HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 03.09.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
March 9, 2009 - 7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cauchi called the March 9, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and
Yie.
Absent: None.
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner, Erica Strohmeier;
and City Attorney, Gus Guinan.
III. MINUTES
CommissionerAuran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the February
23, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change:
■ Page 7, Item 2 (1452 Drake Avenue), last bullet under "Discussion of Motion",- revise to read:
"Restrict the size of the waste line to prevent the connection of a toilet" and add a corresponding
condition of approval.
Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke regarding the FYI related to 1324 Montero Avenue:
■ Requested that the matter be brought back for hearing.
■ Noted that there is a for -sale sign on the property before the final inspection has occurred.
■ Noted that a full -glass window has been installed where a true divided light window was required;
the window was to match the two other leaded glass windows in the room; it does not fit with the
design of other windows.
■ Felt the letter to the Commission was disrespectful.
1
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 3008 RIVERA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FORA SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (UNA KINSELLA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JOHN AND FRIEDA RADZYMINSKI,
PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN
Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated March 9, 2009.
Commission comments:
■ Applicant should consider relocating the garage to eliminate the need for the front setback Variance;
the concern is that the garage will be too prominent, as opposed to the house; perhaps the garage
could be relocated to the south side of the house.
■ Not certain that the findings for a Variance can be made.
■ List the setbacks across the street from the property, particularly for 3005 Rivera Drive; since the
frame of reference is difficult.
■ Provide a calculation regarding the reduction in hardscape; proposed versus existing; the relocation
of the garage results in a significant reduction in impervious surface due to the re -orientation.
■ Doesn't have a problem with the location of the garage; are adding a lot of landscaping.
■ It is a neighborhood pattern to have the garage in the front.
■ The design seems to preserve the rear yard and eliminate a lot of hardscape.
This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and
reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the Consent
Calendar. Commissioner Brownrigg pulled Item 2a. Commissioner Vistica indicated that he would abstain
from voting on Item 2b since he resides within 500-feet of the property.
2b. 108 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JO ANN GANN, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; AND BEN AND VICKY HSIA, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA
WHITMAN
2c. 1365 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP
FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSES OF LOT 8 AND NORTHERLY HALF OF LOT 9, BLOCK 60
EASTON ADDITION NO.7 SUBDIVISION, PM 09-01 (BGT LAND SURVEYING, APPLICANT; AND
CHRIS AND SANDRA KNIGHTLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: VICTOR VOONG
2d. 1625-1633 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED RR —APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP FOR
LOT COMBINATION PURPOSES OF PORTION OF LOTS 24, 25, 26, 27 AND 28, BLOCK 6,
MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO 3 SUBDIVISION, PM 09-02 (MORAN ENGINEERING, INC.,
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
APPLICANT; AND WILLIAM SPENCER COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT:
VICTOR VOONG
Commissioner Auran 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 Yie. Chair Cauchi called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0 for Items 2c and 2d, and 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica
abstaining) for Item 2b. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:13 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2a. 1241 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A —APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (JEFF
HAYWOOD, PEETS COFFEE AND TEA, APPLICANT; TYBABB PARTNERS LLC, PROPERTY OWNER;
AND THE CHARLES DOERR GROUP. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-three (23) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Jeff Haywood, 1400 Park Avenue, Emeryville; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ This is an important retail space for Burlingame Avenue.
■ Have dressed up the side entry; what was the thinking for not turning it into a more generous door
(Haywood — the wall is a structural/sheer wall; the structural engineer suggested infilling the small
window on that side before opening the door on the side; opening it up more would be problematic;
the small window will be filled in).
■ Suggested swinging the door the other way to open up more into the restaurant (Haywood — will
consider as long as ADA clearance is provided).
■ Clarified that the "in" swinging door is permissible due to the occupancy; no second exit is required.
■ Encouraged applicant to become familiar with the sign regulations (Haywood — are considering a
blade sign).
■ Would it be possible to repeat the fluted metal that is over the main entry over the second entry
(Haywood — yes, this is possible).
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Brownrigg 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 February 25, 2009, sheets CS-1, SP-1, SP-2 and P-1 through P-5;
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
2. that the canopy over the Park Road entry to the space shall be designed to included the "fluting"
feature that is a feature on the canopy over the primary entry at the corner of the space;
additionally, the door at this location (on Park Road) shall be reversed to swing into the space in a
manner that permits customers to easy enter the main area of the space, if allowed per the Building
Code.
3. that this business location occupied by a limited food service, with 360 SF of on -site seating may
change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or bar upon approval of
a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for the establishment change; the criteria for the new
classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved;
4. that the 360 SF area of on -site seating of the limited food service shall only be enlarged or
extended to any other areas within the tenant space by an amendment to this Conditional Use
Permit;
5. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding
exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
6. 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);
7. that this limited food service may be open seven days a week, from 5:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., with a
maximum of 12 employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager;
8. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with
the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building
and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department;
9. that the business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50)
feet of all frontages of the business;
10. that an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food
from this premise;
11. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within
10' of the property line;
12. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use this Conditional
Use Permit shall become void and a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site;
13. that seating on the sidewalk outside the food establishment shall require an encroachment permit
and shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city;
14. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds
the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use
Permit;
15. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 30, 2009, memo, the City Engineer's
E,
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
February 10, 2009, memo, the City Arborist's February 11, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's February
9, 2009, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 3, 2009, memo shall be met;
16. that automatic irrigation shall be provided to all proposed street trees in the City's right of way along
Park Road;
17. that all proposed planters located within the public right-of-way shall be revised to meet Public
Works standards, shall require an encroachment permit from the Public Works Engineering
Division, shall be maintained by the business owner, and shall be able to be moved inside the store
at the end of each business day so that they do not create a safety and liability issue for
pedestrians using the sidewalk;
18. 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;
19. 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;
20. 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;
21. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
22. 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
23. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty
of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; and
24. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
None.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 7:24 p.m.
3. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED
GARAGE FOR A NEW, 3'/2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (ROBERT
VAN DALE, EDI ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DENHAM LLC, PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Alex Mortazavi, 20 Vista Lane; represented the applicant:
■ Have self-imposed a setback of over 23-feet from the side property line due to trees along the fence
line; the trees will reduce the appearance of bulk and mass of the building.
■ Noted that the trees will be California Laurel along the side of the residence; will be staggered in a
manner to totally block the view of the residence at the fence line.
■ Brought a window sample for the Commission to view.
■ Submitted a manufacturer's cut -sheet for the bi-fold doors and windows.
Commission comments:
■ Noted that lines of sight were drawn from several locations; was the 131.5' elevation the elevation
of the patio on the adjacent property (Mortazavi — has no idea what the patio elevation is; believes it
is at roughly 127' or 128').
■ Might there be more information regarding views toward the project from the southern end of the
adjacent yard on the right-hand side (Mortazavi — the right side is not affected; he owns the lot
above).
■ What is the growth potential for the trees (Mortazavi — up to 20-feet tall and 25-feet wide).
■ Clarified that the thought process is to move the trees to the fence line to block the view of the
house from the adjacent property; was there any thought to keeping the trees at the building itself
(Mortazavi — having the tree next to the building doesn't help as much, but will be offsetting some of
the trees. It is his interest to retain as much landscaping as possible; but lose the use of 4,000
square feet of property by doing so. There will be portions of the property that are visible. The
eight, 24-inch trees are significant landscape features).
■ Could the residence be camouflaged more by doing more planting; is there any way to clad the
elevator with wood rather than stucco (Mortazavi — the tower is further in from the property line by
around 14').
■ What is the best view from the residence (Mortazavi — one of the best views is towards Highway 92;
though under County development standards, something could be built to block the view).
■ Consider eliminating or reducing the deck off of the bedroom; it is substantial in size (Mortazavi —
that is the only sunny deck on the house; because of the other difficulties with the site. Will not be a
heavily used area. Placing it a few feet back will not help the neighbor). The Commission tries to
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
limit exposure of neighbors to decks overlooking a neighboring yard; due to the size of the deck,
there is the potential for greater activity. There is another deck on a lower level.
Public comments:
Art and Kaelani LaBrie, 2839 Adeline Drive; Mike Ghaul, 2838 Adeline Drive; Gil McCoy, 1022 Bayswater
Avenue; Steve Ehrlich, 2833 Adeline Drive; George Chrissman, 2848 Adeline Drive; Eileen Shefsky, 24
Vista Lane; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke:
■ The bedroom deck is larger than either of the two bedrooms; the elevator shaft leads directly to the
deck; suggested that the owners of the home would use the deck more frequently, impacting
privacy of the adjacent property to the left.
■ Is a beautiful house, but it belongs on a 5-acre lot nearer to Los Angeles; doesn't belong in the
Burlingame Hills; the story poles confirmed the height of the proposed structure above the property
to the left.
■ Felt that the findings for the requested height Variance cannot be made; reviewed the findings.
There are other alternatives to the site and project design.
■ Will decrease the value of the property to the left by $150,000-$400,000.
■ Cited the significant difference in the size of the home versus the existing homes within the area.
■ A smaller version of the house would be a more marketable project.
■ Requested that the applicant explore other design alternatives.
■ The configuration of the property makes it difficult to develop; this is not the fault of the developer;
how can the problem be best resolved.
■ The prior design was too forced on the lot; it was suggested at that time that the design follow the
form of the lot.
■ Feels it is a good design.
■ The only problem in meeting the zoning requirements is the height; there is no good solution, but
the current proposal is the best solution.
■ Landscape screening will minimize impacts on the neighbor.
■ There is a large old Oak tree in front of Gall's property; should be protected during construction.
■ Suggested a smaller home to be more marketable and to reduce impacts.
■ The design impacts privacy of the neighbors, even three (3) properties away from the site.
■ This is more than double the maximum height allowed.
■ Looks like a high-rise building; there is a huge potential to impact the privacy of neighbors.
■ The design is out of character with the neighborhood.
■ Shefsky's property is two (2) stories; no Variances were requested.
■ The applicant is agreeable to providing screening on the right side.
■ Also open to providing a green roof system.
■ Sooner or later, something will likely be built on the property; should the neighbors decide to appeal
the Planning Commission's approval; would the City Council be bound to use the same rules
applied to properties lying within the City of Burlingame?
■ The Planning Commission is sensitive to privacy issues; some of the issues raised by the neighbors
are overblown.
Applicant rebuttal by Alex Mortazavi:
Is not an office building; the Variance is caused by the method of measuring height in Burlingame;
the measurement is taken from the curb line; the house follows the terrain of the lot.
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
■ Has owned the property for almost 10-years.
■ The solar panels on adjacent properties are irrelevant; they lie to the south of the property and will
not be impacted by the new home.
■ The access to the deck from the elevator can be eliminated, if desired.
■ The style of architecture in the neighborhood is mixed.
■ The prior proposal was presented a year ago; current project is less visible.
■ Real estate agents have their own opinions regarding impacts upon property values.
■ The design of the house steps up the hill and adds to the cost of the construction due to the amount
of circulation space necessary within the residence.
■ Were surprised that the neighbor encroaches upon the property with retaining walls and gates.
■ The hardship is that the lot contains one-half acre; are preserving the trees on the property; this is
only a two-story building.
■ The block's average setback also creates a hardship.
■ Have minimized impacts upon the neighbors; every adjustment affects one of the neighbors; there
must be a compromise; the project can't be made invisible.
■ Having a $3 million home next to a property will increase the value of the adjacent properties.
■ The Commission is aware of the efforts that have been made by the applicant.
Additional Commission comments:
Concerned that bedrooms 2 and 3 are problematic elements in the design; there is a certain realty
that has to be accepted; the Commission is responsible for finding compromises. Has the applicant
looked at shifting the mass of the bedroom to the other side of the building (Mortazavi — has looked
at this alternative. Considered flipping the floor plan, but ends up impacting mature trees,
particularly due to the driveway location. Would also disturb the Shefsky property even more. Can't
cantilever the bedrooms; would need to expand the family room and add to the bulk of the property
and impact trees. Have communicated with the neighbors and made attempts to address
neighbors' interests).
Regarding the screening on the south side; how tall are the trees (Mortazavi — drawn at 14-feet, but
will grow to 25-feet). The tree will work better as a screen if it is taller (Mortazavi — staggering the
trees will also help to screen).
Continuing the mass on the south side would have a greater impact than the current design.
Noted that a cool, concrete color will help to disguise the mass.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
The applicant has taken the direction of the Planning Commission well; is a good design.
The trees being installed on the property will provide a lot of screening.
Has demonstrated that the house will be well screened from Adeline Drive.
Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
Reduce deck to 8-foot depth from the front facade.
Tree protection for Oak across the street.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
M
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
Discussion of motion:
■ Concern is more with the width of the deck as it impacts the neighbor to the left; consider reducing
the width rather than the depth.
■ Consider revising the motion to reduce width of deck by 50% instead of 8-foot depth reduction.
■ Clarified that the Commission never voted on the prior application.
■ The challenges created on the property are due to the topography.
■ There was always an acknowledgement that there would be a Variance of some sort required for
development of the property.
■ The story poles have demonstrated the potential impacts; the home is in excess of 6, 000 square
feet; the design is nearly acceptable, but not yet; the impacts of the bedrooms can be mitigated by
placing them on the first floor.
■ Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he couldn't support the current project as designed, without
mitigating the mass more; there is no need for the deck off of the bedroom.
■ Applicant commended on the design of the building; moved in this direction at the suggestion of the
Planning Commission; has addressed the concerns of the neighbors to a large degree; though
there is still some impact on the LaBrie property.
■ Would like the deck off of the bedroom eliminated.
■ Hard to touch rooms to the ground with this type of design; the decks are an important element of
the design and the livability of the house.
■ The screening proposed by the applicant should work to address neighbor impacts; there are
actually few windows on the left wall of the residence.
■ The house is already set back quite a distance from the left property line.
■ The design in general is well worked out; has been studied by the applicant.
■ Maker of motion indicated a willingness to eliminate the deck off of the bedroom; agreed to by the
second of the motion.
■ Planting plan for trees along the left side of the property should return to the Commission as an FYI
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped January 27, 2009, sheets A02 through A09, and date stamped December 2, 2008, sheets
A00 through A01c, A10 through A16 and Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan;
2. that the deck lying adjacent to bedrooms 2 and 3 shall be eliminated from the design;
3. that tree protection measures shall be implemented for the Oak tree across the street from the
property (near 2838 Adeline Drive) during project construction; to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist;
4. that the planting plan for the trees to be located along the left side of the structure shall be
presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to issuance of a Building Permit;
5. 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);
6. 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;
7. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special Permit and
E
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void;
8. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection
measures as defined in the arborist report by Peninsula Tree Care Inc. and date stamped by the
Planning Department on June 30, 2008;
9. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 2, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's July 22,
2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 7, 2008 memo, the City Arborist's July 30, 2008 memo, and the
NPDES Coordinator's July 7, 2008 memo shall be met;
10. 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;
11. 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;
12. 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;
13. 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;
14. 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;
15. 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
16. 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;
17. 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
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
March 9, 2009
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;
18. 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 Department; and
19. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner
Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:42 p.m.
4. 3105 MARGARITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW,
SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAIN AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITION (MIKE KERWIN AND AMY
PENTICOFF-KERWIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOHN MANISCALCO,
ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi noted that this agenda report was not in his packet; he was not able to review the report and
visit the site. Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he would abstain from voting since he sits on the
Green Ribbon Task Force with the applicant.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Kelton Dissel, 1501 Waller Street; represented the applicant.
The proposed amendment affects the downhill side of the property.
Homeowner decided to retain the existing wall and footing on the left side of the property; affected
the side setbacks by a few inches.
Commission comments:
None.
Public comments:
Frank Sulgit, 1560 Los Montes Drive; Brian Murphy, 3101 Margarita Drive; Helaine Darling, 3100 Margarita
Drive; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke:
Questioned the credibility of the Building Inspections Division; what else may be missed in the
construction?
Two signs are present on the property, this is over the limit of what is allowed; is this due to the
applicant's membership on the Green Ribbon Task Force (Brownrigg — the signage on the property
has nothing to do with his membership on the Green Ribbon Task Force. Terrones — feels that the
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
Building Division staff takes every measure to ensure that projects are built according to plans;
appears that the existing wall was perfectly good to use).
■ Requested two conditions of approval that should be tightened up. Would like to make sure that
there are significant retaining walls between the properties that should remain in place; the existing
fence should be repaired/replaced in exactly the same position.
■ On the left side setback Variance; took away a significant portion of the existing bedroom;
measures very close to what it should be; there is a significant difference at the rear; appears to be
4' 6"; as part of Condition 11, require a survey of the property; need to have the true setbacks
reflected (Lindstrom/Terrones — feel a survey should be required. Auran — if survey demonstrates
that the fence is not on the property line, would not be comfortable with proposed change to
Condition 3).
■ Feels that the wall defining the bedroom on the lower level has "crept" closer to the left property
line. Clarified that Murphy (property owner to left) wishes to have fence installed in the same
location as existing fence (Terrones — clarified that survey would run the risk of causing relocation
of the retaining wall and fence closer to the Murphy property).
■ With respect to the basement steps; were demolished and relocated to within 6-inches to 1-foot of
the property line; are not located where they are shown on the plans.
■ Provided photos to the Planning Commission showing signs present on the property that are the
source of some neighbor objections; signs exceed limits (Meeker — will pass the information along
to the Code Enforcement Officer for investigation).
■ Not supportive of applicants that build aspects of a project that require changes; though this project
was contentious.
■ Why were changes made and built well in advance of requesting approval of the changes? The
applicant had a responsibility to apply for the changes in advance of making the changes.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
The applicant is executing the original intent of the design; caught by a set of circumstances where
a couple of inches create a violation of the original approval.
Agrees with requiring the fence to be located on the property line, regardless of where it is currently
situated.
With respect to Condition 11; not supportive of requiring a survey.
Commissioner Vistica 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 Department date
stamped February 24, 2009 (Sheets A2.1, A2.3, A3.1, and A3.3) and March 28, 2008 (Sheets
A1.0, Al. 1, A2.0, A2.2, A2.4, A2.5, and A3.2) (date stamped August 30 2007) and Shoots A14,
A!.!, o2 3 o2 ti A3.1, o3.3 (date stamped QGteber 11, 2n�Tand that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this
permit.
2. that the fence on the left side of the property, adjacent to the neighbor, shall be repaired or replaced
at the same location it currently exists, unless a survey is prepared that demonstrates that it is not
located on the property line, in which case, it shall be located on the property line;
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 22, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's March
26, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 27, 2007 memo, the City Arborist's October 16, 2007
memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 23, 2007 memo shall be met;
4. that the fence between 3101 Margarita Avenue and 3105 Margarita Avenue shall be repaired; that
the applicant shall prepare plans for the repair and/or replacement of the downhill neighbor's fence;
and shall submit these plans as an FYI to the Planning Commission;
5. that the applicant and neighbors work with the City Arborist to identify the appropriate species and
optimal location for the three (3) replacement trees to be planted on the property to ensure that the
trees do not grow to a height greater than 15-feet and that they are placed anywhere on the
property that will not adversely impact views from the uphill property;
6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the front and side setback
variances, 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 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), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
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,
2001 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;
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 Department; and
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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:
■ Minor dimensional discrepancies have occurred; this is not uncommon when working with an
existing structure.
■ If there are additional revisions to the landscape plan they will need to be brought back to the
Planning Commission for approval.
■ Can support rebuilding the fence in the existing location.
■ Maker of the motion clarified that fence should be rebuilt in the existing location; seconder of motion
expressed concern with this addition.
■ The site plan shows the existing building corner as originally shown.
■ Clarify that fence shall be built at the existing location, unless a survey shows otherwise, in which
case, it shall be placed on the property line.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner
Brownrigg abstained). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:16 p.m.
5. 1008 —1028 CAROLAN AVENUE & 1007-1025 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-2 - PROPOSAL TO AMEND
THE TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS
COMMERCIAL AREA AND TO ADD MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS AN
ALTERNATIVE LAND USE, AND TO AMEND TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ADD AN R-4 OVERLAY FOR CERTAIN C-2 ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS ROAD
COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE
(HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) (92 NOTICED AND NEWSPAPER NOTICE — SAN MATEO
COUNTY TIMES 2/13/09) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY
23. 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
■ None.
Public comments:
■ None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Auran moved to recommend adoption of the amendments to the City Council.
14
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend adoption of the amendments to the City
Council. The motion passed 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable.
This item concluded at 9:20 p.m.
Commissioner Brownrigg recused himself from participating with respect to Item 6 (1531 Columbus
Avenue), since he lives within 500-feet of the site. He left the Council Chambers.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
6. 1531 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; AND KONRAD AND CHRISTINA HABELT, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT:
ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Commission comments:
Clarified the exemption from lot coverage (Strohmeier — 24-inch encroachment is allowed).
Christina Habelt, 1509 Balboa Avenue; and Robert Medan, 1936 Los Altos Drive, San Mateo; represented
the applicant.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Asked if the chimney will be stuccoed (Medan — yes).
■ Clarified that either simulated true divided light windows, or true divided light windows will be
required (Medan — will be simulated true divided light windows).
■ A roof over the rear doors would be a good addition (Medan — agreed to change).
■ Complemented the design.
■ Call out the materials, e.g. spark arrestor and attic vent.
■ Accepted deletion of rail on rear if the Building Official agrees to the change.
■ It would be helpful to have additional windows on the wall of the kitchen (Habelt — noted that light
will be coming from the dining room. Lindstrom — will be difficult to provide windows at that location;
could add other architectural features to break up the wall; otherwise will affect ability to provide
cabinets).
15
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
■ With respect to the light well; have steps to yard been considered (Medan — doesn't expect to be
walking into the area).
■ May wish to identify on the landscape plan that there is a planting area around the light well.
Public comments:
■ None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
■ None.
Chair Cauchi 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 Brownrigg recused).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:34 p.m.
Commissioner Brownrigg returned to the dais.
7. 1350 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND HOLLY ROGERS AND RICHARD SCHOUSTRA, PROPERTY
OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ On right elevation, clarified that area below deck will be covered with wood paneling and there will
be access doors under the deck.
■ Asked for description of the painted wood vent in the gable end (Grange — the tree small slots are
the actual vent pieces, with a piece of trim across the top).
■ Nice application.
■ Will the driveway be replaced (Grange — not now, but will do landscaping enhancements in the
future).
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke:
16
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
Likes that it is a remodel of an existing house; architect did a good job with the design.
The driveway is useable, except for large vehicles.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Applauded keeping the wood shake roof.
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:42 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
Community Development Director Meeker requested Commission direction regarding an upcoming
discussion of an amendment to the City's demolition ordinance. The Commission directed that the
discussion be placed on the March 23, 2009 agenda.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of March 2, 2009:
None.
FYI: 1800 Davis Drive — changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
Accepted.
FYI: 1324 Montero Avenue — as built changes to a previously approved Design Review
project:
Accepted.
FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — February 2009:
Accepted.
FYI: 2009-2014 Draft Housing Element — changes to the draft document based on Commission
and public comment:
17
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes March 9, 2009
Accepted.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley Vistica, Secretary
In