Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 02.28.11 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, February 28, 2011 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Yie called the February 28, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Lindstrom, Terrones and Yie Absent: Commissioner Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul to approve the minutes of the February 14, 2011 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: Page 3; last bullet under "Commission comments';- change "Complement" to "Compliment". Page 7; last bullet under "Commission comments';- change "roof" to "root" and following "required, " insert "can request". Page 11; bullet under "Public comments'; third line; delete "not" Motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice -Chair Yie noted that a request for a continuance of Item 2c (221 Primrose Road) was received from the applicant; the item will be continued to the March 21, 2011 meeting. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, SUITE G, ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (JOE ZHEN, APPLICANT; JULIA WAN, DESIGNER; GREEN BANKER LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated February 28, 2011. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 Commission comments: ■ Noted that parking spaces at the location have been designated for First Republic Bank; are any spaces designated for the proposed use? (Meeker — typically, required parking for multi -tenant commercial buildings is not to be reserved for specific tenants; staff will review this matter.) ■ The landlord is incorrectly advertising tenant space for a restaurant use; no City approvals have been granted for the use; a photo of the leasing sign was provided. ■ Clarify whether or not the parking variance that is requested (eight spaces) includes the prior variance for the bank space, or is in addition to the prior variance. ■ Provide information regarding the preparer of the parking analysis; was it prepared by a professional consultant; the property owner? ■ Does the applicant operate any other restaurants? ■ Are there any other establishments operated by the proposed tenant. ■ Is this a "sit-down" establishment, or "take-out"? This item was set for the Regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon 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. Vice -Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Item 2c (221 Primrose Road) was pulled from the Consent Calendar to allow the Commission to act upon the applicant's request for a continuance. 2a. 390 LEXINGTON WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (PAUL OWENS, OWENS CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY ROSITANO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 2b. 1530 LA MESA DRIVE AND 4 LA MESA COURT, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1530 LA MESA DRIVE AND 4 LA MESA COURT, LOT 1 AND PARCEL A, VIEWLAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION, PM 10-03 (MACLEOD AND ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND ENGINEER; BARBARA A. FORREST TRUSTEE FOR WAYNE F. RHOADS AND ANITA M. RHOADS 1993 TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: VICTOR VOONG Commissioner Terrones moved for approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:13 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2c. 221 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (COFFEE HOUSE) (COOL CHEFS, INC., APPLICANT; 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 CORTLAND MORGAN, ARCHITECT; AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CENTERS LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the item to the regular meeting of March 14, 2011 at the request of the applicant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. 3. 1333 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 28, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Cynthia Wukotich, 1421 Oak Grove Avenue, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Great job, much improved. ■ Will there be a railing in front; what material will be used? (Wukotich — yes, will be treated similar to the pickets around the front porch; wood with 4x4 posts and cap.) ■ The final resolution of the landscape plan and the railing at the steps can come back as an FYI. ■ Roof -plan is 99% resolved; noted that a minor correction to the roof plan is needed near the gable. ■ Happy to see that there has been some resolution to the parking area in the rear. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 16, 2011, sheets A0.0 through A3.0, A5.0, L1.0 and L2.0; and date stamped December 1, 2010, sheets A.4.0 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that the final design of the railing at the steps, and the resolution of the conflict of this element of the design with the landscape plan, shall be presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI prior to building permit issuance; 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); 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 4. 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), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 15, 2010 and October 8, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's October 20, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's October 25, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 12, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 12, 2010 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 for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. 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; 9. 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; 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; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that 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 121 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 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; 15. 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 16. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Noted that there will be some minor change to the roof plan to resolve roof pitches at the valley. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 4. 2628 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ELLIS A. SCHOICHET, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; WAYNE AND JULISSA WESTERMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 28, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Ellis Schoichet, 307 South B Street, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Supportive of the application; in the first review of the matter, the Commission preferred a scheme that pushed that mass towards the side of the property proposed. Not approving the request, would result in the massing being pushed into the view corridor. ■ The issue of average front setback in the hillside area is tough argument to make. ■ Appreciates the detailed information submitted in consideration of the requests. ■ Noted potential problems with the window in the shower, may wish to revise this element. ■ The construction is all below the street level; it will not be visible from the street, similar to below grade construction. Public comments: None. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 16, 2011, sheets AO through A8; and date stamped October 28, 2010, Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. 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); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 5, 2010 and September 27, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's October 21, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 19, 2010 letter and September 30, 2010 memo, the Park Supervisor's October 12, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 27, 2010 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Front Setback Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 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 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; 9. 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; 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; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that 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; 13. 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 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc. according to the approved Planning and Building plans The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. will inspect and note compliance of the ) to verify that the project has been built Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Vice -Chair Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussion regarding Item 5 (1108 Cabrillo Avenue), since she resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the Council Chambers. Commissioner Terrones chaired the meeting during the public hearing. 5. 1108 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ALFREDO REYES, STEWART ASSOCIATES; APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; THOMAS AND KAREN FEENEY; PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 28, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. John Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos; represented the applicant. An addition was constructed onto the house about 10-years ago. All materials will match existing materials present on the house. Commission comments: 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 ■ On the roof plan; assumes that the roof pitch along the right side where it meets the new gable will be 4:12, not 6:12. (Stewart — yes, this is correct.) ■ Noted that the window in the shower on the second floor master bathroom could be problematic; water could sit on the sill and cause rot. ■ Good-looking design. Public comments: ■ None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Acting Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent, Commissioner Yie recused). Appeal procedures were advised. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. Vice -Chair Yie returned to the dais. 6. 1420 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DON AND KATHY STEUL, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 28, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo and Don Steul, 1420 Cortez Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Does not support the Special Permit for the declining height envelope; the two houses to the right were designed within the standards; the house to the left is an example of why the declining height envelope standard was created. Suggested adjustments to the stair rise, and other features (closet, bedroom and bathroom areas) to accommodate the declining height envelope. Not convinced that a design solution cannot be reached that complies with the standard. (Chu - is working with an existing home, not a new home. He is only working with 50 square feet; plus there is a driveway on the left -side neighbor's property.) M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 ■ The window in the master bathroom shower could be problematic. (Chu - the window is very small. The shower head can be placed in such a manner to protect the window.) ■ Typically want to have the details (size of materials) provided on the plans; call out on the plans submitted for action, including details for the trellis features. ■ Are copper roofs proposed on the gables? (Chu — yes) ■ Feels there is a compelling argument for the addition to align with the floor below; supports the request for Special Permit for declining height envelope; can be a challenge to work with an existing structure. ■ On front elevation; under the gable, what is the "checkerboard" feature? (Chu — a lattice vent.) ■ The addition appears seamless. ■ There seems to be a lot of finishes proposed; seems busy. Perhaps simplify the finishing details. (Chu — will be painted the same color.) ■ Supports the Special Permit; the massing works. ■ With respect to the kitchen; perhaps flip the kitchen and the nook. Could find that there could be a better island provided that will relate to the family room and improve flow within the space. ■ Provide more details regarding finishes and materials. ■ What type of stone will be provided; synthetic, or real? ■ Ensure that materials will blend properly; how will the sidings correlate? Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Understands the concerns on both sides of the declining height envelope. No matter how it appears on paper, it will be perceived differently from the neighbor next door. Should look at declining height envelopes for all new homes. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Doesn't want to seem arbitrary regarding the declining height envelope; compliance with the standard could result in a jumbled design on that side of the structure. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: ■ Charming design. ■ Wants to ensure that the details are specified. ■ The Special Permit for declining height envelope is needed as compliance with the standard would result in a flat -side to the house; the articulation adds to the design. ■ Is an ideal situation for deviation from the declining height envelope given the placement of the driveways. ■ It seems like the Commission sees a lot of exceptions to the declining height envelope; with additional effort, the design could be done in a manner that could comply. Vice -Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 item concluded at 7:54 p.m. 7. 1536 & 1540 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1: a. APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING. b. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGENCE OF TWO PARCELS PREVIOUSLY MERGED BY A USE. C. 1536 NEWLANDS AVENUE - DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. d. 1540 NEWLANDS AVENUE - DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND DAVID AND DEBRA SPRENG. PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated February 28, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; and Debra Spreng, 2335 Oakdale Drive, Hillsborough; represented the applicant. ■ Has reviewed all materials considered previously by the Commission as well as all additional information submitted by members of the Burlingame Historical Society, and has reviewed the historic analysis. ■ Has met with the project proponent and the architect to determine the best approach to proceed. ■ Is there any further work to be completed with respect to the historic analysis? ■ Should a flag -lot arrangement be maintained? ■ The architect will address the design changes proposed. ■ Page & Turnbull seems to have a good handle on what qualifies as historic and what is not. Additional materials were considered by the firm; there was no support to qualify the property as an historic resource. ■ The home is beautiful, but it remained on the market for a long period of time; no one wished to purchase the home to preserve it. ■ The applicant and the City have done their due diligence to review the historic status; the City should accept the conclusions of the consultant. ■ With respect to the flag lot concept; flag lots are not part of the neighborhood pattern in this neighborhood. In order to allow a flag lot; would require variances from street frontage and lot -line adjustments. Flag lots are also disfavored by public safety personnel. There could be opposition by the neighbor to the rear with this approach. Pursuing a flag lot solution does not appear to be indicated. ■ The design solution for the two homes was based upon these findings. ■ Proposed home designs have been significantly modified. One of the houses reflects many of the design features of the original home, though at a smaller scale; the second home reflects Craftsman -style architecture present in the neighborhood. ■ Listened to comments and suggestions at the prior study meeting; had suggested having one of the homes look like the existing front residence. ■ The home at 1536 Newlands includes a request for a special permit from declining height envelope; fortunately a neighbor's driveway lies on the right-hand side, so the design is not very imposing. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 Not aware of any other environmental issues, other than the historic issue. Commission comments: ■ Understands the reasoning for the designs, particularly 1536 Newlands; both of the designs look plain; they have flat sides. Has a problem with the special permit for declining height envelope since it is a new home. ■ On 1540 Newlands, the front is articulated with a deck, pop -outs and bays; however, at the rear the design appears flat, much plainer; perhaps do something to undulate the design. ■ Feels that the front porch is very similar to the existing home; however, could be developed more as a porch. ■ Requested clarification of the landscape plan for the properties. (Chu — there are two landscape plans provided.) ■ The lots are reemerging consistent with the original subdivision? (Hudak — are reemerging as reflected in the original subdivision.) ■ Likes the design of both of the homes; the renderings look nice as well. ■ Asked the architect to design something that somewhat resembles the home that is there currently. ■ The issue in question is the historic analysis; interested in hearing public comments regarding the historic analysis. ■ From the applicant's standpoint; believes that there are no issues other than the historic question. From a design review standpoint, are there still issues regarding design review that are still within the purview of the Commission? (Hudak — suppose that these were two empty lots; would the Commission review the designs in the same way, knowing that the existing house will be demolished. If the answer is yes, then the Commission has the full scope of design review that is always has with respect to design details, compatibility with the neighborhood, etc. There has been evolution within the neighborhood.) ■ Hates to see the house torn down; can look at the context of the neighborhood. Doesn't feel that the Craftsman home necessarily fits in the neighborhood; perhaps appropriate in other areas of the City, such as Easton Addition. Has seen this design from the architect in other areas of the City. Consider creating something different from the norm; something new. ■ The property currently functions as a flag lot; that alternative is not dramatically different from today. (Hudak — not the way the subdivision was intended; there are no other examples of flag lots within the neighborhood. There may be other design solutions, but wonders if other solutions could be more out of character with the neighborhood. If there is something specific in terms of an overall design concept that is desired, that fits well within the context of the neighborhood; would consider it.) ■ Encouraged a new, original design. Doesn't want to bring the Easton Addition feel into the neighborhood. (Hudak — are taking the Commission's comments to heart; but doesn't want to "shoot in the dark" in terms of the preferred design; need specific direction to work with.) ■ In terms of neighborhood context; one large house on a large or double lot can be as contextual as individual houses on smaller individual lots. Two large houses on individual lots can also be out of context with the neighborhood. Other houses in the neighborhood present a one-story feel towards the front of the lot. There is a concept, a feel to the overall neighborhood that must be taken in context. (Hudak — meant to determine the floor areas of the homes to the immediate left of the property.) Could be similar, if not larger sizes, those homes present themselves differently. Public comments: II CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way; Dan March 1569 Newlands Avenue; Joe Baylock 1525-27 Newlands Avenue; James Janz, Simon and Bancroft law firm, One Embarcadero Center, San Francisco; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Kirby Altman, 1536 Cypress Avenue; spoke: ■ At the risk of sounding melodramatic; stands here with a broken heart. The home is a gem; the evidence is overwhelming. No Burlingame historic inventory exists; the Commission has the authority to determine if this home is worth preserving. In other communities, the Commission makes a determination of what is of significance; can demand that the front home remain standing. If the home is destroyed, along with it the fabric of the neighborhood is changed and may impact the ability to designate a district in the neighborhood in the future. The home is an integral component of the neighborhood. Referenced his letter attached to the staff report that disputes the findings of the historic analysis and Mr. Hudak's points; wants a full, exhausting environmental impact report to be prepared. Use the Commission's authority and demand a full EIR. Provide the applicant clear direction and direct them to preserve the home at the front, and keep the lot configuration as it is. ■ Has lived in neighborhood for over 30-years. Received a flyer that encouraged neighbors to come raise a fuss regarding the demolition of the home; objects to the prior speakers comments. The party generating the flyer was not identified. ■ Has never heard the existing home referred to as a neighborhood centerpiece; is more of an oddity. ■ Have enjoyed the neighborhood for 30-years and raised a family there; progress is progress. Construction of the new homes would be progress. ■ Noted a 3,890 square foot home in the neighborhood that is just being staged has been approved in the past. ■ Put his money where his mouth is and bought a house that was in danger of being demolished that lies next to his property. ■ Doesn't feel that the designs actually fit within the neighborhood. ■ The neighborhood has a distinctive feel; the homes don't fit into it. ■ Pointed to a home in the 1500 block of Howard Avenue as a pretty good design; was built on half of a double lot. ■ Reinforced the commentary regarding the Burlingame Park neighborhood, as it passed between the hands of various figures within the history of the City. Will leave documentation to become part of the record. ■ Believes that there are at least three aspects that merit consideration for historic consideration; the designer, Andrew Putnam Hill, Jr. (designed other homes in the Bay Area, his work is on file at San Jose State University); the builder, Thomas Gesso, was a prominent member of the community a founding member of a Burlingame church; one of the remaining structures he built; materials were bought locally, the house was 4 or 5 times the cost of the homes that were typically built at the time; Lorenz and Henrietta Hanson's residency, referenced a newspaper article regarding his retirement party where many of his accomplishments were identified. ■ If that home does not merit a full analysis, then there aren't any others in the City worth analyzing. ■ The struggle is that the City Council has been asked to prepare a historic inventory for the full City, but no funds are available. Are left with the Commission being in power to make a determination, given the lack of funding for a study. ■ Referenced page 24 of the Page & Turnbull analysis indicating that the local agency could determine significance. ■ The Commission has a nice opportunity in front of it to do the right thing. ■ Represents various property owners in the neighborhood. ■ Has served as a Planning Commissioner and an elected official. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 ■ Requests that an EIR be required under CEQA as part of the project analysis, in order to determine the environmental impact of the potential loss of an historic resource. Has heard some commentary regarding potential significance and have received materials. ■ The property is associated with an historic person. ■ A good example of the architectural character of the Burlingame Park neighborhood. ■ Noted that Page & Turnbull did not accurately provide information regarding the designer in the initial analysis; had to be presented with additional information from others following completion of the original analysis. ■ The Commission can make a determination regarding the significance of the property; referenced statutory and regulatory guidelines regarding CEQA. • CEQA Section 21084.1 — a project that may cause a potential adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is an adverse impact upon the environment. Any structure listed in a California register or other register is presumed to be historically significant. Not listing in a resource directory, or not deemed significant pursuant to the criteria for California registry; that shall not preclude a lead agency may be an historic resource for purposes of CEQA. CEQA requires an EIR if the structure is considered to be an historic resource. Referenced California code of regulations; decisions shall be based upon substantial evidence; enough relevant information and reasonable inferences that a fair argument can be made to reach a conclusion, even though other conclusions could be reached. If the lead agency determines that the project may have a substantial impact, then an EIR must be required, even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that there may not be a substantial effect. ■ Reasonable and sufficient information has been submitted to call the question of the historic status of the building into question; hence, an EIR would be required. ■ Emphasized the determination of historic significance can be made by the City of Burlingame. ■ The property has functioned as a flag lot for decades; no reason why this can't be continued. ■ Agrees with all of the comments made; with the exception of Commission comments regarding the designs of the homes and references to Easton Addition. ■ The Easton Addition has changed due to the type of redevelopment that has occurred over the years; oversized homes with encroachments into the declining height envelope; the designs are not distinctive. ■ Commissioner's comments reveal that the designs must be looked at more closely in desirable neighborhoods. ■ If the original house on the lot is demolished; there is no context to replace the design that is lost. The block primarily consists of Craftsman -style homes. ■ The proposed Craftsman -style residence is not truly of that design. ■ The proposed homes could be constructed in any Valley town; need to consider the context of the neighborhood. Typical response by architects is that proposed designs are consistent with the eclectic character of the neighborhoods. ■ Referenced a past case where an Eichler owner wished to change the design of his home and the Commission denied the project. ■ Should prepare an EIR for the project. ■ Are turning the neighborhood into the Easton Addition. ■ The neighborhood has the same charming feel of the east coast neighborhood he grew up in. ■ Doesn't feel that the proposed homes are consistent with the neighborhood. ■ The discussion is reminiscent of the McMansion and Safeway wars from past years, when the community was pushing back on designs such as those proposed. ■ Not qualified to speak to the historic issue; asked the Commission to push for a better design for the homes if they are to be approved. ■ Come up with designs that reflect the context of the neighborhood. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 Rebuttal from the applicant (Mark Hudak): ■ Need to know what direction the Commission wishes to push the design; provide specific comments and suggestions regarding the designs. ■ With respect to ordering an EIR; the only issue identified is the historic resource status. Would be evaluated by another consultant and would result in the same findings. ■ No new information was submitted that indicates that Page & Turnbull's conclusions are incorrect. There is no competing report prepared by another historic consultant. ■ Noted that the City is in charge of consultant selection, and the City controls the consultant contract; the applicant only pays for the study. To not follow the Page & Turnbull report is to disregard the City's consultant's findings. Calling for an EIR would not alter the outcome. ■ (Commissioner — referenced comment by a member of the public that Saratoga had designated structures designed by the designer historic). The study indicates that a home in Saratoga was occupied by members of the acting community; this could perhaps have been deemed significant, but he does not know that this is the case. Additional Commission comments: ■ Is trying to keep an open mind regarding the application; if you look strictly at the formula of whether there are any CEQA issues, and if other special considerations that are being asked for (declining height envelope); there is not a lot of justification for determining the structure to be historic. ■ Must look at this property individually and determine its significance to the community. The matters of neighborhood context are important; are at a watershed moment with respect to the teardowns that are in the community. Previously, the targets have been smaller, dilapidated structures. What will follow are homes that have more charm, even though they may not have historic significance because we as a community may not have determined significance. Will begin a descent of losing these types of homes. ■ In the context of this case; the existing residence is a significant piece of architecture; the current lot arrangement has existed for years. ■ In the context of this neighborhood; has difficulty supporting demolition of the structure; is this piece of architecture charming enough and important enough to the community to prevent demolition? ■ Noted that there are large parking areas and turnaround areas in front of the garages on both properties that are not preferred as part of the new designs. ■ The declining height envelope is not supportable; given the pattern of other homes in the area (presenting as a single -story at the front). ■ Disagrees with many of the comments made by the public and other Commissioners. Neither home has privacy; the flag lot configuration doesn't function. The existing homes have no rear yards. ■ Have seen many applications where a remodel has been approved, but must ultimately be demolished because it can't be built to meet standards. ■ The existing home is only 89-years old; would like to seem homes built that can last a couple of hundred years. New homes are being built to emulate architecture present in the community. ■ The house is an oddity and a mistake because of having a home in front of a home. ■ The homes that are proposed are well below the maximum lot coverage. ■ Feels the proposal fits with the neighborhood; fits with the neighborhood pattern of 50- and 60-foot wide lots. ■ As the consultant has found; there is nothing historic about the property. ■ Feels that the new homes fit within the neighborhood. ■ The existing home is an oddity, but doesn't get to the same end point regarding the demolition of the home. Can't support the demolition of the home based upon the threshold regarding the historic significance; if there may be historic significance, there may be merit for further analysis of this issue. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 ■ Is a fourth generation resident; hates to see the oddities demolished; it takes away the character of the community ■ The homeowner bought the property with the knowledge that the property contained two lots; and with intention of building new homes. A lot of these homes cost more to re -build than to build new. ■ Would like to see the house saved. ■ Likes to see older homes preserved; but also understands property owner rights. ■ The lot configuration was originally two lots; the two homes don't work together, especially with the garage. ■ Doesn't support an EIR; but would like to see further study regarding the designs. ■ The site warrants improvement. ■ Can't necessarily support the project; asked for further study. ■ Lives near another similar property, but the existing home was preserved (at Carmelita and Cabrillo). It is distinctive and adds character. ■ Thinks there is something valuable to having a rhythm of homes of different sizes in a neighborhood. ■ Would almost prefer to have more lot coverage toward the rear of the lot, while preserving a more human scale at the front. ■ Discussed how to proceed at this point. (Meeker — stated that this was an environmental scoping session, and that it does not appear that the Commission is at the point of being able to provide direction regarding the environmental analysis. Guinan — reviewed the Commission's authority pursuant to CEQA with respect to treatment of potentially historic properties.) ■ Asked if there is any legal precedent for seeking a second professional opinion regarding the historic resource evaluation? (Guinan — usually it is uncommon, but knows of no reason why it could not be done, but the applicant would need to pay the cost of the analysis.) ■ Asked if the information from the prior study session was submitted to Page & Turnbull for review? (Meeker —the information was not submitted, since the applicant chose to revise the project based upon the Commission's input from the prior study session. The altered design led to a new scoping session. There was also a resistance to funding additional analysis since the Commission had not yet reviewed the revised design.) ■ Can't support the project as designed; it is critical to have the additional information reviewed by the consultant; needs to be confident that all information has been considered. (Meeker — have provided direction regarding the environmental analysis. Need to provide input regarding the project design and the special permit request, but may withhold action regarding this aspect pending the outcome of the discussion regarding the historic analysis. Both items are intermingled.) ■ Would it be beneficial to the applicant to provide input regarding the design of the new homes and whether or not they are supportable? (Meeker — is a good point; if there is direction regarding the designs, it should be provided.) ■ Looking at the street, looking at the neighborhood; homes typically present a single -story to the street; a pattern of one-story, nice, graceful porch elements that present themselves to the street. ■ With respect to the design for 1540 Newlands; appreciates the applicant's attempt to mimic the design that previously existed; though once it's gone, it's gone. However, there is no porch or veranda like the original home when it was built. There is a way to not have a false balustrade; could be designed as a true porch or veranda. However, there is still a need to present smaller - scale elements at the street level. ■ On the landscape plan there is a large area that can be used as a parking area; this should be revised to ensure that the area can't be used as a parking area. ■ With respect to 1536 Newlands; the large paved area could also be used as a parking area; should be revised to address this issue. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 ■ Can't support the declining height envelope for the new home at 1536 Newlands; need to stay within the confines of the code. Need to present the design with a one-story space at the front, as is present elsewhere in the neighborhood. ■ With respect to 1540 Newlands, there is no purpose for the living room bay; the front door is too small, not inviting; make a more generous porch and inviting front entrance where people want to come to the home. ■ The design is massive on the right and left sides. ■ Likes the element to the right side of the front door (the den); would like the front porch to be cleaner with more glass and a larger front door. ■ With respect to 1536 Newlands; with Craftsman -style, the columns need to be square, dormers design to be shed -style; need to design it accordingly, not embellish it like one. ■ Both structures seem bulky. Many of the homes in the area are one-story homes, though some may be raised above the grade. These homes look too boxy and too plain. ■ Look at the articulation of the smaller details present in the neighborhood. ■ Don't need to maximize the floor area. ■ There is still the possibility of keeping one large parcel and building one large home; there are people in the area that would buy a larger home. ■ Suggested one home on a larger lot, or an addition to the existing home. ■ Doesn't support the declining height envelope. ■ Redesign to appear less massive; if the proposed designs remain. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. No action was required on the part of the Commission. This item concluded at 9:34 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: Reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming annual Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on Saturday, March 5, 2011 from 9 a.m. to noon. The meeting will be held in the Lane Community Room of the Burlingame Public Library, 480 Primrose Road. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of February 21, 2011: Nothing to report. FYI: 1596 Columbus Avenue - review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review Project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 1509 Los Altos Drive - review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project: Accepted. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 28, 2011 FYI: 1440 Castillo Avenue - review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review Project: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice -Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 9:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Lindstrom, Secretary 17