Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121304PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA December 13, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the December 13, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived at 8:00 p.m.), Keighran, Keele, and Osterling Absent: Commissioners: Bojués, Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell III. MINUTES The minutes of the November 22, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that Item #8 has been continued to the January 10, 2005 meeting, and that Item #2 will have to be pushed back on the agenda until the arrival of C. Brownrigg so there will be a quorum since C. Auran has to abstain because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. V. FROM THE FLOOR Donald Corey, 833 Alpine Avenue, months ago talked to the Planning Commission about apartment unit next to duplex at 730 Laurel Avenue, also approved a new building at 708 Laurel Avenue, if this were in Cleveland or Buffalo it would be called an abomination, block busting, there is no concern for R-2 zoned lots, these are oversized building on these lots, don’t fit in with neighborhood, this is a 7,000 SF building, not a duplex. There were no further public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There are no study items for review. 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. 1464 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MICHAEL GONG AND AMY LUI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 1B. 29 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KAUSHIK AND SONALI BHAUMIK, PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2004 2 1C. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2005 - CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution including the Commissioners 2005 calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-3 (C. Bojués, Brownrigg, and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM Item #2, 2108 Easton Drive was moved to the end of the Regular Action Calendar 3. 1637 WESTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JACOB AND LESLIE NGUYEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PETER SANO, DESIGNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report December 13, 2004, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Jake Nguyen, property owner, 1637 Westmoor Road, stated that he appreciated the Planning Commission’s comments at the study meeting on October 12, 2004, as a home owner, feels that the plans have significantly improved. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: tremendous improvement with the design review process. C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 18, 2004 sheets 1 through 11, and L-1, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2) that should the primary structure on this lot ever be demolished for any reason, the variances granted for this remodel shall be voided; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal’s memos dated September 9, 2004 shall be met; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 6) 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; 7) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2004 3 etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9) 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; 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 11) that two noble laurels shall be planted in the front yard to screen the new addition of the subject property, as approved by the City Arborist. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Commission discussion: for the parking variance, the existing garage is 8’ wide by 20’ deep, so there is no change to the existing configuration caused by chimney encroachment, the side setback variance is necessary to follow the line of the existing structure, can support based upon design; notice that property owner is planting noble laurels in the back yard, good choice, consider putting one of two in the front yard, will enhance the project, should add condition; much improved design; shows how project can be improved with the design review process. The maker of the motion and the second on the motion agreed to add a condition that two noble laurels be added in the front yard to screen the anew addition, location to b e approved by the City Arborist. Chair Osterling called for a roll call on the amended motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Brownrigg, and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 4. 716 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (KENDRICK LI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; BEN BEHRAVESH, ARCHITECT) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report November 13, 2004, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Kendrick Lee, property owner, 716 Howard Avenue, noted that he is back after two months with revised plans. Made lots of changes, also got an arborist report for the fir tree on the adjacent property, met with Randy Grange, design reviewer, and followed his recommendations, changed driveway to a no soil cut with pervious pavers; met with neighbor Sheila Janakos, she liked the revised plans. The proximity of the chimney to the roof is o.k. because it is a gas fireplace, also sloped the firebox, the posts in the front have been removed and more landscaping has been added to the site plan, the front entry is now emphasized. Architecturally this design will fit in the neighborhood, the property owner presented a slide with the addition superimposed on the subject property. The property owner noted that the design reviewer agrees that the project will fit in with the neighborhood. In his analysis he also commented that the floor area ratio is consistent with other houses in this areas and if the floor area ratio were calculations for a project with a detached garage then the project would be 230 SF below the maximum allowable floor area ratio. The proposed garage is set far back in the driveway and appears as detached garage. The property owner showed other homes in the area that have attached garages. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2004 4 C. Keele 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 December 1, 2004 sheets T1, A-1.0 through A-4.0, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal’s memos dated June 17, 2004 shall be met; 4) that the proposed driveway shall be designed and constructed without soil cut, above soil grade, with basalite pavers over a sand sub-base to reduce impact on the tree roots of the fir tree on the adjacent property at 720 Howard Avenue; and that the project arborist shall oversee the installation of the driveway and it shall be inspected by the City Arborist before scheduling a final inspection; 5) that the 94 inch Fir tree located on the adjacent property at 720 Howard Avenue and all tree protection measures shall be inspected by a certified arborist prior to demolition or construction activity; 6) that the protective tree fencing shall be 4 feet tall orange plastic attached to metal stakes no less than 12 inches into the ground and at 6 foot centers and shall be placed along the 30 feet of the property line in between 716 and 720 Howard Avenue adjacent to the 94 inch Fir tree in prior to demolition or construction activity on the site; 7) that no equipment, storage, dumping, grading, or excavation shall be permitted within the designated tree protection zones without the prior written approval of the consulting arborist; and confirmed by the City Arborist; 8) that if excavation must occur within the tree protection zone that the consulting arborist shall determine where tunneling, hand work, and root pruning is required; and shall be on site observing the work as these activities occur; 9) that the 94 inch Fir tree located on the adjacent property at 720 Howard Avenue shall be inspected one year following the construction at 716 Howard Avenue and every three years for 6 years thereafter by a certified arborist; and a report shall be sent to the City Arborist; 10) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 11) 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; 12) 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; 13) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 14) 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; and 15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Commission discussion: compliment the applicant on the revised project, nice presentation with the slide show; design has been improved, support the application. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 5. 1512-1516 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY, 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2004 5 MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; THORENFELDT CONSTRUCTION, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (142 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN A. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT B. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT MERGER AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report November 13, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. CP noted that this is the first project to be reviewed under the inclusionary zoning requirements; the application preceded the requirements but the applicant chose to follow them as a trade-off for the taller building. CP noted that the action should be taken on the project before the action on the map. Forty conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that on page 6 question #1 asks if the Planning Commission can set parameters for the affordable units, can the Commission direct the location of the affordable unit. CA Anderson noted that the intent is to have the affordable unit fit in with the project; Planning Commission has a lot of discretion in this area. Commission noted that they did not see the Hexagon Traffic Report, has this report looked at the number of on-street parking spaces that would be lost on Floribunda because of the new curb cut and the red zone on each side. CP Monroe noted that with the worst case scenario one on-street parking space would be lost because there are currently three curb cuts and now there will be two curb cuts of different size, red zones will reduce on-street parking. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. He noted that C. Vistica is absent from this meeting but that he emailed his comments to the Chair to be read at the public hearing. These comments are as follows: proposed building is too large for size of the lot, units are too large, reduce 500 SF per unit to reduce the size of the building, no large common open space for people to gather; exterior articulation needs to be more consistent with other buildings in this area, reduce the fourth floor to half of the size of the third floor and incorporate the fourth roof into within the plate of the floor below; trees are not in scale with the size of the building because most are in planter boxes over garage, should be where they can grow full size to screen such a large building. Dale Meyer, project architect, 851 Burlway Road Suite 408, Burlingame, noted that setbacks on each side are greater than the required except on the fourth floor where that are at the required setback. The common open space and private open spaces are also larger than the required amount. This project does include an affordable one-bedroom unit, the code requires this unit to be at least 650 SF, however the proposed unit is 800 plus square feet. The landscaping in the front is allowed to be reduced to 45% with a circular driveway , but this project has 47%. The incentives for having an affordable unit allow the height of the building to increase to 46 feet, and the building is not at that limit. Only used one of the incentives, could have also reduced the size of the parking spaces or the landscaping. There will be no decrease in the amount of street parking because there are currently three driveway and only two driveways are proposed with this project. Dale Meyer noted that last meeting the Planning Commission requested the applicant to give them a summary of the vision he has for this area of Burlingame because he is doing several multi-family developments in the area. Mr. Meyer stated that this is a city, and is dense, people live in close proximity, it is not farmland. This is a growing, desirable place to live with a limited amount of land, this creates a drive for increased density to happen. Developments here tend to have higher cost because of the land cost, also affordable units will be increased due to the new ordinance, which will help to solve housing pressures in the City. In this neighborhood notice homes of different styles and architecture, think that the area will continue to develop this way. Ten years ago there was a burst of condominium developments, they go in cycles, and sometimes the envelope gets pushed. Need to consider if projects are good designs and use good City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2004 6 quality materials. Mr. Meyer passed forward two color renderings of the proposed condominium building. He noted that this will help give the Planning Commission an idea about the concept of the project, there are varied windows on the elevations, some square, some with opening above; and the sides of the building move in and out to break up the look. Commissioner asked why the affordable unit is placed right next to the driveway ramp on the first floor. Mr. Meyer responded that usually the price of units increase as you go up, this is the smallest unit and least expensive so it is located on the first floor, and that the smallest yard and patio area were in this location so it was proportional to the size of the unit. Commissioner noted that on sheet L1.0 of the revised plans that there is a raised planter box over the garage slab. Mr. Meyer stated that at the last Planning Commissions meeting one of the Commissioners asked him to create more dense landscaping so he added an additional foot to the planter to make it deeper. Commission asked why they didn’t do a three and a half story building rather than a full four-story, fourth floor adds mass, need to consider pushing it back. Mr. Meyer explained they looked at a series of sketches, looked at a three-story building, looked a three-story building with a penthouse. From the point of view of standard overall development cost, thought that the building could take a full fourth floor. The model shows how the building steps up and down from the street. CA Anderson asked if the lower floor affordable unit was ADA accessible. Commission clarified questions by asking the unit was wheel chair accessible throughout. Mr. Meyer stated that yes it is ADA accessible, the bathroom will need to made a little larger or have a pedestal sink. CA Anderson noted that this may be a reason to accept the unit at this location or not. Commissioner stated that there is a lot of mass and bulk with the fourth floor, without a setback on the top floor it looks like a big box with the same windows geometry, appears as if architect doesn’t want to address this issue. Mr. Meyer stated that they looked at this issue, site plan does show a large setback, left front has an 18’ setback and the right side has a 20’ setback because of the lot geometry, project is not totally pushing the envelope, have more landscaping, more open space and larger setbacks than code requires. Why have a code if this is not o.k., not good practice. Commissioner stated that on sheet P8 and P9 that the elevations look like a big box, the fourth floor looms over the building. Commission asked the architect to consider reducing the size of the units. These units are 2,853 SF to 2,700 SF, downscale the units to get more articulation in design, concerned with this project, it is a big box, need to downscale the overall size. Mr. Meyer stated that they had a real estate agent look at a market study, and they design for a certain buyer, have to talk with the owner about changes. There are not too many building in this area with the fourth floor setback. There is a four story building on Oak Grove next to the church and also one across the street. Can attempt to articulate the fourth floor, but need to discuss it with the owner. Commission asked if there were any other four-story buildings in the area. Mr. Meyer stated that immediately adjacent they are only 2, there are more three or three and half story buildings. Commissioner commented, can live with overall height and shadow study says it is a reasonable height, but should consider setting fourth floor back, this will be an opportunity to reduce the size of the units, can setback and add balconies, will reduce the bulk and mass, and reduce the apparent height of the building; rendering is nice but would like to see more work done on this project. C. Brownrigg arrived at 8:00 p.m. Commission noted that this project has very large rooms, 14’8” x 17’ bedrooms, 18’6” x 9’ foyer, add articulation to top unit, may result in a better floor plan for the units. Commission asked the plate height for this project. Mr. Meyer noted that that he first floor has a 10’ floor to ceiling and the rest of the floor have a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2004 7 9’ floor to ceiling. Commission asked the architect what design criteria is used starting these projects. Mr. Meyer explained that he first looks at the size of the property, then does a code analysis, determines the setback parameters, looks at the number of parking spaces that can be accommodated on the site, then does an analysis on the number of bedrooms, this gives the envelope of the structure and then the look of the building is determined by the envelope (mass). Public Comments: Lena Zhang, Z Studio Architects, 1390 Monterey Boulevard, San Francisco, Mark Buran, property owner, 1508 Floribunda Avenue: At meeting for another project, but had some suggestions; understands what architect is trying to achieve, land is valuable so there is a trend in cities to increase the density, nice rendering, share feeling of Commission that project is kind of massive, might consider breaking building up into sections, can articulate with various color schemes, use different color for 25’ length, can read like three buildings, see this a lot in European towns, can keep the volume and solve housing pressures.; Concerned with four story project, will cast a shadow on 30% of their units, they are getting the most value out of their property at our expense. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. CA Anderson noted that C. Brownrigg came after the start of this item and can participate in the discussion of this project, but can not vote on it. Summary of Commission comments: • Need to work on articulation and design, not enough articulation; • Fourth floor is heavy, needs to be setback from street under roof; • Looks like institution with all the balconies on the front, front windows are too symmetrical; • Reduce the size of the units, 2,700 to 2,900 SF is too big; • No problem with design, it is close to downtown; • Concerned with the size of the affordable unit, so small compared to the other units in this project, need to increase the size of that unit; and • We do need greater density in downtown areas but an entire extra floor only adds two units, eliminate floor or push back. Architect and owner should redesign based on the given comments. Commission asked CA Anderson what option they have for this project. CA Anderson explained that the Commission can deny the project without prejudice with the direction given, or deny the project outright, or continue the item. Commission asked CA Anderson and CP Monroe to clarify the authority of the Planning Commission on this project in regards to design comments made; CA Anderson and CP Monroe explained that on page 8 of the staff report there are condominium regulations that discuss the aesthetic qualities of the project, so the Commission has the discretion under these regulations to review design concerns. Commission noted that criteria A of the condominium permit criteria does look at sound community planning and aesthetic qualities of a project. Commission stated that they have trust in this architect, if he is given the chance to respond to these comments. C. Keighran made a motion to continue this item with the direction given to the project architect. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Brownrigg abstaining, Cers. Bojués and Vistica absent,). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2004 8 2. 2108 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (ERNIE AND PHYLLIS BODEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; 2 STUDIO ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Auran stated that he would be abstaining from participating on this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property and left Council Chambers. Reference staff report December 13, 2004, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Lena Zhang, Z Studio Architects, 1390 Monterey Boulevard, San Francisco, thanked the Commission for giving her clients another chance on making this project work. The floor area has been reduced and a floor area ratio variance is not required. Plnr. Barber clarified that a floor area ratio variance is still required for this project although the floor area has been reduced; noted that the project architect is referring to the fact that if the floor area for the lot were calculated for a detached garage rather than an attached garage (as proposed) then the project would be within allowable floor area for the site. Ms. Zhang noted the arborist was against option 2, which proposed a new detached garage with pier and beam construction at the rear of the lot, because a major portion of the garage and driveway would be within the drip line of the Redwood tree. Impressed that the property owners took on this project and have gone so far to work with the arborist, construction estimator and architect to examine the options on this property. The applicant has limited means for this project but has tried to preserve the tree. Jean Alder, 2111 Easton Drive, lives across the street from the subject property. Appreciates that the Bodens will have shed, since all of the neighbors borrow their tools, applaud the efforts of the Bodens to keep the tree, other neighbors are also in favor of this proposal. Commission asked if she minds looking at the new attached garage across from her house. Ms. Adler stated that the attached garage did not bother her because it is set far enough back from the front property line and there is a long driveway. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg 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 November 18, 2004 Sheets A0.0 through A1.2, site plan, floor plan, landscape plan and elevations; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer, Recycling Specialist, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal’s memos dated March 29, 2004 shall be met and the City Arborist’s memo dated April 8, 2004 shall be meet; 3) that a tree protection zone shall be established and maintained throughout the entire construction of the project, and during construction the Redwood tree shall be properly irrigated and maintained as determined by the project arborist and approved by the City Arborist, and following the construction the Redwood tree shall be fed and maintained as proposed by the project arborist in the June 1, 2004 report and approved by the City Arborist; 4) that a 4 foot tall orange plastic fencing supported by metal poles or stakes pounded into the ground shall be installed as the protective fencing at a location approved by the arborist as close to the drip line of the tree as possible; 5) that the redwood trunk shall have 2’ x 4’ lumber placed vertically on the trunk and then wrapped with orange fencing for additional protection; 6) that no materials or tools shall be stored within the protection zone established around the Redwood tree, nor shall any equipment be cleaned within the protection zone during demolition and reconstruction of the shed; 7) that any roots to be cut shall be observed and shall be documented by the project arborist prior to cutting and that large roots greater than City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2004 9 3” or root masses shall be inspected and documented by the project arborist to determine that cutting will not negatively impact the tree prior to removal, any root cutting shall be done cleanly using a saw or lopper; 8) that hand excavation shall be required for the removal of the garage foundation, floor and a portion of the existing driveway that is within root zone of the Redwood tree; 9) that hand digging observed by a licensed arborist shall be required for digging the foundation for the rear wall and exterior corner (5’) of the new garage; 10) that the area where the 8’6” by 14’8” portion of the garage is to be removed shall be mulched to help maintain a health root zone; 11) that these measures shall be monitored by the project arborist who prepared the protection plan, and a three year maintenance plan following construction, including regular inspections by the arborist, as approved by the City Arborist, shall be added to this report; any corrective measures required during the maintenance period shall be implemented by the property owner; 12) that any increase to the size or envelope of the approved garage or garden shed, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Commission discussion on the motion: the hardship on this property for the variances is the Redwood tree, option 2 with a pier and beam seems like a lot of contriving to shoe horn a new detached garage at the rear of the lot, an attached garage is a good solution, also the added exterior improvements that are proposed are a good solution; arborist repot agrees that a new detached garage at the rear of the lot is not good for the tree; applaud the applicant for efforts to preserve the tree and look at all options. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-2-1 (C. Auran abstaining, Cers. Bojués and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. Commission asked the applicant and staff to notify the property owners to the left of this property that the project was approved so that they may adjust their proposed new single family dwelling accordingly. C. Auran returned to the dais. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 2122 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAN AND ANGELA DOBSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (41 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Dan Dobson, property owner, John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos represented the project. Applicant thanked staff for their high level of customer service, family is built out, four boys, now need to build out house, presently not a great house to raise four boys; with remodel the bedrooms will be upstairs and the common spaces downstairs; lot slopes to the rear so the deck is higher than 30 inches and is included in lot coverage; no neighbors to rear (Roosevelt school), neighbors on east and west reviewed and said OK, 12 other neighbors as well. Resident in Hillsborough contacted, agreed to add trees to resolve their problem. Architect noted that the overhang of the second story added to achieve articulation along the driveway also affected lot coverage. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2004 10 John Widman , 407 Midway spoke in support, noting good plan, unfortunate that slope toward school, without would not have lot coverage issue. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioners asked: • Could the roof pitch be lowered to reduce the height because you sit on a bluff? C. Keighran noted that overall did a nice design job, blends in with the existing structure, lot coverage is OK given slope on the lot, floor area ratio is met, so move to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by Chair Osterling. Comment on the motion: beautiful design on an existing structure, hard to do, the hardship for the variance is the small size of this lot on the block. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a 5- 0-2 (Cers. Bojués, Vistica absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 7. 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 CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. John Marsh, 11 Airport Blvd. South San Francisco, represented the project. Noted that they had revised this application several times for staff. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Commissioners comments: • This is a perfect example of a project not working, the addition does not blend into the existing structure, could use help of design reviewer; • Concerned that the addition looks too boxy; • South elevation is not articulated well, too much stucco, 2 oval windows do not reflect anything else on the building. Chair Osterling moved to direct this project to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: less concerned about the variance in this case, this is an oddly shaped corner lot. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to direct this project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués, Vistica absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 8. 1552 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A LOWER FLOOR ADDITION AND SECOND FLOOR DECK (DEREK WEE, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GREG AND SERENE LIM, PROPERTY City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2004 11 OWNERS) (50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER (CONTINUED TO JANUARY 10, 2005 MEETING) 9. 1418 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DUTCH HOSMAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road, and Dutch Hosman, property owner, represented the project. He noted that this was a difficult house to work with; and he would answer questions. Commissioners noted: • Would like to see a landscape plan with evergreen trees added; • Need to talk with neighbor and address the neighbor's carport, which may be affected by fire code requirements, resolve issue; and • See roof moved up, but in keeping with houses on both sides, plans work well with existing and proposed side by side. There were no further comments on the project from the floor or Commission. The public comment was closed. C. Keele complemented the design, first time he has seen someone design to a decrease in lot coverage and FAR, move that this project be placed on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by Chair Osterling. Comment on the motion: want to be sure that the plans when resubmitted include adding some landscaping and discussion with the neighbor about the carport, including a letter discussing the carport issue. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the item to the consent calendar when all the revisions have been submitted, checked and there is space. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués, Vistica absent). This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 10. 1031 MORRELL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (POKO KLEIN, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PAUL AND ELLEN DONATI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Avenue, presented the project. He noted that the goal of the remodel was to add a bedroom and bath, however since the house is split level and they already had 6.5 feet of head room under the addition they were also adding a bonus room which counts as a fourth bedroom. Because of the split level design of the house can not get a car in the driveway without demolishing the rear of the house or paving the back yard. Commissioner noted that he City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2004 12 was troubled by the increase from 2 to 4 bedrooms without additional parking, which could cause a significant parking pressure on this corner lot. Applicant noted that there were two street frontages, serving this house, one of which was more than 100 feet long without curb cut. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Auran noted he could find for a variance because of the two street frontages, narrow curb cut on one and no curb cut on the long side, like the design so would move to put this item on the consent calendar for action. C. Keighran seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: the mitigation here is the street parking, what is the hardship? It is an existing condition, today typically have only 20 feet in front of a house; to get the additional on site parking would need to remove the back of the house; so hardship is created by the orientation of the house. CA noted that commission could add a condition that the variance is based on the location of the house and that there is any significant change to the property beyond this application or to the house, the variance would be void. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the amendment to the motion to add a condition to have the variance for parking granted with this project voided should the house ever be demolished or changed significantly in the future. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the amended motion to refer this project to the consent calendar when the plans had been revised as directed and with the condition that the parking variance would be voided if the house were demolished or further changed in the future. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués, Vistica absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 11. 821 COWAN ROAD, ZONED O-M – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (GREG WARD, ONESTOP DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KONSTANTINOS DOKOS, PROPERTY OWNER) (16 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented the project description. Commissioners asked staff: table on parking does not indicate number or location of disabled accessible parking spaces, are the bath rooms in the office spaces disabled accessible, would like to see a landscape plan which enriches the landscaped areas provided; why is CEQA applicable? CEQA requires initial study and environmental document when 10,000 SF or more been added to this type of use; why concerned with design guidelines, for CEQA project must comply with General Plan. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Greg Ward, One Stop Design, Inc., Fremont. Understand that this is the first project under the newly adopted design guidelines and this is a time of transition. Chair Osterling called for a five minute break at 9:20 p.m. to allow the applicant to fix his power point presentation. The Commission reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Applicant continued: have added a landscape plan sheet L.1; added articulation to the building, tried to make the building look smaller and screen the flat roof; there are five warehouses each with an office area above, each has its own fire exiting. Commissioner noted that the rendering does not include windows which are shown on the elevation in the plans, in the future they should match. Learned of the setback problem late, after a detailed survey was completed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2004 13 Commissioners asked : • What is the role of the barrier areas at the rear of the building, how are they designed?; • Should call out the materials, what will the columns at the front be made of?; • There is an arch at the front which looks blank, what is going on there?; • Is the location of the disabled parking correct? Is the number of disabled accessible spaces appropriate?; • Is the elevator access at the front or the rear of the building; • How closely will the project be required to comply with the Inner Bayshore design guidelines, don't think will get perfection, this looks like a good place to start? Check list is good; and • More landscaping integrated into parking is positive given the design guidelines. Not looking for flowers but more massive screening plants, vines on building effective, automatic irrigation on all. There were no further comments from the floor or commission and the public comment was closed. Chair Osterling noted that this completed the scoping for this project. When the initial study is completed and the type of environmental document determined, this item will be back to the Commission for study. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of December 6, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of December 6, 2004. Commission asked for a copy of the staff report on the update of the recent changes to the Fire regulations. - Planning Commission Assignments 2005. CP noted that she would e-mail each subcommittee group this week and begin the process of selecting a single day each month for them to meet. By January the schedule should be complete. - Chair Memo to City Council Regarding 2005 Planning Commission Working Groups and Coordinating Meeting with the City Council. Mayor Galligan noted at the council meeting that the Planning Commission had requested to meet with the Council and that they would set a date later. Planner will e-mail a copy of the memo to each Planning Commissioner. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 9:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\unapproved12.13.04.doc