Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.08.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 12, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the August 12, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Bojués Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; Senior Engineer Philip Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 22, 2002 regular meeting 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. 1847 EL CAMINO REAL – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT (DAN LORENZON, APPLICANT; STEVE MUSICH, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: How bright will this sign be relative to the other wall signs on the shopping center, will the amount of lumens change from the sign that is presently up on the wall; how long has the present sign been in place, was it installed at 12 feet to conform to the code? Why does the applicant want to change it now? Was the present sign installed before a change in the code requirements? This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 2 2a. 2115 HALE DRIVE – ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RICHARD HARBER, PROPERTY OWNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with the recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 1408 ALVARADO AVENUE – ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW PARKING WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK (MARINA FERER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE Reference staff report, 8.12.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission acknowledged receiving a letter dated August 12, 2002, submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Rodgers. Commission asked if the photographs referred to in this letter were available? Yes, the are in the staff report. Commission noted that the plans indicate that the driveway is 42'-9" long and asked what are the dimensions required for a parallel parking space? CP Monroe noted that an on-street parallel parking space is 20'-0" and typically an additional 4'-0" is provided between two parallel parking spaces. Commission commented that the applicants' letter indicates that she has a tandem garage; feel that two cars can be parked in garage and a third in the driveway, why is more parking needed?; concerned with height of the hedge, staff noted five feet is maximum allowed in front setback; current height of hedge is six feet, hedge appears to be in the city's right-of way, and height of hedge may have an impact on site line to cars on street. CP noted that if the height of the hedge is greater than five feet it will require an exception and if it is located in the right-of- way, an encroachment permit will be required. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Marina Ferer, property owner, noted that the existing garage is not wide or tall enough to accommodate her car and van, if two vehicles are parked in the driveway in tandem the van encroaches into the sidewalk, 2001 white Chevrolet van is used for her business, intent is to keep vehicles off the street, trying to create a safer situation for traffic at intersection of Alvarado and Hillside Drives, a blind spot is created for the neighbors if the van is parked on the street in front of the house. John Rodgers, 2800 Hillside Drive, noted that he lives across the street, intent of the zoning code is to maintain the residential character in the neighborhood, feels that the large van parked in the front yard creates a commercial character and detracts from the neighborhood, he and other neighbors have spend a lot on landscaping to beautify the neighborhood, alarmed to hear that the existing hedge may be nonconforming and may have to be trimmed down to five feet, van will be more visible if hedge height is reduced, this property is not different from other properties in the neighborhood, need to follow regulations in the code; applicant just bought a new vehicle, could have purchased a smaller vehicle to fit in garage. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: familiar with this area, in this case priority is safety, there is a problem with cars speeding on Hillside and Alvarado Drives, applicant tried to listen to the concerns of the neighbors to the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 3 left, neighbor has a blind spot, parking pad is hidden behind the hedge, van will be less visible than if parked in the driveway; can relate to the problem of having a small garage, trying to park a 1990's car in a 1940's garage, this is a good solution to the problem. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 16, 2002, sheet 1; 2) that the parking variance for parking within the front setback shall expire in five year s, September 4, 2007, or if the house or garage are demolished or remodeled before that time; and 3) 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: would like to see other options based on time. CP noted that a condition could be added to limit this variance to a specific length of time. Commission suggested that this variance be limited to five years and that if the applicant wished to extend it she would have to reapply at that time. The maker of motion and second agreed. Commissioner noted that this intersection is dangerous in both directions, it is generally unsightly to see two vehicles parked side-by-side in a driveway, support this request because of the hazardous situation. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:27 p.m. 4. 1133 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR ADDITIONS TO THE BASEMENT, FIRST AND SECOND STORY LEVELS (DAVE HOWELL, PENINSULA BUILDING DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JIM AND KATHY WARD, PROPERTY OWNERS) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 8.12.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dave Howell, applicant and designer, 2825 Hillside Drive, noted that the letter and staff report explains the project and problems with the foundation, experi enced some erosion during excavation, submitted photographs of the problems encountered during construction. Commissioner asked if a window is being eliminated with this amendment? Applicant noted that a window is not being eliminated, but a new one foot tall hopper style window is proposed in the basement on the right side elevation. Understand the need for a more solid foundation, but why is additional floor space needed? Applicant noted that the added floor space is practical, need to excavate more area than expected to resolve foundation and erosion problem, can add in a wall but it would be more costly and cause more unnecessary disruption; concerned that the attic could be converted to living space. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 26, 2002, sheets 1 through 10, with 1207 SF of basement area with a ceiling height of over 6 feet and 297 SF with a ceiling height of 5'-11" or less; areas less than 7'-6" cannot be used as habitable space; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 4 be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Recycling Specialist's February 11, 2002, memos shall be met; 4) that the portions of the basement that are shown with a 5'-11" ceiling height shall have a ceiling height of no greater than 5'-11", that these portions shall be back-filled with a cement floor; and that the ceiling height in these areas shall never be increased to greater than 5'-11" and that these areas shall never be made into or used as habitable space; 5) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:38 p.m. 5. UPDATE RULES OF CURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES Reference staff report 8.12.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report. Commissioners noted that maybe staff could prepare an overhead to be on when the meeting s tarts to direct members of the audience to the handout on Commission procedure available at the door; regarding item V, D, 2 look at wording, as written it implies that all environmental scoping sessions include design review; on item IV C if a commissioner is absent at study, is it sufficient for him/her to just read the minutes of the previous meeting before s/he can vote at action or must they listen to the tape, whichever it is, the rules of procedure should be corrected. C. Vistica moved that this item be continued to the next meeting for clarification. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). This item concluded at 7:46 p.m. 6. 1137-1145 PALOMA AVENUE – ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, VARIANCE FOR DWELLING UNITS IN THREE BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT, AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW THREE (3) STORY, TWELVE (12) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FU-LEN CHENG, PROPERTY OWNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN a. Variances And Condominium Permit b. Tentative And Final Parcel Map For Lot Merger And Tentative Condominium Map Reference staff report 8.12.02, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Forty-seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission commented that in the previous plans for the project there were four 9' x 20' uncovered parking stalls provided at the rear of the site and now there are only three spaces, one of which has the dimensions of a disabled accessible parking stall, why did this change? Planning staff noted that the architect double- checked with the city's Chief Building Official (CBO) and verified that a disabled accessible space is required for the larger common open space provided. The Chief Building Official noted that this space is not required to be exclusively labeled as a disabled accessible space. Commission noted a concern with the parking impact on businesses and residents in the area during construction, currently there is construction on Broadway for the Broadway Streetscape program, construction employees for this project should be directed City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 5 to park somewhere else, do not want to see equipment parked on the street overnight, would like to see parking plan, condition should be added. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, architect, 851 Burlway Road, Suite 408, noted that in regard to the disabled accessible/guest parking space, he received a notice from the State regarding new disabled accessible parking requirements, called the CBO to discuss the interpretation, CBO confirmed that a disable accessible space needs to be provided; based on that discussion made the changes to the parking space at the rear. In regard to providing a construction parking plan, do not object to controls on construction parking, but as an architect it is difficult determine how the contractor will address construction parking at this time, do not have a problem with a condition being added requiring a construction parking /staging plan, feel that all other concerns raised by the Commission at the previous meeting have all been addressed. Commission asked what type of roof tile will be used; intend to use a red Spanish style tile. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the changes made make a big difference to this project, nice useable common open space provided now, increased articulation on the front of the building breaks up the mass, mass reduced by eliminating the bridges between the buildings, new buildings are consistent with existing buildings on street, project has come a long way, in favor of project; it is unfortunate that applicant has not pursued different funding resources to provide affordable housing, understand that it is voluntary at this time; concerned with making findings necessary for the variances; felt it was important to preserve and enhance the common open space at the rear of the building, which caused the buildings to be pushed forward on the lot, setback is consistent with existing residential buildings on this block, increased articulation on the front of the building will improve the neighborhood, and variances are needed to match the existing character of the neighborhood. Commission suggested that the applicant look at ways to provide affordable housing from the start of the this project, didn't see an effort made by the applicant, Housing Element discusses median household income which is less than needed for a median value house, Burlingame relies on service workers, average wage of service worker in Bay Area is higher than other areas, but still can't afford to buy a home in Burlingame, city employees can't afford to live here either, disappointed that twelve units are being added with no effort to set aside one dwelling unit as affordable, cannot support project. Further discussion: project has come a long way, revised project is a big improvement, agree that a construction plan should be developed for construction staging and parking, this is a very busy street, do not want to see impact on neighbors. CP noted that a condition could be added to require the City Engineer to review and approve a construction staging plan, require construction staging plan and construction and employee/workers parking plan before a building permit is issued. Commission noted that the construction staging plan should provide the least impact on the surrounding area, could include a limit on the construction hours if needed, street should be kept open, stop work order should be issued if failure to comply with plan; staging plan should incorporate punishment for lack of cooperation from contractor. Commission asked who is responsible for implementation of the staging plan; CP noted that the contractor is responsible, enforcement would be based on complaint. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 2, 2002, sheets A-01 through A-13 and L-1; with 1,457 SF of common open space and a front setback of 15'-6" in order to increase the articulation of features on the front of the structures; and that the site shall be graded to elevation 97.34 and this shall be confirmed by a survey approved by the City Engineer prior to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 6 scheduling a foundation inspection and the roof shall be covered with red Spanish tile; 2) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 133.25 as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Paloma Avenue (99.98') for a maximum height of 32'-3", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 98.67'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 107.42'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 117.42'; and the top of ridge elevation shall be 133.25. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4) that a construction staging plan and construction workers parking plan to include subcontractors shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer before issuance of a building permit; the construction staging and parking plan shall be developed to create the least impact on the neighborhood and shall show the location of construction materials to be stored on-site, location of construction equipment, and location of construction employee parking; 5) no construction materials or construction equipment shall be stored on the street; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 12, 2002 and February 12, 2001 memos, the Chief Building Official’s February 12, 2001 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 12, 2001 memo, the City Arborist’s February 13, 2001 memo, and the Recycling Specialist’s October 17, 2001 memo shall be met; 7) that the applicant shall submit for approval of the City Engineer a construction staging and parking plan prior to issuance of a building permit; 8) that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 9) that the applicant shall receive a Tree Removal Permit from the City before removing the existing 18-inch diameter (56-inch circumference) and 26-inch diameter (81-inch circumference) black acacia trees at the rear of the lot, and that a building permit shall not be issued before such permits are issued; 10) that ‘guest parking stall’ shall be marked on the two guest parking spaces at the rear of the site and designated on the final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; 11) that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the guest parking stall shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 12) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 13) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 14) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 15) that if a security gate system across the driveways is installed in the future, the gates shall be installed a minimum 20’-0” back from the front property line and shall provide a minimum opening of 10’-0”; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 16) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 17) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 18) 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; 19) that the design of the new building shall incorporate the seismic standards of the California Building Code, 1998 Edition; 20) that the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 7 project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame for structural stability; 21) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 22) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 23) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 24) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 25) that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 26) that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right- of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 27) that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run -off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 28) that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 29) that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs, shall be routed through buffer strips where possible and shall be filtered through fossil filters or other petroleum absorbent system inserted into stormwater inlets prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining all filters on at least a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 – April 1) or as required by the City upon inspection; 30) that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 31) that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 32) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 33) that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 34) that an irrigation plan consistent with the City’s water conservation guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit; 35) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 36) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 37) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA; 38) that before a building permit is issued for the project, the applicant shall perform a study and capacity analysis of the existing sanitary sewer system to analyze the impact of the proposed City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 8 project to the existing collection and processing system. The study shall include all the existing flows and proposed flows, the capacity of the system using the peak factors governing the existing conditions, increase in BOD/TSS (Biological Oxygen Demand/Total Suspended Solids) due to the project volumes, and mitigation of impact to the system; 39) that the developer shall pay (proportional share) for the installation of any necessary sewer line improvements. If the developer does not install the new line himself he shall be required to pay for the development’s portion of the installation cost. If the City Engineer determines that the pipe will not be installed at the time of development, the developer shall make a cash deposit to the City for a portion of the estimated cost prior to issuance of a building permit for his construction. The City shall use this deposit at the time of the pipe installation for this development’s share of the cost; 40) that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer’s expense if necessary; 41) that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 42) that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 43) that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 44) that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to Paloma Avenue; 45) that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City’s noise requirement; 46) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; 47) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance: 48) that any existing street trees shall be protected during construction; and 49) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1441 CORTEZ AVENUE- ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RONALD AND PAUL DE DIOS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; HECTOR ESTIPONA, DESIGNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked about how the process for changing the address, staff noted that address changes are applications handled by the Public Works Department and input from the Post Office was required; it was noted that the former address on this site was 1439 Cortez. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Ron De Dios, property owner, spoke noting that he applied for the change of address on July 12, at the same time he submitted for the planning approval; he noted the letter from the neighbor expressing concerns about privacy and light access on the north side; he noted that they had been renting this house for 4 years; the size of the new house is based on the neighborhood standard City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 9 established on Cortez; looked at design initially within height limit, roof looked chopped off, design requires steeper pitch, there are no cathedral ceilings inside. Family tried to live in the house as it is, the upper bedroom was converted from the attic, hot, no insulation in the roof, stair access less than 3 feet wide, existing house is inadequate for comfortable living; unable to add to rear because of placement of garage, as is have designed house around the garage. Commission asked if willing to cut the rear of the addition some; yes, don’t know what architect would say. Commissioner noted that house is massive especially the right side elevation which presents a tall, vertical wall without break, the rear presents a large area of stucco as well; what would the window detail be, applicant noted wooden casement; need finer detail to break the first and second story and break up mass; need to add articulation on the sides and rear similar to that on the front. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissions noted the following: • Height, size and mass of proposed addition is too big for the parcel and surrounding properties; • Need a landscape plan which should include tall plant material to screen the addition; • Would like to see the height of this structure compared to the height of the structures on either side; • Need to break up the mass, side walls are just too long, reduce the rear by a few feet; • Add articulation on the rear and sides similar to that on the front; • Need to do something to the windows to help reduce the mass, trim detail or fenestration. C. Osterling moved to refer this project to a design reviewer based on the fact that it has potential which will be improved by the changes discussed. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent) The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:46 p.m. 8. 1524 LOS MONTES DRIVE- ZONED R-1- AMENDMENT TO AN APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (LIONEL J. RECIO AIA, C/O SIDNEY HOOVER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MICHAEL BERMAN AND BETSY HAUGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked what is the status of the project. CP note that the applicant is asking for and amendment to the approved project and for a one-year extension. Revised plans were submitted on June 25, 2002, before the planning approval expired. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Betsy Haugh and Michael Berman, property owners, were present to answer questions. They noted that slight modifications are proposed to the project, scaling back the project but able to create family room space, reduces work on the roof, can keep current roof, proposed changes are not visible from the street, minor change to footprint but almost identical to original plan, not exceeding FAR, moved to Los Montes Drive because it has a nice view, big backyard, current floor plan is poor, do not want to impact the neighbors, need space for growing family, would like to update house, request that project be placed on the consent calendar. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 10 Commission had the following concerns about the project and asked the applicant to address the following items: • concerned about the encroachment of privacy into the neighbor's yards from the proposed deck at the rear of the house; applicant should provide photographs taken from the rear of the house at the level of the proposed deck showing views towards adjacent neighbors, photos should be included in the resubmittal; and • recall discussing landscaping at the previous meeting, please add landscape plan back in plans for next meeting. C. Auran noted that the project does not exceed FAR maximum, will not be visible from the street, there is no change to the setback or declining height envelope and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when photographs have been provided and plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:46 p.m. 9. 1109 PALM DRIVE – ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DALE MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROBERT AND CHRISTINE FRUDENBERG, OWNERS) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, architect, 851 Burlway Road, Suite 408, noted that the two second floor windows on the front elevation are not balanced on the drawings, but will be equally distant, will show correctly on the revised plans; declining height envelope encroachment is minor, encroaches only 18-inches along the top of the wall. Commission asked if the proposed windows will be true-divided light; yes. The Commission expressed a concern with the addition at the rear, existing house at the front is broken up with different roof shapes and windows, addition is not consistent with proportion of small house at the front, second floor overwhelms the first floor. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments on the design: • should look at reducing the plate height on the second floor from 9'-0' to 8'-0" or 7'-0" with a sloped ceiling; • suggest using a different window treatment on the second floor on the front elevation; • second floor addition needs to be more consistent with the existing house, suggest using a bay window or knee braces; second floor is not well integrated; • the break in the solid wall at the rear of the house does not reflect the craftsman style at the front of the house; existing house has lots of interest but it has not been carried to the second floor; • need to provide landscape plan, tall landscaping should be added between the project and the fire station to the left, look at using large scale shrubs at the front and year yards; see 1112, 1117 and 1120 Palm Drive for good examples of landscaping; • should also look at possibility of adding landscaping between the project and house to the right, two driveways adjacent to each other create a large concrete pad, need to break up the landing pad look; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 11 • use of splayed base walls on second floor looks awkward, need to address how to tie the first and second floors better; C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: feel that this is a strong candidate for review by a design review consultant, the design has a long way to go to be a good interpretation of a craftsman style, do not want to delay the project further, needs articulation and finer details. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion failed on a voice vote 3-3-1 (Cmsrs. Keele, Keighran and Vistica, dissenting, C. Bojués absent). C. Keele made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: this is a good start, but design review will help to streamline the review process, in this case will help to clarify issues for the applicant; feel that this is a talented architect and can incorporate the changes as suggested by the Commission but will go along with the majority. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 10. 1108 CORTEZ 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 (LARRY AND VERONICA MORSELLO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; BRUCE BALLENTINE, ARCHITECT) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission noted that the north elevation on sheet A-2 indicates that the house will be 31'-2" tall and the south elevation notes that it will be 29'-10" tall, will house be dug out? Is there a slope on the lot? Architect can provide explanation. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Bruce Ballentine, architect, noted that there is a slight downward slope on the lot from front to rear, 32'-1" is house height measured from grade at the rear of the house, by the city's definition of house (measured from average top of curb level at front), the house is less than 30 feet tall, declining height envelope exception is needed for this colonial style house, there is a driveway adjacent to both sides of this lot and therefore will not impact the neighbors. Commissioner noted that the design of the new house is nice, but likes the design of the existing house more, asked if the applicant looked into the history of the existing house; applicant noted that he did not look into the history, the existing house is in poor condition, would loose most of the house based on what the client wants. Commissioner encouraged the applicant to salvage the existing windows and fixtures. Asked the applicant what is the height of the house at 1116 Cortez Avenue; approximately 30 feet. Commission expressed a concern with using Hardi plank, 1x4 trim on corners of house and around windows, trim package will not be visually interesting, provide more information on trim; applicant noted that he was happy to add detail to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 12 trim, but generally has found that a more simple trim package is appropriate for a colonial style house, did not want to add too much. Commission asked if the large existing palm tree at the rear of the site can be relocated; tree is old and tired, would not fit in with colonial style house, this is a protected tree and would require a special permit from the Parks Department to be removed. Commission asked if there was access to the attic; architect noted there was no access to the attic. Deborah Magid and Tom Haygel, 1104 Cortez; Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way; and Jennifer Lee, 1109 Cortez Avenue, spoke concerning this project: like the existing house, has vintage features, unfortunate that applicant cannot work with the existing house, house has lots of history, was originally built as a wedding gift, can't get maximum space using the existing house, proposed house is massive, design is nice but could be better, several trees and shrubs which provides screening between the properties will be removed to accommodate the new garage, area will be denuded, small bungalow on the other side will be dwarfed by this project; should review files at the Historical Society to research history of this house; there are a few colonial style houses in this neighborhood, would like to see more design elements incorporated to break up the mass, many of the tudor and bungalow style houses have verandas at the front of the house, provides more breathing room at the front of the house, would like to salvage the fixtures in this house if it is to be demolished; existing house was built it 1917, this is not a true colonial style, does not fit in with the neighborhood, most are craftsman style, every time a new house is built there is less air space, looks like row of blocks, too many trees being removed in the city. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: hear what the neighbors are saying, this design is good, unfortunate to loose the existing bungalow house, project is acceptable with a little more work, colonial style is refreshing compared to recent new house designs. Commission had the following concerns about the project and asked the applicant to address the following items: • would like to see existing fixtures and windows salvaged; suggest using some of the existing features in the new house; • need to pay more attention to the details, provide more information on trim package and windows; • need more faster growing larger shrubs or small scale trees to provide screening; and • garage door is not consistent with the style of the house, suggest using two single doors with a column in the middle or using trim to break up the appearance of the double-wide door; C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: this project is better than what is typically seen for a new house design, as a community need to take a hard look at the issue of large homes and floor area ratio. Chair 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 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 13 11. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A- APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE- STORY, RETAIL BUILDING (ROBERT BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description noting that this public comment session was for both environmental scoping and design review for the project proposed now. Commissioners asked: can the awning shown on the rear of the building overhang the public right of way to the extent shown, staff noted that an encroachment permit is required for an awning overhanging the public right of way and public works will review the proposal; why were the last subcommittee minutes on this project not included in the staff report, staff noted it was an oversight; what is a “bulb out”, staff noted that bulb outs are a part of the streetscape design for the area and function to extend the sidewalk at certain intersections in order to narrow the walking distance across the street for pedestrians and slow up traffic, examples can been seen on Broadway at Chula Vista across the street from the new Walgreens; why is the bank use nonconforming, in the late 1960’s early 1970’s there was a significant increase in the number of banks on Burlingame Avenue, to the point that it was felt that they endanger the retail character of the area, so Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting banks in Subarea A; since this site was used as a bank at that time and has been used as a bank continuously since, it can continue to be used by a banking use; but when the banking use has ceased for 6 consecutive months or the building is removed, the site looses its nonconforming status and can no longer be used for a banking use. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Tim Kobe, architect, 8 Inc., represented the project. He reviewed the project and the public improvements to the sidewalk which would be included with the construction; he presented a rendering showing the proposed exterior concrete block material and a picture board of the material as used on several buildings in Japan; he noted that the exterior material is a block material with a brushed finish and tight joints without caulking, the material is attractive as well because it speeds up construction, would like to be well along in construction before the holidays; in response to previous concerns the design was changed and extended glass along Park Road increasing the active area on Park to 33 feet and added a clear story window on the Park Road side to provide natural light in to the storage area and further break up that wall; at rear have recessed access door and roll up door with awning; the proposed height of the building is consistent with the existing height. Discussion with commissioners: building no longer has mezzanine, previously looked at retaining the building, architect noted that they looked at four different options for cladding the building but decided before that they could not keep the existing building from a cost stand point; are the signs typical, yes no longer use the colored apple, these signs are lit from behind in a deep light box which will be routed into the concrete and the can will only project about one inch from the finished surface of the wall; are the new Apple stores always this concrete block material?, no have evolved to this masonry unit, one like this is proposed in Dallas and here, there are only about 4 street location Apple stores; concerned that a building that looks like this may not be suitable for some other retail use years from now, would like to see an example; troubled by the length of the wall on Park, this does not look like other Apple architecture in Cupertino for example, Steve Jobs wants the street stores to go with this high tech looking material; are there any exceptions? Michigan Avenue in Chicago, located in the Northwater Tower and Palo Alto. Can you address how this material is consistent with the character of Burlingame Avenue; architect notes that the unit is masonry which has permanence like the other buildings on the Avenue, it is not passive like stucco, it is similar to brick which is a frequently used building material on the Avenue but brick is not suitable for a high tech company, this building may not be seen as expected but it will have an elegance with the way it is built, it does not reflect an existing style but translates the qualities of the Avenue, is a good fit. Can you City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 14 explain the awning at the rear, one of the doors has no cover to protect from the elements and wanted to add form at the rear of the building; why no awning at the front, found in Palo Alto by recessing the front doors 2 feet had effect of widening the sidewalk and announcing the store, large span of glass at front is pedestrian friendly as well. Awning extends three feet with 8 foot clearance, is that sufficient in a fire lane; will do what the Fire and Public Works Departments require. Has the streetscape sidewalk color been established, staff noted yes it has been installed at several locations on Burlingame Avenue and on the cross streets. When discussed before limestone was a possible exterior material, would prefer, the Park Road side is a very long wall on a corner with high visibility to a lot of pedestrian traffic, stone would be a softer exterior. Architect felt that some other materials discussed such as aluminum would not be suitable in Burlingame. Could you lower the building by 5 to 6 runs of brick which would make it possible for the street trees to screen it from view. Rear of this building looks industrial, architect noted that there was some relief because one door was inset. Cannot see this design on Burlingame Avenue, cannot find any consistency on the Avenue or Park Road, doesn’t seem to be consistent with any commercial area in Burlingame; architect noted difficult to say it is consistent in a literal sense, does have a sense of permanence, will age well, it will reflect its time and become a classic in the future, material will be consistent with brick when done, concrete is an honest material. The building material is seismically qualified. Russ Cohn, 605 Lexington Way and Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue spoke: As President of the Burlingame Historical Society and Apple user would like to address CEQA issue and request a CEQA required documentation of the historic value of this structure, Historical Society documents indicate that this building was built in 1916 as a Wisdoms/Bonner hardware store; from 1927 to 1932 it was used as a Bank of Italy which became Bank of America under Giannini who lived in Hillsborough. In 1977 the bank was occupied by Western Federal Bank; hope that Apple will take a second look at retaining the historical value of this building and think about a different project. Feel that there should be a full historical analysis of this building, worked in it once and know that there is an old bank vault in the basement; as Jane Jacolos says corners are the most important part of cities, they are where a lot of interaction occurs; the Fox Theater was removed and replaced with a mall, has never been successful, would like Apple to consider that Burlingame’s downtown is over 100 years old, with nearly every building still standing, we do not want to be a prototype, Burlingame is firmly rooted in its past and in its trees; feel that there is evidence that if you pull the current skin off the building you will find the original 1916 Corinthi an columns. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment for environmental scoping and design review were closed. Commissioners comments: it is necessary to have an historical analysis to determine the significance of this building as a part of the CEQA evaluation; design review discussion covered a lot of ground including: • Can the height of the building be reduced; • Step back the long wall on Park Road and/or add articulation; • Add view to activity on the inside, from Park Road to enhance pedestrian interest; • Add lentils over the window openings on the Park Road side; • Select a softer exterior material and/or design especially along the Park Road side; • Reduce the parapet height and relocate mechanical equipment even screen it on the roof, to reduce the mass of the building especially along Park Road frontage; • Lowering the building by 5 or 6 runs of brick would make it possible for bigger street trees to screen the mass of the structure on Park Road; • Rear of the building looks industrial, needs to look more like retail, add more articulation, highly visible from Lot J and Park Road. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002 15 This item should be continued to a future meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to decide what changes they would like to make, this site is an important part of Burlingame Avenue; understand modernist approach however more can be done to make this building user friendly and to treat the corner in a pedestrian friendly manner; am not convinced about the exterior material proposed, hard pressed to say Burlingame is ready for a concrete block building in the downtown area, installing a mock up wall would be a good idea, understand better what the finish would look like, stone cladding would be better on Burlingame Avenue, it is more “noble” and would appease the residents; history is relevant, people in Burlingame take pride in historical features and this is a prominent location. Chair Keighran moved to continue this item to give the applicant an opportunity to come up with alternatives based on the input from this meeting; the CEQA document should include an historical analysis and evaluation of the impacts of demolition and replacement of the building. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: The CEQA review should also include analysis of the impacts of the demolition and replacement of the building; feel should reconsider location of repair services with view into it from Park Road, security can be addressed, this is a good site for Apple, they are a Pioneer and can do classical on the outside and Apple magic on the inside, the contrast can be very effective. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion on the CEQA direction and continuation of the design review study to a time when the applicant wishes to return with alternatives. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of August 5, 2002 CP Monroe reviewed the City Council meeting of August 5, 2002. The commission noted that there were still issues to be resolved regarding definition of different views. Also that a broad representation of interests on the Bayfront SAP Advisory Committee would be important. It was noted from the minutes of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meeting that the address of the house with the vents was 1108 Vancouver and that another way to address FAR might be to change the parking requirements to two covered spaces for four bedrooms. - FYI- window change on DSR approved at 1480 Benito Avenue Planning Commission acknowledged the proposed changes. - FYI- window change on DSR approval at 111 Pepper Avenue Planning Commission acknowledged the proposed changes. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Secretary APPROVEDMINUTES08.12