Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.01.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 11, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL. TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the January 11, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Coffey, Ke:ighran, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacker MINUTES The minutes of the December 14, 1998 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved with request for continuance noted. FROM THE FLOOR Mr. Gottfried Brun, 1312 Vancouver, He commented about how he supported the commissions interest in design review and hoped that they would look at the design of this house too since he lives in the neighborhood. He then requested Item #6, 2104 Easton be pulled from consent calendar and returned to the regular calendar for discussion. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 17 VALDIVIA COURT, ZONED R-1. (ROBERT S. & JENNIFER K. MORSE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented an over view of the project and the commissioners asked that the item be placed on the consent calendar for the next meeting, January 25, 1999. APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE -CAR GARAGE AND WORKROOM AT 1516 FOREST VIEW AVENUE, ZONED R-1) (CHRIS & JAN KEELE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented an over view of the project and the commissioner's asked: what is the hardship for not placing the garage within the rear 40 percent of the site; how far back can the sm City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 garage be placed without affecting the 6" tree shown on the plans; how does the code address the fact that effectively these are two structures garage and workshop, encompassed in the structure when calculating the 30' length requirement; like dormers as an architectural feature, but concerned about the fact that in this case the dormers take up almost all of the roof area, can their scale be reduced to better suite the structure; what kind of tree is the 6" tree behind the garage; the directions on the elevations seem to be incorrect, they should be fixed; the garage is 15' , tall how tall is the house; it is hard to park on this street, the house could be expanded in the future, why is a two car garage not being considered now; does the pitch of the roof on the garage match the pitch on the house. There were no further questions about the project and it was set for hearing on January 25, 1999, if all the information is into the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING WHERE OFFICE EXCEEDS 50% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE BUILDING AT 1400 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1. (SINCLAIR ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND CAL-TEX PROPERTIES., PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented an over view of the project and the commissioner's asked: where will the dumpster be placed; has the temporary trailer been removed. The commission directed that this item be placed on the consent calendar on January 25, 1999, since it had been reviewed recently. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT EXCEEDING 30'-0" FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1145 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND VICTOR & MARINA AENLLE, PROPERTY OWNERS) APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 1011 TOYON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (DEMETRIUS DINTCHO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) and APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE AT 2104 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (LARRY MORSELLO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Item fib, 2108 Easton was removed from the consent calendar and placed on the regular calendar. C. Boju6s moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners and applicants comments and the findings in the staff reports. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the :motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 19W REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE AT 2104 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (LARRY MORSELLO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 1.11.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. There were questions of staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Larry Morsello, 1353 Bernal Avenue, property owner, spoke noting that he wanted to build a new house for him self. Commission asked if he lived in Burlingame now, yes; problem with the placement of the garage creates a large amount of paving at the front of the property - did you consider another placement of the garage, lived in Burlingame in two different houses with detached garages prefer attached garage because it is more secure. James Chu, designer, asked have design guidelines -how does this project conform with existing neighborhood, concern was with what the clients requirements were -wants two story Tudor with attached garage -saw two story houses in the area -think design is compatible with the neighborhood; why do you think it is compatible, design reviewer found it to be compatible and states in his report the reasons why; what percentage of houses in the neighborhood have attached garages, did not count think about to 5 out of 10; what is the typical slope of a Tudor style house, 6:12 plus; is this proposed Tudor style compatible with the: neighborhood, yes; first floor has a 10' plate line, am concerned about the bulk this creates in the structure, client wanted taller ceilings we reduced plate from original 12' to 10'; most houses in the area were built in the 1950's typically with 8' plate lines, yes but this is the 1990's; if the majority have 8' plate lines this project is not going to be compatible. While this project meets all the zoning requirements -it does not meet the intent and spirit of the design guidelines at least as is evident in the execution: the style is simulated Tudor, the roof slope is not in keeping with Tudor style, the parking arrangement may be like newer houses but is not consistent with this neighborhood and the mass of the two car garage at the front of the lot does not fit in; designer commented garage consists of two single car garages attached, set way back from. property line one at 24' and the second at almost 30', looked at a detached garage with a separate driveway and applicant did not want; garage is set in front of the house -why, if reverse would have a lot more hall space to get to the rear of the house, lost 400 SF of FAR with the attached garage so wanted to minimize the hallway areas; is there any trim proposed for the front door, entry is 5' wide and the door 3'-6", door is covered by porch so not so visible. Applicant's designer wanted to know how seriously the commission takes the design reviewer's comments because they went through the design review process and it is wasted if it is not taken seriously; it is up to the Planning Commission to decide if any project complies with the design review guidelines. Applicant's designer noted that the garages were designed as they were with two separate facades because the street is at an angle to the properhi and the setbacks of the garages break up the facade so one mass does not face the street which is more presentable to the neighbors; asked if applicant read the design guidelines, yes but knew what I wanted and did not want a detached garage, lived in Burlingame with a detached garage for 16 years and it is -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January If, 1999 inconvenient for me; did place the driveway on the same side of the lot as it is located on all the homes on the block, which is another reason the garage is at the front. Comments from the public: Ernest Boden, 2108 Easton Drive, live to left of new house, been there since 1982, current property is not well kept and needs to be :replaced; have a problem with the chimney at the left rear it is right in front of my kitchen and master bedroom windows concerned about smoke; also concerned about neighbors at 2100 Easton who are ill and could not come, concerned about shading of their property caused by this new house. Applicant in response: If would prefer the chimney at the rear can be replaced by a direct vent out the wall which would eliminate the stacked chimney, both fireplaces are gas. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission comment: commission has been involved the past year in developing design guidelines because there have been a lot of neighbor complaints about homes built which are inappropriate to the neighborhoods, especially those with 2 car attached garages at the front of the lot; the design guidelines were approved with little negative input from the public. This project is an example of what the design guidelines were trying to stop, everything in it is out of character with the neighborhood: the pattern of the garages in the neighborhood is detached one and two car structures, this one is two car, attached in front of the residential structure (need to be careful not to look at surrounding neighborhood for what you want to see, guidelines are clear about not repeating the mistakes of the past, newer homes); attributes are incorporated into this structure which make it more massive and bulky than the existing neighborhood, the first floor plate line is 10' where in the existing neighborhood plate lines are 8'-9', need to reduce the first floor plate line to 9' and the second floor plate line to 8' or less; this is not a Tudor house, roof pitch of 7:12 is not indicative of Tudor style, too much half timber in patterns which do not make sense for that style, need a steeper roof which will also allow you to handle the second floor in a different way with a lower plate line and use dormers which will add architectural style to the house and will reduce the mass, the front door is out of scale with the style, need to change the windows because vinyl windows are flat looking compared to wood windows which add a richness to the structure consistent with the neighborhood; square footage of the structure and setbacks greater than required are not a problera, just need more design items to make it fit and have a better chance of approval; landscape is clone well and thoroughly, good example for others. However as a whole the project is completely out of character for the neighborhood, using design review, a discretionary action, the commission can limit what one can do on a property. Commission comment continued: this is a very deep lot, have the opportunity to put a detached garage at the rear without a major loss of useable rear yard; went up and down Easton, this house is not compatible with the houses on Easton, on Vancouver there are some more recently built houses with attached garages at the front but they do not reflect what the community values; in this case design reviewer may have concentrated too much on the second story which resulted in a biased direction; seemed to miss the issue of the attached ;garage at the front, which is also a part of the design guidelines; the problem is the accentuation of the garage by its placement at the front of the structure; did separate the two covered parking spaces but because they are in front of the house they accentuate the mass and bulk, by pushing garage back on the lot would reduce the mass and bulk; the front door does not fit into the street; landscape plan is very nice, elaborate and enhances the charm of the house; unfortunate that the design reviewer in City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 did not pick up on some of these issues, but they serve the commission, and the commission's standards for new houses indicate that this house is bulky, the plate lines are the key factor and dwarf the front door, the lesser roof pitch adds to the bulk; vinyl windows do not fit in with the existing traditional homes; the landscape plan is a good example; Tudor design does not need so much half timber; dropping the plate line is not the only solution to bulk, could have steep roof and create cathedral ceiling; this looks like a bunch of rooms collected with a skin put around it and a roof on top, need to add some design components to make the design interesting. C. Vistica moved to deny the project on the grounds that the parking and garage pattern does not match the existing, neighborhood, and the project is an incorrect use of the Tudor architectural style. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Discussion on the motion: applicant might look at the 2500 block of Poppy to see how an attached garage can be done well in such a circumstance. Chairman Deal called fora voice vote on the motion to deny the project. The commission voted 7-0 to deny the project. Appeal rights were advised. APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1405 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MARK J. TOPETCHER, APPLICANT AND TONY & CIRINA 1 PPOLITO, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 1.11.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. , Five conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Keighran commented that she would abstain from action on this item because of a business relationship that her husband had. There were no commissioner's questions on the staff report. C. Keighran stepped down from the dias. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Tony and Cirina Ippolito, property owners at 1405 Drake Avenue, spoke noting that they purchased the property in 199.4, it had been neglected; they seismically braced the garage and converted it from a in-law unit to parking, trying to preserve the architecture and character of the house; basement does not provide much livable space because of the lack of light, exceed lot coverage but need that to keep the features which provide character to the house and added to the rear to keep items on street side which are key to character. Commissioner asked about documentation on plans which is unclear about slopes on the lot, applicant noted that basement/first floor slopes across the property so ceiling heights vary from one side to the other, since no declining height or structure height issue did not have survey done of lot slope, addition is no higher than existing house which is well under 30 feet, lot slopes toward the front and the elevation in the plans is in error. Indicate that you conform to the architecture at the front of the house but the size of the windows at the rear do not match (are much bigger) than those at the front and do not emulate the style at the front of the building, if look at the radius of the windows at the front and rear, the radius at the rear is only 12 inches larger, the arch is generated by the addition of the new family room, this is really not a two story house but a ranch style house with a basement which rises out of the ground, needed to tie the living areas to the back yard by connecting the two levels of the house and opening views into the rear yard so one can see into the rear yard from both levels (applicant's have children who use the yard), feel arches and windows similar in scale, the arches are not visible -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 to the rest of the house so do not need to be seen in relationship to the others, reason for window height at the addition is so that able to see from kitchen, dividing the area with a solid member in the area of the door and window would be out of character with the rest of the house, addition cannot be seen by the neighbor. Why two family rooms, area in lower level by loggia is left over to be used by 'children so able to leave toys out; why architectural features on the front of the house not added with rear addition, traditional for houses such as this to have very simple rear areas with flat roofs, in general the house has a flat roof with pitches pasted on and a vaulted ceiling at the front, when view from rear not see any of the features at the front, can't see from sides either because of setbacks on houses. Other comments on the project: Irwin Bear, 1406 Drake, live across street, moved in 3 years ago have made the house look very good, have maintained its integrity, should approve. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Key thanked applicant for preparing the colored schematic of the rear elevation clarifies the placement of the walls and off sets; issue is lot coverage variance, if architectural design features on the house at the front of the house were removed the structure would comply with lot coverage, they are 7.8 % of the total, these items make the structure attractive and are all being retained so have no problem with the variance since the useable part of the house is about 35 % lot coverage. Based on this finding move for approval of the lot coverage variance with design review approval by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Comment on the motion: concerned about parking, have a one car garage with what can easily be made to be a five bedroom house, space in the basement that using for storage could be used for additional parking; concerned about lot coverage variance in light of parking; good explanation about why the architecture is as proposed but not see hardship for covering more than 40 percent of the lot, the project is bigger than we allow with less parking and the ability to add multiple bedrooms; can stipulate the number of bedrooms. CA noted yes can limit numbeer of bedrooms but the definition of bedroom is a problem and would affect only someone wanting to modify the house in the future. Concerned about the number of bedrooms, could have a tandem garage, but illegal -to have sleeping areas open into a garage or where a furnace is, ceiling height in room at front too low, no vapor barrier in lower floor slab and windows too small for egress, so should not use lower area for sleeping at all. C. Deal asked to amend the motion that the house has 3 existing bedrooms, the existing space in the lower level shall not qualify for bedroom use and any conversion of space in the lower level to bedroom use shall come before the Planning Commission for approval. C. Coffey added to the conditions that any additional bedrooms in the house be prohibited and if in the future someone wanted to add a third bathroom the project should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. C. Key maker of the motion accepted both conditions as did C. Coffey the second. Comment on the motion: there are now three bedrooms and three baths, one of which is on the lower level, in the house; would it reduce lot coverage if the area where the kitchenette is being removed were converted to a tandem garage, no; can the office area on the lower floor be used for that purpose without a vapor barrier in the slab; real issue is that the windows are too small for emergency egress if used for a sleeping room; hard to approve a lot coverage variance, the Ell City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 11 1999 lower floor exists and has space which will be used; the family room has one open wall but could be closed off later and used as a bedroom, cannot guarantee forever; using lower floor for living area so why not improve further and not have lot coverage variance; if approve give message that can build house box to maximum if hang architectural features off of it, a way to get additional floor space; this is one particular case, a special circumstance where have a first floor that is substandard, cannot add a story on top of the existing second story, lower floor is useable, but has slopping floor, small windows, should not be counted as if it has normal amenities; if loggia removed project would meet lot coverage; agree, but reason have variances is to look at project in totality. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The commissioners voted 3-3-1 (Cers. Bojues, Luriziaga, Vistica dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining). Further comment on the project: architecture nice, looks good, but that does not mean a lot coverage variance, could excavate out the lower floor; could add covered parking for second car by converting some space to garage; good effort, could reduce some of the lot coverage and still be good architecturally, no hardship, five potential bedrooms, not enough parking, can reduce room size. Chairman Dean moved to deny the project without prejudice; C. Key seconded. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote; the commissioners voted 6-0-1 (C. Keighran abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LENGTH OF BUILDING FOR A NEW GARAGE AT 116 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1. (JACK CHU, CHU DESIGN, APPLICANT AND ROBER.T KOTMEL & MAJA NELSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 1.11.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if room at the rear is included in determining the length of the garage, yes. There were no other questions of staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Robert Kotmel, 116 Bloomfield Road, asked if there were any questions. Commission asked what were the dimensions of the basement since the plans showed 14'x 18'-8" and the letter indicated 10'x 14' with a different ceiling height, size as shown on the plans is correct with a ceiling height of 6'-4"; person door opens out, could you have it swing in. CA noted that there may be an exiting problem for other codes. Letter refers to putting in an 8 foot property line fence -code allows only 7 feet - do you want a fence exception, will do what code allows. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojues noted that this project represented a big improvement on the property, understand the problem with no place to put the washer and drier in the house, move approval by resolution with the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 2, 1998, Sheets A-1 and A-2, Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and the Chief Building Official's November 16, 1998 memos shall be met; 3) that water and waste lines to the -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 garage shall be limited to 2" maximum diameter; 4) that the accessory structure shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include a toilet or shower without an amendment to this conditional use permit; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Comment on the motion: went to the basement to see the washer and dryer set up, more practical to keep it as it is, lot of discussion about how to use the storage area vs washer and drier, bulk purchased items could be kept in the garage storage area, not like extending utilities to the rear of the lot it can lead to conversion of the garage to other uses in the future; agree storage should be outside and the washer and drier in the house. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-2 (Cers. Keighran, Key dissenting) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 9 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TONY PANTALEONI, APPLICANT AND GLENN & ALMA GROSSMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 1.11.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked about the staff report: the existing lot coverage is nonconforming, yes; is the second unit in the garage legal, don't know; require 4 feet eave to eave but in area of bay window eave is separated only 2'-6", need variance, yes. There were no further questions. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Glenn Grossman, 9 Bayswater Avenue, spoke noting that they decided in January/February that they wanted to add to the house when they found out that the family was to increase, want to add a family room to make the house more liveable, only 110 SF larger. Tony Pantaleoni, 132 Arbor Street, San Francisco, architect, commented that the addition is actually a smaller footprint than existing coverage because it is smaller than the existing trellis being removed by about 18-20 feet; can angle the roof back at the bay window inorder to get the needed 4 feet clear between roof overhangs; there is not an illegal unit in the garage, use it for storing furniture, not going to use as a living unit. Commissioner noted had good cause to think that there is a second dwelling unit in the garage, should be opened up for city to inspect. CA noted that could amend the conditional use pen -nit that there be no living unit in the garage; any use in the garage (other than a second unit which is prohibited) requires a conditional use permit. If bathroom in garage can commission condition that it be removed, need to determine if a use permit was issued for it previously of not can require removal; this is a big bay, would look better if it were not cantilevered but extended to the ground, applicant's architect agreed. There were no further comments from the floor and. the hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted would support a minor amount of additional square footage to the house because of the existing situation, large garage on the site makes it hard to add on to the house, smaller lot than typical in the neighborhood, move approval by resolution with the additional condition that the second dwelling unit on the property be removed before a building permit is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 11 1999 issued. As amended the conditions are as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 24, 1998, sheets A.1 through A. 4, sheet E.1 and sheets S.1 and S.2; 2) that the second dwelling unit in the garage on this property be removed before a building permit is issued for this ;project; 3) that a distance of at least 4 feet shall be maintained eave to eave between the structures on this site and that the baywindow shown as a part of the project shall be designed to extend to a foundation in the ground; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshal's November 30, 1998 memos, and the City Engineer's November lb, 1998 memo shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. On the motion: would like to add a second condition that a distance of at least 4 feet shall be maintained eave to eave between the structures on the site and that the; baywindow be designed so that it extends to a foundation on the ground. C. Vistica the motion maker and C. Bojues, the second, agreed to the added condition. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with additional conditions. The motion passed on a 7-0 voted. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 4-STORY, 8-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 535 ALMER ROAD, ZONED R-3. (KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR, .AIA, APPLICANT AND JOAN LUTZ, PROPERTY OWNER) and APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 4-STORY, 8-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 535 ALMER ROAD, ZONED R-3. (KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR, AIA, APPLICANT AND JOAN LUTZ, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 1.11.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Forty conditions were suggested for consideration. CE Erbacher noted some corrections to the attachments to the Tentative Map staff report and also that the applicant did not show a sump pump on the plans but it has been discussed and he knows that he will be required to provide an appropriate pump. Commissioner asked how tall 535 Almer is, staff did not know; are both at-grad.e, van accessible, at the building permit stage, parking spaces designated for disabled access only, no only one. There were no further questions on the staff report. In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Mehrdad Javjerian representing the property owner and his family and Kamran Ehsanipour, 205 Park Road, Suite 207„ architect, presented the project. Noted that family is large with 7 members in the bay area, all want to relocate to the project, that is why there are eight condominium units each with a distinct layout as designed to the needs of each member of the family. If intend to live together, why not build as an apartment, all want equity of ownership. Architect noted regarding heritage trees that originally want to keep both trees but the Black Acacia has health problem as well as being a dirty species so would be willing to remove, involved arborist in design of structure, are aware of concern about construction of the first floor and damaging the roots, willing to build on post and beam so that there will be no damage to oak, want to retain this beautift;il tree. If city agrees to removal of Black Acacia would replace with an acceptable tree. Will trim oak as affects neighbors as long as trimming will not affect its health and beauty. The proposed project exceeds city requirements in several areas, common open space; private open space, the two units with 2'-6" wide balconies also provide 86 SF of private open space which is more than the minimum requirement. Where will visitors park, project requires one guest parking space and the two parking spaces at grade (both sized for disabled accessible van parking but only one required to be for disabled access parking) both of these will be available to guests for parking; have 17 parking spaces required plus 2 tandem, one unit will be assigned 3 parking spaces the rest two, will not transfer the ownership of any of the parking to any unit, could add guest parking in the garage if the commission wishes; size of the building relates to the number of people living in it and the amount of parking needed - very large units, can reduce the size of the building but architect sent staff to take pictures of parking on -street available during the day and there were always 7-8 spaces available, the location is quite far from downtown, have provided two more parking spaced than required, the tandem spaces could be assigned to the same owner; building appears to be quite far along in design -how much structural analysis has been done -radical cantilever at entrance, with all projects get structural engineer input early, all items have been studied, if not a custom designed project could lower ceilings and get more space between floors for insulation and utilities; concerned about excavation for parking, have had experience with zero clearance construction and had no problem; seems to have an extreme span in the parking garage, can do with a post tension slab; building irregular in shape- comment on north elevation _where cantilevered on entry columns of different sizes seems chaotic, architect noted that there seem to be some errors in the plans to be corrected. Comments from the public: Henry Sorensen, 525 Almer Road, resident; John Bauer, 525 Almer Road, President of the condominium association; have submitted letters and pictures, got plans from architect, reduced and showed three issues: two large trees and the property line fence. History of the division of this property shows it was once 25,000 S]F and could support such major trees, now the site is 9000 SF and these two large trees are out of proportion, impact adjacent properties and do not belong; there are three units at 525 Almer that will view the rear yard of this project and are affected by these trees, trees should be removed with the redevelopment of this site; had a tree surgeon look at trees from 525 A..lmer side to estimate cost of removal he noted that the retaining wall between the two properties had been damaged by the Black Acacia, am trying to negotiate with the owner of 535 for the removal of the trees would like commission to postpone decision so have a chance to resolve the tree issue; not see so many units on the site at 535 Almer, this was a left over lot when all the other lots were developed; -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 how tall is 525 Almer, 3 stories, 35 feet, all have 9' ceilings, would like new perimeter fencing. How many parking spaces are provided at 525 Almer, on -street parking; difficult, rule when have guest try to arrange with a neighbor to have them park in side garage, more spaces available on the street during the day but in the evening and week -ends when everyone home from work street is full. Concerned about the property line fence in poor repair and show underground driveway two-thirds the length of 525 Almer, concerned about liability, want 7 foot wood fence between properties; condominium board feels that because of the damage from the Black Acacia and the fact that it is a dirty tree it should be removed; setbacks of project are OK since they meet the city requirements, no other objections to the project. Project Architect comments: design was done to save the two trees, if commission wants will remove the Black Acacia, prefer that you do not delay action; if neighbor wants new fence will be willing to do; the building design met with no neighbor objection except the Oak tree, think the Oak tree should be saved. Mr. Sorenson commented when the owners lived in the house at 525 Almer they did annual maintenance on the Oak, has not be taken care of for 15 years since they moved out. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: made site inspection at the Sorenson's unit, diningroom and kitchen over look rear yard of new project, parking lot is next to Black Acacia, Oak is a gorgeous tree, provides nice canopy for condominium open space at 525 Almer, neighbors and residents will be able to see trough the tree for light and air and the Oak is in scale with the new 35 foot building proposed. Concern is parking, have minimum to meet zoning code requirements for the number of dwelling units, no consideration made for deliveries, one guest space for 8 units, too few, inadequate when account for the fact that the neighborhood is principally multi -family some of these structures built when on -site parking requirements were less. Project has large sized units and only one guest parking space, parking structure makes it hard for visitors to use, unfair to increase on -street parking demand, building needs to be scaled down; exterior design seems poorly integrated; made site visit at 5 p.m. on Sunday there was no on -street parking available; concerned about the aesthetics of the exterior design; walked the block, looks massive and dense, majority of buildings in area three stories, this building is four stories, no exterior consistency in design, no on -street parking, need to decrease mass. CA Anderson noted regarding a process question that denial could include the negative declaration too. Chairman Deal moved to deny the residential condominium permit and project for reasons of inadequate on -site parking, oversized for the neighborhood with individual dwelling units being too big, and three stories being more in keeping with the neighborhood than four stories. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the condominium permit; the motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Chairman Deal moved to deny the tentative map because the condominium permit was denied. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the tentative map; the motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised for both actions. -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER, AREA AND HEIGHT OF SIGNS AT 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED R-4. (ARROW SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANT AND FRIEDKEN BECKER, NORTHPARK PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 1.11.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions on the staff report. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Jim Mog, Arrow Sign company, represented the project. He noted that they had made some changes in the program since the commission's study meeting on December 14,1998. They had reduced the new monument sign on the Carolan frontage to the allowed height of 6 feet. They were no longer going to relocate the present sign on the Carolan frontage to the Rollins Road frontage (sign E) because when they removed it the sign fell apart. The monument sign will have interior illumination which can be done in an aesthetically pleasing manner and will better withstand weather, vandalism and time; the whole face would not light up, this is a more subtle illumination which would result in a "halo" of light around the lettering; but the main reason for interior lighting is protection from vandalism; want to replace the swan logo shown on the application with the address. Would like to relocate the two signs on Carolan which are maps of the locations and numbers of the building on the site away from the street frontage. CA Anderson noted that these address maps may be required at their present locations by the fire department and may not be able to be relocated further into the site. CP Monroe noted that there seemed to be enough change to this application that the content of the request was no longer clear. Applicant asked how many parcels made up this site, staff noted that the site was one parcel. There were no further comments from the floor. Chairman Deal moved to continue this item to the next meeting, January 25, 1999, in order to clarify exactly what the sign exception request was. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the motion: concerned about the use of internal illumination would like a better explanation; could a picture taken at night of a similarly lit sign be submitted; how are the letters illuminated, use opaque vinyl with an outline of light around the copy, the logo swan will have a translucent vinyl color, swan may be replaced by address. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue; the motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Since no action was taken a continuation is not appealable, this item will not be renoticed because the public hearing is still open. APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES TO ADD AN ENTRANCE PORTICO TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 889 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (STEPHEN SUTRO, .APPLICANT AND ANN JOHNSON PROPERTY OWNER) -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 Reference staff report, 1.11.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners had no questions on the staff report. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Steven Sutro, 3364 Sacramento Street, San Francisco, representative of the architect represented the project and indicated he would take questions. On -site inspection observed woman going from business along California side of house, in -side to an office area in the residence - what will happen in the future to the second entrance on California, two uses on this site, house is being remodeled, front part not being used as residence so using temporarily as business office when remodel complete office will move to rear of commercial area; plans do not show what is actually happening with current construction underway in area of second entrance on Majilla, not a hip roof but a gable, big opening not relate to what going on in plans in area of storage shed. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Key noted that they need to do more to close off the current front door on California so not look like an entrance and moved to deny without prejudice this application so that the applicant could provide more definition of the Majilla entrance and more information on the California side. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the motion: treatment on Majilla is difficult, need to identify hardship, have two different zoning codes applied to this one small lot, also a change on. California Drive; plans need to be corrected so that they reflect the current construction underway on site, including roof lines. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice; the motion passed on a 7-0 vote. APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR A MASTER SIGN PERMIT AT 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (ALAN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT, AND MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 14, 1998 - REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO JANUARY 25, 1999 - INFORMATION NOT RECEIVED) City Planner and Commission discussed the continuance request. The applicant requested another continuance of this sign exception request. Commission noted that this item had been before them for action a number of times and it was time to act. Chairman Deal opened a public hearing. There was no comment from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: applicant has had ample time to respond and. comply on this item; if continue will take room on future agendas and delay applicants who have met all submittal requirements. -13- City of RurGngame Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 C. Luzuriaga moved to deny the application for a sign exception based on the previous comments and reviews by the Planning Commission and reasons set out in that record. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the sign exception application; the commissioners voted 7-0 in favor of the motion. Appeal procedures were advised. Staff indicated that they would call the applicant. Chairman Deal left the chambers. CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE OF CHAPTER 25.28.075A OF THE R-1 ZONING CODE, RELATED TO DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE. Reference staff report, 1.11.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the Amendment to the Declining Height Regulations. There were no questions on the staff report. Vice -Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Chairman Deal returned to the chambers and took over the gavel. There were no comments from the public and. the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: it was noted that since the declining height is now calculated on each side of the property independently there is no need for exception number four and it should be dropped. C. Key moved to recommend the amendment to the declining height regulations to the city council for action including dropping exception number four and renumbering the items in the section. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion; the commission voted 7-0 in favor of the motion. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed briefly the planning related actions from the January 4, 1999, City Council meeting. - Commission directed the City Planner to agendize a general discussion of parking regulations for the February 8, 1999, Commission agenda. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m. MINUTES1.11 -14- Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary