HomeMy WebLinkAbout1145 Cortez Avenue - Staff Report� C D�-
MEMO
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 7, 2007
Planning Commission
City Planner
�� CITY 0
� �
BURLINGAME
b�oq 9om
°NwTeo �uNe d�
azl j2�� �--
Planner's Report
Meeting Date: 02/12/07
FYI - REVISIONS TO AN APPROVED FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1145
CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: On August 8, 2005, the Planning Commission approved an application for design review
and special permits for building height (31'-9" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed) and
reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on site (from two covered to one covered parking
spaces) for a first floor remodel and second story addition (August 8, 2005 P.C. Minutes).
On May 22, 2006, the Planning Commission approved an application for amendment to design
review for revisions to the originally approved project including changes to window sizes and the
size of the utility room (May 22, 2006 P.C. Minutes). A building permit was issued on June 2, 2006,
and construction is underway.
On September 25, 2006, the Planning Commission approved another application for amendment to
design review and special permit for building height for an additional increase to the previously
approved building height from 31'-9" to 33'-0" above average top of curb September 25, 2006 P.C.
Minutes). A revision to the original Building Permit was approved by Planning staff on October 6,
2006.
On January 26, 2007, the project designer came to the Planning Department counter to discuss as-
built changes that have been made to the proj ect and that were noticed by the proj ect designer during
his inspection for his architectural certification letter. The following is an outline of the as-built
changes that that were noted by the project designer:
• Front Elevation: No changes.
• Rear Elevation: The as-built barge rafters on the second floor match the original barge
rafters at the front elevation, the second floor columns have changed slightly in style, a
second floor window has changed from a tall double hung window to a smaller casement
window and the center post on the guardrail has been eliminated.
Planning Commission
Page 2
February 7, 2007
Right Side Elevation: The diamond mullion detail was removed from one window and
added to another
Left Side Elevation: A small window at the basement exit area has yet to be installed. The
property owner would like the option to provide or not provide the window in this location.
Detached Garage: The covered porch attached to the detached garage was removed due to
concerns with cost and decreased sunlight on to the garage, which reduces the overall FAR
and lot coverage by 40 SF. Also, the as-built rafters on the garage, match the original rafters
at the front elevation.
The design of the addition, other than the changes described above, remains unchanged. Reduced
copies of the originally approved and as built house elevations and garage plans (date stamped
January 29, 2007) have been included for your review.
Planning staff would note that because of the minor revisions to the barge rafters, windows, columns
and the garage, which causes a decrease in floor area and lot coverage, it was determined that the
changes could be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item. 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.
Erica Strohmeier
Zoning Technician
ATTACHMENTS:
Letter from Jerry Deal, designer, date stamped January 29, 2007
August 8, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and as-built house elevations and garage plans
JD &
ASSOCIATES
BUILDING DESIGN &
�
J
1228 paloma avenue burlingame, ca. 94010
fax (65U) 375-8448 tele. (650) 343-6Q14
email jda@jerrydeal.com
1-25-2007
To: City of Surlingame
Building Department
Re: Love Residence
1145 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
On 1-24-2007 I personally performed a site visit in order to determine if the as built
construction conforms to the architectural drawings from my office.
MA�IN DWELLING
I have found the eacterior architectural characteristics of the main dwelling have been
followed with minor exceptions that do not affect the integrity of detailing. The
following minor differences are noted:
North Elevation
• No Changes
East Elevation
• A small window that will provide natural li�ht to the basement area was not
installed at this time, although the framin� members are in place. The contractor
e�lained that the original window received was of the wrong size and has been
reordered_ In my opinion the design will not suffer with or without the window
and the Owner would like the option to provide or to not provide.
South �levation
• The as built barge rafters of the second floor match the existing barge rafters of
the north elevation instead of the more simplistic (and cheaper) approved barge
rafter. In my opinion this costlier detail will add to the charm and character of the
design.
• The second floor columns have changed slightly in style.
• A second floor window has changed from a ta11 double hung to a smalle�lr �CEIVE�
casement window.
• The center post of the guazdrail has been omitted.
JAN 2 9 2007
(�i'` � �3lJ�NGAME
Pta�a; m�'��� O�
West Elevation
• There have been minor changes which did not affect their size, to two windows_
ACCESSO1rY STRUCTURE ( Detached �arage)
I have found the e�erior architectural characteristics of the main dwelling have been
followed with two exceptions.
• The covered porch attached to the garage has been eliminated due to concerns of
cost and decreased sunli�ht into the garage.
• The as built barge rafters of the garage match the existing barge rafters of the
north elevation of the main dwelling instead of the more simplistic (and cheaper)
approved barge rafter. In my opinion this costlier detail will add to the charm and
character of the design.
CUNCI.�USIUN
In my opinion the detail ehanges from the approved design are either positive or not
negative.
Thank you,
Jerry Deal
Prinapai
JD 8� Associates
L� "��
R�CEI�/�C�
JA N 2 9 2007
crrY o;= �c: , re- .��+�
��r.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
ACTION
August 8, 2005
COnsent Calen� al' - Items on the consent calenda re considererl to be routine. They e acted on simu aneously unless
eparate discussion d/or action is requested by the app ' ant, a member of the public or a c missioner prio to the time the
mmission votes on t motion to adopt.
4B. 15 NEWLANDS A ENUE, ZONED R-1 — AP ICATION FOR DESIGN VIEW FOR FIRST
AND ECOND STOR ADDITION (WILLIAM SANDRA LINDSELL, PLICANT ND
PROP TY OWNERS; ARK ROBERTSON, DES NER) (56 NOTICED) PR JECT PLA R:
Chair Auran ted that he had r eived a speaker card reque 'ng that Item 4A, 1145 Co z Avenue, be
called off the c sent calendar. Th item was moved to the re lar action calendar.
. Keighran moved proval of the ba ce of the consent calenda ased on the facts in the s ff report,
c missioners comm ts and the findin in the staff report with re mmended conditions in the staff
rep and by resolution. he motion was se nded by C. Cauchi. Chai uran called for a voice vote on
the mo ' n and it passed 5- -2 (Cers. Brownrig and Vistica absent). Appea rocedures were advised. This
item concluded at 7:28 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
4A. 1145 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND REDUCTION OF PARKING SPACES ON-SITE FOR A LOWER
FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; STEVE AND COURTNEY LOVE�(63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant, recused himself from the item and left
the dais. Reference staff report August 8, 2005, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners
commented on a letter submitted by a neighbor and noted that the neighbor is concerned that with the
removal of the existing garage, there will be a gap in the fence between the two properties, would like the
applicant to address this issue in his comments.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Kris Hurley, 164 Pepper, representing the neighbor at 1149 Cortez,
noted that the neighbor has concerns that the existing garage acts as a fence, when it is removed, there won't
be a fence to keep a dog in the yard; also the height as proposed is above the 30' limit, would like to see it
reduced. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners noted that a special permit allows heights up to 36 feet for architectural consistency and this
design fits the special permit criteria, it is a traditional style that blend in, there is only one section of the roof
in the middle that exceeds the 30 foot height; the existing first floor is 3'-6" above grade, height is necessary
to accommodate the second floor; a condition of approval should be added that a fence be built where the
existing garage is to be removed; would like to see landscape plan clarified, it is cryptic and incomplete,
would like to see the landscape plan come back as an information item. C. Keighran moved to approve the
application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as
shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 29, 2005, sheets 1-7 and G-1,
and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall
require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or
Ciry of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
August 8, 2005
second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing
windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or
other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as
window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of
perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to scheduling the roof
deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that
height to the Building Department; 5. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect
and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project
has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents,
and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof
not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction
plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that a fence shall be installed along the side property line where
the existing garage is to be removed; 8) that the landscape plan shall be refined to show more detail and shall
be brought to the Planning Commission as an information item prior to issuance of a building permit; 9)
that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 13, 2005, memo, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's
and Recycling Specialist's May 16, 2005, memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 19, 2005, memo shall
be met; 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 11) that the project shall comply with the
Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new
construction and alteration proj ects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any
partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 12) that
the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance.
The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve.
The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstaining and Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:36 p.m.
5. 1517 CYPRESS A ENUE, ZONED R-1 — PLICATION FOR DESI REVIEW, P G
V NCE, SIDE S BACK VARIANCE AND ONDITIONAL USE PERM FOR A FIRST OOR
RE DEL, SECOND TORY ADDITION AND NEW DETACHED GARA (MICHAEL ,
APPL ANT AND PRO RTY OWNER; HOLDRE -LIETZKE DESIGN, DESIG R) (69 NOTI D)
PROJE PLANNER: ER STROHMEIER
Reference s f report August 8, O5, with attachments. S rooks presented the report, viewed criteria
and staff com ents. Ten conditio were suggested for con 'deration. Chair Auran ope ed the public
hearing. Mike �, property owner d applicant was available answer questions. Commi 'oners noted
that the house loo good overall, have n roblem with the place nt of the garage given the u sual shape
of the lot, but want point out that a port n of the side wall of the arage is shown right on th roperty
c�ine, want to make i lear that the eave ca ot project over the pr erty line. There were n further
iiments and the pub hearing was closed.
Com 'ssioners noted that t variances and conditi al uses for the garage uld be supported based on e
unusual ape of the lot, the plicant has done a go d job working with t constraints of the lot.
Osterling ved to approve the plication, by resolutio , ith the following co ditions: 1) that the proj ect
shall be bui s shown on the pl submitted to the Pla ing Department dat tamped June 23, 2005,
�
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
VIIL REGULAR ACTION ITEM
May 22, 2006
4-5. 1145 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND FOR REDUCTION OF
PARKING SPACES ON-SITE FOR A F1RST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STEVE AND COURTNEY LOVE, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Deal recused himself because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the
dais and left the Council chambers.
Reference staff report May 22, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Steve Love, property owner, was available to answer questions.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 2, 2006, sheets
1-2, 4 and 6-7, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the
building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the
basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or
changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to
Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect,
engineer ar other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed
professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under
penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to scheduling
the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roofridge and provide certification
of that height to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will
inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the
proj ect has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing
vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of
the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the
construction plans before a Building permit is issued;7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's
May 13, 2005, memo, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's May 16, 2005, memos,
and the NPDES Coordinator's May 19, 2005, memo shall be met; 8) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of
Burlingame; 9) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the
site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply
with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 10) that the project shall comply
with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new
construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any
partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11) that the
applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
�
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
TION FOR P
CONVERT AN
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal
abstain). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias.
6. 1124 BALBOA AVENUE ZONED R-1 — APP �
CO TIONAL USE PERMI AND SPECIAL PERMIT
GARA TO ACCESSORY L G QUARTERS (STEVE
RENE O ONEZ PROPERTY O R 67 NOTICED P
Reference st f report May 22, 2006, �`
and staff com ents. She noted that
construction wit out a building permit.
questions of staf .
attachments. CP Mc
tem is a code enfor
�,ven conditions were
�.�'
May 22, 2006
VARIA E,
DETACH
C; CANDIDA
1�N Runnx�
sented the report, review criteria
item based on a complai about
;d for consideration. There w e no
Chair Brownrigg op ed the public hearing. Steve Mendenhall, 112 Illinois Avenue, Sacramento;
represented the proj ect oting that they made the provements to the garag to provide a decent life for his
ther-in-law because of 's needs created by Alzhe er's disease and the issue his mother-in-law has caring
fo him. The father-in-la as been away for a year, fter they were told to sto work on the garage, living
wit a daughter, she is now lling her house and he n ds to move back to this operty; the father-in-law
will s ep in the house, and be ' the garage and rear yar during the day, his moth -in-law can watch him
from i'de the house through e sliding glass doors. mmissioners asked: ca bedroom inside the
house be onverted to meet his n ds? How is he kept in t yard inside the gate? this problem been
discussed 'th the neighbors? Ho � portant is the shower? plicant noted that it wo be more difficult
to observe hi father-in-law inside th ouse and he would nee to be taken frequently to e bathroom; in
the garage the or to the bathroom ca e left open so he can se he bathroom, he uses th hower two or
three times a da the gate is kept locke nd he cannot open it; an they have not discusse his situation
with the neighbors. Commission noted tha with this application ther 's no legal on-site parkin how many
cars are there in this usehold? Applicant ted that there are two ca one used by the daugh and one
shared by the two gran daughters, there is o parking space in front o he gate in the drivewa nd one
parking space at the curb ' front of the house. mmission expressed conc with how this space s not
become a second unit in th future? Applicant no d that there is no cooking ement in the garage; an that
his father-in-law must be m itored all the time. mmission noted then it d s not matter if he is inside
the house or out. Applicant n ted that it is easier fo is father in law to be in a'ngle room environment.
�'here were no further commen . The nublic hearin� as closed.
Co issioner discussion: Is the co mission limited on h they can condition a use ermit? CA noted are
not a wed to tie the duration of a us ermit to a single per or the sale or rental of th roperty, may link
a use p it to a given period of time, or example 3 years. ncerned that there is no r ord of the toilet
being in e garage before this work wa discovered, how do know it was installed ac rding to code.
CP noted t t this use permit would addre that, if approved, wou need to get a building pe it and insure
that the toile � installed to current CBC re irements. Commissi er noted that in the past years can
recall two sim r requests but in both case he use was in free st ding accessory structures and not
converting the c ered parking. Seems that th e are other ways to a ress the needs of this individual
without using all th required on-site parking, part larly since there is sp e in the house where he sleeps at
night; sympathetic t amily's needs but concerned ith work done that a a full bath and closet, looks
like an apartment; agr that there are other options for care on-site and do not want to burden the neighbor
with a second unit; looks like plans show work done on the house at some time; CP noted not aware of work
E
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
September 25, 2006
C. Vistica noted that e comments showed a 1 of dissatisfaction h the mass and bulk of is proposal
nd with what is hap ening in the neighborh d, not want this p�ect as the example f the future
pansions which will appen in this transition rea, move to deny t's project without prej ice. The
tion was seconded by . Auran.
Co ent on the motion: i here an option to deni without prejudice, co cerned if send back to a esign
revie er it will come back h the same mass and b lk; maybe more appr riate to deny the proje CP
noted t t with a denial witho rejudice it is up to th applicant to decide th extent of a proposed ch ge,
if at all, d no fees are charge for resubmittal; with denial the same proje t cannot be submitted f a
year and es must be paid for a other submittal. It s noted that this hou is on a large lot and t
setbacks ar eater than required, he style is not Prairi inclined to give the signer another chance t
design, the th of the lot is impo ant. Valid that a bi ouse has different se acks, but bigger house
needs more de ' to diminish bulk, t e square footage is O but the presentation i ot good. Protest bulk
and size, not fit e character of the ne hborhood, support nial. With `denial wi out prejudice' softer
essage, hate to ee go though redesi process if not see major change. Ma and bulk could be
s ported by the 1 if it were handled be r in the design, big i dicator of the proble 's the eight foot tall
wi ows and doors, too big, need to redu scale of those in n'ghborhood and add a ront porch to add
hum scale to the p'ect.
Chair ownrigg calle o�
given by e commission '
vote. App al procedures v�
a voice vote on th
the discussion. T;
�re advised. This i
on to deny wi out prejudice includi the direction
ion passed on a-1 (C. Brownrigg di enting) voice
�ncluded at 8:45 p.m.
8. 1145 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR AN APPROVED FIRST
FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; STEVE AND COURTNEY LOVE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Deal recused himself because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the
dais and left the Council Chambers.
Reference staff report September 25, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions
of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Stewart Gunrow, designer, JD and Associates, Steve Love,
property owner, represented the project. This was an unusual structural problem. When opened up the
house and discovered it, stopped work and applied to the Planning Commission. This affects the height of
the house but not the footprint. The applicant submitted a diagram of the framing of the first and second
floor showing how the existing roof was tied in.
Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Paul Hart, 1148 Cabrillo Avenue. Pass
this house often, exemplary remodel, straight forward problem found during construction, thank the
applicant for coming forward now and not after construction was completed. Feel this house is out of
proportion with the houses on the side of the street, did the architect and engineer supervise this proj ect as it
proceeded or did they just draw the plans, when were they contacted regarding this problem? Why do they
need three feet, to increase the insulation, looks like they added this as an after thought, can it be built within
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapprove�l Minutes
September 25, 2006
the approved 31'-6"; live behind have lost view of trees on Cortez because of the peaked roof, with this will
loose all view of trees, have a loss of sunlight, all I will see is the house and the garage; concerned about the
tree in the backyard between house and garage, blocks about 50% of the view, will be fully exposed if it is
removed, feel that this was forced by a number of small changes asked of the contractor, would ask the
Planning Commission to deny this request. Applicant noted: additional height is only 1'-3" not three feet
from the existing 31'-9", or total height of 33 feet, e.g. the net increase is 1'-3". This 1'-3" is to the highest
point since the house is not level. The architect was engaged immediately when found the problem which
emerged from keeping the existing first floor eaves. There were no further comments from the floor. The
public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted that the detail showing the problem and the framing to fit is helpful, request is to add 1'-3"
to the wall to the level of the second floor windows, improves the appearance, so move to approve the
application for an increase in height of 1'-3" by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the proj ect
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 29, 2005,
sheets 3, 5 and G-1, as amended by the plans date stamped May 2, 2006, sheets 1-2, 4 and 6, and as amended
by the plans date stamped September 15, 2006, sheet 7, and that any changes to building materials, exterior
finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; (2) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 2,
2006, , and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building
shall require an amendment to this permit; (3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first
or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing
windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review; (4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or
other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as
window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of
perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; (5) that prior to scheduling the roof
deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that
height to the Building Department; (6) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect
and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the proj ect
has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; (7) that all air ducts, plumbing
vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of
the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the
construction plans before a Building permit is issued; (8) that the conditions ofthe ChiefBuilding Official's
May 13, 2005, memo, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's May 16, 2005, memos,
and the NPDES Coordinator's May 19, 2005, memo shall be met; (9) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of
Burlingame; (10) 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; (11) that the project shall comply
with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new
construction and alteration proj ects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any
partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and (12) that
the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Commissioner comments: Should be clear that this is 15 inches more not three feet more in height; most of
the roof is below this highest point; this remodel is smaller than it could be.
E
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
September 25, 2006
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the special permit for
height of the single family house at 1145 Cortez Avenue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal
abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais.
9. 1 0 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR — AP ICATION FOR COl�
A O STORAGE FOR A OWING BUSINES ND AN AUTOMOB
EA MENT (MARC RO ETTE, D& M T ING, APPLICANT;
PRO RTY nWNERI (39 N TICEDI PROJEC PLANNER: MAURI
Referen staff report September 5, 2006, with �
criteria an staff comments. Eight conditions �
does the o er of the drainage area ave an eas�
ITIONAL USE RMIT FOR
�E DEALER IN A RAINAGE
�ITNESS PROPE TIES LLC,
ients. CP Monroe p sented the report, eviewed
iggested for consider ion. Commission s asked
across the property at 704 Rollins? It i staffs
understandm that there are no easeme ts, a coterminou lease agreement was p osed. Is it approp 'ate to
allow a condit nal use on the condition at it is not inco venient for a neighbori property? Staff ould
note that such ondition would probab not resolve po ntial problems; which ould take a lot o taff
time. Was any rvey information besi the sketches i luded provided, obse e obstructions i the
driveway at 1704 llins and the width be en buildings se s to measure in the fi 20 feet 5 inches, ot
the 24 feet which w uld justify a 12 wide dri way claimed; s ms this is set up for co tinued conflict 'th
eighbor. In additio the sprinkler pipe exten 2 feet from th building so it will be i ossible to use t e
uthern drive way on 704 Rollins without goi over on to the roperty at 1670 Rollin ? Staff noted th t
n surveys were submi ed. Why was this use n stopped and moved until this heari g had occurred?
St suggested that th commission ask the a licant, the c has been processi various code
enfo ements on this use ' ce 2002. There were n further Questi s of staff from the C mission.
Chair ownrigg opened th public hearing. Nich e Rochette, d ghter of the owner d manager,
represen d D&M Towing, G lermo Macalpin and Ra Genworth repr enting Fitness Prope s, property
owner, an Terry Sterling, own of the property at 1670 ollins Road sp e. The applicant not that they
thought tha this issue had been r olved and it has resurf ed, can provid dates for discussions resolve
recurring pr lems. Have spoken ith Terry Sterling, com s with complai s from the tenants, th n spoke
to tenant oper ions manager, last ar worked it out, put u ones to mark 'veway and do not b ck the
driveway, last ar was working as s oothly as possible, trie recently to con ct Terry Sterling tw e, did
not reach her. C missioner asked w t can be done? Could ut a fence dow he middle of the dri eway
or Botts Dots, the are ways to work i out. Would you be w ling to enter in a roadway maintenance
agreement? Ms. rling did not menti that, in our letter th ught we had fi d all the issues. If the
driveway at 1670 Ro 'ns is blocked what uld you do? Possibly se the other (no h side) of 1704 Rollins
etween 1704 and 17 ; would also look at moving 18 feet of th ence at the rear f 1640 Rollins where
0 office is and gain a ess to the drainage a from there instead from 1704 Roll s; have not pursued
thi since the property 1640 Rollins recent changed hands an have not talke to the new owner.
Com issioner noted that cess from 1640 Roll s is a better solution your use should ot be a burden on
your n'ghbors, it should b onfined to the site y lease. Access is a ected by two se containers and a
trailer? es, these hold the s urity system and dry orage. Is there a re on you did not c ply with code
enforcem t and relocate th e? Thought the c de enforcement uld move fast than it did.
Commissi ers noted: on site 'sits saw a lot of tra c on both sides (1 70 and 1704) o he driveway,
including A E towing there t ay, they do not kn the rules of use; 'f approve this e there will
certainly be a nflict between 1704 and 1670, the dama to the pavement serious, Botts Dots will not
keep a truck confined on one side of the driveway, if fence put down the middle, trucks will not be able to
9