Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2000.06.26 -1- MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 26, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the June 26, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Janice Jagelski; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher. MINUTES The minutes of the June 12, 2000 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was changed: item 3a, the address was corrected from 304 Lorton Avenue to 340 Lorton Avenue and the item was moved to the July 10, 2000, agenda and item 3b, 340 Lorton Avenue, Suite 203, was withdrawn. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS 1390 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 - PRELIMINARY REVIEW AND DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING GAS STATION AND CAR WASH AND NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GAS STATION, MINI-MART (RETAIL) AND CAR WASH. (TIMOTHY BOE AND CAROLYNE CHALLICE, ARC INC., APPLICANTS; EQUIVA SERVICES, LLC, OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The commissioners asked: this request represents a dramatic change in the intent of the General Plan and its implementing zoning for this area, it is one of 16 items tonight and the commission does not have adequate time to fully consider it; would prefer to address this when have had time to examine the General Plan; don=t want to rush into land use decisions on the bayfront, do need to find a way to diversify the uses in the area so it can be more complete as a Aneighborhood@; agree, but the applicant has the right to apply if he wishes; Planning Commission has discussed looking at the General Plan, the applicant does not want to waste time; staff should give the applicant some time line for when the commission will review the General Plan; think it is a premature request. CA noted that the applicant can apply for an amendment to the General Plan any time he wants, he makes that decision; he can keep the nonconforming situation and do what he can or wait to see what the city does. Commission noted that the applicant should be aware that there is a concern that the east side have more diversity and that the nature City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -2- of the street and place become more pedestrian friendly with more pedestrian amenities offered by this and other sites; if this there is a convenience store, for example, it needs to reference the street and be designed for those other than those driving cars to use. The discussion ended at 7:20 p.m. 1550 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP TO CREATE TWO LOTS (MICHAEL PIETRO, PIETRO PARTNERS, APPLICANT; CHRISTOPHER VEITCH, BAYSHORE HOLDINGS, PROPERTY OWNER). CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: is this item related to the design review item on this same agenda, yes; there seem to be a lot of encumbrances on this lot, for example easements for utilities, is this typical; what does the Specific Area Plan have to say about dividing lots in this area; how would the rules of zoning and SAP apply if this lot were not divided. No action is required on this item tonight. 304 LORTON AVENUE #203 - ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING PHYSIOTHERAPY OFFICE (GINA LAROCCCA, APPLICANT; DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER) This item was continued to the Commission meeting on July 10, 2000. The study portion of the meeting ended at 7:25 p.m. 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 the item at 340 Lorton has been withdrawn. Also there is a letter to the Commission received after the packet was prepared from John DeMarco, 1805 Castenada Drive regarding the item at 1805 Loyola Drive. 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). (34 NOTICED) CONTINUED AT APPLICANT=S REQUEST 112 CRESCENT AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE(BO THORENFELDT, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT; VITAS VISKANTA, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT). (59 NOTICED) 1805 LOYOLA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE (BRIAN AND CINDY CHIANG, PROPERTY OWNERS; PETER LAM, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT) C. Keighran moved to approve the consent calendar as amended. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: the letter from the DeMarco=s regarding 1805 Loyola Drive addressed drainage issues, the Planning Commission is reviewing this item at this time for view blockage, Public Works addresses drainage issues. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -3- Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the consent calendar as amended. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. REGULAR CALENDAR 735 ACACIA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AT STUDY MEETING ON MAY 22, 2000) (BETH AND KEITH TAYLOR, OWNER; BETH TAYLOR, APPLICANT; ACHILLES RODIGHIERO, DESIGNER) Reference staff report 6.26.00 with attachments Planner Jagelski presented staff report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment: applicant, Achilles Rodighiero, designer, and owner, Beth Taylor, introduced the project and described how it was revised following the commission=s direction at the May 22, 2000, study meeting. They have made substantial changes to the original proposal which have improved the design. Height is approximately 2'-0" over limit as measured from street, but on site, adjacent to grade, height is under 30'-0". Also, new design causes encroachment into declining height envelope. Height extension into declining height envelope is unavoidable, but design reviewer endorsed design. Chairman Luzuriaga asked if the Commission had any questions of the applicant. Commission asked applicant to clarify need for special permit for extension into declining height envelope. Looks like DHE line not drawn correctly, and intersecting line passes through unoccupied gable top, which does not require DHE special permit. Also, front elevation looks nicer and relates better in mass and bulk to the adjacent 2-story house to the south of this site. But the protruding, cantilevered second floor on the front looks awkward; looks off-center, crowds rest of elevation and doesn=t seem to belong. Maybe cantilever can be made smaller? Or lower cantilever and center window over lower window. Commission asked why windows in rear had mullions, while other windows on sides and front did not. Beth Taylor, owner, explained that they had remodeled the rear of the house a few years previously and installed french doors, wanted the rear consistent because they use the backyard a lot but do not wish to carry this treatment around on other elevations. The existing bungalow has simple, refined appearance and don=t want to change this with mullioned windows. Commissioned asked whether windows will have stucco mold detail. Designer confirmed that stucco mold will be used. Commission asked whether landscaping was correctly shown on plans. Owner stated that Design Reviewer noted in her summary that existing landscaping and large hedges were adequate. Owner stated that some of these issues now being discussed were not raised at the study meeting, and she would be concerned if project was not approved because of these new issues. There were no further questions of the applicant or comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: Proportion of projection in front could better to balance the front facade. Mullions okay, not concerned if rear elevation different than sides and front cannot see, but emphasize the need to use stucco mold on other windows. Chimney needs to be taller to meet code and function properly. Don=t like flat roof on left side projection, can this be fixed? Applicant has followed most of direction from study meeting. Like the mullions on rear windows and would like them carried throughout house if applicant likes them. Landscape has been clarified. C. Keighran moved to approve project by resolution with the three recommendations made by commission: to use stucco mold on window trim, to bring the chimney to code, and that no existing landscaping be removed and the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 19, 2000. Sheets A-1, A-3 and A-4; 2) that the project shall be constructed as City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -4- presented in the plans and conditioned and approved by the Planning Commission and that any changes to height, roof style, use of stucco mold around windows, placement of windows or dormers may be subject to review by the Planning commission; 3) that the applicant shall not remove any existing landscaping to construct the addition; 4) that the flat roof over the exterior rear stairs be revised; 5) that the applicant shall comply with the requirements of the memo from the Department of Public Works, dated April 17, 2000; and 6) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Discussion on the motion: Commission concerned that redesign does not follow intent of guidebook and that this still looks massive and bulky like a two-story box. Not many gestures to reduce impacts on neighbors. Height exception should be for architectural merit, where this has 6:12 pitch roof which does not accomplish this need. Can=t support project because design review intent is not met - this is a massive house on top of a charming Burlingame bungalow. Different perspective is that this house is narrow and the addition and resulting house will not be too big. The mass has been broken with better articulation, but would recommend that the applicant resolve the nature of the open stairway on the rear elevation; with better treatment he can support project. With respect to landscaping, larger scale landscape trees would have better scale with house than existing 10'-0" tall shrubs. Narrow evergreens would soften the house. Applicant has made significant progress. It=s Planning Commission=s duty to provide specific direction to applicant at study stage. Applicant has responded to commission=s issues. There were no further comments and Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote. The motion passed 6-1 (C. Dreiling dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 7:50 p.m. 1701 BROADWAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FENCE EXCEPTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK AND WITHIN 15'-0" OF THE EXTERNAL CORNER OF THE LOT (JENNIFER MARTIN, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT; JD AND ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER). CONTINUED FROM JUNE 12, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and stepped down from the dais. Reference staff report, 6.26.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that the revised plans date stamped June 20, 2000, show the fence setback 15 feet along the property line from the property line corner at Broadway and Cortez, so the exception for encroaching into the required sight line setback on this corner lot is no longer required. The staff report was prepared before the last minute plan revision was submitted so this change is not reflected. Commission asked where a maximum 3 foot high fence was required, CP noted in the area extending 15 feet along the property line from the property corner at Broadway and Cortez. There were no other questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. John Martin the property owner represented the project. He noted that they would like to add additional lattice to the fence on the Cortez side which increases the height to 6 feet, because this is a corner lot, this area which is the front yard serves as their only useable outdoor area i.e. their rear yard; he did not prepare the diagram for the encroachment permit, he understands that tonight=s plans will have to go back to City Council for an amendment to the encroachment permit. Wanted it to be clear that they were adding 14 inches of breaking lattice work to the top of a solid board fence to achieve the 6 foot height. Commissioner asked if there were any plantings in front of the fence between the sidewalk and the fence, applicant noted that there is a low box wood hedge on the Broadway side. Jennifer Martin, property owner, noted that boxwood would not survive in the shade on City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -5- the Cortez side and she would plant flowers and vines. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that the 12" increase in fence height in the front setback is not that much, was concerned about the encroachment into the required sight line setback at the corner and it is imperative that the area be kept clear; this is the only useable outdoor space on this particular lot, as a result, the front yard is used as a rear yard; this is an extraordinary house and this fence compliments it like an ornament. C. Keighran noted that her main concern was maintaining the 15 foot setback along the property lines to protect sight lines at the corner, this has been addressed, the use of the front yard as the only open space for the family justifies the 6 foot fence in the front setback, plenty of landscaping will be provided on the corner and sides in front of the fence to soften the streetscape, so for these and the other reasons cited she would move approval of the fence exception for height 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 15, 2000, and proposed fence elevations along Broadway and Cortez Avenue, date stamped June 19, 2000; 2) that the applicant shall apply for an amendment to the special encroachment permit and shall commence construction of the fence only if the special encroachment permit amendment is granted by the City Council; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to grant a fence height exception in the front setback. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures were noted. This item was concluded at 8:07 p.m. C. Deal resumed his seat on the dais. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 1600 CARMELITA AVENUE - ZONED - R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE (MAHMET YUKSEL, OWNER; RICHARD FOUST, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT) Staff planner Jagelski presented the staff report. Commission asked staff to clarify if the basement met the egress requirements. City Planner Monroe responded that staff will confirm whether appropriate requirements from Building and Fire have been met. There were no further questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Applicant/architect, Richard Foust represented the project and responded to question and stated that the current plans include two methods of egress from basement, with exterior stairs located between house and garage. Stated that owner originally wanted to remodel and add to the existing structure, but structural engineer determined that extent of reinforcement work required would merit a new structure. Looked at existing styles of houses in neighborhood to draw design influences. Owner has a growing family and needs more space. Basement gives ability to provide family room, storage and wine cellar without increasing appearance of house. Commission noted that they have great concern regarding the design of the project and that it=s a complete departure from the existing house. Project should draw on design of the original bungalow house. This new house is large and bulky, uses foam trim elements, concrete tile and heavy porch balustrades. How did this new project get on this path? Applicant responded that the tiles are mission concrete tiles and will have look of crafted materials. Many houses in this neighborhood have similar concrete tile roofs. Design includes various levels of roof lines and house is not just a box. Heights of ceilings have been broken up. Perhaps balustrades look heavy, but lighter version can be used. Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -6- further stated that there are major concerns about this design. It does not fit with surrounding houses and has a sense of grandiosity. Other houses on corner lots are heavily landscaped, whereas this house is not. Need to understand whether basement will be used for bedroom. Basement is innovative method of add space, but concerned that exterior exit could be used as private entrance and downstairs could become living quarters. There are windows, full bathroom and area that can be converted to bedroom. Suggest eliminating rear exit, windows and full bath; half bath okay. Elevations drawn are very sketchy; want to see consistency in elevations and house blend with neighborhood. Commission continued: this house has look and feel of the other houses in Burlingame that became the primary reason for adopting design review; there is some embellishment on the front, there is some play in the ceiling height, but the language is of an over-all boxy, 2-story house; it fails in the design review categories of being bulky, massive, and out of scale; the living room window is too large, columns on porch are too massive, does not have a human scale, double doors are beyond scale; scale problem can be seen when the garage door looks small. Basement is large enough that area of a typical residence could fit within it. Elevations show difference in level of detail. Sides exhibit too much bulk and mass, and front is too heavily adorned. A Spanish style house should manage scale of tile and have finesse; the rake detail needs attention. Commission expressed concern that downstairs bath should be reduced to 2 bath. Look at architecture in immediate neighborhood, not at mistakes of recent past (before design review), and use these examples for design inspiration; need to read design guidelines; basements are okay, but need to add condition that it can=t be used for sleeping room. Further Commission comment: this project is so far off, that rather than sending it to a design reviewer, recommend that you start over and bring a new design back to preliminary design review study. The problem is not the square footage and size of the project; it=s the bulk and mass of the style. Lynne Higgs, 1640 Carmelita Avenue, stated that she would like to thank Planning Commission for their well thought out comments. This design is not in keeping with the area. The corner lot especially sets the tone for both the blocks Carmelita and Balboa. Question whether the uncovered parking space provides adequate area for an off-street parking space. There is a parking problem in the area. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Luzuriaga made a motion to require this project to be redesigned following the direction provided and then return to Planning Commission for another preliminary design review study. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. There was no further discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to have project start over with a new design to return for another preliminary design review study. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0. The Planning Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 1204 PALM DRIVE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE. (GEORGE PLAVIJIAN, OWNER, MATTHEW BOLAK, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT) Planner Jagelski briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. George Plavjian, owner, and Matthew Bolak, applicant and designer, represented the project. Mr. Plavjian wanted to publicly apologize for the state of disrepair the house has been in for over the past year. Even if it looked like nothing was being done, he was working on the plans and finally hired a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -7- designer to help with the project. With ill-health of a family member, it has taken longer than expected to get this far. Would like to still consider this project as an >addition= and keep the existing variances granted for lot coverage and setbacks between buildings. The lot is very small (4200 SF) and they have worked hard to pull the mass of the new residence back from the front of the lot. Some lot coverage will be removed resulting in less lot coverage than existing, and they will now finally have a small rear yard. Now proposing ASpanish eclectic style, and have carefully researched and studied neighborhood. The project meets the other zoning standards and DHE; the extra lot coverage is only 73 SF and it is needed to create a decent sized house with a first floor bedroom. Needed for family member. Other houses along this block have shallow front setbacks. Trying to create a similar architectural effect on the garage with the new facade with parapet roof. Commissioners discussed the proposed residence. Commission complimented the designer and noted that his studies have paid off and house is nicely designed. Understand that the existing house has a substandard front setback. But lot coverage and FAR variances are almost never granted. Don=t like to provide an unfair advantage of additional square footage over neighbor=s houses; applicant noted a lot coverage variance was granted in >86, and this is actually less lot coverage than previously approved. Commission noted that this is a nice execution of Spanish style. It=s also a big house. Excessive to ask for an FAR variance with such a big house and a full basement; would also consider this house a new house, not an addition, which should further enforce need to meet FAR limits, this is a new house, no justification for all the requested variances. Basement has height of 7'-6", habitable ceiling height but use is not specified. How can the existing walls be saved with the extent of excavation required to construct a basement? New construction is easier. Why does the garage need a 14'-0" plate height? How does this harmonize with the house? Will more work be done to the garage? If only 75 SF over on lot coverage, why can=t you redesign? Can garage plate height be lowered? Commission further noted that front elevation looks good with only one set of prominent windows, but three windows look crowded together. Can this be modified to one rounded top window with two rectangular windows on sides? What type of molding around windows? Applicant stated that window molding would be type of material that looks like wood, but will not rot; they have a serious dry-rot problem. Commission noted that they would prefer a thinner stucco mold around windows. Scale of entry is too big with wide stairs and double doors and no covering; it is not uncommon to see one wide single-door on a Spanish style house; 2-car garage would be appropriate for size of this house, need to build a new 2-car garage. Chairman Luzuriaga asked if there were any further questions or comments. Owner stated that he appreciated the Commission=s understanding of the need to have a downstairs bedroom. Again, apologized for condition of house and length of time its taken to complete project. Request approval to keep existing one-car garage; maybe the garage facade can be redesigned, garage provides room for storage and tools; two car garage is too big for yard and don=t want to construct house with attached two-car garage. Chairman Luzuriaga asked whether any members of public wished to speak. Ellen Hunter, 810 Crossway, stated that she has a hard time with process. Disappointed that it=s a big house and doe not fit in with the neighborhood. There are very few mini-mansions in this area, this house doesn=t fit. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to send this item to a design reviewer with the commission=s comments and direction. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -8- Discussion on motion: basement will require total excavation, for that reason this cannot be considered an addition or remodel, it is a new house. No variances for 3'-6" separation between garage and house, no lot coverage or FAR or front setback variances are supportable. Concerned about the consistency of the design of this house with neighborhood, need to reduce scale of entry stairs and door, use fine stucco molding around windows, one-car detached garage okay, solve plate height issue. The motion passed on a voice vote 7- 0-0. The Planning Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. 1420 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (TODD AND CHRISTINE DOW, OWNERS; MARK THOMAS, HOOD THOMAS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report with staff comments attached. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Mark Thomas, architect 440 Spear Street, San Francisco, represented the project. This is a new two story, 3400 SF house designed for the owners with consideration of the architectural design and detail of the neighborhood, as well as the architecture in the city as whole. Commissioners asked: what treatment do you intend for the post in the porch at the rear, what about gutter detail and roof, have you considered dressing these up. Applicant noted no special treatment is intended, it could use a carved post with scale and detail the match the wood lentils. Rafter extensions are not shown in all the elevations; applicant noted drawing are not completed, applicant noted the rhythm is not the same on all elevations but they work on each element. Could add another window on the second floor at the front in the front bedroom; not enough room between the flashing of the roof over the living room and the plate height; could it be made smaller, applicant is not interested. The front of the structure has a closed feeling: number of planes without openings, applicant noted can provide something as an option. Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal, spoke noting that the letter she submitted referred to the second project on this street in the packet 1441Bernal. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Keighran noted used the design guidelines to advantage, simple but elegant touch in design, concerned about the entry not being pedestrian friendly. She then made a motion to place the project at 1420 Bernal on the consent calendar at the next meeting with the direction that the front of the house be modified as directed by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. On the motion: See this project in the opposite, do not feel it is in scale with the neighborhood, the front window is bigger than the garage door, it has a 10 foot plate and a large entry, there is nothing like this in the neighborhood except those houses recently built which have more embellishment, this looks as if it would be appropriate on Easton, cannot support the motion. Missed the garage door, scale with itself looks good , agree the 9 foot plate on the first floor actually 10 feet from ground and the 12 foot plate on the second floor are a wake up; differ on the window, my house has big windows at the front and a porch on the side and it works well; there are large houses across the street, good submittal, restrained not too much embellishment, could be more open to the street, drawings are clear, can support it as it is; feel it is compatible, could use shrubs to soften and its a good thing to remove the Acacia at the rear. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to refer this item to the consent calendar. The motion passed on a 4-3 (Cers. Deal , Dreiling, Bojués dissenting) vote. The commission=s action is advisory and is not subject to appeal. The item ended at 9:30 p.m City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -9- Chairman Luzuriaga announces that the commission would take a brief break. The meeting was reconvened at 9:50 p.m. 1441 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. (LINDA FRYE, OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. Noted letter from Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal, commenting on proposed project, date stamped June 23, 2000. There were no questions about the project from the Commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, designer, 135 Arroyo Court, represented the project. He noted that this project is an almost exact copy of the project at 526 Marin which the commission approved. It has an attached garage, the new owner is a single woman and wants an attached garage because she feels safer. Commissioner noted the garage is a problem, it detracts from the neighborhood character, good proportion and window trim; this neighborhood is safe, do not feel that safety is an issue. Initially felt Ano way@ but looked around neighborhood and there are a few houses with attached garages at the rear, like the design it flows well, the way the garages are set works well with the design, the first garage is setback 27 feet the second 30 feet, in this case the garage blends in. Agree, although the predominant pattern is detached garages, but some variation is positive and if this one is attached at the front it will be a way to see how this works after it is built. What landscaping and tree planting are you planning. Designer noted plans do not address backyard and there will be no change, the front yard will be lawn. Suggest larger scale shrubs at the front. Many cities have regulations which require staggered garage doors when they are at the front of the house, in this case it would look better without the extra off set, the lumps call attention to the garages. Speaking on the project were; Mary Packard 1445 Bernal; Mary Napp, 1452 Bernal Avenue; Victor Pucktran, 1436 Bernal; asked what to do about the fact that the plans show the neighbor=s property line running down the middle of the wall which her survey shows is wholly on her property. CE noted that before the applicant submits plans for a building permit he must survey the property and set the property corners which will define the lot. Commissioner noted that if his survey does not correspond to hers, she built the fence in good faith. CE noted that this would be a private survey and the city does not approve them or participate in them, they are done by licensed engineers for that reason; conflicts between surveys are usually resolved by arbitration or litigation and tend to be very technical. He suggested that the neighbor submit a copy of her survey to the Planning Department. Ms. Packard also asked that the commission preserve the space between her home and the new one; expressed concern about the investment she had made in landscaping along the wall which would not survive with the shade created by the new building, the bedroom windows of the new house face her kitchen; if the house is to be occupied by a single woman why does she need two garages, the garage should be attached at the rear to provide a driveway to separate their two properties and increase privacy. Lot of residents here from Bernal, this is one story being replaced by 3000 SF, this is a monster house, will start a citizen committee to push for a moratorium on such houses; if the Planning Commission cannot keep their neighborhood in tact then they will; remodel does not mean remove all the house except one wall; would like to keep it with the same facade as before, would like a garage at the rear. Commissioner noted that the commissioners valued her comments more than she realizes, hope she is not here because of something that happened two years ago, because two years ago did not have design review, design guidelines show detached garages at the rear so houses will not extend across a property from side setback to side setback line. Lived in neighborhood 13 years, want the remodel to keep the present style; the garage in the front will detract from the neighborhood, did a remodel himself with at detached garage; need a good review of vegetation, should plant all around the house. There were no further comments from the floor and the comment period was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -10- Commissioner comment: biggest concern is the garage which projects out 11 feet to the front, prefer a detached garage or attached at the rear where it is less prominent. Agree, neighborhood deserves a detached garage to increase privacy and setback; house has a small entry with lots of garage; the flat roof at the top makes it look as if the roof is not resolved, can ask for a special permit for height to address such a problem; first floor plate should be reduced from 10 to 9 feet; on the south elevation the gable projection with window accentuates the height, should be revised; the rear deck is too large, 13' x 13', high above neighbors place for people to congregate, should be reduced to 3' x 5' so cannot be used for gatherings; mature vegetation on the left side should be preserved and the trees at the rear protected during construction and after. In this area need a two car garage, no on street parking, need extra space; design is nice, agree that flat roof needs to be completed and special permit would be appropriate; balcony should be removed; these are small lots so the issue of the visual access from the kitchen on one property to the bedrooms on the other should be addressed with window coverings and good judgement among people; important to protect mature landscaping, need to add landscaping along the sides to break up the side wall of the house. C. Dreiling noted with this design a detached garage would also allow the front porch to be extended; the attached garage is all right but the pattern in the neighborhood is detached, move to refer this item to the design reviewer with the comments made by the commission for the reviewer to work with the applicant to reach a reasonable conclusion. Motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comments on the motion: design should consider the next door neighbor in placement of windows, absolutely there should be a detached garage; if one is to have an attached garage this is the way to do it, but the public testimony is clear to call for a detached garage; privacy is a balance between eliminating blank walls and the placement of windows. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to refer this item to the design reviewer. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Keighran dissenting) vote. The CA noted that the applicant should try to resolve the property line issue with the neighbor without doing a separate land survey. The action of the commission is advisory and the item is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:25 p.m. 1548 RALSTON AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (JEREMY AND WENDY VERBA, OWNERS; IQBAL A. SERANG, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Iqbal Serang IAS Designs, Palo Alto, represented the project, noting he understood that there would be no decision tonight; is deferred from last meeting, if possible would like comments to address so that can continue with Building permit as soon as possible, rains are coming. Commissioner asked plans show a storage area with low ceiling but two dormers and gable end window, is this going to be used for something else. Designer noted that in 1985 a second story was added to this one story house without raising the roof, the building is 23.5 feet tall, the dormers were added then to maximize the useable square footage, the area has a 7'-6" ceiling at the peak, the owners need storage area and will use it for that. Commissioner asked on the left side the area between the dormers is filled in to create a shed dormer, this area needs some fenestration to break up the long, blank wall, this left hand side shed looks out of character with rest of house; windows on two dormers and end window on second story area are out of scale, one above the entrance is Okay but others are too big. Designer noted that owners want as much light as possible because the space is small, the windows are similar to those existing on the first floor. East elevation has a large dormer; Designer noted this is 6' x 6' similar to second story windows. Commissioner noted building has three fronts, nicely proportioned with the arched windows in the field of wall, the new windows however are in too small a field; problem when fill in between dormers achieve a box, the dormer over the front porch is almost too small; could pull the wall back so you have series of dormers on the north and south elevation, the storage room can be used City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -11- as a bedroom despite the low ceiling. Designer noted second floor has only 4 feet of addition, on the windows privacy is an issue on north side, client wants an extra bathroom so put the dormer on the other side, attempted not to deviate too much from the existing character, would like this to be reviewed at staff level so can proceed with project. Commissioner noted this won=t be reviewed at staff level, no provision for that in Burlingame, the choices are referral to a design reviewer or to the consent calendar. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Dreiling moved to refer this project to a design reviewer based on the comments made by the commission. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: additional concern regarding the declining height exception, recommend look at a symmetrical solution with the dormer on the front of the house; the storage room includes a closet and windows, should it be counted as a bedroom, staff should review this; the dormers and windows provide a lot of light into the storage area suggesting another use; can support the declining height exception. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. 1341 CABRILLO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWAND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A WINDOW WITHIN 10'-0" OF A REAR PROPERTY LINE IN THE DETACHED GARAGE (RON GROVE, OWNER; JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) Planner Jagelski presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer and applicant, represented the project. There were no questions of the applicant. From the floor, Frank Low, 1333 Cabrillo Avenue, Joan Cleary, 1337 Cabrillo Avenue stated that this is a nice house, however, it will be the tallest on the block. There are 16 two-story houses in the neighborhood, and he lives in one of them that is only 25'-0" tall. This house will be located across the street from a one-story house. House will rise more than 5'-0" above other houses and be very prominent. Can it be reduced in height; agrees that height too tall; setbacks, roof slope, detached garage, nice design, but height and profile are a concern. Commission asked applicant if he had considered reducing slope to less than 12:12 pitch. Applicant stated no, but this would be hard to do because it would impact ceiling heights and room sizes because he was using a low plate line. It would be very hard to reduce pitch but could cut height off the top. Commissioner noted this is a good example of use of height exception; second story plate heights have been broken up to reduce mass and scale of house; 6'-1" plate heights used at second floor to reduce apparent height; little pyramid center of roof pokes up at maximum height, but not the entire roof line; this design resolves the height of the roof without house appearing to be prominent; wish this house had more presence at front entry. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -12- C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on be placed on the consent calendar. Understands neighbor=s concerns over roof pitch and height, but if you flatten it out, it would detract from design of house. Motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Discussion on the motion: landscape plan can be modified to emphasize entrance; porch could be made more prominent. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7- 0-0 . The Planning Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m. 1470 ALVARADO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REMOVE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND UNMERGE TWO SUBSTANDARD LOTS, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR TWO NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCES. (MICHAEL MORAN AND JOYCE MARTIN, ET AL, OWNERS, JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) Planner Jagelski briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer and applicant, represented the project. He stated that he discussed project and landscaping with neighbor on Alvarado to the left of the project. He stated that they will not remove any trees in the rear of both properties. Commissioners discussed the proposed project for two new houses and stated that they are well designed, but the one- car garages are tight and leave no additional room for property owners to store work benches or equipment. Could possibly use crawl space as basement area for 10' x 10' work room. Entrance ways too high, should be reduced in height. Commission noted that because of steepness of both lots 20% - 22% slope, too steep for detached garages. Houses have only 3-bedrooms, therefore one-car garages are okay. Regarding house AA@, the left (west) elevation needs additional windows in blank area adjacent to chimney. That elevation has a long, blank wall and could use additional detail or trim. Bruce Gibney, representing parents at 1473 Alvarado Avenue, spoke against proposed project. Narrow homes result on narrow lots, won=t fit into neighborhood. Alvarado is very congested and one-car garages do not provide enough off- street parking; views from across street will be affected. City Attorney Anderson stated that this is not an application for subdivision and that two lots legally exist under the existing residence; these lots will be freed for development after existing house is demolished. Doug Martin, 1475 Benito Avenue, stated that trees on lots need to remain, they provide shade and privacy for neighbors on Benito. Save the trees within the rear 16'-0" of the property. Robin Hurwitz, 1473 Benito Avenue, area will be too urban if trees on lot are removed. Don=t want to see two new large structures uphill from home. Existing garden is geared for shade from trees on 1470 Alvarado. Mark Grandcolas, 1432 Alvarado, spoke against subdivision, this property is too small to subdivide. CA Anderson informed neighbor that property is already legally subdivided. Existing parcels do not meet current standards for configuration, therefore use permit is required to review proposed development. Owners have vested right to develop these lots according to current development standards. C. Luzuriaga stated that his house is located adjacent to two new homes being developed under similar circumstances. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -13- Commission discussion: Before design review was adopted, there would have been two Mediterranean homes with attached two-car garages developed on this site. These houses look like they belong in Burlingame, rather than a tract in Phoenix. Designs are nice; lots are short in width, but longer than average lots. The existing trees emphasize the importance of good landscaping. By adding two windows adjacent to the fireplace on Lot A, the project will be great. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with direction that windows needed to be added next to chimney of house on Lot A, and that trees in rear yards of both lots need to be saved. This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0. The Planning Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:15 p.m. 1464 CORTEZ AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FARSHID SAMSAMI, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARYAM REFAHI, OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Maryam Refahi, property owner, and Farshid Samsami, designer, represented the project. The owner noted that he had field checked the width of the existing garage and found it to be 9'-1 2@ the 8'-4" was determined from the plans using a scale, in fact the garage is only 10 inches too narrow. The designer noted that he had tried to keep the mass of the addition at the rear, created a break in the plane elevation using smooth stucco; live in Burlingame looked at a lot of existing Spanish Revival structures, most have exposed rafters, so added that element. Commissioner asked if the existing first floor has a 10 foot plate, designer noted it did not. How would the existing plate be extended, designer noted that the back side of the house would step down then step up. Commission noted that concerned that applicant is asking for a variance for a garage which is a part of a house which will be demolished, what are the grounds for the variance, the fire place will be removed, all the studs will be removed, all the remaining flooring removed once it is stepped down; if this is new construction then it should have a detached garage. If 50% of the exterior walls are removed then it is a new house. Feel that the 10 foot plate is too tall, increases mass, the proposed tower could be resolved better, it does not work it is too small, the chimney cap needs to be in proportion, the window on the right on the front should be something special, do not see any molding. Designer noted the windows would be wood trim. Commissioner noted, plans do not show that, windows appear to be aluminum sash; the entrance is too small and the flat roof does not work. Recommend go to the design reviewer. Flat roof deck at 600 SF is too big for the neighbors privacy, why are there three rows of Spanish tile used for trim. Designer intention is for tile caps. Commissioner noted that there is a lot of detail missing from the plans, general concern is mass and bulk, scale, the garage is too small for the building, the plate height is a big problem in design, needs to be redesigned to address that; this is a layer cake design, it is the most common problem addressed in the design guidelines, Spanish Revival needs a lot of variation, shed dormer is a lump on the west elevation, the scale and proportions and windows are not consistent with Spanish Revival. Designer noted that the appearance of the mass is reduced from the street with the second story setback. Commissioners noted that the second story is almost as wide as the building and contains no variation; need to work on the skin with Spanish style using tile roof, tower and Spanish window treatment; look at entry way and make it more typical of style and more inviting. There were further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Bojués moved that this project should be referred to a design reviewer with the comments made. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Comment on the motion: reluctant to send this to the design reviewer, needs to design a new house, better to have a redesign based on the comments made with a detached two car garage and return for another preliminary design review before the Planning Commission before going to design reviewer. C. Deal offered an amendment to the motion to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -14- direct the applicant to design a new house with a detached two car garage based on the comments made and return to the Planning Commission for another preliminary design review. C. Bojués maker of the original motion and C. Dreiling second agreed to the amendment. Comment on the amended motion: this looks like a new house with a garage exception, it needs a different garage; if applicant is going to have a 10 foot plate at the rear on the first floor there is no way that he can retain the existing walls. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the amended motion directing the applicant to redesign the house and resubmit it for preliminary design review by the Planning Commission. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission=s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. 1550 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED C-4 - STUDY OF POTENTIAL AESTHETIC IMPACTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED 4-STORY, 125-ROOM HOTEL AT 1550 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4. (MICHAEL PIETRO, PIETRO PARTNERS, APPLICANT, WILLIAM SHCUPPEL, ARCHITECT, AND CHRISTOPHER VEITCH, BAYSHORE HOLDINGS, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. C. Dreiling noted that he had met with the applicant as a courtesy before tonight=s meeting. There were no questions about the project from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Michael Pietro, Pietro Partners, applicant and developer, represented the project. He noted that they have developed a number of limited service hotels in San Francisco and other cities; they have been working on this project for a year and are happy to have the commission=s input at this point; they have been through BCDC design review as staff suggested, would like to increase the distance from the bay but need to provide parking on site for 125 cars, one per room, the result is that they encroach into the front landscaping along Bayshore Highway. He reviewed an exhibit which showed the extent of the view blocked from the shoreline access pathway near Beni Hana which was the issue in the initial study view analysis. He pointed out that the view blockage of the coastal hills was for a short distance before the direction of the pathway changed. Bill Chapel, architect for Pietro Partners, noted only for a short distance is the view blocked by the proposed building; he presented a colored elevation of the building as seen from Bayshore Highway, noting that about a third of the length of the building is at an angle; materials used are slate for the roof, cement stucco, precast concrete, the center facade is brick which divides the structure into three major elements. Commission comments: concerned about view and shoreline, would like it to look less like suburban park with trees and more like shore as seen in the adjacent wildlife sanctuary; building placement puts pressure on the parking lot, this part of the bayfront is urban, building should be close to the street and pedestrian oriented; curious about the 1 to 1 parking requirement, is that much needed; architect may have worked too hard, too many materials on the building, has a residential scale, it is not necessary to be a residential thing. Parking lot dominates street side, better to move the hotel to the street and stagger parking, increase landscaping on the front, use mature landscaping to break up length of building. Building would fit site better if it were a straight AL@ and flipped, this would increase the space between the building and the waterfront, which would be more attractive for hotel users; the AL@ shape would also reduce the bay view blockage; the tree diamonds within the parking lot are good; can=t agree with reducing parking, how much parking is needed for hotels? This site is unique it connects to the adjacent wetlands, want to reduce the contrast between the exotic landscaping and the native; assume that the run off from the site will be treated before it reaches the bay, have they considered biofiltration; feel mass of the building is broken up well, not as concerned about the residential nature. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -15- Think architecture is a nice departure from what is in the area now, not a drivet with stucco foam; view obstruction shown on figure 3 is tough, should consider flipping the site plan; there is no pedestrian access to this hotel, have to walk across the parking lot, need a promenade to the building. Should bring building closer to the highway, change the shape, reduce the length. Architect noted should we look at another approach, yes; this is the one reviewed with BCDC and they accepted; can make better pedestrian access, project is now under maximum density allowed, 125 rooms where maximum density is 135, height is less than 65 feet, lot coverage is 20% less than maximum; reorienting the building may be a problem since the setback from shoreline must equal the height of the building; if fewer than 125 rooms the project becomes doubtful. Commissioner asked if less parking is provided than required whose problem is it, staff noted it was the city=s problem, experience is that current parking requirement for hotels is low financial institutions have required some hotels to provide more than our standard, required to provide a shuttle service to the airport to justify low number-, number of hotels with inadequate parking now and patrons use on street parking in industrial area and off street parking of office buildings, periodically have to do code enforcement; there is no on street parking on Bayshore Highway. Commissioner noted if put building close to the street is there a problem with parking by the bay. Staff responded not as far as we know, several hotels have parking by the bay in BCDC jurisdiction. Commissioner noted building is trying to be something that it is not - strip of roof on the top, all caps, does not look real; code allows maximum of 65 rooms to the acre assuming you can meet the other requirements, as you get closer the street the building can get taller. Can parking be put under the building. Applicant noted his construction experience is in woodframe buildings such as this which limits the height. Applicant noted that they can consider moving the building to the street, would like to suggest another proposal as soon as possible, could 2 or 3 commissioners meet with them to discuss the alternatives, review site plan and foot print. Chairman Luzuriaga asked if any commissioners were interested; Cers. Dreiling and Vistica volunteered. Applicant indicated he would contact staff and they would like to meet soon. CP noted that work on the environmental document would be affected by a change in design so time was important. Commission noted that they appreciated having this dialogue before the project was final. The discussion on this item ended at 12:35 p.m. PLANNER REPORTS Chairman Luzuriaga noted that in light of the late hour the planners reports should be differed to the next meeting. CP Monroe asked if she could briefly review the council meeting. Chairman Luzuriaga said yes and he had a few items to note as well. -Review of City Council regular meeting of June 19, 2000. CP Monroe reviewed the actions relating to planning from the council meeting of June 19, 2000, including the consideration of a $200 a month stipend for members of the Planning Commission. -Status of Commission and Council Initiated Planning Projects. This item was continued to the meeting of July 10, 2000. -Discuss Planning Commission Policy Regarding FAR and Non-Conforming Garages. This item was continued to the meeting of July 10, 2000. Chairman Luzuriaga noted the recent appointment of design reviewer Paul Gumbinger to fill an unexpired term on the City Council in San Mateo. He asked the City Attorney if there was a conflict of interest. CA Anderson noted not for Burlingame since Mr. Gumbinger is a consultant to the city. Chairman Lurzuriaga then noted that we were short one design reviewer and asked the commission to think about possible candidates. Finally the commission discussed the order of the agenda. Commission agreed that the order used for this meeting, placing the preliminary design review City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -16- study items at the end, seemed to work and should be continued. It was suggested that staff hold the maximum number of items on the next agenda to 12; clearly in light of the late hour 16 was too many. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 12:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2000 -17- Minutes.626