Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.12.07 PC Minutes APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA March 12, 2007 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the March 12, 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 Terrones Absent: Commissioner Vistica (arrived at 7:15 p.m.) Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 26, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Brownrigg noted that 329 Occidental has been continued so will not be heard tonight and, based on correspondence the Commission received, he will remove 945 Paloma Avenue from the consent calendar to the regular action calendar for public hearing. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, felt that the design at 2209 Hillside Drive lost its elegance when the Commission allowed the change in the shape of the columns, would like Commission to require that no dumpster be allowed on Adeline Drive when the project at 1447 Cortez is built, and would like to speak on the hospital memo at the end of the meeting. The Chair agreed to allowing public comment on the hospital memo. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 12 VISTA LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE 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 06-07 – PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG b. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE FOR CREATION OF TWO LOTS WITH 55-FOOT WIDE STREET FRONTAGE WHERE 60 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE IS REQUIRED – PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Chair Brownrigg noted that he expressed an interest in this property several years ago and spoke to the applicant about it at that time, but has not discussed the site in any detail with the applicant since then. C. Vistica arrived at 7:15 p.m. Commissioners asked:  Request that staff provide conditions of approval and any other information regarding approval of the previous subdivision which split the original lot into two lots;  Would like applicant to consider a reduction in the maximum allowed floor area ratio on these two lots since a variance is being requested for substandard lot frontage; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 2  Would like applicant to address the maximum building height allowed since the lot has a significant downward slope, this will be a very tall building at the rear if height is measured from average top of curb level, should consider limiting the building height based on the existing contour of the lot;  Applicant is requesting approval for a subdivision without any mitigations, applicant should address how the two lots will function together, regarding drainage, access, etc.;  Can adjacent property owners located in San Mateo County object to view blockage when applications for new houses are submitted in the future;  Request that staff explain why there is a required for a minimum 60' lot frontage;  How will lower lot off Adeline Drive be accessed; how would this proposed subdivision affect access to the lower lot; and  Would like to see what the treatment will be between the buildings and the street; how will the lot frontage be developed; applicant should explain the building envelope massing for each of the lots and how that will relate to the area between the building and the street. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. 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. 2b. 1477 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SEAN AND ERICA CAFFERKEY/BART AND CAROL GAUL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JACK MCCARTHY, JACK MCCARTHY DESIGNER, INC., DESIGNER) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN 2c. 329 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOE AND JULIA MCVEIGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN (Request to continue) Item 2c, 329 Occidental Avenue, was continued. This item will be renoticed when project is placed on a future agenda. Chair Brownrigg noted that item 2c, 329 Occidental Avenue was continued and item 2e, 945 Paloma Avenue has been set for the action calendar. He asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any other items off the consent calendar. Commissioners noted that they would like to remove 2f, 50 Broderick Road; 2a, 1221 Cabrillo; and 2d, 117 Channing Road. Chair Brownrigg noted that the remaining item on the consent calendar was item 2b, 1477 Cortez Avenue. C. Vistica moved approval of the consent calendar item 2b, 1477 Cortez Avenue, based on the facts in the staff report, commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the consent calendar and it passed 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 3 TEM VIII. REGULAR ACTION I 2a. 1221 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BASEMENT AND DETACHED GARAGE (BRET AND SUZANNE BOTTARINI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report March 12, 2007, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson 918 El Grant Place, San Mateo; Bret Bottarini, property owner; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, spoke. Issues noted: ceiling height on the second floor; space between floors; plate heights on first and second floor; maximum size house and confirming with the rest of the block. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that the house was well designed, the 9 foot first floor plate is not a set rule and depends upon circumstances, in this case it works, so move approval by resolution with amended condition that there be no more than 13 inches of space between the first and second floor, which would reduce the overall height by three inches, and a maximum 8'-1" plate on the second floor and the with conditions in the staff report: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 16, 2007, sheets 1-6, with a maximum space between the first and second floor of thirteen (13) inches, maximum second floor plate height of 8'-1",and a reduction in overall building height of at least 3 inches, 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 sump pump shall be located in an enclosed mechanical room in the basement and it shall be soundproof so that the noise from the pump will not exceed 5 dBA at any property line of the site; (3) that one, 15-gallon street tree shall be planted by the Parks Department in the planter strip in front of the property; the species and location may be chosen by the property owner from the street tree list for trees located under power lines; (4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 4, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's January 11, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 5, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's December 5, 2006 memo shall be met; (5) 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; (6) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), 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 foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (8) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; (9) 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; (10) 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; (11) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 4 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; (12) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; (13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; (14) the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; (15) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; (16) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (17) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: can support the change to the plans, the change to the porch is significant; to address the mass and bulk caused by the first floor plate height should reduce the space between floors to a 13-inch maximum with a second floor plate not to exceed 8'-1", the change to the space between floors will also reduce the height of the structure by about 3 inches, making the structure more compatible with the neighborhood; clarify minutes that the Commission did not direct the applicant at the study meeting, the commissioners did the direction. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the amended motion to approve the project with the space between the first and second floors not to exceed 13", the second floor plate height of 8'-1" and a reduction in overall height of the structure of 3 inches. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 2d. 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) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report March 12, 2007, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Klopf, architect, 3012 16th Street, San Francisco. Porch is very narrow; could keep roof at present location and extend porch; still show Italian Cyprus but note on plans says trees from street tree list; could add 18 inches to porch landing without affecting the driveway. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to approve the project by resolution with the amended condition that the existing landing on the porch be extended 18 inches so that it is still covered by the existing roof, retain the existing column at the bottom of the stairs and install a guard rail on the new landing with a jog to the existing post and with the conditions in the staff report as follows: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 14, 2007 (sheets T1.0, A0.1, A0.2, A1.1, A1.2, and A2.0) and February 28, 2007 (revised sheets A0.0, A1.0, A2.1, and A2.2) with the raised porch landing extended 18 inches on the driveway side, installation of a guardrail along the landing edge which ties into the existing post next to the relocated stairs; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 5 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 all new windows shall be wood or wood clad; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 8, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's August 11, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's August 10, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 9, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 14, 2006 memo 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. Cauchi. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions to widen the landing of the front porch 18 inches on the driveway side and add a guardrail along the new edge of the porch. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 2e. 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 & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and recused himself from this item. He stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers. Reference staff report March 12, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Steve Johnson, builder and architect; Katie Hultgren, 935 Paloma Avenue; Amy Michael, 937 Paloma Avenue; Aline Bier, 934 Paloma Avenue; spoke. House built in the 1920’s, tried to keep front porch, found dry rot and termite damage so need to remove; concerned about City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 6 failure to follow proper process before removed porch; no justification for the minor modification for parking if the building is new; city not protecting older homes in the R-2 district; construction is continuing, the first floor is framed; narrow driveway, so park on street, on-street parking is a problem; protection of large oak in rear yard. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussion: property zoned R-2, design review criteria and process do not apply; CP noted that variance provisions require findings that structure is consistent with neighborhood; average setback 19 feet because of one lot with a 63 foot front setback. C. Brownrigg noted that parking was not raised as an issue when the minor modification was approved, there is some historic precedence for the front setback since the porch will be installed at the same location and foot print as it was in the 1920’s so will not have a changed impact on the block and will aesthetically benefit the house, so move approval of the front setback variance 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 February 5, 2007, sheets 1 through 6 and garage plan, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; (2) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and the NPDES Coordinator's February 12, 2007 memos shall be met; (3) that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the variance to front setback as well as the minor modification for a 10% reduction in the required covered parking space width for all covered parking spaces in a new detached garage and carport structure will become void; (4) 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; (5) 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; (6) 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; (7) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; (8) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; and (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. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: find that the one property with the extreme front setback skews the average on the whole block and creates a hardship for this property; city’s process on this project is justified because design review is not required on an R-2 zoned lot. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the front setback variance. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. C. Deal returned to the Chambers and took his seat on the dais. 2f. 50 BRODERICK ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR EXTERIOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 7 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 March 12, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jeff Wright, architect, Portland, Oregon. Not see overhang on entry door on the north side; for conservation should require 35% energy to operate this business from renewable sources for three years. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussion: regarding renewable energy requirements, uncomfortable having a condition which is hard to enforce, prefer “best effort” language; CA this is an amendment to the previously granted design review, concerned about the connection between this action at this point and a new condition requiring the use of renewable energy; LEED requirements and renewable energy requirements should first be spelled out in a city policy. C. Terrones moved to approve the amendment to the exterior design as submitted with the addition of adding an over hang or awning on the entry door on the north side and that the applicant make a ‘best effort pledge’ to use renewable energy at this location, 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 December 26, 2006, sheets A0.0 thru L1.2, and date stamped January 2, 2007, sheet L1.1, as amended by the December 27, 2006 letter from the applicant, and date stamped December 28, 2006, supplemental packet for HACOR Burlingame In-Flight kitchen; that an overhang or awning shall be added over the entry on the north side of the building; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, awnings, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that any signs shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments; and that the operator will make an effort to provide 35% of the electrical power for this activity for three years from renewable sources; (2) that the point-of- sale for all products produced on this site shall be the City of Burlingame and should this change the conditional use permit shall be subject to review and revocation by the Planning Commission; (3) that the vertical lifts for parking shall be operated by a parking valet shall be in the employ of the business on the site and shall be on-site to operate the lifts during all hours that the business is open and for one hour before and after opening and closing; the lifts shall be maintained in working order and a valet present at all times; and the applicant shall submit a report on their maintenance and operation record to the Planning Department on an annual basis, commencing one year after project approval; if the lifts are ever removed or become inoperable for a period to exceed 30 days, the parking variance for this use at this site shall become null and void; and the applicant shall be required to apply to the Planning Commission within 30 days for review of all permits granted to this site for this use; (4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s October 6, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshall’s October 10, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist’s and NPDES Coordinators October 16, 2006 memos and the City Engineer’s October 23, 2006 memo shall be met; (5) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; (6) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or mezzanine 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 8 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 the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (11) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: see a correlation between this use and high energy consumption making using renewable sources appropriate. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review amendment with the changes to the entry on the north side of the building and a “best effort” pledge by the applicant to use renewable energy sources for at least three years. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. 3. 2849 RIVERA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW TWO- STORY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE; VAN LY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND STAN MUI, PROPERTY OWNER (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report March 12, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Van Ly, architect. Note errors in drafting: left side eave, fascia on rear, chimney. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that with these drafting errors on the plans corrected he would move to approve the application for amendment to design review and hillside area construction permit, 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 September 15, 2004, site plan, roof plan, and Architectural Site Survey, and February 12, 2007, floor plans and elevations; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that all drafting errors on the approved plans shall be corrected before the plans are accepted for a building permit; (2) that in addition to the trees required by the City’s reforestation ordinance, the property owner shall install two new 24-inch box size trees chosen from the City’s tree list which will grow to a size equivalent to the removed pine trees; they shall be planted at the front and/or exterior sides of the lot as replacements for the un-permitted removal of two protected size pine trees; appropriate irrigation measures and on-going maintenance shall be provided to these trees as approved by the City Arborist; (3) 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; (4) that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 10, 2004, Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshal's March 8, 2004, and Recycling Specialist's March 3, 2004, memos shall be met; (5) 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 9 to Planning Commission review; (6) 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; (7) 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; (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 prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (10) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; (11) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; (12) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; (13) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; (14) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on the motion: Commission takes seriously the hillside area construction permit, but this project did not impact any views and this proposed change is within the development envelope studied previously. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the request for design review amendment and amendment to the hillside area construction permit. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 4. 1548 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; WILLIAM AND SANDRA LINDSELL, PROPERTY OWNERS) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report March 12, 2007, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Acknowledge letter from Bill and Sandy Lindsell, date stamped March 9, 2007. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Roberts, architect, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo; Sandy Lindsell, property owner; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke. Discussed rear porch, problems with corbels and knee braces; drawings poor, project looks better in the field; not maximum FAR; should have discussed changes with Commission before final inspection. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that with the field changes the site is respected and the changes are good quality and add to the project, no problem with removal of planter boxes they can be a problem after a project is built, so moved by resolution to approve the application with the following conditions: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 10 (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 23, 2007, sheets 1-6, 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 a building permit shall not be issued until the revised plans have been stamped and signed by a licensed civil engineer; (3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; (4) 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; (5) 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; (6) 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; (7) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; (8) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's May 6, 2005, memos, the Chief Building Official's, Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's May 9, 2005, memos, shall be met; (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 amendment to the design review and hillside area construction permit, noting that the change proposed is within the original envelope outlined by the story poles. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 5. 1353 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TONY LEUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Cers. Auran and Osterling noted that they live within 500 feet of the project and would recuse themselves from the proceedings. They left the chambers. Reference staff report March 12, 2007, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Dennis and Michelle Kleid, 1349 Vancouver Avenue, spoke. Issues noted: massing, design and materials of proposed stairway from sidewalk to front entry; front yard landscaping; existing 10- inch Mayten tree; lack of street trees on this block; side setback along driveway side; building height City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 11 exceeding maximum allowed; grading the lot down to reduce the building height; site drainage; storm drainage and sewer lines on Vancouver Avenue. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: proposed 10-foot side setback along the driveway is substantial, prior to design review attached garages were built with 4-foot side setbacks; detached garage is located in the rear corner of the lot creates greater separation between houses; mass of house along the left side was substantially reduced by shifting the second floor bedroom to the right side of the house, mass and bulk is primary at the front of the house and therefore improves back yard privacy for the neighbors, design of this two-story house is modest; Public Works Department requires that all roof drainage be designed to flow to the street and therefore will not impact adjacent properties; special permit for building height is justified because the lot slopes up 10 feet from front to rear property line, excavating the lot to lower the building height is not appropriate, would require 5 to 6 foot tall retaining walls on both sides since the grade on the adjacent properties would be higher, would look bad and out of character with the neighborhood, excavating the lot could also impact the water table, if sewer line is lowered to reduce the height of the house an ejector system would be required since sewer main is located behind this lot, not in Vancouver Avenue; special permit for height is appropriate because the additional height needed for the pitched roof enhances the architectural style of the building. Continued discussion: concerned about the stairway and solid railing from the sidewalk to the front entry, proposed railing is 3 to 4 feet above grade; stairway design is out of character with the block, suggest designing a less prominent meandering pathway to follow the existing grade; will also be able to retain the existing 10-inch Mayten tree at the front of the lot; may not have to have railings in some areas; would like to see revised pathway in front yard brought back for review as a FYI item. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions to require that the pathway from the sidewalk to the front door be redesigned so that it is not a prominent feature and the redesign for the pathway be brought back as an FYI: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 14, 2007 sheets A.1 through A.6 and sheet L1.0, 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 pathway from the sidewalk to the front door shall be redesigned so that it follows the existing grade and is designed to preserve the existing 10-inch Mayten tree in the front yard; the pathway shall be designed so that it contains no retaining walls or handrails, if a handrail is required to comply with building code requirements it shall be designed using a light, visually less prominent material; the redesigned pathway shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 25, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's August 28, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's August 28, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's September 6, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 28, 2006 memo shall be met; (4) 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; (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 foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (7) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; (8) 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 12 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; (9) 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; (10) 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; (11) 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; (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 during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; (15) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (16) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the amended motion to approve the project requiring the pathway from the sidewalk to the front door be redesigned so that it is not a prominent feature. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Auran and Osterling abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. Cers. Auran and Osterling returned to the dais. 6. 1509 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JACK AND KIMBERLY STRATTON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN 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. Reference staff report March 12, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Kimberly Stratton, property owner; Stuart Grunow, JD & Associates, project applicant; Sheri Saisi, 1505 Los Altos Drive, spoke. Issues noted: proposed landscape design is inappropriate for this house and block; roof pitch above existing garage; lack of muntins on French doors off living room; expansive roof over porch; massing adjacent to downhill neighbor; change in grade between properties; side setback variance approved in 1967, how side setback variance relates to nonconforming status; request to continue project so that all issues can be adequately addressed; placement of second floor windows above garage along left side property line, and privacy. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 13 . C. Cauchi made a motion to continue the item to the regular action 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.  Consider keeping the existing 5:12 roof pitch above the garage, the existing garage has a 3'-2" side setback and is imposing on the adjacent neighbor, reducing the pitch from 7:12 to 5:12 would help to reduce the mass and bulk and mitigate its impact on the adjacent downhill neighbor;  Grids should be added to the sliding glass doors in the living room, doors do not have to contain full grids but something should be added to reduce the scale of these doors;  Concerned with large roof over the porch, an element such as a dormer or eyebrow vent should be added to break up this large expanse, a dormer with a window may also allow for more natural lighting into the house, could also consider using a different roofing material;  Landscaping does not relate to the house or the street and is inconsistent, Red Maple trees are not consistent with this block and is unusual in Burlingame; kidney-shaped lawn area at the front of the lot is inappropriate; landscape plan needs to be revised so that it is compatible with the house and neighborhood;  The scale of flowering cherry trees proposed along the right side property line at the rear is too small for this large house, need to choose larger scale trees and shrubs for the front and rear;  Concerned that the landscaping and walkways at the front of the lot do not provide a sense of arrival or welcome, pathway is on driveway with two steps up to the house, design of pathway and landscaping at the front of the house needs to be improved to create a sense of arrival;  Will pathway be lighted; and  Would like to see a condition of approval added requiring that the family room wall along the left side property line be constructed so that it is soundproof. Comment on the motion: addressing the roof pitch above the garage to reduce the massing does not affect the living space, living area above the garage is being improved because the kitchen and living unit will be replaced with a family room; clerestory windows in family room can be clear glass since window sill will be 4'-6" to 5'-0" above the floor, at that height cannot see through these windows into the neighbors' rear yard. CA Anderson noted that if the roof configuration above the garage/family room is changed, which includes changing the roof pitch, height or configuration, the previously approved side setback variance granted in 1967 will need to be modified when the project returns for action. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue with directed revisions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. C. Deal returned to the dais. IX DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1605 QUESADA WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SUZANNE DEHNE, DESIGNER; AND CHARLES CAMMARATA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Charlie and Laura Cammarata, property owners, were available to answer questions. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 14  Replace existing garage door with a new door that contains windows, is more decorative and is consistent with the design of the house, suggest using a carriage style garage door;  Concerned with the front porch columns, 4x4 posts are not substantial enough, need to make the porch more significant, would like to see porch details provided on plans including details of the columns and railing; do not necessary need to use a larger column, but more finish detail should be added to announce the front porch;  Need to add something for the front porch posts to terminate the top and bottom;  Provide size and details of brackets below bay window in kitchen on left elevation, need to call out size so the contractor know what to build;  Plans need to clearly indicate if new windows will be true divided lite or simulated true divided lite;  Revise plans to show stone veneer base wrapping around the sides of the bay window at the front of the house;  Concerned with proposed stone vertical stack at front of house and how it looks from the side, will look odd and will be visible from the street, it appears that it is there to solve a problem with how two roof forms tie together, applicant should find a better resolution; this vertical element is not appropriate to the design of the house;  Should add muntins to French doors in master bedroom, muntin design should be consistent with the windows at the front of the house;  Suggest making the skylight at the top of the stairway operable to add light and ventilation;  Provide landscape plan showing larger scale plant materials and include an automatic irrigation system;  Plans show two options for the kitchen layout, before this project returns for review by the Commission the applicant needs to choose one; and  Consider adding something at the front of the house to soften the second story addition, suggest looking in the neighborhood for good examples, suggest adding an element to provide a shadow line between the first and second floor at the front such as corbels under the second floor cantilever, a trellis or other architectural element. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Chair Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action 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. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had 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 10:35 p.m. X. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS - There were no Commissioner's Reports for review. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 12, 2007 15 XI. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of March 5, 2007. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of March 5, 2007. - FYI: 1243 Cabrillo Avenue – changes to a previously approved design review project Commission acknowledged proposed changes. Noted that it would be much easier to review such proposals if the changes requested were called out on the plans. - FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log – January – February 2007 CP Monroe noted the complaint log. Items noted were the city’s role on the Mitigation Monitoring Panel; neighbor complaints and participation; break down in communications; CA noted listed several unresolved problems. Chair Brownrigg opened Public Comment: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Concerned that building conditions were not being met, parking on Marco Polo; communications is poor, not city’s role to step in; project will be on-going a long time, need to resolve; XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Secretary V:\MINUTES\unapproved 03.12.07.doc