The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2015.01.12Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, January 12, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 24, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meetinga. Meeting Minutes 11-24-14Attachments: December 8, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meetingb. Meeting Minutes 12-08-14Attachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak " card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. 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. 1209 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (Kristin Bergman, Bergman Design, applicant and designer; Kitisak Larlarb and Kali Taylor, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin a. 1209 Mills Ave - Staff Report 1209 Mills Ave - Attachments Attachments: Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2015 January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Proposal to consider amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance Section 25.30 C-1 District Regulations, to remove restrictions on food establishments and health services above the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area. (1121 noticed and newspaper notice - The Examiner 1/9/15 and e-newsletter notification) Contact: Catherine Barber a. C-1 zoning amdmt, Broadway Staff Report C-1 zoning amdmt, Broadway - attachments Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 818 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer; Kevin Lake, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 818 Crossway Road staff report 818 Crossway Road attachments Attachments: 1512 Ralston Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., applicant and designer; Jim and Pei Lu, property owners ) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin b. 1512 Ralston Ave - Staff Report 1512 Ralston Ave - Attachments 1512 Ralston Ave - Historic Resource Study Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS FYI: 114 Howard Avenue - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design Review project a. 114 Howard Ave FYI memo 114 Howard Ave FYI attachments 114 Howard Ave - 01.12.15 - fyi recd after.pdf Attachments: Commission Communicationsb. City Council regular meeting January 5, 2015c. 12. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2015 January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on January 12, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on January 22, 2015, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2015 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 24, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bandrapalli called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.October 27, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting -Page 11; 9th bullet; revise ", not having" to "and providing". -Page 1; Public Comments, Non-Agenda; second bullet; revise "plans will be built to..." to "this project will be built to the plans date stamped xx". Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to approve the minutes of October 27, 2014 as amended. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed unanimously. Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 - Abstain:Loftis1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Loftis indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8d (1547 Vancouver Avenue); Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8a (2748 Burlingview Drive); Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion on Agenda Items 8b (1025 Cabrillo Avenue) and 8d (1547 Vancouver Avenue). 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.3155 Frontera Way, zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a new wireless facility (antennas and equipment) on an existing residential apartment building (Ashley Woods, applicant; V -One Design Group Inc., designer; Skyline Terrace, property owner) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 3155 Frontera Way Staff Report 3155 Frontera Way Attachments Attachments: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: -Will this be a ten year lease? (Hurin - applicant can clarify the length of the lease.) -Was staff involved in the notification of the neighbors of the public hearing or the informational meeting? (Hurin - not for the informational meeting, but the City coordinated noticing for the public hearing before the Planning Commission.) Ashley Woods, for Verizon Wireless, represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: -Was the applicant involved with notification for the informational meeting? (Woods - yes, she was in contact with the property owner; created an e -mail notification and posted notices on all doors and in the elevators.) Concerned that the notice for the informational meeting makes no reference that a wireless antennas structure is being proposed. In the future, there should be more specifics regarding what is actually being installed. (Woods - made note of this comment.) -Is the lease for ten years? (Woods - the is lease is for 25 years.) -What will happen to the equipment at the end of the lease? (Woods - at that time Verizon would review the installation and replace with new equipment.) -The location is good and the antennas are blended well with the environment; doesn't seem to obstruct views. -With respect to the landscaping around the equipment on the ground, noted that when touring the property that there is no landscaping present. Is the landscaping proposed? (Woods - are not planning to install any additional landscaping other than that which is already present along Interstate 280.) Should seriously consider adding landscaping as indicated on the plans in the final design; it is encouraged when wireless facilities are proposed in residential districts. -Noted that there are a good number of trees on the property; assumes there is no need to remove the trees in order to get a better signal. (Woods - there will be no trees removed or pruned.) -Feels that the notice for the informational meeting is confusing and reads more like an advertisement; does not really read like a public notice. -Feels that it is good that notification was provided, but in the public outreach section of the zoning ordinance, also encourages that property owners in the area be noticed; encouraged extending the noticing area outside of the apartment complex in the future. -Would like to know if there are any other options outside of the residential apartment building that could work. Could the equipment be co -located with equipment installed by another provider in the area? -The radio frequency (RF) study notes that the worst case scenario exposure to residents is 35% where 100% would be the maximum acceptable level; want know where that is exactly and is that reading based on the resident being inside the apartment building all of the time. The study is not clear whether is addresses impacts to residents inside or outside the building. Is a resident sitting outside on their balcony for two hours a day exposed to hazardous conditions? -Be clearer regarding the noise emitted from the generator. -What was the concern of the person who attended the outreach meeting? (Woods - wanted more information about the installation.) -How many residents are there? (Woods - in this building there are approximately 180 residents.) -Assumes that the study found that exposure is limited to the rooftop level. Did the study include exposure below the roofline? (Woods - anywhere at the ground, one is around 4% below the maximum exposure rate. The emissions to the residents of the building are around 1 to 2% of the maximum exposure limit.) The hazardous area then is at the roof level? (Woods - the plans show where the hazardous areas are on the roof level.) -How is someone getting on the roof made aware of the presence of hazardous conditions. (Woods - signage is placed on the door to the rooftop, within the rooftop area and on the equipment enclosure .) Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Concerned that someone may not pay attention to the signs. (Woods - residents do not have access to the roof for safety reasons. Only the property managers and maintenance personnel are permitted on the roof.) Perhaps a perimeter fence could be placed around the area of hazardous exposure. -Is the generator automated? (Woods - yes, Verizon can set so that it runs during the day to blend in with ambient sound.) The residents need to be aware of the presence of the generator; could create a disturbance when activated periodically. -Is there typically another meeting before moving forward? (Woods - can do so if it is something that the Commission wishes to occur.) Encouraged conducting another informational meeting to provide more information to the residents. Encouraged providing the residents with some of the materials provided to the Commission. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. No action was required of the Commission. The item will appear on the regular action calendar when complete. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1327 Marsten Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for automobile sales within an existing commercial building (Enrique Pelaez Jr., applicant; Dale Meyer Associates, designer; John T. Michael, RWR Properties Inc., property owner) (21 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1327 Marsten Rd Staff Report 1327 Marsten Rd Attachments Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Consent Calendar. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.2748 Burlingview Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Front Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit for first floor additions to an existing single -family dwelling (Jesse Geurse, designer and applicant; Henry Hsia, property owner) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2748 Burlingview Staff Report 2748 Burlingview Drive Attachments Attachments: Commissioner Terrones recused since he has a business relationship with the property owner across the street. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Questions of staff: -In calculating the average front setback, were both corner properties eliminated? Seems to unfairly burden development on the corner lots. (Hurin: Yes, only the interior lots within the cul -de-sac were included.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Jesse Geurse represented the applicant: -Provided diagram showing difficulty with complying with the average front setback given how it is calcuated on the cul-de-sac. -Client could have proposed a second story addition, but instead chose to add on the ground level to avoid view blockage issues. Commission questions/comments: -Still has difficulty with the justification for the variance stated in the application; it doesn't address any unique conditions of the property. -The existing deck will deteriorate over time; the addition is not increasing the impact. -Not certain that the findings proposed are adequate. (Meeker - the Commission can expand upon the justification provided by the applicant.) Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Additional Commission questions/comments: -Lot is unusual because it is a corner lot on a cul -de-sac; front setback is being compared with lots within the cul-de-sac that are configured differently and much deeper which makes it easier to provide a front setback. -Proposed addition is within a space that is already developed and has some mass. The additional living space does not create a greater impact than exists currently. -Differs with the prior opinion because he feels that the expansion creates a greater impact upon the entry to the cul-de-sac. -It is pure happenstance that the existing condition exists; support the variance. -Supports the variance. If the addition was at the front corner, could accept the dissenting view a bit more. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application with the conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, and Sargent5 - Nay:Gum1 - Recused:Terrones1 - b.1025 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for a bathroom in a detached accessory structure (James Chu, Chu Design and Engineering, designer and applicant; 1025 Cabrillo Burlingame LLC, property owner) (52 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1025 Cabrillo Staff Report 1025 Cabrillo Avenue attachments Attachments: Commissioner Yie recused herself from the discussion since she resides within 500-feet of the property. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis noted that he had listened to the recording of the design review study discussion. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had met with the neighbor at 1015 Cabrillo Avenue. There were no other ex-parte communications to report. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of staff: -None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. James Chu and Michael Callan represented the applicant: -Met with neighbor, will change stairway window to permanent obscure glazing to adress his concerns. Commission comments/questions: -Noted that there appears to be a drafting error on the left elevation; there appears to be an extra vertical line on the left side of the stairwell on that elevation. (Chu - confirmed the error.) -Feels the changes significantly improve the design; house will fit on the site well. -Was initially concerned with the half -bath in the garage, but it complies. (Chu - there is a possibility in the future that there could be a pool in the rear yard.) -You were going to discuss using the Laurus nobilis tree species and how they impact Oak trees with the City Arborist. Are you still comfortable using these trees along the left side property line? (Callan - since there are not a lot of Oak trees in the area, didn't see it as a hazard.) Would still recommend discussing this with the City Arborist. -Noted that the neighbor didn't want half of the trees hanging over his property; was there any thought to a different type of tree to address this concern? (Callan - the only way this could be achieved would be to espallier a tree or to use Pittosporum, which is not preferred by the City Arborist. Even with these approaches, there is still a need for pruning and maintenance, except with the Pittosporum.) -Appreciates the changes, but was expecting perhaps more changes consistent with another house mentioned in the neighborhood. (Chu - didn't consider a different style. It is difficult to take elements from another house and add them to an existing design.) -Have accomodated the neighbors concerns. -Proposed house is large, but will not feel as large with the presence of the existing large, mature trees on the property. -Like the changes to the roofline to bring it down to the first floor level at the front. -Confirmed that the two lower windows on the stairwell window will be obscured. -Will expect the landscaping issues of the neighbor along the left side property line to be addressed. -Will there be changes to the landscaping to address the neighbor to the right of the property? (Callan - changes to tree species along the creekside have already been implemented on the revised plans and were discussed with the neighbors.) -How will the windows be obscured? (Chu - will be permanently obscured glass.) -Has the air conditioning compressor been moved to satisfy the neighbors concern regarding noise? (Chu - not proposing installing an air conditioning compressor at this time, but if installed in the future it would be placed away from the neighbors residence.) Public comments: Dan Griffin, 1015 Cabrillo Avenue: -Thanked all for the changes and for the Commissioner meeting with him. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to approve the application with the following amended conditions: -that the revised landscape plans shall be brought back for review by the Planning Commission as an FYI item. -that the two lower stairwall windows on the left elevation shall have permanent obscured Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes glazing that is integral to the glazing (window film is not acceptable). Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 - Recused:Yie1 - c.1435 Benito Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for as-built changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Jack McCarthy Designer, Inc ., applicant and designer; Kieran Woods, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1435 Benito Avenue Staff Report 1435 Benito Avenue Attachments Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had met with the builder. There were no other ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: -What is the threshold for bring an FYI applition to the Commission for review? (Hurin - in this case a Commissioner requested that it have a full review due to the number of changes.) -Dont' really have a process in place to address as -built changes; it's difficult to do anything once the changes have been made. -Are not obligated to approve as -built changes, can require application to make the change to match to originally approved project. -Feels that applicants should be required to have the changes made in advance of actually installing them. (Hurin - staff has discussed means of ensuring that the changes are approved prior to installation.) -Do require architectural certification prior to the final framing inspection to ensure that the general building envelope and window configurations match the approved plans. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jack McCarthy represented the applicant: -Explained the rationale for the changes that had been made as a result of involving another designer in the project. Commission comments/questions: -Feels the entry does look cleaner with the concrete pathway and landing. -Feels that the stone band that was removed on the cantilever on the right side looks a bit off . (McCarthy - can't add stone to the second floor at this point becuase it wouldn't be safe. If something was added it would be the only such element, not sure what could be added.) Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to approve the application with the conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d.1547 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits for a recreation room and toilet in an existing accessory structure (Julie Carlson, JCarlson Design, applicant, designer and property owner) (53 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1547 Vancouver Ave Staff Report 1547 Vancouver Ave Attachments Attachments: Commissioners Yie and Loftis recused themselves from the discussion as they reside within 500-feet of the property. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: -None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Julie Carlson represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: -Feels that the redesigned roof could be executed well, but asked if thought has been given to how the flat roof portion will be built and drained? (Carlson - will have a curb with scuppers.) Needs to be designed to have the top of the mansard appear as a ridge. -Could consider placing a small dormer (vent or window) over he arched window bay on the front elevation. Not a project killer. -Requested clarification regarding the window that is to be removed; is it in the accessory structure? (Carlson - yes, it is on the left side of the accessory building.) -Was there any thought to maintaining consistency of window design on the front elevation? (Carlson - likes the lightness of the proposed windows.) -What was the reason for not having a window on the left side in the family room? (Carlson - will be the TV wall, or could be a location for a fireplace. Also, the neighbor looks into that location as well.) -What is the reason for having a full bath in the recreation room? (Carlson - it is an existing condition, the shower is no longer being proposed. Could disclose that it can never be used as a residence.) -Be mindful of the times that children are going to and from school during construction. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum5 - Recused:Yie, and Loftis2 - e.1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached garage for construction of a new single -family dwelling and attached garage (Farnaz Khadiv, applicant and designer; Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, property owners ) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1548 Los Montes Dr Staff Report 1548 Los Montes Dr Attachments 1548 Los Montes Dr - 11.24.14 recd after 1548 Los Montes Dr - 10.14.14 recd after 1 1548 Los Montes Dr - 10.14.14 - recd after2 1548 Los Montes Dr - 11.24.14 - recd after 3.pdf 1548 Los Montes Dr - 11.24.14 - recd after 2.pdf 1548 Los Montes Dr - 11.24.14 - recd after 4.pdf Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis reported that he had met with the neighbors at 1551 Los Montes Drive and the son of the next door neighbor. There were no other ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: -Clarified that the requested story poles are intended to illustrate the tallest portion of the structure . Would the deck area be included in the story poles? (Hurin - story poles for the deck would have been required if the project only included a deck addition. Could request additional story poles if it is felt that that is an important considration for the request.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Badhia Khadiv and Jiries Hanhan represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: -Clarified that there was no work done to the story poles after the certification. (Khadiv - yes.) -Has the applicant spent any time in the house at 1551 Los Montes Drive to observe the view impacts? (Khadiv - have only observed from outside of their property. Can do so if believes it would help.) Feels that the view from the neighbor across the street will be completely blocked. Believes that the issue with the neighbor across the street is pretty clear. -Feels the design changes are vast improvements. Could have a garage door with more horizontal elements, as well as at the entry-way, to unify the design more. -The view blockage from across the street is the biggest issue. What can be done to preserve the existing views of the Bay? (Khadiv - feels that the flat roof design is the best solution for the site. Using a pitched roof would increase the height of the house when compared to the existing ridge.) -Could lower the plate heights on both floors and pick up two feet at that point. The Hillside Construction Permit requires an analysis of distant views from neighboring properties; the overall structure height must be a consideration. -Could the building also be slid down the lot a bit and sculpted to reduce view impacts? Will need to explore these other options. (Khadiv - if the driveway is lowered by two feet to the existing garage level, this would reduce the height. Can also consider reducing plate heights.) Would be an easier discussion with the neighbors if the roof height could be reduced to the existing level of the structure. -Noted that the extension of the house rearward on the lot will also impact the view from across the street. (Khadiv - any addition at the rear will affect the view.) -Certain rooms don't all have to be on the same floor. Encouraged the architect to try real hard to modify the design to reduce the impact; could move rooms around to reduce the massing or create a Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes split level design. Also could step in the edges. -Make the garage door design more modern, perhals match the cedar siding with windows. -What is the fascia material above the entry? (Khadiv - wood.) -May wish to revisit the wood siding on the right elevation where the siding terminates at grade. -Seems odd to place wood siding on the chimney; perhaps consider a stucco base. Public comments: Craig Hou, 1551 Los Montes Drive: -The Commission has already stated their concerns regarding the impacts to distant views. -Even though the roofline has been lowered, there is still a large portion of the distant view that is blocked. -A revised design with a second round of story poles could assist in resolving the view concerns. King Lip, representing parents who reside at 1544 Los Montes Drive: -Welcomed Hanhan family to the neighborhood. -Referenced the view impacts shown in photographs provided at the hearing. -First concern is with obstruction of views, also concerned with impacts upon privacy from windows and balcony. -Feels that the story poles inadequately represent the height of the structure. -The story pole certification confirmed the building height, but makes no reference to how the structure expands to the sides. -Requests that the applicant consider all alternatives to minimize impacts from the project. Winnie Tam, representing the owners of 1544 Los Montes Drive: -Reviewed the exhibits that she prepared for her clients at 1544 Los Montes Drive that illustrate the view impacts. -Concerned that story poles were not installed to show the balcony; balcony could affect their views and privacy. -Concerned that the story poles were not installed correctly at the time they were certified. Greg Goldman, 1543 Alturas Drive: -Lives behind and directly below the project site. -People residing on properties below the site will also have privacy impacts. -Presented photos showing the massing of the proposed project above the property. -The level of the second story is also a concern. -The combination of the home's height and the extension into the hillside are issues to be resolved. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Additional Commission comments/questions: -Pretty clear that the application requires more work to address the view impacts. -Should be brought down so that the proposed ridge does not extend past the existing ridgeline. -The views from the lower properties need to be addressed as well. -The focus on views is upon distant views; this should be primarily views of the Bay, not of the nearby hills. -Views of concern are from primary living areas as well. -The City can't prohibit building on the site; therefore, the privacy issues and views from non -living areas are less clear. It will be helpful for the designer and the neighbors to work with the neighbors to address the issues and come to an agreement. -Must also consider the massing on the site taking into consideration the slope of the site and follow Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the topography. The plate heights can also be varied. -Encouraged the designer to work closely with the neighbors. -Story poles will need to be revised to reflect the proposed design and will need to include the balcony. -Concerned about the certification of the existing story poles; concerned that changes were made after the certification. Also not certain that the story poles adequately represent the location of the walls . Take the time to ensure that the story pole installation is done correctly the next time. -The view ordinance does not address privacy issues. Feels that once the view issues are addressed on this project, then some of the privacy issues may also be addressed. -Encouraged the applicant to revisit the landscape plan in an effort to reduce privacy impacts; provide a more detailed landscape plan. -Would be wise to map the windows on adjacent buildings and their relationship to the propsoed project. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to continue this matter to a date uncertain with direction, seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - f.2838 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use and Special Permits for a new detached patio shelter (Michael Gaul, applicant, designer and property owner) (28 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2838 Adeline Dr Staff Report 2838 Adeline Drive Attachments Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Sargent and Terrones reported that they had individually met with the applicant. There were no other ex -parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: -None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Mike Gaul represented the applicant: -Explained how the proposed accessory structure fits in with the existing development on the property; provided justifications for the requested permits. Commission comments/questions: -None. Public comments: -None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to approve the application with the conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Environmental Review, Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design, applicant and designer; 1516 Howard LLC, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1516 Howard Avenue Staff Report 1516 Howard Ave Attachments 1516 Howard Ave Historic Resource Study Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum reported that he spoke with Debbie Way at 1521 Howard Avenue and the Gallagher Family at 1517 Howard Avenue. Chair Bandrapalli reported that she met with the renters of the house. There were no other ex -parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: -None. Chair Bandrapalli opend the public hearing. Mark Robertson represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: -Concerned about the placement of the driveway and the impact upon a significant street tree. Could the driveway be flipped? Also, could a different front -yard tree be proposed than the species for the street tree? (Robertson - the landscape architect felt that the tree is overgrowing its location and affecting the sidewalk that will need to be replaced. Two replacement will be installed, can increase to 24-inch box size.) -On the East Elevation, there are three windows on the first floor that are stepping down, can you line these up so the sill heights are the same? (Roberston - yes.) -Questioned the height of the chimney, why does it need to be so high? (Robertson - it is a wood-burning fireplace and needs to comply with building code requirements.) -Asked if a more substantial front porch was considered? (Robertson - house is located close to El Camino Real and for concerns with traffic and safety, the owner didn't want that type of feature.) House could benefit from a more substantial element of this sort. -Feels the architecture fits in quite well with the neighborhood. However, wonders if the massing could be broken down a bit more, especially on the West Elevation. -Speak to the client about adding a more substantial porch feature, would soften the house. -Suggested sharing the plans with the neighbors. Public comments: Cathy Schmidt, 1512 Howard Avenue: -Feels the style fits in with the neighborhood. -Question regarding the declining height envelope and how it is calculated. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -Concerned with the proposed massing. The extention into the rear yard will completely block rear yard with shading. -There is a creek along the rear yard, not a ditch. The drainage element should influence the size of the house. -Would like a chance to speak with the designer and owner. Amy Papazian, 1520 Howard Avenue: -A big change is the addition of a driveway along her property. -Seems like a massive project, especially as it extends toward the rear. -Her house is a mirror image of the existing home. -Likes the design; believes it will fit with the neighborhood. -Concerned that there would be a driveway on both sides of her house, increase in vehicle traffic and noise down the driveway. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Additional Commission comments/questions: -There appears to be an error on the development table the staff report with regards to the FAR . (Hurin - will review and correct.) -The lot coverage and FAR are less than permitted, but feels like a massive house. -Feels that there are revisions that need to be made. -Encouraged revisiting the driveway width to assist in providing landscaping along the neighboring property to provide privacy; perhaps a Pittosporum hedge can be used since it is fast growing. -Look closely at adding a porch. Is likely a spec house, so someone buying the house would understand being so close to El Camino Real, is signing up for urban living. -Revisit side elevations to break up the massing. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS -Commissioner DeMartini reported on recent actions of the Bicycle Subcommittee, including the discussions regarding improvements proposed by Caltrans at the intersection of El Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue and applications for several different grants. -Commissioner Loftis indicated that he missed the first meeting of the Community Center Subcommittee. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.Commission Communications -Chair Bandrapalli encouraged Commissioners to arrange meetings with staff in advance of regular meetings. -Chair Bandrapalli encouraged the Commission to consider reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of meetings. The majority of Commissioners declined doing so. b.City Council Regular Meeting - November 17, 2014 Nothing to report. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c.FYI: 1428 Vancouver Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. 1428 Vancouver Avenue Memorandum 1428 Vancouver Ave Attachments Attachments: Accepted. d.FYI: 1529 Howard Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Reveiw project. 1529 Howard Ave MemorandumAttachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on November 24, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 4, 2014, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 8, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Chair Bandrapalli called the December 8, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.November 10, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting PC Minutes - 11.10.14Attachments: Approved with the following amendments: >Page 12 - Item 9c,where it notes that Commissioner DeMartini made a motion to refer the application to a design review consultant, then it should say was seconded by "Chair Bandrapalli". >Commissioner Yie asked to add the adjournment time of the meeting at the end of the minutes as it is not included. She also asked if it was possible to get the minutes in a more timely manner. Planning Manager Gardiner noted that staff will be catching up and will be instituting a new system for completing the minutes and hopes to deliver them in a more timely manner. >Page 6 - Item e, last bullet where it discusses the hipped roof, should say "wall into roof" not "roof into roof"; on that same bullet last sentence should start with "House is". Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA None. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2015 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 2015 Planning Commission Calendar MemorandumAttachments: Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 December 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Consent Calendar. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 1209 Mills Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (Kristin Bergman, Bergman Design, applicant and designer; Kitisak Larlarb and Kali Taylor, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1209 Mills.sr.docAttachments: Commissioner DeMartini was recused because he has a financial interest in a property within 500 feet of the subject property. All commissioners visited the property. Commissioner Loftis reported he had spoken with the owner, and Commissioner Gum spoke with the neighbors across the street. There were no other ex parte communications. Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. Commissioner Gum asked if the chimney proximity to the upstairs window on the left elevation is something that should be of concern; does it need to be extended. Commissioner Sargent also had that concern, but noted that the fireplace was being converted to a gas fireplace. Senior Planner Barber confirmed that the fireplace was being converted and would vent on the side, not at the top, but would confirm the requirements with the Building Division. Kristin Bergman represented the applicant: Commissioner questions/comments: >Did you share the proposed plan with neighbors on either side? >The tree at 1205 Mills appears to hang over onto the subject property and may require trimming as project moves along. Does neighbor at 1205 know what will happen to tree? Suggest giving neighbors notice that work on tree may be needed .(Bergman: Spoke with neighbors on both sides and on the opposite side of the street; no neighbors have expressed concern.) >Massing handled well; second floor is integrated in with existing structure. >Suggest making second story window on front elevation taller. If proportion were same as the bay window at top with 6 grids, would look better if there is room. (Bergman: Will increase height of second floor window on front elevation, but not sure if there is room.) >Stairwell on right side elevation is too small, can you make bigger? Window seat? Seems like a small appendage on the side of the house, if it is broadened it might not feel that way . Might also make it deeper. (Bergman: Will consider increasing width of the stair bump out but do not want to go over 2,000 square feet so it does not need to be sprinklered. Not intending to have a window seat in bumpout; but if it is much wider will fall in line with front of house. Don't want to make much deeper because didn't want the eave to protrude wider than eave above.) >What is separating the first floor from the second? Is there a setback? (Bergman: Eave from existing first floor will provide break between the first and second floor levels.) >On right elevation there are two floor to ceiling windows with a blank space in between, consider adding larger window in the middle and eliminating two smaller windows .(Bergman: With regard to floor to ceiling windows on first floor left elevation, would like to keep the blank space in between to allow area to hang a large painting.) >Scale and detail handled nicely. Key will be in the details. Fascias proportion is appropriate for this style of house. Scale of windows and mutins very important; make sure that you stick with that. >Project is handled well but the stair elevation looks odd. Consider increasing the size of the windows Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 December 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and losing the bumpouts. Would get more light through the windows if wider. >Proportions of the porch are almost square and gable is almost as wide, stair bumpout would fit in better with these elements. Stair is the one element that is tall and narrow - would hang together better if it is wider. >On sheet A2.0, elevation B- looks like you are supposed to see the bay through the porch; is it missing? Public comments: None. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to refer to consent calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 - Recused:DeMartini1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.Commission Communications Recreation center held a web meeting, looked at timeline for review and further design. Commissioner Loftis will forward the PowerPoint to staff to distribute to the entire Planning Commission. Commissioner DeMartini reported back on the Bike/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC): Two projects were discussed at the last meeting: 1) crosswalks at Floribunda at Alma and Ansel; 2) bike path along Highway Road near Westmoor where it is not wide enough for two bikes. Didn't think they would have enough points to get a grant for these projects so Engineering is looking at funds to see if the City can proceed with the projects. Also discussed crossing guard on El Camino Real at Rosedale and Ray Drive, looking to get an update . Safe Routes to School looks at pedestrian and bicycle routes that children take coming to school and ways to improve those routes. School district did audits, discussed funding, bike cages at all schools to encourage kids to ride bikes to school. School district doing site improvement projects including new bike enclosures. Heard if there was better enclosure parents would be more inclined to let kids ride bikes to school. Audit is very telling, informative. Would like profile of parochial schools too, St. Catherine and Our Lady of Angels. BPAC has a few business plans in front of City Manager: >Bike festival and family bike ride on Broadway in summer. Initial feedback from Engineering is that May may not be the best time to have a bike ride to the Bay Trail due to conflicts with work occurring at the Broadway interchange. >Bike Share program is being proposed with the hotels. >Working with merchants that have parking lots or private property where they could accommodate bike racks. >There is a meeting tomorrow night, Tuesday December 9, on Carolan Avenue Complete Streets . There is a lot of work going on along Carolan Avenue between Broadway and Oak Grove. b.City Council Regular Meeting - December 1, 2014 c.FYI: 860 Paloma Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 December 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 860 Paloma Avenue - Memorandum 860 Paloma Avenue - Attachments Attachments: Accepted. d.FYI: 1025 Cabrillo Avenue - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design Review project. 1025 Cabrillo Ave - 12.08.14 - staff rpt fyiAttachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on December 8, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 18, 2014, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 1/8/2015 PROJECT LOCATION 1209 Mills Avenue Item No. 7a Consent Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1209 Mills Avenue Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Kristin Bergman, Bergman Design APN: 026-073-230 Property Owners: Kali Taylor and Kitisak Larlarb Lot Area: 5000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The existing one-story house with a detached one-car garage contains 1,662 SF (0.33 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to demolish the rear portion of the house and detached garage and add a new second floor (841 SF) and detached garage (262 SF). With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,252 SF (0.45 FAR) where 2,962 SF (0.59 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 710 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. W ith this project, the number of potential bedrooms is increasing from two to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The new detached garage complies with current code standards for a covered parking space (12’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions provided where 10’-0” x 20’-0” is the minimum required). One uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a second story addition to a single family dwelling and new detached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 1209 Mills Avenue Lot Size: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: December 1 and December 18, 2014 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 15’-0” to porch no change 16'-8" (block average) (2nd flr): n/a 24’-4” 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 1'-8" 8’-6” to bay 3’-8” to second floor 9’-8” to second floor 3'-0" 3'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 51’-8” n/a 60’-3” 58’-3” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1723 SF 34.4% 1500 SF 30% 2000 SF 40% FAR: 1662 SF 0.33 FAR 2252 SF 0.45 FAR 2962 SF 1 0.59 FAR ¹ (0.32 x 5000 SF) + 1,100 SF + 262 = 2962 SF (0.59 FAR) Item No. 7a Consent Calendar Design Review 1209 Mills Avenue 2 1209 Mills Avenue Lot Size: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: December 1 and December 18, 2014 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (13’-3” x 16’-8”) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (12'-0” x 20'-0”) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10'-0” x 20'-0”) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 16’-9” 26’-6” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies window enclosure exemption along left side of house CS 25.26.075 Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on December 8, 2014, the Commission had several suggestions for the application to consider and voted to place this item on the consent calendar. Please refer to the attached December 8, 2014 Planning Commission minutes for a detailed list of changes suggested by the Commission. The applicant submitted a letter dated December 17, 2014 and revised plans date stamped December 18, 2014, which address the Planning Commission’s suggestions. Please refer to the applicant’s response letter for a complete list of changes made to the project. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings for Design Review: Based on the findings stated by the Planning Commission in the attached minutes of the December 8, 2014 Design Review Study meeting, that the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure (featuring a front porch, gable ends and hip roofs, consistent plate heights, lap siding and aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites) is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood; that the proposed detached garage is consistent with the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants and trees at locations so that they are in keeping with the mass and bulk of the structure and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Design Review 1209 Mills Avenue 3 Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 18, 2014, sheets A0.1, D/A1.1 and A2.0 and date stamped December 1, 2014, sheets T -1, SK-1, T.2, D/A1.0, A1.2, D.2.0 and A2.1; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. 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), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s November 24, 2014 and October 9, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s November 25, 2014 and October 8, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s October 7, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s October 14, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s October 13, 2014 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; Design Review 1209 Mills Avenue 4 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division 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. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Kristin Bergman, Bergman Design, applicant and designer Kali Taylor and Kitisak Larlarb, property owners Attachments: Applicant’s Response Letter, dated December 17, 2014 December 8, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Photographs of Neighborhood Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed December 31, 2014 Aerial Photo BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 8, 2014 a.1209 Mills Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (Kristin Bergman, Bergman Design, applicant and designer; Kitisak Larlarb and Kali Taylor, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner DeMartini was recused because he has a financial interest in a property within 500 feet of the subject property. All commissioners visited the property. Commissioner Loftis reported he had spoken with owner, and Commissioner Gum spoke with the neighbors across the street. There were no other ex parte communications. Senior Planner Barber presented the staff report. Commissioner Gum asked if the chimney proximity to the upstairs window on the left elevation is something that should be of concern; does it need to be extended. Commissioner Sargent also had that concern, but noted that the fireplace was being converted to a gas fireplace. Senior Planner Barber confirmed that the fireplace was being converted and would vent on the side, not at the top, but would confirm the requirements with the Building Division. Kristin Bergman represented the applicant: Commissioner questions/comments: >Did you share the proposed plan with neighbors on either side? > The tree at 1205 Mills appears to hang over onto the subject property and may require trimming as project moves along. Does neighbor at 1205 know what will happen to tree? Suggest giving neighbors notice that work on tree may be needed. > Massing handled well; second floor is integrated in with existing structure. >Suggest making second story window on front elevation taller. If proportion were same as the bay window at top with 6 grids, would looks better if there is room. >Stairwell on right side elevation is too small, can you make bigger? Window seat? Seems like a small appendage on the side of the house, if it is broadened it might not feel that way. Might also make it deeper. > What is separating the first floor from the second? Is there a setback? > On right elevation there are two floor to ceiling windows with a blank space in between, consider adding larger window in the middle and eliminating two smaller windows. >Scale and detail handled nicely. Key will be in the details. Fascias proportion is appropriate for this style of house. Scale of windows and mutins very important, make sure that you still with that. >Project is handled well but the stair elevation looks odd. Consider increasing the size of the windows and loosing the bumpouts. Would get more light through the windows if wider. >Proportions of the porch are almost square and gable is almost, a wider stair bumpout would fit in better with these elements. Stair is the one element that is tall and narrow - would hang together better if it is wider. >On sheet A2.0, elevation B- looks like you are supposed to see the bay through the porch; is it missing? Applicant/owner's response: > Spoke with neighbors on both sides and on the opposite side of the street; no neighbors have Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/6/2015 December 8, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes expressed concern. > Will increase height of second floor window on front elevation, but not sure if there is room. > Will consider increasing width of the stair bump out but do not want to go over 2,000 square feet so it does not need to be sprinklered. > Not intending to have a window seat in bumpout; but if it is much wider will fall in line with front of house. Don't want to make much deeper because didn't want the eave to protrude wider than eave above. > Eave from existing first floor will provide break between the first and second floor levels. > With regard to floor to ceiling windows on first floor left elevation, would like to keep the blank space in between to allow area to hang a large painting. Public comments: None. Commissioner comments: > Consent calendar (Sargent, Yie) 6-0-1-0 Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/6/2015 Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REGULAR ACTION (Public Hearing): Public Hearing to consider amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning Ordinance, C.S. 25.30 C-1 District Regulations, to remove the restrictions on the number of food establishments and eliminating the requirement for a conditional use permit for health service uses above the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area within the C-1 zoning district. MEETING DATE: January 12, 2015 AGENDA ITEM NO: 8a. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed changes to the zoning code to remove the restrictions on food establishments and health services above the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area within the C-1 zoning district is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines which states that minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, are exempt from environmental review. The proposed changes do not represent a change to the type or intensity of use allowed within the current zoning for the area, and would be considered minor alterations to land use limitations, which are exempt from environmental review. BACKGROUND The City held a Broadway Community Meeting on October 18, 2014 to discuss issues related to the vitality of the Broadway Commercial District (District). Input received at that meeting and from an on-line survey suggested that there was community interest in loosening or eliminating the limitations on numbers of food establishments in the District, as well as eliminating the conditional use permit requirement for health services above the ground floor. The City Council discussed this matter at its November 3 and December 1, 2014 meetings, and gave direction to staff to proceed with preparation of amendments to the land-use restrictions applicable to the Broadway Commercial District as they relate to food establishments and health service uses . The Broadway Commercial District is zoned C-1 and is overlain with specific provisions applicable to land uses and food establishments that are unique to the district. DISCUSSION To help promote the vitality of the Broadway Commercial District staff is proposing amendments to the zoning regulations that govern land uses in the area by eliminating the limitations on numbers of food establishments in the District and eliminating the Conditional Use Permit requirement for health service uses above the ground floor. The zoning code definition of food establishments includes bars, full service restaurants, limited food service restaurants, and specialty food shops. Health services are defined as an office, clinic, laboratory or other facility engaged in furnishing medical, surgical or other services including a physician, dentist, dental technician, chiropractor, acupressurist, acupuncturist, therapist, counselor other similar occupation. January 12, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8a. C-1 (Broadway Commercial Area) Zoning Changes 2 Current C-1 (Broadway Commercial Area) Zoning: The C-1 zoning district regulations (C.S. 25.30) contain specific provisions that apply only to the Broadway Commercial Area (C.S. 25.30.065 and 25.30.070). Currently the zoning limits both the number and location of food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area based upon the City Council approval of Broadway food establishments in October 1999. In all other C-1 zoned areas the code allows food establishment by right as a permitted use. In the Broadway Commercial Area health services are only allowed above the first floor with a Conditional Use Permit. In all other C-1 zoned areas the code requires a Conditional Use Permit for health services on all levels. Proposed C-1 (Broadway Commercial Area) Zoning Changes: Staff has prepared an amendment to the C-1 zoning regulations that would remove the restrictions on numbers of food establishments in the Broadway Commercial area. This change would remove all limits on the type and location of food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area by eliminating C.S. 25.30.070 in its entirety. Food establishments would then be allowed by right, as they are in the C-1 zoning district. In addition, staff has prepared an amendment eliminating the Conditional Use Permit requirement (C.S. 25.30.065(b)(2)) for health service uses above the ground floor in the Broadway Commercial Area and allowing them by right above the first floor only. Health services would continue to be prohibited on the ground floor. In all other C-1 zoned areas health services would continue to require a Conditional Use Permit for all locations. Parking Standards In the November 3rd and December 1st City Council meetings, staff identified potential issues that may be encountered with parking requirements in association with the proposed zoning amendments. The Zoning Ordinance has different parking requirements for each land use, so a change in land use could possibly be subject to an additional parking requirement (for example, retail stores require 1 space for each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area, while bars and restaurants require 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area.). Whether or not a particular property would be subject to an additional parking requirement would depend on the specific uses and characteristics of the property. As a longer-term solution, over the next year staff will be researching the parking requirements that other cities have for restaurant uses and will do an in depth study as part of the upcoming General Plan update. This will include research on how other jurisdictions handle commercial parking standards to determine if a lesser standard may be found that can reduce or eliminate the instances in which parking variances must be sought for new food establishment locations. In the meantime, restaurants that did not meet the parking requirements could request variances from the parking standards on a case-by-case basis, possibly by demonstrating that the parking demand would be less than what the code requires. Such instances would be based upon the specific characteristics of the business enterprise for which relief is sought. January 12, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8a. C-1 (Broadway Commercial Area) Zoning Changes 3 Prepared by: Catherine Barber Senior Planner Exhibits:  Broadway Commercial Area Map  November 3, 2014 City Council Minutes  December 1, 2014 City Council Minutes  Chapter 25.30, C-1 Zoning Regulations - Redlines with suggested changes  Proposed Resolution Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Code)  Public Hearing Notice – Mailed December 31, 2014 City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 818 Crossway Road Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Request: Design review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling . Applicant and Designer: JoAnn Gann APN: 029-021-270 Property Owner: Kevin Lake Lot Area: 9,664 General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property slopes downward from the front property line to the rear property line by 8-10 feet. The existing house has a main level and a lower level half story, so that the house is single story when viewed from the curb and two stories when viewed from the rear of the prop erty. There is an existing detached garage on the left side of the property. The properties immediately to the rear of the subject site are zoned R-2. The applicant proposes first and second story additions at the rear of the house. The total proposed floor area is 3,533 SF (0.37 FAR), where 4,593 SF (0.48 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and lower level exemptions). The proposed addition will increase the number of potential bedrooms from 3 to 6. The existing detached garage provides two covered parking spaces (20' x 20') and there is a single uncovered parking space (9' x 20') in the driveway leading to the garage. The three existing parking spaces meet the code requirements for on-site parking for a 6-bedroom house. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)). Address Lot Area: 9,664 SF Plans date stamped: December 24, 2014 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 20'-0" 28'-7" No change No change 15'-0" ( or the block average) 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 11'-8" 9'-8" 10'-2" 6'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 116'-0" 116'-0" 98'-0" 98'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1782 SF 18% 2634SF 27% 3866 SF 40% FAR: 2,000 SF 0.21 FAR 3,533 SF 0.37 FAR 4,593 SF 1 0.48 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 6 --- Parking: 2 covered (20' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (20' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (20' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 20'-8" No change 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26..075,b,2 applied to the right side Item No. 9a Design Review Study Design Review 818 Crossway Road -2- ¹ (0.32 x 9,664 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 4,593 SF (0.48 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division, Parks Division, and Stormwater Division. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. JoAnn Gann, applicant Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Photographs of Neighborhood Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 2, 2015 Aerial Photo PROJECT LOCATION 1512 Ralston Avenue Item No. 9b Design Review Study City of Burlingame Environmental Scoping and Design Review Address: 1512 Ralston Avenue Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Request: Application for Environmental Scoping and Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Ap plicant and Designer: James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc. APN: 028-285-030 Property Owners: Jim and Pei Lu Lot Area: 7,962 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Background: An application for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling at this site was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2014. At that time, the Commission continued the item with direction to the applicant. Since then, the property sold and that application was withdrawn. The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 1, 2012. The results of the evaluation concluded that 1512 Ralston does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. Planning Staff will prepare environmental review documentation to support the findings of the Historic Resource Evaluation prior to the Planning Commission Action Hearing for this project. Project Description: The subject property is located on Ralston Avenue, adjacent to Public Parking Lot H at the corner of Ralston Avenue and El Camino Real. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single story house to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 4,041 SF (0.50 FAR) where 4,048 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 7 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR. A total of three off-street parking spaces are required for a five-bedroom house, two of which must be covered. The proposed detached garage provides two code-compliant covered parking spaces (20’ x 20’ clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Environmental Scoping for Negative Declaration, a determination that there are no significant environmental effects as a result of this project; and  Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (1)). Item No. 9b Design Review Study Environmental Scoping and Design Review 1512 Ralston Avenue 2 1512 Ralston Avenue Lot Area: 7,962 SF Plans date stamped: December 17, 2014 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 28'-0” 40'-6” 27'-9” (block average) 27'-9” Side (left): (right): 10'-0" 4’-0” to 5’-6” 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 70’-1” 68’-1” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2624 SF 32.9% 3185 SF 40% FAR: 4041 SF 0.50 FAR 4048 SF 1 0.50 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 --- Parking: 2 covered (20' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (20' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 27’-3” 30'-0" DH Envelope: window enclosure exemption along left side (CS 25.26.075 (b) (2)) CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 7,962 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 4,048 SF (0.50 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc., applicant and designer Jim and Pei Lu, property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed December 31, 2014 Aerial Photo Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 1, 2012 State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial____________________________________ NRHP Status Code _6Z______________________________ Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page _1_ of _12_ Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) 1512 Ralston Avenue P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: Not for Publication ⌧Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999 *c. Address 1512 Ralston Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 028-285-030 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 1512 Ralston Avenue is located on a roughly rectangular-shaped lot measuring 36’ x 70’on the northwest side of Ralston Avenue, between El Camino Real and Crescent Avenue. Built in 1922, 1512 Ralston Avenue is a one-story, wood-frame, single-family residence designed in the Mediterranean Revival style. The building is generally rectangular in plan, though the rear (west) façade is characterized by a series of ten-foot setbacks, with the south façade being 20 feet longer than the north façade. The front (east) portion of the building is capped by a combination hipped and gabled roof covered with clay tiles, and the rear (west) portion is capped by a shallow hipped roof of unknown material. The front (east) portion of the building is clad in stucco, while the rear (west) portion is clad in wood shiplap siding. The foundation is concrete. The property features a landscaped front yard with brick and concrete walkways. The front yard is defined on its south and east sides by a stone-faced concrete wall with brick piers. The property is separated from the neighboring residence to the south by a paved driveway that continues to the rear of the lot, which is paved with brick and concrete that is scored to appear like stone pavers. The north, west, and part of the south property lines are defined by a tall wood fence. At the northwest corner of the building, a wood security fence encloses an area roughly 700 square feet in size with a concrete pad and a small garden. (See continuation sheet.) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: ⌧Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Photo: (view and date) View of primary (east) façade, 8/1/2012 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: ⌧historic 1922 (original building permit) *P7. Owner and Address: Rajiv Gujral Rockridge Lending Group, Inc. 3550 Mowry Avenue Fremont, CA 94538 *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. (JMK & AGC) 1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94111 *P9. Date Recorded: August 1, 2012 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”) None *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map ⌧Continuation Sheet ⌧Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list) DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information P5a. Photo State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 2 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1512 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L *P3a. Description: (continued) The primary façade faces east toward Ralston Avenue and is divided into two portions. A water table extends across the entire façade, which is clad in stucco. The south portion includes a partially enclosed porch with two segmentally-arched openings. The southern opening has been infilled with a fixed, multi-light wood-frame window with a brick sill below the window frame. The northern opening leads to the porch, which features a ceramic tile floor and is accessed by brick steps with metal railings. Beyond the arched opening, two pairs of French doors open onto the porch. The primary entrance faces south onto the porch and consists of a paneled wood door with circular and segmented round beveled lights. The south portion of the façade terminates in a molded cornice and the eave side of the clay tile roof. The north portion of the façade features a fixed wood- frame window flanked by multi-light, wood-sash casement windows with a single continuous wood sill. It terminates in a molded cornice and the gable end of the clay tile roof. The south façade faces the driveway and is divided into two portions. The west portion is clad in wood shiplap siding and features six double-hung, wood-sash windows with lambs tongues and one vinyl replacement window. The west portion terminates in a wood soffit with a metal gutter that obscures the low-pitched roof above. The east portion projects approximately two feet to the south and is clad in stucco. It features a stuccoed chimney that widens at the base flanked by two multi-light, wood-sash casement windows. East of the chimney, a water table extends to the eastern edge of the façade, where a segmentally-arched opening has been infilled with a pair of multi-light, wood-sash casement windows with a brick sill below the window frame. The east portion of the façade terminates in a molded cornice and the eave side of the clay tile roof. The west (rear) façade is clad in wood shiplap siding. It is divided into three portions. The north portion features a partially glazed and paneled wood door obscured by a metal security gate and two double-hung, wood-sash windows with lambs tongues. The north portion also features a deck constructed of wood and Trex® components, which is accessed by steps with railings on the west side. The center portion projects approximately ten feet to the west and features no fenestration openings. The south portion projects approximately ten feet to the west and contains a set of three double-hung, wood-sash windows with lamb tongues. The entire façade terminates in a wood soffit with a metal gutter that obscures the low-pitched roof above. The north façade consists of four portions. The first (easternmost) portion is clad in stucco, and the base of the wall rests on a raised concrete curb. It features two pairs of multi-light, wood-sash casement windows and a fixed wood-frame window flanked by multi-light, wood-sash casement windows. It terminates in a molded cornice and the eave side of the clay tile roof. The second portion continues in the same plane as the first portion. It is clad in wood shiplap siding and features two louvered vents with wood surrounds and four double-hung, wood-sash windows with lambs tongues. The first and second portions face a narrow concrete walkway and chain-link fence. The third portion is recessed approximately ten feet and features one double- hung, wood-sash window with lambs tongues at deck level and a paneled wood door at ground level. The fourth (westernmost) portion is recessed approximately ten feet and features two double-hung, wood-sash windows with lambs tongues. The second, third, and fourth portions terminate in a wood soffit with a metal gutter that obscures the low-pitched roof above. The interior of the 1512 Ralston Avenue is partitioned into twelve rooms. Typical features include hardwood and linoleum tile floors, smooth plaster walls with wood base and picture molding, coved ceilings, and built-in cabinetry. A detached 228-square foot, wood-frame garage stands at the southwest corner of the lot and abuts the south and west property lines. The garage is clad in wood channel-drop siding and features a one-car sectional garage door on the east façade. The north and east façades terminate in metal coping. The building is capped by a flat roof. The house and garage appear to be in good condition. State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 3 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1512 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L South façade, view looking northwest (Page & Turnbull, August 2012). North façade, views looking east (Page & Turnbull, August 2012). State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 4 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1512 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L North portion of the west (rear) façade, view looking southeast (Page & Turnbull, August 2012). South portion of west (rear) façade, view looking southeast (Page & Turnbull, August 2012). State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 5 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1512 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L West (rear) façade, view looking east (Page & Turnbull, August 2012). Detached garage, looking west (Page & Turnbull, August 2012). State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 6 of 12 *NRHP Status Code_6Z_______________________ *Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue B1. Historic name: Breslauer Residence B2. Common name: 1512 Ralston Avenue B3. Original Use: Single-family residence B4. Present use: Single-family residence *B5. Architectural Style: Mediterranean Revival *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) 1922: Building constructed; ca. 1922-1932: detached garage constructed at northwest corner of lot; ca. 1932-1975: partial enclosure of front porch; 1984: hot water system (possibly shower) installed; 1986: reroofed; 2001: electrical service. *B7. Moved? ⌧⌧⌧⌧No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________ *B8. Related Features: Detached garage B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Theme_Residential architecture Area Burlingame Park___________________________ Period of Significance _N/A Property Type_Residential_________________Applicable Criteria_N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Historic Context: City of Burlingame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted to Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small- scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. (See Continuation Sheet) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: (See Page 9) B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Johanna Kahn & Lexie Costic, Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: August 1, 2012 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2012. Modified by Page & Turnbull. (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 7 of 12 Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L B10. Significance: (continued) Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910 annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107. Burlingame Park Neighborhood The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. The Rancho was inherited by Joseph Henry Poett and later sold to Anson Burlingame in 1866 and to William C. Ralston in 1872. Ralston began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall’s early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall’s cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan “centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree-lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents” (Brechin 1999, 94). The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911. Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by County Road to the north; Burlingame Park, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the east; Pepper Avenue to the south; and Bellevue Avenue to the west. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of about fifty years. Modest residences were constructed within the subdivision in the early years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and the majority of the residences in the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s, including the house at 1512 Ralston Avenue. Many of these residences were designed in high architectural styles and were much grander in scale than the earlier residences. By 1949, nearly all of the approximately 250 lots in Burlingame Park were developed. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to the present day. The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue is a common, but altered, example of the residential building typology constructed in Burlingame Park in the 1920s. 1512 Ralston Avenue The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue was constructed in 1922, according to a building permit issued to Theo Breslauer on 12 April 1922. This construction year is supported by a water meter record dating to15 April 1922. Additionally, an appraisal report dated 10 August 1932 from the San Mateo County Assessor’s Office records the house as being ten years old. Furthermore, the building does not appear on the 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map, and the address was first listed in the Burlingame city directory in 1924. Theodore L. Breslauer was the first owner of 1512 Ralston Avenue. Born in 1886, Theodore Breslauer was a general practice lawyer in San Francisco. He lived in the house with his wife, Alice. According to the Federal Census in 1930 and 1940, the Breslauers’ daughter, Ann, was also a resident until she married Edward S. Adler and moved to Los Angeles around 1935. However, Ann B. Adler still appeared in the Burlingame directory as a resident at 1512 Ralston Avenue until 1936. She was also recorded as the property owner, along with her mother in the1932 appraisal report records. Additionally, a water meter record from 7 March 1942 lists Ann B. Adler as the property owner. Though Theodore Breslauer died in ca. 1940, these records suggest that ownership of 1512 Ralston Avenue was transferred to his wife and daughter as early as 1932. Alice Breslauer (widowed) remained a resident at the house until her death on 3 October 1975. According to a water meter record, 1512 Ralston Avenue was purchased by Walter C. Sjostrom, an accountant and longtime resident of Burlingame, as early as March 1975. Linda Summers, a retired private-family nurse and citizen of Burlingame since ca. 1940, was a resident in the house from 1975 to 1980. Though building permits issued in 1984 and 1986 also record Walter Sjostrom as the property owner, it is unknown whether he resided at the address. Ana T. Sjostrom was also listed as an owner in a 2012 real estate advertisement. Casey Keating was recorded as the property owner and resident at 1512 Ralston Avenue in a building permit issued in December 2001 for electrical services. (See Continuation Sheet) State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 8 of 12 Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L B10. Significance (cont’d): The chain of title for 1512 Ralston Avenue could not be followed in its entirety. However, records from the Burlingame Historic Society and the San Mateo County Assessor’s Office confirm the following people as owners (listed with approximate dates of ownership): Theodore L. Breslauer (12 April 1922 - ca. 1931) Alice Breslauer and Ann Breslauer (a.k.a. Ann Adler) (1932 -1975) Walter C. Sjostrom (Ana T. Sjostrom) (ca. 1975 -unknown) Casey Keating (2001 -unknown) Rajiv Gujral (2012-present) Former known residents include the following (owners are underlined): 1922 - 1939: Theodore L. Breslauer (attorney, San Francisco), Alice and Ann Breslauer 1932 - 1975: Alice Breslauer and Ann B. Adler (Breslauer) 1977 - 1980: Linda Summers 2001: Casey Keating Additions and Alterations A 1932 appraisal report from the Burlingame City Hall of Records describes 1512 Ralston Avenue as a stucco, wood, and concrete building with a Spanish tile roof. The appraisal includes a sketch of the lot and building footprint, including a detached garage and a 7’ x 14’ open porch at the front of the house. All building measurements and exterior finishes appear consistent with the property’s current conditions. From this report, it can be inferred that the front porch was partially enclosed at a later, unknown date. On 5 May 1984, a combination building and plumbing permit was issued for a domestic hot water system for the estimated cost of $3,000. Due to the deterioration of the City’s microfilm records, further details regarding the alterations are unavailable. (It is possible a new, separate shower was installed in the bathroom at this time.) The owner and builder was Walter Sjostrom and the contractor was Rouse Construction (Building Permit #8056). On 5 November 1986, a building permit was issued for reroofing for the estimated cost of $2,800. The owner was Walter Sjostrom and the contractor was Ramirez Roofing (Building Permit #1880). An electrical permit for the replacement of a 100 Amp panel was issued on 17 December 2001 for an estimated cost of $2,500. The property owner was Casey Keating and the contractor was listed as Pick Rd (Electrical Permit # 2011590). Evaluation (Significance): The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally. Constructed in 1922, the house at 1512 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house does convey contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Burlingame Park, however, the property is one of many residences constructed between 1905 and the 1930s in this area, and does not have individual distinction within this historic context. Therefore, the property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion B/2 (Persons). Research has not revealed any association with people significant in local, state or national history. Historically, the property was associated with the San Francisco attorney Theodore Breslauer, as well as his wife, Alice, and daughter Ann B. Adler. Subsequent owners/residents include a retired nurse; an accountant and his wife; Casey Keating, whose occupation is unknown; and Rajiv Gujral, a real estate agent and current property owner. None of these owners/residents appear to be significant to local, state, or national history. (See Continuation Sheet) State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 9 of 12 Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L B10. Significance: (continued) The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The building is a typical example of the residences constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood in the 1920s and displays architectural features identified with the Mediterranean Revival style, but it is not a distinctive or prominent example of that style. The architect and builder are unknown, but it is not likely that the property represents the work of a master. Furthermore, it does not appear to be an influential or noteworthy example of residential construction in the neighborhood. Therefore, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for listing in under Criterion C/3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 1512 Ralston Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. Evaluation (Integrity): The house at 1512 Ralston Avenue is situated on its original lot within the Burlingame Park neighborhood, and it therefore retains integrity of location. Though Burlingame Park remains a residential neighborhood characterized by single-family houses, several buildings in the vicinity of the subject property have been demolished or heavily altered, and integrity of setting has been compromised. The property has experienced some alterations, including the partial enclosure of the front porch and reroofing. Despite these changes, it retains integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. It remains in use as a single-family residence associated with the development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood, and therefore retains integrity of association. The property retains integrity of feeling as an early twentieth-century residence in the Burlingame Park neighborhood development. Overall, the house at 1512 Ralston Avenue does retain historic integrity, and conveys contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the early development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood. Conclusion 1512 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to 1512 Ralston Avenue, meaning that it was “found ineligible for National Register, California Register or Local designation through survey evaluation.” This designation is based on the property’s lack of significance under the California Register eligibility criteria. This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth-century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district. *B12. References: - 1512 Ralston Avenue, historic photographs: 1975. Burlingame Historical Society Archives. - Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. - Building Permit Records, 1512 Ralston Avenue, Burlingame, CA. - Burlingame City Directories. - Carey & Company. “Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan.” February 19, 2008. - Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004. - Evans, Beverley L., ed. Burlingame: Lively Memories- a Pictorial View. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 1977. - Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007. - McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. - Parcel History, San Mateo County Hall of Records, Redwood City. - “Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame.” July 26, 1982. - United States Federal Census records: 1930, 1940. - San Mateo County Assessor Records. - Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949. State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 10 of 12 Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L Historic Maps and Photographs: 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with the location of 1512 Ralston Avenue shown in red; edited by author. Note the parcel was vacant. State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 11 of 12 Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1512 Ralston Avenue shown in red; edited by author. State of California ¾¾¾¾ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 12 of 12 Resource Name or # 1512 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 1, 2012 ⌧ Continuation Update DPR 523L 1512 Ralston Avenue in 1975 (Burlingame Historical Society). 1512 Ralston Avenue in 1978 (Burlingame Historical Society). CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: January 12, 2015 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 FROM: Erika Lewit, Senior Planner SUBJECT: FYI- REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 114 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage at 114 Howard Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on November 25, 2013 (November 25, 2013 Consent Calendar and November 12, 2014 Design Review Study Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A Building Permit was issued and the project is close to completion and final inspections. The homeowner submitted a letter accompanied with photographs to show the 4 requested as- built changes to the approved project. The front and rear elevations from the original approved plans are included for reference. Planning Staff would note that two of the proposed changes (the tile at the second story window recess and the chimney termination cap) are at the rear elevation and two of the proposed changes (the three recessed windows and the front entry column materials) are at the front elevation. All of these changes are in place except for the front entry columns, which have not yet been installed. The approved columns were rounded and made of stone with a stone base. The proposed columns will also be rounded, but will be constructed of fiberglass and painted. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Erika Lewit, Senior Planner c. Julie and Leno Bellomo, property owners ATTACHMENTS: Explanation letter from owner, date stamped January 7, 2014 November 25, 2013, Planning Commission Action Calendar Minutes November 12, 2013 Planning Commission Design Review Study Minutes Approval letter for project, dated December 10, 2014 Previously approved plans, front and rear elevations, date stamped October 30, 2013 Photographs of the as-built project (four 4" x 6" photos)