Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout041105PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 11, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the April 11, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 28, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. CP Monroe noted desk items received today at desk for item #1, 934 Paloma Avenue and #3a, 1408 Columbus Avenue. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 934 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DIRECT EXIT FROM A BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ALINE BIER, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Osterling confirmed that all Commissioners had made site visits for all items being considered this evening. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Drawings should clearly show location of sewer line and clarify all easements; • Extensive orchard of fruit trees on this property, applicant is 75 years old would like to know how orchard developed, could be reason for a variance; • Plans should clearly show relationship of rear property line to dwelling; • Are there other units on the rear property line in this neighborhood?; • Who owns easement at the rear?; • Would like clarification from Chief Building Official whether or not you can have an egress window on property line in this circumstance?; • Can plans be revised to clearly delineate where side setback ends and rear setback begins; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2005 2 • If this project is approved would like to see two conditions added: 1) no new square footage can be added without Planning Commission review; 2) the opening between the living and the study must remain open, without a door, so that it can not become a bedroom in the future; • Don’t see orchard as a hardship, it is a short term reason for a variance where a variance to construct is long term, what happens if orchard goes away and the Planning Commission granted as variance based upon something that is no longer there?; • Applicant should identify the hardship on this property, need hardship on the property to grant a variance; • Like the way the property is being used but is there a way to accommodate applicant’s needs without so many exceptions to the zoning code; • Unique shape of this lot and the fact that there is no one immediately behind the property are unusual circumstance that could be justification for variance; • Because of the importance to this project and use of the site, need to provide a construction tree protection plan for all trees on the site, even for fruit trees; • What will cellar be used for, how will interior be finished?; and • Does 1,435 SF FAR total include the garage? This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. 2. 2750 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SCHOOL GYM (LAURA HELD, PRINCIPAL, MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, APPLICANT; DES ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, ARCHITECT; MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report noting that because of the addition to the gym/pool area this use permit would include the entire Mercy School site; this information will be added when the item returns to the Planning Commission. Commissioners asked: • There is a path on this property that Sisters of Mercy allows the public to use, on sheet C2.1 annotated with location of wood path, will this path be disturbed? Please put note on the plans to ensure path will not be impacted; • Would like to see a tree protection plan during construction, should be limited to high school portion of the site; • Architecture and color scheme of the gym seems outdated, should consider making it more attractive and updated when doing this work. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:23 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. 3A. 1408 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2005 3 FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE (SHEILA YOUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 3B. 1440 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (EDITH AND TONY LEUNG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3C. 1530 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARTIN AND THERESA DILLON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Keighran noted that she would recuse herself from action on item #3c. 1530 Drake Avenue because she lives within 500 feet of the project site. C. Deal noted that he would also recuse himself from action on item #3c. 1530 Drake Avenue because of a business relationship with the property owner. C. Cauchi noted that he would recuse himself from action on all three consent items #3a-c. because he was not on the Planning Commission when these items were reviewed for design review study. C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion and item #3a. 1408 Columbus passed 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi abstaining); item #3b. 1440 Drake Avenue passed 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi abstaining); and item #3c. 1530 Drake Avenue passed 4-0-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Keighran and Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM There were no regular action items for review IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 1329 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Cers. Auran and Osterling noted that they would recuse themselves from action on this item because they both live within 500 feet of the project site. They left the dais and the Council Chambers. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2005 4 Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, project designer. Noted that this is another development of Con Bronsnan’s. He just finished a house at 1449 Cabrillo Avenue and had several bids on the house, is requesting to build basically the same house at this location. The original house was taken and modified, added wrap around deck; this house sit on a berm 12 feet above average top of curb elevation, thought that the porch would reduce mass. Special permits for height and declining height envelope are because of the slope on the lot. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Will columns be turned or square, please call out and make plans consistent; • Make sure window in bedroom #3 meets egress requirements; • Some windows sizes shown incorrectly, one size shown on plan, different size shown on elevation, please make consistent; • On east elevation roof is cut-off, section shows curve; either 1) apply for variance to finish roof; or 2) run roof off and back again with shingles; • Would like the height of proposed house in relations to the two adjacent; on this show finished floor of existing house; • Section at the driveway profile should be looked at closer; looks like there is a 5 foot difference from finished grade to finished floor elevations, then on the east elevation at the front, there is a 2’8” dimension from grade to the finished floor; why is there this difference; please clarify; want to make sure that the building won’t look taller than it is drawn; • Nice massing and articulation at the rear, need to carry that over to the front and look at reducing the mass; the rear being more articulated than the front is opposite of what we like to see; • The mass is pulled forward, try to diminish the second story massing; • Want windows treatment upgraded, this design needs true divided light windows, not simulated; • Every other house on this block has stucco, this house has wood siding, but it does fit the design of the house; • Clearly call out type of windows and window trim and siding on plan; • Need to re-examine landscape plan, new big house needs larger scale trees, add two large trees in front of the house; • Cypress in the front doesn’t seem appropriate, talk to landscape architect about a better option; • Driveway side has a solid block wall with ivy, try to keep soft condition, look at planting vines or something to grow in front, up and along the wall. 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. Keighran. Comment on motion: overall good job; nice design, will blend in well with wrap around porch, will add character; house to the north is single story, house to he south is 3 stories and will be 2 or 3 feet taller; porch is nice. Chair Osterling 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 5-0-2 (Cers. Auran and Osterling abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. Cers. Auran and Osterling returned to the Council Chambers and took their seats in the dais. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2005 5 5. 1109 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (IRENE AND FRANKIE GONZALEZ, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked what on the porch counts in floor area and what is exempt? Staff noted that just the covered portion of the porch in the center counts in floor area, but is eligible for up to a 100 SF exemption. Sides are uncovered and do not count in floor area. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Frank Gonzalez, property owner, 1109 Balboa Avenue, and Randy Whitney of JD & Associates were present to answer questions. Noted that they have two children and moved to Burlingame for the schools, lived in Burlingame Gables before moving to west side of El Camino Real, wanted to live in this neighborhood and raise family. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Upper deck at the back of the house is not mirror of deck at the front of the house; stucco deck at the rear, and wood railing deck at the front, should be consistent, make back deck as elegant as front deck; • Discourage using solid stucco for front porch and upper deck; • Concerned with flower box off of master bedroom on west elevation, will become a maintenance problem; if nothing is in there it will be a big stucco box; looks like box will be difficult to access for watering and planting, will they have to lean out of window?; if it is not able or intend to maintained regularly then just eliminate the planter box; • Front elevation is busy, house has a lot of mass and bulk at the front, not consistent throughout; • House is only 3 SF under the maximum floor area allowed; big house on a small lot; bring down floor area number or articulate better so it doesn’t look so big; • Show how this house relates to adjacent houses on an elevation drawing; • Consider French doors out to front porch, will make it more usable and inviting; and • Add large scale trees at the front to create screening and separation from neighbors. 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. Auran. Comment on motion: roof is articulated well, steps down to second story; articulated nicely at the front, but busy; need to either maintain planter box or eliminate; several comments made tonight, need to make sure that the changes are what the Commission is looking for because project can be pulled off of the consent calendar if changes aren’t made; very large house need to reduce size or articulate more. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:03 p.m. C. Deal returned to the Council Chambers and took his seat on the dais. 6. 2509 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (DANIEL BIERMANN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOSHUA AND City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2005 6 KIMBERLY GRATCH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if staff has a drawing of the south elevations. Staff noted that it was on sheet A8. Commission asked if this project was subject to a hillside area construction permit. Staff stated that the subject property is not located within the designated hillside area and does not need a hillside area construction permit. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Dan Biermann, 1649 Laurel Street, San Carlos, project designer, was present to answer questions. Existing second floor constructed 20 to 30 years ago, stands on its own, tried to design second floor addition to blend in with the house, craftsman style The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Existing family room window on first floor, north elevation is being removed, will create a dark room, may want to reconsider; • Windows on the second floor are different in size and shape than the windows on the first floor; mullions are different, feels uncomfortable; • Left side nicely broken up but right side is just a long, tall wall; consider pursuing special permit for declining height envelope in order to break up right side to add architectural detailing; • Second floor, south elevation, don’t want to match existing wall that doesn’t look good, massing on this side is a problem, special permit for declining height envelope would add character; and • Need to articulate right side second floor wall; it adds to the massing that is already there; • Not that concerned with right side because there is a 6’ fence and an 8’ setback on that side, what about adding planting along that side, sheet A.1 shows no landscaping there now; • Existing second story jumps out, what is being proposed is good but needs taller trees to soften, need landscaping to blend with vertical elements of design; large screening needs to grow 35’ or more, need a landscape architect to select species and location; front, left and right elevations need screening added; • Second floor, north elevation has 3 shutters with 2 windows, looks odd, not comfortable, relationship is awkward, shutters not consistent throughout; • Second floor, east elevation, on the left where gables meet looks odd, no transition or difference in plane, long wall, doesn’t work well; and • Knee braces don’t make a craftsman, opportunity on right side to articulate, should be a shed roof doesn’t have to be a gable. 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 reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:26 p.m. 7. 1524 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GARY PARTEE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2005 7 CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Cers. Keighran and Brownrigg noted that they would recuse themselves from action on this item because they both live within 500 feet of the project site. They left the dais and the Council Chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, represented the project. Patricia Anderson, 1521 Vancouver, Janice Bokekus, 1511 Vancouver, Elizabeth Corkran, 1515 Vancouver, also spoke. He noted that the height of the house was affected by the fact that the top of curb was 5 feet lower than the finished floor; from adjacent grade the house is 25 feet tall. This is a house design built elsewhere which was very popular so the developer has made some modifications to the floor plan and entry, but reproduced basically the same house. This house sits on the same foot print as the house being removed. Commissioners noted that it was a nice design, was an asset to the neighborhood, style a little boxy but the design leaves a lot of yard space which is good. Neighbor comments: height is measured from the curb, and this house because of the rise is going to look taller than its one story, flat roofed Spanish styled neighbors; this house is a big rectangle with a tall peaked roof, it will loom over the street; attractive Colonial but will not fit in with the existing Spanish style of that side of the street; if declining height were not exceeded the project would not be such a problem, submitted a picture of a house on Balboa built within the declining height and stepped back on one side; would like the street trees to be Red Horse Chestnut to match the ones across the street. This street is a charming cul-de- sac, the new proposal is inconsistent with the exiting street of Tudor or Mediterranean, it is set on a hill with two lower houses on each site which will increase the sense of its size, will take 7 months to build so will occur at same time the water meters are being replaced, too much construction on the street at once, can meter change over be delayed? Concerns are that the style does not fit because it is not in keeping with the predominant style in the area, concerned about the height because the lot is elevated, this is a tight neighborhood, would like the structure to be consistent with the spirit of the neighborhood. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Commission comments: understand concerns about the consistency of style where there are a few Spanish style houses in a row, this design is a good job, the style is consistent within the design, there are similar houses on the block across the street, the design leaves more yard; there are a peppering of Colonials throughout the city, no block is all Colonial, not unusual to see mix, this area is in transition to larger houses, design review is intended to make the new fit, this is a good example of what this block is trying to be. Commission identified the following items to be addressed: • Balcony at the rear is a little massive for this style of house, should be reduced; • The chimney at the rear is too massive, 5 feet wide at the top, should be reduced; • Tree 3E in the rear should be a taller tree, like a Bradford Pear, and on the left side the vines between the windows should be replaced with a narrow crown tree to provide a screen for the neighbors; • Right side windows are a little small could get a little bigger to add more light to the second floor; • Add some articulation on the left side of the house; and • Revise street trees, consider street tree list including Bradford Pear or Grecian Laurel because they are tall and fast growing, or even Sycamore, landscape architect should recommend. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2005 8 C. Deal moved to place this item on the consent calendar when the issues identified by the commission had been addressed. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: the neighborhood is eclectic, the mix of styles is one of the most pleasurable aspects of Burlingame, there is a Colonial down the street; not easy to approve a house so close to the maximum FAR, it is relatively large given what is there, however through the design review process we have come a long way in terms of quality of design, neighbors need to appreciate that. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to place this project on the consent calendar after the revisions have been made and checked by staff. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. Chair noted that the neighbors would be noticed when this item returns for action, and if they continued to have concerns they could ask for a hearing at that time. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran returned to the Council Chambers and dais. 8. 1021 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (FARSHID SAMSAMI, APPLICANT; SAMUEL KWONG, ARCHITECT; KWANG PAK, PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Sam Kwong, architect, 445 Grant Avenue, San Francisco, represented the project. Andrew Stypa, 1045 Cortez. Applicant noted that the new design increases the yard area and moves the garage to the rear where it cannot be seen from the street; added stone veneer, horizontal siding, wooden brackets on roof line, recessed upper floor for less massing on front and sides, lot of articulation on ground level with bay windows, planters, balconies; new landscaping with fruit trees, shrubs and ground cover, long established neighborhood, try to blend in. Like the garage pushed back but don't like the front, should change the window treatment with molding and window. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Commissioners comments: • Style fits, detailing is the problem e.g. proportion and detail do not work; • 14 foot wide garage door will not accommodate two cars; • East elevation lacks interest, where is the front door, needs a porch, front looks like the rear of the house, prominence needs to be added; • left and rear projections, one on right is very small given size of one on left; • Window in stair is too large, needs to be reduced a lot; • Fireplace with stone and wood chimney does not work well, step back is too shallow; • 12 inch hardi plank siding is very large for this vertical house, need to reduce would increase the character; • Dormer and window at stairwell do not work; • West elevation projection and planter don’t work; • Plate heights are too tall, usually 9 feet on first floor and 8 feet on second; • 2x6 trim is pretty big, 1x4 would work better; • Window sill treatment would be better wrapped with trim, increase texture and detail; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2005 9 • Balcony does not fit, the detail rail and upper part do not fit the style of the house; • South elevation, setback of second floor too little, looks awkward, should be increased; • Driveway is good, increases separation between houses; • Move balcony to rear, on side not right, see right into neighbor’s yard; • Need good windows, wood frame, will still look good in 50 years; and • Concerned about landscaping, all small scale including fruit trees, need trees with height, can plant dwarf fruit trees elsewhere if wish, but need height to screen second floor at front and rear. C. Vistica noted that this was a good start, it is the right choice of style, but should be referred to the design reviewer for detail and massing. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: It’s a good house, not sure needs to go to design reviewer, architect could try his hand at correction; think better not to search, but to provide guidance when a project has this number of issues, particularly if architect not familiar with detailing and proportion for this particular style this is the reason for design review. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of April 4, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of April 4, 2005. CP noted that the project at 220 California has been appealed. The hearing was set by City Council for April 18, 2005. - FYI: Revisions to an approved design review project at 1341 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-1. Planning Commission reviewed the staff memo which noted that on Planning inspection a window had been removed in the master bedroom and none of the windows included the mullions as shown on the approved plans. Commissioners noted that the applicant was aware that these items were changes from the approved plans but did not come to the commission to discuss prior to making the changes. Chair Osterling made a motion that this item return to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Building Division's final inspection will not be completed until the Commission has ruled on these changes. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\PROTECTED\2005\minutes.04.11.05.doc