Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.04.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Monday, April 22, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the Monday, April 22, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the April 8, 2002 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2303 TROUSDALE DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A PRIVATE NON-PROFIT SCHOOL ON AN EXISTING SCHOOL SITE (ERUDITE-HOPE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICANT; KASTROP GROUP, INC., ARCHITECT; BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: what time in the morning do the various classes at Franklin Elementary begin in the morning? If the new class is to be held in the computer lab, where will the lab be relocated, will it be within the leased area? How will the traffic generated by the change compare to the current traffic generated by this use and the school; how does the additional traffic affect the congestion experienced at Franklin at the start of the school day now? Does the proposed 9:15 a.m. start conflict with the Franklin classes that begin at 9:30 a.m.? Has the principal at Franklin been consulted about the change in start time? Have there been any complaints about the current student drop off/pick-up practices? There were no further questions. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. 2. AMEND REGULATIONS TO EXTEND SECOND UNIT AMNESTY PROGRAM PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report, noting that this request was just to extend the present program so that the momentum created will continue. After the Housing Element is updated, the Second Unit program will be reviewed more completely and more extensive revisions to the program will be considered. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 2 Commissioners asked: could the extension be for 2 years rather than the 5 years proposed? How are we promoting this program? Want to extend program in order to support and encourage it, but also want to be clear that still intend to review and consider modifications to make it better. Chairman Vistica set this item for action at the next Planning Commission meeting, May 13, 2002. This item concluded at 7:16 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. 3A. 330 CLARENDON ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN STEWART, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JERRY AND JORDANA PEIL, PROPERTY OWNERS) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON 3B. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE – ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SAMUEL AND ELAINE WONG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 1540 HOWARD AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN STEWART, STEWART AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; EARL GUSTAFSON, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Reference staff report, 04.22.02, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners had no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Earl Gustafson, 1540 Howard, property owner represented the project. He noted that in working on the design they extended the rear wall 2 feet inorder to be able to include an oversized bath tub. They also increased the dormer to break up the wall along the driveway and added knee braces; relocated the bedroom window to allow for the larger dormer. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to approve the application based on the finding that the applicant had met the requirements of the design review criteria by resolution with the conditions in the staff report: 1)that the project shall be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 3 built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 11, 2002, sheets A1 – A6, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building during construction or following this construction shall require an 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 conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s, Chief Building Official’s and City Engineer’s March 18, 2002, memos shall be met;4) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and5) 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. Keighran. Discussion on the Motion: Want to thank the applicant for being so responsive to the commission’s concerns. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review. The motion passed on a 7-0-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. 5. 1534 MEADOW LANE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES, AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD COVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BRIAN LILES, MICHAEL STANTON ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STEVE ALMS, PROPERTY OWNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Reference staff report, 04.22.02, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner noted that the staff report includes a variance for the second floor setback but it seemed in the presentation that the exception had been eliminated, could you clarify. Staff noted that the second floor setback at the front of the house was reduced with the changes to the design from the original submittal, but not eliminated. There were no further questions of staff from the commissioners. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Steve Alms, 1534 Meadow, and Michael Stanton, architect, represented the project. They reviewed the changes made to the design, noting them on some exhibits prepared which demonstrated the relationship of the house and its placement relative to the required setbacks existing trapezoidal lot, and curved street frontage. They noted how they changed the east façade to break up the continuous wall and relocated the second story back to break up the massing on the east and south sides of the house. Since there never was a fireplace with chimney, which is a typical residential feature, they created the same by collecting the vents in a single chimney like structure. Felt that working with the design review consultant was constructive. Commissioners asked: concerned about the hardship on the property for the second story front setback exception; applicant noted that the existing two story houses on the block either have no second story setback or canteliver over the first story, the proposed massing is a close as can get to required setback and meet the desirable interior use, the proposed setback meets or exceeds that of the other houses on the block, the shape of the lot presents a problem of how to get the stairs to the second floor on the interior. Commissioner noted that this is new construction, a lot of house to build over, why can’t the second floor front setback be met? Did not want to demolish the back part of the house, so using the existing open court City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 4 yard at the right of the entrance for the expansion on the first floor, moving the addition back would require framing through the middle of the existing house instead of using the existing living room wall, also removal of the new furnace and all the new ducting installed about a year ago, would add to the cost of construction to point of demolition of the house, client would not stay in the neighb orhood. Commissioner noted that economic issues do not constitute a hardship for a variance, findings should be based on physical attributes of the property. Applicant noted that the trapizodal shape of the lot affected the size of the side setbacks making them greater than required of other houses on the street, although from the front the lot appeared to be the same width as others on the block. Commissioner noted that the decidious Japanese maple suggested for the front did not have a substantial enough growth pattern to screen the second satory addition from the street, would the applicant consider a small to medium scale evergreen tree? Yes. Commissioner noted that the plans have a “freehand” look to them. Architect noted that they were comfortable that they can deliver what is shown on the plans, they are not schematic; it was noted for example that while all the windows would be replaced they would be double hung without divided lights as drawn, on the east side the windows were replaced to fit the scale of the structure as suggested. Commissioner noted concern about the mass of the house at the front, when there was a lot of area at the rear to build over, also would eliminate the front setback variances. Architect noted that the addition as proposed would stabilize the house, use post-beam construction, in filled area would be tied to existing house to reinforce it as well, moving mass to the center would caste shadow on rear yard, as is proposed roof would caste shadow on itself. Mr. Alms noted that when on site with design reviewer noted that if move second story to further back would line the windows up with the neighbor’s bedroom and bathroom, having a greater impact on the neighbor. He submitted letters of support from the neighbors. Commissioner asked if would consider adding a window in the second floor closet at the front to balance the window pattern on the front façade. Architect noted that that was a good idea, and could add as a condition if commission wished. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this is an unusual shaped lot and the applicant has done a good job of fitting the house in within the setbacks, would like to see the second floor front setback go away, Meadow Lane is a tight street with a small cul-de-sac radius, design reviewer seems to have gone over this application thoroughly. Think can find for the variances because of the shape of the lot and its location on the cul-de- sac, explains why the design is as it is, other two story houses on the block are flush with the first story with no second floor setback, could find for this variance. Variances for existing garage, side setbacks see justification based on the lot and other lots, problem is the second floor setback request. C. Keighran noted house is consistent with the neighborhood but the second floor makes the cul-de-sac seem closed in, seems there are options to meet the second floor setback, so moved to deny the project without prejudice because there are no findings for the second floor setback variance. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: odd shaped lot justifies other setbacks but not clear about the new second floor, however am concerned about the impact of the second floor on the neighbor if it is moved back, on the first floor front setback encroachment is post of front porch, would not want to have porch removed because of impact on design. Feel that the shape of the property addresses the findings for granting a variance, would note that one finding is unreasonable property loss, and that seems to address the second floor location since it is related to the shape of the lot and the existing neighbor. Feel can support because of the shape of the lot and the curve at the front, the alternatives considered for the second floor, and the design resolution, as well as continuity of the rest of the neighborhood, nice massing and articulation of the design. Feel that with articulation the corner that intrudes will have a minimal impact, variance is not so bad because of lot shape and front articulation provided. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 5 Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion failed on a 2-5-0 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg, Keele, Osterling and Vistica dissenting). CA Anderson noted that an action could be conditioned so that the two front setback variances run with this house, and would not carry to a replacement of this house or any other future addition. C. Osterling moved approval for the reasons stated in the record by resolution with three additional conditions: that the landscape plan be amended to replace the Japanese maple in the front yard with a small to medium sized evergreen chosen from the planning department tree list; that a window, in proportion to the other windows on the second floor, be added in the closet at the front to add balance to the front façade; and that the two front setback variances on the first and second floor shall apply only to this addition and shall expire if further additions are made to the front of the house or the house is ever demolished; and the conditions included in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 8, 2002, sheets A1.1 – A3.4 including all the finish materials as shown on the plans, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that a window, in proportion with the proposed second floor windows, shall be added on the second floor front façade to balance the window pattern; and that the landscape plan shall be amended to replace the Japanese Maple tree in the front yard with a small to medium sized evergreen tree to be selected from the Planning Department tree list; 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 conditions of the City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official’s, and Recycling Specialist’s January 14, 2002, memos shall be met; 4) that two 24-inch box size landscape trees shall be planted on the property; 5) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 6) that the two front setback variances on the first and second floor shall apply only to this addition and shall expire if further additions are made to the front of the house or the house is ever demolished; 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. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with added conditions. The motion passed on a 5-2 vote (Cers. Bojués and Keighran). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:04 p.m. 6. 1205 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AND SIGN HEIGHT (SEPHORA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, APPLICANT; THOMAS BOND, THOMAS BOND & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; KARP FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 04.22.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted that there is some confusion as to which blade signs count on each frontage. CP Monroe clarified that both sides of the Sephora blade sign located at the corner of Burlingame and Lorton Avenues count toward the secondary frontage on Lorton even though one side can be seen from Burlingame Avenue. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 6 Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Tom Bond, 14471 Chambers Road, Tustin, CA, project architect, presented an old photograph of the building and a rendering of the proposal for commission's review, and noted that the current proposal looks remarkably like the original building. Commissioners asked: what do the projecting light fixtures at each letter look like; regarding the two projecting light fixtures proposed at the two arches along Lorton, could they be lowered to the center of the horizontal feature of the arches, would match focus of arch at the hotel entrance; in the photo of the original building, the arches are recessed, will they be recessed now; elaborate on the hardship for the variance requested for the number of signs. The project architect noted that the light fixtures to illuminate the lettering consist of a stem one inch in diameter that is 18 inches long with a light fixture at the end; at the height proposed the fixtures will be almost invisible; the location of the light fixtures on the arches is arbitrary, but he felt it would be better if it were higher than eight feet so it would be less of a temptation for kids to jump up or throw things over; a nine foot height is proposed, the idea is to illuminate the plaque sign below; the arches will be recessed by almost a foot; regarding the hardships on the property, the hotel gobbled up a large portion of the allowed signage, there is reduced visibility at this corner because of the street trees and foliage; visibility is limited for pedestrians, there is no ability for pedestrians to locate the tenant without the use of the blade signs; the logos on the arches on Lorton are there to provide a visual element to the archways. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 25, 2002, site plan, floor plans and April 17, 2002 building elevations; 2) that there shall be 5 signs along the Burlingame Avenue (primary) frontage: 1) 29.16 SF wall sign above entry; 2) 3.75 SF awning sign above entry; 3&4) blade sign, (each side counted as one 6 SF sign), 12 SF total; and 5) existing 14.66 SF hotel blade sign (one side only, double sided sign, one side is counted toward each frontage); 3) that there shall be 6 signs along the Lorton Avenue (secondary) frontage: 1) 3 SF window sign; 2) new 3 SF window sign; 3) new 7.56 SF wall sign; 4 &5) new blade sign, each side counted as one 6 SF sign, 12 SF total; and 6) existing 14.66 SF hotel blade sign; 4) that the basement area shall not be accessible from the Sephora tenant space and shall be accessible only from an exterior door at the rear of the property, the basement area shall be used for storage for on-site businesses only; 5) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s memo dated March 19, 2002 and Fire Marshal’s memo dated March 18, 2002 shall be met; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Commissioners noted that the hardship was well articulated by the applicant, there are already signs for the hotel, building is shared by two tenants so signage is shared; the signs as presented are nicely balanced, simple yet elegant; the amount (SF) of signage is below the limit, would like to thank fellow commissioners for asking that the existing windows be retained and thank the applicant for revising the project accordingly; applicant did a good job on the project, the signs are elegant and the project will add a touch of class to the corner; hardships for the sign variance are that due to the corner building, the foliage along the street obstructs signs; placement and visibility is an issue because of historic value of the building, the proposed signage fits the façade and adds to the character to the area. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 7. 1160 BROADWAY – ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 7 TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION (RAYMOND LEE, SPEAR DESIGN ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT; BONANZA/LAMB PARTNERS LP, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report, 04.22.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and comments. She noted that since the remodeling of the building is now in progress, there should be an amendment to Condition No. 2 to read “that the final map shall be recorded with San Mateo County prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project.” Commissioners asked if Walgreens leaves the site, with the lots merged, could a larger building be built. CP Monroe noted that a larger building could not be built because the on-site parking is required for the building. Commissioners noted that there is an P.U.E. easement on two of the lots but not the third; the City Engineer had noted that it is not a concern because it is not a City easement, and does not contain city facilities. It is a utility easement for Pacific Telephone and Pacific Gas and Electric only. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. The applicant Raymond Lee, Spear Design Associates was available for questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to recommend approval of tentative and final parcel map application to City Council, with the amended conditions as noted. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion passed on a 7- 0-0 vote. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 2304 EASTON DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS RUFFAT, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOSE L. AND MARIA R. REALYVASQUEZ, PROPERTY OWNERS) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Commissioner Osterling recused himself from the discussion because he lives within 500 feet of the project. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. John Stewart 1351 Laurel, San Carlos, project architect, noted that they are taking a charming house that didn't function well and adding to the back to tie into original design. Lou Realyvasquez, 2304 Easton Drive, property owner, presented a petition signed by neighboring residents noting that they reviewed the plans and had no objections. Commissioners noted that the applicant did an excellent job, this is a great design, what is the size of the wood used in the bracketing and timbers; concern with the roof at the rear elevation, can the area where it is shown flat be peaked, it would enhance the architecture, and might help the design if you saw more roof, can consider special permit for added height if it enhances the architecture; did you consider putting windows on the second floor front elevation; design is elegant, nice to see the front changing a little eve n though the majority of the work is on the back; why is wrought iron being trim bolted on at the front window; half - timbering only on the front works well. The applicant noted that the wooden bracketing would probably be 6" x 8" or 8" x 8", which will fit with the scale of the house; there wasn't room to add windows on the second floor front elevation, they would have to be tiny, think it would look odd; wrought iron was added at the front window because they didn't want a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 8 balcony that you could walk onto, but wanted to soften the look. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • Look at the railing in the front, might be nice to eliminate it; • Look at the roof with the flat portion at the rear elevation, might want to continue the pitch to a peak. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on motion: the changes are minor, but since the change to the roof may require a special permit would like to see the project brought back on the regular action calendar for review; note the comment from the Chief Building Official regarding measurement of the heights during construction as the addition proceeds, this is important. 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 6-0-1 (Cmsr. Osterling abstained). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 9. 1323 CARLOS AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (BRIAN ROCHE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE C. Osterling recused himself from the discussion because he lives within 500 feet of the property. C. Auran recused himself because he owns a property nearby and has a business relationship with the applicant. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. James Chu, project engineer noted that this is a demolition- replacement the plan is straight forward, there are details in the design on all facades, the special permit for height is required because of the lot slope, the difference between the front and the back of the lot is about 9 feet; the height will be the same as the house on the right, and lower than the house on left; will exceed the height limit by less than 3 feet and only at the ridge. Commissioners asked: project is nicely designed, initially concerned with height but see it is needed for the design; concern there is not enough window area in general, can see a lot of shingle space, the windows on the rear elevation seem appropriate, but on the side and front elevations, the number of wind ows seems small; concerned with massiveness, but applicant is not asking for any variances to lot coverage or FAR, it is near the maximum allowed; concern with landscaping, seems it is too ambitious to have two trees so close together at the front, is one of them a street tree. The applicant noted that they had looked at different roof pitches, had originally considered a 12/12 pitch, reduced it to 10/12, if it is reduced further would affect the design and roof angles; tried to minimize the window on the sides to protect neighbor privacy, but can look at enlarging a couple of the windows assuming the neighbors won't object; some of the elements that contribute to the Floor Area Ratio are the large porch and the tall foyer, and the setbacks at the side ar e generous; would be happy to look at the location of the trees, the trees will soften the look of the house from the street. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 9 There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioners noted that this is nicely designed with a lot of good detail, like the front porch feature, this area it is counted in the FAR. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • Look at the trees proposed in the front yard and the street tree in the planter strip; should the two trees be further apart; • Look at the windows on the front and sides and see if any can be enlarged. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. There were no comments on the motion. Chairman Vistica called for a 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 5-0-2 (Cmsrs. Osterling and Auran abstained). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. Cers. Osterling and Auran returned to the dais. 10. 1128 JUANITA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (CURT WALKER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (73 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked staff to research if there have been any other applications for brand new accessory structures other than garages and pool houses in the last three years; would like to see the outline of the old garage on the drawings as a part of the record, to show conditions before construction. There were no other questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Curt Walker, 1128 Juanita Avenue, property owner, noted that they had got ahead of themselves in the construction, went in the wrong direction, now is here to turn it around and get the issues resolved, welcome commissioners to come and look at the back yard. Commissioners asked: would you be comfortable converting the accessory structure to a storage area and removing the windows; seems to need storage since garage appears to be used for that purpose: in the garage there are shelves shown on both sides, can a car fit in the remaining space; would like to see shelves removed to be sure that a vehicle can fit in space; if applicant decides to do an addition to the house in the future, the accessory structure will count towards the FAR calculation; explain the circumstances with the corner of the yard where the structure is located; is there a water connection to the accessory structure; explain about the damage from the tree which fell down last winter; what is the process after Planning Commission action on the project. The applicant noted that he would like to keep the windows in the accessory structure and use it as an office, but if the commission wants them taken out, he will do so; understands accessory structure will be counted in FAR; there are accessory structures on two neighbor's properties next to where his accessory structure is built, want to block that view; there is no water connection to the accessory structure, installed waste line for toilet but did not hook it up; tree fell in the back yard last winter, it covered the whole yard, and damaged the hand rails on the deck. Staff noted that once this project is acted on by the Planning Commission, the applicant will need to apply for building permits, pay penalty fees, then the construction will be inspected, some areas may have to be opened up for inspection, any corrections will have to be made and then the applicant can call for a final inspection. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 10 Commissioners noted that the construction doesn't look as bad as how the drawing make it appear; the drawings don't have enough detail, there are no heights, no roof pitches, no details on the trim, these drawings don't represent an approvable project, would like to see better definition on the drawings. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • Would like to see more refined plans which show the trim details, height dimensions, roof pitch and proper dimensions; • Clarify in conditions that there shall not be a water or sewer connection to the accessory structure. Waste line should be removed. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: one of the issues is the nature of the accessory structure use, sympathize with having windows but would like to see a stipulation that there not be running water so that it does not become a living unit; should we consider sending this project to a design reviewer to help clarify the drawings; don’t know that it is that complicated, would like to see refined plans but don't need design reviewer to accomplish that , the applicant is in the construction business and is aware of the types of trim and detail needed. 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 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m 11. 2501 HAYWARD DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SCOTT KUEHNE, AIA, SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAVID AND LAURA ELMORE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (41 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON C. Keele recused himself from the discussion because he lives within 500 feet of the project. SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. David Elmore, 2501 Hayward Drive, property owner, and Scott Kuehne, 2412 14th Avenue, San Francisco, project architect were available for questions. The project architect noted that they looked at a number of options, this is a slightly unusual lot with a slope up to the rear, had considered building over the garage, but decided that the best solution was to nestle the addition over the existing house towards the up slope of the lot, this will have the least impact on the topography and will protect the primary view corridor which is over the pool and the garage roof, the intent is to keep that open. Commissioners asked: at the front of the house there is a Japanese feel with divided windows, do you intend to continue with that style, will the existing windows remain; pretty good job on design, this is a ranch style house and the addition emulates that, elements continue from the first to second floor, not a layer cake look, it won't affect the character of the street, the massing of the addition is good; explain the west elevation, at the second story the chimney appears to be attached to a small piece of wood siding, looks awkward; on the north elevation, the way the roof is vented with the arched vent is not consistent with this style of house, can the vents be rerouted structurally so that they are more hidden, encourage that approach, try to find something that matches better; how tall is the plate line on the upper floor. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 11 The project architect noted that all the windows will be replaced with casement windows, regarding the chimney on the west elevation, if you look at the perspective drawing, the massing is shown better, that wall was brought over to engage the chimney and tie it together otherwise it appeared free standing, the vents are proposed as shown because they are on the house now and there are structural reasons for routing them that way; the plate height on the upper floor is ten feet, the intent is to keep the existing framing in place, the existing ceiling will not be raised. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • Look into the design of the vents on the north elevation; do some structural research to determine if there is a way that they can be more hidden; • The applicant shall erect story poles to make sure there are no concerns with impacts on views from neighboring properties; and • Would like to see an arborist's report with a tree protection plan for the existing trees which might be impacted by construction. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: erection of story poles is appropriate because there may be a visual impact since this is in the hillside area; upper side has tree screening, may not need story poles because the existing trees partially screen house; in any application for Hillside Area Construction Permit there should be story poles erected to clearly address issues regarding views, don't want any surprises although overall the applicant has done a good job with the design. 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 6 -0-1 (Cmsr. Keele abstained). The Planning Commission' action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of April 15, 2002. CP Monroe reviewed the planning related items from the April 15, 2002, Council meeting noting that Cers. Vistica and Keighran were appointed to another four year term unanimously. She also noted that as required by the Commission’s Bylaws, at the May 13, 2002, meeting the officers would rotate and the new Chair would need to make subcommittee appointments. Initially there will need to be three subcommittees of the Commission: Neighborhood Consistency (a standing committee), Subcommittee for the North End Specific Area Plan and a Subcommittee for working on the 2002- 2003 Housing Element annual work program and modernizing the multiple family zones. CP Monroe also asked the commissioners to pick a date for a Special Study meeting for the presentation of the proposed project at 1450 Howard Avenue by representatives of Safeway. All but one commissioner was able to attend a special meeting on May 9; the one who was unable to make it said he would try to rearrange his schedule and get back to staff shortly. In the event that he was not able to make the May 9 meeting all the commissioners could attend a special meeting on May 23, 2002. CP Monroe indicted that she would confirm the meeting date by e-mail shortly. - Discuss Changes to Commercial Zoning Regulations – C-1 Zone. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2002 12 CP Monroe reviewed briefly the Planners Report noting that Council had raised a question about how the suggested two new retail uses would affect the Broadway commercial area and whether commission should look at them again in light of how they should be incorporated into the C-l and C-2 district regulations. In addition, Council suggested, in response to inquiries by local merchants and property owners, that commission review whether health service uses should be allowed above the first floor in the Broadway commercial area. Commission directed that staff put together the appropriate code amendments for them to evaluate these changes and bring them back to the commission at action for a public hearing since they had already studied much of this change earlier. - FYI – Minor changes to an approved design review project at 1653 Lassen Way The Commissioner’s reviewed the request for minor changes and noted that they had no issue with this proposal. It was noted that this type of review appeared to be effective and efficient. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary APPROVEDMINUTES4.22