Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.05.29CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 29, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the May 29, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Luzuriaga Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Keylon; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the May 14, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that the applicant for item 7 asked if that item could be held until after 8:30 p.m. Commission agreed. V. FROM THE FLOOR Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal Avenue, asked if the project at 1441 Bernal Avenue could be called off the consent calendar and a public hearing held. Commission agreed. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 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 Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Noted Item 1A, 1441 Bernal Avenue was moved to regular calendar at the request of neighbor Mary Packard. . 1B. 400 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROSMA GRUZZI AND STEVE MENDENHALL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DUNLAP DESIGN, DESIGNER) C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings and recommended conditions in the staff report, by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:08 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2001 2 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 1A. 1441 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO APPROVED NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RALPH DOMENICI, APPLICANT; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER; LINDA FRYE, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 5.29, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the staff report; City Engineer Murtuza commented on the driveway apron work done within the city right-of-way. Action on this item had been continued from the May 14 meeting. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Linda Frye, 1249 Bernal, property owner, Ralph Domenici, contractor, 510 Almer, and Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal spoke. Applicant noted that they felt that they had met all the Planning Commission’s stipulations necessary to get an occupancy permit; felt that opposition in the neighborhood was by people who were opposed to bigger houses in general and their property was next to someone who felt that way. Neighbor commented that she was not opposed to the changes to the house but to their right to place their driveway curb cut in front of her house, felt that this installation was illegal and the city should see that it is corrected to the way it was shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission. If it is not corrected it will send a message to developers that they can ignore what the Planning Commission requires. CE Murtuza noted that the curb cut was not to be replaced as part of the project until it and four feet of the street were severly damaged during construction. The new driveway and apron were placed to line up with the driveway and sized at the city’s 12 foot width as requested by applicant. The wing of the driveway does extend in the public right -of-way 1.2 feet past the neighbor’s property line; since this is public property the city has no problem with this apron location. Applicant noted that they had no problem with a replacement of the curb cut but since it was inspected by the city and installed to city standards as inspected, the city should pay for the change to the apron and should not hold up her occupancy permit. Hearing continued: Commissioner noted that the curb cut needs to align with the driveway; the first set of plans, approved by the Commission, shows the driveway set back one foot from the fence; the revised plans show the driveway next to the fence, why was the driveway moved/widened? Contractor noted driveway was damaged during construction and 4 feet of street and the driveway apron/curb cut were installed in March; the driveway was installed later, a month ago to match curb cut. Showed the change in driveway location along with other changes on the plans as requested for this amendment. If apron was installed first then applicant anticipated widening the driveway and removing the planter strip along the property line wall; who decided to build the wider apron? CE noted that the applicant asked for the 12 foot curb cut with apron. Commissioner noted that the change to the width of the driveway, i.e. removal of the planter strip, is not clouded as a change on the revised plans. Contractor noted that when they started to prepare for the driveway installation they discovered an over pour of the footing of the neighbor’s wall into their property. Felt if they removed this over pour they would make the wall unstable, could not grow anything on top of over pour concrete, so left it and put in a curb over the overpour to protect wall, with curb then eliminated one foot planter strip along the wall and widened the driveway. Since they understood that they could install an at-grade concrete patio without Commission approval, thought they could widen driveway without further review. CP noted that staff had directed the applicant to show all changes from the approved set of plans on the revised set of plans. Neighbor noted that she did not care about the width of the driveway just the location of the curb cut. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2001 3 Commissioners comments: Location of planter strips and their role in neighborhood character is a part of the Planning Commission review and approval, the change to the driveway and planter strip is not clouded as a change on the revised plans; agree need more screening between these two properties, will look pretty bleak without; does the overpour represent as trespass by the neighbor. CA noted that it depends upon the agreement between neighbors at the time the wall was installed. Am unclear about who decided what regarding the curb cut; 12 foot apron installed, 9’6” apron shown on plans. Review of work in the public right-of-way is not in commission’s charge; for the record public facilities such as these and bridges have a big impact on the image of the city and should be reviewed by the commission. Feel planting strip along wall is needed and should go back to the original driveway plan. Do not see why driveway needs to be enlarged over original plans. The 12 foot width of the driveway apron was requested by the applicant it was not directed by the city, there is a smaller driveway standard which is acceptab le to public works. CE confirmed that. If asked for wider curb cut must have anticipated widening the driveway; why was the change not brought to the Commission’s attention along with the other changes; plans show little left from what was approved before. There is one point in the drive way next to the house which will be very narrow if one foot is removed from the width of the driveway. Improvements are all in place. CA noted that the Commission can set whatever precedent it wished in regard to removal of work done outside of approved plans including removal and reconstructing whole driveway and curb cut as shown on June 2000 plans. C. Bojués made a motion to approve the revised plans by resolution with conditions in the staff report amended directing the applicant to put the driveway back to the way it was shown in the originally approved plans with a one foot planting strip along the property line wall and to redo the curb cut to match the narrower driveway and different driveway location. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. The motion included the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 1, 2001 Sheets 1 through 4, reflecting the following changes from the August 4, 2000 plans previously approved: the elimination of the rear second floor deck and French doors off of the master bedroom along the south side of the property, the addition of a 2’-6” X 4’-6” casement window in the master bedroom along the north elevation, the addition of a small gable over the master bedroom and master bathroom at the rear, the addition of a 3’-0” X 8’-0” access door along the south elevation and changes to the architectural features with the addition of stucco foam trim to the elevations and that the driveway shall be narrowed one foot to install a one foot planter strip the length of the driveway between the wall on property line and the new driveway edge of the curb cut shall be reconstructed to match the narrowed driveway; 2) that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 3) that any changes any changes to size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the plate height, roof height, or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s July 24, 2000 memo shall be met; 5) that the stairwell on the south elevation shall be redesigned so that is project from the landing up as a cantilevered bay and breaks up the long south side of the house; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Discussion on the motion: since the distance between the house and property line narrow toward the rear of the lot and this rear portion of the driveway and wallis not visible from the street, could the replaced planter strip as shown on the original plan be located only in front of this narrow point; Okay if go back 30 to 40 feet; planter strip also functions as a buffer between the two properties at the rear which is important to the neighbor; increased privacy is important to neighbor; agree that improvements should be returned to original because of the principle involved do not want to encourage other contractors to do what was done here. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2001 4 Chairman Vistica called for roll call vote on the motion to reduce the width of the driveway, replacing the one foot planter strip next to the property line wall, and narrow the curb cut to match the narrower driveway. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 2. 1517 BURLINGAME AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (RAY BRAYER, BRAYER CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROY AND JANE BORODKIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (CONTINUED FROM MAY 14, 2001 MEETING) Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions about the application from Pla nning Commission. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Ray Brayer, 228 Lorton, applicant for the project presented the project. He felt the project had improved with these revisions, he changed the windows on the second floor, worked to tie together the vertical elements, is seeking a special permit for declining height envelope. The bedroom is now better with the bathroom, and works better than the previous plan when furniture is added. The Commission asked if a window could be added in the declining height area, would help blank wall on the elevation. Applicant responded that this window would look into the neighbor’s bathroom so they did not propose a window in that location. Commission asked if the chimney needs to be pulled 10 feet away from the building to comply with the building code. Applicant explained that fireplace would be a gas insert therefore 10 foot separation not required. Commission noted that on the elevation the second floor eave line is consistent but not the case when you look at the front elevations, this happens on the each side of the second floor. Applicant noted that eave was clipped on the right side and he can make the other side the same. Commission noted that on the right side elevation at bedroom windows where there are two awning windows, the eave is straight but should drop down with the wall plane, eave should change on the side of the wall break and continue with the roof plane. Commission asked to have plate height shown on all elevations. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: nice design, incorporated a lot of the comments from the previous hearing, with the changes mentioned to the eaves and roof line, the project looks good. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 4, 2001, Sheets A0 through A9, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official s and City Engineer’s February 12, 2001 memos shall be met; 4) that the eave line should drop down with the wall plane on the right elevation and elevations and roof plan shall be made to be consistent with the eaves and roof lines; 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. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2001 5 3. 1433 SANCHEZ AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JENNIFER HAYDEN AND WILLIAM RYAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JERRY LANGKAMMERER, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 5.29, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe suggested amending conditions number 3 to add,”with sink and no toilet”, after artist studio, to make it clear that the toilet was removed may not be allowed ion the future. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Jennifer Hayden, 1433 Sanchez Avenue, homeowner present the project. She explained that she removed the toilet from her proposal. She tried to match the trim on the accessory structure with the existing house. They are using craftsman style windows. They are going to grade slightly to keep the height down. She noted that they are surrounded by tall structures, with a 3-story building at the rear, and to the west and the east there are 15 foot garages, so their proposal would not affect any view. She was available for questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Dreiling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 18, 2001, Sheet(s) 1 and 2, Site Plan, Floor Plan, Section and Elevations; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 26, 2001 memo, the City Engineer's March 26, 2001 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's March 26, 2001 memo shall be met; 3) that the accessory structure shall be used as a garage, a home office and an artist's studio, with sink and no toilet, and shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include additional utility services and/or a toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit; and 4) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on 6 -0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:24 p.m. 4. 1870 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 100 – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (PRIME PACIFIC GLOBAL, APPLICANT; PRIME PLAZA LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 5.29, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. It was noted by CP Monroe that 300 SF of the space in this suite is to be dedicated to an employee break room. Commission asked CP Monroe if the conditional use permit can be tied to the tenant. CP Monroe stated that the approval cannot be tied to a specific tenant but can be tied to the suite number, if a new tenant goes in to that portion of the building them to confirm that they will operate with the same limitations or they must ask for an amendment to the conditional use permit. This usually occurs at the time the new business applies for a business license. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Dave Zegal, 40 West Third Avenue San Mateo, applicant, presented the project and was available for questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2001 6 Commission discussion: this applicant has stated that although they are defined as a real estate office they are not your typical retail real estate office, concerned that a new tenant could move in with a more intense business that would be more of a retail real estate office and have more of an impact than the tenant currently proposed, CA Anderson noted that conditions of approval limit the number of employees and state that the hours of operation would be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday so that would regulate the use and intensity. Commission stated that the proposed use would have no impact on the parking, if new tenant moves in they would have to adhere to conditions of approval or come back to the Planning Commission. C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the tenant space shall be used as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 6, 2001; the proposed use is a real estate office, which includes property management and real estate investment, with 2700 SF of office area located on the first floor in Suite 100 of the existing building at 1870 El Camino Real; that the existing 59 parking spaces on site shall be maintained and the area and the designated use for this real estate office shall be altered or expanded only with amendme nt to this conditional use permit; 2) that the tenant space shall be operated as shown on the commercial application form submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 6, 2001; that the business shall not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with a maximum of 15 employees on site at one time, including the owner; 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. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6 -0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:32 p.m. 5. 808 – 820 EL CAMINO REAL - ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP (ALEX NOVELL, APPLICANT; BURLINGAME TERRACE, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 5.29, with attachments. CE Murtuza presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. He explained that that the project proposal is to amend map for nine condominiums approved February 2, 1998 and the conditions of approval which require an egress easement across the church property on Palm. On the final map the easement requirement has been changed to a 90 year license agreement, and relocates the storm drain easement to the east side of the property next to the church. Department of Public Works has no problem with these changes. CA Anderson explained that there are two types of rights to use other people’s property, easement and license agreement. There is something in between the two called an irrevocable license which usually conditions the use and defines when a change in use causes a license to cease. An easement is permanent and the simplest; where a license is temporary. Spoke with church they have concerns about future development of the church being restricted by the easement. With the license they could go back to the homeowner’s association, and relocate access from the condominium property to El Camino if they need to. However, the City is concerned because a clause in the license agreement states that if the project changes the license is terminated. This term “change” is open to interpretation can mean any change from the paint to the driveway apron. If this clause is changed to better define what is a “change”, and a license agreement may be okay. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2001 7 Commission asked what the problem is with granting an easement? CA Anderson stated that the easement is the cleanest way to go and is what the City and the Engineers would like, but there is no flexibility unless you do a floating easement, which the title companies and attorneys don’t like, and can cause a problem in court later. License agreements contain triggers that allow discussion between the parties. Commission asked if the 90-year lease with 10 year renewal is typical. CA Anderson did not know. CE Murtuza expressed concern that if the license expires or is terminated due to changes, then there could be no access to the property across the church property, and the only access to the development would be El Camino Real, which would be a problem since trees make sightlines difficult for cars using that access. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. John Ward, 792 Wilbourough Place, Burlingame, represented the applicant and presented the request. Dan McCloud, engineer represented the applicant and Rev. Rays. Holtz, represented the Baptist Church, 1425 Palm Drive. He told the Commission that the applicant has a good relationship with the church, there seems to be a misunderstanding about changing the plans for the drainage easement, no change is proposed to location of storm drainage easement, it is down the middle of the parking lot under the egress lane. Dan McCloud, civil engineer, stated that storm drain runs through the parking lot of the church, and is consistent with the license. Commission asked if the applicant was okay with changing the paragraph in the license agreement as accepted by the City and asked why they would not agree to an easement. Applicant responded that they are okay with the change per the City’s request, and their attorney is currently drafting the change for CA approval. They did not want to agree to an easement because in the future the church may want to develop the site further. They have the negotiating power with the license which allows them flexibility. Reverend Reyes Holtz, representing the church, stated that the license was in the interest of the church board, rather than an easement. They want the flexibility to change the access in the future. His concern with the paragraph that the CA referred to about changes being too vague, is that they don’t want the project to change from 9 units to 15 dwelling units or to a commercial use. The CA asked their attorney to draft an amendment to that paragraph. He clarified that the church is not referring to minor changes to the project, concerned with the change or intensification of the use of the property. CA Anderson told the Commission that the church is in control of the changes to the paragraph in the license agreement. There seemed to be some confusion about the location of the stormdrain easement so Chairman Vistica continued the public hearing and asked the parties to step to the hall to discuss the storm drain and return to the chambers when they agreed. This item was continued at 8:50 p.m. CA Anderson thought it would be a good idea to continue the public hearing and bring this item back after item #6 to allow the parties time to sort out the location of the storm drain easement. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1719 EASTON DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MICHAEL V. DILLON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CAROL WOODS, DESIGNER) Planner Keylon presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Mike Dillon, 1741 Lake, San Mateo, applicant, represented the project with Susan Leahey the property owner. This is a small corner lot; FAR is over because of the way the city calculates FAR - counts stairwell on both floors, declining height exception is 6 inches for 22 feet; neighbor on that side has no problem. Concerns about design noted by commissioners: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2001 8 • Concerned about the impact of the flat, tall wall on the left side, impact on the neighbor; • Window detail needs to match, the new are different from the old, all need to be consistent; • The windows on the front elevation need to be consistent, windows have arch which drift into the gable, it conflicts; • Wall above the porch on the font elevation is blank, need to add some interests (a window); • Remove skylight and provide light in stair in some other way, keeps to design integrity; • Trim should match, photo shows narrow trim with existing flat design, would like to see that on all windows; • That this is a very small lot for this area should be given some consideration when evaluating FAR; • Roof vocabulary needs some work, photo shows one gable at the living room, should step into consistent use of gables instead of use of hip as dominant roof form; • Once have established hip roof shape then work with the window placement; • The position of the little bay windows conflicts with the design unless the detail is just right; • Continue the existing wood siding on the second floor addition to pull the house together, entire second floor should not be covered in wood, just enough to pull it together, this is important; • Small lot with an odd shape presents an hardship which justifies a minor FAR exception; and • Generally agree that the minor declining height exception is all right given the small size and odd shape of the lot. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Vistica closed the public comment. C. Osterling moved to send this item to a design reviewer in order to resolve the identified issues. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent) voice vote. This action is advisory and is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:16 p.m. 5. 808 – 820 EL CAMINO REAL - ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP (ALEX NOVELL, APPLICANT; BURLINGAME TERRACE, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) Chairman Vistica reopened the continued public hearing. CE Murtuza noted that the tentative map had shown the easement for the storm drain down the middle of the parking lot, but the final map showed the storm drain easement along the property line next to the church where all three parties, owner of 808-820, church and city, wanted it. Dan McCloud, engineer representing the developer noted that the location as shown on the final map was acceptable to both the developer and the church. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués moved to recommend the final map to the City Council for action with the added condition that the City Attorney shall review and agree to the proposed revisions to the paragraph in the license agreement which describes the changes which could result in revoking the license agreement and that the City Attorney shall approve the new working regarding “changes” in the license agreement before the final map can be filed and an occupancy permit granted to any of the residential condominium units. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2001 9 Comment on the motion: it is important that the condominium project always have access through the church property. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the map with amended license agreement as conditioned by the Planning Commission to City Council for action. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent). This action is not appealable. 7. 2000 CARMELITA 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 (NADINE LEWANDOWSKI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) CP Monroe presented a summary of the project description. C. Bojués noted that he would abstain from discussion and action on this item since he lived within 500 feet of the property. He stepped down from the dais. Commissioner asked why this project was not subject t o the new basement regulations; staff responded that the application was submitted prior to the effective date of the new basement regulations and it took some time to get to the commission. However, the basement area shown does meet the requirements under the old regulations (more than 50% of the exterior walls be low grade) and is exempt from being included in the FAR calculation for the site. There were no other questions from the commission. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. John Mornin and Nadine Lewandowski, property owner, represented the project. They noted that they have lived in the house four years and submitted a picture of another house in town which they were copying. Commissioners noted about the proposed design: • Would like to see the exterior stair from the basement removed and the size of the utility room reduced to make this basement area less attractive for use as a second unit, this is one of the objectives of the new basement regulations; • Why is there a door at the bottom as well as at the top of the basement stairs? • Concerned about the color scheme of the house shown in the picture it does not match the traditional architecture, what is your intention? • The point of using a curved roof is to bring the roof line down to the upper edge of the windows which lowers the house visually, on the first floor in this plan you can see stucco above the window because of the 9 foot plate on the first floor, this should be addressed; • The roof can be reduced horizontally a foot as well; • Can reduce the visual mass of this building by making it a rich stucco brown or deep brown- beige with charcoal gray roof; • Like the dormer with the small window; • The Sierra redwood shown is a landmark tree, shown on plans trees to be planted which will become larger on the side of the door, will look out of balance when reach mature size, should talk to landscaper and address location; • This house is too big, maximum height, maximum FAR, entire basement not counted in FAR, don’t feel that there was a lot of effort made to break up the mass, strong horizontal on the second floor and ground floor, no articulation in eave line, need more information on roof line; main concern is mass and size since surrounding houses are small, do more to breakdown mass; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2001 10 • Flat, typical lot, do not see justification for this FAR, should do this without any exception; • Lot of extra space within plan in entry stair hallway, kitchen and master bath, house size can be reduced; • Window and roof lines are consistent, lowering the plate on the first floor would reduce mass; • Do not see the justification for a declining height exception, need underscores fact that house is too massive; • Roof form is interesting if the details are done right will work; and • Designer should listen to the tape of this meeting since he is not here to get full range of discussion. Chairman Vistica moved to give this direction to the designer and have him address the needed changes to the project and bring it back on the regular action calendar when the change s have been addressed. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: while color is not within the Commission’s jurisdiction, in this case color will be important in providing contrast to break up the mass; concerned about the mass and bulk of this project. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item back to the designer and then to the regular action calendar. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (C. Bojués abstaining, C. Luzuriaga absent) voice vote. This action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. 8. 1423 BALBOA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. It was noted that a letter was received late this afternoon from John Gatt, 1421 Balboa Avenue, expressing concerns about the proposal at 1423 Balboa Avenue There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. James Chu 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, project designer was available for questions. Commissioner comments: • Is this a spec house or does owners plan to reside in new house? • Need to see different design (language) from this designer; • Does this project required retaining wall, as stated in neighbor’s letter, appears to be a flat lot; • Right side has large scale plant material that will grow tall, can you put more in the back to screen the house from the neighbors; • Would applicant be willing to lower height to 30’; • Play with roof pitches to lower height, scale is nicely broken up; • Open up entry porch, open on right side or add window; • unfortunate to demo existing house, in future should look at other possibilities; and • Do you need two skylights, can larger rectangular skylight be reduced in size. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2001 11 Karen Delee Simpson, 1429 Balboa Avenue, neighbor; this property sits on the second highest point on the block, structure will take away light from her house, her children’s bedrooms especially, concerned that pittasporum on side will crack concrete slab in her garage, roof should be lowered, sad to demolish existing house when an addition was approved for this house a few years back. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Vistica closed the public hearing. Further Commissioner comments: • Overall design is nice, blends well, concern with roof bulk and height, decrease to 30’, vary roof pitches; • Concerned with roof height, but don’t want to see clipped flat roof, don’t just chop off the roof, look at reducing roof pitch; • Design will fit nicely, • Concerned with demo of these existing houses, need to be conscious about the character of Burlingame, can’t approve all Tudor style homes, consider other design alternatives, have seen other design options from this applicant which would work well here; explore; • Try to stick with existing house design, don’t want cookie cutter Tudor homes; • Good mass and bulk if roof height is modified; and • Pittosporum have fibrous root system, do not usually damage concrete, add trees to reduce visibility of 2- story house, landscape architect could see if adequate coverage is proposed, keep neighbors concerns in mind. Chairman Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised and checked by staff, as directed. The motion passed on a roll call vote 4-2-1 (Cers. Bojués, Dreiling dissenting and C. Luzuriaga absent). This action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:09 p.m. 9. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SAMUEL AND ELAINE WONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Jack Matthews, architect, present the project and explained that he took over the previous project and tried to preserve the privacy of the neighbor to the north, reduced the second floor from four to two bedrooms and increased the size and location of the garage. Commissioner comments: • Noted a pine tree on the left, will that be retained and if so will it be significantly trimmed? • Landscape plan shows mostly deciduous trees, landscape architect should look into larger scale evergreens on Skyview, no redwoods; • Project has come a long way from previous design; and • Revision works well with the neighborhood. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2001 12 There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Vistica closed the public hearing. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: compared with the initial submittal this is a big improvement. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:16 p.m. 10. 1524 LOS MONTES DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SIDNEY HOOVER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MICHAEL BERMAN AND BETSY HAUGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. It was noted that this project requires a Hillside Area Construction Permit, which was left out of the staff report and will be added when the application returns to the Planning Commission. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Sidney Hoover, 500 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, architect for the project was available for questions. The applicant stated that the existing structure was built prior to current regulations, they want to keep the existing footprint and roof pattern. They want to extend the master bedroom in the simplest manner and preserve the simple form of this 1950’s house. Commissioners comments: • Commission noted the request for a side setback variance and asked what is the exceptional hardship on this property? • Inconsistency on cover sheet, different surveyor and engineer, who did survey? • North elevation needs window to break up wall, make friendlier. • South elevations also needs window. • Drawing 3, A-4 shows an inconsistency in the deck section and plan, ground floor closer to French doors than shown (4’), please correct; Blank walls are a concern, could benefit from light on all sides, 16 feet of a 2-story wall is not consistent with Commission’s previous approvals, adding windows on side elevations would benefit inside and outside, look at higher windows, make elevation come alive; • Overall nice design, north elevation is a blank stucco wall, needs a window; and • South elevation also is blank, only two windows over a long expanse, another windows added would be neighbor friendly. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Vistica closed the public hearing. C. Osterling made a motion place this item on the regular action calendar when the revisions have been made and checked by staff. This motion was seconded by Chairman Vistica. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2001 13 Comment on motion: do not just add token windows, look at the fenestration, maybe even look at the lower floor, could be a benefit to the interior character to explore light from various side of the house, not just the rear. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised and checked by staff as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent). The Planning Commission’s action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:31p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of May 21, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed the planning related items from the Council meeting. Commission also noted the need to revise the membership of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. Noting that CP should contact Jerry Deal to see if he would like to represent the public on this committee and the Chairman will contact C. Luzuriaga and ask him if he would like to shift from alternate to regular member. It was also noted that to follow up from the last commission meeting, the Commission should address a subcommittee to review the Safeway project. Chairman Vistica suggested himself, and Cers. Dreiling and Bojués with C. Osterling serving as alternate. They directed staff to see if Safeway representatives were available for a meeting in June to start the parallel review process noted at the environmental scoping meeting. A commissioner noted the need for public amenity along the sidewalk infront of the Chula Vista parking lot. This was discussed by the Planning Commission but no amenities (benches, etc.) have been installed. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MINUTES5.29