Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071204PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA July 12, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the July 12, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg, Keighran Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the June 28, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with two corrections: page 2 date in heading should be June 28, 2004; and page 16, line 5, should read "C. Keighran noted she had a personal interest in this property and recused herself…". IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, thanked the city for improving the bicycle rack at City Hall; in addition she noted that she had been out of town for a couple of months, and noticed, from the buildings completed during her absence, that the Planning Commission and design review are working, no more "Mc Mansions", these houses look like those built 25 years ago; wished the Commission good luck. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1115 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FITNESS AND WEIGHT LOSS CENTER (LISA ANTER, APPLICANT; DAVE ADAMS, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: ▪ Curves is a national franchise, what do other sites do when there are more people present than there are machines to use? ▪ What has the experience been in other states or areas? ▪ Is this site the location of the tea shop? 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 7:13 p.m. 2. 1864 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PARKING AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCES FOR AN INDOOR PAINTBALL FACILITY City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 2 (COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE) (GRANT TAKAMOTO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ARTHUR RUDE JR., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report for this paintball facility in the industrial area. Commissioners asked: ▪ Two variances seems like a lot, can one of them, the landscaping, be made to go away? ▪ May not be able to make the parking shortage go away given the configuration and location of the building on the site, but can more parking spaces be added? ▪ Is Burlingame using a different parking requirement than South San Francisco used? ▪ Do players carpool since this is a group activity? ▪ How does parking and attendance work at other such indoor facilities? ▪ Are there other indoor facilities in the Bay Area? ▪ Did the city grant any variances for the baseball cages, basketball or race car facilities? Provide a summary of their parking and landscape requirements and what exceptions, if any, were granted. Include the hours of usage each day. Did these code exceptions run with the use? This item was set for the action calendar when all the information has been submitted, compiled and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:24 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. 1224 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BERNARD CORRY, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3c. 1413 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; THOMAS O'CONNOR, PROPERTY OWNER) (65 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. Item 3b, 1516 Columbus Avenue was removed and set for public hearing as the first item on the action calendar. C. Bojués moved approval of items 3a, 1224 Cabrillo Avenue, and 3c, 1413 Balboa Avenue, on the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, 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. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the two projects at 1224 Cabrillo and 1413 Balboa. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:26 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 3 3b. 1516 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOSEPH MOORE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SEAN CONNOLLY AND HANNAH KLEIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report July 12, 2004. CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioner noted he called the item off the consent calendar for public hearing because at that at the design review study meeting the Planning Commission had asked for some changes to the project including true divided lights throughout and Tudor detail on both the front and rear of the structure. No changes have been made to the plans. Thought the Commission should look at it. There were no further comments or questions of staff from the Commission. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Joe Moore, 756 Kansas Street, San Francisco, architect represented the project. Sean Connelly, 1516 Columbus, property owner also spoke. He noted that since the city would accept internal and external wooden grillage built into to the window frame as equivalent to true divided lights, their budget would allow for all the windows to be replaced with consistent grillage, he noted the difference in cost was about $400 per opening. They were also willing to add Tudor half timber detail to the rear elevation. He submitted a revised drawing of the rear elevation and showing the grillage on the windows. Commissioner asked if the proposed windows at the rear were similar to those on the front. Applicant noted that they were the same and the back would look like it belonged to the front. Commissioner noted that there are a lot of windows on the sides which do not appear to be changed. Applicant noted that these windows are existing, did not intend to change. Three letters from the neighbors on the north, south and across the street from the property were submitted from the property owner. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: project is OK as proposed with submitted revision. C. Vistica made a motion to approve the project with the revisions as shown on the submitted illustration with matching grillage divided light windows on the front and rear elevations, and matching Tudor half timber detail on the front and rear elevations, with retention of the existing windows with no grillage on the side elevations as shown on the original plans since there is good detail in the articulation of the addition and the under eave corbels, by resolution with the conditions in the staff report and with an added condition that the modifications identified in the revised sketch, dated July 12, 2004, showing matching grillage on the windows and half timber on the front and rear elevations be included: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 9, 2004, sheets A1 through A4 as revised by the revision "proposed East (rear) Elevation" diagram date stamped July 12, 2004 showing revised windows and Tudor half timber on the rear elevations; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 4 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 shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s May 6, 2004 memo, and Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's May 3, 2004 memos shall be met; 8) 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; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10) 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. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the revisions presented to the Commission by the applicant July 12, 2004. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 446 CUMBERLAND DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (EARLE WEISS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MICHAEL DARDIA AND SARAH LUBMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report July 12, 2004, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Earle Weiss, architect, 91 Louise Street, Suite A, San Rafael, noted that the Commissions' concern at the last meeting was that the front elevation did not look as good as the rest of the house, revised the front elevation to match the style throughout the house, noted that the shutters on the front of the house exist now, added a carriage style garage door to pick up the style throughout the rest of the house; front door is centered with steps next to garage, angle makes it hard to see; present interior stairway from garage is illegal, probably why the garage was not used for parking, more likely to be used as a garage if can access from inside, remodeling includes building the narrowest possible stairway and still comply with the building code, still require variance for covered parking space length. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted that the applicant addressed all of the concerns, design has done a good job on the front elevation and garage door and 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 May 27, 2004, sheets A0-A3, A5 and A6, and date stamped June 30, 2004, sheet A4; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 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 the parking variance shall only apply to this structure and shall become void if the building is ever substantially remodeled, demolished for replacement or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 5 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; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Recycling Specialist's April 5, 2004 memos, and the Fire Marshal's April 1, 2004 memo, memo shall be met; 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. Bojués. Comment on the motion: would like to see a condition added that the parking variance shall become void if the house is ever demolished for replacement or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster. The maker of the motion and second agreed. Commission also noted that the covered parking space length was increased as part of this project. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 5. 1608 MARCO POLO WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SERGIO GUTIERREZ, S & A CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT; JOSE GUADAMUZ, DESIGNER; LUIS AND MIRIAM BONILLA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report July 12, 2004, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Jose Guadamuz, designer, 267 Gateway Drive #115, Pacifica, noted that he followed the direction given by the Commission and design review consultant, brought the porch forward 3'-9" towards the front of the house, reduced the second floor deck size by more than 50%, added four windows along the left side of the house, think that all of the concerns have been addressed and changes made a big improvement to the project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that the designer addressed all of the concerns, revisions greatly improved the design, and 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 May 27, 2004, sheets C1, A1, A2-A2.3 and A7, and date stamped July 1, 2004, sheets A0 and A3-A6; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that all windows on the first and second floors shall be true divided light; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 6 second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's May 17, 2004 memos, and the Fire Marshal's May 24, 2004 memo shall be met; 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. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 6. 2700 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR ROOF CHANGES TO THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (VIRGINIA PON AND KEVIN PARKIN, APPLICANTS; WILSON NG, DESIGNER; JANE H. CHUAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report July 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments, noting that this is a review of a previously approved hillside area construction permit which was appealed to the Planning Commission and then not built according to the approved plans. The Building Department has stopped work on this project until this issue is resolved. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: do not understand the "scissor roof"; CP noted that at the front there are two ridges of the same height parallel rather than the originally proposed single ridge line 2'-6" lower than the existing roof ridge. There seems to be a discrepancy between the roof ridges shown in the letter from the roof truss company and the ridges shown on the submitted plans; CP suggested that the commission discuss this with the applicant. Clarified that the maximum height is as approved even though there are more ridges? Yes. This one story addition did not require design review? No design review was required in the code. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Kevin Parkin, 446 20th Avenue, San Francisco, represented the project. Kevin Slaboda, 2704 Martinez Drive, neighbor, also spoke. The project representative noted that with the two parallel ridges the maximum height of the roof stays the same, 2'-6" lower than the existing, as originally approved and the 4:12 pitch remains the same; retained the existing garage because of the cost, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 7 roof pitch flattened to 2:12 because of the way the structure was framed originally, particularly the headers at the doors, at 2:12 the ridge of the garage is a lower height despite the higher plate line. At time neighbor complained about the double ridge, the truss company had made a mistake in installing the trusses, this has been corrected now and the ridges are at the lower approved height. Commission clarified: the present ridges are the same height as originally approved; yes, 2'-6" lower than existing, only added a second ridge. Why was the garage not built according to the approved plan? Am asking for a 7'-4" plate where originally thought the plate would be 7' the minimum allowed, this addressed the neighbor's view concern, when opened up garage found unusual framing that would mean the entire building would have to be rebuilt to meet the approved height requirement with a roof pitch which matched the house, 4:12. Changed the garage roof pitch to 2:12 because thought view more important than aesthetics. Neighbor noted the building is OK now as shown in picture, concern is roof height, before this present roof, there was a different roof with a higher ridge line; neighbor asked to sign off on that, refused and then wrote letter which resulted in them placing a new roof; as roof now done its OK with him. There were no more comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: to be "built to code" structure must be built as shown on the approved plan? CA noted that was the case, if not according to the approved plan the structure is not compliant with the code. Am always concerned when applicant returns to the Commission to ask approval for something done which is not in accord with the approved plans, shows lack of respect for the Commission and process; in this case the visual impact of the changes, especially the garage, increase the mass and bulk of the house, would like to see the garage built according to the approved plans. Did the applicant come to the Building Department and ask to amend building permit for change to roof. CP noted no. C. Auran noted that the applicant had made a strong effort to maintain the view as shown on the approved plans so would move approval by resolution with the conditions as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 18, 2004, sheet T-1 and sheet A-1 through A-11, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that the addition to the house shall have two parallel roof ridges, that shall be 2'-6" lower than the existing roof ridge with a maximum height of 14’ and a 4:12 roof pitch for the addition, and that the garage shall have a plate height of 8’1” with a 2:12 roof pitch and a maximum height not to exceed 11’4”; 2) 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; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, the Fire Marshal’s, the Chief Building Inspector’s, and the Recycling Specialist's June 30, 2003 memos shall be met; 4) that the applicant shall submit a certified arborist report to detail tree protection measures for the protected-size Pepper tree at the front of the property and that this report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to any grading on the site and prior to the issuance of a Building permit; and if the protected-size Pepper tree is to be removed, the applicant shall apply for and receive a Protected-size Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Department prior to removing the tree; 5) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 6) that during demolition and grading for the addition, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 7) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 8) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 8 Management District; and 9) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on the motion: Agree that this project clearly was not built according to the approved plans, builder knew that to deviate from the plans he would need to return to the Planning Commission and Building Department, would like to slap his wrist, but in the end he did respect the approved height key to the view issue, and the neighbor has not expressed a concern about additional impact on his view. Would like the garage roof to be kept at 4:12 and like that the view was respected. It is important that the plans be followed, not the first time this applicant has come forward with a similar change in the field resulting from showing the Commission originally something that cannot be built, cannot support when he did not come to the Commission before changing the structure. What can be done to avoid this problem? CA noted that a stop work order has been placed on this project, it took some time to get to the Commission and the project sat, the Commissioners can hold tight on approvals where there is a design element and require that the project is built as approved or reconstructed, the Commission does not have to accommodate the applicant. Commission comment continued: have mixed feelings, the mass and bulk of the garage are increased by the change to the roof of the garage, am offended that applicant went ahead without regard for the city's concerns, on other hand the view issue was respected; if this were a design review would require reconstruction, only issue here is hillside area construction permit, testimony of the neighbor and the photo indicate that the change does not impact any distant views, hands are tied for this application, nothing to prevent approval, but would have no hesitation to stop other projects and hope that the design community hears that message. Biggest design impact is the higher plate line and flatter roof on the garage, it is beyond design review the applicant has violated a contract with the City on this and on previous projects, at least the garage was originally agreed to. Would the maker of the motion amend the motion to require reconstruction of the garage as originally approved with a 4:12 pitch roof? Maker of the motion indicated he would not amend his motion. It should be clear to the applicant and others what the Planning Commission's concerns are regarding building which deviates from the approved plans, the project should be returned to the Commission for review and approval as opposed to walking on everyone. Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the hillside area construction permit to allow two parallel ridges 2'-6" lower than the existing roof ridge and a 4:12 roof pitch and a garage at the same height as approved with a 2:12 roof pitch and higher plate line. The motion passed on a 3-2-0-2 (Cers. Bojués, Vistica dissenting; Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. 7. 1755 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE (W.L. BUTLER, APPLICANT; JASON BELL, CARLILE COATSWORTH ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT; GRANT RIGGS, PROPERTY OWNER) (12 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report July 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. CP suggested, that if approved, the addition of a condition that this variance be limited to the warehouse, wholesale showroom by appointment only not to exceed 10, 000 SF use on this site. Commissioners noted what is the hardship associated with the applicant being required to replace the sidewalk on the north side of the property? How did the replacement affect the on site parking and how did the landscaping installed affect the on-site parking? Is the sidewalk being replaced the same dimension and location as the existing sidewalk? Were any of the city's planned improvements included? CP noted that the sidewalk replacement was required before the plan for the area was adopted, so is a simple replacement of existing, poor condition sidewalk. How will the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 9 proposed loading dock access affect the entrance to the parking on that side of the building? How do cars exit on the north side of the building? CP noted that the applicant could respond to these questions. There were no further questions of staff from the commissioners. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners comment: CA noted that without the applicant to respond this item should be continued until the applicant can attend; are the three truck spaces at the loading docks counted in the required parking spaces? condition 30 is unclear, indicates that maximum people on site is 50 but elsewhere it is unclear if the maximum 50 include visitors to the site, clarify; should add a condition that if this structure is ever modified or demolished, all parking variances expire, so that the replacement structure would be required to meet all on site parking and development requirements in effect at that time; the number of employees on site should be clarified. C. Bojués moved to continue action on this item until the applicant can be present. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent) voice vote. There is no appeal to an action to continue. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 2301 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (WILLIAM RIDDLE, BEST DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FAI LAU, PROPERTY OWNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Osterling recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the proposed project. He left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Auran opened the public comment. Bill Riddle, architect, 7 Lehning Way, Brisbane, submitted colored renderings of the proposed project, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that the second floor wall on the east elevation was blank and asked if a window could be added to break up the mass; architect noted the master bathroom is located there, could look into adding a window on that wall. Commission commented that the stairway window draws too much attention and suggested that the window should be reduced in size. Commission asked the architect to clarify the proposed plate heights throughout the house; architect noted that the plate height in the living room is 12'-0", the plate height throughout the rest of the house approximately 9'-0". Commission expressed a concern about the mass on the east elevation, house looks massive when compared to the detached garage, façade on the east elevation is not broken up as on the Hillside Drive elevation, façade on Hillside Drive is broken up well, but the remaining three elevations need to be articulated better, concerned with the blank walls, understand when facing other houses, but in this case there are not enough windows to the street; design is too boxy especially on east and west elevations, too much mass because of the boxy design, needs more articulation. Michael and Betsy Murray, 1367 Columbus Avenue, Scott Taylor, 1369 Columbus Avenue, Mark Molumphy, 1354 Columbus Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, expressed the following concerns City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 10 with the project: this is a difficult lot to build on, slopes down and up toward Columbus Avenue, in reviewing sheet A-6, it appears that the lot will be filled to level the grade which increases the height of the building, house is too big for the neighborhood, design is equivalent to a big box store, not enough articulation, not enough difference in building materials, big stucco box proposed, elements don't work well, vertical and horizontal window shapes don't match, columns don't fit with the panel doors at front, eaves are short, project lacks detail, palm trees shown on the landscape plan are not appropriate to the area, palm trees have no growth on the bottom, they attract pigeons and roof rats, they provide no screening for the building; proposed house is too big for the lot, existing houses on Columbus Avenue fit on the lot and are not overbuilt; this design reflects the big stucco houses which were built before design review was established, this is exactly the house design review is trying to avoid, do not see any rear yard space, this house appears to cover most of the lot; this new house is on Columbus Avenue, not on Hillside Drive, current house has been vacant for some time, appreciate that the lot will be improved, it will be an important house on this street because it is an entrance to Columbus Avenue from Hillside Drive, have not seen the plans for this project but ask that the Commission consider all the comments made by the neighbors. Further discussion: commission asked the applicant if the project includes a change in existing grade and is it necessary; architect noted that the grade will be increased near the front of the lot by approximately one foot to make the lot more level, highest point on the lot is where the garage is located, fill is necessary because of the preferred floor system design and the need to get air under the floor. Commission asked why the proposed front setback is 28'-0" when the average front setback is 24'-5", could move house closer towards Hillside Drive and increase rear yard space; architect noted that he calculated the average front setback to be 28'-0" and designed the house to meet that setback, will look at moving house towards Hillside Drive. Commission expressed a concern with the lawn area around the detached garage, this area needs more attention, also reconsider palm trees; architect noted that the palm trees proposed are dwarf palms and have a very low growth height. The Commission suggested planting trees with an appropriate growth scale at the front of the lot to help break up the mass. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: first reaction to this project was with great caution, this house will be very visible, concerned with height, lack of landscaping and articulation, question whether this is the right design for this lot; noted that when the Planning Commission and City Council created the design review guidelines, the FAR was reduced for corner lots because houses on corner lots are such a focal point. Commissioners noted the following items to be considered as a part of the substantial revision of the design: ▪ this is not the right design for this neighborhood, need to seriously consider a substantial redesign of the project; ▪ house looks massive when compared to the detached garage, east elevation is not broken up as on the Hillside Drive elevation, façade on Hillside Drive is broken up well, but the remaining three elevations need to be articulated better, concerned with the blanks walls; ▪ need to reduce the mass and bulk on all elevations, design is too boxy especially on east and west elevations, too much mass because of the boxy design, needs more articulation; ▪ house needs to be better articulated on all elevation; ▪ need to focus more on the landscape plan and how the landscaping will help to screen the building; ▪ concerned with the height of the building on this sloped lot; ▪ concerned with the lack of rear yard space, need to incorporate a useable rear yard into the design, since average front setback is 24'-5", could house be moved closer towards Hillside Drive and increase rear yard space; ▪ front porch with four columns is not appropriate; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 11 ▪ consider a different roof pitch to address concerns with building height; ▪ concerned with the lawn area around the detached garage, this area needs more attention, also reconsider palm trees; suggested planting trees with an appropriate growth scale at the front of the lot to help break up the mass. C. Bojués noted that this project needs a lot of work to address mass and bulk and made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer to get major assistance. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: the design review consultant should listen to the meeting tapes, there were many important comments made by the Commission and neighbors concerning this project; applicant should be aware that the design review consultant may have additional concerns and comments regarding the design beyond what the Commission has stated. Vice Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to send this project to a design reviewer for a substantial redesign. The motion passed 4-0-1-2 on a voice vote (C. Osterling abstaining and Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. C. Osterling returned to the dais and recessed the meeting for a short break. Meeting continued at 9:23 p.m. 9. 818 LAUREL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEVE RANDAL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RICHARD AND NANCY SCIUTTO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (97 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Steve Randel, applicant and designer, 1655 Mission Street #529, San Francisco, clarified that the photo of the house on the photo board was taken before the porch was finished, the front of the house now looks like what is shown on the plans, in designing the second story tried to keep the look of a 1½ story house, second story plate height is 7'-0", only two-story wall is along the right side of the house facing the driveway. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission expressed the following concerns: ▪ the northwest elevation is a very long wall, can it be broken up somehow; ▪ a box bay might be created at the second floor window similar to the second floor window on the southeast elevation, can also widen the kitchen at the rear by one to two feet and add a gable to break up the long plane; ▪ the revisions offered by the applicant should be incorporated; ▪ Commission complemented the designer for keeping the profile down; ▪ there might be an error on the plans regarding landscaping, site plan indicates a new Oak tree to be planted in the front yard while the landscape plan shows a new Japanese maple, need to correct the plans; ▪ ornamental grass and shrubs will only grow to 3'-0" in height, would like to see another Mayten tree planted along the left side property line between the existing Japanese Maple tree and Mayten tree; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 12 ▪ suggest adding another tree at the front of the lot to enhance the front elevation, suggest replacing the new Oak tree with another Japanese Maple tree or have two new Mayten trees which are evergreen on either side of the entrance walkway. C. Vistica noted that the designer has done a great job and made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made to the project and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 10. 615 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAVID AND ARLEEN CAUCHI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PIERLUIGI SERRAINO, DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that a letter in support of the project was submitted from Kerrie and Chris Ronan at 608 Concord Way. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Pierluigi Serraino, designer, 901 Market Street, San Francisco, and Roy Evars, 621 Vernon Way, representing the property owner, noted that the property owner was not able to attend the meeting because he is on vacation, but will pass along comments and suggestions to him. The designer, noted that there will be no changes to the footprint or landscaping on site, was available to answer questions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission expressed the following concerns: ▪ clarify the window detail on the new windows, should match the existing dormer windows; ▪ windows should be true divided light wood windows; ▪ concerned about the second floor blank wall on the west elevation, high windows should be added in the closet to break up the wall; ▪ proposed windows should be more horizontal than vertical to match the existing window pattern; ▪ also concerned with the blank wall on the west elevation, this wall should be broken up, could possible add a window at the peak, could also move the shed dormer in by one to two feet and extend roofline to the first floor roof; and ▪ Ok to keep the window on the west wall, but also noted that if the mass is broken up by extending the roofline down the window in the closet would not be needed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. 11. 1128 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 13 SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOSEPH CONTI, CONTI-HURLEY ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT; NILES TANAKATSUBO, TSH INTERNATIONAL ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN, ARCHITECT; STEVE IVERSON, PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Niles Tanakatsubo, TSH International Architecture and Design represented the project. Mark Silva, 1132 Oxford. Architect noted this is a modest second story addition to a two story house; added construction detail of belly band with Hardi Shake exterior above for second story, added 9 SF to kitchen rest of lot coverage increase is from the covered porches added; lowered the plate on the east side and added dormers to reduce mass. Roof height is 30 feet. Commissioners asked: are you replacing all the windows, the style on the first floor is different from the second; applicant noted that the double hung windows on the first floor will be replaced because they work best, on the second floor there is not enough height for double hung, and need a wide window for egress, however, windows could be revised to add more double hung and could match second floor in most cases; there is an error on the plans showing the widows in the closet at the front of the house; by the square footage of the addition it is modest but the impact on the structure is substantial, it is a complete change, the garage does not match the new style; what is the reason for the asymmetrical gable at the rear? has to do with where the second floor wall aligns with the wall in the nook in the kitchen below; like to see stylistic consistency between garage and house; feel that the new design took all the charm out of the house, disappointed, applicant noted that the existing house has an awkward exterior resulting from a previous addition, if extended existing slope of roof house would exceed 36 feet in height and you would see a lot more roof surface/mass, needed to manipulate rooms to stay within the existing envelope; in this neighborhood a lot of steep roofs, code allows extension beyond 30 feet for architectural design reasons; concerned about the 30 foot height given the height of the other houses in the area, one or two are taller but generally they are smaller, like to see the character of the current architecture preserved. Live next door, this is difficult, this house has problem, the exterior shingles is not like the rest of the neighborhood, light in my house will be affected by the proposed porch, have 30 years of landscaping which may be affected by the proposed fences, concerned about the over all mass of the structure, would be concerned about the curb appeal of a 36 foot tall structure, the proposed porch, the shingles on the second floor; the developer does not live in this house so want to be on the record now. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Commission expressed the following concerns: ▪ plan does not fit the neighborhood, windows do not match, exterior could be designed to fit better, house should not "pop out" at you; ▪ the charm of this house has been designed out, could increase height, house has a 37 foot setback to work with. C. Auran noted that he did not like the design and moved to refer this project to a design reviewer for redesign. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: concern is not with height if another design would reduce the mass with a tall structure it would be OK; the height issue is with the currently proposed design, not how much roof see or the steepness of the peaks in the neighborhood, height OK if it enhances the style. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 14 Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer for a substantial redesign. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 12. 745 LEXINGTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WALT WORTHGE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRIAN WACHHORST, PROPERTY OWNER) (38 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Walt Worthge, 21 Avila Road, San Mateo, represented the project. He noted the majority of the roof lines in the neighborhood were hipped; all the windows match and are true divided lights. Commissioners asked: will the new windows have the same type of installation as the existing? yes; How tall is the plate on the second floor? 8 feet; the roof pitch is visually different not match makes the piece on the top look very tall? tried to keep the 9 foot ceiling in the living room so needed a 9'-6" plate which forces up the second story addition since most of it is over the living room area; there is an 18 inch skirt roof? yes; Could the plates be varied over the living room area and the rest of the house? most of the addition is over this area, so can't reduce. Question if this is the proper way to design this house. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Chair Osterling noted the second story does stand tall, the second floor plate could be reduced to 7 feet because of the size and height of the living room, at the rear the skirt roof breaks up the depth and provides shadow, the wood siding also helps reduce the mass of the house, so move to direct the applicant to make the revisions discussed and return the project to the action calendar. There was no second to the motion. The motion died. Commission expressed the following concerns: ▪ Is there a way to bring the highest part of the second floor roof down; ▪ Could make the eaves deeper, set the top plate at 7'-6" instead of 8', hip roofs work, problem is all that is being carried over the 9'-6" height below; ▪ Design similar to house in RayPark approved earlier, finished house second story looks like a tower to the neighborhood and existing house; feel that this design does not fit, if cannot adjust the design to reduce the height of the second floor plate, feel it will not fit; ▪ Option is to change second floor design, add steps so able to vary height of second floor, if second story is broken up it will work better; ▪ Eave depth should be increased, could use a double pitch over the porch, could do on second floor as well to reduce the height of the roof. Chair Osterling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer for substantial redesign. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this project to a design reviewer. It will be returned to the Commission when the review process is completed, the staff has checked the new plans and there is space on the calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2004 15 X. PLANNER REPORTS - City Council regular meeting of July 6, 2004 was canceled. - Report on Schedule for Peninsula Hospital Review and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan CP Monroe reviewed the Commission's meeting schedule for the next three months for the Peninsula Hospital project, including a public hearing on the Recirculated Draft EIR for the revised project on July 26, 2004. She also noted the final steps in the city's review of the North Burlingame Specific Plan due for Council hearing in September. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Chris Keele, Acting Secretary S:\MINUTES\7.12.04.unapproved.minutes.doc