Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.06.10CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 10, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Keighran called the June 10, 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: Commissioners: Brownrigg (arrived at 7:16 p.m.) Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin, City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES Commission approved the minutes for the Special Study meeting on May 23, 2002, as mailed. C. Keele requested an amendment to the minutes of the May 28, 2002 regular meeting noting that he was not late that evening. Staff noted that it was C. Brownrigg who was late. The minutes for the regular meeting of May 28, 2002, were approved as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1419 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE/PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (ALLIANCE INVESTMENT, APPLICANT; NESET AND MINE TOLU TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. There were no questions for staff or the applicant. This item was placed on the June 24, 2002, consent calendar. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. C. Brownrigg arrived at 7:16 p.m. 2. 1616 ROLLINS ROAD – ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PARKING IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT (PETER O’HARA, PACIFIC PROPERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT; APPLICANT; NEAL MARTIN, PLANNER/CONSULTANT; SANJAYLYN COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: since the drain pipe from Rollins Road to the drain was to be repaired by the applicant they should also be responsible for maintaining it in the future. How will the filters in the drains be inspected in the future. CA noted that the city is implementing a new inspection program. Commissioners also noted that the window for not moving cars should be larger than the peak traffic hours to provide time for the traffic to clear, for example not 6:30 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes June 10, 2002 2 but 7:00 p.m. in the evening. The use of this site appears to be long term airport parking, is that use allowed in the M-1 zone? How many parking spaces does the El Rancho Motel have on site? If they have one per room, according to our hoteliers they have surplus parking, why do they need this additional parking? If this is a park and fly it should be called that. The applicant notes that these cars will be parking by valets, why are they not being parked in tandem, in tight rows with fewer aisles and less area paved? One of the concerns in the North Area SAP is the use of this area, this applicant may be a good person to interview as a part of that planning project. In previous meetings on this project a prescriptive easement was discussed, what is the status of that issue? Can staff explain the difference between and oil separator and fossil fuel separator in a drain? There were no other questions asked. Chair Keighran set this item for action when the requested and required information has been submitted and the environmental document completed and circulated. The item concluded at 7:22 p.m. 3. 1337 PALOMA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE AND STORAGE AREA (ALEXANDER HIDCHENKO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: why is the utility sin k proposed in the storage area part of the plan, when this area is intended to be used only for storage? This should be corrected. This item was placed on the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:28 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 Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 4a. 1540 MEADOW LANE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BRUCE MCLEOD, LIVING DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFF AND STACY NOVITSKY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE 4b. 111 PEPPER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION (JOEL MITTLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; KOTAS/PANTELEONI, ARCHITECT) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes June 10, 2002 3 4c. 141 PEPPER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TRICIA HAGEY, APPLICANT; KORTH/SUNSERI/HAGEY ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; CONRAD AND DIANNA HERMANN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Auran 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 with a resolution for each action. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 5. 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 Reference staff report, 6.10.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked why is water not being allowed in to the accessory structure? CP Monroe noted that in order to have a water line a sewer line is needed, do not want to create an opportunity for a bathroom being installed in the future. Commissioner noted that it appeared that the accessory structure is built on property line, would like to see a condition that the accessory structure be moved 1’-0” from property line as shown on the plans. Concerned about 16” eaves, drawings show eaves on attached garage, are they also on the accessory structure? Property owner can address this question. Chairman Keighran opened the public hearing. Curt Walker, property owner, was present to answer questions. Commission pointed out that additional information will need to be provided on the plans when submitting for a building permit, accuracy on these plans is questionable, but drawings do represent what has been built, staff should encourage applicants to submit more complete drawings for Commission review. Commissioner asked if there is an eave on the accessory structure? Property owner noted that the two sides facing the yard have one foot eaves, structure will be moved one foot from the side and rear property lines. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that the setbacks are met and the attached garage and accessory structure fit in well enough with the architecture of the house, and moved to approve the application with the added condition that that the accessory structure shall be moved 1’-0” from the side and rear property lines as shown on the plans date stamped May 1, 2002, 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 May 1, 2002, sheets #1 through #4, and Figure #1 date stamped May 31, 2002, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that the attached garage shall be built with a composition roof, stucco and siding to match the existing house, with a 16" eave and a 9'-0" wide single garage door; and that the accessory structure shall be built with a maximum ridge height of 10'-0" from adjacent grade, a maximum plate height of 7'-0", and a composition roof with 2" x 8" fascia board trim, and one 3" x 4" Anderson casement windows and two 4' x 4' Anderson casement windows, each with 1' x 3' wood trim, and that there shall be no eaves within 2'-0" of a property line; 2) that the accessory structure shall be moved so that no portion of the building is closer than 1’-0” from the side and rear property lines as City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes June 10, 2002 4 shown on the plans date stamped May 1, 2002; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal’s, and Recycling Specialist's February 19, 2002 memos and the Chief Building Official’s February 22, 2002, memo shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 5) that the shelving on the left side of the garage shall be removed and the garage shall be built and shall be maintained with a 10' x 20' clear interior parking space at all times; 6) that the waste line to the accessory structure shall be removed or disabled by a permanent means, such as being filled with cement and no utilities except electricity shall be extended to the garage or accessory structure; 7) that the accessory structure shall only be used as an office and exercise room and that there shall never be any gas, water, or sewer connections to the accessory structure; 8) that the applicant shall submit to the Building Department for the required building permits for the garage and accessory structure and the building permits shall be finalled in one year, by June 10, 2003; and 9) 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. Osterling. Comment on the motion: want to make it clear that a higher level of drawings need to be submitted for future projects, drawings need to be more accurate and professional. Chairman Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 6. 2344 POPPY DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A DORMER ADDITION (DAVID M. SEDLOCK, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; J.D. DESIGN, DESIGNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 6.10.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked for clarification about how FAR is calculated in attic areas. CP Monroe noted that all areas in attics and basements with open spaces of 5’-0” or more are included in the FAR calculation. The designer showed these areas on the plans. Chairman Keighran opened the public hearing. David Sedlock, property owner, noted that with this project he is trying to fix existing problems with the house, previous owner added a room in the attic on a separate level, there is no bathroom on this level, would now like to add a bathroom, proposal is to add a bath in the existing attic space, the remainder of attic is on a different level because of the living room ceiling, would have to reconstruct roof in order to use remainder of attic, trying to design without adding bulk, this is the simplest approach. Commissioner asked the property owner to explain the extraordinary circumstance on this lot, what is unique about this property? Owner noted that a good percentage of the attic is not useable, can only be used for storage, trying to create a more useable living area. Commissioner noted that the existing FAR exceeds city maximum, now asking for more, can design within the e xisting FAR; owner noted that the entire project would have to be redesigned in order to stay within the existing FAR. Commissioner asked if the sitting room now exists; yes. Owner noted that the master bedroom where closest bathroom is located is on a different level. Teri Nagel, 2337 Poppy Drive, noted that she lives across the street, this will be an improvement to the house, has no objection to the dormer addition, design fits in with the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes June 10, 2002 5 C. Auran noted that the existing attic is over an existing vaulted ceiling below and that this portion of the area is three to four steps higher than the rest of the second floor, remaining attic area is being used to add a dormer; hardship is that the owner is being charged for unusable attic space, and therefore moved to approve the application, by resolution, with conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: the existing house exceeds the maximum FAR by 200 SF, can make bedroom small and add smaller bathroom and not increase FAR, not in favor of variance, see no justification for the variance, do not want to set a precedent. Chairman Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed on a roll call vote 2-5 (Cers. Bojués, Brownrigg, Keele, Vistica, and Chair Keighran dissenting). C. Bojués made a motion to deny the floor area ratio variance. The motion was seconded by C. Visitica. Chairman Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a roll call vote 5-2 (Cers. Auran and Osterling dissenting). This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS, DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT FOR TWO HOUSES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR ONE HOUSE TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WITH DETACHED GARAGES (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. She summarized the conclusions of the recently completed sewer analysis and the fact that the applicant would be required to address the water pressure problem by replacing the very old, galvanized 2 inch line. Commissioners asked: the purpose of this meeting is to identify the design review issues; yes. Why was the environmental document not included in this staff report; the applicant was delayed in getting some information to staff, so the document was not ready for the packet. It will be posted for 20 days before the action meeting, tonight’s focus is on the design of the proposed houses. There were no other questions by the Commission. Chairman Keighran opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, attorney representing the applicant Otto Miller; David Luzuriaga, civil engineer; Michael Calin, Mayne Tree; Michael Kaindl, Chu Designs spoke about the project noting: they have addressed the infrastructure capacity for the environmental document; they designed the houses to protect the Redwood trees. They asked the attorney why they needed a conditional use permit for the re-emergence of three legal lots; CA noted that the code required a conditional use permit when lot line emerge because a single family structure is demolished in order to see that development proposed complies with current standards. They objected to the possible mitigation that would allow no parking on construction vehicles on the street during the building of the sites, felt that this was a hardship; would not park equipment in front of neighbors houses; asked commission to remove or modify this requirement. Civil Engineer noted that delay of information was caused by the need to have telemetering equipment shipped in from New Jersey. Reviewed methodology for monitoring sewers and the amounts of projected increase in sewage; noted drainage patterns, volumes and impact of new construction; reviewed issues regarding water pressure and how the applicant would address them; have prepared an City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes June 10, 2002 6 NPDES – erosion mitigation plan for the construction, including creating a semi-circular entrance/exit for trucks during construction and requirements for keeping silt from the street. Commission expressed concern about on-site truck activity and the fragile, root systems on the surface of the Redwood trees which cannot be driven over. It was noted that the surface run off from the site would increase only slightly after construction. Applicant continued: objective is to keep as much of the existing vegetation as possible, moved houses back, added trees to the site and added street trees; placed evergreen screening along property lines; varied the hardscape materials for each house so would not look like a subdivision. Want to show off Redwoods, will put up lighting below them. Commission expressed concern about trenching for irrigation systems under Redwood, damage to root system, how address; under story plants are a problem below these trees, will put drip not buried irrigation system. Began design with Redwood trees, the tree expert will constantly monitor the trees during construction. Trees present a design problem since can build 3,400 SF houses in Burlingame and 11% to 12% of that area is not useable; need three houses on this site to carry the higher cost generated by the constraints created by the Redwood trees. Commission asked if t he percentage of useable FAR on this site was unusual; applicant responded no it was typical for Burlingame. Applicant noted that the market is driving these to be big houses also the mitigations which need to be paid for, are building to the maximum now so that there will be no additions which would affect the style later, are including features that attract families to the Burlingame community. Commission asked if Burlingame regulations are more restrictive than others. Applicant noted that the present ordinance is good, it works on all lots, only complaint is that stair wells are counted twice for FAR. Commission noted understand the need to build three houses because have three standard lots, but why do you need exceptions for each of the houses. Architect noted that there were design reasons for each of the exceptions, put the houses at the front of the lots to retain useable rear yards, wanted each of the houses to make a statement. Applicant concluded noting that, based on the code, it is proper to build to the maximum as these are designed, not asking for more, should not be bound by what was built 50 years ago, but by what people want today within a house in terms of space and rooms. The presentation ended. Chair Keighran opened the public comment to the audience. The following people spoke: Chris Mukrum, 1540 Drake; Margaret Whifler, 1544 Drake; Ann Grimes, 1520 Drake; Jany Oaksley, 1512 Drake; John O’Neil, 1516 Drake; Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake; Bob Bear, 1510 Drake; Dan Oaksley, 1512 Drake; Meg Bear, 1510 Drake; Natalie Taylor, 1566 Drake; Janet Garcia, 1566 Drake. Issues identified include: these three houses are bigger than any others on the block so will be transformational to the character of the block; concerned about the proposed scale, size and height, one should be substantially reduced in size; developer’s consideration is primarily economic not the neighborhood; it is not relevant that houses this big have been built elsewhere in Burlingame because they have not been all together; do not see hardship on these lots to justify greater height; Commission needs to be careful, and realize what they are losing, the historic character of this neighborhood, need tighter restrictions, of the 22 houses on the block 17 were built between 1913 and 1935 at a time when craft houses were coming to the city; the parking problem created by three houses will be enormous, curb cuts will break up what little on street parking there is now; over half the present homeowners on the block have lived there 27-39 years with no addition to their homes, this is not a block in transition, it is a dead end street; prefer two houses; one large house 1509 Drake built before current design review, 5 bedrooms, 4000 SF, five cars, need more on site parking; present house on lot has a lot of character, built in 1924, don’t do this to the neighborhood; would like to have an EIR, negative declaration is not adequate; developer should put up a $3 million bond for three years to guarantee Redwood trees are not damaged, if die money should be invested in the city’s infrastructure; environmental document should address water supply, work within the drainage area, be sure that the ready-mix truck is not washed in the street, insure that the fire hydrant has sufficient pressure to fight fires in the area it serves; there should be no change to the existing drainage area; the project is 100’ from a school, applicant’s environmental form City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes June 10, 2002 7 indicates project is not near a school; sewer issues should be addressed; sewer has backed up recently during dry weather because of blockages from things flushed which should not have been, over flows go into the creek, this should not happen; City indicates will replace sewer main, but not for three years; should do a phase 1 soils study because of tanks on site and excavation of property because of Japanese occupation on site during World War II; concerned that this same developer did not protect vegetation on a project on Poppy Drive, so need to be sure that he protects the redwoods here. Do not feel that the design guidelines are met by any of these houses, why is the lot being divided into three lots rather than two? There is a Ewe pine on the site of protected size, it should be retained; when measuring sewer should look at peak times not “typical” days; can the cost to the developer of installing the back flow valves be estimated? What will happen in the event that the Redwood tree is destroyed? What is the estimated cost of building around the Redwood tree, hand trenching, irrigation etc. ; if 12% of development is uninhabitable then the project can be reduced by 12% easily; Drake at this point is a dead end not a cul de sac, using the street for construction vehicles will make it one way, delivery trucks and others will have to back out, kids play in the street since it is dead end, heavy equipment will be a safety problem; need to be realistic about what is compatible, if 3 houses can redesign so don’t have three curb cuts; can construction workers park elsewhere and be bused to the site; developer has not thought about involving the neighbors, like Planning Commission to deny the conditional use permit and not allow demolition of the existing house. Impact of construction on Redwoods and other trees may not be visible for 10 years, who will monitor? There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioner comment: Chair Keighran acknowledged five letters received by the commissioners at their desks this evening. Because of the inter-relationship with the environmental issues, would suggest that continue action on the design review until the environmental document is available, need data, have concerns about the impact of the project on the immediate community; concerned about height of houses when lots are flat, become overwhelming, it can be all right to ask business people to forgo some profit to invest in the community, this is not just about the codes its about the aesthetics, when all new and there in a row , encourage applicant to think about that; can they take one house away or scale one back a lot, not just change by dropping the roof a few feet. Commission design review direction include the following: • Houses should have a variety of setbacks, two setback more than one; • Consistency with the neighborhood is very important, rooms very big in these houses, could be trimmed inside which would reduce scale and mass and houses would fit better; • Houses should comply with height requirements; • On middle house the front door does not match the vocabulary of the house; • Middle house seems to have an abundance of shingle, might help if the chimney had a different material. • On lot 11 there is a problem with the relationship of the window above the breakfast nook, window size should be change; • On lot 11 Roofing material is too heavy, should be reconsidered; • On lot 11 window might be off set to gain a view of the redwood trees; • Houses collectively are too big for the character of the neighborhood (more bedrooms), consider two houses same size as these and one smaller; • Provide information about size of the two new houses on the 1300 block of Carlos; • Do an architectural study that shows what happens to the whole block if these structures area built, provide an illustration; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes June 10, 2002 8 Chair Keighran moved to continue the design review for the project at 1537 Drake Avenue to the next meeting June 24, 2002, when the environmental document will be available. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to continue the item to the next Planning Commission meeting, June 24, 2002. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. 8. 1341 CARLOS AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. C. Osterling recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the project. He stepped down from the dais. Commissioner asked why staff requested direction regarding the existing hedge along the right side property line. Staff noted that the new driveway would be located adjacent to the existing hedge and wanted Commission to be aware of the situation if there is a need to protect the hedge. Chairman Keighran opened the public comment. Michael Kindle, Chu Design & Engr., designer, noted that the site slopes upward approximately 8’-0” and this caused the project to exceed the height limit by 4’-4”, proposed project is less than the maximum FAR allowed, will work to save the hedge adjacent to the driveway. Commission asked if the garage door is a single door; the design noted that it is a double-wide door made to look like two single doors. Commissioner asked if the height of the building can be reduced? The designer noted that the height exception is requested because of the 8’-0” slope on the lot and because he wanted to minimize grading on the lot and reduce the amount of retaining walls. Mr. Sebastiani, 1337 Carlos Avenue, noted that he is concerned with the proposed side setback along the left side property line, would like to see a larger setback, appears that the first floor setback is 4’-0”, second floor cantilever has only a 2’-0” setback, in addition the eave above the cantilever is even closer to property line, there are five windows along that side of the house, second floor window will impose on his house, concerned with mass and bulk and proximity to his house. Commissioner noted that with these small lots it is difficult to ensure people privacy, window area in second floor cantilevered bay is small and the impact will be minimal. Staff clarified the proposed setbacks along the left side: 5’-6” on the first floor and 4’-0” on the second floor. Commission had the following concerns about the proposed project and asked the applicant to address these items on the revised plans: • concerned with the height, adds to mass, should look at ways to reduce the height of the building, solution may be to change the roof pitch, do not want to see a flat roof at peak; • scale of oval window on front elevation is too small, should be proportionate with rest of building, might do with trim; • concerned with second story bay on front elevation and how it overwhelms the front, it is too heavy, relationship between bay window and window on first floor needs to be addressed, does not tie in well, looks crammed in; and • asked for detailing study of second floor window, should provide section. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes June 10, 2002 9 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. This motion was seconded by Chairman Keighran. Chairman Keighran 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 (C. Osterling abstain). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. C. Osterling took his seat. 9. 138 LOMA VISTA – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHERYL HOCHSTATTER /DESIGN STUDIO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MICHAEL MAGALONG, PROPERTY OWNER) (29 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Keighran opened the public comment. Cheryl Hochstatter, designer, and Mr. and Mrs. Magalong, property owners, were present to answer questions. Commissioner asked if true-divided light windows will be used; yes. Are columns on dormers downspouts? Designer confirmed that copper downspouts will be used. Commissioner asked if there is a way to reduce the encroachment into the declining height envelope? Commission agreed that this would be difficult to do with this design, special permit is appropriate for the proposed architecture; designer added that a good balance in the design would not be achieved without the encroachment. Commission had the following concerns about the proposed project and asked the applicant to address these items on the revised plans: • concerned with window on gable end walls, suggest second floor window on left side elevation be centered or better balanced under the ridge, similar situation on right side elevation; and • front and rear elevations have a lot detail, sides of house lack interest, detail and interest should be carried to the side elevations to provide consistency. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that the designer has done a fine job with the addition, has indicated that she would respond to the concerns noted, and made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Keighran called for a voice 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 10:30 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes June 10, 2002 10 10. 2843 ARGUELLO DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (NOEMI K. AVRAM, AIA, GUMBINGER AVRAM ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DEAN HIRABAYASHI, PROPERTY OWNER) (21 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Keighran opened the public comment. Noemi Avram, Gumbinger Avram Associates, architect, and Mr. and Mrs. Hirabayashi, property owners, were present to answer questions, architect noted that there are no exceptions to the code, worked on this project for 1½ years, have talked to and incorporated neighbor’s comments. Commissioner expressed a concern with the semi-circular ‘wagon wheel’ windows on the front and rear elevations noting that they are not consistent with the architecture; architect noted that these windows were used to draw in as much light as possible into the rooms, house is presently dark. Commissioner also noted a concern with blank wall on west elevation and suggest adding a window in the closet; architect pointed out that the windows were eliminated from this wall to respect the neighbor’s privacy, will consider adding a window in the closet. Further discussion: concerned with view blockage, would like to see story poles installed, there are a large number of windows on the east elevation; architect noted that the two smaller windows are located high off the floor, the window to the left is above a bathtub, and the window to the far left is set back quite a distance from the side property line. Architect noted that the original design had the bedrooms on the right side of the house, but decided to flip the floor plan to address the neighbor’s concern with privacy, proposed addition is only 6’-8” above the existing roof, 24’-0” in height were 30’-0” is allowed, flattened roof in the middle to protect the neighbor’s view, front of house is 45’ from the curb, using 7’-0” plate height on second story, studied placement of addition to minimize the mass and bulk, tried to concentrate the bulk in the center of the house, if the neighbors wants we could revise roof at rear from gable to hip, could also eliminate semi-circular windows. Commissioner asked if three skylights are needed at the front of the house; architect noted that the entrance is very dark, would like to at least have two skylights. Property owner noted that the intent of the addition is for their elderly parents to move in with them, three bedrooms will not be enough, discussed the addition with the neighbors, most impacted will be the uphill neighbor, noted that the east elevation drawing showing the relationship between the project house and neighbor will be corrected, understands neighbor’s request to change roof at rear from gable to hip. Ann Marie Umland, 1600 Sebastian Drive, and John Roman, 2839 Arguello Drive, expressed concerns with the consistency with the neighborhood, will loose view since house will be wider and taller, addition at 2847 Arguello Drive fits in well with the neighborhood, no one lost their view, addition was at rear, not opposed to an addition, need to look at how to provide space but not at the expense of others, concerned with loss of privacy, there will be a height disparity with other houses on the block, concerned with soils and foundation issues, was not approached by applicant regarding this project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission had the following concerns about the proposed project and asked the applicant to address these items on the revised plans: • concerned with view blockage, story poles with mesh between them need to be installed to show outline of addition; • addition would look better if it is moved back, would be less prominent at the front of the house; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes June 10, 2002 11 • concerned with the number of skylights at the front of the house, should reduce number; • would like to see a tree protection plan; • concerned with the semi-circular windows on the front and rear elevations, they are not consistent with the architecture, architect should re-evaluate use of these windows; and • concerned with blank wall on west elevation and suggest adding a window in the closet. Commissioner noted that he sees the reason for placing the addition where it is proposed, it’s placed in a way to not block views from 2847 Arguello Drive, agree that story poles are needed to determine if views will be blocked from neighbors’ houses, suggest neighbors provide pictures from inside their houses after story poles are installed; this is a straight forward solution, addition is not excessive. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: architect should also look at revising the roof at the rear of the house from gable to hip configuration. Chairman Keighran called for a voice 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 10:55 p.m. 11. 148 COSTA RICA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALFREDO REYES, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LARRY AND SARA STENGER, PROPERTY OWNERS) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission requested that staff double-check the floor area ratio calculation because the proposed addition is only four square feet less than the maximum allowed. Chairman Keighran opened the public comment. John Stewart, Stewart Associates, designer, and Sara Stenger, property owner, were present to answer questions. Property owner submitted a petition signed by neighbors in support of the project. Designer noted that the intent is to tie in the previous addition at the rear with the rest of the house and have all three bedrooms on the same floor. Commissioner asked if wood siding is proposed; designer noted that hardy board would be installed over the existing siding. Commission requested that the designer double-check the height of the existing chimney, looks short. Suzie Cvitkovic, 144 Costa Rica Avenue, noted that she was glad to see the property improved, signed the petition because she did not want to appear uncooperative, has the following concerns and questions for the applicant: • property owner is a general contractor and understands that he will be doing the addition himself, would like to see construction hours as set by the Municipal Code adhered to; • would like to make sure materials shown on the plans and approved through design review are used when building; • there are different types of siding on the structure now, currently there is two-inch clapboard on the original part of the house, T-1-11 siding is proposed now, there are several types of T-1-11 siding, which one will be used? • will true-divided light windows be used? City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes June 10, 2002 12 • concerned about the distance between the houses and possible damage to her house and plants from debris coming into her yard during construction, 9’-0” from wall to wall, 5’-9” between chimneys, 2’-6” between wall and Italian cypress trees planted on her property for privacy, insurance agent told her that unless the neighbor has a comprehensive homeowner’s insurance policy which covers liability, the neighbor would be responsible for all accidents; • since the property owners will be doing the work themselves, how long will the project take to complete? • will the architect follow the project through to the end or is he just drawing the plans? Thanked the Commission for their extensive work on the project at 120 Costa Rica Avenue, Commission did a great job on preserving the character the of the existing house. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that the consistent siding will be a benefit to the house and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: there were several questions raised by the neighbor which need to be addressed by the applicant, would rather place this item on regular action. The maker of the motion and second agreed. Chairman Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when information has been provided 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 11:15 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of June 10, 2002. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of June 10, 2002. Commission discussed the commencement of the work on the Bayfront/Anza Area SAP update which was funded by the Council at the meeting on June 10, 2002. The Planning Commission subcommittee for the update decided to meet in July . XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Secretary APPROVEDMINUTES6.10