Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101105PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA October 11, 2005 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the October 11, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the September 26, 2005 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 There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There are no study items. 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. 1A. 110 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CESAR LOZADA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RUDOLFO PADA, DESIGNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT 1B. 1461 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JERRY WINGES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, MARK & ILKA HOSKING, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS 1C. 1604 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GARAGE WIDTH AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SIZE OF GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, GORDON & RANDI MURRAY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 2 1D. 1123 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, MARK & CAROLYN QUILICI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT 1E. 1718 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAVID LUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PAUL NII, PAUL NII ARCHITECTS,ARCHITECT) (37NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. CP Monroe noted that she did not want to call anything off the calendar but wished to make some corrections. She noted that there were corrections to the conditions of 110 Stanley, condition 1 should reference landscape plans date stamped October 3, 2005; 1604 Chapin Avenue condition 1 should reference plans date stamped September 2, 2005, not August 19, 2005; and the story poles installed at 1718 Escalante Way were installed two feet lower than the roof line proposed in the plans. C. Deal noted some comments for the record on 1461 Bernal and the approval of a new house at this location, noting that the architect has done a skillful job of design: he commented that he voted no because of the attached garage on a new house where the garage and the automobile dominate the front façade in an area where the majority of the houses have detached garages; the few and only houses with attached two car garages at the front, which were used as examples to justify the project, belong to the group of houses which were built just prior to design review and were the type of the projects that were changing the character of the neighborhood and design review came about to stop that dramatic change; the reasons for continuing the detached garage in this neighborhood was to provide the following : increased setbacks (caused by the driveway along the side); reduction of the mass at the front façade; to decrease the effects of the automobile which was overly dominating the front façade and drastically changing the character of these neighborhoods; the proposed design at 1461 Bernal satisfies none of these objectives; additionally the concept of having staggered doors on a two car attached garaged located at the front of the property as used here was never intended to be a "check the box" alternative, it was intended as a means to address garages in neighborhoods where the attached garage was the character of the neighborhood. C. Vistica noted that 110 Stanley should have a condition added to require stucco mold window trim. C. Vistica moved to continue action on the item at 1718 Escalante two weeks to October 24, 2005, and story poles shall be installed which show the outline of the entire roof and addition and shall be surveyed to document that they are accurately installed. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the meeting of October 24, 2005, and the story poles outlining the entire addition shall be installed accurately and can be seen by the Commission. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. C. Osterling moved approval of 1461 Bernal Avenue, 1604 Chapin Avenue, and 1123 Eastmoor Road as amended. C. Vistica seconded the motion. Chair Auran noted that there would be a separate vote on 110 Stanley Road and called for a voice vote on the motion to approve 1461 Bernal Avenue, 1604 Chapin Avenue, and 1123 Eastmoor Road. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 3 C. Brownrigg made a motion to approve 110 Stanley Road. C. Keighran seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: will vote no on the project because the porch is not integrated into the front of the house and correction is a simple thing to fix. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve 110 Stanley Road with an added condition requiring stucco mold window trim to be installed. The motion passed on a 6-1 vote (C. Deal dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised for all of the consent calendar items. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 900 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN MARCH, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MR. AND MRS. KRIS REDDY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 11, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Commission asked about the uncovered paved area next to the garage. Staff stated that an uncovered driveway parking space is defined as that space between the sidewalk and the entrance into the garage area, this additional paved area does not count. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. John Marsh, 11 Airport Blvd. # 209, South San Francisco, designer, represented the project. Commission comment: • no problem with parking variance; • chimney is too close to second story projection per CBC, if it were a gas fireplace this requirement would go away; • very difficult house to put addition on; • windows in some bedrooms do not meet egress requirements; • front elevation bump out looks odd with no windows in it, needs fenestration to address blank projected façade; • big improvement from original design; • could use a little more work on the windows, particularly on the bump out at the front; • more info needed about landscaping and how it will be screened from the street; and • proposed 24”-box size Golden Rain tree should be replaced with three 15-gallon size trees from the city street tree list, ones that will grow between 20 and 25 feet tall. Peter Fairclough, 905 Azalea Ave, thought project had been postponed and would not happen; concerned with the shade factor on rear yard and the moisture issue brought on by the shade; proposed second story will block the sun path to their backyard; concerned with proposed trees also creating additional shade. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: second story addition meets the rear yard setback requirements, so there is no need to change the placement of the addition; to address shade in neighbors rear yard, suggest the proposed 24”- box size Golden Rain tree should be replaced by three 15-gallon sized trees from the City approved street tree list that will grow between 20’-25’ in height maximum. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 4 C. Keighran moved to continue the application until the applicant has had the opportunity to address all of the Commissions concerns and make all necessary changes. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: after discussion it was suggested that the motion be amended to place the application on the consent calendar after the changes had been made and staff checked. The maker of the motion and the second agreed. It was further noted that the changes are substantial and should all be addressed before the consent hearing. It was noted that if there is a problem, the item can be called off the consent calendar. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when all requested changes have been made and plan checked by staff. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 3. 1512-1516 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING, TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY, 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; THORENFELDT CONSTRUCTION, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (145 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 12, 2005) Reference staff report October 11, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Dayle Meyer, 851 Burlway Rd., architect, and Michael Callan, 63, Bovet Rd. # 314, San Mateo, landscape architect, represented the project. He stated changes were made to the project in response to the Planning Commissions concerns; the color board was revised and included in the packet; main concern at last meeting was the common open space area, a hallway was added directly off the lobby for access to the space from inside the building, planters were placed along each side of exit to provide privacy screening, screening walls were added off of private open spaces, and the largest chunk of the open space was placed in the area that will get the most sunlight, which caused a stairwell change and a revision in the parking plan. Commission asked: why did not put in security gates? Never came up before, never discussed with client. There are still trees in planters, landscaping plays a major part in this development, are the planters large enough for the trees to grow? Bottom of planters will be sawed off which will encourage roots to grow down into dirt below, will require a lot of maintenance. Seems unnecessary to walk all the way around the building to get to the open space at the back corner; how does revised common open space work? Any tenant could take the elevator to the lobby to the hallway and walk back to the common open space; no greater distance then if you were at a park and to travel from the street; this is a shorter straighter direction than the other option; the redesign has several areas for people to sit in. Right route to common open space should be a direct connection from the lobby, should be a stronger connection from lobby to open space; what is the relationship between the master bedrooms at the rear of the building and the open space? Privacy walls have been installed to help with screening these areas. Tried to create more intimate spaces in the common open space for people with separate seating areas, outdoor fire pits, low seat walls, a centrally located BBQ area and a putting green. Because of the grade change towards the rear of the property, it would be hard to look up into lower level units. Is rear landscaping in ground or in pots? Mostly in ground. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 5 Design is a lot better, big improvement, but connection to common open space is no where near as nice as it could be. Common open space has been increased by approximately 405 SF because of moving the stairwell area. Like change to common open space and proposed color board. Who is responsible for maintaining the wooden balconies at the front? The condo association. Who is responsible for the planting over the pergola? Has yet to be discussed. Like the vines, is a softening feature; like tile element on front façade at door and would like it continued on the tower element? Main reason tile is around entrance is to help distinguish the entrance, if tile work were on the tower it might detract from the entrance. Would help to add tile to the windows that have balconies on the east elevation on the tower. Public comments continued: This is a good project and a good compromise for the site; the project has come a long way. Change in elevation from common open space to 1st floor units will be a sloping ramp? Yes. Is the seat wall between the circular seating areas three feet tall? Yes. Landscape architect should be complimented on this revision, there is a lot of varied interest; appreciates what was done. Will windows be true divided light windows? Yes. Like changes; color is very nice; some concern over interior access to common open space; could walk-in closet towards the back of unit number 2 be used as a restroom for people using the patio area? Would work to locate a bathroom in the closet area, do not feel route to common open space is out of the ordinary, like visiting a park; could add bathroom if Commission desires. Understands applicants idea, however, this space should be looked at as a backyard, not a park; there should be a sink by the BBQ area with running water and the installation of a bathroom. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented: Much better project then what was seen in the past; concerned with connection to common open space; nicer building; a bathroom will add convenience to the outdoor space; would be in favor of the project with the proposed changes, including a waste line and a sink with running water in the BBQ area; how much use does a place like this get used realistically?; cold water in the sink would suffice; is it a necessity to have the bathroom?; restroom should be put in, bottom units are large and do not see a problem with reducing one of the bottom units for a restroom; likes adding a sink facility; access down middle of building would be better, but this will suffice; bathroom is a nice amenity; these added conveniences will help to create better use of the space; wants the tile incorporated around balconies on the east elevation; wood areas in front should be properly maintained; nice to see increased density in the downtown area; done a nice job. The commission requested the following changes to the project, added to the conditions of approval: • A sink with hot and cold running water and a waste line shall be added next to the BBQ area; • The master bedroom walk-in closet in unit # 2 shall be replaced by a bathroom with direct access from the common open space area; • Title work shall be added to the window areas with the balconies along the east elevation; and • All windows shall be true divided light windows. Chair Auran moved to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote to approve the mitigated Negative Declaration. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 26, 2005, sheets T1, P1 through P10, SS4, L1.0, L1.1, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; with 1,997 SF of common open space; and that the project shall include an affordable unit as shown on the plans date stamped September 26, 2005, and shall comply with the inclusionary housing requirements in Municipal City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 6 Code Chapter 25.63; 2) that a sink with hot and cold running water and a waste line shall be added next to the BBQ area; 3) that the master bedroom walk-in closet in unit # 2 shall be replaced by a bathroom with direct access from the common open space area; 4) that the tile work shall be added to the window areas with the balconies along the east elevation; 5) that all windows shall be true divided light windows; 6) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 85.69' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Floribunda Avenue (32.61') for a maximum height of 53'-1", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 22.73'; first floor finished floor shall be elevation 33.36'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 44.36'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 54.36'; fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 64.36'; and the top of ridge elevation shall be 82.95'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 7) that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 8) that the conditions of the City Arborist's July 15, 2003 memo, the City Engineer's August 6, 2003, and December 6, 2004 memos, the City's Traffic Engineer's April 13, 2004, memo, the Chief Building Official's June 9, 2003, memo, the Fire Marshal's June 9, 2003, memo, the Recycling Specialist’s June 6, 2003, memo, and the City Attorney's June 7, 2003, memo shall be met; 9) that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 10) that the applicant shall receive a Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Department before removing the two existing 22-inch diameter liquidambar trees at the front of the property in the city right-of-way, and that a building permit shall not be issued before such permits are issued; 11) that ‘guest parking stall’ shall be marked on the three guest parking spaces and designated on the final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; 12) that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the two guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 13) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 14) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 15) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 16) that if a security gate system across the driveway is installed in the future, the gate shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 17) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 18) 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; 19) 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; 20) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 7 storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 21) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 22) that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 23) that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right- of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 24) that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 25) that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 26) that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 27) that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 28) that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 29) that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City’s noise requirement; 30) that the project shall be required to meet all the construction requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, including seismic standards, for structural stability and other related items; 31) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, City of Burlingame Storm Water management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 32) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit from the Building Department; and all requirements of the permit shall be complied with during construction; 33) that in order to reduce the occurrence of visitors entering a dead-end aisle in the below grade garage with no maneuvering space to exit, a sign shall be posted near the guest parking spaces which advises visitors of the limited area for guest/visitor parking; parking spaces in this area shall be assigned directly to residential units on the site and shall be closely managed by the homeowners association; 34) that the applicant shall plant two 36-inch box replacement Flowering Pear trees in the city right-of-way in front of the property and shall comply with the City's on-site reforestation requirements as approved by the City Arborist; 35) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station as required by the Fire Marshal prior to the final inspection for building permit; 36) that prior to demolition of the existing structures on the site, a survey shall be performed to determine if there is any presence of asbestos. The person who performs the survey must be Cal-OSHA certified. If asbestos is found, the BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District) shall be immediately notified and the applicant shall comply with asbestos removal requirements; 37) that all construction shall be done during the hours of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 8 construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; these hours are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. There shall be no construction on holidays; 38) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping area; 39) that the contractor shall submit the “Recycling and Waste Reduction” form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 percent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the applicant shall be required to implement this plan; 40) that all surface storm water runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards as adopted by the City of Burlingame; 41) that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 42) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed as directed by the City Engineer; 43) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; and 44) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: because an exemption was taken, the standard condition for affordable housing should be included; the corridor stays as is unless the applicant makes a change; who will maintain the vines on the pergolas above the balconies? Those are generally handled by the CC&R’s. People will most likely take a lot of pride in their building and will do their own maintenance or the neighbors will get involved. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the suggested changes and added condition. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. C. Brownrigg moved to recommend approval of the Tentative Parcel Map for the project by the City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of the Tentative Parcel Map for the project by the City Council. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 904 AZALEA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING SPACE DIMENSION FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (KEVIN SULLIVAN, APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER; RICHARD CAMPONUEVO, DESIGNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report October 11, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. She noted that there were seven areas in which the plans were deficient and these would have to be addressed before action could be taken on this item. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: when the staff saw this project the first time there was no second floor? CP Monroe responded that when the original project was submitted in 2004 there was an attic with a 30" x 30" access door in a bathroom ceiling, so the attic was not considered habitable space, at that time the addition of the dormers was presented as architectural amenity for appearances, the attic was to be used for light storage with limited access. The present plan proposes a to-code fixed stair way to the attic area and enables the attic to be used for habitable area including being partitioned into two rooms. The covered parking area appears to be 19' by 22' on the plans. CP Monroe noted that a parking space must be unobstructed for its entire area, perhaps the applicant should address this. There were no further questions City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 9 from the Commissioners. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Kevin Sullivan, 904 Azalea Avenue, Allen Ash, and Richard Camponuevo, designer, represented the project. Submitted pictures of the progress of work on the house. Commissioner noted that the staff comments of corrections required to the plans covered about 80% of his concerns; in addition the dryer in the garage could be relocated to enlarge the parking area; the issue of two kitchens should be resolved, a house can only have one; the location of the family room is not typical, usually adjoins the kitchen, this is set off and looks like a bedroom with a door opening into the garage which the California Building Code does not allow; the way the bathroom with shower adjoin the family room it looks as if it is setup for a second unit, need to note specifically if it is not and add a condition that it will never be used as a second unit; there is a problem with the front porch, it requires a landing, show 12" it requires 3 feet, want to know how the landing will be integrated into the front of the house; dormers and clipped gables are out of scale with the rest of the house; plans show grids in the windows, do you intend to add them. Applicant noted that there were no grids in the windows now and he did not intend to add divided lights. The arches are different than shown on the plans and there are no arches on the dormers, did you not build them? The skylight is too big, 6 feet, it should be reduced and tinted. Are the trusses in? The Applicant responded yes. Generally the aesthetics are OK but there are a lot of code issues to work on. Commissioner asked about the floor plan of the attic area. Applicant said that he would remove the partition wall built in the attic area, then would he avoid the parking variance? Why is there no window on the back of the master bedroom into the rear yard? Applicant noted that the closet was located on that wall, did not want a window on the back yard to reduce noise in the bedroom. Public hearing and comments continued: Since asking for a variance for floor area ratio, what are the exceptional hardships on the property? Applicant noted the house has been built to previously approved plans, the roof is in, the windows are in, etc., seek to put in a stair to provide safe access to the second floor which will be used like a library or study, the way the trusses are built preclude anything to make the second story bigger or reorganized. Commissioners noted: from outside looks fine, kitchen is setup for a second unit; where is the hardship, as you explained it you created your own hardship, if commission agrees it will be to benefit you. Applicant asked about the kitchen, why was it a problem now and not before. Commissioner noted it may not have been caught since you can have a bar area in a family room, but no cooking; this begins to look like a "duck"; way the code reads cannot expand into an existing attic if it causes the FAR to be exceeded, not much change to the house, only raised the roof ridge one foot, all area over 5 feet is counted in FAR. Applicant's representative noted that a problem with the trusses meant that they had to shorten the porch but did keep the same pitch as the existing on the roof, only add dormers. Designer noted that they used the same roof pitch, better condition inside as able to use the attic area, the dormers make the house look better, changed the arches to improve the appearance, used the attic before, opened in a closet with a pull down stair, when the saw the room sheet rocked not see why they couldn't use it, stair improves safety, kitchen would be extended into the family room so that it would not be a second unit. There were not further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: so many changes needed to the plans and deviations between existing and plans do not know what am voting on, need clean set of accurate plans reviewed by staff with planning issues identified, without good base plans should not act; should bring to action when drawings are complete, commission needs to address concept of FAR variance in order to give applicant direction. Because count all area 5 feet and over in FAR, not fair. Correct to focus on FAR issue, if approve people will build extreme one story houses with big attics to convert to living space later; applicant raised roof before the attic area was 6 feet now able to use the space, if he had been straight forward would not add master bedroom and keep square footage under FAR maximum with attic, this is not an attic existing 50 years, it is a recently built condition which created livable space and exceeds FAR by 10%. Problem is they can't use existing City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 10 attic if add 200 SF over FAR. On properties where attic areas existing expanding into living area is not adding impact and square footage existing, should not ask to reduce area in attic in order to use if that is the case. In this case the code is the problem for this kind of property, the 5 foot rule comes from contractors moving walls later. Need to stand by code, intention is not to make it hard to use attic space, is there a way to take some area out of use? CP Monroe noted that it had been tried unsuccessfully in the past, poses a big enforcement problem over time with multiple property owners. Commission needs an accurate set of plans, encourage applicant to look at ways to reduce FAR, do not see hardship. Variance is a concern, do not want this to apply to all attics, do not want to set a precedent, lower the roof so it is not habitable and increase storage or decrease the first floor area. When look at plans hard to follow, need accurate plans, need to look toward future owners, to grant FAR variance would do serious damage and create a bad precedent. Have same situation at home with fold down stair and live with it, works OK, if fold down stair would be considered inaccessible attic storage, if allow stair then changes use and sets precedent. Commissioner comments continued: maybe send this to design review with direction to make the FAR conform, maybe the reviewer can identify other ways to reduce FAR; if put on regular action could the applicant ask for design review? Yes. This is an older house (1940s) with an attached garage, if garage detached would gain 400 SF of floor area would this be a factor? CP noted no because many houses of the period have attached garages and the "hardship” would then be true for all of them. C. Vistica moved to refer this project to a design reviewer when an accurate set of plans have been prepared to explore opportunities to reduce the FAR, this is one way to get a complete and accurate set of plans. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: Can't support design review, it will not solve the problem; not see a good reason for the FAR variance, not support want to look at other solutions; motion give best opportunity to resolve, applicant has boxed himself in, give applicant an opportunity to fix without a variance, design reviewer will set the documents and give the best look; design reviewer may have a new idea. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 5-2-0 (Cers. Brownrigg and Deal dissenting) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 5. 1840 OGDEN DRIVE, ZONED C-3/R-4 OVERLAY – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN REVIEW STUDY FOR AN APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A NEW, 4-STORY, 45-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH TWO LEVELS OF UNDERGOUND PARKING (ALEX NOVELL, BURLINGAME HILLS MANOR, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER AND TOBY LEVY, LEVY DESIGN PARTNERS, ARCHITECT (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioners noted: that he was at the property on Sunday and crews were cleaning up the grounds; staff should check the environmental check list the headings regarding level of impact are missing. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Alex Novell, developer, Toby Levy, architect, John Hickey, attorney, represented 1840 Ogden. Developer noted that this was his second project in the area and he lives and has an office in the city; this is one of the first proposed residential projects developed with the new zoning, close to BART, it is within the city's vision, targeting more affordable market segment with 5 below market rate units. Architect noted that the proposed project reflects the design of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 11 in the area, four stories with the fourth story setback, two levels of underground parking, no unit looks into neighboring buildings or into any other unit, lot coverage is an issue because of the central court yard, the setback variance is for one corner which is enclosed so the neighbor does not have to look into the garage; dwelling units about 1,400 SF, two bedrooms, average sales price $600,000. Commission comments for design review: new design guidelines establish build-to lines, envision area increasing density and creating a street wall, not included in this design; agree that area to south will change and area to north more slowly, but not a hardship to shift this building to meet build-to line and increase pedestrian traffic with a series of stoops and a strong connection to the street; concerned about the eastern façade facing 1820 Ogden; met open space with lot coverage, not problem with the grade; in Block F if change two units you could have an interesting roof line and break up the long eastern façade; not have a problem with 50.3 dwelling units to the acre rounding down; need to submit plans with the exact areas counted as common open space delineated, need to be able to determine that these are useable open spaces; 3 guest parking spaces for 45 units seems insufficient; unusual not to have a security gate on a project of this type and size, if you do, need to wire to each unit so have access to guest parking; guest parking needs to be located so easily accessible and well signed; would like to see elevations of all four sides of building with a materials board, not sure elevation shown reflects what is shown on the plans should match on all four sides; landscape plan does not show exterior lighting, should add, also need key plant list; what kind of brick is being used, color and size, is there any charcoal brick? Where is the cedar wood trim located? Attorney noted that application includes a vesting tentative map; if been by site noted that it has been cleaned up, will have some one maintain regularly now; responses to the variances required included in the packet. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Commissioner’s comments on design review: • Need to create a street wall, positive result will be to increase the court yard area; • Need to see a good color sample for the project including materials; • Need to break up the eastern façade next to 1820 Ogden; • Site design is good with the interior court yard, but the vocabulary of the entire design does not work well, feels like an institution from the early 1970s, flat roof lines brick and stucco exterior, feels dated; • Bring up to the street to increase pedestrian orientation, include items like person sized railings; • Try to change neighborhood with Specific Plan, not look like medical building, this looks like South of Market or Mission Bay want Burlingame to feel different, like below grade parking; • Want to know more about what is on the roof and how it will be screened, will be seen from the hillside above as well; • Provide location information and pictures of similar buildings built elsewhere so Commissioners can see. • Add guest parking and decide about security gate, if include gate, show location; • Provide rendered elevations of all sides of the building; and • Provide exterior lighting plan. Commissioners noted: like modern architecture but troubled about impact on neighbors; can look up and down the block and embellish, step forward and still blend can be a combination if it is rich enough; don't have a problem with lot coverage given the courtyard and the setback is caused by slope on lot and limited to a small area caused by parking and can be landscaped; this can be referred to a design reviewer in the future if necessary; this building is important to bring forward because it is first and will set a precedent; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 12 need colored renderings of all four sides particularly if architect and applicant choose to stay with this vocabulary, need right away identification of other similar projects elsewhere including photographs. Comments on the environmental document included: • Will traffic and circulation items 6a and 6b look at the office building as if it were fully occupied and operational or vacant? • How will the visual impact be assessed? Will it address what residents will see from above, looking down on the roof? • Will the project have an impact on the city's water supply? • Provide the existing lot coverage including impervious surface and the proposed project's lot coverage calculated in the same way. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of October 3, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the Council's actions on the Trousdale West zoning district and correction to the limits of the residential overlay area. - FYI – 1309 Balboa Avenue, changes to approved Design Review project. Commission reviewed the proposed changes and acknowledged them. - Correspondence and desk items related to the Peninsula Hospital project. CP Monroe noted that the commission had received several letters in their packet and one at their desks this evening regarding the Peninsula Hospital project. In addition she was waiting for a letter from the Hospital applicant addressing the Mitigation Panel. Condition requires that the project applicant submit for review to the Planning Commission a proposal for the Mitigation Panel. Commission directed that this issue be agenized and the representatives of the Hospital come and present a proposal for the Mitigation Panel. Commissioners also requested that the applicant provide a general long term time line for the project with some specifics for the short term time frame e.g. next 6 months. Problems seem to develop when people don't know when planting and other things are intended to occur. Also would like to know if the development team for the hospital has ever had any experience with replacing windows on adjacent properties caused by impacts during construction. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\unapproved.10.11.05.doc