Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.10.07 PC Minutes APPROVED CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California September 10, 2007 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Deal called the September 10, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Planner, Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES: Minutes of August 27, 2007: Commissioner Brownrigg noted a typographical error at the bottom of Page 6 of the draft minutes; noting that the vote on the motion (regarding parking for animal shelters) should be “4- 2-1”, not “6-2-1”. Additionally he indicated that on Page 7, the discussion of on-site noticing, the second bullet point under “Commission comments in favor” should read: “The public would be better informed if they had a picture of what is to be built and when it would be on the Planning Commission agenda. For residents not in the building/realty trades, or who work outside of Burlingame, it is hard to know where to go to look at neighbors’ plans. The Commission should be encouraging a more informed public.” Commissioner Osterling moved, seconded by Commissioner Vistica to approve the minutes of the August 27, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the corrections noted by Commissioner Brownrigg. Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; addressed the FYI item regarding 1336 Paloma Avenue that appeared later on the agenda. She asked if the changes were being requested by a new buyer, or is the new home a “spec house”? VI. STUDY ITEMS: 1. 412 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING FRONT PORCH ON A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND BOB GLYNN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 10, 2007 2 Commission comments: ƒ The application is supportable. ƒ The existing column bases may need to be replaced, footings may not be deep enough. This item was set for the regular Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m. 2. 1100 HAMILTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK, REAR SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (LISA WINSTON AND PHIL KENNEDY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND DANIEL RHOADS, YOUNG AND BORLIK ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commission comments: ƒ Applicant has done a good job justifying the variances; with respect to the right side Variance, the front of the lot would not require variance and the existing easement along the right side property line is a mitigating factor. This item was set for the regular Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS: Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. There were no Consent Calendar items. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS: 3. 1414 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A NEW 7'-2" TO 12'-2" HIGH FENCE LOCATED ON THE RIGHT SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES (GEORGE AND DEBBIE OLDHAM, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated September 10, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four (4) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. George and Debbie Oldham, 1414 Alvarado Avenue, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Noted that when the house behind their property, 1421 Benito Avenue, was built their deck was already existing in its current configuration. In their conversation with this neighbor they indicated that perhaps they could install a pergola atop the rear fence to add further screening. They have attempted to contact the Public Works Department regarding placing trees within the utility easement between the properties, but have not yet received a response. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 10, 2007 3 Commission comments: ƒ Noted that a pergola may require Planning Division approval. Public comments: Paul O'Lorence, 1416 Alvarado Avenue, Burlingame; indicated that he has no problems with fence as constructed. Community Development Director Meeker noted that staff had contacted the Public Works Department regarding the placement of trees within the utility easement behind the property. Since the easement contains sanitary sewer lines, the Department will not authorize the placement of trees in the area since the tree roots could adversely impact the sewer line. Commissioner Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the site plan submitted to the Planning Department on April 9, 2007; 2. that the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the structure; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the fence exception as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. 4. 1324 MONTERO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (IGOR ELGART, APPLICANT; DAVID BINMAN, PROPERTY OWNER; AND KEVIN WEINMANN, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER ______________________________ Reference staff report dated September 10, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Staff recommended denial of the application based upon the Code Enforcement Officer’s determination that the project has been abandoned, as referenced in the staff report. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. No one appeared to represent the applicant. Commission comments: none Public comments: John Crehan, 1328 Montero Avenue, Burlingame; stated that the contractor has shown disregard for the Planning Department and the City of Burlingame. He has disrespected the neighbors as well. No building permits were issued for the work that he has done. His contractor’s license is currently suspended for City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 10, 2007 4 failure to comply with an outstanding civil judgment. He should restore the house to its original configuration, or order the building to be demolished. The contractor should be banned from conducting business in Burlingame. He should not be given more than 60 days to complete restoration of the building. The City needs to work harder to find illegal construction projects. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to deny the application, with prejudice, by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:31 p.m. 5. 1537 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND DETACHED GARAGE EXEMPT FROM SETBACKS IN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (VICTOR AND MARIA LING, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Chair Deal recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Reference staff report dated September 10, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice-Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Stuart Gunrow, Jerry Deal and Associates, 875 Mahler Road, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ A concern was expressed that the applicant had not made a concerted effort to address all of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the Design Review Study session for the item. Public comments: There were no public comments. Commissioner Vistica noted that although this is a big house the design is handled well and 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 23, 2007, Sheets 1 through 5, G-1, SF1, T-1, and L-3, 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's April 13, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's April 16, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 13, 2007 memo, the City Arborist's May 16, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 16, 2007 memo shall be met; 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 10, 2007 5 comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 9. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Additional Commission comments: ƒ It was verified that the letter submitted by the neighbor indicated only that they had reviewed the plans, but did not indicate that they approved the plans. It was noted that the neighbors were present in the Council Chambers. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 10, 2007 6 ƒ Cannot support the motion, did not see adequate changes to the requests made by the Commission. ƒ Though the home is large, it is well-designed and appropriate for the neighborhood. Vice-Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1 (Commissioner Osterling opposed, Chair Deal recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. Chair Deal returned to the dais. 6. 815 LAUREL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEVEN RANDEL, CALIFORNIA HOME PLANS, INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PAT DELCHIARO, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 10, 2007, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Steve Randel, 2215R Market Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. ƒ Provided samples of the potential window designs in wood and vinyl materials. ƒ The property owner would prefer to install vinyl windows (simulated true divided light) due to cost considerations. Commission comments: ƒ The vinyl “Kolbe” simulated divided light windows as shown to the Commission would be acceptable. They are available in a wide array of colors. ƒ Suggested that the gable vent be constructed of wood. ƒ Larger size plant materials should be installed in keeping with the scale of the home. The single Birch tree may not be enough; perhaps install an additional tree or consider an evergreen species. A second tree could be planted closer to the sidewalk. Identify the species of shrubs and provide more detail on the landscape plan. If the Cherry tree at the front of the lot is not an approved street tree, replace with an acceptable species. ƒ Great design with good articulation. The burden is upon the builder and architect to ensure that the house is constructed within the limits imposed by the Zoning Ordinance. ƒ Veneering the chimney on the left side elevation would break up that elevation. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; and Steve Delchiaro, 815 Laurel Avenue, Burlingame; spoke regarding the project. Ms. Giorni encouraged wood windows. Mr. Delchiaro noted that his mother owns the home and that the cost is a factor given that he is employed as a teacher. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ƒ The proposed vinyl windows (“Kolbe” brand) appear to be of good quality. The specific brand of window and style shown to the Commission should be a condition of approval. ƒ It was suggested that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee could review window materials and develop criteria for use of vinyl windows. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 10, 2007 7 Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, 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 August 29, 2007, sheets 1.1 through 3.2, photo sheet, and date stamped January 19, 2007, boundary and topographic survey, 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 all windows shall be simulated true divided lite windows with three dimensional mullions; 2. that staff shall confirm that the Cherry tree at the front of the lot is an acceptable street tree; if not the tree shall be replaced with an acceptable street tree; 3. that an additional 24-inch box tree shall be planted within the front-yard area; 4. that “Kolbe and Kolbe” Performance, simulated divided light vinyl windows, as specified by the applicant, shall be acceptable for the windows for the project; however, the applicant is encouraged to install wood windows as an alternative; 5. that the conditions of the Fire Marshall’s December 5, 2006, memo, the Chief Building Official’s December 8, 2006, memo, the City Engineer’s December 11, 2006, memo and the NPDES Coordinator’s December 13, 2006, memo shall be met; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that 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; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 10, 2007 8 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:06 p.m. 7. 2516 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND STEVE SPINA, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER) Reference staff report dated September 10, 2007, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ Good job with the re-design. The design follows the slope of the lot. ƒ Expressed concern about the size of the yard, but it is exacerbated by the shape of the lot. ƒ Clarify the style of siding to be installed (4” v-groove), and show the horizontal siding clearly on the second floor. Public comments: Jim Briggs, 1443 Montero Avenue; Leslie McQuaide, 1439 Montero Avenue; Victor Subbotin, 2519 Hale Drive; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke regarding the request. Comments included: the home is a “spec” house; respect the neighbors that live in the area and come up with a design that fits the size and appearance of other homes in the area; minimal landscaping is provided; the neighbor is out of town and is not aware of the proposal; minimal reductions in the scale of the house have been made by the applicant; the garage is accessed by an excessively long driveway; concerned with the proposed height, proposed house will have negative impacts on the neighborhood, traffic and utilities. City should provide rewards to people willing to rehabilitate their properties; applicant should propose a design that fits with the architectural styles present in the neighborhood; and concern was expressed regarding impacts upon mature vegetation on the lot. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ƒ Landscape plan preserves much of the mature landscaping and will fit with neighborhood. ƒ The home is well designed and can be supported. ƒ The mass of the home is handled as well as it can be given the City’s regulations. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 10, 2007 9 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 22, 2007, sheets A.1 through A.6; Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations; sheet L1.0, Landscape Plan, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, 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 all windows shall be simulated true divided lite windows with three dimensional wood mullions; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's April 18, 2007 memo, the Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshal's April 13, 2007 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 16, 2007 memo shall be met; 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 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; 5) 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; 6) 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; 7) 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; 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 9) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 10) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 10, 2007 10 12) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:41 p.m. 8. 214-216 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (SUZANNE COX, MORGAN STANLEY, APPLICANT; AND MENDELL PARTNERS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated September 10, 2007, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ƒ Discussed the nearest “all-day” parking location. ƒ Noted that a Parking Variance was approved by the Planning Commission in October 2006 in anticipation of an office tenant on the second floor of the subject site. Newell Arnerich, 200 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza 5th Floor, Oakland, and Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Burlingame; represented the applicant. ƒ The business is currently located 150 feet away from the subject site. ƒ The applicant agrees with the recommended conditions. ƒ Parking is adequately provided in the area. Public comments: There were no public comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the financial institution shall be limited to 6,080 SF on the second floor of an existing commercial building at 214-216 Lorton Avenue, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 16, 2007 (11x17 sheet); 2. that the financial institution may not be open for business except during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; 3. that the maximum number of employees shall be limited to 25 full-time employees; 4. that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 17, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's August 20, 2007 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's August 20, 2007, memo shall be met; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 10, 2007 11 6. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 7. that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed upon complaint. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Commissioner Osterling stated that permitting the proposed use (a financial institution) at this location extends commercial uses along the side streets between Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS: 9. 323 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (NED WHITE, MCCOPPIN STUDIOS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND CRISTOS AND ELISABETH GOODROW, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Cauchi recused himself since he lives within the noticing area for the project. Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment period. Cristos Goodrow, 323 Dwight Road, Burlingame, and Ned White, McCoppin Studios, 2350 Taylor Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ Massing handled well. ƒ Commended on future use of solar panels. ƒ Some gable end windows should be looked at closely so that they don’t crowd the fascia too much. ƒ Consider more detail on the porch columns to reduce mass. ƒ Sidewalk coming down from porch is sloped, but side elevation shows a tall wall; make correction on side elevation plans. ƒ Skylights should be tinted to reduce glare, would like to see added as condition of approval. ƒ Garage door needs to be broken up to appear as two separate doors with windows. ƒ On side elevation of garage, the transom windows above the door could make it look more like a dwelling unit; could perhaps break down mass with a trellis instead of the transom windows. ƒ Provide a full landscape plan, including more and larger planting materials in the front yard. ƒ Indicate that the attic vent will be of wood construction. ƒ Call out the size of window boxes and corbels on plans. ƒ Support of the Variance from front setback requirements is questionable; this is new construction, the existing foundation may not support the new residence; therefore, the home should be pushed back to meet the setback requirement. ƒ If the applicant chooses to provide additional cabinet space in the kitchen, windows may be reduced on the rear of the home, but not on the side. ƒ Be certain that details remain with project when it is constructed. Public comments: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 10, 2007 12 John Parkin, 333 Dwight Road, Burlingame; Lisa Solinger, 341 Dwight Road, Burlingame; and Maura Pratt, 309 Dwight Road, Burlingame; spoke in support of the request. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment period was closed. Additional Commission comments: ƒ The curvature of the street near the property supports approval of the Variance. ƒ Granting a Variance for the second floor is not appropriate, second floor should be pushed back to comply with the minimum setback requirement. ƒ Concerned with the entire length of the roof at the maximum 30-foot height limit, this leaves no room for error, don't want to see this project come back for an exception to height after its been built; perhaps the roof design could be handled differently. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Deal 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 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:34 p.m. 10. 3105 MARGARITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR UPPER AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MIKE AND AMY KERWIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOHN MANISCALCO, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Cauchi returned to the dais. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment period. Amy Penticoff and Mike Kerwin, 3105 Margarita Avenue, Burlingame, and John Maniscalco, 1501 Waller Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ Commended the applicants on the re-design of the proposal. Public Comments: Joyce and Frank Sulgit, 1560 Los Montes Drive, Burlingame; Helaine Darling, 3100 Margarita Drive, Burlingame; Linda and Brian Murphy, 3101 Margarita Avenue, Burlingame; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; commented on the project. Comments included: a desire to remove the trees adjacent to the Sulgit property as soon as possible; uncertainty regarding the impact of the flat roof design upon view blockage; request installation of story poles once the trees are removed; the applicants have misrepresented the neighbors’ reactions to the proposed design; the design is incompatible with the neighborhood; tint any skylights installed on the home to reduce glare; repair a fence between the Murphy and Kerwin properties; and a model was presented by Ms. Giorni. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment period was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 10, 2007 13 Additional Commissioner comments: ƒ The design is successful in placing additional living space on the property. ƒ A peaked roof design is not “required” in Burlingame. The roof design, as proposed, protects views and results in a more unified, aesthetically pleasing design. There are homes of similar design in the area, this has also been documented by the applicant. ƒ Flat roof is a good solution, may see more of this style in the hillside area to reduce impacts on view blockage. ƒ Need to erect story poles once the trees are removed. ƒ Variance is supportable due to attempts to address view blockage. ƒ The landscape plan needs to consist of species that will not interfere with views. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the regular Action Calendar when the trees adjacent to the Sulgit property are removed, the story poles have been erected and the application is complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi Chair Deal 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 vote7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. 11. 717 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DANIEL EWALD, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BARRY SUDBECK AND JENNIFER HERTZ, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Cauchi recused himself since he lives within the noticing radius for the project. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment period. Barry Sudbeck, 717 Vernon Way, Burlingame, and Daniel Ewald, 1175 Folsom Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ Barge rafters on the north elevation are not flared out on dormers. Windows in dormers look like they are squeezed in. ƒ Two dormers on the north elevation are tiny with a lot of roof above; the computer rendering seems to have more appropriate proportions; check the dimensions. Perhaps narrow the dormer windows to improve proportions. ƒ Like the design. ƒ Would prefer a porch, rather than a trellis over the main entry, but will accept either approach. ƒ Landscape plan needs to incorporate more substantial materials; perhaps provide a tree on each side of the walkway. Public comments: Mary Hunt and Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way, Burlingame; and Elizabeth Johnson, 721 Concord Way, Burlingame; generally approve of the design, but concerned about large homes being built on small lots; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes September 10, 2007 14 perhaps there should be different standards for smaller lots; also expressed concern about the usability of the garage and driveway and the limited on-street parking in the area. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment period was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular Consent when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:54 p.m. Commissioner Cauchi returned to dais. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS: There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT: ƒ Review of City Council regular meeting of September 4, 2007: Community Development Director Meeker indicated that the City Council received a memorandum informing it of the Commission’s decision regarding on-site posting for Commercial Design Review projects. ƒ FYI: 1) Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log – August 2007; 2) 1624 Coronado Way – Requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project; and 3) 1336 Paloma Avenue – Requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project. - Commissioner Terrones requested that the FYI regarding 1336 Paloma Avenue be agendized for discussion; specifically related to the removal of stone veneer from the building finish. ƒ Chair Deal requested that a discussion of on-site posting for Residential Design Review projects be placed on the next agenda. XII. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Deal adjourned the meeting at 11:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Richard Terrones, Secretary