Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.03.11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Monday, March 11, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the March 11, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Brownrigg (arrived at 8:12 p.m.) Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The page 7, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the minutes of the February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting were amended to read: “Graphic Arts and Design Retail businesses and Health and Beauty Spa definition//class size Chairman Vistica moved to recommend the zoning code amendment to City Council, to add the definition of Graphic Arts and Design Retail business which would be a new conditional use in Subarea B and prohibited in Subarea A and; to allow establish a new personal service use, Health and Beauty Spa, as a pedestrian oriented use below the first floor only in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area, and when the business has substantial retail taxable sales and a business need for group instruction require an accompanying conditional use permit for a group instruction.” The February 19, 2002 Special Planning Commission meeting minutes were approved as mailed. The minutes of the February 23, 2002 Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting were distributed at the meeting and will be included for action at the March 25, 2002, Commission meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that the Commissioners had received an amended agenda with a fourth Planners Report on discussion of different types of Planning approvals added. Chairman Vistica indicated that C. Brownrigg was unavoidably detained an wished to participate in the discussion/action of item 4, 1204 Cabrillo Avenue, so he set that item for 8:15 p.m. Other items on the agenda would be followed in order until 8:15 p.m. V. FROM THE FLOOR Jerry Deal, 1228 Paloma Avenue spoke noting that he felt that Commissioners Stan Vistica and AnnKeightan deserved to be reappointed to the commission; they had earned that right by virtue of their experience and creativity. He served 11 years on the commission and the best 3 years was the commission on which Stan and Ann sat; they should be allowed to continue “to do good for the city”. There were no other comments from the floor. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 11 2002 2 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE #100 – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (ALLAN BERNARDI, RE/MAX DOLPHIN REAL ESTATE, APPLICANT; CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners had the following questions and comments: • Can applicant clarify the maximum number of independent contractors who will be on the site at any one time; • Application notes that there will be no increase in the number of clients in 5 years, please clarify; • Tenant list shows a RE/MAX office in Suite 360. Will this office be moving to Suite 100 or is the proposed office a supplement to the existing office? If supplement, now will the two work together? • Charles Schwab was originally approved for 17 employees in Suites 100 and 101, now their space is being reduced by half. Will the number of employees in Suite 101 (Charles Schwab) decrease by moving out of Suite 100? • Noted that there are no regularly scheduled meetings. Can applicant provide a count of the number of group meetings held in the past 6 months in their current office. 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. 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. Chairman Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 2a. 1236 PALOMA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ASHLEY MCNEELY AND ELISA ODABASHIAN, PROPERTY OWNERS (76 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON 2b. 1310 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND INCREASE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (ZUBEYIR DUYGU, STELLA MIA RESTAURANT, APPLICANT; GENSLER FAMILY, PROPERTY OWNER) (NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and each by City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 11 2002 3 resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 1204 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO- STORY HOUSE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (MIKE WILSON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Chairman Vistica noted that this item had been moved on the agenda and would be heard at 8:15 p.m. 4. 834 WALNUT AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (SCOTT AND LESLIE WITH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS, JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report, 3.11.02, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, designer, 1228 Paloma Avenue and Scott With, property owner, 834 Walnut Avenue, were available to answer questions. The applicant noted that the Commission’s concerns expressed at the last review had been addressed, more trees were added on site and a roof plan was provided along with documentation. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling noted that he had a telephone conversation with the applicant regarding the trees and discussed the changes to the plans. He then 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 February 28, 2002, sheets 1, 5, and 7 and date stamped February 8, 2002, sheet 2 through 4, and 6, and that any changes to the 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 first or second floors, 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 design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s February 4, 2002, memo shall be met; 4) that three Pittosporum undulatum (Victorian Box) (5-gallon container size) shall be planted at the rear of the site and one landscape tree shall be planted in the front yard and one in the rear year as shown on the Site Plan (Sheet 1), date stamped February 28, 2002; the new trees to be planted in the front and year yards shall be chosen from the official street tree list; 5) that the project shall comply with the Construction and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6 -0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 11 2002 4 5. 1433 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHI-HWA SHAO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER) (NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report, 3.11.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked would there be safety hazard if water flowed at full capacity in the smooth concrete trench along the right side of the property; CE Murtuza noted that there have been no problems reported with water capacity in similar trenches throughout the city. Commissioner asked if, because the house was designed within inches of the maximum height allowed, it would be appropriate to add a condition to survey the elevation of the first floor; CBO Cullum suggested that the foundation and roof ridge be surveyed, can add this as a condition. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, was available to answer questions. He noted that the proposed changes are an improvement to this project, revised the floor plan layout and added more exterior details. Commission noted that the landscape plan calls for Japanese boxwood along the right side of the property and three new Island Date palm trees at the right rear corner of the property, suggest replacing palm trees with trees from the city’s official tree list, Japanese boxwood should be replaced with the same species as the existing shrubs along the right side property line; designer noted that this landscape plan was previously approved and no changes are proposed, but noted that these changes could be made; Commission asked why the entry porch was reduced in width from 5’ to 4’ wide; designer noted that a narrower width was more in proportion with the front of the house. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions, noting that this is an improvement to the original design, the roof over the front bay window was changed from composition shingle to copper, and arched vents and a lead glass window were added: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 25, 2002, sheets A1 through A3, and the site and landscape plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 22, 2001, sheet A1, and that any changes to the 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, 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 design review ; 3) that the height of the foundation and roof ridge shall be surveyed by a licensed surveyor and shall be reported to the Chief Building Official before a foundation and framing inspections are completed; if the height of the foundation and/or the roof ridge is not consistent with the approved plans, the applicant shall correct the height to comply or immediately stop all work on the site and apply for a design review amendment; 4) that the three island date palm trees at the rear of the property shall be replaced with 3 tree species selected from the city’s official tree list, and that the Japanese boxwood shrubs along the right side of the house shall be replaced with the same species as the existing shrub’s along the right side property line; 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal’s, Chief Building Official’s March 19, 2001, memos and the Recycling Specialist's February 25, 2002 memo shall be met; 6) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 11 2002 5 Comment on the motion: this is a big improvement over the original design, noted a mistake in the staff report, table indicates that the height will be 29’-11”, plans show 29’-3” from average top of curb, height should be confirmed and corrected. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6 -0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 6. 3030 HILLSIDE DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (KENNETH ROBY, ALADDIN HOMES, APPLICANT; DAWOOD AND BATOUL JAMSHIDNEHAD, PROPERTY OWNERS; REZA NOROUZI, MEMARIE ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (34 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 3.11.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner noted that the site drops approximately 40’ from the street to the building site a 33% grade on the driveway and is concerned that it cannot be used by emergency vehicles, can this be corrected? CE Murtuza noted that it would involve extensive re-grading of the site and that it could affect adjacent parcels; CP Monroe noted that this is an existing legal lot and it is not required that the slope of the driveway be made conforming unless more lots are created; owners are aware of access problem. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Goulam Mazad, architect, noted that improvements have been made, reduced the height of the entry porch from 21’ to 11’-2”, the site is 55’ below the street level, will only see part of the house from Hillside Drive, roof will be screened by large trees, reduced the plate height from 12’ to 10’ and the overall height from 28’-9” to 24’-2” from existing adjacent grade, and two guest parking spaces were added. Commission noted that before there were a variety of designs in the façade, all those details have now been lost, all see now is stucco with lots of windows, no design; the architect noted that there is no specific style in the neighborhood, tried to match style of existing houses in the neighborhood, reduced the size of house from 8,000 SF to 5,600 SF; Commission asked what type of windows are proposed; the architect noted that double-glazed windows, have not picked specific style, these are not construction plans, some details are not provided on plans; Commission noted that even though the house will not be visible from the street, design review still looks at the overall design. Further discussion: Commission asked where was the 500 SF eliminated when FAR reduced from 6,300 SF to 5,700 SF; the architect noted that the overall room sizes were reduced; concerned with the window trim, foam stucco molding and wood trim shown on the plans, drawings do not clearly show what window trim is intended; architect noted that the owner plans on using traditional wood stucco mold, but it is not drawn as such on the plans; concerned with the flat roof at the middle of the house, there will be leaves falling on the roof, creates a potential for leaking, have you tried to pitch the entire roof? The architect noted that an effort was made to keep the height of the structure down, which required a flat roof; Commission noted that the roof will be seen as you approach the house and will clearly be seen from across the canyon; architect pointed out that a large existing tree will screen the view to the house from the street, a perspective drawing was shown to all Commissioners. Earl Dilley, 3028 Hillside Drive, originally bought property and later subdivided it into three lots, is concerned with the entry, suggested that the driveway be widened, never understood what happened with the roadway extension at Adeline Drive, this area could be developed with more houses, owner gave land to the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 11 2002 6 city, city didn’t think it was appropriate to build more houses there; CE Murtuza noted that there are no plans for street improvements in this area. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: visited the site and spoke to the neighbors that live directly above this site, discussed the story poles, previously objected the project, but after seeing the story poles they are pleased with this proposal because the ridge will be below their line of sight, neighbors are very happy with the removal of some large trees, will now provide a better view, this is a good example of design review in action, turned a project that was out of scale with the neighborhood into a good project. C. Osterling 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 February 15, 2002, sheets A-0 through A-8, C-1 through C-2, and L-1, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2) that traditional wood stucco mold shall be used for window trim on all windows; 3) that the property owner shall be responsible for reconstructing the driveway access from the street to this site and in such a manner that access to adjacent properties served by the easement remains viable; this improvements shall be installed prior to scheduling final building inspection; 4) that the applicant shall apply for and receive tree removal permits for all trees noted for removal on the plans dated February 15, 2002; a tree and root protection plan shall be submitted as part of the building permit application and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist; tree and root protection devices shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist prior issuance of a demotion permit and shall remain in place during construction; 5) 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; 6) that the conditions of City Engineer’s February 19, 2002, July 23, 2001 and April 4, 2001 memo, the Fire Marshal’s February 19, 2002, March 30, 2001 memo, the Recycling Specialist’s February 19, 2002, March 28, 2001 and the City Arborist’s July 10, 2001 memos shall be met; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: agree that the project has come a long way, house is still large but more realistic for the site, is modest in details but would suggest that traditional wood stucco mold be used and appropriately scaled, could have built a larger house allowed by FAR, house does not intrude on views; the design can be improved, design review consultant stated that the details were lost in the redesign to reduce the size, should add more details, needs fine-tuning, cannot support the motion; the details should work with the revision to the window trim. The maker and second of the motion agreed to add a condition requiring that traditional wood stucco mold be used as window trim. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the project with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Keighran dissenting, C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 232 DWIGHT ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BART GAUL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; J & M DESIGN, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 11 2002 7 CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Bart Gaul, applicant and property owner, 232 Dwight Road, was available to answer questions. The Commission asked what are the proposed plate heights on the first and second floors and what is the size of the new camellia to be planted in the front yard? The applicant noted that the first floor plate is 10’ above curb level and the second floor plate height is 7’-6” above the second floor finished floor; the camellia is a 5-gallon container size; Commission asked if the intent is to replace all of the windows and what type of window and window trim will be used? The applicant noted that he intends to replace all of the windows, a traditional wood stucco mold will be used for window trim, the windows will be casement with true divided lights. C. Brownrigg arrived at 8:12 p.m. Mike Escobar, 229 Dwight Road, noted that he is in support of the project, reviewed the plans, many of the houses on Dwight Road have a layer-cake appearance, asks that the Commission approve this project. The Commission had the following comments and concerns to be addressed by the applicant and noted on the plans: • Suggest planting a Saratoga in the front yard, it is a larger scale tree and is faster growing, use same species as in rear yard; • Concerned with the design of the house, this is a great start; • Concerned with the choice of windows, they are all the same size and shape, the windows should be studied and modified to add interest; • Concerned with the layer-cake look, there is no variation, design could be developed more, there is a better way to integrate the first and second floors by extending wall usually 2 floors in some places, there is no variation in the first floor eave it is a straight line across the band around the house; declining height envelope can cause a layer-cake look, Commission can grant an exception for declining height envelope to encourage better architecture; There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar noting the applicant has done a nice job, do not see too many cases where the applicant is willing to change the existing windows, feels that the second story flows well and that the house will have a lot of light with the amount of windows. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: applicant should consider comments made regarding the design of the house. Maker of the motion noted that she did not want to amend the motion, feels that suggested changes are major and that it would take away from the preferred proposal. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-2 (Cmsrs. Bojués and Vistica dissenting). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 3. 1204 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO- STORY HOUSE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (MIKE WILSON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 11 2002 8 OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 3.11.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments, action alternatives and seven conditions suggested for consideration. She suggested amendments to conditions 2 and 3 addressing the fact that work would be stopped if more money was needed to pay the construction consultant and that the dead spaces created to exempt FAR requirements on the second floor should never be converted to any kind of useable or living area. Commissioner asked if the window in the second floor walk-in closet was larger than shown on the plans? Asked if the commission has the authority to require that this entire structure be rebuilt. CA noted that the commission could deny the current request and require the applicant to build the structure as approved, or could direct some other course. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Charles Rible, attorney, 3130 Los Saba and Mike Wilson, 1204 Cabrillo property owner, were present. Mr. Wilson noted that he was a builder on the East coast and this was his first project in California. His attorney noted that Mr. Wilson was unaware of local regulations; foundation contractor had advised that the site not be graded out, knew would raise the building, but it is only a foot over allowed height and they can cut the roof without it affecting the design. Higher house also affected the declining height envelope on the right side, however, the design fits the neighborhood, have the two dormers at the front which works with the neighborhood, the declining height exception is a small violation and you still have a good design. Removed French doors from exterior because the buyer has children and thought that the doors were a safety hazard, they were replaced with casement windows throughout; on the side of the house they cannot be seen, and there is less window facing the neighbors. The owner/builder did not think changes made on the inside would make a difference, did not know about the FAR; is now proposing to block off different space which meets the needs of the new owners better. With these changes the FAR and lot coverage is compliant. The 13 inch extra height can be addressed. The exterior chimney next to the driveway was not installed because paving a 9 foot driveway would mean removing the established shrubs which separated the site from the neighbors. Nine feet is too narrow any way. Can add the chimney now if Commission wants. Commissioners asked: is Mr. Wilson a licensed contractor; not in California, licensed builder in New Jersey. Has he built any houses for anyone else in Burlingame; no. When applied for amendment for two changes to the plans in January it was made clear how important it was that all changes to the approved plans be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and now in March there are 13 more changes that were not brought forward then. This shows disrespect for the Commission and for the City of Burlingame. These are major changes not shown on the plans being requested now: 2’9” increase in height, declining height exception of more than 100 SF, change in roofing material from hardy slate to composition, failure to install chimneys and dormers. How did this happen? Wilson responded no other house on the street has hardy slate roofing, used weathered wood. Attorney noted that when came to the city for first amendment these items were in place. Wilson noted left out chimney on the left by the driveway to improve the driveway access to the garage and keep the existing shrubs. The framer forgot to put on the dormers, he can do it now. Did not want to bury the house, would cause one to step down into the front door, have to install sump pump which would be a problem if the electricity failed during a storm, would flood under the house or even into the first floor. Blame the contractor for giving him bad advice, which caused the height limit to be exceeded by 13 inches and the declining height envelope to be exceeded. Asked the applicant if he was present at initial public hearings in June 2001. Mr. Wilson noted he was. Noted in the minutes the neighbors expressed concern about the height of the project. Yet you agreed not to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 11 2002 9 do the grading which raised the foundation 2.5 feet. Mass and bulk issue cannot be addressed by clipping roof ridge, shoving building up caused all the eaves to protrude at a higher point, increased visual bulk; conditions and stamp on building plans clearly state “build according to plans”. You are now before the Commission for the fourth time, you have no respect for either planning or building departments. How often did you check the site during construction. Mr. Wilson noted that he stopped by every day or every other day during construction and worked directly with the subs. How confident are you about the quality of the construction given the errors now documented? Did not have problem in New Jersey had an experience set of subs; have been doing this since he was 15. Are these plans the final proposal for the construction? Mr. Wilson siad, yes, the building is sheet rocked, trimmed, the cabinets are in, the marble is in the bathrooms, the hardwood floors are not installed. How big is the window in the second floor closet? The window installed is 3 x4, the plans call for a 2x4, have that window and will install the smaller window. Did not want to sink the house, if did would need a retaining wall at the driveway and would loose the shrubs; framer decided to raise the house; chimneys could be installed they are just decorative. How do you propose to treat the voided spaces? Wilson noted he would have them filled with blown-in insulation. Could these walls be removed in the future? Wilson noted that they could. Attorney noted that as originally approved there were voided spaces on the second floor, all the applicant is asking is to relocate them to improve the interior design. Commissioner noted that he was disappointed, cannot believe that being from out of town is a justification for doing what you want. Neighbors commented: Bill Tiedeman, 1205 Cortez; Kathy and Tom Posey, 1208 Cabrillo; Pat Harding, 1205 Cortez; Tom Pazone, 3862 Knotta Ave. Belmont. They noted how can an unlicensed contractor take out a building permit. CBO Cullum noted that Hawk Electric took out the permit, they are licensed; will need to talk to CSLV about situation; building code requires with building permit, compliance with all local regulations, including zoning, so this construction was a violation of the Building code as well. Raising the house, raised the windows on the rear of the house, block sunlight in back yard and reduce privacy, if 3 feet lower windows would be behind shrubs and no view, less light impact. Applicant is responsible; would like to see house removed and built as it was approved and based on the building permit. If the driveway was so tight that he could not put in the chimney, that says something about the size of the building; I will live with this next door for years. Trusted that the building would be built as shown on building plans which went to city to check, public notice was first indication that plans were not being followed; husband a licensed contractor, spoke to applicant, expressed how important height was to them; feel betrayed. If require the roof to be hacked off, how will it look; does not look anything like the approved plan now; neighbors concerned but not want to come forward. Prospective buyer, in escrow, understand concern, all of these changes were made 7-8 weeks ago; we did not want French doors happy with change to casements because of children, want the shrubs to be retained along the driveway for neighbors privacy, so removal of chimney fine; agreed to remove window in kitchen because neighbor wanted, not as nice a room without the window; the house is very private, the second floor windows do not look into the neighbors yard; the garages at the rear (1204 and one behind) match, increases privacy. What Wilson did was not right but was not malicious; the changes did not cheapen the neighborhood. Neighbor noted did not benefit from the window removed in the kitchen, it is behind a fence so could not see it. Can’t see into backyard now because have not trimmed the hedges during the construction, when do trim will see directly into the windows. Garages are back to back with alley between, but house is so tall it looms over their lot and yard. Applicant and his attorney responded: Attorney noted that applicant could put plants along perimeter of site at rear to block views. Wilson noted that there are evergreen trees at the rear now, will not trim and they will continue to grow; houses are close in Burlingame. Attorney noted that city requirement for an City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 11 2002 10 overseeing contractor employed by the city will insure that changes are made and applicant gets better advise. Commissioner noted that there are one or two trees in the back yard not enough to screen neighbor, city should not have to hire overseer to correct this problem, if the contractor had read the plans there would have been no problem. Wilson noted that he made all the changes to improve the quality of the project. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: concerned about the current status of the property, should be boarded up, it is an attractive nuisance now, with loose dirt and erosion potential, it represents a violation to several municipal code sections, this should be addressed immediately. Troubled by the extent of these problems, can not just clip the roof, what will that do to the design, big impact on the neighbors, the house is too big inside cannot control future expansion into these areas; neglecting to follow the plans is not a hardship for a code exception. A lot of these problems flow from the fact that the house was built to the maximum. Would like to see design reviewer look at roof, don’t know if can put heavier material on it, should bring house within height and declining height. Further Commission Comment: There is a solution for the height and bulk issues, reduce the building by 2 feet 9 inches by cutting down the second floor walls and lowering the plate line until the original height and declining height envelop are met (about a 5 foot plate should do it) This would also reduce the voided areas inside by placing them in areas with ceiling heights less than 5 feet. Could approve with a condition that the plate line be brought down so that the roof peak meets the elevation from top of cu rb originally approved, this would mean reconstruction of the second floor only, first floor would not be affected. Commission would need to see the appearance of the resulting building, need to prepare drawings for review. CA noted that commission could act tonight or continue the item and ask for more information or refer to design reviewer with direction. Would suggest that applicant prepared revised plans and elevations based on lower second floor plate height, commission can review these at design review study and then can direct to design reviewer or to action. Commission comment continued: lowering the plate line would also address the FAR issue on the second floor; yes. Many things need to be fixed, do not want to send a message that after the fact we will accept any and all changes, think idea of sending to design review is a good one, there are 13 items to be fixed, want the finished project to be as close to the plans originally approved as possible. Commissioner asked, and commission agreed, that a determination be made that all areas with ceiling heights of 5 feet or more inside a house or accessory structure would be counted in the FAR calculation. Comment continued: Understand why would want French doors converted to casement windows if you have children, the design reviewer should take that safety issue into account. Asked staff if there was an architect on the project. CP Monroe noted she did not know. If the architect is not Mr. Chu, who is familiar with city requirements, then design reviewer participation is necessary. Important that the existing property be secured and made safe while this issue is being resolved. Design reviewer can look at applicant’s proposal but he cannot design house back to the original. Applicant should be directed to find an architect and submit plans with the second story plat height reduced. Bringing down the plate will affect the whole mass of the structure, need to see elevations. C. Bojués moved to continue action on this application until the applicant returns with elevations and floor plans for a house with a second floor plate line lowered so that the roof ridge and building envelope are the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 11 2002 11 same as it was on the originally approved plans and the voided areas over 5 feet in height hav e been eliminated; the proposal will be returned to design review study and the commission will direct it disposition from there. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: CA noted that the applicant can decide what he would like to do, what you decide tonight can be appealed. The motion does not address the chimney along the driveway, if its presence keeps people from using the driveway then it does not need to be installed; its OK to replace the French doors with casement windows. Think there should be a landscape plan added which addresses the neighbor’s privacy, the site needs a construction fence immediately and erosion control. The remedy is to get a commitment to make what is physically on the site conform to the plans approved; this project affronts all those in the city who conformed to their approved plans, cannot make findings for the height, the declining height, the increase in mass or bulk, request should be denied. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion directing that the item be continued and the second floor plate reduced so that the height of the structure meet that originally approved with the declining height envelope requirement met and the FAR met by the area inside with ceiling heights over 5 feet with revised plans and elevations submitted to design review study for review and further action by the commission. The motion passed on a 5 – 2 roll call vote (Cers. Keighran and Keele dissenting). This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. 8. 1133 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAVE HOWELL, PENINSULA BUILDING DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JIM AND KATHY WARD, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Dave Howell, designer, 2825 Hillside Drive, and James Ward, property owner, were present to answer questions; designer noted that he has been working with the applicant on this project for 4 years, looked at different designs and worked with several contractors, crucial element is the interior roof cricket, this area of the roof is not visible from the street, without the cricket the roof would be 2 feet taller, bulk of building is mitigated because the lot is 75’ wide, maintaining 12’ right side setback and 24’-4” left side setback, uncovered deck is set back 8 feet, deck is approximately 18”-20” above grade. Commission asked why is a 9’-0” ceiling height needed in the basement; designer noted the ceiling height in the existing house is 8’-6” wanted to keep same, the basement will contain a rumpus room and exercise equipment will be stored in the basement, the ceiling height in the basement will not affect the bulk of the building, the grade will be excavated to the accommodate the new basement areas, the existing basement has a 7’-5” ceiling height, walk through laundry room and step down three steps to new basement area. Applicant noted that portions of the basement will be back-filled to a ceiling height of 5’–11” to comply with FAR, asked what is required to backfill; staff suggested a concrete floor is needed which cannot be removed easily. The applicant should check with the building department for rat proof requirements. Further discussion: Commission pointed out that the first floor level is the same throughout the house, noted that there is a sump pump in the existing basement, and new sewage pump will be added adjacent to the powder room, suggested that the laundry room should be relocated to a more central location, but it is entirely up to the applicant; Commission asked if the uncovered deck is counted in FAR, staff noted that City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 11 2002 12 because it is uncovered and is less than 30 inches above grade, it is not counted in FAR or lot coverage; generally discourage second story decks, but given the size of the lot, the distance from the property line, and the consistency with the design the deck is appropriate. Robert Smith, 1137 Cabrillo Avenue, noted that his lot is also one and a half lots wide, is in support of the project, and that he would like to see every effort to protect the oak tree which is located between the properties. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg noted no changes were suggested and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar noting that this is an elegant design which conserves the older house, but that it is at the maximum FAR limit, and therefore asked that the applicant carefully adhere to these plans. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. 9. 116 COSTA RICA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GARY AND MARY ANN NICHOLS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if this revised project is completely different than that which was approved in 1998; staff noted that the previous project included a second story addition at the rear of the house. Commission asked if staff has confirmed that the basement is unimproved; staff noted that they have not been in the basement, but that the applicant has indicated that the basement is unimproved, basement is only used for storage and to house mechanical equipment presently, water regularly flows into the basement. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Jerry Deal, designer, 1228 Paloma Avenue, noted that this is an unusual circumstance, no FAR variance was required four years ago for the previous design, codes regarding basements have changed since then, basement ceiling height varies from 6’-8” to 7’-0”, there are ducts hanging from the basement ceiling, currently have water problems in basement, the proposed addition complies with FAR regulations without the basement, basement counts in FAR since it rises 3’-6” above grade, new design creates 30 SF of additional lot coverage, the existing house currently exceeds the maximum lot coverage by 245 SF, deck at the rear is more than 30 inches above grade, could lower the height of the deck and comply with FAR but would be very expensive to do so, existing side setback is 3’- 0”, only the staircase requires a variance, but because it qualifies as a window enclosure this area complies with declining height envelope exception, 120 Costa Rica Avenue has a similar problem with FAR and was granted a variance. Mary Ann Nichols, property owner, 116 Costa Rica Avenue, submitted letters signed by seven property owners in the neighborhood in support of the project, would like to stay within the craftsman style of the house. The Commission expressed a concerned with the second floor stairway and asked if it could be placed so that a side setback variance is not required? Can the applicant describe the exceptional circumstance on the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 11 2002 13 property for the side setback variance? Designer noted that the existing side setback is 3’-0” and he felt that aesthetically this was the most appropriate place to the exterior design to locate the stairway, a 5’-0” setback is possible but would loose square footage in the house. Ed Bohnert, 124 Costa Rica Avenue, Troy and Tracy Otus, 120 Costa Rica Avenue, spoke noting that they are in support of the project, reviewed the proposed plans, their laundry room is next to the proposed stairway and there is no privacy issue. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling noted that there are a number of variances requested, but feels that these variances are appropriate given the effort to keep what exists now, and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: when returns a condition should be added that the second floor side setback only allows a stairway to be built, should be noted that these variances were looked at very closely and that it is important to preserve the character of the existing structure. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. 10. 520 FRANCISCO DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Tom Hallendorf, property owner, 489 W. Maple Way, Woodside, noted that all of the windows will be replaced with true divided light windows to match the style of the round-top window on the front of the house which will be retained, intent is to match the addition with the existing character of the spanish style house built in the 1930’s. The Commission had the following comments and concerns to be addressed by the applicant and noted on the plans: • Concerned with the four new clear-story windows on a blank wall on the North Elevation, large wall should be broken up; • Concerned with the length of the wall on the North Elevation, needs to be articulated, like articulation on South Elevation, normally in this style see some ornamentation added to a long wall, there are several ways to handle this wall, some suggestions include adding decorative tile, inset windows, attic vents similar to front of house, also suggest modifying the footprint along this side of the house so there are ins and outs to create some articulation; • Size of new windows shown on the North Elevation are not consistent with windows shown on the floor plans, please correct; • would like to see larger scale trees or plantings in the front and right rear area of the lot to help screen the addition, existing front and right rear landscaping is light; and • Looks like a box attached to a box, do not suggest increasing the height of the structure. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 11 2002 14 Commission discussion: suggested changes are relatively minor, architect could easily add articulation to the building face and interest with landscaping, the addition is set in nicely and is not visible from the street; feel confident that the architect can apply the suggestions. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked by staff. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: more comfortable with bringing back to regular action, there is a lot of flexibility possible here, recommend architect listen to the meeting tapes. Make and second to the motion agreed to the amendment to place this item on the regular action calendar. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of March 4, 2002. CP Monroe reviewed the council actions at the March 4, 2002, meeting. - FYI – Minor changes to an approved design review project at 207 Clarendon Road Commission acknowledged the proposed changes as being consistent with the approved design. It was noted that the project at 1204 Cabrillo indicates a need for elevation checks to confirm height compliance during construction . Staff noted that they would work with the Building Department to arrive at a set of policies which could be added as conditions to projects when they “push” the height limit or stay within the height limit by grading or other alteration to the site. The suggestions will be discussed with the commission. - FYI – Change to roofing material for an approved design review project at 1423Balboa Avenue Commission acknowledged the proposed changes as being consistent with the approved design. It was noted that staff discretion should be limited to very minor changes to approved plans. Staff noted that minor changes such as these can be brought forward to commission for review in a matter of a week and a half, depending upon meeting dates. Generally that works well for applicants. - Discussion of Different Types of Planning Approvals CA handed out a copy of a report he prepared for the City Council on the types of decisions that the Commission can make. There was a brief discussion. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary S:\MINUTES\minutes3.11.doc