, something similar to the shutters. ■ Could pack -out the back of the trim to raise the elevation. ■ What is going to be done with the dead space in the attic? (Robertson — will be trussed out, so it is not usable space.) Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 22, 2010 Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Vistica 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 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Yie recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:37 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 November 15, 2010: ■ None. FYI: 1720 Adeline Drive — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Directed staff to schedule a public hearing to consider the proposed amendment. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Vistica adjourned the meeting at 9:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Lindstrom, Secretary 20