Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 10.13.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Tuesday, October 13, 2009 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the October 13, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Terrones, Lindstrom, Yie, Vistica and Terrones Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Gus Guinan; and Senior Civil Engineer, Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Vistica moved, seconded by Commissioner Cauchi to approve the minutes of the September 28, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following correction: ■ Page 3, Item 2, fourth bullet under "Commission comments",- revised to read: Requested phone number for the applicant and neighboring property owner at 2606 Summit Drive. Motion passed 7-0. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Item 1 was pulled from the Consent Calendar by a member of the public. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 Commissioner Auran announced he would recuse himself from voting on Item 1 (1257 Drake Avenue), since he lives within 500-feet of the property, he left the Council Chambers. Commissioner Brownrigg noted that he would abstain from voting on Item 1 (1257 Drake Avenue) since he had not listened to the recording of the Design Review Study Session regarding the matter. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 1257 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FORA 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 October 13, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Asked if there was any communication with the neighbor to the rear that objected to the deck? (Grange — no.) Public comments: Bruce Bainton, 1907 Easton Drive, spoke: No easement between the properties; current home was constructed in a manner that protects privacy. Concerned that the two-story home will impact his privacy. Additional Commission comments: ■ If the balcony were moved, would it help to protect the privacy of 1907 Easton Drive? (Bainton — Would still be a concern; would still be a direct view into the back yard. Concern is the second story.) ■ The two story portion of the home is closer to Drake Avenue; this could help to reduce impacts of the new home. ■ The rear of the home ends roughly where other existing homes end, shouldn't be an impact; doesn't extend upon the accessory building on 1261 Drake Avenue. ■ Could be a good opportunity to place the landscape materials in a manner to block sight lines between properties. Additional comments from applicant: Revising the landscaping is not a problem. The second story deck did not seem to be the issue, so it was retained. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 Further Commission comments: ■ Like the design of the project, the applicant has expressed a willingness to enhance the landscaping at the rear of the property to address the neighbor's (1907 Easton Drive) concern regarding privacy impacts. ■ Suggested directing that the landscape plan be enhanced to protect privacy and brought back to the Commission as an FYI. ■ Relocating the balcony will not address the neighbor's concern. ■ Appreciate the reduction in the number of bathrooms. ■ Appreciate the larger porch that provides an outdoor space. • Good project, it does not project deeply into the rear yard. ■ Ensuring privacy of neighbors is not the purview of the Commission; it does the best it can to address these concerns; suggested perhaps installing Pittosporum, or other similar plant material suggested by the City Arborist. 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 September 30, 2009, sheets A1.1 through A3.1; and date stamped August 19, 2009, sheets A3.2, A3.3, L1.0 and boundary and topographic survey. 2. that the landscape plan shall be revised to show the planting of landscape materials that will provide screening to protect privacy of adjacent neighbors to the rear of the property, particularly 1907 Easton Drive. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit; 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 August 20, 2009, memo, the City Engineer's August 24, 2009, memo, the Fire Marshal's August 24, 2009, memo, the City Arborist's August 25, 2009, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 25, 2009, memo shall be met; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 (Commissioner Brownrigg abstaining, Commissioner Auran recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. 2. 12 VISTA LANE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE (DENHAM LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MACLEOD AND ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ENGINEER) a. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL A, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 12 VISTA LANE - PM 09-04 — PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE FOR CREATION OF TWO LOTS WITH 55-FOOT WIDE STREET FRONTAGE WHERE 60 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE IS REQUIRED — STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 13, 2009, with attachments, including memorandum from the City Attorney providing guidance regarding required variance findings that verifies that approval of the proposed property division is not a fundamental property right. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Two (2) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Alex Mortazavi, 851 Burlway Road, represented the applicant. ■ Asked that his property be treated in a manner similar to the rest of the neighborhood (located in unincorporated San Mateo County). ■ Four properties within the surrounding area fall below Burlingame's lot frontage of 55-feet. ■ Willing to create a widened area that will provide parking on the property adjacent to Vista Lane. ■ If a cul-de-sac is provide, it would require the homes to be placed further back on the lots, resulting in greater impacts upon views. ■ Having a fully landscaped area at the front of the lots will provide a more pleasing appearance. ■ The two homes will provide a landscaped area and view corridor of 12-feet between the two structures. ■ Approval of the Variance is not a grant of special privilege; only wish to be treated in the same manner as adjacent properties. ■ The City would require curb, gutter and sidewalk if the cul-de-sac is provided; no other properties in the area are subject to that requirement. ■ Showed photographs of encroachments into Vista Lane by adjacent property owners. ■ Landscaping also encroaches into the County controlled street. ■ New homes will be subject to design review by the Planning Commission. Commission comments: How small are the new homes? (Mortazavi — 3,200 square feet.) An alternative to the cul-de-sac or lot split is no lot split. (Mortazavi — will result in a larger home that does not belong in the area; would be necessary for economic reasons.) Clarified that the property was subject to City requirements when it was purchased. (Mortazavi — the County rules are much different.) 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 Clarified that the City Engineer does not want the City to be responsible for a cul-de-sac, also that this approach would result in the homes being placed further back on the property, blocking views. (Mortazavi — confirmed this information.) Is San Mateo County "ok" with widening the street? (Mortazavi — will require approval of an encroachment permit by San Mateo County.) Public comments: Marc Bender (representing owners of 16 Vista Lane), 520 South El Camino Real, San Mateo; Frank Verducci, 11 Vista Lane: Yvonne McCarthy, 15 Vista Lane; Michelle Menendez, 23 Vista Lane; Eileen Thomas, 16 Vista Lane; ■ The property could be developed with one large home; there is no justification for building two homes. ■ All residents on Vista Lane will need to pass the homes if built; an additional lot will create gridlock in the area. ■ Cars will turn from a steep area of Hillside Drive onto Vista Lane and immediately come upon the two lots. ■ Views from 16 Vista Lane will be completely blocked by development on the lots. ■ In response to the comments regarding encroachments by the neighbors; indicated that these are existing conditions; the street has existed in its current state since 1988; the neighborhood is small and the street has limited drivability. ■ Noted that there is a large water tank on the property; what will happen to the tank? (Terrones — according to the application, the water tank will be filled to permit development in the area.) ■ Why to the houses need to be so close to the front of the lots? ■ Will additional paving be used for parking, or for the street? (Hurin — the Vista Lane right-of-way is 25-feet wide, but paving is not that wide.) ■ Children play in the street; there is also a concern about safety during construction; emergency services need to access across the street. ■ Would the fire hydrant on Vista lane be relocated? ■ The widened street will be used for parking. ■ The property owner purchased the property subject to the City's standards that only one home could be placed on the property in its current configuration. ■ The property owner has had other options in the past; he has tried to sell the property. Additional comments from applicant: ■ The County right-of-way for Vista Lane extends seven to nine feet past the existing paving. ■ The street will be widened in front of the two lots. ■ The existing encroachments by the neighbors cause the difficulties in navigating the street. ■ He is attempting to improve the existing bad situation. ■ Two homes will only generate two or three additional cars on the street. ■ Parties and construction activities create challenges for traversing the street. ■ He wrote a letter to the fire marshal regarding the presence of only one fire hydrant on Vista Lane; the property owner is willing to move it for everyone's safety. ■ Bender's statement is incorrect; there is a large Oak tree that blocks the entire view to the right from 16 Vista Lane; building a home further down the slope (rearward) on the lot(s) will exacerbate view impacts. W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 Regarding the water tank; the top will be collapsed and the tank filled prior to development. Not asking for a special favor; this is the best alternative for the community. Additional Commission comments: ■ The neighbors would have the moral high ground if they hadn't encroached upon the right-of-way. ■ Does placement of the homes further back on the lot more greatly impact views? (Bender — would completely block views.) ■ Not currently considering the development of the lots, and view blockage; this will be considered through the design review process. ■ Is there a driveway configuration for the lots that will permit the residents on the lot to enter the street from a forward direction? (Mortazavi — a hammerhead arrangement could be designed into the projects.) ■ Who would be responsible for the cul-de-sac? (Guinan — depends upon how the subdivision would be designed; would be the City's responsibility if dedicated to the public. If the City chooses not to accept the dedication, it would not be responsible for maintenance.) ■ If a cul-de-sac were included as part of the subdivision, would the City be required to accept the conveyance? (Guinan — the City would not be required to accept the conveyance.) ■ Noted that the Public Works Director indicated that the cul-de-sac should be dedicated to San Mateo County. ■ The City of Burlingame does not need to be burdened with the responsibility for the cul-de-sac. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ Could the City impose a greater parking requirement upon the property? (Hurin/Guinan/Meeker— Would need to see what is proposed. For purposes of approving a subdivision map, conditions related to other requirements cannot be imposed as conditions; they will automatically apply to the new subdivision. The City cannot be more restrictive than what the code requires.) ■ Can't support the subdivision without seeing the actual design of the homes; the City Attorney has indicated that approval of a subdivision is not a fundamental property right. ■ Could look at alternatives with a cul-de-sac design, or other design alternatives for development of the site. ■ The project is simply a Variance for a lot split, not design review; the hardship is being created by the applicant's desire to split the property; this is not really a hardship for purposes of granting the variance. ■ The other property owners are outside of the City's purview, the applicant's proposal must be considered based upon City standards; this condition is not a hardship. ■ The encroachments by the neighbors, as well, are outside of the City's purview. ■ Actually being asked to consider the lot split with a variance or a subdivision with a cul-de-sac; the subdivision of the property is not a substantial property right; there is no loss of property right by not permitting the lot split. ■ The lot split primarily results in an economic gain by the developer. ■ Safety is a concern when traversing Vista Lane; the lot split will add to a problem that already exists with the encroachments upon the street. ■ Disagrees with the other Commissioners; there is a distinctive hardship. Five or six of the lots in the area are already less than the City standard, which is an arbitrary standard. ■ Penalized for the narrowness of the road caused by the neighbors; the County should correct the problem. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 ■ The new homes would be near the entry to Hillside Drive; would not place much of a burden on Vista Lane; the additional lot would not double the traffic on the street, as represented by opponents. ■ The City could forgo curb and gutter, given the character of the area, and could also improve parking conditions on the properties as part of design review. ■ The lots are only 5% over the 10,000 square foot area that triggers the lot frontage requirement. ■ Concerned about the homes backing onto Vista Lane. ■ The alternative of a much larger home would not be as great a benefit as two smaller, more affordable homes; two smaller homes would fit in well, likely with lesser impacts. ■ Would like to see more information regarding the manner in which the property can be developed; how can conditions on the street be improved? ■ Given the complexity of the issues around parking and views, before making a decision regarding the lot division, there should be more information regarding the actual applications for development of the lots, prior to making a decision. ■ There is not enough information to make a proper decision. ■ The real issue is traffic; adding one or two houses will increase traffic; one large house will likely have as many vehicles as two smaller houses. ■ One large house will likely have a greater view impact than two. ■ This project cannot remedy the problems on Vista Lane; an impact upon the bulk of Vista Lane is minimal due to the location of the proposed lots near Hillside Drive. ■ Widening the street in the vicinity of the lots may be a good solution. ■ Not convinced that a cul-de-sac is a solution. ■ The property could be developed in the other direction, with the lots oriented the other direction; with a private driveway that could serve both homes. ■ Seeing more developed drawings could be helpful, but the lot split should be approved; the Commission can concentrate on the design when that information is submitted for consideration. ■ The Commission must consider the subdivision proposal that is before it; it cannot propose alternate configurations. ■ Presentation of a hardship is of critical importance when considering granting a variance. Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application for a Variance, by resolution: The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: ■ There is a hardship present; including the topography of the property, dimensions of other lots, and the minimum lot frontage requirement is somewhat of an arbitrary standard that is not appropriate in this instance. ■ Cannot support the motion; hardship is created by applicant's desire to split the lot. ■ Nothing preventing the property owner from building a single home; could offer the community something to compensate for granting of the variance; adding additional paving in front of the lots is not adequate compensation. ■ Not convinced that a cul-de-sac solution is appropriate. ■ The rules still apply, though they may be arbitrary. ■ In favor of the motion; when the designs for the homes are before the Commission, the Commission can more thoroughly address concerns regarding parking and traffic. Chair Terrones called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-3 (Commissioners Brownrigg, Cauchi and Terrones dissenting). 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 Commissioner Auran moved to recommend to the City Council, approval of the Tentative and Final Parcel Map, subject to the following conditions: that the Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map shall be recorded at the San Mateo County Recorder's Office, and a copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works; and 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 10, 2009 memo and the City Arborist's September 3, 2009 memo shall be met. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica Discussion of motion: Discussion ensued regarding options for addressing circulation on the properties to alleviate safety concerns on Vista Lane; this can be discussed with the design review application that will be required for the new residences. Chair Terrones called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion passed 4-3 (Commissioners Brownrigg, Cauchi and Terrones dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:48 p.m. CityAttorney Guinan noted that staff would prepare a resolution memorializing the Planning Commission's decision, including findings in support of the action, for consideration at the next regular meeting. Commissioner Brownrigg recused himself from participating on Item 3 (1462 Burlingame Avenue), due to a potential business relationship with the applicant. Commissioner Lindstrom recused himself from participating on Item 3 due to a business relationship with the property owner. They left the Council Chambers. 3. 1462 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A —APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (ERIC MARQUART, BEVERAGES & MORE!, APPLICANT; HAYASHIDA ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; AND FREDERICK A. SCHIFFERLE, PRIVATE BANK REAL ESTATE ADMINISTRATION, CO -TRUSTEE FOR DOROTHY WURLITZER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 13, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Eric Marquart, 1470 Enea Circle, Concord; and Don Inaba, 1250 45t" Street, Emeryville; represented the applicant. ■ Doors would be mounted one foot back from the front property line. ■ Automatic doors are a necessity given the large packages that will be carried by customers. ■ The doors would be "breakaway" doors; they will push open in an emergency. ■ The alcove is being eliminated to prevent shopping carts from being hidden by the alcove. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 The shopping carts will be stored inside; a security system will be set using a radio frequency that will prevent carts from going onto Burlingame Avenue; the carts would stop one -foot inside the store. Other businesses on Burlingame Avenue have similar entry designs. Commission comments: ■ Concern is both the sliding door and the flat fagade. ■ Not concerned about people not being able to find the shopping carts; once familiar with the store, they will know where to look for them. ■ The doors will be opening and closing frequently due to the amount of foot traffic past the area without the alcove; this will result in a loss of "conditioned" air from within the building. ■ The sliding doors provide a very "commercial" feeling. ■ There is an opportunity for BevMo to be neighborly by using stock staff to open doors for patrons, or help patrons take their purchases to their cars. ■ Need a transitional space before you get to the sidewalk with the bulk purchases. ■ Understand the need for automatic doors. ■ What is the window treatment along the sidewalk? ((Marquart — would ensure that areas above 44- inches would remain clear; from 44-inches and below, the windows would be tinted black.) ■ The windows should be maintained in a manner to provide a connection between the street and the interior of the store. ■ Encouraged retention of the alcove. ■ Will an awning be installed with a BevMo sign? (Marquart — the awning will be installed, but will not include signage.) ■ Extend the awning along the storefront for the width of the windows. ■ Would be great to maintain a small business feel to the business, similar to Ace Hardware. ■ Will eight -foot minimum clearance be maintained with awning placement? (Inaba — will meet the minimum.) ■ How much will the awning project from the building? (Marquart— three to four feet from the building face.) ■ What will the lighting illuminate? (Marquart — only the building.) Public comments: None. 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 October 5, 2009, sheets D1, A1.2 and A4.1; 2. 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; 3. that the recessed entry shall be retained at a minimum of the same dimensions that exist currently; 4. that the display windows shall consist of clear glass above a height of 44-inches above the sidewalk 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 elevation in order to provide a visual connection between the sidewalk area to the interior of the store; 5. that the awning installed on the front of the building shall extend the width of the windows on the front elevation; the final design and placement of the awning shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit; 6. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 7. that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 6, 2009, 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 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 applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 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, 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 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: II CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 ■ None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-2. (Commissioners Brownrigg and Lindstrom recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:1Op. m. Commissioners Brownrigg and Lindstrom returned to the dais. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 843 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (REBECCA AMATO, AMATO ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND WHITNEY AND DENIS MURPHY. PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 13, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Commission comments: ■ Unable to find the additional square footage referenced in the staff report; provide clarification. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Rebecca Amato, 688 Fairmount Avenue, Oakland; represented the applicant. ■ Will actually be reducing the footprint on the site. ■ Are exceeding the square footage through the basement square footage; though the area is not considered habitable by the Building Division. ■ The footprint of the house is not being expanded. Additional Commission comments: ■ The work on the rear of the home is a nice improvement. ■ Regarding the second floor Juliet balcony; consider making it a bit deeper, more useable. Will not be an area where people will congregate and disturb neighbors. ■ Will the front door be changed? (Amato — no, will be retained.) ■ On west elevation, a vent is being removed and replaced with a window; could be arch top window at that location, also the master bath window, second floor window on east elevation. ■ Will the window in the family room be leaded glass? (Amato —the replacement will be leaded glass in keeping with the character of the home, more like the front windows of the house.) ■ What is material on the railing for the balcony? (Amato — wrought -iron.) ■ Replacement window type? (Amato — full divided light windows in wood. Could be metal clad exterior.) ■ The modifications to the home are modest. Public comments: ■ None. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: • Should be on the Regular Action Calendar primarily to provide the opportunity to discuss the hardship for the proposed variance. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:27 p.m. 5. 2509 AND 2517 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — (DENNIS LIU, APPLICANT; CHIAYUN ALAN WANG AND LAN -FANG NEI WANG, PROPERTY OWNERS; MARCH DESIGN, DESIGNER; AND WEC ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ENGINEER) (51 NOTICES) A. 2517 EASTON DRIVE: APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE FOR FRONT SETBACK TO AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND REMODEL — STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN B. 2509 AND 2517 EASTON DRIVE: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR LOTS 22 AND 23, BLOCK 57, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION NO. 6 SUBDIVISION, PM 09-03 — STAFF CONTACT: VICTOR VOONG, PUBLIC WORKS, ENGINEERING Reference staff report dated October 13, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Dennis Liu, 2517 Easton Drive, and Mike Ma, 20660 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Could the addition be done and the garage accessed without removing the Oak tree? (Liu — the tree is not affected by the proposal, it is on the adjacent property.) ■ Explanation for the garage setback makes sense. ■ Cannot see why the lot line adjustment is requested? The adjustment will not create a perceived balance between the lots from the street. (Liu —would equalize the lot areas; 2517 Easton is one of the largest lots in the neighborhood, the other lot is one of the smallest lots.) ■ Would still be able to build a much larger home without the lot line adjustment; could end up with a home that is much larger. (Liu — thought it would provide personal benefit to him and the neighborhood.) ■ Is there a threshold that is crossed with the adjustment to the lot line, due to an increase in lot area on one lot? (Hurin — a variance is not required for lot area or other standards since the conditions 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 are non -conforming currently. The percentage of lot coverage will remain the same, though the size of a home will increase due to the increase in lot area; the maximum home size permitted in Burlingame is 8,000 square feet.) ■ The design proposal does not enhance what is existing on the lot; the garage could have a more interesting door shape and design. ■ Vinyl windows are proposed; this is a complete mismatch for the neighborhood and with the existing architecture. The existing windows are steel and add to the character of the home. ■ Whatever is done with the roof must match existing tile. ■ Will benefit the neighborhood to have the garage associated with the house. ■ Garage doors should perhaps be carriage doors with an arched top; would fit nicely with the rest of the architecture, the doors should be wood. ■ Smaller, narrower windows could be placed on the sink wall of the kitchen. ■ Addition needs to have a tile roof. ■ What is happening at the entry door? (Ma — attempted to match the entry door to the shape of the garage door; but could be beneficial to the design to keep the existing arched door, and arch the garage door. Can attempt to find a wood or steel window that can be painted to match the existing windows.) ■ Using the wrong details could ruin the house; please don't install vinyl windows. ■ The lot split seems very unnatural; could set up a problem if the neighbor chooses to build an accessory structure to the property line in the area of the adjustment. ■ The property has much more space for additions to the existing home. ■ No compelling reason for the lot line adjustment; existing non -conforming condition is best left alone. (Ma — lot line adjustment is the owner's decision; could the two applications be separated for discussion? Meeker — yes, the two discussions can be handled separately.) ■ Consider adding a window to the front to add interest. ■ Doesn't like the sloped roof off of the garage, consider a design to break up the mass, perhaps a false gable. ■ Try to use steel windows; look into "Hope's" or "Coast to Coast" steel window manufacturers. ■ Referred the applicant to the "Steel Institute of America". ■ Each window is special in shape and style; consider adding the header feature present on the second floor window to the new windows. Pay special attention to how the windows have been designed in the existing condition. (Ma — regarding the header, the downstairs window does not have a header.) ■ Drawings are incorrect in that they do not show the tile roof on the addition. ■ Have the City Arborist investigate whether the tree will be impacted by the driveway, the Coastal Live Oak does appear on the survey for the site, and the driveway may need to be altered to protect the tree. (Ma — will verify the information.) ■ Given the Commissions' comments regarding the lot line adjustment, would the applicant like to withdraw that request? (Liu — withdrew the lot line adjustment application.) Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to send the application to a design review consultant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 13, 2009 Discussion of motion: ■ The Commission's direction was specific enough; referring the matter to a design review consultant is unnecessary. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to the application to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:01 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of June 15, 2008: ■ An appeal hearing was scheduled for 349 Lexington Way for October 19, 2009. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log: ■ There were no complaints for the month of September, 2009. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 10:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 15