Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.09.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 22, 2003 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the September 22, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 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, Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the September 8, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as amended: Page 2 first paragraph following item 2c add “…nicely design house consistent with the neighborhood pattern, size, mass and bulk”; page 8, before last paragraph add, “C. Osterling arrived at 8:30 p.m.; and page 9 1504 Arc Way, paragraph 4, “…motion to refer to a design reviewer and to place….”. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2700 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION (VIRGINIA PON, APPLICANT; WILSON NG, DESIGNER; JANE CHUAN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT PLR Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners noted the following: • Would like applicant to install story poles before next review so that able to see view impact in the field; • Would like the outline of the swimming pool demarcated by stakes and tape on the ground in the rear yard; • Would like access to the neighbor’s house, if possible, so can see impact on views after story poles are installed; • Staff should discuss the pool ordinance and the Commission’s authority to review swimming pools, this site looks as if there might be a problem with the steepness of the slope; • Plans should be amended to call out the dimensions of the setbacks and size of the pool equipment enclosure, the location of the pool house is unclear on the present plans; • Plans should be amended to include the location and size of the large tree at the northwest corner of the site. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted, reviewed by the Planning Department, and there is space on the agenda. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2003 2 2. 1401 PALM DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONVERT A DETACHED GARAGE TO A RECREATION ROOM (PARCA, JERRY MARTIN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARY DUNLAP, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN PLR Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Applicant should clarify if construction of the larger garage and its conversion to an exercise room will result in an increase in the number of people served by the use; • How many adults stay at the facility during the week and on the weekend and where to they park; • Provide more information on the hardship on the property for the variance; • As referred to in the applicant’s letter, how has the city supported PARCA and Raji House in the past; • Would like to see the application on this site from 9 years ago; • What is the precedent for this non-residential use in a residential area; • What changes would be required to change this house so it can be used for a single family residential use in the future; • The curb and sidewalk in front of this property are in poor repair, are there plans to fix them; • Who lives on the site full time, how many people and what is their typical mode of transportation; • Why is the applicant going to the expense of replacing the driveway when it is in good repair; • Where do the family members park when they come to the site on the weekend; and • If grant exceptions now, how would it affect the future use of the property, can the garage revert back to covered parking when PARCA is gone. Chair Bojués set this item for action when all the information has been provided, reviewed by the Planning staff, and there is space on the agenda. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 3. 810 STANTON ROAD, ZONED O-M – APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR SALES AND INSTALLATION OF MOBILITY DEVICES (THE MOBILITY SPECIALISTS, APPLICANT; ALAN MALTIN, PROPERTY OWNER; PHILLIP R. DIXON, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER PLR Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • How many employees and customers were on this site with the previous use; • How do the proposed employees break out by full time and part time in two years and in the future, because the total on site “at one time” of 17 employees and customers seems high; • The bathroom facilities on this site are not shown to be ADA accessible, is this appropriate since the business serves physically challenged individuals; • Is there any use of this building for which the parking provided would meet the code requirements; • If there were 17 people on site at one time, where would they park; and • Can required parking be provided inside the building. Chair Bojués set this item for action when all the information has been provided, reviewed by the Planning staff, and there is space on the agenda. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2003 3 4. 216 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NON-AUTO RELATED USE (CATERING KITCHEN) (STEVE ERCOLINI, APPLICANT; BAUM TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • How often are deliveries made from each of these businesses to their customers and at what time of day; • Provide a copy of the lease for the railroad property used for parking for this building on West Lane, what are the terms of the agreement; • Clarify a maximum of four people on site at one time, is this cumulative or for each business; • Given full and part time employees , could have 8 people on site at one time, explain how frequently the maximum number would be on site and what that number is including full and part time. Chair Bojués set this item for action when all the information has been provided, reviewed by the Planning staff, and there is space on the agenda. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 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 or the Commission. 5. 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) (30 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT C. Keighran 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. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 6. 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) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN/MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report 09.22.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five 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. Commissioner noted that the table in the staff report indicates three existing bedrooms, it appears that there are four existing bedrooms; yes, there is an error in the table, the bedroom above the garage is the fourth bedroom. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2003 4 Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Kimberly Stratton, applicant and property owner, noted that she was available to answer questions and would like to respond to concerns raised by the neighbors after they speak. Commission confirmed that the existing wood siding would be extended to the new garage addition and asked what the color scheme will be; applicant noted that the color will match and that it would be a beige or an olive tone. Commission asked if the applicant considered placing the garage addition at the front of the house when planning this project; yes, but a garage extension at the front would only provide a 17 foot wide garage where a minimum width of 20 feet is required. Commission noted that the applicant previously mentioned planning for a second story addition in the future, suggest remodeling the first floor at that time to accommodate the garage extension at the front of the house, make the garage wider, remodel the first floor and add a second story at one time; applicant noted this option was considered, but moving a foundation is too costly and the full addition is not within their current budget, placing a garage at the front of the house would also eliminate the kitchen windows. Continued comment: Commission asked the applicant to explain how the space in the garage extension will be used; applicant noted that they recently inherited a 1960 Lincoln Continental, a very large vehicle which they would like to store indoors, also to use as a utility space for a washer, dryer and sink, and for storage of sports and yard equipment. Commission asked how many vehicles will be parked in the garage extension; applicant noted that one vehicle will be parked in the addition, the remaining space will be used as a utility space and for storage. Commission asked why can’t the addition be placed at the front of the house, could still park vehicles inside; applicant commented that if the addition is placed at the front of the house, the storage and utility space would block access for parking vehicles at the rear of the house, the garage would be three feet narrower at the front of the house making it difficult to maneuver vehicles in and out of the garage, and would also loose the kitchen windows. Commission noted that tandem parking might be a solution, the applicant would have to figure out a way to maneuver the vehicles in and out of the garage. John and Sheri Saisi, 1505 Los Altos Drive, and Reidar Klaumann, 3226 Hillside Drive. In opposition to the proposed project, noted that this is very difficult situation because he has know the applicants for 25 years, not opposed to the garage addition, just the location, will greatly affect his property, subject property already has a side setback variance, proposed addition is right above their yard, existing second story goes straight up, bought the property knowing that he’d have to live with the second story, but do not want to see this area of the house get larger; current garage floor is four feet above adjacent grade and increases to five feet towards the rear of the lot, story poles show how tall the addition will be and how much light will be lost, there is an extreme offset in grade between the two properties, the offset is at its greatest where the two houses overlap, the proposed addition would magnify the offset even more and it will appear like there are two houses on one lot; there will only be 14-15 feet of side yard fence left with this addition, the remaining property length will be taken up by structures; moved to Burlingame because of its aesthetics, houses are pleasing to look at, this addition looks like a billboard in his backyard, addition is too large, if the current house does not meet the applicants' needs, they should have considered another house, don’t feel that their dissatisfaction with their house should be accommodated at the neighbor’s expense, this is a thoughtless design; will object to any addition at the rear of the existing garage. Further comment: neighbor submitted pictures showing the view of the addition from the inside of their house and from their backyard, also submitted a site plan and building elevations of the single story addition which was denied previously at 1505 Los Altos Drive; the project denied at this site is very similar to what is now being proposed at 1509 Los Altos Drive; carefully studied the regulations and what can be done on my property before purchasing, placed addition at rear of garage so that it would not block views; given the amount of improvements proposed by this applicant in the future, feel that the project can be redesigned, can provide the addition on the other side of the lot; landscaping to screen the proposed addition would have to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2003 5 be 17 feet tall, would have to be planted in a very narrow side yard and would not allow access to that side yard or would have to be planted in my yard; concerned with the number of variances on this site, already granted a side setback variance for second story addition, concerned with the noticing process for hillside area construction permit and minor modification, only allows a 7-day review period, there is too much reliance on the U.S. Postal Service, mail is not always delivered on time or to the right address, neighbors may be out of town during the review period, there needs to be more careful attention placed on the findings, limits are being pushed, project lacks consideration for the neighbors. Backyard is their only private use area, view is to the west, property at 3226 Hillside Drive is 15 feet lower than the subject property, effect of the addition will be greater, sunset is at the same location as the addition for most of the summer and the loss of that view will have a negative impact on his property. Further comment: property owner responded to concerns raised by the neighbors, noted that common fence between 1505 and 1509 Los Altos Drive is currently five feet tall, fence can be raised to six feet solid with one foot of lattice which would help to screen the addition; regarding the effect the addition might have on the sunset, the existing 30’ tall trees now block the sunset for the neighbor below; the neighbor is welcome to plant screening in their yard, was planning to install a trellis on their property to help with the screening; not trying to avoid design review, now trying to raise funds so construction the second story addition is in the future. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: applicant appears to be piecemealing this project since additional construction will be proposed in the future, addition at rear will block views, need to look at options more closely, this is a good candidate for design review. Commission asked CA Anderson if this project can be referred to a design review consultant and what allows it to be referred to a design review consultant if the project is not subject to design review; CA noted that the Commission may refer this project to a design review consultant as an advisory if they feel the project will benefit from it, the applicant has two choices: to come back as an action item before the Commission for a vote on the project as it is proposed now; or be referred to a design review consultant. Commission noted that there are no exceptional circumstances or hardships on this property to grant the side setback variance; not is support of the project, the proposed addition will have a substantial impact on views, there are other options to add a third parking space on this site; the hillside area construction permit review is very important, need to look at this seriously, views from living room and bedroom at 1505 Los Altos Drive will be affected, proposed garage addition is located in view corridor for 3226 Hillside Drive and views will be affected; project was not well thought out, need to be more sensitive to site constraints, applicants need to seriously consider how the project will affect the neighboring properties, this is a large lot and there are more options available for additional parking, story poles indicate that views will be blocked; given the choices, applicant should strongly consider working on this project with a design review consultant. CA noted that the Commission cannot set a date certain to review this project until it is decided if the project will be reviewed by a design review consultant, if it will not be the applicant could return and ask for a formal action by the Commission. C. Vistica made a motion to continue this item with the direction that the applicant work on the Planning Commission's concerns with a design review consultant or return to the Planning Commission with the project as proposed as a regular noticed action item. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: CA noted that the applicant may return as a regular action item on the next meeting and request that the Commission vote on the project; Commission encouraged the applicant to take the project to a design review consultant for review, this project is not close to being approved, will require a radical rethinking of the layout, will have a better outcome if applicant is serious about considering other City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2003 6 options, addition as proposed now looks tacked on and does not work well with the rest of the house, do not want it to appear as if there are three additions. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item with the option for the applicant to work on the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission with a design review consultant or to return to the Planning Commission with the project as proposed as a regular action item. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. 7. 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 09.22.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Michael Nilmeyer, applicant and architect, was present to answer questions, provided additional plans and roof framing illustrations for discussion, letter submitted should clarify height issues, noted that the previously approved height of the building was 30’-5” without a licensed survey of the top of curb, property owner did not want to spend the money to get a property survey during the preliminary design, later on when property was surveyed found that the average top of curb line was actually 0’-6½” lower, first and second floor elevations are the same as the existing house, an additional 0’- 2¾” was added due to a change in the size of the roof rafters from 2x8 to 2x10 on a 12:12 roof pitch to enable the roof weight to be supported exclusively by the exterior walls for a sounder structure as suggested by the structural engineer, the structural engineer also suggested that the roof rafters sit on the second floor level rather than the first floor plate height for lateral movement which caused the height to increase by an additional 0’-10¼”, these changes combined increased the total height to 32’-1” above the surveyed average top of curb level, noted that reducing the height to what was previously approved would decrease the plate height in the second floor bedroom and bathroom from 6’-5” to 5’-7” and felt that this was just too low, cannot fit shower in bathroom with a 5’-7” plate height; proposed 12:12 roof pitch will match the existing roof pitch, this roof pitch allows for a lower appearing first floor wall, drawback is that it makes it difficult to achieve adequate plate heights on the second floor; considered many options to lower the roof height and found this to be the best solution, impact to neighboring properties will be minimal since there are driveways on either side of this property, did not want to have this problem at the end of construction, hope documentation now will help the Commission to make an informed decision, gable at rear of house is 70’-0” away from the neighbor, steep roof design allows light into neighbor’s yard. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: in support of this application, design is consistent with the design review guidelines, commend applicant for being responsive to the Commission’s concern and for providing detailed information to explain why the change in height occurred, information and plans provided were very helpful, spoke with the applicant in detail about the concerns and how to address them; thanked the applicant for addressing this problem before house under construction. 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 April 23, 2003, sheets A.2 through A.4 and sheets A.6 through A.8, with true divided light casement windows; and with City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2003 7 revised plans date stamped September 15, 2003, sheetsC-1, A-1, A-5 through A-7. A-9 and A-10, with the top of curb at elevation at 59.3' and a building height of 32'-1" and a 30 SF utility room and a 59 SF half bathroom in the basement; and that there shall never be a shower or a bathtub in the basement bathroom; 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 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; 4) 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; 5) 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; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, the Fire Marshal's, and the Chief Building Inspector's March 17, 2003 memos, and the Recycling Specialist's March 12, 2003 memo shall be met; 7)that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 8) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 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. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: the applicant provided a very descriptive document to explain the changes, makes the Commission’s job easier, followed process correctly, in support of the project, applicant has done a nice job and was very thorough; not long ago a variance was required to exceed the 30 foot height limit, ordinance was then changed to require a special permit for a building height between 30 and 36 feet if consistent with the architectural style which is the case here; exceeding the height limit is a serious issue, if 32 feet was originally proposed it probably would have been acceptable because of the style of the house, the change by 20 inches was of a concern, does raise questions about requiring top of curb spot elevations to be established by a licensed surveyor at the time of initial submittal since we have had this prob lem with other projects. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 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. Reference staff report 09.22.03, with attachments. PLR Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the den was considered a potential bedroom; yes, this would make it the fifth bedroom for parking calculation purposes. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2003 8 Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. James Chu, applicant and designer, was present to answer questions. Commission asked if the applicant would considered adding a window in the second floor laundry room wall facing the street would break up that wall; applicant noted that a window can be added in the laundry room. Commission asked the applicant to explain where the square footage was reduced; applicant noted that square footage was reduced from the living room, den, front porch, second floor walk-in closet and from bedroom #3. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: disappointed to see the front porch reduced in size, larger front porch added articulation to the front of the house made it fit the neighborhood better, design is well done and articulated; the proposed design fits in with the neighborhood, in support of the project, would like to see a window in the laundry room; would like to see more flexibility in the design in future projects, see this design too often now; feel that the size of the house can be reduced further. C. Vistica 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 September 10, 2003, Sheets A.1 through A.6, and L.10 ,site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan, with the exception of the 134 SF (6'-6" x 20'-6") front porch which shall be built including the French doors as shown on the plans date stamped August 29, 2003, with a total FAR for the house not to exceed 3,288 SF (0.54 FAR); 2) that a window shall be added on the wall above the front entry facing the street in the second floor laundry room; the window shall be consistent in size and style with the windows throughout the house; 3) 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; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, and Chief Building Official’s memos dated August 4, 2003 shall be met; 5) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 6) 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; 7) 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; 8) 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; 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 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 pro perty owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 11) 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; 12) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: still feel that the house is too big, the previous porch design adds aesthetic interest, the intent was not to reduce the size of the porch, suggest that the porch, including the French doors in the living room, be built as it was previously proposed, maker of the motion and second agreed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2003 9 Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. C. Osterling returned to the Council Chambers and resumed his seat on the dais. 9. 8 BELVEDERE COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR FIRST AND LOWER FLOOR DECK ADDITIONS (MICHAEL KOUVARIS, WILLIAM WOOD ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LAHORI RAM, PROPERTY OWNER) (17 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 09.22.03, with attachments. PLR Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. All Commissioners noted that they had visited the subject property. Commissioners asked about the crawl space, was it always within the envelope of the building; yes it was unimproved area with a 6 foot ceiling height, so counted in FAR, therefore improvements to this area were not considered expansion of FAR. Staff noted that there were two letters received after the packet was distributed one from the applicant's architect and one from the neighbor 10 Belvedere Court. There we no other questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Jack Ram, 8 Belvedere Court; Lahori Ram, 757 Easton Ave, San Bruno; Marty Eisenberg, attorney, 800 Airport Blvd.; Mohamed Ahmed, 6 Belvedere Ct. Felt we got a lot of feedback from the Commissioners who visited the site and feel that we need more time so we can revise the project by reducing the 6 foot walkway to 3.5 or 4 feet which would reduce the FAR request. Commissioners asked: does the crawl space on the side of the house count in FAR; only the areas over 6 feet in height. Applicant is discussing reducing the walkway, it would benefit him to look again and reduce FAR to an acceptable number. Applicant noted would like to request a continuance. Commissioners noted appreciate request, would encourage discussion tonight to give guidance. Applicant noted that the area under the decks are counted twice since they are stacked, seems that that is not right; terrain in yard is steep, space is not useable, cannot exit the bedroom/office safely without the deck, look for guidance. Commissioner noted that the landscape plan does not show irrigation nor does it identify the specific plant materials to be used, when resubmit would like a complete landscape plan with irrigation and plants identified by species. Public hearing continued: request for FAR and hillside area construction permit, exceeds FAR by 29% already, with deck would exceed FAR by 38% over permitted, the side setbacks on the structure are less than the minimum required on each side so structure has more visual mass than usual; did not see the findings for exceptional or extraordinary circumstances on the property to justify the FAR variance request, do not see unreasonable property loss and no evidence given of substantial loss of value, other houses in the area range from 1500 SF to 3500 SF, this house is almost twice the size of the next largest house on Belvedere Ct. The proposed use is incompatible with other properties in the vicinity, it is already more massive, particularly when seen from sides and downhill. There is other access to the rear yard beside the proposed lower deck and walkway, if safety is the issue a 3.5 to 4 foot walkway is wide enough; the increase in the upper deck increase the appearance of mass and bulk, does not want to see a shift in FAR but an overall reduction, if the rear yard is unusable need the upper deck, but applicant has enlarged the rear year and provided access to a useable 800 SF patio area; don’t feel that the spiral staircase from the upper deck increases either security or safety, there is already a stair for safety egress, the spiral stair increases both mass and bulk of the structure; because the structures is greatly disproportionate is not a reason to increase its size. Views from neighbor at 10 Belvedere Ct. will be impacted if the depth of the old deck is increased City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2003 10 4 feet, applicant can stand on new deck and look into the neighbors' living and family rooms, deck should be decreased since new recreation area in rear yard. Asked if opposed to modest improvement if it did not exceed current FAR. Depends what is changed, greatest concern is the expansion of the deck at the main level, OK if walkway below is less than the envelope above. Clients property is uphill of the project. Problem is not with the lower walkway, but with the upper deck, am now looking into a barren back yard, they removed all the trees, concerned about extended family using the bigger deck and invading my privacy. Commission asked how this deck was different from the previous deck. The previous deck was narrower could not see from it into his living room, if replace as was, OK, the extension is the problem. Commissioner noted original deck was 10 feet deep, new deck is 16.75 feet deep. Problem is that the proposed deck is widest at the top of the stair which is closest to 10 Belvedere Ct. Commission asked how far is the deck from 10 Belvedere, about 30 to 40 feet. Commission noted we live in the suburbs and 30 to 40 feet away downhill is a long way. Applicant responded: cannot see inside neighbor’s house, the only way to get out of the rooms at the bottom is by the deck, cannot get fire insurance if remove deck; we need more guidance, when he stands on his deck he will see into our bathroom, that is a fact we have to live with. At neighbors request surveyed property line to determine where trees at rear were located. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner’s comments: • both the upper and lower decks add a lot to the FAR, need make a substantial reduction in the decks so that they more closely match the FAR of the original deck surface area; • also square footage is added at the front entry portico, that could be reduced as well; • seems deck area in front of the master bedroom is less necessary, it could be removed; • Logistics are going to be a problem, there is going to be a deck, and it will affect views, need story poles to show limit of proposed upper deck at rail height so able to determine visual impact; poles set and surveyed with the top of rail shown need to be installed before site inspection so all can see, extension of lower deck should also be shown by poles and tape; • Applicant needs to provide a new landscape plan which includes an irrigation plan and shows specific species to be planted at various locations. The slope on the lot creates the FAR issues, in this case to reduce to allowed FAR would have to take 8 feet off the house; issue is not FAR inside the existing envelope of the house but the area on the outside; would like to be able to see project from neighbor’s house, can he leave a time we can visit. Chair Bojués moved to continue this item until plans have been revised, submitted to staff for review and story poles with webbing to denote the top of the railings of the proposed decks be put in place so view impact can be determined at site inspection before the public hearing. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: would like to amend motion to include that the webbing on the story poles would indicate the top of the railing on the proposed deck, the maker and second of the motion agreed to the amendment; a condition should be added that areas within the envelope and under the decks shall not be converted to living area in the future. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item for redesign with intallation of story poles. The motion to continue passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2003 11 10. 1348-1368 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CONSTRUCT A NEW WAREHOUSE BUILDING (MICHAEL PIETRO, APPLICANT; WILLIAM SCHUPPEL, ARCHITECT; PIETRO PARTNERS L.L.C., PROPERTY OWNERS) (20 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 09.22.03, with attachments. PLR Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty one conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked staff if the conditions included performance glass, staff noted that there was a note on the plans that the applicant would use “solar tinted glass” and would be required to meet Title 24 design requirements. It was noted that Condition 11 requires maintenance of fossil fuel filers in the drains, who sees that this is done? Staff noted that it is the obligation of the property owner, there is a schedule for replacement based on storm patterns, the city has an inspector working out of the wastewater treatment plant, who spot checks for compliance. There are penalties for not replacing the filters as required. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Michael Pietro, property owner, represented the project. Bill Uiullette, 955 Edgecliff; and Ross Stewart, 2825 Benson Way, Belmont, also spoke. The applicant noted he would answer questions. Commissioner noted that rather than have to trim the hedges the applicant might want to consider Rapheolepsis Ballerina which will grow well and stay low; applicant noted that he would. Asked about the glass face of the façade; applicant wanted to retain since it would go a long way toward heating the building and no heat is proposed for the warehouse area, has not picked a glass will do that at construction and will have to comply with Title 24. Asked what the costs/benefits were of building a warehouse at this location. Applicant noted that it is a family business, needed 5,000 SF of warehouse for construction equipment, found half the site were discouraged by decrepit building next door, it became available so bought both and 5,000 SF turned into 30,000 SF; will use the 5,000 SF and rent the rest, have no tenants at the moment, if that does not work will convert it to a self-storage business. Previous owner of property next door noted sold the site because could not maintain, needed to be replaced, it was difficult to pencil out, applicant is willing to demolish and rebuild, he was not. Concerned about the 6 roll up doors on Marsten and the three curb cuts; there are huge trucks using and tuning on this dead end part of Marsten all day, do not know how the street will handle the additional traffic, own the property next door and am concerned about the horrendous traffic. Applicant noted that San Bruno Scavenger has leased a large parcel across the street on Marsten to store their trucks, have not seen major traffic problem when been to site, but that is most often in the afternoon. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: was fine until the comments about Marsten Road, it could cause a problem with the traffic and circulation analysis; know that there are trucks on Marsten, don’t know if there is a problem this is an industrial area; negative declaration does not address Marsten, how will the Marsten access to this project be used? Should item be continued until the applicant provides information on the proposed use of the Marsten access and the effects can be evaluated or mitigation measures identified. CA noted that the analysis would need to be interactive with the applicant since city prepared the negative declaration based on information provided by the applicant, need to discuss with the City Engineer. C. Osterling moved to continue action on this item until the traffic and circulation issues on Marsten have been investigated, the item should be brought back on the consent calendar when the issue has been addressed. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2003 12 Comment on the motion: applicant should be aware that the Specific Area Plan for the Rollins Road area is considering a single species tree for the streetscape, since he is planting trees along Rollins Road they should coordinate with the SAP streetscape proposal. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no design review items for review. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of September 16, 2003. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of September 8, 2003. - Fence Review CP Monroe discussed briefly with the Commissioners the changes to the process staff had made to ensure that it was clear to applicants that following Commission review they would need to apply separately to the Building Department for a building permit. Commissioners suggested that staff should prepare an amendment to the code for the Commission to review which would allow a procedure, less than a variance, for a trellis at a property entry just behind the front property line. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary UNAPPROVEDMINUTES09.22.03