Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2000.06.12 Minutes -1- MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 12, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the June 12, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, and Luzuriaga Absent: Commissioner Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher. MINUTES The minutes of the May 22, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were amended to add under Planners Reports A The Commission appointed C. Vistica to speak on the behalf of the commission on the office project at 301 Airport Blvd, at the Council Study session. and; on page 9, paragraph 3 it should be noted that the relocation of this car rental operation to the airport cost the city $250,000 annually in lost revenue. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was altered to take the consent calendar first, then the regular action items, next the study items and finally the preliminary design review study items. Planners reports remained at the end of the agenda. FROM THE FLOOR C. Dreiling commented that he estimated that the Planning Commission had spent over 300 hours reviewing the project at 301 Airport Blvd., this could represent over $30,000 of professional time; but the commission was given only 5 minutes to present their conclusions to the City Council. He wanted the Council to be made aware of the amount of effort the Commission put into action on this project. C. Luzuriaga expressed concern that the developer was given 15 minutes to present his project and took 45 minutes, while the commissioner was given 5 and had to have permission to continue 2 minutes beyond. There were no other comments from the floor. 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. CP Monroe noted that 131 Loma Vista has been continued because the submittal for action was not completed. This item will be placed on the consent calendar and renoticed when the submittal documents are complete. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2000 Minutes -2- 131 LOMA VISTA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (VINCENT AND DOREEN CAUCHI, OWNERS; KEN IBARRA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT) CONTINUED 164 PEPPER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ONE-STORY HOUSE (WALTER AND ANGELIKA HAEFEKER, OWNERS; RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT) 1313 DE SOTO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ROOF PITCH ON ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. APPLICATION PREVIOUSLY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT HEARING ON MARCH 27, 2000. (CATHERINE MOREY, OWNER; NEIL GABBAY, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT) C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments, the findings in the staff reports, and with recommended conditions in the staff report, by resolution; and with an amendment to the conditions for the project at 164 Pepper that because the house is being developed to the maximum FAR with only a one car garage and it is inappropriate in these circumstances to grant an FAR variance for two covered parking spaces, the library on the second floor shall never be converted to a bedroom. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 7:10 p.m. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1701 BROADWAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK AND WITHIN 15'-0" OF THE EXTERNAL CORNER OF THE LOT (JENNIFER MARTIN, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT; JD& ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and would step down from the dais for this item. Reference staff report, 6.12.00, with attachments. City Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the Commission approves this project, will it also need to be approved by the City Council; yes, the City Council would have to approve an encroachment permit amendment for the change in fence height (5' to 6') in the front setback and for the fence being located within the 15' target area; Commissioner asked if this project would create a precedent for others, City Planner noted that exceptions are based on property characteristics, if there is nothing unusual about this lot it could set a precedent. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. John Martin, property owner, noted that the new fence was built along the old fence line; in regards to the fence setback from the corner, the contractor measure the 15'-0" setback from the corner of the inner edge sidewalk and not from the property line corner as required by the City, it was their intent to comply with the requirements, would like a 6' tall fence on Cortez Avenue for privacy, front door is on Broadway, front yard is the main yard and is used heavily so need privacy there; if additional review is required by the City Council applicant is willing to move corner fence posts at the tangent back to comply with code requirements, applicant asked what can be done to get an approval tonight, City Planner noted that the fence posts would have to be moved back to 15'-0" from the external corner where the property lines meet and the fence height in the entire front setback area would have to be lowered to 5'-0" above adjacent grade; even if the Planning Commission approves the 6' fence City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2000 Minutes -3- exception, the applicant would have to file for a special encroachment permit amendment for the change in height; applicant asked that staff explain what the options are; City Planner noted that there are two options: 1) to follow the conditions in the special encroachment permit which required the fence height in the entire front setback area to be no more than 5' and that the fence be setback 15' from the intersection of the property lines along Cortez and Broadway, or 2) that the fence exception, if approved, must be forwarded to the City Council for an amendment to the special encroachment permit for the change fence height and the location from the property corner. Maria Sky, 1137 Cortez Avenue, spoke in favor of the project, noting that she lives four or five houses from this property, there has always been a fence there taller than three feet, existing bushes and shrubs were taller than three feet, cannot understand why Burlingame is being picky, proposed fence is in the same location as the old fence, fence is attractive, appreciates the work done to the house, has valid reasons for the proposed fence, has a Broadway address but front is determined to be on Cortez, doesn’t understand what the hold up is, fence has been on hold for five months; Commissioner noted that the addition to the house is beautiful, fence was not included the Commission=s approval of the addition to the house. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: agrees with staff evaluation of the project, it=s important that the requested action would set a precedent, would have to grant an exception to others in a similar situation; cannot support the request for an exception, noted that addition to house looks great; easy to make this a complicated project, applicant built a fence on someone else=s property, applicant doesn’t have yard space, see logic for granting an exception, similar situation happened in his neighborhood, fence was built on City right-of-way and also on neighbor=s property; this is a neat old house with limited yard space, privacy is needed, have a problem with encroachment; would like to see 15' setback met, understand privacy concerns, property has no backyard, would like the code to be followed and fence built on the property line, and 0'-11" back from sidewalk on Cortez and 1'-4" back from sidewalk on Broadway, could support granting an exception for the 6'-0" tall fence in the front setback on Cortez for privacy; City Engineer noted that he doesn’t have a problem with the height, except in the 15' setback area from the corner of the property, this area is kept open for the visibility of on coming traffic at the corner, there is a stop sign at Cortez; CE is always against fences taller than three feet within the 15' corner setback; encroachment into the public right-of-way is a more common occurrence, often allowed if no meter boxes or clean-outs are affected, like to see intersections open so that safety concerns are met; Commissioner asked if the proposed fence is 6' solid, proposed fence is 5' solid with the top portion being of an open lattice design. C. Luzuriaga moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the recommendations made by staff and with a 6' tall fence on Cortez Avenue, and with the conditions in the staff report. C. Bojués seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: Commission clarified that the fence posts would have to be setback 15' from the property corner; City Attorney asked if the Commission was changing the plans by what they are approving, he noted that the plans were unclear is a 6' solid wood fence around the property. C. Luzuriaga amended his motion to continue this item, spent 40 minutes discussing a fence, the plans need to be clearer. C. Bojués seconded the amended motion. Further Discussion: issue is 6' fence, entirely around the property, this conflicts with design review in the sense that the fence will enclose the entire property from view and alter the character on the street can’t see front porch from street level. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 voice vote (C. Deal abstaining and C. Vistica absent). This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2000 Minutes -4- 1701 CARMELITA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION. (JEFFREY M. OWENS, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT; DUC M. TRAN, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 6.12.00, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Duc Tran, project architect, noted that this family has lived in Burlingame for three generations, they do not intend to move, need more floor area for growing family, existing two bedroom house is not big enough to accommodate two children; Commission asked the applicant to explain the exceptional hardship on the property to justify the exception for floor area ratio, the applicant noted that the existing house only has two bedrooms and there are two children in the family, family is still growing, need additional space for the future, in five years the code may change so that a second story may not be allowed; Commissioner commented that the house in being increased to four bedrooms, the maximum allowed floor area is 2,660 SF and asking for 393 SF over the maximum, applicant noted that a similar size addition was approved three years ago, this addition is one percent over the maximum allowed three years ago, Commissioner noted that the propos ed addition exceeds the maximum allowed floor area which was 2,960 SF three years ago before the current standards were imposed. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Discussion: this application was presented in March, applicant has made no changes since that meeting, find it frustrating to review the same project again, part of design review was to decrease the maximum allowed FAR, concern was that houses being built were too big and massive, design review arrived at a formula for every house, formula based on the size of the lot + 1100 SF + 400 SF for a detached garage, less FAR is allowed on a corner lot with an attached garage, but need to respect the FAR regulation, family size cannot be a hardship on the property; this 5500 SF lot is 500 SF larger than the standard lot size in Burlingame, cannot support this project and the FAR variance. C. Bojués moved to deny the application for the reasons stated. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Discussion on the motion: design is adequate, need to reduce size of house, worried that the applicant in his letter noted that the design reviewer strongly recommended for approval of the FAR variance, this is not what the design reviewer said in the design analysis of the project; in any event, since implementation of the new design review process, the reviewers have been asked not to make recommendations on variances; Commission made it clear that a FAR variance would not be granted without exceptional circumstances on the property, Commissioner noted that they requested a landscape plan, applicant responded that it was not necessary, a landscape plan is needed for this building size, feel landscaping is important to determine how the lines of this project could be softened. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Action on this item was completed at 7:55 p.m. STUDY ITEMS 1321 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SEVEN CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR NEW DETACHED GARAGE (R. BRUCE BALLENTINE, ARCHITECT; NICOLAS BECHWATI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners expressed concern about the number of exceptions requested for this garage, so many conditional use permits are a red flag; the garage structure proposed is bigger than the existing one story house, have not approved a 12' plate on a garage or such a maximum roof height or an accessory structure with a toilet; approvals of windows, storage area and workshop depend upon the merit of the request; should reduce the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2000 Minutes -5- plate height, concerned about the timber detail, does not have enough weight to be a true Tudor timber; pier foundation unusual, most similar structures have a spread footing or slab, why are piers being used; has the applicant considered that this structure will use a lot of the FAR allotted to this lot and will limit future expansion of the main house; need an explanation of the architecture chosen for the garage since it bears no relationship to the existing house; this structure will have a impact on the three neighbors adjoining this property because of placing a two story structure at the shared corners, provide justification for that impact; garage is too big, too much, should be redesigned to match the house. There were no further comments on the application and it was set for the June 26, 2000, commission meeting providing the information requested is provided in time to prepare the staff report. This item ended at 8:00 p.m. 1805 LOYOLA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE (BRIAN AND CINDY CHIANG, PROPERTY OWNERS; PETER LAM, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The commissioners acknowledged the letter from Mr. Richardson withdrawing his objection. There were no questions from the commission and the item was set for the consent calendar at the June 26, 2000, meeting. This item ended at 8:05 p.m. 340 LORTON AVENUE # 203 - ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING PHYSIOTHERAPY OFFICE (GINA LA ROCCA, APPLICANT; DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners noted the original approval had one employee in 374 SF, with this application 280 SF would be added to the business and one employee added; so basically asking for the same intensity of use that commission approved earlier. Should be placed on the consent calendar. Chairman Luzuriaga placed this item on the consent calendar for the June 26, 2000, meeting. This item ended at 8:07 p.m. 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED O-M - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW FOUR-STORY 77- ROOM HOTEL WHICH EXCEEDS THE BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENT IN THE O-M ZONE, AND TO VARY FROM THE HEIGHT AND VIEW OBSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT. (SATURN INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT; LEE GAGE & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe presented the staff report on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and project. Commission asked to see a landscape plan with plant material identified; would like to see the heights of the two adjacent buildings to the north and south; why does the applicant need a side setback variance, the presence of a 15' ea sement does not entitle the applicant to a 5 foot side setback variance; what kind of hotel will this be; the granting of a conditional use permit for a hotel in the OM district is based on merit; need a landscape plan which shows substantial vertical elements on the site; need to think about the architectural character, how does the building engage people from Bayshore Highway, it is in a little sea of parking, could put entrance to the side with people parking in front, need to think about the overall design, not just change a couple of the dimensions; this area has a different and more urban character than the Anza area, can support a greater presence on the street and it will increase the recognition of the facility; this project needs a 5 foot side setback because this is an off the shelf building, the design needs more effort; people using this hotel will use the meeting and eating facilities in other hotels in the area but the design encourages people to walk or bicycle, it=s a problem that this is a hotel for cars; there is a tall parapet on the top of this building that adds substantially to its height, why; could height be reduced by enclosing mechanical equipment and changing parapet. There is a lot of work to be done on this design would not like to see it before the plans are complete, certainly no sooner than the July 10 meeting, so the applicant can make changes. This item was not set for a date certain. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2000 Minutes -6- The this item and the study portion of the meeting ended at 8:10 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 39 BANCROFT ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION. (ANTHONY P. MELISSAKIS, DESIGNER; SOFIA MAKRIS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment portion of the review. Anthony Melissakis the architect, represented the project. He noted he had noting more to present, but would answer questions. Commissioners noted that the fire place was too close to the second floor and would need a 10 foot separation; items were labeled 3" x 12" when you meant 2 2" x 11 2" which leads to confusion; show a flat roof portion, it would better to put in a peaked roof, it would cost less. Applicant noted that his client did not want to see that portion of the roof from the front so he made it flat. Concerned about the property corner elevations shown - 0" at the front and 2" at the rear, unusual for a property to be that flat, were the dimensions measured? Design quality is an important component of a project, need to have consistency between the existing residence and the new addition, the roof lines need to match and the garage added at the rear needs to be integrated, in the end it needs to look as if the addition were a part of the original construction. Notes show that you are removing several trees, are you replacing them. Applicant, no, removing two at the rear and one at the front. You need to provide a better landscape plan cannot see what is existing and what will be removed on this one. A house this size needs more landscaping. Landscaping softens the exterior of a building and adds vertical lines to soften the effect, so it is important. Would like you to identify the trees to be removed and prepare a landscape plan which shows installation of larger trees and shrubs. It was noted that the design reviewer commented on the Ajogs@ in the structure. Feel if the addition is integrated into the building the issue of jogs would go away. Trisha Dillion-Mamaeu resident at 33 Bancroft spoke noting that she had looked at the plans and was concerned about the visual appearance of the house from the front, this is one of the oldest houses in the neighborhood, adding a bedroom could make it look very different; would like it to retain its original character through the remodel. There were no further comments from the floor. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to assign this project to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 1704 SANCHEZ AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXTENSION INTO THE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION. (JULIA A. AND VITAS PAUL VISKANTA, PROPERTY OWNERS; VITAS VISKANTA, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT) Planner Hurin briefly presented the staff report and noted that a letter was submitted after preparation of the staff report by David Hinckle in support of the project. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Vitas Viskanta, property owner and designer, represented the project, outlined the main points of the design; tried to maintain a small envelope, addition is compatible with the existing design, created an appropriate roofline which compliments the existing building, is consistent with the parking pattern in the neighborhood, addition has a minimal impact on the neighbor; submitted a conceptual landscape plan showing new landscaping in the front yard, use of pavers; because initially interpreted the declining height envelope different, there is a declining height envelope encroachment from the street level approximately a 6' x 6' square; proposed City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2000 Minutes -7- location of addition will not disrupt their lifestyle and will allow them to live in the house during construction, only one wall will have to be opened; will not have cost to vacate the house for four to six months, this is important to th em; actual living area is less than calculated because porte cochere is counted in floor area and lower level at rear of house has a 5' floor to ceiling height; addition is cost-saving because the existing floor and foundation will not be affected, will not have to demolish and throw away materials. The Commission commented that they were glad to see building materials not being thrown away, it is a concern, but appears to be two houses joined by a single wall on one lot, the design guidelines encourages additions to be integrated into the existing house, the design does not belong; design driven by least disruption, agrees with porte cochere, can support side setback variance; addition has no reference to the existing house, the purpose of special permit for design review was to allow for architectural character and style, the requested exception is not for architectural character; applicant noted that the proposed roof compliments the existing roof, creates a shadow, this is a stock house built in the 1930's. Further Discussion: Commissioner noted that all windows need to be consistent type, can work over the existing house without removing all walls and ceilings; concerned with compatibility of structure, thumbnail sketch looks good but plans lack detail, porte cochere almost appears to be a garage, creates a dark area, battered walls okay; appears that one building has two characters. Applicant commented that if the design review comments are of the existing house, there is little than can be done to respond. Commissioner noted that the project needs to change substantially, can withdraw the project if can=t change substantially. Applicant noted that from the comments it seems like the project needs to go back to the drawing board, primary concern seems to be addition over the driveway, goal is to live in the house during construction, may consider withdrawing the project, asked if fees will be refunded if project changes dramatically. City Planner noted that the unused fees would be refunded, but that the applicant could apply the paid fees to the revised project and return back as a design review study item; Commissioner asked if the existing house will be required to be updated and could the addition be built off those improvements, asked if project can return to design review study, yes. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Luzuriaga moved to refer this item to a design reviewer with the direction that: the proposed addition should be integrated into the existing house better, since the proposed project appears to have two houses joined by a single wall on one lot, the addition doesn’t appear to belong to the house, all windows need to be consistent, project needs to be changed substantially. This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 112 CRESCENT AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (BO THORENFELDT, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT; ERIKO STAUBER, SINCLAIR ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) Planner Hurin briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Andy Romandus, project architect, represented the project and explained the reasons for demolishing the existing house. The lot has a peculiar shape to it, decided it was better to have a driveway on the south end which resulted in a significant modification to the existing house, location of proposed driveway and detached garage had a big impact on the floor plan of the existing house, therefore decided to build a new house, found if difficult to add a second floor and architectural details on the existing house, the new design encourages permanent improvements so not fixing details in the future; Commissioner asked what type of brick veneer will be used on the facade. Applicant noted that actual brick will be used. Commissioner asked the applicant if the dormer at the rear of the house extends above the main roof ridge; yes; would applicant consider lowering the dormer below the main roof ridge. Applicant noted that he would study the suggestion, there is not a lot of head City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2000 Minutes -8- clearance on the second floor, using attic space. Commissioner noted that older houses in this neighborhood have simpler roof forms, concerned about this bump; Commissioner noted that there are two bumps which are symmetrical, dormer doesn’t bother him, this house has a lower second floor plate and still provides volume, nice house and architectural characteristics, retains the Burlingame charm; concerned with the 4' x 8' tall front door, door appears in scale with the building but there is nothing like it=s size in the neighborhood. Project mitigates second floor by lowering the ceiling heights, large scale evergreen trees should be integrated to soften the vertical edges and size of house; this, given the information included, is an excellent example of a good design review submittal to show to other applicants, plans show window detail and the way the skin of the building is going to be built, would be nice to make these plans available at City Hall for other applicants to see, is there a way to post these plans at the public library, open longer hours. City Attorney noted that the AIA association would not allow plans to be posted at the library. Daniel March, 1569 Newlands Avenue, spoke in favor of the project, this is a good project, existing house is built on slab and does not comply with the character of the neighborhood, his front door is 42" x 6'-8", would like to see overgrown grass and weeds trimmed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Luzuriaga made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for action at their June 26, 2000, action meeting. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: the roof is fine, suggest applicant study the door size. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar at their June 26, 2000 action meeting. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:12 p.m. 1225 CABRILLO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JAMES C. AND MICHELLE FOWLER, PROPERTY OWNERS; GUSTAVO KUBICHEK, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT) Planner Hurin briefly presented the staff report. Commissioner commented that the proposed addition is at the maximum allowed floor area ratio which is ok, but the garage is substandard, if in the future a garage needs to be built to code, the property owner will have to apply for a variance and it will exceed the FAR allowed and will require a variance and would like to direct staff to implement a policy which would deduct the maximum allowed floor ar ea from the house to accommodate construction of a conforming garage in the future, do not want applicants to take advantage of a nonconforming garage to make the house bigger, in this case it would be 23 SF. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Gustavo Kubichek, applicant, represented the project, noted that when the property owners bought the house they wanted to expand, this neighborhood is orientated for family living, need room for growing family, discussed the parking situation with the owners, parking is necessary, single-car garage is required, property has a long driveway which can accommodate several cars parked tandem, can address garage remodel later, the design respected all setbacks on first and second floor, owners need four bedrooms, one guestroom downstairs, three bedrooms upstairs for family. Commission noted that the concern was not with the inside of the house but with the exterior and asked the applicant to discuss the exterior. Applicant noted that he tried to minimize number of windows on side elevations to reduce impact on neighbors. Commissioner asked what the proposed plate height is, not shown on drawing. Applicant noted 9' plate height on first floor. Commissioner noted on Sheet A-5 East Elevation, first floor elevation is 2'-5" and second floor elevation is 12'-10", but applicant noted that the first floor has a 9' plate height, asked applicant to explain difference. Applicant noted that there is a 2 x 4 joist and existing rafters, will be removed where second floor is added. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2000 Minutes -9- Further Discussion: Commissioner noted that he has no major problem with the size of the house, but should reduce size of house by 23 SF to leave room for future garage expansion; rear deck is large and high off the ground, appears to be an observation deck, creates an opportunity for parties and will overlook into neighbors = yards, a smaller deck would encourage less social use. Applicant noted that the deck is off the master bedroom and didn=t think it would get much social use. Commissioner noted that on the right side elevation, the roof configuration over the protrusion to the left of the porch is shown three different ways; North Elevation shows that it is a gable end, East Elevation indicates that it is a gable roof, South Elevations indicates a different type roof, applicant should clarify drawings so that all elevations are consistent; concerned with tall windows for stairway on the West Elevation, these windows do not fit with the style of the house, addition needs to contain same architecture and window style as existing house, also concerned with windows on either side of the chimney; second floor is a big box, need to break up mass on East Elevation with articulation and protrusions to give it more character; upper floor roof needs to match existing; suggest incorporating existing barge rafters, extend detail of existing house, each facade needs to be articulated, there are a lot of ways to break up the mass; windows need to be consistent all the way around; what material will be us ed on chimney. Applicant noted stucco to match rest of house; commission noted building height is unnecessary, plate height typically 8'-6", applicant is removing so many walls, could set second floor on existing plate, don’t want second floor get too tall. Applicant noted that part of the existing foundation will be reinforced, can’t use all of it. Need to reduce height of building, suggest integrating existing outriggers and other existing elements into the addition, emphasize use of eaves, this is important to the visual character, lost the charm of the existing house with the addition, suggest changing the chimney material to brick or other material, change spark arrestor, Burlingame is rich in architecture history, suggest walking around the neighborhood, there are many good examples of how to deal with these concerns, sometimes the solution is to look at the interior spaces, suggest looking at size of interior spaces and make some of them smaller. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to refer this item to a design review consultant with the direction that: applicant should reduce size of house to leave room for future garage expansion, size of rear second floor deck should be reduced, applicant should clarify drawings so that all elevations and roof plan are consistent regarding roof configurations; tall windows for stairway and windows adjacent to the chimney on the West Elevation do not fit with the style of the house and should be changed, addition needs to contain the same architecture and window style as existing house, second floor is a big box, need to break up mass on East Elevation with articulation and protrusions to give it more character, upper floor roof needs to match existing, suggest incorporating existing barge rafters, extend detail of existing house, each facade needs to be articulated, need to reduce height of building, suggest integrating existing outriggers and other elements into the addition, emphasize use of eaves, suggest changing the chimney material to brick or other material, change spark arrestor, suggest walking around the neighborhood, there are many good examples on how to deal with these concerns, suggest reevaluating the size of interior spaces to make exterior design work better. This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. 1355 DRAKE AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (LUIS A. ROBLES, ARCHITECT; JOHN VIGIL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commission noted like another item on this agenda this house has a 380 SF one car garage and a maximum FAR, so in the future a variance for FAR would be necessary to replace the garage with a two car garage. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 12, 2000 Minutes -10- Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment and review. Luis Robles the architect and John Vigil, the property owner, represented the project. Commission expressed the concern that the drawings are hard to understand, floors need floor elevations and ceiling heights, are the windows on the east elevation new, concerned about head room at some locations. Applicant noted that some of these are existing conditions. Commission noted that these may be conditions existing now but they do not meet the CBC and will be required to be made compliant with CBC when the house is remodeled, need accurate elevations to tell what is going on; show the ceiling line on the second floor east elevation. There is a problem with the windows, those on the plan do not look like the existing, different type and different size; what is the true size, type and trim of each window; in some cases it looks as if emergency egress is not met by the window shown; on the south elevation there is a large expanse of wall without windows, ne ed to add windows so it looks as if people live there; the new entry way door is large, if you leave it as it is you need to show the arched head; the fire place vent looks odd, can it be redesigned to look as if it belongs. On the east or front elevation there is one gable end at the porch and one at the living room, the top one does not work with the window, and there are two big areas on the side without windows, need to create some interest on the second floor. Can you make the asphalt shingles and wood plank siding look different on the drawings; need something on the front to make the house look more interesting and contribute to the block. Overall design results in mass, one way to add a second story is to rotate one gable 90 degrees to create the second story, avoid two story window stack at the ridge, existing roof slope is 6:12, the new proposed is 5:12, they should be made to match and this could be a justification for a special permit, would look better. Applicant asked about the timing of the process from this point, commission reviewed timing briefly and referred the applicant to staff. Applicant noted that because of termite damage they are without a second bathroom, wife is ill and wants to get on with project. C. Bojués moved to send this item to design reviewer. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion. The best way to expedite this project is too look at the design review guidelines and follow them closely. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) motion. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. PLANNER REPORTS -Review of City Council regular meeting of June 5, 2000, and the Study Meeting of June 7, 2000. CP Monroe reviewed the council actions. Commissioners noted that there was a need to move forward on commercial design review and asked the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee to proceed. The issue of parking requirements for commercial uses also came up. Staff was directed to put together a list and the status of current items under study by the commission for review at the next meeting. CP was asked to put on the agenda for discussion the policy issue of setting aside FAR for two covered parking spaces when a property wants to remodel to maximize FAR with a nonconforming or one car garage. -Noise Levels in R-1 Districts Commission acknowledged receiving this letter from Jennifer Pfaff. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. MINUTES6.12