Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 09.14.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, September 14, 2009 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the September 14, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Cauchi Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City Attorney Gus Guinan; and Chief Building Official Joe Cyr. III. MINUTES Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Vistica to approve the minutes of the August 24, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: Pagel, "Roll Call",- delete second "Terrones" from listing of members present. Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Discussed parking on the street in residential neighborhoods. Recounted her recent experience regarding the placement of a notice in her neighbors' mailboxes alerting them to an event at her home, and potential parking impacts. As a response, the neighbors parked their vehicles on their properties the day of the event. Could a similar approach be used to encourage residents to use their on -site parking? VI. PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT 1. PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT ON MULTI -JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN - STAFF CONTACT: JOE CYR, CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL Chief Building Official Joe Cyr provided an overview of the "Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan". The presentation before the Planning Commission was intended to be one of two required public opportunities for public input on the plan, drafted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 Notice of availability of the document for public review and comment has also been placed on the City's website. The public comment period concludes on September 21, 2009. Commission comments: Would be helpful to have someone identify which items are underfunded that place the City at highest risk; and work on funding those items. Is there FEMA funding available to get some of the studies underway? (Cyr — unknown.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: What is the deadline for public comment on the document? (Cyr — September 21, 2009 is the deadline for comment.) Will the City get any points for having a CERT program? (Cyr— this is a different program; geared toward mitigation of hazards in advance, not recovery following a disaster.) Encouraged the public to read the document to see how the City will address these needs; public comment from citizens will go a long way. No action was required by the Planning Commission. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. VII. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. VIII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner Lindstrom pulled item 2a (1701 Albemarle Way) for discussion. 2b. 2411 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND RONALD AND DOROTHEA MAFRICI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2a. 1701 ALBEMARLE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MRS. JING LING LAU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND LI-SHENG FU, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 14, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Li-Sheng Fu, 180 Martingale Drive, Fremont; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Why weren't the downspouts and knee braces added to the plans? (Fu — apparently missed the downspouts on the plans; can add them. Didn't include the knee braces because it was not part of the original design of the home.) There may be very little eave to brace with the knee braces. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: The project has improved. Commissioner Brownrigg 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 August 31, 2009, sheets A-1 through A-6, sheet L-1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey Map; 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 April 10, 2009, and May 29, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's April 13, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's April 10, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 13, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 10, 2009 memo shall be met; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 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 10. 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; 11. 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 12. 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 Yie. Discussion of motion: Clarified that the architect's letter indicated the rail material and that the downspouts would be installed. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:38 p.m. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 3. 349 LEXINGTON WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL AREA IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (BARRY CHANDLER, APPLICANT; MARIE NASSER, PROPERTY OWNER; AND MAURICE GONZALEZ, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 14, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine (9) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commission comments: How is a bedroom defined? Wouldn't an additional bedroom require another parking space? (Hurin — provided definition for a bedroom and confirmed that additional parking would be required for another bedroom on the property.) Where there permits issued for this accessory structure? (Hurin — no permits were issued.) Maurice Gonzalez, 818 Crestview Drive, Millbrae; and Marie Nasser, 715 Seabury Road, Hillsborough; represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments: Was he (Gonzalez) commissioned to prepare drawings for the building? Did he check the applicable planning regulations prior to designing the building? (Gonzalez — yes, but prepared after the fact.) Is the property still a rental property? (Nasser — yes, it is still rented.) Public comments: Steve Dwyer, 328 Dwight Road; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Barry Chandler, 166 Gramercy Drive, San Mateo; spoke: ■ Could see the building when it was being built about a year ago; became aware that no permits had been issued. ■ Have noticed lights on in the structure; believe that someone is living in the structure. ■ Feels the structure is too close to a utility pole and property line. ■ Structure has been plumbed for water and gas; a new sub -electrical panel has been installed. ■ Believe it was built to be a second rental unit. ■ Feel there are likely code violations present. ■ Provided photos of new structure, and of aerial photo that shows the original structure. ■ There is nothing to prevent the structure from being converted to a rental unit; the Conditional Use Permit should be denied. ■ Think they should have been allowed to replace the existing structure with the same size, fixtures and use. ■ Property owner should have been able to make upgrades to the previous structure; but should not be allowed to convert it to another non -permitted use. ■ Probably should have gone through proper protocol with respect to construction the building. Neighbors have a very similar unit that was done without permits; moved forward based upon this discussion with the neighbor. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 Commissioner Auran moved to deny the application with prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: ■ The project is potentially approvable; but utilities still remain in place that could service the building and allow illegal conversion of the structure. ■ If the City approved this, would also like to have the parking requirement increased due to the potential for an additional vehicle to be present on the property. ■ This is a large accessory structure, containing separate rooms; lends itself to use as a dwelling unit. ■ There have been a number of people associated with the project that understood the process, but did not follow it. ■ Had the project come through the proper process, may have been approvable. ■ Could be converted to an income producing unit at the detriment of the neighbors. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to deny with prejudice. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:03 p.m. 4. 815 LAUREL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DARYL BUCKINGHAM, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND PATRICIA DEL CHIARO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 14, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Daryl Buckingham, 338 Ridge Road, San Carlos; and Pat Del Chiaro, 141 West Poplar Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Clarified that the window manufacturer (Milgard) offers simulated true divided light grids in this region. (Del Chiaro — provided a sample that shows that the simulated true divided lite grids.) ■ Asked for clarification regarding the grid dimension. ■ Regarding the photographs provided by the applicant; were the photos intended to demonstrate that neighboring properties include vinyl windows? (Buckingham — yes, the photos were intended to demonstrate the presence of vinyl windows in the neighborhood.) ■ There are some properties in the area that have wood windows. ■ Vinyl windows do not appear appropriate for the neighborhood. ■ Why are vinyl windows the choice; cost? (Del Chiaro — cost is a consideration.) ■ Will painted wood casings be provided? (Buckingham — yes, unless composite is used.) ■ Regarding the round window; does not appear to add anything to the house; looks funny the way it is handled within the gable. (Buckingham — if just a window is installed, it appears horizontal; the gable adds the illusion of height to the window. Square windows looked very "fit" into the space; the round window allowed the use of a more predominant window in a limited space.) 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Commission has struggled to require simulated true divided lite wood windows; but what will vinyl windows look like in 10-years. The vinyl ages over time and discolors; will the windows come in a color other than white? Wood is much more flexible in the long -run. Suggested holding firm on requiring wood windows instead of vinyl windows. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Would prefer aluminum clad wood windows rather than vinyl. Vinyl windows are not less expensive in the long run. Commissioner Lindstrom 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 September 1, 2009, sheets A-0.1, A-1, A-3 and A-5; and date stamped July 23, 2009, sheets A-0, A-0.2, A-1.1, A-1.3, A-3.1 and photo sheet; 2. that all windows shall be simulated true divided lite aluminum -clad wood windows; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 29 and July 23, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's June 9, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 28, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's June 2, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 28, 2009 memo shall be met; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 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 11. 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; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: Vinyl windows are not a good sustainable choice; are not environmentally friendly. The round window is not a deal breaker. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:24 p.m. 5. 1837 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BACILIA MACIAS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND CHRIS AND MARISOL DUNNING, PROPERTY OWNERS) (127 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 14, 2009 Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. , with attachments. Community Development Director and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were Chris Dunning, 1837 Hunt Drive; represented the applicant. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 Commission comments: Some of the changes are improvements. Recommended using a lighter color for the roof to save energy. Will skylight have a shade underneath so that it does not "glow" when interior lights are on at night? (Dunning — are considering the "Velux" brand of skylight that comes with a shade to prevent this effect.) Public comments: Mrs. Theodore Vlahos, 1847 Hunt Drive; Jim Vlahos, 50 Platt Avenue, Sausalito; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ The bedroom windows look into her (Vlahos') home; want to have glass installed that doesn't permit views into her bedroom and family room. Has no privacy in any room due to the addition. ■ Expressed concern about the color of the roof. ■ Number one concern is screening with trees; ask that the project not be finaled until the full landscape plan is implemented. (Terrones/Meeker—the landscape plan that was approved will be implemented prior to final inspection of the project.) ■ Clarified that adding a tree to replace the removed tree will preserve privacy. (Dunning — will reinstall the tree prior to completion.) ■ Clarified that window coverings will also be installed as the project is completed. ■ Is there any reason not to make the window obscured glass? (Dunning — would be unsightly.) ■ Want to make sure that the tree replanted does not obscure the neighbor's view, but still preserves privacy. ■ Review the revised landscape plan as an FYI, prior to implementation. (Meeker —suggested an FYI regarding the landscape plan that both addresses the privacy of the neighbors while also preserving views in the areas where landscape materials have been removed during the construction process. The revised plan to be reviewed with the City Arborist.) ■ Perhaps a "Leland Cypress" could be considered in the area in question. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 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 Division date stamped August 31, 2009, sheets A1.0, A2.0, A2.1, A3.1 and A3.2; and date stamped December 18, 2008, Sheets A-0, 1-1.0, Al. 1, A3.0, A4.0, and A5.0; 2. that, prior to final inspection, a revised landscape plan shall be presented for review and approval by the Planning Commission as an FYI item, that shows the size, species, growth height and quantity of plant materials that will be installed near the common boundary with the property at 1847 Hunt Drive to both preserve views from that property, while still providing privacy to both 1847 Hunt Drive and 1837 Hunt Drive; this plan shall be reviewed by the City's Arborist. The landscape plan shall be fully implemented prior to final inspection of the property upon completion of construction; 3. that skylights on the property shall be of a design that prevent glare from interior lighting to the exterior of the structure; 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the side setback variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 6. that any 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 the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 7, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's February 28, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 25, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 28, 2008 memo shall be met; 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 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 15. 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: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:44 p.m. 6. 1452 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND GINKGO BURLINGAME LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (77 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 14, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen (17) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Like the changes to the design. ■ Concerned about what happens at the ridgeline with the new roofing material. (Grange — will look much like it is drawn.) ■ Why changing to stucco? (Grange — primarily for maintenance; plus the client doesn't want wood. The plaster will tone down the design.) ■ Was additional structural work necessary for the new roofing material? (Grange — yes.) ■ Will the plaster be of two different colors on the base versus the upper portion of the house; the plans seem to show a different color or texture? (Grange — the base will be a heavier, rusticated texture; the upper portion of the house will be a smoother texture.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Much better project than originally approved; will this be the last amendment? This should be the last amendment. (Grange — is following all of the rules; if the owner wants to propose an amendment, will be considered by the Commission.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 Commissioner Yie 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 August 31, 2009, sheets Al. 1, A2.3, A3.1 through A3.3 and detail sheets for the clay tile roofing; 2. that the shower stall in the basement shall only be allowed in conjunction with a sauna in the basement and shall be built to the size, configuration and location as shown on the Basement Plan, sheet A2.0; that any changes to the size, configuration or location of the shower stall shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission review; that if the sauna is not built as part of the project a shower stall shall not be allowed in the basement. The waste line from the shower shall not exceed 2" in diameter, or the minimum required for a shower, whichever is less; 3. that if the sauna is ever removed or eliminated in the future, the shower stall shall also be removed or eliminated along with the sauna; 4. that the landscaping on the right side of the structure shall be revised to include more pervious materials and less hardscape; 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 the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 9, 2009 and September 26, 2008 memos, the City Engineer's October 16, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 9, 2009 and September 29, 2008 memos, and NPDES Coordinator's September 29, 2008 memos shall be met; 8. 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; 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 12. 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; 13. 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 14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 15. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 16. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 17. 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 Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:54 p.m. 7. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING CODE) TO INCREASE THE TIME LIMIT FOR EXERCISING APPROVALS GRANTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL, TO AMEND THE TIME LIMIT FOR EXTENSIONS AND TO CLARIFY THE APPEAL PERIOD FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS. STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 14, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the proposed amendments. The amendments would provide for an initial term of three (3) years for Planning Commission approvals, with the opportunity for one, two (2) year extension. Previously approved projects with valid approvals would have two (2) years added to their initial term of approval, or in the event that a project is in the extension period, an additional one (1) year would be added to the 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 extension. Additionally, the appeal period for design review applications is proposed to be changed to ten (10) days, as opposed to seven (7) days, consistent with other Planning permits. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Public Comment: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Suggested having the initial approval valid for only two (2) years; a total of five (5) years is too long. Good to make the amendments retroactive to active project approvals. Increasing the appeal period to ten (10) days is good; it provides more time for anyone interested in the project to appeal. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: Agree with the changes suggested by staff. Some concern about the initial approval term of three (3) years being too long; would be more comfortable with an initial two (2) year term. Could be fewer extension requests with an initial three (3) year term. Commissioner Auran moved to recommend the proposed amendments for adoption by the City Council, as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). Discussion of motion: None. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1256 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (NATALIE HYLAND, APPLICANTAND DESIGNER: AND AZIZ AND SAIMA AHMAD. PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 14, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Natalie Hyland, 585 Quarry Road, San Carlos; represented the applicant. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 Commission comments: ■ The massing needs more work; there is a long flat wall along the driveway side. ■ Porch is a bit shallow; could be a bit more prominent. ■ Right -side elevation could benefit from a redesign on the second floor; perhaps add a pop -out with corbels. ■ Concerned about the pitch on the roof; consider changes to eliminate the flat roof portion. (Hyland — could add a slight parapet and slope to promote drainage.) ■ Will be important to see the type of stone that is proposed. (Hyland — looking and limestone or sandstone.) ■ Windows on side elevations should have an arched detail to compliment eyebrow dormers. ■ The front bay window that is clad in stone makes some sense; but would not be happy seeing the stone stop at the corner; terminate it around the corner, or fully continue the detail. Have the stone features terminate in a logical location so that they don't appear as veneer. ■ With respect to the garage door; look at a design that makes it appear like two individual carriage - style doors. ■ Consider some sort of trellis or awning over the door on the right side elevation to add some articulation. ■ The diamond muntin window does not appear on the floor plan for the building. ■ The design will be saved by the quality of the materials used in the execution; there appears to be a leaded glass window shown on the plans; be certain that that is what is installed; call out the details and be certain to follow through. ■ There appear to be windows missing on the floor plan that are shown on the elevations. ■ Be careful how the stone gable detail is executed at the gutter. ■ On right side elevation; there may be an opportunity for a couple of special window designs to add variety; too many similar style windows along the right elevation. ■ The height is well under 30-feet; the Commission has previously approved exceeding the height limit in instances where it adds to the architectural detail. ■ Wouldn't object to elimination of the dormer at front. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: No street tree is present on the property; the City Arborist report agrees with the street tree choice. Requests that the Arborist provide a more extensive report regarding the street tree choices for projects. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:33 p.m. 9. 1435 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND KIERAN WOODS. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 14, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Jack McCarthy, 5339 Prospect Road, San Jose; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Regarding the front elevation over the living room window; how far does it project out? (McCarthy — comes out only one -foot.) ■ Clarified that the living room window is inset slightly. ■ Why does the basement need to be 9-feet, 3-inches high? (McCarthy — portions of the first floor are at different elevations; which are necessitated by the grade of the lot; attempted to design the project so the entry does not tower over the street.) ■ Regarding the study on the first floor; wall with door is useless; consider moving the door to provide more space for furniture; could make the window smaller. ■ What is the current height of the existing house? (McCarthy — unknown.) ■ Any thought given to adding a chimney for the fireplace? (McCarthy — has a problem with false chimneys.) ■ What is "simulated foam sill with stone"? (McCarthy— covered with a stone material on the outside; but is an extruded foam material.) ■ Asked about the style of wainscoting that is proposed on the front. ■ Is there something that could be done to provide more porch space at the entry? (McCarthy — could be moved out one-half foot to a foot; but wants to keep the gutter line of the entry.) ■ If the two steps in front were move forward would it violate the setback if they were uncovered? (Hurin — doesn't count if it is under 30-inches high and uncovered.) Public comments: Mike Reitsma, 1431 Benito Avenue; Sue Webber, 1429 Benito Avenue; Kia Behnia, 1436 Alvarado Avenue; Tim Henn, 1445 Benito Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ The bulk of the mass of the house has been moved forward and towards 1431 Benito Avenue. ■ The impact of the special permit for a height increase will be significant. ■ The driveway on the right side pushes the house closer to 1431 Benito Avenue. ■ House is attractive. ■ Eliminate the special permit request; dig deeper into the lot to reduce the height of the structure. ■ Flip house on the lot, or place garage under the house. ■ Move the house back slightly on the lot to reduce impact upon 1431 Benito Avenue. ■ Objects to the height of the house; not appropriate for the neighborhood. ■ Concerned about the water pressure in the neighborhood. ■ Concerned about the loss of views in the neighborhood. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 ■ The two houses on each side sit six feet lower than adjacent homes. ■ Could be an opportunity to move windows from the side of the house to the rear to preserve his privacy (property to the right). ■ Six-foot fence between the properties (to the right) should be continued. ■ Concerned about drainage from hillside; make certain that there is a review that ensures that water does not run onto adjacent properties. ■ There is a phone line that runs through the rear yard of the site to the adjacent property that will need to be addressed. ■ Jack McCarthy has designed a number of good projects; and has a reputation of working with the neighbors. ■ Probably a spec house; perhaps the style of the house should changed to reduce the height. ■ The house is only 29 square feet below the maximum FAR, but receives a 600+ square foot exemption for the basement area. ■ There is no Arborist report in the packet; though the landscape plan shows street trees to remain. ■ Compare existing design with the proposed design on the plans. Jack McCarthy, project architect; indicated that he would like to hold off on any decisions about the final project design and work with the neighbors to refine the design before it is set. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Thanked the neighbors for their input and supported the architect's willingness to work with the neighbors. ■ Would support story poles; view blockage is a significant issue. ■ Concern about the basement exception. Commissioner Brownrigg left the meeting at 10:13 p.m. Community Development Director Meeker indicated that no action is required based upon the architect's willingness to work with the neighbors regarding a revised design. When a revised project is submitted, it will be placed on the Commission's agenda for design review study. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. Commissioner Auran indicated that he would recuse himself from participating on Item 10 (1257 Drake Avenue), since he resides within 500-feet of the project. He left the Council Chambers. 10. 1257 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT: AND OTTO MILLER. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 14, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 ■ The second floor balcony is somewhat large; is close to 1907 Easton Drive; should discuss this with the neighbors to reduce impacts. (Grange — could eliminate the deck.) ■ Regarding the window on the left side; will be installed? (Grange — yes.) ■ Will the gable vents be wood? (Grange — yes.) ■ Why are five and one-half bathrooms needed? (Grange — most spec homes are built with a bathroom for each bedroom.) ■ Would rather see a shared bathroom between bedrooms two and three, with the additional space used for an expanded porch; the porch could be redesigned as a "sitting" porch. ■ Having an equal number of bedrooms and bathrooms causes a "community of detachment" within the structure. ■ Correct inconsistency in driveway material; assumes will be all pavers. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Appreciates the discussion regarding the number of bathrooms matching bedroom counts. The architect is responsible for many well -designed home in Burlingame. No Arborist report accompanying the materials in the packets. (Meeker — will ensure that the Arborist provides a comment sheet, even if he has no specific comments regarding the proposal.) 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 Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Auran recused, Commissioners Cauchi and Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:32 p.m. Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. XI. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XII. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: Community Development Director Meeker noted that each Commissioner was provided with a memorandum (both hard copy and electronic copy) that identifies work program items for each of the Planning Commission subcommittees. He will be contacting each subcommittee member to arrange an initial meeting for each subcommittee that has work program items. He will work with IN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes September 14, 2009 Chair Terrones regarding a potential "Green Building" subcommittee. Any comments regarding the work programs can be directed to the Community Development Director via e-mail. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of September 8, 2009 None to report. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — August, 2009. Accepted. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 19