Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.26.07 PC Minutes APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 26, 2007 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the February 26, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Terrones Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 12, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were amended page 1, Note correction of From the Floor comments at the February 12, 2007, meeting minutes to include in comments on 2209 Hillside that speaker was upset that the existing house on this lot was demolished without a permit. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, three comments, noticed recently new houses are not replacing all the concrete in the driveway apron and sidewalk, looks bad and false saving; study item looks more like new construction, should be considered so by the county assessor; and handed in a letter for Mrs. Terry Huebner regarding the hospital replacement project. CP Monroe acknowledged three desk items: current edition (February 2007) of the New Hospital Project News newsletter; letter from Mrs. Huebner dated February 26, 2007, regarding the Peninsula Hospital project re: scheduling the Mitigation Monitoring Panel meetings and asking what the intended role of that panel is; and a letter from Sigrid and Hans Geiger, 1237 Cabrillo Avenue, regarding flooding in their area which staff referred to Public Works, response attached. Chair Brownrigg asked all the commissioners if they had visited all the sites for projects on tonight’s agenda. All commissioners noted that they had made site visits. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 945 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY DUPLEX WITH A DETACHED GARAGE AND CARPORT (STEVE JOHNSON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROEJCT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal noted a business relationship with the applicant and recused himself from this action. He stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers. SP Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked for clarification if this was now considered to be new construction, if the original plans submitted showed the same first floor demolition City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 2 plan, and if the minor modification previously granted still applied. Staff responded that as shown on the plans being considered tonight, the project would be considered new construction by both the building and planning departments, staff will check to see if the plans originally submitted to the building department, before the stop work order showed the same extensive first floor demolition. SP pointed out that this was a duplex project in an R-2 zone so is not subject to design review. The minor modification was for the location of the garage. The variance now requested is because the existing front porch, which extended into the front setback and was intended to be retained (nonconforming), was demolished. Commissioners asked: was the original foundation for the porch and house retained and intended to be reused; when does a minor modification granted on a property become void; was a penalty fee levied for removal of the porch without a demolition permit; when is work considered new construction both in the Building Department and in the Planning Department. C. Auran moved to bring this item back on the consent calendar as new construction with a front setback variance. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: would like to know if page 2 showing major demolition or the porch was reviewed by the city and approved as a part of the original building permit; appears that after getting a building permit they took down whatever they wanted, after they said they were not going to change some items, not a good message. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to bring this variance back on the consent calendar once the questions have been answered, he noted that it could be called off for further review if it appeared necessary. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal recused; C. Terrones absent) voice vote. This item is not appealable. The item concluded at 7:25 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on 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. There were no items on the consent calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 1136 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SARAH & BENJAMIN CHEYETTE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; TIM HALEY, TSH INTERNATIONAL, ARCHITECT) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report February 26, 2007, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Staff noted a desk item on this project from C. Terrones, submitted because he supported moving this FYI to action at the last meeting. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 3 Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. He noted the comments on this project submitted by C. Terrones. Sarah Cheyette, property owner, represented the project. She noted that she was not aware that the front porch had not been built per plans, will promise to correct that; agreed to retaining half timbers at time of design review because thought were not redoing all the stucco, but house has no other Tudor detail, these were added on at time of construction, now that redoing all the stucco want to improve the appearance by removing them so that they would not mix styles, add shutters. Commissioners noted that as drawn the front porch should come further forward toward the street, the increased depth provides better design; metal vent rather than wood, metal mixes material and adds a modern element which is not consistent with the design, should be removed, easy to do this with stucco mold; originally it would have been easy to project out porch roof 18 inches, not so easy to do now; will the timbers over the front door and garage door be added; appears that the detail which added the architectural character to this project which had a number of exceptions to the code, have been removed, boards at the highest gable end should be installed at second story, shutters should be installed, side elevation shows porch extended one foot or so, should do that; window over the front door should be changed, its proportion does not work, plan show 3 x 3 panel, symmetry of the window over the front door should match the narrower window that shown on the plans, present window is inconsistent; gable to right on the front is one plane, lost shadow line, builder made a mistake, fixing that would add a lot of interest to the front of the house. Applicant noted that the neighbors are not concerned about the changes, feel that the new is a lot better, with more articulation than the original, problem with the window over the front door occurred when decided to keep the bathroom on the second floor rather than install the two story entry which was in the original plans, needed to raise the window so it would not extend through the floor. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: remember the discussion of this item, now not happy with any of the aesthetics, OK if take the Tudor off the upper gable, important that the vents be returned to the original tall narrow shape and wood material, both on the house and over the garage door; it would help to add shutters at the windows, put the porch forward some, it should project forward from the gable, if it was originally approved by the Commission as it is now built would not ask for that change; wise to come back with both originally approved drawings and as built drawings, so have better information. CA noted that this application is not ready for action because the drawings are not accurate, recommend Commission be specific about the changes they wish. Commissioner noted that items listed earlier should be included:  Reinstall vents with stucco mold and wood, same tall narrow shape approved, on house and garage;  Add shutters at windows;  Put porch forward some so that it projects forward from plane of the house;  Add fascia beams at front door and at garage, if not half timber then what would architect suggest for detailing; and  Change the bathroom window so that it proportionately reflects the original design. C. Osterling made a motion to continue this item until new drawings have been prepared which reflect what is there and what the applicant wants should include list noted; the previously approved plans should also be included in the submittal. Motion seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: if install shutters should have ones that are sized to cover the windows, C. noted that, because they are not so heavy (large), in this case decorative shutters may be all right; more information is needed about the situation with the front porch, how was it shown originally, how was it built, how can the window be adjusted (so it is not jammed under the eaves) to make the front work. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 4 Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue with directed corrections. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Terrones absent) voice vote. There is no appeal to this action. The item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 3. 2209 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MILLER DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Osterling recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the project site. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report February 27, 2007, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg noted for the record the concerns provided by C. Terrones, particularly the change to the gutters. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, spoke for the project. He noted the reasons for some of the changes, regarding the gutters he felt that painted white they do better visually than the unpainted copper would because they broaden the eave. Commissioner asked what kind of rail was proposed for the front stairs? Architect noted that because there were four (4) stairs would need a rail had not considered design. Commission suggested that grade be changed so only need three steps and no railing or a small unobtrusive metal railing off to the side. Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, concerned with this project because of the way they handled demolition without a permit; when submitted FYI they were requesting amendment before work was done, not wait FYI review but built items, why did they not wait to build? Noted for the record at the previous meeting on this item commented that was pleased with plan but also that was unhappy that the demolition did not have a permit. Minutes did not reflect that was unhappy with the demolition. Chair noted that the minutes for the February 12, 2007, meeting From the Floor item should be amended to reflect that she was unhappy that the demolition took place on this site without a permit. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a motion to approve this project, noting that the painted gutters are appropriate to the proposed design, the downspouts although moved to the front are typical of the design, whether the columns are square or round it up to the architect, a required handrail should be added but should not be heavy or obtrusive to the front façade and should not project from the columns, understand the problem on on-going work, application for FYI was made a month ago, difficult to wait but if do undertake construction applicant takes the risk the Commission may require removal, by resolution with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 1, 2006, sheets A-1 through A-5, and L-1, and date stamped January 31, 2007, sheets A-1 through A- 4, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit, and that any required porch railing at the front of the building shall not be visually prominent, shall be the minimum required, and shall not project at the front of the entry columns; 2) that the property owner shall pay to the city within in 5 working days of the Planning Commission's action on this application $7,500.00 for the New Construction Waste Plan and a $5,408.25 deposit to remove the existing structures, failure to meet this deadline shall cause the Planning action on this project to be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 5 voided; 3) that before the issuance of a building permit, but after approval of the construction plans by the Building Division, the property owner shall pay $388.00 to the Building Division, this fee includes the penalty for doing demolition without a permit, failure to pay the demolition permit fee and penalty shall cause the planning action on this project to be voided; 4) that before the issuance of the building permit, the Chief Building Official shall determine that all materials, but particularly potentially hazardous materials, were appropriately removed from this site and appropriately deposited, and if they were not appropriately removed or deposited the Chief Building Official shall require appropriate remediation and notification of all state and local agencies responsible for regulation; notification shall include notice of both the violation and the correction, failure to comply with any required remediation shall cause the planning action on this project to be voided and it shall be disclosed to all future owners of the property that remediation did not occur and must be corrected before any future development or use can occur on the site; 5) that until building plans have been approved and a building permit issued , all NPDES remediations present on this site shall be shall be maintained as required by the City's inspector, and should construction on this site not occur within five (5) months of the Planning Commission's action on this project, the property owner shall create a grassy swale with domestic grass on the site to control runoff and provide appropriate irrigation and regular maintenance to establish the grass cover, this swale shall be retained until the site is developed, failure to install and maintain the grassy swale shall result in voiding the planning action on this project and the property owner shall pay a penalty equal to the cost of installation and maintenance until the property is sold and developed, the amount of the penalty shall be determined by the Public Works Department and shall be posted as a bond; 6) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 7) 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; 8) 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; 9) 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; 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 conditions of the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, and NPDES Coordinator's March 3, 2006 memo shall be met; 12) 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; 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 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; 15) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: this four-square design can have a massive appearance and the rounded columns take some of that weight off, on the approved plans the gutters were to run down the sides of the building City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 6 leaving the front clean, they should be relocated and avoid the problem on the front of the structure of being painted to match the wall. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the added condition that the railing on the stairs shall be designed to be and installed as unobtrusively as possible. The motion passed on a 5-0- 1-1 (C. Osterling abstaining, C. Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. C. Osterling returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 4. 701 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JEFFREY BASHAW, PROPERTY OWNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Cauchi recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the project site. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report February 26, 2007, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the project. He noted briefly the changes to the project, when he saw the changes he brought them to the city. Noted that the shutters were removed because they fell apart when taking them down. Garage door changed but still has the carriage look. French doors were proposed for the rear of the garage, but applicant thought they would only see the things stored inside from the back yard, so want to remove. Commission noted concern about the removal of the shutters, not think in this case the change in the number of grids in windows justifies Commission review. Architect noted willing to put the shutters back on. Comments from the public: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Concern is about the FYI process, saw changes and submit letter requesting FYI, but now completed in the field. Chair Brownrigg noted that work done that is not on the plans is done at the developers’ risk, will have to change if the Commission directs it. Resident noted that this should be a learning experience, should come before change and make change after approved, maybe the FYI process is too long. CP noted that FYI process timing depends when submit relative to next Commission meeting, but generally get right on the agenda, process is longer when Commission calls item off to action calendar. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, amending the conditions to require that the shutters shown on the original approval be installed and with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 25, 2006, sheets A-1 through A-3 and date stamped January 31, 2007, sheets A-4 through A-6, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit, that the French doors at the rear of the garage shall be removed and that the shutters included in the original approval shall be installed on the house before scheduling the final inspection; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 7 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; 3) 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; 4) 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; 5) 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; 6) 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; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's October 31, 2005, memos, the Fire Marshal's October 28, 2005, memo and the NPDES Coordinator's October 27, 2006, memo shall be met; 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, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions for the removal of the French doors in the garage and the addition of the shutters as shown on the original plans. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Cauchi abstaining, C. Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. C. Cauchi returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 5. 1625 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SECOND STORY ADDITION (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAN AND EILEEN CONWAY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report February 22, 2007, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the project. Noted that the only change to the original design was to put a balcony and French doors on the rear at the second floor in order to enable homeowner to move furniture into the second floor interior stair too difficult. Commissioners noted that the chimney is very tall; architect noted that it was existing and is now braced for seismic stability. Comments from the public: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. This is the way it should work, homeowner came in before the change was built. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 8 C. Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 1, 2007 sheets A-1.0, A-2 and A-3, date stamped March 14, 2006, sheets A-0 through A-6, and 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 conditions of the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Recycling Specialist, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 14, 2006 memos shall be met; 3) that if the structure is demolished or if the building envelope is ever changed at a later date, the parking variances shall become void and the side setback requirements in effect at the time of demolition or additional remodel also shall be met; 4) 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; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 6) 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; 7) 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; 8) 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; 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 meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 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; and 12) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:17 p.m. 6. 117 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (JOHN KLOPF, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GERALD AND NORMA COOK, PROPERTY OWNERS) (73 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report 2/12/07, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Klopf, 3012 Sixteenth Street, San Francisco, project architect, represented the project and noted that the design review consultant was very helpful and suggested changes have been included, Planning Commission had originally suggested planting along fence line on City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 9 driveway side, neighbor indicated that would not like landscaping next to the fence because it will block sun to his property, landscaping was added next to the house instead, although the Commission had suggested using some of the excess driveway width for the addition, this was left as is because the owner needs the width to provide access for his wheelchair. Commissioner comments: Note that the landscape plans call for Italian Cypress along the driveway, this can be messy, encourage that you look at another species, calling out 24" box non-fruit species, would like to see the species identified, can select from the Planning Department's tree list; appreciate went through the design review process, but there are still some issues unresolved, wanted the front porch reoriented to the front, but chose to put garbage cans at the front instead, looks like a trash enclosure, still think porch could be widened without encroaching into the driveway, this would create a wider landing at the door, steps could be added toward the front; think the 3-foot diameter vents shown on the facades are inappropriate, should match the character of the neighborhood, did not see this feature anywhere. Commissioner comment continued: the rear is still a big stucco wall, aware of budget problem but should address, on the driveway side, it appears that gutter continues along the second floor edge, seems over long; special permit for declining height envelope is generally granted for architectural character, such as on a Colonial or Tudor style house where a straight wall is appropriate, in this case, cannot see the reason for exception, just want to bring the wall straight up; agree that the round vents are inappropriate, also should call out the material, prefer wood; the piece of roof which extends on the right side of the cantilevered section should be eliminated. Applicant comment: happy to change gable vent and add materials, regarding the trash location, that is where it is now, the garbage company rolls the cans from that location because of the owner's disability, can work on front porch, but will have to relocate sprinkler controls and cans; note that the conditions specify that all new windows shall be wood, propose to use vinyl, please clarify. Further Commission comment: do not know why the trash cans cannot go to the rear, for disabled accessibility the garbage company is required to offer that service, would like to see front porch addressed, will add a lot to the entry without a lot of expense, widen the porch to the current stairs and extend the porch to the end of where the steps are now, new steps to porch can come from street; might want to consider adding clerestory windows to the master bath at the rear, would help the bathroom with light and air and add visual interest at the back; discourage vinyl windows because of their looks, encourage wood or wood clad for looks and durability, do not require that existing windows be replaced, but insist that new windows shall be wood or wood clad, vinyl windows are not tried and true, do not know how well they will hold up over time; need to clarify that new materials will match existing, plan to use wood stucco mold like existing, and clarify that the existing exposed rafters are to remain, even though they are not shown on the plans. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a motion to continue the item to the consent calendar when the following changes have been made and plan checked and there is room on the agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.  Enlarge landing and reorient front porch with stairs extending toward the front;  Add wood siding to gable ends;  Show species of trees to be planted on plans;  Replace Italian Cypress proposed with a different species;  Change round vents to a style more appropriate to the neighborhood, vents shall be made of wood; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 10  Address comments regarding the declining height envelope exception;  Remove trash enclosure from front of the house;  Remove piece of roof extending beyond cantilever on the driveway side; and  All new windows shall be wood or wood clad. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue with directed revisions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Terrones absent). There is no appeal to this action. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 7. 214-216 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT INVOLVING INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING TWO- STORY HOTEL TO RETAIL ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND OFFICE ON THE SECOND FLOOR (JERRY WINGES, WINGES ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MENDELL PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNER) (39 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 2/12/07, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jerry Winges, 1290 Howard, project architect, was available for questions, and showed renderings of the approved façade of the building and the proposed changes; wood above archway would be replaced with a plaster finish, the shape and size of the lighting has changed, and the proposed awnings above the windows are shown; planters were eliminated from front window, will use stone along the bottom to match the archway. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that the changes are good, the awnings add depth and the new light fixtures are nice, also note that there will be a few operable windows that were not there before, this is an improvement. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 21, 2006, sheets A0.0, T-1, A0.1, A0.2, A1.0, A1.1, A2.0, and A3.0, date stamped September 26, 2006, revised Lorton Avenue Elevation and Wall Section at Display Windows, and date stamped February 14, 2007, sheets A2.0, A3.0 and A3.1; any changes to the colors or materials shall require review by the Planning Commission; 2) that the uses within the building shall be limited to 6,094 SF of retail on the first floor and 6,080 SF of office on the second floor; 3) that the security screen shall be of a design as shown in the brochures submitted by the applicant date stamped September 26, 2006, and shall be located in ceiling pockets behind the storefront window glass; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's July 5, 2006 memos, and the Recycling Specialist’s and NPDES Coordinator's July 10, 2006, memos 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 comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6) that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 7) 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; 8) that prior to final City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 11 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; 9) 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; 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; and 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m. 8. 50 BRODERICK ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR EXTERIOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT INVOLVING INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (MCA ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; HACOR, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (4 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report February 26, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jeff Wright, MCA Architects, 33 Northwest First Avenue Seattle, represented the project. Noted that these changes were made after it was discovered that the building was over budget, replaced metal cladding with stucco, tried to keep same color and scored stucco to have same pattern as metal, widened the joints to increase the shadow. Commissioners noted that parking lifts were added on the outside and feel that this is a value engineering effort, unfortunate you are proposing a big, big building with a lot of stucco, nice colors may reduce mass, but colors change over time, it is important to the city to establish quality in this area, have held a number of new buildings or remodels to this higher standard, you could reduce the amount of metal siding not take it all off. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: will look about the same as shown on the boards, will lose the brick piece which provides the building with distinction, important to establish precedent of quality buildings in Rollins Road area; pleased no change in color, look what approved on Primrose recently seems to follow the same contemporary style; this is more contemporary than plain stucco, better than what is there now; more sympathetic regarding cost, went over budget by adding stacked parking, which benefited the city by increasing on-site parking; proposal is a downgrade, if check record see that this applicant asked for a radical parking variance put stacked parking because without would not have project, now cutting money from building so the city suffers; not opposed to stucco on the main part of the building, could add a curved roof (air foil) over the new mezzanine and front façade; could add signage to identify the entry more clearly; not sure signs would work, agree that this is a downgrade, have held other property owners to a higher standard, know have added parking but should hold course here. Chair Brownrigg moved to place this item on the consent calendar with the guidance to the architect that the Commission is not satisfied with the loss of all elements which make this building special, review the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 12 comments, and allow him to come back with changes, if the changes are not significant enough the item can be called off the consent calendar, this business represents a new employer in the city and more jobs. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Discussion on the motion: want to see the project move ahead but it is important to maintain the quality of the design, all the metal should not be removed, could use less or use a less expensive metal. Thought that the entry could be different dimension, air foil, curved roof would look better than a box on a box; could clearly call out the office piece at the front and the new mezzanine and break up visually from the other components of the building, for example. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until the applicant has submitted a new design which is closer in quality to the originally approved design. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Terrones absent) voice vote. A continued action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1456 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHIWA HUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal indicated that he has a business relationship with the applicant and recused himself from the proceedings. He left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Stuart Grunow, JD & Associates, project applicant, was available for questions. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, spoke, noting that Tudor style is more traditional if the plate heights are varied, this still looks like a box on a box with Tudor type façade, the three vented dormers on the roof front accentuate added height, the tower element at the front is imposing, the bay window feature brings the perception of the house closer to the street. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project:  The rear gable end roof at the back of the house should be clipped so it is not so prominent;  On left side elevation, timbers are curvilinear on first floor, squared on second floor, right elevation has different pattern, should be simplified, there is inconsistency between the vertical versus horizontal patterns;  Garage door seems inconsistent, does not coordinate with other elements;  Not as troubled by the inconsistencies in the timbering, does not need to be symmetric to be consistent with the Tudor style;  The Tudor style is reflected in the windows used on the front elevation, but should use divided lite windows on the side and back to be consistent with the Tudor style;  Need to decide if committed to using the diamond paned windows in the front, they are more costly, if they will change, should reflect that in plans now;  Not consistent to have a large single pane window below the diamond pane on the right front;  Half timbers should be thicker, increase from 2 x 6 to 2 x 8 or 2 x 10, will get better look, it is more traditional; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 13  Roof on right elevation provides a great opportunity for solar panels even if the roof is reduced in size, there are rebates available;  Identify the tree species to be used on the landscape plan;  Take a close look at the Photinia shrub proposed, can get diseased, also will create a tall hedge along the back which is undesirable;  Look closely at front landscaping and random pattern of lawn, would like to see something that ties more closely to Tudor style and add a tree at the front from the Planning Department's tree list; and  Mass is broken down at the front but is lost at the back, mass and bulk not handled well. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal recused; C. Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 10. 624 TRENTON WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KATRINA KUHL, KUHL ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SUZI AND FRANK HENNELLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Cauchi noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and recused himself from the proceedings. He left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Katrina Kuhl, project architect, represented the project and was available for questions, noting that this is an attempt to be a mesh between a modern style and what is in the neighborhood now by using low pitched roof, propose to use extruded aluminum windows with an anodized bronze finish. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project:  Found nothing in the neighborhood that this project fits in with; do not have a problem with the contemporary style by itself, but it does not fit in with the context of this neighborhood;  Think this is a good approach to do something different using traditional forms, think this style works pretty well given the style of the houses on the block;  On the plans, call out the species of the new trees and shrubs to be planted;  Roof pitch is shown as 2/12 with composition shingle, should it be 3/12 to meet warranty requirements;  Might want to use aluminum with a painted finish, that will soften it a little as opposed to anodized aluminum, also it can be repainted in the future;  Keeping the low roof pitch helps tie the building in to the neighborhood, house is not too tall; and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 14  Would benefit the project to put a row of windows at the top of the new garage door, will provide light inside and lighten the look of the door. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked and there is space on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: endorse this approach although sympathetic with commissioner's concerns, have to leave room for different styles; not support the motion think this project is a mistake in this neighborhood, people will question design review, will get comments. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-1-1-1 (C. Deal dissenting, C. Cauchi abstaining and C. Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. C. Cauchi returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 11. 819 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A BASEMENT (MICHAEL RABBIT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, 918 Grant Place, San Mateo, project applicant, was available for questions and provided a detail for the guard rails at the front porch. Commissioners noted that the sections show 8'- plate height on the second floor and the elevations show 8'- 6", which is correct? The second floor plate height would be 8'-6". Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, and Paul Dibbro, 815 Walnut, noted that although this is a big house, it is handled well by using a basement and putting the floor area below ground where there is less visible mass, like to see this approach used more often, there are a lot of healthy shrubs proposed for removal, would like to see the existing plants rescued and replanted, a little concerned with the loss of the existing porte cochere; will be living next to new basement, concerned with noise from fans and pumps when they kick in. Commissioners noted that this is a nice design with a lot of articulation and had the following comments regarding the project:  Think that column to the caps have too much of a taper, should be thicker at the top;  See Craftsman detailing on the porch, then on sides just see shingles, would like to see more traditional Craftsman details;  The gable end on the rear elevation should be changed to a hipped roof, would reduce the bulk;  Concerned with feature at the top of second floor on the north elevation behind the front porch, notches at top of wall should be eliminated; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 15  Basement patio will be a maintenance nightmare, will create a pool and flood if sump pump stops working;  Carry chimney to the ground instead of having it sit on top of the first floor roof;  Not sure about the trim on the west elevation at the second floor windows at corners of master bedroom, battered corners look okay on the west elevation, but concerned with how it will wrap around the corner;  If basement patio were eliminated and replaced with light well, would have room to do some landscaping to soften the left elevation;  Would like to see the old, well established Camellia plants saved and replanted, could be pruned back ahead and replanted, wouldn't work along the driveway, they would be too wide and encroach on the driveway, but could be put in the front or back yard; and  Should add a condition that the sump pump shall be in a sound proof enclosure. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made, plan checked and there is space on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 12. AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE TITLE 22, SIGNS, TO ESTABLISH NEW REGULATIONS FOR SIGNS - PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS (NOTICED IN SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES) SP Brooks briefly presented the project description, noting that the subcommittee had been working on the sign code update for two years now, had studied the existing sign environment and made recommendations on what works and what does not work. Subcommittee came up with the new regulations based on a new approach which determines the overall square footage of signs allowed based on the speed of travel of the street or public way on which the signs are located. Commissioners commented on the letter from Mark Hudak regarding the existing pole sign shared by Holiday Inn Express and Max's Opera Café, and asked if there is a way that this signage could be "grandfathered" under the new code. Planning staff clarified that the pole sign itself is now nonconforming and can continue to be used. However, the off-premise advertising issue would be created by the property when the property is divided and the existing two businesses are no longer on one parcel. This is not a nonconforming situation, but a new situation which would be created by the property owner's action subdividing the property. Commissioners expressed concern with the proposed regulation which would prohibit awnings from being internally lit, think it is too restrictive, is there a way to regulate so that the internal lights can illuminate only the portions of the awning where the letters are located and no more, and the rest of the awning remains dark. Planning staff noted that it is difficult to regulate the intensity of illumination, will look into various methods used for awning lighting and report back; note that there is a limit on the overall area of signage allowed on a site, is this the approach that was used for Fox Plaza; yes, the same approach is proposed in the sign code update, where with a variance, signage can be moved from one frontage to another and the number of signs can be increased, but there is a cap on the overall or total square footage allowed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 26, 2007 16 Commissioners noted that there is an incentive for two sided monument signs, each counted as a one sided sign when determining is counted toward overall sign area, can we require that the copy on both sides be the same? Planning Staff noted monument signs are treated separately from other signage (wall, projecting and awning signs) and only one side of a monument sign is counted. CA Anderson noted that because the courts have restricted regulation on content, could not require copy to be the same on both sides. Commissioners asked about the use of artwork as signs, how would the new regulations restrict, do not want to discourage that kind of creativity. Planning staff noted that some artwork is not regulated by the sign code, if it does not specifically identify a business; if the art is determined to be a sign, it would be regulated in the same way it is now, by its size and location on the site, roof signs would continue to be prohibited, but a projecting sign could be designed creatively. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Chair Brownrigg noted that this item will be brought back to the Commission on the action calendar when the additional information is provided. The public hearing will be noticed in a newspaper of general circulation, notices will be mailed to people who have expressed interest in the sign code update and the information will also be posted on the City's website. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS - There were no Commissioner's Reports for review. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of February 21, 2007. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of February 21, 2007. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Secretary