Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071006PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA July 10, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the July 10, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling, Terrones Absent: Commissioners Cauchi, Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner Brooks and Planner Hurin, City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the June 26, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were reviewed; C. Brownrigg noted a clarification on Page 10, the end of the second paragraph to add: "Commissioner added that variance might be warranted inasmuch as there is a clear hardship, namely the house fronts on two streets at front and rear. Attaching the garage without penalizing the interior space(FAR) might result in a better design along the rear street frontage.." Commission approved the minutes as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP noted that staff had received a copy of the complaint log from the project manager of the hospital replacement project and it would be added to the FYI items at the end of the agenda. There were no other changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. 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. Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 1. 1820 OGDEN DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AMENDMENT FOR CONVERSION OF OFFICE USE TO HEALTH SERVICE USE (JERRY WARREN, APPLICANT; GENE WARREN, DESIGNER; SUSAN FULLERMANN AND JERRY WARREN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners' comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2(Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 2 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. PRESENTATION OF CITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN – PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Reference staff report July 10, 2006, with attachments including two reports: “Citywide Facilities Improvements: Building Improvements Summary,” and “Storm Drain Improvements Report.” CP Monroe noted that City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Syed Murtuza would make the presentation regarding the improvement plan proposed for the obligation bond measure on which the Council will take final action on July 19, 2006. CA Anderson noted that it is required that the Planning Commission review an improvement plan proposed for a bond measure when it combines a number of improvements, in this case storm water improvements and improvements to city building facilities, to determine that it is a coherent improvement plan. CE Murtuza made a power point presentation which reviewed the background studies done to establish the need and cost of the proposed improvements, the various financing alternatives and reasons for selecting general obligation bonds, and summarized the Council's conclusion that the obligation bond include $37 million for storm drain improvements and $7 million for improvements to city building facilities for safety and accessibility. Commissioners commented on the background studies for the storm drain system and public facilities, how the obligation bond would affect individual property owners as opposed to other means of financing; CA noted that the Commission's action is to determine whether this is a coherent improvement plan, the financing option is a Council decision; the poll undertaken to determine public support was discussed and the importance of providing some flexibility in how the funds would be spent because of the 30 year time line; it was noted that 60 bonds could be issued on an 'as needed' basis over the 30 years. Objective is to keep the cost per median valued property to an average of $125/year; the amount that people polled indicated was acceptable. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke. Participated in a focus group to gather information for the campaign, urge Planning Commission to approve this improvement plan, need to fix storm drain and stop pass though at the Waste Water Treatment Plan during flooding; pass through could result in high penalty fees from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Staff did a good job preparing this one. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: The Planning Commission action addresses only the improvements proposed, not financing or other issues; CA affirmed. C. Osterling noted that the proposed improvement plan is a coherent plan which will address community needs and will support the city's planning programs and community's physical needs. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to endorse that the improvement plan proposed by the City Council for the general obligation bonds as being coherent and consistent with the community's physical needs and plans. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 3 3. 3105 MARGARITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; WAYNE SOSNICK, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER C. Deal recused himself because he has a business relationship with the applicant. He left his seat and the chambers. Reference staff report July 10, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks 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. Fabian Bernardi, 1 St. Francis Place, San Francisco, represented the applicant. There were no questions. Comments from the floor: Gordon Miller, 3120 Margarita; Ann Nannini, 1555 Alturas Drive; Brian Murphy, 3101 Margarita Drive; Linda Murphy, 3101 Margarita Drive; Matt Murphy, 3101 Margarita Drive; neighbors on west side of proposed project could not come tonight asked to request that this item be continued until they could come to the meeting; personally feel that the proposed house is too large and too tall, cuts the light off to the south, where we now see the sun and sky, will encroach on that view; need to evaluate proposed construction, too much for the lot size, key concern is drainage, want all water diverted from draining to rear onto her property; submit picture of story poles from bedroom window at 1560 Los Montes, will lose view of Mills Canyon, bay and Mt. Diablo; house up hill will lose a lot of distant view from balcony and front lawn; story poles are deceptive, show only roof ridge, not reflect mass, bulk to real scale, should require orange netting; concerned about pool shed at rear, it is noisy and has an illegal drain, built in 1976 and is nonconforming, this project does not address, was told does not have to, but should be fixed given the problems it causes, demonstrates unwillingness to cooperate, did not even let neighbors know was not going to fix this problem. Story poles do not document the width of this addition, do not include the large chimneys, would like to continue until neighbors return; feel that the mass, bulk and architectural style do not fit in this neighborhood which has been described as 'tract' homes, when they bought their homes they were told by this property owner that a second story addition was not possible, now he is asking for a second story. Saw story poles and realized that neighbor can look directly into my back yard and family room where like to camp in the summer, will lose privacy. Applicant noted tried to address all the issues raised by the Planning Commission at the last meeting; drainage and pool are not an issue at this time; with a second floor it is hard to comply with all rules, and sometimes views are affected; tried to reduce the size and scale of the house. Commission asked if the designer was familiar with the city's view ordinance, applicant noted that he was. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: when reviewed last time gave direction to eliminate some of the variances with adjusting the mass of the building, done some work on the right side, but the story poles are very telling, support the point that poles as presently installed do not tell the whole story, poles represent the peak at the center and gable, not the massing; this addition is massive from both uphill and downhill, can't support; agree, photos submitted show that this is too much; distant views of at least two neighbors are incontrovertibly blocked. C. Osterling moved to deny the application with prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 4 Comment on the motion: realize that it is difficult on this type of house to do an addition which requires a special permit for height, don't know how you do it without a special permit for height, but in any case the mass is still too broad. If deny without prejudice the City Planner will need to determine if the resubmittal is 'substantially different' and can be processed. If denied the same application cannot be resubmitted for a year. Needs a different solution, one which will not block someone's view, could have additional 700 SF of lot coverage and could add a lower level living area so there are options on this lot. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny this application. The motion passed on a 4-0- 2-1 (Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent, C. Deal recused) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 4. 1207 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (S.E.A. CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT; ROGER AND ZENIAMAE GHIOTTI, PROPERTY OWNERS; MARC TETRAULT, ARCHITECT) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 12, 2006 P.C. MEETING) Reference staff report July 10, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks 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. Mark Tetrault, 501 Cortland Avenue, architect, and Roger Ghiotti, 1207 Cortez Avenue, represented the project. Commissioners asked about the wainscot on the outside of the house, the floor joist system, about the connection between the tapered column and the beam above at the front; requested at last meeting that all windows have mullions to capture Prairie style; pillars to support balcony at the rear are heavy, adding brick wainscot would reduce bulk, applicant agreed. Could have spent more time on the design of the right side of the building. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that this project has come a long way would move to approve by resolution with the added condition that brick wainscoting be added to the bottom of the columns at the rear and mullion bars be added to the top of the front windows, the wainscoting proposed on the sides of the house can be left as shown, and the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 26, 2006, sheets A1 through A5, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; all windows shall be wood framed without muntins or mullions except for the existing first floor front window opposite the porch which shall have mullions at the top to reflect the Prairie Style of the architecture and that brick wainscoting shall be added to the bottom of the columns on the rear elevation of the house; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 23, 2005, memo, the City Engineer's September 26, 2005, memo, the City Arborist's October 19, 2005, memo, and the Fire Marshal's, Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's September 26, 2005, memos, shall be met; 3), that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 5 no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 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; 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 project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9) that 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; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) 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. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions regarding adding mullions to the top of the existing window at the front and brick wainscoting to the base of the columns on the rear elevation. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 5. 2105 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DENNIS AND JULIE CARLSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHN STEWART, STEWART ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 12, 2006 P.C. MEETING) The applicant requested that this item be delayed because her architect had a conflicting meeting in Hillsborough and was expected shortly. Chair Brownrigg noted that this item could be delayed on the action calendar until later in the meeting when the architect was present. Commission concurred. 6. 1465 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRIAN ROCHE, PROPERTY OWNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report July 10, 2006, 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. Jack McCarthy, architect, represented the project. Met with neighbors, sent out 34 letters, three responded. One wanted the driveway shifted to other side, not possible because of space, location of an existing tree, and because the living area of house on other side faces the present driveway. Commissioners noted dramatic improvement in design, shows driveway AC paving; applicant noted mistake, will be pervious; discussed depth of porch, noted could increase if changed pitch on roof which would also enhance the style; columns need more mass on the front porch; fireplace in family City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 6 room visually needs a chimney extension higher than the eave; on front elevation the beam bracket is out of scale, 6x would look better; like front elevation changes; noted were putting in a Magnolia but cannot find on the drawing, should bring landscape plan back as an FYI; understand that can use true divided light or simulated true divided lite windows; garage should be shingled on all four sides. Comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. This is a good example of how design review works; thank the applicant and architect, this is in the scale of the block; the public meeting was good since this is a spec house; lot of hardscape might be reduced by having the steps from the porch exit to the left and use the driveway as the walkway; there is no access from the front to use the other side of the house, how take out the garbage can; maybe use other vine than star jasmine, hard to maintain; plans say square columns, prefer turned. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: There is a fence shown on the plans on the right side, so cannot exit through the garden on that side. C. Deal moved to approve the application by resolution with the following amendments to the conditions that the front porch shall be deepened by changing the slope of the porch roof, that the knee braces shall be increased to 6x, that all four sides of the garage shall be covered with shingles, that a chimney which extends above the eaves shall be added to the fireplace so that it looks real, and that the Magnolia tree shall be placed on the landscape plan and the plan shall be resubmitted as an FYI to the Commission, and with the following conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 28, 2006, sheets 1-5 and L1.0; that the design submitted for building permit shall include all of the following changes affirmed by the Planning Department before issuance of a building permit: that the front porch shall be deepened by changing the slope of the porch roof and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI, that the knee braces shall be increased to 6x, that all four sides of the garage shall be covered with shingles, that a chimney which extends above the eaves shall be added to the fireplace so that it looks real, and that the Magnolia tree shall be placed on the landscape plan and the landscape plan shall be resubmitted as an FYI to the commission; 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 March 24, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's March 27, 2006 memos, and the Recycling Specialist's March 29, 2006 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 prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 6) 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; 7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 8) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 9) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 7 Planning and Building plans; 10) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 13) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 14) 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 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. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 7. 1525 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JAMES WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND JOHN AND ROSA VEGA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report July 10, 2006, 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. James Wong, architect, represented the project. He noted that he would respond to questions. Commissioners asked if the stone veneer covered all of the concrete base on the house, yes, there is existing concrete footing, stone will cover footing all the way to the ground; concern was that the original project did not accomplish the objectives of the design guidelines and reflect what is in the neighborhood, do not feel that the revisions make it better; are the three holes on the west elevation vents, yes will be tile; balustrade is too heavy particularly with the quoins, rarely use quoins in Burlingame as they are out of character, commonly on much bigger houses, the sliding glass door clashes with the guardrail; on the front elevation there are errors on the plans: 3" wood molding not shown on existing windows, should add to tie in, roof drawn as 4/12 but noted as 3/12, second floor balustrade does not work, little window above does not relate, second floor balcony is too large for a single family residential use (same as on west elevation, conflicts with gable); rear elevation more design detail than front, looks like two different houses, no consistency in style. Architect summarized changes made while working with design reviewer. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Terrones agreed with the other commissioners that he could not support this project not because it is different from the neighborhood, agree this neighborhood is eclectic, but because there is too much inconsistency within the design of this house, quoins do not consistently wrap corner to corner and not used throughout, and are only detail have included, mistake to replicate lone arch window at front, should identify some other better character building detail in the existing house, stone molding added as wainscot is not included on the east elevation, need to carry design elements throughout, problems with this design is in the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 8 details; for these reasons moved to deny this project without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: It was noted that the concern is not with the massing, the building needs to reflect a particular architectural style; applicant should slowly walk the neighborhood, there are beautiful examples there, identify something that will fit in, look at the detail on the house, may have to change massing to fit the new style; detail is important as are the elements used to provide it, may need to upgrade some windows, this is a difficult house to add on to; some existing features cover up character such as the cap on the wall at the front and the small window added over the large front window; the landscape plan is very light, when add second story front and rear landscaping should be redone to add larger plant materials, the existing gate should be changed to match the style of the house chosen. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 5- 0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. 8. 127 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (LUIS ROBLES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JAIME GOMEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report July 10, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the family room and den were called bedrooms? CP noted that for planning review purposes, because parking is based on the number of bedrooms, a bedroom is defined as any room with four walls, a window and a door, that is not a living room, dining room or kitchen. These two rooms qualify so were counted as bedrooms. There were not further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Luis Robles, 341 Channing Way, designer, and Jaime Gomez, 127 Loma Vista, property owner, represented the project. Noted would like to make the gate on the left wrought iron; noted that the height is well under 30 feet, do we still need to have the ridge line surveyed? Chair noted yes. Commissioners asked about the house and the columns both being stucco; would there be wrought iron at the decorative window at the front; are columns round? Yes. Commissioners noted that the applicant had done a nice job of mass and style, and made the following comments regarding the project: • Drawing detail on rafter tails should be corrected should be noted as 3x6, should be 4x6 wood brackets, need heavier rafter tails to keep in scale; • Window on second floor center front is a little too big; • Several windows show clear transom, transom area should be divided lites; should be clear about type of window throughout, true divided light or simulated true divided light; • Roof tiles should be mixed color within same hue; • Use additional wood trim to enhance south elevation; • East elevation beams to support roof could be supported with knee braces with 6x or 4x brackets, would work over door, also use on east side and at rear, would result in good rhythm; • Front columns need wood but color change would work, stucco is consistent with Spanish style; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 9 • On left elevation, material on skirt under balcony a different material such as wood and add wood brackets; • Porch very narrow at door, should revise and widen porch at door; • Could extend porch forward and use variation in paving at front; and • Need to add more landscaping to enhance the Spanish style. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to continue this item to provide the applicant the opportunity to make revisions to the plans as noted by the commissioners and to bring the project back on the consent calendar, particular attention should be paid to the detail; a complete landscape plan should be included with the item when it comes back on consent. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: Almost there, all agree on the details required; gates should be addressed in resubmittal, choice of gate material should be up to the applicant. Commissioners advised the applicant to listen to the tapes of the meeting to make sure all of the Commission's comments are addressed when resubmit. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item and bring it back on the consent calendar when the revisions including a full landscape plan have been submitted, plan checked and there is space on the agenda. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). This item is not appealable since no action was taken. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 5. 2105 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DENNIS AND JULIE CARLSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHN STEWART, STEWART ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 12, 2006 P.C. MEETING) Reference staff report July 10, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks 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 Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street, project architect, noted that significant changes were made to the project, the front entry was changed to get rid of the tower, added trellis, there was a question about the stairs, there will be eight feet of clearance for the stairwell; have signatures from nine neighbors in support of the project. Commissioners noted that the sketch on the front of the plans is charming, can landscaping be added along the side of the driveway as shown on this sketch; what are the materials used for the columns on the front porch, rendering and elevations don't match. The applicant noted that vines can be added along the driveway, the porch will have a stucco wall with half column as shown on the elevations. Commissioners noted that the roof is now being chopped off to meet the 30 foot height requirement, in the future, would rather see a request for special permit to allow the roof to come to a peak. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran 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 June 27, 2006, sheets A1 through A6, and date stamped June 1, 2006, sheet A1 showing landscape details, including City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 10 that the header over the window shall be 2x8, the columns shall be 6x6, and the corbels shall be 6x8; 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 landscape plan shall be revised to incorporate landscaping as shown on the rendering; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 7, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's April 10, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 7, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's April 24, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 10, 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 the flat portion of the roof shall be built so that it does not contain a roof curb; 6) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 8) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 9) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 10) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 12) 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 13) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Cauchi, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. 9. 1818 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW FOUR-STORY ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY (BILL LINDSTROM, SUNRISE DEVELOPMENT, INC., APPLICANT; MICHAEL KITSUN, MITHUN ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; TROUSDALE PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) (38 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CA Anderson recused himself from the proceedings and left the dais and chambers because his son worked for the applicant within past year. Reference staff report July 10, 2006, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-four conditions were suggested for consideration. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 11 Commissioners asked Staff: What will the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development fee required to be paid in Condition No. 4 be used for? CP Monroe noted that the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan identifies the projects which will be built using these fees; there are several streetscape projects identified including the linear park and pedestrian pathway proposed along the west side of El Camino Real between Murchison and Trousdale which will provide a link between the BART station and this area. Commissioners noted that the conditions of approval address storage of construction materials, what about equipment on the street? The Public Works Department regulates this and requires permits for locating dumpsters and other equipment in the parking area along the street. There is also a condition requiring screening for the driveway ramp, is this reflected on the plans? Yes. Condition No. 40 regulates the use of radios during construction for noise mitigation, what level of use would trigger? This would not apply to cell phones or handheld devices. It does apply to construction workers because of noise from music, etc. impacting on adjacent residential uses. If this building were ever converted to condominiums, would it have to come back to the Planning Commission for review? Yes, would require different approvals and a review of the onsite parking. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Dan Zemanek, Sunrise; Jerry McDevitt, Mithun Architects; and Linda Gates, David Gates and Associates, Landscape Architect; represented the project, noted that the comments from previous Commission meetings have been incorporated into the project, and asked to address two of the conditions of approval. Condition No. 3 requires that demolition shall not occur until a building permit is issued, would like some leeway so that if the Chief Building Official allows a separate demolition permit it would be okay. Condition No. 6 limits the number of employees on site to a maximum of 22 and that an increase will require an amendment, there may be some times between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. that this number may be exceeded, the shift changes occur outside of that time frame, so it would not affect the traffic counts, would like to see this number increased. CP Monroe noted: that it is the policy of the Chief Building Official that a demolition permit shall not be issued until a building permit is issued, empty sites can become a nuisance and public hazard; it is at the request of the Chief Building Official with the agreement of the Commission that this condition is being added to all project approvals. She also noted that the City establishes thresholds on the number of employees to properly evaluate traffic and parking impacts of a facility, need to set some limit. Commissioners noted: that overall, the design is good, but would like to see upgrades to some of the materials proposed, such as the proposed vinyl clad windows, stucco covered foam window trim, and would rather see clay tile than concrete tile. Would also like to see a wall and landscape screen for the delivery area/fire lane along Trousdale. The project architect offered a compromise to use aluminum clad windows and precast concrete sills on the ground floor and vinyl clad windows and foam trim on the upper floors, and agreed to use clay tiles for the roof, as well as aluminum treated to look like copper for the downspouts and leader heads. Commissioners’ questions: thanked the applicant for revising the project to conform to the ten foot setback and making the building more interesting, and asked about the common open space area on the ground floor, it is there for the resident's enjoyment but there are no restrooms nearby. The applicant noted bathrooms in open space this is not a feature that is usually included in their facilities, most residents with an incontinence problem use the patio level, residents don't use the outdoor areas unless escorted. Commissioners noted that this is a highly visible roof, since a lot of houses in the hillside area look down on this site, it is important how it looks, on drawings it looks clean, want to make sure that the equipment on the roof is installed so that it is neat and tidy; the material used for the flat roof inside the parapet should be a neutral color and should not be reflective. The applicant noted that there will be three larger gas fired HVAC units for the common areas, and small individual units for the resident's rooms, these will be wrapped and installed close to the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 12 parapet so that they are not visible. The area inside the parapet will have a stucco finish, will be a darker, neutral gray, should be unobtrusive. Commissioners complimented the choice of plant material used in the landscaping and if the Australian Willow proposed as screen trees will be large enough for this scale building. Ms. Gates noted that while something taller could be proposed, generally trying to create a smaller residential scale along the edges that will provide a screen without overpowering the space. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. ND-539P and mitigation monitoring plan included in the conditions of approval for the proposed Sunrise project. Chair Brownrigg made a motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Cauchi, Vistica absent) voice vote. Commissioners’ discussion: on the requested changes to the conditions of approval, noted that an increase in the maximum number of employees on site to 35 is acceptable, and suggested that the wording be changed to state that "any permanent increase" in the number of employees would require Planning Commission review, and noted can support the increase because this site is close to public transit. Commissioners agreed that the applicant should have an opportunity to work with the Chief Building Official on whether a separate demolition and grading permit could be issued to allow a little bit of a fast track, language could include "at the discretion of the Chief Building Official". C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the assisted living facility shall be built and operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 15, 2006, sheets G0.1, A1.1 through A4.2, C-1, D-1 and L-1 through L-3, with the exception of the wall sign which requires a separate sign permit application; and that the roofing material shall be clay tile, aluminum clad windows and precast concrete sills shall be used on the first floor windows, downspouts with leader heads shall be exposed as a design feature and shall be aluminum treated to look like copper, the material used for the flat portion of the roof shall be neutral and nonglare, and all equipment on the roof shall be installed so that it is orderly when viewed from above; 2) that the conditions of the City Traffic Engineer's May 19, 2006, memo, the City Engineer’s May 18, 2006, August 8, 2005, June 16, 2005 and March 31, 2005, memos, the Chief Building Official's May 7, 2006, memo and March 9, 2005, memos, the Fire Marshal's May 8, 2006 and March 14, 2005, memos, the City Arborist's May 10, 2006 and June 28, 2005, memos, that the Recycling Specialist's May 8, 2006 and June 10, 2005, memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 9, 2006, August 15, 2005 and March 16, 2005, memos shall be met; 3) 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, unless approved by the Chief Building Official, and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4) that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $17,181.01, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; 5) that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $17,181.01, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; 6) that this assisted living facility shall have a maximum of 35 employees on site at any one time, including the business manager; that any permanent increase in the number of employees over 35 on site at any one time shall require an amendment to this permit; 7) that the 36 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the residents, visitors and employees of the assisted living facility and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles either by businesses on this site or by other businesses for off-site parking; 8) that the applicant shall dedicate an easement to the City of Burlingame for the sidewalk adjacent to the drop-off zone; all necessary documents shall be filed with the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 13 Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit; 9) that a 72'-0" long "no parking" red curb zone shall be installed along Trousdale Drive starting from the corner of Trousdale and Ogden Drive; a 10'- 0" long "no parking" red curb zone shall be installed on each side of the drop off zone on Ogden Drive, starting from the corner of Trousdale and Ogden Drive; 10) that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 11) that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 12) that the applicant shall receive a Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Department before removing the protected-sized trees at the front of the property along Ogden Drive, and that a building permit shall not be issued before such permits are issued; 13) that card reader/intercom system shall be installed in the driveway off Ogden Drive a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the card reader/intercom system shall be connected to the administrative center to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside the building; 14) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 15) 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; 16) 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; 17) 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; 18) 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; 19) 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; 20) 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; 21) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 22) 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; 23) that the landscaping noted on sheets L-2 and L-3 shall be installed according to plan and shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive on the site shall be immediately replaced with an equivalent species; 24) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, Staging areas and washout areas; 25) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 26) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 27) that all construction materials and waste, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 14 washwater or sediment, shall be stored, handled and disposed of properly to prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants into stormwater; 28) that no vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in designed areas which runoff is contained and treated; 29) that construction access routes are limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 30) that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 31) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 32) that to screen views to the parking garage ramp from the residences to the west, plans shall include a trellis structure covered with vines maintained by the property owner to span above the ramp or additional space for planting trees whose canopy will be sufficient to cover the driveway; 33) that flat, non-reflective paint or integrated coloring shall be used in all exterior building materials throughout the project; 34) that prior to issuance of a building permit, a detailed Exterior Lighting Plan shall be provided to the City of Burlingame for review. The lighting plan shall be based on the following standards: a)The cone of light shall be focused on the site and stray light shall be controlled through use of low-brightness fixtures with optical controls; b) All exterior light sources shall be shielded and fully blocked from off-site views, except for the street address; c) No uplighting of the structure or vegetation will be permitted from any outdoor light fixture; and d) On-demand exterior lighting systems shall be employed where feasible. Area lighting and security lighting will be controlled by the use of timed switches and/or motion detectors; 35) that the garage shall be restricted to allow passenger vehicles only. Delivery trucks and paratransit vehicles shall use either the service/delivery parking area with access from Trousdale Drive or the 84-foot passenger loading zone on Ogden Drive just south of the proposed garage driveway for loading and unloading purposes only; 36) that the driveway serving the small off-street parking area on the eastern side of the proposed project shall be restricted to allow right turns in and out only, to the satisfaction of the City’s Traffic Engineer; 37) that visible signage shall be posted prohibiting left-turns for vehicles existing the garage driveway. A “no parking” zone shall be installed between the garage driveway and the loading zone to improve sight distance for exiting vehicles that will be required to turn right. Furthermore, landscaping near the garage driveway shall be maintained not to exceed the three-foot height of the proposed iron fences near the garage entrance/exit; 38)that the project contractor shall implement best management practices for noise reduction, such as muffling and shielding intakes and exhausts of gas powered tools, generators, and other noise-producing equipment. Construction activities shall abide by the construction hours in the Municipal Code and by further restrictions placed on the Peninsula Medical Center, which limit construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. There shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 39) that trucks shall be fully loaded to minimize the number of necessary trips and to further reduce noise related to truck travel; 40) that no radios shall be used by construction personnel on the site at any time; 41) that the project applicant shall retain a qualified acoustical engineer familiar with aviation noise impacts to prepare an acoustical study, in accordance with State Title 24 requirements. The acoustical study shall identify methods of design and construction to comply with the applicable portions of the Uniform Building Code Title 24, Appendix 36, Sound Transmission Controls and with the FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program so that construction shall achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dBA, or less, as measured for aircraft noise events (Taken from Chapter 7, Section 2 of the NB/RR Specific Plan); 42) that the project sump pumps and generator shall be located in the underground garage and shall be soundproofed with a sound trap in the exhaust ducts. The sump pump shall be baffled to further minimize noise levels to residents. Project plans shall indicate the location of this equipment and noise mitigation prior to issuance of building permits; 43) that demolition of the existing structures shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the Building Department. All requirements of the permit shall be complied with during construction; 44) that the following notes shall be incorporated on the grading and building plans prior to issuance of grading or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 15 building permits, and the measures shall be implemented during construction activities: a) Water all active construction and disturbed areas at least twice daily during dry periods; b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all on-site paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at sites of construction activity. Dust, sediment, and debris shall not be washed into the storm drain system; e) Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Dust, sediment, and debris shall not be washed into the storm drain system; f) Excavation and grading activities shall be suspended and dust control measures shall be implemented when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; and g) Comply with all City NPDES (stormwater control) requirements during construction and operation; 45) that all recommendations outlined in the December 20, 2004 Asbestos and Lead Paint Survey Report conducted for the property by Kleinfelder shall be implemented prior to and during demolition of the existing building on the site; 46) that the recommendations by Kleinfelder in the Feasibility-Level Geotechnical Study dated December 30, 2004, shall be implemented at each appropriate phase of project construction. As recommended in the feasibility- level investigation, a design level geotechnical investigation shall also be prepared when specific details regarding building type, loads, and dimensions have been formalized. The supplemental investigation shall include additional subsurface exploration, and laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Recommendations of the investigation, particularly related to expansive soils, liquefaction, and groundwater, shall be implemented; 47) that the project shall be required to meet all construction requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, including seismic standards for structural stability and other related construction considerations; 48) that if the project is constructed during the wet season (October through May), an erosion control and/or sediment control plan, compliant with the City’s NPDES (stormwater control) requirements, shall be prepared and implemented, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, prior to the onset of the wet season, and shall be maintained throughout the construction period; 49) that all project grading, construction and subsequent operations shall comply with the provisions of the City’s NPDES requirements. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) outlining construction phase and post-construction phase measures to reduce pollutant discharge from the site shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits; 50) that tree grates selected by the City and consistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan design criteria shall be installed around all trees to be planted in sidewalk areas on Trousdale Drive, per City guidelines; 51) that the project landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permits, and all landscaping shall be installed prior to scheduling final inspection. This work shall include installation of all trees within sidewalk areas and the installation of the curb, gutter and sidewalk; 52) that grading and/or construction shall stop immediately if archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered during grading or other onsite excavation activities. Work shall not resume in the area of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist (or other equivalent specialist) provides an evaluation of the significance of the resources and what can be done to preserve them. Disposition of the identified resource shall be implemented compliant with State law prior to further work within 50 feet of the location of the resource; 53) that the applicant shall submit a site drainage plan to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The plan shall show all site drainage flowing to the street level by gravity. The plan shall show the direction and volume of drainage and shall confirm that no drainage enters neighboring properties. Groundwater from the foundation perimeter drain shall be directed to onsite landscaping/swales, with excess water drained to the City storm drain system on Trousdale Drive; 54) that the applicant shall prepare and submit to the City Engineer a sewer study that assesses the impact of this project to determine if the additional sewage flows can be accommodated by 1) the existing line in Trousdale Drive or 2) the upgraded line (if required) for the hospital project. If the analysis results in a determination that the 12” main requires upgrading, the applicant City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 16 shall contribute the project’s fair share, as calculated by the City Engineer, of funding for the improvements. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Crs. Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. The Commission took a five minute break and resumed proceedings at 10:50 p.m. 10. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ZONING CONSISTENCY – BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE (NOTICED IN THE SAN MATEO TIMES, PUBLISHED JUNE 30, 2006) Recognizing the late hour, and after asking about the number of people in the audience who were here for the General Plan amendment, noting that there were few, Chair Brownrigg suggested that this item be moved to the end of the agenda. The Commission concurred. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 1535 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GARY PARTEE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER Chair Brownrigg noted that he lives within 500 feet of this project, recused himself from the proceedings, and left the dais and chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Deal opened the public comment. James Chu, 39 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, project designer, and Gary Partee, property owner, presented the project, noting that some details were omitted from the plans: the trim on the windows will be cedar, the sills will be wood, the front door will be stained wood, will use copper gutters and downspouts, there will be fiberglass columns on the right elevation, and the trellis will be made of cedar. Commissioners asked: what are the header dimensions, will the decorative window on the front elevation be leaded glass; are the posts on the right elevation round? The applicant noted that the header will be a 3 x 8, the window will be leaded glass and the vents will be copper, the posts on the right elevation will be round. Commissioners noted that this street is difficult to maneuver, it is narrow, requested that the applicant make every effort during construction to keep the dumpster on site so it will not impact the neighborhood. Commissioners commented that the Oak tree at the front of the house is moderate size now at 1/3 of its growth curve, the crown and roots will continue to expand, it would be better if it were in a different place, landscaping as proposed is full, if Oak tree removed could add a couple of trees. CP Monroe noted that there is a separate permit process required for tree removal in a case like this. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa; and Trudy Conneally, 1539 Vancouver Avenue, spoke; noting that the plans are almost the exact house that was built at 1433 Balboa Avenue, don't think the owner of that house would appreciate their house being replicated, applicant is a talented designer, of 40 houses he designed in last few years, 15 are of exceptional design, but most are derivatives, when talking about the eclectic charm of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 17 Burlingame, unique design is important, don't want to see another cookie cutter house; would appreciate having the Oak tree in front removed, would be easier to take out now than in 15 years, don't know if new owners will maintain the tree, the previous owners did not, landscaping proposed looks nice, there is a wood fence proposed along the side, there is a wood fence with ivy there now, would like the applicant to consider using a dark clad cyclone fence and plant English Laurel in a staggered pattern on either side, in two years the plants will be five feet tall, wonderful green fence, could plant right away to get well established before complete house. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners made the following comments about the project: • In the future should work in some 'patina' into the house design, the charm in Burlingame’s traditional designs is that the houses have evolved over time, could use different materials in some places to give the house a little instant history; • Add a condition that retention of the Oak at the property line is not a condition of approval; and • Work with the neighbor to see if can work out a 'green' fence using clad chain link with English Laurel alternating along the side property line. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above comments including the detail items mentioned by the applicant have been addressed on the plans. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Vice-Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-2-1 (Crs. Cauchi, Vistica absent; C. Brownrigg recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:00 p.m. Chair Brownrigg returned to the chambers and dais. 12. 860 FAIRFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRIAN AND LAURA HUFF-DOX, PROPERTY OWNERS) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked if the garage was proposed to be four feet from the property line; no, the proposed setback from property line is 12". There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, 919 Grant Place, San Mateo, project designer, was available to respond to questions. Commissioners asked if the applicant would consider turning the fence in towards the garage and not continue it along the property line, this will allow access to the garage wall from the adjoining easement for maintenance. The applicant agreed, noting that no fence is proposed adjacent to the garage at the rear property line, there is a low wall there, then an easement. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project: • North elevation needs help, a pop out could be added at the first floor or a bay at the second floor to break up the long roof line; there is a lot of articulation on the south elevation, but on the north, there is a long train of roof; • Brackets shown to hold on the downspouts are dominant, will they be as dominant as shown, should depict on drawing as they will look built; and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 18 • Existing landscaping is lean, just adding trees is not enough, need a landscape plan with larger scale shrubs to provide screening on both street frontages, should consider fast growing shrubs such as English Laurel or Victorian Box. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made, plan checked and there is space on an agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised and checked as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Crs. Cauchi, Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:25 p.m. 13. 1819 MONTECITO WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commissioners noted that it appears the applicant is asking to swap area covered by a trellis for building area, asked if a building permit had been issued for the trellis which is proposed to be removed. SP Brooks said staff will check and bring that information when the project comes back to the Commission. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Bob Sauvageau, RYS Architects, 7 Joost Avenue, San Francisco represented the project, and noted that they are reducing the scope of work from the project which was previously approved by the Commission in 2002, will be enlarging the living room into space now occupied by a balcony over the ground floor garage, matching the existing roof design, noted that two neighbors, Sofia and Bill Medeiros, 5 Piedra Court, and Bernard A. Ross, 2805 Frontera Way, were in attendance earlier but left, had submitted comments to the Planning Commission expressing support of the project noting that it would not impose on their views. Commissioners asked the applicant if there was a building permit issued for the trellis to be removed; is there crawl space that is counted in floor area calculation? The applicant noted that he did not know if there were permits issued for a trellis, the trellis was there when the current owner bought the house; there is no crawl space counted in FAR, it is all habitable space. Commissioners noted that on the variance application form the justification given for the variance is that this is a corner lot and setbacks were different in previous zoning code, this finding does not seem to relate to the request for a floor area ratio variance, need better justification. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioners made the following comments about the project: • This is already a very large house exceeding allowed FAR and are now asking to make it larger, do not see justification; not clear that removing an open trellis at the rear is a trade off for adding mass and bulk to the main structure; a house that big should have a conforming two-car garage since there is only one covered space provided as a result the extra square footage from the parking space is used for living area; house is 1500 SF over the maximum; house is over 4200 SF, don't see the necessary findings regarding loss of enjoyment of property rights if can't make addition in this case; if there were floor area being removed elsewhere in the main residence might consider, but this is well over the maximum now; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 19 • Could more information be provided about the previous 2002 approval to better understand the decision that was made at that time; • There needs to be more attention to the exterior garage wall, proposal makes large wall look taller; there is a crying need for landscaping along the front wall, large scale shrubs to frame the view; • Retaining wall needs to be upgraded; • Concerned with new entrance roof, it doesn't tie in well with the main roof; • Think idea of incorporating the deck over the garage into the house is possible; • Calling for all the existing aluminum windows to be replaced throughout with white vinyl windows, would rather see wood clad windows, better upgrade; and • On the rear elevation, the extended balcony is excessive, 5' overhang of unsupported balcony will look odd. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above comments have been addressed particularly the findings for the FAR variance and special permit for height, and revisions have been made, plan checked by staff and there is room on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when project has been revised and all issues identified addressed as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Crs. Cauchi, Vistica absent). Commissioners cautioned that there needs to be thought given to the issue of the floor area ratio variance, this request is substantial and larger than any previously granted, project should be revised to reduce FAR exception. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:55 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS (continued) 10. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ZONING CONSISTENCY – BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE (NOTICED IN THE SAN MATEO TIMES, PUBLISHED JUNE 30, 2006) Reference staff report July 10, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report summarizing the amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan in order to make the zoning and the specific plan consistent in their direction. She noted that this item had been studied by the Planning Commission at their meeting on June 26, 2006, and Commission had directed no changes to submitted revisions. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. Remain opposed to extended stay hotels in the Bayfront planning area, do not want anything which could be used now or in the future as a residential use; previous discussions by Council noted how people could get around the limitations on stay, uncomfortable that anyone could live in the Bayfront area. Concerned with the change from stories to height in feet in the Anza Point area, this area has water on three sides, is less seismically stable, faces Coyote Point Park and open bay, should keep all perimeter heights to 30 feet; Airport Blvd. is windy, concerned that as developed wind at ground level will be a bigger problem for pedestrians and bicyclists. CP noted that based on plan and zoning all height regulations in the Anza Point area would be subservient to the community wind standards, wind evaluation would also address wind speeds at ground level, so heights shown on illustrations in the plan are moderated by the community wind standard and the amendment clarifies that. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 10, 2006 20 C. Brownrigg moved to recommend approval of the amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan made to make the plan and the zoning consistent. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan to the City Council, noting that each of these amendments was reviewed along with the implementing zoning at the time the zoning was adopted. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent) voice vote. This item is a recommendation to the City Council and will be placed on the next available Council agenda. This item concluded at 12:00 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - City Council regular meeting of July 5, 2006 – cancelled. - FYI: 836 Newhall Road – changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Planning Commission had no comments on the proposed changes and noted that they could support them. - FYI: Commission comments regarding 116 Bloomfield Road. Commission noted that this house is even larger when seen in the field than it looks in the pictures, it is in need of landscaping. Should be a lesson regarding translation of plans to construction. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 12:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Acting Secretary S:\MINUTES\unapproved.07.10.06.doc