Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.02.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Monday, February 10, 2003 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the February 10, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES Chair Keighran asked if there were any changes to the unapproved minutes for January 27, 2003. Commissioner noted addition to Item 10, 721 Concord Way: page 13 "Comment on the motion: like the way these drawings were done, easy to understand, plans should be used as an example for other applicants in this process." There were no other changes proposed. The minutes were approved as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that item 6, 1541 Adrian Road had been continued, also that the three FYI items under Planners Reports might be taken before the remainder of the items in that section. Commission agreed. V. FROM THE FLOOR Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, spoke regarding the proposed Safeway project; new plans show no reduction in square footage, mass or bulk, still have major concerns about the safety and circulation of truck traffic for the proposed Safeway. Hope Commission and Council will consider concerns of the citizens when reviewing this project. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1205 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND EXISTING DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING RETAIL/FOOD ESTABLISHMENT TO AN OFFICE USE. (DAVE RICHANBACH, SHOUT CREATIVE INC., APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • show the dimensions for the first or second floors on the plans; • how will the staff be positioned in the building, seems like a lot of space for so few employees; • what will be stored on the second floor; • can applicant provide a description of daily business at the site, what do they produce; and • can staff prepare a comparison of the proposed office use with the number of employees and customers for the previous food establishment use. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 10, 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. 2a. 721 CONCORD WAY – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION, (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STEVE AND ELIZABETH JOHNSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 344 PEPPER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (MARK BRAND ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT KIERAN AND MARIE WOODS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 2.10.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Mark Brand, architect, and H. Allen Gruen, soils engineer, were present to answer questions. He noted that the applicant had worked with the design review consultant to address the concerns of the Commission and of the neighbors at 340 Pepper, the Danielsons. The roof at the rear of the house was redesigned, tree protection measures were provided by an arborist, changes were made to portions of the foundation of the house to minimize impacts to tree roots, the pool was changed to a more natural shape, pool location moved five feet away from the creek bank, the toilet in the pool house was moved to the side adjacent to the main dwelling and further from the Danielson's property, a soils engineer has done an additional boring at the creek bank and confirmed the stability of the bank, and the requested variances are necessary because of the location of the creek on the site. Commission asked the applicant: how is the proposed setback consistent with the neighborhood, were the Danielson's alternatives for locating the pool house in the rear yard behind the pool evaluated. The applicant responded that the proposed setback is not consistent with the neighborhood, but this lot is unique because the creek runs along the rear of the property instead of at the front, the creek location forces development to the front; and moving the pool house back was considered less desirable for the property owner because it would be very visible from the main house and for the Danielson's because it will be closer to their courtyard and have a greater impact on their property. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 10, 2003 3 Commission asked the soils engineer: can you address the condition of the creek bank and the impacts of the proposed construction, the borings for 340 and 344 Pepper appear to be quite different, is this typical, can you suggest a species for the creekside planting that might help to stabilize the bank, and might there be seasonal groundwater fluctuation at this site that would impact the proposed swimming pool. The soils engineer responded that the existing creek bank does not show evidence of erosion at this time, the soil boring showed very clay-ey soils, up to a depth of about 10 feet when the soils showed more sand, soil boring at 344 Pepper was not so different from 340 Peeper borings, but the pool will be installed with a maximum depth of 8 feet where groundwater and sandy soils are not encountered until 10 feet, the pool structure will be self-supporting so that in the event of creek bank erosion, the pool will free standing and not be affected, the pool construction will neither degrade nor enhance the existing creek bank or alter drainage patterns of the soil, and any planting with an extensive root network will help to stabilize the creek bank. Scott and Alexis Danielson, 340 Pepper Avenue, spoke to note the following concerns: if the pool house is moved to the rear it will have a reduced impact on the oak tree roots, it will have a double screen of landscaping to protect our privacy, and relocating the pool house will cause the pool to be built even further from the creek bank, still have grave concerns about bank stability and believe there is not enough information to approve construction so close to the bank, swimming pool 8 feet deep will have to have sub- structures of at least 12 inches and this comes perilously close to the groundwater table and sandier, less stable soils, oppose the side setback variance because feel it is not due to the constraints of the lot, but rather to the design of the pool at the right side of the property, extremely concerned about the trees on the site, they are irreplaceable and there is nothing to insure that they won't be damaged by construction. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this project is a tear-down, there is no reason there should be variances on the site; the front setback is too small and the house will have a large impact on the neighborhood, will loom over the street; the applicant should investigate pulling the second story of the house back by several feet to provide relief at the street and reduce the impact of the requested front setback variance; this is an elegant, well- designed house that will be an asset to the neighborhood; the existing house has a similar setback to the proposed house and variances are justified by the path of the creek through the lot; and the proposed house is well under the maximum allowable FAR and the variation in setback to the garage, as well as the existing trees on the site help to soften the face of the house from the street. Continued discussion: the applicant should add additional landscaping, perhaps an Aristocrat Pear or some of the species suggested in the landscape architect, Mr. Callendar's, letter to soften the impact of the house on the street; the landscaping at the right side of the property does not seem appropriate for screening, look to the Callendar letter for planting suggestions that will provide better screening between the properties; more rigorous conditions addressing tree protection measures, such as required inspections, should be added; feel that moving the pool house to the rear of the lot is an advantage to the applicant, guests entertained on the patio can use the facilities in the pool house, relocating the pool house to the rear of the lot will allow the pool to be placed further away from the creek and also reduce the number of buildings encroaching into the front setback; applicant should provide options for sound-proofing the pool structure, such as double-glazed windows and insulation, and see no justification for the front setback variance for the pool. Commission asked the City Attorney: have a lot of differing opinions, what is the best option to ensure the application continues to move forward. CA Anderson responded that a continuance seemed more City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 10, 2003 4 appropriate than a denial without prejudice and would allow the applicant to make some revisions based on the Commission's discussion and neighbor concerns and return for action. C. Keighran moved to continue the application with the direction from the discussion given to the applicant. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This decision is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:32 p.m. 4. 1521 HOWARD AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (RON GROVE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FRED STRATHDEE, ARCHITECT) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 2.10.03, with attachments. Planner Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff to clarify the height of the building, report says 29'-6" and plans indicate 27'-0". Staff clarified the height from top of curb is 29'-6"; the 27'-0" height was from adjacent grade as determined by the applicant. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Fred Strathdee, architect, was present to answer questions. Commission asked what are the plate heights at the first and second floors. The architect responded the heights are 8'-6" and 9'-0", respectively. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: would like to see an added condition to have an Arborist report address protection measures for the trees at the front of the lot. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 30, 2003, Sheets 1 through 5 and L-1, site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan; 2) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Recycling Specialist and Chief Building Official’s memos dated December 23, 2002 shall be met; 4) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 5) that prior to under floor 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; 6) 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 to the Building Department; 7) 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; 8) 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; 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 10) that the applicant shall submit a Certified Arborist report to address tree protection measures to be employed on the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 10, 2003 5 site during construction and during a three year maintenance period and to be approved by the City Arborist before a building permit is issued. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: going to dissent from the motion for approval, the proposed design is too much house for the lot, it too tall, remember giving direction at last meeting to scale back the proposed house and don't feel the revisions address these issues. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-2 roll call vote (Cers. Keele and Bojués dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. 5. 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FLOOR AREA EXCEEDING 1.0, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VARIATION FROM THE BAYFRONT DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR A PROPOSAL TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING INTERIOR COURTYARD. (BRUCE CARLTON, DOUBLETREE HOTEL, APPLICANT; NOEMI AVRAM AIA, ARCHITECT; TODAY’S III, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (10 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 2.10.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Bruce Carlton representing the DoubleTree Hotel was present to answer questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran 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 January 6, 2003, sheets A1-1, A2-1, A2-2, and A3-1, site plan, floor plan and building elevations; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official ’s January 13, 2003 memos shall be met; 3) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 4) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 16, 2001, sheets A1-0, A2- 1, A3-1 and A3-2 and sheet A1-1, date stamped November 19, 2001; 5) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s April 16, 2001 memo and Recycling Specialist’s April 16, 2001 memo shall be met; 6) that the traffic allocation for a 101- room addition and 4,372 SF meeting room space addition to an existing 291- room hotel (82.2 room/acre density) which is a part of the planning approval of this project and the agreement for use of 127 parking spaces on the adjacent sanitary landfill shall run with the conditional use permits and shall expire at the same time the planning approval expires on the project;7) that since the applicant has elected to provide a significant portion of its required parking by seeking an agreement with the City to share a parking area as described in the project, before issuance of any building permit under this project approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City that provides that the applicant will be allowed to use the City property to the north and west for parking for at least 127 vehicles so long as the applicant’s property is used as a hotel or the required parking is not provided in some other way approved by the City; if that agreement is terminated for any reason, the applicant shall either reduce its usage to eliminate the need for the 127 parking spaces or provide alternative parking approved by the City; 8) that the proposed structure will be built on driven piles to mitigate potential settlement problems and earth shaking in a major earthquake; 9) that any connections between the new structure and the existing structure shall be designed to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code and California Fire Code; 10) that flexible joints shall be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground settlement; 11) that the finished floors for any structure shall be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 10, 2003 6 at least 9' above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater; 12) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 13) that any new construction on the site shall elevate the entry level to habitable floor levels to at least 9 feet above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater; 14) that this project shall comply with the requirements of the state-mandated water conservation program, that a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan shall be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application, and shall be approved by the City’s Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuing a building permit; 15) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction; 16) that the developer shall be required to get appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards; 17) that all construction shall be limited to the hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, and no piles shall be driven before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall be driven on Sunday; 18) that the City shall require that the construction contractor predrill holes (if feasible based on soils) and equip pile drivers with shields, and shall also develop a schedule for pile driving to minimize the impacts on the existing DoubleTree Hotel facilities, the Red Roof Inn and Red Rock Cafe; 19) that the hotel addition shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms does not exceed 45 dBa; 20) If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented; 21) that the controlled access parking plan shall be built and implemented as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 19, 1999, Sheet PK-1, and the installation shall conform to all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 22) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s September 28, 1998 and March 2, 1999 memos and the City Engineer’s March 8, 1999 memo shall be met; 23) that a fee may be charged for self-park visitors at a rate of up to $1.00 for the first two hours, $2.00 for 2 to 4 hours and $9.00 for over four hours, and any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 24) that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 25) that any change to the operation of the controlled and/or valet parking affecting the fee charged, the area used, or the traffic controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 26) that prior to use of the City landfill parking lot for paid valet or paid self-parking, the hotel shall obtain an amendment to the Shared Parking and License Agreement with the City to reflect this use; 27) that the use permit shall be reviewed annually for the first three years (April 2000, 2001, 2002) to assess the impact of paid valet and self parking on City landfill parking and parking on adjacent streets and properties, and /or upon complaint; 28) that the hotel shall report to the city twice a year in 6 month intervals the number of cars which have parked longer than 24 hours and are not registered hotel guests and the use permit shall be reviewed if more than 10% of the on-site parking spaces are employed for this duration; 29) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 14, 1997, Sheet A0 through A11, and that the landscape plans shall be reviewed for compliance with all city ordinances and approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before a building permit is issued; 30) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal’s November 18, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos, and the Chief Building Inspector’s November 12, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos shall be met; 31) that small delivery trucks or vans with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and no trucks shall be stored or parked on site continuously throu ghout the day or overnight; 32) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 33) that the overall height of the 101-room addition as measured from the grade at the first floor (9'-6" elevation) shall be 84'-6½", and the height to the top of the elevator shaft and mechanical room shall be 99'-0"; 34) that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 10, 2003 7 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; 35) that in the future, as required, the developer shall participate in an assessment district formed to provide an east-west transit connection to CalTrain, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or any other intercity transit opportunities for employees and guests as well as providing an on-site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area, to facilitate employees’ trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel; 36) that the site shall be landscaped with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and pest control, and the maintenance of such landscaping shall follow the procedure established by a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; 37) that the applicant shall implement a valet parking plan for the transition period between occupancy of the new hotel rooms and completion and availability of at least 115 spaces in the proposed shared use parking lot on the sanitary landfill site; 38) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;39) that in order to minimize settlement of roadways and other site features, recompacting surcharging the artificial fill material should be done before any paving; 40) that when the level-of-service reaches LOS D, the city shall convert the northbound through lane on Airport Boulevard at Anza Boulevard to a second exclusive left-turn lane. This improvement will improve cumulative conditions during the p.m. peak hour at this intersection to an acceptable LOS D (V/C=0.85), and the applicant shall pay a fee at that time toward the cost of this improvement, in proportion to the project's contribution to the total increase in traffic through the intersection; 41) that payment of a Bayfront Development Fee to the City of Burlingame for impacts in the Anza area shall be required in order to pay the proportional share for improvements which would mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half due at the time of application and one-half due before asking for a final framing inspection; 42) that the proposed Anza Boulevard driveway access shared with the future park shall be widened from its current proposed width of 20 feet to a minimum width of 36 feet; a stop sign shall be provided at the driveway to control access on to Anza Boulevard from the shared parking facilities at the public park; 43) that the project sponsor shall continue to provide an airport shuttle service to all hotel guests, which shall include connections to Caltrain to accommodate employees at shift changes; and 44) that no portion of the required parking on site or on the landfill shall be used for long-term airport parking as part of a hotel promotion. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the motion: this courtyard is already functional seasonal space for the hotel and this extends the use year-round, proposed changes are minimal and to not impact the parking, landscaping, existing use or overall height. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:47 p.m. 6. 1541 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCE FOR AN INDOOR GO-CART FACILITY. (STEVE MARKULIN, APPLICANT; DENNIS KOBZA & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNERS; FRANK EDWARDS CO., PROPERTY OWNER) (15 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 10, 2003 8 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1122 CLOVELLY LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (THOMAS AND TARA NILAND, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PETER SANO, DESIGNER) (76 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Planner Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Tom Niland, owner, and Peter Sano, draftsman, were present to answer questions. The owner noted that he was proposing a 8'-1" first floor plate height and a 9'-1" second floor plate height so that he could add molding inside. Commission had the following concerns about the project: • would like plans to indicate that all new windows will match existing trim and window type; • provide a landscape plan to show how proposed second floor will be screened; • are trees at front private or city trees; they appear rather old and you might consider contacting the City to see about replacing them; • second story plate height of 9'-1" seems too large; first floor only has 8'-1" plate height and second floor seems too massive and bears down on first floor; • understand the desire for 9'-1" plate heights on additions, but should look into adding detailing and design features at the first floor that will support the mass of the proposed second story; • proposed addition is small, but design makes it feel massive and overall height is out of character will the neighborhood; • first floor setback variance is justified because the bay window provides relief at that elevation, but see no justification for the second floor front setback, just eliminate 9 inches from the second story and push it back; • provide a roof plan; from the elevations it looks as if the proposed roof is not resolved; • feel this project will benefit immensely from going to a design review consultant; and • the changes to be made to this house are minor and feel the project can come back to a regular action calendar. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Chair Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested revisions had been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: decision whether to refer this project to a design review consultant was a close call, would strongly advise the applicant and draftsman to focus on all of the direction given by Commission when revising the plans. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed 4-3 on a roll call vote (Cmsrs. Bojués, Osterling, and Vistica dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:07 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 10, 2003 9 8. 1544 AND 1550 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATIONS AS FOLLOWS: (DENISE LAUGESON BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING INC., DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT a. Parcel map for lot line adjustment b. 1544 Bernal Avenue – application for design review for a new two-story, single family dwelling with a detached garage c. 1550 Bernal Avenue – application for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and special permit and front setback variance for an attached garage Chair Keighran and C. Brownrigg note that they would have to abstain from voting on the project because their residences were within 500 feet of the project site. Both Commissioners left the dais and Council Chambers and Vice-Chair Bojués took the gavel. Planner Lewit briefly presented the project description. Commission asked staff why the house at the corner of Bernal and Devereux was not included in the average setback calculation. Staff responded that by code definition, the side of this corner property faces Bernal and side setbacks are not included when calculating the average front setback. Staff noted a desk item for this project. Vice-Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Denise Balestrieri, owner, and James Chu, designer, were present to answer questions. The owner noted that she would like to withdraw item #c, 1550 Bernal Avenue, at this time so that it could be redesigned to address the 1925 Devereux neighbor's concerns. The Commission had the following concerns about the new residence proposed at 1544 Bernal Avenue: • chimney is drawn incorrectly on the front elevation; • investigate a steeper roof pitch, perhaps a 6:12 pitch; this house is teetering between a shingle and a Craftsman design and a steeper roof might be more appropriate; • the columns at the entry porch just die into the eave, design could be improved by adding a beam at the top; • what material will be used for the roof over the curved element at the rear; comp will work, but you have the option of copper, which could really add something special; and • would like to see a Certified Arborist report to address tree protection measures on the site. Charles Bona, 1551 Bernal Avenue, spoke to ask for clarification about the front setback at 1550 Bernal and about whether these houses would be rented or sold. Staff responded that the required front setback for attached garages was 25 feet, in this case an even greater setback than the average for the block. Denise Balestrieri, owner, responded that she plans to live at 1550 Bernal and sell 1544 Bernal, unless it can't be sold and then she will rent it. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: project is nicely designed, but my impression when I visited the property is that the design of the house seems massive for the lot size, what do other Commissioners think; understand initial perception from plans is of a massive house, but in this case the required side setbacks are larger than usual, the house is stretched out in length to follow the lot dimensions, and the widest point of the house coincides with the widest point of the lot; effect will be to make house less massive and bulky in the setting. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 10, 2003 10 C. Auran made a motion place 1544 Bernal Avenue and the parcel map on the consent action calendar at a time when the requested revisions had been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Vice-Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place the parcel map and 1544 Bernal Avenue on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed 5-0-2 on a voice vote (Cmsrs. Keighran and Brownrigg abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:29 p.m. Chair Keighran and C. Brownrigg returned to the dais. 9. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT; EUGENE AND MAUREEN SUPANICH, PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Planner Lewit briefly presented the project description and noted a desk item showing that the existing house on Lots 14 and 15 at 1036 Cabrillo had been put on the market. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Otto Miller, applicant, and James Chu, designer, were present to answer questions. Commission asked the applicant what the intent was behind the second story balcony at the left side and if a split-level floor plan leading to the creek was explored. The applicant responded that the balcony was included to add interest to the design at that elevation and a split-level floor plan was determined to be impractical because the existing retaining wall prevents direct access to the creek from the right elevation of the proposed house. Vitus Viskanta, 1704 Sanchez Avenue and Steve Fong, 1001 Cabrillo Avenue, spoke regarding the project. They appreciated Mr. Miller offering to show them plans for the house in advance, feel their concerns about the mass and style of the proposed house have been addressed by the applicant, still have concern for the existing residence at 1036 Cabrillo, hope it will be bought and renovated; if it is not renovated, hope the owners will look to the reduction in square footage for proposed house as an example when designing the new dwellings. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojues made a motion to place this item on the next available consent action calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Commissioners noted for plan revisions: applicant should consider revising plans to follow the advice of the consultant to add a bellyband at the left and rear elevations to reduce apparent mass, left side of garage is blank and could use a window, also landscape plan might be reconsidered because the stipulated tree species, birch and swamp myrtle, don't complement the existing creek trees. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed 7-0 on a voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes February 10, 2003 11 X. PLANNER REPORTS FYI - 1204 Cabrillo Avenue CP Monroe noted that the request was to change the roofing material from slate to composition because while the plates could carry the weight the roof trusses installed could not. Otto Miller the developer and James Chu the architect were present and showed a number of roofing materials that were of appropriate weight for the tresses in place. It was noted that the roof is presently covered with a brownish, composition material. CA noted that at last meeting the issue was slate or an equal material. Commissioners noted that problem here is “bate and switch” weighed against long disruption in neighborhood caused by delay in construction, removing the roof at this point may not make sense; hard to require throwing away a 30 year roof, problem with fake slate, it changes color. CP Monroe noted that roofing material needs to be resolved before a building permit can be issued; and no work should take place on this site without a building permit. Consensus was that existing roofing material was all right, but the material on the new lower roof needs to match and the applicant should have a building permit before he does anything further on the site. FYI – 1110 Bayswater Avenue CP Monroe noted that the issue here was a fence built as a result of a law suite which when installed was higher than the 8’-0” approved by the Planning Commission. The installed fence measures 6’-5” of solid board fence and 2’-1” of lattice. Commission consensus was that given the situation the now existing fence could remain, in the future if it needs replacement it should be installed at 8’-0”. FYI – 808 Edgehill/California CP Monroe noted that when the Commission acted on this project, they directed a modification of the roll up door on the California frontage. The applicant has returned with the change, including a change to the entire commercial façade facing California because it was discovered that this side of the lot is in a flood zone. Commissioners noted that the revisions as shown on the large plans submitted dated January 30, 2003, met their concerns. Review of City Council regular meeting of February 3, 2003. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of February 3, 2003. No items were suggested for the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting agenda, and this item will be discussed again. C. Bojués indicated an interest in attending the League meeting, as did C. Vistica. They will follow up with the City Planner. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Secretary UNAPPROVEDMINUTES2.10.03