Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2006.01.09 - 1 - CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 9, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the January 9, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the December 12, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were corrected, page 8 Item 7, paragraph 1, add Chair Auran recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the property, he stepped down from the dais and left the chambers; paragraph 2 correct to read, Vice-chair Brownrigg opened…; paragraph 5, correct to read Vice Chair Brownrigg called…; paragraph 5, correct vote to read The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining). Add at the conclusion of the item, Chair Auran returned to the dais and took his seat. The minutes were approved as corrected. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1199 BROADWAY, SUITE 2, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (TOMMY NGAI AND DANNY KUAN,.APPLICANTS, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT, AND GARBIS AND MAIDA BEZDJIAN, TRS., PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of this project and recused himself. He stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers. Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • This is intensification of the use with the addition of a kitchen towards the front of the space, where will the vents be located on the roof, will they be visible from the street on Broadway; • In their next submittal will the applicant include a mock up of their signage; • Is information available on the occupancy rates of the nearby public parking lots; and • Could the applicant provide a "typical" menu. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 2 - Commission comment: regarding the parking variance, city council adopted the ordinance which allowed five more restaurants in the Broadway Commercial Area knowing that few buildings in the commercial area have on-site parking, so clearly council felt that there was sufficient parking in the area to support the five restaurants. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. C. Deal returned to the dais and took his seat. 2. 1764 MARCO POLO WAY, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A CHILD DAYCARE FACILITY (WINGES ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, COMMUNITY GATEPATH, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran recused himself because he owns a property within 500 feet of the project site, he stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Vice-Chair Brownrigg took over the gavel. Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report including a clarification of the information on the number of employees on site, 23, and the maximum number of children on the site at one time, 62, with the combined programs. Commissioners asked: • A condition should be added to require updated directional striping and signage in the parking lot; • This is a request for a large variance, the conditions of approval should be very tight so that someone else with a more intense use cannot use this site in the future without providing more parking; • Explain the difference between the city's on-site parking requirement and that which the traffic engineer anticipates to be generated by this particular use; • Is the applicant proposing to have someone in the parking lot as the children arrive and depart to help the children from the cars into the building and from the building to the cars; and • Where will the adults currently trained at this location be going? This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. Chair Auran returned to the dais and took his seat and the gavel. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 3A. 270 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (NECTAR WINE LOUNGE, LLC, APPLICANT, TRI TERRA REALTY, PROPERTY OWNER, AND WINGES ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (34 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 3 - 3B. 2533 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DAVID AND KELLY TILLMAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND GEORGE SKINNER, ARCHITECT) (27 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. CP Monroe noted that given input from the Police Department and with the concurrence of the applicant she would like to amend condition 4 of the application for Item 3a, 270 Lorton, with the following language: that the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to beer and wine; that all alcohol service shall stop or shall be closed within one hour of stopping food service; that no DJ's or live music shall occur at the proposed facility. C. Vistica noted that when he visited 2533 Hayward Ct. the story poles were blown over, C. Auran noted that there were back in place today and there did not appear to be a view blockage problem. There were no other comments on the consent calendar. C. Brownrigg moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners' comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions and amendments to conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 469 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GARY AND STACY O'GRADY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND KATRINA KUHL, ARCHITECT) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report January 9, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Katrina Khul, architect, represented the project. Commissioners noted the following: • On the south side elevation the eave is shown at 3'-6", while the other eaves are 2', this will look odd; • Gable end should be reduced from 2 feet to 1 foot, the arch is too heavy looking, 1 foot is more expected; • At the rear the code requires a railing of a certain height based on the height off the ground, this rail should be taller; • The entry at the front could be dressed up more; • Plate height could be raised to 8'-1" which is standard for construction; and • Removal of trellis and addition of corbels on the garage was good. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved that if the items identified are corrected this item could come back on consent with corrections noted, think that it is important to get the overhang on the south side corrected, may be stuck City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 4 - with entrance porch, the special permit for height is existing, agree that a lower 6/12 pitch is possible, but would look bad. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: it is the designers' prerogative to make the changes, not a reason to hold up the action on the project, reasonable to ask for changes and put the item on consent, house looks awkward as it stands; not support think architect has made a lot of changes to this point, this is the best solution, the 3'-6" eave is on the rear and not visible from the street given the setback of the second floor, to expedite would prefer to act tonight. Chair Auran called for a roll call vote on the motion to direct changes to the project and return the revised project to the consent calendar. The motion failed on a 3-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Brownrigg and Osterling dissenting) roll call vote. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application as submitted by resolution and including a condition which would allow the applicant to raise the plate height to the construction standard 8'-1" accepting a minor increase in the overall height of the structure and including the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 13, 2005, sheets A1 through A4, with the plate height raised to the construction standard 8'-1" accepting the resulting minor increase in height, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 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 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 October 18, 2005 memo, the City Engineer's October 21, 2005 memo, and the Fire Marshal's, the NPDES Coordinator's, and the Recycling Specialist's October 24, 2005, memos 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 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 10) 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 roll call vote on the motion to approve with amended condition for plate height and acceptance of the additional height that would add to the structure. The motion passed on a 5-1 (C. Deal dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 5 - 5. 2412 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, ALVIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report January 9, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe 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. James Wong, architect, represented the project. Commissioners noted that there were some additional things which could be done to improve the project: • Use stucco mold window trim to match the rest of the house; • On the curved windows on the front use a single piece of glass without a break, rectangular windows on the side of the window and next to the front door should also be a single piece of glass (as in the current house); • There is a mixed vocabulary in the roof, a mix of hips and gables, the higher roofs should be hipped to reduce the impacts on the neighbors; highest roof on the second floor could be hipped; changing heights to hips on east and west ends would be better for neighbors; • Windows on second floor should be casements; • Front walk is too wide, 10 feet, for a residential use, make walk narrower, add landscaping between driveway and walk way, walkway might be curved to be more interesting, entry steps are too wide as well, should be adjusted to new walkway, include this in conditions of approval; • Vents should be added in the gable ends, nice detail (not add to hipped roofs); and • Need to call out on all elevations of plans, true simulated divided light windows (true wood mullions on both sides). Public hearing continued: Susan May, 2408 Hale Drive; Hsiao Lieu, 2415 Hale Drive. Revised design is more in keeping with the neighborhood, will protect tree on property line, other issues for the Commission to consider: on the second story addition a hip roof would slope away, the houses are only 6 feet apart, the gable end will block the light into my rear yard; a hip would not affect the inside floor plan; the revised side is now 3 to 4 feet closer than the first design, it will impact her kitchen, sun room and master bedroom, hip roof would reduce this impact, other houses in the area have hipped roofs; propose laundry room and bath room under the house, concerned about drainage on to her property, assume that this will be addressed during construction. Commissioner asked if gable at the rear is a problem? Would like all roofs hipped away from her house, it is really a light issue. Design is improved but still not in keeping with the street; house is located on a slope, now tall house on a slope; moved wall into the front yard which will increase the sense of height even more, will hurt curb appeal of street; the new roof will disturb the pattern of roof heights on that side of the street; owner does not live there, does not care about curb appeal; should change the interior design to match the character of the neighborhood. Architect noted houses on right and left are stacked two stories, this house will have the second floor setback more. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: average front setback on this side of the street is 19.3 feet and this house is setback 22.3 feet, greater than most, and the second floor is setback 32.2 feet, which from my observation is a good setback; can do hips not gable ends; drainage from this site is a terrible problem, need to add a condition that they will install a drain to carry water forward to the public street, have to do anyway for the new addition. Agree front setback is adequate, massing at the front is mostly one story; hip roof at the rear might be a problem since the gable there is asymmetrical, leave it to the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 6 - applicant to propose a resolution to that roof form which would allow it to be hipped; the height and bulk of the addition will be reduced with the hipped roofs along with the mass, the plate heights proposed are not excessive. Would like to see the walkway at the entry and stairs deemphasized or narrowed. Chair Auran moved to continue this item until the plans could be revised to incorporate the recommendations of the commission, then the item should be placed on the action calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: the walkway should be reduced in size and the landscaping at the front should be increased; the stairs are also too wide, there should be planting between the walkway and the driveway. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item for revisions to the plans as suggested, staff review of changes and then the item should be set on the regular action calendar. The motion passed on a 6-0 voice vote. This item will be renoticed when it is set for the Commission action calendar. This action is not appealable. The item concluded at 8:07 p.m. 6. 1506 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A 12 SF INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA AND REVISIONS TO THE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION (DEREK & AMY CHUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND GEORGE SUN, SUN ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report January 9, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-six conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted the history of review of this request to change the project after a building permit had been issued. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. George Sun, architect to oversee the construction, represented the project. Commission noted that it looked as if this revision would work. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that this was a better solution and 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 December 22, 2005, Sheets A1.0, A2.0 and A4.0, Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations, and date stamped May 12, 2004, Sheets A1-1, A3.0, A5.0 , Topo, C-1 and L1.0, roof plan, elevations, grading and drainage plan, and landscape plan, showing a 15% slope driveway with 9' plate heights on both the first and second floors and driveway retaining walls at 9'-6" and 8' maximum; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s, Fire Marshal’s, Chief Building Official’s and the City Engineer’s November 17, 2004 memos shall be met and the conditions of the City Arborist’s December 11, 2004 memo shall be met along with the approved arborist’s report date stamped January 6, 2004 ; 4) that 43" Coastal Live Oak and the 47" Coastal Redwood located on Lot #2 shall not be removed and the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures , prior to any grading or demolition on the site. The tree protection measures, as defined in the applicant’s arborist report by the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 7 - Green Jeannie (date stamped January 6, 2004) which has been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist, shall be maintained on site until after the final inspection and the City Arborist authorizes their removal; the contractor shall call for the City Arborist to inspect the protection measures installed before a grading permit shall be issued, and that the property owner shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the certified arborist's report; failure to continually provide the tree protection and implementation of any of those requirements in the arborist’s report shall result in the property owner paying for an independent inspection of the site by an arborist selected by the City; 5) that a certified arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, and that a certified arborist shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; inappropriately stockpiled or stored material and equipment shall be moved immediately; and that a certified arborist shall be given written authority by the developer and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and the City Arborist may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 6) that prior to demolition or construction the 43” Coastal Live Oak located on right side of Lot #2 shall be trimmed, raising the fringe only six feet over the existing roof line, this shall be done under the direct supervision of a certified arborist at a time during the project determined by the City Arborist; 7) that prior to demolition or construction 6" of mulch shall be placed 10’ around the trunk of the 43" Coastal Live Oak located on the right side of Lot #2, but shall not be placed directly against the trunk; 8) that prior to demolition of the rear deck temporary barrier fencing shall be placed at 8' on the southwest side of the 43" Coastal Live Oak, and 28'on the northeast side of the trunk; 9) that after the demolition of the rear deck, but prior to the construction of the new homes, protective barrier fencing shall be placed as close to the drip line of the 43" Coast Live Oak as possible and shall remain in place throughout the construction of both houses on Lot #1 and Lot #2; 10) that prior to demolition or construction the 47" Coastal Redwood located on the left side of Lot #2 shall be pruned over the existing roof line to the existing gutter line so that tree limbs growing over the roof clear 6’ over the roof; 11) that prior to demolition or construction the ivy around the trunk of the 47" Coastal Redwood located on the left side of Lot #2 shall be cut away; 12) that prior to demolition or construction protective barrier fencing shall be placed 5' from the trunk of the 47" Coastal Redwood on the south side and 15' from the trunk on the east and west side, there is already fencing on the north side in the form of a neighboring boundary fence, all protective fencing shall remain in place until the completion of construction; 13) that all trenching within the drip line of the 47" Coastal Redwood and the 43" Coastal Live Oak, shall be performed by hand labor under the supervisions of a certified arborist, should roots of a 4" diameter or larger encountered during hand digging under the drip line, work shall stop immediately and the certified arborist shall evaluate further digging and consult with the City Arborist prior to resuming work; 14) that the protective barrier fencing shall be a minimum of 4 feet high, and shall be made of pig wire, snow fence, or cyclone fence, with steel stakes or pipes as posts; there shall be no storage of materials or equipment, unnecessary trenching, grading or compaction within the protective barrier fencing; encroachment into these areas is forbidden; 15) Tree Maintenance: The developer shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the 43" Coastal Live Oak and the 47" Coastal Redwood, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall be founded upon the recommendations of the January 6, 2004 Green Jeannie report as well as such additional recommendations as the developer shall receive from a certified arborist; 16) that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 17) 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 8 - Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 18) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 19) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 20) that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 21) 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; 22) 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; 23) 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; 24) 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; 25) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; and 26) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the revisions as submitted. The motion passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 7. 1255 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (CHRISTOPHER & ANITA KENNON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., DESIGNER) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the project site, he stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Vice-Chair Brownrigg took over the gavel. Vice-Chair Brownrigg noted that one reason the previous project was so difficult was because the site is adjacent to the City's right- of-way which contained a water line and therefore there were inflexible solutions. Reference staff report January 9, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice-Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, and Christopher Kennon, property owner, represented the project, noted that the plans were revised to address the Commissions' concerns, reduced the mass and bulk, made changes to the gables and revised the Front Elevation; designer noted that the floor area calculated by staff is higher. Plr Hurin noted that trellises and other covered areas may not have been included in the building data on the plans. Commission noted that the changes work well, however there are additional concerns with the project that need to be addressed. Commissioners noted the following: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 9 - • Corbels below second floor cantilever on the Left Elevation conflict with the windows on the first floor, looks awkward, need to change; • Driveway gate should be automatic; gate should be located at least 20'-0" back from the front property line to leave enough room for a vehicle to park and not extend onto the sidewalk, plans need to be revised; • Have serious concerns with mass and bulk, proposed house will have a huge impact on the block, replacing a one-story cottage with a two-story box, house is twice as wide and long as the original, house is 65' wide; • Lot is wider and shallower than most other lots on block, therefore detached garage will be 35' closer to the street than typically seen; the garage with a double-wide door will be very visible from the street; • Two-story house with a consistent plate height on the second floor is not in keeping with the neighborhood; • 4000 SF houses are not common in Burlingame, house is too massive and bulky, this is not the way to locate this house on the lot, there are better ways to make it less imposing, for example could have a narrower house with an attached garage; • Loss of the Pepper tree in the front yard does not help with reducing the mass and bulk, it's unfortunate that it has to be removed; proposed Birch and Strawberry tree at left and right sides at the front of the lot are not the same scale as the existing trees being removed, suggest planting two large scale (36 or 48-inch box) evergreen trees in similar location of trees being removed, large scale trees will be in keeping with the proposed mass and bulk; • Porch along the left side of the house is not drawn correctly on the Front Elevation, plans need to be corrected; • Conflict between the entry roof eaves and stairway window needs to be corrected; • Small oval window over front entry is di minimis, should be revised to allow more light into the house; • Gable at the front of the detached garage is too small, suggest eliminating the gable on the front and adding a gable along the right side of the garage, would look better; and • Concerned that the detached garage is only setback 1' from property line, need more room to facilitate maintenance, suggest garage be setback at least 2' from side and rear property lines. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Ok to have a 3,800 SF house if the mass and bulk is handled well and is in keeping with the neighborhood, feel that as proposed the project is not in keeping; design guidelines are written so that as project increases in size more design character is needed to make the house look smaller, in this case could have a narrow element come out towards the front on the first floor and the rest of the house step back, differentiation in plate heights would also help to reduce the mass and bulk; the challenge with a narrow house configuration on this trapezoid-shaped lot is that the useable rear yard will be reduced. C. Vistica noted that the proposed mass and bulk is not in keeping with the neighborhood and moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: suggest the designer consider reducing the plate heights at several locations on the second floor, varying plate heights as low as 6'-0", incorporate dormers at steep roof locations, this is one solution that, if it is well done, would help to reduce the mass and bulk, designer needs to come up with a solution to minimize the impact of a 65' wide two-story stucco wall at the front; feel that the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 10 - design can work with what he has; could also consider a distinctive one-story element at the front of the house with a taller plate height to set it apart; also suggest setting the second floor wall in bedroom #2 back further along the right side of the house, would help to break up the vertical wall. Vice-Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 3-2-1 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling dissenting; Chair Auran abstain). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. Chair Auran returned to the dais and took his seat and the gavel. 8. 1529 MEADOW LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ARKADY ZLOBINSKY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND MARK BRAND, ARCHITECT (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 12, 2005 MEETING) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report January 9, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Brand, 425 Second Street, San Francisco, architect, represented the project. Met with the neighbors last week, have addressed the specifics from the last commission review, reworked the right elevation made the trellis more substantial, neighbor would like star jasmine planted on it, we agree; did shadow study, now side setback is OK with neighbor and it allows a bigger back yard area; have agreed to do several things for the neighbor, remove an apple tree at the property line which increases shade in her yard, and have agreed to do some work (removal of concrete and pruning) in her yard. Commissioner asked if the first floor was the same as the revised plan previously submitted. The architect noted that it was. Additional public comment: Jean Ann Carol, 1525 Meadow Lane, noted that the plans for the project approving tonight should be dated December 22, 2005, and will this project be subjected to the same drainage standards as another the commission discussed tonight. Commissioner asked if conditions should include private agreements. CA noted that the apple tree removal could be included in the conditions but work on the neighbor's property is between them. Neighbor noted that neighbor on Westmoor Road would also benefit from landscape changes. Want star jasmine because there is no sun on the wall. Commissioner noted that drainage from the roof of the new addition would be required by the Public Works Department to be carried to the street. Concerned that the property at 1529 is a foot and a half to two feet higher than her property concerned that water will pond on her property, if it is directed to the street it will work for her. The addition is being built where there is the biggest drainage problem. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. C. Cauchi noted that the applicant and neighbor had worked through the issues well and thanked them for their efforts, then moved to approve the application, by resolution, with two added conditions that the apple tree shall be removed from the east side of the rear yard and that star jasmine shall be planted on the trellis on the east side of the addition and with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 30, 2005, sheets T1, Site, A1.0 and A1.2 and date stamped December 22, 2005, sheets A1.1, A2.1 - A2.3, L1 and shadow study; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the apple tree shall be removed from the east side of the rear yard and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 11 - that star jasmine shall be planted on the trellis on the east side of the addition; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review, including landscaping or a trellis along the rear elevation and removal of the 103 SF storage shed in the rear yard; 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 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 prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Chief Building Official's October 07, 2005 memos, the Fire Marshal's October 11, 2005 memo, the Recycling Specialist's October 12, 2005 memo and the NPDES Coordinator’s October 21, 2005 memo shall be met; 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 applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with additional conditions to remove the apple tree in the rear yard and to plant star jasmine on the new trellis. The motion passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1136 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GREG HURLEY, CONTI-HURLEY ASSOC., APPLICANT; TIM HALEY, TSH INTERNATIONAL, ARCHITECT; AND SARAH & BENJAMIN CHEYETTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Gregg Hurley, applicant, 164 Pepper Avenue, was available to answer questions. Commission asked if all windows will be replaced; applicant confirmed that all windows will be replaced with new simulated divided lite wood casement windows. Commission noted there is a conflict with the window type, plans indicate dual pane vinyl windows to be used, will need to clarify throughout the plans. Commission noted that the special permit for height for 32'-1" is appropriate in this case since the addition will match the existing house with a 13:12 pitch roof which currently exceeds the maximum height limit. Commission also commented that the gabling on the front City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 12 - porch and garage is a nice design feature and adds interest to the front façade of the house. The architect has done a good job, this is a substantial addition without impacting the adjacent neighbors and overall neighborhood. Commission asked if the large pine tree behind the house is on the property; no, pine tree is located on neighbor's property to rear. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. • Revise building elevations to note on each simulated divided lite wood windows; • Clarify type of window trim proposed, add notes on all building elevations, traditional stucco mold trim should be used; • Show gutters and downspouts on building elevations; • All attic vents on gables should be changed from metal to wood, reflects the existing character; • Should consider retaining the existing shutters on second floor on the front elevation; • Like the proposed changes to the front elevation, existing half-timbering on the left side at the second floor is a strong Tudor element, should carry the half-timbering look to the right side of the house on the second floor; • Square window above the porch is not proportionate with the rest of the windows, should be consistent with narrow rectangular window pattern proposed throughout the house, could even be a narrow vertical window similar to the shape of the vents; and • Concerned with parking variance for covered parking space length, variance can be eliminated by relocating the stairs from the garage into the house. This motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 10. 821 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JD ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND DANIEL MCAULIFFE, PROPERTY OWNER) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT C. Deal recused himself from this action because he has a business relationship with the applicant, stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers. Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission commented that the existing driveway is 9'-5" wide and asked what is the minimum required driveway width; 9'-6". Staff noted that the kitchen extension along the driveway side would require a parking variance because it only leaves 9'-5" for the driveway width where 9'-6" is the minimum required. CP Monroe noted that a letter in support of the project was submitted by Pat and Kate Belding, 838 Paloma Avenue. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Whitney, JD Associates, applicant, was available to answer questions, noted that the special permit for height is needed because the existing first floor is 3'- 6" above grade, only a small portion of the roof peak, approximately 30 to 40 SF exceeds the height limit, requesting a special permit for declining height envelope to retain the existing character of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 13 - house, side setback variance is required to extend the nonconforming first floor wall, bay window along the right side of the house with a nonconforming side setback will be removed, pittosporum will be added along the right side property line, existing shrubs at the front of the lot will be replaced with a new 24-inch box tree chosen from the City's tree list. Commission noted that this is a great looking building because it's narrower, taller and proportions are nice. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made to the project and plans checked. • Show gutters and downspouts on all building elevations; • Existing house has nice gable ends on the front which should be retained in the design; braces and lattice vent shown on the second floor gable end feature should be incorporated into the existing gable ends to remain; • Concerned with extending the wall with a nonconforming side setback along the right side property line and the impact it may have on the neighbor at 825 Paloma Avenue; will need to see written approval from the neighbor concerning extension of the first floor wall or the addition will have to be set in an additional 0'-9" to comply with side setback requirements, addition at family room can still work if the wall has to be set in further; would rather like to see wall set in to comply, will leave it up the applicant to redesign or submit written letter from neighbor; • Verify driveway width, if 9'-5" wide a parking variance will be required for the 2'-0" kitchen extension adjacent to the driveway (9'-6" minimum driveway width required); and • Suggest replacing the existing 10-inch diameter shrub in the right front corner of the lot with a Pittosporum or Bay Laurel tree; show on Site Plan. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the plans had been revised as directed and if required given setback solution approval has been submitted by the neighbor at 825 Paloma Avenue. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. C. Deal returned to the dais and took his seat. 11. 1207 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (S.E.A. CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT, ROGER AND ZENIAMAE GHIOTTI, PROPERTY OWNERS; AND MARC TETRAULT, ARCHITECT) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mike Tetrault, architect, and Roger Ghiotti, property owner, were available to answer questions. Commission noted serious concerns with the proposed second floor addition, which looks like a box on top of a box, second floor does not relate well to the first floor, second floor needs to be completely reworked; because there are driveways on either side of the house there is a lot of visual space and a great opportunity for several design options to make the house interesting; suggest looking at 1224 Cortez Avenue, nice remodel and has curb appeal. Commission asked if the existing roof and ceiling members will need to be removed to accommodate the second floor addition; architect noted that most of the roof will be removed, existing plate height in the living room is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 14 - 9'-6", think the existing ceiling members could be retained, the second floor addition would span over the first floor. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the following comments: • Design is massive, not appropriate for the neighborhood, second floor addition needs a major rework, design needs to be completely re-evaluated; • Existing window to be retained are not shown correctly on the building elevations, revise plans so that they accurately show existing window, doors, etc., need to carefully go through plans and correct all drafting errors; • Provide existing building elevations with resubmittal; • Show gutters and downspouts on existing and proposed building elevations; • Architect needs to verify and show that existing ceiling members can be retained with the second floor addition; • Provide first and second floor plate height dimensions on existing and proposed building elevations; • Need to study soffit and roof over front porch, clarify header location and how it's holding up the corner of the roof, would look better if the gutter is higher than the header; • Provide notes on building elevations indicating type of windows, window style, and window trim proposed; windows should be made of wood and window trim should be traditional wood stucco mold and should be noted on plans at appropriate locations; • Existing brick wainscot at the front of the house was not built well and will probably fall off during construction, design of existing front façade needs to be updated; • Roof elements along the sides and rear of the building between the first and second floors are too small and do not work well; • Design element at the rear of the house looks like an add-on, addition needs to be incorporated better so that it looks like it belongs to the house; • More details need to be shown on the building elevations, lack of detail makes it difficult to evaluate the project; only design detail on the entire addition is the decorative brackets below the second floor balcony, project needs a lot more design details; • There are no landings or steps below the doors at rear of house; and • Would like to see a legend clearly identifying the abbreviations on the floor plans. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: design review consultant needs to listen to the meeting tapes, want to make it clear to the architect and design review consultant that the project needs a complete redesign, not just changes to the existing proposed design, do not want to see the project come back with a box on top of a box, there are many other design opportunities that can work on this site. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meetings of December 19, 2005 and January 3, 2006. CP Monroe noted that at their study of the Rollins Road zoning on December 19, the City Council sent the ordinance back to the Subcommittee and Commission for resolution of the remaining three issues. The subcommittee will be meeting to discuss these items on January 24, 2006. Council also City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2006 - 15 - approved the contract with Economic Research Associates to undertake the downtown economic study and authorized the funding. Work on the study will begin mid-January. On January 3, 2006, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was presented to the City Council, it will be posted on the city's web site in the near future. Commissioners asked to be made aware of the posting when it has been completed. - FYI - setting subcommittee meetings for 2006 Commission and CP agreed to schedule the zoning subcommittee meetings for 2006 at 6:00 p.m. before regular commission meetings. An assignment schedule was included in the staff report, and staff will remind the members of their committees' schedule. Staff reports will be distributed in advance. The first meeting will be the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee on January 23, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Subcommittee will still have its special meeting at 5:30 p.m. on January 24, 2006 followed by a public session at 7:00 p.m. on the paving of the fire lane at the hospital and light standard selection for the public right-of-way. There was also a brief discussion about disclosure requirements for individual meetings with project applicants, proponents or opponents. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 10:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\minutes.01.09.06.doc