Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031405PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA March 14, 2005 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Auran called the March 14, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Deal, Keighran, and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 28, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Auran noted that he had received a request to remove item 4d, 1450 Capuchino, from the consent to regular action calendar for a public hearing. There were no other changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1340 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE IN AN R-2 ZONE (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KEVIN CHRISTIAN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners had no comments on the project. This item was set for the consent calendar with no changes to the plans requested. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. 2. REVISED ZONING REGULATIONS FOR AUTO ROW, SUBAREA D, SECOND UNIT AMNESTY AND OTHER CORRECTIONS CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report summarizing the proposed changes to the overlay regulations for Subarea D of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, zoned C-2; amendment to the Fortunetelling licensing requirements to clarify references to the zoning ordinance; amendment to the second unit amnesty requirements to establish an incentive for making qualified units very low and low income housing; and an amendment to the R-3 zoning regulations making churches and religious institutions a permitted use and auxiliary use of church facilities by other tenants a conditional use. Commission discussion: does the definition of "car rental facilities" include free standing office and a storage lot? Yes. How would these regulatory changes work with adoption of a Specific Plan for the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2005 2 downtown area? These changes should be seen as being interim; when a Specific Plan is adopted for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, which includes Subarea D, new zoning will need to be written to implement the vision for Subarea D expressed in the adopted plan. CA pointed out that these proposed revisions to Subarea D include a clarification that office uses are a conditional use, currently the zoning is vague on the status of office uses in Subarea D. Car rental uses needed to support auto row are all right, provided the number of cars which can be stored and repaired/maintained on site are limited so the use can be limited to the scale of other uses in the area. If auto dealers need car rental business for support and it allows them to increase their business, should find a way for them to have free standing car rental uses on a limited basis. Concerned that car rental agencies as a use are not consistent with land use goal to promote pedestrian activity in the downtown area, does not sound right to have big parking lot for storage of car rentals in this area. Commission discussion continued: How will the age of buildings be determined if the criteria for review is based on a specific date? Staff has access to a number of documents which provide information on the date of construction, in addition applicants have title reports, and there are local resources such as the Historical Society. Generally, applicants and staff work together to arrive at the date of construction. Is a specific date necessary to demarcate CEQA review before a demolition permit can be issued? No; but if a date is not given, there needs to be some criteria for why some or all buildings are important, that becomes a standard for such review. Don't understand the issue regarding the date criteria for structural removal. CA noted that there is a sense in California law that one has the right to tear down a building, you need to provide a finding for the reason to protect if you are going to limit that right and protect a building. Discussion continued :How is it insured that low income units stay in that segment of the market? Such units are managed by a third party approved by the city; this is established in the city's inclusionary zoning requirements and included by reference in the second unit requirements. What does the "no parking on- site" mean for low income housing? It means that there need be no parking on site for the second unit if the unit is committed to have a rent which qualifies as very low or low income. This was discussed at the Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting in 2004, there is already an incentive in the second unit program for moderate income housing e.g. none of the on site parking (for primary and secondary unit) needs to be covered. Commission direction: When this item returns to the Commission it would be helpful to have some background on the platform relocation project proposed for the Burlingame Avenue Train Station. The Commercial Design Guidelines should also be included in the staff report so Commission can determine if they are adequate for the auto row area. It would be helpful if a representative of the car dealerships interested in having a free standing car rental facility would come and discuss with the Commission the economic benefit of the car rental use to their business. ƒ Alternative language for limiting size or removing car rental agencies (free standing) should be provided. ƒ Investigate an alternative to using a date for defining the standard for CEQA review of buildings prior to issuing a demolition permit in Subareas A, B and D. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 3. REVIEW OF THE RECENTLY CITY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AFFECTING THE REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE SPRINKLERS IN SINGLE FAMILY City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2005 3 HOUSES CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report which outlined recent local amendments to the California Fire Code as it relates to sprinklering requirements for single family houses. She noted that the original regulations were adopted by the City Council in 2001 and were amended in 2004 to make them more lenient, and the Fire Department and the Council will continue to look at the issue over time. The recent amendment to the regulations changed the threshold for requiring sprinklers from a dollar amount of $75,000 value of construction to a threshold based on increase in floor area, with a 750 SF addition triggering the requirement for sprinklers. It was noted that with 750 SF addition, the homeowner is required to sprinkler the entire house. Commissioners expressed concern about this requirement noting that it places a financial burden on the homeowner, it is not an easy job to retrofit an older house with sprinklers, there is a balance to be struck, would like to see increased safety, but with a modest addition, sprinklers have to be installed throughout the house, and with stucco and plaster it is a lot of work. Commissioners also expressed a concern with the added cost for after-hours inspection, the charge seems high, is it requested often? CA Anderson noted that an after-hours inspection is only done when it is requested by the property owner, so it is offered as an option if it is requested. Commissioners noted that they had heard a lot of complaints about the requirement for sprinklers, not opposed to the ordinance but with the extent of the requirement, would be okay if the sprinklers were only required for the area added, but should not have to go back through the whole house; this ordinance goes too far. Would like our comments passed on to the Fire Marshal and the Fire Chief, and hope they are taken into consideration the next time these regulations come up for review. It would have been nice if input was solicited from the Commission prior to adoption to see if there some more balanced approach that could be implemented. The item concluded at 7:35 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. 4A. 1149 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; TOM AND LORIE WHITE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 4B. 215 CHAPIN LANE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (ERIKO STAUBER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STEVE TAYLOR, PROPERTY OWNER) (50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 4C. 1416 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOE AND CHRISTINE DAMICO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2005 4 RUBEN HURIN 4F. 1101 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (28 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal noted that he would abstain from all items on the consent calendar because he did not participate in the previous discussions on these items. C. Vistica noted that he would recuse himself from action on Item 4F, 1101 Burlingame Avenue, because he has a business relationship with the applicant. Acting Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. C. Brownrigg requested that Item No. 4d., 1450 Capuchino Avenue be removed from consent for discussion. Acting Chair Auran noted that he had requests to speak from the audience regarding Item 4e., 149 Occidental Avenue, and Item 4g., 220 California Drive. Acting Chair Auran set Items 4d., 1450 Capuchino Avenue, 4e., 149 Occidental Avenue, and Item 4g., 220 California Drive, as the first three items on the regular action calendar. C. Keighran moved approval of the balance of the consent calendar (Items 4a., 1149 Drake Avenue, 4b., 215 Chapin Lane, 4c., 1416 Carlos Avenue, and 4f., 1101Burlingame Avenue) 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. Bojués. Acting Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion. Items 4a., 1149 Drake Avenue, 4b., 215 Chapin Lane, and 4c., 1416 Carlos Avenue passed on a 5-0-1-1 voice vote (C. Deal abstaining and C. Osterling absent); and Item 4f.., 1101 Burlingame Avenue passed on a 4-1-2 voice vote (Crs. Deal and Vistica abstaining and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4D. 1450 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (STEVE AND DONNA MURPHY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report March 14, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Donna and Steve Murphy, 226 Bella Vista Street, San Francisco, applicants, and James Chu, 39 W. 43rd Street , San Mateo were available to answer questions. Commissioners noted that the item was removed from the consent calendar in order to make comments on the design, this will be a large house, on a prominent corner it will appear even larger, took an informal visual poll of the neighborhood and there was only one balcony on a street frontage, when this item came to us for design review study, it was the last item on a very long agenda, want to give people a chance to comment. The applicants noted that they did their homework before designing the house, looked at the styles in the neighborhood and tried to follow the design guidelines, the purpose of the balcony on the rear is to balance the design on that side of the house, looking forward to using the balcony as a place to read and relax, it will also provide shade underneath and allow us to enjoy the back yard, think the balcony adds appeal to the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2005 5 Commissioners noted that this is a project that is well done, articulated well, think the balconies blend well with the house, they are not all wrought iron, but use wood shingles and other materials that soften the look, will be a fine addition to the neighborhood. C. Keighran made a motion 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, 2004, site plan, demolition plan, proposed floor plan, proposed and existing elevations and a separate landscape plan with color renderings, date stamped February 3, 2005, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's November 1, 2004, memos shall be met; 3) 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; and 4) 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. Bojués. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-1-1-1 voice vote (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Deal abstained and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 4E. 149 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO MAKE CHANGES TO CONDITIONS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE REAR FENCE (KURT STEIL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, DESIGNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report of March 14, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Kurt Steil, 911 Amphlett, San Mateo, applicant, and David Agard, 150 Chapin Lane spoke regarding the project. It was noted that an agreement has been reached with the neighbor, there were some revisions made to the proposed landscaping, the fence will be in the same place as proposed in the application, the landscape changes made to satisfy the neighbor resulted in a change in the location of some of the plant materials, and three trees were added on the creek side of the fence. He noted that the trees would be 36" box size. The owner behind the project noted that he is in support of the plan as revised, the changes are technical to the landscape plan and are a modest revision to what was originally submitted. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that he was happy to see that there is agreement between the parties and made a motion to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 22, 2004, site plan, demolition plan, proposed floor plan, proposed and existing elevations and a separate landscape plan with color renderings, date stamped February 3, 2005, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that when completed, there shall be no less landscaping than is shown on the landscape plans date stamped February 3, 2005; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's November 1, 2004, memos shall be met; 4) 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; and 5) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2005 6 The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Acting Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 voice vote C. Deal abstaining and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. 4G. 220 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NON-AUTO RELATED USE (PRINTING BUSINESS) (SCHEHEREZADE SHARABIANLOU, APPLICANT; BUDI LEONARDI, PROPERTY OWNER) (30 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report March 14, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe noted that there is a memo at the Commissioner's desks in response to a question raised about parking issues at the Lorton address of the business, it notes that correspondence had been exchanged in 1996 and a letter submitted from the applicant's attorney regarding people using the parking lot for the business as a short cut to Hatch Lane. It appears that this item may have been discussed by the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, but staff was unable to retrieve the minutes; the City Attorney noted that this was a private property matter. Commissioners asked staff how is a differentiation made between a pedestrian friendly business and a printing business which does not get a lot of foot traffic, how do we define this business? CP Monroe noted that the interpretation is up to the Commission, this issue has also come up in the Rollins Road area where a larger scale printing operation has a retail component, it is something that has to be looked at business by business. Commissioners noted that there are not too many copy shops downtown, foot traffic is limited, but it is a convenience for people downtown, and noted that the General Plan specifically allows this use in the area, the business has existed on Lorton as a retail use for quite some time, would like to see it stay in the area. Acting Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Scheherezade and Farrokh Sharabianlou, applicants, Gary Doss, 214 California Drive, Annamarie Holland Daniels and Derrick and Diana Daniels spoke regarding the project. Asked the Commission to make a decision on the application, indicating that they just want to move their business, it is not a new business, been in Burlingame for over 20 years, the project won't have a major impact on parking because a lot of the business is done over the computer and internet; there will be space for customer service and an area for production. Represents six businesses on California Drive, wants to express support and endorsement for this project and for the applicant being in the neighborhood, sent a letter on February 15, 2005, on behalf of the businesses on West Lane indicating that as long as their lease with Caltrain is active, they will share the leased parking spaces with this business. Expressed support for the business, noting that we need to support the small businesses as much as the larger businesses. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that at the study meeting, the Commission had placed this item on the consent calendar because they felt it was a routine matter, it was called off consent by the neighbors wishing to express their support. C. Brownrigg made a motion 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, 2004, site plan, demolition plan, proposed floor plan, proposed and existing elevations and a separate landscape plan with color renderings, date stamped February 3, 2005, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's November 1, 2004, memos shall be met; 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2005 7 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 4) 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. Keighran. Acting Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 voice vote (C. Deal abstaining and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 5. 1100 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF ON-SITE PARKING SPACES AND FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND ADDITION (SHEILA WARD, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRISTIAN AND ERICA REILLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report March 14, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Christian Reilly, property owner, and Sheila Ward and Mark Damler, designers, were available to answer questions. The property owner noted that although the project sounds complicated, they are simply trying to take a 1950's house and make it more livable, what they are doing will be good for the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that they are generally in favor of the project, especially if a condition is added that the variance goes with the project and if the building is ever altered or removed, the variance will go away, the hardship in this case is the placement of the house and the corner lot, with these factors, it is hard to meet all the zoning requirements. C. Vistica made a motion to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 22, 2004, site plan, demolition plan, proposed floor plan, proposed and existing elevations and a separate landscape plan with color renderings, date stamped February 3, 2005, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that if the structure is demolished, or the envelope changed at a later date, the front setback variance for the staggered garage and the side setback variance to extend a first floor wall as well as any other exceptions to the code granted with this action will become void; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's November 1, 2004, memos shall be met; 4) 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; and 5) 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. Brownrigg. Acting Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstaining and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 6. 2515 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHNNY DAROSA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ALFRED AND PINKY PONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2005 8 Reference staff report March 14, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted that a neighbor had expressed concern about drainage from the project because this site slopes down from the street; the conditions from the City Engineer note that the drainage shall be directed to the street, does this mean that the drainage will have to be pumped to the street. Staff noted that in cases such as this it is typical to have to use a pump, the standard requirement is that all drainage shall be directed and pumped to the street if necessary so that it does not drain to adjacent properties. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Johnny Darosa, 475 El Camino Real, Millbrae, applicant and designer, and Jerry Baker, 2510 Hale Drive spoke regarding the project. Designer was available for questions. Commissioners thanked the applicant for preparing the elevations of the existing house, and noted that this is a nice design. There were no questions for the applicant. Neighbor noted that he lives directly behind the project, there is a drain in the easement between the properties, it is getting a tremendous amount of water, understood it would be taken care of, the water comes into his yard and garage, wants to be sure drainage is addressed, has no other problems with the project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 25, 2005, sheets 1-7 and 3-A; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; and that all the windows in the house shall match and they shall all be three dimensional, divided light, double glaze, vinyl frame windows; 2) 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; 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 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; 6) 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; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 21, 2004 memo and the City Engineer’s, Recycling Specialist's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator’s October 25, 2004 memos and shall be met; 8)that the drainage from the site shall be directed to the street frontage in a method to be approved by the City Engineer; 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. Vistica. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2005 9 Acting Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstaining and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1149 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (POKO KLEIN, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRIAN CASSIDY, PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 204 Park Road represented the project. Retained the existing Mediterranean style because that is what was there and it fits with the other houses on the street. Commissioners asked what trim are you planning around the windows? Stucco mold with a stucco sill into a wood header. Is it possible to put two garage doors on instead of one very large door, it would reduce the perceived mass of the garage as seen from the street? The garage is a typical 20'-8" which provide just enough room for a single double door, may take a steel frame to do two separate doors? Can you find a double door that looks like two doors? There were no further comments from the floor. The Public Comment was closed. Commissioner Keighran commended the architect on this design, it is a nice addition to the block and both supports the character and improves it; would recommend a note on the plans regarding the stucco mold and would encourage the change to the garage door to two doors to make the garage more in scale with the house and less obtrusive from the street; recommend this item for the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: hope that a revised drawing for the garage is included in the packet for the consent calendar. Acting chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the garage issue has been addressed and checked by staff. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 8. 1920 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BASEMENT FOR NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KEITH RUZICKA, PROPERTY OWNER) ( 65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Bojués abstained from this application since he lives within 500 feet of the project. He left the dais and chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission noted the need for tree protection measures during construction and maintenance following, asked that a condition be added regarding those items when this application comes back for action. There were no further questions. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2005 10 Acting Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architect, 205 Park Road, represented the project. Noted that this is a unique site, wanted to save all the big trees, but the one in the patio area has large holes in it which have been filled with concrete, so that tree will be removed. The aspect of the site directs that the house design be low on both sides with a vertical element in the center. The Tudor tradition in the city takes two approaches, one with a lot of half timber and another which is more simple, the simple approach is used here since it seemed not to compete with all the trees. Commissioner comment: did well working around the trees on this lot, simple and elegant is good, should look at the arborist report and provide protection during construction; assume that the landscape plan included is in keeping with the wooded nature? Put some smaller shrubs along the sidewalk, replace the same feeling as there but better organized. Is there fencing around the patios at the front and back? Fences are shown on the landscape plan, will be one at rear. Have you spoken to the immediate neighbor on Bernal? They are the ones who sold the lot to his client, aware of the project, have no living area windows facing that house, only stair well and closet. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Vistica noted that his was a great job on a difficult lot because of the trees, saved the trees, moved that this item be placed on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Acting Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar with a condition to address tree protection measures during construction and maintenance after. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Bojués abstained; C. Osterling absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. C. Bojués returned to his seat. 9. 1532 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LARRY AND MARY JO NEJASMICH (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Cers. Keighran and Brownrigg recused themselves because they both live within 500 feet of this property. They stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Auran opened the public comment. Dale Meyer, architect, 851 Burlway Road, represented the project. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioners asked: have oriented the front door to the side property line, but there is nothing on the landscape plan to direct people to the door at that location, no identification; door faces garage next door so all right in terms of neighbor impact; this is a new house, not limited by having to use existing attributes of an existing structure as you are with a remodel, do not see "character " here, does not appear to draw on any particular style, rather appears to be driven by the floor plan; house does not fit the neighborhood, includes no specific "style"; submittal appears hurried as if style is not yet resolved, height is good, low and not massive; the following items should be addressed in plan revisions: ƒ Need to announce from the front property line the location of the front door on the side, use landscaping and something structural; structure lacks a sense of entry; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2005 11 ƒ needs something to make the house more appealing on the southeast elevation. two blank walls at the location of the kitchen and bedroom above; lacks windows and windows too small, windows should say that there are people inside, no character; ƒ Northwest elevation know fire places are gas so no chimney is required, but they need to be integrated into the exterior structure, they appear as storage boxes on the outside of the building; ƒ On the front elevation the windows do not stack and the massing is out of balance, they don't line up to support the building above; ƒ The roof over the staircase looks like a "hat", the wall needs more articulation; ƒ Project needs better massing; ƒ Front porch is not appropriate on the side, CBC will not allow a port cochere any more; ƒ The ornamental stucco band is too massive, not see it any where in the area, inconsistent, often used in new subdivisions; ƒ Need to revise the flat roof at the front, may not see clearly on elevation, going to look odd when built, know it exists with the current house but does not need to be repeated on the new house. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Bojués noted that there are a number of inter-related items on this project which need to be addressed and made a motion to refer to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on motion: Dale Meyer is a capable architect and understands how projects can be owner driven which does not give the architect a lot of control, working with the design reviewer will provide a third party to resolve issues. Acting Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 4-0-2-1 (Cers. Keighran, Brownrigg abstaining, C. Osterling absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 10. 1517 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MICHAEL GINN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; HOLDREN-LIETZKE DESIGN, DESIGNER) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Auran opened the public comment. Michael Ginn, 1517 Cypress Avenue, represented the project. Noted he would answer any questions. Commissioners asked: this is a modest and nice project, did you consider redesigning the garage to better match the house? Are not touching the garage, thought about altering, but did not see any feasible way. Can something be done to the roof of the garage? Considered a pitch roof in a previous plan, but not this one. Like eyebrow window, not concerned about the garage, new garages that cost $45 to 50,000, understand it may not be financially feasible, concerned about the second floor plan and that the interior staircase shown may not meet the California Building Code requirements? Have checked the plans with the architect and contractor, not with the Chief Building Official, will do that. This project requires no variances, which is notable given the shape of this lot, so it appears that there may be a hardship if you have a need to replace the garage in the future. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Bojués mad a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2005 12 Comment on motion: would like the interior stair issue resolved before this item returns since it may affect the exterior of the building. Acting Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the interior stair design has been reviewed by the Chief Building Official and, if necessary, revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. 11. 1353 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (ERNIE SELANDER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FRANK SCHAFFER, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Auran recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the project. He handed the gavel to C. Brownrigg, Commission secretary, and stepped down from the dais and left the Council chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Ernie Selander, architect, 2095 Gerald Street, San Francisco, and Frank Schaffer, property owner, represented the project. They noted that the only reason for the height exception was because of the existing slope on the lot. Commissioners comments: good start, opportunity to develop details; house looks as if it were designed by the floor plan, a lot of second floor for the first floor to carry; existing house has a lot of character which is lost with this addition; 1361 Vancouver house seems much taller on the same block; the following items were noted to be addressed in project revision: ƒ west elevation is tough on the neighbors, long and massive, not as nice as the other side; need more articulation and architectural detail; needs relief; ƒ second floor balcony needs a "cap" that will make a shadow line; ƒ east side needs corbels or something to make it standout, defined mullions on windows also, nice piece; one big window with a lot of stucco expanse, needs relief, architectural details; ƒ Second floor should be better integrated or blended into the first floor; ƒ Balcony at the front needs to be integrated so that it looks as if it belongs; ƒ Height is a problem given site, would prefer higher pitch to absorb second floor and so all of the house is not at the front; keep second floor plate at 7'-6" if add to height; ƒ Is there a way to separate out the sunroom as a distinct room, as used now it makes the front plane asymmetric. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Bojués moved to send this item to a design reviewer since there is a lot of work to be done and guidance may make it more efficient. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: the design reviewer can be helpful because he knows the city well; recommend that both the design reviewer and applicant listen to the tapes on this project before they begin. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2005 13 Acting Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 5-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. C. Auran returned to the chambers and took his seat at the dais. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of March 7, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions at the March 7, 2005, council meeting, including the appointment of Jerry Deal to complete the two years of C. Keele's term (ending April 2007); and the appointment of C. Auran and David Cauchi for the two terms commencing on April 7, 2005. These two terms would both end in April 2009. - FYI: Direction Regarding Substantial Construction Commission discussed the issue of when design review should be required for projects which initially do not qualify for design review (generally small first floor additions) but because of termite, dry rot or other structural problems which emerge after the building permit is issued, require enough construction to repair that the "substantial construction" definition is triggered. The consensus of the commission was if the footprint of the structure was not changed with the repair, and the exterior was replaced as it was shown on the original building plans or as existed at the time the building permit was issued, design review should not be required. However, if substantial changes to the exterior are proposed such as addition of bay windows, chimneys, change in exterior materials, change in size, number and/or shape of windows, as a part of the repair work, then the project should be brought forward to the Planning Commission for design review as "substantial construction". The Commission noted that one problem with single family houses being remodeled with only a building permit is that the neighbors are not made aware that construction will occur. Issues like drainage which may become a problem with changes on an adjacent property may not be discussed and resolved before construction commences. Commission suggested that it might be useful to explore some kind of notification process for such projects. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\unapproved.03.14.05.doc