Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2000.08.14 -1- MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 14, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the August 14, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Deal, Dreiling, Osterling , Keighran, and Luzuriaga Absent: Commissioners Bojués, Vistica, and after 7:11 p.m. Luzuriaga. Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher MINUTES The minutes of the July 24, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Luzuriaga asked that the consent calendar be moved to the first item of commission consideration following From the Floor. FROM THE FLOOR Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater, a home owner commented on the inadequacy of the city’s current noise ordinance and asked the commission to take the time to update it. She submitted some background information on other communities’ noise ordinances. Frank Shaffer, 1353 Vancouver, asked that the project at 1349 Vancouver, be called off the consent calendar and a public hearing be held. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that it would be done when the consent calendar was considered. From the floor concluded at 7:07 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. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that item 4, 1349 Vancouver Avenue, would be removed from the consent calendar and set as the first action item on the regular calendar. He then asked if anyone in the audience or any commissioner wished to take any other items off the consent calendar. Commissioner Keighran noted that she would abstain on item 5, 1531 Vancouver Avenue, since it was her project. CP Monroe noted the need to amend condition 6 of the project at 1531 Vancouver in order to correct an error in the elevation of the top of the basement slab, the correct elevation is 238'-0". City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2000 -2- 1346 DE SOTO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOUSE (JOSEPH AND JENNIFER ADDIEGO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) 1531 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE LENGTH OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (SEAN AND ANN KEIGHRAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; KOTAS/PANTALEONI ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) 1317 CASTILLO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALFREDO REYES, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MICHAEL & HILDY CHAPLE, PROPERTY OWNERS) 1234 BURLINGAME AVENUE - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ON THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE (ALAN FORD, APPLICANT; RUSSELL KEIL\KEIL-SONOMA CORP., PROPERTY OWNER) 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ON A PRIMARY FRONTAGE. (DEWAYNE METCALF, APPLICANT; JOSEPH D. PUTNAM, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and the correction per the City Planner, each by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that C. Keighran was abstaining on 1531 Vancouver. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote to approve the remaining items; it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Vistica absent). The vote on the motion to approve 1531 Vancouver was 4-0-1-2 (C. Keighran abstaining and Cers. Bojués and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item was concluded at 7:10 pm. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that he was ill and left the meeting at 7:11 p.m.; in the absence of C. Vistica Vice - Chairman, C. Keighran, secretary took over as Chair, C. Dreiling became acting secretary.. STUDY ITEMS 1785 SEBASTIAN AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (BAY AREA SUNROOMS, APPLICANT; CHUNG-KUN WANG, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: it should be made clear to the neighbor that a hillside area Construction Permit is a view protection review; in light of that this project should be set for the consent calendar. Chair Keighran set the item for the August 28, 2000, meeting providing that the information submitted to the Planning Department is timely and complete, and that there is space on that agenda. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. 218 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA D - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL USE (RUG SALES) IN AUTO ROW (AL HERIZ, APPLICANT; ISAAC AND EVELYN BAUMELGRUEN, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: what was the estimated number of customers daily at the Futon Shop as shown in their application for a conditional use permit; the maximum number of daily customers seems City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2000 -3- low, would the applicant review this number before the action. Since this use is similar to the retail use previously on this site, with review of the additional information, this item should be placed on the consent calendar for the next meeting. Chair Keighran set this item for the consent calendar on the August 28, 2000, meeting providing that the information submittal of the requested information to the Planning Department is timely and complete, and that there is space on that agenda. This item was concluded at 7:15 p.m. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 1349 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RON GROVE, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 8.14.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments and conditions. Commissioner asked how much of the roof was over 30 feet, staff suggested that the applicant might want to address that issue. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, 39 W. 43rd Street, San Mateo, represented the application. He noted that about 12 feet in width, 6 feet on each site, of both ridges of the roof were over 30 feet in height as shown on Sheet A-3. There were no other questions of the applicant. Frank Shaffer, 1353 Vancouver, and Jennifer Addiego, 1346 DeSoto spoke. He expressed concern about the overall height of the proposed house, noting that the lot has a steep rise at the front so a taller building will look massive from the street; this block still has the original bungalows on it, from the side of his house the new wall goes straight up for two floors, there are a number of windows looking out over his property; he is also concerned about site drainage. There is a heritage tree between the proposed house and proposed garage which will be removed, but should be protected. Applicant commented that the first floor of this house is 10 feet higher than average top of curb, this is a craftsman design with 8 foot and 9 foot ceiling heights; the neighbor to the right has more than the required setback because of the driveway between the properties; the tree is not an issue since can add more trees to screen between the two properties. CP Monroe noted that removal of the protected tree would require that the applicant get a tree removal permit from the Beautification Commission, Planning action did not predetermine Beautification’s action. Live to the rear of the new project, was not aware that they intend to remove any trees, 2 existing trees are important to screen this project from her view, would be concerned if they were removed. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: agree that the trees should be retained, landscape plan shows a number of trees to be planted they should be larger scale to screen the rear and front of the house given its height; missed the tree removal, would like to see the applicant do what they can to retain the protected tree at the rear, should show the drip line, need an arborists report on the tree and the effect of modified plans at rear on the tree; could relocate the garage, it’s now 3.5 feet from the side property line, can be moved over; would even consider a variance to the width of the garage to preserve the tree so long as the square footage (FAR) is not added to the house. As noted the rise at the front of the lot contributes to the height of the structure, have a special permit for all roof pitches which fit architectural styles, this roof is need for this design; concerned about the windows on the side opposite the driveway, need to balance the number and not be overbearing, should not remove all the windows, do not want that side to look like a warehouse. C. Deal moved to continue this item until the commission can get the answers on the garage and tree, then because the overall design of the project is all right, the item should be placed on the next available agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: removal of the protected tree is the item which moves this project to a denial, also concerned about the three different types of bay windows on the west side of the property, think more than a gesture is needed to reduce the impact on this side of the structure; not concerned about the height of the roof, tree is a big problem, need to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2000 -4- move the driveway and get it out of the way of the tree; its nice to see something other than Tudor; did comment before on the heaviness on the west side, no change was made. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this ite m to the next available agenda after the responses mentioned have been completed and submitted to the staff, including what needs to be done to protect the trees, redesign the garage and redesign of the west side of the house. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Luzuriaga, Vistica absent). This item concluded at 7:42 p.m. 1548 RALSTON AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (IQBAL A. SERANG, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; JEREMY AND WENDY VERBA, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 8.14.00, with attachments. City Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments and conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Jeremy Verba, 1548 Ralston Avenue, commented that they have gone through the process and made the changes requested, hoped to begin construction in September; presented letters in support from neighbors on each side and across the street. Why did you not put a gable roof in the space between the sheds? Difficult to do and not consistent with what had been done before, proposal would add 70 SF, so wanted to minimize impact of addition, just add light and space, gable would add cost and time, want to do before it rains. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this looks like more than 70 SF, actually more like 293 SF, applicant indicates should accept bad design because of cost, real problem is that a bad addition was made to this house in the past, would want my second floor to look better like the rest of the house; agree the gable connecting the two sheds would change this old addition and make this elevation charming like the rest of the house. C. Osterling moved to continue this item so that the applicant can consider commission’s comments. Chair Keighran seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: Applicant could get a price from a contractor for what each of the approaches would cost. If continue applicant cannot appeal, would prefer denial without prejudice; redesign would make a world of difference to this project, need to give applicant opportunity, if deny without prejudice will not get a chance to redesign and the alternative will work well with the home; interior is not any of the commission’s business but could increase the light on the upper floor if use gable to add light over the closet so bring light into the stair and house. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a 3-1-3 (C. Deal dissenting, Cers. Bojués, Luzuriaga, Vistica absent). The item is continued to the August 28, 2000, meeting if the information needed is provided to the Planning Department in time and there is space on that agenda. This decision is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 1355 DRAKE AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN VIGIL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; LUIS A. ROBLES, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 8.14.00, with attachments. City Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments and conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. John Vigil, 1355 Drake, spoke worked with design reviewer, made it more attractive and think addressed all commission’s issues. Are you aware that all the windows in bedroom 3 will be one foot off the floor? yes this happened because lowered the plate from 8'-6" in order to lower the second floor height, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2000 -5- have changed the plans 6 times to get to this point. Note that there is an error on the plans in copying the top of curb elevation and so the overall height of the structure is 29'- 8", this should be noted since the building permit is limited to what is approved on these plans. On that note, did you check that the window size in the bedrooms are adequate to meet egress requirements? yes. Landscape plan does not show installation of larger plants at the rear of the house, are you willing to do that? There are 2 large lemon trees and an apple, at the rear around the garage. Would be better to add a taller tree next to the neighbor to screen the addition. Neighbor Mrs. Cotton is comfortable with the Cypress on her lot. Are you willing to put something larger in the rear yard? Would plant a redwood, one was removed before by a neighbor. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: have seen this before, it is improved, the front elevation is better, concerned about the Pladian window on the south elevation, it would look better with a square head; this is a large two story box, the gestures are not adequate, the recessed window to provide articulation on the side, may fool the Planning Commission but it will not help the neighbor, you lowered the plate height, but its still a two story box, you can rotate the gables and improve the second floor, the east elevation clearly shows the problem of the mass on the top of the house, cannot support. Nice job since last meeting, concerned about the gable, don’t think it will work; need to correct height 29'-8", add landscape at the rear, applicant is open to adding a redwood tree. C. Osterling moved to approve the project by resolution with five conditions including the change to the height to 29'- 8" and with the added condition that a 24 inch box tree, large scale, selected from the city’s street tree list be planted in the rear yard. The conditions of approval as amended were: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 17, 2000, sheets 1 through 4, with a 7 foot plate height on the second floor, and with a maximum height of 29'-8" above average top of curb, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to the permit; 2) that prior to scheduling final inspection the property owner shall install a large scale tree selected from the city’s street tree list to be planted in the rear yard at a location which will screen the height of the building from view of the neighbors at the rear and the installed tree shall be no smaller than a 24 inch box; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the plate height, roof height, or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that if at any time in the future the residential structure is further enlarged or remodeled to require two covered parking spaces, a floor area ratio variance may be required; 5) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s April 10, 2000 memo and the City Engineer’s April 10, 2000 memo shall be met; and 6) 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 Chair Keighran. Comment on the motion: sympathetic with the back-and-forth of this project review and will support, but am not happy with the design of this project. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with added conditions. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Luzuriaga, Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 112 BAYSWATER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (RAY VIOTTI, JR. APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BOB CUNNINGHAM, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 8.14.00, with attachments. City Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments and conditions suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: are design reviewers to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2000 -6- comment on variances? Staff noted it was her understanding that the reviewers would comment only if variance affected design criteria. How is average front setback measured? Staff noted all properties fronting on the same side of the street i.e., short side of property on street. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Rob Cunningham, property owner, and Ray Viotti, architect, represented the project. They noted that they met with the design reviewer and worked to break up the massing; if took out the 27 foot setback of this site, the average on the side of the street is the proposed 17'-6" which is the same setback as on the other side of the street and reflects the neighborhood. This design has no identifiable character or style, why? There is no style in the neighborhood to follow, client wanted a more modern style. There may be no pattern in the neighborhood but there is a pattern in Burlingame, there are elements in this house that make it standout, stucco surround, columns, oval windows, width of the house from property line to property line, why? Applicant noted that in his opinion this 48' x 102' lot is substandard, house is only 2600 SF, three bedrooms and 2 baths; wanted to know how to progress. There are two story houses in the area which look nice on Bayswater and Victoria, this design will not fit in, what is the exceptional hardship on the property for the front setback variance? The exceptional hardship is the existing 27 foot setback on this lot which is greater than the neighbors. Others on the block do not have 17', next door the setback is 22 feet, another 15', the variety of setbacks on this street is the pattern. There were no further comments on the project from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted points have been made; this is not a substandard lot, a great many 5000 SF lots in the city; the variance is driven by the design of the house, which is not an exceptional circumstance; gave direction, there are good houses in neighborhood, design new house to be compatible with them; the design review was caused by the style of the architecture not the square footage; move to deny the application. Chair Keighran seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: agree that there are no exceptional circumstances for the front setback variance, the square footage of the house is OK, for design need to look around to see what is in the neighborhood; can live with the setback variance if the house were well designed to fit into neighborhood; would like large plant material to be added in the rear yard to soften the appearance of the size from the rear. For a variance must find exceptional hardship based on characteristics of the property, if do for any other reason will set a precedent. The existing 27 foot setback is an existing condition which contributes to the character of the neighborhood, and needs to be accepted. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the variance and design review. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Luzuriaga, Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (LAWRENCE CHEN, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; SAMUEL H. AND ELAINE WONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 8.14.00, with attachments. Staff Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments; six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairperson Keighran opened the public hearing. Lawrence Chen, designer, noted that after meeting with the design reviewer, the plans were revised to address the suggestions made by the Commission at the previous study meeting; eliminated the side setback variance for entrance stairs, relocated the entrance, scaled down the porch yet maintained identity, pushed back porch columns, all bedrooms are located on the second floor, stepped back the second floor addition along Kip Lane and Skyview Drive to reduce the impact of the addition, eliminated the cantilever and the deck off one of the bedrooms, glass railing was replaced with a molded millwork balustrade system, scaled do wn the chimney to match others in the neighborhood and reduced its height by approximately 18", lowered the building height City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2000 -7- by changing the roof pitch to 4/12, and revised gutter and eave details to match other houses in the neighborhood. The number of bedrooms was reduced from six to five, but there were no changes made to the garage size. Commission noted that the design guidelines encourage compatibility with the neighborhood, the proposed house is different and has no character. The applicant noted that the house has three exposed sides, the downward slope along Kip Lane makes the house look big, whatever is added on the second floor will make the house look big, noted that only 5' of the second floor wall is exposed, the rest is within the first floor roof, and feels that the proposed house draws elements from the neighborhood. The Commission noted that this design is better than previously proposed, this is the first second story addition in the neighborhood, visited the site, noticed two two-story houses at the end of the block, one of which is split level, will be an enormous impact on the neighborhood, will be massive after seeing the story poles, entrance is large on Kip Lane, do not want to establish a precedent, will change the look of the neighborhood. Timothy Sullivan, 951 Mariner’s Island Boulevard, Suite 340, San Mateo, attorney for the property owners, noted that design reviewer comments state that the proposed house does not match the neighborhood, comments focus on the massing of the house, feels that the house should be slightly different, modified design to eliminate the side setback variance, meets all zoning code requirements. There is large, mature landscaping at the rear of the lot which will screen the addition. The property owner met with neighbors and has letters of support and installed story poles. A photo board was submitted, pictures show the story poles and mature landscaping. If the Commission feels that the proposed design is not compatible, the property owner would like to work with the City, would like specific direction in regards to the design. The garage was not enlarged to meet the required dimensions, checked with staff and they noted that the existing garage meets the requirement for a five-bedroom house. Most other houses in the neighborhood are not two story, proposed project contains windows and stucco similar to other houses in the neighborhood. The attorney noted that the neighbors who signed the petition opposing the project are not located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Commission asked that the letters of support be submitted so that they can be entered into the record, noted that for design review the applicant must go beyond meeting code requirements and look at the spirit of the code. The attorney asked that the Commission be clearer in defining changes to design and to clarify for the applicant what the direction is. Samuel Wong, property owner, noted that he instructed his designer to follow the Commission’s suggestions, feels that he has complied with the suggestions, is concerned with the design reviewer’s comments, read through design guidelines; would like to bring a decent house to the neighborhood, the existing house has been declining without maintenance, need to make major repairs, would like to have an elegant design, may not be compatible with houses in the neighborhood built in the 1950's. There are 22 houses on Skyview Drive, tried hard to meet with all of the neighbors, met with all except for three neighbors which were not home, including those neighbors opposed to the project, the approach has been to work with the neighbors and the city, at 5 p.m. today learned that Planning staff received a letter of opposition signed by nine homeowners. The property owner pointed out the he needs more room in the house for his family, considered adding closer to the next door neighbor at 1324 Skyview Drive, but this would impact that neighbor and did not want to remove large mature pine trees to accommodate the addition, only option is to add a second floor, plan to add more trees along Kip Lane to soften the mass and bulk of the addition and to create privacy. Paul Grech, 1315 Skyview Drive, Norm Torello, 1328 Skyview Drive, Patrick Wong, resident of 1320 Skyview Drive, spoke noting that it is difficult to speak in opposition to the neighbor’s proposed project, need to correct inaccuracy in applicant’s letter dated July 1, 2000, not true that all neighbors support the project, delivered a letter to the Commission today which is signed by 13 neighbors in opposition to the project, house is too massive, does not reflect the character of the neighborhood, fortunate not to have to contend with houses at La Strada development on Skyline, believes design review was established to stop this type of house in Burlingame and to retain character, design reviewer states in her memo that this house is not in the right location; house will appear to be three stories from Kip Lane, applicant City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2000 -8- points out that more room is needed for his family, why didn’t he think about this before purchasing the house, there are many choices for the design which will not impact the neighborhood. Mr. Wong, property owner, noted that he spoke verbally to the neighbors, does not know all 22 neighbors, pointed out that the 13 signatures on the letter of opposition only represent nine houses. House is run down, he and his brother share a room, is infuriated with the direction to be compatible with houses in the neighborhood, all were built in the 1950's and 70's, the inside of the house has not been changed since the 70's, house is in bad repair, the roof leaks, can’t open the windows, no place to expand but on the second floor, if the Commission doesn’t like stucco, can replace with wood siding, can’t see how the improvement will be detrimental to the neighborhood, his happiness is being jeopardized, large family of five should be able to have a bigger house; feels there is no invasion of privacy with neighbor across the street, three-quarters of the windows in her bedroom are blocked by a tree, room faces Skyline, if drapes are open everyone will see into her room. The attorney noted that the proposed design complies with code requirements, asked if the second story or the materials is the problem, property owner purchased the house knowing that a second story was allowed. Commission noted that a second story is allowed. The applicant had no further comments. Chairperson Keighran closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: noted that they appreciated Mr. Wong’s comments, second stories are allowed and he is allowed to build to the maximum SF, not only have to comply with the zoning code but also the design guidelines, would like to see house improved, could still use stucco and still belong in the neighborhood; the existing garage is 18' wide, the ordinance to allow 18' existing garage width was adopted because many of the houses in the Ray Park neighborhood had existing 18' wide garages, but because there are a lot of walls being removed in this house, this is essentially a new house, garage size should comply with current code requirements, it would not make sense to allow the nonconforming garage to remain; house does not take advantage of the slope on the lot, the existing house does not but it will be demolished, should consider a split level design, put garage below the living room; the Commission ’s decision is not based on the number of letters received from the neighbors, the number of bedrooms is fine, mass of the building was not dealt with in a proper way, cannot support the project. Further Discussion: cannot describe in 25 words or less how to fix the design, it is difficult to add a second story to the existing house, but not impossible, must respect the existing style of the house, need to look at window style, eave details, bulk of stucco, suggest keeping it simple, smaller scale; the water table, porch columns, and stucco add to the massing and incompatibility; it is possible to make the necessary changes, several projects on the consent calendar this evening did this; feels that the Commission has given a clear direction, important that the garage conforms to the current code requirements, seems as if the applicant is open to direction. C. Deal moved to deny the project without prejudice, for reasons stated in the Commission’s discussion of the project. The problem is not the size of the house, but how it is handled. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairperson Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 voice vote (Cers. Luzuriaga, Vistica and Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The item concluded at 9:37 p.m. Chair Keighran called for a brief break, the commission reconvened at 9:47 p.m. 2009 RAY DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (STEWART AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; DENISE LAUGENSEN AND ALEX BEILIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 8.14.00, with attachments. City Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments; five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2000 -9- Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. John Stewart, architect/applicant and Denise Laugensen, property owner, were available for questions and comments. The architect noted that the plans were revised to comply with the Commissions requests: the direct venting gas chimney was replaced by a full chimney, beam details were provided, worked with the landscaping to reduce the impact on the neighbor and to provide additional privacy, improved the left side elevation. The property owner noted that the neighbor is pleased with the project and called to thank her. Commissioner asked why the applicant chose not to use a steeper roof. The property owner noted that the houses in the area all had lower pitches on their roofs, to make this one steep might make the house stick out too much. The architect submitted a sample of the roofing material to be used. The applicant had no further comments and there were no further comments from the floor. Chair Keighran closed the public hearing. Commissioner discussion: noted that this is a nice design, the applicant addressed the Commissions’ and the neighbors’ concerns in revisions by adding landscaping along the left side. Chair Keighran moved to approve the project, 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 July 27, 2000, sheets A-1 through A-5, including landscape plan on Sheet L-1; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the house or garage, which would include changing window size or location, or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s July 6, 2000 memo and the City Engineer’s July 6, 2000, memo shall be met; 4)that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable best management practices as identified in Burlingame’s Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; and 5) 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. Osterling. On the motion: in favor of the project, the offsets between the first and second stories is minimal, draw ing shows offsets increased but still feel is not enough, but is adequate; right side elevation on driveway side could to be broken up more, is long and straight. Chairperson Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 voice vote (Cers. Luzuriaga, Vistica and Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The item concluded at 9:55 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 1568 ALTURAS DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT A. GERMAN, PYRAMID DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT; ANDREAS R. HILDEBRANDT AND ANNIE FLANNERY-HILDEBRANDT, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioner clarified that the public comment process allows the applicant to speak and anyone else who may be present. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Robert Berman, architect, 462 Sterling Road, Mountain View, represented the project. No other members of the public commented. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2000 -10- Design Concerns identified: on driveway side at garage, right side elevation, where show a gable roof end, a hip would fit the character of the house better; to show the views into the neighbor s yards; would you submit pictures taken from the widow s walk deck at the height of a person standing on the future deck; clarify how much of the house will be covered with board and batten; where will the trellis go, how much lot coverage will it add; the large round top window at the rear does not seem to fit the structural elements or the window pattern, replace with a taller rectangular window or transom; where the Jacuzzi is proposed can the front plate line be dropped to match rest of front elevation plate height and window reduced. The applicant should submit the photos to the Planning Department right away so any neighbors who are concerned about the impact of the upper deck on their privacy could come in and see them. This item was set for the consent calendar for the meeting of August 28, 2000, providing there is space on that agenda and all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in a timely fashion. This item was concluded at 10:10 p.m. PLANNER REPORTS PROPOSED ACTION -DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION OF ADDITIONS TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE CP Monroe summarized the Staff Report noting that Commission had asked to discuss three items to add to the recommendation to the city council regarding commercial design review: (1) prohibiting warehousing for furniture, household or similar articles in the C-1 and C-2 zones; (2) changes to the wording of the commercial design review criteria and suggestion of addition of a sixth criteria; and (3) review of a draft of the commercial design review guideline handout. Commission discussed these items, thanked C. Dreiling for his efforts with the commercial design guidelines, concerned about the additional number of items requiring commission review with commercial design review could some of these be made administrative permits similar in approach to a minor modification i.e., notice to limited neighboring property owners, planning commission and council, who have the opportunity to call item up. Noted that like residential design review, commercial design review will be an evolving process, OK to try awning review as administrative. Discussed including facade changes also, but determined that there were too many variables, so should limit administrative to awning initially. CA noted that an administrative permit could provide a 10 day notice period within which the City Planner would need to be contacted for an item to be called up. C. Osterling made a motion to add to the recommendation to City Council on commercial design review that the criteria be amended with the revised wording as proposed, that review of awnings be made an administrative permit, and that the council approve the commercial design review guidelines to be used by staff as an implementation tool. The motion was seconded by Chair Keighran. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Luzuriaga, Vistica absent) voice vote. This item was concluded at 10:32 p.m. REPORTS - REVIEW OF AUGUST 7, 2000 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council at their August 7, 2000, meeting. - REVIEW OF WORKLOAD STATUS AND COMMISSION ISSUES The Commission discussed with the City Planner the processing issues caused by the current backlog and workload of the Commission. It was noted by a commissioner that it would be detrimental to split the Planning Commission at this City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2000 -11- time when the synergy among the members was so positive and the design review process is evolving. Suggested that staff follow the interim suggestion that in counting 14 items on a Planning Commission agenda all of the consent calendar be counted as one item; this would increase the number of decisions which could be made at a single meeting and help to reduce the backlog. Commission also discussed the need to reduce the amount of repetitive discussion on items reviewed. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:12 p.m. in memory of Frank Cistulli who served on the Planning Commissioner for two decades from the 1960's to 1984 when he retired, having served as Chair of the Commission 3 times. Respectfully submitted, Martin Dreiling, Acting Secretary minutes8.14