Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.02.12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 12, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the February 12, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Dreiling, Osterling (in @ 7:58), Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: Commissioners Keighran and Bojués Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Keylon; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 22, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that the applicant at 2627 Easton Drive has requested to be continued to the next agenda with space. There were no other changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1201 MILLS AVENUE - R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE USE IN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND FOR THE LOCATION OF A WINDOW WITHIN TEN FEET OF A PROPERTY LINE (GRACE HEXTRUM, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: are the drawings and plans in our packet the complete submittal, yes; need more accurate and extensive plans including a floor plan of the accessory structure, site plan to scale and all dimensions on all plans; is a special permit required when one reduces the number of existing parking spaces on a single family residential site; how will the building issues such as vapor barrier in the slab, title 24 light and ventilation, hearing be met, it seems possible that this structure will need to be removed and replaced in order to conform, are we then approving a new building with all these exceptions, the applicant should investigate this further with the Building Department and a contractor before returning to the commission. 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 7:07 p.m. 2. 999 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A NEW THREE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING (JESSE MORGAN, HOWARD MYRTLE STORAGE LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; NILES TANAKATSUBO, TSH ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 2 CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked staff about the process for reviewing this item; CA noted that the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to give the applicant and environmental consultant an opportunity to respond to the Commission’s concerns. There were no further questions of staff. Commissioners noted: On sheet A1 the north and south elevations are mislabeled; at scoping talked about creating tenant spaces with the opportunity to be accessible from the street if the tenant wants in order to enhance the urban experience and encourage pedestrian activity, this does not seem to have been done, would the applicant respond; the design should create opportunities for the tenants to use the space between the building and the sidewalk, they are now filled with landscaping so the building looks like a suburban office building; should create the ability of the tenants to use the exterior spaces along the street by reducing landscaping and increasing paving; the entire site presently encourages access by auto, design should be shifted to focus on transit users and residential access, the main entry should be oriented toward the corner or downtown not to the parking lot. The size and scale of the project are going in the right direction, but the project is still oriented toward the railroad tracks; the present architectural design breaks up the pedestrian scale at the street level, the door on Myrtle is a token. The parking study may say that there is plenty of parking, but when this open office area is filled with modular offices there will not be enough parking on site, on street parking at this location is really impacted all day long, why should the applicant use a parking ratio of 1 space per 300 GSF? Architectural design looks like Pleasanton, needs to look as if it belongs in Burlingame, replace flat roof with pitched roof, add character, if height becomes a problem would support an exception to increase the architectural character. Comfortable with use, nothing in the Negative Declaration indicates that it is too large; would like to find a way to bring the project back to a Commission session to consider the building. CA noted that the applicant could agree to meet with a subcommittee of the commission as was successful with a couple of hotels or could be asked to come back to a design review study session. Cers Deal, Vistica, and Dreiling were appointed by the chairman to serve on a subcommittee if the applicant wished. The Chairman suggested himself as an alternate if any of the three were unable to meet at a convenient time. Chairman Luzuriaga set this item for design review study on February 26, 2001, or to review by a subcommittee of the commission and then return to the commission at the applicant’s choice. Further comment: Do not think the things that commission would suggest would be hard to accomplish; a subcommittee might offer a clearer message than discussion at a public comment meeting. CA noted that there did not seem to be any questions regarding the traffic analysis as presented in the Negative Declaration, only on site parking demand. C. Vistica moved to continue the item to design review study on February 26 or to a subcommittee of the commission depending upon the applicant’s choice. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. It was noted that the design review study would be noticed to the public. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion giving direction. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran, Osterling absent) This item concluded at 7:30 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. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 3 Chairman Luzuriaga asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 3A. 725 FARRINGDON LANE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT, DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SCOTT KUEHNE, SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARK AND ANNE GOYETTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) 3B. 1636 CORONADO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROLANDO NORIEGA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; VADIM AND ZOYA GERTSVOLF, PROPERTY OWNERS) 3C. 1404 HILLSIDE CIRCLE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RICHARD HARMON, ALFONSO AND HARMON ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ANDREW COTTON AND HEIDI NIELSEN, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Vistica moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 1228 BALBOA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FRONT PORCH ADDITION (KENNETH ROBY, APPLICANT; DAWOOD JAMSHIDNEJAD, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Kenneth Roby of Aladdin Homes represented the project. He explained that he was brought on to this project after the project was approved and the porch was already built. Commission asked what the cost would be to take the project back to the way it was originally approved. The applicant responded that it would cost between $4,000 and $5,000. Commission noted that the there is a process and procedures required to build things and that it is not fair to the neighborhood to build without following this process. What justification is there for keeping the porch? The applicant responded that the porch as approved was plain, and the existing porch adds detail to the very plain frontage. Commission asked what hardship to justify this variance? The applicant responded that the appearance of the existing house is the hardship since many homes in the area have large porches. An uncovered porch particularly in this orientation provides no protection from the weather and elements. It was noted by the Commission that the existing porch looks better than the approved, but the person that was handling this project before the applicant took over intentionally went around the Commission. The applicant noted that on the previous approval the stairs protruded out uncovered as they do now, now they are just covered. Commission asked CA Anderson whether or not the Commission could levy fines. CA Anderson said that they could only recommend that fines be levied by the Building Department. CP Monroe noted that economics are not a hardship consideration for variance findings. Commission noted that the existing house City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 4 needs something at the front and asked if the rest of the house can be designed to match the front porch. Commission felt that this design is not good for the block and that the porch proposal could have co me before the Commission where they could have helped with overall design, there is no hardship and the porch should be removed. Commission felt that this is a large house with a lot of opportunity, needs to go through design review, may need to demolish portion of the front of the house to correct the porch, but the neighborhood should not be made to suffer because the porch was built without permit. C. Deal moved for a continuance to Design Review Study, but noted that drawings of entire exterior are needed. CA Anderson noted that the applicant can remove the porch or go to Design Review Study. C. Dreiling seconded the motion. Commission noted that building needs work if the applicant is going to pursue a variance. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to move this item to Design Review Study. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 voice vote (Cers. Keighran, Bojués and Osterling absent). This item concluded at 7:48p.m. 5. 810 ALPINE AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION CLOSER THAN 4’-0” TO AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE, AND SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES TO ALTER AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE (RAY BRAYER, BC&D, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MIKE AND NOELLE ENGEMANN, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ray Brayer, 920 Morell, applicant, addressed the Commission noting that the garage was pulled back 2’-6”, the distance between the walls is 5’-6” and 3the distance between the eaves is 3’, which gives better access to the yard. He is trying to keep the garage the same size, could remove the eave or pull back another foot to get 4’ separation, but prefers not too. Commission asked if the layout of the addition changed. The applicant stated that they did not change the layout of the house in order to preserve the backyard space. If they shift the playroom to the rear it creates a large hallway that is not useful, and if they push the garage back, it creates a long driveway that will be difficult to use with two teenagers driving soon. Commission noted that the eaves on the other side (right side) of the garage may need to be removed since they are encroaching into the side setback; so they might consider taking the eaves off on both sides. Commission noted that tr ees were labeled incorrectly, 30” diameter tree? This should be corrected on the next set of plans. Commission asked if the applicant at least tried to rearrange layout? Applicant stated that the owners lifestyle would not work with the courtyard design suggested at the last meeting, they need a floor plan that works for everyday functions with their children, they have 2 teenage daughter and a 20 month old son. Commission noted that they can see where altering the detached garage structures is difficult and creates problems. Commission commented that this approach may be going at it the hard way though, and asked how you get from the garage to the house. The applicant stated that they go from the rear to the front of the house through the gate, but usually keep the gate closed so they can have animals. The hallway is now open and is a major path of travel. Commission noted that there are a lot of options with this project that were not explored, and they encourage the owners to explore better use of the interior of the house. Even though they have small children now, they grow up, look at how the space can be used better. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 5 C. Osterling arrived at 7:58 p.m.. Owner, Michael Engemann addressed the Commission explaining that they want to keep their backyard as large as possible, since they have 2 teenage daughters and a 20 month old son. They plan on living in the house for a long time. When they first started this project they consider moving into a larger house, but then agreed to make their existing house larger. They have a large family on both sides and they like to have family gatherings, so the courtyard design doesn’t work for them. Keeping the big backyard won’t interfere with their neighbors, who garden a lot, but the suggested L-shaped addition approach would extend beyond their garage and would block light to their neighbor’s yard. The garage looking asymmetrical is a moot point, there is only a small angle from the street where you could see the garage cutback. They heard the concerns raised about the safety issues regarding access from the back yard and the separation, so they cutback the garage. The hallway effect of the family room does not bother them, since all of the existing public rooms in the house are laid out this way already and it does not bother them. He hopes that the Planning Commission will understand the reason they designed the proposal as they did, they want a large backyard and a family room, please look at the perspective of the homeowner. There were further comments from the floor. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: Not disturbed with conditional use request for 4’ separation, since if they alter existing detached non-conforming structure they kick up a number of variances. Commission asked CA Anderson, can they grant the conditional use, but state that the variance is not needed because the conditional use creates variance, or can the Commission condition the approval so that a rebuild of the detached structure would not be allowed? Exceptions with a condition, that any future change to the house would require Commission review, CA Anderson responded, yes. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions, and the added condition that if either of the existing structures are replaced or rebuilt, that the project would have to come back to the Planning Commission for review: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 12, 2001, sheets A1-A8; 2) that the Planning Commission shall review at a public meeting any changes (remodel, reconstruction or modification) to any structures on this property in the future; 3) that the requirements of the City Engineer’s and Chief Building Official’s November 6, 2000 memos and the Fire Marshal’s November 7, 2000 memo shall be met; and 4) 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. C. Osterling seconded the motion. Commission discussion on the motion: Why not make the conditional use permit and variance void if the structures are removed? CA Anderson noted motion would allow review if non-conforming garage changed more, even if not demolished. Commission noted hardship as justification for the variance was the odd configuration of the buildings on the lot, but this hardship goes away when the structures are removed; can’t support, feels that there are good design solutions to meet the owners needs which would eliminate the need for a conditional use and variance; can support if variance goes away; have faith that other Commissions will handle review appropriately if brought back before the Planning Commission; it should be handled appropriately now. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with added condition that the Planning Commission should review any change to this property in the future. The motion passed on a 3-2-2 (Cers. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 6 Dreiling, Vistica dissenting; Cers. Bojués, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:22 p.m. 6. 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WINDOWS WITHIN 10 FEET OF PROPERTY LINE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DAMIR O. RADOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DAVE HOWELL, DESIGNER) (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 8, 2001 MEETING) C. Osterling stated that he would be abstaining from this item since he resides within 300 feet of the property, and left the dais. CA Anderson noted that 3 affirmative votes are required to act on this item. Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The owner, Dan Rados presented the project to the Commission and noted that he gave 3 pages of comments with 34-35 attachments to them for their review. He reviewed and answered the Planning Commission comments. He has reviewed his proposal with his neighbors and spent anywhere from 20 minutes to 2 hours with them. He presented a document to the Commission signed by neighbors in support of the project which states that they understand that the redwood tree would be removed on the subject property as well as the redwood tree shared with the adjacent property at 2409 Hillside Drive. This document was signed by both of the adjacent neighbors , neighbors on both sides of the block, as well as the neighbor at the rear. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: a lot of information was presented to the Commission from the owners, feel that this house does not belong in this neighborhood, it is a box on top of a box; square footage of 1 st and 2nd floor is almost the same, this should be a red flag warning, there is extreme front loading of the design of this project, on this basis voting for denial; special permit for accessory structure to be closer to the property line- would go along with that, but should try to keep window 10’ away , need to have stipulation that accessory structure will not be used as a pool house, should be used for automobiles as it was designed; site planning is bothersome, losing traditional single story house and two great trees in Easton addition; even with arborist report have a hard time believing the trees should be removed, agree that the house has a layered cake look, concerned with loss of parking, can’t support architecture; there are a lot of applicants working with the same square footage that are trying to make their projects compatible with this Burlingame neighborhoods character, does not see this attempted here, skeptical about arborist report, trees benefit entire community, not just home owner; rear garage appears to be intended to be used as a pool house with double french doors opening into the backyard, architecture of the house doesn’t meet intention of design guidelines, can’t support, have seen a lot of houses at the maximum square footage that have responded to the neighborhood character and made the structure look not so big. C. Vistica moved to deny the application. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Osterling abstaining and Cers. Bojués, Keighran absent,). Appeal procedures were advised. This i tem concluded at 8:43 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 7 7. 1209 BELLEVUE AVENUE - ZONED R-4 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING STORAGE ROOM TO A STUDIO UNIT (TOM LUNKLEY, AVR REALTY, APPLICANT; WILLIAM VAN HOUSEN, ARCHITECT, ESTEE COLDWELL, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Vistica stated that he would be abstaining from this item since he owns property within 300 feet of 1209 Bellevue Avenue. Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked for wording in Condition #2 to be changed from “issuance” to “applied for”. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Tom Lunkley of 1169 Broadway represented the owner of the subject property and was available to answer questions. Commission asked if there is a kitchen in the room in question? Applicant stated that there is a gas line, faucet, and kitchen cabinets. Commission asked if there were appliances in place now. The applicant responded that that there are no appliances. The Commission asked what the rent for the existing units on the site is. The applicant stated that the studios rent for as low as $995 and the one bedroom rents for $1275. Commission asked when the property was built; applicant did not know. CP Monroe responded that at least as early as 1960, since it shows up on the Sanborn Map. The owner, Estee Coldwell addressed the Commission, stating that she has owned the property for the last 26 years and has never rented the space as a studio. The lady that was storing furniture there has her own unit on the property. She took out permit in 1983 for pluming and electrical, and to change the sliding glass door to a solid door in order to comply with the Fire Code in order to upgrade the laundry area. When she purchased the building it was a laundry room and already had a toilet and gas dryer. She has used the space in the past to store furniture and appliances for her other properties. It was only rented out as a storage unit recently. No one could even live in the space since there is no heat. Commission questioned why would you want to make it into a unit now when it was never rented before as a living unit? The owner responded that she doesn’t need it for storage anymore and wants to provide low income housing to address the housing problems in the area. She could rent it to someone without a vehicle, perhaps an elderly person. She could document yearly to the City that it was a low-income unit, that was rented to someone without a car. She explained that she would promise to this. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: currently the site is non-conforming in regards to off-street parking, the burden shouldn’t be put back on the City to increase a non-conforming situation, space was originally used and designed as storage, parking is a problem in this area, photo in the staff report and site visit shows that there is frequently double parking in the driveway, hardship is to the property not the City; unit could be made livable, but agrees if it was rented to a person without a car we could take advantage of spaces like this space, maybe we could include something like this in the amnesty program, would not grant a variance for this space for a $995 rent, but if $600 month rent with a maximum of a 2% increase per year it could be a solution.; would like to see more people living downtown without cars, would like to look into this in the future. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to deny the application by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that demolition permits shall be obtained from the Burlingame Building Department to remove the toilet, shower, sink, and all plumbing and gas connections from the storage unit; 2) that these demolition permits shall be applied for within 15 days of the effective date of this action and all work shall be inspected and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 8 finaled by the CBO within 30 days of the issuing of a permit; 3) that the storage unit shall only be used for storage purposes for tenants on site, defined as: the safekeeping of goods in a warehouse or other depository; California Building Code limits the occupancy of the storage room to infrequent usage. No person may occupy the unit for longer than one hour while engaged in the task of retrieving articles from the unit or storing articles in the room; 4) It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. There was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Vistica abstaining and Cers. Bojués, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:07 p.m. 8. 1205 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE DAYS OF OPERATION FOR AN EXISTING BUSINESS (ROBERTA OSWALD, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked how the weekday visitor number was 25 and the weekend visitor number was 40, but there are suppose to be no more than 35 people on-site at one time? Planner Keylon and CP Monroe explained that the tea room will be operating while the retail store is open to shoppers, so the number of patrons in the store will vary depending on the retail activity. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Property owner and applicant Roberta Oswald stated that there would be special seating for tea at 11:00, 2:00, and 4:00, with the shopping open at these times as well. She wants the tea portion of the business open Sundays and Mondays to keep the business going. Commission asked what is served during tea time. The owner explained that scones, sandwiches and sweets would be served, but that they close at 5:30 so they would not be serving full meals. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the food establishment on this premise shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 24, 1991, that the food establishment shall not exceed 475 SF including kitchen and seating area although the 320 SF seating area with eight tables may move within the retail area, the second floor shall only be used for storage related to the business on the first floor, and there shall be no office use on the second floor; 2) that there shall be no more than two employees on site working in the food establishment portion of the business; 3) that the food establishment portion of the business may not be open for business except during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., seven days a week; 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5) that any expansion of the seating area, kitchen, food preparation area and service area, change in the number of employees in the food establishment or upgrading of the kitchen area shall require an amendment to this permit; and 6) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (February, 2002) and upon complaint thereafter. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. It was noted that this is a limited use, a nice building, and that two additional days of business would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, this is a low impact use. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 9 Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:14 p.m. The commission took a break and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 2627 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (MARTIN DREILING, CSS ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; TRICIA GODOWSKI, PROPERTY OWNER) The applicant request that this item be continued to the February 26, 2001 design review study meeting. 10. 120 COSTA RICA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR AN ADDITION TO THE BASEMENT LEVEL, MAIN FLOOR AND A NEW UPPER FLOOR (ALAN OLIN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TRACY AND TROY OTUS, PROPERTY OWNERS) Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Alan Olin, the applicant and architect, represented the project. Commission asked the applicant to go through the changes in the square footage. The applicant explained that since the last meeting he has revised the project, including removing 358 square feet from the attic and building in the basement area below the new addition and under part of the existing house. He is reclaiming a portion of the existing basement, 468 square feet of existing basement would be used as habitable space with 452 square feet added to the rear of the existing basement under the new addition. Commission asked applicant to clarify how much existing basement is counted toward FAR but not habitable? The applicant replied that 1,209 square feet is existing as basement but is not habitable. Commission asked about the access to the basement area through the exterior side door along the driveway. The applicant said that this door is a major source of water intrusion into the existing basement, and the door would be removed. Commission asked if there would be a door connecting the habitable portion of the basement to the existing unfinished portion of the basement. The applicant explained that there would be one step up to a 3’ by 5.5’ access door in to the existing basement area. The new basement would be 2’ lower than the existing basement. Commission noted that the existing basement area is 1,674 square feet, and asked the amount of the requested FAR variance. CP Monroe stated that the FAR variance request is for 1,492 square feet. The applicant explained that he designed the revised project to eliminate the mass and square footage from the upper level, and put some of the square footage into the basement. Commission noted that existing basement area that is left is 1,209 square feet, when the variance request for 1,492 square feet, why is the new area being counted? The applicant stated that he designed the new basement area to be 50% below grade, therefore it should not count toward FAR and the FAR variance is really only for 579 square feet. CP Monroe explained that to be excluded from FAR the entire exterior wall of the structure must have 50% of the lower wall below the dirt (grade), the proposed excavated rear basement portion is below but the front portion is above, can not just take new portion, must look at the entire area. Commission wants to avoid a variance for more square footage than previous proposal. The applicant gave an example, stating that in Burlingame a deck 30” or higher counts towards lot coverage, but if you have part of the deck below the 30” it does not count toward lot coverage. In an effort to keep the bulk and mass limited, part of the existing basement was lowered and the crawlspace was used since it doesn’t add to bulk and mass. So this new basement area that is more than 50% below grade should not be counted toward FAR. The City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 10 applicant stated that the basement definition doesn’t define the percentage of the basement required to be 50% below grade. If the new basement is not counted it would reduce the FAR variance request by more than half. Commission asked if the applicant was being penalized 1,209 square feet due to the Code definition of basement? CA Anderson responded that the issue before the Commission is design review, not the variance. Commission noted that this is an extreme FAR variance and asked that it be reduced. Commission clarified with staff that if more than 50% of the perimeter of the building is below grade then it is defined as a basement. CP Monroe concurred and noting that this definition will change in about 45 days. The applicant stated that the existing house can be used to justify the variance, if the basement didn’t count they would not need a variance, the exiting house is forcing the variance request. The variance is requested because they are trying to retain the existing architecture. The applicant stated that the redesign has eliminated two of the variances, removed the stairs, and this is a compromise the Commission asked for, the question is should the new basement count towards FAR. Commission asked if the area under the lower floor is used. The applicant answered that area under the first floor addition is now developed, it was crawl space before (previous proposal). Owner, Tracy Otus addressed the Commission. She explained that this redesign is not the floor plan they want, their boys will share a bedroom, they don’t have a master suite, they wanted to be on the same floor as their kids, they need to have a guest room. They are not trying to tear down the building like so many people want to do these days. They have special circumstances, they also have the support of their neighbors and have letters of support. She feels that they are being penalized for the basement area that is not habitable, they need an office for her husband to work out of at night, they just can’t remove any other space. Owner, Troy Otus addressed the Commission. He explained that their hardship is the existence of the house. They put some of the mass from the top into the basement, but these are rooms that aren’t used daily. If the basement isn’t counted they are below the requirement. They have compromised. Commission stated can not be sympathetic, there are many large rooms in this house that can be reduced so that the house without the existing basement does not exceed the maximum FAR for this site. Commission is concerned with bulk of this project under design review, not number of bedrooms. Commission believes design is good, but rear is still large. New proposal is cleaned-up and calmer, looks well, but mass and size is too large. CA Anderson stated that the Commission needs to address design concerns. Commission is concerned with square footage, bulk is moving within the structure, where is the square footage going? Commission asked for the applicant to show floor area, floor by floor, so they could understand the changes from the existing to proposed. Commission noted that variance is larger. Commission instructed applicant to reduce mass and bulk. Applicant stated that he feels this comes down to basement definition and asked if filling-in the existing basement to reduce the FAR by 1,209 square feet would make sense to the Commission? Commission responded that this suggestion would do nothing to reduce the mass and bulk. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment to the floor: Ed Bonert, 124 Costa Rica, Mary Ann Nickels, 116 Costa Rica, Jean Marie Buckley, 113 Costa Rica: they support project, saw the proposed plans and have no problem, feel that this house is a charm, just because it is large doesn’t mean it is unsightly, looks large from outside but house is small inside, addition to rear will give good balance, deep lot can handle large rear addition, this house is the beauty of the block. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Chairman Luzuriaga instructed the Commission to give clear concise direction to the applicant. He noted that this property has a unique situation with approximately 1,700 square feet of unusable basement, needs City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 11 more consideration and direction from Commission. Commission feels that project is going in the right direction, but there is a problem with granting such a large FAR variance, would like to vote on a project they can stand by and justify alone, but filling-in basement will still result in a large FAR. Commission asked staff to report on a project in the last block of Chapin that was approved last summer that had a similar situation. Commission noted that this is a large lot and shouldn’t need an FAR variance, the existing north elevation has a nice consistent fabric, the new south elevation is larger and plainer , and proposed north elevation has a large mass of windows, the same problem seen on monster houses; not generally unapprovable but nothing to link elements together, fragmented parts, may result in not having a 1,000 square foot family room. Commission acknowledged that sending proposal to design review consultant may not be appropriate since the architect knows what he is doing. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the February 26, 2001 regular action calendar or on the next available calendar at a time when all the information has been submitted to the Planning Department and reviewed. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: Commission asked if the new basement area would count toward FAR under the new ordinance, CP Monroe replied that the entire basement would count towards FAR under the new ordinance. Chairman Luzuriaga 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 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. 11. 2621 ADELINE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (AMY HALL, GORDON HALL & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JUSTIN AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Applicant and architect, Amy Gordon Hall presented the project and noted that a study model of the original proposal and changes to the second was created for reference. She made the changes required to comply with the FAR and declining height envelope, but could not adjust the setback due to the curve of the street. She looked hard at the roof change, the second floor over the vaulted ceiling needs to have a gable end. Commission referenced sheet 2A7 noting that the section drawing shows that the frame over the existing 8’-4” ceiling adds 18” of height to the front and asked if applicant thought about a different framing arrangement, perhaps dropping the framing. The applicant replied that they are planning on taking out the ceiling in the living room, used to have 6’ plate height due to the roof, now they are going to have a 7’ plate due to the new hipped roof. Also need to raise plate height since they are adding round-top windows and with a 6’ plate height a 6’ person would not be able to look out the window. Commission commented that the piece at the front of the house is quite tall, 1’-10” between floors, look for a way to get 1’ reduction, sheet A5 shows the ceiling line and second floor with 1’- 10” between them. Commission encouraged applicant to reduce height, make ceiling as low as possible, maybe use engineered wood to reduce the space between the floors. The applicant noted that they have a high roof pitch because they are trying to keep it consistent with the existing. Commission noted they like the height, but questioned why little gable chunk at the rear is still there, why can’t that be made part of the hip roof style. Applicant said she that could be worked out. Commissioned asked if the windows in the shed dormer at the rear are changing? The applicant replied that since the second dormer is no longer proposed they are not changing existing windows if they don’t have to. Commission sees a very tall City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 12 structure, with the addition taller than the neighbors, roof over the entry is better, but asked the gable to be cut off and asked that the height be lowered 1’-10” or 1’-6”. Something needs to be done with the height, reduced ceiling heights from 9’-9” to 9’-6”, reduce plate 4”. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission complimented applicant on removing FAR variance, great job except for a few tweaks. Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion place this item on the February 26, 2001, consent calendar o r on a consent calendar when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked. Comment on motion: Can make findings for second floor setback because of lot size and shape on corner, location needs architectural variety and the proposed height is consistent with the architectural integrity of the neighborhood. Second floor side setback variance findings- 1) lot substandard since lot area is less than 5,000 feet, 2) encourages architectural variety, special permit for height. 3)keeps the architectural integrity of the structure and neighborhood. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised and submitted as directed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:48 p.m. 12. 341 DWIGHT ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE (DORON KLEIN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; NICK SOLINGER, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Doran Klein, the applicant, introduced himself to the Commission and said that he was available for questions. Commission noted that front setback variance was o.k., no problem with that, and that the special permit for the garage location was minor and was also o.k.. The building design has improved over the last proposal, however concern is with the mass and bulk, this is a very big building. Needs human scale, there is a lot of mass on the upper portion, needs more articulation, are the cedar shingles stained? Commission suggested looking around at stains on shingles in town, it may be hard to keep the natural look on the shingles. Basic problem is second floor massing, looks as if didn’t know how to bring everything toget her at the rear. Applicant noted that he tried to have a minimal upper floor to keep the sides away from the neighbors. Commission questioned why the architecture of the new design changed from the original Spanish style? The applicant stated that he got the feeling from the Commission before, that he should go back to the drawing board with the design. Commission commented that the plans looked like it would be a Spanish revival, but now it is a craftsman type style. Applicant stated that the Spanish style with a lot of stucco and tile attracted attention to itself, he felt the new shingled façade would have less of a visual impact on the street. Commission stated that the north elevation lacks articulation, second floor gable is odd, uneven pattern, some physical articulation is needed, trim to break up the shingles, perhaps rows of windows. Commission feels that there is huge mass on second floor, then first floor wrinkles, but there is no cohesiveness between the floors, no balance. Commission was o.k. with the proposed square footage, but need to articulate the mass. Commission noted that on sheet A3, there is a long straight wall, the plan is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 13 asking for a pattern of windows in bathroom. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: gave good direction to the applicant, can come back on the regular action calendar, variance and special permit o.k. due to the odd shape of the lot, this proposal is a huge improvement. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar for February 26, 2001 or at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar for February 26, 2001, or when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers. Bojués, Keighran absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11: 04 p.m. 13. 735 ACACIA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KEITH AND BETH TAYLOR, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road #203, represented the project with the property owner Keith Taylor. Applicant stated that the project before the Commission last year was another design. A year ago it was referred to a design reviewer, and when it came back to the Commission you were still unhappy with the project. Although, the project was approved it was suggested that the owner look into a different design due to the narrow width of the lot, perhaps talk with a local architect. The applicant was pleased he followed Commission’s advice, and now has a new project he likes better. Commission commented that this design is much better than the previous design. The applicant explained that the style was designed to fit in with the neighborhood. Commission said it is refreshing to see nice design that meets the Code, wonderful job. Commission said that the porch articulation, the main beam with the gable is subtle, but adds character, please make sure that detail gets built. This is a perfect example of what the design guidelines are intended to accomplish. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion to set this item for the February 26, 2001 consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:12 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of February 5, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of January 17, 2001. Review Open Space Element of the General Plan. Commission pointed out that there was an error in the copying of the Open Space Element distributed. Staff noted that a corrected copy would be put in the commission’s packet for the next meeting. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 14 CP Monroe reminded the Commission that Steve Porter, the City Arborist, would attend the next meeting in response to their request to discuss the criteria he uses in evaluating protected trees for removal. She noted that he was pleased to be asked and appreciated the commission’s interest and support. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11: 35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Acting Secretary MINUTES2.12