Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091304PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 13, 2004 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the September 13, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele (arrived at 8:25 p.m.), Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell III. MINUTES The minutes of the August 23, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The minutes of the August 30, 2004 Joint CC/PC Special Study Session were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, complimented City proposed Bicycle Plan, need to look at pedestrian overpass design, suggest looking at the over crossing in Berkeley over Interstate 80, best pedestrian over crossing in California, good for bikes, pedestrians and can accommodate wheelchairs, is aesthetically pleasing and functional; Mills Hospital- at the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission meeting they reviewed the removal of on-street parking on Trousdale, concerned with moving the hospital entrance from El Camino Real, has anyone asked emergency personnel how an entrance on Trousdale will compare to the El Camino Real entrance, there is a signal noted at El Camino Real and Trousdale, and El Camino Real and Magnolia but there is no signal noted at the proposed emergency and service entrance, however Figure 2.17 does show a signal at Marco Polo and Trousdale. Commissioner noted that he observed another Planning agency recently and wanted to express his appreciation to City staff and the Commission for being prepared and for all of their hard work in the decision making process and for being decisive. It was embarrassing to watch this other agency. There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1844 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE (FABIO SILVA, APPLICANT; JEFFREY SUN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004 2 Commissioners asked: • Concerned about easement at the rear of this property; think there is litigation among the various property owners regarding this easement, want to make sure this easement is maintained before taking action. Commission discussed placing this item on the consent calendar or the action calendar. Decided to put the item on the consent calendar, can always pull it off, if there are issues with the easement. CP Monroe noted this item would be set when all the information has been submitted and checked. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted 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. 716 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BASEMENT, FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (JOHN STEWART, STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; JEFF AND JENNIFER CASTELLO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 2B. 1444 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ANDREW YOUNG, YOUNG AND BORLIK ARCHITECTS, INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAVID CROSATTO, PROPERTY OWNER) (73 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 2C. 1101 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A CHANGE IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND SEATING AREA (RIYAD SALMA, APPLICANT; STAN VISTICA, ARCHITECT; SALMA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (28 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2D. 1512 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES (ELLIOT SCHAFFER, APPLICANT; COEN COMPANY INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (18 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 2E. 1137-1145 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, VARIANCE FOR DWELLING UNITS IN THREE BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT, AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW THREE (3) STORY, TWELVE (12) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FU-LEN CHENG, PROPERTY OWNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2F. 1340 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GREG HAGEY, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004 3 KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RANDY LEE, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Vistica recused himself from voting on item #2c, 1101 Burlingame Avenue, because he has a business interest in the project. C. Auran recused himself from voting on item #2f, 1340 Drake Avenue, because he resides within 500 feet of the subject property. C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and each 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), except for item #2c, 1101 Burlingame Avenue which passed on a 5-0-1-1 vote (C. Vistica abstaining, C. Keele absent) and item #2f, 1340 Drake Avenue which passed on a 5-0-1-1 vote (C. Auran abstaining, C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 1417/1419 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR SETBACK VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DUPLEX AND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (RAYMOND BRAYER, APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY OWNER) (98 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report September 13, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the Planning Department has any regulations on solar panels, staff noted that there are no regulations for solar panels in the zoning ordinance. Commission asked if the Fire Marshal has changed his position on the requirement that the new garage must be within 150’ of the street and asked if fire sprinklers will be required in the accessory structure? CP Monroe noted that the Fire Marshal has not changed his requirement, however during the building permit process the property owner may be required to comply with other requirements to meet the fire codes if the structure is not located within 150 feet of the street; and that fire sprinklers will be required in the new accessory structure. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Ray Brayer, property owner and designer, was available to answer questions. He submitted photos of the subject property and adjacent properties. Chose to purchase property because of the park like setting, however the 1417 Sanchez house is bordered existing development on every side. Wants to keep the trees on the site and has designed the project around the site constraints. Site is big, can cover a lot on this site, but don’t want to do that, trying to put parking spaces together rather than having them in two separate structures, so decided to place the new accessory structure in front of the parking garage wall for the apartment building that abuts the property on the west side. Took the drawings around to the neighbors for review and tried to incorporate the changes that they requested. There are only a few small windows that are being added to the east side of the house at 1417 Sanchez. This is an unusual lot because of its size and shape, tried to keep the character of the old house, and tried to minimize the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004 4 coverage on this lot. The other house on the lot, 1419 Sanchez Avenue will not be touched, no changes. Plan to live in house at 1417 Sanchez and have family member live in the house at 1419 Sanchez. Under the zoning code could tear down these houses and build a very large house without Planning Commission review, but decided to work with existing structures. Adding solar panels on both the accessory structure and 1417 Sanchez, trying to generate as much electricity as possible, possibly up to 80-90%, over the course of a day. Commission asked if the solar panels will have a reflection or create a glare, concerned with the effect on neighbors. Mr. Brayer noted that you have to get close up and be above the panels to get a lot of the glare, these panels have a matte finish and absorb and reduce reflection, they are very efficient panels; placing most of the panels on the accessory structure where they will be most efficient because of the sun location and placement of the panels on site. Commission asked what type of activities will occur in the room above the garage. Mr. Brayer explained that it will be an art studio and various types of art activities will occur in the space. His wife is an artist, with items showing on Howard Avenue. She uses many medias, sculpting, painting, ceramics, which requires quite a bit of space for items such as a kiln, sanding device, paint easels. It is very hard to accommodate these items within the house, and the areas where 1417 Sanchez can be expanded are very limited. Commission asked if the number and placement of windows in the recreation room provide appropriate light for the proposed use of the space, because changes to the number of windows or placement may require that the project return to the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Brayer felt that the dormers proposed and the windows on the doors would provide enough light for the use of the room. He noted that his two sons may also use the space for art, but will be used predominantly by his wife. Commission noted that there is not a bathroom in the art studio. Mr. Brayer decided he did not want a bathroom in the art studio that way the Commission knows that he does not intend to convert the space to another dwelling unit, and also wants to ensure that his wife will have to return to the house to use the facilities, so she doesn’t spend too much time consumed in her art. Commission asked if the art studio needs to be that large? Mr. Brayer stated that given the foot print of the garage, he is trying to match the size, weight and mass of the garage, and the given the number of art media the size is needed to accommodate different machines and medias, structurally it is the most efficient way to design the building and it will also serve as a cover of the wall of the adjacent parking garage, which is very large. Trying to hide the wall with the accessory structure, but parking garage and wall are so large that it will still be visible from the second floor of 1417 Sanchez. There was a 3’ area left behind the garage for utilities. Applicants comments continued: In response to the Planning Commission’s concern with the Fire Marshal comments, Mr. Brayer explained that he has worked with the Fire Marshal; since he can not locate the new accessory structure within 150’ of the street he will be installing commercial grade fire sprinklers that have a higher pressure flow than a residential fire sprinkler system. He noted that he plans on using cobble stone on the columns and chimney and stamped concrete to look like the cobblestone on the driveway. Commissioner noted that plans show more different materials, now applicant sounds like using traditional materials for the fireplace and columns, asked staff if the applicant can change these materials over the counter with the Planning Department. CP Monroe noted that if the Commission feels strongly about the use of specific materials then it should be added as a condition of approval as part of the resolution. Matt Tragoutsis, 931 Capuchino Avenue, and Simon Jones, 1432 Edgehill Drive, had the following comments: noted that rear elevation of the 1417 Sanchez house will face his backyard, addition will be located 6’ from his rear property line; thanked Mr. Brayer for keeping the windows to a minimum, however he is concerned with the second floor deck looking into his backyard, can it be moved over the other side or can a screen wall be built on the side of it? Support variance request for location of the garage, if garage City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004 5 was conforming to code and pushed to the back of the lot it would have a negative effect on his property. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: thanked applicant for providing letter of explanation, very helpful in understanding the project; concerned with the garage and art studio, there is a lot of space to provide the 7 foot side setback, do not see hardship for the side setback variance for the accessory structure, very large art studio, can later be converted to another unit, does not have to be the whole footprint of the garage; extraordinary lot, very unique to Burlingame, taking the side setback and calling it a front setback, would be considered a rear setback on any other lot, see exceptional circumstances on every request for this proposal; it is harder to find the exceptional circumstances on the accessory structure than on the house, but it is blocking the large garage of the apartment garage on the adjacent property, there is only one sink drain in the accessory structure so unlikely to have easy conversion to another unit; accessory structure is large but on the site visit saw the concrete wall of the apartment building garage and see hardship, need to cover this view, accessory structure will fit in well with the site, property is under used, would rather see these two homes expanded than to see them both torn down, applicant did a fine job in favor of the house and accessory structure; garage and studio are large, but appropriate for the size of the lot and will be useful in blocking the apartment wall, concerned with rear of 1417 Sanchez facing, 931 Capuchino, need owner to work out something, either screen deck with wall or reconfigure deck, need to meet with adjacent property owner, would like to see this brought back; concerned with deck on 1417 Sanchez and privacy issues of Capuchino lots, there is no real landscape plan included in these drawings, site plan only notes vague details such as “English garden” and “water feature”, but no details are given, for privacy would like to see evergreen landscaping included, need full landscape plan; not clear if chimney will be cobble stone or stucco, want the exact materials proposed shown and called out on the elevations, need to be more specific; don’t think deck will be problematic because of circular stair location, people won’t be hanging out on the side nearest the Capuchino properties, look at landscape solutions for the deck, comfortable approving tonight; think that there are other ways to block view of the apartment parking garage, not just with a large accessory structure, could use landscaping solution. The Planning Commission had the following concerns and comments: • Concerned with rear of 1417 Sanchez and deck facing 931 Capuchino a privacy issue, need owner to work out something, either screen deck with wall or reconfigure deck, need to meet with adjacent property owner; • Need full landscape plan with irrigation indicated, no real landscape plan included in these drawings, site plan only notes vague details such as “English garden” and “water feature”, but no details are given, would like to see evergreen landscaping included, in places where screening for neighbors is an issues, City should review; • Not clear if chimney material will it be cobble stone or stucco, want the exact materials proposed shown and called out on all elevations, need to be more specific. C. Visitca moved to continue the item to return on the action calendar when the issues stated have been addressed and resolved and submitted to and reviewed by the Planning Department. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Maker of the motion revised the motion to continue this item to return on the consent calendar, the second agreed to the revised motion. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item and bring it back on the consent calendar when the requested revisions have been made and checked. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Bojués dissenting, C. Keel absent). This item concluded at 8:07 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004 6 4. 1440 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED TANDEM GARAGE (JAMES BREEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RANDY GRANGE, ARCHITECT) (79 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report September 13, 2004, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. James Breen, property owner, noted that since the last Planning Commission meeting the project has been reduced in length, width and floor area. The house does not need two covered parking spaces, does not want two side by side spaces because it would take up a majority of the rear yard, revised project provides more compliant parking than what is there now. Existing accessory structure floods all of the time now, there is no storm drain on this street. City Engineer has been made aware of this problem and has allowed this property to provide on-site drains, therefore need to have lower floor slab for plate height, but need finished floor height to avoid flooding from the street level. There is one other structure on this street that of similar size, so the proposal is in character with the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the applicant has made many changes and has addressed the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. C. Bojués 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 and date stamped July 14, 2004, sheets A-1 and A-2, and that the detached garage shall not exceed 596 SF in area with the dimensions as shown on the plans, shall not exceed an overall height of 14'-8" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, and a maximum plate height of 9'-10" measure from adjacent grade (maximum plate height of 7'-6" above garage finished floor); 2) that the applicant shall receive a tree removal permit from the City Arborist before issuance of a demolition permit or shall have the project arborist install the required tree protection measures and have them approved and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of a demolition permit; 3) that any waste line to the accessory structure shall be limited to a maximum 2 inches in diameter and shall not be increased in size without an amendment to this permit; 4) that the storage area at the rear of the detached garage shall not exceed 344 SF in area; 5) that the detached garage shall only be used for parking and storage and shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes and shall never include a kitchen; 6) that the conditions of the City Arborist's September 3 and May 12, 2004, memos, the City Engineer’s May 6, 2004, memo, including approval of on-site drainage retention basins or French drains before issuance of a building permit, and Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist’s May 3, 2004, memos shall be met; 7) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004 7 5. 1553 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Keighran recused herself from this item because she resides within 500 feet of the subject property. CA Anderson recused himself from this item because of current California state law. Both left chambers. C. Keele arrived at 8:28 p.m., abstained from voting, because he was not present at last action meeting which was continued. Reference staff report September 13, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Burlingame, representative for the property owner, Otto Miller. On July 26, 2004 the Planning Commission stated that they liked the house proposed at 1553 Drake Avenue, but they did have a couple of concerns. He noted that the proposed height of the building was not over the 30’ height limit when measured from adjacent grade, but when measured from the average top of curb elevation it exceeded the 30’ height limit. The other concerns were with the large left side setback at the driveway, thought that it could be reduced and the house wouldn’t have to be so close to the right side property line; concerned that it may cast shadows on the adjacent house. Since this meeting the applicant has reduced the height of the structure to 30’ as measured from top of curb, so the special permit requested for height has been eliminated, also moved the house to the left 1’6” more away from 1557 Drake Avenue. Shadow study was conducted on previous plans and showed that there would be a minimum impact on the adjacent neighbor at 1557 Drake. Changes would reduce shadow impact. However 1557 Drake has a large roof eave, a large fence on the side property line with plant growth, so presently nearly the entire side is shadowed by its own elements. The Commission asked for a professional traffic study on the driveway, asked to look at confluence at the end of Drake, it is not a cul-de-sac, it is a dead end, and very dangerous. The traffic engineer that did this study, Mr. Hopper, noted that the driveway located on the left side is consistent with the pattern on the adjacent lots, the City Traffic Engineer, Augustine Chou, agreed with Mr. Hopper’s conclusions. The drive way apron of the existing driveway within the public right of way will be retained to help 1557 Drake get out of their driveway. Study also looked at eliminating the parking space in front of 1553 Drake to allow for better circulation for 1557 Drake. Will leave that decision to eliminate the space up to the City. Got a call from the architect’s attorney, he expressed concern regarding liability of the architect if the driveway is relocated to the right side contrary to the traffic engineers’ suggestion based on safety to keep it on the left side of the lot. Went to the subject property today to try and maneuver in and out of the driveways and found it very difficult and dangerous, keeping the driveway on the left side of 1553 is a better solution. The driveway on the right side is a bad design and can create a potential liability. Jay Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, and Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake Avenue, presented the following comments: submitted to the Commission a summary sheet, opposed to driveway location, interesting that safety and danger are concerns now, have lived on block for 23 years and this has never been an issue, applicant has attempted to make a very simple issue look murky, City approved the design of this subdivision years ago, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004 8 why is it now a problem, traffic engineer Mr. Hopper says 3 driveways pose a constraint and suggest changing the driveway of 1557 and 1561 Drake Avenue to accommodate problem, this is not a reasonable request; City Traffic Engineer’s memo does not mention safety, says that it is a benefit to have 2 driveways, better than 3 driveways; new driveway will result in a red zone (no parking) in front of 1553 Drake, who will enforce this, will also result in a loss of an on-street parking space on a block that already has tight parking; at last meeting Commissioner asked if the driveway change will affect the value of 1557 and 1561 Drake Avenue, since that meeting have researched this and found out that this proposal will result in a loss of value of the property at 1557 Drake Avenue because of loss of the view and access issues and property value will also be lost on 1561 Drake because of access issues; 1553 Drake is adjacent to the other Miller development seems that this is an attempt to shift two story portion next to 1557 Drake and away from his other houses; memo from RKH has no quantitative analysis, says the driveway was designed as defacto cul- de-sac, Mr. Miller created a problem by putting up the fence between his property and the adjacent property; now the man that lives at 1553 Drake has to park on the grass because he can’t even get into the driveway; the neighbors have used the adjacent property for turn around for years, everyone backs into their driveways that way it is easier to see kids playing the street when exiting; there is an existing condition such as this on Cabrillo where three houses share driveway for circulation, they have never had any problems; last Thursday there were 12 vehicles from workers parked on the street at one of the 1537 Drake parcels and the Federal Express driver had to back all the way down the street; this driveway configuration has worked for years, do not see why it has to change now. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted that there are two traffic engineers recommendations to change the driveway location from the existing right side location to the left side with the new project, found the residential design appropriate, therefore 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 September 1, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-5, L1.0, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the property owner shall replace the existing driveway apron and any adjacent sidewalk on the north side of the lot including an approved safe paved transition into the driveway apron located in the public right of way for the adjacent lot at 1557 Drake Avenue, design to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit and to be installed and inspected by the City Engineer prior to scheduling final inspection; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4) that the property owner shall install privacy screening trees which will grow to a height of at least 15'-0" between the second floor deck and the neighboring property to the north; the City Arborist shall review and approve the irrigation system, the species, number and placement of trees to ensure the neighbor view protection prior to issuance of a building permit; and these trees shall be planted and the irrigation system shall be in place prior to calling for a final inspection for the building permit; 5) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 6) that prior to 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; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that prior to 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; 9) that City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004 9 prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 10) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's September 29, 2003, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's September 26, 2003, memo, shall be met; 12) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 13) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 14) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; and 15) that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The motion was seconded by Chair Osterling. Commission discussion on the motion: project has been a challenge for over a year, this is not a cul-de-sac, see safety concern for future homeowners at 1553 Drake, first thing they may consider doing is putting up a wall at front property line to prevent car from backing onto front yard where kids playing could be hit, will have deleterious impacts on property at 1557 Drake, concerned with safety issue and bulk and mass on right side of the proposed building, aesthetically this was a good start to the design, withheld judgment on detailed design issues because thought that there might be changes to the house and placement to address driveway and safety issues, can not support this motion; driveway location is better on the south (right) side of the property, effect of size on adjacent property at 1557 Drake is a concern but could be resolved through better designed, de-valuing adjacent property and can not support, changes can be made to mitigate issues; shadow study shows that 3 months out of the year there will be a minimal impact on adjacent property, already shadows due to the overhang of the house, two traffic engineers have reviewed proposals and support driveway on the left, nice design of house, applicant is willing to replace the driveway apron to accommodate the circulation at the end of this street; the property at 1557 Drake will be developed later, City approved this configuration but any development at 1557 Drake will improve this site; disagree with that, it is unfair to make planning decisions on future development of neighbor’s houses that may be affected, flimsy set of studies done on the circulation, hard to determine where apron and curb cut locations will be and where the location of property lines are, need to have more information, would be helpful if apron area painted out on the site, properties at 1557 and 1561 Drake may not be owned jointly in the future, with all of the development on this block there will be 20 bedrooms where there were 4 bedrooms, need to take a closer look at the on-street parking configuration, what is the benefit to the City if this project is approved; a traffic engineer and the City Traffic Engineer have both already evaluated this project and support proposal, respect their input and the input from the neighbors; if the lines were painted out on the site do not think it would change vote on this project, should this item be continued? CP Monroe responded that it would not be appropriate to continue the item, this is an action item and has already been continued. Chair Osterling called for a roll called vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 3-2-2 (C. Brownrigg and Vistica dissenting, C. Keighran and Keel abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004 10 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 754 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARK AND HELEN GRANCOLAS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Mark Grancolas, property owner, 754 Walnut Avenue, noted that he wanted to correct the information presented by staff. There is not another full bathroom that is being added on the second floor, this is an expansion of an existing full bathroom. Is requesting an addition to the existing 3 bedroom 2 bathroom house, has two children 10 and 6 years old, need to separate the kids now, want to keep one bedroom as a guest room when relatives from the Midwest come to visit, that is why making this application to add a bedroom and expand the kitchen, the existing kitchen is very narrow, and there is no bathroom on the downstairs level; noted this proposal is well below the allowed floor area ratio, and going to continue to live in the house; the existing architecture has high pitch gables, keeping with that style, also extending timbering that is on the front of the house to the back, this is a large lot and can accommodate the addition. Neighbor comment: Daryl Popin, 760 Walnut Avenue, lives two doors away from this project, the front of this house is beautiful, addition will make the back of the house just as nice, will only be able to see the profile from yard, but this addition will improve the house and will look nice, the rear of the existing house is not in context with the character of the front of the house, this project will bring the rear into character with the front. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent action calendar without changes. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: nice design, addition is consistent with character of the house, addition will blend in nice with the neighborhood. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 7. 2108 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT O'CONNOR, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GARY STRAWTHER, DESIGNER) (41 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004 11 Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Gary Strawther, project applicant and designer, representing the property owner, was available for questions. Noted that this was a simple addition, approximately 700 SF in area, will not be seen from the street. The only property that will see this addition is the neighbor to the south who is located 30 to 40 feet away, so there will not be a privacy issue. Commission asked if new windows will be divided light windows to match the existing. Mr. Strawther noted that yes they will be divided light windows. Neighbor comment: Paul Lynch, 2845 Canyon Road, got notice even though he lives within San Mateo County jurisdiction. Support project, like addition proposed, even though the existing house is over the height limit, the addition will not be over the height limit, this house with the proposed addition will not be as large some of the houses in the area. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on motion: addition is located at the rear of the property, meets all code requirements, good candidate for the consent calendar. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 8. 1420 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (PHIL HYLAND, APPLICANT AND DESIGN; CAREY AND BRYAN WELSH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Carey Welsh, property owner, was present to answer questions. Noted that they moved to area one year ago, fell in love with the charm of the house, original windows on first floor , remodeled kitchen, but there are very small bedrooms upstairs, addition in 1960’s with aluminum windows, want to enlarge existing bedrooms and put a sloped roof over the office on the first floor, and replace aluminum windows with new matching divided light windows. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: project will be an improvement to the existing house, tastefully done. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. 9. 217 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ELLIS SCHOICHET, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; HOWARD AND ELISE CLOWES, PROPERTY City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2004 12 OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Ellis Schoichet, project architect, was available to answer questions. Noted that this project was the result of a leaking trellis located at the rear of the house. Decided to just enclose the area as part of living space. There is a lot of foliage on the existing trellis, decided to add a new trellis at the rear of the first floor to allowed the existing foliage to re-establish, also adding some architectural detail at the front of the house. There is another very rustic arbor located at the rear of the lot, which counts toward floor area, this will also be reduced in size. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: nice job, working within existing regulations, majority of work is at rear of house, will blend in with existing architecture. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:17 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of September 7, 2004 CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of September 7, 2004. - FYI: Revisions to an approved design review project at 1608 Monte Corvino Way, zoned R-1. CP Monroe presented the changes proposed on each of the elevations for this approved design review project. The Planning Commission had no comments on the proposed changes. - C. Keele asked that the City Attorney prepare a memo to the Planning Commission regarding the required preparation necessary for participation for different kinds of actions following an absence. He also asked staff to be more attentive in reminding Commissioners of these various requirements. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary