Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.11.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA December 11, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Jerry Deal called the December 11, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Brownrigg Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the November 27, 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 Jean Hastie, representing Sisters of Mercy, introduced the team who prepared the application for the conditional use permit for the Sisters of Mercy site. The team includes Sister Ellene Egan, representing Mercy Center, Laura Held, Principal of Mercy High School, and Sandy Sloan, attorney. There were no further comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2300 AND 2750 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR AN EXISTING HIGH SCHOOL AND RELIGIOUS FACILITY USE (JEAN HASTIE, SISTERS OF MERCY AND LAURA HELD, MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked about the letter from the applicant dated December 11, 2006, it notes that the County conditional use permit remains valid, if this is so, why process this application? CA Anderson noted that the City is generally bound by the conditions imposed by the County through the conditional use permits in effect at the time of annexation, this action is meant to confirm what is there now, so can properly assess any future changes proposed. Commissioners asked: • At previous meetings, neighbors noted concerns with parking off-campus, please clarify; • Is there a complaint center or person who neighbors can call to express concerns, should be made readily available; • Proposed Condition No. 19 specifies that the combined total of participants for events scheduled at the Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center shall not exceed 350 participants on site at any one time, does this number include guests, caterer, band etc.; how is the number policed and enforced; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 11, 2006 2 • The parking study identifies demand for Kohl Mansion, did not see information on a combined parking demand for Kohl Mansion, Mercy High School and Mercy Center, need to be sure that demand does not exceed the available 382 parking spaces; • The parking study notes that there is a policy that there shall be no Kohl Mansion events when high school is in session, that policy should be incorporated into the conditions of approval; • The staff report indicates that there are four events per year scheduled between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on weekdays, and Condition No. 8 says that there may be occasional weekday music concerts, provided that participants arrive by bus, does "occasional" mean four events per year, clarify and tie together in condition, should be made more clear; • One of the questions from the neighbors asked if Mercy High School can require that buses stay parked on Mercy property during scheduled events, this should be made a condition of approval; • Provide a breakdown of the Mercy High School parking lot between student and faculty parking, parking study combines information on what appears to be two separate lots on the site plan; • A number of concerns have been raised about noise, have there been studies done, seems to be related to activities at Kohl Mansion, should provide accurate noise measurements that quantify impact of amplified music measured at property line compared to ambient noise levels. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. The item will be noticed to the neighborhood when it comes back for action. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 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. 2a. 1535 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (GEOMEN AND ELIZABETH LIU TRUST, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2b. 1205 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION AND INCREASE IN SEATING AREA OF AN EXISTING FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (ORHAN KURT, APPLICANT; ARNIE GAPESIN, A&T DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER; LENCI FARKAS, PROPERTY OWNER) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Vice-Chair Deal asked if anyone in the audience, on the Commission or staff wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Terrones 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 in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Vice-Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the consent calendar without changes and it passed 5-0-1-1 (C. Osterling abstaining, C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 11, 2006 3 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 1336 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JESSE GEURSE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TOM LEYDEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report December 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. Vice-Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, architect, 405 Bayswater, represented the project. He noted that he would answer any questions from the commission. Commissioners noted, project improved, good that the design was changed to remove the front setback variance, clarified that: • There was a wooden trim above the exposed concrete footing; • Asked what the down spout material would be, noted galvanized metal painted; • Noted that there was an inconsistency in the plans, the stairs on the left side from the storage area are not shown on all the plans, should be especially since it will affect the paved area on the landscape plan; • Because the fence with gate front façade and garage are on a single plane the effect is a large wall, left side fence with man-gate in it should be set back 4 feet or more to break up the line; • The front porch on the right side elevation at the chimney creates an odd detail, if the porch were shortened by a foot the shed roof detail would work better; • The exposed rafter tails (3x3) should be exposed throughout the design where appropriate. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved to approve the project with the corrections noted by resolution and with the conditions in the staff report and the additions noted. (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 29, 2006, sheets T.0 through G.2, L1.0 and boundary and topographic survey and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit, that there shall be a wooden trim installed above the exposed concrete footing on the sides of the house, that the down spouts shall be painted galvanized metal, that the fence at the left side front of the lot shall be setback at least four feet to provide articulation along the front façade, and that the exposed rafter tails (3x3) shall be exposed throughout the design where appropriate; (2) that the plans shall be corrected to show the stairs on the left side from the storage area on all the plans e.g. floor plans, site plans and landscape plans and that the paved area shown on the landscape plan shall be adjusted to provide for the stairs; and that the design of the front porch shall be adjusted to provide for a better execution of the shed roof detail; the gate proposed across the driveway shall be electronically activated to facilitate the use of the parking provided on site; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 18, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's August 21, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's August 21, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 21, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 21, 2006 memo shall be met; (4) 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 11, 2006 4 regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; (5) 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; (6) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (7) 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; (8) that prior to scheduling the final 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; (9) 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; (10) 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; (11) 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; (12) 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; (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 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; (15) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (16) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: if there should ever be a gate placed across the driveway it should be electronically operated or the on-site parking will not be used; the maker and second of motion agreed to add this to the conditions of approval. Vice-Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions, the project. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 11, 2006 5 4. 835 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JAMES WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JUANITA LUCERO, PROPERTY OWNER) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report December 11, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Noted a letter received after the packet was delivered from Margie Unger, 1200 Edgehill Drive. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Juanita Lucero, applicant and James Wong, architect, represented the project. Noted that they would answer questions. Commissioner asked if it was the applicant’s intention to hold Yoga classes on this site; she said no and she would limit child care to 6 children. Applicant noted that the accessory structure was primarily for her own use, lives close to McKinley school so would provide a community service by taking care of children before and after school. Additional Public Comments: Joseph Vella, 822 Crossway; Joann Gervais, 842 Acacia; Ketty Taylor, 839 Crossway; Robert Brisby, 824 Acacia; Jim Belax, 831 Edgehill; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa; and Gary Barisoni, 824 Acacia. Concerned about the large size of the structure, could easily be converted to a second dwelling unit; if she takes care of a lot of children will increase the traffic in the area; to the rear of this property have a nonconforming cottage built on property line, space behind the proposed structure is not big enough for me to do maintenance on my cottage; will the city monitor the use of this structure after it is built? CA responded only on complaint. If this is a day care facility, why do they need a full bath; in some places there is only 3 feet between this structure and the property line. My property will be completely enclosed with this project, if there is day care there will be a lot of traffic, husband and she not always well do not want to hear a lot of children all day, this is a residential area. Project has a big footprint; on Acacia there are a number of cottages at the rear of the properties and it results in making parking very difficult, had an emergency a few doors down, emergency vehicles had to back down the street, to allow this invites trouble and the city does not enforce the allowed use. Two years ago Commission denied an 800 SF garage across the street with an hydraulic lift and bathroom because it appeared that the use would become commercial, plans show no bathroom in the existing house; who will bathe in the auxiliary structure, will it actually be a support or extension to the primary structure; is the purpose of the raised walkway to better integrate the two structures? Commissioner noted that there was probably a bathroom in the house and the floor plans are cursory. Recently the Commission turned down full bathrooms at 855 and 755 Paloma; with this structure it would be easy to add an electric stove and full kitchen to make it an independent dwelling unit; if the bathroom was removed it would be okay. I am the one who does the maintenance on the cottage at 842 Acacia, three feet is not enough for access. Do not want a new second unit, how many children are allowed here? CA noted up to 12 children are allowed in all residential zones. What will keep a future owner of this site from converting this to a second unit? Architect noted owner has owned for 35 years, no intent to sell the property. Public hearing continued: Applicant responded; have owned the property for 35 years; concerned for the quality of life in Burlingame, know there is a shortage of before and after school day care, felt offering this was a community service, located next to McKinley and have taught art in the public schools; not intend to rent the unit, have raised my children, want space for myself, massing is to right side of garage and low as it relates to the garage height; recreation room has a high ceiling, 9 foot plate, to be similar to the house, designed around the existing trees which are 100 years old, City Arborist says to preserve them, have oriented the new structure on the tree and connected to house with patio and walkway. Commissioner City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 11, 2006 6 asked: the bathroom shown seems large for a child care facility, applicant noted would use room for child care and meditation. How will the children get to the structure at the rear, through the house? They will enter from the driveway. Does the room have to be that big in the accessory structure, could it be smaller and provide the same function? Designed with two different masses to give illusion that it is smaller than it is. Nine foot plate is not right, roof needs to be reconfigured, and size of foyer is not needed for the proposed uses. Property owner noted that foyer will serve as a mud room for the children to protect the wood floor inside, ceiling height is like the house so extension would have same attributes as the living room, oriented to the tree as important amenity; presently dilapidated grandfathered unit at rear of site, unsightly for neighbors to look at, want to upgrade. Did you consider making this addition narrower? Garage is 20 feet wide so only had 8 feet left to work in. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: Cers. Deal and Terrones noted that they had met and talked with property owner or neighbors on their site inspection of this project. Troubled by the size of the accessory structure and the bathroom, looks like an additional dwelling unit; same size as present bathroom in the house, too easy to convert into a second unit; concerned with the width of the structure, almost twice what we allow; agree that community needs day care and this use operates well in residential areas, but service could be provided from inside the main house, but with this application to make the accessory structure work for the day care use would hinder the rights of the neighboring properties; not clear about the day care use since there is no art sink for clean up in the accessory structure; building is too big, infringes on the neighbors, can do child care inside the house, in the future this could become a second unit with the associated parking problems, the accessory structure is 1,050 SF and the house is 1,400 SF, almost as big. C. Vistica noted that the consensus of the commission was not to approve this request, so moved to deny this application by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Vice-Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the request for special permits and conditional use permits for a 1,050 SF accessory structure at 835 Crossway Road. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 5. 1251 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (LILY LI, APPLICANT; CLEMENT YEN, TOYO COMPANY, DESIGNER; K.J. NICKMEY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of this project site and so must recuse himself from this action. The passed the gavel to Commission Secretary Cauchi who would serve as Acting Chair for this item. C. Deal stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report December 11, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked about the legality of having the garbage pickup area mid-block from the restaurant, is that legal? Has the city received any complaints about the graffiti on the public phone booth? How does the applicant intend to address the three weedy planting areas? Also it appears that the trellis on the building is full of dry rot, how is the applicant intending to address its repair if they are not doing any work to the front of the building besides painting? Staff suggested that these items be addressed by the applicant. There were no further questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 11, 2006 7 Acting-Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Hong Li, applicant, represented the project. Applicant noted she would answer questions. Commissioner noted concern about how the garbage would be handled, where would it be stored, where would the cans be washed and cleaned? Applicant noted asked the restaurant next door, they take their garbage to the easement down the street, the previous owner of this business did the same for 7 years, walked the garbage down the street into the alley; cans are stored in the alley, landlord says will let them use the hose from their kitchen to clean the cans. What do you intend to do about the abandoned planters? Will put flowers in them. What will you do about the rotting trellis over the window and the dry rot repairs to the exterior? We will fix the wood. What about the graffiti on the public phone? Do not know who owns the public phone. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: appears that this proposal is incomplete, need to address the garbage, the changes to the exterior of the building which are a major concern and might result in the need for commercial design review; need to see plans for the exterior planters and correction of wood rot, conditions should include the requirement of a garden service to maintain the planters; it should be clear about how the graffiti can be removed or the pay phone can be removed before this comes back to the Commission; a garbage area should be included inside this business equipped with hot water for cleaning the garbage cans and a proper drain, it should be confirmed by the Health Department that it is appropriate to go through the seating area by Il Piccolo to the easement for garbage deposit for pickup. Feel that the garbage disposal is a health issue and of major concern, who owns the property where the cans are left for pick up, who is responsible for the sanitation of the cans and of the area where they are stored, is it legal to take the garbage so far for pick up, cannot act without this information. CA noted that the item can be continued to a date uncertain, will renotice when all the information is provided. C. Vistica moved to continue this item until the applicant has responded to all the questions, staff has reviewed the application for completeness, and there is space on an agenda, this item will be renoticed at the time it is placed on an agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Acting Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until the questions raised have all been addressed. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstained, C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat at the dais. C. Cauchi returned the gavel to Vice Chair Deal. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 117 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (JOHN KLOPF, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GERALD AND NORMA COOK, PROPERTY OWNERS) (73 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 11, 2006 8 Vice-Chair Deal opened the public comment. John Klopf, 3012 16th Street, project architect, noted that the intent with this project is to improve a multi-generational living situation, family has owned the house for 70 years, want to live together to support each other, intent is for younger generation to live upstairs, downstairs will continue to be used by grandparents; second floor will be set back from street as much as feasible, using similar materials to existing house, asking for exception to declining height envelope to provide enough width for bedrooms and play area, also more cost effective when second floor construction will be directly over first floor wall. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the design: • This is a fairly simple home, not a problem with lack of architectural detail, but do have concerns with massing, will be creating a broad face on three sides of the building other than the front, are asking for special consideration for declining height envelope, if massing were articulated, there might be justification for the special permit, concerned with broad, simple façades; • Drawings show wood railing around second floor deck, but it does not have detail to show it is wood, show how the wood railing will actually look; • Proposal is a box over a box, too linear and lacking in character, unimaginative; • Need more articulation on second floor, not just add bay on the side, could have more of the first floor roof showing with some elements jutting out and some jogging in so it will have character; • Not concerned with size but with massing, not suggesting that just add gingerbread, need to take it one step further with massing so it is not a box on top of a box; • Mass is pushed too far to the back, it is a modest addition, so will not have negative impact if it is moved forward; • Window arrangement is straightforward and rational; • Like to see some kind of treatment for front porch, such as extending the steps to make it more of a porch; • Take advantage of the width of the lot on the driveway side, can add articulation of massing along that side and have a cantilevered piece on second floor; • When you compare the drawings to a photo of the existing house, the existing trim appears to be wider than it is drawn, need to accurately depict the size of trim details both existing and proposed; • Could add an attic vent detail at the front and add downspouts and gutters; • Side elevation along driveway is a long stretch of wall, could add landscaping along fence line to add softness; and • Front porch is an important element, like to see it addressed in revisions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to send this project to a design review consultant with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on the motion: Commissioners noted that it is important that the design review consultant listen to the tapes for this project. Vice-Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant and bring the project back on the action calendar when design review process is complete and 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 8:47 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 11, 2006 9 7. 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KENDRICK LI, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Osterling noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and will recuse himself from the proceedings, and left the chambers. SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Deal opened the public comment. Kendrick Lee, 2212 Hillside Drive, project applicant, and Ben Behravesh, 4 West Santa Inez, San Mateo, project architect, explained how the house was sited so that most rooms will get sun from the south and east, noted the house and detached garage were placed where they are to preserve the mature trees at the rear; in this neighborhood, there is a variety of driveway locations, and a mix of attached and detached garages. Public comment continued: Delores and Dennis Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke, noting that an attached garage is preferred and would like the driveway left where it is now, there are plenty of opportunities to park on the street in this neighborhood, concerned with the location of the sump pump, it will be near their bedroom window, understand the pump will be used to remove excess water from the sunken garden, would be noisy and run frequently, can it be relocated; the proposed metal circular stairs from the basement will be noisy, are concerned because it will be next to their living area; because the canopy of the Magnolia tree in front is so big, do not think there needs to be a tree planted along the side at all; want to make sure all the railings will be wrought iron, some are called out as metal; concerned with the amount of paving next to the detached garage, do not want it to become a parking lot in the back yard, overall the design is a great improvement; confused with Arborist's report, says one of the street trees will be removed for the new driveway, would like to see it retained if possible, nothing much has changed with the project except in height, says it is a Mediterranean style, but could be a "McMansion" seen anywhere, window choices provide little interest, and they aren't called out as true divided lite or simulated true divided lite; they are called out as aluminum clad wood; hasn't been a reduction in paving, no change to the right side wall, it appears that the light well from the basement protrudes into the driveway, no deference was made to neighbors who would like to see the driveway stay on the left side with an attached garage, this is a maximum size house, why allow a minimum size driveway, would like to see a landscape plan, shouldn't remove a healthy street tree for a driveway, the basement space could be turned into accessory living quarters, this area should be considered a fifth bedroom and require a two-car garage, should check with the Chief Building Official, if it has proper egress door, might be allowed for sleeping room. Commissioners asked if the window trim will be foam or wood, could it be made to work using wood trim at sill and header? The applicant noted that it is proposed to be stucco over wood, could use wood except for the curved pieces. The floor plan shows decorative wrought iron balcony on the rear, but it is not shown on the east elevation. The applicant noted that the balcony is proposed, will revise plans to show. Can the project be made to work without the sunken garden? No, the sunken area provides the required egress from the basement, as well as providing natural light into the basement. What is the material for the driveway? Will be pavers with sand bed, permeable surface. Commissioners noted that this is a nicely designed house, is an improvement, have done homework on the neighborhood. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 11, 2006 10 • North elevation still is a broad, flat façade, the wood bay is a nice addition, but it is still flat, the project is at the maximum FAR, could articulate this wall some more; • Propose long, two-story wall along driveway, would like to see some additional breaking up of this wall, can break up the plate height, since this site slopes down, the height of that long wall will be emphasized; • agree that there is a lack of articulation on the north elevation, not sure that the wood element is the way to achieve this, it looks out of place; • On North elevation, wood siding could be a nice detail, but it does not tie in with anything else, do not want to see things just tacked onto the side, need some true articulation; • Note that there is a lack of detail around the windows, but see that they will be recessed with a stucco return, would like to see a detail of what is intended around the windows, need to clarify on plans; • Need more attention given to chimney caps, something more consistent with this architectural style, chimneys do not have to be so tall; • On the south elevation, the circular windows on either side of the fireplace seem crowded horizontally, do not like the relationship of the windows next to the fireplace; • Need to provide a full landscape plan and tree protection plan prepared by a licensed arborist to show how trees will be protected during construction; • Reduce the amount of paving proposed in the back near the garage; • Curved windows can be expensive to build, do not want to see the project come back with changes, may be more prudent to use rectangular windows with heavy wood timber; • The plans need to show the material sizes for elements such as the corbels, rafter tails and belly band; • Plans should show the downspouts, might give more detail with ornamental collectors and downspouts; • Window placement and shapes are chaotic, too many curved windows; caps on curved windows look out of place; • On sides of gable ends, see beams on side view but not shown when look at gable ends; show rafter tails on elevations, should call out 3x rafter tails throughout; • Plate height is called out as 8'-2", if using standard size studs, would be 8'-1"; • Light fixtures on front elevation look contemporary, should choose a style that is more in character with architecture; • There are a lot of details on the plans that need to be corrected, the muntin bars on the windows are chaotic, nothing flows through, needs to be consistent, windows on the South elevation are misplaced, windows should be called out as true divided lite or simulated true divided lite; • The idea of instantaneous history, where something is built to look like it was added on over time can be used with the massing, can use a roofline change to create the impression that something was added on; • Garage elevations show gutter extending over the property line and the eave intruding into the required 3-foot separation from property line, need to resolve, wall along the property line is required to be a one-hour wall; • Need to do something to diminish some plate heights on the second floor so that it is not the same all around, will break it up and help with massing; • Provide photo of a clay tile roof which is made up of a mix of "S" tiles and regular two-piece tiles as proposed, provide address of location in area where it is installed; • Change the proposed Eucalyptus tree to be planted along side property line to a Pittosporum; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 11, 2006 11 • Relocate the sump pump away from neighboring property line, will have to pump to street from the back of the property, sump pump could be put in or near the garage; • Should verify if the right side Magnolia tree in the planter strip has to be removed, should make every effort to retain, like to keep both street trees; • Require that an automatic gate be installed, will increase the probability that the garage and driveway will be used for parking, show on plans; • Need to provide more landscaping than is now proposed to soften the façade, particularly if the Magnolia tree to the right has to be removed; • The use of the basement area as a bedroom requires a special permit, should check with the Chief Building Official to determine if it has proper egress for sleeping room; • Spanish Mediterranean style requires careful attention to detail to articulate that style; and • The skylights shall be tinted so that they do not emit night glare, add note on plans. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 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. This motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Vice-Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Osterling recused, C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. C. Osterling returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS - Review Draft Scope of Work for the Downtown Specific Plan (item continued from November 27, 2006 meeting). CP Monroe reviewed the assumptions made by the Committee which prepared the proposed draft of the Work Program for the Downtown Specific Plan. She asked the Commissioners if they had any items to add or suggestions to make. Cers. Auran and Vistica noted that they thought that the study area for the plan had been expanded to include the area east of the railroad tracks to Anita Road. Commissioner noted that one benefit would be that this would allow for planning in a complete circle around the train station. The importance of tying the area to the east of the tracks to the core downtown to the west is also important. It was also noted that the work program should include a work element to address ‘sustainability’ which would include open spaces and benefits from proximity to mass transit as well as other items the consultant could identify and incorporate. - Progress Report from the Permit Processing Subcommittee including permit expirations, construction site maintenance and conditions for framing inspection. CP Monroe reviewed the conclusions on two of the topics recently discussed by the Permit Processing Subcommittee which met on December 8. The two topics not previously discussed with the Commission were: certification of the framing to insure incorporation of required design elements and maintenance of construction sites during construction. The Subcommittee members and Commissioners discussed briefly the direction given at the Subcommittee meeting. Noting that framing certifications City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes December 11, 2006 12 should be done by residential designers or architects. CP noted that with this review staff would prepare the necessary ordinance language and policy to address these issues and permit extension. The intention would be to bring the ordinance and policy proposal to the Commission for action in January. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - Report on City Council meeting of December 4, 2006. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of December 4, 2006. She noted that the Council had set the appeal hearing for 3 Rio Court for January 2, 2006. Also the action on the project at 1557 Drake has been appealed, but the Council has not yet set the hearing date. She noted that the City Council adopted the ordinance on demolition permits and penalty fees for work without a permit as it was recommended by the Planning Commission. The ordinance will become effective January 4, 2007. - FYI: 1125 Burlingame Avenue – changes to a previously approved conditional use permit amendment application. Commission noted these proposals were an improvement and it would be nice if the design took advantage of a corner entrance; it was noted by staff that this project did not require design review. - Update on status of application for car storage in the drainage easement at 1730 Rollins Road. Commission acknowledged staff’s recommendation that because this item is a code enforcement action of long standing, if the applicant had not completed their submittal in time for the January 8, 2007 meeting, the application should be brought forward for Commission action on that date anyway. XI. ADJOURNMENT Vice-Chair Deal adjourned the meeting at 10:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Secretary S:\MINUTES\minutes.12.11.06.doc