Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout072505PCmin CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA July 25, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the July 25, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived 7:10 p.m.) Cauchi, Deal, Keighran, and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 11, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR CP Monroe noted that there were four letters regarding the mitigation measures for the hospital project at the Commissioner's desks from: the Leung family, two from Kevin Nelson and one from Carole Groom noting organization of an August 3 meeting with the neighbors. Kathy Smith, 1811 Davis Drive spoke for herself and Florence Young at 1701 Davis Drive, noting that the creation of the mitigation program had not included the all affected property owners, concerned that the mitigation program was limited to only property owners with property lines adjacent to the hospital, would like the Commission to do three things: reopen the mitigation program; better explain the procedure for public to participate and see that a meeting is held. Steve Dambrosio, 1504 Davis Drive, spoke noting that there was no public input into the initial proposal, aware condition 119 did not state input as a requirement, but it was the intent; asked the commission to support a review of the mitigation program, the wording is vague and unclear, would like to bring in our own estimates, would like commission to call it back so public could have input, want to add a clause to the mitigation program to address cases where the estimate is too low or the prices change. Leone Wall, 1603 Davis Drive, spoke she was unaware of the June 13 meeting, commission should help them with input into the mitigation program fund, should change it to allow for a reopening if the funds allocated are inadequate. There were no further comments from the floor. Chair Auran asked if each person who spoke on the hospital could be sent a copy of all the letters which were put at the Commissioner's desks. CA advised that if the Commission wished to discuss the matters relating to the hospital project they should set the item for a future agenda so that it could be noticed. Commissioner noted that would like to see the proposed August 3rd meeting proceed and see if the concerns expressed by the neighbors have been addressed, received a number of phone calls and e-mails regarding this issue, if concerns are address at that meeting City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2005 2 then OK, if not should consider putting on a commission agenda. CA suggested that the hospital and Mr. Deambrosi check in with staff regarding the out come of the August 3 meeting. Staff will report to the commission what they have heard at the August 8, 2005, commission meeting. C. Brownrigg arrived at 7:l0 p.m. and took his seat. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: TROUSDALE WEST ZONING CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report noting that this zoning implementing the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan includes some new approaches to regulation for Burlingame. Commissioners asked: how will the side setbacks work? Staff noted side setbacks vary based on the width of the lot as they do now, except all multiple family developments, despite lot width, will have a required 5 foot setback and increase one foot for each story above the first. Why are the telecom locations limited to buildings 48 feet tall or taller, should we be requiring this right for safety communications on all new buildings? Staff noted that we would check with the emergency coordinator and see if the requirement proposed was adequate. C. Vistica moved to recommend that with the answer to the question regarding the height of buildings for required city communications access included this item should be set for action. C. Brownrigg seconded the motion. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to action the zoning regulations for the Trousdale West district. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 2. BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: ANZA, ANZA POINT NORTH AND ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING - CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report noting that there will be 6 zoning districts in the Bayfront area when the implementation zoning is completed. The Anza Point subarea was divided into two separate zoning districts because the plan identifies very different activities in the two halves of the subarea. Presently the Anza Point North area is zoned C-4 and the Anza Point South area is zoned O-M. Both of these zoning districts will be replaced. She also noted that she had a correction to the Anza Point South district, the land use plan allows manufacturing uses at a 0.5 FAR but that use was not included in the permitted and conditional uses, so it will be added to match the requirements for manufacturing in the Inner Bayshore District. Commissioners asked: it was decided as a part of the plan that housing not be allowed in the Bayfront area, how will adoption of this zoning affect that decision? To allow housing in the Bayfront area would required a General Plan amendment which would include land use and design guidelines and a revision to the zoning to move housing from a prohibited use to a permitted or conditional use in the subareas where the plan was revised to allow housing. Commissioner noted that the opportunity to amend the general plan to allow housing was in April 2004 when the Bayfront Specific Plan was adopted. Concerned about the landscape design requirements, should they be more detailed to encourage trees with larger canopies within parking areas, should think about requiring finger planters within the parking lots for example. Staff noted on many sites there is a conflict between providing open views of the bay which are City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2005 3 often across parking lots, and vegetation to soften the visual impacts of parking lots, design review guidelines will give the commission the authority to address this balance and require more landscaping, trees with bigger canopies, etc. as determined to be appropriate for each project, this could include requiring finger planters. The commission agreed to add manufacturing uses in the Anza Point South district. Chair Auran moved to recommend that these zoning districts, Anza Area, Anza Point North and Anza Point South be put on the commission's agenda for action with the addition of manufacturing uses at an 0.5 FAR in the Anza Point South district as directed by the adopted plan. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend that the three zoning districts with the correction to Anza Point South be placed on the Commission's agenda for action. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). This time concluded at 7:35 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 3A. 818 NEWHALL ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (MATT MEFFORD, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIKE GARRETT, PROPERTY OWNER) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3B. 1312 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (NANCY SCHEINHOLTZ, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SUZANNE ROGERS, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 3C. 216 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOELLE AND NEAL KAUFMAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JESSE GEURSE, DESIGNER) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 3D. 150 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (RICHARD BOYD, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; BAY AREA DESIGN, DESIGNER) (24 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3E. 1800 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 - DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM SCHOOL SITE FOR PROPOSED PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY BY SAN MATEO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION (DIANE CENTONI, SAN MATEO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, APPLICANT; RICHARD RAY, PROPERTY OWNER) (13 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2005 4 resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the projects and requests as conditioned at 818 Newhall Road, 1312 Alvarado Avenue, 216 Bloomfield Road, 150 Loma Vista Drive and 1800 Rollins Road, and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:38 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 1624 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS KUJAT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; THORNTON WEILER, ARCHITECT) (76 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report July 25, 2005, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. The property owner and architect were not present. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Wish someone were here to talk to, project is a big improvement over the original, but would like to see more consistency, the front is craftsman style, but then it falls a part on the sides and rear, knee braces are shown at the front but not on the side or rear; window trim proposed is 1’ x4’ wood trim, what about stucco mold?; need to have more consistency with the style; the neighbor at the rear was concerned about privacy and landscaping was added at the rear, but it is Italian Cypress which is tall and thin, would like to see something planted that has more of a canopy for coverage; needs more consistency, wood shingle shown at the front but not at the rear, could it be added? CP Monroe noted that the Planning Commission can continue the item or can add conditions of approval with the suggestions listed above. Commission suggested that the following conditions be added: 1) that all windows have traditional stucco mold instead of wood trim; 2) that knee braces should be added on the sides and rear at overhangs not supported by rafters and at gable ends, except at dormers; 3) that windows shall be simulated true divided lite windows; and 4) that landscaping at the rear fence shall be changed from Italian Cypress to something with more of a canopy, to be chosen with consultation with City Arborist. Commissioner noted that thought the shingles at the rear may be a good idea, but after thinking about it more it could only be added in a small area and would be a token gesture, better to leave as is. C. Cauchi 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 July 11, 2005, sheets A0 through A2.2, 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 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; 3) 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; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2005 5 etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 10, 2005, memo, the City Engineer's March 11, 2005, memo, the Fire Marshal's March 14, 2005, memo and the Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's March 16, 2005, memos shall be met; 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; 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 applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 11) that all window trim shall be traditional stucco mold trim; 12) that knee braces shall be added along the side and rear elevations at overhangs not supported by rafters and on gable ends except at dormers, as approved by the City Planner; 13) all new windows shall be simulated true divided light windows; and 14) that the landscaping along the rear fence shall not be Italian Cypress but shall be a tree species with a larger canopy to be chosen in consultation with the City Arborist. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. The Commission requested that the above changes be brought back to the Planning Commission as an FYI item for review. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 5. 483 CHATHAM ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KIM AND TOM HAMILTON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; KURT FEHLBERG, ARCHITECT) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report July 25, 2005, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Kurt Fehlberg, architect, and Tom Hamilton, property owner, noted that they met with the designer reviewer, Randy Grange, and Planning staff, to go over Planning Commission comments. Submitted revised plans in response to comments and meeting discussion and then got a second list of comments. The revised plans submitted to the Planning Commission reflect those comments and they are requesting Planning Commission approval. The Commission noted that the property does back up to the high school but that the rear second story deck looks down on the neighbor’s yard, considered planting trees to screen. Owner, Tom Hamilton, noted that the neighbor has some trees on his side that will screen the deck. Commissioner noted that the design reviewer suggested articulating the left elevation, there is still only a trellis and long sloping roof. Kurt Fehlberg, architect, explained that the design reviewer suggested pushing back the second floor wall on the left elevation to add articulation like on the right side, however this would take away square footage and would limit master bathroom and closet space, it would also cost more to construct. As an alternative pushed the top of the gable end out to break up the massing, and added vents, same detail as at the front. Commission asked if they considered re-orienting the front door to face the front rather than the side. Mr. Fehlberg noted that it would be a nice feature but the intent was to not touch the front of the house, just add to the back of the house. The dormers at the front City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2005 6 are being added for architectural reasons only and will face attic space. Limited on funding for this project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: improvement over the original project, result of how the design review process works, although there is always room for improvement, the applicant did enough to the project, looks good; would like to add a condition to the approval that landscaping will be added along the right side property line to screen the new second floor deck; the new second floor deck is only 4’ wide and will not be a place to congregate, it is more of an architectural feature, no problem with it. C. Deal 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 14, 2005, sheets A.1 through A.8 and L.1 and Topographic Survey; and that all windows shall be simulated true divided light windows with three dimensional wood mullions; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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 design review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) 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; 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 prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 18, 2005 memo, the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator’s February 22, 2005 memos, and the Recycling Specialist's February 28, 2005 memo shall be met; 8) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 11) that landscaping shall be added along the right side property line to provide screening for the new second floor deck. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:57 p.m. Commission noted that this action is a contract and that the applicant should be aware that the plans shall be constructed as approved and if there are any changes along the way they should be brought to the Planning Commission as early as possible and certainly before they are constructed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2005 7 6. 270 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (YAT-CHEONG AND ANN AU, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal recused himself because of a business relationship with the property owner and the left Council chambers. Reference staff report July 25, 2005, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Yat-Cheong, property owner, was available to answer questions. Commission had some concerns with the timing of this application, has this already been constructed? Looks like changes were done June 10, 2005. The property owner noted that he could not remember exactly when the changes were done, asked the contractor and designer to submit necessary plans for changes. Have tried to work closely with both to make sure all changes are documented. Commissioner stated that designer should be more prompt with bringing forth changes to plans. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 13, 2005 (revised), sheets 1, 3, 4 and 5 including a 9.5 SF extension of the footprint from the originally approved plans date stamped January 13, 2005; and that any additional changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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 design review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) 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; 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 prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s June 16, 2005 memo, the NPDES Coordinator’s June 20, 2005 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 22, 2005 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's June 27, 2005 memo shall be met; 8) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2005 8 Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstaining and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. C. Deal returned to the dias. 7. 1224 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BERNARD CORRY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report July 25, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present and there were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission asked staff if the applicant agreed with the changes shown on the plans. CP Monroe stated that there appears to be no objection to the changes from the applicant in the record. CA Anderson noted that the only choices the applicant has now is to either built what the Planning Commission originally approved or if approved tonight to build the changes suggested by the design reviewer. Commission stated that they support the changes that were approved by the design reviewer. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application with the revisions approved by the design reviewer to be built and inspected by October 5, 2005, 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 May 13, 2004, Sheets A.1 through A.6, and L.10 ,site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan; and revised plans date stamped July 13, 2005, Sheets A.4A, A.5A, A.6A and A.6B, front, rear, right and left side revised elevations; 2) that the changes approved by the Planning Commission shall be built in conformance with the plans date stamped July 13, 2005, Sheets A.4A, A.5A, A.6A and A.6B and as listed in the July 25, 2005 staff report and shall be approved, inspected and signed off by the Building and Planning Departments and a Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued not later than October 5, 2005; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal, and City Engineer’s memos dated May 17, 2004 shall be met; 5) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 6) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 8) that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 9) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 10) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2005 9 professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 11) 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; 12) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 13) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 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; and 14) 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 C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1145 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND REDUCTION OF PARKING SPACES ON-SITE FOR A LOWER FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STEVE AND COURTNEY LOVE) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal recused himself because of a business relationship with the property owner and left Council Chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Steve Love, property owner was present to answer questions. Commissioners noted that barge rafters at the front don’t match the barge rafters at the rear. Mr. Love noted that they tried to go with less ornate detailing on the sides and rear because the front is very ornate and did not want to over do it. Owner noted that they did not want to expand the footprint of the house, like the open yard in the front and the rear, that is why they added a second story. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on motion: Beautiful job, like how the windows on the upper and lower floors match; nice design however, somewhat concerned because the project is at the maximum size allowed, but the two-story walls are broken up with the roof plane, notice that the first floor has a 9 foot plate and the second floor has an 8 foot plate, but there is 18” of structure between the floors, look at reducing this by 6”, usually only 12” between floors; well done, even though the house is big the detail softens it. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised to reduce the space between the floors by 6 inches as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstained and C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2005 10 appealable. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. C. Deal returned to the dias. X. PLANNER REPORTS - City Council regular meeting of July 18, 2005 was canceled. - FYI: Discussion about presentations on the downtown area. CP Monroe noted that at an earlier meeting Dan Ionescu had asked to make a presentation to the Planning Commission about developing a mixed use project on Donnelly Avenue in the downtown area. Subsequent to the Joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission in June, he made a presentation on this project following a Council meeting this. This presentation was televised. Would the Planning Commission like to have him make a presentation to the commission? Commissioners noted that there has been a lot of input on the downtown, now embarking on the economic study, need to give that time to "cook"; previous presentation is on video tape which is available for all commissioners who were unable to attend the City Council presentation and would like to see it. - CP asked if the presentation in the staff report of the projects which go to the design reviewer is adequate. She noted that it is sometimes a problem for staff because all the issues which the commission notes to be of concern are not addressed, sometimes because the applicant is unwilling, despite the design reviewers recommendation. How should this be handled in the staff report? Commissioners noted that the design reviewer's comments should be put immediately behind the staff report so that they are easy for the Commissioners to find. Design reviewers should include in their reports identification of those things that the applicant did not address or refused to address, and how the reviewer felt that these affected the outcome of the design revisions. Commission suggested that staff might shorter staff report by no reiterating the design reviewers’ comments and state simply what the recommendation was with a reference to the comments included in the staff report. - CP noted that a copy of a Brookings Institute study titled "Financing Progressive Development" was put at each commissioner's desk tonight. It was suggested as work progresses on the Scoping of the Economic Study for the downtown area, that each commissioner might want to be aware of the financing approaches discussed in the paper. Two memos from the City Attorney were also included, the annual distribution of the memo on the Ralph M. Brown Act and a memo on the impact on California cities caused by the US Supreme Court's recent decision affecting the use of eminent domain. Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\PROTECTED\2005\minutes.07.25.05.doc