Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030804PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA March 8, 2004 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the March 8, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner: Keele Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES On page one of the minutes of the February 23, 2004 regular meeting, Commissioner requested that at the end of bullet number hour add “and urged swift processing.” There were no other changes and C. Osterling made a motion to approved the February 23, 2004 regular meeting minutes with the change noted. C. Brownrigg seconded the motion. The motion to approved the February 23, 2004 minutes passed on a 6-0-1(C. Keele absent) voice vote. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1132 DOUGLAS AVENUE, ZONED R-4 – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR DELIVERY VEHICLE PARKING FOR A NEW THREE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Applicant should expand on reasoning for on-site parking variance for delivery vehicle; • There are nine parking spaces shown on the basement plan, what is the remaining 8’ by 20’ area going to be used for; • Rather than having a deciduous tree on the front left side would like to see an evergreen tree; • Concerned with setbacks on this lot, and the whole bock, is the entire block zoned R-4, requested that staff attached the zoning regulations for R-4 in the next staff report. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:07 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 2 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. 2A. 1225 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BRET BOTTARINI, APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2B. 888 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES FOR A NEW SINGLE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING (KIRK SYME, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ELLIS A. SCHOICHET, EASA ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (4 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2C. 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION (CHARLES L. KAVANAGH, APPLICANT; HENRY HORN AND SONS, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Commissioner noted that would like the applicant at 1225 Cabrillo to consider adding a water table detail to enhance the appearance of the structure, it would allow him to break up the mass and use two colors on the house. Asked if this should be added as a condition, Commissioner noted that it was just a suggestion and if employed would not require additional review. C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar including the suggestion that a water table feature be added to the design at 1225 Cabrillo based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 1136 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE (GREG TERRY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ESSALAT HEKMAT ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report March 8, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Essalat Hekmat, 312 N. San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, project architect was available to answer questions. Noted that resubmitted plans after study meeting and have removed variances from proposal. Commission noted that on the landscape plan the front right side of the driveway looks bare, can you add a tree. Essalat Hekmat noted that the landscape plan is still in development and could add a tree in the front. Commission noted that a tree in front would balance the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 3 birch trees, will look nice and will help set the house back. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 19, 2004, sheets T1.0, A-1, A1.1, L1.0, A2.0 through A3.1, and AB2.0 through AB3.1; 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; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 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 shoot 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, Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's December 8, 2003, memos 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 the applicant shall plant a 24” box size Evergreen Pear tree in the front yard on the left side of the driveway. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Commission discussion on the motion: Commission noted that there is a cedar tree on the neighboring property adjacent to the driveway, will another tree be able to thrive at this location. Commissioner noted that if tree is planted on the other side of the driveway then it will survive just fine. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the added condition regarding planting an additional tree on the left side of the driveway. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 4. 149 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KURT STEIL, PROPERTY OWNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report March 8, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 4 Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. James Chu, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, project designer, and Kurt Steil, 911 N. Amphlett Boulevard, San Mateo, property owner, were both available to answer questions. Noted that they met with rear neighbor and other neighbors regarding garage location. Moved garage forward for an 11’ setback off of the rear property line. James Chu noted that the distance from the garage to the house is shown incorrectly on the plans at 28’5” is actually 27’11”. Since last meeting have enlarged the entry porch and have added landscaping. Commission asked the height of the existing structure? Property owner stated that it is approximately 28’. Commission noted that the existing fence at the rear will be removed, but where will new fence be located, will it be wood? James Chu stated that the new fence will be parallel with the rear wall of the new garage and that the fence will be a 6’ wood fence. David Agard, 150 Chapin Lane and Patrick O’Brien, 153 Occidental Avenue, spoke on the project. Neighbor at rear, support project, thank the applicant for responding to concerns, will help preserve creek setting; share a fence with subject property, issue about location of property line, don’t’ know where the new fence will be located, will be home this week maybe the owner or designer stop by to discuss, willing to be cooperative. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Nice job with design, nice articulation, listened to the neighbors and Commissions’ concerns, special permits for height are granted to enhance the design of the house, in this case there is only a small portion of the roof is above the 30’ height limit, support special permit request; support project, added height will fit into site with the two 40’ tall sycamore trees that are located in front of the house, there are also Redwood and Eucalyptus trees on the site, trees work well to support the height; project will benefit and improve this street, proposed house is narrower than the existing house, will create more open space on the site; landscape plans show new fencing, but should add condition that fencing will be replaced on all three sides. C. Keighran 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 February 11,2004, Sheets A.1 thru A.7, and L1.0, site plan, floor plans, roof plan, building elevations and landscape plan; with the detached garage and rear fence location noted to be 11’ from the rear property line, and the 3’ tall wall around the patio off of the family room to be eliminated to allow for the 24’ back-up space required for the two-car garage; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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 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; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal, and the City Engineers’ memos dated December 15, 2003 memos shall be met; 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 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; 7) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9) that the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 5 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 and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 11) that the fencing on all three sides of the property (along the rear and right and left sides) shall be replaced with a new 6’ tall wood fence. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the proposal with the amended conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 5. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE, LOT A AND LOT B, ZONED R-1 A. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE, LOT A - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING B. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE, LOT B - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING C. APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHRISTINE MUNDING, PROPERTY OWNER) (82 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Bojués announced that the applicant had not completed installing the story poles, so the Commission and neighbors could not complete their site inspections. He stated that this item should be continued until all the story poles are installed and surveyed to establish that they are correct; and the Planning Commissioners and public have had an opportunity to inspect them. Staff will renotice this item when it is scheduled for another agenda. He asked if there was anyone in the audience on this matter. Three people raised their hands. CA noted that if anyone wished to speak they may, it would not be a part of the formal record, since the application is not complete. James Clark, 1262 Balboa, spoke noting that he was concerned about the story poles, thought that maybe the reason they were not installed had to do with the over hanging limbs of the oak trees. Would not like to see trees trimmed to install story poles. There were no further comments for the floor. Commissioners noted: the story poles should be surveyed to insure that they accurately represent the proposed projects; do not want to see oak trimmed to install poles; and noted that in spite of the story poles being incomplete, given the mass and bulk of the house proposed it would be difficult to approve the lot split. Commissioners asked the City Attorney how a lot split works in terms of commission action. CA responded a lot split is a discretionary action , if it does not meet the findings commission cannot approve it; staff will be sure to include the findings in the next packet. Chair Bojués moved to continue this item until the story poles have been installed on both properties, without trimming or otherwise affecting the oak tree canopy on the lot and the installed poles have been surveyed. C. Keighran seconded the motion. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote to continue this item until the story poles had been installed on both lots and surveyed to determine that they are accurate representations of the envelope of the proposed houses. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) vote. Staff will renotice this item when the poles have been installed and surveyed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 6 6. 2838 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY OWNER) (23 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report March 8, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-two (52) conditions were suggested for consideration. Noted that at the scoping meeting the Planning Commission asked for story poles, but this issue was discussed at the study meeting and it was decided that story poles were not necessary because of the slope on the lot and view from the street will be looking right over the house. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Michael Gaul, property owner, project designer, 1237 Laguna Avenue, Burlingame, was available to answer questions. Noted that he addressed all of the Commissions comments and concerns, met with Eva, City’s storm water specialist, and Phil Monaghan of the Public Works Department to go over erosion control issues. Also found two spots to analyze the removal of the trees and the effect of the construction on distant view, information is included in staff report. Commission noted that at the last meeting Commission asked about water requirements for trees, if the trees located on the upper end of the lot were selected because they need less water, and that the trees proposed on the lower required more water, so that the trees fit the natural flow of water on the site. Michael Gaul noted that the landscape architect did revised the plans to limit the variety of trees on the site, discussed with the landscape architect and he noted that when first planted that all trees will required a lot of water, thought he had addressed this item with the changes made to the landscape plan. Commissioner noted that he walks behind this property regularly, likes fieldstone wall at the rear, but what about the chain link fence, need to soften chain link fence, Manzanita is nice but then there is privet, which will look like a huge wall and will look artificial from the trail at the rear. Michel Gaul stated that at the scoping meeting he had proposed a redwood fence around the property and the Planning Commission thought that the fence would close off the property too much, so that is why he changed it to a chain link fence. Planning to plant a lot to provide screening. The digital images provided for the rear elevation show the privet as a row, but will actually grow more like a grove not a wall. Commission noted that the irrigation proposed will be fine for the planting shown, suggested that a condition be added that the chain link fence be clad in dark green or black. There will be Pacific Myrtle and Strawberry Trees planted at the rear, will be a nice contrast and will provide a filtered view, the privet will be staggered and there will landscaping in the foreground and will not be problem There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 29, 2003, Sheets 1 thru 8, site plan, floor plans, roof plan, and building elevations, and Sheet L1.0 and L2.0 landscape plan and erosion control plan; 2) that the applicant shall adhere to the construction phasing schedule listed in the applicants “Calendar of Operations” , however not necessarily the dates, which may shift for various reasons; 3) that the applicant shall install a walkway in front of the property to a standard acceptable to Public Works Department; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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; 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 the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s April 24 and 30, 2003 memos, City City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 7 Engineer’s April 16, 2003 and May 8, 2003 memos, and City Arborist’s April 11, 2003 memo shall be met; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 8) 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; 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 there shall be no pile driving as part of this project; 12) that the house foundation be a drilled pier and grade beam design, penetrating into the underlying sandstone bedrock material a minimum of 8 feet, with an expected overall depth of 18 feet with a minimum of a 16” diameter; 13) that the piers shall be designed to resist a lateral active pressure of 50 pounds per cubic foot acting on the top five feet of the pier; 14) that all clearing and earth moving activities shall only occur during dry weather only, April 15 through November 1, as per the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board and that all NPDES and STOPPP requirements shall be met on the site at all times during construction; 15) that at the commencement of construction, the retaining walls shall be erected prior to the removal of the trees on-site and prior to the grading of the driveway; 16) that no demolition or grading shall occur until the City Arborist has reviewed and approved all required arborist reports; and during excavation and slope cutting temporary shoring shall be required to prevent movement of exposed materials. All shoring shall be analyzed by licensed engineer, and shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any construction; 17) that the retaining walls shall be designed to resist lateral earth pressure and additional lateral pressures to the levels required by a license soils engineer and approved by the City; caused by surcharge loads applied at the ground surface behind the walls; 18) that all imported fill materials on the site shall be non-expansive materials with a Plasticity Index of 12 or less; 19) that all retaining walls shall have a sub-drain system consisting of a four inch diameter perforated pipe bedded in drain rock wrapped with filter fabric to a height of two-thirds the height of the wall; 20) that all retaining walls shall be backfilled and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction; 21) that all retaining walls shall be waterproofed; 22) that the project shall be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability; an the construction plans and design shall be approved by the Building Department and all necessary permits issued before any grading, tree removal or construction occurs on the site; 23) that the applicant shall connect with the existing 3 inch screwed steel water line on Adeline Drive for the domestic water supply for the new single family dwelling, in accordance with the City of Burlingame Public Works standards; 24) that the applicant shall use the swimming pool on-site for the water supply for the residential fire sprinkler system, with a suction pump that will powered from the main electrical service, and will also be connected to the back up generator, all system details shall be reviewed and approved to be in accordance with standards acceptable to the City of Burlingame’s Fire Marshal prior to issuance of a building permit; 25) 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; this plan must be approved by the City Engineer, Public Works Department prior to any grading or construction work on the site; 26) that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 8 and/or attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation; 27) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 28) 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; 29) that all construction materials and waste, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediment, shall be stored, handled and disposed of properly to prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants into stormwater; 30) that no vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in designed areas which runoff is contained and treated; 31) that dust control should be implemented where required during grading, which includes spraying cut areas where there is significant particulate matter created by soil disturbance; 32) that within 24 hours after cutting down the Eucalyptus trees on the site, the stumps shall be ground; 33) that the site shall be terraced, either permanently or temporarily, immediately after the removal of the trees on this site and no later than 4 weeks, after cutting the trees to prevent erosion and soil instability on the slope; 34) that the root zones of Oak trees to remain on-site shall be covered with 4 inches of mulch, and then covered with a layer of plywood to reduce soil compaction around the tree; 35) that the trunks of the Oak trees shall be wrapped with wooden planks with highly visible orange netting wrapped around the planks to attached them to the trunk, no nails or screws shall be used for attachment; 36) that low limbs, identified and marked by a licensed arborist, that will be in the way of construction traffic shall be trimmed as directed by a licensed arborist prior to construction to avoid having them ripped off by construction vehicles; 37) that all clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees, and drainage courses are clearly delineated with field markers or fencing installed under the supervision of a licensed arborist and inspected by the City Arborist; and that adjacent properties and undisturbed areas shall be protected from construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching as designed by and installed with the supervision of a licensed arborist to standards approved by the City Arborist; 38) that all of tree protection measures shall be taken prior to beginning any tree removal activities, grading or construction on the site; 39) that a licensed arborist, hired by the applicant, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently if necessary and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; 40) that in accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance a reforestation program for this site shall include planting the following 24” box size trees: 3 Japanese Maples, 5 Southern Magnolias, 13 Coast Live Oaks, 7 Swampmyrtles, 6 Western Redbuds, 6 Strawberry Trees, 1 Jacaranda, 4 Pittosporum Undulatum and 16 Tree Ferns at the locations shown on the approved landscape plan prior to scheduling the final inspection; 41) that a licensed arborist shall provide a post-construction maintenance program to the property owners with instructions on how to maintain them and identify warning signs of poor tree health; the property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for 3 years after construction is finaled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the 3-year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the 3-year period; 42) that drilling of piers shall be limited to Monday through Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with no drilling on Sundays or Holidays. All other construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays; 43) that the applicant is shall construct a minimum paved turnout of 20’ wide by 40’ deep at the top of the driveway to provide parking for a fire truck on-site; 44) that the applicant shall construct a staircase to code standards from the turnout at the top of the driveway to the lower City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 9 driveway to allow direct pedestrian access to the structure for emergency response personnel; 45) that the staircase from the turnout at the driveway entrance to the lower driveway shall be lighted from dusk to dawn daily for safe passage; 46) that the contractor shall submit the “Recycling and Waste Reduction” form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how that 60 percent of the total waste tonnage generated from project construction shall be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible for the implementation of this plan; 47) all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 48) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 49) that the applicant shall provided landscaping on the site as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission. All shall be drip irrigated and installed prior to scheduling the final building inspection; 50) that the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before any tree removal, grading or construction takes place on the site; 51) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 52) that if the applicant finds it necessary to access the subject property from the Sisters of Mercy trail, the applicant shall be responsible for repairing any damage to the trail; and 53) that the chain link fence to be installed on the site shall be a dark green clad fence. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Commission discussion: Nice project, big house but this is a huge lot, appreciate that the applicant didn’t subdivide into two or three lots, good job on design; lot is over 26,000 SF with only one house, this is a gem of a project, look forward to seeing this project built, applicant answered all of the Commissions’ questions. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the added condition that the chain link fencing to be installed be clad with dark green. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 7. 1505 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KEVIN PARKING, APPLICANT; WILSON NG, ARCHITECT; DEREK PRINCE, PROPERTY OWNER) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report March 8, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that on Sheet A.4 there is a forced air unit in the garage that will encroach into the 20’ depth required for the parking. Noted that vent stacks now above the garage were not shown on the original plans, think the plans provided for the front elevation are wrong, the area around the front door is not right. The left wall is further in than shown on the plans. Looks like the second floor is actually narrower than the plans show. CP Monroe referred the Commission to the applicant to answer these questions. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Kevin Parkin, property owner and contractor of 1505 Easton Drive, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that the dormer on the second floor looks like it has shifted over the apex of the first floor, this is not on the plans. Kevin Parkin stated that none of the walls on the second floor have shifted, same as on the drawings, only the front section of the roof on the lower half has changed, would have to eliminate the fire egress windows if built as shown, could not be built. The forced air unit shown in the garage is in the attic space and won’t impeded parking in the garage. Commission noted that went on a site visit and the plans for the amendment don’t match what has been done on the site. Kevin Parkin stated that from the original plan the upper story was not centered on the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 10 lower story. The two hips go up and across, does not visually offset, needed to address but roof wouldn’t work as shown on original drawings. If built as shown there would be no windows, or would have been 10’ in the air. Upper floor is structurally the same though, beams has been inspected, everything is in accordance with the plan. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concerned with drawings that they don’t match what is going on out there, changes are not significant, but want corroded want, want to have inspected before the final inspection to confirm front elevation matches plans; concerned with all of the vent stacks, it is unsightly, would like to add a condition that the vents be collected to terminate into one single vent. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 2, 2004, sheets A-1, A-4, A-5 and A-8 through A-10, 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 framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project , the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 4) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s February 9, 2004 memo and the Recycling Specialist's February 4, 2004 memo shall be met; 8) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 10) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined to a single termination and installed, if possible, on the portions of the roof less or not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the revised construction plans before a Building permit is issued for the changes proposed to this project; and 11) that the elevations be revised to reflect exactly what is built, submitted and inspected for conformance before a final inspection is scheduled. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the changes with the amended conditions regarding vents and corrected plans with inspection. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:02 p.m. 8. 216 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA D – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NON-AUTO RELATED USE (SONYA HONG, BUTTERFLY CAKES, APPLICANT; BAUM TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (33 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report March 8, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 11 Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Sonya Hong, project applicant for Butterfly Cakes, 3126 Turk Street, San Francisco, was available to answer questions. Noted that she has taken over this conditional use application from Steve Ercolini. Will still be using the site as a catering kitchen to design and bake custom wedding and special event cakes. There will be very few visitors to the site, only for tastings, will deliver cakes directly to reception sites. Commission noted that Steve Ercolini will be reducing staff, seems like a lot of work for one person to prepare school lunches, will he be doing deliveries himself? Steve Ercolini was not present at the public hearing, but Sonya Hong state that he is scaling back his business and that the does all deliveries himself. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: straight forward proposal; notice that copy of the lease submitted for Caltrain parking at the rear of this site is dated 1981 and states that it is to be re-newed annually, would like to add a condition that the City be provided an updated copy of the Caltrain lease from the owner to have on file. C. Keighran 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 and date stamped August 28, 2003, floor plan; 2) that the entire tenant space of 920 SF shall be used for catering businesses (one part-time), not open to the public, any change to this number of businesses or their hours of operation shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and may require Planning Commission approval; 3) that the primary catering business shall have hours of operation Tuesday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with a maximum of 3 employees, and that the secondary, part-time catering business shall have hours of operation Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. with a maximum of one employee; 4) that the maximum number of employees on site at any one time shall be 3 people; with a maximum of 6 people (including employees, business owners, and customers) on the site at any one time; 5) that there shall be no retail sales of cakes from this location; 6) that there shall be no walk-in customers, and that customers shall come to the site by appointment only; 7) that all signage shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments; 8) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 9) that the applicant shall submit a copy of the current lease agreement between the property owner of 216 California Drive and Caltrain for the parking spaces provided at the rear of the subject property that are available for use by employees and customers on the site. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with an added condition requiring submittal of a copy of the updated Caltrain lease. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:12 p.m. 9. 821 CALIFORNIA DRIVE/820 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED C-R – DETERMINATION ON INTENSIFICATION OF USE (40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report March 8, 2004, with attachments including March 3, 2004, Memo from the Residents on Edgehill Drive and Neighboring Streets and the March 5, 2004, memo from Diane Papan, representing the property owners, Tom O’Connor and Joe Murphy. CP Monroe presented the determination staff report noting that the property owner has appealed the City Planner’s determination that the use of the garage on the Edgehill Drive side of the property for storage for the business fronting on California Drive, was an intensification of a nonconforming commercial use and should be eliminated. It was noted that the parking space on the right or north side of the garage closest to the single family house on Edgehill should be used as required parking for the house; the other space on the left or south side of the garage was to be used for business customers, during business hours. Commissioners asked staff: Did the permit for the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 12 garage door include the loading dock? CP noted no, the loading dock was probably built sometime in the 1950’s. The staff report notes that the parking space on the left (south) can be used by customers of the business fronting on California as a non-conforming use, but today no parking for commercial uses is allowed on Edgehill. CP noted yes, that under the current C-R zoning the commercial uses are confined completely to California Drive. Originally was there one parking space for the residence and one for the business? CP noted that that was the case. How big is the lot? CP noted about 40 to 45 feet wide and about 90 feet deep. Under current code where would the commercial use be located? CP noted the commercial use could occupy about a third of the lot fronting California Drive, with no on-site parking requirement in order to protect Edgehill Drive from being impacted with commercial parking. There was a brief discussion about how the C-R, a mixed use zone, works today; the development at 808 California Drive with a retail use on the California side and two residential uses on the Edgehill side presently under construction was used as an example. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Diane Papen, attorney, 440 Green Hills, Millbrae, and Tom O’Connor property owner represented the property. Neighbors Jennifer Scopazzi, 817 Edgehill; Lorraine Gandolfi, Edgehill Drive; June Volax, 831 Edgehill Drive; Elizabeth Zoloski, 829 Edgehill Drive; Steven Waring, 827 Callifornia/824 Edgehill; Greg Scopazzi, 817 Edgehill Drive; Tom McGinn, 112 Palm Drive; Ed Curry, 1792 Jennifer Avenue, also spoke. Applicant reviewed the history of the code enforcement, commented that when neighbor approached about parking company vehicles on Edgehill, he had them moved immediately, now parked on California; tenants in house each have a truck as well as a friend with a truck which adds to three there often; one tenant often works for Uptown. Noted concerned about the restriction of using the garage for storage, presently have shelving on the sides of the garage which does not prevent use of parking spaces (residents store things in garages all the time, nothing in code to prohibit). Not want to remove water heater and sink he installed in garage because can clear it and still park in parking space, they extend into the resident’s parking space less than the loading dock structure; business owner’s use of the storage area next to the loading dock (left or south parking space in garage) is only a few times a day and is limited to 10 minutes at a time, neighbors logs reflect this. Do not see in the code where it is required that this parking space be used by customers of the business. Uptown Bath wants to accommodate the neighbors and are willing to limit their loading and unloading to a couple of times a week for 10 to 15 minutes at a time. Have up graded appearance of garage, originally it was a car port now it has a door and looks like a residential garage. Commissioners asked: Seems trucks in and out quickly, how many times a week? Trucks come to that side once or twice a day, bulkier items are delivered and kept there until able to install, customers prefer to keeping on construction site. Code is clear no commercial use on Edgehill can you add a loading ramp to California? Don’t know the space between the buildings is very narrow; garage is nonconforming has been so since 1955 so can use for commercial use. Feel that the present use of garage as a warehouse is different, a change in use from a customer delivering furniture at the rear. The trucks parked on Edgehill are not related to the business? After complaint there were trucks there during construction on the property, after that company trucks have been curtailed. Remaining trucks are tenants? Yes. Have you limited them? Told them it was a problem with the neighbors. Went on a site visit, there were two Uptown trucks parked on California, in garage there was shelving but nothing stored on the floor, not seem like a warehouse? Pictures show that can park in garage, pick up items once or twice a day on short visits. Where do tenants park, in garage? Both park in the driveway apron. Has there been a change in the use of the garage in the past two months that is different from November? Have kept visits to garage on California to a minimum, load every thing they can through the California side, there have been no Uptown vehicles in the driveway City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 13 overnight since May. Is there a video camera in the garage? Yes for security, it records on movement. There were no further questions by Commission. Neighbors comments: Lived on Edgehill for 5 years and this has been frustrating, trying to up grade our house and see 2 to 13 trucks across the street, these are not all tenants’ trucks, know who is tenant and his friend; pictures show trucks and 6 or 7 employee cars, a business is slipping into a residential neighborhood; he has made changes without permits, the door, the hot water heater and sink in the garage, he is a contractor and knows he needs a permit, often a variance. He is expanding a nonconforming use, do not see how the work he has done has made the building more conforming as required by code. The loading dock is just stairs from the garage into the building and if used as a loading dock is used to load items into the business, not in to the garage for storage. This is a residential neighborhood has been for 50 years, people here to testify, employees still park in front of house over night, tenant brings truck and loads it up, he works for Uptown; The pictures reflect original problem, is the situation the same now? Now trucks at 8:00 and 8:45, then I go to work so not know subsequent; construction on the site ended in early spring last year. Lived on street 50 years, seen all the users, was little activity on Edgehill from upholstery and sign business; now a lot of activity, street looks like a used car lot at night; street is not commercial should give some consideration to the residents. Compliment property owner on the garage door, looks residential, what we are looking for, lived on street since 1987, it is used by realtors as an example of residential streets in Burlingame, opposed a Japanese food store in the past because of the impact on the residential area, this businesses garbage cans on Edgehill are not acceptable; now this business is repeating that impact, it is not acceptable changed the code to protect the residents; residents cannot monitor this business, we are working, he can’t operate without access, he knew when he bought the property the zoning had been changed, he knows he violates the current code, the site is not suited to the use he wants; since 1987 did not know the problem with businesses in this area, now I am very aware. Hope the trucks do no run over grandchildren, this use prevents the area from being residential. Have different perspective, have business on California, how many does this business employ? A number of times I’ve seen 4 to 6 vehicles associated with this business parked on the California side, this is a problem for my wife who has a commercial gifts and interiors business on the California frontage, no place for customers to park. These trucks are parked, waiting or loading; am discussing problem with Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission; believe this business is too big for this location, vehicles are 7 to 8 feet tall and as wide, also leave a trailer, same size, on the street, covered with a tarp, filled with building materials so if can’t use garage will have rolling storage on California, this should be customer parking. Live across street, work for a general contractor, just finished an addition to my house on Edgehill, the garage has a key punch pad for employee access, took pictures to document what is going on, not take of tenants; now if his employees see me in the garden they keep going and don’t stop to pick up items; previous tenant, sign designs parked personal car at in garage and tenant used both spaces at night; store stuff out side the garage too in the side yard of the house, tall orange ladders, when complained he turned it all so it was not visible above the fence, workers still come and take materials from the side of the house and put on trucks; there was never a precedence for such use of the side yard; the sign company made templates on the site which were made into signs and installed elsewhere. If the garage door is for the residence there should be a push button and no key pad for employees; there is an area in the backyard of the residence which fronts on California, it is within the 30 foot depth of the current code and could be used, he could build a garage there and/or expand the storeroom, increasing the business space and helping Edgehill; then the garage could go back to the tenants. If garage is kept as a part of the business, not like to see it used as a store room, make it conforming for the next 100 years. Lived in area for two years, when moved there thought that the only use on Edgehill was residential. General contractor for remodel of Edgehill/California property, pulled permit, had no problem with neighbors; construction took about 6 months finished in August. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 14 Appellant response: Garbage cans were on the Edgehill side originally because BFI would not pick up on California, now they will and cans have been moved; Uptown had permits from day one, there were inspections. Commissioner asked were water heater and sink added, can they be removed, so the parking space is just for the tenant? Appellant, yes they could be removed and the water heater replaced with a hanging heater providing hot water on demand. Concerned with the pipe in the side yard? Appellant, that is the tenant’s inventory. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: Does the city have regulations about storage of things on a single family home site? CP noted yes. Glad repaired site however the warehouse use is overwhelming, controlled access, security camera not a carport but a storage for business; no boxes in parking spaces now but they are there in the pictures, clearly an intensification of a nonconforming use. Troubled by the pipe in the side yard. Is an intensification of use, warehousing does not fit the existing neighborhood and so is a problem; is invested in property, wants to make a go of business, either radical reconstruction for access off California or enforcement because the code does not allow intensification. Property is unique, makes decision difficult; try to promote business and keep in Burlingame, need to find way both sides benefit, put strict limitations on, if not abide the neighbors will complain, conditions could include restore residential parking (right or north side garage) by removing water heater and sink, parking space on the left can keep shelved use for storage so long as storage does not impede parking space, trucks should not be parked on Edgehill for long and not for over night, trucks for business should not be parked on Edgehill, number of deliveries/pick ups at garage should not exceed 6 or7 a week; if follow these conditions OK and can stay, if not neighbors complain and enforcement will follow. Concerned that retaining the shelving adds to the pattern of intensification of the use, along with the key pad access and the security camera, these things are added when one is worried about the contents of a storage area, that means in this case intensification of use. Can require that security be removed. Concerned we are fixing the symptoms not the illness. Commissioner discussion continued: Is unusual property, need to separate tenant use from business, whose vehicles go where, pipe storage, don’t have enough information to separate tonight. Staff should review situation including pipe storage out side, is a business being run from the residence and the garage being used for that business; tenant parks in front of garage door and blocks sidewalk; previously the businesses used garage in limited way, maybe the bigger issue is the tenant’s use. Two issues intertwined, tenant adds to Uptown’s impact; not have enough information about the tenant and not an issue before the Planning Commission; in fact issue simpler, support City Planner’s determination, plenty of evidence that the use has been intensified, given eye witnesses of earlier businesses, property owner knew this was C-R zone when he bought, would move to support the City Planner’s determination. CA comment, could shape the determination to bring use back to something that is not an intensification. How does the city decide to cut off a nonconforming use; failure is complete loss of use. CA issue is parking, use of garage for parking. Site seems to small for Mr. O’Connor’s use. C. Osterling moved to continue this item until have more information on the tenants activity and enforcement on it, particularly running a business from the side yard. Motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: even if tenant not a business, know that Uptown has been loading without permission 6 to 7 time a week , that is an issue. Regarding the storage do not know who has what, like to separate the tenant from the business. Neighbors observe loading and off loading on truck, Mr. O’Connor says its not his. CA noted would do best to get information, Mr. O’Connor will need to help. Would like to hear directly from the tenant, storage is less of a problem than loading/unloading on Edgehill; could consider storage if all the loading and unloading though business on to California. If continue would like drawings City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 15 the explain boundaries and boarders of site, warehouse is intensifying, it is not a normal evolution for that street or any residential street in the city. CA noted that the staff report addresses storage on Edgehill. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item for more information on the tenant’s activity on their site, particularly the use of the side yard of the house. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). CA noted that this item will be renoticed when it comes back to the Commission. this item concluded at 9:45 p.m. Chair Bojués called for a ten minute break. The commission reconvened at 9:55 p.m. 10. PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ON EMERGING STANDARD LOTS AND CREEK SIDE LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT (NEWSPAPER NOTICE) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented the proposed regulations noting that there were two sets. The first addresses zoning standards for lots on which old property lines emerge when a structure is demolished, and the emerging lots are consistent with the minimum lot size in the area. She noted that in reviewing the regulations for these legal standard sized lot there were a couple of issues to focus on addressed in the March 5, 2004 staff memo including the minimum 9 SF size of light/egress wells, the prohibition of these wells at the front of a structure and insuring 3 feet of clearance between wells and side property lines. Also she noted in some circumstances the California Building Code requires exterior door and stairs from habitable basement areas. To avoid contradiction between zoning and building codes, exit stairs from habitable basements cannot be prohibited. CP Monroe also noted that the March 5, 2004 memo addresses clarification of the creek side lot development regulations. Key was clarifying the line from which the proposed 6 foot side setback would be measured. This line is the 100 year flood or flow limit line. It is established by calculating for each lot how the volume of water at that point in the creek would be accommodated within the exiting channel. The highest point on the creek bank of the 100 year flood flow would be the limit line from which the setback would be taken. This point my be lower than the highest elevation on the creek side lot. There can be no cantilevers over the 6 foot setback from the 100 year flood flow limit line. Anyone developing or making an addition on a creek side lot in the future would have to hire a surveyor to establish the 100 year flood flow limit line for their property before submitting plans to the Planning or Building Departments. Commissioners asked: Some existing development will not meet the new 6 foot setback line from the 100 year flood flow limit line, how will that be addressed? CP Monroe noted it would be treated the same as other nonconforming setbacks on existing development; some are minor modifications (if minor) others require a variance, but the change would only require an exception if the addition extended into the required setback. Can the tree canopy be trimmed? Yes, for maintenance as limited by the City’s Reforestation Ordinance, but not so that the life of the tree would be threatened. On creek lots how is the FAR and lot coverage calculated? CP Monroe noted that the lot coverage and FAR calculations are proposed to be based on the square footage of the lot out side of the 100 year flood flow limit line. Because of subdivision regulations, this area would not be less than 60% of the lot with street frontage. Was concerned about exterior stairs from basement living areas, understand the code problem, can exterior stairs be limited to the rear yard, it would discourage use of the basement area as a second unit. CP Monroe noted that it was possible to limit exterior stairs to the rear yard area, also the required 3 foot setback requirements for light wells and well exits would also apply to stair wells and would make location in side yards difficult. Can kitchens be located in the basement? CP Monroe noted yes, but there can be only one kitchen in a single family dwelling, so if it were in the basement there would be no other kitchen in the structure. There were no further questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 16 Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor on the regulations for either emerging legal lots or creek side lots. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: should the setback be taken from the 100 year flood flow limit line or the top of bank whichever is greater? Would not work, in some cases the top of bank (highest elevation from the creek) could be off the property; will we end up with houses cantilevering over the creek?; Subcommittee felt that this regulation works because we have a good data point for establishing a limit line on which to base the setback and the additional space of the setback will reduce the possibility of structures cantilevering significantly over the flow of the creek. Is the allowance of 80% of the 100% total FAR to be allowed above grade for emerging lots the right number? Commissioner noted it is to some extent an arbitrary choice however, it does provide a reduction and at the same time gives the developer some design option, he can build 100% FAR with no basement on one lot and do something very different on another, if he wishes. C. Osterling moved to recommend the two ordinances on emerging legal lots and creek side lot development standards to the City Council for action with the revisions in the March 5, 2004 memo and requiring basement exit stairs only at the rear of the building. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the additions to the code to the City Council for hearing and action. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) This item concluded at 10:25 p.m. CP noted that this item would go to the City Council for action in April. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 123 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TADHG CANNIFFE, PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, project designer, was available to answer questions. Noted that property owner already built a mirror image of this house at 325 Occidental Avenue, was a spec house and fell in love with the design so he wants to do it again. Commission asked applicant to describe the difference in the setting between the Occidental site and the Dwight site. What is the height of the adjacent houses on Occidental? Applicant noted that on Occidental most of the adjacent houses are two stories, on Dwight Road there are single story houses on each side of the subject property, there are two story houses on the corners, also duplexes and single story homes with detached second units on the block, kind of a mixed, eclectic neighborhood. Commission asked to explain why there are two small windows on the north elevation. Applicant noted that these are two small windows in the kitchen that will be installed between the counter top and the upper cabinet to expand wall space for cabinets and to get light in the kitchen. Commission asked what is the box shown on the south elevation. Applicant noted that this is a recessed area, will put planting in this space. The Planning Commission had the follow comments: • Would like to see true divided light wood windows for this project; • Doorway is not celebrated enough, hidden, need to pull out entry farther, and not have it so recessed, rooms on each side of entry dominate, needs to be improved and embellished; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 17 • Too much stucco, would like to see more variety of materials, add other materials, maybe a water table detail for a change in material and texture, add window trim, dress it up; and • Would like to see unit pavers used for the landscaping hardscape, driveway and walkways. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Chair Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: Concerned with the front entrance, needs some work and that could change the entire appearance, greater than usual for consent item, would rather have this come back as an action item. Could always pull this item off of the consent calendar and put on the regular action calendar if all of the changes have not been made. Strongly encourage the applicant to look closely at the requested changes and make sure all of the items have been addressed appropriately. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Cmr. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. 12. 2711 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TOM CARRUBBA, SQUARE THREE DESIGN STUDIOS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MONIQUE AND LEO REDMOND, PROPERTY OWNERS) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Tom Carrubba of Square Three Design Studios, 900 High Street, Suite 3, Palo Alto, project architect and Leo Redmond, property owner, were available to answer questions. Commission asked if owner had spoken with the neighbors. Mr. Redmond stated that he spoke with three neighbors, one is in attendance at this meeting. Spent about two and half hours total with neighbors. Spoken with both the uphill and downhill neighbor. Chris Wong, 2720 Martinez Drive, lives across the street and up one lot. Owner did not speak to him about the project. Bought home about one year ago, and paid additional amount for views, can see the San Mateo Bridge, the bay, and lower Burlingame from seated areas in a number of rooms inside of his house. The proposed increase in ridge height will impeded views and will devalue property. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Was concerned with roof peak, on sheet A3.2 shows existing and proposed roof, increase is 1’9”, tried to project this increase when out on a site visit and seems to be a modest increase with minimum blockage of views, height increase is comparable to existing chimney; appears that view impact will be nil, but not comfortable without seeing story poles put up and viewing them from the neighbors property, if there is a view blockage there are things that the architect could to address blockage; this is a sensitive area, need story poles to get an accurate picture of how this will look. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 18 Commission had a question for the architect and Chair Bojués re-opened the public hearing. Commissioners asked the architect if it is possible to use the existing peak and run it out to the addition, or just use a flatter pitch? Tom Carrubba of Square Three Designs responded that using the existing peak and running it out to addition would result in abnormal massing, and a less desirable architecture. The existing pitch is shallow and going to a 3:12 pitch is cutting it closed for compositions shingles may need to introduce new roofing materials at the point, won’t look attractive. Commissioner asked why a bigger chimney is being installed. Project architect noted that the existing chimney is being removed and a new chimney is being installed and according to the Building Code the chimney must be 2 feet taller than any portion of the building within 10 feet. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when story poles have been installed and surveyed. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Commission discussion: Would like to have neighbors give staff their phone numbers so the Planning Commissioners can contact them to view the story poles from their homes when they are installed. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the story poles have been installed and surveyed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Cmr. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m. 13. 1318 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDALL AND KATHRYN KARP, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARY DUNLAP, DESIGNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Osterling recussed himself because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property, and stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission noted that on Sheet 1 the block average is shown as 20’6”, however the setback proposed looks like it is only 19’. Staff explained that 19’ is the existing first floor front setback and that there are no changes proposed to the first floor so the setback can remain non-conforming as it is. The new second floor will have a 22’6” front setback. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Randall H. Karp, property owner and Mary Dunlap, designer were both present to answer questions. Commission asked if the house on the right of the subject property has a setback issue, seems to be very close. Randall Karp noted that the three houses to the right were all built at the same time and Mary Dunlap noted that there is not setback problem on that side, just seems tight because of the overgrown vegetation. Commission asked if windows will be true divided light windows. Mary Dunlap noted that they will be vinyl windows. Randall Karp stated that the cost of sprinklers is another ten to fifteen thousand dollars they didn’t plan on, once they take the first floor down to the studs, add a new kitchen, new bathrooms, new driveway, the cost just keeps going up. Commissioner noted that there are many nice elements to this design, think that house will look really nice on this block and that anything less than true divided light windows would do no good for the design. Would not be a huge added cost to use true divided light windows. House is nicely articulated design, nice elaborate materials, true divided light windows will add character and it would be a disadvantage to the design if you don’t use them. Commission noted that there are a lot of different roof lines on right elevation and asked if this will work o.k. with the rainwater, will water pool? Mary Dunlap noted that roof design can accommodate rainwater, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 19 didn’t want to create a peak over the front of the building, added a shallow cricket to address run-off and didn’t make deep roof. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar, with the request that the windows be true divided light wood windows. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Cmr. Osterling abstaining, Cmr. Keele absent). Staff clarified with the Commission that the plans could be revised by hand to note true divided light wood windows, Commission found this acceptable. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:00 p.m. C. Osterling returned to the dias. 14. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN – ITEM CONTINUED TO MARCH 22, 2004 (279 NOTICED FOR MARCH 22, 2004 MEETING) X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of March 1, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of March 1, 2004. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 11:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 20 UNAPPROVEDMINUTES3.8.04