Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.06.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Monday June 24, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the June 24, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Sean O’Rourke; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the June 10, 2002 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. C. Vistica requested an amendment to the minutes of the special study meeting on June 11, 2002, noting on page three the second bulleted item “Restrict Fox Plaza Lane to pedestrian use only” should be removed since he did not recall that being a direction given in the design review discussion. The amended minutes were approved by consensus. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for review. VII. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests to remove any items. 1a. 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) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE 1b. 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) (77 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 2 1c. 1424 CASTILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ARIS RUIZ AND ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ALBERT SHILAIMON, PROPERTY OWNER) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON C. Brownrigg 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. Vistica. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 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 Reference staff report, 6.24.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. CP Monroe pointed out that conditions 5, 6, 7 and 8 were new standard conditions that would be applied to all new single family dwellings to insure that projects are built as approved in design review. CA Anderson noted that the overhead was incorrect and should state 31’-1” in height. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Michael Kindel, designer, was present to answer questions. He pointed out that the applicant has agreed to all conditions and has reduced the height to 31’-1”. This has increased the amount of attic space and changed the roof pitch to 12/12. They will keep the present driveway in order to retain the hedge and have revised the plans so that the chimney will be stone. Commissioner asked if the applicant has cut the roof, why the flat roof at the top, also concerned with flashing detail. Applicant stated that they didn’t cut the roof, was like that on the previous plans, and the applicant will add flashing details to insure that there is no visual break at the roof edge. Commissioner asked if it is possible to reduce the driveway width and amend conditions to retain the existing hedge. Applicant noted that Planning requirement for driveway width is 9’-6”. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: concerned with all the construction taking place and going to take place on Carlos Avenue and the impact it will have on the neighbors. Can they add a condition that no construction vehicles shall be allowed on the street over night? CP noted that if a condition were added it would apply only to this project. Noted that the window seat area could be reduced by 6 inches to increase the width of the driveway to protect the hedge, should add a condition to have an arborist report and be sure the hedge is protected. C. Vistica moved to approve the application by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 12, 2002, sheets A.1 through A.6 and L1, including the reduction in the overall building height of the primary dwelling and detached garage, change in roof pitch, added corbels on the front and right elevations, changes to window style, size and trim width on the primary dwelling and detached garage; 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 3 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 and Recycling Specialist’s May 6, 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; 5) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall set the property corners, set the building corners and certify the first floor finished elevation of the new structure(s) and have the datum accepted by the City Engineer; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 8) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10) that the developer shall have an arborist’s report for the protect ion during construction and maintenance, thereafter of the hedge along the side property line at the driveway including inspection of the installation and maintenance of the protection measures, and this report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a grading or building permit ; and 11) that all construction vehicles associated with this project shall be allowed to park on the street only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:28 p.m. 3. 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 Reference staff report, 6.24.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff by the Commission. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Cheryl Hochstatter, designer, was present to answer questions. She stated that she was not sure about the shingle detail at the eave sofit. Commissioner asked about the number of window boxes on the left elevation; why only two window boxes where there are three windows? Architect stated that she felt three window boxes would be too heavy and cutesy. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved approval noting nice revisions to the side elevations which addressed the concerns the Commission expressed at study, changes maintain the symmetry and integrity of the design by resolution with conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg, with conditions as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 14, 2002, sheets A1 through A10, including that all windows on the first and second stories shall be wood clad, true divided light windows with stucco mold; and that all downspouts shall be copper downspouts; 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 4 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 and Recycling Specialist's March 11, 2002, memos 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 prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 6) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 7) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; and 8) 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. Commissioner comment: noted that there was no reference to the type of windows being used, was pointed out that the window detail was included on the plans as wood clad, stucco mold and that condition #1 required all windows to be true divided light. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve noting the windows are stucco mold. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 4. 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 Reference staff report, 6.24.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff by the Commission Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Noemi Avram, architect, and Mr. and Mrs. Hirabayashi, property owners, were present to answer questions. Applicant presented revised drawings to reflect the changes suggested by the Planning Commission. Changed the roof ends from a gable to a hip to address neighbor’s view concerns. Noted that story poles were installed on June 18, 2002. Commissioners comments: why didn’t you put a window on the left elevation? Applicant stated that they considered putting a window, but felt that putting more windows in the closet space would be detrimental to the use of the space and items stored; houses too close together; did you have the opportunity to view the story pole’s from neighbor’s house? No. Had opportunity to meet with neighbors and saw that the house on 1600 Sebastian’s view will be blocked by the addition; have you considered lowering the roofline? Applicant noted that they have been working on this project for over one year; lowered the plate height to 7’-0”, hipped the roof, looked at a variety of placement arrangements for second floor. Commissioner noted that views at 1600 Sebastian will be blocked; a portion of the view will be blocked by the existing trees on the project site and the new addition will also block part of the view; considered lowering first floor? Applicant stated that the homeowner was willing to pay to have trees trimmed to increase neighbor’s view and that lowering the first floor would require a complete reconstruction. Blocking views is the issue here, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 5 great job of designing the house, unfortunately it stands in front of the neighbor’s window. Applicant noted that they tried a first floor addition, but due to setbacks, lot coverage, etc., the addition didn’t work. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted that he visited 2847, 2849 Arguello, 1600 Sebastian, and 1600 Sebastian will have the biggest view blockage; trees do take up 60-65% of the view and they are taller than the addition, addition blocks 35%, seems view could be restored by trimming trees and reducing the impact of addition; house at 1600 Sebastian also has distant views from windows on the other sides of the house, but seems that there is more to be done, so move to deny without prejudice this project. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: Asked if a regular tree-trimming program with no changes to design would work; not necessarily, but need to work with neighbors. The applicants have tried to find solutions, would be willing to consider a compromise on setbacks and lot coverage, designing to protect views; the community wants them to have an addition, but views are a priority, would be open to a lot coverage variance. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:58 p.m. 5. 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 Reference staff report, 6.24.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Noted that the Commission had a letter from Susie Cvitkovic at 144 Costa Rica Avenue at their desks. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked about the different sidings on the house, show cement siding, inconsistent with plans and what about insulation. Staff referred the siding question to the applicant. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. John Stewart, Stewart Associates 1351 Laurel Street, was present to answer questions. Pointed out that received neighbor’s letter and will abide by the City’s construction hours. Will insulate the house from the inside and all siding will match existing at the front porch and be horizontal. Noted that homeowners have replaced some windows already, but would be willing to replace existing with true divided light if PC requires. Susie Cvitkovic, 144 Costa Rica Avenue, spoke regarding the project. Concerned with new materials not being compatible with existing materials. Windows on her side are very large and not true divided light windows. Would like to request true divided light windows on all sides. Concerned about the side setback. Would like to request a property survey, to insure that the addition adheres to the setback requirements. Already large deck off the rear of the house. Addition will eliminate the light in her kitchen and living room. Home already has five bedrooms on a small lot. Is in favor of updating house, but better to update existing house and make it more livable rather than enlarge it more. Applicant noted that he was surprised new things were being brought up at this meeting; deck is existing. Have nineteen signatures from residents supporting addition. Trying to improve on the previous addition complete some time ago by the property owner’s mother. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noting he understood the neighbor’s concerns, second stories often block views, but in this case the project integrates and improves the design and is working within the code, moved to approve the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 6 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 May 21,2002, Sheets A2 and A3, floor plans and roof plan, and sheets A1 and A4, site plan and building elevations date stamped June 13, 2002; 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 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; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s, Recycling Specialist’s and the City Engineer’s May 28, 2002 memos shall be met; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 6) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 7) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 9) that the property shall be surveyed and the side setbacks as shown on the schematic plans confirmed on the building plans before a building permit shall be issued. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on motion: CA Anderson asked if Commissioners were satisfied that the siding issue had been addressed. The intention is clear that the whole house will be sided with the same material. There is a concern about the side setback, need to place a condition that property be surveyed. Maker and second agreed to amend the motion and add the condition. Can add a condition that John Stewart remains engaged in the project and that all-new windows shall be true divided light. CA Anderson stated that you can’t condition the project to retain a particular architect. CP Monroe pointed out the new conditions of approval requiring a licensed architect to survey the architectural features before final inspection. Concerned about bulk, asked applicant to remove upstairs deck if they decide they won’t use it. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:18 p.m. 6. 1570 CYPRESS AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING DETACHED SECOND UNIT. (BRIAN ROCHE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Reference staff report, 6.24.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked for clarification on preformance standards versus conditions. CP Monroe stated that performance standards are established in the code and any second unit approved would need to meet these on-going performance standards or lose its right to exist. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Brian Roche, the property owner was present to answer questions and stated that he wished to remodel and clean up the existing second unit. Commissioner asked if the applicant was currently living in the main house. The applicant state that he was living in the main house. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 7 C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the second unit shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 2) that all building permits required to bring the second unit into compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame shall be applied for, and all construction work completed by, June 30, 2003; 3) that any alterations or repairs to the second unit shall meet the requirements of the Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.29; and 4) that no permits for work to the main single family dwelling on site are approved with this special permit. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the second unit. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:27 p.m. 7. HOUSING ELEMENT – NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN, ADOPTING THE 2001-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT. PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report, 6.24.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed changes and staff responses to reviewing agencies. Noted that the Housing Element required adding a work program regarding ADA accessibility due to a change in State law effective January 2002. Also, noted that the Housing Element has been reviewed by the ALUC and they requested 2 conditions on the Housing Element which have been addressed in the text. A Negative Declaration has been prepared stating that there are no significant impacts associated with this Housing Element. CP noted all future housing projects would require their own environmental review. Commissioner asked why this was a Draft if it is considered to be the final document. CP Monroe stated that the Housing Element is final, but still considered a Draft until the City Council acts on it. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to approve the Negative Declaration and recommend the 2001-2006 Housing Element to the City Council for approval. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Commissioner comments: the 2001-2006 Housing Element is a beautiful piece of work. Represents hours of staff, Commission and community time and effort. Great job. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the Negative Declaration and recommend approval of the 2001-2006 Housing Element to City Council. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:33 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS AND DESIGN REVIEW 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. This is a continued design review study meeting, since the last review the applicant has re-designed the 3 houses and all now comply with zoning code City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 8 requirements. The Negative Declaration is attached to the Staff Report and a summary of the key issues is in the report; she noted that 3 letters submitted since the packet was delivered were at the Commissioner’s desk for their review. Commissioner asked if tonight’s action would begin any appeal period on the Negative Declaration. CA Anderson noted that the Negative Declaration has been posted and is in a 20 day review period and comments will be taken until and through the action meeting the action meeting on the project; the purpose of tonight’s meeting is not to discuss the Negative Declaration, but to review the design of the 3 houses; tonight’s action would be for the Planning Commission to decide if they should send the project to a Design Review Consultant or to place it on the Action Calendar. The Negative Declaration and comments in it will be considered at the action meeting on the project. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, attorney, 216 Park Road, representing the applicant Otto Miller, and Michael Kindle, architect with Chu Designs, spoke about the project noting at the last meeting they talked about the pros and cons of the site, sizes of the houses, and potential impacts. Do not want to repeat that information tonight. Storm water and sewer impacts have been discussed and feel that adequate input to make a determination that there is no impact from the addition of the thre e new houses. The existing infrastructure will support the new homes. Regarding the design – applicant has lowered the heights on 2 homes, moved the middle house to eliminate the declining height exception, and on lot C increased the front setback. Not asking for any variances or special use permits. As far as providing more variation in setbacks the house on lot C was moved back 3 feet, the house on Lot A is already set way back from the street to protect the Redwood trees. House on Lot C has a large front porch which places the living area even further back from the street. Believe the houses are nicely designed, don’t believe that the design reviewer would change anything so don’t need to send to him; all a design reviewer could do is reduce the size of the houses, and these are designed within the limits and to the extent allowed by the code which is Mr. Miller’s right; Planning Commission spent a lot of time arriving at appropriate FAR, lot coverage, setbacks which are applied to all lots, lot by lot these houses meet all your standards. If commission wishes different standards then you need to amend your ordinance. Project should not be sent to a design reviewer, request set for public hearing on July 22, 2002. Planning commissioners questions: am not satisfied that houses this size do not affect the infrastructure serving this area; city now has code requirements beyond measurable standards, have design guidelines; don’t understand how the back flow devices are going to solve the sewer problem, concerned about the Redwood trees, the impact on Mills Creek and the capacity of the fire line at the nearest fire hydrant and the ability to suppress fires. CA pointed out that the commission is not taking testimony on the Negative Declaration tonight, does not want to obscure the design review process in tonight’s review. It was noted that the letters from the public which seem to address environmental issues will be addressed when the Negative Declaration is before the Commission. Chair Keighran opened the public comment to the floor. The following people spoke: Jari Ochse, 1512 Drake; Christian McCrum, 1540 Drake; Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake; Mark Toms, 1520 Drake; Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake; Don Ochse, 1512 Drake; Ann Grimes, 1520 Drake; Bob Berra, 1510 Drake; Natalie Taylor, 1566 Drake. They commented: thought we only had 10 days to comment on the negative declaration so did not focus on the design issues; parking is the biggest issue especially with five bedroom houses even with two car garages, not enough off-street space; at the price these houses are proposed to sell for will have more than one car; there are too many houses on the site; pleased to see the height of two of the houses reduced but still not fit the neighborhood should reduce the aspect of one house substantially or put only two houses on the site; reducing the number of houses would reduce the impacts; seem to be some inconsistencies in how the Redwood trees would be protected, want a protective fence 10 feet or 20 feet, but houses within 7 feet and 9 feet, how will that happen; how can we expect people working on the site to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 9 respect the trees; the design of the houses on the two affected lots are too big and being built too close to the trees that need protection; this parcel was zoned in 1918 and there has never been three houses on the site, previous owner asked for permission to build three houses in mid-1970’s , Planning Commission then said no for some reason, why? FAR relating to lot size makes a lot of sense if there were not extenuating circumstances on this lot to reduce the FAR these include the creek, parking, sunlight; should not put three houses on this site; the owners son apparently also asked for three houses on this site after 1970’s request, they were turned down, why? Design looks as if it belongs in Concord in a new subdivision; should design houses that have no increase in plumbing fixtures from original; story poles should be installed for each house so can see now how the mass and bulk works; because of the proximity of Mills Creek the applicant should be required to get permits from the Department of Fish and Game and SFRWQCB and the Army Corps of Engineers, the tree protection ordinance should be complied with; would like to know the process for reviewing this project and see a schedule with tentative dates and who is responsible for each step; have qualitative guidelines and subjective measures which design has not addressed; there is an exponential effect of three houses next to each other on 6000 SF lots; looks like a subdivision, existing houses are low and small, even the average size on Poppy Drive is larger; this should go to the design reviewer; 3 houses to much for the character of the neighborhood, should go to 2 houses; parking is a problem, would prefer not demean existing houses each time he comes; environmental issues are integral to design review, any place view property from it provides open space, it is irreplaceable to see Skyline Blvd and south; the General Plan talks about the preservation of private open space, existing residents will loose view and pristine open space. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioner comment: The FAR guidelines do not fit in this neighborhood if this was one lot could build a 10,000 SF, would not allow because it would be, inconsistent with neighborhood; houses are too big, try to get ones that fit; scaled down 20% to make them fit the neighborhood, the architect has the talent to do this well, consistency with the neighborhood should drive this project; the design needs to go to the design reviewer, there is a process to work with designers who understand the process; design review should sort out the alternatives; if applicant is not interested in design review, will know for next time and can move on with evaluation and decision; know it is hard to address design without environmental issues because they are closely linked; so should go to the design reviewer to address this relationship; more need to be done to this project than trim and roof pitches, there are a lot of attached garages in this neighborhood, for example; neighborhood consistency needs to follow what is on the block, one house close to maximum might work, three close to maximum are too much. Chair Keighran moved to refer this project to a design reviewer to see what can be done to get a better neighborhood fir based on comments made to get a better neighborhood fit. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: there has been a lot of turmoil about the FAR of these houses, they all have living areas less than 3000 SF not so large, on lot A the house is setback behind the Redwoods, on lot B the house is forward, trouble is house on lot C looks too much like the first house, it should be changed to look like the neighborhood. Do not want to set a precedent by limiting FAR here based on infrastructure which would not allow other houses in the neighborhood to expand; could affect them forever. Design reviewer needs to consider and address the following: • Look at this project as a unit and how it will work within the neighborhood, need flexibility to work within the neighborhood character; • Issue is building three houses at once has a greater impact, need to be more sensitive in design to blend not alter the neighborhood character; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 10 • House on right might fit better with lower envelope; • Need a streetscape elevation study including FAR and setbacks for both sides of Drake from Adeline to the end of the street; • FAR is not an entitlement, code provides for qualitative requirement based on design guidelines, need to be addressed; • Should look at amount of hard paving, all concrete, could use pavers or other softer materials better for trees; • Address reasons that this lot was not allowed to be developed as three lots in the past; • Provide graphic representation of both sides of the street, documenting what the existing and new would look like based on height, mass and finished floor elevations. • Mass of three houses should be varied more, for example by lowering some of the roofs or making them single story; • Mass and bulk of houses on lots B and C is not in keeping with the neighborhood and its natural environments, lower the plate lines in some areas and reduce the FAR so they are more in keeping with the existing houses; • Neighborhood fit has a lot to do with the way the houses are sited on the lots, could have single car garage, attached garage, vary setbacks substantially so houses not equally separated, combined and shared or side by side driveways; • In consistency with the neighborhood. Aesthetic also requires architectural solution; • Mass could be reduced by making the rooms smaller using interior space more efficiently; • Address environmental constraints and effects on them should be considered in design review. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to refer this project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. 9. 1310 BURLINGAME AVENUE - ZONED – C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (MAHER FAKHOURI, APPLICANT; KAHN DESIGN ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; STEVEN G. GENSLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. CP Monroe noted that the signage was included on the plans to show how it is integrated into the design of the facade, but the PC is not being asked to review the signage under this application. The applicant would come back with a sign permit under a separate application. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Charles Kahn, architect, and Tiffany Lichter, designer, were present to answer questions. Charles Kahn noted that this building is part of 3 tenant spaces including the bakery, Stella Mia and natural food store. Noted that the clearstory windows were part of the original building if just the façade below the windows was being altered then would not require commercial design review. Wanted to take the existing Stella Mia tenant space and break it up into an individual storefront. The open terrace design is similar to some other shops on Burlingame Avenue and wanted to show integration of signage as part of the design proposal. Commissioners asked: what happens to the outdoor seating after business hours? Designer confirmed that the tables and chairs would be brought inside after the close of business. CA Anderson noted that the applicant should speak to police department about security lighting when the business is closed. Clarify if City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 11 the clearstory windows were going to be stained glass? Designer noted that the plans indicated stained wood window frames and not stained glass. Are the lower floor window frames aluminum and the upper story windows frames wood? Applicant stated the lower floor windows are heavy aluminum because they are sliders; he would like the option to decide whether to do wood or aluminum windows on the upper story. What is the color of the tile? Applicant stated they would bring in samples of the tile and aluminum window frame material to the next meeting. Commission had the following concerns about the proposed project and asked the applicant to address them: • Would the clearstory window frames in the upper level be wood or aluminum? What would the aluminum material look like; • Commission would like to see samples of the proposed tile; • How would security lighting be installed in the outdoor patio area, what hours would it be operational. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for action. Motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: wanted the option to review proposed materials request amendment of the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar to provide that opportunity. The maker and second of the motion agreed to the amendment to the motion to move the item to regular action calendar. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the proposed materials would be available to review. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:31 p.m. 10. 1261 VANCOUVER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGES (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT (REQUEST TO CONTINUE) This item was continued until the applicant submits additional required information requested by the Planning Department and public notice will be sent when the item is rescheduled. 11. 1217 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED – R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STELLA P. HUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked for clarification on the square footage extension in the basement ordinance. CP Monroe noted 600 SF is exempt if walls are less than 2 feet above grade, also 100 SF is exempted for mechanical area. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Jerry Deal, designer, was present to answer questions. He stated that the code allows 600 SF of basement to be exempted from FAR in addition a 100 SF is exempted for mechanical pits for a total of 700 SF. So, 5 SF of this basement is counted towards FAR. He noted that the special permit for declining height envelope was 48 SF because the window was less than 25% of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 12 window enclosure. He did this so the window would better fit the design on the house, otherwise it would be too big. Commissioners comments: that the front and back of the house are nice, but at the sides are starting to look like a layer cake, this is starting to show on north elevation; the addition can be improved; the house has been designed to meet the code numbers and not for style evidenced by the fact that designer got caught on the declining height envelope and by the window enclosure; the second floor plate height can be altered; designer should consider raising or lowering plate height to get more variety on the side elevations; the details on the garage door should be improved; what purpose do the shutters provide, do they fit in with the design; the side elevations are overbearing and need to be toned down; also noted that the garage door needs to be broken up. Applicant noted that the next door neighbor has requested that construction not be started until November, and stated that this could be a condition of approval. Sophie Lo, 1215 Bernal Avenue, the next door neighbor spoke. Stated that she is due to have her baby on October 8, 2002 and requested that construction not begin till 6 weeks after delivery, late November. Commission had the following concerns about the proposed project and asked the applicant to address them: • Concerned that layer cake effect is starting to show on the side elevations, d esign should be adjusted; • Concerned with second floor plate height, suggest that applicant consider raising or lowering second floor plate height to address mass, bulk and side articulation; • Garage door needs more detail, can it be broken up into double doors to reflect the style and detail of the house; • Shutters don’t fit in with design, consider removing. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the project had been revised and reviewed by staff. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:46 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of June 17, 2002. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of June 24, 2002. Noted that the San Mateo School District will be starting renovation on the Burlingame High School this summer. Council adopted the budget for 2002-2003 and approved the conceptual plan for the renovations to the Easton Branch Library. There will be no Council meetings on July 15, 2002 and August 19, 2002. The continued special study meeting on the Safeway project was set for July 2, 2002. The Planning Commission subcommittee on the Bayfront decided to meet on July 15, 2002. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:24 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2002 13 Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Acting Secretary APPROVEDMINUTES6.24.02