Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.09.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 8, 2003 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the September 8, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling (arrived at 8:30 p.m.) and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the August 18, 2003 Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting and the minutes of the August 25, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1509 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION (KIMBERLY STRATTON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ERNESTO BARRON, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN/MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • can staff provide a history of previous applications on the neighboring property at 1505 Los Altos, where a previous addition was denied because of view impact; • to be able to properly evaluate the hillside views, the applicant should have story poles erected and surveyed by a licensed surveyor prior to the action hearing and in place so commissioners and neighbors can view them; • plans should be double-checked to make sure they are accurate, noted a discrepancy in the contours shown, as well as in the depth of the proposed addition relative to the rear property line should be confirmed by an appropriate professional; • what will be the use in the proposed addition; and • applicant is required to show physical hardship on a property to justify a variance, the applicant should re-evaluate the reasons cited on the variance form that has been submitted. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department and the story poles have been erected and surveyed. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 2 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests from the audience. Chair Bojués called item #2d, 1311 Burlingame Avenue, off the consent calendar to be heard as a regular action item. 2a. 2414 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BASEMENT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (KIERAN WOODS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING INC., DESIGNER) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT 2b. 1247 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND PAULETTE SUDANO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (76 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN/MAUREEN BROOKS 2c. 1355 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PHILIP ANASOVICH, BLUNK DEMATTEI ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MR. AND MRS. STEVE MCLAUGHLIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Commission discussion: would like to compliment the applicant for 2414 Hale on a nicely designed house, consistent with the neighborhood pattern, size, mass and bulk; the proposed basement is a good solution for hiding the mass of a new house. C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar, items # 2a, b and c, 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 each by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:19 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2d. 1311 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TENANT IMPROVEMENT (THE GYMBOREE CORP., TIM WERT, APPLICANT; MCCALL DESIGN GROUP, ARCHITECT; AVTAR JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 09.08.03, with attachments. Plr. Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Tim Wert, applicant, was present to answer questions. The Commission noted that the project was called off the consent calendar because of the poor quality of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 3 color rendering of the façade that was submitted, do not necessarily disagree with the proposed changes, but the rendering does not help to clarify or define what will be done on the site. The applicant noted that the quality of the rendering was the best he could do given the short period of time between study and action hearings, a color rendering is not a required submittal item for commercial design review, so one was not done at the outset of the application and to hire a professional to develop a rendering after the last meeting would have delayed the project by up to four weeks, had hoped the rendering along with the materials board that was submitted would be sufficient for the Commission to make a decision on the project. Commission discussion: rendering is certainly a disappointment, not the quality we are used to getting from applicants, do not feel there is enough information to make a decision; feel plans, rendering and materials board combined are enough to provide accurate idea of proposed changes. Chair Bojués moved to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant to submit a revised color rendering of the project façade in the context of the streetscape. The motion failed for lack of a second. There were no further comments and the public comment was closed. C. Keele moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 1, 2003, site plan, floor plan and elevations; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Fire Marshal’s August 4, 2003, memos shall be met and the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s August 6, 2003 memo shall be met; 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: will support this application based on the fact that Gymboree has been a good tenant on the Avenue for several years and has done a quality job with the storefront at their existing location. Commission directed staff to change commercial design review submittal requirements to include a materials board and a photo montage or color rendering in context of the street to depict the proposed changes relative to the surrounding storefronts. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-1-0 (C. Bojués dissenting and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:34 p.m. 3. 2669 MARTINEZ DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A LOWER FLOOR ADDITION AND A NEW DECK AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE (JOHNNY DAROSA, DAROSA AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LARRY AND GRACE NGAI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 09.08.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. All Commissioners noted that they had visited the subject property as well as the properties where owners noted view issues, 2673 Martinez Drive and 2532 Valdivia Way. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Grace and Larry Ngai, property owners, Johnny DaRosa, designer, were present to answer questions. They noted that they hoped to keep the tree issue separate from City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 4 the design review process, but the trees seemed to be an issue for the neighbor. Owners had already been to the Beautification Commission to ask to remove the Eucalyptus trees on the property that are blocking the neighbor's view, but their application was denied, they are willing to make changes to any of the other trees on the property which are not protected to accommodate the neighbor. Commission comment: there are three Liquidambar trees on the right side of the property between 2669 and 2673 Martinez that are existing but not shown on the plans, they block the neighbor's view, there is also a birch tree proposed along the right elevation that would block views, would the owners agree to remove the Liquidambars and not to plant the proposed birch in that location; yes. Continued comment: there is a live oak proposed to be planted at the left rear side of the property, this will also become a large tree that could potentially block views. The designer noted that the proposed tree was not needed to meet the city's reforestation requirements and could be removed from the plans. Commission commented that the portion of the deck at the rear to the left of the dining room door seems to block the view corridor from the picture window in the dining room of the subject property, would the applicant consider removing the area of proposed deck up to the inside edge of the picture window, then dining room door can be made to swing out onto the deck and the deck will also not be as close to the neighbor; owners responded that they would be willing to make this change to the deck and the door swing. There were no further comments and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: the existing Eucalyptus trees along the rear of the property have a huge impact on the view issue, they also need maintenance, can the City Arborist review the site to evaluate the possible removal or skinning of the Eucalyptus. CP Monroe noted that the Eucalyptus had been evaluated by the Arborist earlier in the application process and determined to be protected and healthy; however the city reforestation ordinance allows up to 1/3 of tree canopies to be trimmed without permits. CA Anderson noted that the removal of the trees was the jurisdiction of the Beautification Commission. Commission commented that having the Eucalyptus skinned up to not more than 1/3 of the existing canopy would help to resolve the neighbor's view issues if it were maintained. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions to address the landscape changes and the changes to the deck at the rear elevation: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 11, 2003, sheets 1-10 and topographic survey, with a rear deck measuring 48'-0" in length and not extending beyond the inside edge of the dining room window for the 16'-0" depth of the deck, and with the door swinging out, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 5 before a Building permit is issued; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's July 14, 2003 memos shall be met; 8) that the owners shall submit a Certified Arborist report to detail the skinning of the Eucalyptus trees at the rear of the property not to remove more than 1/3 of the canopy of each tree, that the report shall be approved by the City Arborist, and that the trees shall be trimmed by a licensed professional before the Building Department performs a final inspection on the property; 9) that the Liquidambar trees on the right side yard shall be removed and the birch tree shown the landscape plans in the same area shall not be planted on the right side yard, and the live oak tree shown on the plans in the rear right side of the yard shall be eliminated or replaced with a smaller species of tree; 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:54 p.m. 4. 1550 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE LAUGESON BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING INC., DESIGNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran noted they live within 500 feet of this project site and recused themselves from this item. They stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report 09.08.03, with attachments. Plr. Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair noted that all seated commissioners had visited the site. Commission asked no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. James Chu, applicant and designer, commented that all the variances had been removed from the application and thanked the Commission for their suggestion to stagger the garage doors. There were no further comments and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: the only issue with this project at the last hearing was the variance which has been eliminated. Chair Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 27, 2003, sheets A.1 through A.5 and sheet L1.0, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that any trimming of the two protected oak trees shall be done by an I.S.A. certified tree worker or arborist; and that the extent of the trimming will be outlined in a written report to be submitted for the approval of the City Arborist prior to any trimming taking place; 4) that prior issuance of a grading permit or any grading on the site or issuance of a demolition permit, a root protection zone shall be established around the two protected oak trees and the installation shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist; the tree protection measures shall be checked by a certified arborist weekly and a written report on the status submitted to the City Arborist; and that the protective fencing shall City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 6 not be removed until a final Building inspection takes place on the site and the certified arborist determines that it is appropriate to remove the tree protection; 5) any excavation during demolition or construction that takes place within the root protection zone must be done by hand; and the foundation for the 19'-6" wall of the west side and the 9'-0" wall of the south side of the living room on the first floor, left side of the dwelling, shall be a pier and grade foundation; that the holes for the piers of this foundation shall be hand- dug to a depth of 18-inches and shall be relocated if any roots are encountered that are greater than 3-inches in diameter; that these activities shall be supervised by a certified arborist; that if the certified arborist determines that any portion of an excavation will pose a negative impact to the tree roots, construction on the site shall be stopped and the project shall be reviewed by the City Arborist; 6) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building envelope; 7) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 8) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 9) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 10) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 11) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 12) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s November 27,2003 memo, the Fire Marshal=s November 25, 2002 memo, the City Arborist's May 21 and July 3, 2003 memos and the Recycling Specialist's November 26, 2002 memo shall be met; 13) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 14) 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; 15) that the project is subject to the state- mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 16) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 17) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 18) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the creek bed or storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 19) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 20) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 21) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or building permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the BAAQMD permit shall City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 7 be met; 22) that protective fencing shall be installed along the top of bank on the site (as shown on the site development plan, Sheet A.2, date stamped August 27, 2003); and that at no time during demolition, grading, or construction of the proposed project shall construction work or materials extend beyond the top of bank boundary, including but not limited to construction personnel, debris, or equipment; 23) that if at any time construction activities extend below the top of bank, that a stop work order shall be placed on the property until it is determined if the project is subject to review by the Army Corps of Engineers and/or California Department of Fish and Game and if permits are required; and 24) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review and special permit for a staggered attached garage. The motion passed on a 4-0-2-1 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran abstaining, C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:58 p.m. Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran returned to the Council Chambers and resumed their seats on the dais. 5. 129 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BATHROOM EXCEEDING 25 SF IN A BASEMENT (CATHERINE NILMEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JIM AND BEATE QUINN, PROPERTY OWNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 09.08.03, with attachments. Plr. Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair noted that all Commissioners had visited the site. Commission noted to staff that the first condition of approval should be revised to read "bathtub" instead of "bath". Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Catherine and Michael Nilmeyer, architects and applicants, were present to answer questions. They noted that the owners decided to add a half bath in the basement because the basement would be a play room for their small children, the amended difference in height is due to the licensed surveyor establishing an average top of curb that was slightly higher than the estimated top of curb and also to the structural engineer suggesting a type of framing that increased the height by the thickness of the plate and plywood. There were no further comments and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: the additional 1'-8" added to the height of this project is a material difference from the previous 5 inch height request, disappointed that the framing was not factored into the original design, feel that the added height will be big impact to the neighborhood because the change is material, and the application for the amendment is incomplete because it does not provide a new justification for the special permit for height; do not think the added height will be detrimental to the neighborhood because it only applies to a small portion of the pitched roof, this is the architectural style of house for which special permits for height are intended as detailed in the city's design guidelines, feel the added height for the roof enhances the architecture, understand that structural design changes can catch even the most experienced of architects by surprise, would like to thank the applicant for bringing the changes forward now instead of when they are discovered through city inspections during construction. C. Visitca moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the conditions listed in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 8 Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote (Cers. Bojués, Brownrigg and Keele dissenting, C. Osterling absent). C. Keele moved to continue the application to allow the applicant to return with a more detailed explanation for the change in height and revised special permit findings for the increase in height. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: the applicant should look into structural alternatives for the roof framing and its connection to the second floor to reduce the height. Chair Bojués called for a roll call on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 vote (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:16 p.m. 6. 210 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL USE NOT RELATED TO AUTOMOBILE SALES, SERVICE OR STORAGE (AL HERIZ, APPLICANT; BAUM TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (39 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 09.08.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked no question of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Al Heriz, applicant, was present to answer questions. Commission asked no questions of the applicant. There were no further comments and the public comment was closed. C. Keighran noted that this application was very straight-forward and did not have any issues to be resolved and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 20, 2003; 2) that the 1,750 SF tenant space at 210 California Drive shall be used as a retail rug store business as described with emphasis on internet sales and for a music instrument repair business, any expansion of the leased space, number of employees exceeding three on this site at one time, and/or a change to the hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week, shall be brought to the Burlingame Planning Commission for approval; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 vote (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:21 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1504 ARC WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DIODATI PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) (107 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair noted that all Commissioners had visited the site. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 9 Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Dale Meyer, applicant and architect, was present to answer questions. Commission asked if the proposed windows were true divided lights; yes. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: the house looks massive and bulky, need to add more detail and articulation to bring the design into scale with the neighborhood, project is a possible candidate for design review, concerned that project is designed right to the maximum FAR, applicant should reduce the proposed square footage by scaling back some of the room dimensions, also having the FAR so close means the chance of a construction error resulting in a code exception later is very great; the materials proposed are good quality and the house, though large, will serve as a transition point between the multifamily housing on El Camino and the single- family residences on Arc Way, agree with the comments made but do not support referring the project to a consultant because the architect has processed many projects in the past and responded well to Commission comments. Commission gave the following direction to the applicant: • reduce the square footage for the proposed dwelling; • reconsider the size of the balcony at the rear elevation because of the impact it will have on neighbor privacy; • call out the windows on the plans as true divided lights; • revise the landscape plan to include some evergreen trees to increase the screening for the new dwelling; • add articulation to the design to reduce the mass and bulk of the dwelling, for example lighter eave detail, reducing the scale of the entrance, reducing the heavy balusters on the rear balcony and adding some articulation along the long South elevation wall; and • clarify if the existing trees near the driveway will remain, if they will remain they will need a tree protection plan. C. Keighran made a motion to set the project for regular action. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. C. Osterling arrived at 8:30 p.m. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to set the project for regular action when the requested revisions had been made and submitted. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:37 p.m. 8. 1327 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRIAN ROCHE, PROPERTY OWNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Osterling noted he lives within 500 feet of this project site and recused himself from this item. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Plr. Lewit briefly presented the project description. Chair noted that all Commissioners had visited the site. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. James Chu, designer and applicant, Robert Morton-Jones, contractor, were present to answer questions. Commission commented that it was unusual to see a dwelling City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 10 designed to the maximum of both lot coverage and FAR. The designer noted that because of the slope on the lot, he chose to design to the maximum lot coverage on the first floor and to have a smaller second floor in order to avoid triggering special permits for height and declining height envelope. He also noted that there are three other new houses on the block with similar FAR. This block is unique because of the row of small-scale story book houses across the street and the number of new houses built in a row on the opposite side, most of the new houses are shingled. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: are noticing the same style of house coming before the Commission from this designer; initially thought a shingle-style home might fit better into this neighborhood, but think that was just a reaction to seeing the same design repeated, the homes in the neighborhood are varied and this style should fit in well; the house is too massive and bulky because it is designed to the maximum lot coverage and FAR, the dimensions should be scaled back, five-bedroom houses are meant for children, yet there is no backyard space because the lot coverage is maxed, more softscape is needed at the rear; disagree that house is too massive, it is well articulated and the amount of floor area is hidden by the design. Commission gave the following direction to the applicant: • scale back the proposed lot coverage and/or FAR; • provide more backyard area and softscape; and • house is well-designed and articulated, will fit into neighborhood and plans do not need to be revised. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar. The motion passed on a 6-0-1-0 vote (C. Osterling abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:56 p.m. C. Osterling returned to the Council Chambers and resumed his seat on the dais. 9. 1445 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TENANT IMPROVEMENT. (THE WHITE HOUSE, INC., APPLICANT; JOHN ROBERTS, ARCHITECT; VENTANA PROPERTY SERVICES, PROPERTY OWNER) (28 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Plr. Lewit briefly presented the project description. She noted that the architect was unable to attend the meeting, but had requested that Commission continue with the public comment. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. There were no comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission noted that the proposed design was elegant and would be an asset to Burlingame Avenue. The proposed columns fit in nicely with the design and the color photograph submitted showing the proposed changes super-imposed on the storefront and the scale of the changes relative to the surrounding storefronts is very helpful. The Commission requested that the applicant provide a material board for the action hearing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 11 C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. He also noted in the future all commercial design review projects should submit a materials board and photo with changes super-imposed for design review study. The photo should show enough of the streetscape to demonstrate the "fit" of the proposed storefront. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:03 p.m. 10. 1512-1516 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SPEC IAL PERMIT FOR 45% FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW EIGHT UNIT CONDO BUILDING (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; THORENFELDT CONSTRUCTION, PROPERTY OWNER) (143 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Plr. Lewit briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked if this project was changing the number of dwelling units on these two sites from five to eight; yes. Staff acknowledged a letter received today from the homeowners at 1520 Floribunda. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Commissioners noted that they would like to know the number of bedrooms presently on the two sites and the number of bedrooms proposed; this project is the first the Commission will process under the revised condominium guidelines, could staff provide a comparative chart to document the changes and different opportunities under those regulations; Chief Building Official notes that there is insufficient separation between fire exits, will correcting that affect the footprint of the building, that should be included in the environmental document, not decided after. Commission asked for staff to review the steps in processing a project with an environmental review for the public interested in this project. Staff noted that tonight the focus is on identifying environmental effects of the proposed project, however any other comments will be noted and included in the project analysis later. There will be at least one more noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission for the public to comment on the project as well as on the outcome of the environmental studies. Is changing the landscaping an environmental issue? What about the reduction in landscaping in the front setback to install the driveway? Would prefer to see a third party do, or at least review, a shadow study. There were no more comment from the commission. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Dale Meyer, architect 851 Burlway Road, represented the project; Don Doolittle 1520 Floribunda, Richard Casey, 1515 Floribunda; Pat Brosnan, 1508 Floribunda; Tim Brosnan, 1558 Ralston also commented on the project. The applicant noted met with Building and Fire to discuss separation of stairs, have in writing that there is no issue because of an exception when there are two or fewer dwelling units per floor; applicant would like to prepare the shadow study, PG and E can give the information for free, he would do the impact analysis; Commission noted that the shadow study was important and how it was to be done was up to the City Planner. Commissioners noted an error on the landscape plans, show a lot of trees at the rear where there is a below grade garage, there needs to be some coordination and the plan revised, feel that the most trees you may be able to plant in dirt is two or three, please revise the plan before the environmental document proceeds; project is four stories, this triggers environmental studies for aesthetics, light and glare and shadows. Have you considered three stories? Applicant noted owner wanted four stories. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 12 Public comments: Concerned about shadow studies and loss of view of the sky because this building is much taller than the building he lives in; would not be concerned about loss of sky view if the building were 35 feet tall; evaluate the height of the other buildings on the street, they are the same as his; would like to see an analysis of the streetscape, how will that side of the street look with the new building included; concerned about the additional traffic burden created by going from 5 dwellings on this side of the street to 8, this is a busy street which carries a lot of through traffic to California; have shoehorned this building into every square foot on this site, think photo analysis of the street frontage is necessary to evaluate the aesthetic impact; this building is taller than all the others on the street, should be considered; this building is 15 feet away from my building and 20 feet taller, my building has 12 units and was built in 1985; concerned about the height of the building and the shadows created, it is too dominant for the street. There were no other comments from the floor. Commission comments: A number of issues have been identified for evaluation: • Shadows, study should show building at 35' and 48' ; • Change in availability of sky view for all adjacent properties; • Aesthetic impact, especially the substantial degrading of the visual character of the area to include a comprehensive evaluation of the height, mass and overall design of the building; • Change in the intensity of use (bedroom count is one way to establish this), and resulting effect on traffic; • Would like a section through the project and the buildings on either side to determine impacts of height, shadow and mass; and • Should look at window placement and size as a function of design. Commissioners noted: a lot of the environmental and other issues with this project could be addressed by lowering the height, looked over the conditional use permit request and was not persuaded that the required findings were made, applicant should consider lowering the height early for the environmental study; it was noted that when the environmental document is completed this item will be noticed and the public will have an opportunity at a hearing to comment on the findings of these studies as well as on the project itself. Chair Bojués noted that the next review would be scheduled when the report is completed, and public notice will be sent before any action on this project. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable . This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. 11. 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING AS AN INTERIM USE. (PAUL SALISBURY, BLUNK DEMATTEI ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BOCA LAKE OFFICE, LLC., PROPERTY OWNER) (12 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN/MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. She noted that this is an unusual situation where an EIR was being processed for a hotel on this site, the applicant decided to install an interim use, so much of the data one would request has already been prepared. Given that staff has included a list of items which relate to the development of this site for this use for which data is already compiled. There were no further questions of staff. Commissioners noted: why is there a concern about permanent increase in noise from this uses? Because the adjacent hotels are noise sensitive uses; landscaping should be evaluated on the basis of impact of fertilizer City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 13 near the lagoon and into drainage system; can landscaping be increased within the parking lot, is more than 10% possible, what “challenges” do the site being so close to the water table present; can landscaping on the perimeter of the site be beefed up to address the aesthetic issue and screen parking from view of trail and street; can trees be placed on the perimeter; it was noted that this should not necessarily be treated as an interim use, since the interim long term parking use across the street has been there for decades. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Paul Salisbury, architect, 1555 Bayshore Highway, and Shelly Takasato, representing the property owner Boca Lake Office, Inc.; Jonathan Wu, President of Anza Parking Corporation. They noted that the property owner views this as an interim use, hope to generate hotel revenue to the city within a decade; site deserves better than a long term airport parking use; hope to build hotel within 5 years; have discussed the landscaping in the BCDC jurisdiction with them, it will take the trees 5 to 10 years to look like something; the site is presently unsightly, hope this use will enable them to clean it up, take care of drainage issues presently on the site, and provide some income to the property owner. It was noted that Anza Parking Corporation was required to provide 15% of their site in landscaping. Staff noted that the requirement is 10% within the parking lot and 15% of the entire site. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Chair Bojués noted that the comments made would be incorporated into the environmental document. When the document has been prepared it will come back to the Planning Commission with the project for a public hearing and action. The item will be re-noticed at that time. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This time concluded at 9:40 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of September 2, 2003. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of September 2, 2003. She noted that Council had adopted ordinances clarifying the recent inclusionary zoning regulations as well as clarifying the provisions of the commissioner’s stipend. Council has rescheduled their September 15 meeting to Tuesday, September 16, 2003, and Council supported having a public meeting with neighbors to discuss the location of the sound wall extension along Rollins Road. The sound wall is a part of the Auxiliary Lane project on US 101. This meeting will be later in September or October. Council discussed the use of State land on the Bayfront for recreational purposes, if it is determined that more recreation area is necessary in the Bayfront Planning Area. They asked staff to discuss with the State Lands Commission representatives. Recreation uses could be incorporated into a proposed hotel development since the remaining state parcel is a key hotel location. CP Monroe passed out forms for the Commissioners to indicate how they would like to take their stipend for the coming fiscal year. - FYI – Correspondence on Broadway zoning changes Commissioners commented on a letter to the City Planner from a property owner on Broadway requesting that the Commission consider his application sooner. Commissioners indicated that as part of this determination they would like to see a poll of the merchants and property owners about land uses prepared by the BID. Could staff ask the BID if they could prepare this poll sooner? Staff noted that they would write a letter of request to the BID Board. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 14 Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary APPROVEDMINUTES09.08.03