No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.04.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 9, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the April 9, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: Commissioners Bojués, and Osterling, City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 26, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 218 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D – APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIGN AREA (MARGARITA HERIZ, APPLICANT; ISU AND EVELYN BROWN, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: did the applicant consider a sign which was within the sign code allowances for this site, the adja cent businesses all seem to have signage within the code allowances, so don’t see the hardship to justify this large size; need to find exceptional circumstances for a sign exception, documents provided do not address adequately, applicant should provide reasons. There were no further comments. Because this item is a code enforcement the Chairman set it for the regular action calendar at the next meeting. The applicant was encouraged to respond in time to input into the staff report. 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. Chairman Luzuriaga asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. C. Deal noted for the record that because of a business relationship with the applicant, he will abstain from comment and vote on Item 2c, 1324 Drake. One member of the audience clarified that her item was on the regular action calendar. Dave Woodrow, 1316 Drake asked for a clarification of what the exception for height meant for the project at 1324 Drake. Charmin Luzuriaga noted that since the overage was between 30’ and 36’ it required a special permit which City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9,2001 2 is an exception granted if the proposed additional height is needed in order to achieve the architectural integrity of an architectural style. The standards for granting a special permit are less rigorous than those for a variance. A variance is required when the height requested is over 36 feet. Mr. Woodrow did not call the item off the consent calendar for further hearing and action. There were no further comments from the floor. There were no requests from commission to remove any of the items on the consent calendar. 2A. 1532 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MATTHEW BOLAK, DESIGNER; DENIZ SALON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) 2B. 21 DWIGHT ROAD - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) 2C. 1324 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TZER HUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) C. Keighran 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. Dreiling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and Items 2a, 1532 Howard Avenue and 2b, 21 Dwight Road passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Osterling absent) and Item 2c, 1324 Drake Avenue passed 5-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstaining and Cers. Bojués and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 2812 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO EXTEND AN EXISTING CONCRETE CULVERT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A DRIVEWAY TURN-AROUND (BASIL N. MUFARREH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 26, 2001 MEETING) Reference staff report, 04.09.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Basil Mafarreh, home owner, and Charles Kavanagh of 470 Chatham Road, the engineer for the project, presented the project and explained that he would have added more detailing to the landscape drawings but was limited on time to produce the plans since his landscape architect was working on the Moscone Garden Show; everything proposed on the plans is what they want to plant, but they would have liked to add color to the drawings and add more detail. Commission noted that the gallon size of the plants should be listed since often small plants are planted which take many years to reach desired size. The applicant noted he planted several plants at the site a year ago, so if you went by the site you saw how large these plants are now. CP inquired about the size of the plants planted last year. The applicant replied that about 150 plants were planted ranging from 6” potted plants to 15- gallon size. CA Anderson stated that based upon the comments from the Department of Fish and Game, he would like to add a condition that the live oak be preserved. Engineer stated that he feels that the Planning City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9,2001 3 Department is competent enough to handle these types of projects, and feels that the Department of Fish and Game should let the City alone handle these types of projects. C. Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: applicant did a dramatic reversal on this project and reduced the amount of pavement and preserved more of the streambed. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions, and with an added condition to preserve the live oak: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 2, 2001, sheets 1 through 3, date stamped March 16, 2001, sheets 4 through 6, and date stamped March 30, 2001, landscape plan; 2) that the property owner shall keep the portion of the creek located at 2812 Easton Drive clear of debris, shall provide and shall maintain the channel and protection structures on their property to insure free flow of the creek and to minimize erosion; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s March 5, 2001, February 20, 2001, and May 31, 2000 memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 5) that all applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage will be adhered to in the design and during construction; 6) that there shall be a curb or wall placed at the edge of the new driveway to direct stormwater drainage to the street and away from the creek; 7) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction; 8) that construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9) that the applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of Fish and Game; 10) that the area adjacent to the remaining creek bed shall be planted with native riparian plant species to mitigate for the loss of riparian vegetation in the creek; plant used shall be herbaceous and/or small shrubs so as not to block the view of oncoming traffic; 11) that construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays, per the requirements of the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; 12) that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented; 13) 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; 14) that the landscape plans should be revised to insure plant material will reach a size to screen the newly paved area within the next several years; this should be done by noting all container sizes at the installation and having approval of the City Arborist that these sized plants will be adequate to reach screening size within several years; and 15) that an arborist shall prepare a plan for the protection during construction and the maintenance after construction of the California live oak on the site, the City Arborist shall review and approve this plan and shall inspect the site at the beginning of construction to insure that the tree is properly protected. C. Keighran seconded the motion, but added another condition that the landscape plans include the species and gallon size for each plant. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment. Further Commission discussion: the minimum shrub size should be between 1 and 5 gallons; Commission commented that the Department of Fish and Game plays an important role in protecting our watercourses and preventing the loss of species in these sensitive areas, they should encourage less engineering and more environmental preservation, applicant listened to Commission’s previous comments can now support this project. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the added conditions. The motion passed on a 5-0-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9,2001 4 4. 1480 BENITO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAVE HOWELL, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CRAIG AND DENISE FAWCETT, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 04.09.01, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Dave Howell, 2825 Hillside Drive, the applicant and architect, explained that he followed the Planning Commission’s directions from the last meeting. He added definition and roof articulation to the design. He stepped the wall down to try to keep it as low as practical. Commission asked if the windows at the bedrooms were French casement windows? The applicant replied that yes, they were French casement windows and some were egress windows. The Commission asked that these be labeled on the plans in the future. C. Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. C. Keighran moved to approve the request for design review for a first and second story addition and the special permit for height since it enhances the architecture of the house, which will be an asset to the neighborhood. The applicant reduced the plate height, which helps reduce the bulk and mass. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 19, 2001, sheets 1 through 9, 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 changing plate heights, adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s February 20, 2001, memo shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; and 5) 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. Vistica seconded the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 5. 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) Reference staff report, 04.09.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Doran Klein, the applicant and designer, explained that he met with the Design Review Consultant and feels that they have resolved a lot of the issues that the Commission had regarding this project. There were no further comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9,2001 5 C. Vistica 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 March 28, 2001, sheets A1 through A6, with a first floor ceiling height of 9'-0" and a second floor ceiling height of less than 12'-0"; 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 be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s January 16, 2001, memo shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 5) that the 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. Keighran seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: front setback variance is justified based upon the irregular shape of the lot, only a minor encroachment into the front setback area; Design Review helped this project and it seemed to be a good learning process. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-0-2 (Cmsrs. Bojués and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 6. 1201 MILLS AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR OFFICE USE IN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND A WINDOW WITHIN 10’ OF A PROPERTY LINE, AND A SPECIAL PERMIT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ON-SITE PARKING SPACES (GRACE HEXTRUM, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 04.09.01, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Grace Hextrum, 1201 Mills, property owner, Brenda Atkinson, 452 Laguna, presented the project and explained that the Fire Marshal inspected the accessory structure last August. She stated that there is no bathroom, no kitchen or plumbing in the accessory structure, and that she just wants to keep it as an office. There are no outside changes, the exterior was actually cleaned up a bit. The applicant presented photos of the structure to the Commission, showing that 4 small cars could be parked uncovered in front of the accessory structure; most homes in her neighborhood have only one car garage. She presented 14 signatures from her neighbors in the support of the project, including her adjacent neighbor on Laguna, as well as the neighbor on the other side. The applicant explained that her home dates back to the 1930’s, and has very small bedrooms. She has a baby also, and there is no room for storage or an office. She explained that there would be no noise generated by the proposed use, she really would like to keep the office. The Commission inquired about how this conversion happened without permits? The applicant explained that her step son used to hang out there with his friends and when she was working out of town, the construction was done by her now ex-husband and his son who had a friend who is a contractor do the work. Commission inquired about a vapor barrier in the slab and stated that it may be a problem to legalize the work, need to check with the Building Official. CP Monroe further clarified that even if approved by the Commission it may not be possible to use the space if you cannot meet the Building Code, would need to remove all. Commission asked CA Anderson if they can limit the use of the accessory structure and the hours of use. As a neighbor, have no problem with the structure being used as an office and storage. C. Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9,2001 6 Commission discussion: no objection by the neighbors to this project, the way the property is situated, being a corner lot is like this accessory structure is a separate house, usually the concern with these types of situations is that the accessory structure is located at the rear of the lot right next to a number of property lines; the problem is that if the property changes hands the neighbors need to be protected ; adding the following conditions would ensure protection of the neighbors, 1) conditional use permit is to be reviewed upon complaint, and 2) hours of use be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 12 midnight. Commission felt that limiting hours of use would be too restrictive and nit-picky for such a small space; if complaint comes in on the use of the structure then Commission can discuss limiting the hours of use. Commission agreed that limiting use to office only was restrictive enough. Commissioner suggested limited office to personal office only, not recreation room. It was noted that even with the loss of a parking space, the parking requirement is met and exceeded. Even though the use may be harmless under these circumstances, there is concern that people will think they can do illegal work and change uses without approval then come ask for approval after the fact. Add condition that the existing square footage per use remain fixed and that the only utility be electricity. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the accessory structure shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 28, 2001; with only electricity service to the building no water, sewer or gas connections; 2) that the accessory structure shall never be used for accessory living, recreation or sleeping purposes and shall never include a kitchen, uses shall be limited to one covered parking space approximately 247 SF, measuring 11’-4” by 21’-9”, a personal office not to exceed 159 SF in area, and storage space not to exceed 137 SF in area; 3) that any permits or work required to make the storage, office, and parking spaces meet all current Building and Fire codes for an R-3 rated structure (CBC) shall be issued within 30 days of the effective date of this action and all work shall be inspected and finaled, including occupancy permit, by the CBO within 45 days of issuing a permit. The owner shall receive a final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Burlingame Building Department before the storage or office spaces in the accessory structure are occupied by family members or guests; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s September 11, 2000, and the Fire Marshal's September 11, 2000, memos shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Keighran seconded the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-0-2 (Cmsrs. Bojués and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:04 p.m. 7. 2303 TROUSDALE DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER AND SIGN AREA (ERUDITE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICANT; BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 04.09.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and noted this sign permit is required because this is a private school on this site. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that this requested sign exception would not be required under the proposed sign ordinance revisions to be considered later by the Commission. Commission asked if a directional sign is counted toward the total signage allowed on a parcel. CP Monroe explained that if it is strictly a directional sign only then it would not count, but if the directional signage includes the name of the business then today it would count toward the total signage. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9,2001 7 Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Michael Mount, 1722 Gilbreth Road, presented the project. He would be happy to delay the project to when the new rules would apply, but he has to get the project going. He thought the directional sign on the fence would not count, but if it counts that is fine, but they do need to have it. He reviewed the signs with the School District Board Members, and they were o.k. with the signage. Commission noted that there was a lot of open space on the wall sign and asked if it could be reduced, if 8” shaved off then the exception wouldn’t be required. The applicant stated that the sign was already made. C. Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 29, 2001, (8½" x 11", sheets 1 & 2, including a color rendering and sheet SF-1, site plan); 2) that any increase in the number or area of the signs on the primary frontage, which exceed the sign code requirements in effect at the time of application, shall require an amendment to this sign exception; 3) that the sign shall be permanently attached to the brick wall of the building at 2303 Trousdale Drive by a means approved by the Building Department; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1998 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Vistica seconded the motion. Further Commission discussion: like signs and color scheme, directional sign with the name of the school seems appropriate since this is a duel use site, signs are only slightly over allowed amount; can argue both ways, exceptional circumstances with duel use site, it seems important to have the directional sign even though it does count toward total. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:13 p.m. 8. SIGN CODE AMENDMENT – REVISION TO UPDATE THE SIGN CODE AND AMENDMENTS TO SIGN REGULATIONS ADDRESSING COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SIGNS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Reference staff report, 04.09.01, with attachments. City Planner and City Attorney presented the proposed ordinance revisions. CA noted that since the city’s sign code was adopted in 1977, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has eroded away the cities discretion over sign exceptions; they have determined that a city may set rules/standards and then they must apply them equally to everyone in that group; by limiting local discretion they have also limited sign exceptions to basically location, height and number. The courts also require that we treat commercial and noncommercial signs the same in each district. This provision has affected our political, institutional and other noncommercial uses such as church signage provisions. Revisions have been made to the political signage requirements. A new code section has been added to address noncommercial signs in the residential zones. There seem to be some differences between the Federal court and State court determinations on signage issues regarding commercial and noncommercial signage so, in the future, we may need to make further adjustments. The revisions also address changeable copy signs, better defining the portion or area on a sign which can be changeable copy, acknowledging that we have little control over the contents of such signage. Staff discretion over on-site traffic directional signs has also changed. Now these signs will all count in the total signage on the site. Staff would note that this is a first step in updating the sign code provisions. There are some districts for which the signage standards will need to be reviewed, since over time exceptions previously granted have resulted in needed changes. Staff will begin reviewing these immediately and bring them back to the Commission. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9,2001 8 Commission asked staff: do these changes affect lighting of signs --no, except for the new provisions for noncommercial signage in residential zones where interior lighting would be allowed; directional signs on site will now be counted in the number of signs on a site--yes; what about address signs—address signs as required by the Fire Department will continue to be exempt since they are required for public safety, there continues to be an exemption in the code requirements for freeway signage when the address of a building faces the freeway; do we have to allow changeable copy signs–either we allow them with rules or we do not allow them at all, the rules could address size, moveable letters, could allow manually placed letters but not electronic; might there be an issue over what is art, what is sign and what is part of the structure —yes especially for special purpose buildings such as religious institutions; new technology is an issue, don’t want to look like Disneyland; for electronic signs need to consider size tonight and differentiating between hand moveable letters and electronic or mechanical, can revise requirements by zone later–yes. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: important to move this ahead tonight, can consider fine points of district regulations later; would like to consider the size of electronic signs tonight, 15 SF or 3’ by 5’ seems like a lot, would propose 15 SF for manually moveable letters and 6 SF maximum for mechanically moveable or electronically moveable lettering. C. Vistica moved to recommend approval of this amendment to the sign code to City Council with the added provision that in the proposal the maximum area square footage for manually moveable letter signs be limited to 15 SF with the sliding scale as proposed by staff in the noncommercial signage provisions and the maximum area for any sign with electronic or mechanically moveable letter be limited to 6 SF. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Discussion on the motion: have some work to do before we are finished with the sign code, this approach fixes our current standards and Council will feel some of these need to be re-examined; like this change because it increases the consistency of application of the sign code which is more fair. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the proposed changes to the sign code with the revisions noted to the City Council for action. The motion passed on a 5-0-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Osterling absent). This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 9. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW GUIDEBOOK. CP Monroe noted that attached to the staff report was the final version of the Commercial Design Guidebook prepared by the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Commission and approved by the two special committee’s which worked on preparing the commercial design review regulations. The commission and committees have seen the text addressing the commercial design criteria, the appendixes are new and the introduction was revised from the previous draft. Commissioner questions: note that the first draft had no beginning and no end, so added the introduction and three appendixes similar to what is in the approved Residential Design Guidebook; feel reads well and is educational and good reference tool; needs to be a correction on page 25 in the process diagram, after being referred to the design reviewer the applicant must return to the Planning Commission. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9,2001 9 Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved approval of the Commercial Design Guidebook and directed that it be referred to Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of the Commercial Design Guidebook to City Council. The motion passed on a 5-0-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Osterling absent). This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a brief recess at 8:50 p.m. The Commissioners reconvened at 9:00 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 748 WALNUT AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (HARRY ZINN, CENTURY PATIO, APPLICANT; MARC FRIEDMAN, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Marc Freidman, 748 Walnut, and Bob Lockran, contractor, presented the project. He explained that the existing second floor deck was built with the house, and he was intending to enclose this space with a screened patio enclosure with a metal roof, not visible from the street, only visible from one side, and the neighbor on that side is o.k. with the project. It will only be 107 SF of area, not usable now because it is exposed. Commission inquired about the statement in the application that says that the owner has the right to protest the Design Review Process. The applicant stated that he was advised to add that into his application by his attorney since they felt that the Design Review Code was not clear about building envelope, and since the deck proposed for enclosure is part of the original house, in their opinion the project did not constitute an expansion to the building envelope. Commission asked if there was a roof proposed over the space and what was it made of. The contractor replied that there would be an aluminum roof with baked enamel finish, and tempered glass with screens on the sides. Commission clarified that the enclosure of the deck changes the building envelope and it is required to go through the design review process. Commission explained that the application plans were vague, not enough detail, only a standard cut sheet for improvement that is not site specific, does not explain enough. The contractor passed forward photos of second story enclosures on other houses similar to that which is proposed. Commission asked why applicant wants to enclose the space. Applicant stated that there is a lot of wind on the deck and that it is cold, he wants to increase the usability of the space. Provided plans are hard to understand, need clearer presentation. Applicant replied that the pictures are clear, it has a metal roof with a skylight. Commission stated that they did not see a skylight shown on the roof plan but is shown on the elevation. What keeps this from leaking where it is attached to the house, is there flashing? The applicant stated that there was an engineering cut sheet provided that shows that detail. Commission referred applicant to the plans posted around the room to see the type of drawings they are looking for. The provided plans are simply manufacturer cut sheets, Planning Commission can not act on these plans. Commission understands this is a small project, however the applicant still needs to provide more detail. Applicant stated that he is very concerned with the appearance of the enclosure and would not add something that would detract from the appearance of his high priced home. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9,2001 10 Commissioner comments: application is not complete, no idea what this patio enclosure would look like when installed, need site specific information elevations on all sides of the building where addition is visible, purpose of Design Review is to get something that fits with the building. C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. Comment on motion: what was provided at this point to the Commission are not schematic plan drawings; Design Review Consultant should demand site and building specific drawings, elevations shown from all the affected sides; have no idea what is going to be built based upon the provided plans, none of the materials are labeled, photos lead one to believe that the patio enclosure will not look great, project needs to go to a Design Review Consultant. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a Design Review Consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:23 p.m.. 11. 1517 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (RAY BRAYER, BRAYER CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROY AND JANE BORODKIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Ray Brayer of BC & D, applicant and designer, presented the project. He explained that he had learned a lot about process from his previous projects, tried to make this second floor addition compatible with the neighborhood. Commission comments: the drawings still need some work, the eaves shown on the right side elevation vary from 3’ to 5’ in depth need to be corrected, generally nice looking building, second floor needs some character, asked applicant if he is using asphalt shingles on a 3:12 pitch. Applicant stated that he spoke with a roofer that said he can make it work; second floor has two eyes at each end, match the architecture, window placement needs work, massing is o.k. though; fixed windows on the right side do not respond to the first floor; need to visually carry piece of ground floor up to the second floor to eliminate layer cake effect and try tie floors together, special permit for declining height envelope maybe appropriate to tie the top and bottom together, section at the rear shows varying plate height from 7’ to 8’, need clearance on stairwell seems tight, may help house and design to call attention to the stairwell on the exterior elevation, building framed around skylight, might try making that a lightwell , carry wall straight across a nd make lightwell down to the kitchen; concern with windows, first floor windows (especially right and rear elevations) are nice, much more pleasant to see character added with windows; understand that this is a tough house to add a second floor on, articulation is good, suggest trying to put furniture in the second floor to help you see there is a lot of square footage up there, will also help figure out where the windows want to go, problem in stairway design that will affect uses on second floor, walk-in closet is quite large, may become bedroom down the road and it contributes to blank walls on the exterior, if dressing room add windows. Suggest dividing bathroom window which is too large; master bathroom will also have to be reduced to accommodate stairs, diagonal riser is illegal, need 6” minimum tread. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the May 14, 2001 regular action calendar to allow the applicant time to make the above stated revisions. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9,2001 11 Comment on motion: applicant seems clear on the direction given by the Commission, no problem setting this for action, asked applicant to carefully check all the drawings for consistency with details like eaves before submitting them to the Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar on May 14, 2001, proving the plans had been revised and check for consistency as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m.. 12. 1320 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHI-HWA SHAO, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. James Chu, applicant and designer from San Mateo, was present to answer any question and to hear any neighbors concerns. Commission comments: applicant is getting a hang of the Design Review process, designs are progressing, a lot of vertical elements, can you use another material beside stucco for the chimney, landscape plan is nice and well prepared; height encroachment is minimal, would like to see different slope s on chimney- more creativity, add a window in the living room on the north side, the other side of the fireplace, this would give a balance and add light; more windows are needed on the front of the house, only 2 windows on the front of the house, need to open up the house to the street; concern with chimney, massing and articulation of structure is good, height encroachment is only a small amount; nice design but left elevation still has a 16’ high wall along the property line, concerned with impact on the neighbor; even though this is adjacent to the neighbors side driveway, the driveway is part of the open space and the wall has an impact on that open space, reduce walls on the left side elevation; please label the French casement windows; work on softening left side wall. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for action when the stated revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. There were no comments on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the April 23, 2001, consent calendar or whenever the completed information has been submitted and checked by staff. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 13. 1464 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 (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY ERNST, PROPERTY OWNER) Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9,2001 12 Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. James Chu, applicant and designer, stated that he made the front porch larger to fit in with the neighborhood. Commission agreed that the front porch design was appropriate, but asked why the stone veneer at the front was not carried around? Applicant replied that it was a cost factor. Commission asked the applicant if it was possible to convince his client to carry the stone veneer all the way around and to the chimneys, and the applicant stated that he could do that. Commission commented that the previous proposal for this site had cut outs along the driveway, and thought that it may be appropriate on this proposal, encouraged applicant to use stamped concrete rather than flat concrete on the driveway. Commission asked about garage materials and the applicant stated that the garage door would be wood with panels. Commission noted nice design, nice piece of work by applicant; not as massive as previous design, same size, but this one works better, fine texture, wood working detail breaks down scale. Helen Gunning, 1460 Cortez Avenue, Rod Larrett, 1469 Cortez Avenue and Jerry Senkir addressed the Commission with the following concerns: concern with special permit that is being sought, asked for clarification on this request, questioned why new house has to be built so close to the property line, existing adjacent property to the south is 8”-10” off of the property line, new house would result in a loss of light to this house, tired of large houses being built in Burlingame, not fair to people who have lived in the City for many years, encourage applicant to look at alternate design with attached garage. CA Anderson noted problem, this property cannot be expected to compensate for exception enjoyed by neighbor. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission discussion: clarified special permit for height for the public, everyone allowed to build a second story; can design be flipped and have the driveway located on the opposite side to address light concerns; this change would negatively affect other neighbor; well designed, project has come a long way from the design for this lot 2 years ago; special permit for declining height envelope is for architectural character, the second floor wall encroaching into the declining height envelope is only a total of 26’-not too large, can’t say no 2 story houses allowed, there will be a loss of light and privacy but fortuna tely the Design Review process has changed the character of the house, the design is appropriate for the lot; understand neighbors concerns, this is a much better project than 2 years ago, the condition is exacerbated by the non-conforming side setback on the south; clearly a problem with adjacent house being so close to the property line, well designed house but is there mitigation for the problem, would clipping the gable on that side help; that direction is worth researching; like the design as is, neighbor to the south being 10” off the property line has had an advantage for many years, this project shouldn’t suffer because of that existing situation, if side gable can be adjusted without total redesign then it should be done; applicant should talk with the neighbors, if you can cut back 2 feet that would be good if it looks like it belongs, if applicant says it can’t be done, project will still be supported; not talking about setting back 2 feet just clipping gable above ceiling line, make hipped roof not gable-a dutch gable at the end; gesture already made to the neighbors with the low 2-story wall; next site plan submitted to the Commission should include both of the adjacent building footprints. Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion to place this item on the May14, 2001, consent calendar to allow the applicant time to discuss the project with the neighbors and make the described revisions. This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Discussion on motion: prefer consent calendar if minor change, if gable is clipped we will see right away and can move to action if need be, but do not want to delay another project from getting on the action calendar if we don’t have to, make sure stone veneer is carried onto the second chimney. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9,2001 13 Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the May 14, 2001, consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-2 (Cers. Bojués and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:33 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of April 2, 2001. CP Monroe covered briefly the Council’s actions at their April 2, 2001, meeting. Chairman Luzuriaga reminded commission that the officers would rotate at the first meeting in May which is May 14, 2001; and that he was still determining if the issue of reappointment of commissioners would be placed on the agenda at the next meeting. It was noted that the issue of calculating FAR on large lots, part of which is too steep for construction should be discussed at the future date when zoning updates are considered. - Discussion of a design award for excellence in residential design and execution. Commissioners discussed the value of offering annual awards to designers and residents for new houses and remodel projects which personify the residential design objectives. The consensus of the commission was that such a program would be valuable and a boon to property owners and designers/architects who have worked hard to ensure that their projects are an asset to their neighborhoods. The matter was referred to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee to design a program and make recommendation to the whole commission. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary MINUTES4.09