Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.04.23CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 23, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the April 23, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the April 9, 2001, meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item #10; 2669 Martinez Drive was moved between Items 3 and 4 at the request of the audience and Item #9; 1337 Paloma was moved before Item #8 at the request of the property owner. The order of the agenda was then approved. V. FROM THE FLOOR Dorell DiRicco, 2669 Martinez Drive, asked that item 10 be moved forward because there were a number of people in the audience for this item who were physically unable to sit for a number of hours. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that this item could be heard as soon as the applicant arrived. The applicant was not in the hall at this time. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study items for review. VII. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. Chairman Luzuriaga asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar for a full public hearing. There were no requests. 1. 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 & NEGRO., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHI-HWA SHAO, PROPERTY OWNER) C. Bojués 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. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2001 2 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. DISCUSSION OF QUALITIES AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED FOR POTENTIAL CANDIDATES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Chairman Luzuriaga commented that he asked that this item be placed on the Planning Commission agenda, so as to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act for public discussion. He felt that the commission, as a body, should discuss the qualities that they felt were important for a Planning Commissioner to have. He hoped that Council would consider these when making the choice of new commissioners. CA Anderson noted that any of the commissioners can contact any of the five Council members directly and express their concerns about suitable qualifications for new commissioners. He also noted that the Commission had no jurisdiction over the appointment of commissioners but could express concerns to all Council members. He noted that the Council interview team was Council members O'Mahony and Coffey and that they had expressed an interest in sitting down with Vice-Chair Vistica, incoming Commission Chair, prior to the interviews to discuss things which they might want to consider in the interview process. Chairman Luzuriaga suggested that the commissioners might want to identify a list of items that they felt were important. Together the commissioners identified the following as being assets to the commission: the ability to conceptualize projects and visualize the buildings that the plans represent; ability to read plans; familiarity with the procedures of the commission (either by observation or experience before actual participation); someone who has participated in commission meetings enough to understand process; someone with a holistic view of the city, an understanding of the existing fabric of development and a vision for the future built on that fabric -- an understanding of where the city is going; understanding of the broader needs of the community i.e. traffic, neighborhood aesthetics; a team player; knowledge of the city’s regulatory history; understanding of what can change and what needs to be retained to preserve the qualities which the community values; awareness of broader regional issues which will affect the city such as transportation and building codes. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and he closed the hearing. CA Anderson suggested that these comments should be forwarded to the Council. Chairman Luzuriaga directed staff should collect them in a memo form to send to Vice Chairman Vistica since at the next meeting he will be the incoming chair of the commission. Commissioner asked if the draft memo could be circulated to all the commissioners. CA noted that it could be reviewed by all commissioners for correctness. Items could not be added. C. Vistica could then compile the edits and transmit them back to staff for formatting. At his direction it could be distributed to Council members. The draft could be distributed by e-mail or FAX to the members. There were no further comments. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 3. 620 HOWARD AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW UNCOVERED DECK (LEWIS SALZMAN, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHRIS KNIGHTLY, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 4.23.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if a variance is required if stairs encroach into a setback; yes, any structure 30” or more above grade must meet lot coverage and setback requirements. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2001 3 Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Lewis Salzman, architect, noted that he reviewed the condition of the existing deck, this smaller deck reduces the lot coverage by 100 SF, feels new deck is an appropriate design and matches the shape of the existing tile roof canopy. Commission noted that the location of the existing deck is not a problem, but now it is being pushed out by two feet and increasing the nonconforming side setback, asked why can’t the deck be pulled back two feet? Applicant noted that there is an existing stucco/terra cotta canopy which hangs out on its own, extending the deck below the canopy creates a better balance, to keep the deck in the existing location would have looked lop-sided, carried out the deck nine feet to the edge of the building to extend the architectural design. Commission noted that the canopy has a diagonal shape and that it might be appropriate to cut off the corner of the deck to soften the edge and reduce the encroachment into the side setback, nipping the corner would help to respond to the canopy shape; architect noted that it would not be architecturally beneficial from the rear yard view, would reduce the function of the deck, tried to minimize the amount of support posts, would rather not cut corner, variance would still be required, need to come out by five feet to make the deck functional, owners need extension so can use kitchen window to communicate with people on deck. There were no further comments from the audience. C. Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: the existing deck is nonconforming, deck size is being reduced dramatically, deck is being pushed back towards the house, and existing deck length (14’) encroaches into the side setback. Would like to add condition that the side setback variance is for the deck as shown, and that if the deck is removed or changed it would have to conform to the current code in affect at that time. C. Deal 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 and date stamped April 5, 2001, Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations; 2) that this side setback variance is for the deck as shown on the plans date stamped April 5, 2001, and that if the deck is removed or changed in the future, it must conform to the currents code in affect at that time; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Dreiling seconded the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 2669 MARTINEZ DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHNNY DAROSA, DAROSA AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LARRY AND GRACE NGAI, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. C. Osterling noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and would abstain from this action since this design review item was being taken out of order. He stepped down from the dais. Chairman Luzuriaga noted the parameters of design review and the way the process works. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2001 4 Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Johnny DaRosa, 475 El Camino Real, Millbrae, architect represented the project. In discussion with the applicant the Commissioners made the following comments on the project: - the curved stair and balustrade at the front of the house does not look as if it belongs, visually too heavy; - the front entry is not consistent with the design of the house, need to change to achieve internal consistency in the design; - roof plan does not agree with elevations, the roof pitch should be labeled on the plans; - part of the new roof is the same height as the existing, should install story poles to identify the maximum roof ridge of the new portion of roof; - should change the style of the gables on the north side, as they do not work together; - the windows on the north elevation are over powering. Dorell DiRecco, 2532 Valdevia Way, Byron Multanado, 1 Toledo Court; June Bitter, 2665 Martinez; Janet Johnson, 2668 Martinez spoke. There is a 30 foot tall bank at the rear of my lot, the neighbor to the rear’s house will rise another 30 feet, concerned with the physical effects of the c onstruction (grading, tree removal) on the slope and drainage on to her property; do not want dirt piled on property line or the site above to drain down into her back yard; will the cut made for the addition cause the hill to become unstable. View is important, now in rear yard can see to bay, if an addition is made to the rear of this house it will block part of this view and devalue his property; the proposed construction is out of character with the existing houses in the area. This is a long block of single story houses, for 40 years no one has built on to them or obstructed their neighbor’s views; am opposed to them devaluing my property while increasing the value of theirs; husband housebound because of health and the view and yard are very important to him; new owner should have investigated code before purchased house; told me that wanted to add a bedroom for the baby, this addition is the size of a second house; presented pictures showing how the extension of the new roof would affect views from inside her house; do not grant. In 1988 wanted to make an addition to my house about the same size as this one proposed; discovered that proposed addition would block the Bitter’s view from inside their living room, the rules at that time had just chan ged and my addition was denied; during the review process I was asked to lower the roof line and change other things; did not build and cannot afford that addition now, commission could deny this application on the same basis as mine; not fair to expose Mr. Bitter to 18 months of construction noise and inconvenience. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: This project should be referred to a design reviewer. Commission direction to the reviewer included the following: - there is a lot of space inside the building that contributes to the mass and bulk of the remodeled building such as the outdoor court yard which will have poor lighting given its orientation, could also reduce interior circulation space, resulting in reorganizing/removing to make the overall project smaller; - making the addition below the first floor is the answer to the view issue, need to lower the ridge line more by stepping down the hill, a split level approach might work better; - cannot support a 67 foot long wall parallel to a side property line, even if it has a 20 foot setback, design should include more articulation; - the roof on the north elevation is massive should be reduced and the gables do not fit; - proposed landscaping is nice and should be retained; - the house is heavy at the front, one window extending from first to second floors not enough to tie front together, the proposal is not pedestrian friendly; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2001 5 - the front porch needs to be considered in the context of the entire house, the pre-caste balustrade does not fit, the grandeur for this lot comes from the trees and view; - need to reduce the view blockage for neighbors. Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with t he commission’s directions and noted that when the modified project returns to the commission for consideration story poles which outline the ridgelines of the new construction and document the location of the stair structure at the front should be included so that the neighbors can take photographs to document for the commission the impact of the proposed construction on the views from inside the living areas of their houses. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to send the project to a design reviewer with direction and to install story poles before subsequent commission review of the modified design. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item is not appealable. The item concluded at 8:17 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 1441 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RALPH DOMENICI, APPLICANT; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER; LINDA FRYE, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 4.23.01, with attachments. City Planner 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. Mark Robertson, designer, and Ralph Domenici, applicant, noted that they would be available to answer questions. Commission asked if the window in bedroom #3 meets egress requirements; applicant noted that Anderson has special hardware for ca sement windows, windows will be casement, not double-hung, will correct plans to show casement windows. Commission comment: design review was approved for these plans, need to know that more FAR is not being added with change, feel that proposed changes help the project, removal of the deck at the rear of the house provides privacy for the neighbors; have different opinion, feel that changes do not help the project. How did the changes happen? Applicant noted that the changes occurred during construction, previous plans had a deck which looked into neighbors’ yards, felt that this was not appropriate, deck and loss of privacy was an issue in previous Commission review, thought that adding a window in bedroom #4 would have little impact on the neighbor. Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal Avenue, and Viktor Pochron, 1436 Bernal Avenue, addressed the Commission with the following concerns: plans were approved with the condition that the building be built according to the plans approved by the Commission, contractor deviated from the approved plans, contractor has expressed that there is no one in city government who can stop him, contractor needs to abide by the law, this action is illegal and should not be approved, he enforced on kids who were throwing garbage in his construction dumpster, this will cause a precedent and create lawlessness, curb cut was moved by three feet towards her property, this action invalidates city’s building process; generally happy with the construction of the house, not too happy with the changes, surprised that window was added in the bedroom, will closely watch contractor if he is to build house at 1433 Bernal Avenue, this house was reviewed twice by the Commission, would like to have house built as on approved plans, happy with the removal of the deck, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2001 6 adding a window was inconsiderate. Staff noted that the second window in bedroom #4 is not needed for light and ventilation between but not for egress. Applicant noted that several options were considered for the window placement, need to pitch the roof at the rear of the house, cannot place window there, proposed location seemed appropriate to balance the light and ventilation in the bedroom. Further discussion: emergency egress windows are not correctly shown on plans, single-hung windows in bedroom #2 and #3 do not appear to meet emergency egress requirements, may need to be changed. CA Anderson noted that the Commission cannot approve what is not shown on the plans, approval must be based on the house to be built according to the correct plans. Commission noted that the porch on proposed and previous plans is not consistent, extra foam pieces were added but not clouded as a change; applicant noted that foam trim pieces were added to the porch and to the corners of the building, foam ap pears as columns on front porch or front elevation drawings. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: plans need to be shown with correct egress windows, all new foam trim should be clouded, new window in bedroom fits in well and is small, have not asked to remove windows for privacy in other projects, window is appropriate as shown. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for action when the stated revisions have been made to the plans and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Comment on the motion: Commission asked if it would be possible to eliminate one windows in the bedroom and increase the size of the remaining window? Commission noted that the second window doesn’t seem to be a problem, it is already built, not convinced that throwing a window away is the solution, do not like the situation, would’ve rather seen these changes earlier before the changes were made in the field, loss of privacy from window is much less than privacy impact of the previously approved balcony, does not feel that this is an onset of lawlessness, would like to see accurate plans, do not want to see this situation again, would not want to increase size of window, second bedroom window adds symmetry, eliminating the balcony is an asset, the process used to add the second window is wrong, window should have been shown on plans before it was built project amended, conditions should be followed, these changes are ok, but the changes could have just as easily resulted in a bad design, need to have a better system to have construction checked in field to make sure the house is being built according to the approved plans. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the May 14, 2001, consent calendar or whenever the completed information has been submitted, checked by staff and there is room on the agenda. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:53 p.m. 5. 1338 COLUMBUS AVENUE – ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MIKE GAUL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND CAROLYN GAUL, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 4.23.01, with attachments. C. Osterling noted that he lives within a 500’ radius of the project and would abstain from the item, he stepped down from the dias. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2001 7 Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mike Gaul, applicant and architect, 1237 Paloma Avenue, noted that he would be available to answer questions, thanked the Commission for their comments, since last meeting look at recently approved projects in Burlingame, was encouraged by the design reviewer’s positive recommendation. The Commission had no questions. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojues 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 April 10, 2001 Sheets A1 through A5; 2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal, City Engineer, and Chief Building Official’s January 29, 2001 memos shall be met; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window(s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 4) 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. Further Commission discussion: this is a vast improvement over the previous design, this is a good example of how the design review process works, nice job with the design, like the substance of this house. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6 -0-1 (C. Osterling abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 6. 218 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D – APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIGN AREA (MARGARITA HERIZ, APPLICANT; ISU AND EVELYN BROWN, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 4.23.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that the letter, dated April 11, 2001, indicates that the proposed sign was repainted over the old sign and asked if the old sign was 50 SF? Yes, previous sign was 50 SF, smaller than the proposed sign. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Al Heriz, owner of Heriz Oriental Rugs, and Dave Marino, real estate broker, represented the project, noted that this business is located in the C-2, Auto Row zone, sign code allows 150 SF of signage in this zone, just repainted over the existing sign, received sign information from the Planning Department, sign chart notes that businesses in auto row are allowed a total of 150 SF of signage, proposed sign is 140 SF, thought that the sign met code requirements, installed the sign, was not aware that this much signage was not allowed to non auto related sales uses; wanted si gn to be clearly visible to cars driving by site, do not have a lot of foot traffic on California Drive. Commission noted that most signs contain the name of a store, the proposed sign contains a lot of information, is like a small brochure, this too much to read if driving by at 35 mph, seems to go beyond the bounds of a sign, why is so much signage needed when your neighbors do not have or appear to need it, what is so unique about your business? Applicant needs to explain why this sign is not giving a special privilege to this business over other businesses. The applicant noted that the business is located on a major thoroughfare, relies on drive- by traffic, no foot traffic, black and white sign is easy to read, he provides several different services to the public, he fought understood that the sign was approved along with the conditional use permit, applicant’s wife forgot to apply for a sign permit while he was out of town. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2001 8 Further discussion: if the business owner applied for a sign permit he would have known that this much signage was not allowed for this type of business before he put it up, applicant knew that a sign permit was required, do not remember seeing this sign with the application for a conditional use permit. When sign was painted, how much was painted out? It was noted that the previous sign for the futon shop was smaller. Commission asked if additional lighting was installed with the new sign; applicant did not understand question. Applicant noted that when he received sign permit information, he was informed that he was located in the C-2, Auto Row zone, hard to understand that if a business is located in this zone that the sign requirements might be different based on the use, handouts should be clearer. Commission noted that handouts go along with discussion with staff, pointed out that the sign permit handout clearly states that a sign permit is required, confusion would have been avoided if the applicant applied for a sign permit. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojues moved to deny the sign exception application, by resolution and give the applicant 60 days to remove the sign and get a sign permit to replace it with one that complies with code. C. Dreiling seconded the motion. Further Commission discussion: there is no valid reason to approve the sign exception, sees no adequate findings, granting this sign exception would be giving special privilege to this business, suggested a sign permit must be applied for by someone who is familiar with signs and the application procedure, signs need to be designed for pedestrians, not for cars driving by at 35 mph. CA Anderson noted that it would be appropriate to allow the business owner 60 days to develop a different signage plan for it and install the new signs. Commission noted that the sign must be removed in 60 days. The maker of the motion and second agreed. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny and remove the sign within 60 days. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. 7. 860-880 STANTON ROAD - ZONED O-M – APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT COMBINATION (LOUIS ARATA, APPLICANT; CORK REALTY, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 4.23.01, with attachments. CE Murtuza presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the plans should be stamped by a licensed engineer; yes, submitted plans are stamped. What does the project consist of? The new tenant is proposing an interior remodel, landscaping and parking improvements. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Paul Bessieres, architect, noted that an interior remodel is planned, the smaller building is located on a larger lot, parking variance was granted to one of the buildings, the parking would work much better between the two buildings if the lots were combined and would eliminate the need for a variance. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to refer the tentative & final parcel map for lot combination to the City Council for approval. C. Dreiling seconded the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the tentative & final parcel map for lot combination to the City Council for approval. The motion passed on a 7-0. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2001 9 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1337 PALOMA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW ONE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ALEXANDER AND GLORIA HIDCHENKO, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant. C. Dreiling noted that he lived within 500 feet of the project site. Both noted that they would abstain and stepped down from the dais. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked staff about having sleeping areas in the basement; CP Monroe noted that this project was submitted before the recent code changes and that under the codes in effect at that time one could have bedrooms in basement areas. Also under those rules the entire basement area was exempt from the FAR calculation for the site. She also noted that the definition of “bedroom” is in the zoning ordinance and consists of a room with four walls, a door and a window. The two rooms shown in the proposed plans labeled “family room” and “den” in this proposed basement area meet that definition. CA Anderson noted that under the code if the room meets the definition of bedroom there is no choice but to consider it as a bedroom. Commissioner noted that it was not her intent in crafting the new regulations to prohibit bedrooms in basement areas and the commission should look again at the language in that part of the code. There were no further questions of staff from the commissioners. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Alex Hidchenko, 1337 Paloma Avenue, represented the proposed project to demolish an existing house and replace it with a single story house with basement. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. He submitted a sketch to commission which showed the family room wall on the first floor opened up so that it would no longer count as a bedroom. This would reduce the number of bedrooms in the project from 7 to 6. He also noted that it was not his intention to use the rooms counted as bedrooms in the basement are for sleeping purposes rather as a second family room/exercise area, laundry and office. He noted that the proposed ventilation for these rooms would not allow them to be used today as sleeping areas; so was surprised when staff told him the bedroom count for the house was 7. Commissioners comments: - Not intention with revised regulations (no applicable to this project) to remove livable space in basement areas; - Need to add divided light windows throughout house, not three different type windows as shown; Why did you dig down instead of adding a second story? There is a slope on the lot which reduced grading, wanted entire family living on one floor, and houses in the area are one story did not want to change neighborhood. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioner comment: - the wall of the family room on the first floor should be removed as shown in the sketch presented to reduce house to 6 bedrooms; - nice that you made the effort to keep this replacement at one story, unusual; - need to add mullions (divided light) to all windows for consistency within the project and with the neighborhood; - feel that you need a two car garage, would work better for you and neighborhood no parking variance required rooms in basement could stay the same; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2001 10 - change basement floor plan to eliminate the two bedrooms there, there is no hardship on the property since this is a new house and a two car garage could be built to meet the requirement for the 6 bedrooms; - granting a parking variance for this request would set an unacceptable precedent for other projects. Commissioners generally expressed a desire to review the new basement regulations regarding how they address new living area in basements. C. Osterling moved that the direction for this project was clear, the arrangement of walls in the basement area needs adjustment to eliminate the parking variance and the windows needed to be made consistent, this is an experienced designer who can make these changes, so move this it em to the consent calendar assuming that the changes as directed are made. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item, with the suggested changes eliminating the parking variance, to the consent calendar, to be scheduled when the revisions to the plans are completed and staff has checked them. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal and Dreiling abstaining) voice vote. This item is not appealable. The item was concluded at 10:55 p.m. 8. 1433 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (WING M. TAM, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JASON CHAN, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Wing Tim, property owner, and Jason Chan, architect, represented the project. Commission points in discussion were: - the 9 foot plate line on the first and second floors makes the project too massive, second floor plate should be reduced to 8 feet; - there is a disparity with the roof lines on the front of the building with the second floor gable and then the two story bay which adds mass to the second floor; - the north side is a big, massive blank wall, need to add articulation; - the south side is also a big wall with massive windows which stands out from the architecture of the whole and does not blend into the rest of the house, need to articulate walls with more than a 6 inch off sets, needs shadow lines, present looks like a tower, should be changed; - as front elevation demonstrates, this house is front loaded, need to increase the roof area, reduce the plate height, add variation, the pediment over the entrance does not work with the style of the house; - second story bay is out of proportion, find some other way to break up tall wall; - front of house is not pedestrian friendly, too grandiose for style; - the rear elevation is boxy, should change as sides are revised; - window trim needs to be called out, need detail, do not want 3 inch deep stucco mold, should be narrow like other houses in area; - project needs more windows to break up long blank walls; - most of the landscaping shown is actually on the neighbors properties, would like to see more larger shrub material on landscape plan to frame house, would assist in covering long walls parallel to side setbacks. There were no further comments from the public and the public comment was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2001 11 C. Keighran moved to direct this project to a design reviewer with the direction given by commission. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: there needs to be a general discussion about mass and bulk, how to achieve a human scale of design by varying plate heights even some below 8 feet and letting other elements extend up; the porch design is important especially the way the columns resolve into the lintel and roof; questions the need for the octagonal bays on the front, is there another way? Side walls may be OK need more windows. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to direct this project to a design reviewer. The motion was approved on a 7-0 voice vote. The item is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:25 p.m. 11. 313 CHAPIN LANE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (THOMAS L. HAMACHER, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRUCE HOMER-SMITH, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Bruce Homer-Smith, property owner, and Tom Hamacher, architect, represented the project. They described the project as increasing the space in the bath and bedroom (79 SF at the rear and 177 SF at the front on the second floor). In 1990 a variance for one covered parking space in the front setback was granted because a heritage redwood tree had grown to block the access to the detached garage at the rear. That parking variance was granted for 15 years, 2005. Since they were before the commission at this time and the tree remains healthy, they would also like to request that the time limit on the variance be removed. Commissioners noted that perhaps the variance could be revised to have the variance expire if the tree or if the house is removed. CA noted that today with the reforestation ordinance regulating removal of private trees we have better regulation of tree removal than we did in 1990; to take out the redwood a tree removal permit would be required. On the design the commissioner commented: - the proposed addition is within the architectural style of the house; - the objective to save the tree is a good one, and proposal does not threaten tree; - do not want to provide any incentive to remove the tree. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Vistica moved to refer this item to the consent calendar with a revision to the condition on the expiration of the variance for the covered parking place, instead there should be a condition that commission should review the variance if the tree is ever removed or the house demolished. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this project to the consent calendar with an amended condition regarding the parking variance. The motion was passed on a 7-0 voice vote. There is no appeal for this action. The item concluded at 10:45 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of April 16, 2001. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2001 12 CP Monroe reviewed briefly the items relating to planning at the Council’s April 16, 2001, meeting. It was also noted that the Council will hold interviews for the Planning Commission on May 3, 2001. The commissioners asked to be provided with copies of the applications which are public record. - Review 1994 Housing Element and process and schedule for update. CP Monroe noted that in addition to providing a copy of the 1994 Housing Element for commission to review she also included a summary of the proposed public workshop schedule for preparation of the 2001 Housing Element. She asked if all the commissioners would be able to attend workshops on the dates in June and September suggested. Cers. Dreiling and Vistica may not be available any time in June; C. Keighran anticipates a problem with the September date. There was a brief discussion about moving the June date. However, moving the workshop forward would create a problem given the time to prepare materials and holding the workshop in mid-summer when many members of the public might be away did not seem viable. The September date is after Labor Day and after the start of school so that date may be easier to schedule for the commission more flexible. Staff pointed out that many of the local housing providers would probably participate in these workshops and it would be useful for as many Planning Commissioners to attend as possible. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary MINUTES4.23