Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091106PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 11, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the September 11, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the August 28, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, city should revise its wording when referring to 'affordable housing' and call it 'below market rate housing' as other jurisdictions do. There is a new window available which has a three dimensional mullion between the double panes of glass, want to be sure that the city's condition regarding windows does not allow this type of window. Chair noted that 'affordable housing' is defined by law and Burlingame follows that law which is addressed in our ordinance. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. 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. Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests from the Commission or audience. CP Monroe noted that the latest plans for the project at 127 Loma Vista are at the Commissioner's desks this evening for the Commission to look over, should act only if feel comfortable that you have had sufficient review. Commissioner noted he had looked over the plans for 127 Loma Vista in detail and the corrections were consistent with those noted in the staff report and it appears that the applicant has responded to the questions raised by the Commission. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 2 1a. 743 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GARAGE LOCATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (DAVID MELLOR, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; REMY'S QUALITY CONSTRUCTION, DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 1b. 1420 MONTERO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; SARAH GOLDBERG, PROPERTY OWNER) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 1c. 127 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (LUIS ROBLES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JAIME GOMEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: Do not want to call off, but would like more detailed landscape plans to be submitted for 1420 Montero and 127 Loma Vista for FYI review before issuance of a building permit for these projects. These landscape plans need to be tightened up as was requested in the previous Commission reviews of these projects. It is important to the Commission to know what landscaping they are approving, particularly trees and large shrubs. For 1420 Montero Avenue in particular, large scale landscaping in the front yard was requested which should be included in the FYI review. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the consent calendar with the two items to be referred to FYI for compliance and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 1505 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (MICHAEL AND AMY GONG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOHN STEWART, AIA, ARCHITECT) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report September 11, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Michael Gong and Amy Lui, property owners; and John Stewart, architect, represented the project. Applicants noted that they met with the neighbors and the changes on the plans reflect their input; on the right side increased privacy by making the window in the master bedroom smaller, on the left side added a foot of lattice to the fence. Architect noted some revisions to the plans not noted: mission tile or barrel tile, simulated divided lite wood clad windows, the post at the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 3 rear is 12/12, the dentils are 12/12, on the rear elevation the roof of the bay will be tile; the rafter tails will be 3 x6, 32 inches on center. Commissioners asked about the massing on the right side elevation, concerned about the changes looking 'stuck on', instead of addressing integrated structural articulation, just added flower boxes and a water table, raising the house one foot increases the mass and bulk of the right side, issue here is that the house is at the maximum FAR and it is hard on the neighbor on the right side, need to reduce the roof line, could do by cutting back the wall on the first or/second floor to change roof line and add variation. Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Christine Habelt, 1509 Balboa Avenue; James Cacciato, 1600 Adeline Drive; would be better if the house were moved back on the site 2 to 3 feet, so its front lined up with the neighbors; increasing the green at the front would help the mass and would be equal to neighbor's setback; to reduce the mass should remove the curve, remove the chimney on the right side, put on the eaves as shown on the picture submitted by the applicant, in fact the front of that house is better than this one. There are other 2 story houses on the block but they are all split level, with the front submerged 2 feet or more; the change to smaller windows is good, particularly if they all match; remain concerned about the right side elevation, the two driveways are side by side so the right side of this house will be very visible from the street. There is an error in the setback from his house to property line as shown on the plans, the plan shows 20 feet from the rear property line which is distance from furthest wall not closest; this two story house would have a significant impact on his living space, are building within the building code so have a right within current law, but this is a city wide problem, need to take the time and effort to change the ordinance to prevent this kind of development in the future. Applicant response, can remove the chimney on the right side, feel it breaks up that wall, could cut master bedroom back 2 feet on the second floor and install a lower roof, do not see the advantage in reducing the lower floor as well; if commission wishes will submerge the house 2 feet, if feel it would better fit Burlingame; need clear direction on the right side. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners’ comments: Right side elevation is a large wall, solution of cutting back the master bedroom 2 feet on the second story would help, should note that the design reviewer is focused on architecture, but not always sensitive to the fact that the project is pushing the maximum FAR, this project is within 3 SF of the maximum, that's a lot of bulk on this lot; would like to see a good solution for a 'sawed off' chimney, chimneys do add a vertical line, but not needed if appear short or cut off, should provide a positive vertical line at the rear. There are a couple of corrections need to be made to the plans: ƒ elevation of the garage and the garage section do not match; ƒ reduce the mass of the right elevation, set the wall of the second story at the master bedroom back at least 2 feet and change roof; ƒ the bay window on the second floor should be designed with a shed roof and a lower roof line in order to be less massive; C. Osterling noted that Commission has provided specific direction as requested so would move to place this item on the consent calendar with the direction that all the items on the specific list created by the Commission this evening be addressed before it is brought back to the Commission agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar only after all the items listed by the Planning Commission had been addressed and included on the plans. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. There is no appeal for this action. The item concluded at 7:45 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 4 3. 1213 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report September 11, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Staff noted a letter from Steve Pade requesting a continuance for this action because the neighbor next door is out of town and cannot comment. Commission had no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, and Janelle Baldwin, property owner, represented the project. The redesign has been caused by the contractor becoming aware, when he went to order the roof trusses, that there would not be enough head clearance in the stairwell. It was a design problem, and unintentional. The applicant voluntarily stopped work on the project while he is requesting Commission approval. Regarding the neighbor's letter, there is only one window on this project which affects the neighbor and it overlooks his single-story living room roof. Have agreed to plant more vegetation on the left hand side, not installed yet so it looks bare. The staircase is 4'-6" from the property line but the remainder of the house is setback 12 feet. Commissioner asked if the leaded glass window could be relocated into the small gable over the front entrance? Other comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; change requested is not so big, but where was the designer and plan checker when project was reviewed; want to believe that this was unintentional not an attempt to avoid a declining height exception, this change costs some articulation in the structure, Commission should consider impact on the neighborhood, loss of the leaded glass window is major. Commissioner noted think that this is an improvement, like the taller bay, need to work with the small dormer, front elevation shows a water table over wainscot, this trim piece should be extended from the front around the left side of the tall element. Property owner agreed. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted not concerned about the bigger window, not in occupied space, support the need to provide head room, move approval with the added conditions that the leaded glass window shown on the initially approved plans be relocated above the entry and that the water table and wainscoting shown on the front elevation be extended around to the left side of the taller element proposed and with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 23, 2005, sheets A.1 through A.6, and sheet L1.0, site plan, floor plans, building elevations, landscape plan and site survey and date stamped August 25, 2006, sheets A.1, A.4R and A.5R with the wainscoting on the front elevation extended to the left side around the taller element approved and the relocation of the leaded glass window shown on the originally approved plans to a location over the entry; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that the City Arborist shall review the existing street tree in front of the property and have the property owner install proper tree protection measures as needed; 2) that protection measures shall be incorporated to protect the existing rhododendron along the left side property line, and shall be inspected by the City Arborist, prior to commencing demolition or construction on the subject property; 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; 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 5 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; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco- mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 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 shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 9) that prior to underfloor 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; 10) 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; 11) 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; 12) that the conditions of the City Arborist's July 13, 2005, memo, the City Engineer's August 28, 2006 and July 11, 2006, memos, the Chief Building Official's August 25, 2006 and July 8, 2005, memos, the Fire Marshal’s August 28, 2006 and July 11, 2005, memos, the NPDES Coordinator's August 28, 2006 and July 18, 2005, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's July 13, 2005, memo shall be met; 13) 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; 14) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 15) 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. Cauchi. Commissioners noted: if the changes proposed were more substantial would have continued item for neighbor input; thank developer for stopping work until changes were approved, realize that it is a hardship to shut down a working job. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 4. 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, THREE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (MIKE PRESCOTT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND HUNT HALE JONES ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (88 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN; PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report September 11, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 6 Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Michael Palza, Hunt Hale Jones Architects, 444 Spear Street, San Francisco, and Mike Prescott, 1459 Oak Grove, applicant, presented the project noting that at the study meeting the Commission had voiced concerns, most of these concerns have been addressed in the plans submitted, would like to elaborate on two major points, the mass and bulk of the project and the architectural style; Commissioners had noted that the street elevation does not match the scale of the neighborhood, look at other buildings on the street, some are three and four stories, other are large two story buildings with no articulation; building as proposed is appropriate to neighborhood; addressed several items related to mass and bulk, the building has been set back, reduced the floor area, height was reduced, the building footprint staggers back on the left side; asking for conditional use permit for height in order to allow for a pitched/hipped roof to match the style of the building, didn't want to have a mansard roof; on the right elevation, stairway area was recessed to create a shadow line, added bay window, created an entry at the front; Commission was concerned with the color, now proposing a golden/tan palette with pastel trim and columns and a dark roof, wrought iron railings are also proposed. Commissioners asked: Are the units air conditioned, if so, where will the units be placed? The applicant noted that there will be a central system which will be placed in the mechanical room in the basement. Don Doolittle, 1520 Floribunda, lives in condominium building across the back fence, think this is an attractive building, concern with privacy and landscaping, our project has trees and bushes planted along the back fence that are twenty feet tall, there is a three-foot wide space to the rear of the underground garage where there is soil for planting large scale landscaping, this project proposes that the underground garage be placed right at the rear property line, this may damage the plants on our side, and there is no opportunity in their project for large-scale planting along the rear fence; the underground garage has storage areas in the rear, there are six storage areas shown for the three units, could reduce the size and number of storage areas and decrease the size of the garage by three feet which would leave a 3-foot area of dirt at the rear for planting and minimize the chance that our trees will be damaged. Commissioner comments: • Have a concern with the common open space at the rear, do not see it as usable by the residents, it is hard to get there, must pass bedrooms and bathroom of ground floor unit, cannot get there easily from units above, do not think it is the quality of open space we like to see; could add a series of sitting areas; • Building is big, it is built out to the setbacks all the way around, it impacts the open space, could cut some corners on the building to add more useable open space area; • The stairway at the back is only an exit for the third floor unit, should provide access from the other units to the back open space area as well; could add a usable deck with stairway going from one level to the next to provide more accessibility to the open space area; • Might consider eliminating the windows from the master suites that overlook the open space to give users increased sense of privacy; • Revised plans addressed the front entry way, but it looks like a back entry, it is not inviting, there is no protection from the elements for guests ringing the buzzer for entry; • Should add amenities both to the front entry and to the rear common open space to make it more inviting, a bench at the front entry to identify it as an arrival point, entry could also be enlarged and articulated; • The design of the front entry should echo the elements of the entry along the side; • At courtyard need to add amenities to attract people to use the space, could add a bench element or a gazebo that invites people to sit and read; • Could dedicate a portion of the planter space in the courtyard to a "victory garden" for residents to share; • The room dimensions on sheets A.4 through A.6 need to be checked; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 7 • The stair-stepping window pattern on the right elevation at the stair well looks awkward, it appears that the sills are ramming into each other, could use oval windows so the sills do not butt up against each other; • Concerned with the amount of stucco, use different materials on some elements such as on the chimney; • Should reduce the size of the underground garage by at least 3 feet at the rear to provide an area for large scale planting in soil along the rear property line; • Applicant should show the current proposal for the rear open space on the same sheet as the revised proposal to see how it all fits together; it there is articulation that allows access from the units, could work within the existing 15-foot wide area of open space; fifteen feet can be a great outdoor space as long as it is designed well and there is access to it. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Cauchi made a motion to continue the item and bring the project back on consent after the changes have been made. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: there are a lot of comments, am a little concerned that the changes are significant, not sure about putting it on consent, it is a sizable project and there has been a lot of discussion, do not think consent is appropriate. C. Cauchi amended the motion to bring the project back on the action calendar. C. Auran agreed to the amendment to the motion. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to bring the item back on the action calendar when the revisions directed have been made and checked by the Planning Department and there is room on an agenda. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:47 p.m. 5. DETERMINATION ON THE DESIGNATION OF FRONT YARD ON CORNER LOTS WHICH CAN AFFECT SETBACKS IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS (33 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report September 11, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report. Commissioner asked if after the determination the applicant would still need to apply to the Commission for his project. CP Monroe noted yes that other permits were required. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Dennis Zell, 1800 Ashton, noted that he built a play structure for his kids, he lives on a corner and a person complained about the height, and depending upon how you read the zoning code the play structure was 6 feet to a few feet too high, staff told him he would need a conditional use permit which costs $1,800; he likes the play structure and wanted to bring it into conformity so took off part of it. In his case, on the corner lot, his house faces the long side of the lot, and the staff called the short side, which he considers the side of the house, the front. The accessory structures ordinance does not use the term 'lot front' (the short side of the street) but uses the term 'in front of the main building' to determine if a conditional use permit is required. The front of his house, the front door and address, are on Ashton, would think that the city would be opposed to him building a play structure in his front lawn facing Ashton. Staff noted that they had previously read 'lot front' to be 'in front of the main structure' so had to be consistent. Therefore, recourse is to the Planning Commission to change interpretation. His argument is that 'in front of the main building' does not relate to 'lot front'. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 8 Further comment from the applicant: He also noted that he would like to address the issue of a variance being required if the structure is within the required setback. Feel that the accessory structure ordinance, since its language is more specific, trumps the more broadly applicable setback requirements as far as accessory structures are considered. Because the clear limitations on accessory structures located 'in front of the main building' are so specific, e.g. square footage, height, etc., a variance should not be required for the structure being located within the front, side, or rear setback. One code provision cannot cancel another. Commission asked: What is the height of the play structure now? At the highest point, it is about 11'-6". There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comments: Number of years ago had a tree house come before the commission, since it was not over 100 SF was not considered to be a structure and did not require building permits; 'in front of the main building' is a separate issue, a lot of swings are 8' or 9' tall, need building permit because attached to the ground. Large play structures were not specifically considered when the code was written; issue here is 'lot front' vs. 'in front of the main structure'. Location of the front door on a corner lot is up to the developer, the zoning front should stay the same, if the developer creates a hardship by placement of the front door facing the exterior side, it was his choice; 'in front of the main building' should refer to the lot front for consistency. CA noted that the applicant needs to get this resolved before he can move forward on his application. Commission comments continued: in design career have looked at a lot of corner lots, restricts design options if the front of the house is forced to the 50 foot side, but it is equally absurd for the zoning code to wait for someone with a corner lot to pick which side will be the front. Intent of accessory structure requirements is to control access in front of the main building on the exterior side. CP noted that if the exterior side were selected as the lot front on a 50 x 100 foot lot, the house would need to be setback at least 15 feet and the opposite, rear, yard would have to be 15 feet, so the house could only be 20 feet wide, which also presents a design issue. Agree that current language is ambiguous, need to change language of accessory structure regulations. Agree need to better address corner lots. Setbacks appear to be clear whether in front or side yard. Question is does the city want to regulate access in front of the building. Should be able to have accessory structure on the side of the main building, should not be tied to front of lot. Chair Brownrigg moved to continue this item and ask staff to return with some definitions and choices and discussion of consequences regarding each; and how setbacks affect accessory structures on corner lots. Motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: should also consider if there should be special conditions in the code for corner lots, not only accessory structures. CA noted that any enforcement action on the project at 1800 Ashton would be held open until this item is resolved. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until the study and suggestions from staff have been prepared. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. Chair Brownrigg passed the gavel to Vice-Chair Deal, noting that it was necessary for him to leave and Vice Chair Deal would complete the meeting. C. Brownrigg left the chamber. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 9 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 3 RIO COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MONICA LIANG, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFFREY MARK, PROPERTY OWNER) (39 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Deal opened the public comment. John Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, project architect, and Jeffrey Mark, 3 Rio Court, applicant represented the project. Commissioners asked: Has the applicant been in touch with the neighbors? No. Bob DeVincenzi, 1809 Castenada; Lawrence Barulich, 1821 Loyola; Alonzo Richardson, 1809 Loyola; Mary Anne Rowe-Beccio, 2 Rio Court; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa; Bahman Zohuri, on behalf of Amir Tabrizi, 5 Rio Court; spoke regarding the project. Not opposed to properties being improved, this project is below my property, am concerned with safety, there is a drainage problem, property now drains onto other properties, this will be the first of many additions in the area, concerned with the engineering and slope stability, as other properties develop will it create an unsafe condition; have planted trees to prevent mudslides, want to be proactive to prevent future problems; the proposed addition will affect our view, every room in our house has a view, had an appraisal of the house, indicated that more value is added for my view than is typical, addition will block a large row of trees from our view, this addition will change the architectural balance of the neighborhood, now all the roofs are the same height, parking is an issue, when add rooms, need to accommodate additional parking, with five bedrooms there is the potential for six cars, and owner now has a Winnebago in the driveway; should require story poles to assess the impact on views; was attracted to this area because of the uniform appearance, all houses are single-story ranch style houses, have had neighbors build first floor additions on either side of my property, now it is boxed in; own home on Rio Court, all four houses have views of San Francisco Bay, there are now no two story houses on the court, will change the character of the neighborhood and impair views and privacy of adjacent neighbors; concerned with who owns this property, deed says property transferred to Li Wen Bu, tax statements are mailed to business address in San Francisco; question if this is ultimately a spec house; neighbors have asked for story poles, only fair so can see what the change will be; bought the home for the view and sense of privacy, there is no parking available on the cul de sac, concern with safety, not much land left, when it rains hard will cause stress and there will be erosion. Applicant response: Drainage is not the purview of the Planning Commission, do not think this project will substantially block views, will work on design consistency all the way around the building; need to know if we should pursue this, it is clear the neighbors do not want a second story addition. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners clarified: with the addition, the Public Works Department will require that all drainage will go to the street; drainage issues will be better if the addition is done because it will need to meet current seismic and drainage requirements, the house will be engineered for the hillside. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • Concerned with the consistency of the detailing, front elevation is nice, but it stops at the front and does not carry throughout; needs to follow through on the sides and rear; • Massing is well done, nice design, it's hard to add on to this style of house; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 10 • Replace the proposed vinyl windows with wood clad simulated true divided-lite window; • Need to install story poles to assess potential view blockage; story poles shall be installed and surveyed for accuracy at least the Friday before the public hearing so the Commission can see over the weekend; story poles shall show the outline of the entire structure with mesh; • Ask staff to provide contact information for neighbors so that Commissioners can visit the neighboring sites once the story poles are installed; • Even though there are no second stories in the vicinity, owner has a right to develop the property, but will have to be concerned about potential for view blockage; and C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked and the story poles have been installed as instructed. This motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Vice-Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. 7. 525 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (SCOTT ADAMS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NARESH DHADHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Deal opened the public comment. Scott Adams, 949 Via Casitas, Greenbrae, project architect; and Naresh Dhadhal, 525 Oak Grove, applicant, presented the project, noting that originally wanted to convert garage to a family room and build another garage, ran into problems with ceiling heights of existing garage, now propose to take off the existing second floor, raise the building, add second story and add a one car garage. Commissioners noted that there is an existing accessory structure on the side, appears to be in the way of the proposed uncovered parking space. The applicant noted that the accessory structure will be removed and not replaced as part of the project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project. • Massing is an improvement, location of the addition is good, but concerned with the detail; • There are existing, simple but specific details on the existing house, it is not clear from the plans that these details will remain, existing plans need to accurately reflect what is there; and proposed plans need to show details which are to remain; • Do not have a problem with contemporary design, but it is a problem when it is coupled with the existing style, should go with one style or the other; • Would prefer if the new would match the existing style; • Modify the fireplace to have a more traditional shape, the style of the chimney is not consistent on all the elevations; • The wrought iron proposed at porch and second floor does not work with the existing style of the house, it is too ornate; • Front door is a prominent feature, should add divided lite windows in the garage door to mimic other windows at front; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 11 • Concerned with five foot high fence along the driveway, will impede visibility when backing out of the garage; • The new wood gate at the driveway swings over the property line onto the sidewalk, will have to redesign so it does not block the sidewalk; • Existing drawings do not show the details of what is existing, such as the stucco mold, shutters, trim not shown, eaves not shown properly, not accurate representation of what is there; • Show details on proposed plans as well, on eaves where there are gutters, they should be shown; • Rethink the windows at the second floor that follow the rake of the roof, they do not work with this design; • Stairs are shown differently on first and second floor plans, the building code does not allow the use of a winder staircase as shown; staircases are shown to be three feet wide, it is very difficult to get furniture upstairs around a bend, might want to make the staircase wider; • Provide a landscape plan and identify species and location of new landscaping, larger scale planting should be added to break up the massing of the wall on both street frontages; C. Auran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Discussion on the motion: In this case, main concern is with window trim and other details, have given enough direction to bring this back to action, not a design review issue, think architect can follow direction; not confident, this is a low-roof charming structure with true divided lites, now have a modern structure, drawings are poor enough in quality and detail, think design review consultant could help with the detailing and result in a more efficient, speedy review process. Vice-Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-1-1 (C. Osterling dissenting and C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:17 p.m. 8. 214-216 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOTEL TO RETAIL ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND OFFICE ON THE SECOND FLOOR (JERRY WINGES, WINGES ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MENDELL PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNER (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked how the parking requirement was determined for the change of use, why weren't all 27 hotel rooms counted to offset the change to office use on the second floor. CP Monroe noted that because this property is within Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, the change from hotel use to retail resulted in an exemption for the first floor from the parking requirements for the retail use; the second floor previously contained 18 hotel rooms, the parking requirement for hotels is one space per room, requiring 18 parking spaces. The requirement for the proposed second store office use is one space for every 300 SF of gross floor area, which results in a requirement for 21 parking spaces, therefore, a parking variance is required for the intensification of the use on the second floor. Vice-Chair Deal opened the public comment. Jerry Winges, 1290 Howard Avenue, project architect, Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa spoke regarding the project; the applicant is a long- term, high quality Burlingame business owner, this will bring more retail down Lorton, and strengthen the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 12 retail character of the street; is a marvelous opportunity to bring more life to Lorton, front of the building will be opened up to see activity and merchandise displayed, this project will include seismic and fire code upgrade, will appear as a new building with the same mass, rendering shows the understated white on white theme combined with dark wood panels, will be a white limestone entry with pre-cast elements in a lighter color, thought the dark composition shingle roof would be appropriate to the design; going through process to encourage creative reuse on Howard, this is a perfect opportunity to see what can be done to improve retail connection, should look at what is existing demand for parking and compare it with the demand for the proposed use, should look at holistically, current demand under code is for 27 parking spaces, some of the rooms had kitchens so should be a 1-½ space requirement per room, demand is between 27 and 33 parking spaces, proposed use requires 21 spaces, should not be need for parking variance; exciting that this project is coming forward right before the design charrette, this is a forward looking step. Commissioners asked: Do you know if the upstairs units had kitchens, if so, how many; how will the HVAC units on the roof be screened; how will the security screens look; why was the tile roof not incorporated into the design. The applicant noted that they will look into the number of units on the first and second floor with kitchens and provide at the next meet; a parapet is proposed on all sides to provide screening for the HVAC units; haven't made a final selection on the roll down security screens, concern is that the store when closed not be visible clear to the back, do not want to create a police problem, whatever is proposed will be high quality; considered retaining the Spanish tile roof and although it is beautiful, the image we are trying to project is different, the tile roof will not fit in. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Commissioner comment: Concern with the façade design, the existing building has a clean, well organized Spanish style with timeless qualities, have no problem with a modern design, but would like to see more timeless qualities so it does not become dated, would like to see a more pedestrian feel; this will be a very classy addition to Lorton, it does have a timeless elegance that you might expect on Fifth Avenue in New York, would like to see it move ahead, will be a great bridge between Burlingame Avenue and Howard. Originally had similar concerns about the timeless quality of the design, but after seeing the rendering and color scheme and materials, feel that the design will fit in, it matches the proposed use. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • Display windows are large, might want to make them smaller; • Security screens roll down in the front of the building, how are they detailed and what will they look like, will come down when store closes at 5:30 p.m. and will see them for a good part of the day; would like to see the security screens held back from the street frontage by a couple of feet: and • There are now operable windows on the second floor and proposed at the rear of the building, would like to see operable windows used on the rest of the second floor office space. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: Regarding the parking variance, the demand for parking from the previous hotel use exceeds the demand for the current proposal to convert the second floor to office use, there is no space on the lot to provide on-site parking and the proposed use will play a significant role in bridging the retail uses on Burlingame Avenue with those on Howard Avenue where there is considerable off-street public parking; therefore, the parking variance is justified. Vice-Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 13 been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m. X. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS - Continued discussion of sidewalk widths in the El Camino Real North Planning Area of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Planning Commissioners reviewed the information provided on sidewalks in New York City and Chevy Chase Maryland. They discussed the size of the available city right-of-way along El Camino, 50 -60 feet, and the space needed to support street trees and planters. The Commission directed staff to bring back to the next meeting some sketches showing the variety of approaches which may be used. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of September 5, 2006. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of September 5, 2006, noting that the appeal hearing for 1520 Arc Way was set for Tuesday, October 3, 2006. - FYI: Status Report on Peninsula Hospital Construction Hours Commission acknowledged receipt of the August 2006 Complaint Log from Sutter Health's construction supervisor. Staff noted that they would begin to move the stockpiled dirt to backfill around the parking garage and create the new entrance to the Medical Office Building, replacement hospital and parking garage in mid-September. The garage itself will not be available for occupancy until mid-November. The applicant is continuing on their phased construction program with commencement of the excavation for the replacement hospital at the end of September. They do not anticipate that the hospital excavation will affect any of the existing parking until after the new parking garage is in operation. Oren Reinbolt, the replacement hospital project manager, has requested that the Planning Commission give him some direction for selecting the public art to be placed at the front of the new parking garage (condition 18). CP Monroe noted that according to the city's public art policy the commission with the responsibility for the area would be the one to review the public art. In this case, the Planning Commission is the commission which was responsible for project review. CP suggested that the Commission form a subcommittee of two members to work with the applicant and staff in order to develop a process for identifying and selecting a piece of public art work to be placed along either the Trousdale or El Camino street frontage at the parking garage. Cers. Osterling and Vistica volunteered to work with staff and the applicant to develop a process. CP noted that the conditions of approval require that this public art be installed with the landscaping of the parking garage, and mid-November was a short time if a piece of art needed to be created. The commission consensus was that it was more important to select the right piece of public art, that the applicant has shown good faith in wanting to provide the piece of art and fund it, so it is appropriate to provide sufficient time to execute the proper selection process. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 11:22 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 14 Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Secretary S:\MINUTES\unapproved 09.11.06.doc